Merry Andrew wrote:This sounds a lot like the observer-centeed universe theory, popular with some quantum physicists.
Popular with "some quantum physicists"!?!? I detect your scorn of "some" quantum physicists but you don't seem to understand any of quantum physics.
Quantum physics is based on a set of mathematical equations that are accepted because of their success in explaining how electrons work in experiments and in technology. In fact the computer you are reading this on depends on quantum physics.
There is a strange implication of these equations which imply that observing subatomic particles changes their state. Again, if you are reading this on a computer, then these equations correctly predict the way that electrons bounce through the semiconductors in you computer.
I don't think ANY quantum phycisists would use the term Observer Centered Universe.
But Quantum physics does say that observing particles changes their states in ways that are counter-intuitive.
If you don't accept this, I suggest you stop using any semiconductor based computers right away (and if it fits in a single room, it is semiconductor-based)
Quote:
Essentially, it posits that since we can only describe what we observe from our particular locus, then we are, in fact, at the center of the universe, as we can only see things as they relate to us. (Gross oversimplification, I know.) In this view, the fact that the Earth and other planets appear to circle the sun is an irrelevancy.
This is simply incorrect. Quantum Mechanics posits nothing of the sort.
General Relativity (which is a completely different branch of physics) teaches that all reference frames are equally valid meaning that any point is equally the center (or no points are the center).
No one-- not General Relativity, not Quantum Mechanics... no one says the fact the Earth and other planet appear to circle the sun is an irrelevancy.
Don't expect that physics you learn from the pulpit is valid.