(2017-11-12, 10:06 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]"a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect."
An agent can be a camera with a motion sensor, in this basic sense of the term.
In philosophy, the definitions of agency can go on for chapters. I don't speak to anything other than a simple approach. When an agent "measures reality (such as taking a picture) information is exported to new locations and this "copy" can then change real-world probabilities. Information science quantifies this "copy" as mutual information.
Thank you.
I was curious in particular about this part:
Quote:a person or thing
and this:
Quote:An agent can be a camera
You have answered the question. However in other contexts it has been argued that a camera by itself isn't sufficient, it requires a person (or in effect some consciousness) to observe what the camera is or was recording, to constitute an observer.
(2017-11-13, 05:05 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I was curious in particular about this part: and this:
You have answered the question. However in other contexts it has been argued that a camera by itself isn't sufficient, it requires a person (or in effect some consciousness) to observe what the camera is or was recording, to constitute an observer.
Observation at a "universal" level implies that the agent can enforce real-world changes based on the detection gaining mutual information, whose use in the hands of this or other agents will be purposeful.
I think it appropriate to say that a camera recording is an observation, especially when coupled with a motion sensor. The implicit intent is in the combination of both devices. To be ready to focus on an anticipated thing, event or process result is to create negentropy. (a potential to structure information to add order and organization).
John Von Neumann's "cut" is a well-thought commentary on the subject. It is to the heart of his idea that experiment design is an act of free-will. Again I reference:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/so...s/neumann/
Depending on our certainty or uncertainty - of which creates the probabilities to be high or low - is what actually creates the reality we experience. To wit, we form the physical reality we expect, a merging of quantum and science with spirituality.
Becoming entangled through the observer effect, realizing that whatever we are creating is either uncertain or certain, carrying with it energetically with probabilities to be high or low, the result is the 'collapsing' the wave of data into the actual physical reality we experience.
What you believe is what you see.
(2017-11-13, 04:56 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Observation at a "universal" level implies that the agent can enforce real-world changes based on the detection gaining mutual information, whose use in the hands of this or other agents will be purposeful.
I think it appropriate to say that a camera recording is an observation, especially when coupled with a motion sensor. The implicit intent is in the combination of both devices. To be ready to focus on an anticipated thing, event or process result is to create negentropy. (a potential to structure information to add order and organization).
John Von Neumann's "cut" is a well-thought commentary on the subject. It is to the heart of his idea that experiment design is an act of free-will. Again I reference: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/so...s/neumann/
In English to "observe" means for a human being to perceive, to be aware of, to hold in consciousness, a given sense impression. Consciousness as the perceiver is inherent to terms like "intent", "focus on" and "anticipate". The camera plus attached motion sensor is not an observer as understood in English - this combination is merely an nonconscious measuring instrument, a sophisticated detection mechanism, of optical patterns in motion. Neurologically this is analogous to the human retinal neuron net and optical neuronal processing detecting edges and motions and colors, but not constituting the consciousness that actually perceives, is aware of, the flying red ball.
I think the significance of information processing needs to be kept in perspective. In my opinion, no amount of information processing constitutes a conscious observer, or an "agent" with intentionality, in the normal senses of the words.
Of course, a conscious observer isn't required for the collapse of the wave function. Or the universe couldn't exist (excluding philosophies of universal consciousness). From the Von Neumann link you furnished: "Information physics has solved the problem of measurement by identifying the moment and place of the collapse of the wave function with the creation of an observable information structure. There are interactions which create collapses but do not create stable information structures. These can never be the basis of measurements. The presence of a conscious observer is not necessary. It is enough that the new information created is observable, should a human observer try to look at it in the future."
