Is an object the measurement that you make, or the thing that you measure?

Come on gals... guys?

A measurement is also a thing, and one can just as well measure a measurement as object an object.

Sounds like Schrödinger's cat. Quantum physics has run into many problems with measurement. The measurement changes as soon as it is observed. The double-slit experiment has left many questions as to how our reality really unfolds. It would seem that the quantum world is in a state of constant flux. It only takes a form as an object when it is measured. Until then it is in many states in many places at the same time. It is interesting but a little over my head. I have read a few books over the years and it created more questions than answers for me. I don't think even the brightest scientists in the world get it either. Perhaps they should smoke some DMT?

I like this:

The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is one of the most famous (and probably misunderstood) ideas in physics. It tells us that there is a fuzziness in nature, a fundamental limit to what we can know about the behaviour of quantum particles and, therefore, the smallest scales of nature. Of these scales, the most we can hope for is to calculate probabilities for where things are and how they will behave.

The uncertainty principle says that we cannot measure the position and the momentum of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other.

I also Love Larry Dossey and Dean Radin. Read them if you even remotely like this subject.

So, I'd go with the measurement being the object. I feel like objective knowledge is made of measurements, which are not the thing that you are measuring. Objects as abstractions, transcendental generalizations, where as the thing you measure is immanent, subjective, and can't be made into an object. Like has been said, the object is the position and the thing that you measure is or has momentum.

It's just that when people have talked about objective reality they talk about it as if it's somehow primary, if it's objective it's "real". I don't know if I'm confused about what real means but at the moment it seams like it means; not my experience.

The idea "chair" is a measurement and isn't the thing that you sit on. But you sit on it anyway.

I'll have a look into Larry and Dean.

Would the fuzziness be the pixelation of you're measurement system?

Or, by nature do you mean the nature of you're measurement system or of the thing you're trying to measure?

I like you DmnStr8. Read some of your poems. x

Look!
It is that of Ahab,
which swallowed Jonah.
Avert thine eyes
lest ye suns fall
from waxen wing
in waning moonlight.
Truth! On the horizon.
Desire out of reach,
retching air and sour spirits.
If it is your wish to know;
you are already doomed.

I've often thought about this when tripping. Or wondered would maybe be a better term.

So in quantum physics, a particle/wave/thingy is often interpreted as being a probability or a "cloud of possibilities". I think quantumphysisists themselves do not universaly agree yet on how to interpret these things.

So is a thing it's possibilities? That's certainly a valid way of looking at the world if you ask me, but definately not the only way.
Another way could be to say that every thing is defined by it's relations with every other thing.

Actually, that may be just a specification of seeing objects as possibilities, as relationships are possibilities as well.

When i was thimking about this once, while i was on shrooms, i had a vision of everything being connected, as a part of a greater structure. The structure was as much defined by it's parts, as the parts where being defined by their place within the structure.
Whether something would express as a particle or a wave would then depend on the equilibrium of the system as a whole.

I do find the idea of things being defined by their position within an equilibrium appealing from an esthetic point of view, but ofcourse that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Sounds like Deleuze's body without organs.

I'm not realy familiar with deleuze.

I was thinking about something like a nash equilibrium. Like on a busy intersection with traffic lights: if the traffic on one of the streets stops because the lights are red, on the other street it will go because the lights are green. And the point is: the actions of each agent are the best possible thing they can do, considering what every other agent is doing. If everybody on one street stops, the best possible thing the commuters in the other street can do is to go and not to wait any longer, but because of that, stopping is the best possible thing the people in the street where the lights are red can do, or they will get an accident.

Ofcourse particles do not have desires or utility functions and so on, but they do have probabilities. What if particles can influence the states other particles are in? Then you get something simmilar. Then the state each particle of a system is in, is the most likely response to the state all of the other particles are in. In that case, any object will have a probability cloud, the shape of that onject. An elephant will have the probability cloud, the shape of an elephant, and so on. Maybe you could even say that the elephant IS it's cloud.

Seems reasonable.

dragonrider, I get you, it's a cool idea, to a degree it eliminates free will, or, the will of the system becomes the will of the subjects, the will of the object becomes the action of the subject. But not everyone obeys traffic signals. And there's always that amber light leaving room for interpretation.

I think you are right though, that the state of any one particle would be a part of the definition of the state of all of the other particles. I'm just wondering about agency.