dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaThe importance of the observer in science
| Authors | Russell K. Standish |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | physics/0508123 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508123 |
Abstract
The concept of {\em complexity} (as a quantity) has been plagued by numerous contradictory and confusing definitions. By explicitly recognising a role for the observer of a system, an observer that attaches meaning to data about the system, these contradictions can be resolved, and the numerous complexity measures that have been proposed can be seen as cases where different observers are relevant, and/or being proxy measures that loosely scale with complexity, but are easy to compute from the available data. Much of the epistemic confusion in the subject can be squarely placed at science's tradition of removing the observer from the description in order to guarantee {\em objectivity}. Explicitly acknowledging the role of the observer helps untangle other confused subject areas. {\em Emergence} is a topic about which much ink has been spilt, but it can be understand easily as an irreducibility between description space and meaning space. Quantum Mechanics can also be understood as a theory of observation. The success in explaining quantum mechanics, leads one to conjecture that all of physics may be reducible to properties of the observer. And indeed, what are the necessary (as opposed to contingent) properties of an observer? This requires a full theory of consciousness, from which we are a long way from obtaining. However where progress does appear to have been made, e.g. Daniel Dennett's {\em Consciousness Explained}, a recurring theme of self-observation is a crucial ingredient.
{
"annotation_id": "272a8ee6-0353-4d77-a379-31eba569981d",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:00.869000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:00.869000Z",
"file_hash": "01a33212fb9e8ff0e290ddd4e813f20ebd6c875127bf03ddc34a299f348411f4",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "The concept of {\\em complexity} (as a quantity) has been plagued by numerous\ncontradictory and confusing definitions. By explicitly recognising a role for\nthe observer of a system, an observer that attaches meaning to data about the\nsystem, these contradictions can be resolved, and the numerous complexity\nmeasures that have been proposed can be seen as cases where different observers\nare relevant, and/or being proxy measures that loosely scale with complexity,\nbut are easy to compute from the available data. Much of the epistemic\nconfusion in the subject can be squarely placed at science\u0027s tradition of\nremoving the observer from the description in order to guarantee {\\em\nobjectivity}. Explicitly acknowledging the role of the observer helps untangle\nother confused subject areas. {\\em Emergence} is a topic about which much ink\nhas been spilt, but it can be understand easily as an irreducibility between\ndescription space and meaning space. Quantum Mechanics can also be understood\nas a theory of observation. The success in explaining quantum mechanics, leads\none to conjecture that all of physics may be reducible to properties of the\nobserver. And indeed, what are the necessary (as opposed to contingent)\nproperties of an observer? This requires a full theory of consciousness, from\nwhich we are a long way from obtaining. However where progress does appear to\nhave been made, e.g. Daniel Dennett\u0027s {\\em Consciousness Explained}, a\nrecurring theme of self-observation is a crucial ingredient.",
"arxiv_id": "physics/0508123",
"authors": [
"Russell K. Standish"
],
"categories": [
"physics.pop-ph",
"quant-ph"
],
"title": "The importance of the observer in science",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508123"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "f0a87eac-c0b1-4a10-a689-e15988ab2954",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}