QUOTE (David @ Oct 5 2006, 11:25 PM)
![*](http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/style_images/ip.boardpr/post_snapback.gif)
There must be a more exact definition of the term, but it seems to me that observation is something more than interaction -- it's an interaction that reflects enough of the pattern of an event that information about that event is preserved.
In general, I think it's worth remembering that while we observe the universe, what we describe are models of the universe, and those models are made by and for humans. I sometimes wonder whether, in marvelling at the ingenious structuring of the universe, we are not merely marvelling at our own ingenuity in finding ways to describe it.
I think of "interaction" as an event that produces some change (position, velocity, chemical property, etc.) in one or both interacting entities, so I think we're not too far apart. Such changes are
de facto records of the event and exist with or without intelligent interpretation, which is why I steer clear of the term 'observation'.
Yeah, our perceptions (and especially their limits) will forever set some fundamental constraints on what we can model, as well as the fact that we're an inextricable part of the Universe...seems like all study paths lead inevitably to a feedback loop of self-contemplation at some point, which can only further distort matters.
In fact, one of the central arguments for planetary exploration could also be made for cosmology: How can you draw meaningful conclusions about
anything from one sample? It took Venus & Mars to open up the terrestrial study of climate change. Maybe the researchers cited in Jared's article may someday find a way to study the properties of other Universes in order to understand our own, and that would be the ticket out of this philosophical box.