The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew

Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.

What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.

The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.

In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.

Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:

(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.

(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”

(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.

(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.

(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.

As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”

How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”

In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.

From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”

For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.

Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.

Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.

This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”

Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.

To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.

Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.

This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.

We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.

First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?

Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.

Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.

But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.

Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.

Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.

In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.

And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.

Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.

Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

April 4, 2009

[LeGrande]

You are correct that you would need to lead a target that is orbiting around you, but you are incorrect in saying that you would need to lead a stationary target if you are spinning

LOL Watch the animation again, you will notice that the sender releases the ball directly at the recipient in both cases. You will also notice that the recipient catches the ball directly behind the sender, 180 degrees away, in both frames of reference. Did you even watch the animation?

[TXnMA]

"But I've got some delicate news for you :-) The 102 degrees per 6.8 hours is due to the earth's rotation in place! "

BTW, Why in the world would you think that would be "news" to anyone who does telescopic observation or photography? And why, "delicate"? You just described the reason the sun "rises" and "sets" -- and why we have day and night...

[LeGrande]

The animation is correct! And the animation demonstrates that the thrower does not lead on the catcher as the catcher appears to go flying by.

The animation shows the thrower releasing the ball in an identical direction and time at the catcher, in both frames of reference. When the ball is released it is at the center of the merry go round, the thrower is at the bottom of the screen and the recipient is at the top. Both frames are identical and the leading is exactly the same.

[Hank Kerchief]

First let me say I agree with you about “man’s laws,” which are truly arbitrary and contingent, and infinitely changeable, as the supreme law of this land (The U.S. Constitution) has been totally abrogated.

My original post though, was a question about the Bible itself, and “God’s” law, which also seems to have changed. If observation of the Sabbath was sin worthy of death in the Old Testament, but is no longer a law requiring obedience, hasn’t “God’s law” changed?

I won’t mind if you are not interested in answering the question, I’m just clarifying my original point.

Thanks for the comments.

Hank

[Zero Sum]

LOL Watch the animation again, you will notice that the sender releases the ball directly at the recipient in both cases. You will also notice that the recipient catches the ball directly behind the sender, 180 degrees away, in both frames of reference.

No kidding. The thrower is aiming at the target, not leading him. What you wrote in post 716 is incorrect:

Well it so happens that if Pluto is stationary you will need to lead it by 102 degrees if you are shooting that missile from a rotating Earth.

I missed this the first time, but this is also incorrect:

You seem to understand that if Pluto was orbiting a stationary earth you would need to lead it by 102 degrees to hit it with a missile traveling at the speed of light.

The reason being that you would need to lead the image of Pluto by TWICE as much (i.e. 204 degrees) in order to account for Pluto's motion both during the time that it took the light from Pluto to reach Earth and during the time that it will take your Light-Attained Speedy Extraterrestrial Rocket, or "LASER"... :)

...to reach Pluto.

However, this is different than the case of a stationary Pluto and a rotating frame. If you wanted to hit Pluto in this case you would aim at its image just as you would if you were aiming at a stationary Pluto from a non-rotating, inertial frame. Why? Because as viewed from your non-inertial, rotating frame, the light's path appears to curve (watch the animation with the ball again, from the perspective of the thrower): The light that Pluto emitted 102 degrees ago also curves around 102 degrees to meet you, and your "LASER"...

...will curve around to meet Pluto 102 degrees later. If you were to fire something travelling slower than the speed of light, you would STILL aim at the image, but your projectile would simply take longer to hit its target, and at a different angle displacement. Again, this is all because rotating frames are non-inertial.

Did you even watch the animation?

Of course... what do you think I was discussing in my post when I pointed out that the thrower is not leading the target? Did you bother to read the rest of my post, and did you understand what I wrote? More importantly, did you bother to read the explanation of the animation at the link you provided, and do you understand the difference between an inertial frame and a non-inertial one? Do you understand that the animation shows the juxtaposition of a throw and catch as seen by a spinning thrower in a non-inertial frame and as seen by a stationary catcher in an inertial one? Do you understand that the animation does NOT show a throw and catch as seen by a non-spinning thrower in an inertial frame and as seen by an orbiting (and spinning!) catcher in a non-inertial frame? Do you understand that in this case the non-spinning thrower would have to lead the orbiting catcher by releasing the ball when he is BEHIND her in order to compensate for the catcher's motion, and that he will catch the ball when he is IN FRONT of her, as opposed to the other way around as in the animation? Do you understand that in this case the thrower would observe the ball following a linear trajectory while the catcher would observe the ball following a curved trajectory, as opposed to the other way around as in the animation? Do you see the difference?

[LeGrande]

You have come to this discussion a little late and I don't want to get bogged down in Galilean inertial frames.

The initial statement that I made was that an objects apparent position is not identical to its actual position at any given instant in time, primarily due to the speed of light. In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

MrJesse is quit adamant that the actual position is the same as the apparent position, except for a little parallax that I taught him about.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:LOL Watch the animation again, you will notice that the sender releases the ball directly at the recipient in both cases. You will also notice that the recipient catches the ball directly behind the sender, 180 degrees away, in both frames of reference. Did you even watch the animation?

Yes, I watched the animation, frame by frame, and the thrower does not lead on the catcher - he throws it exactly directly at the catcher - which is also where the catcher appears to be at the instant the ball is thrown.

As to the thrower aiming away when the ball arives at the catcher -- this part of the animation does not relate to Pluto because Pluto has the role of thrower which is the opposite of what the animation shows.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said TXnMA:
BTW, Why in the world would you think that would be "news" to anyone who does telescopic observation or photography? And why, "delicate"? You just described the reason the sun "rises" and "sets" -- and why we have day and night...

Because some dear folks, bless their hearts (because they sure don't use their brains), seem to feel that there is no difference between spinning and being orbited - even when there is a third body in motion. The news is not that we have 24 hour days, but that the days are caused by the earth's rotation, and not being orbited, and that there is a physical measurable difference between the two. It's delicate because I didn't want to startle them too much with a flood of information all at once :-) [double wide grin]

Have a great day,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:
The animation shows the thrower releasing the ball in an identical direction and time at the catcher, in both frames of reference. When the ball is released it is at the center of the merry go round, the thrower is at the bottom of the screen and the recipient is at the top. Both frames are identical and the leading is exactly the same.

Right you are! The animation does show the thrower leading exactly the same in both frames of reference. As a matter of fact, shows them both leading by exactly zero degrees! Is that even leading? If I go make a deposit into my bank acount in the ammount of zero dollars and zero cents, is that even a deposit? Nope! So actually it's more correct to say that they aren't even leading the target at all.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande to Zero Sum:
You have come to this discussion a little late and I don't want to get bogged down in Galilean inertial frames.

Chimes in MrJesse:
It needn't be complicated. It ought to be far easier then waves of nothing! And besides, I think Zero Sum has a perfect understanding of the issue here. There's no way he joined the discussion too late! If it had been earlier would it have made a difference? I was there the whole time, and it didn't help me any :=)

The initial statement that I made was that an objects apparent position is not identical to its actual position at any given instant in time, primarily due to the speed of light. In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago.

Your initial comment was this(Next to last paragraph):

Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see? The answer will help you understand what a field is, it is not a simple concept.(Emph. Mine.)

So you are quite clearly talking about the time of flight for the light from the sun to the earth, even though your question is a little ambigiuos since it's comparing time and angle.

Then, later you say (Fourth paragraph):

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

Your initial comments clearly indicate that you are talking about an observer on earth, at a single point in time who looks up and sees that the sun appears to be 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is at that same time. And furthermore, I have clearly stated the whole time that this is what I believed you to be claiming, and since you never said that it's not what you're claiming, that is what you've been claiming.

So in answer to your question:

"In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

The question is absurd, but let me explain. Let's say you're married, and let's say you sometimes go grocery shopping with your wife. Further let's say one day you're at a party, and you introduce your wife to your friends as a lady you see at the grocery store once in a while. What's her reaction going to be? What's the truth?

You see, when someone asks about your relationship to another person, they expect you to tell them the closest relation ship. So technically it is true that she is a lady you see at Safeway once in a while, but it's completely misleading because she is actually much more then that to you.

Since the sun is not moving (at least nowheres near your claimed 2.1 degrees/8.3 minutes), the truth is that the sun appears where it is (plus or minus 21 arcseconds due to other causes.) Now since it is in the same place now that it was 8.3 minutes ago - yes, technically, we are looking at where it was 8.3 minutes ago - but that's not an honest way to describe it because 8.3 minutes ago it was where it still is, so it's more direct and honest to just say "it is where it appears to be(+/- 21ArcSeconds.)

So your whole premis, that if we had a sensitive gravity meter we could detect that the sun was 2.1 degrees ahead of wher it appears, is wrong, because the sun is not orbiting the earth, and as such, the sun is where (+/-21AS) where it appears.

So, yes, the sun does appear to be where it was 8.3 minutes ago. It also appears to be where it is now, because where it is now is where it was 8.3 minutes ago, because it hasn't moved in 8.3 minutes!

MrJesse is quit adamant that the actual position is the same as the apparent position, except for a little parallax that I taught him about.

It is true that I am quite adamant that the actual position of the sun is the same (within about 21 arcseconds) as the apparent position for an observer on earth at any point in time.

The 21 arcseconds has nothing to do with parallax, but rather the observer's transverse velocity through space at 67K miles per hour, as the earth complete's its yearly journey around the sun. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the distance to the sun, and little to do with the rotational rate of the earth. (The transverse (sideways) velocity on the surface of the equator due to the earth's rotation is only about a thousand miles an hour, which is drawfed by the 67K mph due to the earth orbiting the sun.)

But I will be forever greatful for LeGrande putting me onto the words "Stellar Aberration" and "Light-time correction." I hope someday he understands them. ;-)

Now, most noble LeGrande, I've answered several of your tough questions to me.. Any chance you might be so kind as to go answer at least one of my color coded questions?

(Hey, TXnMA: Perchance you could answer a few more too? It'd make me sad to know that there are two people out there that refuse to apply their view to a set of simple questions!)

Thanks a million!

-Jesse

[Zero Sum]

You have come to this discussion a little late and I don't want to get bogged down in Galilean inertial frames.

The discussion of inertial frames applies to Lorentz transformations as well, which, like Galilean transformations, are linear. The transformations for rotational frames are not, which is why a rotating frame is not inertial.

The initial statement that I made was that an objects apparent position is not identical to its actual position at any given instant in time, primarily due to the speed of light. In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

If I answer this then will you do me the courtesy of answering the quesions that I posed in my previous post? If you demand that I answer your questions but you refuse to answer mine then I don't see any use in continuing this discussion, nor will I respond to you again unless and until you show the courtesy to reciprocate. If you choose not to then my post stands, and I have no reason not to be content with that.

Now, I answer that there are two statements there.

1) "The initial statement that I made was that an objects apparent position is not identical to its actual position at any given instant in time, primarily due to the speed of light."

I agree if you insert the word "necessarily" before the word "identical". However, there are certainly cases where an object's apparent position can coincide with its actual position, the case of a stationary object WRT an observer in an inertial frame being the trivial example. Here is another example:

2) "In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago."

This is true, of course. But the crux of the matter here is: Where was the sun 8.5 minutes ago? Was it where we see it now or was it where we saw it 8.5 minutes ago, 2 degrees behind where we see it now? The former is the correct answer because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but due to our rotation, and as I've tried to make clear already, these are not relative. If you would argue that they are, then kindly address the questions from my previous post.

MrJesse is quit adamant that the actual position is the same as the apparent position, except for a little parallax that I taught him about.

And he is correct (although we should take into accout refraction due to the atmosphere as well, but that's a different story). In your Earth/Pluto thought experiment you will not get 102 degrees difference from parallax, not even close. The correction for parallax will be miniscule. Nor will you get even close to 2 degrees due to parallax in 8.5 minutes considering the position of the Sun as seen from the surface of the Earth.

But since we are discussing rotating frames (which for some reason you seem to think are inertial) let's keep our thought experiments focused on that. Or better yet, do a real experiment and see for yourself the difference between spinning and orbiting. And keep those questions from my previous post in mind when you do. :)

[Zero Sum]

2) "In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago."

This is true, of course. But the crux of the matter here is: Where was the sun 8.5 minutes ago? Was it where we see it now or was it where we saw it 8.5 minutes ago, 2 degrees behind where we see it now? The former is the correct answer because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but due to our rotation, and as I've tried to make clear already, these are not relative.

And of course I left out the most important part (although I had alluded to it above) that the Sun is in the same place now that it was 8.5 minutes ago, which is where we see it now.

[Zero Sum]

OK, now that I'm awake, let me clean up my answer to #2, which in post 751 reads very badly and completely misses the point I was trying to make.

2) "In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago."

This is true, of course. But the Sun is in the same place that it was 8.5 minutes ago, which is where we see it. This is because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but to our rotation, and these are not relative.

That we see the Sun where it was 8.5 minutes ago would of course be true whether we were rotating or whether the Sun were orbiting us, but in the former case the Sun is where we see it while in the latter case the Sun is 2 degrees ahead of where we see it. These situations are not equivalent.

Now, if we want to hit the Sun with our "LASER", we must aim at where the Sun will be 8.5 minutes from now: In the former case we would aim at where we see the Sun, while in the latter case we would need to lead the Sun by 4 degrees (not 2) from where we see it. Again, the situations are not equivalent.

[NoGrayZone]

Ahhh, okay. I didn't go back that far, lol.

I was just reading about that. If I remember correctly, keeping the Sabbath is for the Jewish people (Old Testament), not Christians (Old & New Testament).

I'm no Bible scholar. I wish I knew more than what I do know, but I'm getting there.

I will try to find out why that is. Although I do think it had to do with Jesus Christ (Christianity), which took place in the New Testament.

[Alamo-Girl]

Even the many worlds theory agrees that the wave function collapses. The other universe just had a different result.

Actually the dispute continues as to whether the wave function collapse is a physical phenomenon or whether it is just an epiphenomenon.

Certainly the observer in effect helps determine the outcome, but the observer doesn't change the basic principles by the observation.

What you mean by "basic principles" is not self-evident.

If you mean an observation by an observer "in" space/time cannot change the structure of space/time, physical laws and constants - I'd say that is probably true.

If you mean an observation by an observer "in" space/time cannot change the world (collapse a wave function whether actual or epiphenomenal) - I'd say that is probably not true.

Of course, there are a few scientists and philosophers who believe the observer's observation creates "reality" per se. To me that is taking the view that "a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound if no one is there to hear it" to an extreme.

Besides I disagree, the falling tree does make a sound even if no one is there to hear it. And I point to the sound waves in the cosmic microwave background radiation as evidence that sound occurred at the moment light (photons) came into existence even though there was no one "in" space/time to hear it.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

To God be the glory!

[Alamo-Girl]

This is true, of course. But the Sun is in the same place that it was 8.5 minutes ago, which is where we see it. This is because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but to our rotation, and these are not relative.

I wish you guys would use something other than the solar system as an example because we do have some Freepers that would take the above statement literally, e.g. that the universe moves around the sun and space/time is fixed.

The sun is not stationary in the universe. Indeed, nothing is.

Our solar system is orbiting the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. And on top of that, space/time itself is expanding.

The Newtonian physics being described here should be seen as local with respect to the universe.

Or to put it another way, coordinates for non-inertial frames are usually transformed to inertial frames when speaking of the cosmos in order to avoid fictitious forces which are nevertheless handy when dealing with physics on earth.

[LeGrande]

This is true, of course. But the Sun is in the same place that it was 8.5 minutes ago, which is where we see it. This is because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but to our rotation, and these are not relative.

You are correct Zero Sum. I mistakenly thought they were relative, your explanation of the inertial-noninertial frames is what did it for me. That and when I tried to shoot your LAZER at the sun and make both frames equivalent. They aren't.

Mrjesse and Fichori you were essentially correct too and I would like to apologize for cavalierly dismissing your arguments and I would like to thank you both for your persistence in helping to show me my error : )

This is a very good day. I have been humbled a little bit and I have learned a couple of valuable lessons : )

[LeGrande]

Actually the dispute continues as to whether the wave function collapse is a physical phenomenon or whether it is just an epiphenomenon.

Yes And I can quote wiki too : ) "Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment. A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue."

If you mean an observation by an observer "in" space/time cannot change the structure of space/time, physical laws and constants - I'd say that is probably true.

Agreed

If you mean an observation by an observer "in" space/time cannot change the world (collapse a wave function whether actual or epiphenomenal) - I'd say that is probably not true.

Our observations collapse the wave function.

Besides I disagree, the falling tree does make a sound even if no one is there to hear it. And I point to the sound waves in the cosmic microwave background radiation as evidence that sound occurred at the moment light (photons) came into existence even though there was no one "in" space/time to hear it.

I agree too. I don't think the moon disappears when I am not looking at it : )

I think the crux of our disagreement boils down to I think that the observer can determine the outcome of the wavefunction collapse. In other words if the experimenter is looking for wave properties that is what he can get, or if he is looking for particle properties he can get that too. The experimenter can't get both at the same time though, it is a choice that the experimenter makes.

It was explained to me this way. If you reach into a black box with a fork, you will pull out ice cubes and if you reach into the black box with a spoon you will pull out water. The choice between a spoon or a fork determines what comes out of the black box.

[Alamo-Girl]

Our observations collapse the wave function.

Everett's many-world theory disagrees with you.

I think the crux of our disagreement boils down to I think that the observer can determine the outcome of the wavefunction collapse. In other words if the experimenter is looking for wave properties that is what he can get, or if he is looking for particle properties he can get that too. The experimenter can't get both at the same time though, it is a choice that the experimenter makes.

It was explained to me this way. If you reach into a black box with a fork, you will pull out ice cubes and if you reach into the black box with a spoon you will pull out water. The choice between a spoon or a fork determines what comes out of the black box.

That is a good metaphor for wave/particle duality.

However, the "observer problem" goes far beyond wave/particle duality.

[Fichori]

“I wish you guys would use something other than the solar system as an example because we do have some Freepers that would take the above statement literally, e.g. that the universe moves around the sun and space/time is fixed.

The sun is not stationary in the universe. Indeed, nothing is.” [excerpt]

The Sun's transverse velocity as observed from any object in our solar system is very small.

For the sake of simplification, we refer to it as stationary and disregard the minimal effects of barycentric wobble...

“And on top of that, space/time itself is expanding.” [excerpt]

You know I'm gonna ask you do demonstrate that claim ;-)