All statements describing physical reality are derived through interpretation of measurement results that requires a theory of the measuring instruments used to make the measurements. The ultimate measuring instrument is our body which displays its measurement results in our mind. Since a physical theory of our mind-body is unknown, the correct interpretation of its measurement results is unknown. The success of the physical sciences has led to a tendency to treat assumption in physics as indisputable facts. This tendency hampers the development of new theories capable of addressing the foundations of mind. To show the possibility that false interpretations of experimental results have lead to equally false projections onto physical reality may have happened, the double slit experiment and special relativity experiments are examined in detail. I will show that strongly held a-priori beliefs characterizing measurement instruments have led to unjustified but widely held concepts in physical theories. For example the assumption that material bodies have minds can change the interpretation of experiments to produce alternative physical theories. Since some material bodies have minds this paper calls for a review of the conscious observer's role in the execution and interpretation of fundamental physics experiments in order to verify or challenge the basic beliefs adopted in standard physical theories.
Abstract This chapter explores measurement ‘from above’: that is, looking for a view that we can have after the measurement procedures, concepts, and theories have stabilized. This resting point in the conceptual and scientific development is fleeting and momentary — yet marking a context in which some things can be taken for granted pro tem, where it makes sense to ask about the world-picture of currently accepted physical theory. The physical conditions of possibility for measurement, the general theory of measurement, and what cannot count as measurement in a theoretical context are discussed, drawing on general lessons derived from 20th-century foundations of physics.
We analyze the notion that physical theories are quantitative and testable by observations in experiments. This leads us to propose a new, Bayesian, interpretation of probabilities in physics that unifies their current use in classical physical theories, experimental physics and quantum mechanics. Probabilities are the result of quantifying the domain of possibilities that results when we interpret observations within the framework of a physical theory. They could also be said to be measures of information used to make predictions based upon a physical theory.