[brabel]

Speaking of observers always rubs me off the wrong way... I don't want to touch on the observer problem, but just to mention something that should be obvious: there's ALWAYS hidden information in any system where time exists. Any "observer" can only know what the world looks like within its light cone. Because quantum mechanics shows that determinism is not possible, it's not possible for any "observer" to know the exact future state of the world outside what was observable within its light cone up until that moment. There's also the problem that you can only store a limited amount of information even given perfect theoretical storage... hence again, some information must be forgotten by whatever the "observer" is... talking about a "perfect observer" that knows all there is to know makes absolutely no sense.

[alimov]

Since entropy seems to be a measure of our ignorance, then there maybe there is no point in discussing a perfect observer (of something that is boundless). Edit: > talking about a "perfect observer" that knows all there is to know makes absolutely no sense.

if there was such a thing as a perfect observer, let’s say it is you, then you would still choose to measure some things, but not others. Unless by “perfect observer” you are referring to something that knows the states of all things simultaneously at all times, in which case that (to me) doesn’t sound like an observer at all, would just be someone/something that knows. So like you said “there is always hidden information” but that information is hidden to someone that is doing the observing and so is dependent on them. Otherwise from what or whom would the information be hidden? What would information even be without an observer?

[rytill]

Whatever is the driving factor behind the laws of physics seems to have “perfect information”. Not implying anything religious.