depend on what is being measured

[GoodTaste]

The histories that contribute to the Feynman* sum do not have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.

Source: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking (Page 221)
*Feynman: Richard Feynman was a Nobel Prize winner in physics.

Here I want to ask a question about the grammar of "what is being measured", not about the meaning of the content (which is hard to understand unless you've read through the book).

Do you agree that in the grammatical structure "depend on what is being measured" is equal to "depend on our observation"? If so, it seems to me that it should have been "depend on what is measuring" (because our observation is measuring the universe, rather than we being measured by something).

Sorry for the elusive content because it is a view of reality completely different to our classical view of reality (including Newtonian and Einstein's view of reality).

 

[Barque]

Do you agree that in the grammatical structure "depend on what is being measured" is equal to "depend on our observation"?

"Depend on what is being measured" means "depend on the thing that is being measured".

The writer seems to be saying that the histories (whatever that might mean) don't exist by themselves. They depend on/arise from whatever is being measured.

Let's say you're analysing the ingredients of something. Your results depend on what you're analysing. If you're analysing shampoo, you'll find certain things in it. If you're analysing horse manure, you'll find different things in it.

If so, it seems to me that it should have been "depend on what is measuring"

This means something completely different and is not the intended meaning. This means the result will depend on what is doing the measuring. If I analyse a piece of horse manure, I'll find something in it. If you're analysing it, you'll find something different. I very much doubt that the writer intended this because it doesn't make sense.

I don't know much about Newton's and Einstein's view of reality. I believe English grammar is the same in both.

 

[GoodTaste]

This means the result will depend on what is doing the measuring.

This is what is intended meaning by the author IMO. Read the original text again:

The histories that contribute to the Feynman* sum do not have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.

First, go to understand that "we create history by our observation" - it means "we create history by our measuring it" or "history depends on we doing the measuring".
Second compare it with "the histories depend on what is doing the measuring" (So far we know only we humans can do the measuring, so which means "the histories depend on we doing the measuring".)
Now compare the above with your sentence "This means the result will depend on what is doing the measuring. " - This is what the author truly intended to mean.

This implies that you failed to understand the meaning of "We create history by our observation". If you thought you didn't fail, then let us see how you will paraphrase it.

 

[Barque]

This is what is intended meaning by the author IMO. Read the original text again:

You seem to be acknowledging that I've understood the intended meaning. Why do I need to read it again in that case? Or (as I suspect) is it that you haven't expressed what you mean correctly?

First, go to understand that "we create history by our observation" - it means "we create history by our measuring it" or "history depends on we doing the measuring".
Second compare it with "the histories depend on what is doing the measuring" (So far we know only we humans can do the measuring, so which means "the histories depend on we doing the measuring".)
Now compare the above with your sentence "This means the result will depend on what is doing the measuring. " - This is what the author truly intended to mean.

The problem here is that you've failed to understand the passage and also that you're unable to express what you mean to say.

I see so many contradictions in your post that I don't know what to say. I think you've made a few typos, which add to the confusion. Or you haven't been able to order your sentences well and that makes them difficult to understand.

I suggest you concentrate on making sure you understand what you read. You've assumed you've understood it. You haven't.

I believe your problem is that you haven't understood what was intended, and not that the writer's made a mistake.

 

[Barque]

(So far we know only we humans can do the measuring, so which means "the histories depend on we doing the measuring".)

What you said doesn't mean what I think you intended (and in any case you're mistaken).

What I think you mean - the histories depend on who does the measuring.

What your words in quotes actually mean - the histories depend on the fact that humans do the measuring.

There's a difference.

Of course only humans can do any measuring. But all humans aren't the same.

I'm unable to understand you.

If you can't express yourself correctly, it's very likely you haven't followed the passage correctly. In English, just one word out of position, just a little, can change the meaning of a sentence.

Don't look for errors in this passage. Just try to understand it.

(I suggest that if you don't understand something, you should just ask what it means, rather than offering your own interpretation.)

Instead of looking for errors in native-speaker writing, you should be concentrating on improving your English.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste Barque gave you some good advice.

If you have already made up your mind, why ask the question?

Theoretical physics is hard enough for most of us mere mortals. It must be especially hard to understand if you are reading about it in a foreign language (English). Try not to be argumentative.

 

[GoodTaste]

You seem to be acknowledging that I've understood the intended meaning.

The contrary was true. I meant you completely misunderstood it. And indeed I am completely puzzled by the fact that you would have understood it the way as above.

 

[GoodTaste]

@GoodTaste Barque gave you some good advice.

If you have already made up your mind, why ask the question?

Theoretical physics is hard enough for most of us mere mortals. It must be especially hard to understand if you are reading about it is in a foreign language (English). Try not to be argumentative.

As I mentioned in the OP. I just asked the grammar, not the meaning. See how Barque avoided to paraphrase "We create history by our observation" ? You know what I mean.
Please be noted: I just asked the grammar.

 

[Barque]

I didn't avoid anything.

Don't blame me for your inability to explain what you're asking. Or your refusal to accept it.

 

[GoodTaste]

How humorous!

I paraphrased "we create history by our observation" as "we create history by our measuring it" - It is my "inability" in your opinion.
And you "paraphrased" "we create history by our observation" as (---) - It is your "ability" in your opinion.

Good luck.

The case is too small to mention it again.

 

[Barque]

Why do we keep coming across people like you who want to ask complex questions when they can't handle basic grammar?

Please be noted: I just asked the grammar.

You've made two grammatical mistakes in that short eight-word post. Can you identify them?

 

[Tarheel]

As I mentioned in the OP. I just asked the grammar, not the meaning. See how Barque avoided to paraphrase "We create history by our observation" ? You know what I mean.
Please be noted: I just asked the grammar.

No, I don't know what you mean. For example, I don't know what "avoided to paraphrase" means.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste I will give you a suggestion for rephrasing that sentence, but I want you to take a shot at it first.

 

[Barque]

Good Taste,

There's nothing wrong grammatically in the passage you quoted in your first post.

Do you really think you've spotted a mistake that a native-English writer and his proofreader didn't spot?

 

[jutfrank]

Do you agree that in the grammatical structure "depend on what is being measured" is equal to "depend on our observation"?

Are you asking whether what is being measured (a wh-clause) is grammatically equivalent to our observation (a noun phrase)?

Or is this actually a question about meaning rather than grammar?

If so, it seems to me that it should have been "depend on what is measuring" (because our observation is measuring the universe, rather than we being measured by something).

Ah, so this is actually about meaning. I see what you're saying, yes. The histories depend on the act of measuring, on the observer. It's we who create the universe, not the other way round, so I don't know why Hawking phrased it like that. Anyway, don't worry about it—you've understood the theory correctly.

(And please appreciate that Barque's very helpful, polite, and accurate post #2 was written to address your question, and it did. You can't expect us to have a thorough grasp of cosmology theory. Barque dealt with the language used—'what is being measured' semantically means 'the thing that is being measured' (passive), and not 'the thing that is doing the measuring' (active), regardless of what the writer actually means.)