Conversation between Ira and Nynke on that cat!
January 1, 2007 § Leave a comment
Ira: What rings true for me is a theory I have been percolating for several years: physics is the study of human consciousness projected onto the “physical world”, disguised as the study of The Physical World.
Nynke: I couldn’t agree more. We find what we are looking for, most of the time … and if we don’t, clearly we were looking for something else. Orrehhh … replies interleaved
Ira: I mean this less in the metaphysical sense than it might first sound.
There is that famous Dutch metaphorical (not metaphysical) joke about this, probably told elsewhere too. It’s a story where someone is looking at night for his keys, and a neighbor walking his dog passes by and asks, “What are you looking for?”
And the seeker answers, “For my car keys”.
The dog walker stops and looks too.
After a while he asks, “Do you remember the moment you got out of your car, and what you did then?”, nudging at the car they are standing next to.
And the seeker replies with a wave of his arm, “Well, I walked home, then noticed my keys missing, partly walked back to my car, and came here to look.”
The dog walker, somewhat puzzled asks, “This not your car then?”
And the seeker replies with some smugness, “No, I have that parked in the next street because parking is free there, because it has no street lighting.”
Now more puzzled the dog walker asks, “Then how does this car come into the story of what you did afterwards?”
And the seeker replies, with even more smugness at his own smarts, “Nothing. But here I have light. How else do you expect me to find my keys?”
Ira: We may only observe the world through our states of consciousness. Even our mathematics which often leads us to counter-intuitive physical theories (e.g. Relativistic mechanics vs. Newtonian mechanics) and curious paradoxes is based on the abstractions our minds dream up. As we learn more and more physics, we seem to learn more about our own imagination.
Let’s hope our ability to act responsibly and with high integrity keeps up with that. We are not just observers and imaginers. We are participating observers and imaginers at minimum.
Ira: For example, the notion of reality as the expected value of a probability function, is similar to scenario analysis; or in a more fundamental form, the dreaming each of us do when imaging different possible life outcomes, sorting them by probability and deciding a course of action based on the likelihood.
Like we are all responsible for the woven outcome on Earth? And that that projection is even more interwoven and complex (and simple at the same time) than can be expressed in “things” like “woven threads”?
Ira: Can we imagine the brain has a quantum mechanical processor where each of the dreamed up life outcomes exist in some physical form? Perhaps. Or perhaps our mind is projecting it’s functionality onto quantum bits obscuring what is really “out there”.
How come we feel and see ourselves touching something at the same time, yet, according to our linearized time models of neurophysiological phenomena (from those 4D perspectives), the touch sensation route is muuuuch longer than the visual route? The brain “folds time” in non-linear ways? Does it predict the touch and makes us experience that prediction when seeing the contact, before its signals have arrived? That doesn’t make much sense. What would we need touch for then? Perhaps our brain projects the touch experience backward in time, or the seeing experience forward in time?
Ira: What if time was really two or three dimensional, but projected into a linear one-dimensional form by our electronic timepieces and filtered into a one directional, bi-directional propagation of retarded/advanced potentials by our imagination?
Ira: And what can we do in a circle? Or in a sphere?
Ahaaaa! Yes, look for the keys in the dark street, where we may have actually dropped them? When it is still light, or is light again, ofcourse. Get a flashlight?
- Black Bodies and Quantum Cats [Greg Laden’s Blog] (scienceblogs.com)
- Anis Shivani: Why American Reviewers Disliked Ian McEwan’s “Solar”: And What That Says About the Cultural Establishment (huffingtonpost.com)