Get your own Free Home Pageby Deric Morris
quantum theory explained!
...
BEING AND AWARENESS
The Elephant Entire
While Einstein's best-known works, his theories of relativity,
clearly engendered a paradigm shift, his Nobel was conferred for
his explanation of a more subtle, but no less dynamic, interface
between energy and matter: the Photoelectric Effect.
This pioneering work in quantum physics is a consequence of
Einsteinıs notion of light in terms of discrete quanta, known as
photons.
Without the Photoelectric Effect plants could not synthesize sugar
from Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, our eyes could not see light,
and the synapses of our neurons could not fire. The Photoelectric
Effect, put simply, is the quantum foundation of life as we know it:
when a photon hits an atom, an electron flies out of its orbit. Since
electrons cause atoms to emit photons as well, the implications, for
our lives, are profound. It is worth noting here that this is the one
quantum event which we can directly (and particularly) experience.
Needless to say, our entire sensorium, that is, our mapping of the
interface between percept and event (indeed our very life), is
rooted in the Photoelectric Effect. And by tacit consensus we
refer to our interpretations as (f)actual Reality. The Hindu mystics
have a word for that.
We chart our lifeıs trajectories through arcane formulations, and
in the end, timebinding signs are all we ever know.
Borges said it better than most in his erudite and esoteric works,
as in ³On Rigor in Science,² in which he conjures the elaborate
metaphor of a map commissioned by the Emperorı to represent the
manifold topologies of his empire with the utmost fidelity of
scale. As this great cartographic endeavor proceeds, the map
itself undergoes constant revisions of increasing complexity and
precision; the project is ultimately abandoned after the map has
grown to envelop and obscure the very region it was intended to
delineate. At the storyıs conclusion, the forgotten fabric of the
derelict map has dwindled to a few remnant scraps, fluttering
across the reconsidered landscape.
The parallel with Mandelbrot's discovery of the infinite length
implicit in the scalar, self-similar fractal boundary of any given
coastline, is compelling. Borges' story is indeed a case in point;
and in the same vein, the ideas of Shannon, Turing, Korzybski, Eco,
Whorff and Goedel come to mind as well.
The contributions of Korzybski and Eco in this context should be
self evident. In a word, perception is not objective reality. Nor
is apprehension empirical fact. But the most critical realization
here is that our representations and their interpretations lead to
increasing degrees of abstraction; in this manner our descriptions
and accepted definitions with regard to the phenomenal collective
universe of events we carelessly term "experiences" are not only
inaccurate but increasingly misleading. Like the imperial map they
conceal more than they reveal.
Turing gave us a glimpse into the workings of our flawed modes of
seeking understanding when he resolutely avoided defining human
intelligence by formulating the Turing Test. I think some of the
subtler implications of his point were likely overlooked. At any
rate, from the other side of the coin, the concept of the Turing
Machine is one I find quite useful. (More on that later.)
Whorff based his hypothesis on interactions with Native Americans
which convinced him that his concept of time and theirs were not
only fundamentally different but in many ways contradictory. Hence
the Whorff hypothesis, which posits a correlative conjunction of the
cognate language and the worldview of its native speakers. Here
again it seems to me that some of the subtleties are unremarked.
As example, since the specific disparity in their respective notions
of time was what initiated Whorffıs line of reasoning, I think it ironic
that the indigenous tongue, though typically vague in terms of
the sequence of events, has no problem with the notion of time as a
natural occurence, while our own timebound grammar puts much
emphasis on verb tenses but yet begs the question of a concise
definition of time. Perhaps thatıs why theyıre called ³tenses.²
[This is where the screed degenerates into rough notes for my own
failing memory...]
If U! defined as "reality" defined as perceptı then U! is info and
subjective only. Where Logical Empiricism posits "objective truth"
in terms of requirements of logical consistency, testability and
repeatability, U! *must not* exist! Since percept is robust, consensus
system of self-referent, self- consistent, autopoietic memetic
timebinding, Goedel's theorem applies. Therefore, as U! cannot
contain itself, observer is integral to system; no observer means
no subjective "reality" means no U! to be observed. Causality
aside [*non-linear* lest we forget] a Shannon/Goedel U! is own obs.
Wave or particle? "Iım a frayed knot!" Fact is a photon is a wave
at the lens of the eye, hence focusable, and a particle at the retina,
thus knocking loose electrons to begin their propagation as nerve
signals encoding binary data. Likewise even highly sophisticated
double-blinds set up to test the photonıs decoherence turn out to
receive particles at particle detectors and waves at wave targets.
And Heisenberg rules in any case! So how can obs. *cause* either
outcome? How not?
Metaphor: consider cosmos as *desktop* - moving files, icons,
fldrs etc. in/out of directories, trash, favorites, addy book really
exists in cyberspace, not *realtime* and certainly not in 3D space.
Yet we accept the convention of the GUI as metaphor because itıs
more comfortable than the machine *reality* that only the *labels*
are changed. Semiotics rears its lovely head.
Well. OK - just shoot me. Later...
-COLKurtz
"...
Get your own Free Home Page