Multidimensional food for thought...
~The appearance of a rainbow is made up of the interaction of raindrops, sunlight and our consciousness. By itself—from its own side—a rainbow has no existence in our universe prior to being observed. This is to say that there is no intrinsic, independent, objective rainbow that exists separate from the observing consciousness. Being a function of our observation, if no one were there observing it, there would be no rainbow. There is no physical rainbow existing somewhere out there in space; the rainbow is only to be found within—and not separate from—the very mind that is observing it. The highest Buddhist teachings—and now quantum physics—says that our physical universe is similar in this regard to a rainbow.
Just like a rainbow can’t be said to exist until the moment that it is observed, quantum entities can’t be said to exist until the moment of observation; the act of observation is truly creative. The quantum entities that make up what seems to be solid matter (let’s use, for example, a tree) are no more like the thing we call a tree than the raindrops are like the thing we call a rainbow. Just as a rainbow is the outcome between the raindrops and our consciousness, the tree is the result of the interaction between the quantum entities that compose it and ourselves. This is to say that in the case of the seemingly solid, three-dimensional world, there is one necessary ingredient: an observing consciousness. This isn’t some New Agey gobbledygook, but simply the logical outcome of following the insights of what quantum physics is revealing to us about the nature of the universe we live in.
If more than one person is seeing a rainbow, there is an unexamined assumption that this means that the rainbow is “really there,” i.e., that there is an objectively existing rainbow that they are all seeing. If a number of observers are seeing what seems to be one and the same rainbow, however, it is not accurate to say they are seeing the same rainbow. A rainbow appears in a different place for each observer—in fact, when any one of us sees a rainbow, each of our eyes sees a slightly different rainbow. Its position is context-dependent, rather than being innate; if we move, it moves. In a very real sense, there are as many rainbows as there are observers; each observer is seeing their own private rainbow. It is as if there is an infinite superposition of rainbows existing in a state of potentiality, each one inhabiting a virtual world until the moment it is observed.
Similar to how there is not one “objective” rainbow that exists as an “object-per-se,” quantum physics has discovered that there is no invariant way the universe “really is.” To quote Philip K. Dick, “for every person there is a different universe which is the result of a mutual participation between him and the macrocosm, a field that is a syzygy between them.” There is no single reality that all observers share. Wheeler writes in his notebook, “Idea, surely not new, that there is not ‘one world’ but as many worlds as observers.”
Dick continues, “If reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn’t we really be talking about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are some more true (more real) than others? What about the world of a schizophrenic?” Are some of us more “in touch” with reality than others? It is easy to presume that the differences between people’s worlds is caused entirely by the subjectivity of the various human viewpoints, i.e., that people are just interpreting the one, objectively existing world differently. Quantum physics suggests that our situation might, however, be one of plural realities superimposed onto one another—akin to the potentiality of the wavefunction—like so many film transparencies. At any given moment, based on our observation, one of these transparencies takes on substantial form and appears, to our mind, to be the real and therefore only existing reality, while the other potential universes disappear as if they never existed.
The idea that there is an objectively existing world that we all share is a flawed assumption that creates the seemingly unsolvable paradoxes that riddle the quantum physics world. This state of affairs makes me think of how many conflicts in the world—both big and small—are the result of people arguing over the idea that their version of reality is the correct one, when in actual fact, there is no “true” reality (other than the fact that there is no single, true reality). To quote Bob Livingston, one of the founders of the discipline of neuroscience, “Our individual experiences are so different from one another that the world consists of a couple of billion people and a couple of billion worlds.” If there are indeed plural realities, problems arise due to breakdowns of communication between the different realities; this puts the various conflicts in our world in a new context. Maybe instead of fighting among ourselves to determine who is in possession of the true reality, we can learn to build bridges to connect the multitude of realities. Quantum physics is such a bridge.
AsWithin... SoWithout
Replies
The likely comming shift in paradigm will usher in more teleology in phyc! The universe in some sense appears as it appears because we are as we are!!
Teleological explanation goes to say that the purpose that a thing has can infact cause the thing! Of course this is at odd with manstream way of thinking where purpose is always an EFFECT and never a CAUSE.
Now we know that speed of light appears in the fine structure constant. This mean it plays some crucial role in maintaining the stability of atoms. Should the speed of light increas, atoms will fly apart! Now then consider the teleological explanation of 'time dillation'. Should electrons move at the same speed even in a moving object, the object will explode! So 'time dillation' is just natures precaution to prevent objects from detonating into nuclear bombs. Ergo the speed of light regulation in the universe serves exactly the same purpose as the temperature regulation of your body! You can see how simple teleological explanation can be!
AsAbove... SoRainbow
It's ALL Happening right Now!!!
Doppler effect
Mirages
Paralax
Holograms
Lense Images
Relativity
Stroboscopic effect
Shadows etc
Think about these carefully. They have good lessons to teach.:)
Consider, for instance, SONIC BOOM. Though it looks subjective, it is perfectly real! It can damage buildings. However, when physicist try to explain the boom, he is often forced to put the observer at the center as if to say that sonic boom cannot exist independent of a relationship between the observer and the supersonic jet!
This is precisely how 'observer' is used in phyc. When explaining doppler shift, for instance, you hear such terms as: 'according to stationary observer,...'. This is in no way to suggest that Doppler shift is solely psychologic. Same applies to the use of 'observer' in quantum mechanics.
Yes... good points for deeper contemplation
One might say that while seeing the rainbow, you are infact seeing the water. Water, in some sense, have many colors. Of course one can say it is light itself that has many colors. However, this is same for ANY object we see! For every object we see, we behold as much the property of light as we do the property of the object as we do, the property of consciousness.
So the SHAPE is the one in question. False is the idea that as you change the perspective, you are still beholding the same PORTION of the water we see. So rainbow, in this sense, is perfectly like an hologram! So might it be true also for the objects we see? We know, for instance, that the speed of light appears same for all observers irespective of how fast they move relative to it! Might it be just the same effect as rainbow appearing to be a perfect circle irrespective of the angle you view it in? Infact, I have explained special relativity this way before. False is the idea, i thought, that different observers are seeing the same light. I say we see the speed of light that 'reasonates' with us!
Unless the camera has at least a level of consciousness on its own (i beleive it does!), a conscious observer is still neaded to LITERALISTICALLY observe the rainbow.
My main point is that same equaly applies to the raindrops, not just the rainbow.
In this sense, the fundamentality of consciousness in DEFINING 'reality' as opposed to merely passively registering it has some truth irrespective of what quantum guys may say!
The point is that 'objective world' is conceptualised (at least by me) with this point already included. Objective mean 'existent in the COLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS as oposed to only in the individual consciousness. Ergo the world is objective in this sense but subjective in the sense that it is all in our consciousness.
WHAT QM TEACHES:
When a quantum system is observed, it is found in one of its eigenstates.
QM does not, for instance, say that there is no reality pertaining to the state of Schrodinger cat prio it being 'observed'. This is new age mysticism, not QM. QM stops at stating that the probability of finding a dead or a live cat is 50:50. QM differes from classic phyc by only predicting probabilities in situations where classic phyc offered certainities.
Why is there always an equal chance of finding a dead cat and finding a living one? Is necesarily due to leaving in MANY WORLDS as this article insinuate? Nope! There are interpratations that I find it more plausible, eg pilot wave etc. Before we measure a quantum particle, it is whizzing through all its eigenstates with unimaginable speed. In case of our cat, there are two states. There is the state that enables the opening of the poison and then there is a state that doesn't. The particle dats between those states. The act of opening the box traps the particl in one of the states, enabling it say to releas the poison. Ergo it is not that the consciousness chooses which world to observe. The physical acts associated with observation ACTUALY can kill the one and only objective cat just at the moment of opening the window. Ergo, QM is perfectly compartible with realism!
This land us to the question: just what do a physicist mean by 'observer'? Is it a conscious registration in the subjective? Nope!! I will use the rainbow just as the very good example. Instead of a conscious observer, lets put a CAMERA. So we are now going to MEASURE say the curvarture of the rainbow. In phyc, a camera will act as an as valid an observer of the rainbow as a human being! If we take a pic of a rainbow, the camera registers the image as exellently as it does, the water. Ergo the rainbow does not require any more conscious observer than water does! A camera can 'observe' both!
~Not the camera... but the lens, which of course is an imitation of the eye. Going a step further, consciousness still plays an active role, as without someone pointing the camera at the desired subject and 'taking' the picture, the camera doesn't observe anything & just exists as an amalgamation of parts. Thank you for sharing your 'take' on these multidimensional visualizations, Roaring ;-) ... no matter which way we decode this experience we call 'reality', one thing seems beyond clear from where I stand. There's a multitude of dumbed down sheeple on this planet who desperately need to widen the scope of their viewfinders... or they run the risk of shattering the environment where a rainbow is even possible. At least as we currently 'see' them. ~InLight555
AsAbove... SoBelow
AsWithin... SoWithout
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next