Quantum Bathwater

Rub-a-dubbus 1

Published on July 23, 2005 By OckhamsRazor In Philosophy

So it was a rather steamy Italian day and I was soaking in a bathtub with a copy of Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. Doesn't everyone?

Without going into a big deal about physics - something that is really just a hobby for me and of which I therefore do not feel in any way qualified to "go into a big deal" about - I was taken immediately by what seemed to me an assumption that was being made that might perhaps shouldn't be. The book is about what they call the ToE. Theory of Everything. Einstein has the universe wired when it comes to large objects, but his rules break down on small scales, and so physicists are looking for one unifying equation that answers everything. The assumption they were making in the process of this was that we are observing the universe from inside it. I'm not quite sure I buy that entirely. I put the book down and began to think on it.

As a buddhist, I am often given to the thought that there is no part of me that can be identified as my *I* - if you follow. If my sight were removed, I would still sense myself, but myself is not my vision. If you then dug out my ear canals to where I could no longer hear, I would still sense myself. Myself is not my hearing. Continue to disassemble me and I will continue to sense myself until I am dead, but no part that has been removed contains "me." And though you cannot remove my brain and still check the test, pieces could likely be surgically removed without killing me, and my sense of *I* (barring the severing of something major) would remain. Repeat this dissection and disassembling as many ways as you like, and *I* will always remain. *I* cannot be removed from "me" because...well in my belief, because I'm not there to be removed.

I wonder if the physicists equations would play out differently if the assumption was made that we are observing the universe from the outside. Part of the book actually describes this theory as "One World, Many Observers." How do you determine that you are inside of the universe anyway? You can say that your eyes tell you you are inside a room, or that you see stars in the sky when you're out at night, but you are not your eyes. You can say you hear the water running in the sink, but you are not your ears. I have shown that we are not entirely certain where that entity we call "self" resides.

Just random musings in the quantum bathwater.

Comments

EmperorofIceCream

on Jul 23, 2005

It's an old ploy - saying that the self is whatever is left over after everything physical has been removed from the equation.

You are your eyes, your ears, your sense of touch, taste, smell. Lose one or more of these senses and you are, to that degree, less than what you were when you possessed that sense.

Your argument seems to be that because your sense of self would remain even after you have lost a sense (how can you know that it would unless you have actually lost some particular sense and can say, on the basis of that experience, that you know your sense of self to be undiminished?)then it cannot reside (the self) in that sense and, by extension, because it does not reside in that sense it cannot reside in any sense at all.

Fiddlesticks.

Where else is there for the self to reside except in the means by which the world is perceived, manipulated, interacted with? Where else, except in some spectral other-world, if not in the synergy of these processes with the consciousness that proceeds from the physical entity which perceives and the thing or things perceived.

Your argument seems to me to be fundamentally dualistic, and of that sort that says physical reality must always be subordinated to a greater reality that is other than physical (and more valuable simply because it is other than the physical) and likely to give rise to that loathing of the body and all its works that is typical of Christianity (I know you're not a Christian).

I don't deny that there is more to the universe than our physical makeup can directly perceive (ultra-violet and infrared light, for example). But our inability to directly perceive such things doesn't confine them to some other and more spectral world.

Buddhists may not believe that they are their own 'I' - but that doesn't mean that they aren't, or that there is anything else that could be.

bakerstreet

on Jul 24, 2005

I would strongly suggest reading Oliver Sacks, especially An Anthropologist on Mars. He is a neurologist who has spent his life dealing with the oddities of the human mind.

I think you'll find that the "I" in someone with, say, sight, functions very differently than the "I" of someone without. You might say that this is an original difference, but I think you'll find in Sacks' work how the brain re-wires itself in response to damage later in life, and how it effects the "I"ness of the person.

Of notable interest in "Anthropologist" is the artist who as a result of an accident became color blind. I think as a buddhist you'd find his work of great interest.

OckhamsRazor

on Jul 24, 2005

This was a poorly written ramble on my part. My use of Buddhist doctrine was likely unnecessary and has served to distract from the subject I intended to collectively muse about. My bad

Scientists (and most humans) make the assumption that we are observing the universe from inside of it. I do not accept that I am inside the system as a foregone conclusion. I accept it as one possibility.

I don't think it wise to not question the integrity of the data collecting mechanism in order to get right to explaining the data because if the mechanism has no integrity, or only partial integrity, so follows the value of the data. It is a fact that Einstein's insights are works of art in terms of explaining the behavior of the universe. Unfortunately, they don't work out at the Planck scale. Why not? That is clearly an example of a rule changing based upon frame of reference, is it not? If so beautiful a rule can change based on scale, the question of where the point of observation exists in relation to the thing observed is of unparalleled importance. I question our tendency to anthropocentrism. I know we historically have misplaced ouselves in the universe (usually at the center of it). Has it happened again?

When we shift our view between looking at the universe all around us (we are inside the observed system) to looking at the inner workings of something that we are outside of (an atom, for example) does my relationship with what I am observing change the math? How about this question. If the observable universe could be described as "all of that stuff which is outside of me", then am I not outside of it in a way? These are the things I was truly musing about. What effect does perspective and relative position have on that observer's reality in a mathematical sense?

Bakerstreet, I see this is the gentleman (Sacks) behind the story of the film "Awakenings." I'll consider ordering Anthropologist. This blog has been the best source of good books to read I've ever found, and I truly appreciate such recommendations.

EmperorofIceCream

on Jul 24, 2005

I don't think it wise to not question the integrity of the data collecting mechanism in order to get right to explaining the data because if the mechanism has no integrity, or only partial integrity, so follows the value of the data.

Having questioned it and discovered that it has no integrity (if it has none) what are you going to do?

Having questioned it and discovered that it has integrity (if it has) what difference in your situation is there, other than instilling a sense of confidence which is entirely fallacious. Whether mechanism and data have integrity or not, the data to be dealt with and the means of dealing with it, are exactly the same.

Unfortunately there is no place outside of ourselves on which we can stand to properly judge the validity or otherwise of anything.

If you know otherwise, send me a postcard. I'd like to visit.

bakerstreet

on Jul 24, 2005

"I'll consider ordering Anthropologist."

I got it on Ebay for next to nothing. Well worth the time to read, especially if you are pondering the mechanics of "self". I'd also recommend his "Seeing Voices" along the same lines. It's about how the deaf percieve the world in a vastly different way than the hearing.

OckhamsRazor

on Jul 26, 2005

Having questioned it and discovered that it has no integrity (if it has none) what are you going to do?

Wonder about it...perhaps outloud. I thought that was evident.

Unfortunately there is no place outside of ourselves on which we can stand to properly judge the validity or otherwise of anything. If you know otherwise, send me a postcard. I'd like to visit.

Actually your first statement presumes that it is you who knows better, but it's irrelevant. You've missed my point.

I am guessing that my position in relation to a set of coordinates (time-space, 3 dimensions, what have you) is mathematically significant. I believe that's one of the things Einstein proved. In relation to these coordinates, I can be in one of three basic positions; me outside of the set, at the border of the set, and inside the set. My question is would that change the math in any kind of way that was significant to the problem of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory not happily grooving together.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!