Speculative Flights of Fancy about the Nature of Reality, Part II
In
part I of this post, which explored the relationship between individual
consciousness and the collective, I promised to offer some more bizarre and hopefully fascinating speculation
about the relationship between consciousness and what it is that people are
conscious of – that is, what they perceive to be external reality. I posed
the question, is reality something that is wholly constructed by each of us and
not really independent of our perception of it, or is there an external reality
independent of consciousness?
Again my disclaimer: In this post, I am going to go on a flight of
fancy. Nothing in the post is an assertion that anything I am talking about is
true, or that it should be construed as proof of anything. It is all
speculation and conjecture. Just fun stuff to think about.
In philosophy, a debate has raged for centuries
about the nature of reality and its relationship to personal perception. To greatly over-simplify, and at risk of
making a caricature of the positions, we have on one side those who are sometimes
referred to as naïve realists, who
believe that reality is, well, real, and totally independent of our perceptions of it. While individuals may have a highly
distorted view of it, it exists as immutable facts regardless of the
observer's bias.
On the other side are the constructivists, who point out that we cannot really “know” what is
real except as we perceive and process the universe through our own central nervous systems,
which are incapable of reproducing reality exactly as it might be. In this view, all of our knowledge is distorted somewhat. Then we have the radical constructivists, who believe that outside reality is
completely a product of our own minds – sort of a delusion, if you will.
Clearly, we all live our lives as naïve realists
even if we claim to be radical constructivists. Any attempts to deny this would indeed be laughable. We accept much of what we experience as being factual. We have to in order to survive. Some facts do
seem rather immutable. Take dead people
for instance. Whatever we may think or
perceive, dead people do seem to remain dead, and except in the case of Elvis, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about that.
But then came quantum physics, and the whole
debate was rekindled - this time among physicists. It started with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He showed that it
impossible to observe anything at the atomic level without changing that which we are observing, because whatever energy we used for purposes of observing affects
and changes the item observed.
Then we discovered what is referred to as
the wave/particle duality, wherein electromagnetic energy behaves like a wave
if we use certain methods of observation, while it acts like a particle (and
has completely different and contradictory properties) if we use other methods. And we have also found that particles can
appear to us to be in two places at once!
Chalk up one for constructivists.
Nobody has won this debate. Descartes thought he settled it a long time
ago. He thought, therefore he was, and
since he believed in God, he believed God would not fool us about the universe
outside of ourselves. Therefore, it must be real.
However, some physicists have even found
evidence that they believe proves that nothing can exist in nature without an observer. Again, with subatomic particles, this seems
to have some validity. But what about
the proverbial tree falling in the forest?
Doesn’t it make sound waves regardless of whether anyone is around to
hear them?
And of course, the universe existed for
literally billions of years before consciousness evolved to perceive it. Didn’t it?
OK, now for some of my bizarre
speculations. I will start with the
question I just raised. I find a
possible solution to this issue by asking the question, how fast does an hour go by?
I submit that the answer to this question is entirely a matter of consciousness. Surely, as we grow older, hours seem to race
by faster than they did when we were young. We can stand next to a kid, with both of us agreeing that an hour went by, but for the kid it felt like a much longer time than for the older adult right there with him.
But this is just a matter of perception, one
might argue. An hour is an hour. How fast it seems to go by has absolutely no
effect on the physical universe.
Oh yeah?
Well, the theory of relativity predicts, and experiments have proven,
that the faster an observers moves, the more time slows down for the observer
relative to an observer who is not moving as fast. The closer you get to the speed of light, the
more pronounced is this effect.
If someone took off from earth in a very fast spaceship and stayed away for several years, when he returned to earth, he would be much younger than a friend who was originally the same age but who was left back on the home planet. Interestingly, psychologically the rate of the passage of time would not seem to have been affected for either either of them.
If someone took off from earth in a very fast spaceship and stayed away for several years, when he returned to earth, he would be much younger than a friend who was originally the same age but who was left back on the home planet. Interestingly, psychologically the rate of the passage of time would not seem to have been affected for either either of them.
So what does this have to do with the question
about whether or not the universe existed before the advent of consciousness? This: when we are born, could it be that both our consciousness and the universe came
to exist almost simultaneously. The
universe, in this scenario, would pop into its existence with its entire
history. The billions of years would
take place, in the experience of the newly formed consciousness, in what would
seem to him to be a fraction of a second relative to him.
If this were true, it would then be possible for “reality”
not to exist without someone there to perceive it, at least time-wise. But what about space-wise? Is there not a reality that exists
independently of each one of us in space? Well, I
for one believe this to be the case. But
perhaps it does not exist independently of all
of us collectively.
This brings us back to the idea of collective
consciousness that I talked about in Part I of this post. To understand my crazy speculations about this, I
must first raise two questions: 1. Which
is a closer representation of reality, a photograph that is in focus or one
that is out of focus. 2. What is the significance of the uncanny but ubiquitous normal distribution (I will define that after I focus on the first
question, pun intended).
Which is more accurate: the in-focus face of
the pony in the picture below, or the out-of-focus items in the rest of the
picture?
Answer: the out of focus part. We know from physics that the electrons which
make up the outer shells of every physical object we see can be anywhere – even
miles away. Probabalistically, however,
they tend to hang around certain
orbits in close proximity to the nuclei of their atoms. But they aren’t there all the time.
It is our
eyes, and therefore our consciousness,
which “focuses” them at their most probable location. If it were not for our consciousness, they
might be anywhere at any given moment of time.
At the subatomic level, without our
consciousness, the universe is nothing but an endless sea of subatomic
particles that come into and out of existence continually - and nothing more.
This brings us to normal distributions, the
proverbial bell shaped curve. It seems
that the vast majority of any measurable quality of items in the universe comes
in a variety of sizes and shapes, whose frequency of occurrence follows the pattern in the
picture below:
From dice throws to human height and weight to atomic
motions in matter to psychological and social events such as how much alcohol
people consume, it seems like almost all quantities in nature are distributed
in this pattern. Each flip of a fair coin,
even if you’ve already thrown fifty heads in a row, has a fifty percent chance
of coming up heads again, but the odds of throwing fifty-one heads in a row at the beginning of your coin-tossing
experiment are astronomical.
As physicist Heinz Pagels points out, individual chaos leads to collective
determinism. It seems that the only
way you can get distributions of measurements or events to have a skewed distribution,
as pictured below, is by introducing a non random event.
In his fascinating book, The Cosmic Code, Pagels gives the example of the number of dog
bites in a city with a stable population.
In one city, the yearly number of bites over succeeding years was 68,
70, 64, 66 and 71. Why so stable? Why is there not a year with 5 bites and
another year with 500? It is almost as
if there is an invisible hand (a god?) which produces the normal distribution with the
about the same average number coming up year after year after year.
The only way to change things, as mentioned, is
to introduce a non-random event, like the sudden passage of a law requiring
city inhabitants to limit their dog ownership to non-aggressive breeds.
So let’s apply this reasoning to the
distribution of people’s perceptions of reality. If the same principle applies, most people
will perceive reality at or near a specific average point, with a few outlying people
perceiving it to be somewhat different, and a very few people perceiving it as
extremely different, in one of two possible ways, but with similar frequency.
So, if I may offer a crazy conclusion, actual
reality could be determined by the average perception of a collective of individual consciousnesses. The "average" perception becomes an immutable external reality, regardless of what the outliers think or perceive. Once again, individual chaos leads to
collective determinism.
No comments:
Post a Comment