Saturday 25 October 2008

A COSMIC ANALOGY: THE ECLIPSE (A Post In Which Miss Dreamy Explains How The Present Determines The Past)


All Shook Up: “I'd say that things like gravity, radio waves, magnetic forces.. were in existence long before humankind developed the means to measure
and utilise them and that, based on that fact, many other phenomena yet to be
discovered similarly exist.”

Note, however, that with different values of the physical polarities and different initial conditions, nearly every potential universe could be ‘paralleled’ elsewhere. Which makes it attractive to suppose that all combinations or configurations are equally probable. The view
that there is a unique universe of only one possible type would have to be discarded. One cannot prove it, but even without stretching the facts beyond a reasonable application, it seems more likely that the question of the uniqueness
is closely related to the act of knowing.

We can see this easily if we imagine a standard cosmic phenomenon: the
Eclipse. Rather than listing the various ecliptic possibilities, such as
annual, partial, total, solar, lunar etc., let me say that the interception of a
luminous body by the interposition of another body between itself and the eye of
the observer, is what constitutes an eclipse. However, it would seem more
compatible with this meaning to say that a total eclipse, such as that of the
Sun for instance, is seen along a narrow band called the band of totality.
Outside this band the screening of the Sun by the Moon when seen from the Earth is only partial. But either way, it has to be seen to be perceived.

Now, all these effects can be calculated in detail. Computations, in
other words, can be directed backwards to determine previous eclipses.
Conversely, prediction can be made with a view to future eclipses. This may seem obvious, even self-evident. The point, however, is that although the notion of a trajectory implies clear knowledge of its progression, the eclipse only comes into existence at the moment that we observe it. The act of observation, in other words, has not only created the eclipse - but its complete and entire past.

It may seem ludicrous to claim that the eclipse actually antedates the
causal conditions it appears to institute. But my own view, from this
perspective, is that unless so perceived, no one will ever attempt to suggest
that an eclipse has taken place, say, in some far corner of the universe or with
reference to any one of an infinite variety of potential trajectories in some
wayward, yet unalterable, path to a predetermined assignation. Note, moreover,
that unless lodged firmly in the sense data of intelligent observation, there is
nothing irreversible about such an eclipse. It hinges on one’s ability to
determine its past as one would the backward movement of a clock. And this
becomes obvious when we consider that the Eclipse is a representation of our
knowledge, so that if our knowledge changes unexpectedly, the past must also
change unexpectedly. Without it, it may mean, simply, an imaginary event which
is ideally but not literally true, residing only in the consciousness of some
mind whose supremacy is undoubted but not easily defined.

To some, God still preconditions the mind of the observer. Yet, nature
can rarely bring herself to ignore loose ends. The search for an absolute norm
outside reality is doomed to frustration. Being must be interpreted in terms of
knowing. To the physicist, reality depends on his ability to produce for every
idea a formula or an equation. He can only specify an event through its
measurable properties. And mathematical analysis clearly shows that to account
for its fine balance the density of the universe must have had a particular, or
critical, value, and no other, at a very early time. The most explicit set of
equations, on the other hand, can never bestow life and meaning, but only an
emulation of facts, precisely like the Big Bang, which can have no history,
unless the history is a derivative of the event. And not just a single history,
but an infinite cluster of possible histories of every possible path or record
in space-time, and each one equally real whenever so observed.

Thus, the empiricist’s analysis prevails: there is no past, there is no
future, we initiate both.






Dreamy

12 comments:

All Shook Up said...

As you know, Dreamy, I'm never sure whether I've followed your descriptions sufficiently well to make cogent observations... but here goes:

I have trouble in applying pure open-ended logic, in an infinite range of possibilities, to theoretical events and phenomena that must (in my view) be seen as actual, observable events. I can never get my head round, for example, the (to me) ludicrous idea that a bunch of monkeys sitting at typewriters for infinity would eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

So in looking at the state of the Universe, I can quite imagine that humankind resembles my FM radio - totally unaware of the soup of digital transmissions that it's simmering in.

BUT.... let's say I'm holding a crystal ball in my hand, ready to toss it on to a marble tiled floor. I'd defy anyone to predict where the shards of glass will land and their relation to each other. Indeed, given the force of propulsion I might apply, the theoretical result prior to the action might be said to be almost infinite. HOWEVER - Once I've done the deed, the result becomes a one-off and, therefore, it's no longer true to say "all combinations or configurations are equally probable" .. not AFTER the event has occurred.

I'm saying that just because there is an argument in favour of the notion that there is an "infinite cluster of possible histories of every possible path or record in space-time, and each one equally real whenever so observed" this does not justify a cast-iron faith in it being correct.

(Equally, I'd point to the luscious temptress in your illustration below - the mere fact of her existence in someone's fantasy is no proof of a real-life counterpart... but we can still dream).

Selena Dreamy said...

Once I've done the deed, the result becomes a one-off and, therefore, it's no longer true to say "all combinations or configurations are equally probable" .. not AFTER the event has occurred.

Absolutely. And I believe the contention of physicists, today, is rather that any such determination would have been made at the initial moment of creation. Which, of course, still leaves the vexing question of design - considering the sheer improbability of such a finely calibrated universe as ours.

(Equally, I'd point to the luscious temptress in your illustration below - the mere fact of her existence in someone's fantasy is no proof of a real-life counterpart... but we can still dream).

Which is precisely why I am pointing to contingent universes rather than real ones when I refer to an infinite cluster of possible histories of every possible path or record etc.


No matter what. Thank you, ASU, for the courtesy of your time and your exquisitely reasoned reply.

Dreamy

Bob said...

ASU, you're doing allright, but I think we need George McCabe here.

I surrender.

Selena Dreamy said...

McCabe acts the part of the theoretical physicist brilliantly, but don't be fooled,Bob, philosophy has never really been Gordon’s most compelling asset...

Bob said...

Second try.

[The search for an absolute norm
outside reality is doomed to frustration.]
[there is no past, there is no
future, we initiate both.]

I beg to differ. The search for an absolute norm is doomed to frustration because of our limited minds. That doesn't mean that there is no absolute norm or truth. Of course there is. There is a reality outside of our minds and perceptions. We perceive a small amount of it, and from this small amount we understand an even smaller amount. This understanding or interpretation of this small amount of a small amount is the human knowledge.

Sometimes our knowledge changes because we learn something new or a brilliant mind has discovered that there are even more basic particles or whatever. Our understanding of the past and the future may now be changed and if we did it right, our interpretations are now a little bit closer to the absolute truth. However the absolute truth never changed; it can't because it is the truth.

Selena Dreamy said...

Bob,
Intrinsically, like other aspects of the phenomenal world, the universe is meaningless. Nothing is of itself. There are no imperishable, let alone everlasting, standards of cosmic existence and, as for this little matter you call “absolute norm or truth”, no possibilities of arriving at any unification with respect to the relativistic and the universal point of view.

Think about it!

No human mind could possibly conceive of so indivisible an act, not Newton, nor Einstein. And no one summed up this inherently immeasurable state of affairs better than Albert Einstein himself: “One may say that the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”
This was no mere figure of speech, whether you like it or not, Einstein was formulating a very prophetic conclusion: That the concept of reality cannot be dissociated from that of its anthropomorphic mystery!!!


Hence it would seem that the absolute norm or truth is of two kinds: infinite and incomprehensible. Try and append a meaning to it, a definition, phenomenology, time, space or circumstances, and - smack - it has been relativised, i.e. made subject to conscious recognition. Which, very neatly brings us back to the analogy of The Eclipse - and its relation to the requirement for 'knowledge' about the alignment at some critical moment...

Selena Dreamy said...

...or, by a reverse kind of paradox,Bob, try and think of the Eagle without thinking of its wings - a most illuminating exercise!!

Bob said...

O.K. Here is another thought experiment: try to think of the universe without human beings in it. That shouldn't be hard, because most of the universe is like that.

This universe without humans is exactly the same as the one with humans, safe for one planet.

This universe can be dissociated from anthropomorphic (von menschlicher Gestalt) mystery, because there are no humans in it who perceive it as a mystery. Still there are eclipses, there is gravity, there are particles that sometimes behave like waves, there is everything that we see in our own universe, except for ourselves. Why shouldn't there be?

The rules that govern this universe are the absolute truth, and it differs only slightly from the truth in our universe.

I get the feeling that you, and other people that are smarter then me, who are used to understand almost everything in their everyday life, when confronted with things that they don't understand, call these things 'inherently incomprehensible'. I don't buy that. Someday somebody will be born who is ten times smarter then Einstein and he or she will enravel further parts of the mystery. Maybe even in a way that normal people understand, that would be nice.

Selena Dreamy said...

This universe without humans is exactly the same as the one with humans, safe for one planet.

NO NO NO NO!!!

We are going round in circles, Bob. We’ve already been there. The universe does not exist when it is not perceived to exist. You are battling with a very basic conceptual fallacy here...!

This universe can be dissociated from anthropomorphic (von menschlicher Gestalt) mystery, because there are no humans in it who perceive it as a mystery. Still there are eclipses,

...well, the Sun is eclipsed by the Moon - as is every other star and planet in the universe - at this precise moment in time, PROVIDED you’ll juxtaposition yourself at the end of the critical line-up NOW. Failing that the eclipses are only contingent....

there is gravity, there are particles that sometimes behave like waves,

...whether particles behave like waves is entirely subject to the nature of the experiment. As a matter of fact, without the investigation (or the observer) there are neither waves, nor particles, there is nothing worthy of definition....there’s only energy (whatever that is)!

there is everything that we see in our own universe, except for ourselves. Why shouldn't there be?

How can it be? Try and define anything from the point of view of an alien intelligence and the question arises what is it? Atoms? Molecules? Radiation? Light spectra? Energy waves? Pancakes? Particles? It all depends on your sensory, visual, auditory etc. faculties..

The rules that govern this universe are the absolute truth, and it differs only slightly from the truth in our universe.

OK.

I get the feeling that you, and other people that are smarter then me, who are used to understand almost everything in their everyday life, when confronted with things that they don't understand, call these things 'inherently incomprehensible'. I don't buy that. Someday somebody will be born who is ten times smarter then Einstein and he or she will enravel further parts of the mystery. Maybe even in a way that normal people understand, that would be nice.

NO, NO NO - this is not a matter of superior intelligence, it’s a matter of basic principle!


My problem is the reverse from yours. I simply cannot see how to define anything, when no one is looking. When you visualize the Universe, you’ve already determined a-priorily what has, in fact, no intrinsic existence. I shall, however, tackle the blessed thing with a further post and try to adopt your perspective as a point of departure. That should be interesting.

Thanks Bob, great fun...

D.

Bob said...

You're right, we're going around in circles. E.g. I have never understood why the a priory object is such a problem. I am quite comfortable with the notion that when I perceive let's say a motorcycle, that what I see is not exactly the same thing as the thing that stands in front of me. For starters I can't see the inside. It might be a fake motorcycle. An alien might see/ perceive the motorcycle in a different way, or he might not even see it at all, but the fact that I can see it and other people and animals are enough evidence for me that there is an a priori motorcycle that will still be there when I am gone.

The tree does make a sound in the woods when there is nobody there to hear it. Sound as defined by airwaves.

These things are also known as common sense and I am aware that it is a philosophers job to challenge such 'obvious' truths, but uptill now I could never be convinced. To me it is not more then a thought experiment.

O.K. I'll stop now. Enough.

I'll await your next post.

All Shook Up said...

"The universe does not exist when it is not perceived to exist."

Prove it :).

Selena Dreamy said...

Prove the opposite! :)