People Who Still Have Blogs:

  • Me


mySQL error with query SELECT itime, SUBSTRING(itime,1,4) AS Year, SUBSTRING(itime,6,2) AS Month, SUBSTRING(itime,9,2) as Day FROM kyle_nucleus_item WHERE iblog=1 and itime <="2018-09-19 19:18:39" and idraft=0 GROUP BY Year, Month ORDER BY itime DESC: Expression #1 of SELECT list is not in GROUP BY clause and contains nonaggregated column 'nucleus.kyle_nucleus_item.itime' which is not functionally dependent on columns in GROUP BY clause; this is incompatible with sql_mode=only_full_group_by

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Valid CSS

On Certainty

I have complained before about the seductiveness of the Newtonian worldview. That we are all just atoms in motion. It seems so applicable and so complete, if not for the niggling unexplained quantum weirdness, an exposed, unexplained string that unravels the whole thing apart if tugged on.

I have jabbered about information, and how the Newtonian model seems to ignore it. Take a snapshot of the room you are in, and then tell me which direction the in-motion photons are to travel to next...

In a Newtonian world we are indistinguishable from a pile of rocks of similar mass.

If "Information" were a dimension, we would be as massive as a star in comparison to the dull piles of rocks.

I sometimes wonder if we don't have the whole thing backwards.

We "follow the atoms" in our search for the beginning. Tracing them all the way back to the large noise that shot them all out, and developing theories on how those atoms eventually got stuck on a small planet and started to think about themselves.

Which is fine, and I don't dispute any of that excellent science or their conclusions.

The more I read about Bell's theorem of non-locality, and of quantum computers, and the theories cosmologists have come up with to explain it all, the more I think that this is chasing the wrong question.

The more I learn about the Universe the more I think it's default state is that of non-committal quantum uncertainty.

I think the fundamental particle of existence is an atom who doesn't want to get out of bed. Who wants to keep sleeping and remain dormant, clinging to the ethereal dreamland where they can be anything, rather than the stark choice of being one type of atom forevermore...

The interesting question is not "Where did all the atoms make us come from?".

It is "What convinced an infinity of uncertainty to form solid, definitive atoms?"

One of my two favorite things in mathematics, is Pascal's Triangle.

I would often calculate it in my notebooks at school when I was bored, although in my versions I accompanied it with several lines beforehand, of all zeros... It made me smile thinking about how a "1" just showed up one day, in the middle of an infinity of zeros, and completely fucked shit up forever more.

Perhaps a more relatable example would be an Excel spreadsheet. Where all the cells rely on their neighbors to the top and left to calculate their values. With each cell showing "blank", until you place a value in the upper left, and begin to force certainty on all the cells, in a cascade of decision.

In my mind, the equations in the cells, are all the lovely deterministic newtonian and einstein equations that dictate what happens where. The things that take the reins when *something* forces all quantum states into the uncomfortable situation of being a tangible single thing that has shit to do.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying something as simple as "The Big Bang" was caused by the first quantum-uncertainty being collapsed. Afterall, if the value I entered into my spreadsheet at "A1" was zero, that wouldn't be the top of my pascal's triangle. The top would be wherever in the cell I added a single *+1* to the equation. That would be the point at which *definite nothing* (zero) transformed into *definite something* (non-zero).

Especially, since we know that quantum mechanics and entanglement seem perfectly capable of working out results backwards. Finding the necessary state required to make something true.

In a Quantum Excel spreadsheet, all one would have to do is pick a cell and declare a specific value, and it could figure out at what point our Pascal's triangle needed to start at and what value.

The initial "definitive choice" and the first cascade of non-zero values would be entirely different in that case.

The Big One becomes far less important in this case. An afterthought, deterministic result of a different decision.

I'm also not saying that we, on Earth, had anything to do with the inception of the Universe, or that some supernatural entity had to crack their knuckles, log into Google Docs, and fill out a value.

Quantum uncertainty itself is perfectly complicated enough to not be inert. Just like we are pretty sure long chains of amino acids and energy sources can somehow manage to fight against the force of entropy and become self-organizing and replicating. So too something in quantum interactions did as well.

A chance, self-referencing or self-viewing interaction millions of light years away could have been the catalyst that atoms have been frantically been forced to dance to, ever since. Spreading at the speed of light.

I don't have a definitive answer, I only have the question.