Individual Entry

People Who Still Have Blogs:

  • Me

Archives

December, 2017
September, 2017
August, 2017
May, 2017
March, 2017
December, 2016
November, 2016
August, 2016
July, 2016
April, 2016
January, 2016
December, 2015
November, 2015
October, 2015
June, 2015
May, 2015
April, 2015
February, 2015
January, 2015
December, 2014
September, 2014
August, 2014
July, 2014
June, 2014
May, 2014
April, 2014
March, 2014
February, 2014
January, 2014
December, 2013
November, 2013
October, 2013
September, 2013
August, 2013
July, 2013
June, 2013
May, 2013
November, 2012
October, 2012
September, 2012
August, 2012
July, 2012
June, 2012
March, 2012
February, 2012
January, 2012
December, 2011
November, 2011
September, 2011
August, 2011
July, 2011
June, 2011
May, 2011
April, 2011
March, 2011
February, 2011
January, 2011
December, 2010
November, 2010
October, 2010
September, 2010
August, 2010
June, 2010
May, 2010
March, 2010
February, 2010
January, 2010
November, 2009
October, 2009
September, 2009
August, 2009
July, 2009
June, 2009
May, 2009
April, 2009
March, 2009
February, 2009
January, 2009
December, 2008
November, 2008
October, 2008
September, 2008
August, 2008
July, 2008
June, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
February, 2008
January, 2008
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
July, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
November, 2006
October, 2006
September, 2006
August, 2006
July, 2006
June, 2006
May, 2006
April, 2006
March, 2006
February, 2006
January, 2006
November, 2005
October, 2005
September, 2005
August, 2005
July, 2005
June, 2005
March, 2005
January, 2005
December, 2004
November, 2004
August, 2004
July, 2004
June, 2004
May, 2004
April, 2004
March, 2004
February, 2004
January, 2004
December, 2003
November, 2003
October, 2003
September, 2003
August, 2003
July, 2003
May, 2003
April, 2003
March, 2003
February, 2003
January, 2003
December, 2002

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.


2 comments:

That alone wwas an egregious oversight on thheir own part, since
by: James (contact) - 12 Apr '18 - 10:15
by: ZZYYTT (contact) - 17 May '18 - 20:44



 




Meta Information:

Title: On Certainty
Date posted: 23 Dec '17 - 00:18
Filed under: General
Word Count: 331 words
Good Karma: 27 (vote)
Bad Karma: 8 (vote)
Next entry: 
Previous entry:  On Running

Frontpage