見て信じる

私たちは私たちの目を開いて、いくつかのことを見てみると, 私たちはそのこいつを参照してください. それよりもより明白であることができるもの, 右? 例えば、あなたが、あなたの犬を見ているとしましょう. あなたは何を参照してください本当にあなたの犬です, なぜなら, あなたがしたい場合, あなたが手を差し伸べ、それに触れることができます. それは吠え, あなたが横糸を聞くことができます. それは少し臭い場合は, あなたはそれをかぐことができる. 何を見ていることはあなたの犬であることをすべてのこれらの余分な知覚の手がかりは、あなたの信念を裏付ける. そのまま. いいえ質問は尋ねません.

もちろん, このブログで私の仕事は、質問をすることである, キャスト疑問. まず第一に, 見て感動すると聞き、嗅ぐと少し異なっているように見える. あなたは厳密にあなたの犬の吠え声が聞こえない, あなたはその音を聞く. 同様に, それを直接匂いしません, あなたは匂いをかぐ, 犬が空気中に放置していた化学トレイル. 聴覚と香りは、3つの場所の認識である — 犬は音/臭いを発生させる, 音/臭いはあなたに移動する, サウンド/匂いを知覚.

しかし、見て (または触れる) 2位のものです — そこに犬, そしてあなたはここでそれを直接知覚する. なぜということです? なぜ私たちは何かを参照するか、タッチすることを感じていますか, 私たちはそれを直接検知する? 私たちが見るものの知覚的信憑性のこの信念は、ナイーブリアリズムと呼ばれている. もちろん、私たちは見て、光を必要とすることを知っている (これに触れない, しかしはるかに複雑な方法で), 私たちが見ている光はとても上のオブジェクトから反射してある. それは, 実際には, 何かを聞いたと何ら変わりません. しかし、見てのメカニズムのこの知識は、私たちの自然を変化させない, 私たちが見ることはそこにあるものであることを常識見解. 百聞は一見にしかず.

ナイーブバージョンから推定し、科学的なリアリズムである, その私たちの科学的な概念でも現実のものと主張している, 本家の私たちは、それらを直接知覚しないことがあります. だから、原子が現実のもの. 電子は、現実のもの. クォークは本物である. そこに私たちのより良い科学者のほとんどは、実際何であるかの私たちの概念をこのextraploation懐疑的だった. アインシュタイン, おそらく彼らの最高, でも、空間と時間は本物ではない可能性があることが疑われる. ファインマンとゲルマン, 電子とクォーク上の理論を開発した後、, 電子とクォークが数学的構成物ではなく、本当の実体かもしれないとの見解を表明.

What I am inviting you to do here is to go beyond the skepticism of Feynman and Gell-Mann, and delve into Einstein’s words — space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live. The sense of space is so real to us that we think of everything else as interactions taking place in the arena of space (and time). But space itself is the experience corresponding to the electrical signals generated by the light hitting your retina. It is a perceptual construct, much like the tonality of the sound you hear when air pressure waves hit your ear drums. Our adoption of naive realism results in our complete trust in the three dimensional space view. And since the world is created (in our brain as perceptual constructs) based on light, its speed becomes an all important constant in our world. And since speed mixes space and time, a better description is found in a four dimensional Minkowski geometry. But all these descriptions are based on perceptual experiences and therefore unreal in some sense.

I know the description above is highly circular — I talked about space being a mental construct created by light traveling through, get this, space. And when I speak of its speed, naturally, I’m talking about distance in space divided by time, and positing as the basis for the space-time mixing. This circularity makes my description less than clear and convincing. But the difficulty goes deeper than that. You see, all we have is this cognitive construct of space and time. We can describe objects and events only in terms of these constructs even when we know that they are only cognitive representations of sensory signals. Our language doesn’t go beyond that. Well, it does, but then we will be talking the language, for instance, of Advaita, calling the constructs Maya and the causes behind them Brahman, which stays unknowable. Or, we will be using some other parallel descriptions. These descriptions may be profound, wise and accurate. But ultimately, they are also useless.

But if philosophy is your thing, the discussions of cognitive constructs and unknown causations are not at all useless. Philosophy of physics happens to be my thing, and so I ask myself — what if I assume the unknown physical causes exist in a world similar to our perceptual construct? I could then propagate the causes through the process of perception and figure out what the construct should look like. I know, it sounds a bit complex, but it is something that we do all the time. We know, for instance, that the stars that we see in the night sky are not really there — we are seeing them the way they were a few (or a few million or billion) years ago because the light from them takes a long time to reach us. Physicists also know that the perceived motion of celestial objects also need to be corrected for these light-travel-time effects.

In fact, Einstein used the light travel time effects as the basis for deriving his special theory of relativity. He then stipulated that space and time behave the way we perceive them, derived using the said light-travel-time effects. This, of course, is based on his deep understanding that space and time are “the modes by which we think,” but also based on the assumption that the the causes behind the modes also are similar to the modes themselves. This depth of thinking is lost on the lesser scientists that came after him. The distinction between the modes of thinking and their causation is also lost, so that space and time have become entities that obey strange rules. Like bent spoons.

Photo by General Press1

Comments