보고와 믿음

우리는 우리의 눈을 열어 어떤 것을 볼 때, 우리는 그 빌어 먹을 일을 참조. 그보다 더 확실한 될 수 무엇, 바로? 의 당신이 당신의 개를 찾고 있다고 가정 해 봅시다. 당신은 무엇을보고 정말 당신의 개입니다, 때문에, 당신이 원하는 경우, 당신은 손을 뻗어 그것을 만질 수. 그것은 짖는다, 당신은 씨실을들을 수 있습니다. 그것은 조금 냄새 경우, 당신은 그 냄새를 맡을 수 있습니다. 당신이보고있는 것은 당신의 개입니다 이러한 모든 추가 지각 단서은 당신의 믿음을 확증. 직접. 아무 질문도없고.

물론, 이 블로그에 내 직업은 질문을하는 것입니다, 캐스팅 의혹. 우선, 보고 만지고하는 것은 듣고 냄새에서 조금 다른 것 같다. 당신은 엄격 개 껍질 들리지 않는, 당신은 그 소리를들을 수. 마찬가지로, 직접 냄새하지 않습니다, 당신은 냄새가, 개는 공중에 남아있다 화학 흔적. 청각 및 냄새 세 가지 장소 인식은 — 개는 소리 / 냄새를 발생, 소리 / 냄새는 당신에게 여행, 당신은 소리 / 냄새를 인식.

그러나보고 (또는 감동) 이 장소 것입니다 — 이 개, 당신은 여기에 직접 지각. 왜 것입니다? 왜 우리가 느끼는 할 것을 우리는 참조하거나 뭔가를 터치하면, 우리는 직접 감지? 우리가 무엇을보고의 지각 정확성에 이러한 믿음은 순진한 사실주의라고. 우리는 물론이 보는 빛을 포함 알고 (너무 감동하지, 하지만, 훨씬 더 복잡한 방식), 우리가보고있는 것은 빛이 등 물체에 반사입니다. 그것은이다, 사실로, 뭔가를 듣고 다르지 않습니다. 그러나보기의 메커니즘이 지식은 우리의 자연을 변경하지 않습니다, 우리가 볼 것은 거기에 어떤 것을 상식보기. 보고 믿는입니다.

순진 버전의 추정은 과학적 리얼리즘이다, 이는 우리의 과학적 개념이 아니라 진짜 주장, 우리가 직접 인식되지 않을 수 있습니다에 있는데도. 그래서 원자는 진짜. 전자는 진짜. 쿼크는 진짜. 우리의 더 나은 과학자의 대부분은 진짜 무엇을 우리의 개념이 extraploation에 대한 회의가 있었다 밖으로. 아인슈타인, 그 중 아마도 가장, 심지어 시간과 공간이 실제되지 않을 수도 의심. 파인만과 겔만, 전자와 쿼크에 대한 이론을 개발 한 후, 전자와 쿼크는 수학적 구조가 아닌 실제 기업이 될 수 있다는 자신의 의견을 표명.

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