Tag Archives: ruimte en tyd

What Does it Feel Like to be a Bat?

It is a sensible question: What does it feel like to be a bat? Although we can never really know the answer (because we can never be bats), we know that there is an answer. It feels like something to be a bat. Wel, at least we think it does. We think bats have bewussyn and conscious feelings. Aan die ander kant, it is not a sensible question to ask what it feels like to be brick or a table. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an inanimate object.

Lees verder

Wat is onwerklik Blog?

Vertel ons 'n bietjie oor waarom jy begin jou blog, en wat jy gemotiveerd daaroor hou.

As my geskrifte begin verskyn in verskillende tydskrifte en koerante as gereelde kolomme, Ek wou om hulle te versamel in een plek — as 'n bundel van die internet soort, soos dit was. Dit is hoe my blog is gebore. Die motivering blogging om voort te gaan kom van die geheue van hoe my eerste boek, Die onwerklik Heelal, vorm aangeneem het uit die ewekansige notas ek begin skryf op skroot boeke. Ek glo dat die idees wat kruis iemand se gedagtes dikwels vergeet raak en verlore, tensy hulle afgeskryf. 'N blog is 'n gerieflike platform om hulle te sit. En, sedert die blog is eerder openbare, jy 'n paar sorg en moeite doen om jouself goed uit te druk.

Het jy enige planne vir die blog in die toekoms?

Ek sal blogging hou, ongeveer teen die koers van een pos 'n week of so. Ek het nie enige groot planne vir die blog per se, maar ek het 'n paar ander Internet idees wat kan spruit uit my blog.

Filosofie word gewoonlik gesien as 'n baie hoë konsep, intellektuele onderwerp. Dink jy dat dit 'n groter impak op die wêreld in die algemeen het?

Dit is 'n vraag wat my verskrik vir 'n rukkie. En ek het 'n pos op dit, wat dit kan beantwoord na die beste van my vermoë. Om myself 'n bietjie herhaal, filosofie is bloot 'n beskrywing van wat intellektuele strewes dat ons geniet in. Dit is net dat ons nie sien dit dikwels nie so nie. Byvoorbeeld, as jy doen fisika, jy dink dat jy baie ver verwyder van die filosofie. Die filosofiese draai dat jy op 'n teorie in fisika is meestal 'n nagedagte, dit word geglo. Maar daar is gevalle waar jy kan eintlik toepassing filosofie probleme in fisika op te los, en kom met nuwe teorieë. Dit is inderdaad die tema van my boek, Die onwerklik Heelal. Dit vra die vraag, as sommige voorwerp gevlieg deur vinniger as die spoed van lig, wat sou dit lyk? Met die onlangse ontdekking dat vaste stowwe nie reis vinniger as die lig, Ek voel geregverdig en sien uit na verdere ontwikkelings in fisika.

Dink jy baie kollege studente is aangetrokke tot die filosofie? Wat sou hulle kies om te spesialiseer in dit?

In vandag se wêreld, Ek is bang filosofie is uiters irrelevant. So kan dit moeilik wees om te kry om ons jongmense wat belangstel in die filosofie. Ek voel dat 'n mens kan hoop sy relevansie te verbeter deur daarop te wys die verbindings tussen wat dit ookal is wat ons doen en die intellektuele aspekte daaragter. Sou dit maak hulle kies om te spesialiseer in dit? In 'n wêreld gedryf deur bybetalings, dit mag nie genoeg wees nie. Dan weer, dit is n wêreld waar artikulasie is dikwels verkeerd vir prestasies. Miskien filosofie kan jou help om beter te verwoord, klink regtig cool en beïndruk dat die meisie wat jy na gewees het — om dit te kru te stel.

Meer ernstig, alhoewel, wat ek gesê het oor die irrelevansie van die filosofie kan gesê word oor, sê, fisika sowel, ten spyte van die feit dat dit gee jou rekenaars en iPads. Byvoorbeeld, wanneer Copernicus het met die idee dat die aarde rondom die son eerder as andersom, diepgaande al hierdie openbaring was, in watter opsig het dit ons daaglikse lewe verander? Het jy regtig hierdie stukkie inligting om jou lewe te lei om te weet? Dit irrelevansie van sodanige diepgaande feite en teorieë gepla wetenskaplikes soos Richard Feynman.

Watter soort advies of aanbevelings sal jy vir iemand wat belangstel in die filosofie gee, en wat wil begin om meer daaroor te leer?

Ek begin my pad na filosofie via fisika. Ek dink filosofie self te los van enigiets anders wat jy kan regtig nie begin met dit. Jy het om jou weg te vind na dit van wat ook al jou werk behels, en dan uit te brei van daar. Ten minste, dit is hoe ek dit gedoen het, en op die manier het dit baie werklike. Wanneer jy vra jouself 'n vraag soos Wat is die ruimte (sodat jy kan verstaan ​​wat dit beteken om te sê dat die ruimte kontrakte, byvoorbeeld), die antwoorde wat jy kry is baie relevant. Hulle is nie 'n filosofiese gebrabbel. Ek dink soortgelyke paaie na relevansie bestaan ​​in al die velde. Sien byvoorbeeld hoe Pirsig het ook die idee van kwaliteit in sy werk, nie as 'n abstrakte definisie, maar as 'n alles-verterende (en uiteindelik gevaarlike) obsessie.

In my mening, filosofie is 'n wrapper rondom verskeie silo's van die menslike strewe. Dit help jou om te sien die skakels onder skynbaar onverwante velde, soos kognitiewe neurowetenskap en spesiale relatiwiteit. Van wat praktiese gebruik is om hierdie kennis, Ek kan nie vir jou sê. Dan weer, van wat praktiese gebruik is die lewe self?

Net 'n kwessie van tyd

Hoewel ons praat van ruimte en tyd in dieselfde asem, hulle is heeltemal anders in baie opsigte. Ruimte is iets wat ons waarneem rondom ons. Ons sien dit (eerder, voorwerpe daarin), kan ons ons hand beweeg deur dit, en ons weet dat as ons knie probeer om dieselfde ruimte as beset, sê, die koffietafel, dit gaan seer. Met ander woorde, Ons het sensoriese korrelate ons idee van ruimte, vanaf ons kosbaarste sin van sig.

tyd, Aan die ander kant, geen direkte sensoriese steun. En om hierdie rede, word dit baie moeilik om 'n greep te kry oor dit. Wat is die tyd? Ons voel dit indirek deur verandering en beweging. Maar dit sou dom wees om tyd te definieer met behulp van die konsepte van verandering en beweging, omdat hulle reeds sluit die idee van tyd. Die definisie sou sikliese wees.

veronderstelling, vir nou, dat geen definisie is nodig, Kom ons probeer 'n ander dalk meer soepel kwessie. Waar kom hierdie sterk gevoel van die tyd vandaan? Ek het nie eens veronderstel dat dit kom van ons kennis van ons ondergang — dat twyfelagtige gawe wat ons almal besit. Al die tyd duur dat ons bewus is gemeet teen die maatstaf van ons leeftyd, miskien nie altyd bewus. Ek nou wonder of dit postulaat is ferm genoeg, en verder getob oor hierdie kwessie het my oortuig dat ek nogal onkundig van hierdie dinge en nog baie meer kennis nodig. Ag.. net as ek meer tyd. 🙂

In elk geval, selfs hierdie meer beperkte vraag oor die ontstaan ​​van die tyd lyk nie dat soepel te wees, na al. Fisika het nog diep probleem met tyd. Dit het te doen met die rigting. Dit kan nie maklik verduidelik waarom tyd het 'n rigting — 'n pyl, soos dit was. Dit pyl hom nie aan te bied in die fundamentele wette fisiese interaksies. Al die wette in fisika is tyd omkeerbare. Die wette van swaartekrag, elektromagnetisme of kwantummeganika is almal invariante met betrekking tot 'n tyd omkeer. Dit is om te sê, hulle lyk dieselfde met die tyd vorentoe of agtertoe. So hulle gee geen idee waarom ons die pyl van tyd ervaar.

Tog, Ons weet dat die tyd, soos ons dit ervaar, is directional. Ons kan die verlede te onthou, maar nie die toekoms. Wat ons wel nou kan die toekoms beïnvloed, maar nie die verlede. As ons speel 'n videoband agteruit, die volgorde van gebeure (soos gebreek stukkies glas bymekaar kom om vir 'n vaas) sal snaaks lyk vir ons. Egter, As ons op band opgeneem die beweging van die planete in 'n sonnestelsel, of die elektronwolk in 'n atoom, en speel dit agtertoe tot 'n fisikus, Hy sou niks snaaks vind in die rye omdat die fisiese wette is omkeerbaar.

Fisika van mening dat die pyl van tyd 'n ontluikende eiendom van statistiese versamelings. Om hierdie termodinamiese verduideliking van tyd te illustreer, Kom ons kyk na 'n leë houer waar ons plaas 'n paar droë ys. Na 'n tyd, ons verwag om 'n eenvormige verspreiding van koolstofdioksied gas in die houer te sien. Sodra versprei, Ons verwag nie dat die gas in die houer te stol in soliede droë ys, maak nie saak hoe lank ons ​​wag. Die video van CO2 verspreiding eenvormig in die houer is 'n natuurlike een. agteruit gespeel, die volgorde van die CO2 gas in die houer congealing soliede droë ys in 'n hoek sou lyk nie natuurlik vir ons omdat dit ons sin van die pyl van tyd.

Die oënskynlike eenvormigheid van CO2 in die houer is te danke aan die statisties beduidende hoeveelheid droë ys ons daar geplaas. As ons daarin slaag om 'n klein hoeveelheid, sê vyf molekules van CO2, kan ons verwag ten volle aan die gemeente van die molekules keer sien op een plek in 'n rukkie. So, die pyl van tyd manifesteer as 'n statistiese of termodinamiese eiendom. Hoewel die rigting van die tyd blyk te voorskyn kom uit omkeerbare fisiese wette, sy afwesigheid in die fundamentele wette lyk minder as bevredigend filosofies.

Half a Bucket of Water

We all see and feel space, but what is it really? Space is one of those fundamental things that a philosopher may consider anintuition.When philosophers look at anything, they get a bit technical. Is space relational, soos in, defined in terms of relations between objects? A relational entity is like your familyyou have your parents, siblings, spouse, kids etc. forming what you consider your family. But your family itself is not a physical entity, but only a collection of relationships. Is space also something like that? Or is it more like a physical container where objects reside and do their thing?

Jy kan die onderskeid tussen die twee net nog een van daardie filosofiese hairsplittings oorweeg,,en,maar dit is regtig nie,,en,Wat ruimte is,,en,en selfs watter soort entiteit ruimte is,,en,het enorme implikasies in fisika,,en,As dit is relasionele aard,,en,dan in die afwesigheid van materie,,en,daar is geen ruimte,,en,Baie soos in die afwesigheid van enige familielede,,en,jy het geen familie,,en,As dit is 'n houer-agtige entiteit,,en,die ruimte bestaan, selfs as jy weg alle materie neem,,en,wag vir 'n paar saak te verskyn,,en,jy vra,,en,Kom ons neem 'n halwe emmer water en draai dit rondom,,en,Sodra die water binne vangste op,,en,die oppervlak sal 'n paraboliese vorm te vorm,,en,sentrifugale krag,,en,oppervlakspanning en alles wat,,en,stop die emmer,,en,en draai die hele heelal rondom dit plaas,,en,dit is moeiliker,,en,Maar dink jy doen dit,,en, but it really is not. What space is, and even what kind of entity space is, has enormous implications in physics. Byvoorbeeld, if it is relational in nature, then in the absence of matter, there is no space. Much like in the absence of any family members, you have no family. Aan die ander kant, if it is a container-like entity, the space exists even if you take away all matter, waiting for some matter to appear.

So, wat, you ask? Wel, let’s take half a bucket of water and spin it around. Once the water within catches on, its surface will form a parabolic shape — jy weet, centrifugal force, swaartekrag, surface tension and all that. Nou, stop the bucket, and spin the whole universe around it instead. Ek weet, it is more difficult. But imagine you are doing it. Sal die water oppervlak paraboliese,,en,Ek dink dit sal wees,,en,want daar is nie veel verskil tussen die emmer draai of die hele heelal spin rondom dit,,en,Kom ons dink dat ons leë die heelal,,en,Daar is niks anders as hierdie halfvol emmer,,en,Nou is dit draai rondom,,en,Wat gebeur met die water oppervlak,,en,As die ruimte is relasionele,,en,in die afwesigheid van die heelal,,en,daar is geen ruimte buite die emmer en daar is geen manier om te weet dat dit draai,,en,oppervlakwater moet plat wees,,en,dit moet sferiese wees,,en,maar ignoreer wat vir 'n tweede.,,en,En as ruimte is houer-agtige,,en,die spin emmer moet lei tot 'n paraboliese oppervlak,,en,ons het geen manier om te weet in watter rigting dit gaan wees nie, want ons het geen manier om leegmaak die heelal en die spin van 'n emmer,,en? I think it will be, because there is not much difference between the bucket turning or the whole universe spinning around it.

Nou, let’s imagine that we empty the universe. There is nothing but this half-full bucket. Now it spins around. What happens to the water surface? If space is relational, in the absence of the universe, there is no space outside the bucket and there is no way to know that it is spinning. Water surface should be flat. (In werklikheid, it should be spherical, but ignore that for a second.) And if space is container-like, the spinning bucket should result in a parabolic surface.

Natuurlik, we have no way of knowing which way it is going to be because we have no way of emptying the universe and spinning a bucket. Maar dit beteken nie dat ons uit die raai die aard van ruimte en die bou van teorieë wat daarop gebaseer is,,en,Newton se ruimte is houer-agtige,,en,terwyl hulle hart,,en,Einstein se teorieë het 'n relasionele begrip van ruimte,,en,filosofie maak nie saak,,en,ruimte en tyd Argiewe,,en. Newton’s space is container-like, while at their heart, Einstein’s theories have a relational notion of space.

So, jy sien, philosophy does matter.

Why the Speed of Light?

What is so special about light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time and our reality? Dit is die vraag wat baie wetenskaplikes ooit neul sedert Albert Einstein gepubliseer op die Elektrodinamika van Moving liggame oor,,en,Met die oog op die specialness van lig verstaan ​​in ons ruimte en tyd,,en,ons nodig het om te bestudeer hoe ons waarneem die wêreld rondom ons en hoe die werklikheid is geskep in ons brein,,en,Ons sien ons wêreld met behulp van ons sintuie,,en,Die sensoriese seine wat ons sintuie versamel word dan oorgedra na ons brein,,en,Ons visuele werklikheid bestaan ​​uit die ruimte baie soos ons ouditiewe wêreld bestaan ​​uit klanke,,en,Net soos klanke is 'n perseptuele ervaring eerder as 'n fundamentele eienskap van die fisiese werklikheid,,en,die wereld,,en,ons sintuie probeer om sin,,en,Die enigste manier waarop ons die beperkings in ons werklikheid te verstaan ​​is deur die bestudering van die beperkinge in ons sintuie hulself,,en 100 years ago.

In order to understand the specialness of light in our space and time, we need to study how we perceive the world around us and how reality is created in our brains. We perceive our world using our senses. The sensory signals that our senses collect are then relayed to our brains. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality. Our visual reality consists of space much like our auditory world is made up of sounds.

Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of the physical reality, space also is an experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of “the world” our senses are trying to sense.

Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. The only way we can understand the limitations in our reality is by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.

At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) is the intermediary of EM interactions. Die eksklusiwiteit van EM interaksie is nie beperk tot ons die lang reeks sin van sig,,en,al die kort afstand sintuie,,en,rooi verschuiving metings en selfs gravitasie Lensing,,en,Ons beskou die werklikheid,,en,is 'n subset van elektromagnetiese deeltjies en interaksies net,,en,Dit is 'n projeksie van EM deeltjies en interaksies in ons sensoriese en kognitiewe ruimte,,en,'n moontlik onvolmaakte projeksie,,en,Hierdie stelling oor die eksklusiwiteit van EM interaksies in ons beskou die werklikheid is dikwels ontmoet met 'n bietjie van skeptisisme,,en,hoofsaaklik te wyte aan 'n wanopvatting dat ons erns direk kan ervaar,,en,Hierdie verskil word geïllustreer deur 'n eenvoudige gedagte-eksperiment,,en,Stel jou voor 'n menslike subjek geplaas in die voorkant van 'n voorwerp geheel en al gemaak van kosmologiese donker materie,,en,Daar is geen ander sigbare materie oral die onderwerp kan dit sien,,en; all the short range senses (touch, taste, smell and hearing) are also EM in nature. To understand the limitations of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all our senses. Space is, deur en groot, the result of our sight sense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed no reality, in the absence of EM interactions.

Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, redshift measurements and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure our universe. So, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, maar wat dit sien, is nog steeds 'n miljard jaar ouer as wat ons oë sien. Our perceived reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically enhanced, is a subset of electromagnetic particles and interactions only. It is a projection of EM particles and interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, a possibly imperfect projection.

This statement about the exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is often met with a bit of skepticism, mainly due to a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” en “being able to sense” gravitational force.

This difference is illustrated by a simple thought experiment: Imagine a human subject placed in front of an object made entirely of cosmological dark matter. There is no other visible matter anywhere the subject can see it. Gegee dat die donker materie uitoefen gravitasiekrag op die onderwerp,,en,sal hy in staat wees om sy teenwoordigheid aanvoel,,en,Hy sal getrek word na dit,,en,maar hoe sal hy weet dat hy getrek of dat hy beweeg,,en,Hy kan moontlik ontwerp sommige meganiese uitvindsel om die erns van die donker materie voorwerp op te spoor,,en,Maar dan sal hy sensing die effek van swaartekrag op 'n saak met behulp van EM interaksies,,en,Hy kan in staat wees om sy onverklaarbare versnelling sien,,en,effek van swaartekrag op sy liggaam,,en,wat is EM saak,,en,met betrekking tot verwysing voorwerpe soos sterre,,en,Maar die sensing deel hier,,en,sien die sterre,,en,behels EM interaksies,,en,Dit is onmoontlik om enige meganiese uitvindsel om swaartekrag wat sonder EM saak op te spoor ontwerp,,en,Die swaartekrag sensing in ons ore weer meet die effek van swaartekrag op EM saak,,en, will he be able to sense its presence? He will be pulled toward it, but how will he know that he is being pulled or that he is moving? He can possibly design some mechanical contraption to detect the gravity of the dark matter object. But then he will be sensing the effect of gravity on some matter using EM interactions. Byvoorbeeld, he may be able to see his unexplained acceleration (effect of gravity on his body, which is EM matter) with respect to reference objects such as stars. But the sensing part here (seeing the stars) involves EM interactions.

It is impossible to design any mechanical contraption to detect gravity that is devoid of EM matter. The gravity sensing in our ears again measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. In the absence of EM interaction, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter.

Elektromagnetiese interaksies is verantwoordelik vir ons sensoriese insette,,en,Sensoriese persepsie lei tot verteenwoordiging ons brein se dat ons die werklikheid noem,,en,Enige beperking in hierdie ketting lei tot 'n ooreenstemmende beperking in ons sin van die werklikheid,,en,Een beperking in die ketting van sintuie na die werklikheid is die beperkte spoed van foton,,en,Dit is hoe die spoed van lig word so 'n belangrike konstante in ons ruimte tyd,,en,Die heiligheid van die lig gerespekteer net in ons beskou die werklikheid,,en,As ons vertrou dat die onvolmaakte persepsie en probeer om te beskryf wat ons voel op kosmologiese skaal,,en,ons uiteindelik met 'n uitsig van die wêreld soos die big bang teorie in die moderne kosmologie en die algemene en spesiale teorieë van relatiwiteit,,en,Hierdie teorieë is nie verkeerd,,en,en die doel van hierdie boek is nie vir hulle verkeerd te bewys,,en. Sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality. Any limitation in this chain leads to a corresponding limitation in our sense of reality. One limitation in the chain from senses to reality is the finite speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of motion, ruimte en tyd. Because these distortions are perceived as a part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space time. The sanctity of light is respected only in our perceived reality.

If we trust the imperfect perception and try to describe what we sense at cosmological scales, we end up with views of the world such as the big bang theory in modern cosmology and the general and special theories of relativity. These theories are not wrong, and the purpose of this book is not to prove them wrong, net om te wys dat hulle beskrywings van 'n vermeende werklikheid,,en,Hulle het nie die fisiese oorsake agter die sensoriese insette te beskryf,,en,Die fisiese oorsake behoort aan 'n absolute werklikheid buite ons sintuie,,en,Die onderskeid tussen die absolute realiteit en ons persepsie van dit kan verder ontwikkel word en toegepas op sekere,,en,spesifieke astrofisiese,,en,kosmologiese verskynsels,,en,Wanneer dit kom by die fisika wat gebeur ver buite ons sensoriese reekse,,en,Die heelal as ons sien dit is net 'n kognitiewe model geskep uit die fotone val op ons retina of op die foto sensors van die Hubble-teleskoop,,en,Hulle is net 'n deel van die,,en,dit is ons persepsie van 'n onkenbare werklikheid,,en,Dit is weer 'n geredigeerde uittreksel uit my boek,,en,perseptuele ervaring,,en,sensoriese insette,,en,visuele insette,,en,visuele werklikheid,,en,Chaos en onsekerheid,,en. They do not describe the physical causes behind the sensory inputs. The physical causes belong to an absolute reality beyond our senses.

The distinction between the absolute reality and our perception of it can be further developed and applied to certain specific astrophysical en cosmological phenomena. When it comes to the physics that happens well beyond our sensory ranges, ons regtig die rol in ag te neem dat ons persepsie en kognisie speel in hulle sien. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photo sensors of the Hubble telescope. As gevolg van die beperkte spoed van die inligting draer (naamlik fotone), our perception is distorted in such a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special relativity. Hulle doen, maar ruimte en tyd is nie die absolute werklikheid. They are only a part of the onwerklik heelal that is our perception of an unknowable reality.

[This again is an edited excerpt from my book, Die onwerklik Heelal.]

Wat is die ruimte?

Dit klink soos 'n vreemde vraag. Ons weet almal wat die ruimte is, dit is alles rondom ons. Wanneer ons ons oë oopmaak, ons dit sien. As sien is glo, dan is die vraag “Wat is die ruimte?” inderdaad 'n vreemde een.

Om eerlik te wees, ons nie eintlik sien ruimte. Ons sien net voorwerpe wat ons aanvaar is in die ruimte. Eerder, ons ruimte as wat dit ookal is wat die besit of bevat die voorwerpe definieer. Dit is die arena waar voorwerpe doen hul ding, die agtergrond van ons ervaring. Met ander woorde, ervaring veronderstel ruimte en tyd, en verskaf die grondslag vir die wêreldbeskouing agter die tans gewild interpretasies van wetenskaplike teorieë.

Alhoewel dit nie voor die hand liggend, hierdie definisie (of aanname of begrip) ruimte kom met 'n filosofiese bagasie — dié van realisme. Die realistiese se siening is oorheersend in die huidige begrip van Einstien se teorieë asook. Maar Einstein homself mag nie realisme blindelings omhels. Hoekom anders sou hy sê:

Ten einde om weg te breek uit die greep van die realisme, ons het om die vraag te tangensiaal benader. Een manier om dit te doen, is deur die bestudering van die neurowetenskap en kognitiewe basis van sig, wat na al die sterkste bewyse tot die egtheid van die ruimte. Ruimte, deur en groot, is die ervaring wat verband hou met die oog. Nog 'n manier is ervaringsleer korrelate van ander sintuie te ondersoek: Wat is klank?

Wanneer ons iets hoor, wat ons hoor, is, natuurlik, klink. Ons ervaar 'n toon, 'n intensiteit en 'n tyd variasie wat ons vertel 'n baie oor wie praat, wat breek en so aan. Maar selfs na stroping af al die ekstra rykdom bygevoeg tot die ervaring van ons brein, die mees basiese ervaring is nog steeds 'n “klink.” Ons almal weet wat dit is, maar ons kan dit nie verduidelik nie in terme meer basies as wat.

Nou laat ons kyk na die sensoriese sein verantwoordelik vir verhoor. Soos ons weet, dit is die druk golwe in die lug wat geskep is deur 'n vibrerende liggaam wat verdigtings en depressie in die lug rondom dit. Baie soos die rimpelings in 'n dam, hierdie druk golwe propageer in byna alle rigtings. Hulle is opgetel deur ons ore. Deur 'n slim meganisme, die ore doen 'n spectraalanalyse en stuur elektriese seine, wat rofweg ooreen met die frekwensie spektrum van die golwe, ons brein. Let daarop dat, so ver, ons het 'n vibrerende liggaam, bondel en verspreiding van lugmolekules, en 'n elektriese sein wat inligting oor die patroon van die lug molekules bevat. Ons klank nie nog nie.

Die ervaring van klank is die magic ons brein voer. Dit vertaal die elektriese sein kodering van die lugdruk golf patrone na 'n voorstelling van tonaliteit en rykdom van klank. Klank is nie die intrinsieke eienskap van 'n vibrerende liggaam of 'n val boom, dit is die manier waarop ons brein kies die vibrasies te verteenwoordig of, meer presies, die elektriese sein kodering van die spektrum van die druk golwe.

Beteken dit nie sin maak om te noem klink 'n interne kognitiewe verteenwoordiging van ons ouditiewe sintuiglike? As jy saamstem, dan die werklikheid self is ons interne voorstelling van ons sensoriese insette. Hierdie idee is eintlik baie meer diepgaande dat dit die eerste keer verskyn. As die klank is verteenwoordiging, so is die reuk. So is die ruimte.

Figure
Figuur: Illustrasie van die proses van die brein se voorstelling van sensoriese insette. Reuke is 'n voorstelling van die chemiese samestelling en konsentrasie vlakke van ons neus sintuie. Klanke is 'n afbeelding van die lug druk golwe wat deur 'n vibrerende voorwerp. In sig, ons verteenwoordiging is ruimte, en moontlik tyd. Egter, ons weet nie wat dit is om die verteenwoordiging van.

Ons kan dit ondersoek en ten volle te verstaan ​​klank as gevolg van een merkwaardige feit — ons het 'n meer kragtige sin, naamlik ons ​​oë. Oë stel ons in staat om die sensoriese seine van die verhoor te verstaan ​​en dit vergelyk met ons sensoriese ervaring. In effek, oë stel ons in staat om 'n model te beskryf wat klank is te maak.

Hoekom is dit dat ons nie weet wat die fisiese oorsaak agter ruimte? Na alles, ons weet van die oorsake agter die ervarings van die reuk, klink, ens. Die rede vir ons onvermoë om te sien as die visuele werklikheid is in die hiërargie van sintuie, die beste geïllustreer met behulp van 'n voorbeeld. Kom ons kyk na 'n klein ontploffing, soos 'n klapper gaan af. Wanneer ons ervaar hierdie ontploffing, ons sal die flits sien, hoor die verslag, ruik die brandende chemikalieë en voel die hitte, as ons naby genoeg.

Die qualia van hierdie ervarings word toegeskryf aan dieselfde fisiese gebeurtenis — die ontploffing, die fisika van wat goed verstaan. Nou, Kom ons kyk of ons kan flous die sintuie in met dieselfde ervarings, in die afwesigheid van 'n ware ontploffing. Die hitte en die reuk is redelik maklik om te reproduseer. Die ervaring van die klank kan ook geskep word deur, byvoorbeeld, 'n hoë-end huis teater stelsel. Hoe herskep ons nie die ervaring van die oë van die ontploffing? 'N huis teater ervaring is 'n swak reproduksie van die ware jakob.

In beginsel ten minste, ons kan dink futuristiese scenario soos die holideck in Star Trek, waar die ervaring van die oë herskep kan word. Maar op die punt waar oë is ook herskep, is daar 'n verskil tussen die werklike ervaring van die ontploffing en die holideck simulasie? Die vervaging van die sin van die werklikheid wanneer die oë ervaring word gesimuleer dui daarop dat oë is ons mees kragtige sin, en ons het geen toegang tot oorsake buite ons visuele werklikheid.

Visuele persepsie is die basis van ons sin van die werklikheid. Alle ander sintuie verskaf stawende of aanvulling persepsies na die visuele werklikheid.

[Hierdie pos het geleen nogal 'n bietjie van my boek.]

Light Reis effekte en kosmos funksies

Dit ongepubliseerde artikel is 'n opvolger van my vroeër papier (ook hier gepos “Is Radio Bronne en gammastraaluitbarstings Luminal gieken?“). Hierdie blog weergawe bevat die abstrakte, inleiding en gevolgtrekkings. Die volledige weergawe van die artikel is beskikbaar as 'n PDF-lêer.

.

Abstrakte

Lig reistyd effekte (LTT) is 'n optiese verskynsel van die beperkte spoed van lig. Hulle kan ook oorweeg word perseptuele beperkings op die kognitiewe prent van ruimte en tyd. Op grond van hierdie interpretasie van LTT effekte, Ons het onlangs 'n nuwe denkbeeldige model vir die tydelike en ruimtelike variasie van die spektrum van gammastraaluitbarstings (GRB) en radio bronne. In hierdie artikel, neem ons die analise verder en wys dat LTT gevolge kan 'n goeie raamwerk verskaf soos kosmologiese eienskappe te beskryf as die rooi verschuiving waarneming van 'n uitdyende heelal, en die kosmiese mikrogolf agtergrondstraling. Die eenwording van hierdie skynbaar duidelike verskynsels op aansienlik verskillende lengte en tydskale, saam met sy konseptuele eenvoud, kan as aanwysers van die vreemde nut van hierdie raamwerk beskou word, Indien nie die geldigheid.

Inleiding

Die beperkte spoed van lig speel 'n belangrike rol in hoe ons waarneem afstand en spoed. Hierdie feit moet skaars kom as 'n verrassing, want ons weet dat dinge nie soos ons dit sien. Die son wat ons sien, byvoorbeeld, is reeds agt minute oud teen die tyd dat ons dit sien. Hierdie vertraging is triviaal; As ons wil weet wat aangaan op die son nou, Al wat ons moet doen, is om te wag vir agt minute. Ons, nietemin, moet “korrekte” vir hierdie verwarring in ons persepsie as gevolg van die beperkte spoed van lig voordat ons kan vertrou wat ons sien.

Wat is verbasend (en selde uitgelig) is dat wanneer dit kom mosie sensing, ons kan nie terug-bereken op dieselfde wyse ons neem uit die vertraging in die sien van die son. As ons 'n hemelse liggaam beweeg teen 'n hoë spoed onwaarskynlike, ons kan nie uitvind hoe vinnig en in watter rigting dit “regtig” beweeg sonder om verdere aannames. Een manier om van die hantering van hierdie probleem is die ondergang van ons persepsie van beweging toe te skryf aan die fundamentele eienskappe van die arena van fisika — ruimte en tyd. Nog 'n plan van aksie is die skeiding tussen ons persepsie en die onderliggende te aanvaar “werklikheid” en hanteer dit op 'n manier.

Verken die tweede opsie, ons aanvaar 'n onderliggende werklikheid wat aanleiding gee tot ons beskou prentjie gee. Ons het verder 'n model van hierdie onderliggende werklikheid as gehoorsaamheid klassieke meganika, uit te werk en ons beskou prentjie deur die apparaat van persepsie. Met ander woorde, ons nie die manifestasies van die beperkte spoed van lig skryf nie aan die eienskappe van die onderliggende werklikheid. In plaas daarvan, Ons werk ons ​​beskou prentjie wat hierdie model voorspel en te verifieer of die eienskappe wat ons nie sien kan ontstaan ​​uit hierdie perseptuele struikelblok.

Ruimte, die voorwerpe in dit, en hul beweging is, deur en groot, die produk van optiese persepsie. Mens is geneig om dit te neem as vanselfsprekend aanvaar dat persepsie ontstaan ​​van die werklikheid as een beskou dit. In hierdie artikel, neem ons die posisie dat dit wat ons sien is 'n onvolledige of verwronge beeld van 'n onderliggende werklikheid. Verder, Ons probeer om uit die klassieke meganika vir die onderliggende werklikheid (vir wat ons gebruik terme soos absolute, noumenal of fisiese werklikheid) wat nie veroorsaak ons ​​persepsie om te sien of dit pas met ons vermeende prentjie (wat ons kan verwys na as Deteksie of fenomenale werklikheid).

Let daarop dat ons nie impliseer dat die manifestasies van persepsie is blote illusies. Hulle is nie; dit is inderdaad deel van ons Deteksie werklikheid omdat die werklikheid is 'n eindresultaat van persepsie. Hierdie insig kan wees agter Goethe se bekende stelling, “Optiese illusie is optiese waarheid.”

Ons het aansoek gedoen om hierdie lyn van denke aan 'n fisika probleem het onlangs. Ons kyk na die spektrale evolusie van 'n GRB en gevind dat dit merkwaardig soortgelyk aan dié in 'n supersoniese knal. Met behulp van hierdie feit, Ons het 'n model vir GRB as ons persepsie van 'n “luminale” boom, met die verstandhouding dat dit is ons beskou prentjie van die werklikheid wat gehoorsaam Lorentz invariansie en ons model vir die onderliggende werklikheid (veroorsaak dat die vermeende prentjie) mag relatiwistiese fisika oortree. Die treffende ooreenkoms tussen die model en die waargenome eienskappe, egter, uitgebrei buite GRBs te simmetriese radio bronne, wat ook as perseptuele gevolge van hipotetiese luminale valbome beskou word.

In hierdie artikel, ons kyk na ander implikasies van die model. Ons begin met die ooreenkomste tussen die lig reistyd (LTT) effekte en die koördineer transformasie in die Spesiale Relatiwiteit (SR). Hierdie ooreenkomste is nie verbasend omdat SR is afgelei deels gebaseer op LTT effekte. Ons het toe stel 'n interpretasie van SR as 'n formalisering van LTT effekte en bestudeer 'n paar waargeneem kosmologiese verskynsels in die lig van hierdie interpretasie.

Ooreenkomste tussen Lig Travel effekte en SR

Spesiale relatiwiteit poog om 'n lineêre transformasie koördineer tussen koördineer stelsels in beweging met betrekking tot mekaar. Ons kan die oorsprong van lineariteit spoor na 'n verborge aanname van die aard van ruimte en tyd gebou in SR, soos deur Einstein: “In die eerste plek is dit duidelik dat die vergelykings moet lineêr word op grond van die eienskappe van homogeniteit wat ons skryf aan ruimte en tyd.” As gevolg van hierdie aanname van lineariteit, die oorspronklike afleiding van die transformasie-vergelykings ignoreer die asimmetrie tussen nader en afneem voorwerpe. Beide nader en afneem voorwerpe kan deur twee beskryf word koördineer stelsels wat altyd afneem van mekaar. Byvoorbeeld, As 'n stelsel K beweeg met betrekking tot 'n ander stelsel k langs die positiewe X-as van k, dan 'n voorwerp in rus in K op 'n positiewe x word afneem, terwyl 'n ander voorwerp op 'n negatiewe x nader 'n waarnemer by die oorsprong van die k.

Die koördineer transformasie in Einstein se oorspronklike papier is afgelei, gedeeltelik, 'n manifestasie van die lig reistyd (LTT) gevolge en die gevolg van die instelling van die konstantheid van die spoed van lig in alle traagheid rame. Dit is die mees voor die hand liggend in die eerste gedagte-eksperiment, waar waarnemers beweeg met 'n stok vind hul horlosies nie gesinchroniseer gevolg van die verskil in die lig reis tye langs die lengte van die staaf. Egter, in die huidige interpretasie van SR, die koördineer transformasie beskou word as 'n basiese eienskap van ruimte en tyd.

Een van die probleme wat voortspruit uit die interpretasie van SR is dat die definisie van die relatiewe snelheid tussen die twee traagheid rame word dubbelsinnig. As dit is die snelheid van die bewegende raam soos gemeet deur die waarnemer, dan is die waargeneem superluminal beweging in radio vliegtuie vanaf die kern streek word 'n skending van die SR. As dit is 'n snelheid dat ons te lei deur die oorweging LT-effekte, dan het ons die ekstra ad hoc aanname in diens te neem wat superluminality is verbode. Hierdie probleme dui daarop dat dit dalk beter wees om die lig reistyd gevolge van die res van SR te ontwarren.

In hierdie afdeling, ons ruimte en tyd beskou as 'n deel van die kognitiewe model geskep deur die brein, en argumenteer dat spesiale relatiwiteit van toepassing op die kognitiewe model. Die absolute werklikheid (waarvan die SR-agtige ruimte-tyd is ons persepsie) het nie die beperkings van SR te gehoorsaam. In die besonder, voorwerpe is nie beperk tot subluminal spoed, maar hulle mag vir ons asof hulle beperk tot subluminal spoed in ons persepsie van ruimte en tyd. As ons mekaar te LTT gevolge van die res van SR, Ons kan 'n wye verskeidenheid van verskynsels verstaan, Soos ons in hierdie artikel sal sien.

In teenstelling met SR, oorwegings gebaseer op LTT effekte tot gevolg intrinsiek ander stel van transformasie wette vir voorwerpe nader 'n waarnemer en die afneem van hom. Meer in die algemeen, die transformasie hang af van die hoek tussen die snelheid van die voorwerp en die waarnemer se lyn van sig. Sedert die transformasie-vergelykings gebaseer op LTT effekte paketten nader en afneem voorwerpe asymmetrisch, hulle 'n natuurlike oplossing vir die tweeling paradoks, byvoorbeeld.

Gevolgtrekkings

Omdat ruimte en tyd is 'n deel van 'n werklikheid geskep uit die lig insette tot ons oë, sommige van hul eiendomme is manifestasies van LTT effekte, veral op ons persepsie van beweging. Die absolute, fisiese werklikheid vermoedelik die lig insette te genereer nie die eienskappe wat ons skryf te gehoorsaam ons beskou ruimte en tyd.

Ons het gewys dat LTT effekte is kwalitatief identies aan dié van SR, daarop te let dat SR oorweeg slegs verwysingsraamwerke afneem van mekaar. Hierdie ooreenkoms is nie verbasend nie, want die koördineer transformasie in SR is afgelei deels gebaseer op LTT effekte, en deels op die aanname dat die lig beweeg teen dieselfde spoed met betrekking tot alle traagheid rame. In die behandeling van dit as 'n manifestasie van LTT, ons het nie die primêre motivering van SR aanspreek, Dit is 'n Covariante formulering van Maxwell se vergelykings. Dit kan moontlik wees om die kovariansie van elektrodinamika te ontwarren van die koördineer transformasie, alhoewel dit nie probeer in hierdie artikel.

In teenstelling met SR, LTT effekte is asimmetriese. Dit asimmetrie bied 'n oplossing vir die tweeling paradoks en 'n interpretasie van die veronderstelde oorsaaklikheid oortredings wat verband hou met superluminality. Verder, die persepsie van superluminality gemoduleer deur LTT effekte, en verduidelik gamma straal bars en simmetriese jets. Soos ons het in die artikel, persepsie van superluminal beweging het ook 'n verduideliking vir kosmologiese verskynsels soos die uitbreiding van die heelal en kosmiese mikrogolf agtergrondstraling. LTT effekte moet in ag geneem word as 'n fundamentele beperking in ons persepsie, en gevolglik in fisika, eerder as 'n gerieflike verklaring vir geïsoleerde verskynsel.

Gegewe dat ons persepsie is gefiltreer deur LTT effekte, ons het hulle te deconvolute van ons beskou die werklikheid ten einde die aard van die absolute te verstaan, fisiese werklikheid. Dit Deconvolutie, egter, resultate in verskeie oplossings. So, die absolute, fisiese werklikheid is buite ons begrip, en enige aanvaar eienskappe van die absolute werklikheid kan net bevestig word deur hoe goed die gevolglike waargeneem werklikheid is dit eens met ons waarnemings. In hierdie artikel, Ons aanvaar dat die onderliggende werklikheid gehoorsaam ons intuïtief duidelik klassieke meganika en die vraag gevra hoe so 'n werklikheid sou word beskou as deursyfer lig reistyd effekte. Ons het getoon dat hierdie spesifieke behandeling kan sekere astrofisiese en kosmologiese verskynsels wat ons waarneem verduidelik.

Die koördineer transformasie in SR kan as 'n herdefiniëring van ruimte en tyd beskou word (of, meer in die algemeen, werklikheid) ten einde die ondergang van ons persepsie van beweging te danke aan die lig reistyd effekte te akkommodeer. 'N Mens kan versoek word om te argumenteer dat SR van toepassing op die “werklike” ruimte en tyd, nie ons persepsie. Hierdie argument lei tot die vraag, wat is 'n ware? Werklikheid is net 'n kognitiewe model geskep in ons brein begin van ons sensoriese insette, visuele insette om die belangrikste. Ruimte self is 'n deel van hierdie kognitiewe model. Die eienskappe van die ruimte is 'n afbeelding van die beperkings van ons persepsie.

Die keuse van die aanvaarding van ons persepsie as 'n ware beeld van die werklikheid en die herdefiniëring van ruimte en tyd soos beskryf in spesiale relatiwiteit inderdaad neerkom op 'n filosofiese keuse. Die alternatiewe wat in die artikel is geïnspireer deur die oog in die moderne neuro dat die werklikheid is 'n kognitiewe model in die brein wat gebaseer is op ons sensoriese insette. Die goedkeuring van hierdie alternatiewe verminder om ons te raai die aard van die absolute realiteit en vergelyk sy voorspel projeksie aan ons ware persepsie. Dit kan vereenvoudig en lig 'n paar teorieë in fisika en verduidelik sommige verwarrend verskynsel in ons heelal. Egter, hierdie opsie is nog 'n filosofiese standpunt teen die onkenbare absolute werklikheid.

The Philosophy of Special Relativity — A Comparison between Indian and Western Interpretations

Abstrakte: The Western philosophical phenomenalism could be treated as a kind of philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity. The perceptual limitations of our senses hold the key to the understanding of relativistic postulates. The specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is more a matter of our perceptual apparatus, than an input postulate to the special theory of relativity. The author believes that the parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Eastern Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to some extent.

– Editor

Key Words: Relativity, Speed of Light, Phenomenalism, Advaita.

Inleiding

The philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity can be interpreted in terms of Western phenomenalism, which views space and time are considered perceptual and cognitive constructs created out our sensory inputs. From this perspective, the special status of light and its speed can be understood through a phenomenological study of our senses and the perceptual limitations to our phenomenal notions of space and time. A similar view is echoed in the BrahmanMaya onderskeiding in Advaita. If we think of space and time as part of Maya, we can partly understand the importance that the speed of light in our reality, as enshrined in special relativity. The central role of light in our reality is highlighted in the Bible as well. These remarkable parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to a certain degree.

Special Relativity

Einstein unveiled his special theory of relativity2 a little over a century ago. In his theory, he showed that space and time were not absolute entities. They are entities relative to an observer. An observer’s space and time are related to those of another through the speed of light. Byvoorbeeld, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In a moving system, time flows slower and space contracts in accordance with equations involving the speed of light. Lig, dus, enjoys a special status in our space and time. This specialness of light in our reality is indelibly enshrined in the special theory of relativity.

Where does this specialness come from? What is so special about light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time and our reality? This question has remained unanswered for over 100 jaar. It also brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time, which form the basis of what we perceive as reality.

Noumenal-Phenomenal and BrahmanMaya Distinctions

In die Advaita3 view of reality, what we perceive is merely an illusion-Maya. Advaita explicitly renounces the notion that the perceived reality is external or indeed real. It teaches us that the phenomenal universe, our conscious awareness of it, and our bodily being are all an illusion or Maya. They are not the true, absolute reality. The absolute reality existing in itself, independent of us and our experiences, is Brahman.

A similar view of reality is echoed in phenomenalism,4 which holds that space and time are not objective realities. Hulle is bloot die medium van ons persepsie. In hierdie siening, all the phenomena that happen in space and time are merely bundles of our perception. Space and time are also cognitive constructs arising from perception. So, the reasons behind all the physical properties that we ascribe to space and time have to be sought in the sensory processes that create our perception, whether we approach the issue from the Advaita or phenomenalism perspective.

This analysis of the importance of light in our reality naturally brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time. In Kant’s view,5 space and time are pure forms of intuition. They do not arise from our experience because our experiences presuppose the existence of space and time. So, we can represent space and time in the absence of objects, but we cannot represent objects in the absence of space and time.

Kant’s middle-ground has the advantage of reconciling the views of Newton and Leibniz. It can agree with Newton’s view6 that space is absolute and real for phenomenal objects open to scientific investigation. It can also sit well with Leibniz’s view7 that space is not absolute and has an existence only in relation to objects, by highlighting their relational nature, not among objects in themselves (noumenal objects), but between observers and objects.

We can roughly equate the noumenal objects to forms in Brahman and our perception of them to Maya. In hierdie artikel, we will use the terms “noumenal reality,” “absolute reality,” of “fisiese werklikheid” interchangeably to describe the collection of noumenal objects, their properties and interactions, which are thought to be the underlying causes of our perception. Net, we will “phenomenal reality,” “perceived or sensed reality,” en “perceptual reality” to signify our reality as we perceive it.

As with Brahman causing Maya, we assume that the phenomenal notions of space and time arise from noumenal causes8 through our sensory and cognitive processes. Note that this causality assumption is ad-hoc; there is no a priori reason for phenomenal reality to have a cause, nor is causation a necessary feature of the noumenal reality. Despite this difficulty, we proceed from a naive model for the noumenal reality and show that, through the process of perception, we can “derive” a phenomenal reality that obeys the special theory of relativity.

This attempt to go from the phenomena (ruimte en tyd) to the essence of what we experience (a model for noumenal reality) is roughly in line with Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology.9 The deviation is that we are more interested in the manifestations of the model in the phenomenal reality itself rather than the validity of the model for the essence. Through this study, we show that the specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is a consequence of our perceptual apparatus. It doesn’t have to be an input postulate to the special theory of relativity.

Perception and Phenomenal Reality

The properties we ascribe to space and time (such as the specialness of the speed of light) can only be a part of our perceived reality or Maya, in Advaita, not of the underlying absolute reality, Brahman. If we think of space and time as aspects of our perceived reality arising from an unknowable Brahman through our sensory and cognitive processes, we can find an explanation for the special distinction of the speed of light in the process and mechanism of our sensing. Our thesis is that the reason for the specialness of light in our phenomenal notions of space and time is hidden in the process of our perception.

Ons, dus, study how the noumenal objects around us generate our sensory signals, and how we construct our phenomenal reality out of these signals in our brains. The first part is already troublesome because noumenal objects, per definisie, have no properties or interactions that we can study or understand.

These features of the noumenal reality are identical to the notion of Brahman in Advaita, which highlights that the ultimate truth is Brahman, the one beyond time, space and causation. Brahman is the material cause of the universe, but it transcends the cosmos. It transcends time; it exists in the past, present and future. It transcends space; it has no beginning, middle and end. It even transcends causality. For that reason, Brahman is incomprehensible to the human mind. The way it manifests to us is through our sensory and cognitive processes. This manifestation is Maya, the illusion, wat, in the phenomenalistic parlance, corresponds to the phenomenal reality.

For our purpose in this article, we describe our sensory and cognitive process and the creation of the phenomenal reality or Maya10 as follows. It starts with the noumenal objects (or forms in Brahman), which generate the inputs to our senses. Our senses then process the signals and relay the processed electric data corresponding to them to our brain. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality, which is our phenomenal world or Maya.

This description of how the phenomenal reality created ushers in a tricky philosophical question. Who or what creates the phenomenal reality and where? It is not created by our senses, brain and mind because these are all objects or forms in the phenomenal reality. The phenomenal reality cannot create itself. It cannot be that the noumenal reality creates the phenomenal reality because, in that case, it would be inaccurate to assert the cognitive inaccessibility to the noumenal world.

This philosophical trouble is identical in Advaita asook. Our senses, brain and mind cannot create Maya, because they are all part of Maya. As Brahman created Maya, it would have to be just as real. This philosophical quandary can be circumvented in the following way. We assume that all events and objects in Maya have a cause or form in Brahman or in the noumenal world. So, we postulate that our senses, mind and body all have some (unknown) forms in Brahman (or in the noumenal world), and these forms create Maya in our conscious awareness, ignoring the fact that our consciousness itself is an illusory manifestation in the phenomenal world. This inconsistency is not material to our exploration into the nature of space and time because we are seeking the reason for the specialness of light in the sensory process rather than at the level of consciousness.

Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Space makes up our visual reality precisely as sounds make up our auditory world. Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of physical reality, space also is an experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of Brahman or the noumenal reality. The phenomenal reality thus created is Maya. Die Maya events are an imperfect or distorted representation of the corresponding Brahman events. Sedert Brahman is a superset of Maya (of, equivalently, our senses are potentially incapable of sensing all aspects of the noumenal reality), not all objects and events in Brahman create a projection in Maya. Our perception (of Maya) is thus limited because of the sense modality and its speed, which form the focus of our investigation in this article.

In summary, it can be argued that the noumenal-phenomenal distinction in phenomenalism is an exact parallel to the BrahmanMaya onderskeiding in Advaita if we think of our perceived reality (of Maya) as arising from sensory and cognitive processes.

Sensing Space and Time, and the Role of Light

The phenomenal notions of space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Since we take the position that space and time are the end results of our sensory perception, we can understand some of the limitations in our Maya by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.

At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) is the intermediary of EM interactions.11

The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our long-range sense of sight; all the short-range senses (touch, taste, smell and hearing) are also EM in nature. In physics, the fundamental interactions are modeled as fields with gauge bosons.12 In quantum electrodynamics13 (the quantum field theory of EM interactions), photon (or light) is the gauge boson mediating EM interactions. Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for all our sensory inputs. To understand the limitations of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all our senses. Space is, deur en groot, the result of our sight sense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed no reality, in the absence of EM interactions.

Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, red shift measurements and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure our universe. So, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, maar wat dit sien, is nog steeds 'n miljard jaar ouer as wat ons oë sien. Our phenomenal reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically enhanced, is made up of a subset of EM particles and interactions only. What we perceive as reality is a subset of forms and events in the noumenal world corresponding to EM interactions, filtered through our sensory and cognitive processes. In die Advaita parlance, Maya can be thought of as a projection of Brahman through EM interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, quite probably an imperfect projection.

The exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is not always appreciated, mainly because of a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” en “being able to sense” gravitational force. The gravity sensing in our ears measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. In the absence of EM interaction, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter.

This assertion that there is no sensing in the absence of EM interactions brings us to the next philosophical hurdle. One can always argue that, in the absence of EM interaction, there is no matter to sense. This argument is tantamount to insisting that the noumenal world consists of only those forms and events that give rise to EM interaction in our phenomenal perception. Met ander woorde, it is the same as insisting that Brahman is made up of only EM interactions. What is lacking in the absence of EM interaction is only our phenomenal reality. In die Advaita notion, in the absence of sensing, Maya does not exist. The absolute reality or Brahman, egter, is independent of our sensing it. Weer, we see that the Eastern and Western views on reality we explored in this article are remarkably similar.

The Speed of Light

Knowing that our space-time is a representation of the light waves our eyes receive, we can immediately see that light is indeed special in our reality. In our view, sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality, of Maya. Any limitation in this chain of sensing leads to a corresponding limitation in our phenomenal reality.

One limitation in the chain from senses to perception is the finite speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of motion, ruimte en tyd. Because these distortions are perceived as a part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space-time.

The importance of the speed of light, egter, is respected only in our phenomenal Maya. Other modes of perception have other speeds the figure as the fundamental constant in their space-like perception. The reality sensed through echolocation, byvoorbeeld, has the speed of sound as a fundamental property. In werklikheid, it is fairly simple to establish14 that echolocation results in a perception of motion that obeys something very similar to special relativity with the speed of light replaced with that of sound.

Theories beyond Sensory Limits

The basis of physics is the world view called scientific realism, which is not only at the core of sciences but is our natural way of looking at the world as well. Scientific realism, and hence physics, assume an independently existing external world, whose structures are knowable through scientific investigations. To the extent observations are based on perception, the philosophical stance of scientific realism, as it is practiced today, can be thought of as a trust in our perceived reality, and as an assumption that it is this reality that needs to be explored in science.

Physics extends its reach beyond perception or Maya through the rational element of pure theory. Most of physics works in this “extended” intellectual reality, with concepts such as fields, forces, light rays, atome, deeltjies, ens, the existence of which is insisted upon through the metaphysical commitment implied in scientific realism. Egter, it does not claim that the rational extensions are the noumenal causes or Brahman giving raise to our phenomenal perception.

Scientific realism has helped physics tremendously, with all its classical theories. Egter, scientific realism and the trust in our perception of reality should apply only within the useful ranges of our senses. Within the ranges of our sensory perceptions, we have fairly intuitive physics. An example of an intuitive picture is Newtonian mechanics that describe “normal” objects moving around at “normal” speeds.

When we get closer to the edges of our sensory modalities, we have to modify our sciences to describe the reality as we sense it. These modifications lead to different, and possibly incompatible, theories. When we ascribe the natural limitations of our senses and the consequent limitations of our perception (and therefore observations) to the fundamental nature of reality itself, we end up introducing complications in our physical laws. Depending on which limitations we are incorporating into the theory (e.g., small size, large speeds etc.), we may end up with theories that are incompatible with each other.

Our argument is that some of these complications (en, hopelik, incompatibilities) can be avoided if we address the sensory limitations directly. Byvoorbeeld, we can study the consequence of the fact that our senses operate at the speed of light as follows. We can model Brahman (the noumenal reality) as obeying classical mechanics, and work out what kind of Maya (phenomenal reality) we will experience through the chain of sensing.

The modeling of the noumenal world (as obeying classical mechanics), natuurlik, has shaky philosophical foundations. But the phenomenal reality predicted from this model is remarkably close to the reality we do perceive. Starting from this simple model, it can be easily shown our perception of motion at high speeds obeys special relativity.

The effects due to the finite speed of light are well known in physics. Ons weet, byvoorbeeld, that what we see happening in distant stars and galaxies now actually took place quite awhile ago. A more “advanced” effect due to the light travel time15 is the way we perceive motion at high speeds, which is the basis of special relativity. In werklikheid, many astrophysical phenomena can be understood16 in terms of light travel time effects. Because our sense modality is based on light, our sensed picture of motion has the speed of light appearing naturally in the equations describing it. So the importance of the speed of light in our space-time (as described in special relativity) is due to the fact that our reality is Maya created based on light inputs.

Conclusion

Almost all branches of philosophy grapple with this distinction between the phenomenal and the absolute realities to some extent. Advaita Vedanta holds the unrealness of the phenomenal reality as the basis of their world view. In hierdie artikel, we showed that the views in phenomenalism can be thought of as a restatement of the Advaita postulates.

When such a spiritual or philosophical insight makes its way into science, great advances in our understanding can be expected. This convergence of philosophy (or even spirituality) and science is beginning to take place, most notably in neuroscience, which views reality as a creation of our brain, echoing the notion of Maya.

Science gives a false impression that we can get arbitrarily close to the underlying physical causes through the process of scientific investigation and rational theorization. An example of such theorization can be found in our sensation of hearing. The experience or the sensation of sound is an incredibly distant representation of the physical cause–namely air pressure waves. We are aware of the physical cause because we have a more powerful sight sense. So it would seem that we can indeed go from Maya (klink) to the underlying causes (air pressure waves).

Egter, it is a fallacy to assume that the physical cause (the air pressure waves) is Brahman. Air pressure waves are still a part of our perception; they are part of the intellectual picture we have come to accept. This intellectual picture is an extension of our visual reality, based on our trust in the visual reality. It is still a part of Maya.

The new extension of reality proposed in this article, again an intellectual extension, is an educated guess. We guess a model for the absolute reality, of Brahman, and predict what the consequent perceived reality should be, working forward through the chain of sensing and creating Maya. If the predicted perception is a good match with the Maya we do experience, then the guesswork for Brahman is taken to be a fairly accurate working model. The consistency between the predicted perception and what we do perceive is the only validation of the model for the nature of the absolute reality. Verder, the guess is only one plausible model for the absolute reality; there may be different such “solutions” to the absolute reality all of which end up giving us our perceived reality.

It is a mistake to think of the qualities of our subjective experience of sound as the properties of the underlying physical process. In an exact parallel, it is a fallacy to assume that the subjective experience of space and time is the fundamental property of the world we live in. The space-time continuum, as we see it or feel it, is only a partial and incomplete representation of the unknowable Brahman. If we are willing to model the unknowable Brahman as obeying classical mechanics, we can indeed derive the properties of our perceived reality (such as time dilation, length contraction, light speed ceiling and so on in special relativity). By proposing this model for the noumenal world, we are not suggesting that all the effects of special relativity are mere perceptual artifacts. We are merely reiterating a known fact that space and time themselves cannot be anything but perceptual constructs. Thus their properties are manifestations of the process of perception.

When we consider processes close to or beyond our sensor limits, the manifestations of our perceptual and cognitive constraints become significant. Daarom, when it comes to the physics that describes such processes, we really have to take into account the role that our perception and cognition play in sensing them. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photosensors of the Hubble telescope. As gevolg van die beperkte spoed van die inligting draer (naamlik lig), our perception is distorted in such a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special relativity. Hulle doen, but space and time are only a part of our perception of an unknowable reality—a perception limited by the speed of light.

The central role of light in creating our reality or universe is at the heart of western spiritual philosophy as well. 'N heelal sonder lig is nie net 'n wêreld waar jy hom het die ligte af. Dit is inderdaad 'n heelal sonder self, 'n heelal wat nie bestaan ​​nie. It is in this context that we have to understand the wisdom behind the notion that “die aarde was woes, and void'” totdat God veroorsaak lig te wees, deur te sê “Laat daar lig wees.” Quran also says, “Allah is the light of the heavens.” The role of light in taking us from the void (die niks) to a reality was understood for a long, lang tyd. Is it possible that the ancient saints and prophets knew things that we are only now beginning to uncover with all our advances in knowledge? Whether we use old Eastern Advaita views or their Western counterparts, we can interpret the philosophical stance behind special relativity as hidden in the distinction between our phenomenal reality and its unknowable physical causes.

Verwysings

  1. Dr. Manoj Thulasidas graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, in 1987. He studied fundamental particles and interactions at the CLEO collaboration at Cornell University during 1990-1992. After receiving his PhD in 1993, he moved to Marseilles, France and continued his research with the ALEPH collaboration at CERN, Genève. During his ten-year career as a research scientist in the field of High energy physics, Hy is die mede-outeur van meer as 200 publikasies.
  2. Einstein, A. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. (On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies). Annale van fisika, 17, 891-921.
  3. Radhakrishnan, S. & Moore, C. A. (1957). Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.
  4. Chisolm, R. (1948). The Problem of Empiricism. The Journal of Philosophy, 45, 512-517.
  5. Allison, H. (2004). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Yale University Press.
  6. Rynasiewicz, R. (1995). By Their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, Ruimte, Place and Motion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 133-153, 295-321.
  7. Calkins, M. Die. (1897). Kant’s Conception of the Leibniz Space and Time Doctrine. The Philosophical Review, 6 (4), 356-369.
  8. Janaway, C., ed. (1999). The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Schmitt, R. (1959). Husserl’s Transcendental-Phenomenological Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 20 (2), 238-245.
  10. Thulasidas, M. (2007). Die onwerklik Heelal. Asian Books, Singapoer.
  11. Electromagnetic (EM) interaction is one of the four kinds of interactions in the Standard Model (Griffths, 1987) of particle physics. It is the interaction between charged bodies. Despite the EM repulsion between them, egter, the protons stay confined within the nucleus because of the strong interaction, whose magnitude is much bigger than that of EM interactions. The other two interactions are termed the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction.
  12. In quantum field theory, every fundamental interaction consists of emitting a particle and absorbing it in an instant. These so-called virtual particles emitted and absorbed are known as the gauge bosons that mediate the interactions.
  13. Feynman, R. (1985). Quantum Electrodynamics. Addison Wesley.
  14. Thulasidas, M. (2007). Die onwerklik Heelal. Asian Books, Singapoer.
  15. Rees, M. (1966). Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio Sources. Aard, 211, 468-470.
  16. Thulasidas, M. (2007'n). Is Radio Bronne en gammastraaluitbarstings Luminal gieken? International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16 (6), 983-1000.