A Grain of Truth
The whole point about Schrodinger's cat is that it's state is undefined
(from our point of view as observers, that is. The cat, of course, is pretty sure of it's state). From our point of view as observers the cat is neither alive nor dead, nor both, nor neither. It's state is represented as a wave function - it is uncertain - which includes every possible state. When the box is opened and the state of the cat observed, one of the possiblities becomes certain, all others become impossible, and the wave function collapses into a spike, a certainty. (This may be clearer with a diagram).
Of course that doesn't mean that nothing happens without an observer. It doesn't mean nothing doesn't happen either.
The difference between 'self and other', and 'inside and outside' should be considered separately as they are quite different issues:
'Inside and outside', as we normally think of them, refer to our experince of the external material world; and the world of our thoughts, feelings and emotions - our internal world. It could be argued that this is not a very accurate description of 'internal' and 'external' as the external material world is experienced by us directly through our senses - which we think of as internal. All our experiences are analogous to experiences we have in the dream state: we are convinced of the reality of what we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, think, but when we wake up the objects in our dream disappear completely: they were never there. It is difficult to convincingly refute the argument that we are currently living in a dream
(yes, yes, I know the Matrix). This argument would define our 'external' world as 'internal'. It may be interesting, then, to consider what 'external' might mean under these circumstances.
'Self and other' is much less easy to define. 'Other' is generally our experience of people and events not doing what we want them to do. 'Self '
(in the sense of ego) is what we try to extend in order to control our environment. We may want to extend the realm of 'self' so that it completely occupies and incorporates the realm of 'other' (this has obvious political parallels). Fortunately this doesn't seem to be possible in it's most extreme state. There would appear to be an overlap or connection between 'self and other' and 'internal and external', but careful observation seems to indicate that the connections might not be quite as straightforward as we think they are.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alastair Mackay-James" <> To:
Perhaps the act of observation (perception) changes the nature of the observed, so that anything observed is not necessarily as it is when unobserved.
This is the basic tenet of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/
It relates to the measurement of momentum and position of subatomic particles in Quantum Mechanics, but you can apply it to just about everything. The thing you see (perceive, measure, etc.) is behaving in one way which is not necessarily the way in which it behaves when nobody's watching . Hence, you can never observe the "true" nature of anything and know for sure that it is like that when nodody perceives or measures it. This is what Sean's photographer/philosopher was referring to. What he doesn't realise is that the changing is caused by his "looking. When do people ever look "themselves" when they know they're being photographed? Can you ever take a "true" photo of somebody? What about a photos of you when you were a child? Is that still you?
Schrodinger expanded on this principle with his Quantum Theory of Superposition
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
We have to assume that the cat is alive or dead without ever knowing it, thereby imbuing it with a third state of being, which is totally relative to our point of view. We can be certain that the cat would be extremely faking annoyed to be locked in a lead box, but that's another field of science entirely.
--- Murray Izzett <> wrote: > perhaps, at times, an inordinate amount of time is spent trying to define/discover 'self' and not giving due cognisance of the fact that 'self' is a dynamic state based on it's constant interaction with society. thus leading to the definition always be out-of-date and therefore potential for dispondancy at never really discovering 'self'?
From: André Steyn <> Reply-To: DDD-buds@yahoogroups.com To: "'DDD-buds@yahoogroups.com'"
Perhaps the distinction between inside and outside is fundamental to conciousness - how else would we be able to distinguish self from society?
-----Original Message----- From: Sean [] Sent: 04 April 2004 18:59 To: DDD-buds@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DDD-buds] [Fwd: ponderabilis maximus]
... well since none of you lot were inspired to comment on my ramblings, here is another quote to contemplate (no doubt silently):-
"I'm always looking outside, trying to look inside, trying to say something that's true. But maybe nothing's true at all, except what's out there, and what's out there is always changing." Robert Frank, a photographer
----------
From: "Sean" <> To: DDD-buds@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DDD-buds] [Fwd: ponderabilis maximus] Date: Sat, Mar 20, 2004, 10:05 PM
i'm with you. I don't think that it's ever an either/or, or about an 'inside' as opposed to an 'outside'. it's more about an in-between or both or all-together simultaneously. those distinctions are constructions of consciousness - some might say specifically 'western consciousness'
(in the interests of maintaining the bastions of that most prized of mental assets
-
sanity). and perhaps one of the (many) mays that we like to define sanity is in those vary terms of being able to successfully maintain the boundaries between the 'inside' and the 'outside'. but living in that condition is by no means the natural state of man. it certainly is safer, and it definitely makes life infinitely more predicable and practical; but we should never forget that it is the exact same boundaries that protect us which also limit us.
further, the existence of these boundaries cuts us off from large regions of potential experience as humans; which is why we need artist's and mystics to mediate and translate those experiences for us; to walk the metaphysical tightrope between the knowable and the unknowable, but nevertheless intuitable. the terrifying truth is that there never has been a final impermeable boundary between ourselves and what we unconsciously like to think of as being outside ourselves. even consciousness
(metaphysical) and matter (physical) are interconnected:- "we do not know how the unconscious is connected with matter but only that it is, and that it has a knowledge of such things; how we do not know, for our scientific knowledge in this respect has come to an end, for the time being." Marie-Louise von Franz
again, especially in the west, we tend to romanticize the idea of freedom;
(along with it's implied lack of boundaries) but we shouldn't forget that the constructed boundaries are essential for our survival. if we become too exposed to the source of energy that fuels life (whether you call it 'the Self', or the unconscious, or God), our existence becomes very literally in extreme danger. as Rumi puts it:- "If that inner sun by which existence exists Came even a little closer, everything Would be scorched. Don't ask for that." Rumi, The King and the Handmaiden and the Doctor
but there are times in most people's lives when the boundaries are more permeable than usual; the most commonly known example being what we dismissively - and often uncomprehendingly - refer to as a 'mid-life crisis'. these periods are very painful but at the same time new potentialities of being human can open up to us. to quote Leonard Cohen,"there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in". This is also what Socrates was getting at when he said, "Our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness". hence the paradox that pain and pleasure aren't actually all that far away from each other: "Your joy is your sorrow unmasked", Kahlil Gibran.
lastly, I think it's revealing that so many people seem to think of a spiritual experience as being an 'internal' experience. whereas, at least for me, spiritual experiences have had more to do with a breakdown - which is thus also a 'breakthrough' - of the boundaries between the 'inside' and the 'outside'. the result of which is a rare glimpse into the ultimate interconnectedness of all things.
We might, if, like the things outside us We let the great storm over-ride us, Grow spacious and anonymous. Rilke, The Spectator
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: ponderabilis maximus Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:58:00 +1100 (EST) From: joshua bryer <> To:
isn't it strange how joy is found inside but it's when we're outside that we're happy
(when we're aware of everything and our consciousness melds with everything our attention is placed on. i've heard it said that inside IS outside, that when you're truly happy there is no true distinction. maybe that's what's meant by that "paradox"?
Comments
It is also worth mentioning that, with reference to Schrodinger's cat, from the point of view of the cat, the state of the observer is undefined until the box is opened. Of course, if the bserver is dead or does not exist, the box may remain closed for a very long time, hence the state of the cat may be that of compost by the time it is discovered, if ever, and the results of the experiment would a little skewed, if not entirely pointless. The point is that it is not only the the cat the is being observed in the experiment, but the observer himself, and this is the founding logic underlying the theory of relativity. The observer can only observe if he himself is being observed, because without the cat's (posthumus if need be) observation of the observer, the state of the cat has nothing to be measured against and is hence undefined, because definition itself requires something to be defined against.
It can be argued (!) that the Matrix theory is not that far from the truth, although Hollywood have sort of turned it into a war where it really is just a process of discovery - a rememberance - of who and what we are. The tools we've been given to this purpose allow us to discover ourselves through our experience in a controlled environment over which we have absolute power to change and/or recreate. We have just forgotten how. Just as time is cyclic, existence is cyclic too. We are Gods to our lessor creations and give them an environment in which to serve their function, right down to the smallest vibration of the smallest particle. Looking upwards, our Gods are Gods to us, theirs to them, in an endless cycle encompassing all that is, an infinite number of times. The point is that the environment in which we find ourselves, and the rules within which we exist (called by our scientists "The laws of Physics") are a simulated environment, if you like, that serves a specific purpose. A program with clearly defined business rules, which we are only beginning to discover.
>>Peter Spears at December 13, 2005