March 30, 2008
One of the problems I have with Quantum Superposition is the incongruence with fate. Fate is a philosophical construct and Quantum Superposition is a scientific theory which can be held up to experimentation. I can imagine some saying “that’s like comparing apples to chairs, they have nothing to do with each other”, I however would argue you can eat an apple while sitting in a chair, much to the same similarity that Quantum Superposition has with fate; the observer knows what happened in the past so it seems like fate but is uncertain what will happen in the future which is also similar to fate.
The first step in trying to control your future is to set up a situation in which “C” is the only outcome of “A” plus “B”. In most cases one can set this situation up. In the case where something is left to chance one can predict the probability that something will turn out one way or the other. But one is still unsure because it is just a prediction.
Take Schrödinger’s Cat for example, because the state of the cat is unknown, the information about the cat is a superposition of both being alive and dead at the same time. Then once observed, the uncertainty drops out and there is only one solution to the question. The mere fact of observation gives us information that did not exist previously, this allows us to turn observation into recorded history and when individual histories are strung together a history of causality can be determined by a person’s understanding. This might seem like the most logical conclusion that A affected B, which in turn affected C; but only taken as a system do these events happen together. When examined individually each event can stand as independent, and the probability of the next step is unchanged by the probability of all of the previous steps (if all of the probabilities started out as equal).
One problem with this model is co-dependence, whereas one variable or a group of variables affects the outcome of the next and so on until all of the remaining outcomes are known given the many iterations of this process. One would think that this process would allow everything to be known about a situation. Including the speed and location of particles themselves, but this is where the Uncertainty Principal comes into affect.
If one could add up all of the uncertainty that the Uncertainty Principal states should be there about every particle affecting a future situation, then we would still be stuck with a system in which we can predict what might happen, but we will not know what will happen. As in Schrödinger’s Cat, quantum fluctuations can affect real world macroscopic events and objects. This leads to the view that anything that we can directly control we know exactly how it will turn out but there are also some things that are left up to chance which we have no control over. The combination of these two things can define fate. Our history seems to be fated because a string of events can be traced back but it is a construct that only exists in our knowledge of the situation. In essence fate is the history of the situation, which leads me to this paradoxical statement.
History is fated and the future is not.
March 29, 2008
After the theory of evolution and natural selection were created and studied for a number of years scientists came to realize that natural selection must occur in species but it can not predict the future. Meaning, natural selection is not going anywhere and it is not trying to make the perfect being, it is just trying to select the best features that allows survival in the wild.
That is natural selection, what about artificial selection? Can artificial selection attempt to predict the future and in so doing change natural selection into a construct that can attempt to plan for the future? (by selecting the best traits for now and later).
The classic view of artificial selection views it separate by humans selecting, I however consider it is the progression of natural selection and that it is still part of the same overlying theory. Nature is still doing the selecting and humans are still living in the wild (this wild looks a lot less wild then previously thought however). The same would hold true for species outside of this planet and for machines that are able to reproduce (currently we have not encountered any).
Questions that have arrived in my mind about this current process include: Do other sentient beings think in the same way? Will machines ever be able to think in the same way? Do animals think in the same way and have sentience?
The only answers I have to these questions are humans can tell that other humans carry on the same thought processes as themselves just by observing others using their five senses (plus outputs of speaking, drawing, and body language). It would be the same case in any being or object that a person would encounter.
The only thing that will most probably remove all doubt is if one were able to transfer thoughts. This would make a thought a tangible object, something measurable. This measurable “thought object” could be compared to ones own thoughts and in that comparison an understanding would take place that the two individuals are thinking about the same thing. I would like to consider that humans will one day be able to hold and comprehend more then just their own thoughts inside their brain(s).
March 29, 2008
Some think that thought is something that is indescribable, that it exists outside of the brain. That it is not able to be defined or that we have no way of understanding it. And to that line of reasoning, that it is only of metaphysical significance and cannot be compared with real matter or values.
I however consider that the mind solely exists in the brain and it is made up of the same matter as everything else. The only thing that differs is the structure and organization of that matter, which gives us consciousness and allows us to think and question the very nature of our own consciousness.
Science has allowed us to dissect the brain and discover its subcomponents. The brain is made of neurons in which some way of firing allows conscious thought. If those components are further sub-divided then there are molecules, then ions and atoms which allow electrical potentials. Humans have been able to further subdivide these atoms into smaller particles. These particles when arranged differently can be called other objects and have other functions. With this line of reasoning the brain is essentially an electronic device using living neurons instead of other matter usually made up of silicon, copper, gold, etc.
Once the structure and function is known on an atomic level, a model and theory of thought can be made that can be held up to experiments.
