There's been an idea bouncing around my head for a while, that I just want on paper, and to be criticized.
This is all based off of the Uncertainty principle (I think thats the name of the idea I'm looking for). Essentially, all matter exists as a wave of possible locations and momenta until one or the other is observed. Essentially, we can say that it doesn;t really exist untill there is something that observes it (except it does exist, just not as we generally conceptualize matter).
Well, how are things observed? If we're talking about a single particle, we use special instuments to observe them indirectly. If we're talking about an everyday object, we look at it, we feel it, we precieve a sound that it has produced, ect. Really there isn;t that much differnce between detecting the position of a quark or a stone. To detect the quark, we essentially detect its electric feild. To observe a stone, we generally either look at it or feel it (I like the example of the stone better, so I'll show how its similar to the quark then leave the quark behind). To see it, what happens is we don't actually see it, we see the light that reflects off it, which is a result of the electrons on the surface becoming excited by a certain wavelength of light, and then release that energy as light, but in a different dirrection. What we do is detect that light, or the reemision of that light from the gas molecules inbetween. To feel, we never actually touch the matter of the rock. what happens is the eletric feild of the electrons on the surface atoms repel the electrons on the surface atoms of our skin. In the end, we are just observing various properties of the electric feild of the stone, exactly as we are the quark.
So, we have observed the stone by seeing it or touching it. We know its there, we know what its doing, and we know several of its properties, right? Not quite. We actually never directly observe the stone, we can't. When we feel it, the preasure on our skin triggers several sensory neurons, which sends an action potential down their axons to our spinal chord, which transfers the message to our brains, which process the signals and thus we feel the stone. Same for seeing, the light triggers photoneurons in the back of our eyes, which sends certain paterns of action potentials to the brain, which similarly procress the signals into the image of the stone.
So, now we have observed the neural signals which result from the stone, yes? no. What we observe is our own thought. These signals are supposed to produce the idea of "stone" and its various properties. However, we never actualy directly observe these signals, all we get are their cognitive results. Al we can possibly observe is our own cognition. These cognitions Probably came as a result of neural input from our sensory nerves, but thats not definite, because we can never directly observe them. These signals Probably were a result of the stone, but again, we never directly observe the physical funtions that result. Therefore, we never directly observe the stone, its just Probably there.
Assuming the uncertainty principle, nothing exists as we think of exsisting until observed, which we can never directly do. Therefore, the tuff around us has a probability of existsing, but the only thing that we can say with certainly is our own thought, our own cognitions.
Have I successfully put we sentient beings back at the center of the universe? Or, really, have I successfully put myself at the center of the universe?
This is all based off of the Uncertainty principle (I think thats the name of the idea I'm looking for). Essentially, all matter exists as a wave of possible locations and momenta until one or the other is observed. Essentially, we can say that it doesn;t really exist untill there is something that observes it (except it does exist, just not as we generally conceptualize matter).
Well, how are things observed? If we're talking about a single particle, we use special instuments to observe them indirectly. If we're talking about an everyday object, we look at it, we feel it, we precieve a sound that it has produced, ect. Really there isn;t that much differnce between detecting the position of a quark or a stone. To detect the quark, we essentially detect its electric feild. To observe a stone, we generally either look at it or feel it (I like the example of the stone better, so I'll show how its similar to the quark then leave the quark behind). To see it, what happens is we don't actually see it, we see the light that reflects off it, which is a result of the electrons on the surface becoming excited by a certain wavelength of light, and then release that energy as light, but in a different dirrection. What we do is detect that light, or the reemision of that light from the gas molecules inbetween. To feel, we never actually touch the matter of the rock. what happens is the eletric feild of the electrons on the surface atoms repel the electrons on the surface atoms of our skin. In the end, we are just observing various properties of the electric feild of the stone, exactly as we are the quark.
So, we have observed the stone by seeing it or touching it. We know its there, we know what its doing, and we know several of its properties, right? Not quite. We actually never directly observe the stone, we can't. When we feel it, the preasure on our skin triggers several sensory neurons, which sends an action potential down their axons to our spinal chord, which transfers the message to our brains, which process the signals and thus we feel the stone. Same for seeing, the light triggers photoneurons in the back of our eyes, which sends certain paterns of action potentials to the brain, which similarly procress the signals into the image of the stone.
So, now we have observed the neural signals which result from the stone, yes? no. What we observe is our own thought. These signals are supposed to produce the idea of "stone" and its various properties. However, we never actualy directly observe these signals, all we get are their cognitive results. Al we can possibly observe is our own cognition. These cognitions Probably came as a result of neural input from our sensory nerves, but thats not definite, because we can never directly observe them. These signals Probably were a result of the stone, but again, we never directly observe the physical funtions that result. Therefore, we never directly observe the stone, its just Probably there.
Assuming the uncertainty principle, nothing exists as we think of exsisting until observed, which we can never directly do. Therefore, the tuff around us has a probability of existsing, but the only thing that we can say with certainly is our own thought, our own cognitions.
Have I successfully put we sentient beings back at the center of the universe? Or, really, have I successfully put myself at the center of the universe?
Last edited: