What is the connection between the observer and the observed, the universe and ourselves? Does one require the other? Are both a means rather than having a purpose onto themselves?
If the universe and ourselves is the division of a mirror as a means of exploration and are connected by their relationship, is a game afoot? Not whom but what is being played to determine the nature of one bifurcation by means of the other? Neither has defining characteristics other than by comparison and yet each are in play perhaps to determine a common observational platform leading to the answer, what am I ?
I am but what is what I am?
I was reading this article and found it striking on the subject of a holographic universe in relation to the defining of interstatial space between A and B as two sides of a mirror. What particularly struck me was the insertion of the term “unknowable” in relation to a process ongoing that seeks definition, yet to be defined. The process as a means rather than a defining characteristic onto itself as if we are asking the wrong questions by supposition and in return we receive the equivalent of a Zen koan in return.
"If we find a noise we can't get rid of, we might be detecting something fundamental about nature--a noise that is intrinsic to space-time," Dr. Aaron Chou, the experiment's lead scientist and project manager for the Holometer, said in the statement. "It's an exciting moment for physics. A positive result will open a whole new avenue of questioning about how space works."
The prospect of making a discovery that would not only defy common sense but also overturn centuries of scientific thinking has Chou thinking in philosophical, almost mystical terms.
"I have always believed that if indeed there is a creator, then the mechanism by which the world was created is not necessarily unknowable, and if we delve deeply enough we might reach some very interesting and inescapable conclusions," Chou told The Huffington Post in an email. "This topic brings up all sorts of interesting philosophical and theological questions which are perhaps better discussed over a beer or a nice cup of tea. In the meantime, we scientists have a job to do."
I couldn't help but wonder about our architectural construction of posits, repeatable stereotypes in signs and symbols in language and math that codify as a means rather than having any identity in of themselves except in a comparative relationship to randomness as an impetus to determine a conclusive argument against uncertainty, but what if uncertainty is the impetus to establish a relationship where one side observes the other in order to create defining characteristics that are yet to be determined?
That might be the point of the exercise and any conclusive argument on either side of the mirror of manifestation may be a misdirection of attention in relation to what is in play within a purposeful entanglement of observer and the observed.
No comments:
Post a Comment