Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Quantum Mechanics
To What Extent Is the Universe Uncertain?
When our discussion group first assembled and read this question, into the initial silence I half jokingly blurted "100%." We were all amused I thought. As we discussed further, I think we all basically agreed that 100% was actually a pretty good answer. Someone mentioned individual death as a certainty, but as someone else mentioned it does depend on the definition of death. If viewed as a "termination," it does appear certain. If viewed as "transformation," it becomes only one segment of a larger flux or cloud of possibility where nothing is certain except change. In other words we get certainty only by definition. Now we did not mention taxes which is often paired with death as the only two things which are certain. This one is easier to determine as uncertain; think corporate welfare in capitalist society and the existence of taxes for the rich becomes as uncertain as the weather.
However, if the Universe is 100% uncertain, there is implication that the statement itself is certain. The statement is in the Universe, and is therefore uncertain by definition. If the Universe is 100% uncertain, then change is the only certainly and couldn't by definition exist in the Universe. And we see again that everything holds the kernel of its opposite.
How would one go about proving a certainty? Infinite trials? Maybe we can only really conclude there is a mix of certainty and uncertainty in the Universe. For practical purposes, we do live our lives as if there is certainty. Aren't we here studying (and teaching) CM because we do rely on some degree of certainty in the Universe? Particular herbs have particular properties, and those who have studied herbs will tell us with certainty that we must begin to know these properties. Maybe the paradox is best approached by distinguishing "certainty" from "really so highly probable that we may functionally remove from consideration the likelihood of anything unexpected." In other words: Live with expectation, but remain flexible.
When our discussion group first assembled and read this question, into the initial silence I half jokingly blurted "100%." We were all amused I thought. As we discussed further, I think we all basically agreed that 100% was actually a pretty good answer. Someone mentioned individual death as a certainty, but as someone else mentioned it does depend on the definition of death. If viewed as a "termination," it does appear certain. If viewed as "transformation," it becomes only one segment of a larger flux or cloud of possibility where nothing is certain except change. In other words we get certainty only by definition. Now we did not mention taxes which is often paired with death as the only two things which are certain. This one is easier to determine as uncertain; think corporate welfare in capitalist society and the existence of taxes for the rich becomes as uncertain as the weather.
However, if the Universe is 100% uncertain, there is implication that the statement itself is certain. The statement is in the Universe, and is therefore uncertain by definition. If the Universe is 100% uncertain, then change is the only certainly and couldn't by definition exist in the Universe. And we see again that everything holds the kernel of its opposite.
How would one go about proving a certainty? Infinite trials? Maybe we can only really conclude there is a mix of certainty and uncertainty in the Universe. For practical purposes, we do live our lives as if there is certainty. Aren't we here studying (and teaching) CM because we do rely on some degree of certainty in the Universe? Particular herbs have particular properties, and those who have studied herbs will tell us with certainty that we must begin to know these properties. Maybe the paradox is best approached by distinguishing "certainty" from "really so highly probable that we may functionally remove from consideration the likelihood of anything unexpected." In other words: Live with expectation, but remain flexible.
Do Particles Have No Definite States Before Measurement?
The question, I think, begins with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which states that on the atomic level one can not be certain of both momentum and position of a particular particle at the same time. In other words, we can not with certainty measure both at the same time. But, as a thought problem, does this mean that the particle, before we measure it, has neither momentum or position at the same time? Is it characteristic of particles to have neither attribute at the same time independent of our observations? Or have we just figured out that we are incapable of measuring these attributes of particles at the same time? We might be able to prove mathematically that we are incapable of measuring these attributes at the same time, but wouldn't a secondary proof be necessary to prove that the attributes can not exist in the same particle at the same time when we weren't looking?
If observation invariably influences what is observed, then in some way we are very limited in our senses. Gosh, I suddenly feel a bit trapped in the seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching machine. Thank goodness our minds can wander (and wonder!).
Another aspect to this question, and it bothered me in the discussion of Schrodinger's cat, is the near approach to a solipsistic view of the Universe engendered in some of the conclusions. Just concluding that we are only able to determine the characteristics of the world "out there" by using senses which appear to be only "in here" and therefore subject to any number of, well, pernicious influences, does not justify the conclusion that there is no objective reality "out there." In any realm of the unknown which may present an infinite array of possibility, there still are things that "are," which, although their apparent characteristics are influenced by our observations of them, still have realities in their own right.
On the one hand, the reader may challenge me to prove the existence of this independent (of measurement and/or human preception) reality, and I will counter by indicating the "western" nature of the challenge. On the other hand, if we do not accept that there is an objective reality beyond our perhaps poor and constantly interfering perceptions of it, we get such ridiculous manifestations on the macroscopic level as Clinton's infamous, "It depends on what your definition of is, is."
What Does This Tell Us About Causality?
Cause and effect are useful constructs of the human mind, although we may not understand the dynamics of either independently, nor the true character of the ways in which they are linked. Our energies and the constraints on our perceptions influence the way we observe causes and effects (and everything else). We have to assume, though, that the Universe was here long before us, and that it will continue long after we are gone. To quote a once popular television program: The truth is out there! Perhaps we are not really here in order to study the Universe, but rather the Universe places us (and everything else) within the Universe to learn about its Self. The Universe obeys its own rules independent of the inadvertently skewed impressions we obtain of it.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Meaning of Time
Periodically, every so often, interesting discussions or ideas really blow my mind, make me sit up and wonder... It happened in class Tuesday night: The notion of a variable rate to the Big Bang had never occurred to me, I had not heard it before. The wind just raced through my mind! That theories of physics are mostly "time reversible" was a virtual gale force. Actually, as I think of it, the notion that any video of molecules in motion would look the same run forward or backward only reinforces the feeling I have often had that "in reality" there is only the NOW.
If we begin with the idea of the Big Bang, then Time would only be a measure of Space. Space is what gets "expanded" as the initial infinitely small, infinitely dense "stuff" explodes. How far the "stuff" has traveled is determined by how much Time has passed. (Vice versa as well, I suppose.) All is One except as Time (Space) has separated us. Again, "in reality" there is only Space and the NOW; our usual, common sense of Time is only a mental construct useful in the function of our society. But again it is common sense to see Time as a measure of Space as in "I will be there in fifteen minutes."
It is also written that the original "stuff" was very hot with energy distributed uniformly and that as the Universe grows its temperature drops, leaving less energy to perform work in the future. Entropy, disorder, increases. The dictionary defines entropy as "a measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic system... a closed system, as the universe." Is the key word in the definition "unavailable?" If "unavailable" does that mean "not there" or just there and not available for work? With a different kind of technology could we harness the disorder and use its energy, which is currently defined as unavailable, to "restore" order? Would this technology make the Universe run in reverse? Or would this only reflect that video of molecules which appears the same run forward and backward?
I understand Einstein's curving space idea to explain gravitation attraction through a vacuum, as in the planets around the Sun. But representations of curved space I have seen are always two-dimensional "much like a stretched sheet of elastic material would accommodate itself to a heavy ball placed on its center area." So how does one represent curvature of space in three dimensions?
The discussion of a clock heading into a black hole and its apparent contradictions in appearance depending on the location of the viewer is also interesting. To an outside observer the clock's signals slow as the clock approaches the event horizon until, "past" the event horizon, its signals stop altogether. To an observer traveling with the clock, there is no slowing of signals approaching the event horizon. Although this discussion is an interesting way to understand some of the characteristics of a black hole, again, I think, the kind of Time measured by a clock is only a mental construct, there is only NOW.
"What if...?" Seems to me the Universe has to be either one of two things, either it is infinite and by definition includes every possibility and variation; or it is finite, and does not. If finite, then what is "outside" of it? Can anything which is conceived even be outside of it? And what does its boundary look like? If, on the other hand, it is infinite, well then, SURPRISE! Somewhere, our planet never had a moon, the dinosaurs never became extinct, Rome never fell, the Muslims conquered Europe, Germany won WW II, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I certainly do not understand all of this, but I love it.
If we begin with the idea of the Big Bang, then Time would only be a measure of Space. Space is what gets "expanded" as the initial infinitely small, infinitely dense "stuff" explodes. How far the "stuff" has traveled is determined by how much Time has passed. (Vice versa as well, I suppose.) All is One except as Time (Space) has separated us. Again, "in reality" there is only Space and the NOW; our usual, common sense of Time is only a mental construct useful in the function of our society. But again it is common sense to see Time as a measure of Space as in "I will be there in fifteen minutes."
It is also written that the original "stuff" was very hot with energy distributed uniformly and that as the Universe grows its temperature drops, leaving less energy to perform work in the future. Entropy, disorder, increases. The dictionary defines entropy as "a measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic system... a closed system, as the universe." Is the key word in the definition "unavailable?" If "unavailable" does that mean "not there" or just there and not available for work? With a different kind of technology could we harness the disorder and use its energy, which is currently defined as unavailable, to "restore" order? Would this technology make the Universe run in reverse? Or would this only reflect that video of molecules which appears the same run forward and backward?
I understand Einstein's curving space idea to explain gravitation attraction through a vacuum, as in the planets around the Sun. But representations of curved space I have seen are always two-dimensional "much like a stretched sheet of elastic material would accommodate itself to a heavy ball placed on its center area." So how does one represent curvature of space in three dimensions?
The discussion of a clock heading into a black hole and its apparent contradictions in appearance depending on the location of the viewer is also interesting. To an outside observer the clock's signals slow as the clock approaches the event horizon until, "past" the event horizon, its signals stop altogether. To an observer traveling with the clock, there is no slowing of signals approaching the event horizon. Although this discussion is an interesting way to understand some of the characteristics of a black hole, again, I think, the kind of Time measured by a clock is only a mental construct, there is only NOW.
"What if...?" Seems to me the Universe has to be either one of two things, either it is infinite and by definition includes every possibility and variation; or it is finite, and does not. If finite, then what is "outside" of it? Can anything which is conceived even be outside of it? And what does its boundary look like? If, on the other hand, it is infinite, well then, SURPRISE! Somewhere, our planet never had a moon, the dinosaurs never became extinct, Rome never fell, the Muslims conquered Europe, Germany won WW II, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I certainly do not understand all of this, but I love it.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Week One Quiz
What attracts me to Chinese Medicine?
Well right this moment the first thing that enters my mind when I ask myself what attracts me to Chinese Medicine is that there are no computers involved. I have discovered while struggling to even enter my blog tonight (thanks Emmendo! and thanks Lisa!) that I am a real hard-core Luddite! I think I mentioned in class that I feel both pulls (toward TCM) and pushes (away from the not TCM); computers are in the push column. I have wanted to throw this machine from the train so many times this weekend, but now I reveal another side of myself not yet seen by all my new mates, and I am suddenly way off topic. So...
Like most of the folks in class I have had amazing and wonderful experiences with both acupuncture and Chinese herbs. I have also gone directly from an acupuncture table via ambulance to Kaiser. On the other hand, western medical practices may have saved my life after my appendix burst, but they also caused a sudden outbreak of large, red boils all over my skin during an allergic reaction to a sulfa-based drug. We all have stories of the horrors that can be western medicine. Frankly, I am upset by and terrified of the vast chemical experiment that pharmacology has made of all of us. There is a story somewhere here in my newspaper clippings of a couple in Virginia, I think, who lost custody of their son because they all agreed to do "alternative" medicine instead of the recommended cutting and experimental chemistry. My lawyer friend a couple doors down tells me that the AMA is trying to push losing one's medical license should a western doctor be foolish enough to provide expert medical testimony against another western practitioner. The nutritionist who taught my nutrition class at CCSF told us that western doctors are usually not even required to take a single nutrition class while in medical school. I mentioned in our class already that my sister's handful of pills includes some to counteract the side-effects of others. These are all reasons I am attracted to Chinese medicine.
What do I honestly think of Physics, really?
Physics in high school, back in the day, was dreaded by everyone and provided me with my first note home from a teacher remarking my lack of, well, "achievement." I remember how impossible it seemed to me to determine which friggin formula applied to which friggin situation, all of it amazingly divorced from what seemed then anyway to be real life. Physics in college, circa 1969 or so, was a lesson in how I was certainly not ever going to amount to much, although I do remember playing around bending light in little precursors to CRTs which was interesting and fun. Physics in college, circa 2005 or so, was mostly watered down and disappointing because by then I'd read some interesting books and the class, frankly, came up a little short...
But if our first class is indicative, I think much is about to change. Physics is more than classes.
Now that I think about it, have I ever experiences time "slowing down?"
Even without thinking about it, I have experienced time slowing down. Actually, when I have really thought about it, I have experienced time as completely stopped. Time as a measurement that "moves forward" then (and now, when I really think about it) seems to be completely a mental construct instilled in us from the first day we are due in school. This is for job preparation and, what a funny phrase, punching the clock!
Well right this moment the first thing that enters my mind when I ask myself what attracts me to Chinese Medicine is that there are no computers involved. I have discovered while struggling to even enter my blog tonight (thanks Emmendo! and thanks Lisa!) that I am a real hard-core Luddite! I think I mentioned in class that I feel both pulls (toward TCM) and pushes (away from the not TCM); computers are in the push column. I have wanted to throw this machine from the train so many times this weekend, but now I reveal another side of myself not yet seen by all my new mates, and I am suddenly way off topic. So...
Like most of the folks in class I have had amazing and wonderful experiences with both acupuncture and Chinese herbs. I have also gone directly from an acupuncture table via ambulance to Kaiser. On the other hand, western medical practices may have saved my life after my appendix burst, but they also caused a sudden outbreak of large, red boils all over my skin during an allergic reaction to a sulfa-based drug. We all have stories of the horrors that can be western medicine. Frankly, I am upset by and terrified of the vast chemical experiment that pharmacology has made of all of us. There is a story somewhere here in my newspaper clippings of a couple in Virginia, I think, who lost custody of their son because they all agreed to do "alternative" medicine instead of the recommended cutting and experimental chemistry. My lawyer friend a couple doors down tells me that the AMA is trying to push losing one's medical license should a western doctor be foolish enough to provide expert medical testimony against another western practitioner. The nutritionist who taught my nutrition class at CCSF told us that western doctors are usually not even required to take a single nutrition class while in medical school. I mentioned in our class already that my sister's handful of pills includes some to counteract the side-effects of others. These are all reasons I am attracted to Chinese medicine.
What do I honestly think of Physics, really?
Physics in high school, back in the day, was dreaded by everyone and provided me with my first note home from a teacher remarking my lack of, well, "achievement." I remember how impossible it seemed to me to determine which friggin formula applied to which friggin situation, all of it amazingly divorced from what seemed then anyway to be real life. Physics in college, circa 1969 or so, was a lesson in how I was certainly not ever going to amount to much, although I do remember playing around bending light in little precursors to CRTs which was interesting and fun. Physics in college, circa 2005 or so, was mostly watered down and disappointing because by then I'd read some interesting books and the class, frankly, came up a little short...
But if our first class is indicative, I think much is about to change. Physics is more than classes.
Now that I think about it, have I ever experiences time "slowing down?"
Even without thinking about it, I have experienced time slowing down. Actually, when I have really thought about it, I have experienced time as completely stopped. Time as a measurement that "moves forward" then (and now, when I really think about it) seems to be completely a mental construct instilled in us from the first day we are due in school. This is for job preparation and, what a funny phrase, punching the clock!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)