While quantum mechanics and the theories that pertain insist that, at the micro-level of reality, observations (measurements) of events alter those events, and the outcomes are uncertain (Wigner, Wheeler, and Heisenberg), the same holds true for the macro-world.
That is, if one observes (measures by experiment) something, anything in the overt world, everyday life or the Universe even, that something is altered by the observation (the measurement, the experiment).
Therefore, when cosmologists attack, by theory and/or observation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, black holes, novae, and anything else in the Universe, the thing observed or theorized about is altered, in some way, by the theorizing or observation.
Thus, we contend, that if the Universe is, in its totality, the Ineffable God – the ultimate Singularity (despite the many disparate elements) – is observed/measured, it, the Universe or God, will be affected by that distinct conscious effort directed towards it.
This is why we’ve always maintained that Herman Melville’s monumental masterpiece Moby Dick is the greatest work of literature as it discloses the exact nature (essence) of God, the Universe in our reckoning.
Moby Dick is oblivious to mankind, cloistered, usually, in the depths of the immense voids of the seas.
However, when Moby Dick is sought out, as he is in the [theological] tome, by Ahab and his whalers, that seeking (observation, measurement) causes Moby Dick’s nature to come full force into the “upper world” where the Evil essence of the Great White Whale is made manifest. (See our previous post about Dark Matter/Energy and its Id-like construct.)
Melville isn’t alone in discerning the Evil nature of God (the Universe), but he is the only writer who makes the Evil palpable, and with a poetic metaphor that clarifies for some what we as human beings are dealing with existentially.
But what does this have to do with cosmology, or the pursuit of quantum and macro-realities?
Our continuing point is that scientists (physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, et al.) alter reality when they measure (observe) it, or even think about it, by using mathematics or other conscious hypotheses.
Measuring and mapping the background microwave radiation of the Universe, using the WMAP and Planck satellites, alters that radiation, so that its absolute essence is disturbed, at least to the mappers.
Just as space-time is relative, reality is relative, and quantum experimentation verifies that relativity.
So how can one know what the true essence of the Universe (or God) is?
At this point, no one can. The Universe is “ineffable” – incomprehensible for all practical purposes, as we keep noting.
Then what is the point, of scientific inquiry particularly? It satiates curiosity, but doesn’t produce much more.
Yet, in the absence of other serious mental gymnastics, scientific methodology isn’t so bad, but its lack of integration with non-scientific disciplines, such as mythology, theology, and aspects of mysticism makes it a poor step-sister to the pursuit of truth, the real reality, hinted at by Plato, and engaged in by such dignitaries as Meister Eckhart, Gurdjieff, Carl Jung, and even William James, among others.
As promised, that’s where we’ll be going next….
4 comments:
It seems to me that the post suggests that anything we observe we change by nature making an observation. I would postulate that this is true to some degree, in all situations, however the devil is in the details as not all things observed are changed by the same degree.
Maybe RRR can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression from the post that studying anything, scientifically, is more or less futile due to changes made by observations. With this I would strongly disagree.
Example: Scientifically Studying psychopathy seems to be of the utmost importance given our current situation here on Earth.
This example in an of itself is interesting because the changes brought about by studying the phenomenon would quite likely, prevent disaster on a macro-social scale. Making things like the Iraq War, and similar entanglements seem psychotic to learned individuals.
So here we have a change being made by the observation that fundamentally improves the situation for everyone.
Learning about Psychopaths, their true nature, and how they infect and over time - take over - governments will effectively prevent them from doing so in the future.
I also got the impression - and again, correct me if im off - that RRR is equating Moby Dick with the search for Truth. What confused me is that essentially, Moby Dick is a tale of revenge, not a search for higher meaning in life. So in that respect, i think the King Arthur/Holy Grail legends make a much better literary comparison to the search for truth.
C:
Observing (measuring) an event, at the quantum level or any other level will alter that event, but the kind of observation will also affect how that event is altered, as you seem to correctly suggest.
A malevolent observation will affect the event differently than a benevolent or benign observation (measurement).
This should be fleshed out further we think.)
While Moby Dick does have an overt sub-plot about revenge and Ahab's obsession, that was, according to Lewis Mumford, merely a guise to cover Melville's insinuation that God is, in essence, Evil.
(The color of The Whale -- white -- was also a throw-off by Melville, as he himself noted in a letter to Hawthorne.)
Thanks for the reply R.
I was wondering, observations by their inherant nature tend to be neutral, they just are. So could you give an example of a benevolent vs malevolent observation?
Ah i see where you were going now, in that respect then Melville is putting out a gnostic idea - that the god of this world, the 'material' god is evil. Which with i def agree. Overall thou I'd say that this bit: "However, when Moby Dick is sought out, as he is in the [theological] tome, by Ahab and his whalers, that seeking (observation, measurement) causes Moby Dick’s nature to come full force into the “upper world” where the Evil essence of the Great White Whale is made manifest."
...is a little off, or at least unclear. When you read Gurdjieff, he talks about the general law - and i think you could def parallel the general law with the white whale. In the same respect you could equate it with the Gnostic material god. When you seek truth, you incur it's wrath, life becomes difficult, and obstacles are placed in your way. Basically, 'the system' adjusts to discourage truth seeking and 'knock you back in line' sotospeak.
Balance itself is evident in nature, and given, 'As above, so below' - we know that it is equally represented above. Given that, i don't think we can label God or the Universe as 'good' or 'evil', it is both just as nature is.
Though i do agree we tend to see much more of the darkside of that nature then we do the lightside, as for why that is i cannot say, except that a lot of it is due to our ignorance of the true nature of psychopathy, esp what they do to groups of normal people.
C:
Observation (measurement) by benevolent entities (or benign instruments) will not produce adverse actions or reactions.
For example, as Shindler observed the German Jews they benefitted by his observation, whereas when Goebbels and Eichmann observed (and actually measured) the Jews, the Holocaust resulted.
Had neither Shindler or the Nazis observed the Jews, nothing at all would have occurred (to them).
As for the Evil God, Melville, saw God (represented by Moby Dick) as intrinsically Evil; this is the real God.
The Gnostics believed that their Evil God was the demiurge (demi urgos) -- not God but the god beneath God....a false God (Yahweh).
I hope Bruce Duensing jumps in here to make all this a bit clearer, providing correctives to my comments....
RRR
Post a Comment