...that there is a subatomic reality that is exceedingly different than the macrocosmic reality most people take for granted. When I was a student, I used to wonder where one reality stops and the other begins. Ha ha.
IOW, most people assume that trees are real things that exist independently of the observer, but physicists say that, at least at the subatomic level, this idea cannot be true. The observer of subatomic particles somehow interacts with what is seen, and, in some strange way, determines the nature of what is seen. This is one aspect of what is called "the observer paradox" in physics.
In anthropology the same observer paradox occurs. If a scientist tries to observe a primitive tribe, the act of observation affects and changes what is observed. The scientist discovers that she is observing a primitive tribe that is interacting with an observer. Even if the tribe is secretly observed, the observer becomes a more subtle part of the equation which results in the same kind of paradox. Some scientists even call this a kind of quantum entanglement.
This paradox, and other strangeness that seems to arise in subatomic physics, is very puzzling. How can a particle move from point A to point B without crossing the intervening space? How can a presumed particle act like a particle in one experiment and a wave in another experiment? How can particles appear and disappear at random and where do they come from or go? How can nothing give rise to something? If a scientist peers into matter, it seemingly disintegrates into atoms, which disintegrate into particles, which disintegrate into sub-particles, which disintegrate into qualities (no, I'm not making this up), which disintegrate into forms of energy.......etc. A reasonable person, using common sense, might ask, "Hey, what's going on here? Is there nothing solid anywhere? And if there's nothing solid, what the heck is the real nature of this world I see?"
All it takes is one clear insight, and the puzzle gets solved. There is "what is," a verb, and there are an unlimited number of ways to image isness, and all images are nouns. It is like going to a dance with a still camera and trying to capture the action that the dance IS. It can't be done.
There is what THIS IS, and there is the idea of "THIS." What THIS IS includes the idea of "THIS," but "THIS" does not include what THIS IS. Ha ha! It is like Angela's statement, "I can see "Angela," but "Angela" cannot see me. "Angela" is a noun, but what sees both "Angela" the noun and Angela the verb?
Most scientists begin their studies by imagining that they are scientists, and by imagining that they are looking at an objective world "out there." They never doubt that trees are separate things being looked at by separate people. There were no problems with this kind of thinking until scientists began looking deeper into what they imagined was "matter." The stuff just kept breaking down into other things, and acting weirder and weirder. Rather than stepping back from the cloud chamber or cyclotron, and investigating their own thinking, they pushed on and on "discovering" (think "imagining") stranger and stranger stuff doing stranger and stranger things. They gradually compartmentalized all this strangeness into what they imagined as "subatomic reality," and never realized that the same thing was going on in ordinary everyday life. Even today it never dawns on most scientists to question the initial idea that they are separate from what they are looking at.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a short summary of what happened in modern science after it became modern (LOL). Today, most scientists are still chasing their own tails down the proverbial rabbit hole, never realizing what's going on. Humorously, they will never find a single fundamental particle that composes all matter because it is they, who are it, looking at it, which is they, and imagining they are something other than what they ARE. Welcome to the funhouse.
IOW, most people assume that trees are real things that exist independently of the observer, but physicists say that, at least at the subatomic level, this idea cannot be true. The observer of subatomic particles somehow interacts with what is seen, and, in some strange way, determines the nature of what is seen. This is one aspect of what is called "the observer paradox" in physics.
In anthropology the same observer paradox occurs. If a scientist tries to observe a primitive tribe, the act of observation affects and changes what is observed. The scientist discovers that she is observing a primitive tribe that is interacting with an observer. Even if the tribe is secretly observed, the observer becomes a more subtle part of the equation which results in the same kind of paradox. Some scientists even call this a kind of quantum entanglement.
This paradox, and other strangeness that seems to arise in subatomic physics, is very puzzling. How can a particle move from point A to point B without crossing the intervening space? How can a presumed particle act like a particle in one experiment and a wave in another experiment? How can particles appear and disappear at random and where do they come from or go? How can nothing give rise to something? If a scientist peers into matter, it seemingly disintegrates into atoms, which disintegrate into particles, which disintegrate into sub-particles, which disintegrate into qualities (no, I'm not making this up), which disintegrate into forms of energy.......etc. A reasonable person, using common sense, might ask, "Hey, what's going on here? Is there nothing solid anywhere? And if there's nothing solid, what the heck is the real nature of this world I see?"
All it takes is one clear insight, and the puzzle gets solved. There is "what is," a verb, and there are an unlimited number of ways to image isness, and all images are nouns. It is like going to a dance with a still camera and trying to capture the action that the dance IS. It can't be done.
There is what THIS IS, and there is the idea of "THIS." What THIS IS includes the idea of "THIS," but "THIS" does not include what THIS IS. Ha ha! It is like Angela's statement, "I can see "Angela," but "Angela" cannot see me. "Angela" is a noun, but what sees both "Angela" the noun and Angela the verb?
Most scientists begin their studies by imagining that they are scientists, and by imagining that they are looking at an objective world "out there." They never doubt that trees are separate things being looked at by separate people. There were no problems with this kind of thinking until scientists began looking deeper into what they imagined was "matter." The stuff just kept breaking down into other things, and acting weirder and weirder. Rather than stepping back from the cloud chamber or cyclotron, and investigating their own thinking, they pushed on and on "discovering" (think "imagining") stranger and stranger stuff doing stranger and stranger things. They gradually compartmentalized all this strangeness into what they imagined as "subatomic reality," and never realized that the same thing was going on in ordinary everyday life. Even today it never dawns on most scientists to question the initial idea that they are separate from what they are looking at.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a short summary of what happened in modern science after it became modern (LOL). Today, most scientists are still chasing their own tails down the proverbial rabbit hole, never realizing what's going on. Humorously, they will never find a single fundamental particle that composes all matter because it is they, who are it, looking at it, which is they, and imagining they are something other than what they ARE. Welcome to the funhouse.
