Anderson concludes this article by observing that, just as ballet springs:
"...from the everyday dynamics of walking or myth from everyday birth, life, love, death, mystery..." (p. 247)
- in the same way, "...some grand science fiction..." (ibid.) can spring from "...the ground of science..." (ibid.) as imaginatively extrapolated in works like The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler.
My problem with this proposition is that, having read Anderson's summaries of this and some similar works, I am far more interested in contemplating their philosophical implications than in just reading some more science fiction! For previous relevant blog discussion, see here. I stated in a post in 2016 that I had yet to read Darrow's and Tipler's book. I still have yet to read it. What happened? Did I try to get hold of a copy and not succeed or just not try? I will re-address this issue tomorrow when the Public Library opens.
We observe a universe that allows the existence of conscious life because, if the universe did not allow the existence of conscious life, then there would be no one here to observe it but does the universe just happen to be like this or are there many universes of which just a few allow conscious life?
The existence of the universe is necessary for observation of the universe but is observation of the universe also necessary for its existence? How could this be? The observer-observed relationship in quantum mechanics is indeed odd but could it imply the dependence of existence on observation? Do some theoreticians confuse information about reality with reality?
Alan Moore points out that fictional characters "exist" (this word is wrong but I do not think that there is a right one) only because we imagine them but that we exist as human beings only because we exercise our imaginations. Is this relationship similar to the existence-observation relationship?
Philosophically, I am convinced of materialism, that being preceded consciousness, not vice versa. Do philosophers of science stray back into idealism, the primacy of consciousness, through lack of philosophical clarity or because the evidence leads them in that direction? This is only the beginning.
10 comments:
I recall reading Penrose's book the "Emperor's New Mind" in which he proposed that the brain is a quantum computer & consciousness depends depends on the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. I rather liked the implication that this reverses the dependence of existence on observation & gets rid of the rather mystical implications of some interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Depends what you mean by "existence"; it's the old tree-in-the-forest thing.
NB: if the tree falls with nobody to hear it doesn't make a 'sound' -- because a sound is a sound only if heard. Sound is something that occurs only in a brain.
It does, however, create waves that propagate in the air.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Isn't that a contradiction? I mean, that physically creates "sounds" still existed even if nobody was around to hear them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Two meanings of "sound":
vibrating air waves, not necessarily heard;
auditory sensation.
Air and its vibrations precede auditory and other consciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but I was trying to say the physical vibrations producing noises of all kinds EXISTED even if nobody was around to hear or sense the auditory phenomena.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is correct. So there was "sound" in the sense of air vibrations but not "sound" in the sense of auditory experience.
Paul.
Sean: sound is an -experience-. It's -caused- by vibrations in the air.
Sound is to atmospheric vibrations as vision is to photons.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
I agree with you both. And this reminds me of how Dr. Sam Johnson "refuted" Bishop Berkeley!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment