April 10th - It's All Relative, Probably
It’s All Relative, Probably
"But it's the truth even if it didn't happen."
While it's fairly easy to comprehend that there is more to reality than our senses can take in, imagining what that fundamental fabric is, is likely beyond perception. Mathematically, we can define the threads as we find them - scientists, through measuring muon particles, recently discovered that there's a strong probability of discovering a new force of nature and if so, will seriously shake up quantum mechanics and break the Standard Model. The ones that we have yet to define (e.g. dark matter), can only ever be so defined by the less obtuse language of mathematics. So much for our petty senses. While we may have devised instruments to enable us to see into the microscopic world, we still can't see what we can't see. Bees and butterflies see the ultra violet, snakes in infrared. Try to imagine a color you can't physically see. You can't.
Above is a real neat illusion that demonstrates the evolution of human optics. On the left, we see a blue box at the center even though it isn't really there. The lines are blue, but the center is white. Cover up two of the circles and the blue box disappears (you may have to blink a couple of times to readjust from the optic memory). This is an example of visual data correction. We see the pattern and fill in what should be there. We've evolved to do this to save time and energy because patterns carry meanings for fitness and survival. The figure on the right however, has no blue interior. Why? We can see that the square is there intellectually, but our visual perception isn't fooled into coloring in the box because the illusion isn't complete, the corners are cut. A bigger question is why we are programmed to have these visual shortcuts for all the basic symmetrical shapes. Our vision clearly has preference for symmetry. For example, when we see faces, they appear symmetrical. Even scars are deleted unless studied or pointed out. And that's another element of our optical evolution: data deletion. In order to make quick, critical observations, things are filled in unless trained to do otherwise as in the case of many artists. My daughter has a visible scar above her left eye, but even as her father, I rarely notice it; my eyes default to symmetry out of laziness. I don't need to see the scar for my health or hers, at least not anymore. When the scar was new and still red, it was easy to see because it had a fitness meaning. It is important for human visual perception to identify things like injury or potential disease.
But that doesn't answer why we fill in the blue box, why this evolution for data correction and deletion. What is it about simple, symmetrical geometric shapes that provide insights into our perception? In the natural world, shapes often appear chaotic and random, but of course this isn't really true. It's just a very loud, deep design of basic shapes. From the golden ratio in leaves and nautilus shells to the crystal lattice of minerals, these fundamental shapes are the building blocks for everything.
Look closely at the bark of most hard woods and a crystalline pattern emerges, even while the lichens take on tiny circle pointillism. Look at the same lichens under a magnifying lens and they appear more like the crystalline structure of snowflakes. Pine bark has pentagonal shapes akin to the structure of lizard scales or succulents. Look at the built world and our attraction to basic shapes is even more obvious. This "pattern language" (Christopher Alexander) "expresses the deeper wisdom of what aliveness within a particular field of human endeavor." (Of course, not all pattern languages are wise, eg. suburban subdivisions.) I doubt that we actually invented the wheel; more likely that the wheel invented us. Understanding the language behind these building blocks created arches from antiquity that still stand. It is the secret of tensile strength.
There's sacred geometry to it all (sacred in the most naturalistic sense all the way down to the fuzzily measured atom). And yet, our perceptions are merely an interface that computes only what we need to survive past procreation. We haven't evolved to see harmful microwaves or cancer-causing UV light. If we could perceive veridical reality, what would we see? Would dimensions themselves break down under that vision and blend with spacetime into a god's eye view of the multiverse? It wouldn't look like the matrix or like the final scene in Pi. That's just the language. A language that is so useful that we're able to mimic our perceptual interfaces through computers, but that still isn't reality. That doesn't mean that we can't eventually speak the language of reality, but it is beyond our perception.
However, I likely don't understand any of it at all. The more I've thought about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that I don't know anything. That's probably a good place to start.
"To hell with facts! We need stories!"
"We were having Fun and that's the Main Thing."
(quote at top and these two from Ken Kesey.)
It's all relative. Probably.