Reality from Two More Points of View - Squared:
Position yourself way above the Sun's North Pole and film the motion of the solar system, or just the inner solar system 'below' you. You'd film the Earth revolving about the Sun in a counter clockwise direction, and rotating in an easterly direction.
Sex Distant Disease
If you now role that film in reverse, you'd see the Earth revolving in a clockwise direction and rotating in a westerly direction. An inhabitant of that time reversed Earth would see the Sun rise in the west and set in the east! However, that's no violation of physical law. It's relatively easy to picture a solar system is which the revolution of planetary bodies is the opposite of ours; planets that rotate in the opposite direction.
Such opposites with respect to motion are what you'd see in a mirror reflection - if you had a mirror big enough. So, if you reverse time [T], you produce a mirror image of the motion (left handedness motion becomes right handedness motion and vice versa), which in physics is called parity [P]. If you look in a mirror, your right hand now looks like a left hand and vice versa - that's parity. That applies equally on the micro scale; with the added feature that to preserve the overall symmetry, the charge [C] needs to be reversed too. So, a positive [CPT] is symmetrical with a negative [CPT]. Since the macro is made up of the micro, in our time reversed; parity (motion) reversed, Earth; said Earth would have all the charges in all the particles that made it up reversed. In short, said Earth would be an antimatter Earth!
On the micro level, a positron (positive charge), rotating clockwise (spin up) while moving forward in time at one second per second is symmetrical with an electron (negative charge), rotating counter clockwise (spin down), and moving backwards in time, at a rate of one second per second! Again, there's no violation of physical law. The laws of physics do not make any distinction between time frames moving from past to present to future relative to time frames going from future to present to past. It's the same reality from two different perspectives. Which version you prefer is solely up to you - either interpretation is a valid one. Most people of course prefer the classical time frames forward version - the Earth revolves counter clockwise and rotates easterly and is composed of matter and goes from past to present to future. But, you can be, if you wish to be, justifiably stubborn and reverse the CPT and accept that reality.
Again, if you reverse the time frame, you need to also reverse the image of whatever is in motion to its mirror image instead. Now that image may be hard to swallow and isn't really a 'reflection' of your day to day macro world. If you look in your home mirror, and see a reflection of a grandfather clock with hands rotating and pendulum swinging, it will look odd - the hands going the wrong way around (counter clockwise) and the pendulum going right-left-right instead of left-right-left. But, physicists can handle it (at least via their abstract equations - just like the mathematics can deal with the ten or eleven dimensions required of string theory.
So, in general, negative [CPT] and positive [CPT] are the two symmetrical sides of the same physical law reality coin.
But there are two other ways of looking at and interpreting this. There's 1) a real mix of (a hell of a lot of) matter and (a very little amount of) antimatter all going forward in time together in step, or 2) you can postulate the concept of additional pseudo-antimatter by postulating that every now and then elementary particles of matter reverse direction in time (hence reverse charge and parity as well) thus mimicking what we call antimatter. That mimicked antimatter elementary particle can reverse time direction again and revert back to what we call normal matter. That applies equally to real antimatter reversing time's arrow and becoming pseudo-matter. While the former (1) is the commonly accepted, commonsense point of view, it's actually the latter (2) that has greater explanatory power in solving some of those mysteries of physics, such as entanglement, and double slit experiment weirdness and why are all electrons or positrons identical (because maybe there's only one of each zigzagging backwards and forwards in time).
Reality Really Is A Personal Thing:
The most unique thing about you is "The You" inside you - your mind. There's nothing unique about your sex, blood type, pigmentation, hair style, body shape, age, etc. Your genetic makeup isn't unique if you have an identical twin. Many of your body's organs can be transplanted into other bodies. But your mind is unique. Even if you had an identical twin, your minds would be different.
Your brain, which houses the mind, is the organ that has to absorb the sensory input we constantly receive from the outside world. While we have some limited control over the sensory barrage or onslaught reality inflicts on us, we so have some - control that is. You can often choose what you want to taste or listen to or see. You can close your eyes or stick your fingers in your ears if you want. Another form of control is that you can choose your surroundings, maybe eventually immerse yourself in a totally artificial reality, as in the Star Trek's holodeck programs. So, in one sense, reality really is all in the mind as all sensory input flows into it. And since your mind is unique, your reality, or your version of reality, must be unique too.
Quite apart fro having some control over external sensory input, the inner workings of your body also can affect the mind and therefore your notion of reality. Migraine headaches can cause you to 'see' flashes of light where no optical input is preset. A buildup of this chemical, or lack of that substance, can cause quite considerable alterations in your perception of what's happening - reality. Near Death Experiences (the NDE) is a case in point. Control over those inner workings is possible, in some cases, to a greater or lesser degree. However, you're body often tends to do its own thing and mind over matter is a useless exercise!
All of which leads to the point that you can also alter your own perception of reality, not directly via sensory stimuli, but chemically. There are lots of drugs, prescription, legal and over-the-counter (alcohol, etc.), not quite so legal (LSD, magic mushrooms, marijuana, various herbs, etc.) which affect brain (mind) chemistry and how you perceive the outside world. The question then arises, if you can alter your brain's (mind's) chemistry, and that alters your perception of reality, how do you know that your unaltered (normal) brain chemistry is giving you an accurate reflection of what's out there? If you're honest, you don't! But you can assume that you are getting a reasonable facsimile of reality, otherwise basic survival would be highly problematic. I mean if you thing that's a purring pussy cat approaching you when it's actually a roaring man-eating tiger, you're in deep shit. Or, equally in the fertilizer, that's not really table salt you're sprinkling on your veggies, its cyanide!
There's also the area of electrical stimulation of the brain that can produce realities which aren't real but which, to you, are very real indeed!
There's an opposite side to the altering-your-mind's-sensory-input. Instead of adding or replacing inputs, eliminate them - deprive yourself of as much sensory input as possible. I'm thinking of isolation tanks where you float in water at body temperature, there's no light, no sound, no smell. Of course your heart still thumps and you can still think (therefore you are and therefore you still have a grip on reality, even if the sum total of that reality is just you, and only you. Regardless, it's a far removal from your day-to-day perception of what's real!
Lastly, while mind melds (or telepathy) are probably an ever unlikely possibility, I can se the day when there is a direct interface between a computer, an artificial intelligence perhaps, and the human mind. Perhaps that computer link might be an interface between one human mind and another. That way you could directly experience another person's reality!
The key point: Actual reality has relatively little to do with your brain chemistry (apart from providing the matter/energy needed to run the apparatus). Your perception of reality has everything to do with brain chemistry. That's true even if reality is augmented by technology, from telescopes to microscopes; mass spectrometers to particle accelerators; eye glasses to hearing aids.
Relative Reality:
The same reality can be quite different from the perspective of two different observers. But does it really matter?
Does it really matter if when you witness a sunrise whether or not it's because the Sun goes around the Earth or because the Earth rotates while going around the Sun?
Does it really matter if you're driving along while it's raining vertically yet you see the raindrops hitting the windshield at an angle? Or, while driving, you see the posts go past the car, yet of course it's the car driving past the posts.
Does it really matter if you're flying in a plane as assume that the plane is suspended in the air and it's the Earth's rotation that's bringing your destination to you?
Does it really matter if two cars are approaching each other at a combined velocity of 100 km/hour whether car one is standing still and car two is going at 100 km/hour; car one is traveling at 30 km/hour and car two is traveling at 70 km/hour; both cars are each moving along at 50 km/hour? Does it really matter if you're in line between the two cars and thus have difficulty judging their relative velocities?
Well, 'yes" it really does matter if you believe there is such a thing as universal or absolute truth. The Earth rotates and goes around the Sun; the raindrops really are on a vertical path downwards and would theoretically intersect the centre of the Earth; the plane is really flying and not suspended in midair; and both cars are moving at 50 km/hour.
Well 'no', it really doesn't matter as long as you get to see the sun rise; you don't get wet regardless whether or not the rain is falling straight down or at an angle; you reach your destination; and you're not in either of the two cars on their collision course! The Universe certainly isn't losing any sleep over this, and I bet neither will you!
But Einstein and the other relativists who followed in his footsteps care deeply about such matters because they do illustrate the principle that there are no God-given (or Nature-given) absolute frames of reference. Different strokes for different folks can produce identical results, or different results, depending..
That second observer, the different folk, complicates things. You on the ground assume the Sun goes around the Earth; the observer in space clearly sees the Earth rotating and orbiting the Sun. You see the rain hitting the windshield at an angle while the observer standing on the roadside clearly sees the rain falling vertically (and gets wet for his trouble). That second observer on the ground clearly sees the plane flying through the air and the hell with what you, the passenger, observe. That second observer from a distant hilltop has a side view sees and easily sees both cars in motion, both at 50 km/hour.
So, what about we hypothesize two identical twins (well it would be odd to have three identical twins!), born on the same day, say, just to be evil, on the sixth of June, 2006!
They both die at the exact same time, say a century later. Trouble is, one has moved to the east coast; one has lived on the west coast. The east coaster dies local time at 1 am 6 June 2106. The west coaster dies at the same moment, but west coast local time is 11 pm 5 June 2106. Thus, when reunited and buried side-by-side, one has a headstone that reads b.2006-d.2106, age 100 years; the other's headstone reads b.2006-d.2106, age 99 years! It would now seem to be a case of relative reality trumping absolute truth!
Does evening and night come before the dawning day, or does the dawning day before evening and night? Does winter follow summer, or does summer follow winter? You may think that Wednesday comes before Thursday, but Thursday the 3rd comes before Wednesday the 9th!
One final example, you're standing on a railway platform, your partner is on the train. Now as the train passes by the platform, your better half drops from say chest height a rubber ball. You, on the platform see the pathway of the dropped but bouncing back up ball as a V. Your partner sees the ball go straight down and straight up. Is there an absolute truth here? Does it cosmically matter?
Relative reality is part and parcel of our overall reality.
Is Your Reality Certainty or A Fluke?
If there is one thing you are absolutely certain of it's that you exist, and I won't dispute that (even of you are a figment of my imagination or exist only as the creation of some kind of computer software). Seriously, you exist as a three dimensional, flesh-and-blood, absolutely unique entity inside a three dimensional Universe. However, is your reality something wildly improbable or 100% guaranteed?
On the surface, you are an absolute fluke. Think of those millions of sperm that could have won that race to your mother's egg, but didn't. Or that winning sperm could have fertilized some other of your mother's eggs. Either case, you're a total nothing in anyone's philosophy! Now think of all the males and females available at any given time and the odds are against your parents having met, courted, married, etc. Potentially, millions of other males could have married your mother; and potentially millions of other females could have married your father. And of course your mother and father are flukes because a similar argument holds for them via your grandparents, and further backwards for them to your great grandparents, etc, etc. Go back with those sorts of odds a hundred, a thousand, a million, a trillion, generations; back through your mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, etc. ancestry; back through your family tree of invertebrate ancestors (untold generations worth), right down to your unicellular ancestors. What are the odds, all those chance meetings be they sperm and egg, or male and female, of organisms that survived long enough through to a reproductive age (and relatively few, apart from humans do), that you would someday grace the world? Zillions upon zillions to one! You're an absolute fluke! Or are you?
There appear to be ultimately three sets of either/or conditions which ultimately govern that. The first is, is there one universe, our Universe, or many universes (a Multiverse)? Secondly, is there absolute causality resulting in a deterministic clockwork Universe where once the initial set of relationships were set into play, things evolved with 100% certainty from that point on? Lastly, is there one, and only one possible physics, or could our physics have been different, or are different in another universe?
But first some definitions are in order.
Universal Physics - One and only one kind of physics is possible, throughout all universes. If you believe in God, She didn't have any choice in the matter!
Variable Physics - Each universe could have its own individual brand of physics, and the physics that rule our Universe could have turned out differently.
Determinism Rules - There's 100% causality; there's absolute certainty.
Chance Rules - Represents less than 100% causality; free will if you will.
Multiverse - Lots of separate and apart universes, perhaps even an infinite number of them.
Universe - The one and only Universe; our Universe. However, if our Universe is near infinite in space and time and stuff, then for all practical purposes it's the same as the Multiverse since there's enough space and time and stuff for nearly all possibilities to take place within.
Combining the various possibilities suggests how fluky you really are! But first, let's deal with the supernatural, instead of natural scenario. If God exists and wanted you to exist, assuming there is a God of course, then you're Probability One - no contest. You're no fluke. Seeing however as how there is no evidence for any God (or gods), we'd better get back to all things natural and plough on.
Scenario 1: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = the exact same set of outcomes in all universes is predicted. If you exist in one universe, you exist in all universes. You're not a fluke. But if you don't, you don't, full stop. However, you probably don't since you're existence would be equivalent to tossing a coin several billion times in a row all billion coming up heads. The assumption here is that the initial set of conditions was identical in each and every single universe within the Multiverse. If not, then they won't be identical further on down the track. If that assumption is incorrect, you could exist in one or more universes; not exist in one or more other universes.
Scenario 2: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if you exist, then you were a certainty from the get-go. If you don't, that too was a certainty. On balance, a betting person would probably bet against your existence ever happening because only one exact set of circumstances gives the universe you, while billions of other sets of circumstances don't.
Scenario 3: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = your existence in one universe has nothing to do with your existence in any other universe. You're a fluke in whatever universe(s) you exist in. But, the saving grace is that you do probably exist in at least one universe.
Scenario 4: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = If you exist, you're a fluke. The probability is extremely high given the odds against your existence such that nobody would have been willing to wager anything on your eventual behalf.
Scenario 5: Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = assuming one universe has our kind of physics, then you're existence is a 100% certainty, or 100% against. In all other universes, since the physics are different, nothing remotely like you, or anyone else, will exist. If you exist, you're not just a fluke, but a super-fluke!
Scenario 6: Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if there's only one universe, then there can only be one physics, so assuming that that universe is our Universe, the outcome is the same as Scenario 2.
Scenario 7: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = in the Multiverse, nearly all possibilities are realised (except in Scenario 1), so in at least one universe, you exist. You're not a fluke due to the vast number of universes that could contain you. But you're still a fluke in that you don't exist in the near infinite other possible universes.
Scenario 8: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = again, one universe must equal one physics. Since things however are based on a throw of the dice, if you exist, you're a fluke.
In short, the betting odds towards your existence are to count on there being a Multiverse. If you're dealt one hand (one universe), the odds against a royal flush are extreme. Being dealt a near infinite number of hands (the Multiverse) doesn't ensure a royal flush, but it damn well improves the odds. So, if you exist and there's one universe, our Universe, you're a real fluke. In the Multiverse, you might be a fluke in any one universe, but there are so many universes that in that broader context, you're not a fluke.
Do you want to improve the odds in favor of your existence? There's a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme called the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given 'moment' within the timeline. In terms of eggs and sperm, at any given moment, the universe splits into as many universes such that all sperm available fertilize all eggs available, and that applies regardless of species (so all possible males that can meet and mate with all possible females do so - or vice versa); all possible seeds that could have been are, and produce viable plants somewhere.
You might note the subtle combining of both the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops.
Universes within the Multiverse can have differing timelines. Thus Cleopatra, assuming a Cleopatra, in another universe might have been born into a 21st Century Egypt, or Australia for that matter (assuming these nations exist or existed in this other universe). Likewise, in another, that other, universe, you may have been born a slave (or as Royalty) in an ancient Egypt, again, assuming such a nation existed. So, who knows, in some other universe (modern or ancient) you and (modern or ancient) Cleopatra (or substitute any modern or historical hunk male of your choice if you're female) have this thing going! I'm not that likely going to be, in any universe, the one to mate with Cleopatra, any more than you're (if female) are likely to get your act together with Marc Anthony. But, unlikely becomes Probability One when you merge the Multiverse with Many Worlds. The universe that contains you and Marc Anthony, or you (or me) and Cleopatra, will split when it come to that fork in the road. Many Worlds universe #1 split #1 fork - no pairings; Many Worlds universe #1 split #2 fork - you (we) live happy ever after! That's because all possibilities are realized; have to be realized.
That's a real headache inducer! So, to repeat, take a near (or actual) infinity of universes, each with its own unique timeline (which will not of necessity mirror our own). Then, multiply all those existences by all the possible forks in the road encountered by each of those universes since all paths are taken. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. You're wildest dreams may not come true in this, our Universe, and on this particular pathway you're experiencing, but somewhere you did, or will - but ditto that your worst nightmares, so perhaps be thankful for what you got in the here and now.
Now let's reduce that headache somewhat by unmerging again the Multiverse and the Many Worlds ideas. Say in one alternate timeline universe Cleopatra and I get our act together ('we do'). In another alternate timeline universe we don't ('we do not'). In both universes, the Many Worlds forks would now have us respectfully 'we do not' and 'we do' instead. But that's already happened in the two universes, so do we now have two universes where 'we do' and two universes where 'we do not'? Rather than accept that, perhaps the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts are ultimately, for all practical purposes, the same thing.
Ah, but the 'we do' in the first alternate universe took place in an alternate Australia thus the Many Worlds fork had us 'we do not' also in an alternate Australia. The original 'we do not" in the second alternate universe too place in that alternate ancient Egypt, so that Many Worlds fork now has us as a 'we do', also in an alternate ancient Egypt. So the two 'we do' universes and the two 'we do not' universes aren't the same after all.
But then again, all those four possibilities could also be catered for in four actual separate and apart universes that are part of the Multiverse, so again there's no need to bring into consideration the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum! Back to square one! And this sort of adding on further qualifiers, isn't going to ultimately alter the apparently near equivalence of the Multiverse and the Many Worlds.
I'm not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I'm not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the prase 'Many Worlds' (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists - it's too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger's Cat (in the box) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical - all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other - absolutely identical). In one unverse, the observer observes the cat alive; the other, well it's the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcome (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it's only probable or possible.
In conclusion, you may think our planet is an example of total biodiversity, but imagine what things would be like if all the theoretical possibilities had come to pass (the Many Worlds and/or the Multiverse)!!! How many Einstein's were never born - on the other hand, how many Hitler's? Then throw in all the plants and animals that never were but could have been, and you could come up with multi-trillions upon trillions of alternative Earths! Ouch!
Perhaps it's easier to accept that there's just one Universe (our Universe) and no such a thing therefore as a Multiverse, and no such an animal as the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. You're therefore a total fluke, and so just enjoy the company of the rest of us total flukes! That's unless of course our Universe is near infinite enough in extent, all on its lonesome, to allow for a duplicate copy (or three or four) of you - recall those elementary particles that make you, you, can be identically assembled elsewhere to accomplish exactly that.
Other Realities: I've mentioned parallel (or alternative or mirror) universes above, which are related to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. But there could easily be other less nebulous universes - a really real physical Multiverse. If Nature can create one Universe, She can create more than one. Other universes could have different physics relative to the physics we know. If that's the case, that opens up whole cans of different reality worms! However, such universes are probably forever out of our reach.
One set of realities I haven't mentioned yet, yet lots of people believe exist, center around the afterlife concept - heaven, hell, a spirit world, etc. We'll all find out for sure in or at the end.
Appendix: Here are some of the many faces of reality. Say you see across the room the most beautiful of beautiful naked bodies you've ever seen of the opposite sex (or the same sex if that's you bag). Lets call that vision "X" (but not because it's of necessity X-rated)! Now, what is the reality of your vision?
Well, perhaps you're involuntary dreaming of X.
Perhaps you're voluntarily imagining X.
Perhaps you're hallucinating X through disease, injury, a genetic defect, a biochemical imbalance (via drugs, lack of sleep, etc.).
Or, perhaps you are actually observing X and independent observers would verify the existence of X.
But, perhaps someone else is dreaming, or imagining or hallucinating both you and X.
Perhaps X isn't a real flesh-and-blood naked body but a hologram or maybe say a perfect representation such as a wax dummy.
You've also got to ask yourself, does X still exist if I close my eyes or turn my head away?
Since X resides in a Universe ultimately grounded in all things quantum, X only has a probability of existing and being where you think X actually is.
Ultimately, your perception of X is filtered via your senses into your mind where it resides in a vastly reduced in size; a two dimensional representation. You only get to experience the reality of X indirectly.
Conclusion:
I think it is fair to state that there are still many mysteries about the nature of reality left to explore, or continue to explore. The final word(s) has/have yet to be written, and maybe never will be.
Reality: Really Real, Pseudo-Real, Or Unreal? Part Two
Science librarian; retired.
Friends Link : Buy Wireless Phone
