See this video if you’re remotely interested in quantum mechanics. Or let’s rename it to quantum informatics, you will see why in the video.
The topics Philip Ball is juggling with in his lecture resonate strongly with my experience. It starts with the idea that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics aren’t there because it is supposed to be so, but are rather a consequence of our vantage point. Imagine a big house. Instead of entering the house through the main door, our cartesian-newtonian-atomistic point of view forces us to enter the house via the balcony. And hence things look odd.
Philip then explains that the quantum behaviour is not at odds with our everyday experience, that it doesn’t really only happen at the subatomic level, but that it is happening everywhere, at all scales, in galaxies, in our normal life with objects that are the size of humans, or whichever other scale you want to choose.
The core idea, the one that turns the paradigm on its head, is that the world is creating itself constantly, it’s not that things exist, they come into being. And this coming into being happens only when observation occurs. Yet the observation is not an independent act of a subject, it’s the interplay of the subject and the object that creates the reality, on the fly.
Here’s a brilliant example he then gives. A group of people decide to play the 20Q game, letting someone give questions that can only be answered by a yes or no, with the aim that this someone finds out the person the group thought of in the first place. The questioning starts. Is this a living person. No. Is this a man. Yes. And so on. Oddly, the questioner observes that the group progressively needs more and more time to answer questions. In the end he comes to the right solution. The group thought of Richard Feynman.
Except that it didn’t. Not from the start. The group made a deal that they will not think of a person, but rather just follow the questions of the questioner and then answer them consistently. All later answers would be consistent with the answers they gave earlier. Thus, the reality did not exist, it was the questions that invoked it.
Philip then proceeds to stipulate that quantum informatics, as it is better called, arrises from a very basic concept and that is that an object, any object can have observable properties. Yet these properties need not only belong to that object. A column is a column, yet it need not be the only object with that property. Maybe two object with one column-ness already are entangled, and for that matter, maybe 26 columns are also. He implies that such a view enables the world to elicit non-local effect that are haunting quantum mechanics.
If this view is true, this changes everything. It means that the whole universe is in every piece of the universe, and not only atomically, but any piece. This brings back the idea of holons, that I wrote about already. The idea that a body is the universe. Or any complete whole being a universe. With all universal properties. What if our yellow spot and blind spot that we have in our eyes are synonymous with the tree of life and the tree of wisdom in the garden of eden, what if they are the male and the female, the good and the evil. What if everything is just information. What if time and space doesn’t exist, but is just being created all the time, consistently?