Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future? Open system...

I have found a very interesting article which sheds some light on the subject of my blog.

You can find it here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/fulcanelli_da_vinci_code.htm

I provide this quote to my readers' perusal:

"Our universe seems to be made up of matter/energy and of consciousness. These are the female/receptive and male/active principles of the great Cosmic Androgyne."

"Matter/energy by itself "prefers", as it seems, a chaotic state. "

"Matter/energy by itself doesn't even have a concept of "creation" or "organization". It is the consciousness - the active "male" principle - that brings to life these concepts and by its interaction with matter pushes the universe towards chaos and decay or towards order and creation."

The author seems to say that this is the observer that creates chaos or order in its reality.

"This phenomenon can modeled mathematically and simulated on a computer using EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory). Whether EEQT faithfully models the interaction of consciousness with matter - we do not know. But chances are that it does because it seems to describe correctly physical phenomena better than just the orthodox quantum mechanics or its rival theories (Bohmian mechanics, GRW etc.)"

It seems there is a model that describes how the act of observing influences the reality of observer.

"What we learn from EEQT can be described in simple terms as follows: "

"Let us call our material universe "the system". The system is characterized by a certain "state". It is useful to represent the state of the system as a point on a disc. The central point of the disk, its origin, is the state of chaos. We could also describe it as "Infinite Potential" (the Great Mother - Nature). The points on the boundary represents "pure states" of being, that is states with "pure, non-fuzzy, knowledge". In between there are mixed states. The closer the state is to the boundary, the more pure, more 'organized' it is. "

"Now, an external "observer", a "consciousness unit", has some idea - maybe accurate, maybe false or anywhere in between - about the "real state" of the system, and observes the system with this "belief" about the state. Observation, if prolonged, causes the state of the system to "jump". In this sense, you DO "create your own reality", but the devil, as always, is in the details."

So, we create, but not as the New Age gurus would have us believe. It has to do more with how we observe and what we see!

"The details are that the resulting state of the system under observation can be more pure, or more chaotic depending on the "direction" of the jump. The direction of the jump depends on how objective - how close to the reality of the actual state - the observation is."

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW IN THIS BLOG! SO IT IS CRUCIAL HOW OBJECTIVE WE ARE WHEN VIEWING REALITY AROUND US!

"According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state."

"If, on the other hand, the expectation of the observer is close to the negation of the actual state (that is when the observer's beliefs are closer to being false than to being true according to the ACTUAL state - the objective reality), then the state of the system, typically, will jump into a state that is more chaotic, less organized. Moreover, it will take, as a rule, much longer time to accomplish such a jump."

Maybe this is the reason there is so much subjectivity around us and so much chaos?

"In other words, if the observer's knowledge of the actual state is close to the truth, then the very act of observation and verification causes a jump quickly, and the resulting state is more organized. If the observer's knowledge of the actual state is false, then it takes usually a long time to cause a change in the state of the system, and the resulting state is more chaotic."

"What this means is that order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it IS and not pretending that it is otherwise."

Which means accepting what it and not what one wants to see.

"In short, everyone who "believes" in an attempt to "create reality" that is different from what IS, increases the chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain't gonna win that contest! You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this "staring down the universe" exercise with you."

"On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance, you then become more "aligned" with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential."

So let's be as objective as we humanly can to bring more order to this chaotic system we live in.

Oli

Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future? About my sources...

I decided that it is necessary to introduce my sources. What I write here is purely my pondering of the objective reality, but it does not come merely from sucking my thumb. It does indeed has a source, even two. The first one is the observation of the reality around me. The second source in general is the Quantum Physics. More specifically it is the Quantum Future Physics as proposed by two quantum physicists: Ph. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk. Out of these two scientists Arkadiusz Jadczyk (Ph.D.) has his own website where his theories are presented.

In case you wonder where I got the idea that the act of observing and the state of observer defines the reality of observer, here is a quote from Mr.Jadczyk. He write on his website:

"We were taught by Bohr and Heisenberg that any observation will disturb a quantum state. Well, unless the state is already known to us, then we can try to be clever and not disturb it."

Me: As you see, the fact of observation disturbs the quantum state and since our macroscopic observable reality (referred to by Mr.Jadczyk as classical) stems or is created from the quantum reality, we may make a hypothesis that the act of observation defines the reality around. It is of course very complex and little understood phenomenon, nontheless it could be real. Mr. Jadczyk continues with comments to his own words where he introduces the question of objectivity and subjectivity:

"Comment:
~At this place we have in mind a rather provocative paper by Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman. This paper was later criticized by Unruh and others. The question was: is the quantum state an "objective" or "subjective" thing. Can we know it without disturbing it? This question is still open. But a way to answer this question is sketched in [jad94a]."

Me: Mr. Jadczyk seems to ask if the quantum state or the quantum state of an object (since I am of an opinion that state does not exist without an object it describes or refers to) is in itself an objective or subjective occurrence and if we can define or perceive this quantum state without disturbing it by observation. Well, it seems to me that he tries to say that the quantum state is in itself undetermined and it is the act of observing that disturbs or in other words defines the quantum state. Therefore, there is no way, in my opinion, to determine the quantum state without the act of observing, which in turn disturbs/defines it. There must exist a relation between the quantum state and the act of observing. It is exactly this relation I am trying to explore here. Based on this I think that there is no reality without its observer. Reality without the observer is undetermined though the indetermination is also a state in itself and maybe even the objective state of reality. Mr. Jadczyk continues:

"But how can we know the state? We need a theory, that will help us to answer these questions. We are proposing such a theory. We have extended the standard formalism. We do it in a minimal way: just enough to accommodate classical events. We add explicitly a classical part to the quantum part, and we couple classical to the quantum."

As you see, Mr.Jadczyk defines the objective reality as consisting of classical and quantum parts. He links them, or couples them to create the macroscopic reality with its events we can perceive with our own eyes.

In case you would like to read more about the Quantum Future Theory of the two aforementioned physicists you can find a nice summary here:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9812081

It is very technical, but still understandable. Just to give you the taste of it I will quote a paragraph:

"As we stressed elsewhere

J.S.Bell deplored the misleading use of the term "measurement" in quantum theory. He opted for banning this word from our quantum vocabulary, together with other vague terms such as "macrosccopic", "microscopic", "observable" and several others. He suggested that we ought to replace the term "measurement" with that of experiment", and also not to even speak of "observables" (the things that seem to call for an "observer") but to introduce instead the concept of "beables" - the things that objectively "happen-to-be (or not-to-be)"."

Stay tuned for the next part...

Oli

Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future? Continued 2...

Before I get to the subjective occurrences I would like to draw reader's attention to certain facts which are related to the subject at hand. I would like to point out that, in my opinion based on my observation, there are two different processes related to objectivity and subjectivity: the process of observation and the process of evaluation. These two aforementioned processes are very often misunderstood and mixed up by great many people. Understanding these two processes is, in my opinion, the key during the search of objective reality.

So, let me discuss them for a moment. An act of observing is related to seeing, viewing, watching and noticing something within or without. The act itself implies the existence of observer and the object/subject of observation. Through the act of observation the observer gathers information and facts about that which is observed. As noted in my previous posts, the state of observer effects the act of observation as well as its outcome, I will get back to this rather soon. It is also important to note that the very act of observation binds together the observer and its reality. In fact, I think that the act of observation defines the reality of observer. Observation is quite a natural thing. When we are small children, all we do is observing constantly gathering data. This is the primary way that we learn about the reality around us, way before we can speak and formulate conscious thoughts.

Please, note that when we observe we are neither evaluating nor judging what we see. We merely engage our perception aparatus to connect to the external or internal environment. For example, there is a room with a table in it and there is a cup on the table full of tea. Of course, we need an observer to do the deed for us. The observer enters the room and first thing it does is noticing the table and the cup on it. In the similar way we see the sun, moon, stars at night, clouds in the sky or pouring rain. The situation gets a bit more complicated in relation to the simple observing, when right after observation one starts to assign a meaning to that which has just been observed. And I do not mean the act of describing what we see, which is simply reflecting of what is viewed. When the observer starts assigning a meaning, we enter the process of evaluation and judgment. I do not mean to imply that it is bad or good to evaluate or judge. It simply is one of natural processes occurring within the observer. However, this is where objectivity and subjectivity start playing an important role. One can evaluate more objectively or more subjectively. When the observer evaluates, it attempts to relate itself to the object/subject of observation. If there exists such a relation, either through experience and knowledge, or through experience and lack of knowledge, the observer is able to assign a meaning to the object/subject of observation. In my opinion, if the observation is based on direct experience and knowledge then the evaluation can be more objective (read: reflects objective reality), whereas if it is based only on experience and there is a lack of knowledge within the observer such evaluation is more subjective and not necessarily reflects the objective reality.

It is also worth mentioning that the relation of observer to that, which it observes tends to color or influence both the state of observer (emotional, intellectual and physical one) and the results of observation through a process of feedback. Therefore, if the observer desires to evaluate more objectively, it should be aware of this process and do not allow the relation to introduce a bias to the evaluation.

So, as you see the there are two essential aspects related to objectivity and subjectivity: that of knowledge and that of state of the observer. My hypothesis is that the more knowledge the observer has and the purer the state the observer is in the more objective its observations and evaluations can be. By purity I mean that the number of assumptions the observer has towards the object/subject of observation.

I conclude my pondering for tonight. In my next post I will discuss the examples of subjectivity, so if you are interested stay tuned...

Oli

Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future? Continued...

Next thing that comes to my mind when considering the objectivity versus subjectivity is what really is objective. Therefore I will take my time and try to explain it.

There are certain occurrence in the universe that are objective. Take for example a star, or in particular our sun. The universe is full of such stars. Therefore the existence of stars is a universally objective fact. Every observer, regardless of its state and its knowledge can observe this phenomenon. Moreover, every sun radiates electromagnetic energy and many different particles as well as produces magnetic and gravity fields. Everyone can see that with their own eyes looking at the sun.

We also have gravity here on earth. Everyone experiences it daily. We also have rain, day and night, changing seasons. Also, every physical being living in the universe is born, lives longer or shorter, and then dies, and this is a universal occurrence.

All of the above mentioned examples are objective occurrens and they exist independently of the observer, to greater or lesser degree. Of course these objective phenomena may be understood differently by different observers and sometimes they may not even be perceptable to some observers, nonetheless they exist.

There exists also a universally objective language. This is mathematics. Mathematical rules and equations are universally and objectively the same to everybody. An equation produces the same result each time you solve it and regardless who solves it. The same equations apply to the electromagnetic field here on earth as they would literally apply anywhere else in our universe because they are objectively reflecting reality.

In my next post I will give examples of subjective occurrences, so stay tuned...

Oli

Objectivity vs. subjectivity: can objectivity create order or a different future?

My last blog entry recognized the existence of OBJECTIVE reality around us. In today's post I would like to discuss the subject of objectivity and its opposite - the subjectivity. While searching the Internet for material related to my today's subject I have found an interesting article that I would like to bring to the attention of my readers.

I took the quote from this page: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20041031.htm

This particular page is taken from a website owned by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her husband Arkadiusz Jadczyk, quantum physicist.

It goes like this:

"As the brain interacts with its environment, synaptic circuits combine to form synaptic maps of the world perceived by the senses. These maps describe small segments of that world - shape, color, movement - and these maps are scattered throughout the brain. As the brain's synaptic network evolves, beginning at birth - or even before - these maps process information simultaneously and in parallel.

Based on our synaptic maps of the world, we are enabled to have a more or less objective view of reality."

So, we have an objective reality around us, but we are usually capable of viewing only portion of this objective reality. The quote above suggests that it is through the brain and the senses that we perceive reality around us, that is the observer is using this hardware to see reality. These are the synaptic maps that allow one to perceive more of the objective reality or at times less of it.

I imagine that through this hardware along with the necessary synaptic maps, which may actually be considered the software, the observer interacts with surrounding reality. It is also clear that due to physical limitations of the hardware and insufficiently sophisticated software (synaptic maps) the observer is unable to perceive the whole of objective reality.

However, the issue of partiality of perception of objective reality is not the only problem. It is, in fact, given and we have to live with it, whether we like it or not. What seems to me to be more important is to what degree what we perceive through our perception aparatus reflects that which exists objectively. In other words, is what we see really that what objectively exists. As I wrote before, we may not see something due to imperfection of our hardware and/or missing software, we may see it distorted this way or the other, or we may even choose to see what we want to see, or not to see at all.

Consequently, the question of objectivity is not really related to the partiality of view, BUT rather the capacity of observer to see what is, as it is. If the observer is not capable of seeing the reality as it is, the observer's reality becomes subjective. Whereas the observer is capable of seeing what is and recognizes it for what it is based on its synaptic maps, then the observer defines own reality in a more objective way. This way, although the reality of observer is still partial, as it is, but nonetheless it objective.

I conclude my pondering for tonight. I will continue on the subject of objectivity vs. subjectivity in my next post, so stay tuned...

Oli