Do you have a life philosophy?

The short answer is we simply don't know yet.

The longer answer involves holographic theory, multi-world theory, string theory, and/or the computer simulation theory (of which your Dad could probably share a good discussion with you on that. I studied physics in college and wanted to focus on quantum mechanics, but my health prevented me from making it into doctorate studies. So this is more of my background and approach.) Holographic theory, multi-world theory, and string theory are wildly different theories that have similar mathematical roots.

For Multi-world theory, all the possible ways particles may exist do indeed exist in alternate worlds/dimensions/realities. There is a reality we experience, but each decision we make splits off into other realities (where we make a different decision in that reality or our particles engage in a different way with other particles). There's a heck of a lot more to this theory, which I can dig up some links for it once I have a bit more time and my hands don't hurt as much.

There's also these interpretations of quantum mechanics as discussed in this article: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

There are some science fiction stories that play with the idea that the mass of human belief in specific things can will things into existence. (For example, The Lathe of Heaven LeGuin explores this idea through a person whose dreams become reality. So then a psychologist, a dectective, and the dreamer himself end up trying to manipulate his dreams to create the perfect reality, free of oppression, but the end result is not at all what they wanted because the dreamer's impact cannot be divorced from the results. No matter how others may try to manipulate him into creating only what they want. There's also a short story, of which I forget the author, that discusses this scientists who writes about the shifts in reality by massive cultural change - where the scientists ends up ceasing to exist because the massive cultural shift disbelieved him out of existence.

So suffice to say, there's a lot more experimentation and debates happening about this very topic.



I weave all of that into my essay, yes. As I think they are all interconnected. I come from a physics background, so that's why I went that direction in my arguments.

There are some who think the act of observing, which collapses the wave-function into a specific set of particle attributes, requires the universe to have a sentient mind to be the catalyst in that system. That's part of the article from Scientific American I linked above. That's the Werner Heisenberg hypothesis, that reality doesn't exist until it is observed. I'm not sure I'm fully on board with this interpretation (I'll share my thoughts below the other interpretations).

For other interpretations of this same phenomenon, we have de Broglie-Bohm theory, which says that reality is both wave and particle. This interpretation involves viewing the particle as "riding" the wave, and thus the particle is the one that interferes with itself (being both a wave and a particle) and thus ends up in a particular configuration. For this theory, the observer isn't really present. And although there is merits to this argument, quantum mechanics makes it clear that the act of an observation is the actual catalyst for the collapse of the Schrodinger's wave into a specific attribute of particles -- so who is the observer is the focus of this theory, and those that align with de Broglie-bohm, struggle to articulate in math and words who that observer is.

Then you have the "collapse" theories that argue that if enough particles are in a given area, as in their probability of being in that area is incredibly high, that high probability is what triggers the wave-collapse into a verifiable and detectable reality. This also doesn't require an observer, but what causes those particles to be in that area to cause such a high probability? The theories in this corner also struggle with articulating this. There's some really interesting math behind this interpretation.

So yes, there are a lot of different interpretations. I actually sort of combine all those interpretations into my own to be honest.

When experiments are done such as double-slit experiments with photons (where photons are shot one particle at a time at two slits that project onto a screen), the detector's existence (as one needs a detector to determine the path of the photon) influences the end result. That's an observer, and those other interpretations try to write out that observer. But we can't really -- we can't negate the fact that to obtain the data of our reality, we must observe it, and the act of our observing thus influencing the system we are observing. We become part of that system, so in that sense, does us, the observer, becoming part of the system then fall into line with de Broglie-Bohm's or the Collapse Interpretations? Yes, as we are now part of the system, we have influenced the probability fields of the particles, and that causes the collapse. So in the end, I see the observer as existing in all interpretations as part of the system. There's no way around that in my eyes.

I think this answered one of your other questions concerning if there are other ways to interpret this. lol




So yes, we are still connected with the coal.

Quantum particles make up all molecules -- a carbon molecule is made up of proton, neutrons, and electrons. The electrons are indeed quantum particles that behave according to quantum mechanics principles and mathematics (to a high precision that amazes scientists today, that is how successful quantum mechanics is at predicting particles like electrons). Now protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, which are also quantum particles. So yes, carbon molecules' constituents are simply quantum particles. One cannot divorce a molecule from what makes it up.



Yes. Look at General relativity and special relativity. Both theories by Einstein are dependent on the observer. For example, let's say I'm on a faster than the speed of sound aircraft, and you are stationary in a bubble in space. How you view me and the length of my aircraft, how quickly I pass you by, will differ significantly than how I observe myself and how i observe myself in relation to you. That difference is able to be calculated mathematically within General and Special relativity. Most of the time the differences in how we view reality is rather small to the point of being negligible. It's when we look at the very, very small (quantum world) or the very,very large and fast (relativity world) that we see how our differences in perspective impact the way we interpret events.

I'll have to think of a way to share how such differences are reconciled. I keep thinking of how to do it with math, which... isn't helpful in these types of discussions. lol So I need to think of a way to explain it maybe with a metaphor.

Let's say we are looking at a cat in the box. The box is closed. We have no way to measure if the cat is actually IN the box or if the box is empty. We could try to lift the box and check its weight, but without the knowledge of the box weight or the cat weight, it is hard to definitely say the cat is in the box or not. So until we open the box, we can disagree on reality all we want. It's the act of measuring by opening the box where the reconciliation of our realities happen. Now, because sentience is a weird thing, the person who claims there is no cat in the box, can go on doing that all they want, even as they reach in and touch the cat's fur. (This is how conspiracy theories are born). They can have all the evidence the cat is in the box, but if their mind is so rooted in denying that reality, for them, they create their own made-up reality and may even fail to see what they are actually touching. We can trick our own minds. So yes, there is instances where we may disagree and have no way to reconcile it. Brains are funky like that, but now we've entered into the realm of psychology, and that's not my forte.

Suffice to say, the universe reconciles the differences, but we have the conscious decision to reject that reconciliation or embrace it. Because our interdependence -- us being part of the system means our act of observing the opening of the box causes the universe to reconcile the interior of the box for us to observe. The waveform collapses, and we see the cat or not. But because we are conscious and sentient, we can reject that reality still. That's a decision that is one step beyond the moment the wave-form of quantum particles collapse from our observation. If that makes sense?

Also, as a side note, in the many-world (multi-world) theory, it reconciles those differences as each difference splinters off into a different reality, so there is a reality where our differences aren't reconcilable, and a reality where they are, and a reality where we don't have differences, etc. That's part of the theory (similar to the discussion of how each decision or different in particle configurations splinter off realities).



I would recommend reading Michio Kaku's books. He writes about this actually, and has some really good arguments about ways we could realize "telekinesis" or "telepathy" with physics and technology.

Physics cannot confirm or deny ghosts. I suspect ghosts or paranormal spookiness requires belief, where our minds create our reality by believing so strongly in something that we will it into existence for ourselves and anyone who is as convinced as we are. There's some interesting experiments about how a person who believes in something so strongly, that they can cause others to align with their strongly held beliefs. There's also some experiments that show how different people can experience a thing differently based on their socializations, prejudices, unconscious biases, trauma triggers, and so forth -- for example, someone who does not believe in ghosts is presented with images or asked to enter a haunted room. They share an experience of not seeing ghosts and not feeling anything weird about the place. But take someone who believes strongly in ghosts, they will always see a ghost in the pictures or in the room, especially if primed by the image being called "haunted" or the room being called "haunted."

I don't feel well enough to try to locate studies like that at the moment. I read them in a psychology class back in college. It was pretty interesting.

The point here is that we may not always agree on our reality, but there is a portion of our universe that we cannot disagree on: we are both alive and we both exist, else we wouldn't be talking to one another. From that shared agreement, we can then build a relational way of being. So it is possible to work around our differences to reconcile them in ways that are beneficial. It is very hard work however.

Ok, I'm really tired again, and my hands are starting to hurt again. I'll stop here.

Thank you for your questions! They really got me thinking and digging a bit deeper. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay.