: The short story is a condensed and modified version of a novel of ideas that will be part of my dissertation. The protagonist, an experimental particle physicist, is sent on a mission to recover a hidden notebook supposedly belonging to Schrödinger (a ‘what-if’ fictive element) that will reveal how the latter had discovered the way for quantum behaviour to be inserted into the macroscopic world of lived-reality, therefore making probable conditions that are impossible under classical laws. Concepts and ideas within quantum physics are used to explore ethical and philosophical questions situated within a macro-human social rubric to instigate an investigation into the hermeneutics of realism. I hope to demonstrate, via the story, that knowledge production in scientific practices is about the exploration of different permutations of reality, and that play, a form of ludic methodology, is ritually performed in scientific work, such as in thought-experiments and ‘fictional’ modeling to reconstruct multiple worlds (extending beyond straightforward simulation).
: The short story is a condensed and modified version of a novel of ideas that will be part of my dissertation. The protagonist, an experimental particle physicist, is sent on a mission to recover a hidden notebook supposedly belonging to Schrödinger (a ‘what-if’ fictive element) that will reveal how the latter had discovered the way for quantum behaviour to be inserted into the macroscopic world of lived-reality, therefore making probable conditions that are impossible under classical laws. Concepts and ideas within quantum physics are used to explore ethical and philosophical questions situated within a macro-human social rubric to instigate an investigation into the hermeneutics of realism. I hope to demonstrate, via the story, that knowledge production in scientific practices is about the exploration of different permutations of reality, and that play, a form of ludic methodology, is ritually performed in scientific work, such as in thought-experiments and ‘fictional’ modeling to reconstruct multiple worlds (extending beyond straightforward simulation).
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
What is 'the nature of reality’? This thought has occupied the minds of scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. This issue is examined scientifically, that, how the views of scientists and western philosophers have undergone a dramatic change over a period of time. This may then answer whether spacetime is a reality of nature or if it is just a figment of our imagination in which to view this cosmos! The article begins with the thoughts of Democritus, and the other Greek philosophers, continuing with the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. With the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes and Isaac Newton, the rise of the ‘mechanical world view’ later the decline of this view is discussed when the phenomenon in optics, electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Then the concept of ‘field’ was evolved, culminating in ‘Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic fields’.The beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘quantum theory’, starting with the idea of ‘quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of the 20th century saw great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics - totally new ideas on ‘the nature of reality’ were being conceived. Large numbers of fundamental particles were discovered in the ensuing years. However, not much progress indeed was made in answering some of the most fundamental questions about the existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism, along with the ideas of quantum theory and the concept of consciousness, may answer some of the intricate questions about the nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from the perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions about the existence of life and the ‘nature of reality’ itself.Beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘Relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘Quantum Theory’, starting with the idea of ‘Quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of 20th century saw the great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics. Absolutely new ideas on ‘The Nature of Reality’ were being conceived. Large number of fundamental particles was discovered in the ensuing years. But not much progress indeed took place in answering some of the most fundamental questions on existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘Biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism along with the ideas of Quantum Theory and the concept of Consciousness may answer some of the intricate questions on nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions on the existence of life and the ‘Nature of Reality’ itself.
In this lecture, intended for a general audience, I describe Schrödinger's thought experiment which was designed to show the strange results of extending the formalism of quantum theory, particularly the idea of superposition, beyond the subatomic regime. I describe a way to understand superposition in the terms of formal logic. I trace the development of Schrodinger's ideas after this thought experiment, and briefly sketch some work which realises it in actual experiments, and proposals for taking it further.
This dissertation formulates a closed world in which the observer, in whatever capacity, does not stand outside the universe but is intrinsically part of it. Biologically formed or not.This position is often misunderstood in classical science. You observe something while you yourself are part of what you observe. This becomes evident at the quantum level. The debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein revolved around this for decades, and continues to this day. Likewise, there are many discussions about the role of the observer, such as in the Double Slit Experiment. There it becomes clear that the observer perceives something different from the underlying reality. It is well known that it matters whether you observe or not.This dissertation explains clearly that this position of an external observer, present in both of these examples, is impossible to maintain within classical science. It also assumes that everything in the universe, even at the quantum level or smaller, proceeds according to strict rules. No process in the universe can escape them. It may seem that as a human being (or as another biological or non‑biological entity) you possess free will because of your mobility and mind, but even that can be traced back to a universal process that adheres precisely to the same rules from which everything is built. Nothing in the entire universe can escape them. This is reinforced and clarified by the central thought experiment used here: the frozen universe. It reveals that time, change, and free will do not exist in reality but only as experience. Time is a concept from point A to point B within which change occurs. Because of this, we are accustomed to process thinking. In a static universe, this is impossible. It then becomes apparent that things we consider normal—even at the scientific level—manifest themselves in a completely different way. This dissertation on the frozen universe therefore has major consequences. As a result, Einstein’s block universe can no longer be taken as a starting point—something on which many theories are based—and the debate between Bohr and Einstein on determinism and indeterminism becomes largely redundant. The Schrödinger equation and numerous scientific publications are thereby put under pressure, precisely because everything unfolds according to the fixed, universal, continuous process over which one has no influence. As humans or observers, we live in our world while continuously being part of that same process and of how that universal process unfolds. As a human being, you have only the freedom to experience the human world. Therefore, free will and time should be regarded as separate from all universal processes, because these human processes—also applicable to other biological beings—experience a different world than the universal process of which they are part.In short: we live in an illusion of our reality that does not align with the universal processes that have existed as long as the universe itself. This also shows that everything is determined according to the rules that unfold continuously within the one‑direction continuum, and that nothing can be changed about it. It is thus a framework in which reality, perception, and causality converge into one closed, relational whole. In doing so, it forms a conceptual bridge between physics, philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and epistemology, and provides a foundation for a new, reflexive scientific method. It is also a bridge between classical science—from Newton to contemporary quantum theory.