Arbit Musings Again

Muse muse, musing. Muse muse musing and then dead. Just like this. Is this all life is. One must feel sympathy for the ones who think that there must be more to life. Even so I feel even more sympathy for those who claim that this is all there is. You know, I tried both point of views and they both feel incomplete. It is more like and this is in the vaguest possible sense, that most opposites are actually orthogonal to each other. Meaning thereby that things we often classify as being opposites are actually unrelated phenomena. So while to be or not to be, seems like an open and shut case, being and non-being being opposites of each other. Is it in anyway possible that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Like Schrodinger’s cat, you know, without going into the details, it is both alive and dead, with certain probabilities of either condition. So is our existence something like that. I mean we are not actually alive or dead, but suspended midway between birth and death. Between existence and non-existence. Between being and not being. Of course, there is nothing fundamentally concrete, there is not a probability distribution, but me typing this and you, the reader reading this. But isn’t everything smoke and nothing else. It is somewhat frustrating because well, we learn there are solids and liquids and gases and plasmas. But then we learn that these are just configurations of atoms. Atoms have their own building blocks, which have their own building blocks, in fact the best way to understand the neutron and proton is as a probability cloud of mesons and other stuff, you know. Meaning thereby that there is just nothing solid, just wisps of smoke that characterize and make up everything. Of course not everything, that would be absurd. But everything in our mundane experience, we don’t actually experience sensations of neutrinos passing through us.

Then again what makes sense to me is to think of it in terms of the force responsible, galaxies are held together by gravity, atoms by electromagnetism and the nucleus by the strong nuclear force ( ignoring the weak which I do not really comprehend). Thus to me, it seems like these structures and their superstructures are organizing and reorganizing themselves. In case of the atoms it is what we could loosely call chemistry, the exchange of electrons, basically. These atoms then organize themselves into hierarchies of increasing complexity, biomoleules and so on and so forth to the humble ( I don’t really believe that) human. So galaxies are in some sense, weird sense like bio-molecules and which are like the nuclei. Of course, one scientific assumption is that all neutrons and protons have identical properties, charge, mass, spin and so on. Yet that is not so the case with the electromagnetic structures as we can clearly see, all stars are distinct things, as are all humans, all living and non living beings all non-sentients  are distinct. So I must posit that all nuclides are distinct. Which is contrary to just about everything I know. Or I must claim that all higher structures made out of electromagnetism are alike. Now this second claim is somewhat defendable, vaguely and incompletely because, a hydrocarbon has a pattern that mimics the smallest unit, methane. Also I would claim that all those things lumped together as sub atomic particles could be arranged in a periodic table based on some property that is quite possibly unknown yet. Same with the galaxies.

The problem with this is no hard proof. Also there is no reason why it should be so. Yet I think that structure is independent of the force holding together the structure. In my opinion, what I would vaguely call a pattern is something that an observer has observed. Meaning that, a pattern doesn’t exist until an observer is there to observe it. This is like claiming that there were no leafs, before they were observed to be so. It also raises questions like who is qualified to observe, what does it mean to observe and so on. These are questions I am not fully equipped to answer in any satisfactory manner, not even to myself so I would not hazard guesses (like claiming that every bacteria is analogous to a biosphere or something). Yet to me, it seems that science is gradually moving in a direction where we see the increase in the prominence of the position of the observer. The Observer is in fact as if not more, potent than the Creator. Because if a Creator cannot Observe its Creation, then there is no Creation. Yet if an Observer observes something, it is created. This is so very vague and almost theological, that I cannot help but blush that I could even think in terms like these.