Reology and Uncertainty

From previous articles about Quantum Mechanics, how it came about, and the incredible and bazaar implications it not only suggests, but has proven as well, attempts to further understand and explain Quantum Mechanics continues to be an ongoing pursuit of Science.

One of the theories currently in vogue is the Many Worlds Theory. This is an attempt to explain the Uncertainty Principle developed by Werner Heisenberg. Briefly, uncertainty says that because of the dual nature of matter, we can only observe matter at the expense of any knowledge of matter's alternate state, which is energy, and visa versa. This of course creates a real dilemma. How can we observe only one of these states when in fact there are two? No matter how many different ways we devise to over come this limitation of observation, we can only ever observe either matter or characteristics ascribed to energy, but not both at the same time, even though they are a version of each other.

The matter we do observe is in only one of many possible states. If for example, an electron can exist in a billion different states or variations of itself, when we observe it, we can only see one of those possible billion variations. This, fortunately, gives consistency to the material world we see. If matter were to appear instead in all its possible variations during an observation we would see a universe in such a perpetual flux of change as to only be a blur of activity. This would include how we would see ourselves as well. It would be impossible to function in a physical reality where ever thing, and every part of everything, appeared in every possible probable state in which it can, including the physical selves we each see we are. The changes we do observe in fact are different specific states that things can be in, but again, we only ever see one of these states at a time. Physical reality demands the illusion of linear experience over the illusion of time.

What however, determines which specific state we observe matter in of all the variables it can appear in?

In other words, what determines the state an electron is in when we observe it versus all the possible states that could appear in its place? What determines how you see yourself now as opposed to the you you were a year ago? Science doesn't know, but it does have a theory about all these variations. According to the Many Worlds Theory, matter actually is in every possible state at every instant, and what separates these states from each other is that each can only appear in another universe which is itself is only one unique version of all possible versions of universes.

You therefore, based on this theory, exist in an incredible number of variations of yourself in as many universes, each of you experiencing reality from a slightly different way to a radically different way then you experience it here. When you consider how many electrons, protons, neutrons, elements, compounds, genetic variations, different species of animals, fish, reptiles, and plants there are plus all the different stars, moons, planets, and everything else that exists, try to fathom how each, any every part of each, exists in its own universe in an alternate probable state. It should become apparent that there is no way to define how Many Worlds there could actually be. Fortunately, it is just a theory, or as some prefer to call it, an interpretation. The Many Worlds concept however attempts to explain why observation can only ever allow a single variation for the appearance of "things" of all the variations possible. The need for such an explanation arises from another dilemma that "observation" is a critical component for matter to appear as physical identity. Science feels compelled to seek out explanations that exclude anything supernatural.

In the case of an observer, the best explanation would be God. It would solve a lot of problems despite that there are no mathematical proofs of God. This simply isn't scientific however.

We need to review the problem of the observer. Physicists argue that an observation is not inclusive to a "human" observation. Reology agrees with this. They claim anything can act as an observer. The scientific instruments we use to measure things can be an observer, as can a microbe or photon and whatever else you can think of. This opens the door however to some obvious contradictions. Matter can only appear as matter in the instant of observation. If some form of cognitive sentient being wasn't observing, how can we possibly know anything else is? Sure we use instruments to detect what our senses cannot, but without our observation of the instruments data, how can we know the instrument even has any data? How can we possibly know a photon observed an electron in material identity if we weren't also observing? Things do not define themselves and each other. Things only behave according to the limitations that govern them and their ability to interact with other things. We are the only identity in this reality that can define "things".

How does observation even become possible then? If no matter can be material until observed, what observes it into materialness? How does this matter in the instant of observation expand into a universe? How does it evolve into all the elements that are the building blocks of all material identity, inorganic and organic that we know of and are yet to discover? What is making all the observations essential to all these identities appearing as independently physical things? If we are not required as observers, then how do we know anything exists?

The premise is that everything is already here, so that when we came along, it already was being observed by other "things" and we just joined the viewing audience with our newly introduced abilities of discovery, able to define and manipulate and create in ways never before possible. But, if matter isn't material until the moment of observation, there cannot be an "already here". It is impossible to know of any observations other then our own. This is regardless of whether we observe directly with our senses or indirectly with instruments designed to detect what our senses cannot. Any observation ability by "things" only serves to support cognitive observations. Without the ability to think, an observation has no meaning.

If a thing observes another thing into physical reality, but neither of these things can define or understand their relationship which each other, what value is the observation? Who even knows about it? Who would even care? It's a meaningless experience. To suggest such observations of things with each other, over time, is what created newer things, newer identity, that through countless observations with each other is how the universe got to be where it is, and how we got to evolve into what we are so that finally, there's a "thing" that can now give meaning and understanding to everything else, is highly suspect at the very least, and that's without getting into all the specific things that had to be observed in just the right relationship with each other in order for life to even be possible. The odds are astronomical against such a scenario. And that's just for this universe. What are the odds for all the Many World ones, where the exact sequence of events and relationships necessary for life don't exist because of possible variations divergent from those here? The vast majority of Many Worlds cannot support life, since the requirements for life to evolve are so very specific. Actually, even the slightest variations from this universe are not supportive of life, so that the probability is only this Universe has life as we know it. So perhaps there aren't so many, or even any other versions of each of us after all.

We still have the question, why only a specific state of matter out of all its possible states at the instant of observation? Because experience mirrors conviction. When we make observations that appear as our physical reality, what we see reflects what we are convinced is supposed to be there. In this sense, there is a Many Worlds reality, but it exists within this physical reality we are part of. Each person sees things unique to him or her. We all have a unique version of reality that differs from the version of others. Sort of the "no two snowflakes" are alike kind of thing, except here, we are not limited to seeing snowflakes differently, but everything that exists, whether we perceive it as real or imagined. Within this reality that we see ourselves apart of, is as many personal realities as there are, has been, or will be observers. The convictions of these observers are what dictates the specific material version of reality that is personal to them, based on the convictions of what is possible and what is not, as well as the limits of experience designed into physical reality. No, this is not some mind over matter hocus pocus. It is reaping as one sows however.

While this reality is dependent upon observation for its material characteristics, each observer only ever experiences one unique version of many probable variations of what is being observed. This is a concept that Science cannot deny despite how much it is trying to. The reason for this goes back to the Observer problem. If only cognitive observation can cause matter to appear real and have meaning as well, then there has to be an Observer that supersedes all others, because we cannot observe ourselves into being. There has to be an Original Observer Who allows for and makes possible all other observations. This is the Reology and Uncertainty Principle.

http://www.therealitycode.com