A Separate Reality (Pt I)

"We are men and our lot is to learn and to be hurled into inconceivable new worlds." ;)

I purchased this book (used) because the picture on the cover reminded me of a half-formulated thought that I have been carrying around - a thought about the nature of gravity.

To my dismay, the book contained no descriptions of a subjective experience of gravity being violated, which is really what I was hoping to find.

As I finished the book today, and as I can't seem to sleep right now, I thought I'd take some time to flesh that thought out just a bit more...

Gravity, as we all know, describes a relationship between two objects. Cognitive scientist that I am, I had to stop and wonder about the nature of object classification. That led me to wonder about what, if anything, we would know about gravity if we didn't or couldn't have distinct cognitive boundaries that separated one object from another. (Perhaps now you can begin to see my fascination with the book cover picture - each of the objects which appear to defy gravity can be classified/perceived as a single object: tree, man, mountain, etc.)

Furthermore, the gravitational force between two objects is determined by 1) the mass of each of the objects, and 2) the distance between the two objects. Why?

Is it possible that gravity is simply how we perceive the cognitive processes that are behind the association of one object's representation with that of another? Or the neurophysics that link one representation to another? In the brain, where does one representation end and another begin? How is that boundary defined (cognitively, and in the neural architecture), and wouldn't it be expedient if that boundary were as seamless as possible whenever possible? And, as it becomes necessary to allow for more information to be represented within the intervening space (greater distance) between two objects, should that not also be reflected in the neural architecture that contains the representations of those objects? How then would that be perceived and experienced in the relationship between the original two objects?

(Do you see where I'm going with this?)No doubt, this idea needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more before it produces anything testable, but we agreed that I was allowed to speculate. ;)

Last Man Standing

"Come see a living, breathing spectacle
Only seen right here"

Tonight I'm going to a birthday party at a bowling alley. And while I am familiar with the game of bowling, it's fair to say that I bowl about once a year. I can probably break 100, but not 150.

And I'm wondering... What would it be like to bowl a game 5-dimensionally? How would that experience be different than that of a game bowled 4-dimensionally? What forces would I have to pay attention to and compensate for? What techniques best elicit repeated strikes in 5 dimensions?

Now that's some research I could get into... :)

But where on earth does one publish a paper on Bowling in the 5th Dimension?

Theory vs. Experiment vs. Experience

"One either saw the facts and told them precisely as they existed, or one fled."

Here's the only thought I've had today that's worth sharing...

Modern physics evolved from the 4 dimensions that were defined by our experience. None of the additional dimensions that have hitherto been postulated by physicists in an attempt to explain certain observations have reflected anything that we experience.

If we are going to start adding dimensions, doesn't it make sense that they be dimensions in the same sense as the first four - dimensions that reflect experience? And if we are going to try to use those dimensions to solve physics problems, doesn't it make sense that we first have to understand what it's like to experience that dimension?

I'm just saying...

Being a Heretic is Hard Work

"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

Did I ever tell you that I almost went to law school? So deep was my love of logic and the power of argument, that I could've really enjoyed a career wielding those tools in defense of the those needing assistance. This is, of course, a very idealized picture of what a lawyer does, and I was fortunate enough to be able to disabuse myself of the notion that being a lawyer would have been that satisfying to me as a career.

Even though the prospect was scarier, and the path to success much less clear, I opted for graduate school instead. Law school offered the potential for scholarships; graduate school offered a struggle for acceptance in the programs of my choice, as I was ill-prepared to 'demonstrate' my commitment to this field of study. So why didn't I make the smart, responsible, logical decision, and attend law school?

If you've been paying attention, then you know the story about the questions that drove me to study the brain and cognition. My questions. My questions are what drive me still; not the questions that you tell me need to be answered.

No one sets out to be a heretic. They simply wake up one day and find that somewhere along the way they have crossed a line. The rational response to that is to simply keep one's mouth shut. I mean really, if your choices are to keep working on something that interests you, or to repeat the same arguments again and again and again for every person who wants to take their shot, what would you do?

So perhaps it is the part of me that loves logic and the power of argument that lets me surface every now and again to take on someone whose arrogance I find particularly annoying. ;) In the end though, I don't expect to do anything other than to continually work to refine my argument and measure it against the arguments of others. If you've got something useful to say, bring it on.

I've been very reluctant to reveal some of the ideas that I've entertained in an attempt to explain why the defaults of classical physics are what they are, given what we know about how they can be appear to be violated. (Nothing gets you a label faster than spouting half-formulated ideas in a domain outside your own. ;) Recently though I read a small book called Einstein's Dreams, by Alan Lightman (1993). (Brilliant book; I highly recommend it.) And I realized, I can do that. I can flesh out a speculation until it becomes unsatisfactory for whatever reason. It will be a speculation, and that is just fine. This is a work-in-progress, not a finished product. And if you witness all the errors I make in the process, that's just fine as well.

But you'll have to wait just a bit, as I have something more mainstream to finish up at the moment.