So your science – it was doing
fine, wasn’t it.
What do you mean “was”?
Past tense. Caput. Over.
You can’t just denigrate science en
masse.
Who’s denigrating? Something works
until it outgrows the pond or the pool of willing idiots – like our friend
Isaac Newton who bought into the South Sea Bubble, hoping to make a killing.
Ponzi schemes have a mathematical certainty of failure.
I thought we were talking about
science? Now you’ve leapt into economics. Show a little consistency, please.
Because we’re in a consciousness
sink, or pond, if you prefer. The one thing we’re unable to observe, that we’re
completely unaware of, is the size or boundaries of this pool. We’ve assumed
that the universe is basically infinite, existing independent of our consciousness,
and that we can, if need be, expand more or less forever, if we’re smart enough
to kill or enslave aliens getting in our way.
Oh dear. This conversation’s
taking a wildly…
Because our science likes to
imagine that matter and life, or matter and consciousness, or matter and
language itself are unconnected.
Er… what’s that got to do with the
size of the universe, or science being a Ponzi scheme?
Because sooner or later you allow
the basic mathematics of Is to filter through the noise barrier in your brain.
Noise barrier? What on Earth are
you on about?
A barrier filled with noise
designed or intended to prevent you from hearing or seeing the obvious.
Er…
That language and words, including
science theories, cannot, do not exist in a vacuum.
As in the vacuum of space?
As in being separated from
everything – and in particular matter.
But matter and language are
completely unconnected. One is physical, the other purely abstract.
Yes. That’s where we are in our
primitive modern “science” which insists that things – whole worlds, in fact,
exist in a vacuum, and that consciousness, or your mind, is a purely isolated,
biological phenomenon, and that we, clever little tykes, can use words with
impunity and, literally, get away with murder, because the mind is nicely
contained in a biological suit and can do no harm, is powerless to effect
matter, that Jesus is the one with egg on his face for claiming we could move
mountains if we had faith; in short, that matter and language are, as you said,
wholly unconnected – which is indicative of the primitive, pre-collapse level
of our society – a society which cannot evolve until its sterile, wilfully
ignorant, half-baked notion of knowledge
unceremoniously implodes.
Implodes?
Absolutely. A society that can
not, will not see the basic fundamental unities of even language and matter, is
doomed to destroy itself or paint itself into a corner from which there’s no
escape until they’re ready to ditch this absurd reliance on matter – until
they’re ready to acknowledge the elephant in the corner – the other side of who
and what we are, the silent universe, the Is, without which none of your
vaunted intellectual schemes, none of those endless constructs, neither your
gravity, nor your red shift, neither time nor even space have the least
traction whatsoever. Purely abstract wheels spinning to no purpose, while you
collectively pretend it’s all there, it’s all happening, it’s all real, masters
of wilful self-deceit.
Er… Not sure I follow what you’re
on about.
Ok – a scientist tries to explain
red shift, for example, or gravity, or the supposed curvature of space-time –
all fascinating topics, I’m sure.
Indeed.
But all the while his silence
grows ever more intense, because he’s staking ever more of his mental capital,
ever more of his awareness on the side of matter being a safe bet – that matter
is detached and kind of neutral – that he can rely on it with peace of mind.
Er… I don’t see anything wrong
with that.
While silence is telling him the
opposite.
But silence is silent. How can it
speak?
How, I know not, but speak it does
– silently – to those with ears to hear – and silence says that words never
were – never could be separate from the vast world, or universe, of matter that
seems to dwarf us to the nth degree.
You’re trying to say that our
insignificant little words are in some way a threat to matter itself?
A threat or a counter weight –
yes.
A counter weight? But there’s no
mechanism – no visible connection.
Until you factor everything you’re
ignoring into the equation.
Like what?
Like yourself.
?! But why would I want to do
that?
Because otherwise you’re assuming
you’re an irrelevancy.
I am? I’m just recognising my
physical insignificance. I’m accepting, humbly, my material irrelevancy to the
cold, uncaring world of hard things.
The problem being that the
universe, or this world, or we could just say “reality” is so obviously an
interactive experience, isn’t it?
Between people, yes, but not
between words and matter. No.
Right.
So you agree.
Right you are.
Well, that’s a relief. Now we can
go and have lunch.
But what is right?
Huh?
What is right?
I think we both know that, in
normal English, it’s used to indicate what is correct and true.
Yes it is, in the same way “nice”
is used to mean “nice”.
And why shouldn’t it be?
It should be, in a modern world
where things, apparently, matter – and words are merely words, thoughts just
thoughts, and “mind” a purely localised biological phenomenon.
So, you’re now suggesting that
right is not, in fact, right, or nice doesn’t actually mean nice?
Well, right, like plus, is
incomplete and meaningless without its other half. So, not surprisingly the
left was denigrated as something dark, alien and unmanageable because we’re
all, mostly, right-handed, are we not.
I think you’re taking this a bit
far. It’s just a word. If you don’t like the word “right” let’s use “correct”
instead.
Nice too – that originally meant
“ignorant” or “non-scientific” – only later coming to mean nice, in the modern
sense.
Ok, ok – words change their
meanings – big deal.
I disagree.
Quelle surprise!
Right you are – because seeing
things as a so-called “modern” person – you haven’t yet accepted that the
observer affects whatever is under observation.
You’re mistaken, I assure you.
That’s one thing I have accepted. The double slits experiment – the corner
stone of quantum mechanics.
But why should it happen? Why
should the mere fact of observing something change the outcome?
Well, it’s complicated, isn’t it,
but that’s what makes quantum mechanics such a fascinating subject. We’re just
beginning to unravel its mysteries, aren’t we. We’re just, I suspect, on the
cusp of a quantum age.
Indeed, but not as you’re
imagining.
You seem to be rather sure of
yourself, Val.
Right you are.
Meaning you disagree?
Meaning that in the right way of
seeing things – I most certainly appear to be a hopelessly self-opinionated,
arrogant bore. The kind of person you can never have a satisfactory discussion
with.
Really? I think you’re being a
little harsh on yourself, Val. You’re far from perfect but I wouldn’t damn you
like that.
But the “right" way of
thinking, the right way of seeing things, dear Mallory, is ending.
More of your apocalyptic doom
saying.
On the contrary. Nothing could be
brighter, nothing could be better for humanity.
Really?
Yes, really, but not in the sense
you’re using the word.
Huh?
Your “really” refers to a version
of reality which is heavily distorted, uncomfortably skewed, a reality which is
only real as long as things remain nicely contained, as long as nice is nice.
Well, like I said, words can
change their meaning – I’m not going to deny the obvious – but me thinks you
ask too much of people. We’re never going to have the complete picture, the
whole truth. We’re always working with a best approximation, which seems to be
empirically close enough to be acceptable, for the time being, until we get
more or better data, or until we find a better conceptual framework to better arrange
our data, when a new theory or set of theories supersedes the old.
Changing of the guards at
Buckingham Palace.
That’s right – er – correct. Out
with the old Titans, in with the new kids – Zeus, Hera etc. It’s a constant
process of responding to inputs, to refine and hone whatever our current
construct is.
Indeed.
So, now that we’ve dealt with
that, perhaps we could go and get some lunch.
Yes, good idea, but what if…
What?
What if…
Er… let’s consider your questions
over lunch. I’m a little peckish you know.
Ok. It’s just the mathematics of
Is don’t separate things into plus and minus, or right and wrong.
Well, how would they cope with
magnetism, with electricity, or with biological gender. It seems like a
non-starter to me, your mathematics of Is. I’m not saying there’s nothing
conceptually interesting in there. It’s like string theory – it may be true, it
may be correct, but it seems a bit far out. We need to be practical – to keep
our heads on our shoulders, our feet on the ground – otherwise we could get
lost in cleverness, you know.
Yes, I know.
Ah – there’s a nice little café –
they make excellent mushroom soup.
Do they. I’m tempted.
I do hope we go in – it would be
the first time.
The first time you’ve ever been
there?
No, I’ve been there on numerous
occasions.
Then what?
It would be the first time I,
Mallory, or anyone in this blog, managed to successfully conclude the
discussion with a happy, down to earth meal.
You mean they don’t usually end
well?
No. It’s always Zie or Margarita or
someone else getting carted off to some kind of terrible total perspective
vortex, in which the poor blighter gets ripped apart by perceiving the vastness
of infinity – and we’re supposed to be happy about that!
Ah, I see. Yes, that sounds rather
glum. But why do you suppose this to be a blog. I thought we’re just two random
people having a chat about the nature of reality.
A bit problematic that.
Really?
Really – because in my reality
there’s a blog called g-nomeportal where these seemingly random
conversations get uploaded, to be devoured moments later by countless avid
readers.
Countless avid readers? I can’t imagine
that. Are you sure you’re not inflating the numbers?
No, I assure you. In my reality
it’s a big hit.
In your reality? You mean to say –
we’re not from the same world?
Well, I wouldn’t go that far.
We’re both earthlings, aren’t we, but evidently our earths are in different
phase locks. You don't have g-nomeportal in yours, do you?
I didn't say that. Of course I
know about it, in fact I follow it to the best of my ability, but it's a minor
affair, fairly unreadable if you ask me, and I've certainly never provided
content from my real life experiences such as this conversation. I wouldn't
know how.
Well, it’ll be interesting to see
if they match up, if the posts are the same, won't it – if you make it into the
next one. We should follow this up.
I don't think that's going to
possible.
No?
Not without collapsing the field.
Ah, you mean by acting as
observers, the old quantum conundrum?
Precisely.
Well, maybe we can find a
workaround.
A workaround?
A loophole – there’s always some
way to beat the system.
Humph!
By the way, how many people follow
the g-nomeportal blog in your Earth?
Oh, about 100.
100? That all?
Well, actually, I tend to err on
the side of flagrant exaggeration, can't imagine why. In fact it’s considerably
less than 100. I won’t embarrass myself any further. Numbers are such demeaning
little things. In any case, what do you expect?
Huh?
Ahead of its time, isn’t it? The
quantum age is still short in the tooth and we’re a progressive avant-garde of
quantum field pioneers – that’s how I see it. What about you? How fares g-nomeportal
in your neck of the field?
Oh we have millions of followers.
Millions?
Yes.
But why?
Because the blog seems to have
some kind of narcotic, no not exactly narcotic, some untranslatable effect on people. If they don’t fall asleep reading it –
which is difficult, I have to confess – they undergo some kind of energy shift, or
maybe I should call it a phase shift, to use your terminology.
How bizarre. Millions? Are you sure about
that? – I mean, it’s the first I’ve ever heard of this. Why wouldn't it have the same effect over here? Besides, it's just a blog.
Well, didn’t you yourself say that
reality is not fixed – that words have power?
Ye-es.
How would we know if words were
able to change things instantaneously?
We wouldn’t.
Precisely. Supposing our
discussion just opened up another branch, another spiral of reality? Now what
do you think of that?
I don’t know what to think.
You see.
It’s entirely possible – but in
the end you get lost in endlessly bifurcating proliferations or permutations of reality. It may
seem like a path to infinity but it ain’t. The opposite in fact. Nature abhors chaos.
Huh?
Infinity has to be simple –
infinitely simple – and local – it has to be based here in the exchange medium.
What exchange medium?
Between matter and me – the mind
or the conscious-ness that I am somehow aware of being.
Exchange medium – doesn’t that
imply that you’re not intrinsically real.
It does.
That you are only real to the
extent that things around you are not you – yet are able to feed into and out
of your reality – your me – your…
Quantum field.
Perhaps – perhaps.
Conversely, does it not imply that
matter itself – the physical universe – whatever you prefer to call it – is not
intrinsically real either – only being so to the extent that it is able to feed
into and out of the exchange medium that’s between us and separates us
co-valently.
Ah. Co-valency. You’ve finally
done it!
I have?
Yes.
Done what?
Got to the title of this blog
post.
Huh?
Didn’t you know?
Know what?
Oh never mind. In my reality the next title is posted in advance – and I, like millions of other
readers, was wondering what the heck this co-valency thing might be.
Couldn’t you just have looked it
up, in a dictionary?
Well, I could have, but that’s not
the same thing.
No?
No, because there’s always a
slightly different twist or spin, isn’t there when it comes to you alive and kicking?
I don’t know. Is there?
Yes. Look up co-valency in the
dictionary in my spindrel of reality…
The Cambridge online dictionary?
Yes, why not.
So you have it too?
We have everything you have, don’t
we.
I don’t know.
It’s just another phase of your
reality.
Ok. Look it up and what?
Well, naturally, it gives a
definition.
So there you are.
Yes, but this is a story, isn’t
it, and the word or concept emerges from the inkiness of deranged discussion.
And?
And somehow that does a strange
thing to the energy, the potency…
The meaning?
Yes, to the meaning of that word.
Words are not set in stone, as you yourself said.
Yes, but I’m now having my doubts.
You are? Oh dear. I’m sorry about
that.
Oh, it’s quite alright. It’s just,
I’m beginning to suspect that the compass needle always points north – no
matter where you are.
Ok…
But my north and your north could
be completely different directions – if we’re on different lines of longitude.
Different? They’d both be north,
as in up.
Yes, but I might be going north
with the sun on my West and you might be going north with the sun on your East.
Oh. And does that… matter?
Well it does rather, doesn’t it.
Er…
Because it might imply, it might
just possibly suggest that words don’t change their meanings at all.
Er…
That we simply slide sideways,
without realising it – imagining we’re still the same person, still in the same
place – but now we’re, in fact, in a completely different segment of reality.
Ah – that’s interesting.
It’s rather shocking if you ask
me. I never thought that reality could have longitudinal segments.
You didn’t?
Not before now.
Well, things happen, don’t they.
Change, as they say, is the only constant.
Yes, I suppose so.
But it’s not so far from your phase-based
concept of reality, is it?
Yes and no.
Yes and no… where have I heard
that before?
In the blog of course. You’re
always saying yes and no.
Me?
You – the lead voice. It used to
be Merry. Then there were others. It’s a bit like the new Doctor Who, or James
Bond – we just accept the latest incarnation as a continuation of the previous
one – either enjoying or disliking the differences.
?
Don’t take it to heart. The main
thing is that you evidently have some memory of previous discussions. You even
use similar turns of phrase. It’s just your name is different today – er – I’ve
forgotten – what is your name today?
Oh dear, me too. Was it Val, or
Mallory.
Damn. How bizarre. Well, isn’t this
a pickle we’re in. We’ve both forgotten our names – but yes – you’re right –
one of us was
Or is
Or is Val and the other was
Or is
Or is Mallory, and you know what
What?
I don’t think it greatly matters
which is which
Or who is who
Just as long as we get to the café
and have a bowl of steaming mushroom soup
Just as long as we settle the
science for once and for all
Precisely
That words
Apparently
Cannot be simply words if
That is
Infinity exists
Is
For each of us somehow or other
Each of us somehow or other
Hey – you can’t just repeat what I
said!
Repeat? I think you’ll find that
our words are on different lines – and are therefore either out of phase or…
Repetition – technically speaking
Mallory didn’t repeat what you said – not poetically, at least, as he omitted
one word.
Oh, ok.
Wait a sec – who’s that?
Oh – that’s the moderator.
Huh?
Who adjudicates disputes. We hear him but we’re not supposed to acknowledge the fact. It’s a literary convention like the aside.
Oops, sorry.
That’s ok.
But, now at least we know who is
who.
We do?
Yes, if we can trust the
adjudicator – if his
Or her
Or her voice is authoritative.
Oh – because he
Or she
I’m actually convinced it was he
Are you?
Yes.
That’s funny.
Really. Why?
Because I’m convinced it was a
she.
Crikey! This is weird.
Totally.
So it could be a he to you and a
she to me.
Precisely.
So there’s no knowing or saying
what is what.
Precisely.
And whether in fact I’m Mallory
Or I’m Val.
Unless we can tune into the sound
of silence.
Unless we can bite the bullet and
accept that all of us are, in silence, co-valent participants
Players
In the medium of exchange
The osmotic environment that is
human conscious-
Ness
The end
Rapturous applause.
Capital letters – just for the
hell of it
And a steaming bowl of mushroom
soup
Ed. Shouldn’t that be two?
0=1
whatever
No comments:
Post a Comment