Richard Dawkins on Middle World

[Charles Pegge]

If you think you understand quantum theory then you don't unterstand quantum theory.

Richard Feynman


"..In this talk, titled, "Queerer Than We Suppose: The strangeness of science," he suggests that the true nature of the universe eludes us, because the human mind evolved only to understand the "middle-sized" world we can observe.."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626#docid=6308228560462155344

[Petr Schreiber]

Thanks Charles,

besides the fact it is very interesting, it is good training in understanding spoken English!


Petr

[kryton9]

I enjoyed that one a lot thanks Charles.

Some ideas and observations inspired from the lecture:
1. We evolved in reaction to what we perceived to be what we are. Does this mean that our imagination evolved to be by some sort of reaction to the imperceivable?

2. When he was talking about how we are sociable and have developed means of anticipating each others moves and actions and sort of touching on things that makes us human, immediately I thought of Vulcans and how they lacked all that made us who we are. But Vulcans could interact in a similar way using things associated with Vulcans.
We could interact with Vulcans because they are logical and thus more predictable, but Vulcans would be lost in our Society because we are so counter in development. I think what made Spock work is he is part human, pretty smart of Mr. Roddenberry to put that in. It shows perhaps how much work went into developing those characters and races and shows the brilliance of sci-fi writers.

3. I am lost when he talked about remembering something from our childhood so vividly and that we know we were there because of our memory of it, but that we weren't there. I would like to understand what he meant by that? Did you guys figure that one out?

[Michael Clease]

I enjoyed that aswell very interesting




3. I am lost when he talked about remembering something from our childhood so vividly and that we know we were there because of our memory of it, but that we weren't there. I would like to understand what he meant by that? Did you guys figure that one out?


I dont know about matter but from a biological point of view every cell in your body has been replaced since you were a child, a quick search would indicate every 2 year its a new you, perhaps I can use that with the wife..."I just changed my mind".

[danbaron]

[font=courier new]Concerning Kent's #3. On Star Trek, they had the transporter, which was a teleportation machine. Presumably, in order to transport someone, the person would be copied, like a file, and then the copy would be converted into energy (I'd like to see that trick), and sent through space. (Or, they could just send the instructions for building a new you.) In that case, if something went wrong, they would still have the original. (If, instead, they sent the energy form of your actual atoms, without a backup, then, if there was a malfunction, you would be gone forever. On the other hand, if they copied you, or only sent your instructions, they would have to get new atoms from somewhere.) Assuming they sent a copy or instructions, then, after successful transmission and reassembly (that's something else they never explained, reassembly, for instance, on a planet's surface), I guess the original you would be deleted. In that case, to me, it means, being transported, would be the same as being executed. You cease to exist (but, who knows, maybe you would continue to exist, in a way somehow connected to quantum non-locality; maybe not). Simultaneously, a copy of you begins to exist. That copy has all of your memories. He thinks he is you. To him, it seems impossible that he just came into existence. Also, consider the possibility that they beam a new you down to Osmodia, and they don't delete the old you, on the ship. It seems to me that, there then would be two of you.

Similarly, since all of the cells in your body are different from when you were a child (you should still have your original bone atoms, right?, along with new ones; yes or no?), a case could be made that growing older is exactly like being transported, only on a longer time scale.

Additionally, I think it is impossible for us to prove that the universe did not begin one second ago. Everything could have just popped into existence, precisely as it is now, including us just as we are, all of our records, books, buildings, artifacts, relics, our exact memories, etc. We would not have the slightest inkling.

Dan

[zak]

regarding danbaron discussion, there is a real entity problem: how that person is himself and not me? how danbaron feels himself and not myself or not kent sarikaya self, how me is for me and not for that cat; this is even impossible to describe and beyond logic, the traveling in time , the antigravity, reaching the outer most boundaries of the space is a toys comparing to the entity enigma. it is advisable to not looking for it seriously because its severe dangerous consequences on the brain health.
one of the best stories i have read which describe some aspect of those horror (or fun)[depending on the person] ideas is the Richard Hughes - A High Wind in Jamaica story you can download from here (zipped html file):
http://www.truly-free.org just search for the word jamaica.
read from the sentence "She had been playing houses" until the sentence "So Emily had no misgivings when she determined to preserve her secret, and needed have none", in consise here we will read an existence first encounter in which a girl was playing, and suddenly discovered that she is here ;what a bizzare wonderfull and secret idea!!.
i can't describe my idea about the ultimate horrors (or fun) associated whith the entity problem (somehow connected to the consciousness problem)
i have some illness, but i say only that the most problematic feature of this problem is that most people can't see that this is a problem at all, especially the bank and money employee as if they consider their existence for granted. but during life and suddenly for just 5 seconds we may have this bizzare existence first encounter, after that you will forget it and this is preferable.
best wishes for all

[danbaron]

[font=courier new]I agree with zak. I sometimes have thought, "Why am I me, and not him?".

Maybe, although we feel that we are separate, we are not. Maybe, we are all parts (you could say cells), in one consciousness.

Certainly, as humans, we have a lot in common. And, for instance, because of that, the story which zak liked, and I will read, most likely, I will like too.

Dan