Brian Greene monostich
(Not quite a monostich,
(Not quite a monostich,
nor a haiku neither.
It is what it
is.)
Every moment is illuminated,
and every moment remains illuminated.
Every moment is.
-- Brian Greene, The Fabric of
the Cosmos (2004), p. 141
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Is_Illuminated
~
I have on
occasion fulminated against
“Physics porn” -- the tawdry down-dumbing of physics for a popular audience --
not so much a matter of (necessary) simplification,
as of appealing to their baser, sensationalistic instincts.
Brian Greene does not practice that. The books of his that I
have read (The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos) --
with titles like the Parthenon, elegant but restrained -- are worthy examples
of haute vulgarisation. The matters he treats of are difficult to explain, even to
fellow-physicists (if they work in a different lab, and thus subscribe to a
different groupthink); he does a laudable job of trying. Moreover, the fellow writes really,
really well -- at times even poetically (witness the above).
Nor is the cited haikustich poetry merely.
The idea behind it, appears in the next paragraph in plain prose:
Einstein said that the problem of
The Now worried him
seriously. He explained that the
experience of the Now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the past and
the future, but that this important difference does not and
cannot occur within physics.
Albert Einstein, worrying about The Now |
That is not to suggest that the Now at all resembles a
mathematical instant, as in the calculus and thus in classical physics. Each perceived ‘moment’ of
consciousness presumably corresponds to an integral
over some interval. The ‘density’
being integrated need have no determinate evaluation at a single point of the continuum, any more than
does the Dirac delta. The
psychological present is more of a Nowabouts.
The same point, with a different metaphor:
The practically cognized present is
no knife-edge, but a saddle-back, with a certain breadth of its own on which we sit perched.
-- William James, The Principles
of Psychology (1890), vol. I, p. 609
The present is simply the past’s
ever-moving outer edge.
-- Hendrik Hertzberg in The New
Yorker, 18 Dec 2006, p. 33
~
That the “now”, as such, has no special status in physics,
is unsurprising, since it is relative to each observer. That simultaneity (implicitly dependent thereon: “Both A and B are happening now”) turns out to be untenable, was a
shock introduced by Einstein; eventually you sort of learn to live with it. The real scandal is that physics
is likewise agnostic as to any distinction in principle between the future and
the past. And that thesis is cognitively and
theologically abhorrent.
Feynman among others calmly accepted solutions to
equations, whereby certain particles ran backwards in time. At its grandest, as a prominent
mathmatician-cosmologist writes, “the
time-reverse of the universe is
just as much a solution of the dynamical equations” as the one we thought we
lived in (Roger Penrose, The
Road to Reality (2004), p. 729).
For humans, the unidirectionality of time’s arrow is as fundamental as the privileged
status of the Now. America’s
premier 19th-century psychologist, on remembering:
However the associationist may
represent the present ideas as throning and arranging themselves, still, the
spiritualist insists, he has in the end to admit that something, be it brain, be it ‘ideas’, be it ‘association’, knows past time as past, and fills it out with this or that event.
-- William James, The Principles
of Psychology (1890), vol. I, p. 2
eppur’ si muove … |
~
James crops up in the first paragraph of a New York Times
op-ed concerning durée (subjective
time) from 10 May 2015, by Gregory Hickok, a professor of cognitive science:
In 1890, the American psychologist
William James famously likened our
conscious experience to the flow of a stream … the stream … of consciousness.
The professor then puts his predecessor in his place:
Recent research has shown that the ‘stream’
of consciousness is, in fact, an
illusion. We actually perceive the
world in rhythmic pulses rather than as continuous flow.
The cognitive scientist then climbs down a bit from the
claim that this insight is “recent” -- “Some of the first hints of this new
understanding came as early as the 1920s, when physiologists discovered brain
waves.”
One suspects, however, that James would not slap his forehead upon being apprized of this newly-minted insight, since he
cites “the Humian doctrine that our thought is composed of separate independent
parts, and is not a sensibly continuous stream”. (Hume wrote in the eighteenth century.)
No comments:
Post a Comment