There is no Spoon

"your mind makes it real" ~ morpheus

so this is my 200th post here at P3T3RK3Y5 (the second anniversary of achieving three digits in the arbitrary base 10 numbering system) and its going to be a lot of doodles i've been brewing on for a long time, all linked together, that simply must get out - so that i can move on... to a bunch of other stuff i've been brewing on.... :-) so here goes!

while moderating a group discussion in one of our sunday morning community gatherings a couple years ago - i was presented with an off the wall comment from a gentlemen who walked in and had only been listening briefly. now I should preface this by saying, i had a number of my lay-physics books with me - but i recall his comment as really coming from out of left field. the best I could come up with to validate his idea was to mention that there are, in fact, physicists who think that the reality we know - is really a hologram (like i said, out of left field). at this point he muttered something about us being literal six day evangelical creationists and walked out. which was unfortunate - because i really was willing to engage him. anyway, since that time - scientists have actually devised a pretty cool little test to decide if this could be the case.

the thinking goes like this:

* (credit cards) holograms are etched on 2D plastic films - and create the appearance of a 3D image.
* our 4D reality could be projected from a 5D pringle shape - the physics are the same.
* a planck length is reality's analogue to a computer screen pixel.
* the grains of information that exist in the hologram (assuming were living in one) would be bigger than a pixel (Planck length). i.e. they would be blurry.

the idea is not unlike watching a DVD (at 720 x 480) at full screen on your computer (typically 1280 x 1024). there is only so much information available from the source material - information is not created just because youre watching it full screen. so what happens is 1 pixel of information is spread across maybe four pixels. if we can detect this blurriness - one good cause for it might be this hologram idea. incidentally ladies - this is why all the guys out there know the *right* answer is to have high-definition source material ;-)

so anyway, if you're willing to engage with the mind-job that we are (living) (in) a hologram - i think it becomes easier to embrace the significance of the role of the observer in this suggested ephemeral existence. and also - to accept the importance of the observer - and the role that consciousness plays in this suggested reality - and really, should play in our theology, and in our understanding of truth. personally, i think that ignoring the significance of consciousness, happens at our own very significant loss.

for example - when a friend looses someone - the significance of that to me is related to the 'significance of that death to the observers consciousness'. so if they don't care - i probably won't care much. however if they are devastated - i may be as well. another example, pain - is so significant to a persons consciousness - and life - it can't be overstated. the problem of pain is such a compelling one too btw. i would also argue that if someone is going insane - the significance of that (loss) is also related to / can be measured in terms of consciousness. another example, listening to a friend while they unload - is so significant - simply by the act of those thoughts being observed by the listener - another conciseness. compare that with words spoken into the air. turns out a tree falling in an empty forest really does make no sound.

recognize that these things have almost no physical bearing on the outside world. but they are precisely why solitary confinement - or even a blindfold are so significant to the consciousness - because our reality - our existence - becomes meaningful only when we observe and are observed. and there are a million other examples exactly along these lines - which you can become aware of by your new found awareness of this in your daily comings and goings.

and *consciousness* - is precisely where, i wish, christianity could begin to engage with a variety of the moral issues out there. traditionally - we have a christianity whose leaders are not well educated (not very "genetically diversified" as I've come to start saying), who already knows the answers to problems - so they think, who thinks that the world / america is out to get them, who asks people to accept by faith but on a given arbitrary form of christianity's terms, and is not willing to engage at the level of dialogue that is out there. partly, i think, because christianity has become so short sighted in its potential roles in the dialogue and future that is humanity's (going no further than gay marriage, abortion, and evolution. and viewing the world in terms of blacks and whites, and false dichotomy's).

actually - this shortsightedness manifests in all the abrahamic faiths. remember ahmadinejad saying "there are no homosexuals in iran". yeah dude - just like there are no homosexuals in the republican party - or the pulpit. this is, i think, quite honestly a little revealing: because it leads one to realize this short sighted kind of thinking is independent of ones faith, be it islam, christianity, judaism.

let me say it again, you're not being uniquely christian by opposing: gay marriage, abortion, or evolution. so if you're not being uniquely christian - you're being something else. what is that?

for me? the number one word i think of, when i think of this camp, is "fear". be those phobias. or the "certain" collapse of morality or society.

personally, i associate fear with cowardice. i think you're cowardly if you succumb to fear, and you're probably a bigger coward if you use fear.

which is also why i believe cheney and bush were such colossal failures as leaders because they led the country into being fearful (whatever happened to "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?)!! and also because they used fear to manipulate the masses.

and also, why fear-imbalanced fox news, who i actually don't necessarily believe to be led by a partisan - are so ... well, partisan. because their coverage, both on the internet and television, consists of peddling sensationalistic crap to those who would believe the sky is falling. but the motivation is simple: sensationalist stories sell, and the point is to make money.

so here are some bigger questions for consideration:

• have you seen people setting tickle me elmo dolls on fire on youtube? why would you do that? turns out to kinda be disturbing. how is that different than cruelty to animals? when will it be not different? is it not different to the observers consciousness - or what it teaches a child - or what it could lead to. (actually while were here - why is cruelty to animals a problem in the first place? how do you argue that?) but then, what happens as elmo dolls get smarter - and start to sense they are "uncomfortable" and maybe start to call out - or even scream. why is that significant. why does it become significant. when does it become significant.

• mores law says computers get twice as smart every 18 months - and thats not stopping any time soon. so maybe twice as smart as zero (my computers current smartness) will be zero for a long time. but what happens if we can sample a brain or build neural nets. what happens when your loved ones brain can be sampled at their death and they can live - on in in the internets, or your iPhone. or get downloaded to a synthetic body. what is that really? is this extending life or doing something else? what if that personality / program claims to be aware - and claims to be your loved one - and even acts like them. and finally, would you do this if you could?  i would.

• what happens as we create synthetic life - synthetic life that is smart? or bring back neanderthal? what kinds of rights should they have in our society? how would you decide that?  what is the morality of hybrid humans? and what does it mean we we realize a parrot can have the IQ of a six year old. how should we respond to Dolphins intelligence. or Elephants. if smart is sexy - are these species going to get smarter?

i'm not asking these question because i'm worried or i think the world is going to end. i precisely believe its not - at least not with any of these! i just would like to be involved in thinking about them - because i think they are the really interesting ones. and i do think there are implications. moral ones. and i'd like to not miss those. mostly because i'm tired of christians arguing an issue that, in some cases issues 200 years old, while bringing nothing intellectual to the conversation. so i would ask you - if you want to talk about any of those - or even the old standards - lets have a dialogue that is elevated.

i'm not suggesting consciousness is the only perspective from which to dialogue - i'd love to see others. i happen to think its an exemplary one that shouldn't be underestimated. and i think its remarkable that we still don't know what it is, any more than we know what time is. but we need to have a better conversation.


btw - what do you suppose happens when the hologram blips out - or we blip out of the hologram. think we might begin to see reality as it really is? and no longer through a glass darkly? sounds like fun!