Assuming for a second that this philosophical enjoyable concept, delivered to us by the mystery of quantum mechanics, that observation gives shape to events and characteristics from their former amorphous cloud of potentiality, is true. That something only really becomes factual when observed by living things or the measuring devices they've developed. Now, of course, this isn't the whole truth, but on the subatomic scale there may be no better way to explain it.
With that stated, let's extend this understanding of how things work into the larger sphere and postulate that you and I and all this rest of us are shaping reality via sensory input. What this means is that our lives serve as the interface between possibility and what actually happens. Some theories of quantum physics state that there are an infinitum of dimensions, one for each possiblity (down to the subatomic level). If observation settles this reality in this dimension, then our ability to observe is a key component in the construction of this universe.
OK. So consider observation. If I see something happen, literally anything, what does it mean if I keep it to myself? It becomes part of a micro-reality that exists for me within the larger sphere. It does not detract from the truth or illusion of it. By keeping this to myself, it still happens but what is the event's relevance to the larger sphere of reality? That is what is meant by the "if a tree falls . . ." koan.
What I'm coming to is that I believe that symbolic expression, beginning with cave drawings and eventually leading to the written and spoken word, and all other arts along with the practices it made possible such as the sciences and politics, allows these micro-realities to be networked in a manner that creates a more cohesive fabric. Consider this: human beings have a long and illustrious history. However, up until the point that we were actually able to manipulate elements of our environment with symbolic logic virtually everything about us is unknown. There are literally a cloud of possibilities for what may have happened in those times, narrowed down only by our ability to interpret left-overs, in metaphor just like the swirling potentia of the electron as it exists "somewhere" around the nucleus.
As language began to develop the possibilities began to narrow. Suddenly we know things about ourselves in ways that would have been impossible previously, because our technology has allowed us greater exposure to the observations of one another and managed to mark them "outside of time" (not chronology, but the possibilities for some particular characteristic for some previous time X have been reduced to one).
What's interesting about this reality we've created is that the actual "truth", what holds up under the most difficult scrutiny, can become irrelevant and limp in the face of the "truth" our Reality has co-opted. For instance, consider the fact that the belief in God is widespread. Under close scrutiny the operational definitions of god (those most of the world uses to carry out their daily lives) falls apart. However, the fact that this component of the reality we've created is so strongly reinforced by affirming communication (i.e. the relay of observations through symbolic language) that it is a force to reckon with. Whether or not god exists, he exists socio-politically and any entity who wishes to make some change to Reality must deal with it. In politics we often find smaller cases, for instance the "truth" that the media decides to operate under often becomes more important to the unfolding of events than what would actually be the "truth" under a higher scrutiny (here scrutiny representing essentially more calculated observations and more comprehensive expression with symbolic language).
What's more startling to me than the above observation (and that statement almost feels like a pun at this point) is that if we are to carry this metaphor of observation=reality out from the atom and apply it, making rational decisions about the relationship of components on that scale to components on this scale (i.e. the precise location of an electron=the precise date of birth of an individual or something along those lines), then the question must be asked "If we never learned to speak, could we be sure we even existed?"
I'm dying for some intelligent conversation, so if this spurred any thought in your head, please share.
»» read more
