Reply to comment

Olshin's response - 23 December 2007

Dr. Grobstein, in his comments on my article “Reality Check: The Possible Detection of Simulated Environments Through Observations of Selected Physical Phenomena”, does a great job of extending the question further. In short, Grobstein makes the point that all perception is mediated, and the question is why one is inclined to choose one mediation as “real”. Grobstein is interested in perception, and he uses the example of the famous “duck-rabbit” optical illusion as an example of the experience of such arbitrary switching between mediation modes. Grobstein is certain right in his assertions that my question can be expanded, or even “exploded” — that is, in the final analysis, “we can't ever establish based on observations that we are REALLY ‘a brain in a vat’ or REALLY not a ‘brain in a vat’”. Of course, my goal in the paper was a more limited one: I was looking primarily at whether one could detect that one was in a “Matrix”-type virtual reality.

Dr. Grobstein and I are going to continue this discussion, but for now I want to move it in the direction of physics. Part of my intent in the “Reality Check” paper was to suggest — very tentatively — that we might want to re-examine the way we do some physics. That is, we might want to include questions of perception (and, certainly, Grobstein’s ideas on “mediation”) when talking about physical phenomena.

Now of course, people have been talking about this for a while, particularly in relation to quantum physics in general, and perhaps the classic slit experiment in particular. One of the most recent examinations is found in Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner’s Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. But even that book — which presents some fairly novel interpretations — does not talk about perception or “mediation” in quite the way I have or Grobstein does. In other words, in a simple way.

What I was suggesting in my paper was that certain physical phenomena — perhaps even the odd results of the slit experiment — might be indications of a mediated perception. This is based on a supposition that in a fully unmediated universe, all physical phenomena should be uniformly explainable and consistent. Inconsistencies, such as the odd results of the slit experiment, might be an indication not only that our experiences are mediated (which Grobstein says is certainly the case anyway), but also that we can learn something about the nature of that mediation. In other words, a new object for the study of physics might be about the nature of the mediation — we might even begin to develop a kind of “physics of mediation”.

By contrast, contemporary physics continues to use tools based on a very particular model of perception. This model implies that our senses are perceiving some kind of ultimately tangible objects, or at least fields and forces, that are “out there”, outside us. Physics works towards moving deeper and deeper into discovering a “bottom layer”. After a brief delay due to a mechanical problem, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will restart in 2009, and its aim, at least in lay terms, is “to study the smallest known particles — the fundamental building blocks of all things.” The LHC, based in Europe, is the largest physics experiment in the world, and certainly its aim of making new discoveries is a noble (perhaps even “Nobel”!) one.

But as a philosoher/historian of science, I might also suggest that we begin talking about what is it we are looking at in such experiments. More particularly, at some point, we will need to address the model of current physics, and its assumption that we somehow are perceiving a describable “external” world. What might be the alternative? At present, I am starting to consider a new model, and I look forward to engaging Grobstein in the development of this model. All I wish to say at this point is that this model subtly implies that observed physical phenomena may actually be said in some respect to be the brain examining itself. The closest analogy I might present is through what are known as “phosphenes”, an entoptic phenomenon of pattern creation by the brain, or “form constants”, which are complex patterns experienced in altered states of consciousness. Physical phenomena which apparently occur outside us, including wave phenomena, may actually all be happening in our heads...