I find myself regretting my flippancy about Mykyl’s views yesterday on the concept of perspective. I wish I had saved the conversation so I could study it in detail. My brain did not immediately wrap around the idea, which only means that I haven’t touched upon it closely enough yet in my worldview. I need to understand it better, and greatly desire to discuss it further with her.
The universe as a unified entity is, however, a concept that I embrace strongly, although I’m uncertain how the scientists react to it. The question becomes one of chaos theory and the range of the butterfly effect. If the inverse square law of gravity is real (it HAS been accused of late of changing over great distances), then it follows logically that, in some way, each particle of mass in the universe affects every other particle, of mass or not. The flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Borneo may eventually cause a hurricane the hypothetical planet Zeta Zeta Zeta, the most distant world in the visible universe.
And if this is true, it throws the concept of the quantum uncertainty principle to the wind. The uncertainty principle states that a particle does not exist in one state or another until observed. As far as I’ve learned, though, what an “observer” needs to be has never been clearly defined. In my view, so long as a particle’s state affects something–anything–else in the universe, then it is always being “observed” (perspective?) and thus the uncertainty principle has no meaning. Schrödinger’s cat is safely either alive or dead in his little box–not both simultaneously. (Catherine, worry not. Your cat is safely alive in SL’s universe.)