Real Life
The Tricky Reality of Reality
The true reality might not be as flattering to our ego as its virtual versions, which are therefore more appealing to us.
There is an infinite world of ideas that includes all possible interpretations of the reality we live in. We have access only to a limited part of it that we can imagine. But there is another part that we cannot imagine because it extends too far beyond our experience.
The world of all possible ideas constitutes of numerous virtual realities that could have existed but do not. The scientific method attempts to find the one and only that is actually realized. The scientific process can be thought of as Darwinian “natural selection” of the fittest idea when put to the test of the empirical constraints, gathered through experiments or observations.
The scientific approach applies to our daily life. When we get a gift in a sealed box, we imagine that it might contain many possible objects that fit the size of the box. By shaking the box, we could limit the range of possibilities from the sound that the gift makes as it rattles within the box. Ultimately, by tearing the wrapping paper and opening the box, we can remove all doubts about its content. As Sherlock Holmes noted: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Similarly, the scientific understanding of the world goes through stages of gathering more empirical constraints and removing uncertainty about the validity of imagined theoretical possibilities. Most of the time science appears to be work in progress since the evidence is not good enough to single-out a favored idea.
Consider, as an example, the first interstellar visitor discovered in the Solar system, `Oumuamua. The evidence about its nature was puzzling and insufficient to distinguish between possible theories, such as: a hydrogen iceberg, a chip of frozen nitrogen, a fluffy dust cloud or an artificial object manufactured by an extraterrestrial technological civilization, all involving objects of a type never seen before. The way to select the favorite among them is to get better data on the next `Oumuamua, preferably through a flyby space mission — currently being designed by the Galileo Project.
As logical as the scientific method sounds, very often we surrender to our emotions and abandon it when favoring ideas out of the world of possibilities. We would rarely select a possible idea that would imply our weakness or insignificance. Instead, we would start from interpretations that flatter our ego, in which we play a central role based on privileged skills or circumstances. For this reason, humanity started millennia ago with the geocentric model, contemplating that the world centers on Earth. But even as late as three decades ago, most astronomers doubted that planets like the Earth exist around other stars. And today, many scientists would still argue that they need extraordinary evidence in order to contemplate what they regard as “an extraordinary claim” that we are not the smartest species in the cosmos. I call this attitude “flattering selection” as it is guided by our ego, in difference from “scientific selection” which is based on gathering experimental constraints external to our wishes as we narrow the range of possibilities.
Why do we favor most often the “flattering selection” method? Because it involves virtual realities that bring us pleasure. This is the basis for populist narratives in politics that appeal to the public and get leaders elected even though they reflect a virtual reality that does not exist. It also appears in spiritual congregations that advertise a virtual reality that fulfils an important emotional need for people who want to believe in it. And it also appears in mainstream theoretical physics — where some speculative theories, like the string theory landscape or the multiverse, require rare skills that allows individuals to demonstrate their mathematical virtuosity. By flattering the ego of their advocates, these theories obtain the mainstream status based on mathematical beauty — even when there is no empirical data to validate the notion that they describe reality. And without external constraints, it is always possible to add complexity them as in the case of epicycles for geocentric models in which the Earth was at the center of the solar system.
In this way, the favored virtual realities represent wishful thinking in selecting worlds that give us more pleasure than the one we live in. This offers a business opportunity for commercial organizations which develop recreational drugs or electronic gadgets that inspire us to imagine virtual realities and get addicted to their pleasures.
If they bring us pleasure, why should we resist virtual realities? The reason is simple. They propagate false narratives that lead us to making mistakes in the real world that we all share. If tasked to design a space mission, the geocentric philosophers during the days of Galileo Galilei would pick the wrong launch parameters when attempting to reach celestial bodies because of their mistaken geocentric world model.
If we were able to put a popular idea for unifying quantum mechanics and gravity, such as string theory, to an empirical test, we could have figured out whether its mathematical beauty is realized in nature. But when string theorists are asked to predict what happened before the Big Bang or what is at the center of a black hole, they reply that these problems are too difficult for them to solve. Well, if plumbers said that they have great athletic skills but fixing a faucet or a toilet are problems too difficult for them to handle, then I would advise them to change their job description from plumbers to athletes. In the same vein, physicists who demonstrate great mathematical skills but cannot translate their ideas to testable predictions during their entire career, should be considered mathematicians.
Sometimes the empirical world surprises us by showing evidence for unimagined ideas. An example is quantum mechanics, which was not anticipated until it was discovered unexpectedly by experiments. And after that, prominent scientists like Albert Einstein, had difficulties accepting the revolutionary quantum nature of reality, which he called “spooky action at a distance” and today is termed “quantum entanglement”.
A similar experience might be awaiting in our future, if we ever discover “life as we do not know it”. Perhaps the first hints for that would stem from encounters with interstellar objects that do not look like anything we had seen before.
Trail of the Saucers is edited by writer/producer Bryce Zabel and published by Stellar Productions. Zabel co-hosts the popular new podcast Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel that can be found on all major platforms.
