Now I may be missing something here, but watching a series of physicists, cosmologists and even philosophers walk audiences through some of the most obtuse lectures on the subject frankly amazes me. In a way, it is reminiscent of thoughts I had as a child, looking out the window of my bedroom at blue summer skies and wondering, "Why was I so lucky as to be born in New York? I could have been born anywhere--in Terre Haute, Indiana or the African bush--but, no, as fate would have it, I was born in the greatest city in the world." What could it possibly mean?
All such reasoning, it seems to me, is a kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, faced with a reality, namely, that we are in some given place and time must be by design or that it is the work of some intelligent creator who put everything in place for our arrival. Neither of these explanations is necessary nor, I feel it needless to add, even likely or possible.
The only reason we can have such thoughts is because we exist, we are here on a small planet orbiting a rather middle-sized star. All the necessary variables for our existence came into play here in our home galaxy. Another analogy that springs to mind is the bogus debate between intelligent design and the theory of evolution. So much in nature seems to defy common sense, particularly some of the more outstanding examples of symbiosis or the interdependence of various species. How likely does it seem, for example, that some species depend for their very existence on some erratic, almost impossible to predict behavior of another? Amazing, we conclude. Almost, like quantum uncertainty and entanglement, impossible to predict, lest we go outside of the realms of space and time.Einstein once famously remarked in response to quantum uncertainty, "Does that mean that the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it?" This notion prompted me to conclude that what all uncertainty theories depend upon is the single observer, almost compelling a solipsistic view of how humanity arrives at its images of reality. The truth is that we never rely upon single observers. Constructs of reality are socially arrived at; they are a byproduct of communal activity. In simple terms, when I am not looking at the moon, in that instant of time, it may or may not be there. One really can't be absolutely sure. But we are not alone. On the other hand, I can be certain that whether or not I am looking at the moon, I can check up on its continued existence merely by consulting just one of what are probably countless individuals who, in that same moment, had their heads turned to the night sky and were basking in moonlight.
One last point needs to be made. Political conservatives, particularly those who have had as their mission the divestiture of any scientific or philosophical basis for revolutionary theory, be they priests or court scientists in the pay of the rulers, seized upon such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Copenhagen Interpretation and quickly applied these principles across all manner of disciplines. Many of the less politically attuned probably missed what was happening. In short order, however, uncertainty came to rule in just about every quarter, a godsend for opponents of materialism and objectivity, particularly needless to say, Marx's historical materialism. This will not surprise anyone except a handful of innocents who believe that intellectual endeavors take place in a political vacuum. The slippery slope from quantum physics to all manner of anti-materialist humbug has given us here in the U.S. millions who have been treated nightly in recent years to televised dramas with angels, vampires and telepaths or, in a related sphere, let the force be with them, blindfolded, swinging their laser swords at gravity-defying targets.
.
