One of the web sites I enjoy visiting, and subscribe to their RSS feed, is Dark Roasted Blend. [Link] I tend to think of it as an internet Bose-Einstein condensate of internet particles whose quantum characteristic is weirdness as if the site administrator/publisher is operating some sort of informational quark trap. Of particular attraction (after all, it is perhaps strange?) are something called (named? I have difficulties distinguishing how those are to be distinguished these days. When I was young people and things were given names and were referred to as being “named” but they could be “called” by nicknames. But those divisions of proper and improper seem to have eroded.) ‘Link Latte”, which are collections of links to condensates.
I find that these lists, of length 15-25 links, are usually attractive with a fraction of about 0.2 although I cannot say with any certainty whether the obvious limitation of that value indicates connoisseur or country bumpkin. This list was soundly consistent with that value and of the links I followed one has survived the night to be reviewed this morning. The site linked [Link] is one of humorous honesty, wearing that honesty of its awfulness as if that will excuse its existence to those for whom only sugar floss has value. The presentation is entitled “Star Wars as Classic Art” although it is actually the opposite, classic art modified with some Star Wars aspect. At least I have to take the thesis that the original is classic art as my knowledge of such is severely limited. I did not take any arts courses in my academic wanderings, for a variety of reasons, and my exposure to exhibits and lectures has led me to the observation that too many such practitioners are either espousing ideas that lack coherence and correlation, but perhaps causation?, or are engaged in the preliminaries to selling me some material object that they have neither title nor ownership of.
This is not to say that I have not, on occasion, hung pictures on my walls, but these run more to photographic realism and more often nature and places than people and activities; the fuzziness I keep inside my skull. But what these pictures share is some aspect of Star Wars and while in some cases the pictures clearly suffer from this, other seem unaltered or perhaps improved. This in turn leads to consideration of how righteous this is? After all, artists are supposed to see things that they communicate to us so we shan’t be deprived or inconvenienced, rather like visual mediums. Of course there is that uncertainty of whether there really are unseen thing seen or just larcenous fictions.
This in turn leads me to consideration of the recent ‘confirmation” of Hardy/s paradox. [Link] I may elaborate here to note that in my youth, Hardy’s paradox had to do with the underlying theme of a series of monochrome movies in which the central character was named Hardy. In my adolescence, Hardy’s paradox had to do with why anyone would want to read a rather turgid book about a young woman of apparent Irish descent inasmuch as she was designated as arising from potato villages.
This Hardy’s paradox however, derives from the observer paradox of Schrodinger and thereby the Copenhagen picture of quantum mechanics. The conjecture that leads to Hardy’s paradox is that since the states of reality are indeterminate until we make them determinate by observation, Some states impossible (or improbable) to observe may actually exist outside of observation. The paradox obviously arises from the nub that those states are indeterminate until observed.
Now a pair of coupled research teams have performed sorta observations that indicate that Hardy’s paradox may be genuine. That is, by only looking sideways at systems, and then doing so many times so that statistical tools may be used, inference of what is indeterminate is made sorta, maybe determinate.
Aside from the overall aura of voyeurism here, the thought that cascades from this has to do with Hobbes’ conjecture, itself excused as horribly materialist, that the deity exists only in the mind of humans. Previously, the only real use of this conjecture, largely rejected as shamelessly materialist when advanced and now totally forgotten as society becomes more and more materialist, had been in the discussion of whether free will is implicitly or intentionally illusory. Recent advances in the study of the mind/brain that have indicated many, perhaps most, decisions are made below the level of consciousness and then revealed upon maturity have reinvigorated this consideration.
Now however, there is the consideration that the deity exists in the indeterminacy and like some aspects of Lewis Carroll’s maths fiction, disappears when observed. This collapses itself in insight into why so many abandon their powers of determinacy for the solace of mysticism and raises again considerations of just what is determinacy and why are we unable to constructively describe, much less define it.
Aren’t Mondays wonderful?