A few weeks ago I sent an email with the subject line Why “How do I find…?” might be the wrong question

In response, reader Vlad Adrian Iancu emailed me back:

After reading an email like this, I’m reminded how cool is everything you say.

OK, almost everything you say, we’re still iffy on the science front.

Vlad’s not wrong about my scientific scepticism. 

I’ve become increasingly irked by the mad scientists who proclaim “the science says it, so it must be true!” like it’s an open & shut case.  And I have a tendency to veer more towards the woo-woo than the empirical when I write my emails.

But perhaps this will close the gap:

A couple of days ago I listened to a podcast with Bernardo Kastrup.

Bernardo has two PhDs, one in computer engineering and another in philosophy. He's written over 10 books on subjects like neuroscience, metaphysics and the nature of reality.  

The guy well and truly knows his scientific onions.

On the podcast, he spoke about a thought experiment which no less than Albert Einstein himself came up with:

(this gets a bit sciencey, but stick with it – the payoff is worth it)

Suppose two elementary subatomic particles, A and B, are created in what is known as an “entangled state”.  You then shoot particle A one way at the speed of light and particle B the other way at the speed of light.

At one end of the universe scientist Alice is waiting for particle A and at the other end of the universe scientist Bob is waiting for particle B.

When A arrives, Alice makes a measurement.  As it turns out, whatever property Alice has chosen to measure determines what Bob sees when he makes his measurement on particle B.

In other words, the properties of particle B are fully determined by Alice’s choice of measurement on the other side of the universe.

Bernardo then dives deeper into the mindboggling implications of this.

Namely, that physical entities do not exist pre-measurement but instead arise from measurements.

And, more to the point, that the real world before human observation cannot be physical. 

So do we know anything which isn’t physical?  Which cannot be measured in kilograms, centimetres, joules and so on?

Bernardo answers his own question:

Of course!  How many inches does your thought have?

Seeing thought as a bridge from the invisible world to the visible world makes a lot of sense to me.

And while science reigns supreme in the physical world, it seems that the physical world may not actually be the real world.  

It may be the map, not the territory.

That is, if you believe the science.

This isn’t woo-woo talking now.  This is proper science baby!

And yet funnily enough we’re back in the same realm that the spiritual sages, gurus & mystics have been writing about for centuries, if not millennia.

All roads lead to Rome and all that.

Anyway, I’m tempted to leave it there for now.  That’s enough scientific mysticism for one day.

Before I sign off:

The podcast episode I mentioned is staggeringly interesting.  It explores this whole idea and the nature of reality for a good 30 or 40 minutes (in much more detail than I can cover in a short & snappy email), alongside other funky topics like UFOs and whether AI will ever be conscious.

If you’d like the podcast details, I’ll make you a trade:

Hit reply and let me know the name and episode of the most recent podcast you listened to.

In return, I’ll reply back with the podcast details

That’s all for today.

 - Tom