98
6 In Search of Reality
What does it take for an object to be specific? First, it must be precisely
cut out of its background. That is, the information that reveals its position
and boundaries must exist just as surely as its atoms do. If this information is
absent from the universe, then the object does not exist. Indeed, for an object
to exist it must be lifted out of the background in which it is deeply immersed.
Michelangelo’s angel does not exist so long as it is still embedded in the block
of marble.
The information needed to separate the object from its background must
disclose its features and, above all, its precise outlines. Only a living being
having a purpose is able to do that. This shows that a particular, definite object
exists if, first, it has a material base, and secondly, its shape, form, structure
and individual identity are assigned to it by a sentient observer. As mentioned
above, if it has not been separated out of its background, and no attributes
have been ascribed to it by an observer, then it does not exist as an object. Its
material content—consisting of atoms and energy—may exist in the physical
universe, but it does not exist as an individual object. Objects do not exist
outside the purview of minds.
Assume that an object with the shape of an isosceles triangle existed somewhere in the universe before there was life, and the shape has not changed.
Today we can discern the shape of the object and state truly that it is a triangle
and not a square. But was the same statement true in the early universe, when
there were no observers? The universe obeys a principle of non-contradiction
across space and time. Thus, if a statement about a past event (for example
the statement“the object is a triangle”) is true today, the very same statement
could not have been false in the past. Thus, it must have been true in the past,
even though unobserved and even though the fact could not be formulated.
By this reasoning, it appears that claims of fact made by living observers
today are projected backward in time and are true retroactively. But there is
a catch: These claims are expressed in a language known to the present-day
observer, so the facts they stand for did not exist in the early world. To put
it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the
background in which it is immersed—this information exists today but did
not exist in earlier times. Thus, the ancient object was an equilateral triangle
from our present perspective, but was not an equilateral triangle in the ancient
universe. Its atoms were there, but the information which assigns its form to
it was absent.
This is an important insight: It shows that facts do not hold in the universe
in an absolute sense, because the fact itself is an existing thing in the universe.
If the solid matter is present but a fact (which is information about it) is absent,
then the fact does not exist. We are blinded to that insight because of our false
6 In Search of Reality
What does it take for an object to be specific? First, it must be precisely
cut out of its background. That is, the information that reveals its position
and boundaries must exist just as surely as its atoms do. If this information is
absent from the universe, then the object does not exist. Indeed, for an object
to exist it must be lifted out of the background in which it is deeply immersed.
Michelangelo’s angel does not exist so long as it is still embedded in the block
of marble.
The information needed to separate the object from its background must
disclose its features and, above all, its precise outlines. Only a living being
having a purpose is able to do that. This shows that a particular, definite object
exists if, first, it has a material base, and secondly, its shape, form, structure
and individual identity are assigned to it by a sentient observer. As mentioned
above, if it has not been separated out of its background, and no attributes
have been ascribed to it by an observer, then it does not exist as an object. Its
material content—consisting of atoms and energy—may exist in the physical
universe, but it does not exist as an individual object. Objects do not exist
outside the purview of minds.
Assume that an object with the shape of an isosceles triangle existed somewhere in the universe before there was life, and the shape has not changed.
Today we can discern the shape of the object and state truly that it is a triangle
and not a square. But was the same statement true in the early universe, when
there were no observers? The universe obeys a principle of non-contradiction
across space and time. Thus, if a statement about a past event (for example
the statement“the object is a triangle”) is true today, the very same statement
could not have been false in the past. Thus, it must have been true in the past,
even though unobserved and even though the fact could not be formulated.
By this reasoning, it appears that claims of fact made by living observers
today are projected backward in time and are true retroactively. But there is
a catch: These claims are expressed in a language known to the present-day
observer, so the facts they stand for did not exist in the early world. To put
it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the
background in which it is immersed—this information exists today but did
not exist in earlier times. Thus, the ancient object was an equilateral triangle
from our present perspective, but was not an equilateral triangle in the ancient
universe. Its atoms were there, but the information which assigns its form to
it was absent.
This is an important insight: It shows that facts do not hold in the universe
in an absolute sense, because the fact itself is an existing thing in the universe.
If the solid matter is present but a fact (which is information about it) is absent,
then the fact does not exist. We are blinded to that insight because of our false