Reality and Observer: What Are The Connections? – Ayad Gharbawi

Reality and Observer: What Are The Connections?

February 23, 2010 – Damascus, Syria
Ayad Gharbawi

There is no one definable structure/form/face/ that has a ‘one image’.
But, humans are used to believing that, ‘yes, I can recognize this face or that image, and so therefore, this face or that image, does have a one, unified truth or reality.’
The confusion arises from the mixing of undeniably perceived ‘facts’ by people. Just because people can and do ‘recognize a ‘face’ or any other ‘image’, they therefore automatically assume that that face or image does have a one, defining and unifying ‘reality’.
This is a relapse in one’s judgement, rationality and accuracy of perception.
The fact is everything that exists in our world does not have a ‘one unified image’ -despite the undeniable fact anyone can ‘recognize’ that same image for what it is.
Well, wait here, a questioner will rightly ask: “If I can recognize any image, just as millions of other observers, then does it not follow and prove that that particular image does have a one ‘reality’ since – everyone else can identify it?”
The answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’.
Take a chair.
Everyone and anyone can identify that the perceived object is a chair, and therefore, there can be no doubt that that perceived object – or, the chair – does have a ‘one reality, a one vision, a one image’ to its attributes, which in turn, allows any sensible perceiving observer to classify it for what it is – a chair.
Therefore, Reality is one.
Yes, but think: there is a difference between ‘recognizing’ a perceived object/image and the ‘truth’ that you are imposing on me, which is: that since I can ‘recognize’ this image, then therefore, this particular image does and must have a ‘one, unified Reality’.
You point back: look here, “If I can recognize an image, along with millions of other people, there must be a ‘Lowest Common Denominator’ that does allow us to ‘recognize’ that image in the first place, do you not agree?”
Exactly. Every image/reality/image does contain, amongst its numberless abstractions, an equally unquantifiable number of abstractions that emerge and evolve and ultimately ‘create’ a meaningful’ and ‘recognizable’ image.
So does that mean that there is a ‘one reality’ for our humble chair, as our observers are insisting?
No, it does not.
First of all, let us look at the chair without looking at any one particular point or area on that chair. The chair will obviously look completely different depending on the motionless Observer’s position as per the Observed Object (OO). In other words, the differing positions of a motionless Observer will create differing images of the chair. Thus, if you were looking at the chair and you were standing behind the chair, then it will look different to an Observer who is looking at the chair when he is standing in front of it. These two observed images of the supposedly ‘one’ chair will be contradictory to each other. Which one is more accurate then? Answer: neither and both at the same time – remember complimentarity? Therefore the position of a motionless Observer will totally affect the Vision of the Observed Object and therefore you have an infinite number of completely differing and contrasting images of the Observed Object – simply depending where the motionless Observer is standing relative to the chair.
Next, we introduce motion. When an Observer is looking at our Observed Object and he is moving, then that will inevitable create another altogether different image of the OO. Obviously motion causes one’s visual acuity to be decreased depending on the speed with which the moving Observer is moving. Extrapolating from that point, we can now further add, there can be another equal number of infinite images of the OO depending on an infinite number of moving Observers as per the chair.
There are other factors, but suffice it to say for now that there is no one ‘real image’ of the Observed Object in question in relation to our Observers – precisely because of all these variable factors that affect the image of anything in our minds and in our universe.
But, you may ask: all very well, but what if a group of motionless Observers who are all standing in front of the Observed Object and they are all looking at the chair – will they not all have the exact same image of the chair, and since obviously the answer is ‘yes’, then, in that instance, can we not say, that the Observed Object does have a ‘one, unified true reality’?
Answer: yes and no – complimentarity again.
At that instance, and in that circumstance, yes, the chair will produce that one image that is equally perceived by our Observers as exactly the same image, and in that context, the chair will have a ‘one reality and image’.
But, just as equally, another number of motionless observers can be standing at the back of the chair and they will agree that they too see a ‘one image’ of the chair.
And both sets of Observers are equal – as far as their ‘truth’ of their perceptions goes.
But, let us return to our original group of observers, who are standing in front of the chair.
While their perception of the Observed Object is factually true relative to them (and only to them), we still do need to add a further comment, that yes, the Observed Object, in that circumstance does have a ‘one real, unified image’, as per the said Observers, but that truth is superficial.
Why ‘superficial’?
Because that fact does not alter the equally true fact that our chair still inherently possesses an infinite number of other contrasting and comparable images that will, de facto, mean that it does not have a ‘one true, real image’. Why? Precisely because all those other contrasting and similar other images are still existing and therefore unless if we propose to deny the significance of all these other images, we, must therefore repeat the following proposition: every imagine is an infinite number of divergent, contrasting, conflicting, opposite images in addition to an equally numberless images that are related, analogous, alike and similar, and it is the entirety of these images that will emerge and produce a recognizable image (that people mistakenly name as ‘reality’) – but having what we have just said, it follows that no image has a ‘one, unified reality’.
The Reality of any Observed Object depends on the Observer. It depends in what state of mind the Observer is and in what physical context he is situated in, as per the Observed Object.
What do I mean ‘state of mind’?
Take an example: assume our Observing Person is in a foul, negative, sad mood, and he sees a friend. It may happen that in that instance and in that particular circumstance, our sad Observer will perceive his friend in a different way than when he last saw him, and when he was in a better mood. Thus, moods can affect and can alter perception of the Observed Object and/or Person. It can also happen that a person himself, observing himself, when he may be in a sad mood, will see himself as being ‘ugly’, while on another day and in a different context and in a better mood, he may see himself as looking ‘good’. Thus, we see, that everyone, observer and/or observed, will have a numberless amount of conflicting and contrasting and comparable images – depending on their ‘state of mind’, as I have said.
Furthermore, given the fact that our minds, moods, positions, movements, awareness factor are so much in constant change, it is not too surprising to understand how much the infinite number of images ‘Reality’ has across time – from moment to moment.
It must be noted here that the Awareness Factor (AF) plays a very important role in our perception of Reality. We have already stated the obvious: the greater AF, the greater will our Observer perceive whatever Reality he may be seeing, and the opposite, means his perception will lessen. But there is another aspect of the AF: quite a lot of people, sometimes, cannot be bothered in studying or getting into a deeper understand of Reality and so their AF will decrease simply because they may have other concerns, interests, problems and so on. Thus, for example, if you look at a face of your friend – not that many people will be so ‘interested’ in studying the different angles that create different images in that same face of the friend – they are simply not be interested or bothered to go into perception per se.
Reality is once again seen to be utterly dependent on the Observer.