This passage suggests that our understanding of matter is confined to five sensory aspects and some mental analysis. While we can grasp the basics, like the appearance and smell of a car or a person, deeper understanding eludes us. For instance, we cannot foresee a person’s future. Our sensory information is limited and lacks the depth of celestial beings’ knowledge, so we don’t possess telepathic abilities. We can’t know an elephant’s thoughts just by looking at it. Only someone with advanced spiritual practice, like an Arhat, might sense the elephant’s emotions.
However, looking deeper and further exceeds our cognitive range. For example, we are not able to predict a person’s future. Because the information we get from our senses is incomplete and far inferior to that of celestial beings. We cannot have the same telepathic abilities as they do. When we see an elephant, we don’t know its thoughts; we don’t have the ability to read minds. If someone is well-practiced, like an Arhat, they would know if the elephant is angry at that moment.
Often, we rely on outward signs to guess an animal’s mood, such as a dog’s raised fur indicating anger. But appearances can be deceiving, especially with humans who may express kindness while harboring ill will. Our observations, whether of mental states or physical conditions, are incomplete. This is why doctors use tools like X-rays for a more thorough examination. New devices, like blood sugar monitors, aim to enhance our understanding, but even these have limitations.
Our senses are inherently restricted, and despite efforts to extend their reach, they fall short, particularly in grasping the true nature of matter. We refer to various material combinations as “matter,” but the exact nature of fundamental matter remains unclear.
The search for basic elements and forces, such as those proposed in the Grand Unified Theory, continues without definitive answers. The quest for the smallest particles, whether through tools or theoretical models like strings and superstrings, is hindered by the fact that our methods of detection inevitably affect the very matter we seek to understand. Thus, the challenge remains to discern and explore the true essence of matter.
What does this imply? In our quest to understand the fundamental components of matter—be it particles, superstrings, fields, or waves—we must employ various instruments because our natural senses are inadequate for such tasks. Ultimately, it is the brain that interprets the data collected by these tools. For instance, to detect electrons, we cannot rely on our naked eyes or even an electron microscope; instead, we use sophisticated, high-precision equipment that can provoke collisions with particles to observe them.
Since the fundamental particles of matter are exceedingly small, any attempt to detect them involves the brain’s mass and energy, which are significantly larger. To observe the smallest entities, the detecting instrument’s mass or energy must be comparable; otherwise, the particle would not be considered the smallest form of matter. However, using an instrument with equivalent mass or energy could potentially alter the particle’s inherent properties and state, complicating our ability to accurately identify and study its true nature.
In modern physics, phenomena such as the wave-particle duality of light, the double-slit experiment with electromagnetic waves, and Schrödinger’s cat in quantum mechanics, are all due to this reason.
The double-slit experiment’s paradox arises because the act of cognition creates a separation between the observer and the observed, rendering direct monitoring impossible. When unobserved, phenomena behave as waves, but observation collapses the wave into a particle. This occurs because observation adds energy; without it, the wave remains in an undefined state. Observation necessitates particles—after all, we use light to see.
The process of observation itself alters the properties and state of the observed object, which means we can never truly observe the target in its natural state. No matter how hard we try, we cannot determine the true nature of ultimate matter. Our five senses are insufficient as they depend on mediums. For instance, ultraviolet light is invisible to us; we only perceive its effects indirectly through images and data. Similarly, we cannot see quanta with our eyes; such a feat would be remarkable but is beyond our capabilities.
Excerpted from: Cognition and Expression Part Two
