I refer you, layman-ed-ly, to the dual-slit experiment, conducted with not photons, but electrons. It is widely known that light possesses particle (photo-electric effect is proof that energy carried by electromagnetic waves are transferred in discrete amounts / quanta) and wave (frequency and wavelength) properties, and the diffraction pattern consisting of “troughs” and “crests” of alternating intensity can be found on the screen where the light is observed.
Similarly, the experiment, when conducted with electrons, yields similar results. The conclusion was that things which we observe to be particles do carry wave characteristics too. Scientists decided to conduct one last experiment: instead of firing the electrons in a beam (like shining light), they fired electrons 1 by 1. If you fired electrons in a beam, it is natural that the diffraction pattern will be formed since all the electrons in flight interfere with each other (their wave properties) and yield a nett effect of the diffraction pattern. But if they were fired 1 by 1, such interference theoretically should not occur. After a large number of electrons were (1 by 1) fired, their positions were collectively analysed – to the scientists’ surprise, the diffraction pattern was still apparent. It seemed that the probability which decided the landing location of the particle already under interference, and the (possible outcomes of the) particle was hence (?) interfering with itself.
Their only conclusion was this: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was ‘real’, and a particle does not have a fixed location (and velocity) until a measurement is made. And in this state of uncertainty before the measurement is made, the possible states do not just exist as an imagined probability – despite being merely a possible and unrealized outcome, they exerted a real effect on the real, physical world, and interfered with each other (being waves, despite being in the realm of what we believe to be imaginary) to affect the final measurement.
Decisions in life are similar: decisions made by yourself, or decisions made by others which have an effect on you. Before the point where the fated outcome is set in stone (and hence becomes reality), our imagination of the outcomes exert a real effect on our moods and our daily actions. Reality and imagination is less compartmentalised as they may seem to be, and interference exist between both realms. Like the theoretical electron of uncertainty, we live a reality entwined with all imagined possible outcomes, hurtling through time and towards the screen where our fate is ascertained and all interference stripped. Imaginary happiness evaporates upon distraction, while imaginary despair lingers; it would seem that idle thought about the unknown is an endeavour doomed to futility or misery after all.
Anyway.
“I imagine how great it’d be to stay here as long as I wanted. There are lots of books on the shelf I’d like to read, still plenty of food. But I know I’m just passing through and will have to leave before long. This place is too calm, too natural – too complete. I don’t deserve it. At least not yet.”
-Kafka on the Shore
I think I have just found the answer/reason behind the instinctive feeling of discomfort about leaving Singapore for a more slow-paced life, perhaps as a librarian somewhere overseas – there is just too much ideality in such a lifestyle, especially when contrasted with that of a Singaporean male. Our lives revolve around our daily burdens and distractions : we thrive in the state of preoccupation while subconsciously praying for the disruptive buzz from our phones – we fiddle with our phones just waiting for some sms to pop up. Of course we look for something else. The ideal life is out there, in the temperate region with a lazy pace of life, surrounded by the serene scenery only a country larger than Singapore can offer. (Come think of it, people from temperate regions crave for a retirement life on some tropical island – isn’t that a proof that ideals are merely relative and we only seek change in our lives, regardless of our present state? I.e. we’ll never attain our ideals or the state of satisfaction?)
I could ask you if you want to be whisked off to, I don’t know, England or somewhere nice, and live your life surrounded by whatever you like, without any burdens or responsibilties. Or if you want the scenario to be more realistic: how about I pull you out of OCS and give you an instant ORD?
I would say no, even though training burns my time and energy and numbs me mentally. I always asked myself why, and I tried to convinced myself with a list of reasons.
1.) The force of habit: I am too used to living a busy life (oh no, potential workaholic?)
2.) Subconscious desire : Actually wanting to train to get stronger/better etc
3.) Goals of my army training already entrenched inside my mind, hence I am intinctively unwilling to give up on these goals? (partially related to the force of habit)
4.) Because I won’t be like everybody else and the desire for conformity is acting on me?
I identified with none of them, and hence I stopped asking. Similarly for life, I wouldn’t want to go live a carefree life in somewhere cozy and comfortable, if you gave me the choice right now. But now I understand, it is because we don’t feel that we deserve it yet. Being at home feels good, because training 5-6 days a week in the army is the act of earning the privilege of being able to stay at home. Being at the mountaintop feels good because you have climbed the mountain. So simple and cliched.
I don’t know whats the point of writing this, it feels too simple to warrant any writing. But it does, it does, it does answer all my doubts about living a life fraught with challenges – because I haven’t earned my right to live a good life yet.
Anyway, some random food for thought:
Very fundamentally, right-wing politics celebrate the differences which exist in humans, while left-wing politics celebrate the similarities shared between humans.
If you were to split people into being street-smart and intelligent (or book-smart), only those who are intelligent can appreciate street-smartness, but rarely the other way round.
