The classic example of this is the "expanding universe as surface of a ballon". The inevitable question is "what does the inside of the ballon corresond to in the real universe". The answer to that is NOTHING. That's where the metaphor fails.
In this sense, I think the relation of thought to special relativity (as in your metaphor) is not correct. First of all, the aspects of consciousness that you describe are far more complicated than relativity. Moreover, as you acknowledge, the metaphor fails when confronting the symmetric nature of the observer/observed in special relativity.

How do we, as educators of physics and otherwise, feel about the extensions (or mis-extensions) of our metaphors and toy models? What can we do to keep them from being misinterpreted?

Cheers,
Joseph

On May 3, 10:36am, Maya Lessov wrote:
> Subject: Re: quote of the week
> Hi, Todd. I understood why you chose the quote. I think the way to make
> people comfortable with disturbing concepts is to related them directly to
> their experience, which does reflect these concepts whether they know it
> or not. I think all people experience the changing flow of time in
> relation to change, for instance whether or not they board a
> light-speed-traveling spaceship. Relativity is demonstrated on earth in
> the speed process of our thoughts. If you think many thoughts and "go"
> many places in fime minutes, just as the clock has, you have lived more
> closely five minutes than if you've thought "I have to get to work. I
> have to get to work." for five minutes. That is why days filled with a
> couple of events repeaded over and over in one's head go by more quickly
> than days filled, like a child's, with many different thoughts a minute.
> When it feels as if you've lived less, that's because you have. You've
> experienced less change, traveled through less space, because your
> spaceship, your mind, is moving more slowly.
>
> I understand that relativity says this time-slowing dynamic is really
> reversable and it doesn't matter, or is impossible to tell which object is
> moving more quickly than the other; each measures time as having slowed on
> the opposite craft. But, still, without including this detail, the above
> description is one way in which I relate my experience to concepts in
> science and a way in which others could, if such examples were presented
> them.
>
> maya
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2000, Todd Duncan wrote:
>
> > All right, so I'm guilty of choosing the quote in question. It's from a
> > book by Prigogine and Stengers, called "Order Out of Chaos" (p. 96 in case
> > anyone wants to look at the context). I found it somewhat puzzling, too, so
> > I thought it might stir up some interesting discussion (which it certainly
> > did!:-).
> >
> > My interest in the passage arose from discussions with people who perceive
> > science as alienating. As a result, they may reject science in favor of
> > ways of thinking within which they feel more comfortable or at home. The
> > statement that the direction of time is somehow an "illusion" is one such
> > comment from science that is sometimes pointed out as alienating.
> >
> > I saw the quote as a recognition that if we force people to choose between
> > scientific ideas that they see as alienating, and nonscientific ideas that
> > are comfortable, most people will understandably choose comfort. This
> > raises an obvious question: Is it necessary for these folks to see
> > scientific ideas as alienating? Is there a missing interpretation step that
> > could allow them to see the scientific ideas in a way they'd feel more at
> > home in?
> >
> > Todd
> > --
> > *********************************
> > * Todd Duncan *
> > * Science Integration Institute *
> > * duncan@scienceintegration.org *
> > * (503) 848-0280 *
> > * www.scienceintegration.org *
> > * 1971 SE 73rd Ave. *
> > * Hillsboro, OR 97123 *
> > *********************************
> > >> "To deny time - that is, to reduce it to a mere deployment of a reversible
> > >> law - is to abandon the possibility of defining a conception of nature
> > >> coherent with the hypothesis that nature produced living beings,
> > >> particularly man. It dooms us to choosing between an antiscientific
> > >> philosophy and an alienating science."
> > >>
> > >> - Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers
> > >>
> >
> >
>-- End of excerpt from Maya Lessov

--
Joseph A. Biello
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
University of Chicago
484 Enrico Fermi Institute
5640 S. Ellis Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637
(773) 834 1059