Thank you for sharing your insights. They also pop up in my mind when I write about these topics; I know that there is a part of nature which we will never attain or comprehend by only approaching it cognitively. The empirical method only goes so far, after all.

For the most part, I’m content with that, as I feel that science is a good place to start to wonder about the intricacies of the world. There’s another part to me (and to all of us, in my opinion), a non-informational side, to put it in your terminology.

To me, this side is a spiritual in nature and falls as per definition out of the scope of scientific scrutiny. Perhaps this non-informational, non-cognitive part of human beings is what triggers an interest in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, as both aspects deal with the nature of reality, albeit from a different perspective.

As a case in point, I wrote an article some while ago based on a book written by social constructivist and social scientist Alexander Wendt (“Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology”), whereby I applied the principles of quantum mechanics, as an analogy, to the social reality of the European Union.

Personally, I write to make sense of how I experience reality, and linking my writing with science makes the most sense to me, as it feels grounded, knowing that at the same time, as you’ve pointed out accurately, my understanding will be infinitely limited. But there is also that insatiable inquisitiveness to learn, explore, and put it all into words.

Science writer at A Circle Is Round (https://acircleisround.com) • Exploring what science has to tell us about our interconnected nature •

Science writer at A Circle Is Round (https://acircleisround.com) • Exploring what science has to tell us about our interconnected nature •