As a young little girl with huge dreams in her eyes, I would consider myself to be a student of life. My sole purpose was to understand why things worked the way they did. And life gave me my first set of answers in the form of a subject I loved dearly: physics.
I was around 13 when I first stumbled upon my love for physics. And I was absolutely amazed by how a physical effect can be explained so seamlessly with a mere equation. Gravitation. Electromagnetism. Kinetics. The laws of physics said that every single action or event could be predicted with a near perfect trajectory. Which is great for an ever anxious and uptight person like me. The less uncertainty in life, the better. How very Classic of me.
My love for Classical Physics led me to my degree in Physics. And in university, I learnt a little bit more. And I grew a bit more uncertain of the certainty of what I knew. Cue, Heisenberg and the advent of his uncertainty principle. So I forayed into these advanced physics concepts based on the quantum nature of matter. And I learnt that, well, on a macroscopic level, things could be defined with classical laws with little to no uncertainty. But on a microscopic level, things were different. There existed orthogonal quantum states and each of these existed with a probability, which Schrodinger’s cat does a way better job at explaining than I do.
Alright. So, I suppose, instead of knowing the exact trajectory of things, I knew probabilistic trajectories. But at least I knew the probabilities associated with them. And those probabilities could be modeled by physical phenomena.
Shortly after, I ventured into a field called quantum information theory. It combined the greatest theories known to me. Quantum physics and information theory.
Information theory taught me how to interpret randomness. And then I ventured into signal processing and machine learning, which modelled randomness for estimating trajectories of human specific concepts like language and visual cognition. I went from understanding what the human brain interpreted, to how the human brain interpreted. Of course, what the human brain interprets is highly noisy. It takes a huge number of experiments, replicable in nature, to come up with core science that we identify as classical physics.
What I also understand, is that the human brain relies more on correlations than causations. And causation is mostly the result of calculating a huge number of correlations, and observing an effect with high probability.
These two concepts, are somehow interlinked. I went from assuming that there exists a definitive answer and reason to my questions, to understanding that I can only get a clearer answer if I probe with more questions, and it can take me a high number of questions to know for sure, if what I know is indeed true.