Schrödinger rams

Some time ago, a picture, which became a meme, wandered over the network: a herd of rams is breaking into a narrow gate, although there was no fence and it would be possible to calmly go a wide front.

The picture was eagerly rocked, hinting at the stupidity of the Internet-tolpa. But the more something spreads, the more eyes looks and the more it notices. The viral editor eventually looked closely and saw pillars there, on which the wire was probably stretched. And if so, then the rams do not really have another way, except to squeeze into the gate.

Then the most intelligent began to put this picture with a editorial of a second level: rams - just those who, without considering the true state of things, follow a false maxim.

The moral of history seems simple: if you come across some kind of catchy information, check it before you believe and spread it.

It is curious, however, that the picture with the rams shoots in both cases. It is interesting if there is no fence and running rams - rams (in a bad sense). It is also interesting if there is a fence and rams are honest animals, but those who roam are rams (in a bad sense). And how to live with this double meaning? Where is the truth?

A couple of years ago, one of my friends on Facebook published an announcement from the Avito service, illustrated by photography.

The text of the announcement was this:

“In Rostov-on-Don
Type of goods: textiles and carpets
Price 3000. Selling a b/y carpet for unnecessary! Good condition! Carpet after washing and cleaning! The size of the carpet is 1.86 by 2.85 bargaining. PS In the photo, the carpet is photographed and not straightened! ”

Of course, there was a discussion immediately. There must be some kind of catch. Some kind of viral advertising? But what? Plastic surgery salon? Intimate services? Or is it a wedding ad? But why in the "Textile" section? Or maybe someone just sells a carpet with fiction?

Everything can be.

One colleague, journalist, wrote: “And call? The question is one minute)). " Indeed, this is an announcement, it is with a phone. You can take it and find out everything. A professional journalist recalled Takkekeing.

But factskewk has one critical drawback: he is able to kill a cool story. Therefore, think three times before checking.

No, factskening is not our way. In large arrays, it still does not work. The crowd is incapable of factsching. It is ridiculous to demand improvement from the weather-and generally demand something. Call on the phone, increase the photo, look into Wikipedia or follow the link is a more expensive thing than to press Like or Share . Of course, there will always be meticulous and picky, they will check. But the picky are obviously fewer than unpretentious.

The simplest rational reaction always loses “impulsive purchase”. Therefore, the picture with the rams safely continues its procession on the Internet.

Technically a viral editor is capable of self -cleaning. If the lie is significant, it spreads until it reaches witnesses or experts who can refute it. If the lie is insignificant, then it simply does not reach those who are able to refute it.

The problem is that the refutation comes with some delay and does not reach everyone who saw a lie. The sediment always remains, although the spoons were found.

But the most important thing is that on the surface is ripples - a lie calmly continues to coexist with the truth, even convincingly proven. After all, there is no and cannot have a final conclusion in the ecosystem of free sherring. So is there a fence or not? Does the girl sell the carpet or something else? Was it a meteorite or a rocket with Latin on board? Or with Cyrillic? Did you get off the ground or from the air? That "beech" or that?

Perhaps everything. Instead of lies and truth, preferred versions appear. No one authoritative or appointed by the authorities will make common and mandatory for all the conclusion. The time of the program "Time" has passed. (After all, even if the program “Time” was lied, then everyone knew about it and still focused in the coordinate system, albeit with a negative sign.)

“The bastard time, you can’t believe anything 100%, terribly tired because of this,” one of the commentators wrote.

The quantity and, the worst, the variety of examination about Iceland, a plane crash, papal curia, meteorite and anything incredible. Moreover: a self -proclaimed vulgar examination branches and multiplies precisely on the topics of peak interest, when the demand for unambiguous information and the final conclusion is sharply growing. This demand is now saturated with anyone, including, first of all, those who form it.

“The bastard time, you can’t believe anything 100%, terribly tired because of this,” one of the commentators wrote. Probably, this feeling is familiar to many. If in the 90s the Internet was perceived as a large library, in zero-as a communication environment, then in tenths as a threat to the psyche.

The previous 2000 years of dominance of the text have accustomed a person to the accuracy of judgment, to the presence of an authoritative conclusion. The text was awarded to few, passed filters before publication and guarded the hierarchy of rights to judgment. The usual structure of the world breaks if a public judgment is instantly and accessible to everyone. There is no way to understand who is the main one, who has a sanction for the final, that is, correct, conclusion. It oppresses. So Vasily Alibabaevich from the "Gentlemen of Good luck", having gained freedom in addition to will, wants to go back to "Turm", because there is now dinner, pasta gives - everything is according to the schedule, everything is clear.

But back to prison of authorized text can no longer be. Pyramidal gravity of authority collapses, in its place there is a cloudy - where authority does not emit from top to bottom, but coagulates everywhere, where everyone has the possibility of publishing his judgment, where in his technical law to authorship, an ordinary person was equal to the former priests of the text - journalists, politicians and even whole institutions.

French, English, German philosophy fought to catch the abstraction of the mind in the Procrustean bed of logic. Now these centuries -old efforts will have to turn back and recognize the integral property of the picture of the world uncertainty. Schrödinger's cat eludes Occam's razor.

We need new Descartes and Leibniz, who will develop the philosophical category “most likely” so that a reliable judgment could at least take place. Most likely, there is a fence; But for those who do not want or do not see, he is not. Their “no” also forms a picture of the world, as a result in public perception, the fence flickers, and this is normal.

The presence of a fence, like its absence, is now not in reality of the pasture, but in digital reality, where the fact mutated in a factual . If everything that happens moves from physical reality to digital, then the factual is a fairly honest event. He just has other characteristics. The factual does not confront the truth, it embraces the possible attitude to the truth.

In digital reality, the absence and presence of a fence in the picture are technically equal, they exist simultaneously. Moreover, the presence of a fence on a real pasture does not affect anything at all. In a sense, there is no more real pasture in a certain state. (Until someone goes there; but the one who goes there can only publish his personal vision of the pasture, it will not affect the pasture-meme.)

Everything can be so, and it can be that, and at the same time. The image of the "violin-fox" is read if it is recorded in letters; In sound reality, this can be the “Wheel creak”. This is the most difficult thing - not duality, namely simultaneousness: not “or/or”, but “and/and”.

Hygiene of reason is now supported not by the thirst for truth, but to tolerance for uncertainty. The thirst for truth, on the contrary, is fraught with mental ill health in a new environment.

The immunity to the drafts of free authorship is formed painfully and, apparently, will ripen for the next generation. They will not care what truth underlines the topic under discussion - this or this. We have to get used to the fact that truth has turned into the sum of probabilities. This is not a defect, but the basic setting of a new environment. Therefore, for reasons of media hygiene, one must come to terms with the fact that the digital truth flickers by default. It’s good if it is fixed at least with the help of “most likely”. In the photo with the rams, most likely, there is still a fence. But I can’t say anything definite about the girl with the carpet.