One thing that always fascinated me about art is that while it definitely exists as a physical object in a place, its meaning, emotional charge, and value exist in a much less deterministic way. Art holds a certain meaning for the artist at one moment in time, and potentially many different meanings across other moments. Yet, it also conveys something unique to each viewer. Which interpretation then represents the true meaning and value of art?
Approaching this question from a macro-physical, deterministic perspective makes it very difficult, perhaps impossible, to define art as anything but subjective. However, if we seek wisdom from another realm, such as quantum mechanics, we encounter the concept of 'superposition of states'. A quantum particle exists in multiple potential states simultaneously until it is observed.
When I learned about this, it reshaped my understanding of art at a physical level, beyond just being an object. Like a quantum particle, a piece of art exists in a superposition of meanings. It is only when observed by the unique universe of a conscious mind that the art decoheres into a singular value for that observer.
This differs from quantum processes in the physical universe where, once decoherence occurs and a particle's state collapses, it retains the same value for any subsequent observers. This always happens when a photon interacts with a particle; one could argue all photons in our physical universe are part of the "same observer."
Building on this, I would argue that the quantum process in our brains that leads to the decoherence of art's meaning is not a photon, and not the same observer as all photons, hence the decoherence of each human mind is unique. Taking it further, if photons in a different physical universe could decohere particles differently, and if several universes could observe a single particle without interfering with each other, this would suggest a more "resource-efficient" architectural design of the universe.
Would this be possible in a universe where quantum mechanics doesn't exist? I would bet not. Is this a case of Great Design or merely a curious metaphor? Smarter folks than me might weigh in.