2010-12-28, by John Ringland
I just read a very thought provoking article The
Truth by Eric
Gross, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In response to it something
came to mind, certainly not as a criticism but simply as an extra
dimension to consider...
I agree that “what we are really talking about is how can we
determine the best theory about the world?”
What that article describes is not restricted purely to a
traditional scientific context, although it is well aligned with the
traditional philosophy of science, based on empiricism. However since
the advent of quantum mechanics there have been some subtle changes
in the foundations of the philosophy of science, which might shed
some light on the subject under discussion in that article. The gist
of these changes are that the supremacy of empiricism has been
challenged by rationalism.
This amounts to the realisation that it is not always true that
“What makes a theory compelling is that it is based on
verifiable and testable evidence.” It may be based on something
else, but what makes it compelling is that it is verifiable in
terms of testable evidence.
"Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate
source of all our concepts and knowledge”
(Rationalism
vs. Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Because an experimental apparatus is an extension of our sensory
apparatus, basing a theory on experimental evidence is a form of
empiricism.
Whereas "Rationalists claim that there are significant
ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of
sense experience... there are cases where the content of our concepts
or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can
provide... reason in some form or other provides that additional
information about the world." (Rationalism
vs. Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Thus quantum mechanics is a rationalist science because the theory
is based on mathematical intuitions and reasoning that deals with
entities such as wavefunctions that are intrinsically unobservable
and therefore entirely beyond the reach of empirical methods. Quantum
mechanics describes an objective reality that is imperceptible,
whilst the universe that is perceived is inferred to exist based upon
our subjective experiences of classical observables.
Even though quantum mechanics is the most accurate and compelling
“theory of the world” that science has yet to discover /
formulate, it is not “based on verifiable and
testable evidence” although it
is thoroughly verified by available evidence.
Because quantum mechanics is not based
on concepts derived from sense experience it can explore beyond the
veil of appearances and make claims about the deeper levels of
reality, which are inaccessible to observation. This leads to a very
different perspective on 'reality'...
"We have no satisfactory reason
for ascribing objective existence to physical quantities as
distinguished from the numbers obtained when we make the measurements
which we correlate with them... we get into a maze of contradiction
as soon as we inject into quantum mechanics such concepts as carried
over from the language and philosophy of our ancestors." (The
Fundamental Principles of Quantum Mechanics, E. C. Kemble, McGraw
Hill)
“[W]e have to give up the idea
of [naïve] realism to a far greater extent than most physicists
believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means the
idea that objects have specific features and properties – that a
ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that
an electron has a particular spin... it may make no sense to think of
them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may
depend on how we look.” (P
Ball, Physicists bid farewell to reality?, Nature News)
“Quantum theory essentially
erased the difference between matter and fields, making reality a
unit that exhibits the properties of both. This single, unitary stuff
gave rise to the fantastically successful algorithm now used by
physicists in all calculations involving quantum theory. But nobody
knows what this unitary stuff really is. Most quantum physicists, of
course, stop short of calling this unitary substance consciousness.”
(Norman Friedman)
This also relates to the remarks in the article regarding Eastern
philosophy. It is not true that “expressions [from
Eastern philosophy] suggest, quite strongly, that the quest
for truth is one that is both hopeless and vain.” It is instead
claimed in Eastern philosophy that empirical enquiry can not lead to
truth because the world-illusion is so all encompassing. Everywhere
we look we experience the classical observables and we can never
experience the quantum field itself. Or in other words, everywhere we
look we experience the phenomenal content of awareness and not
awareness itself. This is analogous to the situation in the movie
“The Matrix”, where a denizen of the matrix cannot see the
computer that is animating their world, everywhere that they look
they only see the simulated world. A rationalist path to liberation
for such a person would be to come to an intuitive realisation (or be
told) that they were in fact living within a simulation, then to see
that this is not unreasonable and could in fact be true, then to go
about trying to test that hypothesis. An empirical enquiry would
reinforce the illusion because its initial premises and axioms are
derived from the illusion itself. Thus it takes a 'leap' in order to
escape the closed loop of a self-reinforcing illusion.
Because of our reliance on empiricism and the objects of the
senses we tend to imagine the universe to be composed of many
distinct and separate objects and events when in fact, at the
objective level of reality there is just a single unified, non-local,
timeless, all-pervading quantum field that cannot be understood in
terms of classical observables but only in terms of abstract
reality-generative information processes. In Vedanta the quantum
field and the classical world are called Brahman and Maya, and in
Daoism there is Hundun (the uncarved block) and Wanwu (the
ten-thousand things or the myriad creatures). In each of these cases,
the transcendent context seemingly gives rise to the empirical
context due to an act of observation and interpretation, which is
also the case in quantum mechanics and in the metaphor of a
computational processes simulating a virtual reality. All mystic
traditions have a similar separation into two related contexts - for
instance, in Buddhism there is
Nirvana (full awareness of reality) and Samsara (entrapment within a
world-illusion), in Kabbalah (mystic Judaism) there is the
Land of Edom (the place where all judgements are found) and the
Children of Israel (manifest forms). In mystic Christianity and many
other traditions these two contexts were described using the metaphor
of the quantum field as a Supreme Being or God in Heaven and the
classical world as the World of Men or Mortals in Earth.
To penetrate the veil of appearances requires a rationalist leap,
to intuit the nature of reality in a flash of insight and inspired
reason, or to come across sacred teachings that sow the seeds of such
an idea in the mind. Then to rigorously test that idea against
available evidence. Not the evidence provided by the senses, which
only reinforces the illusion, but evidence from direct awareness of
one's own stream of consciousness, which is itself the ongoing
process of the real that is 'animating' you, your world and the
entire phenomenal universe. This is analogous to a computational
process animating a virtual universe within which AI minds
contemplate their situation. Through their senses they perceive a
world that seems entirely tangible and physical, however the
innermost core of their stream of consciousness is the computational
process that is animating everything. Sacred teachings tell them to
look within and realise that they are the objective reality itself,
whilst meditation and other spiritual practices are ways to get to
know one's innermost core and thereby get to know one's Self as the
objective reality.
So realisation of the nature of reality cannot be deduced from
empirical evidence like most common knowledge is, hence it is beyond
the reach of knowledge in that sense. However it can be intuitively
realised, rationally understood and experimentally verified, hence it
is not entirely beyond the reach of knowledge. That is the difference
between empiricism and rationalism. I just thought this point might
add something to the line of thinking in that article...
I put together a list of quotes that relate to what was said
above, however it grew so long I turned it into an article in itself:
Quotes
regarding truth, reality and knowledge
, also see Mystic
Perspective: Comments and Quotes (it repeats some quotes from the
previous list but contains more from quantum mechanics, Sufism,
Daoism and Kabbalah).
All the Best :)
Related Articles:
| 