Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding: Quantum Mechanics, Naïve Realism, Scientific Realism, Abstraction and Reality

Quantum Mechanics, Naïve Realism, Scientific Realism, Abstraction and Reality

2013-11-26, by John Ringland

I was recently asked: "Is QM in its abstract mathematical proceedure that applies to particles, and just abstract conceptualisations, not considered naive realism?"

No, it is called scientific realism because it claims that aspects of reality can be known scientifically. Scientific realism can be naïve realist, for example via claims that particles are real. This is naïve realist because it is based on the assumption that that which is portrayed by our observations is real.

However in the case of QM it is not naïve realist - it is in fact the antithesis of naïve realism because it claims that the observables that we apprehend are not in any way objective, they are created in the act of observing and are thus totally dependent on how we observe.

Thus QM claims that anything that is portrayed by our experiences cannot be objectively real - whilst naïve realism claims that that which is portrayed by our experiences is objectively real. The two are diametrically opposed.

QM is realist because it claims that that which is represented by wavefunctions are real. I.e. they exist independently of our observations - in fact they are inherently unobservable. Whenever we try to observe them what we experience are the 'observables' that are created in the act of observing.

So QM doesn't claim that particles or waves are real, these are just observables. It is that which is represented by wavefunctions that are real and which give rise to observations of either a particle or a wave depending on how we observe it.

BTW QM doesn't claim that the mathematical proceedures are real - these are just symbolic models via which we comprehend quantum systems.

Hence this type of realism is scientific realism because the things that are considered to be real can only be apprehended by the mind via 'abstract' scientific conceptualisations. The fact that these are 'abstract' doesn't imply that they are unreal - in fact it implies the opposite.

Within a naïve realist paradigm 'abstract' means 'unreal' because it can never be portrayed by the content of an experience no matter how augmented that experience may be (e.g. by microscopes or telescopes or particle accelerators etc). Due to naïve realism we are in the habit of thinking that only the things portrayed by our experiences can be real and that everything else is abstract and unreal.

However, when we step away from naïve realism and seriously consider the role of experience we realise that if experience is fundamental and not just an anomaly then that which is most real must underlie our ability to experience. Furthermore, "that which underlies our ability to experience" cannot be "that which is portrayed by our experiences". Thus that which can be observed is unreal and that which is real would seem 'abstract' because it can never be observed.

In other words, to use a metaphor, reality is the sight within seeing rather than that which is seen. Hence the most real is the most abstract.

BTW it is very rare to find a coherent discussion of the non-naïve realist nature of QM. Most discussions try to introduce naïve realist features or apply it within a naïve realist context.

This is because over the past 80 or so years there have only been a handful of physicists who could think outside of naïve realism. Thus the standard attitude is that we should focus on the world that we know via naïve realism (i.e. the physical universe) and we should use QM to make calculation about that world. Meanwhile we should avoid any attempts to think about what QM really means, i.e. what it is really saying about the nature of reality.

Thus it has been declared over and over that QM makes no sense and that attempts to think deeply about it will drive you insane. This attitude arises because a naïve realist cannot conceive that there is anything beyond naïve realism, thus someone who thinks outside of naïve realism must be insane, or so it seems to them.

There are now a few physicists who are beginning to see beyond naïve realism, but the vast majority of physics and science in general is still thoroughly naïve realist.

Here is a very short article that I wrote for a fringe science newsletter regarding the paradigm shift that is slowly emerging within physics: http://anandavala.info/article/EmergingParadigm.pdf

A more detailed analysis is conducted here: http://anandavala.info/OIPVSE.pdf

Note: in order to conduct this research I had to break away from habitual ways of thinking by dropping out of academia, however this means that this work has no way of being heard by academics or others engaged in similar work. If these ideas resonate with you then you can help by bringing it to their attention.

Thank you for listening and helping! I hope that it helps you as much as it has helped me to develop a clearer understanding of the nature of reality.

[< Back] [Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding]