Interpreting quantum physics it is suggested is one of the currently
intractable problems of philosophy. Here, I would like to offer some insights
that suggest the real issue is our unrealistic expectations and our general
lack of understanding of the very nature of knowledge.
1.
Physics is knowledge, therefore any particular
aspects of physics is particular knowledge. It follows that the interpretation
of how any aspect of physics relates to that beyond the physics can only be a
detail of the general issue of how all knowledge relates to that beyond that
knowledge and to which the knowledge alludes or points or in some other way
relates. Physics knowledge is knowledge like all other, bounded by the same
overall rules, models and propositions. This is a position substantially drawn
from Popper, and sees scientific epistemology as most concerned with the
relation between knowledge and the objects of that knowledge.
2.
Currently the academic theoretical structure
describing knowledge and the relationship between that knowledge and the
objects it describes can only be described as somewhere between dreadful and
very poor. The only full working model and theory I know of is my own, at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.
3.
My model explores and proposes that the ultimate and
immediate effects of W. Ross Ashby parallel actual knowledge to the degree that
they can be substituted for the ‘real thing’, and will create knowledge
indistinguishable from the ‘real thing’. In fact the model goes further and
demonstrates ultimate and immediate effects as third level conceptualisation
tools on a par with mathematics in being able to lead the conceptualization
process, and that knowledge produced using the tools of Ashby have known and
clear properties to a degree that this knowledge is superior to the ‘real
thing’. (Note, that arising from the general theory of the person also at the
site, conceptualization emerges as a critical aspect of our psychology, and
fully integrates with the general theory of knowledge developed at the site and
within which this discussion is being developed.
4.
Using the Ashby tools there emerges a very clear
understanding of cause as the relation between classes of relation between
classes of event (note, every term has a quite precise definition described at
the site): Cause does not need proximity, although this may be a requirement of
some mechanism, but does need a communication channel between the items
causally linked.
5.
We then postulate: the universe contains no ultimate
and fundamental set of immediate effects. This in turn results in the universal
mechanistic postulate: there is always a mechanism.
6.
We can then analyse psychology and gain sharper
insight into the nature and necessary structure of variables, defining them in
terms of their single and multiple extension (property), with those of multiple
extensions always being able to be divided into more fundamental ones of single
extension (in principle at least).
7.
This structure then describes an object as having
the property of rate of change slow relative to the observing species, so it
appearing ‘unchanged’.
8.
The model then shows cause as an infinite regress,
and because of that we can only ever have ‘sufficient cause’, that is we reach
a practical level where further analysis does not really add value to match the
cost or effort, or returns of increased understanding.
9.
The clear image of knowledge that emerges is that of
knowledge based on constructs (variables that may or may not describe objects)
embedded in an unknown background field. We know the construct may have
internal structure, but do not know what it is, and we know the background
field may have structure relevant to the construct, but again we do not know
what it is. We also know from the universal mechanistic postulate, that there
are mechanisms beneath the level we ‘see’, but we have no idea what they might
be.
10.
We also know that
we can use statistical methods to circumvent our lack of definite knowledge and
that those methods can be very successful in getting the right answer without
in any way describing or offering any insight at all into the mechanisms
surrounding and available to the construct.
11.
Example: imagine
a horse in a paddock, and imagine its conduct. Now imagine the horse without
the paddock, and imagine we knew nothing of paddocks, it is just a white
background in which the horse moves within a bounded range.
12.
Given we knew
nothing of the background, or the links the horse makes to it, what then would
we make of the conduct of the horse? I suggest it would be interesting,
speculative, and frequently nothing more than nonsense.
13.
Understanding and
explanation depends on the relationship between object and its ground. Remove
all ground and understanding fails, we cannot explain.
14.
A photon is
exactly as a horse in a completely blank background. In fact QED goes as far as
proposing the photon as a point particle so removes potential links with the
environment. We are unable to explain what the photon does because we know
nothing of its internal structure or the links it might make with its
environment. We assume there are none, we are immediately reduced totally to
statistical methods, which we then try and use to ‘interpret what is going on’.
If you cannot see the sheer nonsense in this, then we remain on different
planets, way beyond Mars and Venus.
15.
The model goes
further, we can and will eventually come to ‘see’ the photon in its environment
in exactly the manner we can ‘see’ the horse in its. And immediately we can so
‘see’ the photon we will come to understand and be able to explain it. What
will have then happened is that the level of ‘ignorance’ will have moved down,
it will be the conceptual level of say, one below the photon or one below where
we are now. And what will that level be like? It will be identical to the one
we will have just passed through, only able to be managed with statistics, and
devoid of understanding, we will be forced to ‘interpret’.
16.
Knowledge has
this structure and there is nothing we can do about it nor can we in any way
circumvent it, nor in any way alter it.
17.
Where does that
leave science at this lowest level (by lowest, I mean the level closest to the
edge, beyond which is nothing that is the true and complete void of knowledge)?
18.
This very root of
science, this very root of explanation of all things is and can only ever be a
technology, advance made by manipulating the edge of what we can, with real
understanding awaiting our pushing past this level to the next down. That is,
while we do not understand the photon, we can and do play with the
circumstances of it, and can and do produce predictable and reliable results
from the manipulation of those circumstances. And when we move past the level
we are at now, then manipulating the photon will be as much a ‘technology’ as
manipulating the electron is now: And the cutting edge of our technology will
have moved down to the next level, and I have not the foggiest idea of what
that might look like.
19.
This is how it
is, and the state of modern physics is neither surprising nor difficult to
grasp. I can only suggest we get used to it and get on with trying to sharpen
our technology of it, and get us to the next level – perhaps, when we really understand
the photon, can ‘see’ its internal structure, its links to its environment,
then we will be able to control nuclear disintegration at the atomic level, and
hence some of the stuff today that is so frightening will become obsolete, and
while we likely can still kill people, our planet (or parts of it) does not end
up uninhabitable for 20000 years.
20.
Above all what
modern physics is really bringing us to grips with, as will the leading edge of
all such science forever in the future, is that at this edge we are limited,
ignorant and vulnerable. We know much, knowledge lies in these answers, but the
next questions pitch us headlong into the abyss of the unknown, hopefully
facing our limitations we find within us the wisdom to forge better choices
today.