Worldview: Philosophy

by A Concerned Citizen

back to the Worldview Menu

Retired on 31 December 2007

Introduction
My Metaphysics
Physics Quips

Introduction (April 06): At first, I thought there should be no chapter on philosophy on this mainly political website. However, issues such as Intelligent Design and stem cell research show that abstract philosophical questions can indeed influence politics. Therefore, I will use this chapter to recapitulate some of my philosophical beliefs, in so far as they are relevant to politics. These beliefs have been argued in more detail on my homepage.

To begin with, let us note a remarkable and important fact: The materialistic philosophy is deeply entrenched in our Western universities. This is the philosophy which tries to reduce all of reality to so-called matter. Believe it or not, there are good philosophical reasons for believing that matter is only an illusion 'within' consciousness and not an independent reality in its own right, and I discuss those reasons on my webpage. Such a philosophy is called 'idealism', and my particular brand is a 'subjective idealism' rather close to that of the 18th century philosopher Bishop Berkeley. Of course, this 'illusion' obeys the laws of physics; no serious philosopher would suggest otherwise. Idealism gets a bad reputation when argued by people who don't respect science. Another name for the illusion is 'observation'. Somehow a mere change in nomenclature makes the average scientist feel better. If I say that I believe in 'illusion', this sounds bad, but if I say that I believe in 'observation', this sounds rather more respectable. I would only add that there is no reason to believe in anything other than the observation.

At any rate, for the purpose of this down-to-earth political page, let us assume that matter exists as conventionally assumed. If it does, then it is astonishing how easily our intellectuals are willing to reduce consciousness to matter. Most of neuroscience simply assumes that consciousness can somehow be explained entirely in terms of electro-chemical processes in the brain. There is no doubt a close association between consciousness and brain, but a simple reduction is absurd! By the very definition of matter as some inert, insentient 'substance' or 'stuff' that is 'out there', i.e. outside of consciousness, it is clear that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. All explanations of consciousness as an 'emergent property' of matter are mere empty sophistry. And if matter is redefined to be 'not out there', i.e. not distinct from consciousness, then it does not exist in itself and is an illusion inseparable from consciousness. The logic is irrefutable, and it is a sign of our times that our smartest intellectuals fail to appreciate this. However, dissension does come from unexpected places, such as political scientist Francis Fukuyama.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that I am prone to any naive kind of spiritualism, which believes, e.g., than a mere cluster of stem cells is a 'life' with a 'soul'. This superstition on the part of Christian conservatives in America has obstructed valuable medical research and should be considered a national embarrassment for the world's 'leading nation'. Indeed, I view the stem cell superstition as just another kind of materialism. It is similar to burying bodies, which are then eaten by worms, so that they can 'rise' again. Cremation makes a lot more sense to me. Religion is full of superstitions that are every bit as materialistic as the intellectually fashionable materialism that seeks to disprove religion! Life is full of ironies.

Elsewhere, I have discussed the Intelligent Design debate in some depth. Suffice it to say that supernatural explanations have no place in science. They are simply incompatible with the basic methodology of science, which tries to explain natural processes in terms of observed behavior. To this extent, I am in agreement with the reigning philosophical fashion. Note that I do accept some form of the 'divine' as the ultimate 'explanation' of reality, but such views are outside of science and must remain so. To some extent, science has created its own problems by arrogantly claiming to explain the whole truth, rather than that part of the truth for which it is intended. Its purpose is to observe the world revealed by the senses and to find regular patterns of behavior within those observations. Questions of divinity are outside its purview, but the same intellectuals who seek to reduce consciousness to matter also tend to arrogate an omniscience to science which cannot be. Even the smartest scientists may not be good philosophers.

Back to Philosophy Menu

My Metaphysics

Introduction
Core Beliefs
Reality is Consciousness
Implications of Idealism
Determinism and Free Will

Back to Philosophy Menu

Introduction (28 Dec 06): In this section, I will attempt to summarize my 'metaphysical' beliefs as concisely as possible. By 'metaphysics', I mean the intersection between philosophy and spirituality. I do not care if the word is discredited nowadays in academic circles. Some years ago, I wrote a number of articles on this subject, which are accessible directly from my homepage. I expected those articles to grow into something like a book, but instead I became addicted to the evil drug of politics and have diverted most of my energy to my Worldview page. Since I show an interest in religion even in my political thinking, and since my older spiritual articles were already rather lengthy and perhaps tedious, it seems like a good idea to attempt this summary as a useful reference. Also, I may discover that my views have changed somewhat in recent years. So here goes.

NOTE: In the following, you will notice a syncretic mixture of classical Western and Eastern philosophy. My major in college, during the 1970's, was philosophy, with an emphasis on Western metaphysics. Then I pursued undergraduate and graduate work in Electrical Engineering, partly for the sake of a solid career and partly as a substitute for physics, which was too difficult for me to follow as a student. (The engineering studies provided an invaluable mathematical training, which has helped me absorb physics at my own pace.) During my graduate years, I became interested in Buddhism, which seemed like a natural continuation of my studies in philosophy. That continued for many years at a slow pace. About seven or eight years ago, I expanded into a school of Hinduism called Advaita, which is very similar to Mahayana Buddhism — in fact, entirely compatible, in my somewhat unorthodox opinion. I participate in the local chapter of the Hindu-based Chinmaya Mission, whose reigning philosophy is Advaita, but I have lost none of my interest in Buddhism. To my way of thinking, philosophy, Buddhism and Advaita are complementary aspects of the same quest for ultimate truth.

NOTE: I often use quotation marks when discussing philosophical matters. This stylistic idiosyncrasy may seem a bit annoying, but it is intended to alert you to words that must be treated with caution, as often happens in philosophy.

Back to My Metaphysics

Core Beliefs (28 Dec 06): My core metaphysical belief, or rather intuition, is that the mere existence of the universe is a 'miracle' that can only be 'explained' by some kind of divine source. (I take it for granted that an explanation is necessary, and I am pleased to leave the word 'divine' somewhat vague at this point.) I am well aware how flimsy this intuition may seem to those of an empirical or scientific bent. Indeed, I am no stranger to science, and I understand advanced physics as well as any philosopher needs to. I fully agree that the scientific method of observation, based on falsifiable hypotheses, must apply to the study of the everyday details of the phenomenal world. Yet when it comes to the ultimate 'cause' or 'source' of the phenomenal world, science must remain silent. That ultimate source can only be a kind of miracle, in my opinion, and a miracle requires something like our notion of the divine. Note that this divine source of existence is required at all times and in all places, not just at the beginning, as in creation myths or with the Big Bang. It is as much a miracle for the phenomenal world to continue existing as to exist in the first place. Thus, the entire fabric of the phenomenal world becomes a kind of illusion floating on the divine omnipresence. From this point of view, it is incorrect to speak of a 'creator god', as though there were a sharp separation between creator and created, or between Spirit and matter, a point to which we will return.

So it is entirely possible for a sober and scientifically-trained empiricist to believe that an ultimate divine source is required. However, I hasten to add that much of our theology regarding the divine, whether Christian, Islamic or even Hindu, is unsatisfactory and is no more than a quasi-anthropomorphic projection onto a vast mystery. (Hence, I use the word 'divine' rather than the more conventional and Judaeo-Christian sounding word 'God'.) For example, the notion that God is any kind of person who distributes favors to the faithful and punishment to the unfaithful is simply silly. Nevertheless, the same intuition that tells me that existence is a miracle also tells me that it must therefore have a 'meaning', and that meaning can only be to strive towards the light of the divine source. One may call that naive, but one's ordinary uninspired and self-centered mood is the wrong vantage point to make such a criticism. Rather, we should first appreciate that merely by being conscious beings, we share in divinity. That is yet another unabashed 'intuition' that becomes manifest when consciousness has become 'expanded' beyond the dreary mediocrity of everyday rumination. It then becomes far more plausible that the purpose of life is to complete the process of fully manifesting our inherent divinity, so that this world is in effect a kind of a school (or embryo). Notice that this introspective awareness of our inherent divinity dovetails nicely with the aforementioned ontological necessity of omnipresent divinity. If words like Atman and Brahman come to mind, you are not mistaken. Buddha Nature is a similar notion, though the ontological implications may be less explicit. That discussion is for another occasion.

To be sure, the thorny problem of pain and suffering requires an honest admission that the divine is not 'omnipotent' according to any simplistic notion of the word. Yet I cannot agree with the atheists that pain and suffering disprove the existence of any kind of a benevolent deity, where by 'benevolent' I mean that the aim of life is spiritual growth. The miraculous nature of existence still overrides the unpleasant aspects, as a reason for believing in the divine and in a purpose to life, and we should simply accept that we cannot understand everything. Before blaming the divine for our suffering, and doubting its existence, and feeling nihilistic about life, we should first understand all the deep mysteries of consciousness and of life, so that we know what is 'mathematically' possible. It may be that our evolving consciousness must pass through stages of imperfection much as a tree must grow from a seed. Any shortcut might defy the fundamental 'laws of nature' upon which consciousness and the world rest. Must there be laws? Do they apply even to the divine? Could those laws have been different? Are they mathematically constrained? Could God square a circle? Good questions, all. I do not know.

I take it for granted that the divine principle must be conscious. It seems inconceivable that it could be any kind of blind impulse, whereby our own limited human consciousness arises as some kind of epiphenomenal accident. It is far more plausible to suppose that human consciousness reflects the divine consciousness, as the moon reflects the sun. Further, I assume that the divine consciousness must be 'omniscient' in some sense, though I sometimes wonder how necessary this is. If I have rejected omnipotence, then why insist on omniscience? Nevertheless, it seems to me that the power behind the miracle of existence must be unlimited, at least in its own intrinsic conscious nature, in its own core so to speak, and that any limitation is to be found only in our own phenomenal consciousness, which clearly is bound by some degree of ignorance.

So why is there this ignorance? As I just said, it is perhaps best to remain silent on what cannot be explained. I have my own little theory that the divine allows 'portions' of its consciousness to entertain a notion of illusory individuality, much like a waves on the ocean, in order to create a grand illusion of a multiplicity of beings. Thus, the appearance of 'life' proliferates, as does the joy that this life can experience by being in harmony with its divine source. (I accept that an unlimited consciousness must be a blissful consciousness.) In this sense, the divine has 'multiplied' itself, though in an absolute sense every apparent being is utterly dependent on the divine source as the wave is on the underlying water. One price to pay for the illusion of individuality is that a 'personality' arises, depending on various causes and factors, which can become perverted or unhealthy, just as a plant will wither if it lacks water and sunlight. The phenomenal world must operate according to cause and effect, even though it is an illusion sustained by the divine omnipresence. That is why the world behaves as it does, including human psychology. My emphasis on cause and effect should at least partially satisfy those skeptics who are hostile to all 'metaphysical speculation'!

Let me add that I do hope and believe that there are other 'worlds' or 'universes' where the laws of cause and effect allow uncontaminated happiness, but I suspect that the 'price of admission' is to achieve a degree of enlightenment first in a lesser universe such as ours. Then those higher worlds become accessible upon rebirth. Perhaps we can slowly 'graduate' to increasingly peaceful and pleasant worlds as we pass from life to life and learn the necessary lessons. Hence, I am not entirely convinced of the traditional Hindu notion of 'moksha' or liberation as freedom from any world, no matter how perfect. Why must that happen? An absence of form or color, not to mention sound, scent and the rest, seems rather sterile to me. Perhaps I misunderstand the concept of 'moksha'. Perhaps the most enlightened beings dwell in the most beautiful paradise, while moksha merely means that they remain detached from the beauty and focused on their pure inner consciousness, which is the ultimate beauty and the source of it all. Ultimately, from the standpoint of pure wisdom, there is no distinction between the divine consciousness and the phenomenal manifestation, so that all such questions become moot.

Well, I suppose that summarizes my core beliefs, and now I will treat various topics in detail, at time permits.

Back to My Metaphysics

Reality is Consciousness (28 Dec 06): I believe that consciousness, rather than matter, is the fundamental 'substratum' of reality. In philosophy, such a view is called 'idealism', but there are several kinds of idealism, and mine most closely resembles that of the good Bishop Berkeley. This is a fun topic that fired my imagination when I wrote those earlier articles. Part of the fun is in challenging the materialistic consensus that currently prevails, at least among educated people. There are probably no more than three tenured professors of philosophy in the West who would admit to believing in Berkeley's philosophy (even at Berkeley!). However, the idea that matter does not exist, and that everything is consciousness, can be misused in a childish way, to suggest that 'I create my world'. That 'I' is illusory, as we will see, but above all one must not deny the laws of physics. To do so is simply a losing game, whether for creationists, mystics or mere philosophers.

The denial of matter is based on simple, and in my opinion irrefutable, logic. Paradoxically, this logic turns the tables on science by using the scientific method to refute an implicit philosophical assumption of most scientists, namely, that the 'external' world exists independently of being observed. (This supposed world 'external' to consciousness is what I mean by 'matter'.) Indeed, the scientific method is based on observation, and what is 'observation' but an act of consciousness? Specifically, all observations must consist of perceptions, and what are perceptions but consciousness? (To be sure, perceptions do not exhaust consciousness; there are also emotions, thoughts, and perhaps other more esoteric phenomena as described by mystics.)

Now common sense generally assumes that our perceptions correspond to real, material objects 'out there', but there is no justification for this view. The 'waking world' is completely described as clusters of 'synchronized' or 'choreographed' perceptions in the minds of different conscious beings. We may compare the waking state to a kind of communal dream, though minor qualitative differences with actual dreams cannot be denied. For example, the 'waking dream' tends to be more vivid and coherent and follows the laws of physics. In essence, though, the waking state is no different from a dream and consists of perceptions that are entirely 'within' consciousness. (The word 'within' is in quotes, since the denial of a world 'external' to consciousness calls into question all our beliefs about space, but I won't dwell on that here.)

The standard reaction to such an argument is that the external, objective world must exist as the most plausible explanation for the fact that our waking perceptions are synchronized as they are. This argument is very flimsy. It is no more incredible for our perceptions to be synchronized 'by themselves', without the need for an external world, than for anything whatsoever to exist, whether consciousness, matter or what have you. It is all rather miraculous, but we should still use Ockham's razor to eliminate entities that could never possibly be verified and that serve no purpose whatsoever, such as the objects of an 'external' world. How could we ever get outside of perception to verify its origin in something else? And since we cannot get outside of perception, what purpose does the hypothesis of an external world serve? None whatsoever.

Some might still object that one cannot disprove an external world either. Here the argument gets more subtle, and I won't dwell on it except to point out that our mere conception of an external world is itself no more than an act of consciousness. That is, even when we try to imagine the possibility of an external world, we are only imagining some perceptual experience and then superposing the words 'with my consciousness removed'. To be sure, an object may appear 'far' away, but what does it mean to get 'closer' except that the object looms larger in my perception? So what sense does it make to imagine a conscious experience and then remove the assumption of consciousness? This reasoning may seem like sophistry at first, but the more you reflect on it, the more credible it becomes. I leave that as a homework exercise. At any rate, it is certainly irrefutable that the external world cannot be proved and is utterly useless as a hypothesis, somewhat like using Intelligent Design to 'explain' evolution!

One objection to idealism is that the 'world' is an organized and coherent machine whose various parts continue to work even when unobserved. One might ask: If those parts don't even 'exist' when unobserved, then how could they continue to work together? The reply is that our perceptions are indeed organized into a marvelous and intricate coherence such that we can 'extrapolate' what could be observed from various perspectives, at various times, even if no observer currently occupies (or rather experiences) that perspective or time. It is like a film, which presents a coherent story, even though the camera only sees a narrow slice of reality at any given time. This striking consistency naturally impels most people to believe in an objective world external to consciousness. However, such an assumption is unnecessary and unjustified. The laws of physics apply directly to the perceptions, and this in turn conjures up the spectacle of a coherent objective world. Our wonder should be reserved for the laws themselves and not for the choreographed spectacle that they produce. No doubt it is conceptually convenient to imagine objects and processes in space and time, even when they are unobserved! We could use the word 'virtual' to describe these imagined objects and processes. Such a mental picture enables us to make predictions, i.e. to extrapolate from present observations to future observations. In this way, the mind takes advantage of the coherence of the perceptions to 'understand' the world and act accordingly.

Another objection to idealism is that our thoughts and perceptions are dependent on the brain, so that idealism seems inconsistent in reducing all matter, including the brain, to consciousness. My reply is that what we call 'brain' is but a cluster of perceptions, just like the rest of the body and all other material objects. There are no doubt associations and correlations between thoughts, feelings and perceptions, on the one hand, and the particular complex of perceptions called brain, on the other hand. However, since brains are usually unobserved, one may rebel at the seemingly perverse idea of correlating mental phenomena to unobserved processes. Here is where the philosophical idealist must be especially brave. Strictly speaking, the mental phenomena are not correlated to actual though unobserved processes, namely, the hidden brain. There are only the mental phenomena and whatever perceptions of the body may actually be present to some observer. However, the whole stream of consciousness behaves as though the hidden or 'virtual' brain and body processes were actual, thanks to the aforementioned coherence. Thinking in this way helps us to predict observations of the body, such as the reading of electrodes inserted into the brain, as described in the previous paragraph. The film or dream analogy again pertains. A brain researcher in a realistic film or dream will read his instruments as does the awakened researcher in a 'real' laboratory. Yet no one supposes that a 'real' but 'hidden' brain exists somewhere in the film or dream. Indeed, everything in waking life proceeds as in a realistic film or dream. What is the difference? To repeat, it is the laws of physics, as applied directly to perceptions, which produce the illusion of a coherent external world that continues to operate, in a 'virtual' fashion, even when unobserved, so that when we resume our observations, we know what to expect. How could you prove otherwise? What would be gained in our understanding? What difference would it make? Why multiply superfluous, hypothesized, and unverifiable entities?

Back to My Metaphysics

Implications of Idealism (28 Dec 06): At the most basic level, and contrary to one's first impression, the exotic principle that reality is consciousness would seem to have no practical consequences for our life. It may be theoretically interesting to suppose that the tree (or any other object) 'disappears' when unobserved, but what difference does it make? It will still 'be there' (i.e. be perceived) when we are in a 'position' to observe it from within the waking dream. In a word, the process of moving about in space and verifying the existence of some object amounts to no more than a change of scenery in consciousness. It would be foolish to suppose that the scenery in the nocturnal dream 'remains' when unobserved, and likewise for the diurnal dream. All of our hopes and cares are based on this changing scenery within consciousness, which will happen regardless of whether idealism or materialism be the ultimate truth. We only care about the sweet taste of an apple, not whether it 'really' exists independently of our experience of it.

Yet idealistic philosophers have a noticeable tendency to be spiritual, whereas materialists tend to be atheistic or skeptical. For one thing, any sophisticated notion of the divine will naturally conceive it to have the nature of consciousness, though perhaps in a sense that transcends our everyday experience. (Surely it is absurd to think of the divine as any kind of material object, no matter how grand. And I would argue that consciousness and matter, where the latter is defined as 'other than consciousness', are all that could logically exist.*) Thus, from an idealistic perspective, the world and the divine share a marked similarity, if not an identity. All the same, it is quite logical to entertain an idealistic ontology devoid of any theistic or divine element. Such a view would assert that the perceptual phenomena simply 'manifest', at least while 'someone' is 'alive', and that is that! Therefore, I have based my belief in the divine on the miraculous quality of any existence whatsoever, whether consciousness, matter or something else. However, once one believes in some kind of divinity, which has the nature of consciousness, and which is the ultimate, omnipresent source and sustenance of the phenomenal world, which also has the nature of consciousness, then the phenomena of the world will seem to 'melt' into the divine support, as waves into the ocean. This is my view, as well as the view of Advaita (explicitly) and of some schools of Mahayana Buddhism (implicitly).

* There is a subtle objection to this line of reasoning, which says that the divine might be some third category of being, beyond consciousness or matter. Again, I would argue that consciousness and matter by definition exhaust all possible reality. It is true, however, that the consciousness of the divine far transcends our own, despite an essential similarity.

Conversely, if one believes that reality is ultimately material, then sustained inquiry will tend to view any notion of the divine or of the spiritual with suspicion and skepticism. Consciousness becomes a mere 'epiphenomenon' of matter, and some materialists go so far as to take the absurd position that consciousness itself does not even exist.* A primitive or popular religion, however, does not think things through so carefully, so that a spiritual God (and various souls) alongside a material world is the norm. God may even assume material and anthropomorphic qualities, at which point he tends to become a mere tribal God, whose purpose is to keep the tribe together and to justify aggression against other tribes. We are still guided by this archetype, more than we like to believe. The Jihad of orthodox Muslims, and the conversion mania of conservative Christians, are modern manifestations of this tribal spirit. At the same time, Judaism and Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam, have also been influenced by the higher philosophy of the Greek tradition, so that more abstract and spiritual currents can also be found in them.

* To be sure, there is the possibility of philosophical dualism, whereby consciousness and matter have equal reality in their respective realms. However, this leads to great paradoxes and conundrums, and at any rate, I have already argued against even the possible existence of matter.

Ever since the time of Newton, the materialistic view has been gaining among educated people, at least in the West, while religious faith has been dwindling. It is no coincidence that these two developments have proceeded in tandem. It is unfortunate that the educated, especially in Europe, have failed to graduate to a higher philosophical understanding of the divine and of the spiritual, while discarding the myths they could no longer believe in. My view is that the same rationalism that gave us the scientific method, with resulting theological skepticism, also produced a powerful technology which has made our lives very comfortable and full of material pleasures. These pleasures dull the philosophical intuition and lead to a mentality engrossed in sensation. That in turn fortifies the aforementioned theological skepticism. I do not argue that there is anything inherently 'wrong' with the luxury that we enjoy, except insofar as it dulls the spirit. It should be stressed that the importance of retaining some kind of spirituality in our lives has nothing to do with pleasing or displeasing any deity — an absurd and pernicious notion acquired from primitive religion. Rather, it has to do solely with our own happiness, which cannot be based on sensation alone. Our inability to achieve lasting and supreme happiness from transitory sensation arises from the very nature of consciousness, and not from some arbitrary moral directive, a topic to which we will return.

Back to My Metaphysics

Determinism and Free Will (28 Dec 06): Philosophical idealism and hard-headed scientific empiricism may seem at opposite ends of the conceptual spectrum, but not as far as I am concerned. The most noteworthy feature of the phenomenal world is that the same basic laws of physics apply uniformly and with extreme precision everywhere and at all times. At least, that is what all reliable observation has indicated so far. One is tempted to go further and claim absolute and irrevocable truth to the laws of physics, but that would be unscientific! Science relies on induction from observation, and who is to say that future observation may not change? Nevertheless, until we do have good evidence to the contrary, we should proceed as though the laws of physics are indeed absolute and irrevocable. An adamantine working hypothesis, one might say.

Until the 20th century, the remarkable constancy in the laws of physics strongly suggested a deterministic picture of the universe, whereby the future proceeds inexorably from the past. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, the picture has become somewhat muddied. There is indeed a measure of indeterminacy at the smallest scales, whereby the position and speed of a particle cannot be specified at all times with absolute precision.* For any given particle, this flatly contradicts determinism. Yet the probabilistic behavior of the particles still follows a precise law, so that the net effect is that our macroscopic world is, for all practical purposes, as deterministic as ever. (I share with Einstein the fervent though seemingly quixotic hope than quantum processes may one day be explained deterministically, notwithstanding the Bell Inequalities and all the rest of it.)

* Remember that this might be a virtual particle, if it is unobserved, where 'virtual' is used as above and not in the technical sense of quantum theory.

Now when I assert that the 'macroscopic world' is deterministic, I refer to the (apparently) 'external' world revealed by the senses and studied by physics. We cannot so blithely assume this of 'internal' mental phenomena, such as thoughts and feelings. To be sure, many researchers assume that all mental phenomena must be rigidly correlated with (virtual) brain processes, which belong to the 'external' world and are hence subject to the laws of physics. A possible exception is if some mental phenomena are correlated directly to quantum brain processes rather than to macroscopic brain processes. In this case, the mental phenomena may inherit a true element of spontaneity and unpredictability. Let us leave aside this arcane possibility for the sake of simplicity. Even so, we are not justified in assuming that all mental phenomena are correlated to 'objective' brain processes. We simply do not know. Thus we cannot assume that they are deterministic, at least not as a consequence of correlation to the deterministic phenomena studied by macroscopic physics. One would have to study the mental phenomena directly, as part of a so-called 'phenomenological' program, to determine their laws or lack thereof. Needless to say, this is far more difficult than conventional physics and has hardly been done.

Nevertheless, one can, through mere conceptual analysis, draw some important conclusions regarding the relevance of determinism to what we are pleased to call 'free-will'. I will argue that free-will is an illusion, regardless of whether mental phenomena are deterministic or not deterministic. Further, it does not matter that there is no such thing as free-will, as it could never be what we suppose it to be, so that nothing is lost in that respect. We should hope, however, that mental phenomena are deterministic and that free-will does not exist. I believe this to be the case. Now, to elaborate.

[to be completed]

Back to My Metaphysics

Physics Quips

Introduction (28 Oct 06): Over on Lubos Motl's blog, I have a habit of leaving silly comments, which I may regret in due course. Motl is a physicist at Harvard, so he probably has a few intelligent readers! However, sometimes my babbling has a kernel of an idea, which might be a bit interesting, at least from a philosophical point of view. In this exploratory section, I will test that idea. Time will tell.

For example, today, I left this comment after a typical Motl post on science and religion, one of his favorite topics:

Actually, it's OK for a scientist to see nature as expressing 'God's plan', as long as that plan includes obeying His own laws of physics. At least, until He decides to abrogate them!
The main problem with, say, Intelligent Design is that it produces no testable hypotheses. Therefore, it is an empty principle, much like General Covariance. (Some reputable physicists have said this! Kretschmer, Synge, others...)
(Just kidding. Einstein is the greatest...)

Here's the explanation. Ever since President Bush has suggested that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools alongside evolution, there has been a big fuss in academic circles over the supposed danger of allowing 'religious' or 'metaphysical' ideas to penetrate the sciences. Sometimes the protesters protest too much. I agree that a pseudo-theory such as Intelligent Design has no place in a biology class or theory, as I have discussed here. However, some purists exaggerate when they imply that metaphysical ideas are utterly incompatible with competent science. Clearly, it does no harm to speak of a divine plan, as long as that plan is compatible with empirical observation. It's not very useful either, from a scientific point of view. It's simply superfluous baggage, though it can provide inspiration in one's spiritual life, which is not to be denigrated.

As for the reference to Kretschmer, I really meant Kretschmann, the physicist who in 1917 challenged Einstein's cardinal principle of General Covariance as 'vacuous'. General Covariance says that valid laws of physics should retain their form under all coordinate transformations of space-time. Kretschmann's point was that any theory could be made to satisfy this mathematical constraint, so that the principle is vacuous in and of itself. According to my unauthoritative understanding, Kretschmann is actually correct, and General Covariance needs to be combined with Einstein's Equivalence Principle (i.e. gravity disappears in falling elevators) for the magic of General Relativity to pop out. We can then generalize laws of physics from their (usually) known form in the absence of gravity (e.g. in the elevator) to their form in the presence of gravity. In this sense, we have a tool to understand how gravity 'works', provided that we know the behavior of physical systems in the absence of gravity. There is in fact a straightforward mathematical procedure to rewrite equations such that they have their known form in the absence of gravity, yet keep that form under general coordinate transformations. (Just replace commas by semicolons. This shows how easy theoretical physics is!)

So the little joke here is that the awesome principle of General Covariance, by itself, is indeed vacuous, not unlike the pseudo-theory of Intelligent Design. A faint overtone to this joke is that Einstein was in fact 'religiously' or 'metaphysically' minded, in some sense, to a degree quite unusual among physicists, though a lot of nonsense could be written about this, and has.

Well, I've posted a few other equally droll (or undroll) comments on Motl's site, which I may dredge up for posterity. Even a silly remark can, in some circumstances, provide a bit of food for thought.

Oh, by the way, Motl never responded, but that's OK. He's a real physicist with serious work to do. He has responded with kindness on a number of occasions. The important thing is not to say anything against string theory! Fortunately, I'm blissfully ignorant of that horribly complicated theoretical monstrosity.

Physics Needs Dreamers (28 Oct 06): OK, here's another one, posted recently on Motl's site. This was in response to a post called The Temptation of Rigor, in which Motl was inspired by another physicist named Jacques Distler, who had written on his blog that rigor can't replace physical input and insights.

Physicists, please forgive the naivete of my comment, but I really have the impression that Einstein's great theory of general relativity has its origin in his daydream in the patent office, when he imagined himself falling in an elevator. From that came the equivalence principle. The rest was mathematics, which he got from his friend Grossman. I believe that this simplistic view is basically true, with a bit of generosity on your part, which is marvelous to think about. Physics needs another great daydream!
Benjamin | Homepage | 10.22.06 - 11:53 am

All right, if I had it to do over again, I'd leave out the ingratiating verbiage, but the basic idea is still interesting and valid. As discussed in the previous article, Einstein's magnificent theory of General Relativity really did arise from a daydream that Einstein himself called 'the happiest thought of my life'. While dozing in the patent office, he imagined himself falling in an elevator. It is elementary physics that the effect of gravity disappears in such a situation, as far as ordinary Newtonian mechanics is concerned. That is, since all material bodies fall at the same rate — a curious empirical coincidence of physics until Einstein's genius came along — it follows that gravity is effectively neutralized in a freely falling frame of reference. This is by now a familiar effect, since it occurs in orbiting spacecraft, where astronauts and their coffee float as though far removed from the earth. Einstein's genius was to generalize this to all areas of physics, such as electromagnetism and special relativity, and not just mechanics. Radical results are obtained regarding the nature of space and time, or 'spacetime'. Spacetime becomes 'curved', the universe becomes like an expanding 4-dimensional beachball with galaxies painted on the 3-dimensional surface, black holes can form from which even light cannot escape, and so on. What I have just said is standard fare in books for laymen on physics.

The point is that Einstein's greatest theory, often called the greatest monument to the human intellect, really did have its seed in a simple daydream, combined with Einstein's brilliant insight. And it is true that Einstein struggled mightily with the mathematical implications and had to turn to his friend Grossman for help. Einstein was not poor at mathematics, as is sometimes falsely alleged, but his brilliance lay in intuition rather than in algebraic dexterity. As far as I can tell, this is in sharp contrast to the vast majority of theoretical physicists today. Hence, it is not really such a fruity 'humanities' remark to suggest that maybe physics needs another dreamer, though a brilliant one who also happens to be a great physicist. Drugs and alcohol won't do it. Neither will postmodernism. (Just had to take that jab!)

Einstein a Physics Felon? (28 Oct 06): In a post of 20 October 2006, Motl, while writing a critique of Brian Greene's new op-ed on string theory, remarked that Einstein 'deliberately ignored quantum mechanics' in his quest for a unified field theory. Since quantum mechanics is exceedingly well established, I wrote:

Isn't that a felony for a physicist? What was the great man thinking?

Motl replied:

Benjamin,
Einstein believed in continuous fields, and not quantum fields:
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. - Albert Einstein, 1954

But in the same 1954 letter to Michael Besso, Einstein admitted truthfully:
I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. - Albert Einstein, 1954

This gets to the heart of the mystery in physics today. The two pillars of modern physics are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. General Relativity pictures the universe as a smooth, continuous fabric of spacetime, in which reside particles of matter whose trajectories are guided by the curvature of the spacetime fabric. Such a smooth and continuous entity is called a 'field' in physics. In classical physics, the electromagnetic force is such a field inhabiting the flat space of Euclid and Newton. In general relativity, spacetime itself becomes such a field, and we must not think of it as residing in anything. At any rate, Einstein had faith that the basic structures of physics consist of fields, and he even tried to derive particles such as electrons from little 'whirlpools' in the spacetime fabric.

Along comes quantum mechanics with a radically different picture. Particles no longer have definite position and motion. Their energy and other properties may have discrete values, which 'jump' around in a way quite unlike anything in classical physics. One cannot even say that they have definite values of their properties, except in special circumstances. Even space and time should ultimately disintegrate into a chaotic foam of some sort, at a sufficiently small scale. Needless to say, Einstein found this picture horrifying. Thus, one can state that even general relativity is a 'classical' theory, in that it consists of continuous and well-determined fields. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, substitutes a theory based on probabilities. One should note the paradox that Einstein was one of the founders of quantum physics; his contributions were as important as anybody's. This is surely a dramatic mark of genius, as though his needed any confirmation.

Curiously, Einstein simply ignored quantum mechanics in his lifelong and futile quest for a theory that would unify gravity and electromagnetism. He remained convinced that quantum mechanics was only a provisional theory, which had a deterministic basis, much as the throw of dice can ultimately be resolved into a precise behavior, though it is convenient to describe it in terms of probability. Hence, Motl's quote is interesting, in that it reveals Einstein's openness to the annihilation of even his most cherished theory. Biographers have noted this trait in Einstein's research. He would often abandon a fruitless path, after much effort, and suddenly try something completely new. Ultimately, he cared only about the truth, even though he had strong convictions about how that truth should be. Notwithstanding those convictions, he retained an almost devout appreciation that the ultimate truth might transcend his most cherished assumptions. A pure scientist if there ever was one!

Black Holes Exist (28 Oct 06): Nothing witty here. I just asked Lubos a question about black holes:

Is it certain that true black holes exist, or could other theories explain the observations? Theories that don't rely on mathematical singularities, even if the matter gets very dense.
Benjamin | Homepage | 10.13.06 - 12:42 pm

and got a detailed and interesting response:

Dear Benjamin,
There is now overwhelming experimental evidence for black holes, for example one at the Galactic center with a mass of a few million solar masses. This particular article mentions a way observing them that could become even more dramatic and quantitative.
It shouldn't be surprising for you to hear from a theorist that the existence of black holes has been undisputable at least since the 1960s. I don't think that there has ever been any way to question their existence after general relativity was properly understood in the context of high redshift.
Eliminating black holes is completely incompatible with string theory or any kind of physics we've been doing. If you don't find general relativity enough of a proof of black holes, you can view the existence of black holes as a successful prediction of string theory. String theory predicts their properties in detail. We just had a seminar about the detailed higher-order corrections to their entropies etc.
Finally, I want to tell you that the defining feature of a black hole is not so much the annoying singularity in the middle — a place where stringy effects surely become important — but rather the horizon — a surface of the black hole that separates the exterior cosmos from the unlucky guys inside who can't ever get out again (except in the form of the Hawking radiation), not even in principle. When we say that we know that black holes exist, we really mean that there exist horizons — or something that becomes arbitrarily close to a perfect horizon as the black hole becomes very large.
If you ask people who deny physics of the last 20, 30, 40, 60, 100, 300, or 500 years, surely you could get a different answer to the question whether we know for sure that black holes exist. My answer is Definitely Yes.
Best Lubos

Actually, physicists do get upset at infinities, such as the singularities in theoretical black holes, as currently understood. Science is based on measurements, and no measurement can be infinite. Hence, a huge labor was spent during the 1940s on removing the 'divergences' or infinities from Quantum Electrodynamics, which resulted in the triumph of 'renormalization' (though some eminent physicists considered it to be quackery). Further, I have read other well-respected physicists who have affirmed that General Relativity, the basis for black holes, will surely need revision some day. Actually, Motl sort of hints at this, with his claim that the unobservable guts of the black hole don't ultimately matter all that much!

The Size of Strings (28 Oct 06): And here's something interesting on string theory. I had asked the following:

My understanding of string theory is that, speaking very crudely, it avoids the divergences of point particles by postulating an extended object, the string. (Of course, the string has by now evolved into membranes and so on.) So the string has a finite size, which acts as a kind of cutoff. So what determines the size of the string? Isn't this a kind of arbitrary parameter added in by hand? I know that masses are supposed to pop out as harmonics of the string, or something like that, which is nice. But isn't the string size something arbitrary and ad hoc?

and the answer was

Dear Benjamin,
The size of the string in the string units (l_string = alpha') is completely fixed by the theory. The parameter alpha' is dimensionful, and all theories with different values of it are mathematically isomorphic. You can work in units with alpha'=1 (string units) in which case the size of the string is completely fixed, too.
What we're really asking is whether the dimensionless ratios (numbers independent of the choice of units) are fixed by the theory or not. In string theory, all these things are fixed. In renormalizable field theories, these things are fixed except for a dependence on a finite number of marginal and relevant couplings. In nonrenormalizable theories, they're not fixed at all, and because infinitely many things can be adjusted, you can get any results. Indeed, the size of the string acts as a regulator, but the important thing is that not only the energy scale but the coefficients of all terms in all physically meaningful quantities (such as the coefficients of terms in the effective action) are determined by the theory.
The string is just like the W boson inside the weak interaction that regulates the four-fermion theory. But strings regulate gravity (and beyond). The electroweak theory with W bosons gives completely well-defined unitary results at energies that can be much higher than the electroweak scale. In the same way, string theory gives complete, unitary, and well-defined results at energies that can be much higher than the 'cutoff', namely the string scale. The electroweak theory or string theory are theories because they satisfy these constraints. If you replace W bosons or strings by a random object such as a little green man, be sure that the constraint will be violated.
You won't be able to obtain unique unitary finite results at energies higher than the cutoff. There is a huge difference between a well-defined theory and a non-theory. The UV divergences prove that the simple theory breaks down above the natural cutoff scales and new physical phenomena must be added, and the question is whether one finds the correct ones or not.

That's enough answer for me! I got my money's worth. I guess it's like setting the speed of light in a vacuum to unity. This is perfectly valid and makes all the calculations much simpler. The physics scales accordingly and thus remains the same. (Would you know it if you and everything in the universe suddenly doubled in size?) Still, I wonder if anything must be 'inserted by hand' in the ultimate theory. Or as Einstein put it, 'Did God have any choice in the formulation of physics?'

Some have argued that the basic constants of physics must be so finely tuned for life to exist that there must have been a God to do it. What does string theory say? Well, I know that one current strain of thought in the physics community is that there is an unimaginable multitude of universes, with all combinations of physical constants, that somehow froze into their values by random. In only a few of these does life exist. Thus life is a random occurrence after all; there is no amazing coincidence that requires a divine intervention. Needless to say, many physicists don't like this idea, and not because they want to bring God back in to the picture!

Conservation of Time (30 Oct 06): This wasn't too bad:

Motl: The daylight-saving time is over in Europe and America. If you have not yet done so, return your clocks by 60 minutes and live one hour twice. ;-)
Me: The law of Global Conservation of Time forces us to lose an hour in the spring.

Imagine that. Conservation laws are at the basis of physics, but what if they are just a kind of tautology?

Back to Philosophy Menu

Articles

Philosophers

Simon Blackburn: On Plato's Republic