[etni] response to Chezi Fine
- From: David Reid <reidnomad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:51:58 +0200
Chezi,
In response to your (Chezi Fine?s) posting in Etni Digest #331. The answer
I previously gave was short, in consideration to the interests of other
Etniers, but you wrote that it was too short. The only other possible answer
is rather long, but here goes.
I am always happy when people wish to inform themselves about science.
Despite the length of this message (assuming the moderators allow it), I am
actually keeping it relatively short, because the two questions you raise
would require volumes to answer properly. Since all that I will say is
mainstream science, my brief answers will, I hope, provide enough keywords
for you to start googling. If you wish further details, I would suggest that
further discussion would be too off-topic for most Etniers, so that you are
welcome to contact me directly.
First, the problem about causation. I appreciate that the quotations that
you took could easily give the wrong impression; they need to be put into
context.
[1] The authors were referring to the quantum realm, not to all of physics.
More precisely,
(a) The classical determinism of Laplace (whereby one could precisely
measure the momentum and position of a particle simultaneously) was
overthrown, so that events occur to which one cannot describe a specific
cause in the classical sense. (Google ?Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle.?) However,
it has been replaced by another kind of determinism (?the wave function is
linear?), and causation has taken on a different meaning. This probabilistic
nature is what Hans Reichenbach was referring to in the quotation you
provided. Yes, reality is probabilistic, and thus a modern formulation of
causation throws out the absolute determinism of the past. That is, although
there is a non-zero probability that you will suddenly turn into a large
hamburger, the probability is so incredibly small that I would not go
ordering the ketchup just yet. In fact, the word for this in physics is
?negligible? (or, more technically, ?of measure zero?). (Stephen Hawking?s
latest popular physics book, ?The Grand Design?, provides some further
reflections on why you are not in a universe where hamburger-transformations
are more probable.)
(b) In quantum mechanics, most transformations are completely symmetric, so
in these transformations there is no preferred direction for ?the arrow of
time?. An unsolved problem remains the apparent lack of symmetry in what is
called either ?the collapse of the wave function? or ?decoherence?,
according to your interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Google ?measurement
problem?) That there is, on the macro level (where your original HOTS
examples came from), an ?arrow of time?, is not disputed (google ?arrow of
time?); however, where it comes from is a matter of controversy, although
there are some appealing solutions.
(c) Both quantum physics and relativity has led to modifying the way one
looks at physics, in that no longer can the observer be independent of that
which is observed. This also modified the formulation of the principle of
causality. (However, be wary of pseudo-mystical interpretations of this.)
This was what Max Planck was referring to when he said that ?some
physicists? wish to throw the principle of causation needs to be thrown
overboard. He meant the quantum physicists when they were referring to their
subfield of physics. No one (including Planck and Reichenbach) advocated
that it had to be thrown overboard for all of physics, but it certainly had
to be modified in those domains. However, this is not the domain of your
examples. See [3] below.
[2] In relativity, time is no longer absolute or independent. Thus there are
some strange results, but a central tenet is that causal order cannot be
reversed. (Google Wiki?s ?principle of relativity?). Whereas time travel
(referred to as ?closed timelike curves?) is no longer considered
nonsensical in Physics (see, for example, ?Black Holes & Time Warps:
Einstein?s outrageous legacy? by Kip Thorne), in calculations to determine
whether it can happen, physicists still require that the principle of
causation is not violated, so that an effect cannot precede its cause. (Google
?matricide paradox?, or read Kip Thorne?s book.)
[3] The examples you cited, however, fall in the physics in the ?Goldilocks?
realm of the average school child (not too big, not too small). These are
handled by physical laws (Newton?s laws, for example, still being valid in
this realm); it is the very nature of a physical law to be causal. (Google
?physical law?.)
Now, as for the role of science in emotions. No one claims that science has
solved the so-called mind-body problem. (Google ?the mind-body problem?). (One
of the best philosophical tries, however, is found in Douglas Hofstadter?s
?Gödel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid?.) Nor has science yet reached
a full understanding of the physiological processes which underlie (or are)
the emotions. Nor does anyone advocate approaching emotion only from the
scientific side. However, a great deal has been discovered and much of it
has practical value, even for a school child. Wikipedia?s article on
?Emotion? includes a decent over-view; following the links or looking
further using the keywords provided there will give you a better idea.
You ask how the scientific method has bridged the gap between the ?material?
and the ?immaterial? (as you label the emotions). The answer: the
scientific method is to find patterns in observable phenomena and formalize
them into a theory in such a way so that the theory has predictive power and
is stated in such a way as to be falsifiable. Whatever they are, emotions
are caused by certain measurable events, are accompanied by certain
physiological markers, and have certain measurable consequences. (Some would
modify ?accompanied by? to ?are? in that sentence, but the distinction is
purely philosophical, and of no importance to the formulation of the
scientific theory.) Hence they are fit subjects for science.
Finally, as mentioned, HOTS should not try to take over the science
curriculum, but since scientific thinking is also a ?higher order thinking
skill?, a bit of overlap with the science curriculum would seem in order. (The
International Baccalaureate even has a course called ?Theory of Knowledge?
which emphasizes the overlap.)
Have fun googling; there is lots of fascinating stuff out there.
David Reid
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » [etni] response to Chezi Fine - David Reid
