Posted on 06/12/2005 7:27:56 PM PDT by betty boop
The “Cartesian Split” Is a Hallucination; Ergo, We Should Get Rid of It
by Jean F. Drew
The Ancient Heritage of Western Science
The history of science goes back at least two and a half millennia, to the pre-Socratics of ancient Greece. Democritus and Leucippus were the fathers of atomic theory — at least they were the first thinkers ever to formulate one. Heraclitus was the first thinker to consider what in the modern age developed as the laws of thermodynamics. Likewise Plato’s Chora, in the myth of the Demiurge (see Timaeus), may have been the very first anticipation of what later would be referred to as the quantum world. Plato’s great student Aristotle was the first thinker to put science, or “natural philosophy” as it was then called — and ever after was called, until the 17th century, when philosophical positivism became influential — on an empirical, experimental basis.
Thus science was born in the ancient world of the classical Greeks. What motivated the great thinkers of this yet-unsurpassed era of human intellectual achievement was the irrepressible, inexhaustible eros, or desire, to understand the Universe, and thereby to understand man’s place in it. In this process the Greeks confronted a two-fold problem which Plato spent a lifetime elaborating. On the one hand, the original “pull” that drew these thinkers into their quest for knowledge of the Universe — or Cosmos as the Greeks termed it — was ontological. On the other hand, in order for the quest to become intelligible to the thinking subject and thus communicable to others, the engagement of epistemological issues was totally unavoidable.
By ontology we mean “the science of being”: that is, the science of what “is” or what exists, how it came to be, and by what rules or laws it is organized. By epistemology we mean the “science of knowledge”: that is, what can the human mind know, how does it know it — and by what means can such knowledge be verified.
To the Greek mind, the Cosmos was a single, unified, living Whole that is ever so much more than the mere sum of its parts. Rather, all of its parts were thought to be ordered and ultimately harmonically, dynamically unified into a single universal body according to a single universal blueprint. Likewise the sum total of true knowledge, or episteme was thought to be an undivided whole.
Fast-Forward to the Sixteenth Century….
According to Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos, “The most fundamental aspect of the Western intellectual tradition is the assumption that there is a fundamental division between the material and the immaterial world or between the realm of matter and the realm of pure mind or spirit. The metaphysical framework based on this assumption is known as ontological dualism. As the word dual implies, the framework is predicated on an ontology, or a conception of the nature of God or being, that assumes reality has two distinct and separable dimensions. The concept of Being as continuous, immutable, and having a prior or separate existence from the world of change dates from the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The same qualities were associated with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and they were considerably amplified by the role played in theology by Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy….
“Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton were all inheritors of a cultural tradition in which ontological dualism was a primary article of faith. Hence the idealization of the mathematical ideal as a source of communication with God, which dates from Pythagoras, provided a metaphysical foundation for the emerging natural sciences…. [T]he creators of classical physics believed that doing physics was a form of communion with the geometrical and mathematical forms resident in the perfect mind of God.”1
In the 16th century the great French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Rene Descartes still recognized an ontological dualism that distinguished between body and mind, matter and spirit. And as Wolfgang Smith points out, Descartes, like Galileo and Newton, “is sometimes willing to resolve philosophical difficulties by recourse to Deity.”2
Descartes was a passionate champion of the idea of universal mechanics. He strove to lay down the theoretical foundations for “a rigorous mechanical science, based upon mathematical principles which would be able to explain the workings of Nature, from the movements of planets to the fine motions associated with animal bodies.”3
Descartes’ world is a mechanical world, “…made up entirely of ‘res extensa’ (the later Newtonian ‘matter’), moving in space according to mechanical laws. All the rest is to be relegated to ‘res cogitans’ or thinking substance, which exists in its own right as a kind of spiritual entity.”4
On this point Wolfgang Smith observes, “It is noteworthy that Descartes came to this res cogitans at the outset of his meditations through the famous ‘cogito ergo sum.’ It appeared to him as the one and only immediate certainty, whereas the existence of a mechanical universe, external to the res cogitans, was to be arrived at later through a logical argument, in which the idea of God and His veracity plays the leading role.”5
As Wolfhart Pannenberg writes, Descartes maintained that the idea of God “is the prior condition in the human mind for the possibility of every other idea, even that of the ego itself.”6
Thus Smith exclaims, “It is indeed a remarkable irony that the basic premise of modern materialism should initially have been founded upon theology!”7
Descartes’ model of the universe as essentially mechanistic — constituted only by “matter in its motions” moving according to the physical laws — was taken up by Newton and, in due course, became the preeminent idea in all of modern science up to recent times.
By the eighteenth century, the idea of any metaphysical basis for “natural philosophy” had increasingly fallen into disrepute. The term itself disappeared from use, replaced by the word “science.” Mechanics was increasingly regarded as “an autonomous science,” leaving no role for God. The great French mathematician Pierre-Sinon Laplace was enormously influential in this transition. As Nadeau and Kafatos observe:
“Laplace is recognized for eliminating not only the theological component of classical physics but the ‘entire metaphysical component’ as well. The epistemology of science requires, he said, that we proceed by inductive generalizations from observed facts to hypotheses that are ‘tested by observed conformity of the phenomena.’ What was unique about Laplace’s view of hypotheses was his insistence that we cannot attribute reality to them. Although concepts like force, mass, motion, cause, and laws are obviously present in classical physics, they exist in Laplace’s view only as quantities. Physics is concerned, he argued, with quantities that we associate as a matter of convenience with concepts, and the truth about nature are only the quantities.”8
Thus the science of Nature is reduced to a quantitative mathematical description. This positivist vision of physical reality denies Nature any meaning other than the mathematical formalism of physical theory employed in its description.
The False “Cartesian Split”
Here we see the emergence of the full-blown body-mind, matter-spirit “Cartesian split,” as we have called it. The great success of the mathematically-describable “matter” side of the epistemological divide evidenced by a long series of brilliant scientific achievements utterly displaced the “spirit” side and eventually relegated it to virtual oblivion. Science was understood to be about the elucidation of quantities; questions of meaning were no longer relevant.
Thus the current orthodoxy of science reduces to four basis premises: “(1) The physical world is made up of inert and changeless matter, and this matter changes only in terms of location in space; (2) the behavior of matter mirrors physical theory and is inherently mathematical; (3) matter as the unchanging unit of physical reality can be exhaustively understood by mechanics, or by the applied mathematics of motion; and (4) the mind of the observer is separate from the observed system of matter, and the ontological bridge between the two is physical law and theory.”9
On this formalism, even “the mind of the observer” is reducible to the operations of physical-chemical laws: The modern-day scientific materialist insists that mind is only the epiphenomenon of the physical-chemical activity of the brain. This conclusion is seemingly inevitable, given the utter collapse of the “mind” or “spirit” side of the Cartesian divide, which historically has always connected man to a metaphysical, immaterial reality beyond the physical world. And yet notwithstanding (4) above, this scientific formalism evinces a paradox, a seeming self-contradiction: The formalism requires the observer to be not outside the material system he observes; for the observer himself is completely reducible to its rules. He is just another “cog” in the universal, physical machine. So how can the observer be “separate from the observed system of matter?”
I am not aware that this question has been much engaged in recent times. Suffice it to say that this formalism gives short shrift indeed to the problems of mind, consciousness, intelligence, free will, and even human existence per se. And these are the necessary qualities of “the observer,” in order for there to be an observer.
The grip this formalism has on the biological sciences seems particularly unfortunate. For example, consider a case from embryology:
“Geneticists appreciate that cell differentiation utterly depends on cells knowing how to differentiate early on and then somehow remembering that they are different and passing on this vital piece of information to subsequent generations of cells. At the moment, scientists shrug their shoulders as to how this may be accomplished, particularly at such a rapid pace…. As for the orchestration of cell processes, biochemists never actually ask the question.”10
Notwithstanding, as the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins freely admits, “Exactly how [cell division] eventually leads to the development of a baby is a story which will take decades, perhaps centuries, for embryologists to work out. But it is a fact that it does.”11
It seems obvious that cells “knowing” and “remembering” are not processes that can be conveniently reduced to the comparatively simple operations of physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Dawkins seems determined to do — which is why the needful explanations will take “decades, perhaps centuries” to work out. The possibility that the explanation cannot be given in terms of the force-field driven reactions of physics and chemistry alone is one that Dawkins seemingly refuses to entertain. But if this observation is valid, then maybe it wouldn’t just be decades or centuries, but maybe never, before an elucidation can be given on this basis. It seems a scientific materialist like Dawkins seemingly, simply refuses to entertain this possibility.
Reconciling Biology to the Insights of Quantum Theory
One gets the very strong impression that, today, scientific materialists working in the field of biology, and the Neodarwinists in particular, are extraordinarily resistant to the idea that quantum theory has anything at all to do with their discipline.
And yet everything that we observe in our 4-dimensional (S1 + S2 + S3 + T1) reality rests upon, depends on, what is going on in the “microworld” of quantum activity.
Quantum theory — and also relativity theory for that matter — places the observer squarely into the game of reality, in such a way that one is tempted to say that it is the observer himself who “constructs” the reality he observes.
Moreover, the microworld of quantum theory speaks the language of universal fields, of quantum indeterminacy, of non-local action, of superposition (“quantum entanglement”), of superluminal velocities, of the primacy of the observer — that is, of all sorts of “bizarre” phenomena which are not at all observable in the macroworld of four-dimensional reality.
Analogically speaking, it’s as if many present-day biologists wish to look only at that part of the iceberg that surfaces above the waterline, considering that the submerged yet immense depths supporting the iceberg’s visible tip are irrelevant to their concerns. And then they think they can arrive at an explanation of life and evolution by remaining blind to the deep structure of reality on which everything in the Universe is ultimately based.
Notwithstanding this seeming tendency, consider the following:
-- In the 1920s, the Russian scientist Alexander Gurwitsch postulated that “a field, rather than chemicals alone, was probably responsible for the structural formation of the body.”12
-- Italian physicist Renato Nobili amassed experimental proof that [field-borne] electromagnetic frequencies occur in animal tissues.13
-- Russian Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi postulated that protein cells act as semiconductors, preserving and passing along the energy of electrons as information.14
-- F.-A. Popp postulated a field of electromagnetic radiation as the “mechanism” that somehow guides the growth of the cellular body.15
And then there is British biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who argues that biochemical processes associated with “gene activation and proteins no more explain the development of form than delivering building materials to a building site explains the construction of the house built there.”16
Lynne McTaggert writes,
“…Sheldrake argues … Current genetic theory … doesn’t explain … how a developing [living] system can self-regulate, or grow normally in the course of development if a part of the system is added or removed, and doesn’t explain how an organism regenerates — replacing missing or damaged structures…. Sheldrake worked out his hypothesis of formative causation, which states that the forms of self-organizing living things — everything from molecules and organisms to societies and even entire galaxies — are shaped by morphic fields. These fields have a morphic resonance — a cumulative memory — of similar systems through cultures and time. So that species of animals and plants ‘remember’ not only how to look but also how to act. Rupert Sheldrake uses the term ‘morphic fields’ …to describe the self-organizing properties of biological systems, from molecules to bodies to societies. ‘Morphic resonance’ is, in his view, ‘the influence of like upon like through space and time.’ He believes these fields (and he thinks there are many of them) are different from electromagnetic fields because they reverberate across generations with an inherent memory of the correct shape and form. The more we learn, the easier it is for others to follow in our footsteps.”17
Sheldrake writes:
“One fact which led to the development of this theory is the remarkable ability organisms have to repair damage. If you cut an oak tree into little pieces, each little piece, properly treated, can grow into a new tree. So from a tiny fragment, you can get a whole. Machines do not do that; they do not have this power of remaining whole if you remove parts of them. Chop a computer up into small pieces and all you get is a broken computer. It does not regenerate into lots of little computers. But if you chop a flatworm into small pieces, each piece can grow into a new flatworm. Another analogy is a magnet. If you chop a magnet into small pieces, you do have lots of small magnets, each with a complete magnetic field. This is a wholistic property that fields have that mechanical systems do not have unless they are associated with fields. Still another example is the hologram, any part of which contains the whole. A hologram is based on interference patterns within the electromagnetic field. Fields thus have a wholistic property which was very attractive to the biologists who developed this concept of morphogenetic fields.”18
Hello, can we say “field-mediated collective consciousness,” anyone? At least as a scientific hypothesis worth pursuing?
The point is, given its presuppositions, Darwinist evolutionary theory has absolutely no use for such a hypothesis: The doctrine calls for random mutation plus natural selection — premised on the purely physico-chemical “behavior” of matter — which supposedly explains everything about the evolution of the biota. Forget about fields, forget about information: It’s a “billiard ball,” mechanistic, purely material universe governed by chance unfolding under the exclusive influence of the physical laws. And that’s that. End of story.
Which is deliberately to turn one’s back to what Niels Bohr recognized as “the very nature of quantum theory,” which
“… forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealizations of observation and definition respectively. Just as … relativity theory has taught us that the convenience of distinguishing sharply between space and time rests solely on the smallness of the velocities ordinarily met with compared to the speed of light, we learn from the quantum theory that the appropriateness of our visual space-time descriptions depends entirely on the small value of the quantum of action compared to the actions involved in ordinary sense perception. Indeed, in the description of atomic phenomena, the quantum postulate presents us with the task of developing a ‘complementary’ theory the consistency of which can be judged only by weighing the possibilities of definition and observation.”19
Classical physics — which arguably deals only with “the tip of the iceberg” of reality — is a workable approximation of the doings of Nature that seems precise only because the largeness of the speed of light and the smallness of the quantum of action give rise to negligible effects. In other words, classical physics and chemistry work just fine at the level of the macroworld.
But the effects produced in the microworld (i.e., the quantum world) and the world described by relativity theory are there nonetheless. It’s just that the quantum of action is so small as compared with macroscopic values that obtaining reliable results respecting the behavior of macro-objects is not affected by it. And the speed of light is so great that we need not take it into consideration in most of the “macroworld” problems that we wish to solve.
Bohr, father of the Copenhagen Intrepretation of quantum mechanics — a world-class epistemologist as well as world-class scientist — concluded that “quantum mechanics [and not classical mechanics, which Bohr regarded as a “subset” or special case of quantum mechanics] … is the complete description, and the measuring instruments in quantum mechanical experiments obey this description. Although we can safely ignore quantum mechanical effects in dealing with macro-level phenomena in most cases because those effects are small enough for practical purposes, we cannot ignore the implications of quantum mechanics on the macro level for the obvious reason that they are there. Bohr argued that since the quantum of action is always present [and always subject to Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle and likewise Cantor’s incompleteness principle] on the macro level, this requires ‘a final renunciation of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude toward the problem of physical reality.’”20
The problems of Life, its origin, and laws; and of consciousness, informative communication, intelligence, so far have been devilishly resistant to explanation by the “rules” of the macroscopic world — that is, by the physical and chemical laws alone. Studying the behavior of a classical gas cannot give us much insight into the “mysteries” of biological self-organization, or explain the ability of living systems to be self-mobilizing, “choosing” systems. For gases and lifeforms are entirely different “orders of being.”
The “Cartesian Split” Is a Hallucination; Ergo, We Should Get Rid of It
It seems that if ever there is to be an explanation of “the tricky machinery of Life,” it will not be found in classical physics. Quantum physics is what opens up the vast new vistas needed to engage the problem of the emergence of Life, and to explain its behavior.
That, in the opinion of the present writer, is sufficient reason to recognize the so-called Cartesian Split — which attempts to divide natural science from the “spiritual sciences” — as a total illusion that we’d best be rid of, for two main reasons that presently come to mind.
(1) Quantum theory (and also relativity theory) places preeminent emphasis on the role of the “observer.” This observer is an intelligent agent. That being the case, he is firmly planted on the Geisteswissenschaften side — that is, on the “spiritual side” — and not the Naturwissenschaften side — that is the “natural sciences side” —of the Cartesian divide. It seems science needs a better method to re-integrate the observer into its formulations than it now has. It is a profound fallacy to regard the observer as the mere product of physico-chemical actions. The “problem of the observer” simply cannot be comprehensively, logically understood in such terms.
(2) Each and every one of the eminent, world-class scientists cited in this article was also a world-class philosopher, consciously or unconsciously. Not a single one of them failed to touch on the most fundamental problems of ontology and epistemology. And the insights of each of these great thinkers shaped the evolutionary course of human knowledge — of the total episteme or, in the German, the Wissenschaft — in the most profound ways.
At the end of the day, it seems profitless to split the “knower” from “the known.” For the knower — the observer — is on the one hand a part and participant of the system that he observes; and on the other, his observation constitutes — or has profound implications for the further development of — the system he observes.
Yet effecting such a division is exactly the program of the “Cartesian Split.” Thus the present writer considers the split to be false, and ultimately tending to divide a man against himself — as well as dividing man from Nature itself, of which man is plainly, ineluctibly “part and participant.”
* * * * * * *
ENDNOTES:
1Nadeau, Robert and Menas Kafatos, The Non-Local Universe, p. 83f.
2Smith, Wolfgang, Cosmos and Transcendence, p. 29.
3Smith, op. cit., p. 28.
4Smith, op. cit., p. 29.
5Smith, ibid., p. 29.
6Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Toward a Theology of Nature, p. 42. 7Smith, op. cit., p. 29.
8Nadeau/Kafatos, op. cit., p. 85.
9Nadeau/Kafatos, op. cit., p. 84.
10McTaggert, Lynne, The Field, p. 46.
11McTaggert, Lynne, op. cit., p. 46.
12McTaggert, Lynne, op. cit., p. 47.
13McTaggert, Lynne, op. cit., p. 49.
14McTaggert, Lynne, ibid., p. 49.
15McTaggert, Lynne, op. cit., p. 47.
16McTaggert, Lynne, op. cit., p. 46f.
17McTaggert, Lynne, ibid., p. 46f.
18Sheldrake, Rupert, http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic1_paper.html
19Nadeau/Kafatos, op. cit., p. 91.
20Nadeau/Kafatos, ibid., p. 91.
* * * * * * *
copyright 2005 Jean F. Drew. All rights reserved.
Ah aims t' please...
Yup. It's tragic that the popular conception of the Middle Ages comes mainly from Monty Python.
However, I am a little uncomfortable with some of your statements about relativity and quantum mechanics:
One gets the very strong impression that, today, scientific materialists working in the field of biology, and the Neodarwinists in particular, are extraordinarily resistant to the idea that quantum theory has anything at all to do with their discipline. And yet everything that we observe in our 4-dimensional (S1 + S2 + S3 + T1) reality rests upon, depends on, what is going on in the “microworld” of quantum activity.
Quantum theory — and also relativity theory for that matter — places the observer squarely into the game of reality, in such a way that one is tempted to say that it is the observer himself who “constructs” the reality he observes.
Moreover, the microworld of quantum theory speaks the language of universal fields, of quantum indeterminacy, of non-local action, of superposition (“quantum entanglement”), of superluminal velocities, of the primacy of the observer — that is, of all sorts of “bizarre” phenomena which are not at all observable in the macroworld of four-dimensional reality.
While it is true that relativity and quantum mechanics speak in terms of the "observer", and indeed, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is typically formulated in terms of the "observer", I disagree with your thesis that the observer is essential or even central to either theory.
The "observer" is simply a convenience, a construct used to explain the theories with the proper scientific qualifications. In all our debates, qualifications are often missing.
Consider the case of quantum mechanics. Almost always the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is stated using the Gedanken experiment of measuring the position of, say, an electron with a photon. At the instant of the interaction, the location of the electron is known, but the interaction with the photon means that the momentum has a corresponding uncertainty of delta-X/h-bar.
This is a nice explanation but it is unnecessary. Consider the case of an ordinary atom. The positively nucleus attracts the negatively charged electrons. What keeps the electrons from spiraling into the nucleus and anihilating with the protons positron?? Classically, the answer is that the angular momentum of the electon balances out the attractive forces by the centripital force. However, the problem with the classical explanation is that by electromagnetism, an accelerating charge emits a photon of energy. If the angular velocity is omega, then the energy loss rate is omega-squared h-bar. Then you ask the question: how long does it take the electron to spiral into the nucleus by losing all its energy. The answer is a very small fraction of a second.
Well, this doesn't happen. Indeed, there is no decay at all. It is the HUP that keeps the electron from spiraling into the nucleus, not the angular momentum. Indeed, if you solve the Schroedinger equation, you find that there are S-orbitals that correspond to zero angular momentum states. (These are the lowest energy states of the principal quantum states which correspond to radial quantum numbers and solutions to the SE).
The point is, you don't have to invoke an observer at all.
A similar argument can be made for special relativity. Consider the case of ordinary light or radio waves. These both obey the electromagnetic wave equation which is just the simultaneous solution of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are a result of relativity. Indeed, the magnetic field is just a Lorenz transformed electric field. Therefore, the wave equation is a direct result of the relativistic transforms. Therefore, you don't need an observer to assert that relativity holds: the fact that I can call my kids on a cell phone proves that.
Thank you so much for the ping to this engaging essay from Aquinasfan! Hugs to both of you!
It's a great essay, but I didn't write it 8-) It's from someone at the Columbia Augustinian club, I think.
It is much appreciated, no matter who the author. Thanks again!
Good piece. I delayed in responding to give me time to carry it off to the coffee shop for proper reading.
The “Cartesian Split” is between that part of the world that is measurable and that part which is not. The scientist works at the edges of the measurable, chipping away, tugging on loose threads and progressively pushing the line ever outward.
The philosopher's job is to look beyond that, to consider that which is unmeasurable. I don't see them as competitors, I see it as a division of labor. The separation isn't hermetic, a scientist can never go beyond the journeyman if he doesn't have at least a sense of the transcendental context in which he works. And his work is grist for the philosopher's mill.
But any discussion of philosophy and the philosopher’s role gets muddied by the fact that philosophy is not one thing, it is not a specific area of knowledge. “Philosophy” would best be divided into the “pre-scientific” on the one hand, and the search for meaning and values on the other.
The “pre-scientific” is not really separate from science, it is usually related to its underlying discipline, it is what any scientist does at some point, or maybe he does so continually. Any scientist must formulate hypotheses, toward which he directs his efforts. Any scientist must periodically step back and try to make sense of the data he has collected, to try and package it into some kind of theory that makes sense. That theory itself then becomes the focus of further study and experimentation. A scientist would not consider himself a philosopher, because he keeps his flights of imagination focused, but it is his ability to project his findings and to use them to look out beyond the known that distinguishes an Einstein from a lab tech.
When you look out beyond the known, you are engaging in “philosophy”. The people who are best at “pre-scientific philosophy” are probably well grounded in their underlying discipline; one could suppose that the best cosmologist might be an astro-physicist after a couple of beers.
The line between the known and the unknown does not stay put, obviously. What was not measurable yesterday may be measurable later this afternoon. New tools emerge, and new ways of calculating the previously incalculable, and so the limits of the measurable press outward, and territory that was once the philosopher’s is quietly ceded to the scientist, and behind him to the engineer and the bricklayer.
Philosophy of this kind is not really separate from science, it is its precursor. It is a necessary part of the process. Some of what is imagined turns out to be wrong, which is par for the course when you step off the charts into the uncharted. But when you’re right, science is positioned for the next leap and you get a high school named after you.
When you're wrong, you're forgotten right along with everyone else. History is ruthless toward the mediocre philosopher, whose only hope is a book deal and a slot on Oprah.
The “other” philosophy, the search for meaning and values, is something we all engage in. Even people who reject the notion that life has any transcendental meaning find themselves getting up in the morning to go out and build careers, businesses, families, as if it meant something. But this kind of philosophy is really separate from anything that a scientist deals with on the job and isn’t really germane to this discussion.
Beyond that, I notice that most everyone has missed the two other points you made. There is more going on than meets the eye, and the work in quantum physics gives us a hint of that. To carry your point to the next level, it could be that some of what we experience as spiritual may have a physical component at the quantum or field level. The secularist might find that comforting, if the spiritual turned out to be material after all. It wouldn't change anything for us, we would continue to be amazed at the inner workings of the design, in awe of the sheer intelligence of the design, as we already are.
The other point people miss continuously is your point that information, the transmission of signals that keeps cellular machines working, the informational template that directs the cells into their proper place, the storage and transmissions of data that we recognize in our own machinery is a key marker that distinguishes life from non-life. This idea is only barely beginning to dawn, but if I could devote myself to any piece of research it would be this. Is the DNA the software code, it seems insufficient, or does it address other information stored elsewhere, in some other fashion? Figuring out how a cell knows how to organize itself and control itself will tell us a lot about how life itself works. Maybe that is the key thing we need to learn if we ever hope to reverse-engineer life.
What a magnificent post, full of wisdom! Thank you so much, marron.
Hello 2ndreconmarine! Thank you so much for your thoughtful, beautiful post/essay. Sorry to be so tardy replying; but you’ve given me a lot to think about. Before I answer, may I mention here that I noticed on Alamo-Girl’s thread that you raised the issue of semantics? And that I think that was a “good spot?” The above italics suggest to me that we are involved in semantic tangles respecting the meaning of the word “observer.” You have invoked the meaning that Heisenberg gives it: it’s a kind of useful abstraction or “construct” used to properly qualify the application of HUP to given experimental conditions (if I’m following you here) for “scientific qualification” purposes.
And thus your essay, in effect, is a “classical” description of QM – classical because it effectively excludes the operations of the human mind from having a role. In general, classical theory assumes a direct one-to-one correspondence between every element of the physical theory and the physical reality it describes. Therefore it assumes such relations set up with or without a human observer on the scene to take note of them. The Universe is like a “clockwork” because it does not require a human observer to be what it is. It works as it does simply because matter follows laws. We can go make observations if we want to. But the clockwork will be what it is whether we do so or not.
But as Profs. Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos point out, this is the very expectation that quantum physics completely undermines: “Quantum physics profoundly disturbed physicists from its very inception because quantum mechanical experiments yield results that are clearly dependent on observation and measurement. And this resulted in a situation where a one-to-one correspondence between every element of the physical theory and the physical reality cannot be confirmed in the classical sense…. For this reason physicists have been obliged to appeal to Bohr’s CI in dealing with the epistemological situation in quantum physics.” [The Non-local Universe, p. 86f]
FWIW, I think Niels Bohr’s interpretation of the “observer” is both more subtle than Heisenberg’s or Schroedinger’s, and more penetrating into substantive issues of science that are frequently overlooked. This interpretation is not one of mere “semantics,” but of a profound insight into issues of epistemology. That is, the human mind ineluctably has a bearing on what can be observed and how it is observed, just as the measurement devices used may themselves have a “distorting” effect on outcomes observed -- in both cases because each is a part of the total system being observed.
To start with a generalization, as Clifford A. Hooker writes, “Bohr often emphasizes that our descriptive apparatus is dominated by the character of our visual experience and that the breakdown in the classical description of reality observed in relativistic and quantum phenomena occurs precisely because we are in these two regions moving out of the range of normal visualizable experience.” [“The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality,” p. 137]
The “central pillar” of Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation is complementarity – a term that applies to “‘apparently’ incompatible constructs like wave and particle, or variables, such as position and momentum”:
“And since one of the paired constructs or variables cannot define the situation in the quantum world in the absence of the other, both are required for a complete view of the actual physical situation. Thus a description of nature in the ‘special’ case requires that the paired constructs or variables be viewed as complementary, meaning that both constitute a complete view of the situation while only one can be applied in a given situation…. [C]omplementarity assumes that entities in the quantum world, like electrons or photons, do not have definite properties apart from our observation of them.” [Itals added]
This sort of “observer” is hardly what Heisenberg had in mind:
“The notion from classical physics that the observer and the observed system are separate and distinct is also, Bohr suggested, undermined by relativity theory before it was undermined in a slightly different way by quantum physics. Just as one cannot, in relativity theory, view the observer as outside the observed system because one must assign that observer particular space-time coordinates relative to the entire system, so one must view the observer in quantum physics as an integral part of the observed system. There is in both cases no outside perspective. [ibid., p. 92; emphasis added]
The thought occurs that the constructs involved in Lorentz transformations are essentially the same thing viewed in different frames of reference. The choice of referential frame can only be the observer’s. And as Kafatos points out, “Although we have in quantum mechanics complementary constructs that describe the actual situation, the experimental situation precludes simultaneous application of complementary aspects of the complete description. The choice of which is applied is inevitably part of the results we get.”
For Bohr, because the “quantum of action” is everywhere implicit in the phenomena of the macroworld that classical physics deals with, quantum mechanics is the complete description, and classical mechanics a subset or “special case,” “an approximation that has a limited domain of validity.” Thus Bohr argued that, in this situation, “a final renunciation of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude toward the problem of physical reality” are urgently needed.
Bohr points out that issues of complementarity apply to classical physics in yet another sense: “[R]adiation in free space as well as isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interactions with other systems.” In other words, as Kafatos puts it, “When we use classical terms to describe the state of the quantum system, we simply cannot assume that the system possesses properties that are independent of the act of observation. We can make that assumption only in the absence of observation.” [emphasis added]
Must close, so let’s give Bohr the last word on this, then I get to make one teensy comment, and say how much I hope you will share your thoughts with me further, 2ndreconmarine:
The notion of complementarity does in no way involve a departure from our position as objective observers of nature, but must be regarded as the logical extension of our situation as regards objective description of our field of experience. The recognition of the interaction between the measuring tools and the physical systems under investigation has not only revealed an unsuspected limitation of the mechanical conception of nature, as characterized by attribution of separate properties to physical systems, but has forced us, in ordering our experience, to pay proper attention to the conditions of observation [ibid., p. 94, quoting Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, p. 74]
* * * * * *
The article at the top of this thread argues that the “Cartesian split” is utterly false, and should be gotten rid of once and for all. IOW, the “philosophy side” of the Cartesian divide has something to say to science; and it seems to me that the magisterial epistemology (which indubitably is a discipline of philosophy) developed by the great physicist Niels Bohr, in his CI, provides evidence that “its author” is right about this. :^)
Thank you ever so much for your excellent post, 2ndreconmarine!
I've been trying to get this point across here for years. You put it pretty eloquently; maybe you'll have better results than I've gotten.
Indeed. It's what I meant by "you can't run very far on only one leg."
When you look out beyond the known, you are engaging in “philosophy”. The people who are best at “pre-scientific philosophy” are probably well grounded in their underlying discipline; one could suppose that the best cosmologist might be an astro-physicist after a couple of beers....
Philosophy of this kind is not really separate from science, it is its precursor. It is a necessary part of the process. Some of what is imagined turns out to be wrong, which is par for the course when you step off the charts into the uncharted. But when you’re right, science is positioned for the next leap and you get a high school named after you.
Oh these are glorious insights, marron!
And I certainly would like to affirm this insight:
The other point people miss continuously is your point that information, the transmission of signals that keeps cellular machines working, the informational template that directs the cells into their proper place, the storage and transmissions of data that we recognize in our own machinery is a key marker that distinguishes life from non-life. This idea is only barely beginning to dawn, but if I could devote myself to any piece of research it would be this.
Beautiful essay/post, marron. Thank you oh so very much!
FWIW, I thought so too, Doc.
I do want to expand on the following from 2ndreconmarine’s post:
Moreover, a postulate of special relativity is that “there exist global spacetime frames [4 space/time coordinates, and covering all of space/time] with respect to which unaccelerated objects move in straight lines at constant velocity" whereas in general relativity, which allows for curved space/time, rather than a global inertial frame there is a weaker postulate of a local inertial frame.
That relativity [special or general] exists even when it is not being “observed” is moot. Statements concerning relativity are generally made as if the observer is on either worldline. Nevertheless, even if the observer were a third worldline, his observation would still be “in” space/time and therefore, relative per se.
Also, for the discussion, concerning locality and realism:
THE FIRST ENTANGLEMENT OF THREE PHOTONS has been experimentally demonstrated by researchers at the University of Innsbruck (contact Harald Weinfurter, harald.weinfurter@uibk.ac.at, 011-43-512-507-6316). Individually, an entangled particle has properties (such as momentum) that are indeterminate and undefined until the particle is measured or otherwise disturbed. Measuring one entangled particle, however, defines its properties and seems to influence the properties of its partner or partners instantaneously, even if they are light years apart. In the present experiment, sending individual photons through a special crystal sometimes converted a photon into two pairs of entangled photons. After detecting a "trigger" photon, and interfering two of the three others in a beamsplitter, it became impossible to determine which photon came from which entangled pair. As a result, the respective properties of the three remaining photons were indeterminate, which is one way of saying that they were entangled (the first such observation for three physically separated particles). The researchers deduced that this entangled state is the long-coveted GHZ state proposed by physicists Daniel Greenberger, Michael Horne, and Anton Zeilinger in the late 1980s. In addition to facilitating more advanced forms of quantum cryptography, the GHZ state will help provide a nonstatistical test of the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Albert Einstein, troubled by some implications of quantum science, believed that any rational description of nature is incomplete unless it is both a local and realistic theory: "realism" refers to the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured, and "locality" means that measuring one particle cannot affect the properties of another, physically separated particle faster than the speed of light. But quantum mechanics states that realism, locality--or both--must be violated. Previous experiments have provided highly convincing evidence against local realism, but these "Bell's inequalities" tests require the measurement of many pairs of entangled photons to build up a body of statistical evidence against the idea.
I agree with your qualification about the "observer." Having said that, I will offer some additional perspective that actually supports your original assertion about the observer (against my own thesis)). LOL.
Following the discussion of Neils Bohr, he also said: "If someone says that he can think about quantum physics without becoming dizzy, that shows only that he has not understood anything whatever about it." I confess that it took me three tries in college to learn quantum: the undergraduate course, the graduate course, and studying for the general exams. Fortunately, I had the same professor for both the undergraduate and graduate courses, so the ideas began to sink in (eventually). I remember a comment a friend made to me in the physics lounge in school, when we were stuggling with this: "To learn quantum, you just have to let go..."
I believe the most famous example of the effect of the observer is with electon interference waves. The best description I know is in Feynman's Lectures on Physics volume III, chapter 1. The significance is that electrons, which are particles are shot into a 2 slit diffraction grating. The result is that the electrons are detected in an interference pattern. In order to interfere, the electron must be a wave. More importantly, the electron must be a wave that goes through both slits (the experiment is done one lonely electron at a time). Well, how can an electron be in two places at once and go through 2 slits at the same time?? But it gets worse. If you now shine a light on the two slits, you see the individual electrons and they go through each slit or the other, but not both. But, if you shine a light on the slits, the diffraction pattern dissapears and you see the electrons as if they were particles. So, how can an electron be at two places at once and then not be at two places at once when you observe them??? Or, if the electron is at two places at once, (i.e. going through both slits at the same time), and you shine a light and see the electron at one slit, how does the rest of the electron, that part at the other slit, "know" not to be there anymore???
OK, I'm dizzy.
The answer appears to be that quantum is non local. Which means that quantum is everywhere at once. This is the basis for the "spooky action at a distance" or the quantum entanglement. This is just a result of mutliple Stern-Gerlach experiments. A nice lay explanation is provided in Timothy Ferris' book The Whole Shebang, chapter 11. (Absolutely great book!!). I found the formal quantum description in Merzbacher's Quantum Mechanics on pages 289-293. (It is in the section on spin).
However, for the purposes of these threads, Einsteins thesis of hidden variables, which was formulated also by DeBroglie, was made most formal by David Bohm. Bohm was a Marxist who believed in absolute control. There could be no randomness. There had to be hidden variables. (It's funny how politics is involved with so much, even science.) Subsequently Stewart Bell formulated the experiments to test the non-locality of quantum and these experiments were conducted in the 70s by Clauser and Freedman at Berkeley and at the University of Paris. The results are in: quantum is non-local and random. Bohm and Einstein were wrong.
As an aside. Feynman took the non-local aspect of quantum to its logical conclusion. That was the premise he used to develop Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). QED calculates the probabilities of events and of movement by considering that everything could have ocurred everywhere. When you consider the path of a photon (and its likelihood for interference) you run the calculation by including every possible path for the photon. The direct line of sight and the path that goes from here to Venus and back. All are summed with appropriate weighting to get the correct answer.
I must however continue to protest your tendency to bury Einstein.
Physical causality under general relativity is not rigorously established nor are the causality issues fully explored in extra dimensional theories (particularly extra temporal dimensions) - thus it is premature to consider causality with reference to non-locality and superposition (including randomness in quantum field theory) settled.
It would be very interesting to hear Einstein's views of locality and realism in light of current string theory and higher dimensional dynamics.
A Cartesian Darwinist considers the article an attempt to rationalize a basis for creation.
But.....Intosay's world "cogito ergo sum" has morphed into Cogito ergo freepum
Would that "Cartesian Darwinist" be you bert? If so, may I point out that, for Descartes (as for Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo), divine creation was never in doubt: It was something Descartes, et al., simply took for granted. Thus he had no motive to rationalize a basis for it.
But I gather that you do not take creation for granted at all. That would make me more of a "Cartesian" than you.
Perhaps a more accurate self-description would be "Laplacean Darwinist?" Just a suggestion.... Thanks for sharing your thoughts, bert....
Still, I kinda like philosophy 'cuz you don't need any expensive equipment to play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.