1.1 Calculation Versus Understanding: Why Care?
John Locke Versus Saul Alinsky
Do we need to go beyond calculation to understanding? If we can get the right answer, does it matter if the microscopic process seems vaguely disquieting and inexplicable to an intuition grounded on the experience of the everyday world? Should we care that our model doesn’t make sense so long as we get the right answers anyway? Frustrated with the futility of picayune squabbling over the philosophic interpretation of such concepts as wave-particle duality, locality, and observer dependence, some contemporary physicists have adopted “shut up and calculate” as their mantra [[i]]. They have work to do, and they lack the leisure time to speculate upon such unproductive matters.
More is at stake than an arcane scientific squabble about esoteric meaning and understanding, however. On questions like these, the fate of civilization itself may depend. How so?
Isaac Newton (1643–1727) illustrated causality. He showed the same physical laws described motion on Earth and in the heavens. To these similar effects, he identified and assigned a common cause. They didn’t just happen. They had a specific cause, even if the underlying details were not fully understood. If we can understand how reality works, why can we not understand the principles by which society should be governed? Newton inspired thinkers like John Locke (1632–1704), who similarly devised objective laws governing the proper relationships between an individual and society. Those ideas led to the American experiment: a nation built upon the principle of individual rights, the need for a government to be limited to specific duties, to have the consent of the governed, free speech, and religious and political tolerance.
Quantum mechanics called this thinking into question. Quantum mechanics – in this view – swept away causality and certainty, so we can only look at the world in a probabilistic fashion. Reality manifests in contradiction, they claim. Everything interrelates and connects to its polar opposite. As soon as we’re born, we begin to die. To achieve peace, we must use violence. There’s no utopia without a downside. We must destroy some people’s personal futures to save the planet’s future. For every positive, there’s a negative. We cannot have one without the other.
In this view, there is no right or wrong. The only political axiom is power. The only political question is which oppressors will wield power against which oppressed peoples. Twentieth-century political philosophers, like Saul Alinsky (1909–1972), encouraged us to embrace this contradictory political philosophy, because – or so they claim – quantum mechanics demonstrates contradiction is fundamental to reality itself [[ii]]. Figure 1.2 shows Locke and Alinsky.
Once again, the mainstream of physical thought has concluded that reality is made entirely of particles, only this time, the interactions between particles are due to the exchange of particles as well. Once again, the results are contradictory and confusing, telling us there is something fundamentally wrong with this model.
Next time? A new understanding.
[i] Mermin, David, “What’s Wrong with this Pillow,” Physics Today, April 1989, p. 9.
[ii] Alinsky, Saul, Rules for Radicals, New York: Vintage Books, 1971, pp. 15-18.
[iii] By Pierre869856 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59040766
[iv] See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:John_Locke_Crop.png
What is disturbing is that Causality as observed in the Classical realm exists. Quantum Mechanics must match the Classical per the Correspondence Principle. This presents a conundrum for scientists to resolve. The folks who want to sweep away Causality due to QM have a lot of 'spainin' to do, if so.
The popular view of QM entering into the mainstream was almost immediately wrapped up in convenient political and social cruft that appeared to paint the world as ordered by observations of individuals, lacking in discoverable cause, and became wrapped up in elements of religion (The 8-fold Way for example), usually through no fault of religious leaders. The "Me Generation" grabbed onto these interpretations tightly though.
This reminds me of a sentiment I've had towards the sciences, especially physics, in that it is almost all mathematicians but they have done away with the philosophizing.
My take-away of two great arguments in your article:
Argument 1: Isaac Newton demonstrated that the same physical laws controlled motion on Earth and in the skies, implying that similar causes resulted in similar consequences.
- If we can comprehend how reality works physically, we should be able to understand the principles that should rule society.
Argument 2: Quantum mechanics brings the certainty and causality demonstrated by Newton's work into question.
- If reality manifests in contradiction and everything is linked to its polar opposite, we can only examine the world probabilistically rather than causally.
- Therefore this viewpoint calls into question the notion that we can understand reality and draw objective rules of governance, as intellectuals such as Newton and Locke attempted to do.
- Newton's work influenced intellectuals such as John Locke to develop objective principles that govern the right connections between individuals and society.