The Aesthetic Appeal of the Quantum
The goal of science may be knowledge, or truth, or explanation. The matter is much debated but not my concern at the moment. What I want to consider is the appetite of science, the unconscious notion and desire that draws people in as they seek any of the possible goals of science. And I believe that a central appetite is the desire to demonstrate that the entire universe is a tautology. It is the appetite, at each stage, to discover that the zone being probed could not be other than it is. The mathematical simplicity of Newton’s theory, the logical way Einstein’s special theory follows from the constancy of the speed of light, the way the general theory follows from the simplicity of gravitation and acceleration. Simplicity! Yes, I know the suggestion that these matters are simple is absurd, but the underlying concepts are simple.
All such advances in science result when investigators are drawn by the appeal of a great underlying idea embodying simplicity and uniformity, yet giving natural rise to complexity. Reductionism, one might say, but not just that. For, in the other direction, the simplest law can engender, through multiple combinations and permutations, the most elaborate and complex phenomena, endowed with extraordinary powers. The entire physical world of things (as opposed to forms of energy) is, as we know, composed of atoms. For my argument our reduction need go no further than that. We are composed of atoms, and so are racing cars. The things of which we are capable, and of which cars are capable, arise from the combination of the properties of atoms and the organization within which they find themselves. Not quite that simple, of course, but the essence of the matter is that way. The dynamism of structures, the forms and control of energy, the forces of evolution which bring all these structures about; all these need to be considered too, but even they are extensions of the idea of substance + organization = capability.
This gives rise to the aesthetic appeal to the quantum, which I shall explain momentarily.
Obviously aesthetics are not important in science when it comes to determining truth or explanatory power, though aesthetics may be suggestive in hinting which direction to turn in the search for theories. And a preference for aesthetically appealing theories might not be misguided if our minds and thoughts are in fact fairly well attuned to reality. Throughout the course of evolution our minds have been under Darwinian pressure to acquire ever greater felicity in relating to nature, so it seems quite reasonable that aesthetic preferences could be shortcuts guiding us towards productive ways of regarding external reality.
In any case, I am not concerned with the scientific quality of science at the moment, but with the aesthetic or psychological appeal of the whole activity of seeking an ultimate truth which will reveal the unity of everything. I am concerned with the pursuit of the sort of scientific truth which fulfills aesthetic appetites. I pursue this not because I am assume aesthetics to be of any final importance in science, but because aesthetics do, I suggest, exert a great deal of power over the way in which we search for truth (or explanation, or knowledge) while we are groping for that impersonal, self-consciously non-aesthetic, confrontation with reality that is another presumed purpose of science.
Let me add that I am not interested in any individual person’s emotional or subjective experience of science; I am utterly uninterested in subjectivism and relativism. I follow Popper in being interested in the objectivity of science only, and consider objectivity as another of the delicious and conscious goals of science; another member of that rather numerous club of Holy Grails. But whereas Popper seems to be interested in the objective rationality of scientific discoveries only, irrespective of their content, I am also interested in the content of those theories, especially insofar as that reveals what limits there might be on what it is possible for us to hypothesize. Not so much the specific content of specific theories, but rather the characteristics of what it is possible for us to propose, examine, accept, or reject, as being the content of scientific theories. Posed as a hypothetical question, it would be: what sort of theory is it within our power to propose and/or understand as being a scientific theory related to reality? The truth or otherwise of such theories is a different matter.
Science, like all other human activities, is accomplished by human beings. That sounds like a trivial point, but it is not quite trivial. It means that although human beings, in pursuing science, are using their human mentality quite carefully in order to seek objectivity and filter out subjectivity, (like a novice with a pencil working so very hard to produce a truly straight line) and that we are using all the devices described by Bacon, Hume, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, even Feyerabend and others; nonetheless there are limits to what our animal brains can do, and there are aspects of enquiry and of reality that need to be present for our animal brains to become engaged at all. And so there has to be an emotional appeal in what the scientist does to provide the energy to drive the research forward.
Therefore I conjecture that there are certain things, (I shall not attempt to enumerate them here) that attract us in framing hypotheses about reality, not because they are true, but because they are the sorts of things we would like to be true, and hope to be true. Now, at the same time, because we are capable of perceiving objectivity, and because we adhere to the notion of non-contradiction, and because we are able to deduce the consequences of ideas that we are proposing or have already accepted, there arises a sort of tension between what we would like to be true, what would be convenient if it were true, what it would be easier for us to understand should it happen to be true; a tension between all those and what, for logical reasons, is likely to be true. Especially, we always have before us the antinomies of Kant, and similar paradoxes, such that an otherwise likely-seeming theory may obviously be dangerous, because of the awkward consequences it brings with it.
And so at last I come to the aesthetic appeal of quantum theory. After such a long preamble it is in fact quite simple. All investigations of the structure of matter run the danger of infinite regression. Once the atomic structure of matter has been discovered, the structures within structures gradually reveal themselves. Molecules consist of atoms, which consist of subatomic particles such as protons, which consist of quarks, which involve gluons, which may be explained by string theory and so forth. The danger is that of the nested Russian Dolls. If we explain a structure by analyzing it into constituent structures, and then those smaller structures into the items of which they are constructed, and so on, there is the obvious danger of an infinite regress. Perhaps reality is an infinite chain of structures within structures. Certainly our mental tendency to think in terms of lumps and blobs organized would make such a discovery comfortable to think about at each stage of the way. However, it is most unsatisfactory if we are searching for a true structure of everyday substances, for it would explain nothing. It would be no more helpful than the ancient theory that the world rests upon the shell of a turtle, which rests upon the shell of another turtle, and so on forever.
It is also clear that an explanation of matter that arrived at a true ultimate particle would also be unsatisfactory, since that particle would have to have extension, mass, solidity, and existence, and none of those qualities could be accounted for. Therefore, in checking with ourselves to see whether or not the advance of science feels right, there is a great aesthetic appeal in the quantum, since it appears that, the closer we get to the very small structures, substance is neither explained nor ultimate, but rather it just fades away. Each layer of the Russian Doll is less substantial than the larger. The more we get close to the structure of structure, the less structural it seems. The less we know where it is. The less we know what it does. The less it calls for disassembly into components similar but merely smaller. Rather does quantum show us that solidity grows ever more spooky as we analyze it, posing questions ever more complex, but nothing like any sort of infinite regress. More like the smile of the Cheshire Cat.
This has no bearing on whether string theory, for instance, or any other theory is true or not, but it is encouraging, since it feels right. I would rather have the mystery of non-locality and the double slit than just another layer of billiard balls telling us that we are really getting nowhere.
My Web Home Page
My Agent
© ajm 2006
All such advances in science result when investigators are drawn by the appeal of a great underlying idea embodying simplicity and uniformity, yet giving natural rise to complexity. Reductionism, one might say, but not just that. For, in the other direction, the simplest law can engender, through multiple combinations and permutations, the most elaborate and complex phenomena, endowed with extraordinary powers. The entire physical world of things (as opposed to forms of energy) is, as we know, composed of atoms. For my argument our reduction need go no further than that. We are composed of atoms, and so are racing cars. The things of which we are capable, and of which cars are capable, arise from the combination of the properties of atoms and the organization within which they find themselves. Not quite that simple, of course, but the essence of the matter is that way. The dynamism of structures, the forms and control of energy, the forces of evolution which bring all these structures about; all these need to be considered too, but even they are extensions of the idea of substance + organization = capability.
This gives rise to the aesthetic appeal to the quantum, which I shall explain momentarily.
Obviously aesthetics are not important in science when it comes to determining truth or explanatory power, though aesthetics may be suggestive in hinting which direction to turn in the search for theories. And a preference for aesthetically appealing theories might not be misguided if our minds and thoughts are in fact fairly well attuned to reality. Throughout the course of evolution our minds have been under Darwinian pressure to acquire ever greater felicity in relating to nature, so it seems quite reasonable that aesthetic preferences could be shortcuts guiding us towards productive ways of regarding external reality.
In any case, I am not concerned with the scientific quality of science at the moment, but with the aesthetic or psychological appeal of the whole activity of seeking an ultimate truth which will reveal the unity of everything. I am concerned with the pursuit of the sort of scientific truth which fulfills aesthetic appetites. I pursue this not because I am assume aesthetics to be of any final importance in science, but because aesthetics do, I suggest, exert a great deal of power over the way in which we search for truth (or explanation, or knowledge) while we are groping for that impersonal, self-consciously non-aesthetic, confrontation with reality that is another presumed purpose of science.
Let me add that I am not interested in any individual person’s emotional or subjective experience of science; I am utterly uninterested in subjectivism and relativism. I follow Popper in being interested in the objectivity of science only, and consider objectivity as another of the delicious and conscious goals of science; another member of that rather numerous club of Holy Grails. But whereas Popper seems to be interested in the objective rationality of scientific discoveries only, irrespective of their content, I am also interested in the content of those theories, especially insofar as that reveals what limits there might be on what it is possible for us to hypothesize. Not so much the specific content of specific theories, but rather the characteristics of what it is possible for us to propose, examine, accept, or reject, as being the content of scientific theories. Posed as a hypothetical question, it would be: what sort of theory is it within our power to propose and/or understand as being a scientific theory related to reality? The truth or otherwise of such theories is a different matter.
Science, like all other human activities, is accomplished by human beings. That sounds like a trivial point, but it is not quite trivial. It means that although human beings, in pursuing science, are using their human mentality quite carefully in order to seek objectivity and filter out subjectivity, (like a novice with a pencil working so very hard to produce a truly straight line) and that we are using all the devices described by Bacon, Hume, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, even Feyerabend and others; nonetheless there are limits to what our animal brains can do, and there are aspects of enquiry and of reality that need to be present for our animal brains to become engaged at all. And so there has to be an emotional appeal in what the scientist does to provide the energy to drive the research forward.
Therefore I conjecture that there are certain things, (I shall not attempt to enumerate them here) that attract us in framing hypotheses about reality, not because they are true, but because they are the sorts of things we would like to be true, and hope to be true. Now, at the same time, because we are capable of perceiving objectivity, and because we adhere to the notion of non-contradiction, and because we are able to deduce the consequences of ideas that we are proposing or have already accepted, there arises a sort of tension between what we would like to be true, what would be convenient if it were true, what it would be easier for us to understand should it happen to be true; a tension between all those and what, for logical reasons, is likely to be true. Especially, we always have before us the antinomies of Kant, and similar paradoxes, such that an otherwise likely-seeming theory may obviously be dangerous, because of the awkward consequences it brings with it.
And so at last I come to the aesthetic appeal of quantum theory. After such a long preamble it is in fact quite simple. All investigations of the structure of matter run the danger of infinite regression. Once the atomic structure of matter has been discovered, the structures within structures gradually reveal themselves. Molecules consist of atoms, which consist of subatomic particles such as protons, which consist of quarks, which involve gluons, which may be explained by string theory and so forth. The danger is that of the nested Russian Dolls. If we explain a structure by analyzing it into constituent structures, and then those smaller structures into the items of which they are constructed, and so on, there is the obvious danger of an infinite regress. Perhaps reality is an infinite chain of structures within structures. Certainly our mental tendency to think in terms of lumps and blobs organized would make such a discovery comfortable to think about at each stage of the way. However, it is most unsatisfactory if we are searching for a true structure of everyday substances, for it would explain nothing. It would be no more helpful than the ancient theory that the world rests upon the shell of a turtle, which rests upon the shell of another turtle, and so on forever.
It is also clear that an explanation of matter that arrived at a true ultimate particle would also be unsatisfactory, since that particle would have to have extension, mass, solidity, and existence, and none of those qualities could be accounted for. Therefore, in checking with ourselves to see whether or not the advance of science feels right, there is a great aesthetic appeal in the quantum, since it appears that, the closer we get to the very small structures, substance is neither explained nor ultimate, but rather it just fades away. Each layer of the Russian Doll is less substantial than the larger. The more we get close to the structure of structure, the less structural it seems. The less we know where it is. The less we know what it does. The less it calls for disassembly into components similar but merely smaller. Rather does quantum show us that solidity grows ever more spooky as we analyze it, posing questions ever more complex, but nothing like any sort of infinite regress. More like the smile of the Cheshire Cat.
This has no bearing on whether string theory, for instance, or any other theory is true or not, but it is encouraging, since it feels right. I would rather have the mystery of non-locality and the double slit than just another layer of billiard balls telling us that we are really getting nowhere.
My Web Home Page
My Agent
© ajm 2006
posted by Andrew Massey | Friday, September 21, 2007
|
0 comments
