Sometimes in life we find that what initially appear to be separate and discreet interests can converge to form a compelling composite which begs to be explored. When this occurs in the context of trying to live an examined life, then a stimulating and energizing endeavor is launched. For me lately, by which I mean the past three years or so, that is occurring at the intersection of philosophy and physics. Let me explain.

As anyone who may have taken any time over the last couple of years to read my essay posts, it is likely obvious that I have been enamored with philosophy of late. There are several reasons for this attraction. For one, as a retiree I have the good fortune of having the mental health and available time to engage in an academic exercise, such as studying philosophy and to the extent I can comprehend it, its companion and contemporary discipline, quantum mechanics. These topics have held my interest for many years, but while living the working life I never could devote the necessary time and concentration required to make any lasting sense of these subjects.

Beyond simply having time and casual interest in philosophy and physics I am drawn to these areas of study for several other reasons. I believe I am not yet too old to use this knowledge as a possible guide to living a more eudemonic or flourishing life with the years I have left. Additionally, as I conduct a life review and reflect on all I have lived and experienced, this study helps me to better understand why things are as they been and why I have engaged with this life as I have.

Finally, I want to prepare myself for what is next after this life. Unlike devout religious people, I have not relied on a prescriptive belief of a hereafter. However, now knowing more concretely that death is more impending than ever before I want to have some comfort in knowing what to expect. In short, I want to have faith in a likely scenario for what will happen to me after I take my final breath.

My informal examination of philosophy and physics began and continued for some while on separate tracks. However over time, I began to see that the two disciplines overlapped in ways I had not expected. Philosophy, while not a social science, is certainly not a hard quantifiable science either. It is too broad, too deep, and too subjective to be considered a science. It is a field of study uniquely its own.

Physics, or more specifically quantum physics or quantum mechanics as it is more popularly known, is indeed a hard science, characterized by objectivity, procedural rigor, and preciseness. So, where is the connection between philosophy and quantum mechanics? It is in a purview of fundamentalism or foundationalism, which I will attempt to explain.

To better understand this conjunction of philosophy and quantum mechanics it can be helpful to know that philosophy and science grew in tandem, emerging jointly from the original pontifications of ancient Greeks who were attempting to explain the core nature of the world in which they lived. Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) can be credited with giving science an early and consequential springboard. He differed from his teacher Plato (c.429 BCE-347 BCE) in some key ways. According to Aristotle, Plato was too steeped in logically determined metaphysical underpinnings that were rooted in abstractness. His philosophical constructs were too perfectly defined and objectively certain for Aristotle.

Rather, Aristotle found it more desirable and necessary to focus on the full range of tangible worldly materials and the way they changed, developed, decayed, and behaved. He thought knowledge should spring from a deep scrutiny of the explicit substances available to us. Hence, what became a western-styled science was given permission to exist.

Science as we know it today did not have a single founder. Neither did philosophy. But when we look back through history to determine the origins of the eventual merger of philosophy and science we inevitably come again to Aristotle. In the fourth century BCE he was philosophically influenced and inculcated by two of the most prominent thinkers of the ancient world, Socrates (c.470 BCE-300 BCE) and his tutor Plato. With that philosophical grounding he went on to expand his understanding of the natural world through the practice of what became essentials of scientific inquiry.

To begin with, Aristotle was intensely curious. This mattered, because curiosity is the launch pad for examination, creativity, problem solving, social progress, and personal development. Aristotle directed his curiosity in the establishment of a systematization of two very human capabilities, observation and reasoning. Focused empiricism and self-guided reasoning together determined the foundation for scientific investigation still in practice to this day.

Among the areas in which Aristotle applied his empirical and reasoning method was to better understand what we call today biology, ecology, and physics. It was in these sciences, including physics which for centuries was known as natural philosophy, that he formalized the practice of disaggregating and classifying the natural world into discreet categories, principally causation, the elements, motion, and teleology (purpose-drive goals). Although many of his specific predictions did not stand up to the scrutiny of time, Aristotle’s three-way utilization of careful examination, logical reasoning, and classification nevertheless set the stage for the development of today’s scientific method.

Notice that Aristotle was drawn to a process which tried to base conclusions about the nature of reality by identifying and examining what he believed to be the constituent parts of reality. To better comprehend the totality of all there is, Aristotle determined it necessary to first apprehend the parts of all there is.

Aristotle was not the first of the ancient Greek philosophers to reach for a method we now call reductionism. A reductionist approach attempts to describe grand and intricate events and occurrences by minimizing, analyzing, and viewing them through their elemental segments. Key pre-Socratic philosophers also employed a similar technique.

Thales of Miletus (c.626 BCE-548 BCE) is another historic figure credited with early scientific thought. He proposed that everything in the known universe could be reduced to a single ingredient — water. Anaximenes (c.586 BCE-526 BCE) suggested that the fundamental element was air. And Heraclitus (c.535 BCE-475 BCE) offered that fire was what everything was derived from. The tendency to reduce the universe to its most basic workings has set the tone for how westerners contemplate and envisage all that there is from the beginning of recorded history.

As we see, the ancient Greeks set western science on a course of reductionism, which again can be simply explained as reducing complex circumstances or phenomena to basic and underlying components. To be sure, reductionism has driven science to comprehend a view of reality which has resulted in many remarkable discoveries. Through reductionism we have refined our ability to study phenomena, make predictions, and determine primal laws of nature.

As science, and in particular physics, matured the individual whose approach and legacy keenly exemplifies reductionism was the English scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727). Whether it was in his works related to the laws of motion and gravity, optics, fluid dynamics, or in mathematics Newton applied reductionist thinking so as to better understand the nature of reality and predict natural processes. His procedures and methods have led to what has become the conventional manner of perceiving the known universe.

Newton’s influence on science and western thinking has been huge. Many of the services and products to emerge from applied science, which have had an immensely positive impact on humankind, can be credited to the profound influence of Newtonian schema and methodology. Historians claim that Newton’s contributions revolutionized science in disciplines ranging from astronomy to engineering and that modern physics and mathematics are attributed to his reductionist guidance. His analytic thinking that viewed natural phenomena through essential principles and equations remains extensive.

However, for all of the gains reductionism has brought to our world there has been a myopic and restrictive perception of the universe that has developed and hardened since the seventeenth century, such that conventional wisdom and commonplace thinking about the nature of reality is exceptionally mechanistic and based very heavily on rationalism.

Thanks to Rene Descartes (1596-1650) western thought took a sharp turn into the advancement of reason, which allowed for a skepticism to emerge about the reliance on Plato’s and Aristotle’s influence on scholastic thought, but also to question the power of the Church to dictate enforced beliefs. Among the great consequences of Descartes’ life work was to extensively influence a novel and rational pattern of western philosophical thought and by extension induce a metaphysical and scientific view regarding the nature of reality that exists to this day. Descartes can be credited with establishing a revolutionary intellectual environment in which Newton could pursue his creation of the new physics.

Descartes was committed to discovering the most basic truths of reality and did so by attempting to determine the most foundational aspects of knowledge or epistemology. In essence, Rene Descartes applied reductionism in an attempt to unveil how we as humans could understand the fundamentals of reality. He skeptically stripped away all of his preconceptions and premises about the world to search for that one incontrovertible truth marking the starting point for the thoughtful and aware self. “Cogito, ergo sum” became that target. “I think, therefore I am.”

The reductionist epistemological method used by Descartes contributed greatly to validating reductionism as a technique applicable to comprehending all that there is. As science developed into a set of disciplines in the years following Descartes, we see reductionism widely used as a process for peering into the nature of complex systems. Indeed, it is the approach of perceiving complex systems through reductionism that both helps and hinders our understanding of natural occurrences, especially when it comes to science.

As mentioned earlier, there can be setbacks to relying on reductionism to reveal answers to the mysteries of existence. To better understand I will begin by noting that there is no more complicated and elaborate structure than the universe. Reductionism attempts to simplify this vast complexity by identifying individual elements, which the thinking goes, combine to make the whole. As we are learning over time, intricate systems such as the universe involve more than parts. They also manifest qualities and processes that cannot be captured through an inventory of components alone.

For example, let’s look at consciousness, the phenomenon expressing our subjectivity and our sense of self. Is consciousness really just a result of brain action as in synapses among neurons or is there a more holistic, non-quantifiable, and universally fundamental process at play resulting in our experiential mindfulness? I would say, yes, that is very possible. Consciousness manifests as too miraculous and too illuminating to just be an outcome of the conduct of matter. Reductionism is too austere a method for explaining the richness of consciousness.

Synergy is a term referencing a type of alchemy. A force or efficiency is achieved within a complex system when its constituent parts interact such that the system’s overall effectiveness is measurably greater than the sum of the individual parts. How does this happen? It is counterintuitive and contrary to what basic arithmetic tells us. Synergy is a way of say two plus two equals five. Something magical appears to happen when components interact cooperatively resulting in the whole being more than all of the portions added together.

Reductionism misses synergy in its calculation. There are existing and emerging properties not easily discerned by mathematics and science. Properties that have their origin in a generative spirit the ancient Stoics referred to as Logos (more on Logos later). Systems, no matter how complex they may be, are part of larger systems. Sequestering easily identifiable components can miss the valuable interactions in force. Interconnectedness and constant exchanges inject dynamism and vitality to systems. Reductionism does not always do a good job of accounting for such interoperability.

Reductionism can be seen as a practice stemming from a belief in materialism or physicalism. Materialism asserts that all of reality is composed of physical materials. This view rejects any notion of a separate spiritual reality or of a distinct existence related solely to mental states or consciousness. All that there is can be explained by physical substances and the laws governing their actions. In this type of reality reductionism makes sense. Just keep slicing and dicing until you get to the most essential particles of existence.

So why you might ask, is there this criticism of reductionism and by extension materialism, a methodology that has been practiced for centuries and which has led immeasurably to the betterment of humankind? Credit for this mental approach of discovery deserves to be given to reductionism as mentioned in reference to Isaac Newton above. However, the past hundred years has begun a grand and paradigm changing revelation highlighting the limits of reductionism. This relatively newly learned lesson comes in the form of quantum mechanics.

As science has continued to dig deeper and peer ever further into the material universe it has run into a roadblock of sorts. Strange things are occurring at the quantum level of reality — so strange that what we have thought for centuries about materialism and its character is now being reassessed. The behaviors and processes of matter and energy at this level upends our understanding of the known universe.

Quantum mechanics is the most recent approach to the study of modern physics, which began in the 1920s. It is a study of the most fundamental conduct of matter and energy occurring at atomic and subatomic stages. Physicists appear to have largely run out of runway when it comes to discovering the next smallest particle. But of special note is the fact that we enter a bizarro world at the quantum level that seems to question the linear and sequential order of things we have been accustomed to.

Let us take a look at some key examples of the conditions goading the quantum game changing reality.

Our journey into counterintuition best begins with a look at wave-particle duality. As best physicists can tell, the most quantum materialist entities discernable are particles, the most commonly known of which are photons (light) and electrons and protons (both subatomic). What is noticeable is that these particles along with other quantum particles exhibit both particle-like traits and wave-like traits. For example, a key particle-like property is discreteness, in which a quantized energy level or value is detectable. In the case of wave-like properties an example is wavefunction, a mathematical statement providing probability magnitude of a particle’s location in space. One is left questioning, is the most basic constituent a particle or a wave or are they somehow unified?

Wave-particle duality leaves a novice student such as myself thinking that everything, including matter, is energy. I see no reason to date to think otherwise. The other consideration of note is that wave-particle duality is a good starting point for learning about the other unique and odd discoveries of quantum mechanics and of the most fundamental particle entities (also known as quanta). It is safe to say that classical physics, such as Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and optics, ceases to be applicable at the quantum level of physics.

Superposition really rocks the world of how we thought things were. This term is used to describe particles being ubiquitous or in multiple states at the same time. It is only during an attempt by an observer to measure the state or position of a particle that the “wavefunction collapses” into only one state or position from among the many states or positions it could have been in. It is like Jim being in Moscow and New York at the same time, but until an observer intentionally spots Jim in Moscow can we say that there is where Jim is located at that moment.

Entanglement is just as irrational. In this phenomena we can have two particles entangled or influenced by one another, sometimes at great distances, i.e. nonlocality. The condition of one of the particles can be instantaneously affected by the other one even at distances where there should be a time lag due to the immense separation of space between them. Einstein remarked incredulously that such an occurrence was “spooky action at a distance” since an information exchange appeared to be occurring between the two particles quicker than the speed of light.

As you can see quantum measurement is a tough thing to nail down. How to measure key features of quantum entities remains a controversial and debated issue. When the very act of attempting measurement appears to affect the nature of the entity being measured how can one know its state in unobserved reality? In fact, one can wonder, is there such a thing as an unobserved reality?

As we are seeing, it makes sense that a central standard of quantum mechanics is known as the Uncertainty Principle. At the beginning of the quantum age in the 1920s, German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) concluded that measuring the speed and location of a particle could not be accomplished accurately. In the nearly one hundred years since Heisenberg proclaimed the Uncertainty Principle it remains a valid concept. Once we dive deep enough into the quantum realm reality takes on a whole new meaning — one that is hard to wrap our minds around.

So what am I to apprehend from this convergence of philosophy and physics? What are my takeaways at this point in my understanding of this information and why should they matter? Does any of this change my perceptions to the degree that I think of the world differently than I did before? To begin answering these questions I will note what conclusions or beliefs I have from the above descriptions.

At heart, nature is my guide. I believe there is a natural process to the universe, an unfolding always occurring. Science and philosophy are lenses through which to view nature and from which to infer the basics of reality. Learning from nature is not as easy as just observation, however. Our six senses give us direct experience with reality, but they are also limiting in the amount of insights we can derive from nature. Something more than sensorial experience is needed. We humans are capable of integrating a non-sensorial dominion into our imaginations that can complement our rational comprehension of all that there is.

I have faith in Logos, the generative spirit introduced to us by the ancient Stoics, as my gateway to the non-sensorial realm. It is what produced the Big Bang and establishes the entire order/disorder of the universe. Logos is ubiquitous and present from the grandest structures in the universe to the quantum level. The expression of all physical and mental states have at their essence Logos. I believe this spirit is what is meant by a belief in God.

Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) advocated for a notion of pantheism, the idea that God is in everything. He taught there does not exist a transcendent God separated from the creation or nature. Pantheism, and its modern secular counterpart panpsychism, captures what feels right to me. Logos is my starting point and the place to which I frequently return for apprehending reality.

Beyond a faith in Logos I face a significant challenge. It appears I am searching for certainty in an uncertain universe. Quantum mechanics tells me that we cannot be sure about much, if anything, at the core of reality. Nature is not boundlessly dissoluble. We can only slice and dice or reduce just so far. A point in reductionism arrives when we enter a province that is unpredictable, random, contradictory, and contingent.

Christopher Bader, principal investigator for the annual Chapman Survey of American Fears, notes that the many fears Americans share can be traced back to uncertainty. There is a self-help expression encouraging us to embrace uncertainty. Yes, accepting chance as more likely than conviction is a key upshot for me and perhaps it should be for others as well. This encourages me to be more agile in my thinking and less definite in the conclusions I draw.

The brain, of course, can do many things. Among them is a capacity to ensnare chance and possibility. It is also stochastic in how it operates, meaning the brain can be inherently random in how it processes inputs. Many of the results the brain yields are not predictable and based in certitude, but rather are presented as probabilities and statistical distributions. This may explain our ability to be creative and to have novel ideas.

As Dartmouth College neuroscientist Peter Tse suggests, because the brain functions such that new configurations of thought and conception are possible, this is likely an indication that the universe performs this way also. A reasonable hypothesis is that quantum processes with all of their stochasticity are manifesting in our brains and reflecting the workings of the universe at large.

One of the great controversies and mysteries of both philosophy and science historically concerns the question of whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. If deterministic, then all that has occurred since the Big Bang is preordained and destined to happen like the sequence of events in a movie. There are no interventions which can change destiny. All has already been programmed.

On the other hand, indeterminacy allows for capriciousness and irregularity, in other words the very randomness quantum mechanics indicates is commonplace. Change, process, and uncertainty are innate and part of the fabric of our reality. Learning to not resist this primary aspect of our universe seems wise.

I will finish with this observation. Of course our lives have a lot of predictability despite all of the evidence suggesting otherwise. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Spring still follows winter every year. Death ends lifetimes. The past has occurred. The future is yet to be experienced. And the present is ever fleeting. Life is not easily understood and the more we try to make sense of it the more questions are generated. That said, the intersection of philosophy and physics is a fascinating place to be. There is much more to learn. I imagine I will continue to visit this place often.