Tag Archives: Realism

The Randomness and Uncertainty of Reality

Posted on by Bill Ryan

Most of us grew up and were educated in a world in which classical physics ruled as the basis for understanding reality. Of course this does not mean we all took high school physics class, but the scientific cornerstone for how we think of reality has been established in traditional classical physics.

Sure, we knew quantum mechanics was a thing out there among the brainiac set, but it was too esoteric for us normal everyday people to seriously consider. After all, quantum mechanics has a well deserved reputation for being hard to understand. It is beyond rocket science. It is really far out there.

Newtonian classical physics on the other hand was relatively accessible. Attainable that is to the extent that any disciplined science like physics is approachable to average folks. Classical physics has had a way of seeping from the halls of academia to the general population in that it has formed our conventionally accepted mindset respecting the nature of reality.

And what is this outlook? It can best be described by what western philosophy calls realism. In short, realism is the view that substance or material and the things made of materials belong distinctly to a world and universe external from ourselves. Objectivity is the guiding principle. Reality is objective. It is detached from our subjective perspectives. We are merely observers to a reality that was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Or so we are led to believe.

Underpinning this objective and mind-independent notion of reality is a belief in immutable laws of nature as posited by Isaac Newton and his followers. Indeed, this is science at work. We are unquestioningly convinced by the scientific elite that a deterministic set of motions and rules sprang forth from the Big Bang which has continued to shape the universe ever since. And then to be told by them that something is a law, as in Newton’s laws of motion, says in a stern voice, “This is how IT IS, period!”

When a cause and effect interplay occurs predictably resulting in a well defined materialist or energetic action, such as a drought lowering the water level of a pond, we see it as evidence of reality demonstrating what it does naturally. To us it is common sense. However, strongly implied in this observation is that reality has a fixed and steady quality to it. Change, when it happens, is just part of the interaction of basic elements, but underneath it all exists a permanent and enduring lay of the land.

Quantum mechanics is now trickling into the common way of thinking about what is real, albeit slowly, after one hundred years of its being on the scene. The influence of quantum mechanics is becoming profound, especially regarding the way it calls into question the permanence of realism. Quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty where before there was consistency and reliability. We have come to learn that reality is probabilistic rather than assured. The universe may be unfolding as it should, but it is doing so in way that is not so easily discerned.

Indeed, it is in the area of quantum measurement where we run into ambiguity. In quantum mechanics there is a principle known as superposition, which states that the subatomic wave-particle (the basic quantum entity) abides in many different states concurrently until a measurement is attempted. Upon calculation, one of the multifarious conditions of the wave-particle is recorded. Had time or space or the means of measuring been different, then another computation could have been yielded.

In short, there is no single and invariable assessment that can be made about a wave-particle. The measurement could have been any one of many possibilities.

Superposition therefore suggests that the very practice of measuring reality at the quantum level actually creates the reality seen by the observer. Measurement no longer computes a primeval or pre-existing state of affairs. Instead measurement reveals one out of many possible views of reality. Materials it seems do not have well defined and fixed traits. Rather reality requires that an observer be present to register that reality exists, or at least one perspective of reality.

Quantum mechanics raises the possibility that how we have thought about reality may be defective. Philosophical realism has not yet reconciled itself with the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. It is hard to see how these two schools of thought will ever harmonize. What we thought was a clockwork universe governed by physical laws is now called into question.

The implications of randomness and uncertainty being fundamental aspects of reality are far-reaching. What else does this call into question? Is Truth now also erratic? Are values fickle and unstable? Will anything last in perpetuity any longer? When the very essence of reality is called into question, then so also is the world we thought we knew.

 

 

Idealism’s Troublesome Weakness

Posted on by Bill Ryan

A fascinating philosophical school of thought posits that reality can only be determined by a mind. An observer with enough sentience to at the very least sense, and in more sophisticated instances perceive its environment, is required for any reality to exist at all according to this view. Idealism stands in stark contrast to realism, the notion that a reality prevails “out there” and does not require an observer exercising some degree of mentality in order to substantiate the existence of this reality.

This tug-of-war between idealism and realism has been among the dominant debates in philosophy for centuries. One big reason it persists is because realism seems to be consistent with common sense, at least how the western world defines reasonableness. We seem to grow up with a feeling that the world we inhabit was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Our lives may impact the world to greater or lesser degrees, but any influence we may have will pale in significance to the universe “as it is”.

When I gaze upon Mount Kearsarge, a three-thousand-foot peak near my home in New Hampshire, I am quite sure it looks similar to how other people now see it. I also believe it looked pretty much the same in the nineteenth century and will look the same after I die when my mind ceases to be a fundamental feature of what was my life. Mount Kearsarge appears to be a very concrete example of an element of objective external reality. To think otherwise stretches imagination too far.

Idealism, on the other hand, challenges the conventional wisdom of realism by telling us that there is no observer-independent reality. Without our minds how can we claim there is a universe rich in detail that has always been there, at least since the Big Bang? All of reality from salamanders to stars necessitates mental observation to behold their being. It is hard to argue against the idea that mind is core to any understanding of reality.

However, the big problem I and many others see idealism running into is the charge of solipsism. The history of philosophy does not look kindly upon solipsism. Viewed objectively, solipsism refers to the claim that our individual mind or consciousness is all we can be certain of as real. Anything outside of our own personal perceptions cannot be proven to actually exist. Note how solipsism sounds similar to if not analogous to idealism as I’ve described it. Where solipsism provokes consternation is when it is seen as justifying extreme egocentricity and self-absorption. There is a point among us humans in which self-preoccupation to the exclusion of all others is considered unhealthy.

Therefore, proponents of idealism who insist full reliance on the mind is the way to best understand reality must confront the charge that their viewpoint ignores or even rejects the legitimacy of mentality within the collective of other individuals. If it is impossible to prove that others outside of oneself exist, then social cooperation and moral behavior become unnecessary. In a solipsistic world objective reality can be disregarded and individuals can give themselves permission to indulge in pure subjectivity only. It is easy to see how such a belief can lead to many social ills.

For idealism to become more mainstream and less arcane it needs to account for the fact that a prevalent and customary reality is shared among many individuals. There is much that we individuals detect in common and simultaneously which leads us to believe there is an external world. Now if the world is truly just a cerebral phenomenon or illusion how can it be that so many recognize similar worldly features and events?

Realism does not struggle with this fundamental problem. To realists there is us and there is the external world which we grasp through our senses. But is it really that simple? Are we nothing more than stimuli prone organisms limited by our sensorial capacities, but also thankfully enhanced by an ability to reason? Perhaps.

That said, idealism suggests that we are more than augmented amoebas with brains. It hints at a grander potential we have to reveal and act within a multifaceted universe that is much more than sensual. Our minds are certainly breathtaking. Our minds, more than our eyes, are the gateways to the soul and to the essence of the universe. To still be answered though is why does my mind appear to be similar to your mind and if that is indeed the case, then what is it that binds our consciousnesses?