This page has
overviews of 5 pages about science, philosophy, religion, and history:
A Non-Mathematical
Introduction to the Strangeness of Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics — Common Sense, Schrodinger's
Cat, New
Age Religion
Modern Quantum Physics — The Speculative Nonsense
of New Age
Interpretations
The Joy of Science & Scientists — Problem Solving
in the
History of
Quantum
Mechanics
Reality 101 — Theory, Truth, Reality, and Postmodernism (do
scientists
really
create
reality?)
iou - soon (maybe in late 2023) I'll write summaries for...
a page-section about fine tuning plus multiverse science-and-theology,
and a page about science-and-theology for Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI).
My page about Science
influencing Worldviews (and vice versa) describes the page you're now reading:
Since
1975, many popular "mystical physics" books have claimed that the New Physics (especially
Quantum Physics, also called Quantum Mechanics) lends scientific support
to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating
your own reality." But these claims are based on speculations that
are rejected by most scientists.
Here are two pages I've written
about this topic: A Non-Mathematical Introduction
to Quantum Mechanics will help you understand how — at
the level of quantum effects — YES, things
are very strange. But in Common
Sense Quantum Mechanics my scientific arguments against "mystical
physics" explain why — at the level of everyday life — NO,
things are not as strange as some people say they are. Excerpts
from these pages (and others) are in a page [it's this one!] about The
Worldview-Neutrality of Modern Quantum Mechanics.
Do
scientists create reality?
This
page begins with a
silly postmodern question — Do
scientists
study nature, or create nature? — and a challenge: Anyone
who really thinks that “beliefs create reality” should be eager
to explain how the real motions of all planets in the solar system changed
from
earth-centered orbits in 1500 (when this was believed by almost everyone)
to sun-centered orbits in 1700 (when this was believed by almost all scientists). Did
the change in beliefs (from theories of 1500 to theories of 1700) cause a
change in planetary reality (with planets beginning to orbit the sun at some time between
1500
and 1700)?
The full-length page then transitions into Reality
101. Here
are section-titles and quoted excerpts:
Part 1:
Basic Concepts (for easy questions)
Introduction
Reality and Theory — A theory is
a humanly constructed attempt to describe and/or explain reality. When
a theory makes claims about truth (about what is happening, or did happen)
it is making truth-claims. And what
is truth? In
a correspondence definition of truth (*),
the truth is what actually is
happening in current reality, or what actually did
happen in historical reality. {* I think
it's the only definition we should use. }
The Solar System Question — Between
1500 (when almost everyone believed that the sun and planets revolved around
the earth) and 1700 (when almost every educated person believed that the
earth and planets revolved around the sun) what changed, and
what did not change?
Two
Types of Reality — There is an important difference between humanly-constructed
reality and human-independent
reality. ..... Our
thoughts and actions do cause consequences when “what we think and do” is
converted into humanly-constructed reality. But for human-independent reality, we
can believe that something is true because of the consequences of its being
true (if
the results of its existence-and-operation include the production of
evidence that persuades us of its existence-and-operation), but
our believing that something is true does not cause it to be true.
Confidence and Truth — In
science, proof is
impossible, but scientists can develop (by using evidence-and-logic) a rationally
justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory, in “a good way to bet.” But
even when our confidence is low – e.g. when we are not highly confident that a theory either is true or is false – truth (re: this theory) does exist.
Confidence and Faith — Can
we have faith without proof? Yes. ..... A strong faith is consistent
with a humble recognition that other people, thinking rationally, can reach
different
conclusions about the worldview they have chosen to “live by faith.”
SUMMARY
of Part 1
When there is
a question or discussion about truth, ask yourself:
Are we thinking about reality or
a theory about reality (a belief, a truth-claim,...)?
Is the reality analogous to movements
in the solar system (a human-independent reality)
or is it like driving on a specified side of the road (a humanly-constructed reality)? These
two types of reality have different characteristics, and claims that are
rational for one type can be silly for the other type.
For either type of reality, the
certainty of logically rigorous proof is impossible, but logically
justifiable confidence is possible.
For human-independent reality,
a high level of confidence in a theory cannot make it true, because
beliefs don't produce reality when the reality is human-independent. But even though we cannot control
the human-independent reality of our solar system, we (individually and in
groups) do “construct our personal realities” when we construct our
personal worldviews and partially construct our situations. { I say "partially" because
some aspects of our situations are beyond our control. } But
even though the truth of a theory is not affected by our confidence
that the theory is true (or is false), if our confidence is “based
on a solid foundation of evidence-and-logic” this may be an indication that the theory is true (or is false).
Some questions (e.g. “does
God exist?” and “does God set standards for our behavior?”) are about human-independent realities. But related questions — e.g. “should
we use the standards of God (as described in the Bible) as the basis
for our individual and societal behavior?” — are about humanly-constructed
realities.
Part 2: Personal Commentary
Using Precise Language
Defining Truth
Absolute Truth: What is the meaning?
Where's the proof?
Reflections on Modernism and Postmodernism
Postmodernism and Language
Modernism and Confidence
Modern versus Postmodern? (Coexistence
and Partial Agreement)
Pluralism is not Relativism
A Postmodern View of Truth (Do
we create truth?)
Is relativism self-refuting? — According
to many of its critics, postmodern relativism is internally inconsistent
[if it claims that “all theories are false”] in a way that makes
it logically self-refuting. This
claim deserves careful consideration, but there are logical reasons to doubt its
general
validity. To
see why, consider four statements, ranging from extreme to moderate, that
could be made by a relativist: 1)... 2)... 3)... 4)... . Unfortunately,
the fallacies of apparent self-refutation (involving statements #2 or #3)
are
often
committed by Christians in a well-intentioned but futile attempt to find
a simple flaw
in postmodern relativism. I think flaws do exist, but they are not
simple or obvious, so they require careful thought.
Is it rational to reject
relativism? — .....
Let's compare two views of tolerance: postmodern and conventional. In
a strange twist of language, a postmodern new tolerance can
produce intolerance. This occurs when the new tolerance — which
claims that tolerating other views (and choices, actions,...) requires
an absence
of criticism — tries to prevent some views from being expressed and seriously considered. By
contrast, conventional tolerance — which
encourages open communication, a respectful acknowledgment of disagreements,
a mutual commitment to courteous thoughtfulness, and listening with an
intention to understand — promotes attitudes and actions that usually
are beneficial for individuals and society. [ Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes were the goals of a non-postmodern “Monday and Tuesday” teacher in my high school. ]
Part 3: Reality 909 (What about the tough questions?)
Hopefully, the logical foundation in "Reality 101" will help us avoid much of
the silly dialogue (with each side misunderstanding the other) that occurs
between proponents and opponents of postmodernism. But questions remain,
and they are the focus in the following post-101 sections. ..... { This
909-section is currently under-developed. }
Einstein — Was he a proponent of relativism?
No. But some people claim he was, so I've written a page to explain why — after Albert Einstein saw the logical abuses involving “relativity and relativism” that claimed to have philosophical credibility based on his scientific theory — he wanted his Theory of Relativity to be called a Theory
of Invariance because its scientific foundation is invariant constancies rather
than relativity.
|
The relevant links are above. |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/quantum-z.htm
Copyright © 2005 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved
areas of a "Whole-Person Education" website:
Effective Teaching, School Options,
Learning
Skills, Thinking Skills,
Origins Questions, Worldviews,
and The Nature of Science