The Worldview-Neutrality of
Modern Quantum
Mechanics
Basic Scientific Principles,
Philosophical Interpretations,
Speculations about New Age
Religion
by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.
This page has overviews of 5 pages
about science, philosophy, and religion:
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?)
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 [this one!] about The
Worldview-Neutrality of Modern Quantum Mechanics.
the page begins: This
chapter introduces basic concepts that show the strangeness
of wave-particle duality and the mysteries of
quantum mechanics. The purpose is to help you become comfortable
with the radical ideas of quantum mechanics, to help you combine creativity
and critical
thinking so you can be freely imaginative without being silly and illogical. It
explains wave-particle duality, and tries to convince you that "yes, things
really are strange." It describes what quantum mechanics is and isn't,
and why things are stable and dependable. Then it shows that "no,
things are not as strange as some people say they are."
and the
page ends: The introduction states that to understand quantum
mechanics you must be freely imaginative without being silly. Later,
I encourage you to drop preconceived ideas about the way nature "should
be" and use
your imagination to understand the way it "really is." Now it's
time to establish boundaries, to avoid being silly. Yes, wave-particle
duality is strange, and so is the quantum mechanics used to describe
it, but there are limits to the strangeness. Some popular books
about quantum mechanics..... have gone far beyond the boundaries of scientific
validity. These
books contain many logical errors, including..... [that are carefully examined
in the next page]. {note: in quoted excerpts, "....." indicates an omission}
Since 1975, many popular "mystical
physics" books..... have claimed that Quantum Mechanics lends scientific
support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating
your own reality." These claims are based on speculations that
are highly implausible and are rejected by most scientists. .....
Authors of books promoting
mystical physics mix conventional physics with speculative metaphysics,
without telling
a reader where the science ends and speculation begins. ..... This
will mislead a reader who is not scientifically confident, who will not challenge
the conclusions of an author that is perceived to be an expert in this area. It
is especially easy to fool readers who desire the power to "create their
own reality" and are looking for a reason to believe they can do this.
In order to understand reality,
we must recognize that quantum common sense is
not everyday common sense. There
is a connection between these levels — quantum and everyday — but
the connection is not what the advocates of "mystical physics" claim
it is. Strange quantum effects on a small scale (with individual
particles) disappear on a large scale (in systems with a large number of
particles) due to randomization and probabilities. In fact,
the strange small-scale behavior produces the
normal large-scale behavior that we experience in everyday life.
This page
links to five other pages, including the two above. Here are
excerpts:
• The difficulty really
is psychological, and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your
saying to yourself, "But
how can it be like that?" (Richard Feynman, winner of Nobel Prize)
• David Lindley — author
of the
excellent book, Where does the weirdness go? — explains why the
weirdness "disappears" and why we
don't see strange quantum effects in everyday life.
• Victor Stenger, an atheist,
says "the
seemingly profound connection between quantum and mind is an artifact, the
consequence of unfortunate language..... [which] inadvertently left the impression
that human consciousness entered the picture..... [even though] nothing in quantum
mechanics requires human involvement."
•• And my two
pages explain why "YES,
things are very strange" but "NO, things
are not as strange as some people say they are."
Science can help us fulfill a deep
human need, because it
is one way to search for answers when, inspired by our curiosity, we ask questions
about what, how, and why. Most of us want to know the truth, so an intrinsically
appealing goal is the design of scientific theories that are true,
that correctly describe what is happening now and what has happened in the
past.
And the process of science
is fun.
In our search for truth in
nature, we are motivated by curiosity about how things work, a desire
to solve
mysteries. One fascinating mystery story is the discovery of quantum
mechanics, an elegantly simple theory that is strange, beautiful, and successful. A
brief summary will help you understand why, after decades of uncertainty
and mental struggle, a pioneer who began the adventure "rejoices
over the beauties that his eye discovers."
The history of
quantum ideas began in 1900 when Max Planck proposed a new idea.
..... Because
a wave can vibrate only in certain ways, a sound-wave in a bugle can have only
certain quantized musical pitches, and an electron-wave in
an atom can have only certain quantized energy levels, as proposed by Max
Planck in 1900. The
mathematical wave equation for an electron-wave
in an atom was written in 1926 by Erwin Schrodinger.
You can see the joy of scientific
discovery in letters between two scientists who played key roles at
the beginning and end of this grand adventure. Max Planck, who
found the first piece of the puzzle, describes his pleasure in seeing
the
elegantly simple wave equation: "I am reading your paper
in the way a curious child eagerly listens to the solution of a riddle
with which he has struggled for a long time, and I rejoice over the beauties
that my eye discovers." Erwin Schrodinger replies
by agreeing that "everything resolves itself
with unbelievable simplicity and unbelievable beauty, everything turns
out exactly as one would wish, in a perfectly straightforward manner,
all by itself and without forcing." They struggled
with a problem, solved it, and were thrilled. It's fun to think
and learn!
Do
scientists create reality?
This
page begins with a
silly 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 reality (with planets beginning to orbit the sun at some time between
1500
and 1700)?"
The page then transitions into Reality
101. Here
are section-titles and excerpts:
REALITY 101: Reality,
Truth, and Theory
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 reality, or what actually did
happen in reality. * I think
is 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 constructed reality. But for independent reality, we
can believe that something is true because of the consequences of its being
true (if
the consequences 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 a rationally
justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. ..... But
even when our confidence in current theories is low, truth does exist even
though we don't
know what is true.
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 (human-independent reality)
or is it like driving on a specified side of the road (humanly-constructed reality)? These
two types of reality have different characteristics, and claims that are
rational for one type are 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. But even though we cannot control
the independent reality of our solar system, we (individually and in
groups) do "construct our reality" when we construct our
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" this may be an indication that the theory
is true (or is false).
The questions, "does
God exist?" and "does God set standards for our behavior?",
are about independent realities. But another question — should
we use the standards of God (as described in the Bible) as the basis
for our individual and societal behavior? — is about humanly constructed
reality.
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 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 and 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 — prevents some views from being expressed and 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.
Part 3: Reality 909 (What about the tough questions?)
Hopefully, the logical foundation in Reality 101will 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 section is currently underdeveloped. }
OTHER PAGES:
If you like this page, you may also like the following related pages.
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/quantum-z.htm
Copyright © 2005 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved