Truth, Quantum Theory and Holism

Dualisms and Correspondence Truth

Classical physics affirms Cartesian epistemology - the dualism of mind and matter. Consciousness and outer reality were almost entirely separated, only interfacing at the pineal gland in the centre of the brain.

According to Cartesian epistemology, ideas (mind) move in a separate domain from the inferior senses (matter). Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton firmly believed that the immaterial mathematical and geometrical ideas that inform reality has a prior existence in the mind of god - for them, physics was a form of communion. In the language of classical physics there was a one-to-one correspondence between points in the map of physical theory and the actual behaviour of matter in physical reality. Later Enlightenment thinkers were convinced that physics had nothing to do with metaphysics or god, and any appeal to this was ad hoc and unnecessary, yet they did not reject the understanding that theory corresponds to reality. In the 19th century Positivists supported this divorce between theory and reality, mind and matter, by claiming physical reality only resides in mathematics and that ordinary language does not lie in the domain of science.

The result of the influence of classical physics on later thinking was that we still believe that the real is geometrical and subject to rigorous determination and measurement. Modern physics affirms this epistemology, though unwittingly, by understanding external reality as consisting of deterministic laws and atomised parts which constitute wholes. Many physicists also believe that truth is correspondence between theory and reality. Of course people are more likely to assume a correspondence between language and reality or theory and reality. Nietzsche noticed this when he said "We still believe in God because we have not gotten rid of grammar". This assumption of correspondence is the reason is why its taken us to long to overcome this assumption.

But experiments in modern quantum mechanics illustrates this correspondence is not possible.

Quantum theory does not effectively reflect external, shared realities. Quantum theory only tells us about what we can observe. Quantum theory does not pretend correspondence between "theory" and "reality". This is a false dichotomy because the experimenter is part of the experiment as shown time and again by the results of quantum experiments. For example, quanta behave differently when they are observed, collapsing into particles, but operating as waves when they are not observed. Why does observation make a difference? How can quanta be two different things?

The Complimentarity Principle

Niels Bohr developed the complimentarity principle to explain the paradox of particle and wave. The wave and particle aspects of a quanta are complimentary which means that apart, they do not disclose the total reality of quanta, only understood together do quanta make sense, even though they are mutually exclusive in any given instance.

This principle is part of Bohr’s "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum physics. This idea illustrates that "truths" are subjectively based constructs which are useful to the extent that they help us coordinate greater ranges of experience with physical reality. Bohr also realised that we cannot ignore the effects the micro, quantum level has on the macro level.

The experiments derived from the theories of Bohr and John Bell's theorem by Alain Aspect, confirm the usefulness of the complimentarity principle. These findings forces us to abandon the notions of classical physics, the assumptions of positivism and Einsteinian epistemology, that is; the supposedly full and certain truth that mathematics discloses physical reality, that there is a correspondence between physical theory and reality, that theory exists "prior" to or "outside" reality.

Epistemological Implications

Bohr's theories and the experiments that verified them have epistemological implications in other areas of knowledge in line with the implications of the Copenhagen Principle.

Almost everywhere the influence of Cartesian dualism on our epistemologies persists. Philosophical theories of postmodernism are characterised by the "linguistic turn" whereby the human situation is understood as a self-referential linguistic exercise with no connection to reality. This is Cartesianism at its most extreme. It began with Nietzsche’s declaration that "we are locked in the prison-house of language!" Here are some examples of philosophical theory thus characterised:

Saussure: "signifier" (symbol in the mind) and "signified" (concepts constructed in linguistic reality).

Lacan: "chain of signifieds,... no signification can be sustained other than by reference to further signification" (Ecrits: a selection).

Barthes: "everything is language, nothing escapes language, the whole of society is penetrated by language" (Le Grain et La Voix).

Foucault: personal subjectivity is a linguistic phenomenon (The Order of Things)

Derrida: texts repeat nothing but themselves (Marges de la Philosophie)

The dualisms posited here of language (mind) and world (matter) are false. As language originates in the brain, it is at foundation (like everything else) subject to Quantum Mechanics. There is no dualism between language and reality.

Because there is no mind/matter dualism, there is also no problem of interaction/unification.

Weltanschauung Vs. Historical Realism

Thinkers like Feyerabrand, Toulmin, Hanson, Kuhn and Foucault all theorize that science is done within the context of a Weltanschauung (worldview) which is a product of culture and constructed within the prison house of language.

But these thinkers are loosing intellectual capital because of the challenge of historical realism. From this perspective, physics is a privileged form of coordinating experience with physical reality that has often obliged us to change our world/self views - not the other way around (Frederick Suppe’s The Structure of Scientific Theories is most informative here). The history of science vindicates the postulates of rationality, generalisability and systematizability.

My intuition is that Kuhn et al maintain a form of sophisticated scepticism that cannot be dismissed. However, that science develops and works illustrates that we are doing something right.

Levels of Truth

But the lack of correspondance between theory and reality, the complimentarity principle and the epistemological implication does not mean there is no truth.

The closest one can get to a scientific definition of truth might be: "empirical evidence from repeated experiments in controlled conditions". Consistency, not proof, is the key to "truth" claims. As "truth" has a definite value, science cannot be said to deal in "truths" but probabilities (at least on the basic, quantum level. But this is the level on which all science is built). If we must speak of scientific "truth" it must not be couched in the classical terms of "revealed truths."

A definition of truth: 1) the theory/model/metaphor predicts consistent observations, and 2) the predictions are more accurate than those posed by any differing theory/model/metaphor pertaining to the same phenomena. (Thanks to Nate for this idea!)

This contra to classical correspondence truth.

The whole of classical epistemology is informed by correspondance metaphysics. Classical physics aims for completion - a total theory. It rests on the article of faith that theory exists "prior" to or "outside" reality. The history of this assertion is theological. But quantum theory (QT) is necessarily incomplete and will remain so.

Extra-real explanations like classical physics are the realm of speculative philosophy and religion. There is nothing wrong with this, but it isn’t science.

QT operates on one of the lowest levels of reality. The quantum physicist can be concerned with quarks and sub-atomic particles. The nuclear physicist can proceed with theories of nucleai that are based on protons and neutrons - a description of low-level theories (quarks and sub-atomics) that does not require understanding of low level theory. Atoms are a chunked picture of sub-atoms. Likewise, the atomic physicist has a chunked picture of an atomic nucleus derived from nuclear theory. A chemist has a chunked picture of electrons and their orbits, building theories of small molecules. Molecular biologists chunk these. The cell biologist chunks these in turn.

The levels are sealed off from each other, not requiring low-level theory, chunking the picture instead. (does this go all the way up? From cells biology to higher levels of biology and upward to the social sciences? Is a definition of science predictability? On the lower levels things seem more predictable/determined. Or are they?) There is however, some leakage, so a chemist cannot ignore physics. But there is no leakage from a low level to a high level. A psychologist need not understand low level neurology, or the low level physics that informs that. We do not see people as collections quarks. Using chunked high-level models we sacrifice determinism for simplicity. Is this why we have the idea of freedom? (The connection between levels is so distant.)

High-level descriptions seem to carry the most explanatory power - probably because wholes are greater than the sum of their parts. To grasp the whole structure, one often has to ignore the building blocks. People cannot be understood in terms of quarks. Reading a book in terms of its sentences makes sense, but not in terms of the individual letters which make up the words of the sentences.

This allows is to maintain/invent notions that account for higher level phenomenon without account for the building blocks.

My question is: can we unseal the lower levels of explanation, specifically QT, and apply them to the higher levels, like the arts and social sciences? A example of this unsealing can be found here: Quantum Psychiatry

(As pure speculation, I wonder if the memory imparted between molecules during homeopathic dilution and mixing is due to an operation at the quantum level... No molecular explanation can be found as far as I know.)

The idea of unsealing is a radical one, but necessary. The idea is to bring the sciences and the arts/social sciences back together again, into a dialogue, where they can learn from each other. The urgency of this is evidenced by the fact that no member of the US congress has an postgraduate scientific qualification - yet, many of the science issues they have to deal with require PhD level understanding. How can they legislate? They don’t. They rely on their crude moralities.

The failures to unite this gap between scientific, low-level, explanations and high level humanities explanations has problematic political implications. This is evidenced postmodern theories of language as shown above, or by the common notion that nation-states are separable, not part of a unified biosphere, which leads to disastrous policies regarding pollution control.

And what are the higher levels above our minds, societies, geopolitics and biosphere?

Consciousness

Consciousness has the appearance of locality at higher levels (like everything else), but is in fact non-local at lower levels (like everything is). This is because all quanta are the same due to entanglement. Entanglement is the reason why information passes between particles faster than light (or "in no-time"). The wave aspect of quanta are everywhere. Everything is connected in one whole and from the same source (the Big Bang). The undivided whole of the cosmos is implied as the third type of non-locality in experiments that illustrate space and time non-locality. This is the part-whole complimentarily which defines QT.

You are part of the universe. There is no outside or inner world. Your perception is a matter of catching photons and neurologically relaying them through your brain. You are like a pattern around a rock in water - the elements that make you up are changing (the water rushes by), but the main pattern persists with only small changes.

On the high-level, the world is always there. On the lower level only observation can bring quantum action out of hiding in empirical experiment or what such experiments imply.

The high-level can give one the impression of individuality (when you look at different people) or unity (like when you look at a collection of neurons as the whole brain). Low-levels can do both also - individuality (neurons) or unity (quantum entanglement).

I wouldn’t say there is no consciousness at the lower level. Consciousness (like everything) is non-local, but has the appearance of locality (that is, ones self). This is more complimentarity - consciousness cannot be solely understood on the local or non-local level, both levels contribute to our understanding. In this sense, there are really no levels to speak of, but it is useful for analytic purposes.

Emergent Phenomenon

Emergent phenomenon is the appearance of new characteristics in whole which cannot be found in the separate parts. This means that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. That emergent phenomenon can be found in wholes, but not in its parts attest to this. Each higher-level subject contains characteristics and ideas peculiar to itself.

Consciousness is an emergent property of a whole from the sum parts. If you broke a body down, it would not be conscious, consciousness would not be found. But together, consciousness emerges as more than the sum. Because everything is non-local (and local) and because mind and matter are one (there is no dualism), the universe itself can be said to be conscious. However, we do not perceive this because of the illusion of conscious locality.

Whether universal consciousness is basic - on the lowest levels, or emergent - on the highest levels, or both, is an interesting speculation (for me anyway!). Again, it illustrates that talk of levels is just useful, but not exactly accurate.

Local consciousness is part of the non/local complimentarity. It is a matter of perception. Consciousness isn’t hemmed into our skulls, it permeates our bodies (something we are keenly aware of) and ultimately our surroundings and the universe (something we are rarely aware of, if ever).

Take for example the fact that people can be born and live well with very little brain, or can sustain injuries to the brain without much change. You don’t need a whole brain to be conscious, because it is a highly redundant organ. Take the example of people how have had organ transplants an have inherited character traits and memories from their donors. Also, consider out-of-body experiences and the weight of evidence that can verify the death of the brain at a certain time, but a later recollection by the patient of people in a room, or objects on a roof, which at the time of brain-death, they could not have possible have perceived. Finally, consider the weight of mystical experiences of *oneness* with an object, an environment or even the cosmos. It must be said that this latter example cannot be verified, but the others have to my (though not necessarily you) satisfaction. I refer you to Fortean Times 159 pages 22 & 24. The scanned pages can be found here. (I would mention telepathy as more evidence of non-local consciousness, but I’ve read no convincing accounts of this as yet.)

Reductionism Vs. Holism

Reductionism does not explain emergent properties, only holism does. If you want to explain yourself, you must understand yourself as part of an holistic system (on an every level). Furthermore, such reduction is not very useful to yourself on an everyday level. We operate on specific levels most of the time, we cannot really understand the basic levels at which our brains operate. If we could, we would simply look inward and hey presto! - we would be able to build artificial brains today because we would perceive the basic structure. We would understand our brains in their totality. Complex computer programmes, which are also necessarily unaware of their basic language, are analogous here.

(After examination, even the human emotional reactions that are typically characterized as "irrational" don't seem to be - they operate via understandable principles - just different ones. They evolved in a reasonable fashion over thousands of years of human social evolution prior to the advent of what we now call "reason". They make sense, and, to a certain extent, are predictable. In this sense, emotions are reasonable as well - they are simply less refined, and are being replaced by more complex, self-improved results of the accelerating process of memetic evolution. In this same sense, we shouldn't be surprised when the reason we're so smug and impressed with today is superseded in the coming century by yet another as-yet-unimagined higher-order mode of thinking.)

Consciousness is an activity of the brain and the body - the brain would be very conscious in isolation - it would have no bio or sensory feedback. But when we consider what the brain/body is at the lowest levels (fluctuating quanta which are entangled with all other quanta) we must come to the conclusion that consciousness is as much part of this level as everything else is. Everything is necessarily built on this basic quantum level.

Remember - consciousness is an emergent property - is arises out of the sum. Consciousness does not operate at the lowest levels like it does at our (human) level. Quanta do not think like we do (they probably don’t think at all). Yet every part contains the whole necessarily (due to the non-locality implied by entanglement, complimentarily, holism).

Consciousness as we know it is a particular experience on a particular level. This means we cannot exclude higher or lower-level states of consciousness. What is the experience of a less complicated animal? What is the emergent property of the whole planet (the Gaia hypothesis)? Of the whole universe? But don’t expect the planet or universe to be able to consider or relate to us. After all, do we consider our individual neurons in anyway? Try it and see. The best you can do is on the conceptual levels, not an experiential one.

This could provide a good definition of what it is to be a homo sapiens sapiens - a species that operates on particular levels of computation.

Space and Time

If space is non-local, then so is time. Non-local space/time could be seen as a Zen-like single moment. The results of experiments like those baring out Wheeler’s predictions in the labs of Munich and Maryland (the delayed-choice experiments) illustrate that the observer and observed are not distinct and separate in space or time. These experiments seem to show that we cause something after is happened. The past is inexorably mixed with the present and time is tied to specific experimental choices.

Entanglement and Holism

No useful information passes between entangled quanta due to indeterminacy (that is: any signals are random). This doesn't rule out the possibility of somehow manipulating spin to pass communicative information however...

However, information of a sort "passes" between them ("correlates" is a better word). But this is not faster that light, this "passing" is in "no-time". It is worth emphasising that in the Nicolus Gisin experiments (at the University of Geneva) the spins of each photon carries no information, any observer will see randomness. But this randomness makes non-random sense only if we compare it to the pattern of the other paired photon. The info. in the two derive from the fact that the properties of the photons exist in complementary relation, and that info. is uncovered only through comparison of the difference between the two random patterns.

Holism is a defensible position when we consider that everything in our immediate physical environment is made up of quanta that have been interacting with other quanta (in the manner revealed by Aspect ie: wave/particle complimentarity) since the Big Bang to the present. We exist in a single quantum system.

Holistic interaction between all particles is only suggested by these experiments - we cannot observe this in its totality (how could we?).

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to back the philosophy of holism.

The special character of wholeness in physics is, a unity without internal content is a blank of empty set and not recognisable as a whole. A collection of merely externally related parts does not constitute a whole in that the parts will not be mutually adaptive and complementary to one another.

Wholeness requires a complementary relationship between unity and difference and is governed by a principle of organisation determining the interrelationship between parts. This organising principle must be universal to a genuine whole and implicit in all parts that constitute the whole, even though the whole is exemplified only in its parts. This principle of order is nothing real in and of itself. It is the way that parts are organised, and not another constituent additional to those that constitute the totality.

In a genuine whole, relationships between the parts must be internal or immanent in the parts, as opposed to a spurious whole in which parts appear to disclose wholeness due to relationships that are external to the parts - as in classical physics.

This describes the character of the whole as we understand it in relativity theory, quantum mechanics and biology.

Parts can never be fully isolated (any attempt to do so results in ambiguity) and the whole cannot be full disclosed in analysis of parts. But study of the differences between parts provides insights into the dynamic structure of the whole present in each part.

Order does not exist between or outside parts, the connections are immanent in the event.

If the universe is a seamlessly interactive system that evolves to higher levels of complexity, and if the lawful regularities of this universe are emergent properties of the system, we can assume that the cosmos is a single significant whole that evinces progressive order in complementary relation to its parts. Give that this whole exists in some sense within all parts (quanta), one can then argue it operates in self-reflective fashion and is the ground for all emergent complexity. Since human consciousness evinces self-awareness in the human brain and since this brain (like all physical phenomenon) can be viewed as an emergent property of the whole, it is not unreasonable to philosophical conclude that the universe is conscious. Here is an essay that also deals with the issues of quatum physics, consciousness and the universe.

Since this whole cannot be represented or reduced to its parts, its lies beyond human representations and descriptions.

This position lends no support to conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, plan, or intent associated with our cultural mytho-religious heritage. There is also nothing in the scientific description of nature that can refute this position. It is also not possible to argue that holism (so often dismissed as a religious experience) can be undermined or invalidated with appeals to science. Though you are free to dismiss these philosophical speculations as just that, there is a firm conclusion - there is no basis in science for Cartesian dualism as sanctioned by classical physics. This is a macro-level illusion fostered by limited awareness of physical reality and by mathematical idealisations extended beyond the realm of their applicability.

My Writings:

Other:

Links:

Please consider making a small donation to keep this site ad-free.