Why I'd Never Date Plato.
Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and the Myths of the Philosopher Kings. And a buff dude chopping wood and carrying water.
Hi Folks!
I was going to post the next Nancy the Dreadnaught chapter this week, but a couple of things happened that made me want to write about science without the fiction.
I’m not a scientist anymore, but the experience of being a working scientist (a chemist) has made me a far better writer—and, I think, someone far more grateful to be alive.
Stay tuned for Nancy next week as she learns more about her mission, gets picked on by a fleet of snotty corsairs, and prepares for her field trip to Azamon Prime.
<3
Ryka
--
So anyway, earlier this week, PBS Spacetime posted another amazing video. “What if Physics is NOT Describing Reality.” Here you go:
What I love about this video is how Matt O’Dowd explains that “we are limited by our observations” is not a fancy way to say, “everything is relative, and nothing is real.”
When is reality not reality? This is not metaphysics. This is logic. What we base our theories on, and how we advance sciences, in this case, physics, is limited by our capacities as observers.
Acknowledging this means accepting that we can only do the best that we can with the senses we have.
We can see a star and observe its gravitational effects, so we can theorize about it. Even if we can’t see a black hole, but can observe its gravitational effects, we can theorize about that, too. We can even make a periodic table of elements, note that some spaces in the table are absent, and intuit that there are new elements to find.
But If we cannot sense something’s presence or absence, nor detect any direct or indirect effects upon us, then as far as we know, it is not there. And we won’t even miss it.
For Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, physics does not say anything about how the universe "really" is—rather physics describes our perception of how the universe is.
In some ways, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg's assertions resonate with a much earlier story: Plato’s "Allegory of the Cave."
Bohr, Heisenberg, and Plato agree that that we live in a reality that is not reality—we are limited by what we perceive. However, none of them dismiss perceived reality as a complete illusion. Our senses aren’t lying to us—they are merely limited, either by circumstance or design.
So, to improve our understanding of our world, we would need to push those limitations.
However, Bohr and Heisenberg depart from Plato in one important way. Plato thought of theses limitations as external—as a cave that one could escape.
For Plato, there was a clear distinction between those still inside the cave and those who have found a way out. Yesterday you were in shadow, and today you see the sun.
But to Bohr and Heisenberg, our limitations are intrinsic. Wherever we go, we are still in the cave, for it is composed of the very limits of our bodies and minds. There is never an outside—at least not while we are still in mortal form.
We may have our breakthroughs, our epiphanies, our fresh new theories glowing as radiantly as Plato’s clear and sunny skies. We can enhance our senses with telescopes and microscopes, our minds with faster and more powerful computers...
But in terms of understanding reality reality?
Nah. We’re still in another cave.
It reminds me of the Zen proverb, “Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water.”
Which itself can be taken in many ways, as shown below:
I don't perceive the meaning of the proverb quite in the way Ryan Hall does, but hey, to each their own.
Still, whenever we extrapolate from one field or another to another field or another, we need to be careful. Especially when we move from the laboratory or the lecture hall to the community-at-large. There’s nothing like a good social Darwinist to ruin the family dinner table.
And show me one place where pure communism, pure capitalism, or pure any ism resulted in a real, working society?
Ideas (and ideals) don’t scale up. Analogies break down.
However, in this particular case, physics is limiting its scope by making distinctions between one’s perceived reality and reality reality.
And, as a writer and teacher, I think that this is especially useful because physics is not the only intellectual pursuit that can confuse reality with reality.
I think of language, and how languages are designed to fit the worlds of their speakers. Medical worlds, legal worlds, business worlds, Christian worlds, baseball worlds, scientific worlds…
In fact, one way to define these worlds is by their shared vocabularies.
But which is the real world?
No, you're the weirdo!*
If language is as limited by our mortality as physics, then language will never be able to describe what is “really” there—and should not be expected to do so.
If language is as limited by our mortality as physics, we should also accept that language describes our perceptions and impressions of the world…not the world itself, whatever that is.
(Side note—physics is limited by language, as well, because it is how we communicate our theories and observations. And besides, mathematics is a language.)
✨🕯️✨🌞✨
I am thinking about this even more today, in early June, in this month of Pride, at a time when language is being used to invoke science, religion, law, and logic—to speak of right and wrong, of truth and authenticity, illusion and the reality of things.
What is really American, really justice, what is really a woman, what is really a life.
And if we think of the world as Plato—it’s an easy discussion. Everyone's in a cave, except you who found the sun.
Unfortunately, this model makes democracy and consensus and agreement illogical, doesn’t it? If you know the sun and the people around you don't, then you're only wasting time listening to their limited inferior opinions.
Plato himself shunned democracy in his Republic, instead proposing "Philosopher Kings," which was understandable, considering he was a philosopher.
I'm telling you, Aristotle, Philosopher-Kings are the Ideal Form of Government! Learning, Discourse...plus I just know the hotties will finally want to date us!**
Idealogues always seem to come up with ideologies that favor themselves, don’t they?
And for those who don’t follow them?
Both language and physics are tools, tools that have been used hurtfully. Many millions of people have been killed due to both the powers of physics and language. I’m queer. Half my family comes from Hiroshima.
We all know what happens when righteous people invoke the heavens, when righteous people unleash the power of the sun.
Bohr himself contributed to the physics behind Little Boy and Fat Man. Heisenberg worked for the Nazis. And, though they contributed so much to science and thought, should we absolve them them? Believe them?
Can we know for sure?
And that is the point. We cannot.
However, even if we accept that we are limited by our senses, by our perspectives, we can still decide for ourselves. We can judge for ourselves. We can weigh the evidence for ourselves.
Sure, we may not know Real Truth—but we know what we know. We explain what we can sense, write poems about what we feel…maybe create societies than seem to better help the common good, produce theories that better explain our universe.
Yes, of course we’re probably wrong. We are almost certainly wrong.
But, if we can accept that we're wrong from the outset, doesn't it make it far easier to listen?
Physics may not know what is real, but physicists have done a pretty good job of making theories to match their observations.
And if language is as limited by our mortality as physics...if we accept there no Cave to Escape, no wise Philosopher King to show us the way to Reality.
There is still nothing to prevent us from sharing views and perspectives and theories and information that we can use to make our lives seem better.
And if accepting our limitations creates a language and stories and communities that seem better, feel better, to the best of our senses and intuitions--to the limits of all we can perceive.
Then, isn't that, at least as we're concerned, as real as it gets?
I believe that you are beautiful. For real.***
I don’t know. But I wish and hope. And I believe.
I believe that you are beautiful. For real.
Here's to sharing. Here's to acceptance.
May we all have the most beautiful of Prides.
--
Next Week: Nancy the Dreadnaught Ch. 4!
Cover: Brad McGinley Photography/Collection:Moment/Getty Images
*https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/spider-man-pointing-at-spider-man
** Hulton Archive / Collection:Hulton Archive/ Getty Images
*** Carrie Sloane, http://carriesloane.com/about. Thank you for this glorious rendering of Shirley and Katrina, Carrie.