The fallacy of scientific realism: does anything go?
Reading | Epistemology
Robert Hamilton, B.Sc. | 2024-08-18
If all of our scientific theories are but convenient fictions—in the sense that nature behaves as if these fictions were true—but say nothing about the actual structure of reality, are we free to decide which way to think about this structure suits us best? Rob Hamilton addresses this and related questions in this short essay.
Introduction
Does God exist? What is consciousness? How can we know what is real?
Questions such as these have always perplexed humanity and, despite the great advances made over recent centuries in understanding the behavior of the world around us, we seem to be no closer to answering these core questions about the nature of existence.
In my new book Anything Goes: A Philosophical Approach to Answering the God Question,1 I argue that, paradoxically, answers to these questions can only be obtained once we recognize that no knowledge of the true structure of reality is possible. This implies that claims about the structure of reality can only be credible when viewed as models that describe the way our experience of the world behaves. These models then become our de facto reality.
The world is a model
Perhaps the popular notion of how science progresses is that we are gradually getting closer to the truth about the nature of the world around us. As time has gone on, scientific advances have been made and we have reached the stage where Einstein’s General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics give us a nearly complete description of the universe. We just need some clever physicists to iron out a few wrinkles like dark matter and dark energy in a Theory of Everything, and then we will have arrived at the Truth of how reality is structured.
The naivety in this belief was highlighted by 20th century philosopher of science Karl Popper, when he pointed out that scientific theories can never be proven to be true. Rather, they are working assumptions about the way the world is, which are supported by the evidence—until they aren’t. Newton’s theory of gravity was thought to be true until anomalies, such as the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, were discovered. Instead, it is Einstein’s theory that provides the correct answer. This raises the possibility that, if we manage to come up with a Theory of Everything, who is to say that one day we will not conduct an experiment or make an observation that contradicts this theory? For this reason, even if physicists were to discover the true structure of reality, they could never know it. “Okay”, one might say, “although we would never know that we had reached the truth, at least we can say that our current theories are ‘more true’ than the previous ones.” This view is known as Convergent Realism and was attacked in a 1981 paper by the philosopher Larry Laudan.2 Although Einstein’s theory provides only very slightly different results to Newton’s at the everyday level, the way it characterizes the universe is completely different. Newton’s theory is set in the common-sense world of three-dimensional space and a separate conception of time. Einstein’s theory is based on the notion of curved four-dimensional spacetime. Who can say what the universe will look like according to the next theory? Quantum mechanics raises the possibility that cats, in a sense, can be alive and dead at the same time and that the building blocks of our universe can be both waves and particles. Might it be that the true nature of the universe is just as weird and perhaps even beyond our ability to comprehend?
Ultimately, scientific theories are models of the way the universe works. Scientists, such as the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, readily point out that scientific models do not give us the ‘why,’ only the ‘what.’2 They allow us to understand the universe in terms of its behavior—we can use them to predict how the macroscopic objects of our experience, such as tables, stars and light bulbs, behave. They do this by characterizing the universe in a way that helps us get to grips with it. But, as humans, we just do not have the tools to find out what the universe is ‘really like.’
The map is the territory
Now comes the plot twist. The surprising but unavoidable consequence of this is that the structure or make-up of this reality that we are modelling is, in a sense, irrelevant. If its structure is unknowable, then reality can only affect us through its behavior. And so it is only reality’s behavior that matters. It is reality’s behavior that we are modelling and a good model will predict its behavior well. But if reality’s structure is fundamentally elusive, then it will forever remain a shadowy mysterious thing lying behind the veil. It is only the structure and objects of our models that can be known to us. These are the things that we live by and that give our lives meaning. And so these are the only objects that can be considered ‘real’ in any meaningful sense—if the objects of our models are not real, then nothing is real.
What we have here, I would argue, is a case akin to The Emperor’s New Clothes. Many scientists and physicists are aware that all of our understanding is in terms of our models, but perhaps avoid engaging with the implications of this, because it is unnecessary for day-to-day work and raises difficult questions. We cling to the idea that there must be a ‘right answer’ out there, because if there isn’t, then, well, doesn’t everything fall apart? Where are the standards of correctness? What is to stop us from just claiming that whatever we like is true? I argue in Part III of my book that these worries are unfounded. Although its structure is unknowable, reality does behave in a certain way. And so not all models are created equal.
Anything goes?
I like to call this way of thinking the ‘Anything Goes’ method, because with no knowable reality to assess our models against, the only standard of correctness is a consideration of whether your model produces sensible results. And there is more to modelling reality than the laws of physics. Even the idea that there is some kind of external reality that is the source of our experiences is part of a model that gives us an explanation for why our experiences behave in the way they do [Editor’s note: some physicists are now questioning even the assumption of a shared external reality]. Ultimately, each of us needs to find a way of making sense of our experiences in a manner that works for us. In that sense, anything goes [Editor’s note: Essentia Foundation does not endorse this conclusion].
Applications
I suggest that this way of thinking is revolutionary. Once we recognize that it’s all a matter of perspective—that there are no disembodied facts about the universe in any useful sense—we can make progress in all sorts of areas that have previously proved intractable. Does God exist? It depends on your model. Is Schrödinger’s Cat alive or dead? Well, from whose perspective? Schrödinger’s or the cat’s? How would we tell if an AI attained consciousness? To answer this question, we need to consider what it means to say that an entity that only exists as part of your model of reality might have a mind of its own. We may go on to consider whether Solipsism could be true, what it’s like to be a bat, and whether you could be a brain in a vat. All these questions and more are addressed in my book.
Notes
1 See www.anythinggoesmetaphysics.com for further discussion on these issues.
2 The original paper, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (Larry Laudan, March 1981, Philosophy of Science Vol. 48, No. 1), Harding and Rosenberg’s reply ‘In Defense of Convergent Realism’ (Clyde L. Hardin and Alexander Rosenberg, December 1982, Philosophy of Science Vol. 49, No. 4) and Laudan’s response ‘Realism with the Real’ (Larry Laudan, March 1984, Philosophy of Science Vol. 51, No. 1) can all be found online.
3 The inimitable Richard Feynman talks about how hard it is to make sense of what physics tells us about world at around the 21-minute mark in this video: http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/45.
Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.
Recently published
|
Prof. Dr. Caslav Brukner, Prof. Dr. Renato Renner and Dr. Eric Cavalcanti just won the Paul Ehrenfest Best Paper Award for Quantum Foundations. Their different no-go theorems make us reconsider the fundamental nature of reality. Bell’s theorem in quantum mechanics already confronted us with the fact that locality and ‘physical realism,’ in the sense that particles have predetermined physical properties prior to measurement, cannot both be true. But in certain variations of the Wigner’s Friend thought experiment an additional metaphysical assumption is now also put in question: the absoluteness of facts. In different words: can we safely assume that a measurement outcome for one observer is a measurement for all observers?
|
The acquiescence of physicalism within the broader cultural milieu allows for the smuggling of assumptions into scientific inquiry, which are then, in a circular manner, considered to be validated by science itself. This disastrous interplay perpetuates a continued myopia in distinguishing between the ontological claims of physicalism and the assumptions of scientific inquiry, argues Adebambo Adedire.
From the archives
|
Once an enthusiastic Idealist in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer, the later Friedrich Nietzsche broke from Schopenhauer’s philosophy with a vengeance. Adebambo Adedire argues that this shift had more to do with Nietzsche’s later rejection of the metaphysical project itself, than with the particulars of Schopenhauer’s Idealism. For Nietzsche was to eventually consider the goal of understanding the nature of reality both impossible and inherently demeaning to the human condition. Yet, we ask, can a thinking human being ever stop wondering about what reality, and the self within it, ultimately are? Even if we, as primates, cannot arrive at the ultimate metaphysical answers, aren’t we correct in aspiring to overcome our own metaphysical mistakes and delusions?
|
Mainstream science still tends to dismiss extrasensory phenomena (ESP). However, these so-called ‘anomalous phenomena’ are key to understanding the nature of reality, claims Dr. Julia Mossbridge: “We are beginning to change the way we think as science enters the ‘maybe we got it all wrong’ phase.” In this interview, Natalia Vorontsova talks to Julia about her research in fields ranging from neuroscience and psychology to physiology and physics, tackling questions of free will, the nature of time, the mind-body problem, and key metaphysical implications.
|
Jonathan Dinsmore proposes applying the same cautious inferential reasoning used in the scientific method to developing metaphysical beliefs based on first-person experience. This may open the door to a form of spirituality that, although still grounded in personal insight and, therefore, not objective in a strict scientific sense, is nonetheless based on the form of disciplined thinking that has made science so successful.
Reading
Essays
|
Could it be a coincidence that two founding fathers of modern day computing, independently from each other, are both coming with theories of consciousness that are idealist in nature? Or does a deep understanding of what computation is—and what it is not—inevitably lead away from physicalist ideas on consciousness?
|
Essentia Foundation’s Hans Busstra visited Vienna to attend a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and interview physicists on the metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics. In this essay, he argues that what is called ‘experimental metaphysics’ might be at the heart of future progress in physics, and that philosophy and physics are moving closer together.
|
Once an enthusiastic Idealist in the tradition of Arthur Schopenhauer, the later Friedrich Nietzsche broke from Schopenhauer’s philosophy with a vengeance. Adebambo Adedire argues that this shift had more to do with Nietzsche’s later rejection of the metaphysical project itself, than with the particulars of Schopenhauer’s Idealism. For Nietzsche was to eventually consider the goal of understanding the nature of reality both impossible and inherently demeaning to the human condition. Yet, we ask, can a thinking human being ever stop wondering about what reality, and the self within it, ultimately are? Even if we, as primates, cannot arrive at the ultimate metaphysical answers, aren’t we correct in aspiring to overcome our own metaphysical mistakes and delusions?
|
Mainstream science still tends to dismiss extrasensory phenomena (ESP). However, these so-called ‘anomalous phenomena’ are key to understanding the nature of reality, claims Dr. Julia Mossbridge: “We are beginning to change the way we think as science enters the ‘maybe we got it all wrong’ phase.” In this interview, Natalia Vorontsova talks to Julia about her research in fields ranging from neuroscience and psychology to physiology and physics, tackling questions of free will, the nature of time, the mind-body problem, and key metaphysical implications.
|
Jonathan Dinsmore proposes applying the same cautious inferential reasoning used in the scientific method to developing metaphysical beliefs based on first-person experience. This may open the door to a form of spirituality that, although still grounded in personal insight and, therefore, not objective in a strict scientific sense, is nonetheless based on the form of disciplined thinking that has made science so successful.
Seeing
Videos
|
Hans Busstra sat down with John Vervaeke to discuss the meaning crisis, the Zombie myth we’re in, and how it all relates to what Vervaeke calls “rabbit hole metaphysics”: the conspiratorial, outlandish and often absurd ideas people start believing in, in search of meaning. A characteristic of rabbit hole types of metaphysics is that they have a ‘thick’ description of reality: a constellation of ungrounded assumptions build up to a ‘once you get this, there’s no way back’ narrative, which repeats itself in online echo-chambers.
|
The structures of our language, which function as directly accessible carriers of meaning, reveal remarkable parallels to physical systems—particularly quantum systems—which can therefore be regarded as carriers of meaning as well. This profound interconnectedness of language, thought and reality challenge our conventional understanding of what is going on, argues Dr. Sachs. His insightful observations reveal surprising ways to make sense of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics along linguistic—and therefore thought-like—lines. Though involved, we highly recommend that you give this essay a careful read, as it is surely worth the effort.
|
Two giants of science and technology—Nobel Laureate in physics, Sir Roger Penrose, and inventor of the microprocessor, Federico Faggin—meet to discuss their ideas on the relationship between Quantum Physics and consciousness, with the special participation of our own Bernardo Kastrup. While always respectful and congenial, the participants don’t shy away from disagreements. Their starting difference regards Quantum Theory itself: while Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup allow its implications to inform their views, Sir Roger Penrose believes the theory itself to be at least incomplete and require further development. The discussion helps pin down and make explicit the fine points of the three gentlemen’s respective ideas regarding consciousness.
Let us build the future of our culture together
Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible and without advertisements. Therefore, we depend on contributions from people like you to continue to do our work. There are many ways to contribute.
