Is Reality Really Real?

[I think I'm going to focus on metaphysics this month. Not exclusively, but I feel my blog on Solipsism vs. Occum's Razor some months back left some business unfinished.]

There are several questions and problems in Philosophy that are considered particularly difficult or troubling. What is Art, the Sorites Paradox, The Problem of Substance, and The Problem of Consciousness are among them. Although science is closing in on The Problem of Consciousness, there’s a big “maybe” hanging over its head because the biggest question of all is the mother of all the other problems. It is a question every philosopher should be concerned with if any other question or problem is to be resolved – what is reality?

I recently stumbled across an old article (which you can read below) in which the author makes note of how indeterminacy in the quantum world affects what takes place at the macro level of events. More precisely, due to the way in which the quantum world behaves, the very act of observing the (supposed) world of extended objects shapes what appears to be reality for a subject, and this casts doubt on a reality in which things and events are the same for all observers. While Einstein also noted that observations are not in fact the same for all subjects, this was due to a subject’s location in time and space, dimensions through which information must travel and thus, an event may be observed differently in one location and time than another (to say nothing of the inferences one makes of such observations). While many philosophical conundrums have ended in science, this time scientific findings have raised more questions than answers. What happens when something like a particle of light or an electron is observed raises doubt about reality to a whole new level. 

The dual nature of light, for example, has been known for some time yet no one – philosopher or scientists – seems to trying very hard to understand what such properties of quantum bits (information) means. (I find this very strange for a species that casts themselves upon a pedestal due to their ability to think in terms of ‘meaning’ whereas other animals supposedly cannot.) What does it mean for light to act as a wave when it is not observed and as a particle when it is observed? 

Such a question begets another question; does it mean reality only exists when there is an observer present to collapse the quantum possibilities into a single event? How does the act of observing collapse quantum possibilities into a single event? Physicist Sir Roger Penrose believes gravity is responsible. That’s a tantalizing answer to the question since his answer would allow reality that is not observer-dependent to exist; there just needs to be objects large enough present to exert the effects of gravity over quantum possibilities. But that still leaves us with the question of whether reality exists at the quantum level of events where the very phrase “quantum level of events” becomes a misnomer. And, if we were to think back to the moments following the Big Bang (assuming that is in fact how our universe began), how did a quantum indeterminate world give rise to the force [gravity] necessary to collapse its possibilities into real objects and their events? When I first read it, I wanted to like Penrose’s answer but it, too, raises too many questions. 

I was once a hard determinist who believed that the indeterminacies of the quantum world appeared to be indeterminate because of variables we were unable to measure. But if the experiments in the article really do confirm how bizarrely quantum mechanics works, there is no uniform reality, a reality that uniform for all observers. That makes for a possibly disturbing consequence: That one person’s interpretation or observation of reality is as much ‘real’ as the next person’s reality. Such a consequence leads us to another question; if I, as a sole observer, am the only observer that I can even begin to suspect actually exists, is reality mine alone? And, how could reality have created itself until an observer existed; that is, what came first, the possibility of reality or the observer? Did each come into existence simultaneously? Granted, these questions are speculative but I do not regard them to be completely so since as a philosopher am trying to understand what – if anything – scientific findings mean. My speculative questions are, to me, the natural result of what science has unveiled. 

Though once a hard determinist, I’m not sure what my current metaphysical view could be categorized as. While I understand how reality is observer dependent, if I believe that and believe that other agents, other observers besides myself exist, there is no single unified reality. This would certainly shore up some of my previous assertions, such as how easily Plato’s Law of Non-Contradiction is broken or that God can both exist and not exist at the same time. But I can’t want to believe those assertions just because I want to. Such assertions should make sense, shouldn’t they? Only, if reality is mine to observe and construe, of course it’s going to make sense. 

Quantum Physics Says Goodbye to Reality

Apr 20, 2007 by Jon Cartwright (for Physics Web)

Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).

Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain experimental inequality were violated – known as "Bell's inequality". In his thought experiment, a source fires entangled pairs of linearly-polarized photons in opposite directions towards two polarizers, which can be changed in orientation. Quantum mechanics says that there should be a high correlation between results at the polarizers because the photons instantaneously "decide" together which polarization to assume at the moment of measurement, even though they are separated in space. Hidden variables, however, says that such instantaneous decisions are not necessary, because the same strong correlation could be achieved if the photons were somehow informed of the orientation of the polarizers beforehand.

Bell's trick, therefore, was to decide how to orient the polarizers only after the photons have left the source. If hidden variables did exist, they would be unable to know the orientation, and so the results would only be correlated half of the time. On the other hand, if quantum mechanics was right, the results would be much more correlated – in other words, Bell's inequality would be violated.

Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. 

Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. 

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." 

However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective. "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment," he said. "But I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

5 Suggestions For Conspiracy Theorists

5. Get off Youtube – Like anyone else, you conspiracy loons love having an outlet for your madness. Funny thing is, you bemoan “tell-a-vision” while believing without any investigation of your own everything one of your kind spew. I might also mention that if you really do pose a threat to the Illuminati/Whomever that they know who and where you are because you can’t keep your big mouth shut on the internet. Yet the conspirators don’t do anything about you. Hmmm, could it be because they don’t exist? Could it be that the conspirators are powerless against the 2^nd Amendment? Etcetera.

4. Stop oversimplifying – You call everyone outside your little circle “sheeple” who don’t think. Believe me, as an actually educated and fully-fledged philosopher, I can guarantee you that you’re not thinking either. While the law doesn’t persecute cars because cars don’t kill people the driver does, the analogy is not the same as trying to restrict gun ownership. For example, agencies do background checks on driving records and you have to pass tests to drive. The same cannot be said for gun ownership. See how quickly your argument falls apart?
 

3. Stop calling yourselves “truthers” – Really, you think you know what the truth is? Somehow, you of all people have some special knowledge most everyone else does not? Hey, you might as well start a religion. Religious people claim special knowledge; they’re just not asses about it and don’t go to great lengths to prop up their egos by audaciously calling themselves “truthers.”

2. Get lost – If you’re all so worried about where the United States is heading, leave. You have the option of renouncing your citizenship and leaving the country. What’s that, you aren’t going to bother because of the New World Order’s global reach? Oh, that’s right, we’re talking about the same organization that doesn’t have the power to stop you from exposing their plans on Youtube. There, there, it’s going to be alright. Just gaze into the sun…

1. Stay, and get involved – Obviously you’re not going to leave because you’re all too comfy with your Industrialized Western way of living that allows you a good measure of free speech. So, how about you get organized and campaigning against elected representatives OR run for office yourselves. How about getting off your fat, whining asses and doing something more than just putting information out there as if that’s going to wake people up? You know why people aren’t waking up? Because even if the Illuminati or New World Order existed, people don’t care. So you might as well get yourself elected so you can actually help the rest of the world as you so desperately claim to want.

What is The Truth?

If there’s one thing I can’t stand, and there are lots of things, it’s when someone says they know ‘the truth.’ Let’s tear a page out of one of Plato’s stupid dialogues and ask, what is ‘the truth?’ According to the nearest dictionary, the truth is the state of affairs being in accordance with facts or reality. Mmm, that definition seems about as helpful as Justin Bieber in a bar fight since what you might consider facts may differ wildly from what you believe about reality. For example, facts about the natural world tell us nothing about those things that are supernatural, existing outside of nature, if anything supernatural in fact exists. Of course, you may disagree with me on this very point, believing that if you have enough facts, these facts tell you something about the overall state of affairs; meaning, reality. That kind of thinking means you’re not drinking enough. Alcohol is the only way to make ‘the truth’ any more understandable. Plus, it dulls the boredom.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ George Bernard Shaw, trying to convince his mother that eating his veggies confers no benefits.

What I’m not going to do is talk about the truth and its relationship to religion since there is none, not beyond self-evident truths, that is, truths obvious to yourself. If you can’t prove other minds exist – and you can’t – then your personal articles of faith do not qualify as facts to anyone other than yourself. So, I’m not going to spend any time talking about so-called religious truths; there’s no such thing beyond the confines of your own mind. Instead, I’m going to do something no one in their supposedly right mind ever does anymore and I’m going to cast a critical eye upon the claims of scientists, because sometimes there’s a legitimate problem with the conclusions scientists make. Here’s what scientists considers to be true – matters of fact; facts being the result of a very particular set of circumstances that are possible for other people – if they exist – to replicate. Now, whatever could be the problem with a scientific fact? Isn’t a matter of fact a matter of fact? Sure, but no one likes a tautology. More importantly, can we not make inferences from the collection of scientific facts, inferences so obvious they too must be factual? This is what scientific theories rest upon. Oh, but inferences from matters of fact are quite a leap if you if you haven’t had enough to drink. When’s the last time you met a scientist who could hold their liquor? Exactly.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." ~ Aldous Huxley, hearing about the size of black men’s penises.

There are two philosophical objections to the construction of scientific theories I will address here, although there are more: Underdetermination and The Problem of Induction. I’ll start with Underdetermination while you start drinking. Underdetermination basically says that any scientific theory derived from matters of fact may be suspect on grounds that the matters of fact used to establish a scientific theory are not sufficient enough to prove the theory. For example, if a child watches a cartoon about a cat and mouse behaving violently towards each other, then that child goes outside and acts violently towards another child, the matter of fact that the child watched a violent cartoon is not enough to prove that the cartoon caused the child to act violently towards another child. Perhaps other facts we are not aware of caused the child’s violent behavior, or that the behavior was caused by multiple matters of fact, not all of which we are aware of. Underdetermination can be best summed up by that old methodological adage, “Correlation does not imply causation.”

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~ Oscar Wilde, being downright earnest.

Another problem is called the Problem of Induction, popularized by Scottish philosopher David Hume. The problem is that, generally speaking, induction generalizes what will happen in the future based on past events. For example, thinking that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today because they have always been the same oh look we left out the caveat, “As far as we know.” Hume’s criticism of induction casts doubt on matters of fact, since all matter of fact are ‘proven’ inductively. That is to say, for any cause, multiple effects are conceivable, and the actual effect cannot be determined by reasoning about the cause. For example, if we shoot one billiard ball towards another, there is no way to guarantee that they will collide. In order to make that kind of guarantee, we would have to know and control every last variable, which, when taking quantum mechanics into account, is impossible to do – as far as we know ha ha ha. The Problem of Induction is further complicated by the Sorites Paradox. Exactly how many times does it take for a particular result to take place before we consider the results a fact? 1 out of 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? More often than not? If that’s not troubling enough, also consider the application of induction to classes of objects: It might be a fact that all rednecks are white because all we’ve even seen are white rednecks, but all it takes is one black redneck to disprove the fact. Disprove the fact and you abolish the truth. Now, it’s not that Hume believe induction wasn’t useful – it appears to predict what will be the case more often than not – he merely wished to say that facts are not justified necessarily.

"The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths." ~ William James, caught lying about only taking ONE cookie out of the cookie jar.

Now, while it might be the case that a ball falls to the ground every instance you’ve dropped it and this has led us to the theory of gravity – which is surely an improvement over the previous explanation, intelligent falling – the theory of gravity does seem to accurately explain why a ball falls toward the ground when you drop it and the motion of stars and planets. But scientists still don’t know why gravity is so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces of the universe – the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electro-magnetism. Scientist cannot currently reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity. That said, there is always a certain incompleteness to scientific theories. Evolution, for example, currently does not explain how life began…which is not the same as saying evolution is an incorrect theory, my right-wing nuts friends. There is the possible explanation that there is now or once was a god who was only smart enough to create a single-celled animal capable of replication from which humans eventually evolved, but we don’t currently possess this knowledge. As scientists proceed to collect data about how nature works, theories become revised and more comprehensive to the point it is possible to conceive of a day when future scientists look back upon our modern science and laugh, “Gravity? Oh my, what were they thinking?” Ah, but how much more will our future scientists have figured out about the universe? The collection of data, of ‘facts’, very often seems to lead to more questions. Can science lead us to the point of an ultimate explanation that simply ‘is’ that avoids raising more questions? Even religious explanations raise at least as many questions as they answer, so, what the fuck? What’s that? Somewhere I hear a Taoist laughing. Bastard.

"Like all dreamers, I mistook disenchantment for truth." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre, mistaking nothingness for being.

Philosophically then, when we say we’re talking about the truth, what do we mean by that word? Is it the state of things being in accordance with facts or reality? The word reality feels like a misnomer since the word ‘reality’ is typically value-laden and tainted by cultural and gender specific lenses. But it does seem that when we’re talking about matters of fact, specific events are seemingly caused by a specific set of circumstances. That said, the truth – that is, a ‘fact’ – seems to be closer to what remains consistent even if you don’t believe it. As the saying goes, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Hmmm, but are crazy people really crazy, or is it that they totally get the Problem of Induction?! To be clear, I’m not saying Induction is invalid any more than Hume did; it sure seems to work, maybe because events must have causes even if we’re not entirely sure what those causes are. After all, it can’t be that events just happen willy-nilly, can it?! If we can’t connect events to causes, there would be no basis for human logic. Hmmm, yes, judging by the way humans act, there appears reason to doubt the existence of logic.

"Truth has very few friends and those few are suicides." ~ Antonio Porchia, poor lonely Antonio Porchia.

The bottom line is this – the truth, or if you like, the facts, are merely approximation for understanding how the world works; there is seemingly no such thing as completely correct knowledge beyond the self-evident truths of internal observations such as “I am seeing yellow” which I could easily dispute but won’t bother because such truths don’t mean anything to anyone other than yourself anyway. Science, though, does get closer to the truth than religion, for science provides a better method for concocting explanations that other minds find plausible, assuming there are other minds. Remember that science as a discipline does not in principle need to comprehend the entire universe; human beings do that out of wanting to manipulate the world around them in their never-ending quest to avoid death, maybe because religious beliefs aren’t quite getting that job done. You are going to die, that’s the truth, so for fuck’s sake get over it. Oops, did I say that out loud?