NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/2089

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 17.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!billiksh
From: [e-mail] (Shoshana Billik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:56:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep1.085621.9531
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 282


    Hi again! Back in May, I posted my survey on " Philosophies of
Physicists " to this newsgroup. Thanks to all of you who took the time and
effort to respond, the survey was a great success! Your comments helped me
to gain a clearer sense of the views of physicists today on the nature of
reality and on the possible spiritual and philosophical implications of
quantum physics. I am sorry I did not post this report sooner, but, many
things came up toward the end of the school year, and, I had many of these
reports to send out.
    I also especially wanted to thank everyone for being so nice and
supportive in the questionnaire responses. I had been forewarned, that, if you
are a first - time user on Internet, and, in particular, an undergraduate
attempting to do research on the Net, you may receive negative feedback from
more seasoned users and possibly even be flamed! However, nothing of this sort
happened to me; everyone who responded to and / or expressed interest in my
survey was very supportive and helpful.
    By now, all of you who responded to the survey should have
received your own, individualized copy of this report. If, by some strange
oversight, you did not, or, if you did not respond to the questionnaire
but would like a personalized copy of the report or know someone who
would, please let me know, and, I will be happy to send you a copy, either
through e - mail or via the U. S. post office, if you include your mailing
address. Send e - mail requests to [e-mail].
    My class presentation on the survey went well; I was quite pleased. The
report was well - received by both the students and the faculty.
    As a result of doing this survey and thinking about the
responses, I have come up with a career goal for myself: to be a philosopher
and to teach philosophy of science, metaphysics, and general philosophy to
college students. I am excited by this prospect and feel more secure in the
knowledge that I now have some kind of career goal toward which to work in
life.
    Many of the responses contained so much information that I regret I was
unable to go into more depth in the report. However, I do have the responses
on hand for future reference.
    Below you will find the results of my survey interlaced with the
questions. I sent the survey out to various physicists in the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Puget Sound, and on Internet, to philosophy,
philosophy of science, and physics newsgroups, such as this one. I also
interviewed physicists at Evergreen. From these various sources, I received
42 responses, which I have used to make the following report, based on
each question of the survey.

                             Philosophies of Physicists

1. Where are you currently employed, and what is your position there?

    For this basic, get - to - know - you - type question, I got
responses that ranged all over the place. I had physicists respond from
coast to coast, from San Jose State University, the University of San
Francisco, Reed College, Seattle Pacific University, and many others on the
West Coast to MIT, Rutgers University, and Boston University, among
others, on the East Coast. There were also responses from areas in between
the coasts: the University of Colorado, Ohio State University, and the
University of Wisconsin, among others. I even had physicists respond from
other countries: two from Canada, and one from Australia. Oh, and of
course, not to mention Evergreen.
    Most of the physicists who responded to the survey either work at
universities or are graduate students there. The rest work in business and
government sectors, in institutions such as the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Watson IBM Labs, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. There is also one medical physicist
who works in a hospital.

2. What other physics - related positions have you held in the past? When and
where were these jobs?

    This was another get - to - know - you type question. Many
physicists have been teaching assistants while in graduate school. Others
have worked in laboratories, have held previous teaching jobs, or have
worked for the government.

3. Have you done any work in the field of quantum physics? If so, what?

    I asked this question because I felt that the physicists could
offer more of an insider's view on quantum physics if they have done work
in this field. Most have either worked in the field or in related fields
which use quantum theory, have taught or have taken courses in quantum
physics, and / or have written books or papers on the subject.

4. Have you read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and / or seen his movie, "
Mindwalk? " If so, do you find validity in his ideas?

    Of the physicists who have read the book, most disagree with his
views and are fairly critical of the book. There is a wide range of
reasons within this spectrum of general dislike, a spectrum which, at its
extreme, is epitomized by such comments as, " The book is 99% trash! " One
physicist says that Capra makes an analogy between Eastern religions and
quantum physics but does nothing more than that to back it up, i. e. , he
does not make any claims which can be argued or tested. Many feel the
connections Capra draws between Eastern religions and quantum physics are
sketchy, coincidental, and contrived. One physicist feels that the book
deals too superficially with both the physics and the Eastern religions.
    Others talk about how they had initially been drawn to Capra's ideas;
indeed, for one of them, it had been a motivating force in making him want to
go into physics. However, as these physicists learned more about actual
quantum physics, they realized that Capra's arguments are fairly
sensationalized and cooled down on his ideas. Some of the basis of Capra's
ideas has also been disproven since he wrote the book, such as the bootstrap
theory.
    One physicist suggests Capra overemphasizes the subjective nature
of quantum physics when he discusses the role of the observer in
experiments.  Just because the observation is in part subject to the
observer does not mean that different people doing the same experiment
will get different results. There are limits to this subjectivity, which,
according to this physicist, Capra does not recognize. Another physicist
agrees with the previous one and berates Capra for adhering to the
subjectivist / " Primacy of Consciousness " argument, which states that
consciousness precedes existence. The physicist, who classifies himself as
a realist / objectivist, argues that Capra follows a corruption of Western
philosophy perpetrated by Immanuel Kant, a philosophy which holds that man
creates reality. It is in this manner that Capra is able to make
connections between a Kantian view of science and Eastern religions. The
problem, according to this physicist, is that this Kantian view is based
on a logical fallacy and is a self - refuting argument. Existence must
precede consciousness, he argues, in order for consciousness to exist,
because consciousness must be aware of something first in order to be
conscious.
    One physicist surveyed says he likes Capra's approach of bringing
together physics and philosophy. Another says the exact opposite and
claims that physics and philosophy should not be mixed. Another says that
Capra's idea of a holistic world view verified by quantum physics is a
valid and consistent way to interpret quantum physics but not the only
way.

5. Are you familiar with the holistic implications of quantum physics? These
implications include such ideas as how the universe is interconnected on a
subatomic level and the way in which you cannot observe something without
changing it. Do you find any validity in these ideas?

    I wondered if I jumped to conclusions too quickly after reading
The Tao of Physics that there are these actual holistic implications of
quantum physics, because most of the physicists surveyed do not see
anything holistic about the implications of quantum physics. This group
includes both those who have and have not read The Tao of Physics or
related works. One recurring argument against any holistic implications of
quantum physics involves the idea that quantum mechanics is derived from
strict mathematical formulae and therefore cannot be holistic. One states
that its basic spirit is non - holistic because quantum physics works for
two particles but for anything more than that, the form of quantum theory
does not allow for calculations to be made on an atomic level. Other
physicists state that the principle that you cannot observe something
without changing it does not necessarily seem holistic to them; it is
merely an example of the way quantum mechanics works.
    Although the majority of those polled do not view quantum physics
in a holistic manner, there are a few who do. One physicist agrees that
quantum physics is holistic in nature yet states that ecology and
dynamical systems theory deal more with this aspect than does quantum
physics. One agrees that the implications of quantum physics are holistic
but only in two areas: One states that it is interesting to contemplate
these holistic implications but is not sure if they apply to the world on
a macroscopic level.
    One physicist contends that a holistic viewpoint has more to teach
quantum physics than quantum physics has to teach holism. One contends
one's philosophies should not be drawn from physics, but that it is OK to
enhance physics with philosophy.

6. Do you see anything spiritual or mystical about the implications of quantum
physics?

    Most of the physicists surveyed do not see anything spiritual and / or
mystical about the implications of quantum physics. One main argument given
to support this view is the fact that quantum mechanics is based on strict
mathematical formulas, with numbers as its end result. Since math is a linear
function, and spirituality and mysticism are generally associated with non -
linearity, therefore math, and in turn, quantum mechanics, cannot be spiritual
or mystical.
    One physicist argues that just because science cannot explain current
phenomena, this is not an excuse to plunge into irrationality ( in the form of
mysticism ) . Another concurs with this statement, saying that he would prefer
to say he does not understand something than to invoke mystical explanations:
" As a physicist, an acceptable explanation must be a physical explanation. "
One physicist explains that quantum physics is not spiritual or mystical in any
way, but it is a good model for explaining the physical world.
    Several physicists are more favorable to the idea of quantum
theory being spiritual or mystical. One believes that the spirituality
aspect of quantum physics lies in the inherent inability to make
predictions with complete certainty. Another sees quantum physics as being
spiritual to the extent that he views all things as being spiritual and
especially those things created by spiritual beings. While one physicist
himself does not view it in this light, he contends that a spiritual
interpretation of quantum physics is valid. Since there are limits to
scientific knowledge, mysticism can come in and fill in those gaps.  One
physicist contends quantum physics is not necessarily spiritual or
mystical, but it can be interpreted as a particular world view. Another
points out that people are free to fit quantum physics into many world
views, ranging from Taoism to reductionism.

7. Do you follow any sort of religious or spiritual path or practice?

    Many of the physicists surveyed do not follow any sort of
religious path.  One physicist has rejected religion on the grounds that
the irrationality it spawns through dogmatic truths is dangerous. Others
consider themselves to be various kinds of Christians, ranging from
evangelical to theologically liberal to Unitarian. Three say they are
Jewish, there are several atheists and agnostics, and one Muslim. There
is also one physicist who considers himself to be a Zen Humanist. He
believes that reality is an illusion and physics a model of the universe
that he cannot perceive directly. This physicist is also a practicing
magician of the Aurum Solaris school and a non - practicing Wiccan who has
done several aboriginal rituals.
    Others have belief systems which they do not categorize as
belonging to a religion, such as one physicist who lives in " awe of the
richness, subtlety, and simplicity of nature, and to me this is a kind of
spirituality. "

8. Do you consider yourself to be more of a scientific
realist / objectivist or a relativist / subjectivist? Why? I'm defining
scientific realist / objectivist as someone who believes reality has an
absolute structure independent of thought. A relativist / subjectivist
would mean someone who believes the nature of reality is relative or
subject to the observer's influence or thought.

    Most of the physicists surveyed consider themselves to be
scientific realists / objectivists, according to my definitions of these
terms. They give such reasons as " The universe would be what it is were I
/ we not here to observe and interpret. ( Except, of course, that I / we
wouldn't be in it. ) . " " We don't change the way nature works by our
thoughts. The rules of nature are what they are! " " The universe is. If
the nature of reality were relative, then that would be the nature of
reality; you can't separate the fact that thought affects it from a
description of it. "
    One physicist considers it arrogant and presumptuous to assume
that humans play a significant role in the universe. Another physicist
believes in the existence of an absolute reality but states that there may
be a strange process leading from what exists to what is perceived.
    There are others who take a more subjective outlook on reality.
One of these states that believing in an absolute reality independent of
thought seems to imply a faith in an absolute reality which cannot be
tested. He believes that reality is a term created by observers in
response to their environment and that reality doesn't have a meaning
independent of the observers. In addition, the nature of science is
subjective; science exists as thoughts in people's minds. The way we think
about data determines how we interpret that data.
    Other physicists, especially those who have studied philosophy and
philosophy of science, reject the dichotomy I proposed of scientific
realist / objectivist and relativist / subjectivist as being too narrow
and confining. These physicists say that there is an interrelationship
between thought and nature which is currently little understood.
Therefore, reality has neither an existence wholly separate from thought
nor an existence solely created by thought.

9. What were your views on the nature of reality before you became a physicist?
What are your beliefs now?

10. Has your work in physics affected your views on the nature of reality?

11. From your work in physics, have you discovered any philosophical or
spiritual ideas which have been helpful to you in your everyday life?

    Responses to these three questions all seemed to be particularly
interrelated, so I decided to lump them all together as well in my report.
Many physicists recall incidences from the past to illustrate their
previously held views. Others mention that physics has helped give them a
better appreciation for nature and beauty in the natural world: " The
practice of physics has greatly refined my aesthetic sensibilities. " Many
describe their belief in the existence of an absolute, objective reality:
" Just because Heisenberg tells us that we can't know both p and x exactly
simultaneously does not mean that a given particle does not have a
specific, precise value for both at any given time. " Several state that
they had used to think that physics had all the answers but now that
they have done work in physics, they no longer believe this. Some peoples'
work in physics has led them to contemplate the nature of reality more;
for others, it has been the other way around. Many say their views have
not changed and / or that their views have been strengthened by their work
in physics.
    I came to these general conclusions after doing the survey: that
most of the physicists surveyed do not like and / or disagree with the
ideas of The Tao of Physics; that most of them do not see anything
spiritual and / or mystical about quantum physics; that most do not follow
any sort of religious practice; that most consider themselves to be
scientific realists / objectivists; and that most have learned from their
work in physics something of value which they can apply to the real world.
However, there are many exceptions to these generalizations, as there are
to all generalizations.
    I have enjoyed doing this survey, as it has given me a better feel
for who physicists are as people and what they are like. I have also
enjoyed getting a sense of what each individual physicist is about and
what he / she believes in. Thanks to all of you who participated!

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                    Shoshana Billik
                                                    [e-mail]