First, some definitions.
You may have heard of The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which applies to very small objects like subatomic particles. The more sure you are of where a particle is, the less sure you are of where it's going and how fast. Certainty has a limit. Don't be too sure.
There is an analogous principle in linguistics. The fuzzier the meaning of a word, the more likely you are to use it. The more precisely a word is defined, the less likely you are to use it. Therefore we can't be too sure what people are trying to tell us. Let's call it The Prolixity Paradox.
In the domain of concepts, we have the Confidence Oxymoron: the more certain you are that you have the right idea, the less likely you are to improve your understanding. Put another way, the more confident you are that you understand, the less your confidence is justified.
Back to quantum mechanics. According to Richard Feynman, nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Let's apply the Confidence Oxymoron to that proposition. If you are sure that nobody understands quantum mechanics you are unlikely to get at the truth of the matter. Don't be so sure. Ask around. There might actually be somebody who understands.
To make the issue more confusing, the Prolixity Paradox suggests that Richard's use of the word 'understand' may be somewhat facile. What did he mean? We will never know, because he's not here to enlighten us. However, with a few words of our own we can get a better understanding of what it means to understand. I leave the dictionary definition up to you. I didn't find it very helpful.
Introspection got me a bit further. When presented with a novel experience or concept, I feel uneasy because I'm not sure what to do with it. I want to make it fit with what I already know because not knowing could get me in trouble, and not understanding makes me feel stupid. Understanding is satisfying.
I find that my mental unease can be improved in at least four ways.
(1) Find something I already understand that is similar to the novel discrepant thought.
(2) Revise my model of the universe to accommodate the new thought.
(3) Discount the evidence. Maybe the new thought is illusory.
(4) Discard the new idea as irrelevant. Some things just don't matter.
Richard Feynman used a fifth strategy. He dismissed our cognitive dissonance by assuring us that we have good company in our ignorance. It's OK to not understand because nobody else understands either. Sounds like church. We can get happily lost in the mystery together. Still it would be better to understand. I suspect that many scientists understand quantum mechanics using some mix of the strategies above. So I disagree with Richard Feynman. Am I not clever?
Nevertheless, quantum mechanics is a puzzle. Does anybody understand Schrodinger's cat; you know, the one in the box that is both alive and dead until you open the box? Never mind. I don't get it either. We can keep each other company in our ignorance. No nerds allowed here.
However, I imagine that somewhere there is a box with an idea in it. Maybe the idea is a good one or not; but if I trust it and don't peek in the box, it becomes a belief. Maybe my friends trust it too, providing group motivation and direction, making the activities of the group more focused and productive. We carry on blissfully as long as we don't peek in the box.
Now what if we get curious and open the box? What if our belief could be right or wrong or both at the same time depending on perspective? We may discover that what we believe is wrong, or not quite right, or it depends, which means we have to think differently and do things differently, and that's a bother. The group is aware of the risk of questioning beliefs. New understanding means lengthy discussions and disagreements because it threatens group solidarity and the credibility of authority. How can we do partisan politics or serious religion or applied science when people keep questioning their beliefs? So the group warns us away from opening the box, promising that if we take a peek, God or Trump or peer review will smite us.
It's nonsense, of course. Our job is to tease the error out of a belief and explore a new idea until we decide whether it is heresy or prophesy. It's hard, thankless work, but let the one who has never been curious cast the first aspersion. The smiting threat protects privileged authority by labelling beliefs as Absolute Truth when they are merely the price of membership, collectively maintaining our blissful ignorance so we don’t waste time discussing what we don’t understand.
As for Actual Truth, Moses had the right idea: it is what it is, although he got muddled a bit by using the subjective voice, “I Am what I Am,” wrapping the existential mystery in the familiar metaphor of intentional consciousness to make it comfortably comprehensible. Moses was unaware that consciousness didn't come into it until the last blink of 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution. When our species became conscious, we began collecting our favorite ideas in a box. Some of us were sure it was all about us, so like spoiled brats we began messing things up to make ourselves safe and comfortable. It will soon be over for people unless we pay attention to the uncertainty, get curious, understand things better, stop making it all about us, and quit messing things up.
Anyway, it will be what it will be.
This has been confident prolixity on quantum mechanics. I see you're out of coffee. Sorry. I do go on and on as if I knew what I was writing about. I thought I was sure about uncertainty, but now I'm not so sure.
There is an analogous principle in linguistics. The fuzzier the meaning of a word, the more likely you are to use it. The more precisely a word is defined, the less likely you are to use it. Therefore we can't be too sure what people are trying to tell us. Let's call it The Prolixity Paradox.
In the domain of concepts, we have the Confidence Oxymoron: the more certain you are that you have the right idea, the less likely you are to improve your understanding. Put another way, the more confident you are that you understand, the less your confidence is justified.
Back to quantum mechanics. According to Richard Feynman, nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Let's apply the Confidence Oxymoron to that proposition. If you are sure that nobody understands quantum mechanics you are unlikely to get at the truth of the matter. Don't be so sure. Ask around. There might actually be somebody who understands.
To make the issue more confusing, the Prolixity Paradox suggests that Richard's use of the word 'understand' may be somewhat facile. What did he mean? We will never know, because he's not here to enlighten us. However, with a few words of our own we can get a better understanding of what it means to understand. I leave the dictionary definition up to you. I didn't find it very helpful.
Introspection got me a bit further. When presented with a novel experience or concept, I feel uneasy because I'm not sure what to do with it. I want to make it fit with what I already know because not knowing could get me in trouble, and not understanding makes me feel stupid. Understanding is satisfying.
I find that my mental unease can be improved in at least four ways.
(1) Find something I already understand that is similar to the novel discrepant thought.
(2) Revise my model of the universe to accommodate the new thought.
(3) Discount the evidence. Maybe the new thought is illusory.
(4) Discard the new idea as irrelevant. Some things just don't matter.
Richard Feynman used a fifth strategy. He dismissed our cognitive dissonance by assuring us that we have good company in our ignorance. It's OK to not understand because nobody else understands either. Sounds like church. We can get happily lost in the mystery together. Still it would be better to understand. I suspect that many scientists understand quantum mechanics using some mix of the strategies above. So I disagree with Richard Feynman. Am I not clever?
Nevertheless, quantum mechanics is a puzzle. Does anybody understand Schrodinger's cat; you know, the one in the box that is both alive and dead until you open the box? Never mind. I don't get it either. We can keep each other company in our ignorance. No nerds allowed here.
However, I imagine that somewhere there is a box with an idea in it. Maybe the idea is a good one or not; but if I trust it and don't peek in the box, it becomes a belief. Maybe my friends trust it too, providing group motivation and direction, making the activities of the group more focused and productive. We carry on blissfully as long as we don't peek in the box.
Now what if we get curious and open the box? What if our belief could be right or wrong or both at the same time depending on perspective? We may discover that what we believe is wrong, or not quite right, or it depends, which means we have to think differently and do things differently, and that's a bother. The group is aware of the risk of questioning beliefs. New understanding means lengthy discussions and disagreements because it threatens group solidarity and the credibility of authority. How can we do partisan politics or serious religion or applied science when people keep questioning their beliefs? So the group warns us away from opening the box, promising that if we take a peek, God or Trump or peer review will smite us.
It's nonsense, of course. Our job is to tease the error out of a belief and explore a new idea until we decide whether it is heresy or prophesy. It's hard, thankless work, but let the one who has never been curious cast the first aspersion. The smiting threat protects privileged authority by labelling beliefs as Absolute Truth when they are merely the price of membership, collectively maintaining our blissful ignorance so we don’t waste time discussing what we don’t understand.
As for Actual Truth, Moses had the right idea: it is what it is, although he got muddled a bit by using the subjective voice, “I Am what I Am,” wrapping the existential mystery in the familiar metaphor of intentional consciousness to make it comfortably comprehensible. Moses was unaware that consciousness didn't come into it until the last blink of 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution. When our species became conscious, we began collecting our favorite ideas in a box. Some of us were sure it was all about us, so like spoiled brats we began messing things up to make ourselves safe and comfortable. It will soon be over for people unless we pay attention to the uncertainty, get curious, understand things better, stop making it all about us, and quit messing things up.
Anyway, it will be what it will be.
This has been confident prolixity on quantum mechanics. I see you're out of coffee. Sorry. I do go on and on as if I knew what I was writing about. I thought I was sure about uncertainty, but now I'm not so sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think?