Carlo Rovelli's Question: "Who grants me the reality of a chair?
Davin C. Enigl
By Davin C. Enigl
Introduction:
In the book Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale_ (2001) by
Craig Callender and Nick Huggett. And, in particular, Part 1 "Theories
of Quantum Gravity and their Philosophical Dimensions," esp. Chapter 4
by page 119 . . . Carlo Rovelli asked, "Who grants me the reality of
a chair?" Rovelli asked why is a chair any different from an
electron, when it comes to what is "real." I have an answer below,
using Eddington's "Super-Realism" and Karl Popper's world
differentiation.
Rovelli's question is basically part of "what is the status of
unobservables". E. D. Klemke addressed this question in Introductory
Reading in the Philosophy of Science (1998) p. 313. Klemke coined
"Super-Realism" to describe Sir Arthur Eddington's answer in his
(1928) The Nature of the Physical World gave:
"I have settled down to the task of writing these lectures and have
drawn up my [two] chairs to my two tables. Two tables! Yes; there
are duplicates of ever object about me -- two tables, two chairs, two
pens. "
"[Table No. 1, is the table of common sense] commonplace objects to
that environment which we call the world. . . . It is extension; it is
comparatively permanent, it is coloured; above all it is substantial."
"Table No. 2 is my scientific table. . . It does not belong to the
world previously mentioned [of Table No. 1]. . . My scientific table
is mostly emptiness. Sparsely scattered in the emptiness are numerous
electric charges rushing about with great speed; but there combined
bulk amounts to less than a billionth of bulk of the table itself. . .
There is nothing substantial about my second [scientific] table.
"It [the scientific table] is nearly all empty space pervaded . . . by
fields of force, but these are assigned to category of "influences",
not of "things."
[Most important, Eddington later in the same section said . . .]
"Science has at last revolted against attaching the exact knowledge
contained in there measurements to a traditional picture-gallery of
conceptions which convey no authentic information of the background
and obtrude irrelevancies into the scheme of knowledge."
-------------------------------------
Below, is my formulation of a "Four-World Pluralism" which is a form
of Eddington's Super-Realism and may be an answer to Rovelli's
question differentiating Realism from Idealism (anti-realism).
-------------------------------------
Four-World Pluralism:
Objective Subjective
_____| W 4 ^ v . . |_______|W4|_______
| Popper World 3a || Popper World 2a| W
Non-Physical | Theories of Math, Art || Understanding| o
| Science, Metaphysics || Decode |R
|____ ^ . . . v _____ || ^ v . . . _______|L
| Popper World 1 . Popper World 2b| D
Physical | Physical world > Perception | 4
| Popper World 3b . Encoding |
| Human Artifacts, Art < Action signals |
|__ . . . ________.______________|
| < v ^ > |
World 4
**********************************************************************
Notes on Enigl's Four-World Pluralism (2002)
------------------------
General Legend:
Disclaimer and Acknowledgement:
[Metaphysically this is similar to Kantian Transcendental Realism (as
opposed to anti-realism) but
is much more like Eddington's Super-Realism.]
1) This chart is much more complex that Popper's three-world pluralism
(see appendix, below). I have used four worlds (and incorporated
Popper's worlds) into the framework inspired by Bill Taylor's
"Bi-Dichotomy" quadrant system.
Interactions with World 4:
2) World 4 -- the transcendental world -- surrounds the outside of
the box of quadrants, see details below. Yet, it is still part of the
real world. I see it as what Rovelli calls part of a science theory's
explanation that "holds far beyond the regime" in which the theory has
been (or can be) tested.
3) The ventilated top denotes large expansion of World 3a into World
4 and large leakage of World 4 into World 3a. Interaction is active
between World 3a and World 4. Interaction is not humanly
controllable, but may be humanly detectable via metaphysical research
programmes especially those pertaining to science and art.
4) There is smaller leakage between (and smaller expansion) of World
2a, with World 4. Interaction is not humanly controllable, but may be
humanly detectable by Cognitive Science via Wolrd 3a, by probing in
World 1 through World 2b.
5) World 4 may or may not interact with World 1 and World 3b. This
interaction may or may not be humanly detectable. [Metaphysical
research programmes pertaining to science are possible, but so far,
unsuccessful. e.g., Quantum Gravity, Theory-of-Everything.]
Wall Description:
6) Note the double wall separating World 3a from World 2a. No
leakage and no interaction directly from World 3a and World 2a. All
communications are via World 2b's interaction with World 1 and World
2a. So, each world can change the others dynamically either directly
or indirectly (see World 4 interaction limitations below).
7) There is no solid wall between ~ World 1/W3b and World 2b, ~ World
1/W3b and ~ World 3a or, World 2a and 2b.
Overlap:
8) World 1 and World 3b inhabit the same quadrant. World 3a has
physical theories that explain W1 by mathematics, metric theories,
manifolds, General Relativity, Quantum Theory, over 40 theories of
(ten dimensionless parameters, parameterized post-Newtonian) gravity,
etc.
[Again, one world can change the other by interaction and overlap.]
------------------------
Abbreviations and Descriptions:
9) World 1 = W1 = part of the Real world = the physical (but not
materially " substantive") world of both observables (e.g. light,
wind, sound, odors, water, rock) and also, unobservables as described
(or explained) by World 3a such as gravity, eyesight,
electromagnetism, quantum gravity, H sub2O, atoms, electrons, General
Relativity theory.
10) World 2a = W2a = part of the Real world = The world of human
consciousness, "the human mind", decoding understanding of W2b's
encoded subjective data. Decoding mechanism is unknown, but may be
part of W4. Understanding mechanism of decoded data is unknown, but
may be part of W4. Mental objects are real and are manipulated here.
11) World 2b = W2b = part of the Real world = How the human mind
(W2a) links to the physical World, . . . is a link to W1's red, blue,
green.
Appearance, perceptions, encoding of appearance and mental objects.
Mental object are encoded here.
12) World 3a = W3a = part of the Real world = Human intellectual
"abstract" inventions are non-physically in World 3a but also
physically encoded in World 1 and can be retrieved via translation and
re-encoding in World 2b passed into World 2a's mechanism of
understanding.
13) World 3b = part of the Real world = Human physical artifacts,
human objects of invention.
14) World 4 = W4 = part of the Real world = But is non-physical,
non-objective, non-subjective, and may or may not be unknowable. W4
is the "transcendental" part of Reality. Leakage probably occurs as
previously speculated.
------------------------
Appendix:
+ W3a objects enter by creation in W2a, translation into subjective
mental encoded data in W2b and physically stored objectively in W1 as
a W3b object and non-physically objectively stored in W3a.
+ A.I. Note: Strong Artificial Intelligence programmes hope to
incorporate W3a's theoretical attempts at a "Theory of Everything" and
Cognitive Science's W3a theories, into one unified philosophy of mind
in the physical world W1 (e.g., materialism, physicalism, behaviorism,
Identity theory, parallelism). Then, there would be no barriers
between W2a, W2b, W3b and W1. W3a barrier would also be opened
further but not eliminated since W3a theories are fallible and
therefore might be wrong. It is unknown if this W3a programme will
result in a unified mind conjectural explanatory theory.
+ Observables vs. Unobservables:
Observables (entities or properties or W3b artifacts) are in World 1.
So, World 2b uses observable terms for encoding descriptions of
observations of World 1 (and World 3b artifacts) . . . vs. World 2b
uses theoretical terms of World 3a explanations of World 1, plus
theoretical terms of how World 3b artifacts work.
Examples: [Observable term vs. Unobservable term]
1) Wet stuff observed in World 1 is encoded by W2b as "water" vs.
"water" is explained by W2b's encoding of W3a's explanatory theory,
Hsub2O, molecules, atoms, charges, electrons, molecular bonds. That
is, W2b encodes according to World 3a's explanation of reality and
then this is decoded by W2a to get understanding.
2) Light with blue color in W1 (encoded by W2b) vs. photons,
frequency, biological eyesight theory (W3a's explanation)
3) A white line (W1) or water (W1) in a Wilson cloud chamber (W3b in
W1) vs. electron track (W3a)
4) Oblateness of Saturn (W1) vs. centrifugal force, inertia, gravity,
energy (W3a)
5) Wooden table (W1) vs. electromagnetism, atoms, biological cell
structure (W3a)
6) Bent light (W1) vs. warped spacetime moved a star's photons (W3a)
7) Water formed on the plants last night (W1) vs. condensation (W3a)
8) Picture (W3b) of long dark shadows on a lighter background (W1)
vs. X-ray image of biological bone structure (W3a)
9) Sound (W1), music (W3b) coming out of radio (W3b) vs. photons of a
frequency modulated "radio-wave" (W3a)
10) Things floating in what looks like water (W1) under a microscope
(W3b) vs. bacteria, yeast, biological cells, organelles, Brownian
motion, Einstein's classical explanation of Brownian motion, (W3a).
----------------------------------
Compare to Popper's Three Worlds:
World 1 Physical world ( matter and fields of force, human artifacts)
World 2 Mental world (mediated interaction from World 1 to World 3)
World 3 Human knowledge, artifacts (Often overlaps with World 1).
Each world can change (expand or contract) parts of the other worlds
dynamically.
-----------------------
Compare to Bill Taylor's Bi-Dichotomy: sci.logic thread "Some
Thoughts" On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:55:31 +0000 (UTC),
mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor).
-----------------------
James Hunter
"Davin C. Enigl" wrote:
> "It [the scientific table] is nearly all empty space pervaded . . . by
> fields of force, but these are assigned to category of "influences",
> not of "things."
>
> [Most important, Eddington later in the same section said . . .]
>
> "Science has at last revolted against attaching the exact knowledge
> contained in there measurements to a traditional picture-gallery of
> conceptions which convey no authentic information of the background
> and obtrude irrelevancies into the scheme of knowledge."
To understand a chair though, what "Science" needs
to revolt against at last is the *existence* of their "background".
Quantum Mechanics only shows that Zeno/Lucretius tarts
quite obviously have no sense of *INTELLIGENCE*
other than rambling kiss-butt wannabee philosophy.
Davin C. Enigl
<James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>"Davin C. Enigl" wrote:
>> [Most important, Eddington later in the same section said . . .]
>>
>> "Science has at last revolted against attaching the exact knowledge
>> contained in there measurements to a traditional picture-gallery of
>> conceptions which convey no authentic information of the background
>> and obtrude irrelevancies into the scheme of knowledge."
>
> To understand a chair though, what "Science" needs
> to revolt against at last is the *existence* of their "background".
> Quantum Mechanics . . .
1) Of course, nowadays *not* all quantum theories are background
dependent. Eddington wrote that quote in 1928, after all.
2) Decide for yourself, . . . read (unless already have) about this
at http://xxx.lanl.gov search for example papers by Rovelli, Smolin,
Isham, Butterfield. Or read the book I referenced: Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale_ (2001) by Craig Callender and Nick
Huggett.
3) 1) The rest of what you post is as ridiculous as it is useless.
Esse est percipi -- Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human
Knowledge (1710). I guess you don't care or can't try to help solve
the problem, or answer Rovelli's question.