collected writings

The Unification of Physics and Metaphysics

Should physics be surprising? This question speaks volumes about the current worldview in which science is deeply engrained, a world that walks a fine line between a Platonic world of pure forms that exists just beyond our grasp, and a more empirical viewpoint that the world only exists as we come to know it and experience it. There can be no resolve as to what the source and inspiration of our knowledge is, and this lack of understanding provides a weak axiom upon which all other scientific learning is founded. The concept of finding something "surprising" in physics introduces the idea that it is shocking that physics provides any answers (or models, or theories...) at all, and that we somehow might be less surprised to find solid answers from metaphysics, drug use or simple introspective thought. Physics should be able to answer all our questions and therefore it should not be surprising. As we will see later on, this may not necessarily be the case, but for now it is acceptable to assume that physics can eventually answer any and all questions that we might have.

There are surprising things about physics, but I think they operate at a very fundamental level; that is, physics is surprising because it is an adequate means for exploring the universe. That the universe is knowable at all is surprising. However, given that, new discoveries and theories in physics are not surprising. They are almost to be expected, once we have established the fact that knowledge does exist in some form. Where the knowledge comes from does not matter; there is no difference from our perspective if we are observing the world around us as we experience it or breaking through to a plain of pure shapes and equations. Although new theories may vary widely, the very fact that physics is possible is enough surprise in itself, and enough surprise for anyone. Therefore, I would be more inclined to answer the question as such: what do I find most exciting about the new thinking that has been presented in class and in the texts?

Much. I speak the truth when I say that I could just have easily devoted my life to theoretical astrophysics or cosmology rather than film and media. However, the physics that I grew up with is much closer to the topics introduced in class, concepts that operate on the fringe of human knowledge, than the laws and equations that are normally associated with science. To get to the frontier of knowledge through standard education takes a long time (most elementary physics books do not start off with a section on quantum theory), and as I have no taste for hierarchy, that path was not for me. Some of the material covered so far has been new, but a lot has been personal enrichment from a deeper and fuller understanding of theories that I already knew existed.

I think Einstein in particular, and several other theorists in general, would agree that the hardest part about being right is that not everybody knows it yet. The most exciting thing about physics is the continuing process of producing experimental data that agrees with modern theories. My direct field of study confirms this, as it is much easier to explain why a particular film is bad than to explain why a film is good. Likewise, science is based entirely upon proving things wrong as opposed to proving things right. However, failure to prove something right, or good, does not make it any less right. The idea of creating a theory to explain the way things are, and then finding mountains of evidence that provide unsanctioned support, would be the same as "proving" that a film is good. That idea appeals to me, because it would be then possible to follow a formula and make a good film, rather than avoiding the "bad" and hoping it turns out good. Stephen Hawking might call this a wormhole shortcut to the mind of god. We could then attempt to understand our universe from the ground up rather than being forced to reverse engineer everything.

Poetically, thought does travel faster than light, and when light catches up in the form of supporting evidence, good things start to happen. In the most beautiful instances, we can talk about the unification of different branches of science, such as the merger of the weak nuclear and electromagnetic force into a single force. Who knows what current thoughts will be fleshed out in the future...non-singularity Big Bangs that bounce through time and black hole producing universes could at one time in the future be distilled into full-fledged scientific theories. As we approach the intersection of physics and metaphysics, science (from my level) becomes more like watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos as a child rather than reading a physics textbook as an adult. It is exciting to think that concepts similar to and more exotic than current cheesy what-if questions (pointless musings like "what if the whole universe was a speck in somebody else's fingernail?") could in the future become a part of science itself.

Good art can be described as something making sense, or applying a modified anthropic principle, it works because if anything were left out or added, it would not work. The total is more than the sum of its parts. Scientists recently claimed to have unlocked the secret behind the seemingly random arrangement of rocks in the Zen garden of the Ryoanji Temple in Kyoto, Japan. They determined a scientifically valid reason why, if any rock were moved even slightly, the overall aesthetic appearance of the garden would be destroyed. Humans always have responded to things that are beautiful, and a plausible explanation as to why it is beautiful simply adds to its existence. (An article discussing the Zen temple study can be found at www.msnbc.com/news/812820.asp)

Likewise, in science, the boiling-down process of unification should, logically, create a single theory that would be more than the sum of its parts, whether these parts are Newton's laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. Math will be the medium in which this final theory is painted, and I think that when [if] it is found, scientists and amateurs alike will wonder how they did not see it framed and hanging on the wall of the universe.

A final Theory of Everything is a very impressive concept with which to grapple. Naturally, it would be difficult to predict exactly when and in what shape such a theory would come, but science is now at the point where it is safe to assume that we know we are getting closer. String (membrane) theory probably is not the answer, a more complete M Theory may not be right, but we now understand more about the question that we are trying to answer. Succinctly put in Jeopardy terms, the Theory of Everything should be questioned by "What is the full unification of the electroweak, strong, and gravitational forces?" as well as several other choice phrases incorporating all matter forms and an explanation for space-time itself. Exciting and impressive.

The more a potential Theory of Everything is used to answer metaphysical questions, the more impressive it gets, but also the more questions it raises. Scientifically, the universe expressed in a single equation would be the final answer in the long string of whys mentioned by Weinberg in his "Two Cheers for Reductionism" essay. We will have reached the limit of scientific knowledge, beyond which nothing can be known because there would be nothing to know. But why are the laws the way they are? Because they work. Why do they work? It turns out that there are more whys to be asked, but as we have established that such a Theory of Everything would be the end of science, these questions would have to be answered by different means. Science and humanity would turn to philosophy and religion for answers, answers for which there would be no proof. This is immensely unsatisfying to me personally, and there is no way around it.

Currently, the anthropic principle is the only means to put a stop to our questioning. By saying the universe is the way it is because it can support us to ask why it is the way it is, we can circumvent the problem, although not necessarily solve the underlying problem. The logic of the anthropic principle, circular thought it seems, does work out, however, it would require a paradigm shift for humans to accept that (or any) final a priori statement. Myself included. We are so use to constantly having the freedom to ask "why" time and time again in our reductionist mindset, that it would be quite unsettling to suddenly run into an immobile wall. To reach the point where physics and metaphysics touch would usher in a new period of existence for human thought, whether we would like it or not.

Weinberg also hit upon the idea that there probably will be a limit to human intelligence and comprehension. After all, we cannot expect dogs to fully understand classical physics, and there may be a point where we too are left behind, too limited in our minds to keep up with the universe. The question then, is, which will come first: the limit of scientific answers or our limit to comprehend them? It would be unfortunate if science went beyond where we could go, although it is also arrogant to assume that our understanding is more infinite than an already very large universe. Luckily, hubris is one of the things our species does best, and I think this confidence will pave a way to a complete understanding of the world. We have the ability to link our minds together via communication, and this larger network may indeed be powerful enough to plum the depths of the galaxies.

What we would see, at this final merger of science and philosophy, would be a return to Greek society, a world in which metaphysics and physics are one and the same, the unification of entire metagenres of human thought. Would this be followed then by reconciling aesthetics and politics, science and liberal arts? Or perhaps these mergers will raise new questions and create new avenues for thought, unlike anything of which we currently aware.