Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998
Physics and Philosophy
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>From David Harriman:
>Physics necessarily rests on the foundation provided by
>metaphysics and epistemology. Objectivists do not arbitrarily
>impose philosophy on physics. Knowledge is hierarchical, and
>physics presupposes philosophy. The only question is: which
>philosophy do we choose as the proper foundation for physics?
>The fundamentals of 20th century physics are based on Kant's
>philosophy. Since Kant was wrong, so is modern physics.
While I agree with David Harriman in the abstract -- to the
extent modern physics is based on corrupt philosophy -- I think
it's important to differentiate modern philosophy's corruption
of physics from the original theory presented by certain
physicists. In many cases, it is these further "extrapolations"
of the original physicists that should be called into question.
Einstein, himself, fought against his "inheritors" for some of
their strange *misrepresentations* of his theory; and the same
can be said of quantum mechanics, which took a turn for the
worse with the Copenhagen interpretation, an interpretation
Schrodinger despised.
Regarding Relativity, Einstein was the first physicist to
introduce the idea of a *metaphysical limit* on how fast things
could travel; and explored the effects that would occur if this
limit were attempted to be reached. Though he gave no causal
explanation for this phenomena, he has to be given credit for
re-introducing a metaphysical principle -- i.e. the law of
identity and the limits it places *everywhere*. If the law of
identity covers *everything*, then some seemingly strange things
are going to have to occur as these limits are reached. One may
disagree with some of his terminology, but real effects *must*
occur, or existence has no identity.
Regarding quantum physics, the Schrodinger Wave equation
correctly predicts the paths of particles in a wide variety of
situations, and this is because it was based on facts.
Schrodinger thought it was due to real waves on the quantum
level, but was overridden by those who took his equation and
said it had no referent in existence -- i.e. the idea that there
can be no real quantum waves because that would introduce
"hidden variables."
In short, let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the
bath water, as we attempt to clean up the mess left over by
modern philosophy. The proper approach would be to find the
cause(s) behind the observed and *predictable* phenomena --
predicted by Einstein, Schrodinger, and others who were more
rational than their contemporaries, but had no explicit rational
*philosophy*, such as Objectivism, to back them up all the way.
I think an investigation of what is in-between matter separated
by a spatial distance is the right approach -- i.e. the aether.
Whatever it turns out to be, it is a real thing with real
properties that has a real identity. A real identity means it
will impose real limits to the way matter behaves, and will be
the causal explanation physicists have long ago given up the
search for.
