The Copernican revolution shifted the center of the universe, the perspective from which we can access the essential laws of nature, from the earth to the sun. Giordano Bruno was more profoundly revolutionary: he proposed that the universe does not have a center!
I would like to propose a similar scientific revolution. The center being debated by Ptolemy and Copernicus and Bruno is a location in space. The starting point that Richard Behiel is referring to in the video is not a location in space but a state of matter, in particular a state of absence of matter. From a vacuum, the fundamental, essential laws of nature become apparent. Purity reveals essence. I want to argue that purity is not any particular state. It is true that some situations have a kind of purity that allows clearer revelations of natural law. But there are very many such pure situations, each revealing their own particular species of natural law. There is no uniquely pure situation, no uniquely essential natural law.
I first understood this from reading the book Elementary Excitations in Solids by David Pines. The pure situation here is a crystal, a regular arrangement of atoms. In a crystal, the sorts of elementary particles one finds are different from those found in a vacuum. The most basic such particle is a phonon, the quantum unit of a sound wave. There is no sound in a vacuum!
Our starting points for causal analyses are very diverse. If my automobile engine is mis-firing and I want to understand why, to trace the causal chain back to the big bang through the supernovas that created the metal atoms that condensed to form the earth from which the ore was extracted to allow the casting of the engine block that is mis-firing... however accurate this analysis might be, its complexity is not likely to point me to the need to replace the spark plugs! Instead, the pure state that I should start with would be a properly functioning engine. I can then look at how a disruption to that pure state, e.g. fouled spark plugs, can lead to observed effects like mis-firing.
Physics is the cornerstone scientific discipline, and science is the cornerstone discipline of modern times. The idea that an isolated clean state is the purity on which our analyses should be founded, this is the radicalism that becomes translated onto the political plane. The French Revolution is the paradigm case. The calendar and the units of measure were restructured from rational principles, cut off from tradition. The isolated clean starting point is remote from the tangled web of our immediate experience. We have prioritized what is distant over what is near.
This is not a sustainable approach to managing the world. What we neglect inevitably declines. If that decline really matters, we will generally pick up the pain signal, turn our attention to the decline, and take corrective action. But if we have a strong bias, if we are wearing blinkers that restrict our analyses to remote perspectives, our lack of attention can allow the decline to intensify to the point where it becomes much more difficult to correct.
We can think of earth as just one planet among many: this is a perspective that prioritizes the remote. From this perspective, what happens on earth is not very important. If we think of earth as our home, as our life support system, then what happens on earth is not so remote. It becomes important to look for ways to correct any declines we might observe; it becomes important to pay attention to any possible declines.
A physics-based approach to healthcare is also problematic. We can think of human functioning as some kind of swirling bag of chemicals. A human being is very far from the clean pure state of a vacuum! We can try to understand a disease as a pattern of biochemical reactions, but just to understand health as a pattern of biochemical reactions is already a challenge that is beyond our forseeable grasp. But we can shift our perspective to health as itself a pure state, and study the natural laws that are revealed from that perspective. It's not that the biochemical perspective is wrong - my point is that the biochemical perspective is not uniquely right. There are many sorts of pure states, each providing a perspective that can reveal natural laws specific to it.
Looking at Jupiter through a telescope, one can see its moons orbiting around it. Jupiter and its moons form an orbital system. It is natural to take Jupiter as the center of the universe when studying the orbits of its moons. In just this way, the pure system which can be disrupted, the effects of whose disruptions we can observe: what we should see as a pure system will depend on the problems that we are encountering. If we can remain sensitive to problems and able to shift perspectives so we can analyze problems relative to a normal functioning, where that relationship connects to our ability to respond, then our analyses can empower us to steer away from disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment