Physics and Numbers

We began this introduction by talking about how physics began as philosophy, a sort of thinking that tries to understand things more deeply, and doesn't have a results-oriented focus. But soon the first natural philosophers crossed a divide which continues to separate physics and all the sciences from philosophy. This divide has three hallmarks: experimental observation of nature's actual behavior, complete control over experiments including the ability to repeat them at will, and always using numbers to describe nature. We started by talking about experimental observation, and more recently discussed the focus on experimental control, how it results in a corresponding narrowing of "scientific truth" to those things that can be controlled and repeated at will, and how it unfortunately can be part of a vicious cycle which focuses on power and abuses both man and nature. Now we will turn to the third hallmark of natural philosophy: its focus on numbers.

Numbers and the things we can do with them will be the daily bread of the rest of this blog. (That's why I discussed this hallmark last.) But before we get to know numbers I want to point out that there is a great mystery here: why are numbers useful for describing nature? Certainly this doesn't seem like a mystery today, when the success of numbers is a fact of life. The movie reproductions we watch via DVD or high definition television are composed of billions of numbers; indeed any image can be represented by numbers, as are the voice signals that we listen to on our cell phones and the songs we listen to on CDs. Mapquest and GPS have quantified our moving around: 5.3 miles north, then turn right and 1.4 miles east. And time also: we watches to tell the exact date and time. Clearly numbers have been very very successful, but their success alone does not explain why you're successful. If we think that the utility of numbers is obvious, it is only because we are prejudiced by our daily experience.

The Defects of Physics

I submit to you my reader that physics and indeed all the sciences contain certain built-in defects which are at the source of the abuses of power over people and nature which have arisen in modern times. Shortly we'll start trying to get to know physics' defects better, which in my opinion have a lot to do with experimental control, and its close connection with power. But first I want to clarify the big picture; here I go: Physics is good, but it has certain defects. Physics can do and already has done tremendous good for us, but if its thinking and results are embraced with naive enthusiasm, without discernment, then our own thinking and heart and actions can be distorted by physics' defects. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that there can be a vicious cycle where the shadows in the human heart and the defects of physics amplify each other. At each stage in the vicious cycle we become both crazier and more dangerous. The results have already been catastrophic for both the human race and the environment.

A few analogies may be helpful to understand my point on a more visceral level. The first is from nutrition: starchy foods are very good for us, the staple food of the human race. But if I eat only starch then I will get very sick and perhaps die. The starch must be eaten discerningly, mixed with other things. Another analogy is that of a tainted well: the water is absolutely necessary for life, but if you don't filter it you will eventually sicken. If the impurity is lead, then the tainted water will actually taste sweeter than the healthy water. Physics is like that.

I don't think that the filtering, discernment, or nutritional supplements can come from physics itself. Physics' weaknesses come from a sort of tunnel vision associated with its starting goals, passion, and identity. You have to be able to see outside the tunnel, take a step away from physics' focus, find a balance, and let physics find its correct place instead of taking over.

Control Over Experiments - Reaffirming the Value of Physics

I think it is clear that natural philosophy, physics, experiments, and science in general have their value. It is good to learn about nature, to understand it, even just to admire it - and we certain see nature with more detail and precision, and understand it better, than we did four centuries ago. Experiments and emphasis on reproducible scientific knowledge have made important contributions to the human race. Our possibilities individually and as a race have been considerably altered through the mass production of various technological devices, and natural philosophy is certainly one of the springs feeding the technological river.

Control Over Experiments - Is Physics Innocent?

There are several deficiencies in the arguments which have been used to wash physics' hands entirely of all responsibility for the abuses of power over people and nature which have arisen in modern times. Those arguing for the innocence of the scientific method emphasize science's search for knowledge, and make a sharp distinction between those searching for knowledge (scientists) and those using it (everyone else.) There are other very significant deficiencies: (a) A lot more time and excitement is given to knowledge per se than to nature, almost as if nature itself were less interesting than our ideas about it. (b) Faith in Progress (advances of science, discovery, technology, paradigm shifts, frontiers) - faith that progress is happening, that science is (the) key for carrying it forward, that progress is a good in and of itself, and that progress is sure (the provisos vary) to help the human race ("quality of life".) (c) A tendency to take full credit for the glory of the modern age while downplaying the broken-ness and horrors. (d) Underemphasis, lip service to, or neglect of the liberal arts, humanistic, religious, and social values, as if science were the cornerstone of all learning and intellectual pursuits. (e) A very simplified and even neutered perception of nature. (I remember an intelligent colleague arguing at length that animated movies are steadily looking more and more like real life, and that pretty soon it will be impossible to tell the difference between an animated movie and a filmed one! One glance out my window at the snow melting off winter trees is enough to disprove that thesis.) There can also be a tendency to accuse anyone with a less black and white attitude of being anti-science.

Control Over Experiments - Respect For Nature?

Physicists are saying to nature "Surprise me, tell me something more about yourself, but do it while following these rules." (If you were asked for the same question, how much would you tell?) And the surprise that nature gives us, the gift of new knowledge - it then becomes "ours," and gives us new power over nature. At least one writer compares scientific experiment to "putting nature on the rack" to force her to divulge her secrets. It is possible to pursue the scientific endeavour in a way that really respects and treasures the nature that is being studied, but for many researchers the attitude has been more a pursuit of dominance, an effort to conquer nature and bend her to our will. If the truth be told all too many individual scientists, like so many other hard workers in today's competitive economy, are obsessed with their own personal success, and nature is their tool for getting there. This tendency is magnified by the current alignment between the scientific community and the power centers of government, business, consumer markets, and military machines.

If there is an analogy between love and the experimentalist's attentive observation of the world (as I claimed earlier in this blog), this analogy has its limits, because all too often the end result has been something that looks a lot more like rape than like peaceful harmony. In the small it looks like plastic wrappers in the trash and children and old people alike wasting away in front of TVs; in the large it looks like a planet whose species are devastated, whose hidden treasures are excavated, pumped, and burned, and whose peoples destroy and enslave each other with the most advanced technologies.

Is this tendency for science to result in the abuse of persons and of the environment something external to physics (as many scientists would like to think) or built into physics from its very foundations?