Reality is like a piece of cloth, it seems
I am currently reading �The Fabric of Reality� by theoretical physicist from Oxford University David Deutsch. As an exercise, I will try and provide a comprehensive review of it, probably through this blog, in several editions, then put it together as a single document. This time, though, I give some first impressions.
David Deutsch is a strong proponent of the �many worlds� interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, as opposed to the �Copenhagen� interpretation. He also works in the field of quantum computation - researching the development of quantum computers.
In this book, first published in 1997, he argues for a kind of �Theory of Everything� - but not in the usual sense of an all encompassing unification of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, gravity and how it all may have got started in the big bang. He has a broader vision of weaving the four �strands� of quantum physics, epistemology, the theory of computation and the theory of evolution into a �fabric of reality�.
The overall impression I have formed of the book is in agreement with the back-cover reviews:
�A tremendously exciting book� - Douglas Adams
�One of Britain�s most original thinkers. In this major work David Deutsch confronts the deepest questions of existence head on ... I haven�t been so inspired since I read Douglas Hofstadtler�s G�del, Escher Bach� - Paul Davies.
As I continue to read, I can see that he is very good at explaining the science. One of the best I�ve seen, in fact. I am much more dubious, however, when he starts to draw philosophical conclusions from the science. He seems to hold a �realist� position (there really are many universes out there, and we call the whole thing a �multiverse�; there really are such things as electrons and bosons etc...). This might be contrasted with Stephen Hawking�s philosophical position as a self confessed �positivist� (I don�t care if its really like this, I don�t even think it makes sense to ask, but the maths works).
Examples of this are(p48): �The key fact is that a real, tangible photon behaves differently according to what paths are open, elswhere in the apparatus, for something to travel along and eventually intercept the tangible photon. Something does travel along those paths, and to refuse to call it �real� is merely to play with words.� And a bit later �it is only what really happens that can cause other things to really happen�.
He wants to draw a distinction between a scientific theory as an �explanation� versus a scientific theory as merely a useful tool for prediction. He thinks a good theory is one that provides a �good� explanation. It seems to me he is just blowing smoke, as I cannot see any interesting difference between the word �theory� and �explanation� in the context he is using. You replace the word �explanation� with the word �theory� throughout the book, and you wouldn�t notice any change in meaning. So what is a good theory? - well one that provides a good explanation! And how do we distinguish a good one from a bad one? Well accurate prediction is helpful here, apparently!
This is just the sort of thinking that leads to the arrogance of science - a kind of belief that the knowledge gained through scientific methods is somehow �real�, and thus has higher status than knowledge gained through �non-scientific�methods. Well that�s mytheory explanation, anyway.
More later.
I am currently reading �The Fabric of Reality� by theoretical physicist from Oxford University David Deutsch. As an exercise, I will try and provide a comprehensive review of it, probably through this blog, in several editions, then put it together as a single document. This time, though, I give some first impressions.
David Deutsch is a strong proponent of the �many worlds� interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, as opposed to the �Copenhagen� interpretation. He also works in the field of quantum computation - researching the development of quantum computers.
In this book, first published in 1997, he argues for a kind of �Theory of Everything� - but not in the usual sense of an all encompassing unification of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, gravity and how it all may have got started in the big bang. He has a broader vision of weaving the four �strands� of quantum physics, epistemology, the theory of computation and the theory of evolution into a �fabric of reality�.
The overall impression I have formed of the book is in agreement with the back-cover reviews:
�A tremendously exciting book� - Douglas Adams
�One of Britain�s most original thinkers. In this major work David Deutsch confronts the deepest questions of existence head on ... I haven�t been so inspired since I read Douglas Hofstadtler�s G�del, Escher Bach� - Paul Davies.
As I continue to read, I can see that he is very good at explaining the science. One of the best I�ve seen, in fact. I am much more dubious, however, when he starts to draw philosophical conclusions from the science. He seems to hold a �realist� position (there really are many universes out there, and we call the whole thing a �multiverse�; there really are such things as electrons and bosons etc...). This might be contrasted with Stephen Hawking�s philosophical position as a self confessed �positivist� (I don�t care if its really like this, I don�t even think it makes sense to ask, but the maths works).
Examples of this are(p48): �The key fact is that a real, tangible photon behaves differently according to what paths are open, elswhere in the apparatus, for something to travel along and eventually intercept the tangible photon. Something does travel along those paths, and to refuse to call it �real� is merely to play with words.� And a bit later �it is only what really happens that can cause other things to really happen�.
He wants to draw a distinction between a scientific theory as an �explanation� versus a scientific theory as merely a useful tool for prediction. He thinks a good theory is one that provides a �good� explanation. It seems to me he is just blowing smoke, as I cannot see any interesting difference between the word �theory� and �explanation� in the context he is using. You replace the word �explanation� with the word �theory� throughout the book, and you wouldn�t notice any change in meaning. So what is a good theory? - well one that provides a good explanation! And how do we distinguish a good one from a bad one? Well accurate prediction is helpful here, apparently!
This is just the sort of thinking that leads to the arrogance of science - a kind of belief that the knowledge gained through scientific methods is somehow �real�, and thus has higher status than knowledge gained through �non-scientific�methods. Well that�s my
More later.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home