No Treacly Antidote
Harumph . . . I hate Physics, and I was contemplating this in the shower, today, for a random reason. Actually, let me be more accurate . . . I have no tolerance for Physics, and no respect for the Quantum brand. And, here’s my thesis statement: modern man uses quantum physics as a scientific religion of sorts, approaching the universe from a so-called intellectual perspective but with no more actual proof than traditional religion.
I’m pretty sure I hit on this idea before, in an old entry somewhere, but I am going to rehash it, anyway, because it’s on my mind; it’s intriguing, honestly, as I see it as a very distinct facet of the modern human mind.
Science is great, let me start by saying. I love science. Physics, and especially Quantum Physics, is philosophy, however, with scientific tendencies. Much in the same way that Psychology is an application of philosophy to theories of human biology (different topic, another time), Physics is an application of philosophy to the field of astrology. Most people seem to miss this, or out-and-out disagree with it, so Physics is treated as a science . . . Right, which I think is ridiculous, because out of all the hard sciences I’ve studied in my life, Physics has to be the most abstracted.
Sure, yes, there are a lot of aspects of Physics that are perfectly observable and empirically solid . . . Also, these selfsame aspects of Physics are nothing more than laws of mathematics applied to the world, and really aren’t any more of a science than mathematics is, since none of it can be applied to anything to produce a change or variant outcome. Yeah, we can account for these mathematical principles of Physics in scientific endeavours, but none of these principles will ever be altered nor alterable.
I suppose I differentiate between science and philosophy in an a slightly subjective manner, I should specify. Science, to me, can, for one, be used as a tool for the improvement of the world, and, for two, actually has ramifications in the physical world upon their discovery. Chemistry, especially pharmaceutical chemistry, has a very palpable usage in life. Biology, also, has a very tangible function in the world, that, with our knowledge of it today, has lead to some very positive advances in life. Physics . . . Quantum Physics, actually, has proven to be the most useless field of study in the scientific world, which is why I classify it as a religion.
The first law of Quantum Physics, the Law of Probability, basically states that we will never know anything for sure. Once observed, matter has already changed; once recorded in one state, atoms have already changed into another. Quantum Physics stems off of this idea, this theoretical assumption of universal uncertainty. So, in other words, everything in the realm of Quantum Physics is total postulation supported by partial evidence and inexplicable observations that display the proposed quality of the universe. It is a method in which we, as humans, strive to explain, or lay down a set of explanations, for something that, by its nature, can not be explained. Nothing in Quantum Physics can be seen to be real.
Given all of that, I would draw a very obvious (to me) parallel between that and the fundamental principles of the concept of a religion. A proposed set of ideals — an ideology — that can never, by its own admittance, be understood in its entirety, but incomprehensible phenomena and truths which capture only part of the whole give it legs. The primary argument I could see coming against this proposition of mine is that while Quantum Physics continually strives to place mathematical formulae to the universe and, thus, provide some basis for explanation, religion does not, in fact, do that; this argument would originate, undoubtedly, from someone who has never, or scarcely, put much interpretive thought into religion. Theology is as equally dynamic a field as Physics.
The first law of Quantum Physics is that everything is probable and possible. The foundation for any sort of definition of God is that He (She, or It) is the sum total of everything in the universe that is unknown or beyond human capacity.
What I think bothers me is that people who tout themselves as students of Physics never admit this distinction, unless they’ve actually grown beyond the study of Physics into something greater. Albert Einstein, for instance, was no physicist, he was a thinker; also, he had a lot to say about religion and science, with some of which I agree, and with some of which I disagree. But, he never did deny the lack of a religious purpose in science, either . . . Which is my biggest grievance with modern scientific thought, that there is no religion in it.
People will always, it seems, as they grow more advanced in intellectual pursuit, strive their hardest to draw barriers between themselves and their forbearers — much in the same vein as the theories of psychology regarding progeny and parents. We seek, as a race, to replace all the ways of the old, with what we perceive as newer, better mechanics and schools of thought. In the end, it’s overlooked that we’re only repackaging what was already known in a prettier, more acceptable box.
The sad truth of it all is that the human mind has a limit. We are bound by our nature, tied to our being, imprisoned by our brains. There is no escaping that law of the universe. The thought patterns and brain tissue we are expending today is the exact same ones that people were expending thousands of years ago. Of course, the big question is, the great inquisition, what is that limit? Where is that wall? How long until we actually can use all we have been given, and why can’t we, already? What is it in the design of the universe that has deigned it necessary for humankind to have a brain of which only a fraction is accessible?
You can deviate from the traditions of our forefathers and foremothers; strike out in what you think is a “brave, new pursuit,” blazing a virgin trial . . . Or you can expand on the already large body of knowledge we have to try and discover the great truths of the universe. Or do both, combining them into some sort of hybrid school of thought where religion and science co-exist. I would have to say the latter is my preferred choice, because it was Einstein who said, “Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.”
Adios.
I’m pretty sure I hit on this idea before, in an old entry somewhere, but I am going to rehash it, anyway, because it’s on my mind; it’s intriguing, honestly, as I see it as a very distinct facet of the modern human mind.
Science is great, let me start by saying. I love science. Physics, and especially Quantum Physics, is philosophy, however, with scientific tendencies. Much in the same way that Psychology is an application of philosophy to theories of human biology (different topic, another time), Physics is an application of philosophy to the field of astrology. Most people seem to miss this, or out-and-out disagree with it, so Physics is treated as a science . . . Right, which I think is ridiculous, because out of all the hard sciences I’ve studied in my life, Physics has to be the most abstracted.
Sure, yes, there are a lot of aspects of Physics that are perfectly observable and empirically solid . . . Also, these selfsame aspects of Physics are nothing more than laws of mathematics applied to the world, and really aren’t any more of a science than mathematics is, since none of it can be applied to anything to produce a change or variant outcome. Yeah, we can account for these mathematical principles of Physics in scientific endeavours, but none of these principles will ever be altered nor alterable.
I suppose I differentiate between science and philosophy in an a slightly subjective manner, I should specify. Science, to me, can, for one, be used as a tool for the improvement of the world, and, for two, actually has ramifications in the physical world upon their discovery. Chemistry, especially pharmaceutical chemistry, has a very palpable usage in life. Biology, also, has a very tangible function in the world, that, with our knowledge of it today, has lead to some very positive advances in life. Physics . . . Quantum Physics, actually, has proven to be the most useless field of study in the scientific world, which is why I classify it as a religion.
The first law of Quantum Physics, the Law of Probability, basically states that we will never know anything for sure. Once observed, matter has already changed; once recorded in one state, atoms have already changed into another. Quantum Physics stems off of this idea, this theoretical assumption of universal uncertainty. So, in other words, everything in the realm of Quantum Physics is total postulation supported by partial evidence and inexplicable observations that display the proposed quality of the universe. It is a method in which we, as humans, strive to explain, or lay down a set of explanations, for something that, by its nature, can not be explained. Nothing in Quantum Physics can be seen to be real.
Given all of that, I would draw a very obvious (to me) parallel between that and the fundamental principles of the concept of a religion. A proposed set of ideals — an ideology — that can never, by its own admittance, be understood in its entirety, but incomprehensible phenomena and truths which capture only part of the whole give it legs. The primary argument I could see coming against this proposition of mine is that while Quantum Physics continually strives to place mathematical formulae to the universe and, thus, provide some basis for explanation, religion does not, in fact, do that; this argument would originate, undoubtedly, from someone who has never, or scarcely, put much interpretive thought into religion. Theology is as equally dynamic a field as Physics.
The first law of Quantum Physics is that everything is probable and possible. The foundation for any sort of definition of God is that He (She, or It) is the sum total of everything in the universe that is unknown or beyond human capacity.
What I think bothers me is that people who tout themselves as students of Physics never admit this distinction, unless they’ve actually grown beyond the study of Physics into something greater. Albert Einstein, for instance, was no physicist, he was a thinker; also, he had a lot to say about religion and science, with some of which I agree, and with some of which I disagree. But, he never did deny the lack of a religious purpose in science, either . . . Which is my biggest grievance with modern scientific thought, that there is no religion in it.
People will always, it seems, as they grow more advanced in intellectual pursuit, strive their hardest to draw barriers between themselves and their forbearers — much in the same vein as the theories of psychology regarding progeny and parents. We seek, as a race, to replace all the ways of the old, with what we perceive as newer, better mechanics and schools of thought. In the end, it’s overlooked that we’re only repackaging what was already known in a prettier, more acceptable box.
The sad truth of it all is that the human mind has a limit. We are bound by our nature, tied to our being, imprisoned by our brains. There is no escaping that law of the universe. The thought patterns and brain tissue we are expending today is the exact same ones that people were expending thousands of years ago. Of course, the big question is, the great inquisition, what is that limit? Where is that wall? How long until we actually can use all we have been given, and why can’t we, already? What is it in the design of the universe that has deigned it necessary for humankind to have a brain of which only a fraction is accessible?
You can deviate from the traditions of our forefathers and foremothers; strike out in what you think is a “brave, new pursuit,” blazing a virgin trial . . . Or you can expand on the already large body of knowledge we have to try and discover the great truths of the universe. Or do both, combining them into some sort of hybrid school of thought where religion and science co-exist. I would have to say the latter is my preferred choice, because it was Einstein who said, “Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.”
Adios.
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
3:01 AM
3 Comments:
You should read The Tao of Physics. Interesting side-by-side comparison of Eastern religion (Hinduism and Buddhism in particular) and quantum physics.
And I did not sign my name. I am dumb.
--Bella
This thing you speak of doing, that is what I shall probably do. I've always found actual Physics texts and the such to be interesting, but mostly am annoyed by the presentation of the subject by schools and classes, and people in general.
Post a Comment
<< Home