By VINOD K. WADHAWAN - NIRMUKTA.COM
Added: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:07:55 UTC

Thanks to bala for the link.
original link

1.Preamble

As somebody said, science is what scientists do. And scientists are human too. Some of these humans have great difficulty in reconciling what science tells them with what they learnt from various sources when they were young and impressionable. So they may unconsciously look for ‘loopholes’ in the scientific premises and reasoning, particularly when it comes to fundamental = questions about life, mind, and the universe.

In science there is always a cutting edge, or the frontier line where things are hazy. There is debate among experts as various alternative models are compared and contrasted. The beauty of the scientific method is that it is ruthless and without regard for authority (but see below!). Truth prevails ultimately, sometimes after a prolonged debate about what is the best way of interpreting the available data. When more data come in, science has no difficulty in dumping even its most cherished theories if necessary.
...

1. The Copenhagen interpretation

There was this well-known debate between Einstein and Bohr about the foundations of quantum mechanics. Bohr’s viewpoint prevailed, and this gave him enormous, even undue, authority in scientific circles. If a proof is needed, look at the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ (CI) of quantum mechanics he gave in 1927, jointly with Heisenberg (another venerated scientist). According to the CI, people and the equipment they use exist in a classical world which is different from the quantum world. A quantum state is a superposition of two or more states, but when it interfaces with the classical world (at the moment of measurement), there is a collapse of the wave function (randomly) to one of the alternatives, and the other alternatives disappear. The CI was put in ‘by hand’ as an additional postulate of quantum mechanics.
...

1. Entanglement

Bohr, of course, was quite consistent in his views about the basics and limitations of quantum mechanics. This came to the fore again in his reaction to Einstein’s and others’ views on ‘quantum entanglement.’ Now this is another esoteric feature of quantum mechanics that challenges our intuition very seriously. And yet there is no immediate danger to the present edifice and acceptability of quantum theory. Why? The answer comes from experiment, namely the fact that quantum computing is already a reality.

The entanglement feature of quantum mechanics is about the spooky ‘action at a distance’: Two particles behave synchronously without any intermediary, no matter how far apart they are. This nonlocalityfeature bothered Einstein and others, as embodied in the famous EPR (Eistein-Podolsky-Rosen) thought experiment published in 1935 in a paper with title ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ EPR argued that the answer to the question is ‘No.’ They took the position that nonlocality is not something real, and therefore quantum mechanics does not provide a complete description of reality.
...

1. Ockham’s razor

The philosopher Ockham advocated the use of simplest possible explanations for natural phenomena: ‘Plurality should not be posited without necessity‘. The proverbial Ockham’s razor cuts away complicated and long explanations. Ockham declared that simple explanations are the most plausible.

In science, as also in mathematics, we always have some axioms to start with, from which we derive theorems etc. Axioms are something we accept without questioning. If we choose wrong axioms, we get theorems which contradict experiment, so this is not so serious a problem because it is self-correcting. The more serious problem is: How many axioms we should choose?
...

One can generalize and say that, in terms of computer algorithms, the best theory is that which requires the smallest computer program for calculating (and hence explaining) the observations. The more compact the theory, the smaller is the length of this computer program. Chaitin’s work has shown that the Ockham razor is not just a matter of philosophy; it has deep algorithmic-information underpinnings. If there are competing descriptions or theories of reality, the more compact one has a higher probability of being correct. Ockham’s razor cuts away all the flab.
...
In the Copenhagen interpretation described above, Bohr’s action of adding one more postulate or axiom by hand was unwarranted, as later developments in quantum theory have demonstrated.
...

1. Pseudoscientists

The narrative so far is enough to illustrate the difficulties we humans face in understanding the nature of reality with our limited collective intellect and other resources. But fortunately we scientists have with us the power of the scientific method of enquiry, which is no respecter of authority. As Bell’s work has shown, both Einstein and Bohr held wrong views about nonlocality. Good science is self-correcting.

There is so much that science cannot answer. But the big question is: Is there ANY other way of getting these answers? No. There is none.

Some questions are indeed very difficult to answer, but scientists keep trying. The incremental progress may be slow, but there is progress nevertheless.

The unfortunate fact of life is that not many humans have the requisite training and mental discipline demanded by the scientific method. They MUST have an answer always. If science cannot provide it at present, they do not have the patience to wait. They just invent answers by introducing more and more axioms (incidentally, this is what is done by most religions). Here is an example.

Deepak Chopra, a medical doctor, who also uses at times the language of quantum mechanics in his discourses and writings, posted an article on the Huffington Post. Here is an excerpt:

‘I consider myself scientific at heart, and so I depend upon a theory as well. Its basic premises are as follows:

1. We live in a universe that exhibits intelligence, self-regulation, and creativity.
2. Consciousness preceded the brain. It created life and went on to create the brain itself.
3. Consciousness is primary in the world; matter is secondary.
4. Evolution is conscious and therefore creative. It isn’t random.
5. At the source of creation one finds a field of pure awareness.
6. Pure awareness is the source of every manifest quality in the universe.’
   click here for full text

Anybody is welcome to subscribe to a theory of his/her choice. My response to the above statements is as follows:

1. It is only a belief.
2. What is the basis for making this assertion?
3. Again just a belief.
4. Prove it.
5. Just wishful thinking.
   

What can any scientist do with the kind of ‘theory’ Chopra subscribes to? I want to invoke Ockham’s razor. If you introduce as many axioms or premises as Chopra wants to, then there is just about nothing left to be derived from those axioms. Practically everything is axiomatic in this ‘theory.’ Ockham’s razor will make mincemeat of Chopra’s set of premises!

Chopra goes on to give a list of questions which science cannot answer at present. So what? Is there ANY better way of getting those answers?

Chopra uses the word ‘consciousness’ again and again. I draw the attention of the reader to my article here.

As I argue there, it is not possible to define consciousness in an unambiguous scientific way. How do we discuss it and investigate it when there is no agreement on what that word really means?

There is nothing sacrosanct about the set of axioms and premises on which modern science is based. Any other set of axioms can be fine if it leads to theorems and conclusions and intellectual progress better than what the existing science has achieved. Deepak Chopra’s set of premises is quite typical of the thinking to which even some scientists subscribe. These people usually are apologists for their religious beliefs. I want to suggest something to them. Why not try to build up the edifice of a self-consistent parallel science based on such axioms? Take the axioms of your choice, and take as many as you want (or rather as few as you can), and see if you can produce something superior to the existing scientific framework. If you succeed, I shall be the first one to proudly walk over to your camp. Why only me? The whole of the existing structure of science will just fade away, because it would have been superseded by something superior.

1. Concluding remarks

   • The scientific method is among the greatest achievements of the human mind.
   • Science is impersonal, but scientists are not. Scientists come in all shapes, sizes, conditionings, egos, and biases. Their subjectivity does slow down the progress of science, but not for long. Ultimately the best theory prevails.
   • Even the best scientific theory holds only till a better one comes along. Scientists have no compunction about dumping their pet theories in favour of better ones. This is true intellectual humility, not commonly seen in non-scientific or unscientific circles.
   • All those who love and respect science should try to ensure that it is not hijacked by pseudoscientists to meet their covert or overt agendas.
   • Some questions are inherently very difficult to answer. But there is NO method other than the scientific method for getting the answers.

continue reading...

TAGGED: -, IRRATIONALITY