Templeton winner and a fully described universe--NOT

Bernard d'Espagnat

I still maintain that this is a good prize. I think we will have to admit that we may be incapable of describing the whole universe and that some things will have to lie in the metaphysical.

"Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner"

by

David Lindley

March 16th, 2009

ScienceNOW Daily News

What is reality? French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, 87, has spent a lifetime grappling with this question. Over the years, he has developed the idea that the reality revealed by science offers only a "veiled" view of an underlying reality that science cannot access, and that the scientific view must take its place alongside the reality revealed by art, spirituality, and other forms of human inquiry. In recognition of these efforts, d'Espagnat has won this year's Templeton Prize, a £1 million ($1.4 million) award sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research at the intersection of science, philosophy, and religion.

In classical physics, what you see is what you get: Any measurement is presumed to reveal an intrinsic quality--mass, location, velocity--of the thing measured. But in quantum mechanics, things aren't so clear-cut. In general, the measurement of a quantum object can yield a range of possible outcomes, so that the original quantum state must be regarded as indefinite. More perplexing still are "entangled" states in which, despite being physically separated, two or more quantum objects remain linked, so that a measurement of one affects the measurements of the others....

Albert Einstein and others objected to the implications of these lines of thought and insisted that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory precisely because it did not support old-fashioned literal realism. But that's a lost cause, says d'Espagnat, who studied particle physics early in his career. Instead, he has concluded that physicists must abandon naïve realism and embrace a more sophisticated philosophy of reality. Quantum mechanics allows what d'Espagnat calls "weak objectivity," in that it predicts probabilities of observable phenomena in an indisputable way. But the inherent uncertainty of quantum measurements means that it is impossible to infer an unambiguous description of "reality as it really is," he says. He has proposed that behind measured phenomena exists what he calls a "veiled reality" that genuinely exists, independently of us, even though we lack the ability to fully describe it.

Asked whether that entails a kind of mysticism, d'Espagnat responds that "science isn't everything" and that we are already accustomed to the idea that "when we hear beautiful music, or see paintings, or read poetry, [we get] a faint glimpse of a reality that underlies empirical reality." In the possibility of a veiled reality that is perceived in different and fragmentary ways through science, art, and spirituality, d'Espagnat also sees, perhaps, a way to reconcile the apparently conflicting visions of reality that science and religion provide.

Arthur Fine of the University of Washington, Seattle, points out that these views--as d'Espagnat acknowledges--have their roots in Immanuel Kant's distinction between "a world of noumena, the essentially unknowable but real stuff, [and] the world of phenomena." But it's problematic, he notes, to think of noumenal concepts as having scientific value if you can't say precisely what they are.

D'Espagnat's writings on quantum mechanics lay out with great clarity the genuine puzzles that quantum mechanics presents, says Jeffrey Bub of the University of Maryland, College Park. But he's skeptical about finding common ground among notions of reality from art, science, and spirituality. As he puts it, if there's something about the physical world that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, "it doesn't follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry."



And now this may be a slick segway to an unusual section of what we cannot know about the universe and that lies with theology and for some, religion, and skillfully brought to the public by the likes of the venerable Rev. Billy Graham who is now retired and quite frail. Now, I do not subscribe to his religion but Graham did something quite unusual in 1964 with the release of a short [28 minute] film called Man in the 5th Dimension. Of course there was the plea to accept Jesus, etc but it is remarkable that Graham had embraced a bit of science and appears to intimate that all about the universe cannot be quantified by mankind. What is also unusual about this film is that was shot [Graham's World Wide Picture Company] and released in a new and popular motion picture format Todd-AO 70mm. Only 11 70mm prints were struck none of which have survived though there are 16mm prints and video copies available. The film ran from 10am to 10pm at the Billy Graham Pavilion during the 1964 New York World's Fair.

Todd-AO was one of many large format film projection systems that included Vistavision, CinemaScope, Panavision.

Todd-AO


Adjusted Physics?

Copernicus Center For Interdisciplinary Studies

Deceased--Sir John M. Templeton

Knowledge limitations

Palomar Observatory

PBS Palomar documentary

Templeton Prize...good idea; bad idea?

Knowledge limitations

"Ode On A Grecian Urn"
John Keats

Thou still unravished bride of quietness,
Thou foster child of silence and slow time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loath?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,
Pipe to the spirit dities of no tone.
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal---yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss
Forever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unweari-ed,
Forever piping songs forever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
Forever warm and still to be enjoyed,
Forever panting, and forever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloyed,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands dressed?
What little town by river or sea shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of this folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.
O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity. Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty"---that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Suppose you wake up tomorrow morning and turned on the radio to hear that everything about the universe had just been discovered while you were sleeping. What immediate and long range significant impact would it have on you? Would you be out of a job? Would the riddle of the universe become crystal clear? Would science now dictate your daily movements? Would you crave chocolate anymore? Would all human activities be altered? Would religious concepts change?

In a broader perspective perhaps these questions and points of view should be addressed. I suppose that it is characteristic of mankind to always ask “why” and seek those nearly unanswerable questions such as a gods existence or our relationship to the universe--are we alone? The empiricism of science would fully like to solve the questions and quantify everything even right down to the makeup of every individual. There is an assumption underlying the notion that knowledge of the universe CAN be quantified: That ONLY science can and should reveal the beauty and complexity of the universe. The assumption is biased and not necessary true for the universe may well be beyond the realm of human understanding--total knowledge of everything might impossible and we should merely be content to learn what we can and enjoy what we learn.
Perhaps the structure of the questions is just as important and actually finding the answers--sort of keeps the wheels of inquiry moving/always inquisitive. This would imply, of course, boundaries on the acquisition of knowledge and may not be totally bad thing.

The perpetuation of the notion of a single theory may be wishful thinking by many scientists and a reflection of a sociological/psychological characteristic of mankind: The quest for total completeness. There comes to mind two examples and, in no way, should a leap be made to correlate these examples to the notion that mankind yearns for completeness. Why do some people collect certain things to the point that they will part with any amount of cash to complete the whole collection. They must have the complete extant manuscripts of, say, Goethe’s writings or from the simple everyday encounter: There is offered a ten volume set of "funnel spiders". Volume one is nearly free [minus shipping and handling]. There sits volume one [maybe volumes two and three] and the “desire” is to have the whole set--the definitive collection of the "funnel spider". Frustration grasps the individual because it is incomplete...must have “all” ten volumes--then I will know everything about the "funnel spider". Maybe such mentality exists for those that promote and seek the single ultimate answer for the universe.

Prior to the establishment of a correct methodology of scientific investigation, it was common knowledge that a body of a very few could tap into the mysteries of life [the “Elixir of Life”] and the pursuit of the illusive transmutation of base metals into gold. These were the alchemists whose most notable representative was Nicholas Flammel. These were the first scientists and despite the graphic representations of the likes of a “Merlin the Magician” and old breaded guys sublimating mercury from gaseous retorts, they did establish a beginning of a genuine codified methodology of scientific investigation. Six hundred years later science is king of knowledge and technology. One wonders if society as a whole can keep up with science or whether science will [or must] slow down [cease]--reach a plateau and allow society to catch up. The wealth of knowledge may be too much for society to understand and extrapolate into the fabric of that society. It appears that gone are the days of an individual embracing the entire realm of science and that individuals who do science now are focused on one specific feature. And the thousands who are focused supply so much new knowledge that for many it is difficult to incorporate into societal body of knowledge. The cult of scientific knowledge can be overwhelming for many and perhaps the quantity of knowledge may be self limiting--an overflowing box of knowledge that no one can integrate. Doomed by our own success?

For further inquiry:

"Can We Really Understand The World?"

"Scientists Are Confronting the Unknowable"

"The Limits of Science"

"The Limits of Scientific Knowledge"

"The Limits To Science: If we demand certainty from science before setting policy, we ask too much of science and too little of policy makers"