Metaphysical “Choices” – Holism

Waterspout

What are the physical laws explaining how convection ovens operate? How do hurricanes form in such a predictably orderly (and deadly) pattern? You might be surprised scientists cannot fully explain these phenomena. Thus the metaphysical topic of Holism.

Holism itself makes the basic assertion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying something non-material affects the outcome of certain systems. The closely related concept of non-separability generally asserts that the state of the whole is not constituted by the states of its parts. Both terms try to address a phenomena involving the spontaneous generation of degrees of order well outside predicted causality.

Examples of holism are often found in dissipative systems, in which an open system is operating outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Specific examples of dissipative systems include convection, turbulent flow, cyclones, hurricanes and living organisms. These systems exchange energy and entropy with their environment in order to maintain a high degree of internal order in the system.

The basic question about these dissipative systems is whether a “bottoms-up” causality drives the apparent order of the system, or do “top-down” constraints restrict the action of the system. Causality could come from the still mysterious mechanisms at the quantum level, including entanglement. Constraints could come from a physical law we have yet to discover, or influence from another undiscovered dimension(s).

Another example of holism is the observed spontaneous generation of order in computerized models of logical networks. To illustrate this example scientists use an array of light bulbs, each with only an on and off option. The array starts off in a random pattern of illumination and then evolves in steps according to some simple rules, which express the logical structure of the network. If 10,000 bulbs are in the array, a limit of about 300 states of the system is observed, instead of the trillions of possibilities. The deterministic nature of logical networks implies the observed holistic order is generated from the bottom-up, even if the phenomena can best be described from the top down.

There are multiple approaches addressing these phenomena, which include methodological, metaphysical and property/ relational holism; state, spatial and spatial-temporal non-separatism.

Why is all this important? Well, for a few reasons that impact our fundamental understanding of reality. The “open future” Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the reason for so many theories about holism. The alternative deterministic interpretation of Bohm explains holism due to hidden information embedded within wavelengths. So if you believe in an open, indeterminate future, then you need to explain the phenomena of holism.

Holism is also important because subjects that focus on complex systems like thermodynamics rest on assumptions about how these systems should operate. If these basic assumptions prove inaccurate, the science behind these systems may lose some of their explanatory power. Lastly, metaphysical theories about time rest partially on thermodynamic theories and thus may impact these theories as well.

I know, I’m going deep on some of this stuff but I’m seeking to understand what is real in this world, and then apply it to the world in Evolved. Since I “chose” a Bohm explanation for the world in Evolved, implying the perceived three spatial dimensions of reality are deterministic, holism is largely explained.

A Few Theories on Holism and Non-separatism

Methodological holism argues some systems are better analyzed as a whole, rather than its counter-point the more typical methodological reductionism. Scientists instinctively fall in the reductionism camp as they seek to explain the “how” of quantum physics.

Methodological Holism: An understanding of a certain kind of complex system is best sought at the level of principles governing the behavior of the whole system, and not at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Methodological Reductionism: An understanding of a complex system is best sought at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Moving past methodological arguments, metaphysical holism argues the nature of some wholes are not determined by its parts. In other words, metaphysical argues we are missing something outside our scientific theories. There are three theories as to why this may be true.

Ontological Holism: Some objects are not wholly composed of basic physical parts.

Property Holism: Some objects have properties that are not determined by physical properties of their basic physical parts.

Nomological Holism: Some objects obey laws that are not determined by fundamental physical laws governing the structure and behavior of their basic physical parts.

Assuming our existing scientific theories capture the reality of these systems, Property Holism basically argues the theories are incomplete. This approach takes us into central issues of quantum physics. Property Holism breaks down into two opposing camps:

Physical Property Determination: Every qualitative intrinsic physical property and relation of a set of physical objects from any domain D subject only to type P processes supervenes on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts relative to D and P.

Physical Property Holism: There is some set of physical objects from a domain D subject only to type P processes, not all of whose qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations supervene on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts (relative to D and P).

There are many more theories that consider the issue from multiple angles. For further reading, I suggest reviewing Stanford’s Philosophy reference.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Chance and Causality

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When researching and writing Evolved a great deal of thought went into metaphysical questions about reality. After all, the setting is a couple thousand years in the future and the topography of the universe (explained in the book) should fit within current scientific theories and philosophies.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Scientists tend to overlook it, but it illuminates the assumptions we make about our reality, as well as the holes in current scientific theories. Questions about causality, cosmology, time, and consciousness have consumed much of my thoughts even after writing Evolved.

Structuring the overlapping and conflicting arguments about each of these topics has been a challenge. In addition, all of these questions force a deeper dive into quantum physics (the apparent root system of our reality), and even slivers within the overall field like quantum statistical mechanics. My path over the past few years has been equal parts of befuddlement and enlightenment. A few books I have read half a dozen times in an effort to fully appreciate the author’s wisdom.

At some point one has to put a stake in the ground and begin building a world around it. Let me start with the stake planted around causality. In Evolved, humanity believes in an open future, a Neils Bohr reality (explained below) and one in which humanity has control over its choices (free will) and real chance exists. The mechanism I use in the book to explain the mechanism behind the measurement problem is cosmological in nature to allow for this metaphysical existence.

My protagonist, however, comes to believe humanity exists in a deterministic world, a David Bohm world (explained below). Part of his challenge is to overcome the deterministic nature of the physical world to save humanity’s apparently preset course of destruction. The mechanism to allow for this level of control also comes from a cosmological theory. With that, a little explanation of quantum mechanics is in order.

From a quantum perspective there are two ways of looking at our reality, and it involves the uncertainty associated with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The fundamental question about the probabilities found at the quantum level is whether they simply reflect ignorance or an indeterminate reality.

Niels Bohr is one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum probabilities. This interpretation of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is that we understand quantum wave lengths completely, but they are not deterministic. Most scientists intuitively favor this interpretation because it depicts a world of becoming, allowing for an open future, or indeterminate reality. In other words, chance is allowed for within this interpretation, which is seemingly supported by observation and mathematical constructs like chaos theory.

Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation leaves some puzzles. Foremost is the measurement problem. The theory enables extremely accurate predictions of relative probabilities at the quantum level based on deterministic wave functions calculations, but we do not understand the actual process that provides a seemingly indeterminate definitive answer on each occasion of measurement. In other words, what is the mechanism that allows for this indeterminate reality?

David Albert takes a stab at this mechanism in his book Time and Chance. Dr. Albert lays out the challenge of finding the mechanism within the Copenhagen interpretation.

The idea … is to stick with the standard way of thinking about what it means to be in a superposition, and to stick with the idea that a quantum-mechanical wave function amounts, all by itself, to a complete description of a physical system, and to account for the emergence of determinate outcomes of experiments … by means of explicit violations of the deterministic differential equations of motion, and to try to develop some precise idea of the circumstances under which those violations occur. – David Z. Albert

Dr. Albert offers one fully worked out scientific solution, which involves the GRW theory. Within this theory the wave function of a single particle almost always evolves according to linear deterministic equations of motion, except for a probability within the wave function itself for a random localization of the particle to occur. Furthermore, the effects of these “jumps” will convert superpositions of macroscopically different states in a way consistent with standard-mechanical probabilities. This mechanism allows for real dynamical chance to enter into scientific discussion and our observable reality.

David Bohm, on the other hand, produced a complete quantum theory arguing the probabilities reflect our ignorance about the complete nature of the quantum mechanical wave function. Bohm argued wave functions act like force fields, guiding the particle along a particular course. In this sense our spatial reality is fully deterministic since the wave function is deterministic. Or, in other words, the future movement of every particle can be calculated into the future if we had a complete understanding of the wave function. In this theory, chance does not exist.

Another set of theories fall into modal interpretations, which differentiate between dynamical state (determines what may be the case) and the value state (represents what is actually occurring). Since the dynamical state always evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, the evolution of our reality is entirely deterministic within these modal interpretations. Only the probabilities associated with the value state are real dynamical chances.

Quantum decoherence was developed by David Bohm. The theory does not explain a mechanism for the wave function collapse, but instead a mechanism for the appearance of the collapse. The appearance is due to “leaking” of quantum information into the environment so that the superposition of the wavelength exists, but beyond our ability to measure it. Decoherence became fundamental to Hugh Everett’s many-world interpretation and has been incorporated into various theories. Since decoherence does not provide an actual mechanism, it cannot offer an opening for chance to enter into our reality.

So with that it should be obvious it remains an open question as to what the probabilities of quantum mechanics mean. We naturally prefer to think of ourselves in control, with free will. It is decidedly unwelcome to consider the possibility that we live in a deterministic reality. But that, to me, is a fun avenue to explore since it will make the reader uncomfortable and force more consideration about ourselves.

One last note. I am by no means an expert on quantum physics or philosophy. So please leave a comment if you believe I am wrong on a theory, or misrepresented an argument.