It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature
is. Physics concerns
what we say about Nature.
– Neils Bohr.
Neils Bohr was
a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic
structure and quantum theory. Although his model of the atom - a nucleus
surrounded by orbiting electrons in discrete energy levels - has been
supplanted by other models, another of his principles, complementarity, remains
valid.
Complementarity
is the idea that certain events can be analyzed into two different and opposite
descriptions. For example, depending upon how the physicist is viewing light,
it can be thought of either as a wave or as a stream of particles.
This
situation occurs because we have no word to describe a single event which
exhibits apparently mutually exclusive characteristics, consequently, we have a
difficult time imagining how such an event can be possible. As Bohr stated it,
“If anybody says he can think about quantum physics without getting giddy, that
only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.”
Complementarity
is not limited to the world of quantum physics; we frequently experience it in
the macro world. Suppose you suddenly find yourself unemployed because of
downsizing. After getting over the shock you can view this situation in one of
two ways:
a)
A calamity - What will I do without income? How will I eat? Where will I live?
b)
An opportunity - I can go back to school or hitchhike across Europe or write
the great American novel.
As
in the example of the dual qualities of light, the interpretation is dependent upon
how you view the situation. You might even change from one viewpoint to the
other at different times.
Another
example, this time from Mark Twain’s The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer, is the situation in which Tom sees Becky Thatcher
accidentally tear the schoolmaster’s anatomy book. Although he was upset with
Becky for her refusal to accept his apology for an earlier indiscretion, Tom’s
desire to see her punished was in direct conflict with the secret love he felt
for her. (Love won out).
For
other examples see any “horns of a dilemma” situation.
The
point of this discussion is to show that there are some things in the world to
which the rules of logic do not apply. Because the basis of our logic is the
English language, it is limited to the rules of that language. In particular,
two of the basic logical rules of English are:
1.)
The Law of Identity says that entity A is A and not non-A. In other words a dog
is a dog and not a cat, a tree is a tree and not a mouse, and in the case of
quantum physics, a wave is a wave and not a particle.
2.)
The Law of the Excluded Middle says if proposition A is true, the opposite
proposition cannot be true, i.e. if it’s true that entity A is a wave, the
proposition that A is a particle cannot be true.
In
this age of “reality,” we are beginning to realize that under certain
conditions the line from A to non-A, as well as the line from true to false,
can be a continuum. Perhaps the ideal resolution of a problem is neither A nor
non-A, neither true nor false, but somewhere in between. It’s the next step up
from complementarity, and it’s called “fuzzy logic.” It should probably be
called “reality logic.”
Another
of Bohr’s quotations was, “No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being
logical.” Now we know what he meant. Reality reminds me of a prairie dog
community: the deeper we dig, the more complicated it becomes.
It
boils down to this: Each of us tries to make sense of the world outside our
heads by creating a matching logical world inside our heads. As we have seen,
the logical world does not always match the real world, which on occasion can
get us into trouble.
The
same was true 2,000+ years ago; the early biblical writers were trying to
understand what they were seeing in the “outside” world. They truly were the
scientists of their day. However, they were saddled with two serious problems:
1.)
Their language was mired in the laws of logic.
2.)
They were the recipients of an age old tradition which attributed the workings
of the world to the activities of gods, and while they managed to eliminate
thousands of them by inventing monotheism, their progress reached a standstill
at that point.
Entities
were generally placed in either/or categories. From fig trees to individuals,
an object was either good or evil, and a proposition was either true or false.
There was no differentiation between a greater or lesser good; there were no
shades of gray. The authority for such discrimination was God himself. It’s
unfortunate they didn’t realize that God’s logic is the “fuzzy” type.
Don’t
misunderstand me, traditional logic still applies to many, if not most,
situations faced by people today. But we should always be aware that for any
given event, complementarity, or even fuzzy logic may be apropos.
My books, “There Are Only Seven Jokes” and
“The Spirit Runs Through It” are available in paperback
or Kindle at Amazon.
Comments
Post a Comment