One marvels at the following letter to The New York Review of Books, from one Clinton C. James of
Sylvania, Georgia in response to a piece by the N.Y.U. Law School professor and
philosopher Thomas Nagel. The letter from James and Nagel’s response appear
under the title, “Quantum Idealism?” in the 1/19/17 issue of the journal. James writes, “Thomas Nagel suggests, perhaps inadvertently, in his
review of Anthony Gottlieb’s The Dream of
Enlightenment (NYR, September 29,
2016) that modern physics, specifically quantum mechanics, can only be
interpreted as a theory of materialistic Hobbesian naturalism. Certainly
professor Nagel is aware that the ontological status of quantum mechanics, the
supposed theory of physical reality, is far from settled among physicists.” You might want to have your dictionary at hand, but you don’t have to understand
anything about physics or philosophy to realize the brilliance of the
formulation. The “key words” here are “materialism” and “ontology.” Materialism
of course refers to what one can see and feel, the meat and potatoes of life.
When you think about Newton’s formula for gravity and the anecdote of the
apple, you’re thinking about a scientific theory based on the observation of
physical reality. But matters in the quantum world of tiny particles are not
always so visible and also do not participate in such easy to parse
conceptions. For instance the notion an electron can be at two locations simultaneously is counterintuitive. Here quantum matters verge on the
ontological, to the extent that they question the nature of being. Is this what
Mr. James is getting at? Maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.