All Things In One

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.” — Albert Einstein

Watch the above YouTube video for context. The conversation between these two intellectuals provides, at least for me, a host of interesting topics and questions to think and write about. Many of these ideas have been circling around in my head for some time, but these snippets allow me to focus my thinking a little more clearly, similar in a way to being a part of the conversation itself.

The core question being asked here by Dawkins is, I posit, being formulated and asked in error.

With the virgin birth for example, Dawkins, and many others likewise for whom he is currently being voice, is pushing Peterson to make a statement about whether or not he believes that Mary was actually a virgin in the biological (“factual”) sense when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth. Similar questions could be asked about the resurrection of Jesus from a factual, biological point of view. Did Jesus actually die biologically and then come back to life biologically?

Why does Dr. Peterson have a hard time answering such questions? Surely they are framed in such a way that he understands their intent. Alex does a good job of pushing him on this, to which Dr. Peterson does finally admit that he does not know if they are true in the spirit in which they are being asked.

Let’s flip that same line of questioning around for a little bit, and see what the logical conclusion is from the scientific point of view.

Mock Interview

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “Do you believe that a photon, a quanta of light actually exists?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “I guess I’m not totally sure what question you are asking. Are you asking whether or not experimental observation suggests the existence of a photon as we conceptualize it?”

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “What I’m asking is whether or not you believe in the actual existence in the real universe of quanta of light, or a light particle?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “Again, I’m not totally following the question. We have models of the universe that use a concept called a photon which is a quantization of the light field. This evolved from more classical descriptions of light that are also valid under certain circumstances. Are you asking whether I believe that our symbolic representation of a photon is exactly observable in the universe directly? I’m not sure what that means, even. We don’t usually directly observe our conceptual models in the world; we are only able to observe things by measurement proxy. For example, the classic photoelectric effect experiments, which Einstein later described with light quanta, did not directly observe a photon in the way you’re asking.”

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “I’m not quite sure why it’s so hard for you to answer the question. All I’m asking is whether or not you believe that factually a light quanta, a photon, is real or not? Why are you being so evasive about answering the question?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “Well, as a trained scientist I’m not really qualified to tell you whether or not the symbols we use are exactly replicated in the physical world. I’m not sure anyone really can. I mean, that’s not at all the appropriate question for the scientific endeavor.”

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “Well, why is that not an appropriate question? You talk about the validity, power, and accuracy of these scientific models and predictions all the time. How can you be promulgating these if you can’t even answer the simple question of whether or not you believe that a light quanta actually exists?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “Well, listen here sonny. Science is a very particular craft, and you’re asking me questions that are outside of the particulars of that craft. Let me tell you what I can really say to you with confidence. We have models of the physical universe. These models are symbolic representations that we use to make sense of what we observe occur in reality. These models are not reality, but if we are smart, with some inspiration, probably a good deal of luck, and a whole lot of hard work, we stumble on some representations that are provably accurate under certain conditions and therefore useful. I can show you the evidence, repeatably collected, along with calculations of uncertainty, that some of these models describe the physical world quite well. Some of them describe specific phenomena in the world with extremely good accuracy. Almost all of the models also fail miserably under other conditions. But that’s not an answer to your question. I have no damned idea, buddy, whether or not that means that the symbols and models we have are in all actuality existent in the universe. But my gut feeling is probably that they are not.”

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “I don’t understand why you need such a long-winded reply to answer such a basic question. Do you believe that light quanta exist in factual reality or not?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “I guess if you’re pushing me to make a statement that narrowly, all I can say is that I don’t know. But what I do know, because it’s the only thing I can provide evidence of, is that the models and symbolic representations make highly accurate predictions of the real world.”

Skeptic to Dr. Scientist, “So what you’re really saying is that you don’t know?”

Answer from Dr. Scientist, “I guess that’s right.”

End Mock Interview

The problem we have in the scientific community is one of dishonesty, really. We do not teach students anymore that science is not real; science is an endeavor to explain and predict the physical universe using abstract symbolic representations created by the human mind. We’ve increasingly used the word true to describe those abstractions that are the most accurate and predictive and seem to fail under the smallest set of conditions. But that word, true, may suggest many things to many people, and to some it has come to mean that the symbols themselves are real.

It’s quite obvious that those abstractions, the symbols and models, are not themselves real, and that logical conclusion does not invalidate the usefulness and predictive capability of those abstractions. In this way, Dawkins and others like him are putting any other symbolic religious representations to a standard that they themselves cannot reasonably live by.

In fact, one may argue that the most fundamental claim of Christianity is more provably true, at least in theory whether or not one believes the evidence presented. This of course is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It is much easier to convince yourself that the person standing next to you is real than it is to convince yourself that a light quanta (not just merely light) is real. I hope that statement is not controversial, although I’m certain some will take it up as a point of contention.

However, if you and your friends saw and physically handled the living, breathing, talking body of a person you knew with certainty had been dead for the past 36-ish hours, would you be able to say with some level of certainty that they were now alive? And what if this person spent some good time with you over the next days and weeks, having conversation and even eating with you? Would that convince you that their biological viability had returned, however miraculously?

Would it be mysterious? Certainly. Would it be against all logic? Definitely. But probably not much more or less mysterious and unintuitive than the workings of quantum electrodynamics. Would your uncertainty be less than a hair’s width over the width of North America? How uncertain are you that the closest living person to you in your life is alive biologically? Is it less than a hair’s width over the width of North America? I know what my answer is. I hope you do too.