Metaphysics

I’ve been grappling with the idea of weltanschauung as it relates to physics. The difficulty I’m having is trying to form a “comprehensive” conception of the universe from my admittedly limited four-dimensional perspective; the waters are further muddied when the uncertainty principal is factored in. From a poststructuralist perspective physics, which is the cornerstone on which contemporary science has been constructed, is predicated on a set of axiomatic assumptions that are highly questionable at best (though seldom questioned) and, upon close examination are almost certainly incomplete, wrong or overly simplistic. These most basic assumptions have only rarely been called to the mat, and when they have our entire weltanschauung has changed. Albert Einstein questioned the assumption that time was constant and the result was first special, then general relativity, a new assumption that humanity has yet to fully appreciate (or question).

All these basic truths that govern our perception of nature and our place in it, have arisen from observations of the natural world; observations which by the very process of observing change that which is being observed, therefore rendering the information obtained of unknown and perhaps very little value, as it is information of our own creation. This is uncertainty.

John Archibald Wheeler, one of the giants among American physicists wrote that, “Whatever can be, is. Furthermore, whatever can be, must be.” What Wheeler was getting at is the thermodynamic principle of entropy, that disorder or chaos must always increase in a closed system e.g. the universe. If the randomness of the universe is always increasing and the universe is infinite, then even occurrences of infinitely small probability must occur, given an infinite number of chances to occur. The implication of this, that anything not prohibited by the laws of nature must in fact exist, is profound when one considers how very little we sapiens know of the laws of nature, i.e. physics

So why bother about it? It is an attempt that all humans make, seeking answers to the unanswerable: Who are we? Where do we come from? What is the meaning of it all? Where do we go when we die? These questions, especially the last, are the provenance of cosmologists – those physicists that seek to understand the genesis, nature and future of the universe. Every religion has its own eschatology and science, especially physics, is no exception. Among cosmologist these “theological” debates are centered on issues of dark matter and dark energy, things that by definition can not be directly observed or experienced.

And what happens when this whole enchilada is confronted by a scientific terminator named God? When Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) showed Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics, Napoleon asked him what place God had in his theory. Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis. I prefer to take the position of Stephen Hawkins, and share his belief that God does not play dice with the universe. Perhaps there are just some things that I was not meant to understand.