So I can't tell you how irritating David Deutsche's book is without first stating that i come at it from a passionate positive position.
I always get a little worried when an author effusively thanks Richard Dawkins in their introduction...Deutsche does it twice. So it was with a little trepidation that i began and was almost immediately comforted by his focus on emergence as a core idea in modern scientific world view. I also thought his discussion of deep meaning in theoretical frameworks (although i did wonder why he didn't reference Axiomatic philosophy outright as he should do) was excellent but then the problems started...
Deutsche begins his section on Quantum Theory using the analogy favoured by Faraday of a single candle. However, rather than looking at how quantum mechanics is downright weird and currently says more about our inability to really understand reality (my view) he uses it as an excuse for declaring that Many Worlds theory is the interpretation of the phenomena and that his analogy PROVES that to be the case.
His analogy is ridiculously weak and his concept of shadow photons painfully flawed but he states, ever so humbly, that if you disagree with him it's not because you might have a reasonable alternative or because you're looking at the world differently but because you're not actually interested in the truth. Who the hell does he think he is? After spending a couple of dozen pages telling us that proper scientific theories only make sense when placed within narratives (well he calls them explanatory frameworks but interpretation's medium is narrative so lets call it what it is) he has the gall to suggest that anyone who doesn't believe his story is simply without integrity??? Wow, well i guess we know where this is going.
Where does one even start destroying this edifice of self belief? I honestly don't know...it's like arguing with someone who believes the world's only 4000 years old. Do we start with the fact that there are, at current count, in excess of 16 self consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics? That he doesn't recognise a philosophical question when it's head-butting him? Or do we dismantle his incoherent analogy for parallel universes - that saying that a finite number of shadow photons represent different universes where the SAME laws of physics obtain but particles are in different places but then explaining that in order for shadow photons to interfere with tangible ones as he says they do then the particles have to be in EXACTLY the same places in every universe at a specific moment of measurement??? There's at least two logical fallacies in that sentence by the way.
Good grief this is bad stuff. I wonder if Paul Davies even read the book he's quoted as loving on the front cover.
Deutsche is an undoubtedly brilliant physicist but his weltanschauung is constructed poorly at every conceivable level, remains his alone and is hardly the only logical inference from the scientific theories and facts. I just can't believe how annoyed I am at such a wasted chance - the chance to help people understand that science is about interpretation, it's not reductionistic at its best, that we should all be learning about the concept of emergence and that what we believe about how the universe works is a competitive field where no one idea ever seems to win except that it's replaced and humbled all the while allowing us to do things our forefathers never even dreamed the gods could do.
Sigh.
Right, so I've read the rest now. Here's his thesis - that because systems all seem to behave in similar structural ways they must reveal the true nature of reality. Well, perhaps.
That because his view of Parallel Worlds fits that theory it MUST be true. Well, perhaps. And frankly, who even cares?
That there is nothing more. Well, perhaps.
That the mind isn't the centre of reality generation. Well, probably. But D'uh!
I don't quite understand what's happened here. Is it that Deutsche is surrounded by people who haven't got as much self-belief as him and so can't get through to him that he comes across so poorly? It is that he's so locked up in an Ivory Tower that the rest of the world seems a distant trifle to be patronised? I just don't get how someone so obviously brilliant comes across so badly but so genuinely seems to believe the philosophical nonsense he's peddling?
What if he called me on this? What if he said - right mate, you're so clever - lay it out. Really it all comes down to this:
1. Our understanding of the cosmos (many-world or not) is fractured and infantile. It's not even certain that the same laws of physics apply throughout this universe let alone speculating about what's going on in others.
2. Emergent phenomena are pretty hard for us to understand and we should be a bit more cautious about our realisation that they're everywhere - is that more revealing about our cultural processes and man's ability to see similar patterns in disparate entities than revelatory about reality?
3. I'm really very glad he disses Logical Positivism. I just wish he'd step away from actually believing it. It's all very well to describe the (strong) version and ridicule it but his is just the weak version dressed up as 'objective thinking'. Always worry about people who claim to be giving you the facts - especially when they say their interpretation of a set of facts is a "bigger truth".
This post is already too long so I'll stop. Suffice it to say I think this book conflicts with just about my whole view of the universe from a philosophical perspective but that the science is sound (at least as far as it's described). I can neither recommend it (cos I didn't like it) but I can't say stay away from it (because my dislike is so personal). Hah, so much for this being a review then.
No comments:
Post a Comment