|
Firstly, it is a fact that any human society exists in a reality that is to a significant degree socially constructed. Psychology experiments show that most people, and not necessarily the least intelligent, will tend to believe the word of a group of people even if what they say is contrary to the evidence of the senses. The 'truths' we live by are often lies or, at least, half truths that are believed simply because convention deems them to be true. Paradigm shifts or revolutions in human thought occur when new insights into the nature of reality change the way the population of a particular society perceives reality. An old map of the territory that is reality is replaced by a newer and more accurate map. Ideally. The movie claims to reveal new information on the nature of reality with important religious implications. However the slant that the movie puts on this paradigm shift is, I believe, of a dubious nature. In a supposed illustration of the creative power of Mind part of the movie tells the story of a talented but psychologically troubled woman. The movie claims that modern physics reveals that the universe entails an infinite number of possibilities from which the individual can, as a matter of basic principle, freely chose if only she could see through her cultural limitations. Similarly the fact that mind exists leads to the assertion that we all have total responsibility for our mental states. So we, each of us, create ourselves? … and the universe in which we live? Let us first examine the concept of a universe of infinite possibilities. If an event with one of two possible outcomes can occur at the level of physical reality that is meaningfully described by quantum mechanics then the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics would hold that the universe will divide into two parallel universes identical in all respects except that in one universe outcome 1 will be manifest and in the second universe outcome 2 will be manifest. This is the 'many worlds' answer to the measurement problem. There is a separate space-time continuum for every such possible event. But what is really at issue is that the event-outcome in question exists, objectively, in 'this' universe independent of any observer. There may be many 'worlds' but in each of these 'worlds' the world can exist without reference to an observer, a mind. While the mathematical analysis involved in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is relatively simple most physicists reject it as a technical possibility but incorrect in fact. A basic scientific tenet is that the universe is not an absurd place and the many, many worlds demanded by this form of analysis make most scientists opt for what is called the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in spite of the more complicated mathematics required by this approach. Here only one 'world' exists but an event of the above kind can only be said to have occurred when evidence of the event interacts with an observing mind. A non-material mind is indispensable to this model of reality. Let me illustrate. Isaac Newton in the 17th century postulated that atoms were tiny indestructible spherical objects and, indeed, this model of what atoms actually are is accurate enough, and therefore useful, for a wide range of practical applications, such as, for example, fluid mechanics. In a 'stab in the dark' Newton guessed that light was similarly composed of discreet corpuscles. In 1830 Charles Young devised an experiment, the 'Young's Slits experiment', which demonstrated that light was in fact composed of waves. Q.E.D. However, and here the plot thickens, Albert Einstein, in 1906, devised an experiment, the 'Photoelectric Effect experiment', which demonstrated that light was composed of discrete particles. It was for this rather than for Relativity Theory that Einstein received the Noble Prize. Light is, it seems, is both composed of waves and particles at one and the same time. A particle is something situated in a discreet area of space and a wave is, well, the exact and diametric opposite. Wave-particle duality. I have read narrative accounts of more advanced physics which state that whenever a physicist asks reality a question by way of a rigorous experiment, reality will respond with a paradox. Is Schrödinger's' cat alive or dead? This is quite different to a universe with an infinite number of possibilities. My choice to regard light as being composed of, say, waves will be actualised if and only if I analyse the light with appropriate experimental equipment. Similarly for the particle option. Other options do not exist. And the light shining on this page as I write is simply light. I do not chose the nature of light simply by an act of my will but by rigorous investigation. But within the context of mainstream physics mind is considered to be a fundamental aspect in the analysis of reality. Within the discipline of the philosophy of mind Drs. Paul and Paula Churchland advocate an extreme form of materialism: eliminative materialism. Referring to a dubious conception of the science of material reality they advocate that mind must be explainable in material terms; to even think in terms of having a mind is an exercise in superstition. Brain chemistry is all. Accordingly they claim that E.M. solves the mystery of mental illness by arguing that to even consider research into any form of mental therapy other than chemical therapy is absurd, as absurd as advocating research into the effect of evil spirits on mental health. That mind, or 'spirit', really does exist and influences physical reality has a basic input into any conception of personhood; the importance of this to psychiatric practice is just an illustration of this point. I have often heard Buddhists claim that we chose the characteristics we are born with as well as our parents and all the other characteristics which most would consider a lottery. To claim we chose such things is almost fundamentally unprovable even if true. Buddhism, with its emphasis on the alleviation of suffering, might seek to make us accepting of what we cannot control. Recently I saw a television program on identical twins, separated at birth, who met in their late 40's. Both were almost absurdly happy by 'nature'. Whether by karma or genetic lottery we all carry baggage not really of our choosing or, at least, chosen on another plane of existence. Every person, every "I", will relate to, and interact with, the rest of a universe that is "not-I" in an ongoing process which creates each identity. That mind is a pivotal factor in the make up of the human person makes a strong case for the validity of a, broadly defined, psychotherapeutic approach to mental health but this does not deny the existence of the physical. However, as the movie ends the 'troubled but talented' woman dispenses with her 'anti-anxiety' tablets and solves her problems by putting a spring in her step confident that she is, not only her own creator, but also the creator of her universe. Here the voice-over in the film spoke of the possible tapping of a vast, but vaguely defined, potential. I couldn't help but think that this potential was more of an economic nature and that the real issue here was the lack of use value to the capitalist system of one whose productivity might be impaired in this manner. It is often remarked that the new physics describes a world view similar to that described by eastern religious thought. The new physics creates the back-drop to much that is valuable in New Age thinking and the paradigm shift associated with this cultural change. However there is a decadent form of Protestantism, a pseudo-Protestantism that has long lost touch with the Bible, which holds that knowledge is generated by inner conviction. It is this view which the film actually advocates despite its science grounded New Age affectations. A fact, it seems, is any statement deemed to be a fact; and this is so, not so much regardless of the actual truth, but that there is no truth other than unsubstantiated opinion. Single minded determination may sometimes be praiseworthy when following a particular course of action but this is a different matter to pigheadedly holding a statement to be factually true without evidence. The level of socio-political clout available to an individual would of course have an effect on the acceptance of a belief as being true by a society or sub-culture. But the appropriate science for the analysis of this aspect of reality is sociology not physics. What is involved here is what is perceived as true and the political processes by which any particular perception is implemented in a culture through the flow of political power across that society. What the (bleep!) do we know? In this sense it really can be anything we chose. However a map of this nature made by these processes may have little to do with reality as it actually is and, accordingly, may have little to do with actual human needs but, rather, with the needs of the power structure. While improvements in maps of reality may tend towards increased accuracy there is really no limit on to how inaccurate one may be. Who decides what we know?
Brendan Burke MA(Phil.) |