On Idols, Emptiness, and Relativity

[Balder]

This evening, I came across an online copy of an essay on emptiness and relativity that I referenced several times on the old IPS (I believe in my discussion with Gregory Desilet), so I thought I'd post a copy of it here: Emptiness and Relativity, by David Ritz Finkelstein.  I'll copy the first few pages below and will attach the full essay in PDF.

 

~*~

 

"1 Relativity and interactivity
The Buddhist principle that all is empty is understood by some as the principle
that all is relative [Thurman (1993)]. This universal relativity principle is more
embracing though less structured than Einstein’s general relativity principle,
which still admits many absolutes. It is worth considering seriously. A philosophical
argument for a universal relativity could be a useful guide for future
physics. The major changes in physics in this century have been extensions
of relativity at one level or another, and I think a further extension is due, at
an even deeper level of physics than the previous. Philosophical inquiry has
aided such extensions before, and it could do so again. I consider here whether
such a universal relativity principle can be meaningful and perhaps even work
in physics.

For a physical theory one must be more specific about the nature of the
relation that is mentioned but not specified in the broad term “relativity.” The
relation that special relativity refers to, for example, is that between observers
in relative motion, and one studies the effect of this relation upon the basic
relation of being in communication, for example by exchanging signals.
The relativity underlying quantum theory, however, is that between observers
of complementary quantities. Different experimenters choose fundamentally
different interactions with the system and experience different aspects of
its activity. Interaction is a lower-level concept than communication, in that
every communication is made up of interactions. The relativity of quantum
physics is deeper than those of space-time physics.

Therefore in what follows I often specialize “relative” to “interactive” and
relativity to interactivity.

Is it indeed possible that all is interactive? How far have we already gone in
that direction? What absolutes remain?

My main tool here is an analysis of classical relativity by In¨on¨u and Wigner
(1952), derived from a still deeper study of Segal (1951), which shows us by
example how to detect possible false absolutes and relativize them.
The main absolute of physics today that we will discuss is the dynamical
law, also called the law of nature, describing how the system develops in time.
I consider the possibility that we should relativize dynamical law much as Einstein
relativized geometric law in general relativity; and even take it as the sole
variable under study, as Einstein did for geometric law in his unified field theory.
Such a more relativistic space-time-matter-dynamics unity might embrace
general relativity and the standard model and reach beyond them.

2 Idols
Let me indicate how I use three terms basic to this discussion. Relativity is the
part of any physical theory that concerns how appearance — the phenomenon
— depends on the observer. An absolute property or entity — a noumenon —
is one whose presence or absence all experimenters are supposed to agree on,
though they may name it differently. Reification is imagining an absolute entity
where there is none. An idol, in the language of Francis Bacon (1620), is a false
absolute resulting from reification. “Idols of the tribe” are those common to
a whole community, such as those resulting from innate propensities to reify.
“Idols of the theater” are those erected within a particular theory. I find it
necessary to regard idols as an inevitable and useful product of the same theorymaking
process that breaks them. It is naive to imagine that this process of
idoloclasty can ever be completed.

Relativity came to the foreground in the mechanical physical theories of
projectiles and planets, where one must relate observers in relative motion.
For example, Johannes Kepler wrote an entire relativistic science-fiction
novel, Somnium, just to relate the views of people on the Moon to those of
people on Earth, to oppose the common sense that the Earth was at absolute
rest with the equally common sense of Lunarians that the Moon is at rest. On
the grounds of his relativistic manuscript Kepler’s mother was charged with
witchcraft and exposed to the instruments of torture. Bruno was burned at
the stake and Galileo was confined to house arrest for their similar relativisms.
Einstein, on the other hand, was rewarded for an even greater relativism. The
intellectual climate is clearly changing.

Nevertheless physics once again runs into idols that block its development.
We can spot these idols using a detection system that Segal (1951) and
In¨on¨u and Wigner (1952) formulated and applied to classical mechanics and
other physical theories. I describe it first and then apply it to present physical
theory.

One looks for partially but incompletely fused constructs. The mathematical
term for these is non-semisimple. For euphony I call them compound. I count as
a construct an entity of any kind that everyone in a community can experience,
such as an electron, or the Moon, or the time of day, as opposed to chimerae
or optical illusions. A construct is called simple in this context if it includes
no other construct (except the trivial ones: itself and constants). It is called
semi-simple if it is simple or equivalent to a collection of simple constructs. It
is called compound if it is not semi-simple.

A compound construct results when one simple construct has subordinated
another without fully integrating it. A compound construct looks like a snake
that has just swallowed a pig. A strong attachment has been formed but full
integration has yet to come. A compound construct is a sign of an impending
revolution.

Inonu and Wigner applied their criterion only to classical mechanics, where
the diagnosis could be checked against the already known outcome. This tested
the test more than the theory. The I-W (Inonu-Wigner) test passed its test, by
“predicting” the evolution of the relativity of Galileo into special relativity.
The compound construct of classical mechanics that they studied is space/time.
The solidus in “space/time” indicates a compound composite, not a quotient.
Simple fusions like Einsteinian “space-time” are marked with a hyphen.
The Galilean compound space/time forms from the Aristotelian simple time
and simple space when time “swallows” space. That is, in Galilean thought
there is no space separate from time; we cannot recognize the same place at a
different time, and to speak of it has no meaning; but there is still time within
space-time, and still a unique space at each time, a time-slice of the tree of
history. Galileo has absolute time and space/time but no absolute space.
Space/time is therefore not a composite of two simples, space and time. Yet
it contains the simple time. Space/time is therefore compound.
To put it differently, In¨on¨u and Wigner look for a one-way coupling between
constructs. The snake swallows the pig and not the pig the snake. In trans-
forming from one observer to another in relative motion, Galileo couples time
into space but not conversely. Another way to say that space/time is compound,
then, is to say that there is this one-way space/time coupling under
transformations from one observer to another.

This could have hinted to Galileo or a contemporary that there is likely a
missing physical constant coupling space back to time; a speed c, therefore. The
speed c would have to be so large that the effect of this coupling from space to
time, an effect which must vary as 1/c, could elude physicists in Galileo’s lowspeed
day. But if it were not too large, it could become important later, when
experimenters develop greater relative velocities and more sensitive instruments.
The coupling constant c “predicted” by the I-W test is the speed of light.
Such one-way coupling generally indicates a compound and is circumstantial
evidence that the unresponsive partner in the coupling is an idol. The guiding
heuristic principle underlying the I-W test is that actual couplings are always
mutual. This mutuality principle is not Newton’s physical principle of action
and reaction but might be its philosophical grandmother. I find it plausible
enough to explore its implications here and elsewhere, leaving experiment as
the court of last appeal.

The more evolved construct, the space-time point of Einstein and Minkowski,
is simple, with no non-trivial parts. This is the evolution of Galileo’s space/time
“predicted” by the I-W test in retrospect. Galileo had shown that space was an
invalid reification. Einstein’s development showed that time was too. Aristotle’s
two uncoupled absolutes, space|time, had evolved through the compound
space/time of Galileo into the one absolute space-time of Einstein.
The I-W test can show us a possible idol and it can suggest the kind of
reverse coupling to look for experimentally, but it gives no indication of how
strong this coupling might be, except that it must be weak enough to have
been overlooked so far. The actual size of the new coupling coefficient must be
learned from experiments that invalidate the theory containing the idol under
study.

It sometimes happens that one relativistic evolution compounds previous
simples, and then another later evolution simplifies that compound, but creates
other complications at the same time. Galilean space/time is the transitional
phase between Aristotelian space|time, the semisimple conjunction of
two separate simple space and time entities, and Einstein space-time. Einstein
space-time preserves other complications that I mention below.
It took thousands of years to lower the gang-plank in space|time half way
down, making space/time, and only two centuries more to drop it completely
to form space-time. The pace picks up, with prior relativizations helping each
next one. To develop skill and confidence with our idol test I will apply it to
three more relativizations that occurred in the first three decades of the twentieth
century before tackling one of the next millenium. I omit some important
relativizations that are not crucial for the story." ~ David Finkelstein

 

(Essay continued in PDF below)

[Edward theurj Berge]

Reification is imagining an absolute entity where there is none. An idol, in the language of Francis Bacon (1620), is a false absolute resulting from reification.... A compound construct results when one simple construct has subordinated another without fully integrating it.... A strong attachment has been formed but full integration has yet to come. A compound construct is a sign of an impending revolution.

I don't understand the physics but the above reminds me of my criticism of kennilingus and MHC reified absolutes--we might even call them American Idols--that subordinate relative parts without full integration. And the intergraal revolution is upon us.