What do we really know?

Letters from O'Brien #4

Dear Mr Smith,

Please forgive me for imposing myself upon you once again and so soon after my last letter. It seems this is a time when many thoughts are going though my head and I find it therapeutic to write them down, while concurrently forging a closer relationship with you I hope. Anyway, I’ve been thinking about what it is that we really know. I mean there’s a lot of ‘science’ talk that seems to convey a sense of absolute certainty of this thing or that. But how certain are we? Human biology is an extremely complex topic and the sub-units, for example immunity, is mind boggling complex and non-linear. What do we really know and how certain can we be?

As a human being one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists. If such humility could be conveyed to everybody, the world of human activities would be more appealing. (Albert Einstein - letter to Queen Elizabeth of Belgium, 19 September, 1932)

I believe it was around the 15th Century that an idea emerged which completely transcended anything that had come before it. That idea was, in order to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt one would need empirical evidence - evidence that comes primarily from sensory experience. Gone were the days of anecdotal, primitive guesswork spread by word of mouth that could morph like Chinese whispers, or the knowledge of the sage. 

This advancement was, as far as I can tell, extremely beneficial to the world of physics, chemistry and biology. But with it came a problem. A problem not entirely the fault of this new process of discovering truth but one which exploded in popularity along with it, particularly since the beginning of the enlightenment. This problem was the belief that we can know all that exists, and that this knowing, the mapping and comprehending of everything, is just a matter of technological advancements. In time, given the tools, omniscience would be within our grasp.

Many notable philosophers and scientists throughout history (who have been self aware enough to notice the flaws of this line of thinking - and I’ve offered you the thoughts of Einstein above) have acknowledged that while the past 500 years have given us unbelievable insight into the comprehensible nature of reality, we really don’t know that much, and how much we don’t know expands with each great leap forward in scientific discoveries. 

Mr Smith I believe that we live in a universe beyond comprehension. I believe it takes a position of naivety, and ironically faith, to think that we can completely plumb the depths of our reality. The human species, who is yet to leave the solar system, has a rather exaggerated sense of knowing when it comes to the nature of the universe, for example. Seemingly each year new revelations about the nature of things supersede the previous years ideas. 

And speaking about our lack of physical experience beyond our own moon, let me take a quick side step here - just for interests sake. Where indeed do we think we are on this quest to omniscience? Do we know where we are? Here’s an example, couched in terms of technological advancement which we seem to (incorrectly) correlate closely with knowing. We’ve imagined a gauge of relative intelligence and level of technological advancement of a civilisation. Type 2 civilisations, for example, consume energy on the stellar scale, and Type 3 on the galactic scale - these varying levels of energy consumption pointing to a higher level of technological vigor.  The irony is that this Kardashev scale, a commonly accepted method of gauging the advancement of other civilisations, was created by ourselves who sit slightly below Level-1 civilisation, the least advanced on the scale. The point being that we extrapolate from what we know to imagine a Level 3 civilisation, that may navigate higher dimensions, and think then that we know something about that. Like the maps of unexplored seas bearing the words “Here be dragons”, we might know where we are but have no idea that there are kangaroos, not dragons, on that part of the map.

But I’m rambling, let me get back on track...

The idea of faith is a common thread throughout human history. Not surprising as many cultures throughout the world, all historically disconnected, have come to very similar conclusions over many millennia that the only way to understand the universe is through faith in the unknown. This faith can help us to draw a picture of sorts - one which outlines the core principles of our existence, and one which can presumably influence our perception of reality.

Faith in the unknown, despite being unconsciously shared by philosophers, researchers and public intellectuals, is quickly dismissed as some sort of ape-brained pseudo-solution to the depressing, meaningless reality of our own existence. An absurd coping mechanism, like the imaginary friend of a 4 year old (which may not be such an absurd coping mechanism, but I’m not a psychologist so I don’t really know). I’m not exactly certain where this attitude has come from, but nevertheless has been adopted by a majority within the scientific community. 

On the contrary, some may agree with the claim that faith does in fact dictate reality. A physicist may - and some have - made the claim that faith, and the shifting of our reality through belief is real, and its actually quite simple. A common claim, as far as I can make out, is that the universe is simply a result of an observer looking at it. The universe is all just a probability wave. Upon observation, this waveform collapses into a point function which we can measure, and thus we have created our own, self-authored reality. We have given meaning to nothing. “Its all quite simple”.

This may be true, or at least partially, but I don’t know - I’m not a quantum physicist and even if I were I’m not sure of how certain I’d be of these claims. We know something about wave particle duality, and some of the many constituents within that field of research which have come to light - but is that something significant enough for us to say we really know about these things?  

Interestingly this theory comes with an unfortunate, for some, philosophical possibility for the physicist - the existence of a God. Something supernatural observing from beyond our measurable dimensions that allows us to continue gliding through the universe making bold claims on Twitter and debating the existence of God, without ourselves collapsing back into an unspecified probability wave. 

The first gulp from the beaker of knowledge estranges us from God, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for him who seeks. (Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, 1948)

Over the past 300 years we have understood much of what was previously thought beyond us. We’ve moved from theorizing to knowing by applying empirical evidence and the scientific method.  From understanding why the apple falls from the tree to satellites and particle accelerators, this method of discovery has served us well. However, it’s quite a leap to go from validating observable occurrences, that which can be empirically validated, to explaining the metaphysical remainder of our reality. There are things which are so far beyond our current sphere of knowledge that it would be incredibly naive to believe that we could actually explain the nature of such things according to our empirical tradition. There are aspects of our reality, I believe, that are incomprehensible and out of reach of our scientific method. And throughout history many bright minds have taught us that what we know is that we don’t know. 

I am not afraid to call this mysterious creator, as have all the civilized nations of the earth for thousands of years: God. So you see, my dear friends, how in our days, in which people no longer believe in spirit as the foundation of all creation, and therefore find themselves in bitter estrangement from God, it is precisely the minute and the invisible that leads truth back from the grave of materialist delusion, and opens doors into the lost and forgotten world of the spirit. (Max Planck, 1944)

Science is never about an absolute certainty, it’s all about continual and humble questioning and exploration. This is an exciting quest because “we don’t know” a lot about everything. But there’s more to this journey of exploration than just applying empirical evidence, there’s other ways of intuiting, knowing, applying wisdom, that is out of reach of the scientific method. Faith and tradition actually plays a role in knowing. The West has not only completely forgotten this but denies there is any other way of knowing than “science” - which has taken on a strange cultish persona among health officials today.

I do hope I have not rambled incoherently Mr Smith, but I just wanted to get to the point that intuition, tradition, faith, and empirical science all play a role in our quest to know, and to better ourselves and our world. This myopic focus on ‘science’ as the only guide (sometimes used as a baton, sometimes not science at all but political opinions) is naive and a step backwards. A little humility from our scientists with political sway would go a long way toward the health of our society, and those with faith may have something valuable to bring to the table as well.

Kind regards,

O’Brien