Moving Naturalism Forward - Part 2 - What is Real?

Introductions continue on this video until the 22:30 mark.

At this point the first topic 'What is Real' is introduced by Alex Rosenberg. Rosenberg lays out a provocative description of his view of reality which would be classified as eliminative materialism.

Rosenberg begins with the claim 'there is nothing to reality but fermions and bosons'. Fermions and bosons are the fundamental particles of physics (fermions are those with mass, bosons those without mass). He then makes the claim that there are two features of physics which are fixed:

1) The denial of any role for teleogy (no backward causation- the future does not pull on the past)
     This includes the denial of purpose.
2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics - The source of all the time assymety in the cosmos

According to Rosenberg 'all cause and effect comes from the fundamental physical level, and any appearance of emergence is temporary ignorance'. He feels fundamental physics 'fixes all the facts'.

These views are not popular in the room. Don Ross points out that fundamental physics theory has nothing to say about the facts of the special sciences. Steven Weinberg then argues that we have need for the term 'real' both in the sciences and everyday use. He says Barak Obama is real, Mitt Romney is real, protons and temperature are real but they are real in different ways. It appears that Weinberg who would certainly be in the reductionist camp is aguing that reality is not absolute.

Dan Dennet points out that there are serious thinkers who have taken the opposite position to Rosenberg. One where colors, tables and chairs, people, consciousness, constitute what is real and fermions and bosons are a product of consciousness. He doesn't think anyone in room holds that position, but points out we need not go completely in the other direction either.

Rosenberg provides a thought experiment for Ross, asking him to imagine taking our earth, moon and sun and all of everthything in between and placing the exact same configuration of the fermions and bosons in another part of the universe. He claims the same facts would be present at all levels except for historical facts. Ross when given the oppurtunity points out that the thought experiment is actually not compatible with what know of fundamental physics. Any section of the universe is only what it is in relation to it's place in that universe. You would have to create an exact replica of the entire universe to replicate any section.

Deacon points out that Rosenbergs view simply eliminates 1/2 of the Cartesian veiw (the teleological half). He points out the meaning from the videos of the conference can have physical efficacy in the world, and will follow up on this ( I think brilliantly) in the next video on emergence.

The discsussion continues with interesting points. Richard Dawkins points out the while design in nature does not have foresight, human design does. I'm sure he believes that human design is a natualistic (part of nature) process. I would be curious where he thinks the line to foresight occurs.

Rosenberg describes meaning and foresight as 'overlay'.

Rebecca Glodstein  is worried about Rosenbergs view that 'if naturalism commits us to eliminating aboutness that we loose all coherence'. We need to be able to say that science is about the world.

I feel this is an interesting discussion and worth a view. I do think however, the discussion could have been more interesting if the focus was not merely to argue against Rosenbergs provocative stance. I don't believe that fermions and bosons constitute a useful conception of absolute reality. I also don't think that consciousness alone is the ultimate reality. I think the interesting discussion lies in the the grey area covered by the dynamic complentary interaction in the way that our sense of what is real depends on our assumptions.

Our senses can fool us and our intuitions contain biases. How can we best combine science and introspection to best make use of them?

Everything is made of fermions and bosons so in one sense they are fundamental.  Yet fermions complement bosons, particles complement waves, and science complements our intuitions to the degree that humility complements our curiosity for discovery.

I would argue that general unifying principles (like complementarity) that posess the capacity for application across reference frames are fundamental in a different sense.

The next video covers the topic of emergence.