Incommensurability
Recently (yesterday, as a matter of fact) I received a comment here from a physicist named Travis, who wanted to point out a couple of errors he perceived in my article on Animist Language.
I don’t know Travis; he doesn’t know me. But I’ve waited for him (or whoever would do the work that he has finally done for me) for a long time. I honestly can’t believe it’s taken him this long.
Often in describing the benefits of non-civilized animist languages, I’ve used (inspired by Dan Moonhawk Alford’s work on “quantum linguistics”) the ability to describe quantum mechanics well as a proof of a language’s ability to describe the world accurately, with integrity. English can’t really do this; many animist languages can. But as Travis points out, the language of mathematics describes quantum events more effectively than any other language out there.
I’ve never felt truly comfortable with using quantum mechanics to support my observations about language. I don’t fully understand it - I have, at best, a layman’s approximation of the theory. I certainly can’t speak with any authority on it, and by using it I fell into the trap Travis mentioned - I have appropriated it for ends unintended by the scientific community. Really, it has always served more as a rickety rope bridge for folks raised in modern scientific culture to reach the place I want them to see, even if only for a moment: the place of a truly, completely, living world. Quantum physics seemed to suggest something more magical going on than that conventionally held by the “common sense” of modern civilization.
But the reminder that mathematics so successfully describes quantum events leaves me with a problem. As a language, mathematics so fully objectifies its subjects that it barely even needs them anymore. What does one plus one equal? How can you answer that without knowing what “one” I mean? “One” what? Well, you can answer me, quite easily, without knowing “what”. And as Einstein said, “to the extent mathematics is true, it does not refer to reality…to the extent it refers to reality, it is not true”.
I wish to ever-improve my ability to speak about reality in a truthful, life-generating way.
This brings me to a fundamental problem. We have, before us, an incommensurability between the countless substantive models of animist inquiry (what you might call non-civilized science) based on an assumption of a living and person-ing world, and modern scientific models based on assumption of a dead, mechanical world (of which quantum mechanics makes a good example). Incommensurability means, according to Thomas Kuhn, (thank you Wikipedia) “the proponents of different scientific paradigms cannot fully appreciate or understand the other’s point of view because they are, as a way of speaking, living in different worlds”.
Kuhn, in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, wrote
When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look into new places.
Combine this with Karl Popper’s observation (paraphrasing here) that “truth” doesn’t mark the result of scientific work, but rather that “the search for truth” fuels the work itself, and you have the likely story of what happened and will continue to happen to us as inquiring beings.
How do we evaluate “truth”?
When we change the world we experience (because of our beliefs about the world), we change what questions we ask, what we see as “real”. This change in attention and questions changes our language itself.
For what does language embody, but a set of directed attentions and questions about the world?
The language of mathematics doesn’t seem to produce more observant, successful, human-habitat-preserving thinking or behavior than any other modern language. Obviously for what it specializes in, it does quite well.
I submit that a language worth having, worth speaking, worth hearing, not only produces accurate (reproducible) observations, but also observations which encourage attention on that which increases the survivability and fulfillment of humans and their more-than-human community.
As far as I can tell, modern scientific language, and the technologies it births, has accelerated the destruction of life and sanity more than any other force in history.
Therefore, to Travis, and to all the quantum physicists out there I have offended, I humbly apologize, and give you your quantum physics back.
August 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
What intrigues me is this: the “White Road” — the path of ‘death’ that certain folks follow — is an expert at breaking things down to microscopic bits to examine the world. And in the end, the conclusions that it reaches, in its most reductionist language (mathematics), is the same that a holistic path (such as the “Red Road”) reaches.
They may come to different observations but it appears they are observing the same phenomenon from two different points in the ‘room.’
August 17th, 2009 at 3:53 am
[…] on August 17, 2009 at 10:52 am Some languages describe Quantum Mechanics better than others. English, apparently, doesn’t do this very well. Animist languages do it better. Mathematics does it best, […]
August 17th, 2009 at 6:24 am
I encounter this alot in my work, too, and I have reached the same conclusion. As the old writing adage goes: show it, don’t say it
August 18th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Bill:
Yes - I do wish to underscore that though they may describe the ’same’ holistic understanding, the way they describe itseems to make all the difference in the world. On the one hand, increasing life with every generation, on the other, devouring the planet at an accelerating rate.
This actually reminds me of Richard Dawkins, and his offering of the “selfish gene” as evidence that we embody machines carrying the will of machines into eternity. The Tzutujil Maya, with apparently the exact same observation, choose an entirely different (and world-preserving) interpretation.
Abdullah:
Ha ha. Excellent!
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
By aspiration at least, cybernetics was hitting against this exact problem, bringing person-hood to the world of maths and machines. Or strictly, bridging the two, as different people under the banner tried to go one way or another. You can generally tell the difference by whether they use the word “just” or not: are we just machines, or can we expand the meaning of machine to encompass the full depth of what we are?
Maths doesn’t change the thinking of the world because it sits off separate from it, undergoing it’s own revolutions that only match up in certain places, when maths-enabled leaps of logic enable people to suggest that time and space are relative, and yet we can still think about it. It takes those thoughts from the humming of a poem to the world of action. Only snag of course is those people who can use these leaps are few and far between, they haven’t got out into the mainstream.
Incidentally “Modern” scientific thinking that you are thinking of is not the scientific thinking of today! People having been kicking dull positivist observer-ignorant science’s ass for 50 years! Course it still exists, but variants on constructivism with it’s “justified illusions” paradigm have taken it’s place as the central viewpoint of science. Unlike the old rational progress myth, it doesn’t have much of a built in cause for the powerful to jump on, so they’ve been using economics as their justification instead, or did till a few months ago!
My own view is that this constructivist view can be expanded to refer to exactly what you said; by linking the idea of a justified understanding of the world to the idea of a healthy relationship; where you gain understanding of the other person/thing and ability to live together, and those feed into each other.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I have a difficult time seeing the attempt to expand the meaning of “machine” to encompass the full depth of what we are, in a generous light. Too much of a hot button word for me. I regret that I can’t respond with something more substantive. Thanks for the comment though, Josh.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
And how might one describe two? Interesting ideas floating around here…it’s been a pleasure browsing this morning. Thanks for sharing!!!
Peace, Light and Love, C.