Natural Philosophy

In physics, and more generally, in any scientific study of nature, we analyze the world in an approach based upon phenomenology and materialism.

We start with the phenomena, and select which ones we want to try to understand first. For this reduced set of phenomena, we try to construct theories that give an adequate and concise account of them. In the course of time, we try to enlarge the set of phenomena we study. Our goal is to capture as large an area of phenomena as possible, with as simple a set of theories as possible. Whether there are intrinsic limits to the realization of this program, is an open question.

Materialism is the view that all that occurs, occurs in dependence on material causes. Without such a view, it would be very difficult to engage in physics, since the outcome of any experiment could be interpreted as being the result of non-physical causes. The notion that physics is a complete system, covering all of reality, is a very daring one indeed. It is really only during this century, that such a notion can be defended seriously. But what does such a notion imply, what is the `matter' that materialism refers to? According to relativity theory, it includes energy as well, and according to quantum theory, we can no longer talk about uniquely defined states of being.

Thus modern materialism (energeticism) cannot hold on to determinism, cannot talk about the given existence of anything, although it can talk, and very precisely so, about interactions, and their probability distributions. Interactions act. They are actions `inter' other actions. There is a web of actions, but the `is' does not mean `existing' in a way that defines any type of state or endurance. Actions act, without anything extra required. That strikes me as the most straightforward interpretation of what quantum mechanics tries to tell us.

It is a fascinating outcome of twentieth-century physics that materialism has tended to converge to phenomenology. Phenomena are understood in ever greater detail, while previous explanations of properties in terms of things that have those properties are being abolished. Properties is all we deal with. Not only is there no need to postulate `things' underneath, to somehow hold up those properties, but what is more, there is no simple consistent way to do so. Starting with a world given in terms of nouns and verbs (particles and interactions) in classical physics, we are now forced to face a world in terms of verbs only: a world of interactions interacting with interactions. Phenomena have become more concrete, matter has become more fluid, and the two have lost their sharp separation.

Where does all this leave us with respect to the question of the role that we humans play in nature? What about values? Since values are part of our experience, as much as matter and energy, they must be included in a truly phenomenological approach. Any materialist view of science, which claims that science can ultimately deal with all that happens in reality, must come to grips with values. In other words, apart from `what is true' according to our well-tested scientific theories, we have to ask ourselves the question ``What else is true?''. I have tried to describe my way of grappling with this question in my paper Life as a Laboratory, and more recently in a manuscript of the same title.

Recently, I have started to explore the use of virtual worlds in exploring reality. See my paper Virtual Laboratories and Virtual Worlds (full pdf file).

Back to activities or to table of contents.

Back to Piet Hut's home page.