Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1989: 215):

It turned out that the behaviour of light could sometimes be explained only in terms of particles — photons — while the wave explanation, or model, remained the only valid one in other circumstances.  A little later, physicists realised that if waves that sometimes behave as particles were not enough to worry about, particles could sometimes behave like waves. …

[Quantum theory] tells us that there are no pure particles or waves, but only, at the fundamental level, things best described as a mixture of wave and particle, occasionally referred to as "wavicles". 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the wave model is a model of quantum system potential, whereas the particle model is a model of instances of that potential.  The notion of "wavicles" confuses potential with instance.

The Notion Of An End Of Theoretical Physics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: 215):

But, by and large, [before about 1900] the division of the world into particles and waves seemed clear-cut, and physics seemed to be on the threshold of dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's.  In short, the end of theoretical physics and the solution to all the great puzzles seemed to be in sight.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, theoretical physics is a semiotic system, and semiotic systems are evolutionary systems that adaptively change as the environment in which they function changes.  On this basis, there is no end to theoretical physics in the sense of "complete" knowledge — just further potential speciation, with the extinction of those lineages of thought that no longer fit.

Einstein's General Relativity Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: 78-9):

[The ideas of General Relativity] envisage what we think of in everyday terms as empty space as something almost tangible, a continuum of in four dimensions (three of space and one of time) that can be bent and distorted by the presence of material objects.  It is those bends and distortions that provide the "force" of gravity.

Forget about the four dimensions of space-time for a moment and think of a two-dimension elastic surface.  Imagine a rubber sheet stretched tightly across a frame to make a flat surface.  That is a "model" of Einstein's version of empty space.  Now imagine dumping a heavy bowling ball in the middle of the sheet.  It bends.  That is Einstein's "model" of the way space distorts near a large lump of matter.  When you roll marbles across the flat rubber sheet, they travel in straight lines.  But when the sheet is distorted by the bowling ball, any marble you roll near the ball follows a curved trajectory around the depression in the rubber sheet.  That, said Einstein in effect, is where the "force" of gravity comes from.  There really isn''t any force.  Objects are simply following a path of least resistance, the equivalent of a straight line, through a curved portion of space, or space-time.  The object can be a marble, a planet, or a beam of light.  The effect is the same.  When it moves near a large mass — through a gravitational field of force, on the old picture — it gets bent.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the term 'empty space' confuses the circumstantial dimension ('space') with a quality of the participant ('empty') being measured.  The same category error occurs when the circumstantial dimension of time is confused with the process (such as the ticking of a clock) being measured.

If space-time is understood in Einstein's terms, as a four-dimensional grid, then gravity is the gradual contraction of space intervals (and expansion of time intervals) with increasing proximity to a material object.  It is the gradual contraction of space intervals that accounts for the curved trajectory of other objects in their vicinity.  This is because, other things being equal, a moving body takes the shortest path between two points, a geodesic, and the increasingly contracted space intervals with proximity to a massive body means that the shortest path is increasingly toward that object.

On the "rubber sheet" model, the increasing depth of the depression in the rubber sheet near a massive body actually correlates with the increasing contraction of space intervals with increasing proximity to the object.

Where gravity is the relative contraction of space intervals (and expansion of time intervals), the cosmological expansion is the relative expansion of space intervals (and contraction of time intervals).

The "Reality" Of Space And Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xviii):

From Plato to Kant and up to date philosophers have mused on the nature of space and time.  Admittedly this is a lesser puzzle than the puzzle of reality, or the origin of everything … .  But are space and time any more real than atoms and electrons?  Or are they just artefacts of our perceptions?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the nature of space and time, the origin of everything, atoms, electrons and reality are construals of experience as meaning.  It is in this sense that they are, in the first instance, "artefacts" of our perceptions.

The word just in just artefacts of our perceptions realises the interpersonal meaning of 'counter-expectancy: limiting', and thus asserts that space and time being 'artefacts of our perceptions' is not only contrary to expectation, but also limiting in some way.  The validity of such propositions needs to be argued.

"The Ultimate Nature Of Reality" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xvii):

Quantum physics has provided the "answer" to the first of the three great metaphysical puzzles.  It says … that nothing is real, in the everyday meaning of the term.

So quantum physics tackles the fundamental puzzle of what things do when you are not looking at them, and whether they are really real even if you are looking at them.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no "ultimate" nature of reality, since reality is a construal of experience as meaning, and meaning evolves as it adapts to the changing environments in which it is required to function — including environmental changes that it makes possible.

What quantum physics actually says is that you cannot say "what things do when you are not looking at them", and as Richard Feynman pointed out, to do so 'is to produce an error'.  And what Systemic Functional Linguistic theory says is that this is precisely because experience is only construed as things when an observation is made.

The Laws Of Quantum Mechanics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xvi-xvii):

This state of affairs is as unsatisfactory as it sounds — so much so that most scientists and engineers ignore it and continue to pretend that electrons are little, hard, predictable billiard balls, even though the equations they use to design lasers, or nuclear reactors, depend fundamentally on the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics worked out in the 1920s.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the reason why most scientists and engineers can regard electrons as particles is that particles are instances of quantum potential, whose overall statistical distribution is in line with the probabilities provided by the wave function.

Importantly, the laws of quantum mechanics are "laws" in the sense of modalisation (probability, usuality), not in the sense of modulation (obligation, inclination).  That is, they are statements of probability, not commands that are "obeyed" by the universe.  This misunderstanding leads to serious epistemological confusions.

Quantum Uncertainty Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1989: xvi):

In quantum physics, nothing tells you where an electron is, or what it is doing, when you are not looking at it.  All you can do, if you make a measurement of some property of an atom and get the answer A, is calculate the probability that the next time you measure the same thing you will get answer B.  Even then there is a definite probability that you will actually get a different answer, C, when you do the experiment!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, an electron is a construal of experience as meaning.  'When you are not looking', there is no experience to be construed, no act of construal, and no meaning.

Each measurement of a property of an atom is a construal of experience as an instance of meaning, and the statistical distribution of such instances is given by the probabilities in the system potential of which they are instances.

Wave–Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1989: xvi):

In this new world of particle physics it turned out that particles and waves are two aspects of the same thing.  Light, which was thought of as an electromagnetic wave, had now to be thought of as a stream of particles, called photons; and electrons, previously regarded as particles, like little hard billiard balls, now had to thought of as smeared-out waves.  Worse still, when they tried to apply their new understanding of quantum physics to predicting the behaviour of electrons, or other objects, in an experimental setup, the physicists of the 1920s found that it was impossible, except on a statistical basis.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, 'wave' and 'particle' are meanings construed of experience.  In the field of quantum physics, the wave aspect models the quantum in terms of potential, whereas the particle aspect models it as an instance of that potential.  The wave aspect is concerned with system probabilities, since probability is a quantification of potential, whereas the particle aspect is concerned with the statistical distribution of its instances, since frequency is a quantification of instances.  This is why prediction is probabilistic/statistical.

The Thoughts Of Ernst Mach Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xv):

Nobody has ever seen an electron, say, or an atom.  We deduce that there are things we call electrons and atoms because whenever we carry out certain experiments we get results consistent with the existence of atoms and electrons.  But what we actually "know" are sense impressions of readings on meters, or of lights flickering on a screen, not even direct sense impressions of the particles we believe we are investigating.  Ernst Mach … summed the position up in his book Science of Mechanics in 1883:

Atoms cannot be perceived by the senses; like all substances they are things of the thought … a mathematical model for facilitating the mental reproduction of the facts.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, atoms, substances, facts and mathematical models are "things of the thought"; they are meanings construed of experience.  Within the domain of meaning, first-order (material) phenomena, such as atoms, are reconstrued as second-order (semiotic) phenomena, metaphenomena, such as mathematical models.

Realist Epistemology Vs Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xv):

This concern with the ultimate nature of reality is the first of three great roots of metaphysics.  The metaphysician is concerned to know just how accurate a picture of the real world our sense impressions provide.  Our senses respond to impressions they receive from the world outside, and our brains interpret those sense impressions as indicating, perhaps, that there is a tree in the garden.  But the only things that my brain can have direct knowledge of are sense impressions; all my "knowledge" about trees is secondhand, filtered through my senses and into my brain.  So which is more real — the sense impressions or the trees?

Blogger Comments:

The epistemological assumption here is that meaning is transcendent of semiotic systems, rather than immanent within them.  It is the view that there is one true labelled reality that is filtered through senses into an interpreting brain, and that it the task of science to discover the true labels.  This is the assumption on which the notion of an eventual end of science is based.  It is an assumption rejected by the model of brain function of Gerald Edelman, and one which, as this blog argues, is falsified by the experimental findings of quantum physics.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, all meanings are immanent within semiotic systems, and all ideational meanings are construals of experience.  In this view, the distinction between a real thing labelled 'tree' and 'knowledge' of a tree is a false distinction.  It is through mental and verbal processes that the meaning 'tree' is construed of experience.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [14]

Gribbin (1989: xiv-xv):

The metaphysician who wonders whether a tree, or a house, has any real existence when nobody is looking at it, is seen by most of us lesser mortals as something of a joke.  But the joke is on us, for the twentieth-century discoveries of physics, that most hard-nosed and objective of sciences, have led inexorably to the conclusion that at the fundamental level of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons, things really don't have and "real" existence when they are not being monitored.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, it is not that 'things really don't have and "real" existence when they are not being monitored', but that there is no construal of experience as meaning — e.g. as things, as real, as existing — when no observations are being made.

Aristotle's Physics Vs Metaphysics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: xiv):

Among [Aristotle's] many scientific and philosophical writings, two are particularly relevant to the modern search for an understanding of the nature of the universe.  One, the Physica, deals with the nature of the world as we perceive it.  The other, the Metaphysica (literally meaning "what comes after physics"), is an inquiry into what Aristotle called "being as such," the underlying truths responsible for the world as we perceive it.

 … the distinction that Aristotle was trying to make between the world we see, or measure with our scientific instruments, and the underlying reality is an important one that strikes to the heart of modern physics.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "world as we perceive it" is a construal of experience as meaning, whereas so-called "underlying truths" are construals of the "world as we perceive it" as meaning.  That is, such "underlying truths" are construals of construals of experience as meaning.

The Many Worlds Vs Copenhagen Interpretations Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 253-4):

The success of the Aspect team's experiments to test the Bell inequality has eliminated all but two possible interpretations of quantum mechanics ever put forward.  Either we have to accept the Copenhagen interpretation, with its ghost realities and half-dead cats, or we have to accept the Everett interpretation with its many worlds.  It is, of course, conceivable that neither of the two "best buys" in the science supermarket is correct, and that both of these alternatives are wrong.  There may be yet another interpretation of quantum mechanical reality which resolves all all of the puzzles that the Copenhagen interpretation and Everett interpretation resolve, including the Bell Test, and which goes beyond our present understanding — in the same way, perhaps, that general relativity transcends and incorporates special relativity.  But … remember that any such "new" interpretation must explain everything that we have learned since Planck's great leap in the dark, and that it must everything as well as, or better than, the two current explanations.  … we have to accept that science can at present only offer these alternatives explanations of the way the world is constructed.  Neither of them seems very palatable at first sight.  In simple language, either nothing is real or everything is real.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "best buy", provided that it includes the distinction between potential and instance, and provided that the distinction is made between experience and its construal as meaning.

On this interpretation, there are no "half-dead cats" and no "ghostly realities", and 'reality' is a property of the interpretation, the construal of experience as meaning.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Gribbin (1990: 252-3):

The puzzle is why a world ideal for life should have appeared out of the Big Bang.  The anthropic principle says that many possible worlds may exist, and that we are the inevitable product of our kind of universe.  But where are the other worlds?  Are they ghosts, like the interacting worlds of the Copenhagen interpretation?  Do they correspond to different life cycles of the whole universe, before the Big Bang that began time and space as we know them?  Or could they be Everett's many worlds, all existing at right angles to our own?  It seems to me that this is by far the best explanation available today, and that the resolution of the fundamental puzzle of why we see the universe the way it is amply compensates for the load of baggage carried by the Everett interpretation. … All worlds are equally real, but only suitable worlds contain observers.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this simply confuses potential (possible worlds) with instances of that potential (actual worlds).  Such 'worlds' are meanings, construed of experience.

The Anthropic Principle Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 251-2):

The greatest question left to answer within this framework is why our perception of reality should be what it is — why should the choice of paths through the quantum maze that started out in the Big Bang and leads to us have been just the right kind of path for the appearance of intelligence in the universe?

The answer lies in an idea often referred to as the "anthropic principle."  This says that the conditions that exist in our universe are the only conditions, apart from small variations, that could have allowed life like us to evolve, and so it is inevitable that any intelligent species like us should look out upon a universe like the one we see about us.  If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "intelligence" of Homo sapiens is the greater potential afforded by language to make meaning of experience, in comparison to the semiotic systems of other species.

It will be seen in later discussions of the anthropic principle, that one type of cause, result, is frequently misconstrued as another type of cause, purpose, both of which can be realised by 'so that…'.  That is, humanity is misconstrued as the purpose of the unfolding of the universe, rather than one of its myriad results.

The term 'anthropic' is anthropocentric in this usage, since the principle applies to everything, not just humans.  It could just as accurately be termed 'the Higgs boson principle', 'the potassium sulphate principle' or 'the seaweed principle'.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Gribbin (1990: 251):

According to my interpretation of the many–worlds theory, the future is not determined, as far as our conscious perception of the world is concerned, but the past is.  By the act of observation we have selected a "real" history out of the many realities, and once someone has seen a tree in our world it stays there even when no-one is looking at it.  This applies all the way back to the Big Bang.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, by the act of observation we have construed experience as one instance of meaning out of the many potential meanings.  Whether or not experience is construed as a tree depends on an observer doing so.