The Order Of The Physical World Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 24):

All science is founded on the assumption that the physical world is ordered. The most powerful expression of this order is found in the laws of physics. Nobody knows where these laws come from, nor why they apparently operate universally and unfailingly; 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the order of the physical world is a construal of experience as meaning. The ability to construe experience as ordered has conferred an adaptive advantage on the organisms that do so.

The laws of physics, on the other hand, are reconstruals of perceptual and linguistic meanings as the meanings of theoretical physics, and 'come from' the semogenesis, meaning-making, of physicists. The writers here confuse phenomenal data (the construed physical world) with metaphenomenal theory (the reconstrued laws of physics), which is analogous to confusing a territory with a map of that territory.

The reason why the laws apparently apply universally and unfailingly is that they are selected by the scientific community for their ability to do so. But note that these laws break down at the singularities of black holes and the Big Bang, and that General Relativity cannot be made consistent with Quantum Theory on the present assumptions of physicists.

Bohr And Heisenberg On Quantum Physics — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 20-1):

The founders of quantum mechanics, notably Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, argued that when we talk of atoms, electrons, and so on, we must not fall into the trap of imagining them as little things, existing independently in their own right. …

Heisenberg's own words are revealing in this context:

'In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.'

Bohr expressed it thus:

'Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world.'

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Heisenberg's distinction between 'things' and 'real phenomena', on the one hand, and 'potentialities or possibilities', on the other, is the distinction between instance and potential. It is not so much that elementary particles are any less real than 'any phenomena of daily life', but that the duality of potential and actual (instance) cannot be ignored at quantum scales.

Bohr, however, is concerned here with a different matter. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this is the view that the science of physics is a semiotic system realised in language ('what we can say'). This is consistent with the immanent view of meaning: that meaning is a property of semiotic systems and does not transcend them.

In short, Heisenberg is concerned with the potential viewpoint in the potential-instance distinction, in physics, whereas Bohr is concerned with the immanence viewpoint in the immanence-transcendence distinction, in epistemology.

The Limitations Of Scientific Truth Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 19-20, 22):

The difficulties concerning the relationship between abstract models and reality do not, however, undermine the claim that science deals with truth. Clearly, scientific theories — even in the most abstract form — capture some element of reality. But one may certainly question whether science can deliver the whole truth. …

It may be wondered whether science will always be limited in this respect. Is it possible to imagine that future developments will enable science to answer the ultimate questions and to deal with total reality? The answer would seem to be 'no'; for, remarkably, science contains within itself a description of its own limitations. …

Quantum mechanics seems to impose an inherent limitation on what science can tell us about the world, and it reduces to mere models entities that we used to regard as real in their own right.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the relationship between reality and abstract models is the relationship between data, meanings construed of experience, and the reconstrual of those meanings as scientific theory. The "truth" of a scientific theory is its validity in terms of scientific criteria.

The notion of a 'whole truth' that science can deliver takes a transcendent view of meaning, such that meaning also lies outside semiotic systems, and science is a matter of identifying those meanings truthfully. However, the findings of Quantum mechanics invalidate the transcendent view of meaning, since they demonstrate that phenomena are not 'real' until they are observed as instances of potential.

Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, on the other hand, takes an immanent view of meaning, such that meaning is restricted to semiotic systems, and science is a matter of reconstruing the meanings of semiotic systems. In this view, there is no 'whole truth' or 'ultimate questions', since there is no meaning outside semiotic systems to eventually identify truthfully. Instead, the march of science is an ongoing evolution of meaning-making.

Light As A Wavelike Disturbance In An Independently Existing Electromagnetic Field — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 18-9):

By supposing that space and time are elastic, and change from one reference frame to another, Einstein was able to demonstrate that his theory of relativity rendered the æther superfluous. Instead, light was treated as a wavelike disturbance in an independently existing electromagnetic field.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, on the quantum physics model, light is not a wavelike disturbance in an electromagnetic field, and an electromagnetic field does not exist independently of light.  Instead, an electromagnetic field is a region of spacetime under the influence of light as instantiations (particles) of potential (wave).