Chapter 12

EXPERIMENTATION

"God does not play dice."

Albert Einstein,
theoretical physicist, known especially for a paper on the Special Theory of Relativity.  In this famous quote he gives an objection to quantum theory,
in which physical events can only be known in terms of probabilities (MacMillan 180: "Creator and Rebel" by B. Hoffman, Ch. 10).

PROLOGUE

    This chapter has a somewhat different organization and approach.  It first presents a summary description of a selected misconception, the
actual truth, and the justification for claiming the statement of truth is, indeed, true.  Then follows an essay that addresses one of the consequences
of the conclusions of that summary.
   The summary can stand by itself and no meaningful assumptions need to be explained or delineated beyond those put forth on a global basis for
all chapters in Chapter 1 Introductory Discussion.  [The summary here is quite similar to the Experimentation summary in Chapter 18 Summary.]

MISCONCEPTION

    How do people know things?  In particular, how do scientists know the laws of physics?
   The general belief is that scientists must conduct experiments in order to discover the laws of physics.

TRUTH

    All the laws of physics, and chemistry, too, are derivable by theoreticians who are uncompromisingly logical and do no experiments.  The only
starting knowledge they need is that the universe exists and contains at least some stable forms.
   These assertions require two qualifications.  First, it may be that the value of some of the physical constants (e.g., the speed of light) may not be
solely derivable in this manner.  Determining these few constants requires measurement.  Second, a practical finite-duration intellectual procedure
does not guarantee the derivation of a law of physics.  For these and other practical reasons, experimentation is useful both as an expedient and as
a check for analytical errors.
   Those qualifications aside, however, scientists do not really need to conduct experiments to understand the laws of physics and chemistry.

JUSTIFICATION

    All the laws of physics and chemistry must be logically consistent, internally and with one another.  There is one and only one set of mathematical
description solutions.  To claim otherwise would lead to logical inconsistencies.  The laws of physics must be consistent for the same reason the
laws of mathematics must be consistent.  All physical phenomena -- without the exception of even the smallest detail -- must be consistent or the
consequences would be (inconsistent and hence) illogical.
   Competing proposed theories always have been eventually reduced to a single solution when sufficient information (analytical or experimental)
became available, and the same thing will happen for all future competing theories.  Although there are many remaining mysteries, the universe is
not mysterious.  Pure thought can derive both the laws governing mathematics and the laws governing physical phenomena.
   To repeat this argument in different words: The universe must be self-consistent.  Theoretical scientists, therefore, need only determine the
solution that is self-consistent in full.  Of course, that requires considerable mental effort to reach the full solution.

ESSAY: EXAMINING AN IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT KNOWLEDGE

Hard Courses

   Is it possible that you, the reader, could attend a course in a school, or study a book, about mathematics or physics (and probably chemistry, too)
that contained information that was too hard to understand?  The two key assumptions are that you can think logically and that the instructor and
textbook author are presenting clear, truthful material.  (For purposes of this essay, it is assumed that the study of physics does not include the
study of living things.)  Given those assumptions, do you think such subjects could contain concepts that are too hard for you to grasp?  Think about
it.
   ...
   Now, what did you conclude?
   ...
   The answer must emphatically be: no!
   These subjects are logical, consistent, and not arbitrary.  They differ in that way from those of some other subjects, such as history.  If a history
teacher taught you something that was false, you could not determine that it was false without using event-specific physical evidence, or seeking
someone else's testimony.  However, when a mathematics or physics teacher teaches you something, you could, in principle, always directly check
it yourself.  You would not need to rely on anyone's testimony, even the testimony of a physicist who conducted an experiment, because you could
conduct the experiment yourself.  As a rule, all things taught about these subjects can be verified without relying on anyone's word.
   That is a very interesting conclusion, but we have not yet squeezed out all the important implications of a logically consistent universe.
   Consider what happens in a criminal trial when a defendant takes the witness stand.  The prosecutor is expected to question the witness closely,
seeking all the details of the events that transpired.  It is very difficult for someone to tell a lie and anticipate all the consequences of what really
would have happened if the lie were true.  Therefore, the prosecutor will keep probing, looking for unanticipated inconsistencies.
   Now, consider your math or physics instructor to be a witness.  How do you know he or she is not lying?  Do the same thing the prosecutor does:
rigorously question the instructor and carefully check these answers for consistency.  It is not just a possibility that you could discover a lie by such
a process, but a certainty!
   For example, a young student living in the tropics who has just been instructed about water freezing might ask his teacher if people in more-
northern latitudes ice skate only in winter.

One right answer

   You may ask: But is there only one right answer about nature?
   Physicists describe the universe principally in mathematical form, and this description is not arbitrary.  Indeed, there is only one correct answer
when queried for a description.  (Certain phenomena have as their correct description multiple-solution values.)  This must be true to ensure that
the description of the universe contains no logical inconsistencies.  It is a principle that there is only one correct description of the universe.  The
history of science, of course, supports this assertion.  Competing proposed theories always have been eventually reduced to a single answer when
sufficient analytical or experimental information became available.

Does God play dice?

   Conceptual “difficulties” associated with the principle that there is only right answer about nature do arise.  A textbook could be written about the
epistemological difficulties associated with Quantum Mechanics in general and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in particular.  Such difficulties
prompted Einstein's famous remark quoted above.  However, the apparent fuzziness and the apparent arbitrariness of certain phenomena, usually
associated with atomic and sub-atomic actions and states, are the consequence of the wave-like nature of the "stuff" of the universe.
   One analogy that puts these difficulties into perspective uses waves in the ocean.  Although the wavelength and amplitude of ocean waves can
often be measured with reasonable accuracy, questions regarding a wave's start, end, and transverse span (and hence its central location) lead to
"fuzzy" answers.  It is easier to specify the location of a boat than an ocean wave.  And if there are difficulties specifying certain parameters of ocean
waves, why does it seem strange that there are difficulties specifying certain parameters of sub-atomic particles?
   Such difficulties notwithstanding, carefully assembled instructional materials describing the subjects of physics and mathematics are not
arbitrary because the universe is not, and cannot be, constructed or function in an arbitrary fashion.  History provides justification for this assertion:
No one has ever shown an instance of the structure or actions of the universe as being illogical, inconsistent, or arbitrary.  (This assertion is made
in the context of an expanding knowledge base.)  This assertion is universal.  The assertion is intended to include quantum effects, although such
quantum phenomena may need more sophisticated explanations, as just pointed out; certainly the statistics of quantum phenomena are known to
not be arbitrary.

Purported Examples Showing What Cannot Be Known

   Who will disagree with these conclusions?  More to the point, how can anyone disagree?  Will they use reason and logic to refute these
assertions?  If so, they are using logic to claim the universe is not logical, destroying their own argument.  No, the most anyone can do is point to
physical phenomena which cannot yet be explained, or which are still controversial.  Such examples may exist, but they cannot or should not stand
against principles.
   The most famous philosopher to attempt to provide irrefutable examples was Immanuel Kant.  His selection of examples to demonstrate an
illogical universe – or, at least, a universe we couldn’t understand using reason and logic -- was ingenious; no one at the time could counter these
examples.  For instance, Kant presented the size of the universe as a logical paradox: the universe could not be finite nor could it be infinite.  An
infinite universe is beyond human understanding: we cannot conceive of something physical being infinite.  And a finite universe is beyond human
understanding: it has to have an edge or wall; but then what is beyond that edge or wall?  However, many physicists and mathematicians now use
the concept of curved space -- a concept this essay endorses only with significant qualifications -- to mathematically describe a finite but
unbounded universe, thereby potentially resolving Kant's purported paradox, for the curvature leaves no "edge of the universe."
So, difficult to explain examples and problems notwithstanding, the universe is logically consistent.  Anyone who disagrees with these conclusions
will certainly use arguments that contain assumptions that negate their own arguments.
   This essay does not assert that everything is necessarily knowable, such as the question, when did time begin?  Such questions, even if never
answered, do not threaten the logical consistency of the universe.  The rule is: everything measurable is knowable.  All the valid measurements of
the universe's phenomena will be logically consistent.  And the practical techniques for measuring things have generally improved with time.  That
observation leads to the supposition that, for example, the dimensions of the entire universe will some day be known.  The human intellect may
even determine when time began, if a clever way to make the requisite measurements is determined.

Logic: One Step At A Time

   There are two aspects to the justification of the assertion that "there is nothing in the subjects of physics and mathematics that is too difficult to
understand."  The first aspect, just discussed, concerned the nature of the universe.  The second aspect has to do with the application of logic.
   If you, the reader, patiently and logically consider the instructional material presented by the teachers of physics and mathematics (and similar)
subjects, you will eventually understand each individual concept.  That is guaranteed!  (This assumes the material is not presented in a confusing
fashion, or with key information missing.)  There is no individual concept within these subjects that you cannot understand, nor even any amalgam
of these individual concepts into broader concepts that you cannot understand.  That includes such concepts as Einstein's Theory of Special
Relativity, commonly considered the epitome of what is beyond the grasp of ordinary people.  It often is explained with just a few pages of text, albeit
with mathematics.  You can grasp these concepts because the material is logical, consistent, and not arbitrary.  And the logical steps that connect
these individual concepts into broader concepts must have a finite end; otherwise the person who assembled them would never have completed
his or her task.  It presumably must take longer to prepare new material than it does to absorb it.  Writing well, especially about these sciences,
takes much longer than reading for comprehension.  Therefore, going through the material, logical step after logical step, must eventually assure
you understand even broad concepts.
   A course in school on one of these subjects will only be "hard" in the sense that the instructor gives students much work to do.  You may be
required to set up and conduct experiments, which can be frustrating, require certain skills, and be time-consuming.  The instructor may make you
write good-quality papers.  You may have to memorize numerous facts.  However, regarding understanding the material, you are surely capable of
doing any one step of the learning process.  That is because each step requires only logical thought, and some memory.
   The structure and actions of the universe are logical.  Therefore their nature can be understood by a finite number of logical statements.  (Thus
the sum total of knowledge required to fully understand the universe is likely finite also; however, that assertion is not explicitly made here.)  Anyone
who can use logic can understand any one of these statements.  Therefore, anyone can understand the logic of a string of these statements that
defines broader concepts.  Therefore, they can understand any aspect of the structure or actions of the universe.  Therefore, there is nothing in the
subjects of mathematics or physics that is too hard to understand.

The Secret About Learning

   To summarize, if you can reason logically then you can understand any single point or logical statement about these subjects, and the
consequence is that you can understand the whole -- without doubt.
   This truth, however, is generally not communicated to students, and it is likely to be a new revelation to the reader.  But isn’t it exhilarating?  It
reveals that there is a great equality among all mankind: all people who can think logically -- which is almost everyone -- can understand the body of
knowledge about the universe in which we live.
   It would be foolish not to rely on specialists.  However, specialists are needed only because of the impracticality of digesting all the available
information on each subject.  Few people can be knowledgeable about many subjects -- not because of the nature of these subjects (that is, not
because they are too hard), but simply because of the time-consuming nature of the learning process.

CONCLUSION

    Some refer to certain “presently unknown” aspects of the universe as great secrets.  But there are no secrets about the physical universe that can
be unraveled and understood only by those with magic, a "super brain," a special education, or other special characteristic.  Most of us already hold
the key to understanding.  That key is reason and logic.  You, the reader, will become worn out if that key is used to open too many doors.  But isn’t it
nice to realize that any door can be unlocked?

END
Shattering Illusions
The Exciting Search for Reality
Start your search for reality today...