Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Nature of Reality and The One and The Many, Part One

by Dave Seng

“The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe.” – G. K. Chesterton

It is important to think about our most basic ideas, conceptions, and assumptions. After all, our foundational principles and ideas shape and inform what we think and how we act towards many other things in life. It is even more important to think about the first things of all reality. How we decide these questions will determine how and what we think about other things. For example, someone thinks that all reality is really mass and energy in motion, then it will be easy to understand where they fall on moral issues regarding the beginning and ending of life. On the other hand, if one believes in a supernatural or incorporeal reality then we know what he or she thinks in a variety of other things. Our most commonplace expressions of political policy, ethical decisions, and our understanding of the natural world such as change, cause, mass and energy, reflect assumptions about our basic ideas of the universe and our place in it. As G. K. Chesterton explained, “The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.”1 Everyone, whether we realize it or not holds basic ideas—a philosophy—regarding humankind’s curiosity about itself and the universe of which he or she is a part. I’m convinced that the most important questions in life are metaphysical in nature. All the important questions we can explore are, in the final analysis, a result of what we think about the nature of reality.

This is just as true today as it was for a collection of philosophers who lived in the ancient world known as the pre-Socratics. I will explain who the pre-Socratics were and what they believed in an upcoming post. For now, it is enough to know that the pre-Socratics were the world’s first metaphysicians and in one way or another shaped the field of philosophy ever since. This post will focus on their influence and seek to explain why their primary question—the problem of the one and the many—is a significant difficulty for us today. I will post an essay or two to explain how different pre-Socratic philosophers answered the question. Then, we will discover how nearly every philosopher from Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Augustine through Aquinas, Kant and Hegel and even postmodern and critical theorists today still struggle with the question of the one and the many and its relevance for us in our current intellectual and cultural climate. First, however, let’s examine the classical problem of the one and the many and why it is still important.

What is this problem of the one and the many? Philosopher Ed Miller articulates the problem this way: The problem of the one and the many is “the problem of identifying the ultimate reality (the One) that underlies all things (the Many) and of explaining the relation between them or how the Many derives from the One”.2 It is a problem because logically the many can not be one (or it would not be many) and the one can not be many (or it would not be one). According to the law of noncontradiction, the one cannot be many at the same time and in the relationship.

The pre-Socratic philosophers were perplexed by the question of reality. They were puzzled by the nature of existence and what it means to exist in a world of change, contingency, and finitude. Yet somehow something holds this world together in unity. How do all things relate to one reality? Not everything is pure chaos. Finite things have unity or oneness. At the same time, all of reality (Being) seems to be coherent, ordered, and rationally discernible. Could it be there is an underlying reality that is revealed in the many things around us? If so, how is this underlying reality related to or connected to the individual things we encounter every day?

The fundamental issue is, coming from the fact of existence (Being), what do all things have in common? It seemed to the pre-Socratics that behind the vast multiplicity of things that make up the universe, there is some principle of unity, the very insight that is embodied in our word universe, which means “combined into one”.3

This quest to find unity out of diversity demonstrates the human impulse to seek an explanation for things. Generally speaking, the best explanation is the one that is simple, unified, and rationally coherent—what philosophers call the principle of simplicity. This principle states that one explanation is preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler factors. In philosophy, science, and everyday life, we tend to accept the simplest explanation that makes the most reasonable sense out of the given facts. We take unity as a principle of explanation because it unites, integrates, and encompasses that which is known. We do not like needlessly complex answers to questions. Complex answers certainly can be found for complex questions but the principle of simplicity explains why a single simpler answer that incorporates and makes sense out of a diversity of facts is often preferred. As we shall see in upcoming posts, the pre-Socratics may seem to be naive and unscientific, but their quest for an account for the unity from the many and what it means to provide an explanation for something is not at all unreasonable or irrelevant. 

The question of the one and the many shapes how we think about a variety of things. It is not an abstract problem strictly for the amusement of philosophers. In history of Western thought, the basic themes of being and becoming, the intelligible (mental and conscious) and sensible, the definite and infinite, same and other, particular and universal, and existence and nothingness all relate to the question of what reality is and how the many diverse things that exist relate to it. These themes point to the relationship everything takes part in and the underlying reality that makes things one, in other words, the unity of Being. The question of the one and the many may take on different names but in various ways, the inquiry is the same.

We can see how the issue works out today. Physicists have been concerned with the divisibility or indivisibility of matter and the strange behavior of sub-atomic particles for a long time. Why is it that physics is fairly regular and ordered at the macro level but not at the quantum level? Nevertheless, something unites the two. This is what John Boslough was getting at when he wrote, “Only by reconciling the two seemingly irreconcilable areas of physics can theorists hope to find a unified field theory that will explain the workings of the entire universe”. In some ways, the question of the one and many has become more relevant today than it was for the pre-Socratics. The quest, however, to find an underlying reality which unites everything else remains. How is it that time keeps moving forward when sensible particular things stop? What keeps time continuous? Time seems to be divisible yet there is an underlying unity to it. This is a question of the one and the many. In the realm of politics, one might ask, does the individual exist for the benefit of the state or the state for the individual? If so, in what way? How should the state be united for the common life of the many? What unites a community into a state? During the founding of America, the Federalists solved this problem with the slogan, e pluribus unum, “from the many, one”. But what happens when unity breaks down? These are important existential questions that will affect everyone at one time or another.

In the following posts, I hope to explore the ramifications of important metaphysical questions that center around the problem of the one and the many. We’ll discover how physics is applied metaphysics, social science is applied metaphysics and why Kant was right when he argued for a metaphysical foundation for ethical decisions.

We will continue to explore the question of the one and the many. For now, I hope that we can see that we all have been influenced and impacted by this most practical and metaphysical question of reality.

[Note, some of my readers have indicated that my posts are conceptually difficult for them. I apologize. I have tried to write at the beginning and intermediate levels but I know I often fail. In light of this, I have created a philosophical glossary to help out. In the meantime, I will still try to explain things more carefully because philosophy is important for all human flourishing.]

1G. K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1905) P. 15.

2Ed Miller, Questions that Matter, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1996) P. 59.

3Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (Tan Books, 2009), P. 12.

Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Resources, Uncategorized

Resource: The Quantum Thomist

by Dave Seng
Photo courtesy of Nathan Perkins

A large part of this blog seeks to explore the intersection of physics and metaphysics from the standpoint of classical philosophy (I am not a physicist). Metaphysics is the study or theory of reality — what the ancient and medieval philosophers called Being. The questions metaphysics seek to explore are: What is reality? What can be counted as real? Are there things such as numbers, mathematics, or the logical axioms and propositions of all human reasoning that are not strictly empirical? In what ways do the physical laws and rules of logic point to extra-empirical, supernatural, or a transcendent reality?

Lately, I’ve been reading through this website called The Quantum Thomist by Dr. Nigel Cundy. If you are interested in how the study of physics points to metaphysics and transcendent reality, read this site. Dr. Cundy is a physicist who understands the connection between physics and metaphysics. I hope you enjoy it.

Metaphysics, Philosophy

Between Possibility and Reality: Heisenberg’s Appeal to Aristotelian Metaphysics, Part One

by Dave Seng

“As there is a material object behind every sensation, so there is a metaphysical reality behind everything that human experience shows to be real.” – Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography

[Note: I would like to thank Dr. Derek Gardner for reading a draft of this essay and supplying helpful suggestions. His scholarship saved me from making errors when describing quantum mechanics and I deeply appreciate his insight.]

I recently heard a professional philosopher say that metaphysics is no longer a dirty word in the field of philosophy. This was good news to me, because for the last four hundred years or so metaphysics has been considered a lost cause in philosophy. Upon reflection, however, I think there has been a small resurgence in the interest of classical metaphysics but the philosophy of mind, language, science, politics, and ethics still seem to be the most popular areas of study in the field. I’m still told that professional positions for metaphysicians are hard to find. Nonetheless, it is fascinating that philosophy is rediscovering its primary role—to explicate the most universal principles of reality and discover the rules, axioms, and laws that make our universe, fields of learning, and human experience possible in the first place. I think the ultimate questions of reality and what it means to be human will never really go away. Thoughtful individuals will always try to offer systematic attempts to illumine our human experience in depth and set it in a vision of the whole of reality. Why might there be an emerging interest in metaphysics and what would that tell us about the relationship between philosophy and science?

Aristotle explains in his Metaphysics that there is a science (for Aristotle ‘science’ is a body of knowledge) which is concerned with “being as being” and that the primary causes and principles of being are the object of study for the metaphysician. This is the formal study of ontology, the metaphysical exploration of all existing things as they exist, the properties of being, and whether certain things, whose existence can be questioned, do or do not exist. Aristotle also laid out the tactical possibilities for conducting what we now call the physical sciences – the study of the structure and behavior of the natural world through repeated observation and experiment. For Aristotle, however, and the many classical and medieval philosophers that came after him, the physical world and the ultimate principles of reality (what they would have called ‘physic’ and ‘metaphysic’) are not to be divorced or separated because both are needed to explain the ultimate nature and significance of reality. While the subdivision and classification of learning and science is helpful for sharpening one’s focus on their object of study, most areas of study ultimately fall back on basic first principles that attempt to explain or support their overall project, such as the principle of sufficient reason, the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, correspondence, cause and effect, act and potency among others. Perhaps one reason metaphysics is being re-discovered is that all fields of inquiry, whether the social sciences or physical sciences, use foundational first principles which reflect their basic assumptions about the nature of the universe and how the world works. Note that nearly all our basic assumptions are not empirical in the sense used by Enlightenment philosophers and natural scientists and yet it would be foolish to discard them. There are many immaterial and material aspects of reality. The union of the immaterial with the material has often been discarded or forgotten in Western thought but recently have been rediscovered with interesting metaphysical corollaries. Every cosmology, mathematical formula, scientific hypothesis, and ethical theory has metaphysical implications.

Another reason I think metaphysics is being rediscovered is that a few physicists and mathematicians in the twentieth-century ventured into the discussion and pointed out that physics and metaphysics are indeed related and ought not to be detached. This was a profound change in Western thought at least since the Enlightenment. Due to the skeptical theories of Descartes, Hume, Hobbes, and Kant, metaphysics was considered dead or impossible to pursue. However, interesting scientific developments in the early part of the twentieth-century changed things. Einstein’s colleagues, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, G.H. Hardy, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, among others, argued for a new understanding of nature due to the quantum discoveries of their day that described the behavior of reality at the atomic scale, where standard Newtonian physics failed to do so. Here, a basic tenet of quantum mechanics, as opposed to classical mechanics, is that reality, at an atomic level is not causally linear or smooth in its behavior but probabilistically discontinuous and discrete. In Newtonian physics, for instance, and in the classical “every day” large-scale sense to which it applies, it is generally possible to determine the future states of a system by knowing its present state (e.g., we can predict where a baseball will land given some initial conditions). In the new atomic physics of the twentieth century, this was no longer the case. Classical mechanics has at its basis the contention that all states of a considered system can be measured and known. When we describe atomic physics with quantum mechanics, on the contrary, one must accept that it is impossible to know the exact value of a parameter without measuring it, and one can know it only for that measurement. Heisenberg’s discovery of quantum indeterminism suggests that in the moment of an atomic measurement, the system (e.g., a molecule) is necessarily disturbed (e.g., by a probing photon) thus “collapsing” the original potential possibility-space into one state of the many probable states, some with much higher probability, but otherwise without any reason to “collapse” into one or another particular possible state (Silva, 637). The most one can do to describe the state of any given system, before or after the measurement, is to provide a probability for the outcome of that measurement (Dirac, 73).

From the standpoint of Aristotelian philosophy, Werner Heisenberg is especially interesting due to his specific appeal to Aristotelian categories of act and potency when describing his theory of indeterminism. Before getting further into Heisenberg’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, however, it is important to understand the central Aristotelian categories of Act and Potential.

As a quick review, ‘act’ or ‘actuality’ simply refers to that which exists. It is the physical, concrete existence of something (philosophers call this the ‘positive mode of perfection’ but we will not go into that here). For now, think of act or actuality as that which really exists here and now—a physical object. Another way to think of act is that which is ‘informed matter’. (In classical philosophy, matter is not form and form is not matter. Form is the essence of a thing or that which makes something the kind of thing it is and without which it can not be. Ordinarily, essence is considered distinct from existence. This is one reason why all reality has an immaterial as well as material elements.) ‘Potential’ or ‘potency’ is simply all the capacities for change, transformation, or movement that which is in act has. For example, a student has the capacity to become a great mathematician if she uses her rational capacities well. A rubber ball has the capacity or ability to be melted down and formed into a figurine, balloon, or tire. Potential is another way of describing all the possible modes of being something has (it is always innate to that which is in act). Potency is never unlimited, however, and is governed by the essence, nature, or form a thing has—and this will be important when we get to Heisenberg’s understanding of probability and atomic potency. For example, a hamster will never become a helicopter pilot, and a cephalopod will never become an architect because potency only relates to the nature (or essence) of the thing itself. Act and potency are metaphysical co-principles that help us make sense of the world around us. The act/potency distinction is an absolute feature of reality and is accepted by all serious philosophers from the classical tradition through the early modern period, including neo-Platonists and Aristotelians. For example, the neo-Platonist philosopher, Plotinus, appropriated Aristotle’s categories of act and potency when describing change.

Part two will specifically focus on Werner Heisenberg’s book, Physics and Philosophy with some concluding remarks from Max Planck.

Works Cited:

Dirac, Paul. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958.

Silva, Ignacio. “Werner Heisenberg and Thomas Aquinas on Natural Indeterminism.” New Blackfriars, 2013, 635 – 653.