Axiomathes

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 409–432 | Cite as

Science Generates Limit Paradoxes

Original Paper

Abstract

The sciences occasionally generate discoveries that undermine their own assumptions. Two such discoveries are characterized here: the discovery of apophenia by cognitive psychology and the discovery that physical systems cannot be locally bounded within quantum theory. It is shown that such discoveries have a common structure and that this common structure is an instance of Priest’s well-known Inclosure Schema. This demonstrates that science itself is dialetheic: it generates limit paradoxes. How science proceeds despite this fact is briefly discussed, as is the connection between our results and the realism-antirealism debate. We conclude by suggesting a position of epistemic modesty.

Keywords

Apophenia Dialetheism Psychology Quantum measurement Realism Scientific knowledge 

References

  1. Blume-Kohout R, Zurek WH (2006) Quantum Darwinism: entanglement, branches, and the emergent classicality of redundantly stored quantum information. Phys Rev A 73:062310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohm D (1989) Quantum theory. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohr N (1958) Atomic physics and human knowledge. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom N (2003) Are you living in a computer simulation? Philos Q 53(211):243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bousso R, Freivogel B (2007) A paradox in the global description of the multiverse. J High Energy Phys 6:018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer P, Bergstrom B (2008) Evolutionary perspectives on religion. Ann Rev Anthropol 37:111–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruner J (1957) Going beyond the information given. In: Bruner J, Brunswik E et al (eds) Contemporary approaches to cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 41–69Google Scholar
  8. Butterfield J (2011) Emergence, reduction and supervenience: a varied landscape. Found Phys 41:920–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carruthers P (2010) Introspection: divided and partly eliminated. Philos Phenomenol Res 80:76–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chisholm RM (1982) The problem of the criterion. From the foundations of knowing, Harvester, Sussex, pp 61–75Google Scholar
  11. Conway J, Kochen S (2006) The free will theorem. Found Phys 36:1441–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennett D (2006) Breaking the spell: religion as a natural phenomenon. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietrich E (2015) Excellent beauty: the naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of the world. Columbia University Press, New York (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Dugić M, Jeknić J (2006) What is “system”: some decoherence-theory arguments. Int J Theor Phys 45:2249–2259Google Scholar
  15. Dugić M, Jeknić-Dugić J (2008) What is “system”: the information-theoretic arguments. Int J Theor Phys 47:805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunbar RIM, Shultz S (2007) Evolution in the social brain. Science 317:1344–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fields C (2012a) If physics is an information science, what is an observer? Information 3:92–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fields C (2012b) Implementation of classical communication in a quantum world. Information 3:809–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fields C (2014) On the Ollivier–Poulin–Zurek definition of objectivity. Axiomathes 24:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fodor JA (1975) The language of thought. Crowell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuchs CA (2010) QBism: the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint arXiv:1003.5209v1Google Scholar
  22. Gisin N (2012) Non-realism: deep thought or a soft option? Found Phys 42:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harshman NL, Ranade KS (2011) Observables can be tailored to change the entanglement of any pure state. Phys Rev A 84:012303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan TF (2010) Fundamental significance of tests that quantum dynamics is linear. Phys Rev A 82:032103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kastner R (2014) ‘Einselection’ of pointer observables: the new H-theorem? Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 48:56–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelly T (2008) Disagreement, dogmatism, and belief polarization. J Philos 105(10):611–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koons R (2013) Defeasible reasoning. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. In: Zalta EN (ed) Spring 2013 edn. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
  28. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Lam V, Esfeld M (2012) The structural metaphysics of quantum theory and general relativity. J Gen Philos Sci 43:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Love B (2014) Categorization. In: Ochsner K, Kosslyn SM (eds) The Oxford handbook of cognitive neuroscience, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 342–358. Preprint http://bradlove.org/papers/Love2013b.pdf
  31. Luke D (2011) Experiential reclamation and first person parapsychology. J Parapsychol 75:185–200Google Scholar
  32. Miller G (2011) ESP paper rekindles discussion about statistics. Science 331:272–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moses Y, Shoham Y (1993) Belief as defeasible knowledge. Artif Intell 64:299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mossbridge J, Tressoldi P, Utts J (2012) Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol 3: article # 390Google Scholar
  35. Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2004) Objective properties from subjective quantum states: environment as a witness. Phys Rev Lett 93:220401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2005) Environment as a witness: selective proliferation of information and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe. Phys Rev A 72:042113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollock J (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 11:481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollock J (1995) Cognitive carpentry. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Priest G (1994) The structure of the paradoxes of self-reference. Mind 103:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Priest G (2002) Beyond the limits of thought. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Priest G (2006) In contradiction. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Radin D (2006) Entangled minds. Paraview Pocket Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Russell B (1906) On some difficulties in the theory of transfinite numbers and order types. Proc Lond Math Soc (Ser 2) 4:29–53Google Scholar
  44. Russell B (1921) The analysis of mind. George Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Scaife R (2014) A problem for self-knowledge: the implications of taking confabulation seriously. Acta Anal. doi:10.1007/s12136-014-0226-8 Google Scholar
  46. Schlosshauer M (2006) Experimental motivation and empirical consistency of minimal no-collapse quantum mechanics. Ann Phys 321:112–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlosshauer M (2007) Decoherence and the quantum to classical transition. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Scholl BJ, Gao T (2013) Perceiving animacy and intentionality: visual processing or higher-level judgment? In: Rutherford MD, Kuhlmeier VA (eds) Social perception: detection and interpretation of animacy, agency and intention. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 197–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholl BJ, Tremoulet P (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Searle J (1983) Intentionality: an essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shermer M (2005) Turn me on. Dead man. Scientific American, AprilGoogle Scholar
  52. Shermer M (2008) Patternicity: finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Scientific American, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  53. Shermer M (2011) The believing brain. Times Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Simion F, Di Giorgio E, Leo I, Bardi L (2011) The processing of social stimuli in early infancy: from faces to biological motion. Prog Brain Res 189:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ’t Hooft G (2013) The fate of the quantum. Preprint arXiv:1308.1007v1 [quant-ph]Google Scholar
  56. Tressoldi PE (2011) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences. Front Psychol 2:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Fraassen B (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Fraassen B (2001) Constructive empiricism now. Philos Stud 106:151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weinberg S (2012) Collapse of the wave function. Phys Rev A 85:062116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson T (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Zanardi P (2001) Virtual quantum systems. Phys Rev Lett 87:077901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zanardi P, Lidar DA, Lloyd S (2004) Quantum tensor product structures are observable-induced. Phys Rev Lett 92:060402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zurek WH (1998) Decoherence, einselection and the existential interpretation (the rough guide). Philos Trans R Soc Lond 356:1793–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zurek WH (2009) Quantum Darwinism. Nat Phys 5:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.SonomaUSA

Personalised recommendations