METAPHORS OF REALITY
Shall we keep the quest for a graceful model of being?
by Jorge Aveleira
page 1 of 2
ABSTRACT
Metaphors of reality are conceptual pictures aimed to outline the connections that our consciousness establishes with the universe; they present reasonable, intuitive and consolidate arrangements of our attempts to appraise reality from an objective point of view. To conceive such metaphors seems to be inherent in the human condition, and that helps to establish methods for scientific investigation. Within systematic approaches, metaphors of reality are elaborated into models, systems, patterns and paradigms to guide philosophical and scientific research work. Even the acknowledged primary metaphors of reality are subject to change, as our knowledge about the universe evolves. This article comments on recurrent peculiarities, discernible when old metaphors of reality are replaced by new ones. Moreover, it is intended to show that even amidst the present difficulties imposed by quantum theory, the need and prospect for a new, elegant and workable metaphor of reality still stand, and that some information about new accomplishments of that kind may be presumed from those recurrent peculiarities of past episodes.
The subject in question is extremely far ranging and the approach adopted here is probably too unrestrained. This article is basically a piece of opinion and speculation; it may be approached as a discourse or a light article, much more than a research paper. Accordingly, direct citations or references to established authority are not offered for the speculative notions that are presented.
1. CONSCIOUSNESS
"In the anthropoid that almost reached the peak [...] a last effort was put forth. And nothing else was necessary to turn all the internal balance upside down [...]. Seemingly nothing changed in the organs. However, a great in-depth revolution: consciousness flowing, bubbling, inside a space of relationships and highly sensible representations..." (Chardin, 1955)
There are various interpretations attempting to define what consciousness is, where it comes from, and how can we detect it. The issues of constitution, origin and location of consciousness are not discussed here. It is attempted instead to demonstrate the existence of an evolving trend for the changes in the conceptual links that consciousness establishes between sentient beings and reality. The history of the human conceptualization of reality recurrently assembles comprehensiveness and independence in relation to everyday experience, along with gracefulness and implementation through elements of easy interpretation. To witness that trend in some detail may disclose relevant information and prospects about both consciousness and reality.
(NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: The trend the author seems to suggest is one from theories which are highly observer-dependent and limited to the daily experience of the observer to theories which are less observer-dependent and which expand well beyond our daily experience. This could also be called a trend from subjective to objective.)
To perceive, to feel, to appraise, to investigate about what is within and beyond reach, are usually recognized as attributes of consciousness, of being conscious. It is also a common realization that living beings that developed a fairly complex nervous system, comprising an associated brain, seem to hold there the physiological core of what may be called their individual consciousness. While the discussion about the possession of consciousness by beings other than human may be intense, it is generally accepted that mankind developed, or was bestowed, with a greater amount of that aptitude. Depending on individual judgment, the following definition may include or not beings other than human as possessors of consciousness in various degrees.
Consciousness may be defined, for the purposes of this article, as the inclination and ability to assimilate, consider and rework in a more or less judicious, analytical and extensive way, whatever elements of reality may cause an impression on the individual perception and/or serve as themes for deeds of feeling, reasoning and inner reflection.
To consider analytically usually implies establishing an objective relationship with the target of study, a detached point of view of the me-you, me-it kind. This permits us to examine facts in a way that is disassociated from the observer, aiming to determine rules that have a general and independent character. Facts which were established and studied under conditions that exclude interference by the observer, that is, facts whose existence and aspect are not dependent of a conscious observation, may be regarded as objective reality and be submitted to further scientific investigation. It may even be said that the possibility to make such detached observations is a necessary condition to declare that we are involved in a scientific study of a particular instance of reality. However, evidence from quantum physics presently seems to contest the ongoing possibility of such fully objective approaches within some divisions of science.
2. EARLIER METAPHORS OF REALITY
"A curious feature of modern physics is that, in spite of the success obtained in explaining a wide range of physical phenomena [...] it is unable to supply us with one single metaphor compatible with the way that the universe really operates [...]. Physicists do not possess any metaphor that contains in a single picture the main characteristics of quantum Physics [...]." (Herbert, 1985)
Along the course of history, mankind conceived several metaphors of reality. Experiments were guided by objective viewpoints yielded by those metaphors to ascertain general rules for observed facts. Without suitable metaphors perhaps the formulation of several scientific rules as we know them today would not have been possible. The conceptualization of the universe illustrated by the prevalent metaphors evolved as mankind accumulated knowledge, and sporadically abrupt changes became inevitable to deal with new information that contradicted former metaphors:
Humanoids who had a glimpse about the possibility to conceive the world as a realm that they could investigate and upon which they could independently plan and act should have felt terrified and marveled at the same time. Thus, a conceptual link of a higher order was established between human consciousness and reality and a viable metaphor allowing to reflect objectively upon both things was born.
Millennia ago, the notion of a flat earth was generally accepted. The universe was conceived of as a vast piece of land showing occasional elevations and depressions and an overall flat design. Heavens were crossed by deities like the sun and the moon. Stars were bright dots or holes in heaven's dome. The flat earth was supported by columns, or reposed on the back of a giant turtle, or was an island surrounded by an unfathomable ocean. The metaphor of the flat earth was satisfactory enough for a long time and even today, for much of everyday needs, our immediate neighborhoods still may be satisfactorily taken into account as a flat and undulated slab of earth.
Shrewd observations made by philosophers and scientists in antiquity since the fifth and fourth century BCE (Before Common Era) suggested that the earth was not flat, but a huge sphere floating in space. However, the notion of a flat earth remained widespread until a fairly precise geocentric cosmology was established by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy in the second century CE. According to Ptolemy's model, the spherical and unmovable earth was surrounded by other heavenly bodies that moved around it in epicycles, which were complex combinations of circular movements. Stars were looked upon as punctual sources of light in heaven's outer sphere. Ptolemy's model remained accepted as a complete explanation of the universe for many centuries. Even today, on a starry night, it is more pleasant, easy and convenient to look towards the sky and accede to the impression that the earth is the stable center of the universe, surrounded by the stars, the moon, and the heavenly bodies.
The metaphor of a spherical earth floating in the void was seen at first as an absurdity, because it contradicted common sense and most of immediate evidence. However, more and more evidence was gathered in favor of that new notion, which finally won general acceptance. That new metaphor expanded the limits of astronomical investigation well beyond the former constraints, as the model of a spherical earth was more independent from the observer. The elements that were necessary to build the new metaphor were very simple (spheres and circular movements), and they were already known by the time when it was proposed. The old metaphor of a flat earth became 'relative' to the point of view of an observer 'confined' to the neighboring geographical limits, and that circumstance could be reasonably explained by the new metaphor of a spherical earth.
In reading ahead, it is suggested that the notions of "relative" and "confined" be kept in mind, holding an equivalent meaning as they were employed in the former paragraph. The relativity of narrower notions and the confinement that they impose on the observer's judgment constitute a remarkably abiding constraint when the time comes to conceive or adopt a new metaphor of reality, which usually will look unacceptable at the time of it's inaugural presentation. The recognition and understanding of potential circumstances of philosophical confinement may ease the way to build an extended and workable model for the structure of reality.
In the sixteenth century, physicists and astronomers gathered more details about the movements of planets near the earth, and their findings in favor of a heliocentric model led to increasing doubts about the validity of Ptolemy's geocentric model. The notion of a heliocentric universe had already appeared in Antiquity, but it was not widespread. Copernicus formulated a scientific astronomy, published in 1543, whose most controversial assertion was that the earth orbits the sun, and so it is neither fixed nor the center of the universe. The notion of a moving earth was judged heretical by the Catholic Church. Several astronomers were prosecuted; Giordano Bruno was sentenced to death, and others were forced to abjure their discoveries. However, in the beginning of the seventeenth century more evidence and theoretical proofs were gathered through the works of Kepler and with the aid of the telescope utilized by Galileo until it became impracticable to deny the heliocentric model.
In the first years after its demonstration the heliocentric system was harshly rejected. Afterwards, that new model greatly expanded the realm of astronomy. The heliocentric model was even more independent and removed from the point of view of casual observers than the geocentric model it replaced. The old metaphor of a geocentric universe could be assimilated and explained within the heliocentric model, and the elements for the heliocentric model's construction were simple and already known.
The publication of Principia Mathematica by Sir Isaac Newton in 1686 brought about another fundamental change to the scientific metaphor of reality. The Newtonian mechanics explained and proved in mathematical detail the universal gravitation and the movements of all heavenly bodies including the sun, the stars and all other portions of matter, were they placed at astronomical distances or at the reach of our hands. The Newtonian mechanics was a seemingly perfect metaphor of the universe as a system where the movements and interactions of all particles and bodies could be predicted; the universal scientific paradigm turned physical reality into an all-moving but predictable machine, where only space and the flow of time were regarded as absolute references. The relativity of our notions and surroundings was further disclosed by Newtonian mechanics, that is, consciousness of reality and its corresponding metaphor were heightened to an even more independent position. Up to current times, much work is still done by applying solely the Newtonian mechanics. The small imprecisions that are incurred are not impediments for many acceptable calculations in navigation, air and ground transportation.
In the beginning of the twentieth century, physics was more or less at rest with the vast amount of work that had been accomplished in about two centuries of studies based on the Newtonian system. However, a few details introduced increasing distrust that physical reality could be fully explainable by that model. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the luminiferous ether did not exist, and the photoelectric effect led to questions about the nature of light. Albert Einstein created the relativistic physics, bringing in the notions of time as dependent of relative velocities and the dual wave-particle-like nature of light. The Theory of Relativity progressed with the discussion of the space-time continuum, the speed of light as a limiting factor for universal interactions, and the convertibility between matter and energy.
Relativistic physics shook violently the foundations of Newtonian mechanics, leading to the formulation of a new metaphor of reality. Relativistic physics and its accompanying metaphor are even more independent from the observer's direct judgment than Newtonian mechanics, and the confinement which restricted reasonings tied to the older metaphor was once again revealed. Space-time is a more comprehensive concept than space and time taken as separate entities and allows us to explain otherwise incomprehensible phenomena. Everyday life does not require that we take into account the discoveries of the Theory of Relativity. Its consequences are observable only within limits that we usually do not encounter as directly perceivable reality. Its formulation, however, enlarged the horizons for such scientific works as the exploration of atomic energy and the investigation of the origins of the universe.
© 2003 Jorge Aveleira