The Assumptions of Scientists

According to a Pew Research study,

76% of Americans express a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests… Majorities view research scientists as intelligent (89%) and focused on solving real-world problems (65%).¹

We place a great deal of trust in the judgments of scientists when it comes to policy and societal flourishing. However, sometimes this trust goes too far when the philosophical opinions of scientists triumph over philosophers.

Should we place trust in the philosophical positions of scientists? I think we ought not to. Scientists are mainly concerned with doing science, not philosophy. The philosophical opinions of a scientist are no better than the opinions of a philosophy undergraduate.  

That said, scientists still have an authority in the philosophy of time, and this authority leaks into another subject: conscious experience. Carlos Rovelli proclaimed in his book The Order of Time²,

The idea that a well-defined now exists throughout the universe is an illusion, an illegitimate extrapolation of our own experience… The “present of the universe” is meaningless.

The Order of Time, pg 45

There are two assumptions that scientists who make these philosophical claims often make:

(1) Scientific Realism  (2) Physicalism.

These assumptions are often unjustified by its proponents. Yet, these unjustified assumptions are then used to attack commonsense. I will show how these assumptions are unjustified, and that we can have science without letting go of common sense.

Scientific Realism and Physicalism

On average, physicists tend towards scientific realism, and slightly more so than philosophers of science.

Scientific realism has two main principles: (1) Science aims to give a literally true account of the world. (2) To accept a theory is to believe it is (approximately) true. Like any philosophical position, there are nuances to every view. However, physicists would typically agree that both of these principles are true.

Physicalism is,

The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical.³

So, the mind is physical and is susceptible to physical processes.

Time Dilation and Consciousness

Scientists will often tell us time is a four-dimensional spacetime block. The past, present, and future exist simultaneously. As such, since we never actually perceive past, present, and future simultaneously, it follows that the flow of time we perceive is an illusion.

This isn’t anyone wanting to act against common sense; rather, it is a supposed consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity.

According to the theory, time is relative from one reference point compared to another. Imagine two clocks, A and B. Both clocks have the same time. If you put clock A in an airplane and leave clock B with you on the ground, eventually clock B will lag behind clock A by a minute or so. This is because time speeds up for clock A relative to clock B, since clock A is travelling at a greater speed, while clock B is stationary.

This phenomenon is called time dilation. It would be hard to formulate how time dilates without a spacetime block. If the present was all that existed, then it would follow that any object not synced in the now would cease to exist. We don’t see objects disappearing all the time due to time dilation, instead they travel along the fourth dimension.  

Time dilation affects all physical objects and isn’t limited to clocks. If conscious experience is physical, as the physicalists say, it would be susceptible to time dilation. Instead of clocks, imagine Arianne being on the plane, and Bob on the ground. Bob’s conscious experience would eventually lag behind Arianne’s, since (like the clocks) time speeds up for Arianne relative to Bob. When Arianne and Bob go on their next date, Bob experiences everything one minute later than Arianne!

Common Sense and Science

If you believe the example of Arianne and Bob is counter-intuitive, you’re not alone! Yet, it has almost become a dogma of science to cling onto the counter-intuitive. We can safely disregard common sense. After all, common sense leads to beliefs like the flat Earth or cults!

However, most of our beliefs are rooted in common sense. I don’t need a scientific proof to believe that I am touching my keyboard. The belief simply arises within me. Nor do I need a proof to know that I can smell fresh cookies baking in the oven. If a scientific theory implies that touch or smell is an illusion, I would sooner reject the theory than reject common sense. How would I even begin to do science without the common sense belief that my eyes, ears, and brain are functioning properly?

Scientists will try to convince us to reject common sense without trying to harmonize their theories with it first. Since special relativity implies that we are all consciously out of sync, and common sense tells us otherwise, we ought to become skeptical of common sense. But if we are to reject a common sense belief like synchronized consciousness, we need a rebutting defeater.

A rebutting defeater is a reason that contradicts or renders a belief highly improbable. For example, I believe I saw a bear in the supermarket this morning. Then a man took off the bear costume head. This fact would be enough evidence to overturn my belief that I saw a bear.  

However, scientists like Carlos Rovelli haven’t provided us with a rebutting defeater for common sense. The way Rovelli justifies that a universal now is an illusion is through cherry-picked appeals to scientism. Rovelli argues Einstein ended Newton’s distinction between physical time and true time. However, philosophers have pointed out that Einstein merely defines it out of existence, a result of his affinity towards logical positivism.

While logical positivism has been banished from philosophy, scientists still appeal to its offspring: scientism. Scientism is never justified and could never be justified since it is logically incoherent. Science cannot prove itself!

Scientific Realism and the Now

If scientific realism is false, it is not true that science aims to give a literally true account of the world. This means that time dilation is not literally true. Any benefits we get from assuming time dilation are only practical. Scientific anti-realism allows us to believe in both the now, and in special relativity. Since time dilation would not affect the physical processes of our minds.

So, common sense does not contradict science. In fact, common sense is in harmony with science. Scientists who want to strip away common sense from science end up biting off more than they can chew.

The Problem of Synchronized Consciousness

1. If realism and physicalism are true, then our conscious experience with others is asynchronous.

2. It is more likely than not that our conscious experience with others is synchronized.

Therefore,

3. It is not the case that both realism and physicalism are true.

If you believe that conscious experience is synchronized, you can’t be realist and physicalist. You can be a realist and believe conscious experience is synchronized, so long as you deny physicalism. Since a realist can also be a substance dualist, who believes time dilation won’t affect the soul. Likewise, you can be a physicalist and believe in synchronized consciousness, provided you deny realism. A physicalist can believe science is only practical.

Since there is no reason to believe in realism and physicalism, there’s no reason to reject synchronized consciousness. And since common sense says that I am consciously synchronized with everyone, I’m justified in rejecting the assumptions of the scientists.

Works Cited