Models of Reality
Presented by karen Gipson, PhD, Associate Professor of Physics, Physics Department Chair, Grand Valley State University
About the Speaker
Karen Gipson is an Associate Professor of Physics and Chair of the Physics Department at Grand Valley State University. She has been a serious student of both physics and buddhism for over 30 years. She has a Ph.D. in physics from Washington State University and is currently employed at Grand Valley State University, where she continues to deepen her understanding of physics through teaching and research. Following extensive zen/vipassana training in Japan and in the USA, she took precepts in the Order of Interbeing and subsequently helped establish two sanghas, including the Mindfulness Meditation Community of Grand Rapids, where she currently practices meditation and studies the dharma. Her research interests focus on Acoustics and the Philosophy of Science. She has presented numerous studies at the Meetings of the Acoustical Society of America and has received awards for her work with undergraduate students at Grand Valley State University. Gipson was the 2008 recipient of the Women’s Impact Award and is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
About the Event
Summary with Commentary for the topic of the 255th meeting of CFI Michigan. This meeting was held on June 25, 2008.
The topic for this meeting was Models of Reality. It was presented by Karen Gipson, PhD, who is the Associate Professor of Physics, Physics Department Chair, at Grand Valley State University. She invited us, in her engaging presentation, to investigate what physics and Buddhism have to say about the nature of conceptual models, drawing from examples from the history of science and from everyday life. In the process, underlying assumptions of various belief systems- including materialist philosophy- were explored. The discussion was intended to foster a genuinely freethinking approach to the concepts she presented to us, by inviting audience members from all backgrounds to become more aware of the limits of conceptual models and the role of faith in one’s personal belief framework.
Dr. Gipson has been a serious student of both physics and Buddhism for over 30 years. Her PhD in physics was earned from Washington State University and she is currently employed at GVSU, where she continues to deepen her understanding of physics through teaching and research. Following extensive zen/vipassana training in Japan and in the US, she took precepts in the Order of Interbeing and subsequently helped establish two sanghas, including the Mindfulness Meditation Community of Grand Rapids, where she currently practices meditation and studies dharma. Her research interests focus on Acoustics and the Philosophy of Science. She has presented numerous studies at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America and has received awards for her work with undergraduate students at Grand Valley State University. Karen Gipson was the 2008 recipient of the Women’s Impact Award and is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Whenever this summary writer sees an overabundance of red underscored words from the text program employed and this is not the result of typos or from the use of proper nouns, I realize that some definitions are called for. The aforementioned vipassana training pertains to an ancient meditation technique developed in India, which encourages things to be seen as they really are. A principle goal in this meditation form is the eradication of mental impurities, allowing one to potentially attain the highest happiness of full liberation. Self- transformation occurs through self- observation. Vipassana mediation is based on increased awareness, non-delusion, self- control and peace. The term sangha is roughly translated to mean an assembly, association or the company of others. More specifically, it deals with the concept of a community of individuals who have a shared purpose, vision and goal. Dharma, is even harder to define with any precision, but generally regards an exploration of the natural, observable universal laws. This clear observation enables humans to be contented and happy, and avoid degradation and suffering. Much of the Buddha’s teachings arise from the core goal of alleviating suffering. Already, one sees how a naturalist approach to life can find common ground with ancient Indian philosophy, since both examine the natural world and seek to avoid counterproductive biases and delusional thinking.
In our busy, fast- paced daily lives we experience so much noise and distraction. We fail to stop and truly experience the world around us— absorb the reality that surrounds us. Dr. Gipson asked us to take a couple minutes out to simply sit quietly and tune into the richness of reality that so often eludes us. The only reality that we can experience is that which is right here and right now and it is composed of the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.
Categorization is natural to humans and it may be employed to describe the parts of reality that are there to experience. Gipson showed us an image comprised of scattered toys and talked of how we could organize the items in different ways, such as shapes, colors, those that produced sound, etc.
We may organize and sort out experiences in this way as well. These categories may then be further reduced down to other subcategories. An example our presenter gave of this was to initially break down what has been referred to as categories of action, such as the useful arts, pertaining to manipulation; liberal arts, regarding understanding; and the fine arts, dealing with creation. These can then be sorted into categories of the physical, mental and possibly spiritual. Categories may be reassembled, however, into integrated actions. As an example of this, Dr. Gipson presented us with a puzzle to solve. There were three levels of three dots and we were to connect up the dots using only four straight lines and without tracing over any already established line or lifting the pencil from the paper. Solving this puzzle makes use of manipulation (the useful arts), knowledge about pertinent information (the liberal arts) and creating something as a result (the fine arts).
She next discussed the categories of knowledge. These, she rendered as the eye of flesh; the eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation. These together encompass the physical world, realities that may not be directly observed, and concepts that may be reflected upon but not manipulated in the physical sense. All three ways of knowing are real.
Being both a scientist and Buddhist, Gipson showed us how what she referred to as the eye of science can fit easily and naturally into the above categories. It uses the eye of the flesh in observation and examination; the eye of reason when it makes use of mathematical concepts, etc., and the eye of contemplation, when it generates theory and forms connections with other aspects of the natural world. This scientific examination of the natural world may also be divided up, and indeed is, through the different fields and disciplines. These include, for example, physics, chemistry, biology and geology. Each of these fields of study may then be further subdivided, such as when physics is broken up into thermodynamics, quantum, mechanical, etc. When we do this, we see that the categories are not discrete but begin to blend together; as just a couple examples—thermodynamics with both geology and physics; chemistry in biology and physics, etc. As we go deeper yet, all becomes connected ultimately; the categorization we employed becomes plastic and abstract. As Dr. Gipson put it, we just get smaller and narrower pieces of reality as we get more and more reductionistic. We should be aware of the process when we extract small concrete parts of reality to focus upon.
She also talked about how the scientific method may be broken into its constituent parts of observation, hypothesis, testing, and the generation of theory and laws. These may be associated with experiencing, narrowing of focus, modeling and generalizing from the model/s.
This thought brought us to some key concepts in her presentation. We take little pieces of reality and abstract from it to create models. But in so doing, we end up leaving a great quantity of reality behind. Once you get to creating scientific theory, after the part of reality you are investigating has been selected and observations are made that cause us to make if/then predictions and generate hypotheses and these are observed and tested, we are at the point where the pieces are brought back together again. Theory is composed of all those small pieces that are broken up and individually studied and tested. Every piece must fit in order for a scientific theory to be constructed, so a scientific theory is a generalization that is composed of integrated facts and this becomes the best explanatory model of some aspect of reality that we have. A robust theory in one domain will allow us to make predictions and help explain observations in other domains— so what started out as divergent fields of study become more unified under a powerful theory. Evolutionary theory, for instance, explains phenomena observed in everything from cosmology to botany; from geology to chemistry and so on.
So what we see, then, in the scientific endeavor is an initial narrowing down where observation and hypothesis converges, then an expansion as all the facts broaden out to take in greater portions of reality again as it becomes theory.
A book this summary writer has mentioned before by the late I. Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong, gets into some of the next concepts Dr. Gipson expressed. Just one example from Asimov’s book regarded the shape of the Earth. The ancient idea of a flat Earth with four literal corners was wrong relative to the concept of the circular Earth. This was wrong relative to the improved notion of a spherical planet. But it doesn’t end there- the Earth is not perfectly spherical but bulges and even that model is wanting when one looks deeper into topographical features and so on. In Gipson’s presentation, she also discussed the flat Earth idea but showed how its degree of validity or erroneousness depends on one’s frame of reference. The ancients perceived a Flat Earth for the simple reason that it truly did appear to stretch out along a horizontal plane until it just stopped. It still appears like that to us today. We just have a different model to use now to inform us that this is not the shape of our home planet as a body in space.
However, not only is this frame of reference, where a flat Earth is observed, one that works well enough for us in everyday life on our scale of existence—for our personal reality- but it even works out, Gipson noted, for sound scientific modeling! That is, so long as that model treats the same scale of reality that we are dealing with. We need not incorporate the curvature of the Earth into the physics of a ball rolling across a floor or any other model that is close enough to the Earth for the planet’s curvature to not come into play. The physics is still dead on accurate for those scales. Such models explore other pieces of reality that are being observed and worked with. Hypotheses may be created from the models and predictions made, tested and verified or rejected. And it all may be expanded into theory. That a ball rolls across the floor, rather than lofting up into space demands further explanation and this begins to take in the underpinnings of the forces of nature and may ultimately end up focusing on the curvature of not just the Earth but spacetime itself.
Models give us a way of looking at theoretical concepts, but even at the level of theory and powerful models, these still take in only parts of reality— larger and larger parts to be sure- but all necessarily leave out some pieces of the entirety of reality. One of our members gave a talk once on The Celestial Sphere, which this summary writer was reminded of during Gipson’s presentation. In that lecture, our presenter, who is an astronomer, spoke on a similar theme. He talked of the early models humans made for how the Earth and space worked together. It was pretty much what the Bible refers to- a flat Earth with a dome over it and pinpricks (the idea of stars that are suns like ours was simply not known then) and with the Sun as well as the Moon orbiting our planet. This was expanded into a more complex model that was still geocentric but began to take in a deeper understanding of our planet in space. As humans tried to reconcile their powerful need to adhere to geocentrism with keener observations that conflicted with this view, epicycles had to be introduced. The more humankind learned, the more epicycles had to be added to make the new and improved models work, while retaining the notion of spheres moving out from the Earth and astronomical bodies being carried around on these crystalline spheres. Eventually the vision of Copernicus and Galileo won out and since then, better and better comprehension of the cosmos has taken place. Complex computer models take the place of cumbersome clockwork models and we now peer into deepest time and space… but for the part of reality that is closer to our planet, we still- even today- incorporate a celestial sphere model that works beautifully at that scale, has explanatory value and can test predictions, etc. But as a model within the larger view of the cosmos, it is once again falls short. Yet it is the model we look to—and the pieces of reality the models describe- when fashioning our understanding of what is real.
So we end up coming full circle, with a relativity of wrong that is determined by how much reality is being explained and at what scales. One does not sensibly employ quantum physics in calculating the trajectory and parabola of a baseball pitched in a game, even though both quantum and classical physics explains the reality under their respective jurisdictions well.
A valid scientific model should describe within the domain of interest; offer insights, and offer accurate predictions, but, as alluded to previously, it need not be completely true in order to do these things. Another example Dr. Gipson gave us of this was the model for the nucleus of an atom with the electron orbiting it. Dead wrong, yet still useful as a model. Models abstract what is under investigation but this abstraction makes analysis possible and offers clearer pictures to work with. They do this by breaking up complicated stories so that we may examine the parts and then recombine them again in order to derive a more accurate overall picture of reality. Our speaker quoted John Haught who said that clarity is purchased at the price of depth. We generalize to see what is left out by narrowing down. To reiterate an important point: we narrow down first to examine pieces of reality and then broaden back out as the model and theory is constructed.
Dr. Gipson talked about how light may be shown to consist of particles or to travel as waves even though these concepts are quite different and very difficult to reconcile. Particles transfer energy from point A to point B, transferring matter in the process, while waves do not transfer matter when they transfer information. Particles stay localized as they travel and interact via collisions. Waves, conversely, spread out as they travel (they are not localized) and interact via superposition; they add together when passing each other, then go on unopposed. At this point she introduced the well known double slit experiment and showed how it was determined at first that light was a wave. Then it was demonstrated that it cannot be a wave. Einstein referred to this conundrum as wave/particle duality. Whatever light is tested for—particles or waves—is what the experiment will show. This is evidence of the limits of our conceptual models. It depends on how we ask the questions if light is particles or waves.
Other useful but incomplete and not entirely accurate models that are commonly used include the eye as being analogous to the camera and the computer being a good representation of the brain. While these models may offer insights and have other benefits, one must never confuse the model with reality. Do not be confused by the surface when in the depths is the law. Narrowing the focus is helpful in examining aspects of reality but also leaves out the complete picture.
Scientific laws provide generalization, make descriptions of consistent patterns, and generate insights through connections made. But they do not explain anything; instead scientific laws just describe patterns seen over and over.
Problems may arise when the model determines which questions may be asked, constraining creativity and deeper insights. If the model seems to indicate the we have all the answers, then it tends to make us stop asking questions.
Next, Dr. Gipson talked about statements on purpose and ideas regarding causes. What is a baby’s purpose? she asked. Is the baby an automaton whose purpose is to bring joy? Is the joy it brings a mechanism to help perpetuate the creation of babies and is this in order to pass genes into the next generation? A circular statement she gave us about cause went that the cause of emotions is chemical action. But what is the cause of chemical action? Emotion? She also discussed statements of possibilities and here she reintroduced the nine dots arranged as three levels of three dots that had been previously given as a puzzle to work on. The solution involves drawing lines that exceed the dimensions of the box, while adhering to the rules set down at the outset. This solution was truly an example of thinking outside the box and exploring possibilities.
Dr. Gipson presented many ways of looking at reality that left room for the spiritual. This is a component of the Big Questions we, as humans, ask. The spiritual does not have to embrace supernatural concepts. One might ask, as she did, how she might align her life to be fully consistent with reality. She advised us not to be idolatrous about any one concept of reality. She feels that it is valid to explore whether the physical body is the totality of the being. If taken too far, she noted, it can deny real experiences like love, for instance. This summary writer would add that there actually is a large body of work written on the chemical and evolutionary basis for love that requires no agents or other forces outside of, apart from, or beyond the physical body.
Just as she has a less than rigid concept for the term spiritual, she also talks of faith statements that have nothing to do with the worship or belief in supernatural beings. One such faith statement that she gave was that thoughts may arise out of the physical substrate alone, if this substrate is rich enough (a complex brain). This, she might say is no less a faith statement than one regarding the veracity of the virgin birth of Jesus. On the other hand, she noted that it is also a faith statement to say that subjective experiences transcend the purely physical body. She draws her own faith statements from those that help her live her life in the best way that she can. One of her colleagues feels that physics and rebirth can be reconciled via entropy. This is an example of faith statements from both science and the spiritual realm.
In the Question & Answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Gipson was asked a question pertaining to synergy and she spoke of how ecology does this well in that it takes into account how when one part of a system is changed, this has an effect upon other parts. It also brings together several different disciplines into one field.
For her, there was no conflict between Buddhism and physics. Both, she said, invite questions and they are both experiential. One is not to believe something in both simply because an authority figure said it was so. Test it for yourself is the mantra of both approaches.
In response to another question, she talked of the crisis of self. With Zen, the aim is not to be selfish or self- sacrificing but to be selfless by losing the ego.
Another question prompted her to reply that a model is considered successful if anyone, following the proper experimental parameters and protocol, can arrive at the same results.
When asked how to bring a scientific approach to something like arriving at different levels of consciousness through meditation, Dr. Gipson spoke how experiences may be tested once hallmarks are attained. It is not just subjective and not all realities are true. It is not an anything goes approach to life.
Many other concepts were looked at, including absolutes and relativity; how the observer becomes part of the experiment in quantum physics and how even the way we view a shape is dependent upon the coordinates that are observed.
Summarized by Charles LaRue
