“Errors of Modern Science”—A Philosophical Magic Act
By Rodney Rawlings
It all began with Ed Sullivan. In my early teens I used to watch his show regularly, and one day it included a tuxedoed magician who seemingly pulled colored hankies, billiard balls, and even entire decks of cards out of thin air. Much later, I would develop a theory that it is those who are most used to understanding the world who are most intrigued by a magic act. This was true in my case: I, who loved nature and thought I might one day be a scientist, was mesmerized.
Very soon after that, I began to make a pest of myself at a magic shop downtown, and became very adept at sleight of hand and at “close-up magic”—doing tricks right under people’s noses. At the shop, professional magicians would drop in to make purchases or to chat with the owner. One of them, whom I especially admired and whose stage name was Romaine, noticed my talent and made me his protégé. He taught me a great deal, and soon I was performing for friends, at parties, and even on local television. Among the patrons of the store, I was well respected, and I was often jokingly asked when I would write my book. For a time I was a member of the IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians), and would perform for other magicians, to some acclaim (yes, magicians often do fool each other).
|
|
|
|
From my high school yearbook. The reference to strings is interesting in the light of what follows here. |
Performing (or simply posing?) with my friend D’Arcy (who is holding the cards), who eventually became a computer programmer. |
But in a few years I discovered Ayn Rand, and Objectivism eventually became my overriding interest. Romaine would sometimes tease me about it, but that did not stop me from entering university, and relegating my hobby of magic—for that’s all it ever was—to second fiddle. In fact, there was a period while I was learning Objectivism during which I wondered how to morally justify the systematic deception that such a form of entertainment involved. This makes me smile now.
A few times I was able to combine my two major interests (another, minor interest was chess). Once, I performed in front of a university class. The instructor apparently was dealing with some mystical theme or other, and thought hiring a magician would be appropriate and interesting. To my surprise, at the end of my performance the instructor began a question period, and I got to answer questions about epistemology and metaphysics. (Let’s just say I made the most of it!)
In the 1980s, I devised, and performed a few times, the “routine” reproduced below. (What inspired me to do so is a story in itself.) In the show, I actually use the magic tricks to make philosophical points. The main topic is, as the title says, “Errors of Modern Science”—epistemological and metaphysical mistakes and confusions that have their genesis in the influence of modern philosophical doctrines. In planning the show, I found that the magical appearances, disappearances, and transformations that are the prestidigitator’s stock in trade were eminently suitable to the discussion of such issues.
My persona in the routine is that of a scientist in a lab coat who is presenting a lecture with the aid of posters (drawn by me). The main topics covered in my “patter”—written entirely in iambic pentameter verse with a preponderance of rhyming couplets—are: the primacy of existence and the fact that it is all science has to do with, the theory of creation, the nature of nothingness, the nature of existence, the absolutism of existence, non-contradiction, modern quantum theory and how it contradicts philosophical fundamentals, the theory of multiple dimensions and of superstrings in physics, the ontological status of mathematics, of the zero, and of equations (a viewpoint that was wholly my own), the ontological status of the relationship of science to philosophy, and—finally—the relationship of the concepts of existence, objectivity, and causation to the fact that the audience is applauding me in amazement that seemingly I have flouted these very principles.
It is obviously impossible for me to show the magical effects here, but they are described in the footnotes, in just enough detail to make sense of the verses. This necessitates constant movement between the text and the notes to get the full meaning.
How to Read, and How to Look at the Footnotes While Reading
The best procedure will be to read the verses in a slow, steady fashion, both to grasp the meaning and to assimilate the poetic structures. This will also make it less jarring to take a moment to click on the superscript numbers and read the footnotes wherever one thinks necessary. A click on the footnote’s own number will immediately bring the reader back to the line he was reading.
Another way to return to the line one was reading is to simply hit Backspace. With one hand on the mouse and the other over Backspace key, one can move even more quickly back and forth than with the other method.
Usually, there is an obvious connection between the trick I am doing and the idea I am discussing; but sometimes it’s a stretch. There is an element of humor in this presentation. I don’t expect readers to get all of what the audience got from this presentation; but I hope that they will find it enjoyable and stimulating.
Errors of Modern Science
(Patter for a Magic Act)
By Rodney Rawlings
The performer enters costumed as a scientist, wearing a lab coat. To one side is a table containing various props; to the other is an easel holding a group of posters, of which the top one is visible, as shown here.
Poster 0
1. Good evening. I am glad you all could come.
The lecture for today, though dull for some,
Will edify the ones with any brains—
Or
those who really love the number quinze[1]
(That’s French[2]), because I often show my hands[3]
Three times, to dispel the ifs and ands
And buts that may occur among your heads—
No pun intended there—for rumor spreads
Much faster than the human hand can follow[4]
(And hands, we know,[5] have beat the eye all hollow)—
The rumor—Wait! What’s this?[6] A red marshmallow?
No! Seriously, to put aside conjecture[7]
This ball will be the subject of our lecture.
It represents the universe, you see—
All things here now,[8] and past,[9] and yet to be.[10]
And science[11] deals exclusively with that.[12]
But here some people want to sit and chat:
The universe? “Ah, yes, but—what’s beyond it?
Above?[13] Below?[14] Also—what forces spawned it?
Are there not new worlds for our exploring?
Would not the universe alone get boring?”[15]
Take my word, you’ll really have a ball[16]
The moment[17] that you realize that’s all.[18]
2. Perhaps you do perceive that when we call things
The universe, we mean, or should mean, all things.
Yet some still think the theory of creation
Is valid[19]—let me give a demonstration.
Imagine this black hanky is a void—
Like outer space without an asteroid,
Without a star or planet or electron,
No reason and no rhymes, just like—“electron.”
If you find this impossible to think
Come afterwards and join me for a drink;
We’ll celebrate that nothingness is only
An absence, not some presence that is lonely.
But many of my colleagues say there sprang
A cosmos from a big but empty bang!
To me their difference is very slight[20]
From those who think God gave us day and night[21]
By saying (to Himself), “Let there be light.”[22]
I do believe my magic would be dated
If you believed that things could be created.[23]
3. Creation science, though, is not the sole[24]
Moot point[25] in which I want to poke a hole.[26]
This time a pun’s intended, that’s a fact,
On black holes. It is said black holes attract
Whatever comes too close, into their center.[27]
There gravity’s a pretty stern tormenter,
So much so that it snuffs existence out.
A candle caught inside a waterspout
Would leave some residue[28]—some wick and tallow—
With which to rouse the flame when tides get shallow—
But that, they say, is not what happens here:[29]
The hapless stuff, they say, will[30] disappear
With nothing left to build it back. Sound queer?
4. Well, don’t seek out a couch of Sigmund Freud;[31]
Deep down,[32] you’ve sensed a truth one can’t avoid:
That what exists can’t wholly be destroyed—
5. For with the thought that matter’s not created
Its[33] indestructibility is mated.[34]
Otherwise[35] we’d have a one-way street
With everything becoming obsolete.[36]
6.[37] It’s just another proof of what I’ve said
That now I can’t restore to black and red[38]
The whiteness that you see—it was a figment.
So[39] let me switch[40] to cards of louder pigment.[41]
One finds this color on a rusty door hinge—
Let’s change it to the more “appealing”[42] orange.
Perhaps you find mixed yellow more congenial;
I’ll do it,[43] it’s a chore that’s rather menial.
(PAUSE)
This nonsense has a point, a saving grace.
The masks may change, but matter shows its face[44]
In one way or another:[45] for to be
Or not to be are absolutes, you see.
Where fundamental substance is concerned[46]
The truth of it cannot be[47] overturned.
I know some sages take the firm position
That nature has made war with intuition
Quite often; and it nowadays outfoxes
Brilliant men with modern paradoxes.
But yet, in ages past, men were resistant
To paradoxes—all must be consistent!
If something seemed to clash with common sense
They merely polished up their arguments
Until the contradiction was resolved;
To forge new links was all that was involved.
The modern problem seems to be more basic,
And even experts ask themselves, are they sick?
For
they deny the essence of all being,
Not just of what we’re capable of seeing.
7. I’ll give you an example of the eerie
Conclusions drawn in modern Quantum Theory.
Suppose you say, “I’ve burning curiosity
About a thing’s location[48] and velocity:[49]
I wish to know[50] exactly where to find it[51]
And if it leaves a cloud of dust[52] behind it.”
Well, physicists will answer thus: “Ah, you
Desire to have your cake[53] and eat it too!
As careful measurement of speed increases
The certainty you’ve gathered falls to pieces
Regarding the location;[54] and we’ve found
It also works[55] the other way around.
The reason is a very simple fact:
To measure something, you must interact[56]
With it, and your doing so will alter[57]
The outcome. From the great Rock of Gibraltar
To minute subatomic[58] particles—[59]
Uncertainty envelops[60] solid articles.”
Got that? As well, they’re taking the perspective
That
ultimately truth is not objective—
That on the micro level, things are random
And causeless, and we only understand ’em
In terms of properties we choose to hand ’em.
Yes, nature and researchers work in tandem!
8. And here’s one more example of the eerie
Conclusions drawn in modern quantum theory.[61]
Now, most of us can easily accept
The four dimensions time,[62] length, width, and dept(h).[63]
But recently there have been some extensions
Of space-time with a host of new dimensions:
Some say we’ve 26, and some say 10,[64]
And some say “What’s the use?”[65] and take up zen.
But now that I have grabbed all your attentions[66]
Allow me to digress on these “dimensions.”
This one is depth, this one is width, this one is length.[67]
The first thing I will do is test their strength.[68]
Besides, they seem so different:[69] this is far
From what their mathematic meanings are![70]
I pull, and pull, and pull—before you know it:
There’s one, and two, and three[71]—Let’s play guitar![72]
It’s funny[73]—new dimensions sprouted wings
When physicists came up with ... superstrings.[74]
I’ll speak of superstrings in just a minute;
Meanwhile, if there’s a pun,[75] I won’t begin it.
You fools! I’ll have you know that I’m a poet—
You don’t crack jokes while swinging on a star.
Now let’s get back to all those weird extensions
Of space-time with a host of new dimensions.
They tell us that the superstring idea[76]
Poster 1
Was offered as a useful panacea
For mathematic stumbling blocks that lurked[77]
Behind old thoughts that formerly had worked.[78]
They used to visualize the seeds of matter[79]
As
... much like points[80]—now strings have come to shatter[81]
The old idea—strings make much more sense.
At once again they’re making progress. Hence
The superstring, with its superior math,[82]
Is next to lead us[83]—down the garden path?
Poster 2
9. I say the error here is: mathematics
Does not apply directly to the real,
But only through swift mental acrobatics
That practice and accomplishment conceal.
For instance, we use zero[84]—nothing to
it!
But when you seek for naught,[85] you
misconstrue it.[86]
For zero can’t be found—it’s zilch, it’s
zip.
When it’s a temperature,[87] you catch
the grippe;
And, on the Kelvin scale, you can’t get
colder.[88]
How do we use it? As a mere place-holder.
In tennis, love’s declared to mark a
space
During the match till someone scores an ace.
And minus one’s a sheer
impossibility.[89]
Apart from someone’s debt, it lacks utility:[90]
Poster 3
You have to run up some kind of account[91]
To make sense of a negative amount.[92]
The moral of the story? On occasion
You’ll find that life conforms to an equation. ...
And so therefore, these ropes are just that—ropes,
And not three space dimensions; I have hopes
That I can turn them back to different sizes ...[93]
Yet happy is the man who realizes
The things he can and things he cannot do.
Look! See? The loops are playing peek-a-boo.[94]
I’ll solve it temporarily like this.[95]
Now, with the middle rope I cannot miss:[96]
I have to neither shrink it nor extend it—[97]
(PAUSE)
I’ll let you have some time to comprehend it[98]
(And while I’m waiting, let it hang suspended).
(PAUSE)
Ready?
Now, the third rope[99]—there’s the
rub.
You think it’s harder? Welcome to the club!
I pull, and pull, and pull, and pull, and pull—[100]
Come on, now—there you are—it’s beautiful![101]
I have to neither shrink this nor extend this—[102]
I’ll let you have some time to comprehend this—[103]
But not too much—I think it’s time to end this.[104]
10. What have we here?[105] The subject of our lecture![106]
You want me now to sum things up? Oh, heck, sure.
My basic theme has been amazing blunders[107]
Now being trotted out[108] as nature’s wonders.
I began by heaping all my curses
On those who set up[109] other universes:
Because, does not “the universe” still mean
All things, including aspects[110] unforeseen?
I
then compared the big, fat, empty bang[111]
To a TV evangelist’s harangue.
For if all things explode where nothing was[112]
That indicates at least some natural laws.
And these two observations interlace
To tell you that this world will be the case
In one way or another: for to be[113]
Or not to be are[114] absolutes, you see.
I went on[115] to explain about the quantum:
Objective truth? Causation?[116] It don’t want ’em.
We saw another problem:[117] mathematics
Carried a bit[118] too far[119] by some fanatics.
(PAUSE)
11. What does it all add up to? What am I saying?—
Does science need a drastic overhaul?[120]
And some will think: “This can’t just be a call
For common sense—his props[121] are disobeying.”[122]
(PAUSE)
Ah! That’s the point—just ask: What’s underlaying
The small surprises I have made you feel
This evening? When you thought “That can’t be real,”
What mute considerations were you weighing?[123]
(LONGER PAUSE)
Existence. Objectivity.[124] And cause.
Are these not an unfolding[125] of the gauze,
For all to see the barest threads, of truth?[126]
Don’t they reveal the essence of all being
And not just of the objects[127] we are seeing?
Who will decide?[128] What awesome kind of sleuth?[129]
(PAUSE)
Not scientists.[130] No data they’re obtaining
Can ever bear on questions such as these.
(Remember, while his friends fell on their knees[131]
To hail the quantum, Einstein[132] was abstaining.[133])
(PAUSE)
It’s[134] for philosophy that I’m campaigning—
There only can the root facts[135] be defended;
For in the labs,[136] most think they’ve been transcended—
You ask them how, they shrug without explaining.
(PAUSE)
Poster 4
It’s time for philosophical retraining;[137]
Or failing that, a little more awareness
Of philosophic controversy. Fairness
And[138] waxing philosophical, not waning.[139]
(PAUSE. LOOK AT WATCH OR CLOCK.)
It’s getting late. But in the time remaining,
I’ll simply say I need no firmer seal
Upon the truth and logic of my spiel
Than that you clapped and found it entertaining.[140]
And[141] take my word, you’ll really have a ball[142]
The moment[143] that you realize[144] … That’s all.[145]
THE
END