| Does ethics have a place in physics? For four hundred | | | | physical world.... Religion, on the other hand, deals with |
| years, the answer has been a resounding no, yet the | | | | the world of values. It considers what ought to be or |
| idea has never gone away completely. Over fifty | | | | what we ought to do, not what is. In science, we |
| years ago, Arthur Koestler, the brilliant Hungarian | | | | are concerned to discover what is true or false; in |
| polymath, speculated that perhaps an ethical concept, | | | | religion what is good or evil, noble or base. Science is |
| purpose, might actually be a property of time. Then | | | | the basis of technology, religion the basis of ethics." |
| there are those who are convinced that there is | | | | Ethics can only be thought of in a scientific context |
| evidence of intelligent design in the scheme of things, | | | | when physics has reached the point where the |
| which of course is just another name for divine | | | | subjective reality of physical phenomena is no longer |
| purpose. | | | | enough to explain the origin of these phenomena. |
| Part of the difficulty here is to define what is meant | | | | Physics tried very hard, for instance, to reach the |
| by ethics. There is first of all ethics as a code of | | | | origin of matter within this world. For many years, |
| acceptable social behavior, like an agreement by | | | | this origin of matter was thought to be the ultimate, |
| most people in the world that eating your enemies is | | | | irreducible particle, namely the atom. Then it was |
| no longer considered the right thing to do. There can | | | | discovered that the atom itself consisted of smaller |
| be little argument that this kind of ethics has no place | | | | particles, but even these, such as the proton, were |
| in science. | | | | then found to be capable of further division into |
| Then there is John Smith over here who firmly | | | | quarks. It became evident that the size of particles |
| believes that the Bible is the literal word of God and | | | | depended on the amount of energy that could be |
| that He is in charge of where creation is going. If | | | | directed at them. If this energy were high enough, |
| physics does not recognize this, then physics is | | | | even smaller particles would probably result. So |
| wrong and must find a place for God in the scheme | | | | physics came up with the concept of the string |
| of things. However, over there is Jane Doe who | | | | particle as the ultimate matter particle. It is defined as |
| thinks the Bible is suspect because it was written by | | | | having only one dimension, length. It therefore cannot |
| a lot of cantankerous, opinionated old men. Women | | | | be divided any further, even theoretically. However, |
| had no part in writing this document, which is | | | | nothing of only one dimension can exist in our |
| probably why God himself is pictured as a man. She | | | | ordinary subjective world of sense perceptions. If it |
| does not believe any of it and thinks that arguments | | | | exists at all, therefore, it must exist in some other |
| about purpose are typical male arguments that lead | | | | reality, not our subjective kind which depends on us |
| nowhere. Both John and Jane are probably influenced | | | | and our sense perceptions. |
| in their beliefs by their personal histories. Perhaps | | | | This argument shows that physics has now reached |
| John came from a very traditional Christian family, | | | | the point where a reintroduction of objective reality |
| while Jane came from a background of rebels and | | | | is becoming necessary. The book, Galileo's Shadow, |
| iconoclasts. But there is one thing they both have in | | | | on which this article is based, explores these realities |
| common: their beliefs are purely personal and thus | | | | in greater detail and how they effect ethical |
| subjective. It is true that John thinks his beliefs are | | | | concepts. If ethics can be removed from human |
| grounded in a revealed truth that exists quite apart | | | | subjectivity and considered in an objective setting, |
| from him and is thus objective, but that is simply his | | | | that is a setting which has nothing to do with our |
| own personal belief, which is contradicted by Jane's | | | | human presence, it might then possibly have |
| own personal belief. Whatever the subject of their | | | | something to do with physics, if physics has reached |
| personal beliefs, neither John nor Jane can show any | | | | the same setting. |
| independent proof that their beliefs reflect an outside | | | | Such possibilities are explored in Galileo's Shadow, |
| truth which is axiomatically self-evident. | | | | which reaches the conclusion that an ethical concept |
| Modern physics today agrees that what it deals with | | | | such as purpose might indeed be thought of in |
| in the world of natural phenomena (what is | | | | connection with science, if it is an inherent, |
| measurable and quantifiable) is based on our sense | | | | constituent property of the universe. This concept |
| perceptions, and that sense perceptions are | | | | would not "explain" such a purpose in human terms, it |
| fundamentally subjective in nature. That being the | | | | would merely point to its likely existence as a sort of |
| case, physics is quite right in excluding any subjective | | | | vector, or direction, in which the universe is |
| ethical concepts from science, because such ethics | | | | developing. Its relevance to science would lie in the |
| are not governed by scientific rules of evidence. As a | | | | alternative it offers to purely random chance |
| leading physicist of the twentieth century, Werner | | | | developments which, today, are the only acceptable |
| Heisenberg, put it: "Science deals with the objective, | | | | engines of evolution. |