As I have previously argued we can and should work towards a universal moral core. This project is essential so that our technological progress can be guided by moral progress, instead of running far ahead of it with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity (and already for so many other species). In order for philosophy to carry this project forward it must be supported by physics which represents our best understanding of the physical foundations of our world. Conversely if philosophy is disconnected from or directly contradicts physics it should rightly be considered “just a narrative.” In this regard we are finding ourselves in somewhat of a crisis.

I made the claim that we can to some degree understand reality and that reality exists even when it is not observed. A number of people, however, have interpreted quantum mechanics and special relativity to mean that this is a fiction. That reality is entirely relative to observers or in the extreme doesn’t exist at all outside of observers. It is my view that these conclusions are based on unwarranted generalizations from edge cases or are outright misinterpretations of existing theories. For what is morally relevant reality is sufficiently real and absolute.

Let me dig just a little deeper into the two specific examples that I have mentioned. First, take special relativity. Yes it does break down something that we take to be an intuitive feature of reality: simultaneity of events. Different observers may see the same event happening at different times from their perspective. This would seem to sound quite severe and people have tried to make a lot out of the so-called Andromeda paradox. Part of this is due to a misreading of the paradox. More importantly though, for our morally relevant reality, i.e. events happening here on Earth and to Earth-based (or even orbiting observers) events are sufficiently simultaneous. For example, an astronaut recently took a striking picture of a phenomenon known as a sprite. Earth based observers and instruments will have recorded the corresponding thunderstorm at roughly the same time.

Still we need more physics work also. There are in fact foundational questions to be tackled. We don’t have a super compelling physical theory of time ordering (in the so-called block universe view all times exist permanently). One interesting emerging explanation is called Assembly Theory and was originated by Sara Walker and Lee Cronin. Assembly theory aims to both explain the existence of complex macroscopic objects and provides a time ordering as a side benefit (more complex objects have to be deeper in time). Establishing this firmly is important because it will limit how profound the claims are that can be made from the relativity of simultaneity.

Second, take quantum mechanics. Yes it does break down something else we take to be an intuitive feature of reality: that objects can only be in one place at one time. We have a theory, however, and many experiments confirming it that in the quantum realm location is more complicated with “objects” not being in definite locations and even being able to jump across seemingly impenetrable barriers. Again this would seem to sound problematic for a firm notion of reality and people have made a lot out of various quantum effects, such as superposition and entanglement. Here too though for our morally relevant reality these don’t seem to matter. Objects of the size of humans, buildings, cars, dogs, whales, etc. all behave according to classical Newtonian laws with high fidelity. They are in a definite place.

Still here too there is a lot more physics work to do. For instance, we have really struggled with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a debate that goes back to its earliest days. There are now many competing interpretations with radically different implications. Some of these, such as Everett’s multiverse theory are likely to be fundamentally untestable. There is thankfully some new research which suggests that this multiplicity of interpretations may be an artifact of our specific mathematical framework for quantum mechanics. Jacob Barandes at Harvard has come up with a different formalism based on indivisible stochastic processes that appears to have the same explanatory power but comes with a clearer interpretation (which rules out the many worlds view).

Now you might say that I am being too dismissive here of moral relevance. You might mention quantum theories of consciousness as an example. My point is different though. The burden of proof runs in the opposite direction. People wanting to claim that these phenomena are morally relevant need to provide strong evidence of how they matter to human choice and judgment. It is not enough to say “here is some violation of people’s intuition about reality so reality is out the window entirely” or “here is some evidence of possible quantum effects in the human brain so all human choice is inherently quantum.” These are extravagant leaps that are not supported by sufficiently strong explanations (theories + evidence).

PS I am planning to write a second post on philosophy and physics covering free will