Positivism is a term that sounds like a made up word when I first read it. It was a philosophy where one limits reality to actual experience and experimental data. It was also an approach for studying physics. Positivism is simply the view that an ideal physical universe doesn't exist. The prime example that always comes to my mind is Euclidean space.
Some people are shown a non-Euclidean geometry as a curved surface floating in a Euclidean space. This implies that flat space is the real geometry and that non-Euclidean space is a variation. This, in turn, implies that one can get out of our space time into the Euclidean flat space. This is possible because one conceives of the flat space as the superset or as the higher reality. It is true that at small scale the curved spacetime looks flat. So it is more likely that the ideal flat spacetime is a result of incorrect extrapolation, rather than the ultimate reality of space.
In my view, using flat spacetime as the ultimate model and curved as a subset is similar in thinking only rational numbers exist in number theory, and that irrational numbers are just a variation. There is a difference in using idealization as a method to simplify a calculation or as a way to teach a new concept. But in many cases it is not stressed that the idealization is a phantom.
Back to the point, an ideal universe doesn't exist outside the physical one in which we detect. Only the universe we can measure, sense and observe exists. There are no hidden variables in quantum theory. There is no flat space time outside of our universe. This is important in that it changes ones motivations and justifications when coming up with theories about the universe.
The other extreme is that logic and thought are the only reality. That reality can argued about and be proved by logic alone. Aristotle argued that heavier object fell faster than lighter ones. This was based on logic and was not questioned for hundreds of years. A simple experiment by Galileo of dropping two stones from the tower shatters this result, actually rolling balls down a sloping board. This is the biggest problem of ideal realities. The actual possible number of working ideals are infinite. One only has to make an assumption of some additional small effect which starts one down a completely different logical structure. To keep things simple, you just don't add any such considerations. Thus spacetime remains flat, and objects fall based on their weight.
There actually is middle ground. I think the name of the philosophy is critical realism. There exists some kind of independent truth separate from Man's mind. Like Columbus discovered America, a continent which existed before Columbus ever arrived, the universe and it's truths exists, waiting for only man to discover. Can man ever find all truth? No I don't believe so. Some truth are totally outside of what is even considered possible, see Extralogical truth. Other facts disappear by the very action of uncovering them. Heisenburg uncertainty principle is a good example. Also see Positivism in the marketplace. Man's participation in the universe may indirectly and possibly directly influence it, which changes the basic items in the universe.
Critical realism assumes that man's view of the nature of reality is as much a product of observation, the thinking in a persons head, and the truth in the universe. Observation alone can't reach all truths, the truth about God is a prime example. The universe, as made by God, can only be argued by logic. The existence of God mostly centers on the 'why' rather than the how. It falls into the realm of metaphysics. Only the 'how' part leaves any residual evidence that can be examined measured and compared with other evidence. The why cannot be seen with some fact.
There is the the ideal of the how. There is also the ideal of the why. One may think that denying an ideal universe also denies the existence of God. Hardly, it merely emphasizes the mystery of God and his creation. With positivism, one is disregarding the possibility of an ideal how, not the why. Stating that the universe exists as an ideal as created in the mind of man is creating the universe in the image of man rather than in God. Positivism is not an article of faith. But if you have a belief in God, that he is Love, Truth and Beauty, one probably should be leaning more towards Positivism. Otherwise one stops exploring for truth. One stops searching because one decides he himself knows all truth. Believing that one knows all truth is a good example of the sin of pride.
Truth and true statements are two different things, but Goedel, the mathematician, proved that not all true statements can be proven true. Would a man place himself above God, while even secular studies such as math would not place man above true statements. God is much greater than math theory. One should remain humble. The curiosity of a child is a very spiritual belief that one should never lose or degrade in others.
A Side Trip: Extralogical Truth
Positivism Example: Positivism in the Marketplace
An event doesn't exist in space-time, space-time itself is nothing more than the multitude of physically permitted events that are linked together. One can therefore either try to image how one can detect spacetime without using events, or one can figure out why an event exists in the first place. Positivism is a principle like Occam's razor, as well as a view of the universe. I like positivism in that it seems to give me more freedom when considering in what the universe consists.
The nature of truth may allow some pure positivism in the universe. If truth is like in the marketplace example then trying to examine the nature of the universe actually changes it. In the examination of the marketplace, trying to use an analysis of the market causes the marketplace to actually change. What would be a similar example in the universe. If an experiment were to try to measure the electric charge on an electron, and that by doing so it actually changes the value of the charge. Or when trying to measure its rest mass, cause the mass to permanently shift. No such effect on charge or mass has been found. But when one considers exactly the amount of mass and charges that actually potentially interacts with it, it is not surprising that one interaction would have an effect on changing the physical constants of an electron. The potential interactions are all the other particles within the electrons interaction distance. There are a great many possible interactions because this distance is infinite. That all the possible interactions with all the other charged particles in the universe defines what the charge of an electron is. If instead of 10 to the 40th power, number of charged particles in the universe there were merely 6. Then indeed, one could potentially change the electrons charge by measuring one of those five charges. This idea is actually based on Mach's principle.
Mach stated that the rest of the mass in the universe defines the inertial frame of reference for two objects. If only two objects existed in the universe, there could be no centripetal acceleration. The centrifugal force one feels when moving with a rotating frame would not exist. How could you tell that an object was moving around each other? If all forces are similar in that it takes other objects to define the force, than it could be possible that reducing the amount of charges in the universe actually changes the properties of the remaining objects. That would be similar to what happens in the marketplace.
So there could ultimately be a positivistic side to the universe. A positivistic element that is so hidden from the fact that there are so many objects and interactions. So many, in fact, that the amount of interactions an individual makes, can't change things at an observable level. This is like moving the earth when one picks up a grain of sand. According to Newton's laws of motion, when one picks up a grain of sand, one moves the earth as well as the grain of sand. The motion of the earth though is an infinitesimal amount.
Last Updated on August 25, 2001 by Bob Rutkiewicz