A good thinking or would I rather say that my deeply personal consideration of the newfound quality of reality as proposed by post-modern physics shows that it raises no philosophical or scientific objection whatsoever.
But on another thought, one cannot deny the general logical preference for quantity over quality because of the seeming exactitude the former has over the latter. In fact, it is sometimes said that “quality is relative.” And a similar reference to this is what is represented by the saying that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison.”
So, one wonders if this general notion of the relativity of quality applies to the quality of reality that post-modern physics proposes. I do not think so, and I believe that anyone who has come to understand post-modern physics would also agree with me, but even at that, I think we still have to discuss this to any length possible, at least to settle whatever dust may arise around the new physics.
Before post-modern physics, physics was only about quantity and this was for a number of reasons among which is the well-accepted idea that quantity is general, in the sense that we can agree about quantity than we can about quality.
To better understand this situation: let us say that we have a table before us. It is easy for us to agree about the length, the area and the mass of the table than we can agree about the beauty, colour or texture of the table.
The former categorizations are categorizations of quantity while the latter are categorizations of quality. So, while we can easily agree about the dimensions of the table no matter who measures it, we cannot do the same for qualities such as beauty, colour or texture.
And this is because, for quantity, we already have standard practical or mathematical means for ascertaining it as regards the table. But for quality, it is hard to agree because we really don’t have any standard practical or mathematical means for ascertaining it.
When it comes to the quality of beauty, we may not all agree that the table is beautiful. Some people may say it is and another group will say it is not. This is because quality seems to depend on internal factors that have more to do with our personalities, preferences, history, education, etc.
But regardless of our personalities, preferences, history, education, etc., we can all easily agree on the dimensions of the table because we use the same standards and calculational methods which are all external factors.
However, regardless of whether we can agree on the qualities of the table or not, we cannot deny that these qualities exist. This undeniability of quality is what first raises our concern and consideration for the role quality may play in the way we do physics and in the general picture of reality.
Our common notion of the relativity of quality and the resulting dismissal of it in logical and scientific investigation become impeded at least by this concern for the possible role of quality in physics or due to the fact that we cannot deny quality no matter how we may argue about it.
The task that is now left for physics is to seek the proper scientific meaning of quality that is relevant for our understanding of the universe and also subject it to the scientific process in order to completely absolve it of its unapproved relativistic appearance.
In a simple manner, what is being said above is that physics has to find a way to make quality as exact as quantity because both are relevant to physics.Physics has to find a way to make quality as exact as quantity because both are relevant to physics.Click To Tweet
And in a way, one is led to consider our preference of quantity over quality as due to the fact that we have been able to at least standardize quantity or the measurement of it than it is due to the fact that quality is relative whereas quantity is not.
In physics, we have to properly identify and standardize quality just like quantity and also make it become the basis or the result of profound scientific principles. This is simply what it means to make quality a part of the scientific process and this is what has to be done in order to redeem the image of quality from the illogical position it occupies.
Quality is most times seen as what concerns art and not science. So, physics must make the scientific discovery of quality. This is important for the progress of physics and for us to see the unity of the universe which has been missing all this while in physics.
If in our everyday life we encounter quality, what makes us think that we do not encounter it in physics? In fact, we do. Some of the mysteries that confronted modern physics were because we ignored quality. This was what post-modern physics discovered that made it easy and possible for us to resolve some of these mysteries.
But post-modern physics did not go about this in a superficial or disregardable manner, but by following the scientific process. Just as we understood quantity and made it to be the underlying basis by which we derive, prove and understand the principles of physics, the same has been done to quality.
This is important. The inclusion of quality into physics has changed the way we saw the principles of physics. Principles such as the principle of inertia, the weak equivalence principle, the strong equivalence principle etc., have all been transformed by the introduction of quality into physics.
And not only these principles have changed, but also the fundamental concepts of physics such as energy, force, momentum, etc. So, the newfound quality of reality is not an artistic or a non-scientific introduction; it is rather a very scientific introduction with revolutionary implications for physics.
We now have the opportunity for the first time in scientific history to look at quality in a scientific manner and see what it informs us about the universe! Quality has become a part of the scientific process, and as a result of this, we can no longer dismiss it as relative like we would have done before.
This new scientific outlook of quality is immediately obvious in post-modern physics such that no philosophical objection may be raised against it. But nevertheless, it is necessary that we discuss the general notion of the relativity of quality and address how it may undermine the newfound quality of reality.
This is not the case as quality remains and not just quality but its inseparable union with quantity. So, we have not discarded quantity for quality, rather we have unified them to give us a complete picture of reality.
This balance of quality and quantity in physics, if we think about it, is necessary. It is what the concepts of form and dimension represent and which has been discussed in the previous article.
Quality is what form represent while quantity is what dimension represents. Quality has therefore taken a standard and general position in physics just as quantity, and this is because of how quality has also become included in the scientific process. This observation of the progress of physics is important and also very exciting!
Mathematics has become further enriched by quality. Today we now talk about the mathematics of quality. And post-modern physics, as taken the first steps towards assisting us to properly interpret quality in order to understand the universe.
Again, I must make it clear that quality is no longer a vague concept in physics. We have introduced quality with its important attendant principles. These principles, some of which we have always known, are what makes the old philosophical notion of the relativity of quality irrelevant.
This is not to say that quality has no philosophical implications in physics, yes it does, but it does not have any philosophical objection. And the philosophical implications of quality and its balanced union with quantity is why we now talk about absolute-relationism, which is the new over-arching philosophy of this age.
The pure scientific discovery of quality is part of what leads to absolute-relationism, which is the new philosophy. Therefore, we cannot continue to see quality like we used to before. Quality, as it is relevant for physics, has emerged and it has done so from a new philosophy within which we can understand, investigate and rightly question it.
Now, if we are satisfied with the scientific relevance of quality, we may proceed to still consider its artistic relevance. Could it be that the new found quality of reality is what now really beautifies physics? Could it be that the new found quality of reality is the true beauty of reality which we have missed all along?
I am inclined to affirm the above questions and to remain convinced that scientific quality refers to the true beauty of nature, thus, it is also a kind of art which nature devises to produce its many laws and principles that are the cornerstones of physics.
Until next time,
I will be here.
– M. V. Echa