At first glance, Philosophy and Quantum Physics seem like two very different ideas. One more idealistic and simpler while the other more practical and complex. But what if we see these as on equal footing? After all, both of these answer the exact same questions: What, Why and How is the Universe?
On equal footing? How?
Let us first start with Quantum Physics, the more complex and practical of the two. Quantum Physics shows us the creation of the universe through the workings of matter, space and time. By examining current research, we have inferred that at the sub-atomic level, all matter has a dual nature, that of a wave and that of a particle, and due to phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, we are able to comprehend the working of all types of matter and anti-matter in the known universe. These help us explain our original question: What, Why and How is the Universe?
Explaining the Universe through Quantum Physics
Quantum Physics shows us that to form matter as it is today, it would require matter in the first place (or energy). A highly accepted theory for this is the ‘Big Bang Theory‘. But traditional laws of physics failed to correctly explain how we went from a highly dense point of energy and matter to the modern universe. This is where Quantum Physics shows us that due to those conditions, the laws of matter are different at sub-atomic levels, causing the formation of our Universe. The strange and paradoxical phenomenon known as quantum entanglement explains how two subatomic particles may be inextricably bound to one another while being billions of light-years apart. Even if they are far apart, everything that changes in one will have an impact on the other. This shouldn’t make sense in terms of traditional philosophy and the workings of the world.
Quantum Physics shows us that nothing is really “real” and depends on our observation, like how an apple might just be of a different color when we aren’t looking, and its state is set only when observed. This is similar to how colors are not the same for all people. Therefore everything in the universe is not as it seems.
Traditional Philosophy
Traditional ideas of philosophy state the existence of a creator or multiple creators of the universe, through which all things and the current universe was made. These creationistic, theistic views have formed the basis of the answer to the creation of the universe since the dawn of time. This has also led to the view of the existence of only one universe, which we humans are a very tiny part of, but often thought to be the center of it. These views, despite having often disregarded the existence of other living beings and/or universes, are still thought to be an acceptable answer to our question: What, Why and How is the Universe?
What can we conclude from this?
From both of these explanations, we can’t really conclude which of these is correct, as there may be varying answers depending on who you ask. Both of these explanations, however, form the base of our understanding of the universe and our own creation. Further research in the future may show us if either of these answers are correct, or both, or even none.
References
- Eddy Keming Chen. “Does Quantum Theory Imply the Entire Universe Is Preordained?” Nature, vol. 624, no. 7992, Nature Portfolio, Dec. 2023, pp. 513–15, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-04024-z.
- “Quantum Physics vs. Quantum Mechanics: What’s the Difference?” Difference.wiki, 2024, www.difference.wiki/quantum-physics-vs-quantum-mechanics/.
- Garisto, Daniel. “The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 6 Oct. 2022, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/.
- Garisto, Daniel. “The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 6 Oct. 2022, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/.





Leave a Reply