What does it Mean to Observe Physical Reality?

Abstract

Facing the problem of realism is an enterprise which seems desperate if we think about the hundreds of attempts made in the course of history of philosophy. The duality idealism/realism seems difficult to grasp too, unless we limit ourselves to the specific work of a specific author or to a specific debate. I will not go into this long history. Instead, I will propose a realistic approach — also in order to go beyond the unsatisfactory dissolution of reality suggested by many authors. For example, Quine [1976] argues that, given contemporary physics — particularly Special Relativity, Field Theory, and High Energy Physics — we are forced to replace the usual notion of material physical objects with the four real numbers indicating its coordinates. Quine himself agrees that this is a very discouraging conclusion. But he believes that it is unavoidable, since he assumes that the physical object is what the last physical theorisation talks about. On this question, one is reminded of a short paper by Poincaré [1906], emblematically titled “La fin de la matière”. Here, the French physicist-philosopher discusses, ironically enough, W. Kaufmann’s comments on his own 1902 experiments on the ratio between charge and mass of electrons. According to Kaufmann, the direct consequence is the resolution of inertia into the electromagnetic field and thus the end of material objects. Probably, certain philosophers would agree with this conclusion. But as Poincaré urged caution and suggested waiting for new experimental and theoretical results to be produced, so the same suggestion should be addressed to such philosophers.