The need to take a side
“So, who do you think is right?”
“Hmmm….I don’t know. I think both have interesting points.”
“Yes, but which one do you think is right?”
“I don’t know.”
The topic of this conversation is forgettable and irrelevant, but this ending led me to a profound realization.
Maybe we don’t always have to take a side.
I’ve always felt the need to have a view. I think of my view formation as Bayesian.
Step 1. Based on what I know or think I know, I form an initial view on a subject. It may be a very weakly held view, but it’s a point of view nonetheless.
Step 2. When I get new information or hear new perspectives, I update my beliefs based on the new knowledge.
Step 3. Repeat Step 2 ad infinitum.
At all points, I would best describe my approach to sharing my views as strongly stated, weakly held. Having a weakly held view does nothing to stop me from sharing my views boldly.
For the most part, I’ve found this approach to be inarguable. It seems logical and data-driven. It’s how you would program a computer.
Take classical vs. quantum physics.
Classical physics makes sense. You have the necessary inputs and you get a precise output. Newton’s Laws of Motion predict the exact paths of objects. As I read somewhere, with classical physics, complete knowledge of the inputs allows for the precise computation of the outputs.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, seems to make no sense. From Wikipedia, “There are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions.” Or, in other words: complete knowledge of the inputs only leads to probabilistic predictions of the outputs.
From what we know today, quantum physics is right on all levels (in fact, even in computing, quantum computing has broken new ground in our computational abilities). Classical physics can be derived from quantum principles and works on a macroscopic scale, but falls apart when you get to the subatomic level.
Classical physics may work in most situations, but at a certain level of depth, it falls apart.
Quantum physics works in all situations, but in most practical situations, it’s overly complex and classical physics will more simply get to the same answer.
What if we think of our approach to forming views in a similar fashion?
When we think of our views, taking the Bayesian approach I’ve laid out is akin to classical physics. A simple analysis of the inputs (your existing knowledge) leads to a precise output (a viewpoint, however strongly or weakly held).
But what if there was room for a quantum approach to challenging issues? Where no matter how complete your knowledge of the inputs (your existing knowledge), you can only ever form a probabilistic prediction. There’s no precise viewpoint to be had. You must, instead, be comfortable with uncertainty.
If you take the analogy further,
Classical approach = Works well enough for most issues
In most things in life, there’s no need to over-think it. You take the scientific data, and you realize wearing a mask protects yourself and others from COVID-19. You look at the economic structure, and you realize the NCAA is a completely unfair institution. You look at the incarceration rates, and you realize we are in woeful need of criminal justice reform in the US.
Quantum approach = Works very well for the hardest issues
When you get to the more complex questions (akin to the sub-atomic scale), perhaps a quantum approach would be beneficial. When exactly does life begin (a crucial question to the abortion debate)? What is the right level of inequality in society? What is the best political system? Economic system? Maybe these are questions that only have probabilistic answers, not precise ones.
I remember reading Sapiens and finding it to be one of the most illuminating reads of my life. I felt so much of the world could be explained after reading Yuval Noah Harari. Then, I came across this review and I was shattered. It brought up a great point,
We are mostly trained – and this is a good thing – to speak only about our own areas of expertise. Harari is covering all the areas. Thus while you might feel confident objecting to a little corner of his grand thesis, it’s much harder to make a case against the whole thing – against his take on all those other specialisms you’re less familiar with. It’s interesting to note how many of Harari’s reviewers – even the raves – mounted telling local criticisms…. Taken together, these niggles do matter. If all of Harari’s premises are slightly off, then why should we trust his inferences?
So is Harari a charlatan or a savior? Before, I felt the need to decide. How can I find the book so compelling but also this critique? At first, this bothered me. But, taking a quantum view, there’s room (probabilistically) for both. I don’t need to take a side here. In fact, maybe there’s not a side to be taken. I can acknowledge the validity of different viewpoints and end with a simple,
“I don’t know.”