There’s always a huge danger in abstractions. Even very intelligent people can easily become lost. Schrodinger was merely one of many (Wittgenstein springs irresistibly to mind) who fell down the rabbit-hole.

While it’s amusing to chase one’s tail, there’s another way of looking at problems first outlined by William of Occam. An explanation should be as complex as necessary to explain a phenomenon, but not more so.

What do we know about people? We’re a life-form. We evolved. Evolutionary theory (which is well supported by all the evidence we have available despite the fact that “accepting external evidence” is a quasi-solipsistic notion to those given to abstractions like Schrodinger was) indicates that the external object-stimulus-internal representation chain isn’t really problematic at all. From the simplest organism sensing external light by means of a patch of photo-sensitive skin to the relatively complex human brain, the causal chain is simple and logically consistent. We do not need to wander in the back-alleyways of abstract philosophizing in order to reach a convincing conclusion about reality. It really is out there and our perceptions evolved to be “good enough” for us to cope with the environment in which we evolved. There’s no need for abstract musings that ultimately lead to a logical dead-end, no matter how entertaining those musings may from time to time appear.

Written by

Anyone who enjoys my articles here on Medium may be interested in my books Why Democracy Failed and The Praying Ape, both available from Amazon.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store