From pure effects and observations to social theories

Philosophy in computer science

Sometimes philosophers ask questions that seem of little use, for example:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 While pointless to most of us, this is in fact a central question for computer scientists. Let's rephrase for them:

"If effects happen, and are never observed, did these effects really happen?"

The simple answer from a computer science perspective is "No, effects only exist when observed".

The more complex answer would have us questioning things. We might ask:

• What does it mean to "observe"? 
• What is an effect? 
• Can an effect sometimes be real, and sometimes not?
• Is a virtual effect still an effect?
• Is a virtual observation still an observation?
• What about the heat generated by effects that are not observed?
• What has this to do with security vulnerabilities like Spectre and Meltdown?
• ...

I will not ask these questions, or at least, not yet. Instead, we start with a simple view, which is to state that:

• Effects are really only effects when the effects, or the effects of effects are observed.
• Observations are really only observations, if they are observing effects, or observing observations of effects.

Said differently, in the simple view we do not care about:

• Effects that are not observed, and do not effect effects that are observed.
• Observations that do not observe effects, and do not observe observations which observe effects.

With this simple view, the computer scientist is happy to become a philosopher. Given the original question:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The computer scientist extends the question and asks:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does the tree exist?"

Within the simple view, the computer scientist answer is: "No, with no observers, it is as if the tree does not exist"!

There is no existence in an unobserved reality for a computer scientist,

(Now you know why computer scientists walk funny: they are only sure that the ground exists when it meets each foot steps).

Jokes aside, the simple view of theory says 

• we only care about effects and observations together, 
• we ignore unobserved effects,
• we ignore non-effected observations,

Philosophy within a bigger world

Our aesthetic simple theory concerning effects and observations is not really real. And yet it is not far from real. Politician and economists, for example, use it all the time to argue that what is not observable is not real. Technologist are continuously creating new observable realities. And even more impressive are those entertainers that create effects by finely tuning the make-believe observability of what is really not an effect. What is then this "not truth" that is "enough truth" that it affects so much our societies?

For a start we can note that there is a bit more depth to effects and observations than what we noted above. For example, we note that effects and observation come in different types. Our senses of perception are examples of types of observation. Physics is much the science of studying different kinds of physical effects.  Effects of specific types are often only observable with specific types of observations, and specific types of observations can most often only by effected by specific types of effects. Also, note that some observations need effects to observe, while some effects depend observations to function. In addition, some effects and observations are not possible within certain contexts, while others are only possible within specific contexts. Going further some observation create effects and some effects create observations. Finally, types of effects and observations can be both effected and observed.

With this in mind, the simple theory is then just the tip of a deeply hidden system that connects as much our reality as our imaginary. To a mathematician it has the looks of a cohomology, to a computer science the looks of interwoven systems of polarities and dualities of semantics, to a physicist a multidimensional interplay of identifiable and relatable particles.

Philosophy meets the social world

In a social world, there is no pure effect nor pure observation.  In a social world, effects depend on observations, observations anticipate effects. In a social world, social animals, humans, have a need to be observed, and need to create effects. In a social world, the simple theory is not real: there is no pure effect and pure observation that only exist within their simple complementary relation. And yet the simple theory is still the most important theory to understand because the simple theory can be seen as the boundary, the envelop, of the social world. The simple theory is where the social world stops. In the social world all effects and observations exist. In a social world, effects can be unobservable, observations can be void, and both can even be imaginary. They can also be fake... politics have invented nothing, and in fact politics show us the way to understand the social theory of effects and observations. The outer border of the social theory effects and observations is the simple theory. This boundary is not part of the social world, it only limits it. The social world is one of power and influence. In the social world it is the most observable effects that are the most real. And therefore the never-ending social chatter of people, businesses, and power organizations, all looking to effect and be observed by others.

The social world is open, it does not meet its boundaries, and therefor never meets the simple theory. An example of this is that it is rude and antisocial to ignore someone, to not observe their effect and by doing so make them "not exist".  However, this last example shows how close the simple theory is to the social theory of effects and observations. In fact, one way to define such a social theory is to say that is not the simple theory!

Are you a scientist?

You may ask: "is the simple theory not just scientific truth?"
Science says that truths are based on facts, and facts are observable effects. Therefore, no, the simple theory is not scientific truth, and is more a mathematical and philosophical thought game. Science does not make things disappear because they were not observed.  However, the simple theory is not far from science. And as we have seen above, it is also not far from a certain form of social theory. The simple theory is therefore a key observation point from which to understand the world. Yet to never forget the broader social context when creating effects.

All original content copyright James Litsios, 2018.