Opinion – Luciano Melo: The beauty of ambiguity, the brain that reconciles the irreconcilable

At the end of the 19th century, the scientific community believed that there would soon not be a single mystery left to unravel. The spirit of the age was delighted with the fast pace of discoveries, while looking forward to a boring and predictable future. The universe was about to be boiled down to a deterministic gear made up of mathematical formulas.

This horizon of certainty collapsed when the physicist Max Planck inaugurated quantum mechanics, a mortal blow to arrogant prophecies. He had discovered that electrons, when stimulated, release energy not linearly, but always in closed units, in quantum. A few years later, in 1905, the physicist Albert Einstein used this discovery to explain the property of light in expelling electrons from metallic surfaces. This event would only be possible if light rays were particles, as emitted by bright bodies. This idea was not well received.

Even after winning the 1922 Nobel Prize, Einstein continued to believe alone in the quantum of light. Not even Planck was with him. Isaac Newton, centuries earlier, had said that light was made up of particles. No matter, scientific semantics were against these geniuses. And it was not because of academic stubbornness, but because there was a classic fact. In 1801, Thomas Young projected light rays against slits and proved: light is a wave. However, new essays confirmed the ideas of Einstein and Planck, but no one denied Young.

But what exactly is light, wave or particle?

It is possible that some scientists grouped themselves into two distinct teams, each passionately defending one of the theses. But that’s not what went down in history. Lucid physicists, attentive to the evidence, formed consensus and obtained the truth. But the truth is bigger than our semantics, we have the facts, but the explanation pierces the limits of our conscience. If you, dear reader, set up a study to decipher light as particles, you will conclude that light is matter. But if you design an experiment to analyze light as a wave, it will become clear that light is a wave. Let us accept this ambiguity, beyond the gibberish. Thanks to studies initiated by Planck and Einstein, you can read me in front of a bright screen, and Putin has a nuclear arsenal to threaten the world.

Matter that is transformed into energy makes me think of the human brain, an organization of material organic chemistry capable of producing abstractions. We compute the information we gather from the world into our skulls and, when necessary, give back some of our learning through words. But much of the knowledge does not fit in sentences, the creation is an incomplete, imperfect meaning that brings us the danger of moving away from the truth. Gaps in knowledge and hills of ignorance sometimes make eloquence more impactful than concepts. When the meaning is dubious, unstable and involves divergent realities; eloquent, with good or bad intentions, find space to forge certainties and persuade. But you, my dear reader, know very well that ambiguous facts do not always cancel each other out. They coexist and make up our world.

Ambiguity can lead to an inadequate emotional response, characterized by psychic discomfort and anxiety, with further rejection and avoidance of uncertainty. Tolerance to ambiguity is acceptance of the indeterminate, a cognitive property that facilitates adaptations to changes and, therefore, to unpredictable environments. Individuals who are well-endowed with this attribute are more adventurous and dare to new experiences.

Ambiguous circumstances bring risks. For example, on certain medical occasions the treatment may cause unacceptable harm. In turn, Max Planck feared that his discovery would destroy the foundation of reason and cause chaos that, starting from science, would affect the whole of society. Faced with ambiguity, we have the option of evaluating possibilities, analyzing expectations and estimating probabilities. A cognitive work that requires memory and calculation skills, with demands on time and intelligence. Other options: shrugging your shoulders, delegating the decision to time or someone else, or accepting only part of the facts.

The construction of quantum mechanics is an example of tolerance for ambiguity. When semantics are dubious and do not translate nature well, let us turn to facts.

References:

1. Rosenblum B, Kuttner F. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. Oxford University Press, USA; 2011. 300 p.
2. Liu D, Sun J, Ren Z, Yang J, Shi B, Qiu J. The neural basis of acceptance of uncertain situations: Relationship between ambiguity tolerance and the resting-state functional connectivity of the brain. Psychol Curr. 2022 Mar.
3. Iyer ES, Weinberg A, Bagot RC. Ambiguity and conflict: Dissecting uncertainty in decision-making. Behav Neurosci. 2022 Feb;136(1):1-12 . doi: 10.1037/bne0000489. Epub 2021 Sep 13. PMID: 34516164.