Few phrases in modern physics are repeated as approvingly—or as misleadingly—as “Shut up and calculate.” It is usually presented as an expression of methodological humility: a refusal to indulge in idle metaphysics, a disciplined focus on what works.
But this apparent modesty conceals a philosophical stance of considerable strength.
The phrase does not mark the absence of metaphysics. It marks its suppression.
What the Phrase Pretends to Mean
On its surface, “shut up and calculate” seems to say something simple:
Physics should concern itself with predictions and experimental outcomes, not with speculative pictures of reality.
Read charitably, it functions as a warning against premature ontology. It urges restraint, discipline, and respect for the formal success of the theory.
If that were all it did, there would be little to object to.
But the phrase is almost never used in this minimal sense.
What the Phrase Actually Does
In practice, “shut up and calculate” is deployed selectively. It is invoked not against all ontological talk, but against ontological talk that makes certain physicists uncomfortable.
The move works like this:
A question is raised about what quantum mechanics implies about reality.
The question is declared illegitimate as a question.
Calculation is presented as the only serious activity remaining.
What disappears in this move is not ontology itself, but visibility of ontology.
For calculation is never ontologically neutral. It is embedded in assumptions about what counts as a system, an outcome, a measurement, an observer, and an event. These assumptions do not vanish when they are not discussed. They merely become tacit.
Silence Is Not Innocence
The refusal to speak about reality is often treated as a refusal to commit oneself about reality. This is a mistake.
Silence does not eliminate commitment; it conceals it.
To insist that quantum mechanics requires no interpretation is already to interpret it—as a theory whose formal success is sufficient to underwrite its authority without further account. That is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical one, even if it is expressed as a shrug.
The Authority of Calculation
“Shut up and calculate” also functions rhetorically to police authority. It divides participants into those who do the real work and those who indulge in speculative excess.
But calculation derives its authority from a background framework that tells us:
what counts as a legitimate calculation,
what counts as a successful prediction, and
what kind of world must exist for those calculations to be applicable.
To treat calculation as self-authorising is therefore to treat its enabling ontology as beyond question.
A Category Error, Repeated
The deepest confusion embodied in the phrase is a category error. It treats ontological questions as if they were bad scientific questions, rather than different kinds of questions altogether.
When physicists “shut up and calculate,” they do not escape philosophy. They perform it tacitly, defensively, and without conceptual care.
The result is not rigor, but unexamined authority.
What Would Responsibility Look Like?
Ontological responsibility would not require physicists to agree on an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It would require only that they acknowledge when they are no longer calculating, but construing.
One may choose restraint without pretending it is neutrality.
One may refuse ontology without denying that one has done so.
Quantum mechanics does not force us to shut up. It forces us to be careful about what kind of talk we are engaged in—and honest about when we change registers.
That honesty, rather than silence, is what intellectual discipline actually demands.
No comments:
Post a Comment