The Limits of Science

[mgb]

The limits of science.

1. The primitive.

Science is primitive in that it studies only primitive things; how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped and so on.
Given this limitation the rationality that emerges from science remains primitive if it stays within the sphere of materialism because matter is primitive.

With respect to the assertion of primitivism, 'evolved' would pertain to the personal; the mystery of being, life, consciousness, creativity, intelligence and the reality of the person.

To argue that the mystery of being and the reality of the person can be encompassed by the primitive rationale of science is like saying literature can be encompassed by the primitive logic of Boolean algebra. It is hardly feasable.

The rationale of science has not made any progress in addressing the mystery of being and of the person and the argument that these phenomena are within the domain of science, is an article of faith, rather than a realistic reflection of the realm of science.

2. Properties and emergence.

In earlier times it was thought that the classical (physical) universe held within itself, the explanation for its own existence. This idea was shattered with the advent of quantum mechanics which shows that the classical system is an emergent property of the foundational quantum spacetime of energy. The cause of the classical universe is outside it. In this respect, science does not explain the classical universe, it describes it. A causes B is a description of what is happening. What A and B really are would constitute an explanation.

Quantum reality has not fared any better. There are mathematical descriptions of what is happening (astoundingly accurate in many cases) but what it is that is happening and what makes it happen is as opaque as ever. What energy is, and why it behaves as it does, is a mystery and until that mystery is resolved there are only relative explanations or descriptions, in scientific understanding. No doubt, a large part of this problem concerns the fact that there is no logical reason as to why the laws of nature are what they are, since they are, or seem to be, contingent. Any ultimate explanation must address the phenomena of existence and being. What are existence and being?

3. Being

Our sense of being is the most precious and evolved aspect of human experience and it is completely outside the realm of science. It is hard to see how it can be reduced to material descriptions. A neuroscientist puts his finger on a thing and says 'we are nothing more than' (meaning a collection of neurons etc). But the thing under his finger must be interpreted and this is not easy; at all times the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' must be observed. Just because A and B are found together does not automatically mean that A causes B (there may be an unknown C, such that C causes A and C causes B). Just because neural activity is associated with thought does not mean it creates thought.

An analogy would be an internet page on a computer screen. If someone, not knowing what the internet is, decides to examine the situation he may look at the various systems and sub systems in the computer and learn that these systems are, somehow, making the page appear on screen. He can get into quite a bit of detail with this and eventually come to the conclusion that the computer has created the page, as well as the meaning of the words on the page. Every thread of his rationale tells him that the page originated in the computer and, while there is some truth in this (the computer organizes the page to be displayed) he has gone too far if he becomes convinced that the computer wrote the page and produced it in its entirety. In reality the page was broadcast from a remote server and the meaning in its text was created by a human mind.

Likewise with thought and the brain. The brain organizes many things, but it does not think. At least science has not shown that it does and any 'evidence' going in this direction can be subtly misleading.

4. Intellect and intelligence

Intellect and intelligence are not the same. Intelligence is a creative understanding that is a faculty of the conscious mind and of being. Intellect is an instrument of the intelligence. For example, creative intelligence in art, music, literature and the conscious apprehension of other minds and of being, is far more than reductive intellect. Science, for the most part, is dependent on the intellect, which is primitive, because intellect is essentially reductive. (It may be that the intellect evolved to test and to organize the flow of experiences as they come to us through our senses; to examine and grasp the logic of everyday physical experience.) The best science is when the intellect is imbued with the higher creative intelligence of the mind. But it is hard to see how it can work the other way; how intellect can inform intelligence, except by the most complicated philosophical routes.

Science relies on the intellect to discern the patterns that are behind physical reality. This bringing into focus the patterns behind physical appearances, is the essence of science.

Equally, the creative intelligence discerns the patterns behind the world of conscious experience. In this respect, the intelligence, in discerning the order and patterns in the word of being, is to being what the intellect is to science.
That is, the intellect in relation to material world, is as the intelligence is in relation to the world of being and consciousness.
Both are concerned with comprehending the order of the world, on different levels.

5. Proof

Some materialists seem to argue that only things that can be proved are admissable as elements of a world view. This view has proven to be misguided, as the failure of Logical Positivism shows. Also, there are things that are true that are not proved. For example, radio waves were not part of the world of things proved during the Middle Ages. Yet they were as real then as they are now. How one would form a world view based on proved things during the Middle Ages, is hard to see. Yet we exist in a world today where things proved are seen to be sufficient as a foundation for a world view. This cannot be adaquate. Firstly, because things proved will always only be a small subset of all truth. Secondly because proof, in the absolute, or near absolue, sense is only in terms of primitive truths; material relations and mathematical relationships.

This subset of primitive proved truths is hardly sufficient to address onthological questions concerneing the nature of being and consciousness. This means that a world view that emerges from a subset must be on very shaky ground because it does not contain unproved things that are true. A dramatic example is how the finitude of facts concerning the classical universe led scientists to believe that a whole world view could be constructed from those facts. As it turns out, facts about the classical universe are, in reality, only concerned with emergent properties (matter) of the mysterious quantum world.

Equally, Hilbert's attempts to formalize all mathematics and put it on a firm footing, were destroyed by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Mystery leads to the appearance of certainty and certainty is undermined by the very investigations that establish it.

And still, the world of life, being, creativity, consciousness - the highest points of the evolution of the universe - remain as elusive as ever.

[mgb]

So, you can't determine whether art is good or bad by referring to the art itself. It is what associations it evokes in the person looking at it that determines whether they like it or not. That appreciation can be quantified by how much they are willing to pay for it.
Van Gogh sold two paintings in his life, both to his brother. They weren't worth the cost of paint and canvas. Now any Van Gogh is "worth" millions.
I look at the Mona Lisa and see only paint daubed on canvas. I wouldn't give anything for it. It's only value is commercial to me.
On the other hand, Cellini's bust of Cosimo de Medici in the De Young museum in San Francisco nailed me to the floor when I stumbled on it when I was eleven years old. The impression of cruelty and evil it evoked in me was that strong. Great art, perhaps, but I wouldn't have it around. In short, the value of art is fantasy.

To say the value of art is fantasy is essentially saying it is completely subjective. This is not convincing. The materialist cannot agree that there is any objective beauty. Consequently beauty must be seen in terms of evolution and survival value. I can't see how set theory or the calculus are needed for survival. Why would the human mind evolve to such a high degree if only survival was the objective? There is an excess of great proportions concerning the human mind as far as survival is concerned. Many mathematicians are Platonists in the sense that they believe there is some objective correspondence between mathematical beauty and reality; in other words beauty is objective. That there are subjective or even perverse examples of 'beauty', or what some consider to be beauty, does not detract from this. Beauty is too universal and truthful to be merely a by product of natural selection.


To say that art creates "associations it evokes in the person" is effectively saying that art appeals to deeper elements in the psyche. Art, by way of image and metaphor, is a reflection of deep seated 'archetypes' in the psyche and this is more like a spiritual reality than a mere survival mechanism. Art awakens knowledge of spiritual reality that exists in the mind. We feel this resonance when we are in the presence of great art. In short, art is the language of the psyche.

[mgb]

Whatever the answer, this process of deconstruction cannot go on forever; it cannot be turtles all the way down.

Why not? Every time people claim this, it's due to "intuition." Can you prove that it cannot be turtles all the way down?

Explaining the universe by an infinite regression is absurd.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 102 by mgb]

No more or less absurd than circular regression or a prime mover.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 102 by mgb]

No more or less absurd than circular regression or a prime mover.

Why? The onthological argument states that there must be a necessary existence. The only question is whether that necessary existence can evolve in intelligence. It is easy for those who accept that intelligence emerged in the physical universe to accept that intelligence can emerge in a necessary existence. In fact it is easier because all that is required is that necessary existence is capable of knowing abstract, mathematical truth. That seems easier than the idea that matter evolves into intelligence.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 104 by mgb]

Matter evolving into intelligence is easier to believe because we can see that it actually happened.

An omnipotent superintelligence is possible but surely not easier to believe, as we have no direct proof beyond conjecture and interpretation of the "purpose" or origin of the universe.

[Bust Nak]

Why?

Because neither provide a complete explanation to everything.

The onthological argument states that there must be a necessary existence...

And it's problematic exactly because of that. Let me try to illustrate that with a contrived example:

Premise 1) there is a fire and I can only save either my wife or my mother, I have to let one of them die.
Premise 2) It's absurd to let my mother die.
Premise 3) It's absurd to let my wife die.

It's either mother or wife, and given 2) it's absurd to pick wife, therefore pick mother.

In other words, in a dilemma, you can't just evaluate the unsatisfactory nature of just one horn and conclude the other must therefore be better. Or in the case of a trilemma, you can't just evaluate the unsatisfactory nature two of the horns and conclude the third one must therefore be better.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 101 by mgb]

mgb: "To say the value of art is fantasy is essentially saying it is completely subjective."

The art exists as a fact, as an artifact. It's value is subjective, a matter of association with memories.

mgb: "This is not convincing."

You can't teach a pig to play the piano, but you might not be able to convince the pig. You can't teach pork to play the piano, but you might not be able to convince the pork. Same thing, said two ways. You might agree with the first and be puzzled by the second. The first is familiar, the second is not. Just because you aren't convinced, and can't be convinced, doesn't impact reality.

mgb: "The materialist cannot agree that there is any objective beauty."

All you have to do convince a materialist of objective beauty is to demonstrate it exists.

mgb: "Consequently beauty must be seen in terms of evolution and survival value."

There is no reason to think so. Not every artifact of evolution is necessary for survival. You don't need, for instance, a vermiform appendix or a little toe.

mgb: "I can't see how set theory or the calculus are needed for survival.'

Mathematics can lead to understanding and predicting reality. That can have survival value. Of course you don't have to understand mathematics for it to contribute to your survival. That is lucky for you. It is lucky for you that you do not always have to depend on your own understanding for survival.

mgb: "Why would the human mind evolve to such a high degree if only survival was the objective?"

Survival is not an objective of evolution. Survival is a result. More than 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. Truth is not always beautiful.

mgb: "There is an excess of great proportions concerning the human mind as far as survival is concerned.

Actually, some people are pretty stupid. Half of them are below average intelligence. Some people even die of stupidity. They can't help it. It is just evolution.

mgb: " Many mathematicians are Platonists in the sense that they believe there is some objective correspondence between mathematical beauty and reality; in other words beauty is objective."

No! The perception of beauty whether it is found in mathematics or daubs of painting on canvas is subjective.
Some very smart people used to believe in the humoral theory of disease. That is the danger of appeals to authority.

mgb: "That there are subjective or even perverse examples of 'beauty', or what some consider to be beauty, does not detract from this.'

I'll say it again: Beauty is a matter of personal associations. What constitutes beauty is opinion, non-verifiable, non-falsifiable.

mgb: "Beauty is too universal and truthful to be merely a by product of natural selection."

Beauty is not necessary for survival. A bacterium survives without any perceived beauty. So does a tree.

mgb: "To say that art creates "associations it evokes in the person" is effectively saying that art appeals to deeper elements in the psyche."

"Deeper elements of the psyche"?! Psyche, thought, cognition, awareness, are about neuroanatomy and function. No neuroanatomy, no neural function... no perception, thought, association of ideas, and there is no beauty.

mgb: "Art, by way of image and metaphor, is a reflection of deep seated 'archetypes' in the psyche and this is more like a spiritual reality than a mere survival mechanism."

An archetype is simply a system of associations formed by memories of experience. It may cause the release of neurotransmitters or hormones.
By the way, metaphor makes poor reasoning.

mgb: "Art awakens knowledge of spiritual reality that exists in the mind."

Spiritual reality is indistinguishable from fantasy. The spiritual is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

mgb: "We feel this resonance when we are in the presence of great art."

But folks don't agree as to what is great art. Some think Bach, some think heavy metal and some think rap.

mgb: "In short, art is the language of the psyche."

In short, art is something that awakens in some people an emotional reaction, a release of hormones and neurotransmitters.

By the way, calling the mind the "psyche" or the "soul" or the "spirit" doesn't make the mind more than patterns and feedbacks of neural activation.

[mgb]

Premise 1) there is a fire and I can only save either my wife or my mother, I have to let one of them die.
Premise 2) It's absurd to let my mother die.
Premise 3) It's absurd to let my wife die.

It's either mother or wife, and given 2) it's absurd to pick wife, therefore pick mother.

In other words, in a dilemma, you can't just evaluate the unsatisfactory nature of just one horn and conclude the other must therefore be better. Or in the case of a trilemma, you can't just evaluate the unsatisfactory nature two of the horns and conclude the third one must therefore be better.

I don't see any relation here to the onthological argument. Besides, it is not absurd to save someone. Absurd means incoherent. Making a difficult choice is not necessarily absurd.

[mgb]

The art exists as a fact, as an artifact. It's value is subjective, a matter of association with memories.

That is your opinion. I could as easily say it is an association with the spirit.

There is no reason to think so. Not every artifact of evolution is necessary for survival. You don't need, for instance, a vermiform appendix or a little toe.

These things once had a survival advantage.

Mathematics can lead to understanding and predicting reality. That can have survival value.

I don't think mathematics in early homo sapiens would have had a survival value. At any rate, the argument is not about mathematics per se, it is about how advanced human thinking is. It is way far in advance of any need for survival.

Actually, some people are pretty stupid. Half of them are below average intelligence. Some people even die of stupidity. They can't help it. It is just evolution.

Depends on how you define stupidity.

What constitutes beauty is opinion,

That is your opinion.

By the way, metaphor makes poor reasoning.

Not always. Metaphors in science can be very effective. Besides, metaphors have much to do with aesthetics which is more about consciousness than abstract reasoning.

[mgb]

Matter evolving into intelligence is easier to believe because we can see that it actually happened.

You believe you can see it heppening but only if you define intelligence as a material thing and I certainly can't see any materially based intelligence. The argument that mathematics is fundamental to the universe has much more going for it than the idea that intelligence is a material construction.

An omnipotent superintelligence is possible but surely not easier to believe, as we have no direct proof beyond conjecture and interpretation of the "purpose" or origin of the universe.

I was replying to Dawkins' assertion that the designer needs a designer. Dawkins is making
a mistake by comparing physical complexity with non physical complexity. Yes, physical complexity seems to require a designer because matter is too clumsy to assemble itself into a mind, unaided by intelligence.

My point is that complexity in mathematics does not need to be designed; it is intrinsically complex. In mathematics one truth leads logically to another truth. If the 'necessary existence' (see above) that precedes contingent things is in some way likened to mind it is simple to understand that mathematical knowledge can exist in such an eternal mind. God can be complex simply by knowing abstract, mathematical truth. This is an entirely different kind of complexity to physical complexity. I think mathematical complexity in mind is easier to believe than physical complexity arising in the universe, which is what the materialists are willing to accept.