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]

Right. Yes, the universe is supported by energy, which is the substance of matter but energy itself may be a property, in which case it is a property of E.

Right, but what's stopping E itself being a property of E1?

What is E1?

Specifically? No idea. Conceptually? The explanation/substance of the property of/cause of E.

You are trying for an infinite regression. But E, as defined, is the end point of a regression of properties. It is the necessary existence that is not a property of anything before it.

[Bust Nak]

You are trying for an infinite regression. But E, as defined, is the end point of a regression of properties. It is the necessary existence that is not a property of anything before it.

Same questions as before, are you just telling me what you believe or is this up for debate? If it is the latter then, how do you know there has to be some E, the necessary existence that is not a property of anything before it? The mere substance/explanation/cause of the universe does need to be the end point of regression of properties, why can't there be more "prior" substances/explanations/causes? And if there can be more, why can't there be infinitely many more? And before you point out properties cannot exist without substance again, know what my follow up question would be, why would that imply there has to be some end point of regression?

[mgb]

Same questions as before, are you just telling me what you believe or is this up for debate? If it is the latter then, how do you know there has to be some E, the necessary existence that is not a property of anything before it? The mere substance/explanation/cause of the universe does need to be the end point of regression of properties, why can't there be more "prior" substances/explanations/causes? And if there can be more, why can't there be infinitely many more? And before you point out properties cannot exist without substance again, know what my follow up question would be, why would that imply there has to be some end point of regression?

There has to be some substantial E at the beginning of the chain of properties. You can assume an infinite chain of properties starting from E and finally arriving at the classical universe, but I don't see why this would be so. Why posit such a thing?

[Bust Nak]

There has to be some substantial E at the beginning of the chain of properties.

Why though? If you merely think there is some definite beginning then fine, but you went further than that and say there must be some definite beginning.

You can assume an infinite chain of properties starting from E and finally arriving at the classical universe, but I don't see why this would be so. Why posit such a thing?

That's not what I am positing. I am proditing infinite or circular regression without any starting point at all.

[mgb]

Why though? If you merely think there is some definite beginning then fine, but you went further than that and say there must be some definite beginning.

Because you can't have a property without substance. You cannot have 'square' without some substantial square thing. This is why Hawking asked 'What breathes fire into the equations?' What is the substance of the abstract mathematical model?

You can assume an infinite chain of properties starting from E and finally arriving at the classical universe, but I don't see why this would be so. Why posit such a thing?

That's not what I am positing. I am positing infinite or circular regression without any starting point at all.

Without any starting point or without E? A circle of abstractions is nothing; there must be substance. Refer to the link I posted re. cosmological argument.

[Bust Nak]

Because you can't have a property without substance. You cannot have 'square' without some substantial square thing. This is why Hawking asked 'What breathes fire into the equations?' What is the substance of the abstract mathematical model?

That much is fine, but still doesn't tell me why there must be some definite beginning.

Without any starting point or without E?

Or? Aren't you telling me they are the same thing?

A circle of abstractions is nothing; there must be substance. Refer to the link I posted re. cosmological argument.

Sure there must be substance, but why must there be a definite starting point? Your earlier link doesn't go into that either. Why presume there is no substance just because there is no starting point or E?

[mgb]

Sure there must be substance, but why must there be a definite starting point? Your earlier link doesn't go into that either. Why presume there is no substance just because there is no starting point or E?

I'm not presuming there is no substance. You start with E and project an infinity of properties from there and arrive at the physical universe. That's fine but I don't see why it has to be infinite. (Conversely, you start with the classical universe and work back through an infinity of properties to arrive at E. Again, I don't see why there should be such an infinity, but you can posit that if you like, I don't see anything illogical about it.)

[Bust Nak]

I'm not presuming there is no substance.

That did nothing to answer my challenge, if you are not presuming there is no substance, then explain how yo know there is no substance in an infinite regression.

You start with E and project an infinity of properties from there and arrive at the physical universe. That's fine but I don't see why it has to be infinite.

But that's not infinite regression because you still have a definite beginning with your E. Why must this be the case?

(Conversely, you start with the classical universe and work back through an infinity of properties to arrive at E. Again, I don't see why there should be such an infinity, but you can posit that if you like, I don't see anything illogical about it.)

That's still not infinite regression.

[mgb]

That did nothing to answer my challenge, if you are not presuming there is no substance, then explain how yo know there is no substance in an infinite regression.

I'm not saying there is no substance in an infinite regression. You seem to be saying there is substance at the end of an infinite regression. I don't have a problem with this, so long as there is substance which is E.

You start with E and project an infinity of properties from there and arrive at the physical universe. That's fine but I don't see why it has to be infinite.

But that's not infinite regression because you still have a definite beginning with your E. Why must this be the case?

E must exist somewhere in your scheme. Where is it in your opinion? Are you positing an infinite regression with or without E? If E exists in your infinite regression, where is it? At the beginning? If not, where?

Note: it is possible to have a start of infinity. 1 starts the infinite series 1, 2, 3,...

[Bust Nak]

I'm not saying there is no substance in an infinite regression.

Then why did you keep bringing up that I can't have property without substance, when I propose infinite regression?

You seem to be saying there is substance at the end of an infinite regression. I don't have a problem with this, so long as there is substance which is E.

No no no. There is no an end/beginning in an infinite regression. The whole point was the lack of some prime mover.

E must exist somewhere in your scheme. Where is it in your opinion?

Split up into infinitely many bits, one bit per each Pn? Everywhere?

Note: it is possible to have a start of infinity. 1 starts the infinite series 1, 2, 3,...

Sure but that's not infinite regression. There is no start in an infinite regression.