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]

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

I don't follow your argument. Do you propose an infinite regression without substance, without E? You can't have one property or an infinity of properties without E. Are you trying to replace E with an infinite regression of properties? This cannot be.

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

At this point there is no need to talk about a prime mover as a person. E is enough for the time being. E must be in there somewhere, even if you have an infinite regression.

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

Yes but it is easier to simply propose E -> P#, where P# is a complex property, P1 + P2 + ...

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

[quote=""BustNak"]Sure but that's not infinite regression. There is no start in an infinite regression.[/quote]

But if you start at infinity and work backwards, infinitely, the start is 1. Or start at 0 and work backwards -1, -2, -3...

0 is the terminus if you start at minus infinity.

[Bust Nak]

I don't follow your argument. Do you propose an infinite regression without substance, without E?

I am proposing an infinite regression with substance, but without a definite E.

You can't have one property or an infinity of properties without E.

Why not? E isn't needed as long as I have infinity of properties with substance.

Are you trying to replace E with an infinite regression of properties? This cannot be.

Same as above, why not?

At this point there is no need to talk about a prime mover as a person. E is enough for the time being. E must be in there somewhere, even if you have an infinite regression.

Noted, E does not have to be a person. But why must E be in there somewhere?

Yes but it is easier to simply propose E -> P#, where P# is a complex property, P1 + P2 + ...

But that isn't infinite refression, it still has a definition beginning in E.

But if you start at infinity and work backwards, infinitely, the start is 1. Or start at 0 and work backwards -1, -2, -3...

0 is the terminus if you start at minus infinity.

Start at infinity?! What does that even mean? How can you be starting at infinity and say the start is 1? You are proposing an logical absurdity.

[mgb]

I am proposing an infinite regression with substance, but without a definite E.

E is the only substance. It must form part of everything. What does 'definite E' mean?

Why not? E isn't needed as long as I have infinity of properties with substance.

What is substance without E? There is none.

But why must E be in there somewhere?

Because without E all else is abstraction. I have already explained this.

Start at infinity?! What does that even mean? How can you be starting at infinity and say the start is 1? You are proposing an logical absurdity.

No, it is perfectly in keeping with set theory. At any rate, start at 0 and work back through your infinity of properties; 0, -1, -2,...etc.

[Bust Nak]

E is the only substance. It must form part of everything.

What made you think that E is the only substance?

What does 'definite E' mean?

"The only substance" as opposed to many different substances.

What is substance without E? There is none.

How do you know that? I kept asking you if you are just telling me what you believe or is this something you are putting up for debate, I don't think I've gotten a straight answer from you.

Because without E all else is abstraction. I have already explained this.

Right, but when I ask you why you think "without E all else is abstraction" you told me "E is the only substance" much like you've done above in this very same post, and it's still not clear why you think that.

No, it is perfectly in keeping with set theory.

Hell no. No where does set theory propose such a thing as starting from infinity.

At any rate, start at 0 and work back through your infinity of properties; 0, -1, -2,...etc.

Right, but that's not infinite regression.