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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by mgb]

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.

Care to explain why you used the word "primitive" there? As far as I can tell, it doesn't apply at all.

I advised the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' should be observed.

Do you ever say one thing caused another, at all, in real life? Let's take a child sitting at a table, holding some crayons to a sheet of paper. Will you be this pedantic and say we can't ever say the child drew the picture on the paper?

I mean it in terms of how knowledge and logic are structured. Logic, chess, mathematics etc are at the most basic level of thought. Conscious, creative intelligence is at the highest level.

I suggest you get really precise with your terminology, especially since I wasn't alone with wondering just why you used the term "primitive" without once explaining yourself (before this). In fact, let me call back to what you talked about with regards to computers. If we focus on that alone, what you did then is equivocating, since primitive is not the same thing as low level, or not-primitive is not the same as high level. (While I'm not a computer programmer myself, I do know that low-level code is "closest to the metal" as in it is what the computer itself understands i.e. binary, while high level code are the languages humans code in e.g. Python, C, Java).
I really really stress precision. What does "logic, chess, mathematics at the most basic level of thought" even mean? Does this mean that creatures with the most basic or primitive thinking capacities are able to conceive of, think about logic, chess or mathematics? Can a squid play chess?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 11 by rikuoamero]

rikuoamero: "Care to explain why you (mgb, post 1) used the word 'primitive' there? As far as I can tell, it doesn't apply at all."

I suspect it is because logic and facts are not, in his estimation, as "developed" as a mystical fabric of finely split philosophical frog-hair, pigmented with delicately invisible pastels of transcendental woo.
Of course I could be mistaken... And he probably wouldn't state it in those terms.

[mgb]

Of course I could be mistaken... And he probably wouldn't state it in those terms.

You are entirely mistaken. Using expressions like you have used are purely emotive and propagandist. When I say primitive I mean reductive analysis of the primitive basis (matter, logic, mathematics etc.) of physical and abstract phenomena. I am NOT using the expression in any derogatory way. I'm simply saying it IS primitive.

Things concerned with the personal are at the highest level of the world's phenomena. The personal (pertaining to the person) is about creativity, creative intelligence, being, life, value, consciousness, art, religion and morality. These things are not primitive in the way that matter is primitive.

It is a fact of life that there are things that cannot be encompassed by a primitive rationale; beauty, value, art, literature, music...These things cannot be reduced to intellectual dissection. How does one develope a scientific critique of, for example, King Lear or Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel? Can the question 'What is being?' be reduced to formal logic? Can the ultimate philosophical question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' be answered in terms of biochemistery, or even quantum mechanics?

There are realms outside the compass of the primitive rationale of material and intellectual investigations. People who argue that only things that can be proved are ultimately admissable as truth, are effectively arguing that everything should be reduced to the primitive. Any serious attempt to do so would be a kind of cultural and intellectual vandalism tantamount to tyranny. Indeed, many a tyrant began as a self appointed arbiter of what is and is not meaningful.

Beauty is truth. But how can the painter or writer prove that his/her work has value or meaning? Can a Rembrandt painting or a poem such as The Iliad be explained by 'rational thinking'? ('Rational' as narrowly defined by people like Dawkins). Can Goya's paintings or Mozart's music be deemed to be 'woo' simply because they won't fit into the narrow definition of 'rational' as it pertains to the primitive investigations of science? No.

People need to accept that there are things that simply cannot be within the compass of a primitive, scientific rationale. To argue otherwise is childish. It is nonsense to demand 'proof' when provable things are limited to the simple and the primitive.

[mgb]

Does this mean that creatures with the most basic or primitive thinking capacities are able to conceive of, think about logic, chess or mathematics? Can a squid play chess?

You are conflating two different spheres and two different meanings of the word primitive.


In biology primitive means basic, foundational.

In science it is concerned with reductive materialism, atomism.

In logic it is about the abstract basics of phenomena.

In mathematics it begins as set theory, the primitive basis of number.

{/} = 1
{//} = 2
{///} = 3 etc.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by mgb]

Can Goya's paintings or Mozart's music be deemed to be 'woo' simply because they won't fit into the narrow definition of 'rational' as it pertains to the primitive investigations of science? No.

It's funny you talk about this, because a few years ago, I watched a video on Youtube where someone sought to write the worst piece of music he could, using mathematics.

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

I mean reductive analysis of the primitive basis (matter, logic, mathematics etc.) of physical and abstract phenomena. I am NOT using the expression in any derogatory way. I'm simply saying it IS primitive.

Things concerned with the personal are at the highest level of the world's phenomena. The personal (pertaining to the person) is about creativity, creative intelligence, being, life, value, consciousness, art, religion and morality. These things are not primitive in the way that matter is primitive.

You say this, and yet what I see here is all subjective opinion. How is creativity at the highest level, and not being able to express the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics?

[rikuoamero]

Does this mean that creatures with the most basic or primitive thinking capacities are able to conceive of, think about logic, chess or mathematics? Can a squid play chess?

You are conflating two different spheres and two different meanings of the word primitive.


In biology primitive means basic, foundational.

In science it is concerned with reductive materialism, atomism.

In logic it is about the abstract basics of phenomena.

In mathematics it begins as set theory, the primitive basis of number.

{/} = 1
{//} = 2
{///} = 3 etc.

Then I suggest that in the future, you express yourself much more clearly than you did with the OP. Here you have four definitions for the word primitive, and yet, within the OP and subsequent posts, it's not exactly easy to see when and where you shift between them.
Even if it wasn't your intention, what you did do is an equivocation fallacy.

[mgb]

How is creativity at the highest level, and not being able to express the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics?

You shouldn't imagine that I am trying to demean anything by using the word primitive. I'm not putting down science or logic or mathematics (I make number theoretic programs myself). What primitive means in this context, is essentially what is meant by 'atomistic' or 'reductive'; dealing with fundamentals. The disciplines that address fundamentals are not able to address questions concerning human being. Being is a mystery, not only to science but to philosophy. But philosophy and spiritual diciplines try to address questions concerning being and consciousness. It is pointless trying to make these things fit into fundamental disciplines. One doesn't use religion to do Boolean algebra, nor vice versa.

Having said all that, science can reveal the sublime and the beautiful. One only has to read about science to see that. It can reveal them, but it cannot explain them.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 13 by mgb]

mgb: �You are entirely mistaken. Using expressions like you have used are purely emotive and propagandist.�

You mean expressions like “emotive� and “propagandist�? And I thought you were were arguing that the the emotional was sooo much less “primitive�. so much “higher�. than the merely rational.

mgb: �When I say primitive I mean reductive analysis of the primitive basis (matter, logic, mathematics etc.) of physical and abstract phenomena. I am NOT using the expression in any derogatory way. I'm simply saying it IS primitive.�

Actually, I understood you the first time. But, I also understood why you used the semiotically loaded term, “primitive� rather than “basic� or even, “simple�.

mgb: �Things concerned with the personal are at the highest level of the world's phenomena.�

They may be complex, unknown to you, and misunderstood, but neuroscience is in the process of breaking them down to “primitives�. To understand a clock you consider its parts, and how they relate to each other in terms of forces and mathematics. Such analysis does not necessarily destroy the clock or its utility. In fact, it might lead to a better functioning clock. And understanding reality to be a field of periodic quantum possibilities that always sum to certainty imparts a pleasurable feedback, a beauty, to the mind.

mgb: �The personal (pertaining to the person) is about creativity, creative intelligence, being, life, value, consciousness, art, religion and morality. These things are not primitive in the way that matter is primitive.�

But these “non-primitive� things are primitive matters of neurotransmitters, neural feedbacks, and evoked memories and associations.

mgb: �It is a fact of life that there are things that cannot be encompassed by a primitive rationale; beauty, value, art, literature, music...These things cannot be reduced to intellectual dissection.�

That is an unsupported assertion, argumentum ad ignorantiam. They can be reduced to the “primitive�, to neural feedbacks, hormones, endorphins, et alia.

mgb: �How does one develope a scientific critique of, for example, King Lear or Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel?'

Those things can be measured and quantified. And individual human reactions to them can also be observed, measured and quantified.

mgb: �Can the question 'What is being?' be reduced to formal logic?'

“Being� is simply existence. It is what you would call “primitive�. Non-existence is simply non-existent.

mgb: �Can the ultimate philosophical question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' be answered in terms of biochemistery, or even quantum mechanics? '

“Nothing� is, by defintion, that which is non-existent. It is simply a reified philosophical fiction. ("Woo" for short!)

And in any infinite series of random digits there are an infinite number infinite subsets of that series that exhibit every sort of order you can name. And just so, in any infinite field of periodic quantum probabilities there is every possible subset quantum state. The universe just had to be.

mgb: �There are realms outside the compass of the primitive rationale of material and intellectual investigations.�

Once again I point out argumentum ad ignorantiam. You don't know and deny the possibility that others do know.

mgb: �People who argue that only things that can be proved are ultimately admissable as truth, are effectively arguing that everything should be reduced to the primitive.�

“Should� is a matter of personal opinion.

mgb: �Any serious attempt to do so would be a kind of cultural and intellectual vandalism tantamount to tyranny. Indeed, many a tyrant began as a self appointed arbiter of what is and is not meaningful.�

Any kindergartener might regard any attempt at education or any attempt to instill intellectual discipline as “tyranny�. What is the “meaning� of Van Gogh's Sunflowers or Pachelbel's Canon in D? These things don't have meaning or truth value. They may awaken neural feedbacks in some folks, but they are not “true� except in the sense that they actually exist.

mgb: �Beauty is truth.�

Beauty is in the mind of the beholder, and it is not necessarily true, and it might not bear any relation to a truth value. e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin(x) is more beautiful than any painting or symphony. It is even, necessarily true.

mgb: �But how can the painter or writer prove that his/her work has value or meaning?�

Well, he can try to sell his work. Art “means� whatever the observer takes it to mean. It is a matter of personal reaction, and may mean different things to different people. Frankly, “La Giocanda/Mona Lisa�� means nothing to me. It is just paint daubed on canvas.

mgb: �Can a Rembrandt painting or a poem such as The Iliad be explained by 'rational thinking'? ('Rational' as narrowly defined by people like Dawkins). Can Goya's paintings or Mozart's music be deemed to be 'woo' simply because they won't fit into the narrow definition of 'rational' as it pertains to the primitive investigations of science? No.�

You wish to conflate the work with some subjective reaction to the work. In fact, even the reaction can be measured and mapped.

mgb: �People need to accept that there are things that simply cannot be within the compass of a primitive, scientific rationale.�

Why must people need to accept this? Because some tyrant says we must?

mgb: �To argue otherwise is childish. It is nonsense to demand 'proof' when provable things are limited to the simple and the primitive.�

I recognize this argument: “Tide comes in, tide goes out...You can't explain that.� It is the argument of one who is too ignorant to understand, and too lazy to remedy ignorance. It is the claim that your own ignorance is necessarily universal.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by mgb]
This thesis, promoted by a lengthy word salad based on illogic and false assumptions, could be expressed much more simply: "Science can discover nothing really important."

This is of course utter nonsense. Science has uncovered basic truths about how the universe works, how life developed, and how our species fits into the universe. Science has not only discovered knowledge that has allowed us to travel to the moon and beyond, it has contributed great insight into consciousness and how we think. It provides the only reliable insight into our origins. The fact that science is not the same as art diminishes neither art nor science.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
__ Victor Stenger

[mgb]

This thesis, promoted by a lengthy word salad based on illogic and false assumptions, could be expressed much more simply: "Science can discover nothing really important."

Where did I say that? I said that science is basic, primitive. Science is important. So is mathematics. But any 'science of beauty' for example is just scientism. Any 'science of aesthetics' likewise. It is not illogical or false to say clearly what science has and has not done. Science has not, for example, explained consciousness. Simply correlating brain activity with thought is not an explanation.

Correlation is not causation;-

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation