The parts and the whole

[Benedict Broere]

Recently professor in physics and Nobelprizewinner Gerard 't Hooft said in an interview, when reflecting on the possibility of a Theory of everything: "Explaining the smallest particles of the Mount Everest isn't explaining the Mount Everest."

And why's that ?
One could say: explaing the bricks the house is made of isn't explaining the house.
Or: explaining Oxygen and Hydrogen of H2O isn't explaining waves and vortexes, behaviour of clouds, etcetera.
Or: explaining biochemical processess in the brain isn't explaining for instance The Ring der Nibulungen.
Etcetera. And so on.

Science speaks in all these cases of emergence: new order pops up on higher levels of complexity. Thus making the explanation of 'everything' out of strings, quarks, gravity, etcetera, highly unlikely. Nature says No. Empirical experience says No. The facts say No.

Secondly, science has by definition a fragmented view on reality.
For instance physics only looks at the physical phenomena, chemistry only looks at the chemical phenomena, biology only..., psychology, sociology, economy only... etcetera. They all try to describe only a certain part of reality, and aren't really interested in what is going on in all the other parts and respective sciences. Each in themselves have a kind of blindness concerning the reality as a whole, while exactly this whole has to be adressed when speaking on a Theory of everything. The only science that has an eye for everything, by definition, by tradition, already for more then twothousand years and more, is philosophy.

Only philosophy can try to integrate and organize all information the sciences are giving us, in order to give a picture of the whole, a maybe plausible story on why it is there, this reality, on what is its purpose, meaning, general coherence, direction, et cetera.
It would give a real Theory of everything. As Aristotle would say: a First Philosophy.

But it is eager reductionism (Dannett) that diehard holds the focus on particles in trying to explain the Mount Everest.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Mount Everest is a zillion particles of minerals and rocks sticking up due to plates moving together and that is what it is.

Why do we climb it? Because it is there.

Why Mount St. Helen? Because she is there.

[Benedict Broere]

Your response puzzles me. It has nothing to do with what I write.
May be I've chosen the wrong title. Originally I had:

Why traditional TOE won't work

And with that I mean to say: why the explanation out of snares, quarks, general forces, etc. won't work in explaining everything, the whole of reality, the world, etcetera.

[Hucknallite]

The points you raise Benedict are important.

A very simple example of emergence failing is in a discussion of points and lines. Lines are made of points yet it is impossible to construct a line from points. Trying to build a line by adding more points is never going to work.

As part of the process there will have to come a time where we leap to linking points together and we can only do this by drawing lines.

As for a fragmented view on reality my favorite exponent of this is Dawkins with his selfish gene. As a scientist he is spot on. As a philosopher he is sloppy and crude. The material science he reports to us and his descriptions at the gene level are great to read and remarkable. But to take the next step and argue that genes use humans to create more genes is crude.

There is no reason to prioritise the level of explanation at the level of the gene. Dawkins has never shown why this is the level of explanation which is most important. A chemist would want to show the causal processes which occur between molecules. A physicist would want to investigate at the level of the atom. A social scientist (please forgive me) would be more interested in the behaviour of groups of organisms.

There are many causal processes involved in life being propagated from one generation to the next. The scientific facts allow that we can adopt the philosphical position 'humans use genes to create more humans.' No science needs to be contradicted to form this conclusion.

As a philosopher, I have to agree with Benedict that philosophy is the only way we will ever have a TOE which has meaning purpose and remain fully coherent.

[Benedict Broere]

Well, hurree! Shake hands!
But you will agree with me that it will take a paradigm-shift for people like Dawkins, and I guess also for lot's of writers on this website, to share the same point of view.

While the next step is of course the question WHY? Why this eager reductionism?
Maybe it has to do with focus. That for instance, by metaphor, a carpenter is inclined to see the world as nails and timber, to subsequently be inclined to think that every solution is a hammer. While on a deeper level you could think of Western culture and mentality and science, as it has evolved in the past centuries. With focus on analysis, the individual, dissection of nature, subject-object distinction, mechanistic-materialistic world view, etc.

But with saying this latter I'm moving towards 'off-topic' I think. I'm curious for what others think on the pleaded approach of the TOE.

Austintorn, you see what I meant. The mountain is there, but one tries to explain it from up the buttom - another metaphor. While nature is almost screaming out that it can't be done, this way: look at the mountain!

Snares, quarks, atoms, molecules, fibers, organs, organisms, mentalities, cultures, worldviews, everywhere new order, new specific forms of behaviour, interlocking, complex. A TOE would mean a general pattern therein, a pattern that connects. The Greeks spoke of the Logos.

[AntonioLao]

Only philosophy can try to integrate and organize all information the sciences are giving us

Looks like you are simply advocating a boostrap philosophy. But first thing we need to lift by the string of our own boots to the top of Mt. Everest. Modern science is based on the results of experiment to form logical conclusions. The hardest experiment is to simulate the condition at the space-time event of the big bang in order to prove it one way or the other.

[Benedict Broere]

Ah yes, hard core eager reductionism.

Again, read my words, try to understand what I'm saying.

My impression right now is you haven't a clue what I'm saying.

You even haven't started yet.

Remember, Nature is saying No! Repeatingly, all the time. In any way we look at her !

I know all about science, how it works. Traditional TOE is a myth, a modern myth. Nature says No. Look and See !

[Hucknallite]

Benedict,

Dawkins is the chief adherent of the 'science will prove everything' one day brigade. Within that view is the claim that mind will be reduced to matter.

Those reductionists make me smile. The only thing we truly know are our own thoughts. Everything else is turned into a thought so we can assimilate and comprehend it. Yet the thinking part is ignored and the material is made primary. Seems an elementary mistake IMO.

The history of science tells us that much discovery has been made in a ad hoc way. No real method, just that some things have worked and a 'scientific process' has been applied retrospectively.

The first real knowledge was Euclids geometry. It was considered to be perfect and then all knowledge was attempted to be framed in a similar format.

Then Newton had a massive success with his mechanistic philosophy so the way to do science became one of mechanisms. Historically, what has brought success has been the standard by which new research has been undertaken. Yet the next success never comes about from such research but usually by some maverick taking a different position. If science were that easy then it would have been wrapped up by now.

Anyway Benedict... Your final statement that a TOE would mean a general pattern therein is like music to my ears. My TOE is nothing but a general pattern therein. It is so ewasy and obvious that anyone who reads it will understand it.

The pattern connects everything. All science, human mind, why we can experience and rationalise, why we have the philosophical concepts we do. Why we are here, how we are here! It even makes a prediction of how many planets in the universe are inhabited. It is detailed and verifies all of science and it also sets up a falsifiable scientific experriment which is being performed right now.

I don't really like bangingon about it but then you really should read it. If you want some suggestion as to what this general pattern therein looks or probably does look like then it is waiting there for you to discover. Just follow the link in my signature.

And the point about the reductionists seeking a bottom up approach is crucial too. Understanding the inherent structure of reality and then unravelling it in a top down approach is equally as viable. It is not the way you construct or deconstruct your ideas it is whether they work and whether those ideas are a true reflection or interpretation of reality.

[Max™]

Given that I've recently discovered that quantum effects emerge from a relativistic view with adjusted temporal interaction... I'm gonna have to say the top down approach works well.

[Benedict Broere]

Well Hucknallite,
Who are you speaking to? I'm also under the impression to have found a TOE - it can be found under http://aosbenm.nl/

But this 'The Rational God', quite appeals to me. But before I start reading (and reading and reading), can you give me an abstract of your thoughts, in let's say ten sentences. If you know your stuff it must be possible.

Max,
Elaborate, please. It looks interesting.
But remember: snares and quarks and... and... and.. The Ring der Nibulungen ???

Moderator, it's already jumping all over the place, but please have patience.