What is Einstein's Moon?

Stefan Scherer of Backreation has tagged me with one of those blog memes - in this case, a variant of the Historical Meme. The idea is to:

• link to the person who tagged you,
• list seven random or weird things about your favourite historical figure,
• tag five more people at the end of your blog and link to theirs,
• let the tagged people know by leaving a note on their site.

Actually, as like Stefan, I’m a bit of a science history buff. This does present a problem, since in being so it is difficult to choose one out of the many people I have come to admire. However, what came to the rescue in my quandary was the recent unfortunate episode that took place resultant of comments made in a entry that was posted on Backreaction just before I was tagged. This brought to mind a scientific figure in history who defines as a hero for me not simply because he added to the book of understanding of nature, yet more importantly that he did this despite what would be for many seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The person I have thus chosen is as noted Stephen Gray.

• Stephen Gray (December, 1666 - 7 February 1736) was born (Canterbury, Kent, England) of humble beginnings whose profession was that of a cloth dyer and for his time should have never been considered capable of having made a mark on natural philosophy at all, let alone as strongly as he did. Beyond other then minimum schooling he was primarily self educated in natural philosophy with his initial focus on astronomy. He constructed his own telescopes and made minor contributions in the accurate observations and the reporting of sunspots, some of which was published by the Royal Society by way of a mutual friend.

• He became noticed and later befriended by John Flamsteed, the first and most famous Astronomer Royal. Although this would prove to be an initial advantage it would later become a major obstacle as Flamsteed became the target of Newton’s wrath. Newton wished for the hurried completion and publishing of Flamsteed’s observations so that he might utilize the data he felt needed in calculations for the second edition of his “Principia Mathematica”. As it then turned out, any friend and supporter of Flamsteed became also the foe and thereby victim of Newton’s tyranny. The result was his exclusion from mention in scientific circles and the suppression of the reporting of any of his experiments and discoveries until after Newton’s death. With Newton’s great influence and as the head of the Royal Society this was easily accomplished.
  

• What Gray eventually and truly became noted for was for his very early research in the field of electricity as to its nature, sources, basic properties and potentials. His initial experiments were conducted when he was briefly employed by Richard Cotes as an assistant in the construction of an observatory at Trinity College. After only a short time there he resigned and returned to his dyers business. Ironically this was an endeavor inspired and initiated by Newton in an attempt to circumvent and bring pressure to bear on Flamsteed and for the large part was a failed project that bore little fruit. Gray’s letters that reported his experiments and finding sent to the Royal Society were never published in its journal “Philosophical Transactions” and of little wonder as Newton had final say in such matters. This work although never published was occasionally plagiarized by friends of Newton’s and other members of the Royal Society and had great impact in the growth of interest in the field.

• After the death of Flamsteed in 1719 Gray for the time that extended to 1730 no longer made visit of the Royal Society as had been his prior habit. It is thought with the death of his greatest supporter and friend he for a time was no longer interested, coupled with the reality that Newton was still its head.

• As a result of bad fortune and also as the natural consequence of becoming older he became impoverished and destitute.However, after several years of petitioning on his behalf by people such as Hans Sloane, then Secretary of the Royal Society in 1719 Gray was finally accepted as a pensioner at Charterhouse a home for impoverished gentleman that had given service to their nation and thereby society.Although certainly far from being lavish it did guarantee that one would not starve to death and despite the strictness of rules it imposed Gray saw this as an opportunity to once again restart and further his study of electrical phenomena.

• During his stay at Charterhouse he was befriended by two gentlemen scientists , John Godfree and Granville Wheler. While visiting these two he was able to conduct his experiments of electrical conductance in a more spacious setting then afforded at Charterhouse. In the course of these experiments he was able to show that what was then called “electric virtue” (static electricity) could be made to propagate over some distance and further discovered that in order for it to do this, over media such as a hemp twine, it would have to be isolated from the ground by use of a insulator such as silk rather then a metal wire.

• After Newton’s death in 1727, Gray once again began to report some of his experiments and findings to the Royal Society and in 1729 upon receipt they promptly published them. The most significant of these experiments, conducted at Otternden Place by him, assisted by Wheler, were not reported and subsequently published until 1731. Despite this long over due recognition he was heavily criticized for first proposing that electricity was one in the same as lightening which Benjamin Franklin would take credit for some years after. Gray in 1735 when summarizing some of his experiments said the following:
  

“The electric fire which by several of these experiments seems to be of the same nature with that of thunder and lightening.”

• On January 25th, 1733 he was elected as a fellow of the Royal Society and was admitted in March of the same year at the age of sixty-six. After only another three years he died and was buried in an unmarked grave in London reserved for paupers of the residence of Charterhouse.

Today it is agreed by many, that he should be regarded as the father of electrical communications and therefore not Morse, Marconi or Bell, which instead were the benefactors’ of his contributions. That is he was the first to conduct experiments that would be after understood and later refined to lead to the realization of both its methods and potential. Ironically the reason he wasn’t is not resultant of his humble beginnings or station, nor certainly of lacking of commitment or ability, yet mainly the tyranny of the most noted person in modern science. He thus stands and serves as a lesson from which all his peers after should take note of and consider.

It should not be thought that I have written this to villanize and thus lessen your respect for Newton. It was done rather to perhaps have you now come to respect and admire one who truly deserves to be.

The information in this post was primarily sourced from the book entitled “Newton’s Tyranny (The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen Gray and John Flamsteed)” written by David H. Clark and Stephen P.H. Clark-W.H. Freeman and Company-2000. Also in relation to the quanity of things I noted you will discover I can't count:-)

Oh yes my tags are as follows:

Think Deviant
Knots Untied
The Quantum Pontiff

As I have pointed out in my other blog, is that as of late I have come across a wonderful web site that is created and hosted by two (married to each other) physicists. What is interesting about this site is that one is not just simply exposed to the thoughts, convictions and beliefs of a few physicists, yet rather they have provided a structured forum in which to discuss science in general and how it relates to and is perceived by the world. This site not only includes like-minded people as themselves yet rather a broader spectrum of those I consider myself a part of, which I refer to as the wonderers.

What is to be found in the following, is a comment I left on this site in relation to a subject that started out as a discussion of a book called the “The Ingenuity Gap” and evolved into a discussion of what our society is, what are its problems, why they are so, and most importantly how they might be solved. Subsequently there was a lot of discussion about what the responsibility, role, and place an individual serves to be in all of this. The main point of contention and query was to question whether society and its instrument, government, primary purpose is to serve the people as individuals or are the individuals there to serve the purpose of society. My contention was that it is neither in as both viewpoints are correct and yet incorrect. What is found hereafter is exactly as it is on the site with one exception, which is the last paragraph. This I excluded because the site is dedicated first and foremost to the scientific format (philosophic viewpoint) and thus I omitted it there out of respect for the creators and their intentions.

Hi Bee,

“Though I am very sympathetic to this, and it might indeed be the way to go, it is just not true……….You can go a big step further by changing the political system itself, for neither of these examples you need a bottom-up approach, all you need is to convince the top (I am very much a bottom-up person though).”

The way I see society there is no bottom up or a top down to consider. That is because it only amounts to a whole as to the function that is common. You could equate this to an organism as opposed to a single cell. In an organism we have different cells for different functions. They all must function properly or the whole organism suffers. Yet this is a strange organism, for unlike a typical one where the parts are in service of the whole, the organism of society is one that exists in the service of its parts. So in contrast to the typical organism, where it is a common (and required) strategy to sacrifice individual cells to maintain the whole; in the case of the social organism this is not seen as the right thing to do. This of course is the dilemma. As an example, in the contemporary context wars are seen as wrong, not so much because they have no chance to benefit the organism, yet rather because they sacrifice the parts (cells). This on its own is why a society is required to be moral rather then a typical organism where such a practice would be considered not only wrong yet ultimately destructive.

It is often proclaimed by many, that the reason for our current plight is that we defy nature and if we were simply to obey her we would have no problems; and yet as I have indicated, the whole modern concept held by these same people, as I have shown, is by its very nature required to run counter to the claim. I would ask then what is it to be? Should society be perceived as an organism where the parts are necessarily sacrificed for the good of the whole or must it act for the good of each part at the sacrifice of none? If it is the former we have always had what’s required, if it’s the latter we then stand in defiance of nature. Therefore, it must be first understood that morality is not natural (as commonly perceived) and if we want to hold our ideals we must not only understand this to be true, yet further are required to stand together in this defiance.

Regards,

Phil

What I didn’t say on the site is as follows:

So then, am I proposing that society’s ulitmate goal is unnatural and perhaps then wrong? No, for this is a misunderstanding resultant of restricting oneself to two dimensional and/or flawed logic. That is to consider when something that is not like the other, it then must be the opposite. When you incorporate three dimensional logic; that is when something in one sense is similar and yet exceeds in some aspect what it’s being compared to, it is not the opposite or negative, yet rather the superior or evolved state. The superior or evolved state of natural is then supernatural, not unnatural. It has been speculated by some (myself included) that all life in general is the first stage of this departure to become superior to nature. What mankind’s goal as many have envisioned would thus be the completion of this. The question of course is, do we (humanity) have both the conviction and capacity to complete the program or are we simply another step in the evolution of life to end in this completion? I don't profess to know, just merely wish to offer another avenue of thought one might explore and also to suggest reason to consider that not only the how and the what as relevant to understanding, yet also the why.

As you may recall in a previous entry I discussed time and how it could and is considered in physical terms. That is where time is not simply imagined as a marker which we use to separate one state in a changing physical process from another, yet rather as an actual part of the physical process itself. That is as to be a dimension or degree of freedom which forms part of the actual substance of reality to both define the limits of the scope and potential to which such physical process can evolve. Now what is interesting and relevant in the context of this blog is this has been and still continues to be a central subject of study and concern for both of our considered two disciplines, being science and philosophy. In this way it forms a commonality within the struggle for understanding shared by both.

To continue, in order to explore this further, I wondered how I might form an analogy that could at least, in some crude way, describe what I’m talking about as to whether time is simply a marker within physical process or rather is part of the physicality of the process itself? The analogy I have come up with is to be found in the comparison of playing a record (musical phonograph) with the actual production of one. So to begin when we play a record what is involved? What’s entailed is that first we have a media (substance), on which there is inscribed a pattern (information), that when actualized by a process (the playing) we are presented with or realize its content. This physical process of course involves motion in the sense that the record turns (travels) and a needle striking (following) dimensional differences within the media presented. These differences scientifically would be described in terms of its amplitude (height), wave length (length) and frequency (depth or density or how many per given length). These could be considered as the three commonly understood dimensions (degrees of freedom) of what we understand as space and can be interpreted and imagined without the need for anything else at all. That is they can remain fixed and still be thought to be real. However to have all this actualized or realized for the listener we must have something else and that is the movement (time) which when added has the music come into being. This compares to how some physicists imagine time to be as a dimension.

First, it is important to point out that the three (space) dimensions between them can have no affect on each other or enable there actualization (to be realized as considered fixed. However. the fourth one (time) certainly can. What do I mean by this? Well let’s consider the record again. In the playing of a record to have it come out (realized) the way it was recorded it must turn at a speed that is consistent with the way it was produced and the record must turn in the correct direction (clockwise or forward as formed). To play it at a different speed, although one may still be able to comprehend it, will have it display different qualities (characteristics) as related to the perceived (not self actual) distances of all three involved. To play it in the opposite direction renders it for the most part incomprehensible. I think you can see what I’m getting at here. That is in Einstein’s view of reality all what I have said comes into consideration. The speed (time) of the universe can have us perceive and experience our reality (the universe) differently according to the speed and relative to the fixed qualities and quantities of its content (mass/energy). Also, it suggests that if this is to be meaningful at all, it can have only one direction. This is considered in science within an action or consequence of action called entropy, where the averaged actual relative positions of the matter/energy contained in the universe is perceived as becoming more disordered as related to both its previous and initial state. This in turn is connected to space to both expanding and lowering in average energy content (temperature).

Now this is where the two concepts in a way cross swords. In the entropy concept time is simply a marker, in as it is only considered as way to differentiate one state of realization from the other and therefore is merely a tool used in our conceptualization of it. This is however only true if you consider this speed as being both constant and regular. In other words if time has only one aspect (character or element) and thereby consequence. Yet how could this be other then having something external arbitrarily controlling these variables. This would seem to point to some omnipotent being or some such thing being required. What we forgot is that in our analogy of the record the difference between playing one and making (producing) one. When we play a record we only actualize what has already been produced. When a record is being made it is in the act of forming what it is to be. In the case of the recording a record someone supplies the content (music) and the pattern (information) of this is etched (copied) to a malleable and consistant physical substance such as wax. So is this the only way to make a record that would realize something and thus require conscious and intended input? There is another way this could be considered and that is the medium on which it is being recorded although holistic (one thing) is not homogenous or predicatively consistent. Imagine something like a wax plate that had itself both varying malleability and slickness (resistance to travel). What would be produced if we cut a record on such a substance without supplying input? What would happen is that the needle when confined to the inward revolving motion facilitated with a constant force of rotation (travel) would create grooves displaying varying amplitude(height), wave length(length) and frequency (depth or density) in accordance to these related factors. That is that the record produced would create a pattern (information) that tells one of the character of the substance encountered in relation to the action included (time). In this way the whole thing is resultant of the mutual potential realized (actualized) between the two.

So now let’s speculate further how this could relate to our world as what it serves to represent. First it should be understood that the playing of the record is not a state of being or becoming but merely the act of observing the past. This we also do every day when we look out in front of us whether it is merely at the screen of this computer I am typing on or out into the heavens at night. It is only different in terms of how far this is from our own now (present). The being of the universe takes place in the now (cutting the record) which is never truly experienced only later to be realized. The becoming is in the future and depends on what is encountered (nature of the wax). It must be understood that within this highly speculative model although the character or nature of the substance on which it will be enacted (realized) is already there and in some sense predetermined. However in the act of travelling through, although the force and initial direction may be set and consistant, would however still leave this future to remain difficult if not impossible to predict. What would make this truly to remain uncertain and unknowable is of course is if the substance itself is not simply variable because of a changing set nature but rather if it were also reactant to itself and by its own complex interactions constantly changing in terms of its total local and universal character at any given instance. This universal character although changing could still preserve its overall (averaged) value.

All this of course supplies no answers and yet at least gives us one way to frame the questions of concern which are how, what and why. This may give you further reason to understand and perhaps even to accept that we can and should address them all as to be considered in terms of our search for understanding.

“Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable”

T.S Elliot - Burnt Norton (1935)

There have occurred two recent events which served for me as a reminder that the central contention of this blog is certainly relevant. Those two events being first, the publication of Richard Dawkins’ new book entitled “The God Delusion” followed with the announcement of Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that are launching a (contended to be) scientific journal called “Answers Research Journal” (reported in Nature)that will be accessible online. These two certainly exemplify what I see as the true problem in regards to humanity's search in the understanding of our world. Also, it serves to further demonstrate how our two central philosophies, one which are called religions and the other science have come to being even more strongly diametrically opposed.

In attempting to explain what I mean, first I’d like to expand a little on who Richard Dawkins is and what he reports to represent. Dawkins’ is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer out of England. He currently serves as the Charles Simonyi Chairman (Oxford’s) for the Public Understanding of Science. He first came to public attention in the writing of the book “The Selfish Gene” in 1976 (which I’ve read). This book’s central contention is that evolution is executed primarily from (and for) the single cells perspective, rather then the organisms’ as a whole. In Dawkins’ view the organism is simply the extended machinery though which all this is manifested and observed with genes being the expeditor of this process. This is one possible logical extension of Darwin’s theory and it is not my intention to contest it. What issue I have with Dawkins is his new books primary intent and focus is to take it upon himself to become the self appointed representative/champion of science to insist that his theory and connected others amount to a proof that there is no “why” to the world. His limited understanding of this is of course is that there is no God.

Now on the other side of the coin we have this Christian Ministry headed by Ken Ham which is a propagator of the creationist (Intelligent Design) view. He headed up the effort to fund and execute the building of what’s called the Creation Museum whose claimed sole purpose is to educate people of the validity of holding such a position. Now what has been just recently started by the same group is what is reported to be a Scientific journal called “The Answers Research Journal” which is to represent what they contend will be a traditional, peer reviewed scientific research publication. The peer review however will be carried out by only scientists that are supportive and sympathetic to this concept.

What I find most revealing (and disconcerting) in all this is the polarity that is clearly demonstrated when you consider the attitude of many scientists when compared with those of many religious philosophies. They both somehow misunderstand and misrepresent their indepenantly decided and defined limited roles in terms of the search for understanding. First as I have explained in the past the separation of the roles is defined as such. First for modern (homocentric) philosophy as previously defined as the following:

“Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods“.

Now I remind here the role served by science and it’s methodology as defined by Newton which is:

“In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

So then, what this time is my point? First it must be realized that those of Dawkins stripe are now stepping outside of their philosophical mandate to say that it is science’s responsibility to prove and insist that not just creationist religions,yet rather all religions are false and should be dismissed as not only just being wrong yet also being dangerous. Then we have many religious philosophies that contend that they not only know the “why” yet many of the details and can prove it and thus science must be dismissed in this regard. What this demonstrates to me is that those scientists such as Dawkins thus claim in effect that they (I paraphrase)” believe or have faith in science” while religious figures such a Ken Ham claim in effect (I paraphrase)” they have proof for the existence and intent of God”. I will thus simply point out that both statements in terms of their central methodologies are oxymorons.

In conclusion today, I would like to once again remind that this need not remain to be a problem. For it has been demonstrated by people such a Plato, Descartes, Darwin and Einstein who found it possible to find the “how” and the “what” of the world while remaining convinced and assured that we will ultimately discover the “why”.

As you recall in my last post I was speaking as to why Albert Einstein served as my inspiration in coming to realize that science should not be content to restrict itself to only answer “how” the world works but also to imagine “what” it is and “why”. In doing so I attempted to demonstrate Einstein’s thoughts on what science should explore and serve to be. I offered you the insight that Einstein’s strength in his pursuit of understanding and discovery rested on the fact that he were not just simply intelligent: but, that also he was a man of conviction as to what should be considered to represent truth in our world. More specifically I said I would attempt to explain what significance this blog’s question “What is Einstein’s Moon” is in reference to.

To begin, despite all the success and favor Einstein attained in life; he, until the end of his days found himself to be an outsider in the then forefront of scientific discovery. That forefront of course was with the dawn of quantum theory, which attempts to explain our world at the very small (non perceived) scale. Today some believe that this was due to Einstein not understanding the subject or perhaps even compounded by advancing age. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact he was one that laid the foundations for its beginnings. For instance it is widely assumed that Einstein was awarded the Noble prize for his work on special and general relativity. This is not so. What he was given the Nobel Prize for was in showing that if light was considered as a particle it could explain why only light above a certain frequency (energy density) could free electrons from specific materials. We exploit this today in many applications, most notably the solar cell. This along with Max Planck’s ideas marked the birth of what is considered modern atomic physics. In continuance with this, he inspired, communicated and consulted with all those who became known as the founders of quantum theory. So then, how did Einstein find himself outside the consensus formed about the nature of the quanta that emerged and for the most part is still accepted in the main today?

How Einstein came to find himself in this position was two fold, in that quantum theory implied two things about nature with which he had trouble with. First, the theory proposed things about the world that appeared inconsistent with his own theories, specifically special relativity. Second, the theory dismissed the objective nature of the world. That is it suggested that the world of which we are aware is somehow connected with ones perception of it and in some respect is not real in the normal sense of meaning until it is so perceived. This if taken to the extreme could suggest that every individual (not just person but rather organism) has its own private reality. As time progressed Einstein was to focus his attention primarily on this second feature as to be its central flaw. He can be seen in the act of expressing this doubt about what the new theory implies and what the responsibilities of scientists are when he writes a paper entitled “Physics and Reality” for the journal of the Franklin Institute [Volume.221, No. 3, March 3, 1936], he states in the opening paragraph the following:

“It has been often said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why, then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher to the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are also well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation he must make clear in his own mind just how far such concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.”

Now to indicate that the physicists truly thought as Einstein perceived I offer here a quote of Aage Petersen paraphrasing Niels Bohr (a founding father of quantum theory):

“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

So as can be seen not only can we assume that Bohr dismisses the “what” and “why” of the world, which in some ways we have come to expect of science; he, says we can no longer be permitted to ask “how” and should be content with what we can say about nature, which serves to answer essentially nothing at all. Einstein was thus considered unreasonable in not accepting this.

As part of this distaste for not looking for a objective description of the world Einstein was not content with the fact that nature’s actions were not just merely perceived to be so complex that they could only be predicted within a statistical framework, but, rather that there was no framework at all and that the statistics where due to the fact that nature at the base level acts randomly. This is even furthered in quantum mechanics to suggest that cause is not related to effect. That is to say that nature has no reason at all. Einstein can be seen here complaining about this in a letter he wrote to a friend and fellow physicist, Max Born, on September 7, 1944[Born-Einstein Letters], when he says to Born:

“We have become Antipodean in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God that plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover, a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.”

As indicated above then Einstein’s main objection to quantum mechanics, as it was accepted, was that it lent no reasonable explanation of the world and in some sense denied what many would perceive as what it means to truly exist. As a further testament to this once while walking with physicist and his biographer, Abraham Pais, Pais reports in frustration Einstein asked “whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."

To conclude, I hope that you more clearly understand why I chose Einstein to represent both the inspiration and purpose of this blog. That is, with him, I am convinced that mankind should have hope that we will not only continue to explore and discover “how” and “what the world truly is, yet further to be confident that we will ultimately come to realize “why”.

As a postscript to this I'd like to leave you with what Einstein said in relation to all this in the conclusion of a paper he called “The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics” in the journal [Science- May 24, 1940]

“Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in time and space; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance. It is open to every man to choose the direction of his striving: and also every man may draw from Lessing’s fine saying, that the search for truth is more precious than its possession. “

To the few readers of this blog you may have been curious as to how (for me) a blog that is concerned with the “how”, “what” and “why” holds any relevance to Albert Einstein. Also, you may be interested as to why Einstein’s Moon in particular is significant in terms of this blog’s subject matter and focus. First, I must admit that if there is a person in history that has influenced me more then Plato it is Einstein. In fact I started this whole journey of the discovery and contemplation of scientific and philosophic consideration primarily due to his influence. However, to my recollection as to how the whole thing began is that in 1957, as a very young boy, I heard the eerie beeping’s of the first man made satellite over a radio. This of course was the Soviet’s “Sputnik” meaning “fellow traveler”. So you might say that it all started with the practical beginnings of the space age. This event instilled in me a curiosity about science and the nature of the world that has continued to this day. Initially I was primarily interested in modern science and the person that represented this most poignantly was of course Albert Einstein. He did then, and I would say still today, personifies the best of wisdom and science's abilities that the modern age has acheived. Realizing this I proceeded to gather and study everything I could, not only about his science, but also the man and his thoughts.

So enough about me, let’s speak of Einstein as he relates here. What I discovered about Einstein was two fold. That was that his discoveries where made not only because he was intelligent but also because he held a conviction about how the world works and what it should be. This conviction gave him the confidence and tenacity to follow up on ideas he saw as viable, even if they were not considered consistent with the main stream or popular view within his discipline and more importantly his time. This begs the question, how did he get this way? Well besides the blessings of what he was born with and what his parents nurture instilled in him, it was a consequence of what else influenced him in his development. That influence was found in part as result of his education, however I would say more importantly it is found in what he read and studied beyond the curriculum. I could go on for some time as to what this entailed but Einstein has already said this for himself when he was commenting as to what he viewed as the misguided direction of much of contemporary thought when in 1952 he said:

“Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best books of contemporary authors looks to me like an extremely near-sighted person who scorns eyeglasses. He is completely dependent on the prejudices and fashions of his times, since he never gets to see or hear anything else. And what a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous. There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century. What has been preserved of their work belongs among the most precious possessions of mankind. We owe it to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that the people in the Middle Ages could slowly extricate themselves from the superstitions and ignorance that had darkened life for more than half a millennium. Nothing is more needed to overcome the modernist's snobbishness.”

Now as you can imagine when I discovered this I was inspired to take Einstein to heart and accept both his judgment and his challenge. I don’t think I need to explain much more beyond this. One thing I must include here is that his challenge doesn’t just extend to studying the teachings of antiquity but all the way up to the present. I have striven to do just that within my limits of time and comprehension. It is with this then why Einstein serves as the type of person to represent this contention that not only the “how” is important to the understanding of our world but the “what” and also the “why”. Einstein summed up his personal feelings about this many years ago when he said:

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

I must say I was a little hesitant to quote this as it is so often misused to portray Einstein as someone motivated by religion and so I will clear this up later with another of his quotes. What this truly portrays is that Einstein was not so interested in being able to expand our or his ability to predict as is the main focus of science today, but rather to attempt to understand “what” is the world and “how” it was so conceived which of course is the “why”. Now in regards to Einstein and religion he totally disregarded all of them, as they relate to two categories which he called “the religions of fear” and “the religions of morals”. He summed up his feelings on these when he said:

“And yet, that the primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.”

So it is clear with this that what many would call religion or the will of God is not what Einstein was alluding to. So what was he talking about? This is also revealed in this essay when he says:

“But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.”

So as can be seen the God that most everyone thought that Einstein was referring to was not what it actually was. I will offer no further explanation of this due to the reasons that he cited and yet will tell you that it can be understood if you accept the challenge he offers to all.

Oh yes, I was going to relate to you what “Einstein’s Moon” refers to. Although I intended to include it here, I have decided it important enough that it serve as the discussion of a future entry.

It has been some time since I have written in this blog. There are many reasons for this, yet I have to admit the central one was a lack of inspiration. However, recently with the start up of a new blog and topic, some things fell into place which I would like to include here. As you may know that in previous posts I have devoted some time to Plato and the explanation and promotion of his ideas. I believe that you would not be too surprised to learn I am greatly influenced by his teachings . One of the central tenants of platonian thought is that the world is the end result of two things, which I have explained here in the past as being “truth” and “beauty”. These Plato thought formed and explained both the substance and action of our world. He also referred to a second level of reality that was not part of our own world and yet connected. This place as he described was where all things found in our world and all things possible in the past or future, in terms of final form and action exist in their completion. You could describe this as the realm of all possibility. What I would like to discuss here is if such concepts still serve a useful role as to the definition and explanation our world.

When it comes to the broad strokes of the concepts of Plato, for the most part today are referenced as being Metaphysics. The particular form this metaphysics takes is said to be its ontology, or an explicit specification of a conceptualization. The central feature to Plato’s metaphysics is that as far as our world's (reality) is concerned there are two interconnected aspects to it, referred to as “truth” and “beauty”. These aspects correlate in some fashion to form what is the world. This would be considered today as a dual ontology. The other realm I spoke of is a conceptual realm where all of this interaction has played out as to the final form of which all this can take. This of course for many would amount to no more then fantasy, as to how such a conceptualization could actually be relevant to our world. In fact many involved in the physical sciences would say that all relates to quantum physics where the only feature considered as the bases of our reality is a wave or rather action of a wave, that forms what we perceive as all that is real. This could be referred to as a singular or one aspect ontology. With the adoption of this ontology they have in turn ended up with a description of the world that is in many ways both incomplete and bizarre. None the less, despite these obvious features and concerns, it is thought to be a reasonable explanation, since it has proved useful in terms of prediction of outcome which as I have explained is a primary objective within modern science.

Before we go much further, I feel I must give you a little taste of what I mean by this incomplete and bizarre description. It is most poignantly and thereby simple brought out in what is referred to as the two slit experiment. In this experiment you have a device that produces and emits one subatomic particle (quanta) as say an electron at a time. Further on and in front of the emitter is a barrier that has two slits cut into it that are close together but not joined. At some distance beyond this barrier there is a backstop which can record and show the location of every electron that strikes it after they pass through the slits. Now to understand this more fully we have to imagine what would happen if we used bullets with a similar setup instead of electrons. What would appear at the backstop after many bullets fired would be impacts that form a distribution pattern that would be greatest in the centre section of the backstop behind the two slits and diminishing in a downward bell like curve. Now what do you suppose happens in the electron case? Well as with bullets as each electron is emitted there is found a corresponding spot (strike) at the back stop. However after many strikes we observe the pattern of hits being formed is nothing like that in the case of the bullets. This pattern reveals bands of strikes starting at the centre with gaps of no strikes in between with the number of strikes in each band outward (of the middle) diminishing in number. This appears to be a pattern formed by wave interference rather then one of a particle nature. Now the question waves of what? For it is clear that what has struck the screen is single units and yet the pattern they distribute is that of a wave. How can this be? Well the way most physicists explain this is they don’t. There are all kinds of rules about how to make predictions in such situations yet no explanation is offered or no reasonable one at best. When asked the question if the electron, (quanta) are particles or waves? The answers often given is both, neither or it doesn’t apply. If you ask if the electron went through both slits or one? In reply they will say we don't know. In the end many say something to the effect of what Richard Feynman did more the forty years ago (taken from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 3, page 1-10):

“One might still like to ask: “How does it work?. What is the machinery behind the law?” No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one can “explain” any more than we have just “explained” . No one will give you a deeper representation of the situation. We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced.”

So now you can understand what I mean by incomplete and bizarre. On the other hand if I were to say this to most physicists they would say, that I, not they, have a problem. Now this could be seen as all well and good if what they and Dr. Feynman said was true. However, there has been a reasonable and straight forward explanation of what is called standard non relativist Quantum Mechanics for some time. The explanation was proposed actually twice. First, in 1927 by Louis de Broglie and then again it was independently rediscovered and expanded in 1952 by David Bohm. This theory is known as the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory or more simply as Bohmian Mechanics. This theory explains that the machinery of quantum mechanics is to be found in the resultant action of the influence of a wave over that of a particle. Now how did they miss that one? Everyone was asking “particle” or “wave” when the simple answer was “particle” and “wave”.

Now you might ask, why was this ignored? First you might suspect that both of the discoverers were either unknown or unqualified. Well de Broglie was one of the founders of quantum theory and received a Nobel Prize in 1929 for his contributions to the subject. Bohm on the other hand was a leading physicist of his generation and wrote a text book in 1951 on quantum mechanics that is still widely used to this day. So that doesn’t wash. So then why was it ignored? What I (and others before) contend is the reason relates to this ontology issue. As I stated earlier, standard quantum mechanics is centered on the wave phenomena as being the sole explanation, where all is simply considered as the actions of a wave. Not a normal wave that is, for this wave collapses only upon observation to present or better to be only to be perceived as a particle. Also, there are not any firm or straight forward rules as to when and where this should be considered. So when you boil it all down, it is because they prefer this singlular ontology as opposed to the dual ontology suggested by de Broglie and Bohm.

Now how does all this relate to the Platonian concepts, which are truly the focus of this discussion? In my way of looking at this one could equate Plato’s “truth” with what is seen in the world as to relate in Bohm’s theory as the “particle” aspect of reality. Likewise you could consider Plato’s “beauty” as what gives the world order (direction) as the wave aspect. In this way one could say that although Plato had no idea that the world was the result of a wave's influence over a particle, he did have the concept that such a duality was indeed required. Now what about this other realm I spoke of as Plato imagined.? As it turns out a consequence of Bohm’s theory is that the actual outcomes are decided or better calculated mathematically in what is referred to as “configuration space”. Although this space is not where the entities are actually found, which is what is called real space, it does hold a deep connection with the theory, much more so then then when it is considered in any other application were it has been used. This configuration space is said to be of higher dimension because it expands when each and every particle position is considered in relation to each other. It could be loosely thought of as were all the possibilities are considered and resolved. I would say that fits in with Plato’s conceptualization as well.

To conclude today, I would once again suggest that ancient ideas like Plato’s where both the “how” and “what “are considered, still have application today. This is in contrast to modern physics were the “how” is held so central that the “what” could be ignored or thought as unimportant. Now Plato also spoke of the “why”, which is not addressed directly by Bohm’s theory. Plato said the “why” was for the ”good”. When you examine Bohm’s theory, which realizes both the substance (truth) and the order (beauty) of the world I can’t insist this is the reason or prove it so. I can only hope it is true.

As you are aware, one of the goals of this blog is to explain how, in the modern era, we have ended up with two separate and in many cases diametrically opposed disciplines that claim to expand human understanding. Thus far we have shown that with the ancient Greeks, the two were for the most part still considered one. In contrast to this, we have found that by Newton's time, that the two have for the most part had become separate. Therefore, we can surmise that the shift occurred between these two periods. So perhaps we should then look to what has happened in between. As we know the civilization that in effect absorbed and then for the most part adopted that of the Greeks, was the Romans and their empire. The Roman empire initially began by first conquering the Greeks and thereafter in essence took for there own both their philosophy and religion. The Romans however were more ambitious as to their acquisition of influence and thereby territory. To aid them in thier endeavor, they employed Greek science put into practice to facilitate this.

Science, put into practice in the modern definition is technology. Now the narrow view of technology, is thought by many, to be simply engineering. Which is often in turn described as applied science. I submit that in the Roman case and even more poignantly our own, this is far too narrow a view. I would contend that when science is considered to be the practical basis for ones society, it tends to effect and hence shapes all aspects of human endeavor. Now for the Romans, at the outset, they incorporated the Greek ideas in a more holistic sense, as the Greeks themselves had for the most part. Where the expansion of human understanding was taken in the spirit of the exploration of nature and its design, as to how it applied not only to man, but the world as a whole. From this perspective they could form their society on what could be perceived as natural principles. The Greeks viewed things from the perspective of introspection, where this introspection would lead to virtuous individuals that would then form themselves into a thus virtuous society or state. Socrates often was contended to have proclaimed:

"Know thyself,"

To extend this in terms of society as a whole he was known to insist:

"the unexamined life is not worth living."

At the beginning with the adoption of these ideas, the Romans, more or less, mirrored the aspirations of the Greeks. However, later on, when ambitions for Rome extended beyond the Greek concept of city state, to expand to empire, the view and therefore the methods changed. along with the course and thereby the destiny of their society. To accomplish this expansion, the Romans turned away from the Greek ideals that philosophy served to expand the understanding of nature, to focus more on its practical application, in the service of man. Also, what started out as the semblance of a democratic social order, in the service of its citizenry, transformed into a dictatorial system, in the service of empire building. This in turn, inevitably lead to forces of discontent from both inside and out to question the basis of the very authority of Rome. One of these primary forces were manifest in a new emerging philosophy and that was Christianity. In the spirit of the history of Rome when they found one could not destroy a thing, one then incorporates it. This was the case with Christianity. At first emperor Constantine admitted its followers freedom of practice, returned confiscated property and gave land and tax free status to the new founded church. Later emperor Theodosius made it the official religion and banned all others with the closing of what he declared the pagan temples. The last stroke was that of emperor Justinian, in 529 A.D., with his order closing the last of the Greek schools of philosophy at Athens and the banning of such studies.

So how, you might ask, did this act to serve Rome or rather its rulers? From my viewpoint, forces inside the empire started to question the authority of the emperors. For it did not appear to serve the people, as it had once with the long past democratic system. This authority was brought further into question, since the new budding philosophy professed the equality of all men in the eyes of their creator. How then were the rulers going to maintain control in the face of this? The solution, adopt the new philosophy, bane the others and thereafter claim that their authority was given to them by this new God himself. This concept which became tradition has continued to this day and has even been incorporated into the newly created democracies in one guise or another.

Now I don't want you to take me wrong, for I have no political agenda in all this. Nor am I attempting to lay blame on the Christian or any other related philosophy. My sole intent is to set up the context and background as to how and why this split occurred between science and philosophy. For what I contend is, that with the banning of Greek philosophy and methods, for political ends, is what effectively began the then slow process as to what manifested itself into the roles of science and philosophy as observed today. Essentially, this policy, at first halted the expansion of understanding, in philosophic terms, as defined by the Greeks and along with it much of the knowledge gained. Also, it created a tension that would force any new emergence of renewal of such, to avoid conflicting with the new religious philosophy, in terms of its authority. Primarily what I'm referring to, is any aspect that might serve to address the question "why", beyond what this new philosophy so dictated.

In future posts, we will expand on all this, to discover how this new face of science emerged in the early years. We will also find, that ironically the very philosophy that in effect became the instrument used (or more properly misused), as reason to banish the old philosophies became the depository and keeper of this then forbidden wisdom. We will learn of the early practitioners, as to from whence they came and what they did in terms of expansion of human understanding. We will discover the limits placed on them and how this in turn served to shape our modern concept of science. However, for now all of this must wait to be explained in upcoming entries.

In the course of this blog, I have been speaking about this contention of mine, that the split between science and philosophy is focused around who addresses the “how” questions and who deals with the “why” ones. I’ve shown that for the most part, science sticks to “how” and leaves the “why” to philosophy. Lately, in particular, I have been speaking about the scientific method, as to what it contains or allows, as well as what it does not. One of the key elements of the method, is the use of mathematics. Now as we know one of the most basic tools in science, is mathematics. In fact many mathematicians would claim that it is the most fundamental of the sciences, rather then physics. There are others that would say that mathematics is not a science at all, but rather a hybrid of logic. However, the purpose of this post is not to enter this debate. What I would like to talk about is how mathematics itself, to a large extend, mirrors the rest of science in the context of how it forms our attitudes in regards to the discovery of truth in the natural world. To be fair I should say our common view. The example I will use to expand on all this is a mathematically defined shape that all of us are familiar with and that is a circle.

Now to begin, if I asked you to describe a circle, what comes to mind? This would seem to be a easy question, yet if I were to take to the street and solicit answers from a cross section of the populous, I suspect I would get a variety of replies. Some might say, it’s the shape we see when we look at a wheel. Others might say it’s the shape we see when we look at the moon or the sun. The more scientific might give a explanation that is somewhat more technical. In general though, I would suspect that most people would draw on things found in nature or constructed by man to describe it. This said , I would also wager that when you think of a circle, you see it in the abstract, as to what it is without reverence to any physical object. Now if you were to look for a formal definition, what would you find? Well I looked to many sources, including several dictionaries. For instance in all dictionaries I referred to, the one given was almost identical to the following, stated in Webster’s online dictionary as:

"a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve"

For a more professional definition one might refer to Wolfram’s Math World (a site I highly recommend), yet in this case it states much the same:

"A circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point."

Now what is the difference between what many of you describe or only hold in your mind and what we find here as a definition. The difference is, in your mind, you hold it as a preformed thing, in its completion or “what” it is. In the definition, what is being described is “how” it is, as to how you would go about constructing a circle. Like the task performed when you use a compass to create one. This definition also, in a indirect way,both implies and relies on another abstract concept and that is the one of infinity. For the points described must be both infinite in number and have no space between them, otherwise one ends up with something that although circle like, would still not be a true circle. So is there another way to describe a circle, which does not rely on a reference to other objects or ill defined abstract concepts?

Before I reveal this other way to describe a circle, let’s first review what I told you were the key “hunches” that science uses to find truth in the natural world. There were two. One was economy and the other was symmetry. Now let’s suppose that we are nature. In this case I will limit us to be nature of a two dimensional world. That is, one that is restricted to a plane or flat land. Now let’s suppose, we as nature, constructed this world to comply with these hunches I pointed out. So if we imposed these hunches as our rules to make real, a basic and fundamental shape for this universe, what could be one that we would end up with? Okay, let’s imagine we say we want a two dimensional form, that always is in proportion, a line of least length to enclose the greatest amount of area . For as I said, we are nature and so therefore we want our basic structures economical in both form and explanation. So what form would we have thus just demanded? Well as I think you will have guessed, if you didn’t know already, it is the circle. Now what about the symmetry part? Remember we defined symmetry as when one takes a thing and does something to it in regards and respect to the allowed levels of freedom (dimensions) and it there after remains unchanged. What can we do to the circle to see if it has symmetry? First, we could just move it around our two dimensional universe. When we do this, ( to no great surprise) no matter to what distance moved, it still remains the same in both form and function. Now what if we rotated it as allowed in this universe, will it change? No it will not. So now we have found by invoking this rule of economy, we have in turn ended up with something that also demonstrates symmetry. Now you might retort, that’s fine for this mystical flat land, but what of the real world. In response, I would remind you that the three dimensional projection or analogue of the circle is the sphere. The sphere described in the way I have just shown, would be a form that always is in proportion the surface of least area enclosing the greatest amount of volume. The economy here is also evident and the tests we imposed to confirm symmetry, would hold the same.

Now you say, so what, for the objects just described are simply abstractions. You continue by insisting they are therefore forms only created in our minds. You could thus feel this should end it all. That would be true, if the circle and its somewhat distorted cousin the ellipse were not so prominent in both the form and action of our natural world. That it is to say, it has proven to thereby have purpose. The other way to state it is, “why” is the circle (or the sphere)? The answer of course is to have a entity(s) that can act in purpose that is both economical and symmetrical in form and function. I thus find it unfortunate, that although science looks to these hunches to discover truth of the world, that it at the same time denies the “why”, that also lends insight into not only the means of it’s construction, but also of its utility.

In summation today, I would bet in the beginning, when I mentioned mathematics many of you thought, oh no, here come the formulas and equations. In contrast to this expectation, as demonstrated above, many might be surprised to find that if they explored both mathematics and science, at the more fundamental level, you may discover it to be simple, beautiful and yet excitingly mysterious. I would ask now, the next time you are given to describe a circle, what will be your reply?

As a foot note to this, let me leave you with a quote from Milton’s “Paradise Lost” that I find projects the spirit of what I have attempted to convey:

From man or angel the great Architect
Did wisely to conceal, and not divulge
His secrets to be scanned by them who ought
Rather admire; or if they list to try
Conjecture, he his fabric of the heav'ns
Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move
His laughter at their quaint opinions wide
Hereafter, when they come to model heav'n
And calculate the stars, how they will wield
The mighty frame, how build, unbuild, contrive
To save appearances, how gird the sphere
With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.

With my last post I spoke of Francis Bacon and the mark he left on modern science with his method. I also pointed out, how this proposed method was later championed by none other than Isaac Newton. Further, it was indicated that the base premise of the method, is that there was not to be taken anything that could be considered as a preconceived truth or foreknowledge as a premise. In so that, the only things that could be used as such, where those that had been established by inductive reasoning suggested and confirmed through methods of experimental observation. What I also demonstrated was that this method denies that man has the capacity to know anything that is simply a given despite what I had shown earlier, that science truly could not function without such notions. At the conclusion, I stated there were those, that have denied this program to some extent to contest there are things that we simply know which can be used within the context of “why”, to further our understanding of the world. One such person was René Descartes (1596-1650)

René Descartes was a philosopher, mathematician and physicist. His obvious and best known contribution to mathematics and thereby science is in the founding and development of what is referred to as analytical geometry. This of course is the considering of geometry in the back drop of algebra. It also in turn lends algebra spacial qualities. What many of us, are most familiar with in this regard, is the plotting of algebraic formulas in as to represent space plotted in relation to defining number lines. These are of course known as Cartesian coordinates, named in his honour. This also formed the foundation from which Newton and Leibniz later created calculus. Now if this were not enough, Descartes is also considered the founder of modern philosophy. On the subject of Descartes and philosophy, I will speak in more depth in future posts. For now though, I would like to focus on his thoughts of what the expansion of knowledge should be in terms of science and the method it should follow.

Descartes, as Bacon, was suspect and concerned about what could be considered true. However, in contrast to Bacon, Descartes insisted that deductive rather than inductive reasoning should serve as the base logic for the scientific method. Now this deductive process wasn’t that of the then common type, where one could declare just about anything as the base premise or axiom in terms of what is then to be considered and thus deduced. To illustrate more clearly what form this took, I quote here from his paper entitled, Discourse on The Method: of Rightly Conducting The Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences (1637)

“Among the branches of philosophy, I had, at an earlier period, given some attention to logic, and among those of the mathematics to geometrical analysis and algebra, -- three arts or sciences which ought, as I conceived, to contribute something to my design. But, on examination, I found that, as for logic, its syllogisms and the majority of its other precepts are of avail- rather in the communication of what we already know, or even as the art of Lully, in speaking without judgment of things of which we are ignorant, than in the investigation of the unknown; and although this science contains indeed a number of correct and very excellent precepts, there are, nevertheless, so many others, and these either injurious or superfluous, mingled with the former, that it is almost quite as difficult to effect a severance of the true from the false as it is to extract a Diana or a Minerva from a rough block of marble.”

Here we discover that Descartes, much like Bacon, was concerned with what could be considered true. In the next quote he states that he was in search of a method for science that would contain reliability and precision for he says:

“I was induced to seek some other method which would comprise the advantages of the three and be exempt from their defects.”

So what Descartes has said is that although there is much that is true in what he considered the somewhat unreliable sciences, he needed to find a method by which the reliability and thus the utility of science could be improved. To begin he lays out his method in four parts, the first being as follows:

“The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgement than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.”

Here as Bacon had stated, all should be considered with the element of doubt, where nothing can be simply taken as a given. However, unlike Bacon, Descartes has already suggested, that there are some things that by there very nature can be taken as true. He also suggests that this judgement is to be found within ones self and not externally. Something that I would view as almost considered instinctive reason, for lack of a better term. The next step he states as:

“The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.”

Here again, just as Bacon had insisted, things must be first broken down into all things that might be considered. Now Descartes next step is explained in the following.

“The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.”

Still from what has been said, the methodology of Bacon and Descartes are looking pretty much the same as Descartes says that not only should ideas be broken down into the smallest parts possible. He futher suggests they be assigned order, whether or not they at first appear to have priority of importance or that of connectivity of structure. He is talking about acending in small steps, which would normally relate to a bottom up approach, which on the face of it looks like a inductive process. He completes his four steps with the following:

“And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.”

Now at this point you may be confused, as to why I consider there is a distinction to be made between Bacon and Descartes in terms of their methods. From what has been revealed up to now, it appears that Descartes is just restating what Bacon said some 17 years prior, without perhaps the mention of observation, although it has not been excluded. It also seems to be shaping up to be performed within a inductive frame work, that would be satisfied as in Bacons method, only through exhaustion. But now in the following we find that the system of reasoning that Descartes insists to be primary in its execution, is not induction at all, for he now states;

“The long chains of simple and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things, to the knowledge of which man is competent, are mutually connected in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach, or so hidden that we cannot discover it, provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another.”

Despite the similarity in the preamble, we now discover, that what Descartes has in mind as the principle method of reasoning, is that of deduction and not of induction. It's not hard to imagine why Descartes feels this way, for as I mentioned before and he himself here eludes, that he was also a great mathematician. Mathematics in the main is a deductive process, building from what are referred to as axioms, that are used as premises, to deduce further truths. Bacon on the other hand, avoids for the most part this method and not surprisingly so, for he was not a mathematician as was Descartes. Bacons primary training and occupation, was that of a lawyer. In the few scientific explorations he did conduct, he excluded the use of mathematics almost entirely. I must also relate, that he had little success. Now that Descartes has set up this program of discovery, he finds himself with a bit of a dilemma, as now, what is he going to use as his axiom(s), to begin this step by step deductive process? After all, he has, as Bacon did earlier, dismissed all prior known truths. What then is he going to utilize as his foundation on which to build his deductive method? Here we now witness Descartes in his eureka moment, for he states;

“But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.”

Now Descartes has discovered, his first and primary truth, from which he proposes that all the others will follow and in turn proved is to be, he “thinks” so therefore he “is”. He contends here he has found the bedrock truth that he feels that no one can dispute and that is they exist. This, like many other statements in history, have been repeated so many times, that they tend to become completely misunderstood. Some for instance imagine, that this means that only things that “think”, “are“. That is because many do not understand the deductive process, for they imagine that like a equation this suggests that (think = am). That would mean that to write (am = think) is the same. Now to compare, what if I said , I “walk” so therefore I “travel”. If this were then interchangeable, you could say, since I “travel” so therefore I “walk”. I don’t know about you, but I take the bus some times. Also, it could thus be suggested, that baseballs have legs. No, deductive reasoning is very precise, for it only holds that what is deduced from the premise is true, not that it is equal to the premise.

So now we have discovered, that Descartes has proposed a method, in which the deductive process serves as its primary system of logic. It must be also made clear that he does not entirely omit the inductive process, which in science is rooted in its observations. He however warns, that in these observations that deduction must also play a role for as he states:

“But this is certain, and an opinion commonly received among theologians, that the action by which he now sustains it is the same with that by which he originally created it; so that even although he had from the beginning given it no other form than that of chaos, provided only he had established certain laws of nature, and had lent it his concurrence to enable it to act as it is wont to do, it may be believed, without discredit to the miracle of creation, that, in this way alone, things purely material might, in course of time, have become such as we observe them at present; and their nature is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming in this manner gradually into existence, than when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state.”

What Descartes is pointing out with this, is that to observe something as it is and then therefore suppose it is, as it was always, is a mistake. Therefore, one must also consider it may have come from something or things simpler perhaps and to look to this also as a possible explanation of outcomes in observation. He is saying that induction is therefore vulnerable with this flaw and it is only by deduction that we may be able to avoid this. What is also interesting to note, is that this is turn would later serve as the seeds of discoveries, such as Darwin’s. In as Descartes suggests with this, that the world is not so much a place of being, but rather a place of becoming, as to what it will be. It is of no wonder with such thoughts, that shortly after his death, the Vatican put some of his writings on the forbidden reading list.

Now once again we have come to the question, so what is my point? Actually I have a few. The first, is to indicate the differences between the methods of deductive and inductive reasoning, when used as science’s base. In the inductive process, where observation plays the primary role, truth is formed by consensus or the weight of evidence rooted in a statistical background. If all the available observations support a conclusion, then it is considered to be true. In the deductive process, truth is only established with reason derived from a premise, which is a self evident truth or has been before deduced from one. Both are processes that attempt to relieve doubt. However, in the inductive process, with nothing pre-established as truth, what is proposed is only as good as the observations taken and the methods so used to consider them. In deductive reasoning, everything is derived from the premise, the only remaining doubt is that of the soundness of the initial truth and the correctness of the connections made with subsequent deductions. In deduction, we must look to the premise and only that to be sure. In induction, we have to not only trust our observations, as to their quantity, but also the quality of them. It must be also assured that the inductive statement then formed is a strong one, in the context of the data collected. In the deductive process, the demanded first requirement is to initially ask “why”. To realize this, lets look to what Descartes must have done to come up with his initial premise. He would have had to at first asked, “why” am I certain that I “am“? His answer would then have followed because I “think”. With this one may see more clearly that the function of “why”, is to lend certainty to man's understanding and thereby of nature's, so that we might have firm footing to further explore its aspects of purpose and thereafter perhaps its utility, in concert with other means presented or at our disposal. This is what Descartes so discovered and which I most certainly agree is so.

As a post script to this, I would like to address as to what happened to Descartes ideas, in the context of their current application to science. Descartes today, is viewed as primarily a philosopher and by many a great one at that. He is not however, considered much as a scientist, despite the fact that he is also acknowledged as the founder and father of analytical geometry, that science still covets and from which also Newton required in the course of discovering calculus. I would contend, that not only for his refinement and promotion of this deductive method, which I have attempted to explain, but also stressing that the “why”, plays a role in understanding, that he was then so dismissed. As evidence of this, I will make one final quote. This quote is of Voltaire, who discussed in the following, just what I have contented. Here he is to be found using Newton as the comparison in this regard upon a visit to England in the mid 1700‘s. ;

We may admire Sir Isaac Newton on this occasion, but then we must not censure Descartes.

The opinion that generally prevails in England with regard to these new philosophers is, that the latter was a dreamer, and the former a sage.

Very few people in England read Descartes, whose works indeed are now useless. On the other side, but a small number peruse those of Sir Isaac, because to do this the student must be deeply skilled in the mathematics, otherwise those works will be unintelligible to him. But notwithstanding this, these great men are the subject of everyone's discourse. Sir Isaac Newton is allowed every advantage, whilst Descartes is not indulged a single one. According to some, it is to the former that we owe the discovery of a vacuum, that the air is a heavy body, and the invention of telescopes. In a word, Sir Isaac Newton is here as the Hercules of fabulous story, to whom the ignorant ascribed all the feats of ancient heroes.

So to conclude, I would submit, that the fear Voltaire expressed as to the fate of Descartes and thereby his ideas, has come to pass. It is then not to wonder, why, lesser persons choose not to follow the route of Descartes, but rather that of Newton's, to avoid such. This then is not to say that no one has since. As there have been a few. These few in turn, have also broadened the insight of humanity and yet as Descartes, have in there own way also been made to pay the price. About these people and other related things I will continue to speak of in future posts.

It has been about a week since my last entry. The longest stint since beginning this blog. You have my apologies for this, yet it seems whenever I turn my thoughts to the subject of time, as I had in my last post, it sets my head into a protracted wonder mode. When this happens all other thoughts seem to end up on the back burner. With this said what it is I’d like to return to today, is this subject of “how” and “why” this split between science and philosophy occurred. When I last addressed this I was speaking of Newton and what his thoughts on the expansion of human understanding and it’s methods were. What we discovered was although Newton was certain there was a underlying scheme to nature, he was also equally certain, that asking the “why” question would not serve to help discover it. Basically what he thought is as many do today, that science will only extend human understanding by focusing on the “how” questions, through what he indicated was already a predescribed method. He synopsised this method as you recall in saying:

“In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

This on the face of it looks like a very straight forward statement. However, if examined more closely you find it to be something quite complex. The first thing that could be misunderstood is perhaps the only system of logic that is utilized by the modern science is that of induction. One also has to understand that this induction is not of the common type, for it would be better described as induction through exhaustion. This is what I previously described as the “typing monkey method”. Let’s first take a definition of inductive reasoning from Wikipedia:

“Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it.”

Now as many of you know, inductive reasoning, while useful, has the central flaw of not on its own being all that reliable. Also, inductive statements are further categorised generally into two types, which are “strong” and “weak”. An example of a strong inductive statement would be, “ all observed polar bears are white so therefore all polar bears are white”. The first problem here is that it is assumed that every polar bear has been observed and of course that is not the case. The second is if we find a bear that is say, black instead of white, although living in the artic, does this mean therefore it is not a polar bear. The weak inductive statements can pose even greater difficulty. An example of this might be, “ All my pants have zippers so therefore all pants have zippers". I don’t think I need to point out where the fault is with this. So now one might assume that the whole method could be flawed if solely dependant on induction. Happily it is not, for it also is dependant on what is called deductive reasoning. This however is not all that self evident in Newton’s statement, as it has been disguised or belittled somewhat as the word “inferred”. What then does “infer” mean. The Oxford defines it as “to deduce or conclude”. In the “Free Dictionary” its defined as “To conclude from evidence or premises”. So now let’s look at what deductive reasoning is. Again from Wikipedia they state:

Deductive reasoning is reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by previously known facts - the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true

So now then, how does this differ from the inductive method? As a example of a deductive statement one could assert," in as the polar bear is above the ice sheet, and since the ice sheet is above the earth, therefore the polar bear is also above the earth.". Now deductive process can also be flawed if the connection between what is considered the premise and what is deduced has not been truly established as a commonality. For instance I might say: All polar bears dislike the heat, I dislike the heat, so therefore I am a polar bear. In general, the process of deduction is dependant on first sighting self evident truths, so then if they are true so is your conclusion. As can be seen here, we have two systems, which in a sense could be considered diametrically opposed. Induction, were nothing is assumed true, nor can it be and deduction, where some things are taken as true by their nature or taken as a given. This is then what would appear to be two incompatible systems that science uses to expand its knowledge of the natural world.

But how can this be accomplished? Well the way this has been carried out for the most part is to minimize the use of the deductive process and when one cannot in some sense disguise it. The deductive process for the most part lay hidden from view to many inside what are its mathematical formalisms and also the hunches I have previously mentioned. The part that is there for all to see is the inductive process, were everything is suspect and nothing assumed. This is considered by many not only to be the core but also the strength of modern science.

So once again you might ask, how did we end up here? Now as I have relayed before, it is not something that appeared out of thin air. It is rather something that has occurred over the course of time within the context of certain events. What I can say is, that there was a time, a place and a person in which all this crystallized, to take what is for the most part its final form, as it is perceived today. The time was 1620. The place was London, England and that person was Francis Bacon. The crystallisation, as I have so called it, was with a paper I have before mentioned, entitled, “Novum Organum” or “New Instrument”, for those who were not required to study Latin. In this paper Bacon outlined and promoted a method by which he said man in general and science to be specific must follow, if it hoped to significantly improve human understanding of the natural world. Now I've considered the ways I might explain and portray the nature and focus of this document, for there appeared to be many. It then should be established that Bacon thought that the inductive method or what would be better expressed as Bacon's inductive process, is the meat of what he viewed as the true methodology for all of science. Let’s first confirm what Bacon had in mind as to the utility and scope of his proposed method. In the introduction of his treaties he states:

“But if there be any man who, not content to rest in and use the knowledge which has already been discovered, aspires to penetrate further; to overcome, not an adversary in argument, but nature in action; to seek, not pretty and probable conjectures, but certain and demonstrable knowledge — I invite all such to join themselves, as true sons of knowledge, with me, that passing by the outer courts of nature, which numbers have trodden, we may find a way at length into her inner chambers.”

As one can see here Bacon had both great hope and aspirations for what he considered his new method. In fact, in some sense he was correct to make such a boast, for his method for the most part, still serves today as the blue print of science.

Now does Bacon stop at natural philosophy. Let’s quote him again from this document as he proposes the following:

“It may also be asked (in the way of doubt rather than objection) whether I speak of natural philosophy only, or whether I mean that the other sciences, logic, ethics, and politics, should be carried on by this method. Now I certainly mean what I have said to be understood of them all; and as the common logic, which governs by the syllogism, extends not only to natural but to all sciences, so does mine also, which proceeds by induction, embrace everything.”

Here we find that this method is proposed to govern and guide all mans conception and aspirations of truth along with its resultant considered actions. It could be argued that Bacon’s insight and ambition for the most part has held sway in terms of the form and condition of our society and its thinking. Now here you will find that Bacon held induction as the key and central tenet of this method. Now I quote him in as saying:

“The syllogism consists of propositions, propositions consist of words, words are symbols of notions. Therefore if the notions themselves (which is the root of the matter) are confused and overhastily abstracted from the facts, there can be no firmness in the superstructure. Our only hope therefore lies in a true induction. “

Now for those who are not familiar with what the term “syllogism” , it refers in general to the whole method and practice of deductive reasoning. What he is contending here, is that deduction should not be trusted and only with inductive reasoning can be discovered what he insists to be reliable truth. What he calls “true induction” is a induction rooted in doubt and only satisfied through exhaustion. These are of course concepts which I have discussed in earlier posts. So what do I mean by exhaustive induction? Let’s see what Bacon thinks this should entail when he goes further in saying:

"In establishing axioms, another form of induction must be devised than has hitherto been employed, and it must be used for proving and discovering not first principles (as they are called) only, but also the lesser axioms, and the middle, and indeed all. For the induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is childish; its conclusions are precarious and exposed to peril from a contradictory instance; and it generally decides on too small a number of facts, and on those only which are at hand”

With this Bacon has proposed that all then givens along with all devices of deduction be discarded and replaced by only those discovered within the method of induction. You at this point could counter, how does this resemble our current method for where is the mathematics that is today so much a part of science? Here you will find your answer for he then states;

“the mathematical postulate that if two things are equal to the same thing they are equal to one another is conformable with the rule of the syllogism in logic which unites propositions agreeing in a middle term.”

We have here found Bacon to make an exception to the deductive exclusion and that is in the acceptance of the deductive process when expressed through mathematics. For Bacon considers mathematics can be trusted to be part of the process. More specifically the equation. Now that sounds more like modern science doesn’t it.

Now I could go on for some time, discussing Bacon and his method in relation to the way we now endeavor to understand the world . However, on one hand I am fearful that I might in so doing, lose a couple of what as I perceive as my so few readers. Also, I would like to leave something for yourself on your own to discover or perhaps even find reason for you to take exception as to what I contend. However, before I put this to rest, let me quote Bacon once more, after which I will sum up. As my last quote Bacon writes:

“To God, truly, the Giver and Architect of Forms, and it may be to the angels and higher intelligences, it belongs to have an affirmative knowledge of forms immediately, and from the first contemplation. But this assuredly is more than man can do, to whom it is granted only to proceed at first by negatives, and at last to end in affirmatives after exclusion has been exhausted.”

What I would like to emphasize from this, is that Bacon himself admits and insists what I have claimed science views as the limit of human understanding. For Bacon tells us that man, has not the capacity to know anything as a given or a preconceived truth. Now in regards to this I must be honest and say I cannot take issue with him at all. For I surely do not know. What I do take issue with here I express within the following two points. First, as I have shown in earlier posts, science could not function at all without preconceived notions or considering foreknowledge of what is true. Not just in the mathematical sense, for which Bacon so graciously allows, but also in the more general case , which I have also previously demonstrated as the hunches that can be viewed as “qualities” of the general characteristics of nature. So in effect Bacon’s method and thereby that of science's is not executed as we perceive or as many of the vocation proclaim. My second and what I consider the most important point to be made, is that despite Bacon's premise and science in its practice, these have not served to demonstrate that the “why” questions of nature and its process, has no place in science or lacks ability to expand human understanding. Later in the course of this blog I will speak of those who broke Bacon’s and thus science's rules to not only ask the question “why” but also admit that they have. You may be surprised to discover who they are and what this has achieved.

In my preceding entries, I have been addressing this riff that I propose has formed between science and philosophy. In part, I have implied that science losses some of its insight and thereby much of its utility if it denies to incorporate the “why” into its method of discovery. I however realize, for the most part, when I have been comparing science to philosophy, I have been using examples taken from those of the living world. Now one might ask if the “why”, only has application in relation to the organic realm. Perhaps, the non organic realm or what many may consider the more rudimentary natural world, has no aspect of “why” to be explored. So then at a more fundamental level the “why” question could be simply ignored. It would be agreed by many that the most fundamental of all the sciences is physics. To examine this let’s look at what physics has to show us. Now if you look for a definition of physics today it would be most often taken as the first one supplied, for example in the online resource “The Free Dictionary” and reads:

“The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.”

However, I view such definitions as too restrictive for what I consider the most fundamental of the sciences. I prefer the one they describe as the archaic definition, which reads as follows:

“The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy.”

The reason I prefer this definition, is it is not as restrictive as the first. For the first almost leads one to understand that we have already identified all the aspects of the natural world there are to explore. My primary reason however, for not proposing the first, is that it also implies that this aspect of “why” is already dispelled. The second definition I find to be more general and takes in not only what we have explored and discovered of the natural world , yet also what we could so explore or discover. It does also not limit the methodology by which it may be accomplished. You might say then I have used Occam’s Razor to make the choice.

So now then, what is it I’m going to hit you with today? I beg that you afford me further license to explain before I come to my point. First I’d like to describe a situation you might find yourself in. You and a fellow, I will call Nerdly, are out for a walk, near, yet not at the sea shore. Now although you like Nerdly, for he is truly a pleasant fellow, he often spouts off to you about the benefits of math and science, which at times you find annoying. As you are walking, suddenly you hear a scream coming from the ocean. Although it is at a some distance, you can see to your dismay, that there is a person flailing in the water, in danger of drowning. So you shout to Nerdly, we must go and try to rescue this poor fellow. To which Nerdly agrees. You then take off on a bee line (a straight course) to the person. However, as you look back, you see Nerdly still standing there, with his calculator in his hand, punching in numbers. You would like to run back and scold him, but you are to concerned for the drowning person to waste the time. Now between youself and the person, there is varying terrain. At first you cross the road that you were walking beside. Then you run across the grass of the park. After this across the sand of the beach and then you must finally be prepared to swim in the ocean to reach the person in distress. On your way, you keep looking over your shoulder, to see what Nerdly is up to. First you see him finally begin and run across the road, as you did and yet not in the same direction as you had. That is in a direction that is straight between you and the drowning person. As you continue to run, you observe that Nerdly has again at times changed course slightly. Now to your great surprise as you are about to finally dive into the water, you see Nerdly already is assisting the person back to shore. You are at this point dumbfounded. For although Nerdly, did not leave as quickly as you had or taken the straight course as you did and you are certain that Nerdly is not more athletic then you. He has, none the less, reached the person first and thus saved them from what could have been a horrible fate.

Now after finally the beach's life guard arrives to take charge of the now fortunate person, you ask Nerdly. How is it that you were able to leave after I did, take what I perceived as ever changing directions and still reach the victim before I was able to? His reply is, that for the most part he only acted as nature might have in the course of his journey. Now this has you more confused and yet curious. So you ask, what exactly does he mean by that? Well, Nerdly says, you took a straight course between yourself and the swimmer without regard for the terrain you were travelling through. For as you should know, one can travel fastest on the road and then less quickly on the grass, then even slower through the sand and slowest of all swimming in the water. Yes you say, that’s true. Nerdly then responds, that he calculated a course that while still headed towards the swimmer, involved the least total time in regards to all the terrain through which he had to travel . One where he would travel further over faster terrain and the least possible distance over terrain that was slower to traverse. The optimum course in this regard is the one he chose. Oh, you say, very cleaver, but how is that like nature? Nerdly then retorts, if for instance you consider a beam of light, it would have done a similar thing when travelling through varying media on its way to a particular destination. Only in this case, light, wouldn’t be spending the time to make the calculations, that I had to before I left. He says for instance, if you are pointing a laser beam at a object that lie at the back of several different layers of transparent media, you will observe it to bend when it strikes the beginning of each new media. Like for instance, if there is a coin sitting beneath a tank that has say two feet of water in it and has also a three foot thick glass bottom. You will first notice if you point the laser beam in the straight direction to the coin it will miss. If you adjust your aim, you will eventually be able to spot the laser on the coin. Then if you were to trace the path it took and do some calculations, you will find it has arrived there in the shortest time possible in relation the speed in can travel within all the related media. In other words, it has taken the shortest course through time and not that of distance. You say but how can light do that.? Nerdly responds, that all science has found, is ways to calculate the path it will take and that it is still somewhat of a open question how exactly this happens. The important thing is, Nerdly says, is we do know it will behave this way.

It is then here where you might ask, what has Nerdly been talking about? Well, what Nerdly was referring to, is a property of nature, known as “least action” or more generally as “action principle”. It’s beginning were with a French mathematician, Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665). Who’s actual way of making a living was that of being of lawyer . Now I know this appears to be ripe for a comment and yet to practice wisdom , I shall refrain from such temptation. Many may be more aware of him for something known as Fermat’s last theorem, to which he claimed in one of his letters he had found a proof , but that it was too large to be included in the margin. This theorem wasn’t actually proven until 1995, by Andrew Wiles. What we are addressing here, is known as Fermat’s Principle, in which he stated that the reason light bends when travelling between varying media is that it is taking the shortest path through time rather then that through distance. This was later refined and expanded through the work of Maupertuis, Euler and Leibniz. It was further refined and incorporated into what is known as Lagrangian mechanics by Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813), which is used as one of the bedrock formalizations of physics to this day. In this formalism, all action in nature is considered to be at its minimal.

Okay, you say once again, what is my point? The point to be made here, is that nature in displaying such behaviour, appears (at least for me) to be revealing yet another aspect of its character. Now we discover as was relayed previously that nature is not only economical in its form, as expressed as what can be loosely (but carefully) described as simplicity. It is also revealed in this that it is economical in its action as well. At this point you may also realize there are obviously “whys” that could be asked of nature in this regard. When presented with this my first “why” is, why would nature consider time over distance. Now I wish I could give you a answer for this, yet I can’t. However, I can offer you one insight it has lent me. As you are probably aware, Albert Einstein developed our now modern theory of gravity called “General Relativity”. As a key element in this theory he expressed time as a dimension, that when taken with the other three spacial dimensions, forms the background in which it should be considered. This background in terms of its shape, in relation to the mass/energy that is contained within, is responsible for what we recognize as gravity. Many may have trouble with this simply because they cannot imagine or admit, that time could possibly be a dimension. What then is a dimension? A dimension, is in the most general sense, a direction or degree of freedom, through which one can travel or merely consider. As is indicated by the above example we have discovered that nature responds to time as one of these degrees of freedom or more simply a direction. In fact, in the example I’ve demonstrated it is the one primary to its action. If looked at this way, it is not only easier to see how time can be a dimension, yet also how surely it must be.

In the last several posts, I have been discussing this “how” and “why” aspect to understanding. Some of you at this point may agree that “why” does have a important role to serve in terms of expanding human understanding. On the other hand, many may agree with modern science and to insist that it doesn’t. Here I would like to expand the whole question a little more and talk about this contended issue of whether there is any reason to suspect, that there is what I refer to as a scheme to nature. As you recall, I have offered that although a scheme is ordered and also purposeful, that at the same time it does not in itself imply intent. It was also maintained, that I’ve framed it this way as to give science and myself the widest latitude possible in terms of this discussion. Previously, I stated that although, a scheme in itself does not necessarily imply intent, that I would be hard pressed to site one that seemingly doesn't have it as a element. Now as soon as I said this, I realized the scientists among you would say, now I can be dismissed for to propose something without offering proof, is not scientific and therefore invalid. However, I do have a example of what I propose is a scheme and yet the question of intent is certainly not clear.

My example of this is to be found in the lives, methods and behaviour of what are commonly known as Leaf Cutter Ants, which are actually comprised of two major genus groups known as Atta And Acromyrex, that between the two comprise a total of 39 separate species. Now what all these species of ants have in common, is their way of making a living, so to speak. Which is that they are farmers. In particular they are fungus farmers. All these ants are to be found in south and central America within the tropical and subtropical forests. Each day these ants venture out, often for more than a mile, in search of leaves to cut and bring back to their nest. Each bit of leaf, form as much as ten times their own body weight. Now the first thing you might ask is, why lug them all the way back to the nest? Why not simply eat them straight off the tree? The answer to this is, that they are not able to subsist on these leaves? What they are truly needed for, is to serve as food for something else and that something else is fungus. Actually, a particular type of fungus which are all members of what is known as the Lepiotaceae family, which by the way are only found within such ant colonies. Now it doesn’t stop there, for they just don’t simply throw some leaves to a mass of fungus. When these leaves are brought back to the nest, they are cleaned by another specialized group of ants to rid them of any other type of fungi spores or bacteria. Then they are chewed up into a mulch, at which time enzymes, from the ants are added to the material, to aid in the break up of proteins, so that the fungi might digest them. The next step is that the ants deposit some of their own fecal material, which further prepares the mulch for the fungi’s digestion. Further, they add a small portion of fungi material to the prepared mulch. Now it doesn’t stop there. These ants actually host a particular bacteria on their bodies that produce chemicals, that when deposited on the fungus, protects them from moulds that would otherwise feed on them. Finally, as the fungus grows they bud out into swollen stem structures which the ants break off to consume for themselves and feed their young.

Now one might say, this is a pretty complex, intricate and purposeful process for a ant! This is exactly my point. For this is obviously a scheme, as it is surely a systematic arrangement in action, which of course fits what a scheme is defined as. Now what about this aspect of intent, that many scientists are worried about. Like I’ve said, in the strict sense, intent is not necessarily a property of a scheme. In this example for instance, can one proclaim that the ants have intent, in as to have come up with this scheme, or are they merely the vessels of its executiont? Also, certainly we can’t insist that it the result of the intent of the fungus. On that note, there is one detail I forgot to tell you. If the ants happen to bring back leaves that the fungus find toxic, this fungus then emits a chemical which makes the ants aware not to collect anymore of such leaves. So not only is this scheme complex, it is also symbiotic (in aid of both species). To continue, I think it would be fair to assume, that despite the fact that both ant and fungus benefit from this scheme, that neither may have it as intent. If there is intent, which I’m not claiming there is or isn’t. For I most surely do not know. Then it is more likely that the source, if any, lay outside. No matter which way you slice it, I have demonstrated a scheme for which there is at present no proof or disproof of intent. So then I would first ask the scientists, is it then reasonable to insist that nature has no scheme based on the disciplines denial of intend? For here I have demonstrated what is clearly a scheme that shows no evidence that it has such. Also, I would ask the philosophers, is it reasonable to insist that nature’s scheme must contain intent because it also shows purpose? To both groups I would point out that I have demonstrated a scheme. One that any would describe as carrying out the act of farming. Farming that is as intricate as any such process enacted by man. Although a intricate and efficient process, it is one in which it would be difficult to identify or prove an instigator.

With this we might now remember a earlier quote I made of Plato and that was:

“It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature. The best illustration is a doctor doctoring himself: nature is like that. It is plain then that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a purpose.”

It is evident, that although we are not able to discover or prove intent, we have undeniably been shown a process with purpose and this purpose is to be found in both the ants and the fungi’s continuance and survival. Now with the recognition of the role of purpose, we are now better able to understand what Plato has called, the “good”. For this good as Plato recognized, was that nature’s process is demonstrated to act for the good. It is with this we understand that Plato’s good is not as it is now commonly understood, as for example, to help a old lady across the street or buying those girl guide cookies. For Plato, science/philosophy serves to reveal the good of nature through its purpose and not that of man’s. From Plato’s perspective, man’s good is but as the shadow’s image is to the object itself.

As you are aware, that in the course of this blog, I have been speaking about this division in our methods of understanding. That is where science considers only the “how” questions and leaves the “why” to the purview of philosophy. You might wonder, have all scientists of the modern era thought as such? In attempting to address this, I suggest you might first agree, that the person who gave science its most explosive initial boost, that lead us to the methods and formalisms of the our new perspective, would have been Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727)
.
Now the first question to ask is, if Newton thought as many scientists do today, that there truly is no “why” to nature? To answer this, I will refer to Newton’s and arguably science's greatest work, which he entitled, “Principia Mathematica”[1687]. This sometimes is just improperly referred to as simply, the “Law of Gravity”. However, it takes in much more than what we understand as the attraction of gravity, for it envelopes what was thought to be at the time, the nature of all movement and impetus of all bodies. Hence, it is more appropriately reverenced as, “Newton’s Mechanics”. We will look again more over the course of this blog, to Newton and his mechanics. However, for now, we will focus on this issue of what he might have thought of science’s role in terms of the expansion of human understanding.

So as I said for our first query , did Newton totally omit the “why”, as something able to offer understanding of the world? Below I quote from the conclusion section of his ‘Principia’ entitled, “General Scholium”:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.”

What you have read above, is in reference to what Newton realized, should be a troubling result of gravity being universal in both its scope and influence. He understood, that if this was truly the case, that such a force, should then inevitably lead to all matter in the cosmos to collapse in upon itself. A considered consequence, today referred to as, the “Big Crunch”. Since this was not obviously the perceived case, Newton therefore surmised, that the universe and its contents, must be so both distantly and sparsely spaced, that the force of gravity has little effect in this regard. What however is also interesting to note here, is “why” he considers this to be so. For Newton, there was this aspect of “why”, that must be coupled with the “how”. Now I’m not proposing that Newton’s thoughts on this are correct, for as you know, the beginnings and the fate of the universe, still remain an open question. What I do find interesting, is that in some sense,Newton considered the “why” as part of the explanation of the world..

One might now think that in Newton’s day, science still viewed “why”, as a valid question . But now the plot thickens, for we are about to observe signs, that the riff forming between the disciplines of philosophy and science, has by this time already begun. For at nearly the summation of his great treaties he states:

“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”

Now with this we find Newton saying something like what was paraphrased by Hugh Grant, in the movie Mickey Blue Eyes, and that is, “forgetta about it”! For although Newton had previously admitted, that there was and is most surely a “why” to nature, that in terms of discovery of its laws, this would prove to be of no utility. Newton tells us, that he is convinced that the holding of such questions in our minds, will not help in such discoveries. In fact, he contends they will hamper them. However, as I have already demonstrated, science both requires and utilizes things, that go outside of the limits that Newton suggests should be considered the bounds of scientific method, in its practice. Here we discover, that in Newton’s time, there already appears to be forming, what I would recognize as almost a schizophrenic and hypocritical nature to modern science. However, this is only intended to indicate the state of how things were, in the time of Newton. I in no way want you to understand, that Newton was the instigator or its beginning. The thing I would care to emphasize, was that Newton, due his place and stature in modern science, had then and still today, great influence.

We have here discovered, that in the time of Newton, this idea of the “why” questions having no place in science, was already firmly set. The eventual consequence of this position, was to lead science first to propose and then later to insist, that there is no “why” at all. We have also previously discovered, that with the Greeks, this was not so. Therefore, we have now further narrowed where we must search to find its cause and beginnings.

In my previous entry I spoke about science and what I called the hunches, that form its guides and sign posts to the discovery of truths of the natural world. Also, I asked the question of whether these hunches should be looked at as they contend, to be guides to root out simply relationships or should they be taken as aides to discover a scheme as I propose. Now let’s further explore these hunches for what they might be. To begin let’s take the one defined as symmetry.

Symmetry at first appears, in the terms laid out by science, to be somewhat abstract and remote. Now in the more straight forward sense, we might define symmetry, to be one aspect of beauty. Now I’m not going to engage in a discussion of what beauty is, other then to suggest that it is something that describes character. For when one says that something contains beauty, they are commenting on a aspect of its character. Secondly, we looked at “Occam’s Razor” and learned that what this turns out to be, is that science considers that nature must also be economical in its form. By economy it is not meant that nature is stingy, but rather that it is efficient. Something that I will also comment on in more depth in future posts. It is also not that it is just commonly simple, as without subtlety. Now when efficiency is taken in this context, it could be also be described as elegant, which is by most considered another aspect of beauty. So now we might further compress this to say, that science is looking for the truth in nature by searching for and exploring its characteristic of beauty. The question I raise here is if this is a new and exclusively modern concept?

I think many of you would realize the answer is no. In support of this we shall discover that Plato, of ancient Greece, was one who most certainly looked at things this way. For example in his work “The Republic”, Plato made many reverences to this. Now the structure of The Republic was written in terms of a dialogue. This dialogue was with a fellow he named Glaucon and is a devise used to present a argument. Much of what is said in this dialogue is a attempt to show that beauty is a true characteristic of nature and that in the examination of this character one could discover its truths. In the following quote he describes this economy we have spoke of when he says:

"Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity, --I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only an euphemism for folly?"

Here we find that Plato understood the character of economy as science looks at it today. In seems that Occam, was simply restating Plato. I would also suggest that at the time, the reason it appeared to be something new, is that most people in the world would not have known of Plato and what he said. Occam however, was a Friar and therefore a member of the church. He would have been one of the relative few to have access to such materials and thoughts. Also, because of the education afforded him by the Church, he would have been able to read the text in the language in which it was written. Outside members of the clergy this access to ancient knowledge would only have been available to a privileged few others.

Now to continue with Plato‘s thoughts he says:

"And the excellence or beauty or truth of every structure, animate or inanimate, and of every action of man, is relative to the use for which nature or the artist has intended them."

With this he has explained to Glaucon that this beauty extends to all aspects of nature. Both in things that we now call the organic and the non organic. Now just so that you can be sure that Plato is not to be perceived as someone just sitting around on his brains and spouting off things that he knew could or should not be tested to be true in the real world, he then reminds Glaucon:

"And the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding-there is the beauty of them --and the apparent greater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery over us, but give way before calculation and measure and
weight?"

To which Glaucon responds:

"Most true."

And Plato finishes in saying:

"And this, surely, must be the work of the calculating and rational principle in the soul."

So now we understand by this that Plato considered beauty a important and thus revealing characteristic of nature. He was also aware that this beauty is expressed in many facets, such as those he describes as style, harmony, grace and good rhythm which in turn he insists can only exist within the context of order. How is this any different to what science looks to as to be its guides to give them direction to what is true in nature. I would insist only one difference and that is it does not also look to the "why" that this should be so.

I have not as yet come straight out to express why I think this is so. However, I have given hints and clues as to how and when this occurred. For now I would still like to compare the similarities and differences between the way we now pursue knowledge today and how it was done before. I would also like to first further develop the context in which this change took place.

In the course of this blog, I have indicated that science in general claims that nature has no scheme. The reason that I use this particular term is that it leaves the aspect of intent an open question. That is because I would contend, that in of itself, it does not necessarily imply motive. Although, I have to admit that I would be hard pressed to give a example of a scheme that didn’t have one as its instigation. Where is this leading to? To explain, first then let's look more carefully at the term and its definition. In the Oxford the term is first described as “systematic arrangement proposed, or in action; outline” it also gives its Greek root as skhema which means form. So by framing it this way, I am trying to give science along with myself, as much latitude as possible and propose that a scheme is something although ordered does not in of itself imply intent.

Science would say, that what they have found instead of a scheme, is that nature has a set of relationships, that when taken together, give the description of the natural world and its workings. Now to discover them, it’s claimed they use only the tools of logic, which mainly manifests itself in mathematics and they compare that with what is found by observation in relation to the proposed theory, in conjunction with its predictions. If all appears to be consistent, it is accepted. If it is not, it is dismissed. This seems to be a convincing story on the face of it. Yet how do they begin, as to what is the starting point of this process and when they stop? We could be lead to assume, with this description, that they simply try one thing after the other, without reason or direction. A process that is reminiscent to how long it would take a monkey to type out precisely Shakespeare’s Hamlet. To give you a sense of this, the chances for a monkey on the first try to type out simply the single word “Hamlet”, is the same as the chance you would have of buying one lottery ticket each week for the next four weeks and winning all four lotteries. So therefore, there must be something else to the process. Of course there is observation, yet what is observation other then looking over the shoulder of the monkey to see when he first gets it right. Well scientists don’t readily tell you, but they have what I would refer to as hunches, that give them a starting point and a cut off point. In truth there are many of these hunches. However, I would submit that the two most widely used today are those referred to as “Symmetry”, which often forms the starting point and something called “Occam’s Razor”, which suggests the cut off point.

So now, the question is what are these hunches referred to as “Symmetry” and “Occam’s Razor”? Let’s examine the more abstract one first, which is symmetry. Now I know many of you have a general sense of what symmetry refers to in every day experience, yet to begin let's try to be more precise by referring to a definition. The following is taken from the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. It reads:

"Symmetry is a characteristic feature of systems, geometrical shapes, equations, and other objects; we say that such an object is symmetric with respect to a given operation if this operation, when applied to the object, does not change it. Two objects are symmetric to each other with respect to a given group of operations if one is obtained from the other by some of the operations (and vice versa)."

What many people perceive as symmetry is but only a limited case of the concept, which is referred to as “bilateral symmetry” or “mirror symmetry”. That is, when one divides a object down the middle and what is seen on one side is reproduced exactly on the other, only reversed. Probably one of the most thought of representations of this in architecture is the Taj Mahal. Symmetry, is thought by many to form the largest guiding principle in architecture, as well as in art and it is seemingly instinctively recognized. So why is that? That’s because it is found also in nature. The most personal experience of this is when one looks in the mirror in the morning. I could site many other examples but I think you get the picture. When science speaks of symmetry they take it in a more abstract or rather general sense. For instance in Physics it would be (again borrowed yet paraphrased from Wikapedia):

"Symmetry is generalized to mean invariance (=unchange) under any kind of transformation."


First, we need to flesh this out a little. Let’s say that a physicist was to propose (as they do), that the theory of gravity was symmetric. What would they be telling us? They would mean for instance that if they took a object and moved it to the other side of the universe or simply across the street that gravity would act on it as if it has not gone anywhere. In other words the force as exhibited on the object would remain unchanged. Now we have to be a little more precise about what this actually entails. In this and any such example we have to consider that all the relevant influences are moved along with it. Which would mean in approximation, I would have to move the entire earth, the same distance and direction. It sounds almost idiotic, doesn’t it? In truth though, it is a good test of its validity. For the way that the theory is written, such a change should have no effect.

Now it’s interesting to note, that this very thing is now at the focal point of one of the largest concerns and debates in cosmology. For when the cosmologists observe the rotational speed of stars at the edge of our galaxy and count in all the observable matter, they end up with speeds that are a lot faster then what the theory of gravity would predict. Now because this is not observed to happen within a more limited range, such as within own solar system, the reason sited is that there is more matter in the galaxy then we are as yet able to observe or account for. Hence the term you have probably heard about a lot lately, “dark matter”. On the other side of the coin, there is a much smaller group of scientists, saying that we shouldn’t be looking for ghosts, but to rather scrap the existing theory and write a new one that will account for the observations. However, because of things like this symmetry, which is percieved to exist in reference to gravity, the dark matter explanation is by far the more accepted one and thus the one being most actively researched. Now this doesn’t mean that all of nature in terms of physics has symmetric form, for as in particle physics, nature has proven not symmetric in some aspects . This to however, in respect to the phenomena involved, is in itself revealing . So in the context of when nature's symmetry holds or not has proven very useful in the expansion and evaluation of the theories.

We come now to “Occum’s Razor’", what now is this ? As I explained it is the stopping point in the process. What do I mean by this? Well, for instance, in the case of the monkey being observed in attempting to type “Hamlet”, we know to stop the process when finally the little guy types it correctly. In science at times, there is more then one theory proposed that appears to explain what is being studied. Which then is correct? This is where Occum’s razor comes in. This is a principle that is attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Occam, which states that a true theory should have as few assumptions as possible and any that do not extend the observable consequences of the theory should be eliminated. In terms of deciding between competing theories, in which more than one gives explanation to the phenomena, then the simplest one should be taken. This is sort of a statement of economy. The modern but dangerously misleading equivalent is called K.I.S.S. for 'keep it simple, stupid'. Actually, Albert Einstein had his own slant on this for he said”

"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience"

So now you say, what is my point? The point I’m making here is that science contends that the question “why” is not relevant and therefore they don’t ask it. However, they do use what one could consider to be predetermined and assumed aspects of nature, to aid them in their quest for expanding knowledge of the natural world. These assumptions, form their sign posts or guides in knowing if they are following the right course and reach the correct ends. So in truth, they do use “why”. For if you asked them, "why" they contend a particular theory is correct, outside the fact that it explains the tested phenomena? In reply they might often respond, because it appears it can be considered within the terms of symmetry and is also economical in its form. So despite the fact that many scientists claim that nature has no scheme, they are convinced it has attributes or what might be better described as “qualities”. Further, these qualities are not simply of the benign type, as for example, hard, soft, light or dark and so on. These qualities are of a more general type, for they imply character. Now let’s rephrase and clarify this, by saying that science asserts that nature reveals its character within the qualities of symmetry and economy. So what is this describing? Is it describing, as science proposes, to be simply a set of relationships or is it actually describing a scheme? For me it is certainly a scheme. A scheme of which it could be asked if it does or does not contain intent? A question for which I have no answer and yet would maintain still is a valid one.

To begin, I hope with my last post you didn’t come away thinking that I am a religion basher. My sole intent was and is to set up the background and context in which this change occurred, where philosophy instead of asking both the “how” and the “why” questions, ended up only addressing the “why”. Now the next thing we might suppose is that it was with the advent of modern science that the riff occurred. It is contended by many, that science as we know it only originated in the last five or six hundred years. Many propose that the vocation itself can be traced back to Francis Bacon (1561–1626), with his method. I will later speak of Bacon, however for now we will look another way. You might say, what is modern science? I would respond that the essence of modern science is when you use the tools of logic in concert with empirical consideration to expand ones knowledge of the natural world. I’m sure Bacon, if around today, would take umbrage with my simple definition, for he took many pages in his work entitled Novum Organum (New Instrument) to describe it. However, in general I would wager that if you offered this definition up to the scientists of today, they would find it acceptable.

So, is it true that it has only been in the last few hundred years that such a methodology manifested to expose truth? Let’s once again look back to ancient Greece to see if this method was used in their times. To begin, I could mention many of their great mathematicians such as Pythagoras, but then I’m sure it would be argued that he was solely a mathematician and thus his work and intent had little to do with revealing truths of the natural world. So we won’t go there.

The person that I propose as being a true scientist by the modern standard is Archimedes (287BC - 212BC). Now Archimedes is proported to have been a mathematician, physicists, astronomer, philosopher and inventor. This certainly sounds more like a description of a man of the Renaissance rather then one of ancient times. First, his contributions to mathematics are staggering. They include methods and proofs for calculating areas and volumes in geometry and of course much more. The discovery which he felt to be his greatest was his proof that any sphere bounded by a corresponding cylinder was 2/3 of its area and volume. He is also known to have proved and formulated the attributes of leverage. This accounts for instruments and machines such as scales, jacks and the block & tackle, just to name a few. He calculated with fair accuracy the circumference of the earth, 1800 years before Columbus was supposed to have prove it round. As many may be aware he is credited to have developed the "Principle of Buoyancy", referred to as "Archimedes Principle", which is summed up in the modern era within a relationship called specific gravity. This of course is what he is most popularly known for. It is fabled he was inspired to the discovery while lowering himself into a bath and observed it overflowing. After which he leaped from the bath, o' naturale and ran into the street shouting "Eureka"(I‘ve found it)! It might be suggested that from this account ideas and expressions such as “absent minded professor” and “nutty professor” sprang, not to mention “the naked truth”. All kidding aside, the important point is that Archimedes used mathematics coupled with logic and reason supported by empirical evidence to arrive at many of these discoveries.

To further my claim, it was not until quite recently, that it was most fully realized just how similar his ideas and methods were to that of modern science. This came to light with discovery of what is known as Archimedes Palimpsest in the early 1900’s, which has only recently been made legible. It spells out among other things what is referred to as Archimedes “method“. This mathematical method contains the germ of the idea which became Calculus, which was later to be independantly developed by Newton and Leibniz in the late 1600’s. This germ of an idea was to incorporate the concept of infinity into the solving of mathematical problems. A quote that I find particularly interesting from this ancient manuscript is as follows:

... certain things first became clear to me by a mechanical method, although they had to be proved by geometry afterwards because their investigation by the said method did not furnish an actual proof. But it is of course easier, when we have previously acquired, by the method, some knowledge of the questions, to supply the proof than it is to find it without any previous knowledge.

This would appear to confirm that Archimedes certainly thought that the way to understanding involved both logical consideration along with empirical evaluation. So now then, is modern science all that modern or is it simply the rediscovery and implementation of ancient methods? If so, then why were these ancient methods only resurrected with the dawn of the modern era? Also, are modern ideas and methods of understanding completely consistent with them? Most importantly, what can be gained in examining our current position in this regard? As we continue I will raise more for you to consider and I hope also discover.

In my last post we were continuing the examination of this apparent split between science and philosophy and where it might have begun. As I have said the main division can be given as who answers the “how” questions and who answers the “why” ones. This split as I have shown has created some major differences of opinion as to what certain aspects of the physical world should be expected and allowed to contain. More importantly we have come to discover that certain basic concepts like random in nature are viewed differently between many within the disciplines. It has been demonstrated that in the Greek brand of philosophy/science the focus was on nature as a whole where man was only one component or aspect of it. In many of the modern and now the contemporary philosophies man had come to be at the center. These philosophies range from those described as religions, where all of nature and its intent are focused on the creation and fate of man, plus many other western philosophies, which although they are not viewed as religions, also have man as its central theme. Science on the other hand has gravitated towards the conclusion that there is no scheme of nature to be discovered and so only questions how the whole things fits together. This could be more or less equated with how a mechanic might view a automobile and its workings without considering its intended use.

So when did this all start to occur? The first thing we might look at is to ask when did philosophy become homocentric or man focused? If we go back into our history we might say that early man probably started out this way. Then perhaps one should better ask when did our thinking become less homocentric? To begin if we look at Judeo-Christian philosophy we will find that it was so at the beginning and remains homocentric. If we look at the major eastern philosophies, we find that they were early on and continue to be for the most part still today, nature centered. . There is another major difference between western and eastern philosophies and that is in terms of personal growth or exploration. In general, with Western religious philosophy, it is all laid out for you. Here one is not supposed to pose questions, but rather just to accept the given answers or dogma. In the eastern tradition one is told that not all the answers are to be found in the text or teachings, rather that these form a basic guide and that enlightenment is something you will have to achieve through personal exploration.

To give you an example of what I am talking about I quote below from the Hindu Rig Veda and its Creation Hymn. This is estimated to have been composed more than 12,000 years ago. In a sense it is like the beginning of Genesis in the Old Testament.

Not even nothing existed then. No air yet, nor a heaven. Who encased and kept it where? Was water in the darkness there? Neither deathlessness nor decay. No, nor the rhythm of night and day: The self-existent, with breath sans air: That, and that alone was there. Darkness was in darkness found. Like light-less water all around. One emerged, with nothing on. It was from heat that this was born. Into it, Desire, its way did find: The primordial seed born of mind. Sages know deep in the heart: What exists is kin to what does not. Across the void the cord was thrown, The place of every thing was known. Seed-sowers and powers now came by, Impulse below and force on high. Who really knows, and who can swear, How creation came, when or where! Even gods came after creation's day, Who really knows, who can truly say when and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He, up there, knows, maybe; Or perhaps, not even He.

In reading this you will find it has much in common with Genesis I. There is as you notice one major difference, for in the Hindu version one finds all these question marks. In Genesis there are no questions. With Genesis we are simply offered answers with no thought that there be any need to question. Now true, that in the Hindu version nearly all the questions are of the “what“ or “how” type. The “why” they take as a given and that is simply “to be”. However, although they feel they have the answer to the question “why”, they imply that they find it important to total understanding. It also suggests that motive is central to the “why” question. So now we see that both the "how and"why" question, in relation to other philosophies was thought to be important many millennia ago. We also find that with the dawn of Western Philosophy and the Greeks this continued and was expanded. In contrast, we have discovered that the now dominant religious philosophies of the West do not at their centre seem to ask any questions at all. This all has had us go further in our search for why science and philosophy have parted company and "how" and "why" those divisions formed. This is still only a beginning, no pun intended.

Now in the course of this blog I’ve been talking about the split between science and philosophy. I have also previously stated this has not always been the case. Also, I have demonstrated that modern science and some philosophies have differences of opinion, one of which is what this apparent aspect of random in the world means in terms of its implications for nature having motive or what I refer to as a scheme. I’ve proposed that science sees random as indicating that nature has no scheme and that some philosophies saying that anything that points this way must be wrong, for nature certainly would not act randomly. Has Western thinking always been this way?

Let us examine this by looking at what Aristotle thought about such things. As we know he was a student of Plato. What I quote here was written in 350 B.C. from a paper he entitled Physics. Yes the term and the subject truly goes back that far. As a first statement on the matter Aristotle says:

“Our first presupposition must be that in nature nothing acts on, or is acted on by, any other thing at random, nor may anything come from anything else, unless we mean that it does so in virtue of a concomitant attribute.

In reading this one might say there’s the problem, for it is Aristotle that had people think this way thus when random was discovered to be a true aspect of nature this is where the split occurred. But now later in the discussion Aristotle expands on this notion. He says:

“Moreover, among the seeds anything must have come to be at random. But the person who asserts this entirely does away with 'nature' and what exists 'by nature'. For those things are natural which, by a continuous movement originated from an internal principle, arrive at some completion: the same completion is not reached from every principle; nor any chance completion, but always the tendency in each is towards the same end, if there is no impediment.”

Here Aristotle acknowledges that random is to be found in nature yet reminds us that this is not to be confused with nature as having no scheme. He goes on further to explain:

“The end and the means towards it may come about by chance. We say, for instance, that a stranger has come by chance, paid the ransom, and gone away, when he does so as if he had come for that purpose, though it was not for that that he came. This is incidental, for chance is an incidental cause, as I remarked before. But when an event takes place always or for the most part, it is not incidental or by chance. In natural products the sequence is invariable, if there is no Impediment.”

I know the language is somewhat arcane, but what Aristotle is saying here is that although random may be at times a part of process it does not indicate that nature has no scheme. To use my analogy in the previous post it is merely the stirrings of nature to facilitate the task. Now here he completes his argument in saying:

It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature. The best illustration is a doctor doctoring himself: nature is like that. It is plain then that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a purpose.”

So now we have seen what Aristotle had to say on the subject. It is plain that as early as this it was recognized that random was a component of nature and yet this by reason doesn't imply that therefore it has no purpose. So then we must go elsewhere to see “how” and “why” this split in thinking has occurred. This is then somewhere between the past of Aristotle and our present.

My last post ended where Darwin discovered as the “why” answer that natural selection was nature's strategy for the survival and continuance of life. You might inquire, do all “why” questions lead to such ground breaking conclusions and deep understanding ? The answer of course is no. We could ask “how” did the chicken cross the road? The answer being by putting one foot in front of the other. Then you might say “why” did the chicken cross the road? Well I’ll let you answer this question. The point is the question in itself, on its own does not have the power. It is where it is asked. When it is applied to the inquiries of the natural world it can lead to profound insight. The problem being that it is not asked very often by modern science.

The question now is how did we get to this point where science and philosophy have parted company? There are actually a few ways to look at this. If you asked a scientist of today they would most likely say that it is because science has become so specialized and complex that the philosophers are not able to keep up with it all and therefore cannot meaningfully contribute. This however is a dodge, for it avoids why the scientists themselves are not looking at their work from a philosophical perspective. Many scientists are of the opinion that to pose the “why” question suggests motive or intent plays a role in the nature of our world. I’m going to be bold here for I am convinced the vast majority of scientists believe that there is no motive or intent or to put it another way a scheme of nature. Many may point to Darwin’s Theory which I just outlined and say it shows a process where random is a element and this suggests that there is no scheme to nature. Equally, many philosophies, some of which are described as religions rail at the very same point for they believe that this also indicates there is no scheme in nature and so therefore it must be wrong. Despite their opposed views, on this point to they both agree. But are they correct to think this way?

To examine this let’s draw an analogy between nature's process for the survival and continuance of life to making a bowl of jello. When you make jello you take a bowl you put in some water plus jello powder along with some sugar. Then you stir, after which you put the whole lot in the refrigerator for a while and wait for it to set. Now in Darwin’s theory nature takes a world (the bowl) adds in primitive life along with a ever changing environment (the ingredients) then allows some random changes (the stirring), then waits for some time (sitting in the frig) and there you have it, life as it is recognized today. So what then is there in Darwin’s theory that is so convincing to many scientists and so unacceptable to some philosophers? Well it’s this random aspect. Both groups consider that random process shows that there is no scheme to nature and yet what is the act of stirring when we made the jello. Most would say it was a quick and easy method to get all the ingredients evenly mixed or distributed. In truth though you accomplished this by use of a process that evokes random. Now what did nature do? To assure that life was given the benifit of trying out numerous possibilities in terms of making it viable, nature invokes a scheme that involves random as part of the process. Now I would ask both the scientists and the philosophers, is it logical or reasonable to restrict nature in such a way? If this were true then they should also insist that I couldn’t make jello properly unless I purposely and accurately located all of the jello powder and the sugar within the water. If one looks at it this way it doesn’t make much sense. There is more to be said about this random aspect to nature and its implications for science and philosophy. This however I will leave for future posts.

Now that we have established that modern science rejects the “why” question as something that will lead to increased human understanding of our natural world, some might tend to agree. You might say what possible benefit can one attain by asking the question in the first place? Well the answer could be simply that by asking such questions we end up with answers that suggest a greater truth. The reverse sometimes is the case as well in that by asking the question “ how” we are lead to or given the answer to the question “why”. When this happens the “why” then expands and adds validity to the answer and suggests that it is true. You might say can I give such an example?

One such example is when Charles Darwin went out on his famous voyage aboard the Beagle to visit many parts of the world and returned with a great collection and documentation of life’s species. In the course of studying them he observed slight variations within many species. Variations such as the shape and length of the beaks of finches he had found on the Galapagos Islands. First he asked himself, “how” could these small variations have occurred. The answer given was that small variations occurred by random mutation. The next question is “how” did these mutations persist. The answer put forth was that these mutations would only persist if such change made the species more viable. In other words it gave the individual an advantage to live. This advantage to live instilled in such individuals a better chance to propagate and have this change passed on to the next generation. When this change is passed to following generations then this would increase the survivability of that subset of the species that inherited them. So what am I getting at here? Well by asking those two “how” questions and proposing the answers Darwin was also given the answer to a “why” question. That “why” question is why is life so varied and ever changing. The answer suggested by Darwin's inquiry was that it is natures strategy for the survival and continuance of life.

I would argue that because Darwin’s “how” questions lead to the answer of this “why” question is what gives the theory of evolution such appeal. In other words suggests that it is true. It is also what makes it so reprehensible to many. What do I mean by this? Remember now what I contended has happened to the pursuit of human understanding. I said that it had divided into two camps. One being science that explores and answers the “how” questions and philosophy which is to explore and answer the “why” questions. Well here in the course of asking “how” Darwin had also answered “why”. In other words he had crossed the line that has been drawn between the two disciplines.

Well now to begin where I left off I made a sweeping statement that modern science not only avoids the “why” questions but goes further to profess that such questions are not appropriate within the discipline. It goes even further to proclaim that such questions will not expand the quest for human understanding of the natural world. Many may say this is a outlandish statement and further where would I get such an idea. Well you don’t have to go far to find support for this.

As a example I quote Lisa Randall from a interview that appeared in this month’s Discover magazine. Professor Randall is a leading theoretical physicist and expert in particle physics, string theory, and cosmology. Her current research is focused on a aspect of string theory that suggests that our three dimensional universe may be only a part of a larger multi-dimensional one. This is all in pursuit of what is commonly and might I add improperly referred to as “The Theory of Everything”. Ms. Randall is currently the most quoted and cross referenced physicist in the world. I would contend that this qualifies her as being a representative of modern science, its thinking and its views. When Professor Randall was asked:

“Will physics ever be able to tackle the biggest questions—for instance, why does the universe even bother to exist?”

She responds with:

”Science is not religion. We're not going to be able to answer the "why" questions. But when you put together all of what we know about the universe, it fits together amazingly well. The fact that inflationary theory [the current model of the Big Bang] can be tested by looking at the cosmic microwave background is remarkable to me. That's not to say we can't go further. I'd like to ask: Do we live in a pocket of three-dimensional space and time? We're asking how this universe began, but maybe we should be asking how a larger, 10-dimensional universe began and how we got here from there.”

She then is asked:

“This sounds like your formula for keeping science and religion from fighting with each other.

” She then responds:

“A lot of scientists take the Stephen Jay Gould approach: Religion asks questions about morals, whereas science just asks questions about the natural world. But when people try to use religion to address the natural world, science pushes back on it, and religion has to accommodate the results. Beliefs can be permanent, but beliefs can also be flexible. Personally, if I find out my belief is wrong, I change my mind. I think that's a good way to live.”

So as you can see the lines have been drawn. First, Professor Randall admits that science does not even attempt to answer the “why” questions and then proclaims such questions are not relevant to understanding the natural world. She considers such questions the purview of religion. Now as we know religion can be seen and considered within the wider view as philosophy. I think if we pushed Professor Randall further she would agree with this extension. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Professor Randal’s ideas are silly for I respect and admire what she does and how she strives to further our understanding of the natural world. I’ve read her new book - Warped Passages- and even attended a recent public lecture she gave. I’m simply making the point the this is what the general view is. So then, is it true that the “why” questions are beyond what one can expect of human understanding? It appears this is what science thinks. But how has science arrived at this? More importantly is it correct? Also, have all modern scientists thought this way? Well this is what we will continue to explore.

Before we go more into the "hows" and the "whys" that are the focus of this blog one might ask what my influences have been in all this? To be truthful there are many. Too many to simply synopsize in a single entry. What I can say is that I have been fortunate enough to have a mentor in all this for several years. Now this mentorship is not the usual one. Many consider a mentor as someone who takes you by the hand to lead you to conclusions that they already have. This is not what my mentor has been for me. My mentor has been a friend , guide, confidant and critic, one that recognized my interest and encouraged me to explore it thoroughly and consider as many of the options that one can . My mentor also had me examine my current positions and thoughts in terms of their soundness. This person for me is Douglas L. Hemmick PhD . He holds a Doctorate of Philosophy who's specialty is Quantum Foundations. You will see a link to his web site listed on this page. One might say Quantum Foundations, what is that? Well to be fair I think it better for you to click the link and see what Dr. Hemmick has to say himself about this. What I will tell you is that the study of his subject brings one closer to the realization that we simply can't separate the "how" questions from the "why" questions. Now a curious thing is that the vast majority of his fellow physicists don't feel that the "foundations" as a line of research has much relevance from a scientific standpoint. Many feel his area of endeavor is better described as metaphysics and is not true physics. Well curiously enough, if one limits themselves to the narrow modern definition that I set out in my last post, that would be true.

So is this current position of not mixing the hows with the whys a valid one? What we will find when we examine this closely is that it is a position that has evolved over time. Also, to be accurate, it is not a position that is totally universal or static. In the main though it suggests that science is only to address the "how" questions and philosophy the "whys". More importantly, the sciences in general, particularly physics, in some sense doesn't feel that "why" is a valid question in relation to the understanding of our world. On the other side, main stream philosophy has evolved into something that is homocentric, with man at the centre where the "how" questions are considered somewhat unimportant. Is it not strange that the pursuit of understanding has found itself in this seemingly paradoxical state?

Well I guess the first thing to answer is why the blog and why dedicated to science and philosophy? That in itself is a bit of a story. The thing is I have always thought of the world and my relation to it in such terms. Ever since I was young I was one of those wonder people. That is I would wonder about this and wonder about that. It always seemed strange that here I was, born into this ponderous world preconstructed for me to observe and I didn’t have a clue what it was, how it was and why it was. Well when you think like this you are unavoidably lead to science and philosophy. The pursuit of the “what” questions and the “how” questions are things us mortals try to understand through a method called science. The “why” questions are attempted to be discovered through philosophical analysis and consideration. Many may wonder why science does not try to tackle it all. Well at one time this was truly the case. The term philosopher is Greek for “lover of knowledge“. In fact still today when someone receives a PhD in any of the sciences he is awarded a Doctorate in Philosophy. Of course, many of you know this. This doesn’t provide an answer. Well let’s take a look at a standard dictionary definition of philosophy taken from answer.com it reads:

“Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods“.

Still confused? Well the key words here are “empirical methods” Philosophy in the modern definition shuns empirical methods or in other words testing it’s validity by way of predictions against what we see in the world. This was not always the case.

Plato for instance did not exclude physical testing and at the same time warned us about where and when it was appropriate. He concludes in his Allegory of the Cave:

” Whereas our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.”

Plato here reminds us that true understanding incorporates both methodologies not only the empirical method but also by what he refers to as the “good”, which in the context of what I am talking about is the “why”. He implies that to have any success that both must be considered jointly . In the modern world these things have grown to become separated. The next question here is of course is “how and “why”. So that’s what this whole blog will be dealing with, my understandings and questions of the “how” and the “why”.