Reductionism Runs Wild 2

Yesterday, I mentioned how it is not possible to understand the (whole) universe unambiguously in a rational manner.

So any definite statement regarding its nature in this context is inevitably bound to lead to paradox.

Equally however it is not possible to understand any minute part of the system in an unambiguous manner.

And the central reason for this is that the nature of reality is inherently dynamic so that the whole (which is qualitatively distinct) is contained in each part; equally each part (while also maintaining its distinct nature) is contained in the whole.

Thus a dynamic interdependence constitutes the relationship between part and whole (and whole and part) with the two-way interaction of both quantitative and qualitative aspects.

And this dynamic relationship - by definition - constitutes the nature of reality at all levels.

Indeed this is the key underlining explanation of why it is not possible to reconcile the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics.

As we know the theory of relativity is designed to deal with physical behaviour on a global cosmic scale i.e. the whole system; quantum mechanics by contrast is designed to deal with physical behaviour with respect to sub-atomic matter (i.e. the minute parts of the system).

When interpretation with respect to these two approaches is conducted in a merely quantitative manner, results may appear consistent as viewed separately. However deep conflict and paradox is inevitable where their attempted reconciliation is concerned.

To use my oft-quoted example in this respect it is very similar to the manner in which we interpret the turns at a crossroads.

Now if a traveller heading N encounters a crossroads, a left turn for example can be given an unambiguous interpretation.

If now a traveller heading S (from the other direction) encounters the same crossroads again a left turn can be given an unambiguous interpretation.

So in this example N and S represent our polar reference frames.

In similar fashion in physics, relativity theory (whole) and quantum mechanics (part) represent our two polar reference frames.

And each considered within their own polar reference frames lead to consistent results.

However returning to our crossroads, if we now consider an approach to the crossroads from both N and S directions simultaneously, then a left turn is rendered paradoxical.

For what is left (approaching from the N direction) is right (approaching from the S direction). Equally what is left (approaching from the S direction) is right (approaching from the N).

It is basically similar when we try to integrate relativity theory (whole) with quantum mechanics (part). So what appears consistent within each particular reference frame is now rendered inconsistent (when considered from both frames simultaneously).

Thus getting to the nub of the issue, the key point - which the physics community is not yet prepared to face - is that, properly considered, whole and part in every context are qualitative as to quantitative (and quantitative as to qualitative) with respect to each other.

Thus properly understood, all physical notions can be given both analytic (quantitative) and holistic (qualitative) type interpretations.

So, just as I have argued in companion blogs that there are three types of mathematics i.e. Type 1 (analytic), Type 2 (holistic) and Type 3 (radial) which coherently integrate both analytic and holistic aspects, likewise there are three types of physics i.e. Type 1 (analytic), Type 2 (holistic) and Type 3 (radial) respectively.

Now it might be argued that string theory provides the best prospect for consistent integration of quantum mechanics and relativity theory in a new “theory of everything”. However this is but a vain hope as string theory suffers from exactly the same problem of interpretation as the rest of physics, catering for merely the quantitative aspect of relationships.

In any case the early great hopes of the 80’s and 90’s have not been realised, with even ardent supporters accepting that the much hoped for “TOE” is far from being achieved.

Here is also another big problem that is not yet properly realised.

Because modern physics completely lacks in formal terms a recognised holistic dimension, its speculative findings, especially with respect to string theory increasingly lack any intuitive resonance with the world in which we live. So even if it were possible to mathematically establish the consistency of such models, we would be left with the considerable problem of trying to make sense of their findings.

So once again the findings of string theory are increasingly incompatible with the established intuitions which we use to interpret our world.

And this problem cannot be addressed without the holistic dimension of physics - which is equally important to the analytic - being properly recognised.

In principle with the holistic aspect sufficiently developed, it would in principle be possible to intuit in a meaningful experiential fashion the implications of every physical theory. This would of course entail the development of new refined intuitions of physical reality that would be in keeping with the corresponding physical findings.

And this is very point! The development of such necessary intuition is not possible when its relevance for proper physical understanding is completely ignored.

So in the main most people still largely operate out of the common sense intuitions of Newtonian science, while attempting to come to terms with new physical findings that are quite incompatible with this worldview. 

In the end there is no single theory that will ever be able to consistently interpret the physical world in  every major respect.

All theories reflect subjective mental interpretations of the world and have no independent validity apart from such interpretations.

In dynamic interactive terms, what is known is always in relation to what is not known about reality. And as knowledge of the world continually grows, realisation - in relative terms - of how much is not known will also grow.

However rather than leading to despair regarding any final rational answer to the nature of reality, properly understood, this is the very means by which we can be led to use this incomplete knowledge in learning how to gradually surrender to its inherent mystery.

So the ultimate goal should not be to find a rigid rational answer in our quest for knowledge but rather to become united with that very reality we strive to rationally know.

For in the end, that reality is inseparable from our true essential being. And in that very mystery lies the deepest possible knowledge that can be attained.