Reductionism Runs Wild 1

I have been reading recently an updated biography of Stephen Hawking by Kitty Ferguson. Though I have always found Hawking a very interesting and provocative thinker, I would consider the major weakness of his position is that he has adopted throughout an inherently reduced view of the nature of science without the need to seriously question its assumptions.

Of course this is a criticism that can be made generally of the mainstream approach to physics. Despite many deep philosophical issues posed by quantum mechanics, most practitioners carry on regardless in the somewhat naïve belief that even its strangest findings can be successfully accommodated within the present approach.

Modern science emerged from a mythical medieval worldview where both physical and spiritual realities were viewed as inseparable partners.

Thus the subsequent clear differentiation of the physical from the spiritual aspect has enabled an unprecedented development with respect to the analytic aspect of science in all disciplines and especially in relation to physics. So we are now apparently in a position to answer the deepest questions regarding the nature of our universe, perhaps culminating in a much sought after “Theory of Everything”.

However, certainly from my perspective, I would see this as a vain hope, which in its present form is doomed to inevitable failure. For this quest by its very nature runs into conflict with the very assumptions of the present reduced model.

So we are really on the threshold of an enormous paradigm shift where the holistic dimension of science - which has been greatly suppressed through recent developments - is slowly set to re-emerge in a more mature refined manner (free of past mythical associations).

And only with this holistic dimension is properly recognised can it then be incorporated in a balanced fashion with corresponding analytic type understanding in a truly comprehensive vision of science.

As I would see it, there are two key aspects to present scientific reductionism.

Firstly, though all experience necessarily entails a dynamic two-way relationship as between objective phenomena and subjective mental constructs - which are relatively external and internal with respect to each other - the present scientific model operates on the assumption that the external aspect i.e. objective, can somehow be studied in abstraction from its internal subjective aspect.

Secondly, though all phenomena equally entail a two-way relationship between part and whole aspects, which are unique and collective with respect to each other, the present model again operates on the limited - and ultimately untenable - assumption that the whole in any context can be reduced to its constituent parts.

In other words the qualitative aspect of phenomenal relationships is investigated in a merely quantitative manner.

I will indicate briefly now how such reduced thinking conditions the very manner in which a physicist attempts to view the origin of our universe.

Because of the assumed abstraction of phenomena (from mental constructs) the early universe is given a merely objective physical existence (in linear time).

However once one accepts that all such notions of the universe necessarily reflect the mental constructs employed (in the present moment) then a two way relationship is established as between these constructs and the physical phenomena investigated.

So from the perspective of our mental constructs (which have necessarily evolved through the course of evolution) we are attempting to look back from the present moment on a time with respect to the universe (in the distant past). Thus from this context, the present internal moment (in which we reflect) is relatively future in time with respect to an external state of the universe (in past time).

Thus we can never be neutral observers of an objective reality that is considered to exist independent of our interpretations, for these very interpretations are inseparable from our relationship with this reality.

However as with all two-way relationships, reference frames can switch so that the objective universe (in the present external moment) is relatively future in time with respect to its internal past.  This of course entails that we cannot properly speak of a universe in a merely external manner, but rather in dynamic terms where both external and internal aspects are - relatively - involved.

So therefore, properly understood i.e. in dynamic experiential terms, all notions of time (and indeed space) are strictly relative for the overall universe emanating from a present moment (that continually exists).

Therefore the very attempt - as is so common in the present Big Bang theories - to give a moment in linear time (generally 13.7 bl. years ago) as the start of the universe is clearly inadequate and simply reflects the reduced manner of interpretation that is endemic in the present scientific approach. 

The other key element of the reduced scientific approach is the misguided attempt to view the whole as somehow consisting of constituent parts that can be understood in a solely quantitative manner.

Once again the whole (in any context) exists in relation to its parts which are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other; likewise the parts exist in relation to the whole (again with quantitative and qualitative aspects).

However in conventional scientific terms this relationship is reduced where the whole is defined as the sum of its parts in a merely quantitative manner. This therefore entails the reduction of the qualitative notion in a quantitative manner, the corresponding reduction of the potential infinite notion in a finite actual manner and the reduction of true holistic meaning in analytic terms.

Let me illustrate this key point now in relationship to number. The (whole) number concept potentially relates to all its part number perceptions in an infinite qualitative manner.

However these part perceptions i.e. actual numbers are necessarily finite in a quantitative manner.

So from a dynamic experiential perspective, the whole concept of number potentially applies to all number perceptions in an infinite manner.

However any actual number is necessarily finite in nature. Thus it is completely misleading (reflecting reduced thinking) to relate the notion of the infinite to actual numbers, as for example in the notion of an infinite number line (which by definition contains finite actual numbers).

So from a dynamic perspective, a finite set of actual numbers can only be determined against the background of a corresponding finite set that must necessarily remain indeterminate.

Thus a crucial uncertainty principle applies to very definition of number whereby what is determined (in finite actual terms) always necessarily requires a dynamic relational context (of numbers that cannot be finitely determined).

This intimately applies to the very manner we attempt to interpret the universe.

What is truly whole in this context relates to its potential (i.e. infinite) nature.

Thus phenomenal understanding of part of the system relates to its actual (finite) nature.

Now bearing in mind what we have said regarding the nature of number, this phenomenal understanding with respect to a constituent part (or parts) of the universe must always necessarily require a background context (of what cannot be determined in an actual fashion).

So for example, it is perfectly acceptable for example to obtain rational scientific knowledge with respect to finite measurements in space and time on planet Earth, which exists in relation to a wider context (of what exists outside the Earth). However it is not possible to obtain unambiguous knowledge with respect to the universal system as a whole in the same manner.

For when we refer to the universe as a whole, clearly there can be no external context.

Thus when we attempt to apply rational linear understanding to the whole universe we are inevitably led into paradox (which cannot be resolved from a rational perspective).

Thus a lot of what passes for accepted scientific understanding can be seen from a deeper perspective to reveal philosophical naïveté (where the limitations of the reduced nature of its assumptions is not properly realised).

Thus it is not possible to think of the beginning of the universe in a manner that can be actually known with respect to the system as a whole, for inevitably all phenomenal knowledge requires a relative context of what cannot be known.

Thus whereas in actual terms the phenomenal universe is finite in nature, its very determination is against the background of what must necessarily remain indeterminate in finite terms.

Thus in actual quantitative terms, the universe is indeed finite in a relative manner (entailing what can be known in relation to what cannot be known).

Then in potential qualitative terms the (whole) universe is infinite, with human experience then entailing the relationship of both (potential) infinite and finite (actual) aspects in a continual state of transformation. 

Our deepest quest - as the mystics of all ages have testified - is to be truly one with the universe, which is directly attained in a spiritual manner.

Though rational knowledge of the universe can act as catalyst towards this goal, in the end its very nature is necessarily paradoxical.

For quite simply one cannot spiritually become one with the universe, while attempting to maintain its separation in an abstract objective manner.

Thus the true end of rational knowledge is inevitable paradox, whereby one is led to ultimately abandon such an attempt to understand the universe by thereby surrendering to its inherent mystery in which alone true spiritual union can be found.