Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Dawkins - brilliant as usual.

There is true, unimaginable wonder in science. To contemplate the mysteries of life and universe - nothing is so awe-inspiring. Who said science is cold and impersonal?

Think of the little mitochondria that all of us have - the essential machinary of respiration, and then to realize that they represent bacteria that our ancestral cells ingested millions of years ago, to import the respiratory apparatus essential for us to breathe in a oxygen-rich environment - now there`s a fact to boggle the mind.

Anita

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine, and somehow the subject gravitated towards ESP and the like. During and after the conversation, I was struck by the fact that we have a tendency to get conditioned even to extraordinary things around us. As a result one is always searching for ``exotic`` stuff. To me, being able to carry on a conversation with another person is far more interesting and miraculous than any fanciful or metaphysical construction.

Imagine this: What we eat becomes a functioning part of our bodies. So if I eat a banana today, then in a little while, its components and derivatives will become a part of my brain, and will contribute towards my consciousness. Inanimate matter becomes animate and then starts to question itself. If that is not a miracle I don`t know what else is.

Re: Anita

True, anyone who cares to think will find the world full of facts that boggle the mind. Here`re some more of my favorites:

(1) The net energy content of the ENTIRE universe may be zero. Then the whole universe sprang from nothing more than a quantum fluctuation.

(2) The human brain weighs in at only a few pounds, consumes small amount of energy and yet is the most powerful and plastic computing device in existence.

(3) That nature employing simple rules at a fundamental level gives rise to such an astonishing amount of complexity.

(4) That mathematics is a suitable language of the natural world. That mathematical concepts present a level of rigor and truth that is not achievable otherwise. That no science is truly a science until it can be formulated in mathematical terms.

(5) That quantum mechanics with all of its mind bending logic has been validated with each and every experiment ever performed. That it is possible for distant particles to be entangled with each other in such a way that one affects the other. That teleportation is actually possible.

(6) That the universe is so unimaginably big that no human myth of infinity even comes close. For all we know the universe we observe (about 12 billion light years across) may only be a tiny fraction of the whole universe.

(7) That small differences in genetic code can lead to immense differences in their phenotypic expression.

(8) That there exists the force of gravity which is a long range attractive force. That it combines with other forces to give us a shining sun, which in its due time dies and spews heavy elements into space, and that we arise from the ashes of the stars.

(9) That most of the universe around us is actually invisible to us. We only see a tiny fraction of what there is to see. That the possibilities of nature remain effectively limitless.

(10) There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps as many as a hundred billion galaxies. And if only one star in a billion produced a thriving civilization, then there would be hundreds in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions in all the galaxies in the observable universe. If one star in a million produced life then there would be dozens of civilizations just in our cosmic neighbourhood.

(11) The one that you mentioned is one of these. I remember when I first learned about that seven years ago. The whole transition to an oxygen dominated world, the rise of the membrane and the oxygen metabolizing organisms, and their eventual symbiosis. That other similar ``gateway`` events open the list of possibilities for development. That the Replicator molecule arose. That encoding of genetic information arose. That the information persisted in a hostile environment. That the mutual competition between possibilities inevitably led to emergence of increasing complexity.

(12) That the arrow of time is well defined, and that it always flows in one direction. That simple counting of possibilities explains why time flows forward. That universe evolves through a set of possibilities at each and every time. That the transition between these time steps is random but on a macroscopic level this randomness is smoothed out.

(13) That the universe at its smallest scale is fraught with impossibilities and infinities, and that these are smoothed out at a macroscopic scale.

(14) That a human child learns to speak of its own accord. That it counts, recognizes and learns. That it carries the potential for all of that from the very first day of conception.

(15) That we have the ability to wonder, and that we have the desire to know. That we are mortals and yet our minds can be immortal.

(16) That the human (or animal body) with all of its complexity actually functions. That the successful designs for these bodies emerged, and that extremely clever solutions were found for the problems offered by nature.

The list is very very long ...

Wasiq, my friend.

In deference to your chosen profession, allow me to quote Albert Einstein, who once said that there are only two ways to live your life. One is to believe that nothing is a miracle; the other is to believe that everything is a miracle. I am certainly of the latter persuasion and, glancing over your compilation of `facts that boggle the mind`, suspect that you might be, too. This is not to imply intellectual complacence, but rather to record one`s respect and awe for the majesty of the known universe and its contents. The development of the scientific method is far and away the best thing to come out of human civilization, but it is hard to deny that the more we know, the less we understand. If anything, however, this emerging reality makes it even more imperative that we persist with the traditions of rational inquiry, wherever they may lead. It is only common sense that the most difficult of challenges be tackled with the most powerful of tools.

Saad

Dear Saad,

Very well said indeed. I am certainly of the persuasion, as yourself, that everything around us is a miracle. I recall Rumi -talking about miracles and their relation to a Divinity, he says: ``If the whole world was barren and desolate and there was nothing in it except for one small flower, I would take it as an incontrovertible evidence for God.`` One might even say that there is nothing external about a miracle. The recognition of a miracle is dependent on the capabilities of the observer itself.

I think that you said it very well, each ``discovery`` necessarily leads us to a new world, and presents us anew with the depths of our ignorance. Feynman, early on in his lectures, summarized it thus: ``We learn science today, so that we can unlearn it tomorrow``. The distinction between modelling and the underlying truth ... therefore, we must try to understand everything around us, and improve the methods by which we arrive at our ``truths``.

Whether or not this process will ever converge, I do not know. But I believe that the universe is inherently knowable, and unlike Kuhn I also believe that we get closer and closer to the underlying truth.

``Bashud undar purdah bazi-hayay pinhan ... gham makhor!`` (Hafez)

On a related note: Do you have an interest in what goes on at (say) The Santa Fe Institute?

Dear Shahbaz,

Can I suggest a book? ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions`` by Thomas Kuhn. If you`ve read it, I would be curious to know what you think.

Re: Wasiq

Steve Weinberg, the physicist, once said, ``the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems.``

I would like to know what you think of that statement.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 8

The quote is from ``The End of Science`` by John Horgan.

From what I understand, Weinberg did not say that in any context. That statement does not need context. His view is that It is pointless.

I missed YOUR view in your beat-around-the-bush reply. The fundamental question is Does Divinity exist in its own right, or it exists out of necessity? If the answer is the latter, then it is pointless.

Re: Godot

Since I have never heard this quotation from Weinberg, I do not know the context in which he said that. However, I suspect, that he must be referring to the various teleological arguments regarding the existence of the universe. These arguments take these different forms as far I know. Also, since I am not a philosopher, I do not know how philo will categorize.

1) The argument about the necessity of a Divinity to endow the universe and hence humanity with a purpose. There are many flavors of this argument also, broadly speaking some that are strongly anthropocentric than others (Hitherto I will refer to them as strong anth or weak anth): (a) Man as the reason for creation (b) Man as the observer/player (c) Man as an observer/player (d) Man as an entity at par with others.

2) The same argument without necessarily invoking the existence of a Divinity or a necessary being. Again different levels of emphasis on the human centeredness.

An example, the Anthropic universe -the view that a way to understand the processes of biochemistry, biology, cosmology, geology, is to assume that the universe was with the potential conditions and with physical laws which would necessitate the emergence of life and intelligent beings. Strong Anthropic universe specifies the emergence of humans (b)/(c). Weak anthropic (d) of intelligent life.

* * * * * * *

Within these divisions there is also the division along the lines of REALISTIC (LOCKE, man standing ``outside`` of the physical world that he observes), IDEALIST (KANT, the world exists only in being an object of human thought) and DIALECTICAL (the relation between man and nature is regarded as an integral part to the dynamic whole of which it is a part).

Among many proponents in (1): ARISTOTLE, everything in nature striving for its place (weak anth). IBNE-SINA, necessity for a divinity (strong anth). GHAZZALI, direct intervention of divinity (strong anth). DESCARTES, mechanistic view of the universe, except for the mind which follows its own rules (weak anth). KANT, moral dimension of humans and hence elevation to something above simply mechanistic. Also his emphasis on purpose for the existence of life (strong anth).

For (2) that the form, nature, or essence of man or of any other kind of being was taken to be a principle present in the thing, determining its kind by producing in it an innate tendency to strive to develop into a perfect example of itself--to fulfill its nature and to realize its full potential as a thing of a given kind. This gave rise to the teleological view of the natural world in which developments were explained by reference to the goal toward which each natural thing, by its nature, strives.

There have been many scientific discoveries that do not support a teleological view, and I think that Weinberg is talking about this from that point of view.

(a) The possible physical explanation of the presence of the universe and its evolution; a mathematical model starting from a quantum fluctuation, inflation and subsequent cooling of the universe, tends to explain many of the observed features of the universe.

(b) Developments in biology led to a refutation of most of the arguments of Kant. The genetic structure present in each cell is now invoked to explain the subsequent development of an organism in a ``mechanistic`` and nonpurposive way, in which development is shown to be dependent upon and determined by preexisting structures and conditions.

Also in evolutionary biological theory species are not stable; natural kinds do not have the fixed, immutable forms or essences characteristic of biology before the advent of evolutionary theory. This goes against the initial presuppositino of Aristotle about the presence of an innate essence of every entity, and its ordering in the known universe.

(c) The issue pf intelligence and rationality. Not only is the relative ranking of one race or sex with respect to others problematic, advances in the animal psychology indicate a presence of abilities in animals that were previously only considered to be human domain. Examples include language (gorillas, chimps, whales), counting (chimps, birds), problem solving (chimps, squid, dolphins), tool using (primates, dolphins), complex social structures and altruism.

(d) The success of the mechanistic view point that does not separate the human being and living matter from non-living matter, and provides a determined rule for explaining the rise of one from the other.

(e) The discovery of the scale of the universe, and given (d) the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

It appears then that Weinberg is echoing the sentiments of Herder. Herder denied the existence of any absolute and universally recognized goals. From this point of view, he has an interesting counterpart. Abdus Salam, in his essay, science and religion, (to which there is a link to in this essay), talks about these issues briefly also, and presents his own point of view. (Including his interpretation of creation).

I personally have the following view given my present level of ignorance: The classical arguments for a teleological universe do not hold. That includes both arguments involving Divinity and not involving it. Simpler explanations involving a ``mechnistic`` point of view do answer a lot, but not everything. Therein lies the ever present possibility for an expansion in our current scientific models. One can argue that a more sophisticated scientific answer of tomorrow will be closer to truth than what we have today (a la the comparison between yesterday and today`s models). However still, no metaphysical elements will be involved, and the explanation would be completely ``mechanistic``.

Re: Godot

I am sorry if my lengthy reply was not clear. I intended to present a comparative view on the issue, which is relevant.

Also, I think, that the only logical reason for Weinberg to make that statement would have to be in a context of teleology. Otherwise it does not make sense. To nitpick: ``the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems`` -- I think this means that it appears pointless, not that it is demonstrated to be. There`s a difference.

(About some background to his statement c.f Reply 8, ``There have been many scientific discoveries ...``)

You write: ``The fundamental question is Does Divinity exist in its own right, or it exists out of necessity?``

I think no one will never know the answer. And does it really matter when it comes to why people believe in a Divinity? Think about it.

You conclude: ``If the answer is the latter, then it is pointless.``

That I do not agree with. We endow purpose to things as much as we endow meaning. But then that is my view.

best regards,
Wasiq

p.s About ``The End of Science``, or should I call it ``The End of Horgan`` ... I think that his whole argument is utter nonsense. Remember Lord Kelvin`s statement to the Royal Society in the latter decade of 1890`s, that all that could be known about the physical world had been discovered, and nothing else remained to be learnt. One year later the electron was discovered, four years later radioactivity, within a decade special relativity, within two quantum mechanics. Things have never been the same.

Horgan`s fate will be worse, it already is.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 10

There are statements that go beyond science and philosophy. I took Weinberg to mean in that ``context``.

Weinberg`s quote has nothing to do with the book`s merit. However, I found Horgan`s book to be very entertaining.

Re: Wasiq

``I personally have the following view given my present level of ignorance: The

classical arguments for a teleological universe do not hold. That includes both

arguments involving Divinity and not involving it. Simpler explanations

involving a ``mechnistic`` point of view do answer a lot, but not everything.

Therein lies the ever present possibility for an expansion in our current

scientific models. One can argue that a more sophisticated scientific answer of

tomorrow will be closer to truth than what we have today (a la the

comparison between yesterday and today`s models). However still, no

metaphysical elements will be involved, and the explanation would be

completely ``mechanistic``. ``

That is the limitation of Science. It`s reliance on only the intellect as the ultimate tool. The intellect, powerful as it is, can only discriminate. It can only choose between one or the other, which means it is restricted to this world of duality. That explains why the evolution of the intellect into the external world leads to an ever expanding knowledge base without end, that gives rise to the feeling of pointlessness attributed to Weinberg. There is a more powerful way of `seeing` or `knowing` which involves the subtlest of all, `the source`, `the seer`.

Consider this: When understanding is minimal, at the gross level we identify with the body. When it gets clearer the identification is with the mind (manas or man). When further clarified the identifcation is with the intellect (Buddhi). And that is where Modern Science as we know it has stagnated. When we go further with the involution from the gross to the more subtle we need to transcend the intellect to the `soul` or `seer` (atma). From the above progression you can see that the subtle can perceive the gross but the reverse is not true. THAT is were the solution lies.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 13

There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` (for a lack of better words) that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified. They can be known but cannot be explained. Trying to understand them by using words or math is like peeling an onion; you will not find anything in the end. All that effort for naught ensued by confusion! Its not that those who are trying to convey ``things`` do not know what they are talking about, it is that it cannot be conveyed to those who know not what the conveyer is talking about.

Re: Venki, Reply 12

I agree with you, except for the Weinberg`s Pointlessness. It is not that the ever expanding knowledge base without an end that gives rise to pointlessness, as you take it to mean. I took it to mean that there is no Reason, no Point for us being. The whole thing is pointless.

Re: Venki

Soon after I hit the Send button, I relaized that I said the same thing you did on pointlessness! There is no disagreement between us on this.

Re: Venki

Hi,

True, science is not a perfect method, no reasonable person would claim it to be, and there would surely be advances in epistemology. I have an appreciation for metaphysics, but there is something deeply unsettling about it.

First of all, metaphysical philosophy, sounds very good in theory. But it suffers from the apparent flaw that many of its concepts are neither demonstrable nor even properly definable. That inevitably leads to a tangled mess of confusion. It is always easy to say something when (a) you/others do not know what the terms mean and (b) no one can verify your/others assertions.

Second, taken as a tool for practical knowledge, I am sorry to say that metaphysics has been a failure. Metaphysical thought in India, for example, is several millenia old, yet India had to wait for modern science to bring in its benefits. Despite lofty ideals, metaphysics cannot deliver the simple things that result in man`s control over the nature around him.

Third, what of the incredible variety of metaphysical thought? Are they all consistent, are they all valid or can there be only one? If they are all valid, then unfortunately their information content is zero (since two mutually contradictory ones could be valid). If only a few are valid, then metaphysical reasoning is not error free.

Let me take your example. In your eyes, by definition, I would be a simpleton to try to apply crude ``dualistic`` methods to something subtle. My intention is only to try to understand what you are saying, and to try to understand it more than by mere words. So here it goes:

You talk of the progression of the understanding of the observer -body, mind, intellect and soul. While one cannot deny the existence of something that one has not seen, it would be instructive to explain why one needs to postulate the existence of a soul, what would be the properties of the soul and indeed how would one go about verifying that it is indeed so. It seems to me also that a teleological universe is bound to emerge from any hypothesis that pre-supposes a soul, since it is built into the definition of the soul.

Now what of the relation of the four aspects? An entity has a body which gives rise to its mind which defines its intellect which must underlie its soul. In the physical world, including simple aspects of life, the body-mind and mind-intellect connection is known to some degree. It is a causal connection that is explainable by physical laws. Wherein does the mind-soul connection arise from? And is it absolutely necessary that it should not be explainable by some physical laws and hence lie in the domain of metaphysics? If not, then it is not beyond the ken of a crude method like science. It may take some time, but it will inevitably get there.

I will await your response before going further.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq, Reply 17

This example has no relevance to what I said. But I will cite one anyway. What happens to us after we die?

Re: Godot

``There are statements that go beyond science and philosophy.``

I know of no statements that do that and have a decipherable meaning. Maybe I am an ignoramus, and maybe you could educate me on that.

regards,
Wasiq