The method of science has been a smashing success in advancing our understanding of and control over the material aspects of reality. The first problem comes I think in the assertion that the "material" is all there is to "reality". (materialism). The second problem comes in asserting that science is our only tool and will solve all the problems of human experience and existence (including aesthetics and values) (scientism). The third problem comes in adopting a mechanistic, deterministic, reductionist view of total reality and human experience (determinism). I think all three of these philosophical assumptions or speculations can be successfully challenged.


Science and reason alone are not well equipped to address the aesthetic and values problems of human experience and existence. Values and aesthetic problems are those of most significance in the realm of human experience. Modern culture has lost it telos (sense of purpose) and abandoned its mythos (those shared stories and myths which impart values and meaning) and relied totally on logos (reason). The world is out of balance.

I tend to view the universe as perceptive, "alive", enchanted and creative. It delights me to no end to see that in modern physics one can possibly hold these views without being in direct conflict with science and observation.



From John Donne, An Anatomy of the World. excerpts

'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot,
For every man alone thinks he hath got
To be a phoenix, and that then can be
None of that kind, of which he is, but he.

For there's a kind of world remaining still,
Though she which did inanimate and fill
The world, be gone, yet in this last long night,

Her ghost doth walk; that is a glimmering light,
A faint weak love of virtue, and of good,
Reflects from her on them which understood
Her worth; and though she have shut in all day,
The twilight of her memory doth stay,

And new philosophy calls
all in doubt,
The element of fire is quite put out,
The sun is lost, and th'earth, and no man's wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.

This thread of course, is meant to challenge materialism but can as easily be seen as a challenge to scientism and to determinism. A new trinity of sorts.

The really scary thing about all this is the fact that, if all the basic constituents of matter only exist when they are observed, and all matter is made up of these basic constituents, as must be accepted, then does it follow that my wife and kids only exist when I am with them? It kind of makes the world (whatever that is) a very lonely place. This has caused me the odd sleepless night over the years. Perhaps we were never meant to look so deeply into what makes it all work. We may not like what we find.

I wouldn't leap to any conclusions in this matter. It is, as you say, very deep. But here's few ways that I have found to think about it. I don't think you can infer from these ideas that if something is not being perceived, it does not exist. What I am starting to think is that it means that the manner in which it exists is also part of the function of the way in which they are perceived. This shows up especially in observation of subatomic particles.

But I am also a realist. I don't think the world doesn't exist when you're asleep, or anything like that. It just means the observer is an intrinsic aspect of reality, and this idea that the world goes on totally objectively and completely irrespective of us is not true.

---------- Post added 01-09-2010 at 03:15 PM ----------

Have a look at http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/4611-mystical-copenhagen-interpretation.html

Well, matter is not composed of inert point particles
and
Space time is not continuous fixed or independent of "matter".
So the classical mechanical deterministic conception of Newtonian physics is not a viable concept, so what conception of matter and space time do we have left?

Tegmark's sole postulate is: All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. This is in the sense that "in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".

Well, matter is not composed of inert point particles
and
Space time is not continuous fixed or independent of "matter".
So the classical mechanical deterministic conception of Newtonian physics is not a viable concept, so what conception of matter and space time do we have left?

It will certainly always be viable anywhere in the cosmos, for entities not the size of sub-atomic particles, and velocities not approaching the speed of light. So it is prefectly viable within its frame of reference. Although i agree that the fact that it is no longer understood to be effective beyond that is philosophically significant..

I don't think it is at all morbid at all. It is a fascinating area of study. That feeling of uncertainty is actually a very precious quality. Many people go to sleep inside their sense of normality. Cultivate it carefully, and it can open many doors.

Mass is the visible incarnation of energy , if you look to closely the energy becomes invisible. It seems we can invent our own theories from our imagination and the imagined becomes valid. It appears to me very much like a game where reality is just our point of contact with an ethereal world, where dreams can come true. The more we look the more it changes, till we eventually realise its all an elaborate illusion.

The method of science has been a smashing success in advancing our understanding of and control over the material aspects of reality. The first problem comes I think in the assertion that the "material" is all there is to "reality". (materialism). The second problem comes in asserting that science is our only tool and will solve all the problems of human experience and existence (including aesthetics and values) (scientism). The third problem comes in adopting a mechanistic, deterministic, reductionist view of total reality and human experience (determinism). I think all three of these philosophical assumptions or speculations can be successfully challenged.

The interconnectivity of the universe has become a stumbling block of western scientific thinking since the dawn of the einsteinian age (if that is an age). Funnily enough the interconnectivity of the universe is a fundamental principle of eastern philosophy. Fritjof Capra does an excellent job of bringing the two ways of thinking together in his masterpiece 'Tao of the Physics' and showing the many areas of science that are now having to incorporate a holistic approach in 'Turning Point'. James Lovelock's idea of the world as a holistic ecosystem or 'Gaia' is particularly relevant today with global heating.

I believe one must assume that the universe is completely interconnected and any boundaries that we set are mere illusions.
. Electron entanglement is a facinating area that raises many questions.

The thing that concerns me slightly is if all matter is made of the same sub-atomic particles that do not pass any test of existence that we know, how can we possibly know the world is real (or even us)? We can use all the logical arguments in the world but even logical argument is sense perception, whether it is read, heard or spoken and as such is itself open to doubt. Following this "logically" it seems that any "proof" of existence can only be assumed. The only thing we can really hold on to is Descarte's statement of,"I think, therefore I am". The brilliant simplicity of the assumption that whatever we may doubt there has to be a doubter never fails to impress and, at times, reassure me. I actually believe the world exists because of continuity but, as in all things, I could be wrong.

We cannot "think" ourselves out of existence!! The doubt only comes when we try to get hold of anything not based in matter to prove it's existence and the fact that the building blocks of all matter seem so transcient that they virtually have no existence as we understand it.