| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Diogenes" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2005 03:37:29 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein's Reductive Revolution |
Einstein's Reductive Revolution
By Dr. Gerry Lower
Nov 11, 2005, 01:28
E=mc2 and the End of Old Testament Theology
If there is anything in the cultural world that can be seen as being
clearly evolutionary, it is the stepwise maturation of science, from
asking and answering ‘What’ questions (Socrates) to ‘How’ questions
(Newton) to ‘Why’ questions (Einstein).
The journey has been conceptual, from descriptive knowledge (in answer
to What questions) to mechanistic knowledge (in answer to How
questions) to systematic knowledge (in answer to Why questions ). The
journey has been axiomatic, from Inductive logic (reasoning upward) to
Deductive logic (reasoning downward) to Reductive logic (reasoning
within the whole). The journey has been exponential in time - from
nearly 2,000 years of What questions to 200 years of How questions to
100 years of Why questions (1).
In moving from Newton to Einstein, we move from asking and answering
‘How’ questions to asking and answering ‘Why’ questions. The failure
of American science to recognize this Socratic leap is a source of
significant and continuing western confusion about the answers to
these related questions (2). Do the answers to ‘How’ questions, for
example, adequately answer ‘Why’ questions? Does Old Testament
religion retain dominion over science in the realm of "Why?"
‘How’ something happens (or comes to be) speaks primarily to
mechanism, i.e., the temporal sequence of events comprising a process.
The answers to How questions speak primarily to horizontal processes
that comprise causation over individual or family life spans. The
answers to How questions do not fully speak to vertical processes that
transcend individual and family life spans. The answers to How
questions do not really deal with underlying origins and overarching
purposes in life.
The politically-correct notion that ‘What’ and ‘How’ questions belong
to science and ‘Why’ questions belong to religion has been
intellectually defunct for over a century. As an indication of their
interrelatedness, ‘What, How and Why’ questions are obviously
overlapping in their scope. When something happens, we can ask
questions like ‘What for?’ and ‘How come?’ - both of which are
stretches of the question that allude to a definable aspect of ‘Why’.
Knowing the horizontal ‘How’ of a situation does not and cannot speak
to the vertical ‘Why’ of our origins or of our purposes (as the two
complementary sides of ‘Why’). Our evolutionary origins are properly
the subject of the biological and cultural sciences. Our evolutionary
purposes happen to be on that side of ‘Why?’ that God leaves open to
each of us and to all of us. As individuals, we are our own ‘Why’ and
as citizens of the human community, we are collectively our own ‘Why’.
That is why it is worth our time and attention, in the interest of
getting our ‘Whys’ together.
It has oftentimes been less than obvious how to relate many of
Einstein's concepts to ordinary worldly phenomena as we have come to
understand them post-Newton(3). At the same time, it is experientially
obvious that Einstein's world view is a more realistic fit to the
world we actually live in than is Newton's world view.
Simply stand on one of the steps in a staircase and inch yourself to
the edge until you drop off. Now, did you feel that Newtonian "force"
pushing down on top of your head? No, of course not. You just felt
yourself accelerating in a gravitational field. Then, you felt
yourself instantly decelerating when you hit the next step down.
Newton's view of the physical world, in addressing the answers to How
questions, was a good approximation of the real world. Einstein's view
of the physical world is even better because it better fits reality
and it does not require the involvement of external gods or external
forces to make the world run properly. The world runs itself,
naturally. It is our job to get with the natural program.
Creativity emerges in both analog and digital approaches to thought.
The "derivation of E=mc2 was wholly mathematical(3)." In this
instance, high school algebra exposed new relationships between energy
and mass that could be confirmed in the world with more refined
empirical observations.
But the birth of relativity theory was, overall, not mathematical but
conceptual, and it was driven by an awareness of the limitations of
Newtonian mechanics, an awareness (since Libniz) that the world was
more unified and interconnected than Newton had been able to see it.
It was also driven by Einstein himself in holding views that already
made more sense to him than did existing views.
Aside from the humble mathematics required to arrive at E=mc2, a
thorough understanding of relativity theory "requires a mental image -
an analogy or a story - that may sacrifice some precision but captures
the essence of the result (3)." This is simply to restate a core truth
of all of science, that science is firstly conceptual.
Creative thought in science is largely conceptual. It involves seeing
the same things others see but "seeing" them in a better light, not
necessarily the light from text books, but the light that is found
within larger viewpoints. Conceptual frameworks establish the mind's
spatial and temporal embrace and larger frameworks provide for a
broader and deeper comprehension.
Einstein's real genius, in this sense, began with an honest faith in
thinking for himself and his ability to "see" (as a "mental image")
with his "mind's eye". You hop on a light beam speeding away from a
clock and, for you, time stops because the light from the changing
clock will never reach you traveling at the speed of light.
Einstein and his generation of scientists actually did much more than
establish the path to a systematic theory embracing the physical
world. They established an entirely new approach to thought itself, an
approach that is both analytic (taking things apart materially) and
synthetic (putting things back together conceptually). That would
define the complementary nature of reductive thought.
Physical phenomena were reduced down to a mathematical embrace of the
physical information defining the phenomenon in question. Heat was
reduced to a matter of statistical mechanics, sub-atomic matter was
reduced to a matter of quantum mechanics and wave mechanics (with Bohr
pointing out that these descriptions were two sides of the same
thing). Mass and energy were likewise seen as two sides of the same
thing, i.e., matter, the stuff of everything (which is why it
matters).
Einstein even proposed a "Unified Field Theory" that might embrace the
physical world as a whole. While physics continues to affirm and
enhance its embrace of relativity theory, the notion of a field
equation embracing all of the physical world has remained necessarily
elusive. That would be because the physical world cannot be
legitimately removed from the rest of the world.
In further entertaining this unifying notion, one must take into
consideration that the physical world is not only dynamic but
evolutionary, on its own recognizance and on behalf of the whole. The
physical world not only provides our energy supply, it is intimately
related to the living biological world. It is from whence the
biological world emerged and that, in turn, is from whence the
cultural world emerged.
It goes without saying that the subatomic, electromagnetic and
gravitational "forces" which Einstein hoped to unify in field theory
play as much role in the biological and cultural worlds as they do in
maintaining the integrity of the physical world. We ought, as a
people, be giving credit where credit is due, e.g., to the creative
bonding capacities of carbon, to the marvelous good that can come from
honest ideas, e.g., "human rights, freedom and fairness."
Astrophysical and geophysical evolution can be taken for granted,
because they do not much threaten religion's non-treatment of these
core subjects. We are able to comprehend the evolution of stars and
galaxies. We are able to comprehend the evolution of the Grand Canyon
and the Swiss Alps.
But, the physical sciences tend to deal with the physical world as if
it were separate and apart from the biological and cultural worlds, as
if one could define the one without reference to the others. That is
where natural philosophy, which is as real as physics is real (and
within which physics is a subset), comes properly back into the human
program.
The physical world is intimately connected to the biological world. It
provided the raw materials and energy for pre-biological evolution and
the emergence of biological molecules. The biological world is, in
turn, intimately connected to the cultural world. It provided the
biological basis for mind which, in turn, provides language and music
and literature and math ... and F=ma and E=mc2. Reductive thought
looks at life as a whole.
The new ways of thought introduced by Newton did not, of course,
remain stuck in physics. It took almost a century before Newton's
deductive approaches worked their way into biology and medicine.
Henle, Koch and Pasteur developed deductive criteria of causation
that, if verified empirically, allowed deduction of the causes of
infectious diseases. In postmodern terms, they actually reduced our
comprehension of infectious disease causation to an understanding at
the cellular level of organization.
The new ways of thought introduced by Einstein did not remain stuck in
physics either. It took almost a century before Einstein's reductive
approaches worked their way into biology and medicine. Molecular
biology, molecular epidemiology and molecular genetics have since
reduced our comprehension of neoplastic disease causation to an
understanding at the molecular level of organization, specifically
mutational perturbations of genomic information encoded in DNA (4).
We have, since Jefferson's natural philosophy, reduced our
understanding of cultural conflict to the informational level of
organization, in terms of perturbations encoded in cultural belief
systems, the ancient cultural "isms," all of which, east and west,
take an absolutist, authoritarian position apart from the values of
science and democracy.
When our understandings embrace cultural causation, e.g., the
self-righteousness and belligerence inherent in Roman religion when
empowered by the state, we are finally in a position to take remedial
action. That would be why Jefferson separated church and state in the
first place, i.e., to keep religion free and out of knowledgeable
government by the people.
In other words, if we reduce all of Life down to anything, it will not
be down to math and physics that we reduce it. A working knowledge of
quantum and wave mechanics is not required for a knowledgeable and
meaningful life. A conceptual grasp of quantum and wave mechanics,
however, is most helpful in order to better appreciate the oneness and
interconnectedness of Life.
If Life is reduced down to anything, one might think it better reduced
down to biology, as "the study of life." Again, this formulation
leaves out the conceptual and cultural evolution that predominates in
the human world. It leaves out Socrates, Newton and Einstein, and that
would be to imply that we are all body and no mind.
Because all branches of science are conceptual at their creative core,
they all contribute to the same conceptual one-world. It is,
therefore, more accurate to say that Life ought be reduced down to
natural philosophy, defined by conceptual frameworks that embrace Life
as a unified, hierarchical, evolutionary whole ... with "the people"
and human knowledge at the top.
That is how literally staggering are the proportions of Einstein's
reductive revolution in thought, that we can take Life apart (at all
levels of organization) and put it all back together again
(conceptually) to embrace Life's oneness and interconnectedness. In
doing so, we learn that Life runs itself without external assistance,
supernatural or otherwise. We learn that we ought get with the human
program by taking responsibility for our actions on earth as opposed
to blaming the results of our actions on supernatural fabrications.
It has long been obvious that science knows no race and no nation,
that its knowledge is purely human, that it creatively embraces those
who embrace it conceptually. It provides a world view that is
necessarily true for all people, independent of western and eastern
cultural "isms" which, at their extremes, discourage comprehension by
the many in the name of overt and covert control by the few (5).
Post-Einstein natural philosophy provides the scientific basis for a
human physical, biological and cultural one-world.
For nearly two millennia, Old Testament Roman religion has justified
westward expansionism in the form of imperialism, colonialism and
capitalism. For nearly two millennia, this overtly inconsistent world
view, embracing both Old Testament (vengeful) and New Testament
(compassionate) moralities, was seldom translated into Christian
ethics. Rather, it applauded the Christian ethics that it did not
exemplify in action, and it relied on Old Testament vengeance and
self-righteousness to promote its own expansionary agenda, in the name
of Christian ethics (6).
The resulting socioeconomic unification (tribal to national to global
organization) is one of the underlying evolutionary purposes of
fundamentalist Roman religion in justifying the greed-driven state
(7). That would be why Jefferson hoped to separate church and state,
i.e., so that the people would not be compromised by religious
fundamentalism.
Today, even the Vatican recognizes that "religion risks turning into
fundamentalism if it ignores scientific reason" (8). American
fundamentalists supporting the Bush administration do not even know
that much, simply because they are fundamentalists who already presume
to possess adequate knowledge (while they are possessed by inadequate
knowledge).
Natural philosophy provides a world view that does not separate the
people from nature, but makes them an integral part of nature. It
provides a world view that does not separate us from each other but
makes us citizens of the global community. It provides a world view
that does not separate us from God, but puts God on the inside of all
things in setting them free. It sees God as the core creative
principle driving physical and biological evolution (genomic
information). It puts God on the inside of the people, as the core
creative principle driving conceptual and cultural evolution
(ideologic information).
Natural philosophy relates God to the creative potential built right
into physical, biological and cultural information. At the cultural
level of organization, God has no influence on earth except through
human thought and word and action. In that regard, one cannot think
and speak on the whole without entering the realm of theology, as did
Einstein and his generation of physicists.
If one were to point to a few western thinkers who simply excelled at
knowing themselves and knowing their relationships to God, among them
would be Jesus (for honesty and compassion in thought), Spinoza (for
making God thoughtful and human), Jefferson (for providing a human
rights-based path to God) and Einstein (for bringing natural theology
into science and the human knowledge base).
Jacob Bronowski has perhaps described Einstein's relationships with
God better than anyone. "Sometimes Einstein treated God as if God were
his uncle, and sometimes Einstein treated God as if he were God's
uncle." That is precisely the nature of the relationship God needs to
have with with all people in order to know that they are alive and
well. Call it "Getting to know oneself," "keeping in touch."
Get thee to know thyselves, good people, individually and
collectively. You are an integral and purposeful part of the
information-driven, evolutionary whole. You are an integral and
purposeful part of Life's cognitive and decision-making apparatus.
Without you, the world goes nowhere. Without the world, you go nowhere
.... simple as that. Make your relationships with life honest and
intimate, meaningful and life-long.
The capabilities of a knowledgeable and caring humankind living in a
human one world are almost beyond current imagination. Consider a
highly-networked human population in real-time audio-visual
communication, a global democracy, a direct democracy, a world of
friends, an earth garden and world peace.
There are no limitations on who we need be in order to make the earth
our heaven and our home. We need only be honest with each other and
caring for each other and the earth. Nothing transcends the knowledge
from that human source ... nothing.
Readings
1) Systematic Evolution and Life on the Whole, Axis of Logic, January
5, 2005.
2) Leonard Rosen, Science vs. design: no debate, The Globe, September
23, 2005.
3) Brian Greene, That Famous Equation and You - E=mc2, NYTimes,
September 30, 2005.
4) Capitalism, Cancer and Intellectual Corruption, Axis of Logic,
October, 2004.
5) Science and the Fundamentalist "Isms," Jefferson's Eyes,
www.jeffersonseyes.com, 2003.
6) "Conspiracy Theories" and Cultural Imperatives, Axis of Logic, July
27, 2005.
7) The Evolutionary ‘Why’ of Religious Capitalism, AxisofLogic, July,
2005.
8) Nicole Winfield, Vatican: Faithful should listen to science, AP,
November 3, 2005.
Dr. Gerry Lower lives in Eugene, Oregon. His website is at
www.jeffersonseyes.com and he can be reached at
tisland@blackhills.com.
--
Diogenes
Diogenes, when asked from what country he came, replied, "I am a
citizen of the world"
"I am called a dog because I fawn on those who give me anything, I
yelp at those who refuse, and I set my teeth in rascals"
begin 666 Robert C. MacGregor.vcf
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)1#I60T%21 T*
`
end
.
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?77uh0LZp0K/XpCDQryDCqcKuQM+B?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Reductive Grik Revolution |
25 Nov 2005 11:14:28 AM |
|
|
Diogenes wrote:
Einstein's Reductive Revolution
By Dr. >
Readings
"I am called a dog because I fawn on those who give me anything, I
yelp at those who refuse, set my teeth in rascals and I post oodles of shite in grik newsgroups all day long"
begin 666 Robert C. MacGregor.vcf
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Reductive Revolution |
26 Nov 2005 08:55:38 AM |
|
|
Very interesting. Thank you. Indeed the realm of theology cannot be
ignored, that is if there is a relationship which transcends relativity
and a corresponding moral reletavism, and this is where even Einstein
is overcome, by Bell's theorem and the Aspect Experiment. There is one
undifferentiated integral whole of which we, our very being are, or
ought to be, integral parts, as properly and appropriately functioning
causal free will agents, and active historical participants by
neccessity - by the neccessity of choice, an a final attachment to an
outcome which is unavoidable, and which is itself neccessitated by
choice, where even a failure to choose is itself a choice. There is
therefore no denying an arrow of progress. The question then become, by
what standard of truth and justice? Of this the true genious of Jesus
and the New Testement interpretation has much to say, and if it means
anything, then by God it means everything, and if it means everything,
then the implications of it, philosophically, morally, and even
metaphysically are simply astounding, when viewed from the larger
perspective of the nature and destiny of man.
Further inquiry might involve the reading of,
"The Nature and Destiny of Man"
by Reinhold Niebuhr
It is as applicable now in the post apocalyptic, post 911, post modern
world, as it was then, post WWII.
And if the world is running headlong towards some as yet indeterminate
eschaton of some kind, and soon, then it is HIGHLY revevant to todays
"end of time and history" quantum-like emerging worldview.
Context and framing is everything. There is no relationship absent
communication, and the meaning of communication, is the response
evoked.
If you've ever ran headlong into the space of nothingness, or the
absurdity of the inherent meaningless of life, in the midst of
unfathonable and even disconcerting absolute uncertainty, then first
off - congratulations! and secondly, know that nothing else makes ANY
rational sense except compassion and love as the will to give of self
for the sake of another's spiritual (and therefore psychological) well
being. At the end of self, relative to the other, we transend our own
history, and passover in attempting to discern who we really are, from
the perspective of the other man - ANY OTHER, which would have to
include Jesus Christ himself, even as a man and as a fully human being
(setting aside all other considerations for the time being). This is
new, and it is NOT what may be considered mere "Chuchianity" and it is
well worth an inquiry, as an inquiry into the meaning and purpose of
life, including one's own, relative to the whole of it, which may very
well be nothing but a timeless, spaceless, and even laugable absurdity.
In the final analysis, the great cosmic joke, or the "truth that will
set us free" is that there is nothing and can be nothing whatsoever to
fear, and therefore we, our truest selves get the last laugh at the
devils expence, when we realize that we ourselves were our own worst
enemy! For every problem there is a solution, or there is no problem.
There is nothing which is relative, to a "not".
What it is mon. Ire!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
