|
A. The Genesis of Science
1. The genesis of science may be traced to the recognition that events in the phenomenal world occur, not at random, or by the whim of some unseen
powers, but in accordance with well-defined laws and principles, which can be grasped by the human mind. To use the ancient Greek terminology, ours is not a chaos, but a cosmos. Or, in Sanskritic terminology, there
is Rta or cosmic order undergirding the universe, for patterns and principles seem to be reigning here. Such a view is suggested especially by observations of the heavens: be it the punctual rising and setting of
the sun, the periodic phase changes of the moon, or the configurations and sequential position-changes of constellations.
2. But here in the arena of terrestrial experience, things seemed to be different. Not just in the erratic flights of birds and beasts and the fickle
nature of the human mind. Rolling stones, the flow of rivers, volcanic eruptions, and practically every change and motion on earth seemed to be more random than reasoned. So, according to a view propagated by
Aristotle and his school, which was popular for almost two millennia, ‘here below’ was much different from ‘up above’.
3. It thus took many more centuries before it was realised that that is not quite how the world behaves. With the rise of modern science in the
seventeenth century, it became gradually clear that the laws governing the phenomenal world are the same everywhere, here on earth as in the sky on high. Stars and planets are subjected to the same constraints and
possibilities of physics and chemistry as cloud and stone, man and machine too.
4. And there was more. It was discovered that myriad facets of the behaviour and evolution of the physical world could be described in precise and
quantitative terms. No less significantly, such mathematical formulations of carefully observed and logically analysed phenomena on our scale endow the human mind with an extraordinary power: the power to predict.
The ancients could accomplish this only for celestial phenomena, for it was primarily only in that context that anything by way of quantitative formulations of general principles had been made. But with the rise of
modern science (physics, in particular), prediction of many terrestrial occurrences (first about matter in motion, then in electromagnetic phenomena) became a routine exercise.
B. Directly and Indirectly Perceived Reality
1. Let us refer to the totality of phenomena that the human body experiences and the human mind considers in the course of the normal activities and
interactions as Directly Perceived Reality (DPR). It will be useful to recognise that DPR has several levels, and that recognition of these levels enables us to understand better some of the conflicts and confusions in discussions on science and other domains of the human experience.
2. First, there is the immediate level of everyday experiences. Let us refer to this as the zero level (L-0). L-0 results from crudely physical and conceptually common-sense impressions. But it has also a deeper level of organised information and systematic knowledge (L-1) which consists of the laws and
principles giving rise to DPR at the L-0.
3. Perhaps the greatest insight and achievement of classical physics was to show that at least the physical aspects of DPR are consequences of experimentally tractable and mathematically formulable laws. Furthermore, these laws can be unravelled by the human mind by very careful, detailed, and ingeniously contrived experiments and instruments, and by the elaboration of precisely-defined and powerful concepts or constructs in terms of which the data of observation can be described. Finally, for an understanding and explanation of the physical world we need to go beyond directly perceived reality and appeal to elements that would constitute a whole world of Indirectly Perceived Reality (IPR).
C. The Microcosm: Level 2 (L-2)
1. Now let us consider the microcosm. This is a level of reality that is far beyond our immediate perceptual cognition. These form the bulk of IPR. Yet, a myriad facets of the microcosm
have been discovered and interpreted by twentieth century physics. We have come to realise that the molecular and atomic, the nuclear and subnuclear worlds are populated largely by entities that are, in principle,
properties, and structure, very different from the meso-and macro-cosmic entities we see and feel all around us and observe in the celestial world. In a way, this is another kind of Aristotelian physics: here, the
dichotomy is not between the celestial (lunar) and the terrestrial (sublunar) world, but between the so-called classical and quantum worlds. We may note in passing that the entities in the microcosm have two
important properties:
- they behave as waves and as particles, for which reason they may be called corporundals;
- they invariably carry momentum and energy, for which reason they may also be described as momenergies,
2. The fundamental physics of the twentieth century has not only investigated, analysed, and exploited the physics of the microcosm, but it has gained
many new insights into the nature of ultimate reality from its understanding of microcosmic phenomena. Microcosmic phenomena are also, like the meso- and the macro-cosmic ones, governed by mathematically formulable
laws and principles. But more importantly, the interesting insight of twentieth century physics in this context is that some of these laws are different in a very significant way: the evolution of microcosmic
entities are only statistically (probabilistically) predictable. Probabilistic evolution is intrinsic to microcosmic or quantum systems.
3. As is well known, this basic differences between the quantum and the classical world became (and continues to be) a matter of great philosophical
interest. The historic debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr on this question did not resolve the issue. Till the end, Einstein stuck to the view that eventually quantum entities should also be brought back
to the same realm as classical physics where absolute and (in principle) precisely calculable determinism (predictability) reigns. Bohr and most mainstream physicists disagreed and went on to build superstructures
of fundamental physics on the indeterministic (also known as the Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum physics.
4. The significance of quantum mechanical indeterminism lies in this: that there are levels of reality in which different kinds of laws operate. From
this point of view, just as we described the classical world as constituting L-1 Reality, we may regard the microcosm as L-2 Reality (L-2) * . By calling this another level of reality we are emphasising the fact that, not withstanding some similarities, there are fundamental differences between the
laws governing the two realms of experience: classical and quantum.
5. This point of view makes us realise that in the course of our lives we become aware of and interact with the world on several different planes.
Moreover, this also turns out to be a fruitful point of view in that it will not only enable us to consider other levels of reality, but also, in so doing, offer some solution to some of the age-old controversies
relating to the interpretation of the world of experience.
D. Complexity: Level 3 (L-3)
1. Next we define a level of complex reality (L-3 Reality), which consists of systems in which chaos comes into play. In this context, we loosely define chaos as a small causative factor, which leads to very significant unpredictable consequences. Examples of entities in this level of reality are clouds and biological systems. For example, a single hit by a cosmic ray particle on a gene may lead to mutations of enormous long-range significance which can in no way be predicted, even in principle. A giant meteoric (or asteroid) impact on earth could dramatically alter the course of biological evolution.
2. It must be recognised that though, to all appearances, L-3 Reality is not its ultimate nature, L-3 is very different from the other two. A rose is very different from a rock, not just in appearance and fragrance, but intrinsically too. One important feature of L-3 Reality is evolutionary change: that is to say, change which affects some of the basic characteristics of the elements in that Reality. Equally importantly, these changes are totally unpredictable. They cannot be predicted even in a statistical way, as is possible with microcosmic entities.
3. Another important feature of L-3 Reality is that no two elements in it are identical. In Levels 1 and 2, it is possible to have absolutely identical entities, be they marbles or automobiles. It may be recalled here that in classical physics (L-1) we have the principle of
distinguishability (the so-called Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics). What is meant here is that though many entities may appear to be identical, they can be distinguished from one another by some sort of tagging, as
with billiard balls or sand particles. In quantum physics (L-2), on the other hand, we have the principle of indistinguishability (Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics): it is impossible to tell one electron from another, or
one photon from another (of the same frequency).
4. However, in L-3, it is impossible to have intrinsically indistinguishable entities. This, more than anything else, may be the ultimate difference between animate and inanimate
entities. We may refer to this as the principle of individuality. No two elephants or insects, even microbes or ameba, are identical. Even cloned creatures, soon after they become independent entities, become
different in slight or significant ways. The principle of individuality arises from two factors: complexity of structure and the chaos principle in the formation. In the very genesis of any element in L-3, such as a biological organism, both
these factors come into play.
D. Hypercomplex Level (L-4)
1. Finally, we define a hypercomplex Level of Reality (L-4) in which mind and meaning come into play. The elements in L-4 are intangible entities. They range from simple concepts to complex thoughts, including poetic imagination, values, and meaning. These elements become very real in the human experience (for the brain). They are real in the same way as anything else that one experiences and believes to be real. They are very much part of our world of experience.
2. Entities in L-4 differ from elements in other levels in two important respects: First, the world of Reality in L-4 is not as universally shared as the other levels. True, there are some common elements among groups, but by and large they are very personal: i.e. affiliated to particular individuals. This brings us to the second difference: L-4 Reality seems to be engendered in the human brain. Thus, from the traditional realist point of view, they lack the kind of objectivity that the other two levels possess. However, a little reflection will show that objectivity is no more than collective subjectivity. Reality such as it appears (to us humans) is common only to those creatures, which are endowed with the normal human cerebral complex. It is the shared commonality resulting from similar cerebral biochemistry that we refer to as objective reality. No matter how we try, we can never make a whale or a robin view the world the way we do, nor can we ever recognise (or even conceptualise) Reality as perceived by a whale or a robin. Furthermore, values and religious beliefs are, for most normal people, far more real than protons and electrons, elliptical orbits and Hamiltonians.
3. In L-4, the chaos factor (unpredictability from initial conditions) becomes even more dramatic. There is absolutely no way in which one can determine how a chance factor
will affect the course of events in L-4. For example, one may think of any chance occurrence in one’s life and trace its long range consequences to verify the significance of this statement.
4. It is in the domain of L-4 that we function as members of an evolved society. Though we are subject to the laws and forces that govern reality at the first three levels, a number of important aspects of our lives, such as actions, decisions, values, belief-systems, etc., belong to L-4. It is here that ethical systems arise.
The recognition of this fact is important in that it enables us to see why certain aspects of life’s experiences cannot be subject to the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. L-4 is the world of what may be called trans-rational reality.
5. There are serious and systematic attempts to discover connections between elements of L-4 reality and the physico-chemical (neural) bases of cerebral activity (L-1 and L-2). The recognition of L-4 as a separate world of reality does not imply the absence of those connections. But just as the discovery of the microcosm ushered in dimensions beyond the classical framework, a view of L-4 as a separate realm could alert us that more than the usual laws of physics and chemistry (classical and quantum) may be required for a fuller understanding of this level of reality.
6. This point of view also explains the paradoxical fact that many so-called "rational" people (which include a great many hard-core
scientists) have no problem in entertaining belief-systems that to fellow rationalists and scientists may seem to be irrational or unscientific.
E. Formulation of Relative Weights
All these results may be formulated à la Heisenberg by introducing three symbols: G (predictable goal factor: L-1), Q (quantum world factor: L-2) and C (chaos factor: L-3 ), and H (Hypercomplex level: L-4), and writing symbolically:
GQ + GC + QC = k (a constant) (1)
H(G + Q) = C2 (2)
(1) indicates the levels of reality arising from the relative importance that each of the factors takes. Thus, at the classical (everyday and
astronomical) level,
Q = 0, C = 0, therefore G = infinity.
This means that the evolution of a phenomenon (like the next appearance of Halley’s comet or the path of a missile) can be fully predicted by knowing
the laws and the initial conditions. At the quantum level, C = 0, Q is very large. Therefore GQ = k. This gives a small value for G. At the level of complexity, Q = 0, but C is large. Therefore GC = k makes G quite
small.
(2) tells us that at the hypercomplex level where G and Q become negligible, and C dominates, H is very large. From all of this we may conclude that
just as one has to distinguish between the quantum and the classical levels when interpreting phenomena (like the photo-electric effect, for example), one must suspend the rational-scientific mode in the context of
transrational experiences.
F. Freewill and Determinism
Viewed from this perspective, the debate about freewill and determinism relates to two questions:
(a) Can C (the chaos factor) be tracked by physics and chemistry?
If we accept the notion of levels of reality the answer is "No", because otherwise C can be subsumed under G. Since it is well established
that Q cannot be tracked down even by the most sophisticated instruments (Heisenberg microscope), there is nothing ‘unscientific’ or ‘limiting’ in supposing (if not concluding) that C too cannot be tracked down
experimentally or conceptually, just as one cannot predict why one rather than another nucleus in a radioactive sample will decay in the next minute.
(b) Is C is intrinsic or extrinsic to the system?
Interestingly enough, making C intrinsic (which is what a classically minded physicist may be inclined to say) makes freewill a consequence of brain
function (which is what such a person would tend to deny). On the other hand, given the consequences of significance to the system, making C extrinsic to the system may persuade one to accept or at least consider
the possibility of a teleological causative agent for C.
What all this shows is that if we do not recognise different levels of reality we are likely to be confronted with paradoxical results.
Concluding Remarks
As human beings we interact with the world in a variety of ways. In particular, there are four different planes of interaction. These are:
- The physical plane: When we consume food and drink, we are interacting with the world on the physical plane.
- The intellectual plane: Here thinking and reasoning are the dominant modes. Logic and analysis take over. We try to prove and convince. The prime
example of this is when we practise and apply the methods of science.
- The emotional plane. This happens especially in our dealings with fellow humans and creatures. Here feelings predominate. Our capacities for
kindness and love, caring and compassion are brought into play here, as well as aesthetic and joyful experiences.
- The spiritual level in which we experience awe and reverence at the majesty of the universe, and recognise our uniqueness as conscious entities in
a vast universe; we seek and sometimes actualise our communion with the Cosmos, beyond logical analysis and particular preferences. Examples of this include prayer and mystical experiences.
Needless to say, we cannot compartmentalise these planes. Indeed, they often tend to overlap. Levels of reality are somewhat like the levels of
interaction with the world.
top
|
