I ask this question for two reasons. First, of course, to draw the contrast between directed action itself, as opposed to the more basic approach of careful observation, where one tries to minimize one's own inadvertent influences, so that one captures truly objective interactions that one might then begin to see patterns in, and significant possible relationships; isolating them so that the relationship can then be tested.
The second part, however, pertains to my concern that the physical sciences may be going too far. And they are doing that by directing ever greater, energetic particles into other, bigger particles, in order to extrapolate conclusions of the constituent parts.
Why they do this is, of course, quite logical. And it extends from a natural part of inquiry that's as basic as a geologist knocking a rock apart to see what's inside, to a molecular biologist mucking about with protein folding to better understand what makes some very important, and also very complex, proteins as complex as they are. But even in these examples one can also imagine folks going too far.
For instance: It might be quite illuminating, from the perspective of seeing mantle structure behave, with the most mammoth instrumentation big money could buy, set upon the surface, and drilled deep down as well, in a very wide circumference, around the detonation of (and let's not be stingy here), say, a hydrogen bomb equivalent to the Tsar (something like 50 megatons) weapon the Old Soviet Union fired off decades ago. That this is also quite invasive, and filled with possibilities for untold collateral damage, goes without saying. That being said, however, does it constitute the possibility that, by the mere fact of sentient choice, in creating this interaction event, we have introduced true, informational bias?
Because this interaction is taking place across scales of consideration, that don't go far from the instigation, or observation, the likelihood of any meaningful such bias is probably quite low. But if we change our focus of experimentation, to where we are able to cross scales of consideration to a much greater degree, with the corresponding energies required, what then? And to be clear, by scales of consideration I'm talking about the difference between gravitational reactions, electromagnetic reactions, chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and down into the increasingly deep sub atomic world, and the various new quanta; tricky bits that continue to show signs that they are but encapsulated interactions of smaller quanta still.
And to also be clear here, much of this may well be important, necessary stepping stones to understanding more. But my fear here is also twofold: One that first stems from the very basic philosophical viewpoint that bashing away at things, to understand them, is just not the right kind of spirit to take into inquiry; that it goes contrary to a respectful humility towards being alive in the first place, and able to have both curiosity, reflection, joy, meaning, as well as the ability to chose. And which, certainly, speaks a great deal about how one views the idea of connecting in a holistic, meaningly integrated way, in the first place.
It also, however, it seems to me, smacks of a complete disregard for complexity at the get go; especially as you give less and less thought of the increasing energies being applied. I can say this because one of the most basic tenets of complexity is that small inputs can have large effects. Such effects amplified by feedback systems, across linkage boundaries, we are still quite ignorant of. Everything is semi permeable after all. If we're blasting away at the very fabric of space and time, it's at least possible that it could end up ringing someone's, or something else's, figurative bell, and not at all in a beautifully resonant way. And the truly odd thing here is that a big part of the difference between natural occurrence creating very energetic interactions, if not all of it, may lay entirely in the fact that sentient choice was involved in making one happen, as opposed to the other.
The problem here is that we just haven't been doing enquiry in general long enough to allow ourselves to get too carried away in the rich results of one vein of consideration, as opposed to another. And It think, precisely because their equations are so elegant, and compelling, and the engineering of those accelerators, ever more clever and awe inspiring, that is precisely what is happening. At some point, it also seems to me, they themselves should be taking a step back and declaring that "we're moving too fast here." Because there are certainly a very large number of things cosmologists can continue doing by the tried and true method of observation. This means, however, that we've also got to get science off of the planet in a much bigger way than we have so far.
Which is simply another reason why I am so adamant for my support of a much more robust space program. If we had the automation infrastructure (I keep forgetting to mention one of the best depictions of what might be possible in the "Red Mars," "Blue Mars," and "Green Mars" series of books by Kim Stanley Robinson), I'd like to see started with Gateway City on the moon, we could begin an era of instrumented observation of the heavens only the science fiction writers have ever gotten close to describing.
In any case, though, it seems to me that a very important philosophical debate has been missing from science for some time now. Part of this comes from the fact that science, for the most part, has been far too silent on the role of Capitalism in corrupting it, as well as its silence on just how obsolete Capitalism is because of scientifically accelerated technological change. But it goes farther than that. That same change has altered the very nature of the instrumentality with which science itself works with. The scope then, of what science should be considering as the "whole" in holistic thinking, must change fundamentally as well. The same change in the boundaries of cause and effect that the confusing world of quantum mechanics describes, must be applied to their own reach of what it is they do when they bash about like that.
They'll take that criticism a good deal more seriously, of course if you start talking about it too.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment