'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design

UC Berkeley News ^ | 06/17/2005 | Bonnie Azab Powell,

[betty boop]

But why the caps? Do they make the organism a necessary being?

LOL consider them nervous tics if you like! One does not confer necessary being on anything by capitalizing its name. :^)

[betty boop]

When you jump from complementariness to the being of a living universe....

To me, the complementaries refer to the knowability of the universe, not the "beingness" of the universe. It seems to me the complementaries are dualistic in that they are seemingly "mutually-opposed" to one another; but they are not the "thesis" and "antithesis" terms that sum up as a totally abstract "synthesis," and so aren't dialectical in their form or relations. And if they sum up to anything at all, it would not be to any kind of abstract being, but only a (hopefully) truthful description of reality, not reality itself.

I confess to being a little nervous that you would find me doing metaphysics here WRT the principle of complementarity, when all I think I'm doing is epistemology....

Jeepers!!! I wasn't aware that I'd invited Hegel to this party -- did you really see him? Yikes!!!!!!!! LOL!

Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!

[hosepipe]

[.. To me, the complementaries refer to the knowability of the universe, not the "beingness" of the universe. It seems to me the complementaries are dualistic in that they are seemingly "mutually-opposed" to one another; but they are not the "thesis" and "antithesis" terms that sum up as a totally abstract "synthesis," and so aren't dialectical in their form or relations. And if they sum up to anything at all, it would not be to any kind of abstract being, but only a (hopefully) truthful description of reality, not reality itself. ..]

Bohr with his complementary logic is a bull in many China Shops.. Thank God.. All them idols "needed" "re-arraigning" anyway.. When logic comes to a "Y" in the road going one direction is what science does well.. following BOTH directions is what is intended.. according to Bohr.. Does this mean "scientists" are generally lazy?...

[betty boop]

...following BOTH directions is what is intended.. according to Bohr.. Does this mean "scientists" are generally lazy?....

I don't think Bohr is saying that scientists are supposed to follow both roads for the simple reason that their methods and tools are suitable to only one of the roads -- natural science -- and not to the other road -- philosophy. Therefore, it is the job of scientists to make descriptions of what they can observe, not to tell us what the "nature" or "how" of Reality is, let alone the "why." In short, it seems he would like to see science purify itself of all philosophical tendencies....

Which really, is a very hard thing to do. As Alamo-Girl has pointed out, everytime a scientist puts a quantity into a mathematical formula, he is already dealing with universals -- which is the province of philosophy, not science. The physical laws themselves are said to be universals. And anytime a scientist tells you he is looking for a "grand unified theory" or a "theory of everything," he is hopelessly enmeshed in philosophical (metaphysical) presuppositions. For the idea of "unity" is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one, strictly speaking.

Many people regard Bohr as being a pretty obscure thinker. So who's to say "my" interpretation is the correct one?

Thank you so much for writing, dearest 'pipe!

[cornelis]

OK, on the epistemology part, we have the observer problem opening up into three different problems.

(a) observation yields limited knowledge, such that what we know is but knowledge in part. This is obvious. If our knowledge were exhaustive, we would no longer discover anything. But it is easily forgotten. If the observer problem has a problem it is that we often take what have discovered to hold for what we haven't discovered, or don't care to know, often by applying principles in one area of thought to stop the gaps elsewhere. All the -isms suffer from this, logicism, marxism, legalism, scientism.

(b) observation cannot fix the subject of study, such that "the act of observation itself disturbs the observed object, and thus changes the total system."

(c) observation results in concepts abstracted from existence, such that further theoretical speculation yields conclusions that may not hold true for the thing in the real. Thought is a world of its own. The $100 in my mind, for all its worth, is not a $100 in my pocket. A useful theory, as Ortega puts it, must "mate happily with reality" to become knowledge.

[betty boop]

A useful theory, as Ortega puts it, must "mate happily with reality" to become knowledge.

Ortega puts the problem very well indeed.

I'm not entirely sure what you intend by the word "fix" in (b). But it does seem clear to me that the observer can be seen "disturbing" and thus modifying that which he observes. Consider the case of a cultural anthropologist, for instance, who travels to a tribe of primitive people for the purpose of studying it. His very presence as a complete "outsider" of obviously different culture than their own disturbs the behavior of the people he's come to study. Or what of the claim by a literary analyst, that such-and-such book will have wide appeal among a variety of different readers, for each will find in it perspectives congenial to his own outlook.

More to cover but I must stop now: Dinner is served! And I'm hungry!!! I hope to be back later.

Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!

[cornelis]

I'm not entirely sure what you intend by the word "fix" in (b).

I meant no more than the citation (in your words) afterward explains.

Here's a tidbit from Gilson in Being and Some Philosophers.

The world of Aristotle is there whole, in so far as reality is substance. It is the world of science, eternal, self-subsistent and such that no problem concerning existence needs nor can be asked about it. It is one and the same thing for a man in it to be "man," to be "one" and "to be." But while keeping whole the world of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas realizes that such a world cannot possibly be "metaphysical." Quite the reverse, it is the straight "physical" world of natural science, in which "natures" necessarily entail their own existence . . . physics is that very order of substantial reality in which existence is taken for granted. As soon as existence no longer is taken for granted, metaphysics beings. In other words, Thomas Aquinas is here moving the whole body of metaphysics to an entirely new ground. In the philosophy of Aristotle, physics was in charge of dealing with all "natures," that is, with those beings that have in themselves the principle of their own change and of their own operations . . .

But tell me, how could you be talking metaphysics when it concerned the the natural world?

[cornelis]

As soon as existence no longer is taken for granted, metaphysics begins.

[betty boop]

But tell me, how could you be talking metaphysics when it concerned the the natural world?

Because there's more to "the natural world" than physics, cornelis. Plus even the physicists and biologists can't seem to avoid doing it. As a case in point, much of modern day science is firmly premised in the philosophical doctrine of materialism. I've recently mentioned other examples hereabouts.

I mean, human beings are a part of nature; they are thus "natural." They also seemingly happen to be more than the sum total of the cells and molecules and the astronomical number atoms and sub-atomic particles and atomic quantum states that compose their bodies. It's not even possible to make a "full description" of a living organism or a human being based on the methods of present-day physics: Who knows, for example, how to gather and collate information about a virtually astronomical number of quantum states, affected by quantum events continuously triggered from "outside" the organism, which would also need to be quantified, which would be necessary for a full description of a living organism in physical terms?

The biologists have basically taken the position that life must be taken as an irreducible, foundational "given," and then just go on from there, happy as clams. To ask 'what life is?' is a foolish question from the standpoint of methodological naturalism: You do not have to know the answer to this question to do first-rate science. Similarly physicists take the quantum of action as irreducible to anything that could be further detected by science. Life and the action principle are both taken axiomatically.

I am fascinated by, and honor, the findings of state-of-the-art theoretical developments in the sciences. But to the extent that there's "more to man (and the world and society) than mere matter," neither physics nor biology has the complete answer to the questions that matter most to most thinking human beings -- and they are likely unable to produce one, on sheer methodological grounds.

So I admit I do see philosophy as fully "complementary" with the natural sciences. You don't get to do both at the same time, and possibly no one person can effectively do both equally well anyway; but you do need them both to make a "full description of the system" that includes living beings and especially man. :^)

Thank you so much for Gilson's statement RE: Aristotle's attitude toward his own philosophizing -- "In the philosophy of Aristotle, physics was in charge of dealing with all 'natures,' that is, with those beings that have in themselves the principle of their own change and of their own operations." Obviously, this attitude is founded on the premise that "nature" (or "natures") is to be defined as what bears within itself the principles of its own change and operations. Living beings, however, are finite and contingent; so it appears they cannot wholly be responsible for their dispositions themselves; they do not completely reduce to the expectation of the physicial sciences that once you know the initial conditions, then the laws of physics do all the rest.

Rather than the term "metaphysics" (incorrectly credited to Aristotle), I'd really prefer to use the more generic term, "philosophy" instead. Metaphysics has become identified with particular schools and doctrines; philosophy (as practiced by Plato and Aristotle) gives us a chance to return to "realist" models of exploring and understanding reality.

It seems the fundamental prejudice of a certain contemporary scientific attitude that no causes of things can arise outside the familiar four-dimensional space that we normally experience. And yet curiously I note that no "universal" seemingly can arise there either -- at least if you believe in the law of cause-and-effect as the lawful result of the actions of real bodies in close proximity on each other. Universals do not appear to be the products of four-dimensional spacetime "nature", but somehow as "ulterior" to it; but that nature appears to depend on and be governed by them. The physical laws of science themselves are universals.

Thank you so much for writing cornelis. Truly I value your comments. Obviously, I am still struggling to put my ideas into cogent order here, and to find adequate language to express them clearly.... It's good to have a highly well-qualified interlocutor.

[hosepipe]

[.. Obviously, I am still struggling to put my ideas into cogent order here, and to find adequate language to express them clearly...]

Is it possible there are "no words" to adequately "explain the whole system"?..
Meaning mere language is insufficient to describe the physical and metaphysical reality..
If so, we humans are/may be in a maze.. we cannot fully understand.. to describe..

How intelligent would be the rat that made a nest in a Cul D'Sac instead of running the maze?....

[betty boop]

Is it possible there are "no words" to adequately "explain the whole system"?

Yep, I think that is possible, dear 'pipe! But we humans have to do the best we can.

Don't forget, God reveals Himself to us through His creation also, and evidently wants us to understand it to the best of our ability, as aided by His Spirit.

I hope this doesn't sound too "anthropocentrist," not to mention heretical; but it seems clear to me this whole show was put on for our benefit in the first place. It behooves us to appreciate the divine Gift by contemplating it and its meaning....

Thanks so much for writing, my very dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

Dear brother 'pipe, I hope you won't mind if I append a further reflection re: my last before you've even had a chance to respond.

To me it seems the ULTIMATE complementarity is expressed in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who is simultaneously (and eternally) fully human and fully divine. This tells us (among other things) that God the Father dignifies the human in such measure that He would sacrifice His only-begotton son to physical incarnation as a human. I gather our Good Lord, in the Person of Jesus, was trying to draw our attention to His Spirit of Truth, His Logos, from which the beginning of creation was made, and which forever sustains it, in addition to His soteriological action in the Life of the Spirit which He commends to us, as befitting our created human nature as the image, the reflection of the divine nature, in the Name of, and by means of, His Son.

Give all thanks and praise to our Lord God, our Source and Sustainer from the Alpha to the Omega!

[hosepipe]

[.. I hope this doesn't sound too "anthropocentrist," not to mention heretical; but it seems clear to me this whole show was put on for our benefit in the first place. ..]

Truth be told every thinking person I know or have known and respect is a little heretical.. The others rely on dogma and others opinion like a "christian talmud"..

The purpose of this Donkey and spirit show is a Donkey Rodeo with clowns and everything.. Humans do indeed often take themselves too seriously.. A Rodeo is a SERIOUS TEST but it is entertainment also.. The shows producer(s) should be honored for such a "believeable" plot.. don't you think?.. ;) After the last curtain the conversation between us about the show should be stimulating..

[SuziQ]

Religion meets Science, ping!

[betty boop]

The purpose of this Donkey and spirit show is a Donkey Rodeo with clowns and everything....

Dear brother 'pipe, I hardly think that God intends us humans to fulfill our divinely-given natures as clowns in a Donkey Rodeo. To say such a thing is to cast in doubt His righteousness and purpose in creating man in His image in the first place.

The whole point and purpose of His Revelation, it seems to me, is to preclude such a ridiculous outcome. Or so it seems to me.

I'm really tuckered out dear brother, so am turning in early tonight. But I hope to see you again on the morrow! Meanwhile, may God bless you and fulfill all your needful requirements!

Good night, dearest 'pipe!

[hosepipe]

[.. This tells us (among other things) that God the Father dignifies the human in such measure that He would sacrifice His only-begotton son to physical incarnation as a human. ..]

A God that can speak flesh into being so easily boggles the mind.. The harmonics of that speach should be a downright bodacious study.. Spiritual Telekinesis really.. Wonder if some of the Angels can perform spiritual telekinesis?... There could be levels of spiritual telekinesis.. Gifting in "heaven" could involve spiritual telekinesis in some form(s)..

Kinda makes you go..... Hmmmmmmm... know what I mean?..
The biblical metaphor of the Talents comes to mind..

[hosepipe]

[.. Dear brother 'pipe, I hardly think that God intends us humans to fulfill our divinely-given natures as clowns in a Donkey Rodeo. ..]

I'm more of an announcer but I do know some clowns.. I see you as a proper lady with some kind of hat, commenting on the bull riding..

[cornelis]

Because there's more to "the natural world" than physics, cornelis.

True enough. But this doesn't even nibble at what I was fishing for on this identity of Being and Life as applied to the universe. But hey, I'm not the greatest at fishing and get skunked all the time.

[omnivore]

"...philosophy (as practiced by Plato and Aristotle) gives us a chance to return to "realist" models of exploring and understanding reality..."

It doesn't work for me. When I read stuff from Plato or Aristotle, other than a few of the basic logical concepts, I don't think there's really much useful there. Part of it is the vagueness of ideas and concepts, part of it is the occasional nuggets of rank nonsense. Mainly it's too much in the "humanities" vein, which I find largely dehumanizing. Every time I see some politician or judge rationalizing some idiotic law or regulation or decision, with a nonsense of legalistic word-salad that could equally easily have come from the mouth of the average street schizophrenic, I think, that person probably studied philosophy before going to law school or some other word-centric outfit. An example, I recently (within past 6 months) heard Bill Bennett being interviewed on some other radio show, and he at one point mentioned "I was a double-major, literature and philosophy." I nearly burst out laughing. No wonder the guy's such an empty blow-hard. Two majors that are considered "cake" at most universities and are in any case nothing but a lot of reading and writing, which basic skills most of the college-bound have a good handle on by the end of third grade. After that it's just a lot of repetition and practice required, but rather little actual thinking, IMHO. And no contact with the real (physical) world is required, that's strictly optional.

I'm not saying there isn't anything there. I just think there's a lot less there, and what is there is of much less importance, compared to a lot of other things, than is generally admitted. If philosophy were actually so all-fired "fundamental" and important, philosophers would be at the leading edge of finding new knowledge, which they're not. For instance, whether it's the period from Russell through Godel when mathematics was set on new foundations, or all the work of the physics community in the first half of the 20th century which re-formed physics in terms of quantum mechanics, basically the physics and mathematics communities got precious little help from the philosophy community. (And I won't go along with a rebuttal that "well, those mathematicians and physicists were philosophers too, just of different stripes." When I use the word "philosopher," I mean the people who bring only the wordplay to the table. The ones who could actually help with the heavy lifting in the math and physics areas called themselves mathematicians and physicists, and the fact that they ended up having to pick up a lot of the philosophical slack around their areas in terms of attempting to "expain what it all meant" points only to the alienation from reality of the philosophers of the day, who were lucky if they could barely understand what was going on.)

What philosophers mostly do nowadays, IMHO, is quibble around the edges of what others do, spackling in the gaps of their own (philosophy's) old rationalizations about the world with freshly-minted word-salads of new rationalizations. It appears to me to be an empty enterprise, more about where we've been (or where we've escaped from, intellectually) than where we're going. If it's interesting to you or others, great. Just does little for me. For me, reality starts where we leave the words behind, and the weird stories and primitive beliefs that we construct with words, and deal with the physical world physically, in its own language, which is mathematical.

[omnivore]

In the original article, this guy is all over the map on the multiple meanings he’s using the rubric “intelligent design” to stand for. Is he talking about the creation of the universe? The origins of life? Behe’s laundry list of things Behe can’t explain and so concludes they must be explained by miraculous intervention by some “unspecified” supernatural entity? I doubt he even knows where he’s wandering. There is a long history of scientists getting funny in their old age and signing on to odd things that catch their fancy. I had one prof once who had a picture of Osborne Reynolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reynolds ) in his old age tacked up, showing him holding a bowl of marbles, apparently toward the end of his life he latched onto some theory about the whole universe working like a bunch of packed together spheres. The prof was worried about going out like that, clutching on some nutter theory at the end of his life. It’s an occupational hazard I guess.