Metaphysical “Choices” – Holism

Waterspout

What are the physical laws explaining how convection ovens operate? How do hurricanes form in such a predictably orderly (and deadly) pattern? You might be surprised scientists cannot fully explain these phenomena. Thus the metaphysical topic of Holism.

Holism itself makes the basic assertion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying something non-material affects the outcome of certain systems. The closely related concept of non-separability generally asserts that the state of the whole is not constituted by the states of its parts. Both terms try to address a phenomena involving the spontaneous generation of degrees of order well outside predicted causality.

Examples of holism are often found in dissipative systems, in which an open system is operating outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Specific examples of dissipative systems include convection, turbulent flow, cyclones, hurricanes and living organisms. These systems exchange energy and entropy with their environment in order to maintain a high degree of internal order in the system.

The basic question about these dissipative systems is whether a “bottoms-up” causality drives the apparent order of the system, or do “top-down” constraints restrict the action of the system. Causality could come from the still mysterious mechanisms at the quantum level, including entanglement. Constraints could come from a physical law we have yet to discover, or influence from another undiscovered dimension(s).

Another example of holism is the observed spontaneous generation of order in computerized models of logical networks. To illustrate this example scientists use an array of light bulbs, each with only an on and off option. The array starts off in a random pattern of illumination and then evolves in steps according to some simple rules, which express the logical structure of the network. If 10,000 bulbs are in the array, a limit of about 300 states of the system is observed, instead of the trillions of possibilities. The deterministic nature of logical networks implies the observed holistic order is generated from the bottom-up, even if the phenomena can best be described from the top down.

There are multiple approaches addressing these phenomena, which include methodological, metaphysical and property/ relational holism; state, spatial and spatial-temporal non-separatism.

Why is all this important? Well, for a few reasons that impact our fundamental understanding of reality. The “open future” Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the reason for so many theories about holism. The alternative deterministic interpretation of Bohm explains holism due to hidden information embedded within wavelengths. So if you believe in an open, indeterminate future, then you need to explain the phenomena of holism.

Holism is also important because subjects that focus on complex systems like thermodynamics rest on assumptions about how these systems should operate. If these basic assumptions prove inaccurate, the science behind these systems may lose some of their explanatory power. Lastly, metaphysical theories about time rest partially on thermodynamic theories and thus may impact these theories as well.

I know, I’m going deep on some of this stuff but I’m seeking to understand what is real in this world, and then apply it to the world in Evolved. Since I “chose” a Bohm explanation for the world in Evolved, implying the perceived three spatial dimensions of reality are deterministic, holism is largely explained.

A Few Theories on Holism and Non-separatism

Methodological holism argues some systems are better analyzed as a whole, rather than its counter-point the more typical methodological reductionism. Scientists instinctively fall in the reductionism camp as they seek to explain the “how” of quantum physics.

Methodological Holism: An understanding of a certain kind of complex system is best sought at the level of principles governing the behavior of the whole system, and not at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Methodological Reductionism: An understanding of a complex system is best sought at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Moving past methodological arguments, metaphysical holism argues the nature of some wholes are not determined by its parts. In other words, metaphysical argues we are missing something outside our scientific theories. There are three theories as to why this may be true.

Ontological Holism: Some objects are not wholly composed of basic physical parts.

Property Holism: Some objects have properties that are not determined by physical properties of their basic physical parts.

Nomological Holism: Some objects obey laws that are not determined by fundamental physical laws governing the structure and behavior of their basic physical parts.

Assuming our existing scientific theories capture the reality of these systems, Property Holism basically argues the theories are incomplete. This approach takes us into central issues of quantum physics. Property Holism breaks down into two opposing camps:

Physical Property Determination: Every qualitative intrinsic physical property and relation of a set of physical objects from any domain D subject only to type P processes supervenes on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts relative to D and P.

Physical Property Holism: There is some set of physical objects from a domain D subject only to type P processes, not all of whose qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations supervene on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts (relative to D and P).

There are many more theories that consider the issue from multiple angles. For further reading, I suggest reviewing Stanford’s Philosophy reference.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Philosophical Theology

As I continue to structure the metaphysical thoughts behind the world in Evolved, a useful framework has been offered in John Polkinghorne‘s book, Science and Religion in the Quest of Truth. The book is part of a science and religion discussion group offered at my Congregational Church.

A huge challenge while writing Evolved was understanding how things like quantum physics and general relativity worked. An even larger question loomed in the back of my mind, which I did not recognize until after I had finished writing. It was the question of why things worked in such a way. This led me into philosophical questions, and then into spiritual explanations.

In his book, Mr. Polkinghorne refers to Philosophical Theology, a close relation to the Philosophy of Religion. Philosophy Theology sits on top of base layer of metaphysical topics like causality and consciousness, as well as theology studies focused on deity belief systems. It is a broad term that includes most major religions, although Buddhism may fall outside its scope due its denial of a deity.

To explain Philosophy Theology differently, Dr. Polkinghorne offers a look at one form of structure within its teaching. Ian Barbour created a taxonomy of stances when considering the relationship between science and religion. The four positions are conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.

At one end, conflict encompasses individuals who deny the other side offers viable answers. An atheist writer like Lawrence Krause and the biblical inerrancy belief system of fundamental christian denominations, like Baptism and Presbyterian, would fall into the “conflict” arena. Often our science versus religion debates get high-jacked by this conflict-laden approach. However, Mr. Polkinghorne argues each side’s antagonist views are based on an apples and oranges debate. Science is asking more of a “how?” question about the world while religion is asking more of a “why?” question. Recognizing this discord helped me set aside the typically bombastic arguments coming from each side.

My writing in Evolved is much more about the hope of finding balanced integration between science and religion. Thus I am seeking at least a “dialogue” between the two sides, with the hope of finding some integration. Philosophical Theology provides a framework to find a balance, without one side dominating the other. It also sets up well for the research I have already completed into science, philosophy and the spiritual (see Metaphysical “Choices”).

Personally, by writing Evolved I have discovered I am seeking a truth about the world. What is “Real?” Science explains many things but also is fairly limited in its scope. By definition it is an objective practice, striving to figure out how things work through repeatable experiments observed by many. Yet the world we perceive is by definition subjective. We cannot truly understand how another person experiences the world, or if they are even conscious as we believe ourselves to be. One person may perceive a miracle, something that seems to violate the laws of physics. By definition, this experience is not likely repeatable and therefore objective analysis is impossible. Therefore, science discards it.

My thoughts and feelings perceive more than science can explain. The more I look inward and open myself up, the more I perceive a universe beyond the objects that surround us. The more I search for the “You” in others, the greater my understanding of reality. Buddhism strives for “emptiness,” or a lack of objects to achieve enlightenment. Can science offer answers in an existence without objects?

Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness

Consciousness is something we intuitively believe we understand. After all, in many ways it is who we are personally. Yet try to define it and the meaning becomes elusive. American Philosopher Thomas Nagel describes another organism as conscious when we mean “there is something it is like to be that organism… something it is like for the organism.” While there is not much agreement on a specific definition of consciousness, a rough triangulation of a definition could be consciousness is subjectivity.

In Evolved I have been wrestling with the idea of consciousness. Specifically, what does it mean to be an organic life form versus a silicon life form? In the Evolved world there are silicon people who are recognized as alive, along with all the legal rights of an organic life. This sets up an interesting tension as both sides try to define what it means to be ‘alive.’ Silicon life have dreams, emotions and a sense of ‘self.’ So what does that mean? Are they conscious? If so, how are they different?

Philosophers, scientists and psychologists have grappled with consciousness from multiple angles. Religions themselves rest on certain assumptions about consciousness, and what it means. Yet despite the extended history of human study of consciousness, we remain deeply confused by it (even if we don’t recognize our own confused state).

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” -David Hume, 1739

By approaching from the perspective of the ‘self,’ there are two basic theories: ego theorists and bundle theorists. Ego theorists believe in a continuously existing self who are subjects of experiences and who think, act and feel. Bundle theorists deny there is a self, instead arguing we are simply a collection of different perceptions that are in constant flux and movement. Buddhism denies there is a self and therefore falls into the bundle theory, while most other religions believe in either immortal souls or reincarnating spirits that fall into the ego theory.

“I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling: I am something which thinks and acts and feels.” -Thomas Reid, 1785

In Evolved, silicon life is most definitely in the bundled theory. Yet how does a silicon life form feel about that? Could they not believe they too have a soul, a continuity of their existence beyond their physical existence? All the perceptions they process have similar reactions as organic life. In which theory does organic life fall? Well, I can’t give away all the fun…

Approaching from another angle, there are competing theories over whether consciousness is dualism or monism. Dualism argues a part of consciousness is non-physical, creating a separation between mind and body, object and subject. Monism includes physicalism and materialism, which argues matter is the fundamental substance in nature. From a scientific perspective, dualism is a hard argument to defend. After all, it argues something mystical is going on, or at least beyond current scientific reason.

Plato used the allegory of a cave to describe consciousness while David Hume described it as a type of theater, which later Daniel Dennett rejected and called the Cartesian Theater. This concept imagines a place inside the mind where ‘I’ am, complete with a sort of mental screen or stage where contents of consciousness are presented to the mind’s eye. A similar concept is Cartesian Materialism in which the consciousness is not separate from the brain. Both concepts reflect a dualism in which there are two parts to a person, the physical and the conscious. But, Susan Blackmore explains the problem with inventing a central place in which subjectivity happens:

“So either we have to find an answer to the question, ‘how does subjective awareness arise from the objective actions of all these neurons and muscle cell?’, or we have to work out what mistake has led us into posing such an impossible question in the first place.” -Susan Blackmore, 2011

Another consideration about consciousness is whether it causes directed attention or is the effect of paying attention, or neither. Many positions today describe attention in a causal manner, similar to “the sentry at the gate of consciousness” (Adam Zeman, 2001), which implies a dualism. A similar monism causal view is “there is no conscious perception without attention.” (Mack and Rock, 1998) William James asked, “Is voluntary attention a resultant or a force?” He made a strong case for the effect side but ultimately sided with the causal on ethical grounds.

Some scientists have dived down to the quantum level (Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp) to explain consciousness, assuming a Copenhagen-sympathetic interpretation that allows for an open future (and therefore free will). Yet the actual mechanism allowing our brains to willfully collapse a wave function, or provide true chance in the process, remains mysterious. Alternatively, one could argue a Bohm interpretation, implying a deterministic reality in which we either have no free will or our brains use a mysterious outside influence on our deterministic brains.

Could silicon produce a conscious being? Could we eventually upload our consciousness into a silicon-based computer without losing anything? So much depends on your definition of consciousness but most scientists don’t see any reason why it could not happen. Most religious leaders are appalled by the notion. What would the Buddha think of it? Would robots also strive for “emptiness” to clear out the distracting objectivity originally programmed into them?

If a robot had dreams, emotions, displayed moral behavior, could create original art pieces, and vehemently argued it had a ‘self,’ would you consider it conscious? Would it be an equal to you legally? If an organic human killed it, would it be murder with the same penalties as what we consider is murder?

All of these questions about consciousness are rich veins to mine in Evolved. Honestly, I am still changing things as I reconsider questions, find inconsistencies between my meta physical choices, and work to bring out the issues to the reader. I will probably never reach a satisfactory end point, but will I consciously accept that?

Purging Clutter

“When you keep thinking about sense objects, attachment comes. Attachment breeds desire, the lust of possession that burns to anger. Anger clouds the judgment; you can no longer learn from past mistakes. Lost is the power to choose between what is wise and what is unwise, and your life is utter waste. But when you move amidst the world of sense, free from attachment and aversion alike, there comes the peace in which all sorrows end, and you live in the wisdom of the Self.”

– Bhagavad-Gita-2:62-65

For the past few weeks I have been reading the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu text composed sometime between fifth and second century BCE. It is one of two texts Mahatma Ghandhi read regularly, the other the Sermon on the Mount. Both texts could take a lifetime of pondering to understand.

I picked up the Gita in my on-going research into world religions. I’ve recently read influential authors in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Native American spirituality; even Atheism. Within each text I continue to look for hints of truths about our existence, links between the religions and science. It has been an enlightening journey.

Perhaps the reading influenced me, or maybe my wife and I simply decided it was time, but we have been spending our spare time cleaning out our house of extraneous objects. For anyone who has cleaned out a closet and felt “lightened,” you’ll understand the underlying motivation.

The goal is to take everything out of every closet, cabinet and off every shelf; clean it properly, and only put back the objects we need or love. We’ve spent about five full days working at it and are over half way. The amount of stuff we have taken to our dump is, well, shameful. Shameful not because we’re getting rid of it. No, shameful because we even had such excessive stuff in the first place.

The impact on us has been tangible, and quite remarkable. Our house has become calmer. Not calmer because of quieter children, but simply more relaxing. My thoughts seem clearer, less cluttered like our house. I use to seek out coffee shops for writing. Now, I’m much happier at home. There are less distractions, my eyes move to nature out the windows more often. Deep breathing comes naturally.

My priorities are different. At a store the sales clerk gleefully announced we had earned a free gift. My wife and I looked at each other and declined it. It was not something we needed. Now purchases are much more about need than desire, a truly liberating feeling in our world of hyperactive marketing and consumerism. Watching commercials has become somewhat baffling.

I’m not going to argue material possessions are evil, or even bad. Let’s be honest, our reality demands certain objects for humanity to exist; even if those are simply food, water and sex. Instead, my experience suggests these objects distract us from a happiness that comes from within. When we are constantly looking outward at objects we miss the point, in my mind.

That said, I find myself still wrestling with the possessions in my life. There are a number of items I simply love having around, from photos of family, to art work, to specific books that have taught me something important. Or what about need? Do we need the good china? What about the regular plates and cutlery? What do we truly need? Where is the line between a true need and a need to fit into our desired societal place?

The thought of removing these items brings up a source of angst within me. Would I be happier without these objects? I simply don’t know. I am not anywhere close to seeking poverty, but this inner tension is likely the next phase of transformation for myself.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

– Romans 12:2

Metaphysical “Choices” – Chance and Causality

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When researching and writing Evolved a great deal of thought went into metaphysical questions about reality. After all, the setting is a couple thousand years in the future and the topography of the universe (explained in the book) should fit within current scientific theories and philosophies.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Scientists tend to overlook it, but it illuminates the assumptions we make about our reality, as well as the holes in current scientific theories. Questions about causality, cosmology, time, and consciousness have consumed much of my thoughts even after writing Evolved.

Structuring the overlapping and conflicting arguments about each of these topics has been a challenge. In addition, all of these questions force a deeper dive into quantum physics (the apparent root system of our reality), and even slivers within the overall field like quantum statistical mechanics. My path over the past few years has been equal parts of befuddlement and enlightenment. A few books I have read half a dozen times in an effort to fully appreciate the author’s wisdom.

At some point one has to put a stake in the ground and begin building a world around it. Let me start with the stake planted around causality. In Evolved, humanity believes in an open future, a Neils Bohr reality (explained below) and one in which humanity has control over its choices (free will) and real chance exists. The mechanism I use in the book to explain the mechanism behind the measurement problem is cosmological in nature to allow for this metaphysical existence.

My protagonist, however, comes to believe humanity exists in a deterministic world, a David Bohm world (explained below). Part of his challenge is to overcome the deterministic nature of the physical world to save humanity’s apparently preset course of destruction. The mechanism to allow for this level of control also comes from a cosmological theory. With that, a little explanation of quantum mechanics is in order.

From a quantum perspective there are two ways of looking at our reality, and it involves the uncertainty associated with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The fundamental question about the probabilities found at the quantum level is whether they simply reflect ignorance or an indeterminate reality.

Niels Bohr is one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum probabilities. This interpretation of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is that we understand quantum wave lengths completely, but they are not deterministic. Most scientists intuitively favor this interpretation because it depicts a world of becoming, allowing for an open future, or indeterminate reality. In other words, chance is allowed for within this interpretation, which is seemingly supported by observation and mathematical constructs like chaos theory.

Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation leaves some puzzles. Foremost is the measurement problem. The theory enables extremely accurate predictions of relative probabilities at the quantum level based on deterministic wave functions calculations, but we do not understand the actual process that provides a seemingly indeterminate definitive answer on each occasion of measurement. In other words, what is the mechanism that allows for this indeterminate reality?

David Albert takes a stab at this mechanism in his book Time and Chance. Dr. Albert lays out the challenge of finding the mechanism within the Copenhagen interpretation.

The idea … is to stick with the standard way of thinking about what it means to be in a superposition, and to stick with the idea that a quantum-mechanical wave function amounts, all by itself, to a complete description of a physical system, and to account for the emergence of determinate outcomes of experiments … by means of explicit violations of the deterministic differential equations of motion, and to try to develop some precise idea of the circumstances under which those violations occur. – David Z. Albert

Dr. Albert offers one fully worked out scientific solution, which involves the GRW theory. Within this theory the wave function of a single particle almost always evolves according to linear deterministic equations of motion, except for a probability within the wave function itself for a random localization of the particle to occur. Furthermore, the effects of these “jumps” will convert superpositions of macroscopically different states in a way consistent with standard-mechanical probabilities. This mechanism allows for real dynamical chance to enter into scientific discussion and our observable reality.

David Bohm, on the other hand, produced a complete quantum theory arguing the probabilities reflect our ignorance about the complete nature of the quantum mechanical wave function. Bohm argued wave functions act like force fields, guiding the particle along a particular course. In this sense our spatial reality is fully deterministic since the wave function is deterministic. Or, in other words, the future movement of every particle can be calculated into the future if we had a complete understanding of the wave function. In this theory, chance does not exist.

Another set of theories fall into modal interpretations, which differentiate between dynamical state (determines what may be the case) and the value state (represents what is actually occurring). Since the dynamical state always evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, the evolution of our reality is entirely deterministic within these modal interpretations. Only the probabilities associated with the value state are real dynamical chances.

Quantum decoherence was developed by David Bohm. The theory does not explain a mechanism for the wave function collapse, but instead a mechanism for the appearance of the collapse. The appearance is due to “leaking” of quantum information into the environment so that the superposition of the wavelength exists, but beyond our ability to measure it. Decoherence became fundamental to Hugh Everett’s many-world interpretation and has been incorporated into various theories. Since decoherence does not provide an actual mechanism, it cannot offer an opening for chance to enter into our reality.

So with that it should be obvious it remains an open question as to what the probabilities of quantum mechanics mean. We naturally prefer to think of ourselves in control, with free will. It is decidedly unwelcome to consider the possibility that we live in a deterministic reality. But that, to me, is a fun avenue to explore since it will make the reader uncomfortable and force more consideration about ourselves.

One last note. I am by no means an expert on quantum physics or philosophy. So please leave a comment if you believe I am wrong on a theory, or misrepresented an argument.

Chance – Does Humanity Have Any?

Does chance exist in our reality?

Do we live in an indeterminate universe?

Two different questions, but closely related. The first asks whether anything is truly random. The second incorporates the first but also asks whether we can actively change how the future plays out. Is there room in our universe for free will?

You might be surprised that scientists and philosophers find it quite difficult to allow an opening for chance to exist in our reality. Time is asymmetric, but just because we can’t perceive the future doesn’t mean it is random in nature. Theoretically, the laws of physics should determine how the future unfolds.

Those probabilities in quantum mechanics? In the wrong place to allow for real chance. The probabilities reflect our inability to measure effectively at the quantum level. They do not allow for random wave functions, unless one incorporates the GRW theory into the model. GRW theory implies an inherent randomness within the quantum wave functions, allowing a wave function to randomly reset itself every billion years, or so. (It also implies many dimensions exist beyond what we perceive)

So, does humanity have any chance? It would appear the answer is no, or at least an extraordinarily small degree. Does that mean we have no free will? Let’s return to that idea of extra dimensions.

String theory implies ten, or even eleven dimensions if you include time. GRW theory implies more dimensions than that. Other theories suggest we live in a multi-universe, which requires multiple dimensions. Science, and math, consistently suggests something more is going on than we perceive with our limited senses.

Do extra dimensions open up the opportunity for free will? Does consciousness use extra dimensions to change the deterministic universe we perceive? Is consciousness simply a receiver of something from extra dimensions, manipulating this reality for some greater purpose? Is life’s ability to create order in a less organized environment a hint of its higher purpose? These are the questions explored in Evolved.

When I started writing Evolved I entered through a well-defined sturdy portal with a neon light blinking “Science” above it. When the writing was finished I had unexpectedly popped out of some twisted rabbit hole into a reality well beyond what we perceive today. It is something I hope to share with the world one day.