[bt_section][bt_row][bt_column width=”1/1″][bt_text]
Science tells us that the ultimate reality of the universe is bound by the laws of physics. Of course, most definitely. No contention. Some scientists go further to tell us that all conceptions that fall outside of the laws of physics are basically unreal; they are inventions. The influential and impressive Sean Carroll, cosmologist and professor of physics at Caltech in the U.S., is a public intellectual par excellence. He roundly trounces Christian apologists and other theists at discussions like ‘The Great debate: Has science refuted religion?’, with his sparkling wit and cogent, persuasive arguments. Since the ideas of choices, morals, meaning and purpose do not follow physical laws, he proclaims, they are creative, aesthetics functions alone. Also, since they are personal inventions, they are secondary, of lower existential priority, he tacitly implies.
Tangential, incidental, marginal, subsidiary.
Really?
He draws an interesting analogy with the game of chess, where the rules have been written to make an interesting, meaningful game. These rules are not arbitrary, they make complete sense in the format of the game, and hold it together excellently. Sean says that the conception of morality, meaning and similar ideas are essentially such an aesthetic, creative act. Not arbitrary, yet not really real. These are entirely personal notions, having no relation with the solid truths of the universe, he emphasises.
Ok, and how real and airtight is the notion of science itself?
Wait, is he forgetting the earth- shattering proofs of one of his own, Mathematician Kurt Godel? Or is he simply ignoring to mention him, because, the less enlightened, non-scientists among us probably cannot wrap their heads around Godel’s incompleteness theorems?
A deliberate move, or simply a blind spot?
This is not to say that Godel’s incompleteness theorems are easily comprehensible to us laymen, but with good effort one can at least get a basic understanding. Godel infamously proved that in any formal system, like mathematics or logic, not all true things can be proven. There will always be more true things than the system can prove. All closed systems will depend on concepts outside the system, which it will have to assume to be true, but cannot prove. Godel’s theorems implied that a ‘Theory of Everything’ is actually impossible, but in all earnestness, I would not want that. I am rooting for a Grand Unified Theory, I am eager for it. However I sincerely believe it cannot come from a closed system, from established sciences alone. Like the incompleteness theorem suggests, established science might have to rely on something outside its current framework to glean more answers.
As for the ideas of meaning and morality, just because they cannot be ‘proved’ in the formal systems, does not mean they are unreal. Established science simply may be incapable of proving them right now. Come to think of it, new laws of physics get discovered all the time, there is a continual up-gradation in its repository of laws. New laws, ‘things’ and ‘notions’. Remember the unknowns? The known unknowns and the unknown unknowns? Maybe morals, meaning and purpose do follow a set of laws. Why not? These known unknowns can one day become the known knowns! Who could have imagined that almost everything physical follows the laws of electromagnetism? Electromagnetism may have become a tangible force now, while morality, purpose and the likes might not have, but how can you say with absolute certainty they never will?
Reality vs models of reality
The ‘Grand Design’ written by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow admits with a warm honesty that the reality of science is not ‘absolute’. The authors have called their physics ‘model dependent realism’, wherein it is pointless to ask whether a model is ‘real’ or not. The model assumes certain first principles, makes certain predictions and hunts for empirical proof to support the claims. In physics or in fact in any branch of science, models are ‘invented’ to explain phenomena. The ‘Standard Model’ of physics is just a model, and if super symmetrical particles are not discovered soon, the model may have to be discarded. Bigger and Bigger particle reactors are needed not because there are necessarily more such particles out there, but because it must confirm the ‘model’. It is possible that the theory is a mistaken fabrication and physics in on the wrong track. Time and bigger particle reactors will tell.
Do you see what I am trying to say? A model is a map, an approximation of the territory, not the territory itself. Analysis depends on the tool which is used, and this tool ends up shaping the result rather than objectively describing it.
One wonders then, as the ‘Grand Design’ wonders, is there any theory- independent version of reality?
The lofty narratives of all branches of knowledge, be it physics, biology, history or the social sciences, are all models of reality. If the basic assumptions of the model were to be proved wrong, the model would crumble. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, with its grand, compelling narrative has become so deeply entrenched in popular culture that not many think twice about re-checking it. Unsurprisingly, if you were to doubt it , you will be will be met with severe disdain. Evolution is for the educated, the informed, the rational, they will scream at you from rooftops! Take a deeper look at the theory, and a skeptic might be born inside you. Non -biologists like us can hardly understand enough to refute scientific theories, but we must not gobble them up simply on the basis of faith, now, can we? We could, and we should examine them as much as our intellects allow; in the spirit of enquiry, the spirit of science itself!
Blind faith, even in the sciences, is faith itself! Faith is anathema, faith is the antithesis of reason!
The Aether hypothesis, now thankfully debunked, was widely supported in the scientific community in the 1800’s. The idea extends back to Isaac Newton who needed such a medium to explain refraction in his particle theory. Even in the era of wave models for light, the ether model was attractive because it could explain how light propagated through space, why its speed was A constant ‘c’. It could also explain why observers at all speeds will observe the same value c. It was compelling and satisfying in many aspects, but it was false!
According to Darwin’s evolution theory, random mutation with natural selection, has supposedly produced complex organisms as us humans. So complex, that structures like the eye stumped Darwin himself. Even if one feature in the eye were absent or differently arranged, ‘seeing’ would not have been possible. So evolution has no purpose, they claim, no end goal, no target. It just marches along, in tiny random mutations, and over time builds these intricate, elaborate mechanisms. Nobody really knows how, and definitely not why.
It’s just true, because it is evolution, the most enthusiastic, attractive cheerleader on Science’s team in the very lop-sided game against religion. Evolution must, must be true, because creationism, the idea that a creator made this world, must be false. Most evolution enthusiasts are so utterly convinced of its virtues only because they cannot bear the idea of God and not because there is much merit in the theory itself. I understand this sentiment well. I find the religious ‘God’ abhorrent too, so it would be natural to take sides with a theory that puts him out of business.
However just because creationism is nonsense does not make evolution right.
Evolution is an effective theory if anything at all. An effective theory describes a certain set of observations, but does not claim to have direct evidence in actual, observable phenomena. There are many more unexplained aspects, but those that tickle my curiosity, inspire and encourage me most in my quest to dig deeper are the very human notions, conceptions of beauty, art, meaning and purpose. Humans display cognitive and behaviour traits which apparently are of no use, of no consequence in the framework of Darwinian evolution. Why are we drawn to beauty, why does our conscience often nag us? Why are we reaching for more to fulfill us, why do we search for meaning? Why do we suffer from existential angst? Has evolution stopped for human beings, or are we moving ahead somewhere? What will be the next random mutation? Darwin’s evolution theory does not have the answers.
It may be a compelling narrative, but it seems just that: a story.
For answers, we must look elsewhere.
Think about it, the grand, overarching narratives of evolution in biology, the big- bang in physics, African ancestry in anthropology, could only be models of reality: compelling stories only. They are an integral part of our folk lore, but what if they were just stories?Pedaled as unbending truths to capture the imaginations of the collective, to become a seamless aspect of the social fabric of the world.
Is that possible? Why not?
This table, sourced from the article ‘Structure and theory of theories’ by Bradley Alice, makes four broad classifications of theories, in the context of the qualities of depth and information. The shallow and naïve theories are utterly simplistic, but still command strong attention and popularity in the collective consciousness. Religion is one such a philosophy which reduced to its extreme takes the ugly forms of fundamentalism and bigotry. It lacks enough information, it is shallow, and it is reductionist.
Alternatively, there are informed shallow theories as well, which have a stronghold over the minds and imaginations of the masses, being tremendously popular. They have become truisms, forces of nature themselves. These are the theories of pop-psychology and pop-science, so popular as to become colloquial metaphors. The big bang theory has become a popular sitcom, the word ‘evolution’ is a part of universal lexicon, and African ancestry is now common sense.
What if these grand meta-narratives were all shallow theories, pieced together with less information than what they really need to be valid? What if they are just a string of anecdotes?
Mass belief cannot make a shallow theory deep.
That is mass delusion! Like God and religion. Yes, just like it.
[/bt_text][/bt_column][/bt_row][/bt_section]