Strife and Abstraction: Part One

Protagoras split subject and object apart, and not only the Kings men, but all the philosophers, theologians, and scientists have not been able to put them back together. The question becomes: what is subjectivity, and what is objectivity? And how has this split affected our knowledge of the cosmos? We all use the terms "subjective' and "objective" yet when asked to define them, we cannot. Let me illustrate with an example drawn from my life. I was in a coffee-house and overheard two nursing students studying for an exam. The question they were studying was if a patient calls out "nurse" it is objective, but if a patient calls out for an "individual nurse" it is subjective. Why? The nursing students of course could not answer "why" but they did not need to know the reason just the answer. The two nursing students did not realize that they were exploring the core of western epistemology and metaphysics. As we observed in previous essays, that it is contingency not immediacy that is the flaw in objective knowledge. Now that we have examined German Idealism we should be able to answer the simple question: Why is "nurse" objective and calling the name of a particular "nurse" subjective? The answer is that the term "nurse" is a universal, while "name" of an individual nurse is a particular; therefore contingent. Whoever is acting as a nurse must obey the universals attached to the universal "nurse" A nurse is not allowed to act freely, but must make their activity conform to the universals that define the term "nurse." Any number of individuals can act as a "nurse" in the universal sense; therefore the individual is contingent, no particular individual is the universal; thus the individual is contingent. The universal is necessary by definition. Universals are always limits on the free activity of a particular. To begin our examination of how our distinction of subjective and objective affect our knowledge of the cosmos, we shall turn to the rise of the new physics in the twentieth century. To begin let us examine an example drawn from the very heart of the new physics. Albert Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" when he encountered Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states we cannot know both the velocity and position of a sub-atomic particle, because the act of measuring interferes with the particle. If there was some supernatural agent (god or demon) that could observe the particle without acting on it, the uncertainty principle would not apply. The act of measuring makes the knowledge gained subjective, because it is contingent. The particles no longer obey universals. Einstein was right on target when he used the dice as an analogy. We can predict the odds of how the particles shall react; just as we can give odds on the numbers that can come up when the dice are rolled. This analogy also shows that objective knowledge is always alienated knowledge. It is knowledge from the outside looking in, not knowledge from the inside looking out. When one is a participant in an observed act, the involvement makes one an insider, it also introduces contingency into the knowledge gained. What quantum mechanics has done is introduce subjectivity into physics. Modern science prides itself on objectivity. So it should come as no surprise that this has caused great consternation in physics. To try to gain a greater understanding of the quantum revolution; we shall turn to Stephan Hawking's book:"A Brief History of Time." Anyone who has read "A Brief History of Time" realizes that Hawking is in need of a cosmologist that is also a metaphysician. Again we shall look for a figure from an analogous age to help us understand. Most physicists would probably pick The Scientific Revolution of the Renaissance as an analogous age, but there is another age that is a better analogy.Remember we need a cosmologist that is also a metaphyscian. This is why we shall choose an earlier age, that of the Pre-Socratics or Physical-explaines (Physicoi) as they called themselves in order to distinguish themselves from the Theological-explainers (Theocoi). The Theological-explainers would be those who explain natural processes by using gods and spirits. In other words everyone else. The cosmologist-metaphyscian we shall call on to help us understand the new physics and Hawking's no-boundary universe is Empedocles. We shall examine the new physics and Hawking's no-boundary universe using concepts developed by Empedocles and the other Physicoi. This should become more clear as we proceed; even though it seems a strange choice. All quotes from Empedocles shall be taken from M.R. Wright's book""Empedocles: the Extant Fragments." The heart of the new physics is quantum mechanics; that sub-atomic paticles can act as either a particle or a wave. When it is said they act as waves, this means that the particle acts as if it is composed of much smaller particles, that act as a wave-form. An imperfect analogy is when we see ripples in the sand at the beach. The ripple looks like a wave, but is composed of sand particles. Acts a wave does not mean there is some immaterial energy that can act on material particles. If physics admitted that there was immaterial energy that could affect physical entities it would invite the Theological-explainers back in with there gods and demons. As Anximander said so long ago, the cosmos is made out of physical stuff (aperion), and must be explained by physical processes. Even though Anaximander did not know what aperion was, he knew it was physical and only physical forces acted on the aperion. This is the most fundamental presupposition of science, if this presupposition falls; science falls as an explanatory discipline. Science would become only a way to manipulate immaterial forces. As I said there are many analogies between the Physical-explainers and the new physics. Before proceeding we must examine another fundamental presupposition of science. A presupposition that also comes from the age of the Physical-explainers. The law of non-contradiction comes from the philosophy of Parmenides. We must also recall our discussion of Prof. Mark Wheeler of S.D.S.U. and his discovery of the Wheeler principle: that if one makes the law of non-contradiction the center-piece of one's epistemology, one shall arrive at a One in metaphysics.(see my essay "The One and the Forms: At a Glance") So let us continue with quantum mechanics; we have a contradiction in the wave-particle dichotomy. This brings us to Parmenides: The Way of Truth(the One), and the Way of Appearance(the many or everyday world of change). Parmenides came down on the side of the One; that the cosmos was a solid, smooth, imperishable, and changeless sphere. The trouble is Parmenides never worked out how and why the other view existed. Parmenides came up with his postion by using the law of non-contradiction; an example of the Wheeler principle in action. Parmenides's philosophy was one of the main inspirations for Empedocles. Before moving on let us take some time to appreciate Parmenides, and how he advanced human thought. Hawking spends time in his book praising Galileo, Newton, and Einstein; so it seems right we should some time to praise Parmenides, since this is a philosophical essay. Parmenides was the first person in history to trust logic over appearances. He showed humans were capable of choosing logic over appearances. If humans were not capable of this, there would have been no science. Parmenides not only showed in his own person that humans could believe in logic over appearances, but he also manged to convince other people to his position. He did this by using the law of non-contradiction, which he invented. Try to imagine science without the distinction of appearance and reality, and the law of non-contradiction. Parmenides third contribution was the One. By this is meant that a satisfactory description of the cosmos cannot contain contradictions, and must reconcile opposites. In this way the One has been the goal of western thought. In the last essay we examined Elipas Levi's theory that thought spreads like a current bringing more and more people along. Parmenides started a mighty current. Empedocles accepted that the cosmos was a sphere, he also accepted Parmenides's challenge to try to provide a satisfactory discription of the cosmos without contradictions. The cosmos is both a sphere and a solid One, yet appears as a plurality of entities. So how can the cosmos be both a One and a plurality of entities? Oddly enough we find Hawking positing a Parmenidean position, his no-boundary universe, states that the cosmos is finite, yet has no boundaries. Hawking uses a globe of the Earth as an example of how the cosmos can be finite, and yet have no boundaries. The reason there are no boundaries is that it is impossible to leave the surface of the sphere (globe). So if one could move in a straight line forever, one would end up where he started from. We should have no trouble recognizing a One. When Hawking says that he is offering a quantum theory of cosmology, he is not lying. What Hawking is saying is that the cosmos can be viewed as a solid particle or a wave-form; just like sub-atomic particles. Hawking seeks to make the microcosm and macrocosm correspond; of course the theory of the microcosm and macrocosm comes from Empedocles's like is known by like, this being the justification for believing that humans can comprehend the whole cosmos. Hawking is using the theory of the microcosm and macrocosm in a slightly different way, although he clearly accepts that the human intellect is capable of comprehending the whole cosmos. By the microcosm, Hawking is thinking of the sub-atomic world. What Hawking's no-boundary universe is saying is that the sub-atomic world and the macro world of the cosmos correspond; that the cosmos can be observed as either a single solid smooth particle or a wave-form. This single cosmic particle we shall call the Parmendio; in honor of Parmenides, the first person to regard the cosmos as a single, solid particle. For the sake of brevity and to sound more scientific we shall call the "Parmendio" the "P-particle." We are going to offer two interpretations of Hawking's no-boundary universe, first an Empedoclean reading, and then a Parmendian reading. We shall start with the Empedoclean reading. If the cosmos is a single particle; what about the big bang, black holes, and all those singularities? This is the P-particle acting as a wave-form: a bunch of smaller particles acting as a wave, or oscillation. Hawking uses a sphere (globe of the Earth) as an example, and says let us imagine that the sphere has a North and South pole. I am going to change this to a positive and negative pole. Let us turn to Empedocles for illumination. Empedocles says that Love and Strife are the forces that move the roots around to form all the entities that we are familiar with: plants, animals, stars,etc. The four roots, and Love and Strife are of course contained within the sphere as a wave-form. The four roots are the four classical elements of western philosophy: Fire, Water, Earth, and Air.Hawking of course, uses the modern elements, and forces such as gravity, and electromagnetism to move the elements. So let us observe Empedocles's cosmic cycle. Unlike, Hawking's big bang, Empedocles's cosmic cycle does not have a real first point, but instead when sphere is ruled by Love seems to be given priority. When Love reigns supreme all the elements or roots are completely mixed, and fused into one smooth, solid sphere (P-particle). It is interesting to note this is when Empedocles says the Holy Mind exists it its purest form. We would say the objective view, but is the objective view not a God's eye view, thus the Holy Mind. In the view of the Holy Mind there is no contingency or partiality. Strife the begins to separate, and articulate the sphere into separate parts; a plurality. This continues till all the roots have been completely separated. We shall call the sphere under Love the positive pole, and the sphere under the rule of Strife the negative pole. When the negative pole is achieved, Love begins to increase and mix the roots to create a cosmos of things. The sphere or P-particle is a One; a continual oscillation with no diversions. This makes the sphere or P-particle a One; continual oscillation from one pole to the other. It is the law of oscillation that makes it a self-contained One. Empedocles says we living in the phase where Strife is increasing. Let us compare to Hawking's no-boundary universe. The big bang would be the positive pole, everything is united into a single solid point, which then begins rapid expansion (big bang). The P-particle reaches its maximum expansion at which point the cosmos or P-particle collapses again into a single point. Hawking does not admit the oscillation, but it does seem consistent with his theory. The point of collapse is the negative pole. It seems on collapse the negative pole should become the positive pole, since it contains all the matter and energy of the cosmos. It should be no problem recognizing the analogy with Empedocles. The P-particle starts out as a single solid sphere controlled by Love, Strife then increases causing separation of the root, till maximum separation occurs to mix the elements again under Love. The big bang is Hawking's positive pole, the negative pole is the point where the P-particle collapses into itself. Both Hawking and Empedocles hold that we live in an age of increasing entropy or Strife; things are separating. Let us speculate what this means for intelligent life-forms living in the various phases of the cycle. Again, we shall use analogies between Hawking and Empedocles for insight. Hawking distinguishes three arrows of time: the Thermodynamic arrow, the Psychological arrow, and the Cosmological arrow. The Thermodynamic arrow is the measure of entropy or Strife in the P-particle. The Psychological arrow is human memory, and human experience of time. The Cosmological arrow is the expansion and contraction of the P-particle; this is of course the P-particle acting as a wave-form. Hawking originally believed all the arrows were connected which led him to some silly conclusions, which he has since repudiated, but we shall examine these positions to gain some insight. Hawking held for time that if there were human entities living in the the P-particle is collapsing that entropy would be decreasing instead of increasing as it is now. In other words, order would be increasing. This led Hawking to the strange speculation that humans living in a time of increasing order would live there lives in reverse; they would die before they were born. Hawking also give the silly example of a broken coffee cup jumping off the floor and coming back together; like a film rewinding. The reason Hawking entertained such silly notions is in spite of his training in the theory of relativity, he still had not freed himself from Newton's view of time. That time is a medium that carries information, like a film. The trouble is time is an abstraction, not an information carrying medium; time is a measurement of change, not an independent entity. There should be no trouble observing that there is no reason to connect the Psychological arrow with the other two arrows. There is no medium to connect them. The Cosmological and Thermodynamic arrows are connected; while there is no physical medium to connect the Psychological to the other two. Let us examine how Empedocles, who had no Newtonian presuppositions dealt with the same issue. We shall examine two fragments that deal with how the P-particle acts during different phases of the cycle. Fragment26(20):"This is will known in the mass of mortal limbs at one time, in the maturity of a vigorous life, all the limbs that are the body's perfection come into one under Love; at another time again torn asunder by evil Strife's, they wander each apart on the shore of life. So it is too for plants, and for fish that live in the water, and for wild animals who have their lairs in the hills, and for wing-sped gulls" The limbs of humans and animals are articulated by Strife, while rigid under Love. Fragment 50(57):" Here many heads sprang up without necks, bare arms were wandering without shoulders, eyes needing foreheads strayed singly" We can see Empedocles possessed a vivid imagination. Empedocles's imagination can give us some insights into what living in a time of increasing order may look like. Entities and elements would be coming together, instead of drifting apart. Let us use a speculative example to illustrate. As I wear a pair of pants the fabric gets thinner, they get holes, they come apart in the stage of the cycle we live in. In a time of increasing order, the pants would get thicker, and stiffer, till no longer usable. I suspect they would also grow hotter, since they would be gaining energy. Let us go back to Empedocles's Holy Mind, and Hawking's no-boundary universe. As we saw in Empedocles that the P-particle moves in an oscillation between Love and Strife, but it is only when the sphere is solid and fused that the Holy Mind exists in its pure form. The sphere (P-particle) is a One, because it is a continually oscillating process that never changes, or deviates. In other words, it is the laws that are fixed and immutable. It seems identification of the Holy Mind with the process can only be completely understood when Love reigns supreme. The is when the objective view is possible, because the cycle is complete. In many ways Hawking agrees, but I think Hawking wants more; he does not want to settle for a quantum theory where the P-particle can be viewed as a particle or a wave-form: that it is the process that is the One. Hawking brings in a scale of imaginary numbers to make his point; that the P-particle is a smooth, solid particle without change. That somehow the wave-form is appearance and not reality. That is only through the use of his imaginary numbers that we can arrive at the objective view, a view from the outside; a God's eye view. So now we shall move to the Parmenidean reading of Hawking's no-boundary universe. We shall use a dialogue form to express the Parmenidean reading of Hawking's no-boundary universe. The dialogue is between Parmenides (all caught up on the latest in science and philosophy) and his favorite student Zeno of Elea. Also I lifted the three dimensional sphere example from Rudy Rucker. Z:" How can the cosmos be a single, solid, smooth particle, when we clearly observe contraction and expansion? P:"The cosmos is one solid, smooth particle (the P-particle). Let me illustrate with ans analogy, Imagine Zeno, that you are a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of still water. Z:" I can do that. P:" What would the appearance be, if a three dimensional sphere passed through the surface of the water? Z:"I suppose originally there would be nothing, and then a point would appear, becoming a circle. a circle that would expand till it reached maximum circumfrance, and then would decrease in in size to a point. only to disappear." P:"Yes, is that not exactly analogous to what we observe in the no-boundary universe? A small sphere becoming larger, reaching maximum size only to decrease in size again. The problem is we cannot view the P-particle with a God's eye view or from the outside. It is our incomplete knowledge that leads us to believe in motion and change. That there is a plurality of entities. If we could achieve the Holy Mind there wold be no parts, no motion, no change; only the One" So what have we learned? That Parmenides, Empedocles, and Hawking are all examples of the Wheeler principle. When we make the law of non-contradiction the center-piece of our epistemology, we end up with a One in our metaphysics. Unless like Kant we cut off speculation at direct observation. The question now becomes: is the Wheeler principle an intrinsic part of the cosmos, or is just the limit of the human intellect? END OF PART ONE