The Limits of Science to know Reality without a Thing-in-Itself

Five Problems for Science and Why Metaphysics Matters
There are five classifications of problems that arise in science that have little to do with phenomena and everything to do with the underlying presumptions that contextualize all phenomena. These problems do not generally concern the scientist in the field. However, advocates of science who care to express a philosophical opinion on the subject invite criticism in failing to acknowledge these limitations. These advocates are just as likely (if not more likely) to be science enthusiasts as scientists, and glean their overview from the news-and-information popular media that similarly does not acknowledge these limitations.

Infinity Problem: Infinity, whether applied to space/time or causation, denies science a complete picture of reality as it is constituted in itself. (Only a noumenal dimension provides this complete picture of phenomena.)

Ontological Problem: Science cannot define the nature of being as distinct from its physical processes, either as mind/matter duality or as a vital force that gives rise to and animates living organisms. (These things are supplied by a metaphysical [noumenal] will.)

Fine-tuning (Teleological) Problem: Science cannot account for why the Physical Laws of Nature should favor order over chaos, and life over non-life. (These things are also supplied by a metaphysical [noumenal] will.)

Epistemological Problem: Science cannot explain the nature of understanding in the mind as distinct from its physical processes, or how we able to reason and generate insight. (These things are explained by the synthetic, metaphysical nature of intuition.)

Value Problem: Science cannot explain why we attach moral or aesthetic value to phenomena, or attach value to value itself. If value is a fiction, then it is a fiction that permeates every level of our perceived reality. (As value is tautological, only a noumenal dimension supplies it.)

In addition, science and mathematics are prone to fallacy, in that they deduce wholes from parts. Examples: what makes a single cell organism alive are the contents within its cell wall. (This is not demonstrated.) What makes a set infinite are its infinitely numbering members. (This is also not demonstrated.) Moreover, science and mathematics must commit a paradox in order to establish their validity: In science, the conclusion of a theory must be assumed true ex hypothesi in order to be proven true. In mathematics, the “why” of a theorem is assumed to be known so that its logic may be known through its demonstration.

Beyond these philosophical problems, we must acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry within its own areas of expertise. Science explains phenomena with theories, as long as these theories yield reliable results. When a theory fails to predict results, it must either be modified or replaced with a better theory. Many modifications come in the form of auxiliary theories, and as these auxiliary fixes (examples: renormalization, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc..) mount in order to fine-tune the underlying theory so it may correspond to evidence, the more the underlying theory (general relativity, big bang, etc..) is brought into question.

Long before we get to the order of problems outlined above, science reaches an impasse in what empirically can be learned from phenomena, as physical limitations, such as vast distances and so forth, are imposed on what can be observed and tested. As long as science can construct theories and test them, it can proceed. However, as physical law must adhere to finite limits, science, at least at the theoretical level, will eventually reach a finite point where it can only offer speculation about what it cannot observe or test, at which point it is no longer science as it has been defined to date. (We may already be at this point.)

Over the course of my notes, we will discuss these problems (philosophical or otherwise) at length, and then proceed to address contradictions that emerge in metaphysical formulations. I will propose a solution to these contradictions, and lastly apply metaphysics to a range of topics peculiar to the human condition. (7/29/10)

 

Space, Time, Infinity, and The Cosmos

Definitions
scientific reductivism: (aka, material reductivism, scientism) the belief science reveals total reality. The belief total reality is phenomenological in nature and consequently discoverable by scientific methodology and describable by scientific law.

transcendental idealism: the belief that we apprehend reality through ideation, as with concepts like space, time, and causation. Reality, however, as it exists in itself, transcends ideation, as well as the very notion of relational objects that arises from ideation.

Space, Time, and The Looking Glass
When we look up into the night sky, we are looking back into time. And yet, if the Universe was smaller at its beginning, then everything in that early Universe should be, by logic’s reckoning, close together. Instead, we see the most distant objects in the Universe everywhere we gaze in the heavens. They are not converging on a Big Bang event in a funnel, but appear far flung to the outermost frontier of our expanding Universe.

The paradox, as in so many cases, comes down to the inscrutable observer and their point of view.

First, things closest to us in space are also closer to us is time. For example, a comet breaking up in Jupiter’s atmosphere happens closer to our time frame because Jupiter is not very far away. The same idea can be extended outward, moving from near-time events within our solar system to far-time events occurring on the other side of the Milky Way, as with supernovae. As we remain in place in our present moment and see further into space, our horizon line widens with our penetration deeper into time. Consequently, we see more things, and by the time we get to the furthest events in the Universe’s past, the horizon becomes a panoramic view of the entire history of the observable Universe. The funnel effect is the reverse of what logic would suppose: I, as a stationary observer, am at the narrow end of the funnel looking out.

In glimpsing deep into the realm of quasars, and further back to the dawn of the Big Bang, we are observing an almost fourteen billion year-old history. If we project our present moment into this record, events speed up as we move forward in space; and what awaits us at the end of our journey is an older Universe materially different from the early one we first spied in our telescope from the other side of Creation. It is like film in a projector: you cannot jump from one point in the story to another without passing through the intervening strip. For time is embedded in space, and vice versa, and the two cannot be decoupled in experience.

The Bait-and-Switch of Space/Time
“Relativity supports Kant’s view that space and time have subjectivity contingent on an observer, though with nothing like the Newtonian uniformity he supposed. Still, the assumption of space and time’s physical existence rests entirely on effects and geometry as a scientific concern. There is no true fabric to space/time. Space/time is an ingenious way of describing gravity, but it neither explains the true ontological nature of gravity nor the true ontological nature of space and time. Infinity, again, is something else. Science and mathematics have found ways to paper-over the enigma with limits, but such serviceable fixes should not be confused with demystification. Simply put: causation breaks down at the level of quanta, and no proposed number of preceding Big Bangs would ever explain a first Big Bang.” ~from Omar's letter, Chapter Six of An Aversion to Ladders

In classical relativity, space and time appear uniform when velocities are calculated for moving objects. When velocities approach the speed of light, a new physics is required, one where, owing to the vantage point of the observer, space and time give way to respect the speed of light. Whereas Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity makes space and time relative to the observer, his Theory of General Relativity combines space and time into a single idea, space/time, and it in turn is made interchangeable with the concept of gravity. Here space/time is represented as two-dimensional geometry in the form of fabric, or grid, which serves to illustrate the warping effect on space/time by large masses such as stars.

Real space, however, is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional, so the idea of a flat, bendable substrate does not translate easily to a three-dimensional visual aid. What would the empty space over our heads look like if we were to curve it? It has no visual bottom, top, or thickness like the fabric depicted in the two-dimensional space/time model. More to the point, what would its boundary look like? In the two-dimensional model, the geometry simply stops like a table edge.

Einstein argued space and time could not be regarded as objective outside its subject-dependent experience. That is, there can be no objective present, past, or future in time, and no privileged location in space. In his mathematical formulation, space/time, though finite, is not absolute in the Newtonian sense. In considering the hole paradox generated by his General Relativity Theory, Einstein concluded that points in space and time were meaningless in absence of matter, saying, “People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.”

The question is: In absence of space, time, and matter, what exists?

It is proposed that the Universe has a point beyond which it does not extend, proceeding from the Big Bang and expanding some ninety-three billion light years at its diameter. Yet if the Universe has a point beyond which it does not extend (dare we call it an edge), how is this point demarcated? There is a difference between the observable Universe and the Universe itself, as the first requires an observer, and the second can only be guessed at.* This complicates our notions of space/time boundaries—as to whether or not they exist, and as to where they would be in relation to their contents if they did exist. We reach a point where Einstein cannot help us.

This “boundary” is not simply a question of space/time being counter-intuitive as an idea, but also being counter-intuitive to experience. As a space/time Universe involves math—and requires matter—, we have no way of contrasting it with nothingness as a concept. Nothingness is only the point (if not the place) where mathematics cease. We are led to believe more is being explained by space/time than is actually being demonstrated, and we are told we must abandon the difficulties space/time presents to our reason since these difficulties lead to only unproductive questions. Yet this amounts to something of a bait-and-switch for those looking to have larger questions about the nature of the Universe answered.

(*It is argued that if the Universe proper was smaller than the observable Universe, then we might see double. That is, we might see multiple copies of galaxies, as their light would encircle the Universe more than once. This could never be determined with certainty since each copy would represent a different cosmic time in the life of the galaxy.)

Space/Time versus Infinity
For example, space/time does not concern itself with infinity. This is not simply an issue for boundless space and time (which many physicists believe aptly describes our Universe) but for causation itself, as well as the very beginning of the Universe. Again, we are told nothing existed before the Big Bang. And yet, inexplicably, something the size of a proton existed the split second before space and time exploded into existence. Does this something-from-nothing argument satisfy the intellect in positing a first cause to reality? Can we be assured there were no Big Bangs prior to the one that began our Universe? If not, do these Big Bangs extend infinitely* into the past? As Schopenhauer was fond of saying, if the past were infinite, then it would be impossible we should exist, for an infinite amount of time would need to have lapsed for us to get to a present moment. Clearly there is a gap between physics and cosmology, and space/time does not bridge this gap, even though many in physics are content to leave the impression it does.

(*Many in cosmology believe exactly this, and in no small part because they want to explain the extraordinary fine-tuning of our universe by statistical chance and not by anthropic fine tuning: This is to say that, if our Universe is only one in a long line of universes, then whether it is one in a hundred, or one in a million, at some point the dice must come up double-sixes. If there are an innumerable number of rolls of the dice preceding ours, then our special Universe does not appear so special, only inevitable. For someone to believe they are witnessing a special roll, they are committing the inverse gambler’s fallacy. However, this argument not only assumes previous badly tuned universes, but the fallacy itself, as pointed out by John Leslie, is not applicable to the observer: He does not witness innumerable rolls of dice at random, but is only allowed to witness a double-six, since his experience of a double-six requires no less than a fine-tuned universe for him to observe it.)

Space/Time versus Gravity
Calling space/time constructed is at least true. But this begs the question of what prefigures this construction as raw materials?

As space and time are integrally linked with matter/energy, and as space and time are synonymous with the force of gravity, what are space and time? What is gravity, for that matter? If space/time/gravity are a form of energy, then this energy is clearly playing by a different set of rules than other physical forces. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only conserved as it changes states, then where is the space/time energy coming from as the Universe flies apart? Such a relationship between object and ether has been likened to the creation of sound waves by sound-emitting sources. Yet a sound wave, which is a disruption of molecules of air, is a percussive force passing through gas—not a gas itself.

Moreover, as it is easier to imagine gravity being a quantum force* than imagine space and time playing this role, then why is this force many billions of times weaker than the weak nuclear force? The gap that separates the physics of the very large (gravity) from the physics of the very small (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force) is the primary problem that concerns modern physics. A hypothetical graviton particle is advanced as a way of beefing up gravity and connecting it to the other quantum forces. Advantageously, gravitons, being the force carrier for gravity, would lend physical reality to space and time, since space and time are—again—identical to gravity. Yet where is this validating graviton to be found? Why in other proposed dimensions of space, of course.

This is a little like trying to prove the existence of a flashlight by illuminating it with a flashlight.

(*This is a curiosity: As the photon is the force carrier for electromagnetism, and the W and Z bosons are the force carrier for the weak nuclear force, and the gluon is the force carrier for the strong nuclear force, what is the force carrier for gravity?)

Spooky Action at a Distance
“The world of matter appears less muddled to us than our thinking about space/time, though, at the molecular level, it is Heraclites’ river that always looks the same even as its water of whirling atoms changes each time we put a foot in it. As quantum physicists, Bohr and Heisenberg, argued in their ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’, subatomic particles such as electrons have no real existence, only probability, until the act of observation forces them into a single state. In Kantian terms, there is no actual “there” there until one is posited in perception. ” ~from Omar's letter, Chapter Seven of An Aversion to Ladders

Given the disconnection between quantum mechanics and the Theory of Relativity, one can readily grasp why the former gave Einstein fits. For example, with quantum entanglement, subatomic particles can become entangled and share properties, and regardless how much space may come to separate them, when one is collapsed and disentangled by an act of observation, its pair collapses too. This, in simultaneity (if not in a transference of information about the simultaneity [which would violate causality]), is a clear violation of the speed of light, which is the only absolute constant in Einstein’s scheme. If this is true, and not an error in calculations as Einstein believed, then it casts doubt on the phenomenal reality of space and time as anything that separate matter in a metaphysical sense.

Schopenhauer, building from Kant, argued this was in fact the case in the century before quantum entanglement was proposed and demonstrated. He reached the conclusion space and time have no reality-in-themselves and, therefore, constitute no barrier in the underlying ontology of all phenomena. (This idea is similarly illustrated in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, where electrons, when considered as particles and not waves, can change location within their shells instantaneously without passing through an intervening space.)(6/10/10)

Space versus Other Kinds of Constructed Space
“Herein lies Shakespeare’s rub: The fact that a circle, the most symmetrical of things, should have the ratio of its circumference divided by its diameter come out to equal a real and irrational number* (pi = 3.14) means that no circle can be rounded off in perfect symmetry. The .14, with its infinity of non-recursive decimals places, is more than a clumsy fraction—it is the fabled eight hundred pound gorilla hiding in the untidy margin of our ruled books. ” ~from Omar's letter, Chapter Four of An Aversion to Ladders

Kant has been faulted for not anticipating Non-Euclidian geometry, where curved lines making up hyperbolic and elliptical shapes only appear to be straight and Euclidian when viewed as shorter line segments. Nothing in sense intuition anticipates this idea, and this can be appreciated if you think about an airplane flying from Russia to the United States, where flying over Greenland makes for a shorter trip than flying in a straight line. As a conceptual matter, space and time can be constructed outside the sensibility of the mind, but in real world space and time, boring a straight line through the mantle of the Earth would still get you to the United States faster by way of a straight line. (I am not trying to be funny here, but make a subtle point.)

Because space and time can be constructed as an exercise does not mean they have any greater degree of reality by virtue of having an expanded context. Mathematics does not need real space and time or even objects to be intelligible in itself: numbers and lines will symbolically do. Put succinctly, the ontological reality of space and time may not settled science, but ontology is not needed in mathematics.

Regardless, mathematics can drop a toe into the transcendental pond, and with constructions like hyper-cubes and hyper-spheres, four-dimensional models of ideas that cannot be shown to exist in real space can nevertheless have mathematical space. In the case of the hyper-sphere, a model for the Universe is advanced where an end-run is made around infinity by placing the contents of the Universe on the surface of a finite ball-like surface, where, in theory, if you travel in a straight line you will wind up where you started.Two problems arise with this: Because the Universe is expanding, one would never complete the trip all the way around the curved space since the starting point would continually get further away. Secondly, if space is finite, then what is this finite spherical space expanding into?

Adding one more dimension to this puzzle: It as been observed in data retrieved from the WMAP satellite, which has set out to map the Universe, that space/time is not nearly as curved as one may have supposed. In fact, it is mostly flat, as Euclid would have supposed. Of course, a lack of curvature in space/time at this scale does not refute Einstein’s calculable space/time, which has been demonstrated as an effect. However, a flat Universe bolsters the idea space and time extend infinitely, which in no way addresses the enigma of infinity. This leaves something to the imagination for those who do not despair of voids.

Arguably, the more demonstrable the void is to the circle-closing mind, the more the heart can take comfort in its non-existence.

(*Among the many interesting real and irrational numbers is the golden ratio [1.6180339887...], found in biology and mathematics, and employed by the arts, architecture, and mystic religion.) (5/27/10)

The Center of The Universe After All
Our ability to gaze back to the earliest visible events in the Universe has been greatly improved by the launch of the aforementioned WMAP satellite, whose primary mission is making the most accurate map of the early Universe to date. The nature of the data retrieved so far is astonishing, but little of it is widely publicized.

As I have said, WMAP’s findings have strengthened the flat universe model of the Universe. In fact, the Universe is so flat its critical density is described as having the “special value” of N=1, and this “fine-tuned”* status has been maintained since shortly after the Universe’s violet inception. A Theory of Inflation, where there is a sudden expansion in the size of the early Universe, accounts for this unusual equilibrium and flatness. (This inflation is noteworthy, since a new physics would be required to explain how this rapid expansion could violate the speed of light.)

Another perplexing problem posed by the Big Bang Theory emerges on our event horizon, and cosmically dates from the time when the background radiation began to cool and become homogeneous. Among the oldest celestial features at this distance, we can see galaxies that are, paradoxically, too far apart to see each other. In other words, the Universe is too young at this stage in its development for emitted light from these remote sources not to connect causally. Inflation would explain this anomaly, too, although some in the scientific community are not sold on this multi-tasked fix.

In fact, there are cosmologists who have never been comfortable with the Big Bang model of the Universe, and its theological overtones can be no small part of their misgivings. More to this point, the WMAP data has emboldened advocates of Intelligent Design and others employing the just-right Anthropic Principle to explain the “creation” of our “special” Universe. Indeed, the most extraordinary discovery of WMAP has come from looking at the cosmic microwave background itself, for if the “boundary” of the observable universe is equal to the entire universe (and there is no reason so far to suppose it would be otherwise), then this has profound ramifications for our place in the Universe.

“Results from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) appear to run counter to Copernican expectations. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe. [6][7]

Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:[8]   ‘But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.’” ~Quoted from The Copernican Principle in Wikipedia 

To reestablish the validity of The Copernican Principle, scientists have proposed another fix, namely, dark energy:

“When the universe was just 400,000 years old, matter and radiation decoupled and left a remnant radiation that still pervades the entire universe today. By measuring the tiny temperature fluctuations of this CMB radiation, scientists can learn things about the universe such as its shape, size, and rate of expansion. In the latter case, the observations show that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate, leading scientists to speculate about the existence of dark energy, new laws of gravity, and other possible – and often exotic – theories.

But what if the universe’s accelerating expansion is just an illusion? As Caldwell and Stebbins explained, this scenario is entirely plausible if the Copernican principle is loosened a bit. If, instead of the universe being homogenous and isotropic as the Cosmological Principle states, there is rather ‘a peculiar distribution of matter centered upon our location,’ then the universe would be centered on a low-density, matter-dominated void. Such a universe would be non-accelerating, and there would be no need for dark energy or other similar theories.” ~A Test of the Copernican Principle From Physorg.com

“Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenants in physics…” ~Dark Energy v. The Void: What if Copernicus was Wrong? From Physorg.com