Julian, I’m writing a book took and may take your lead in opening it to scrutiny during the writing process. I also want it to be free.
One of the insights which you are free to use in your own writing is that science deals only in the behavior of forms. It tells nothing about ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, the hug of a child, the stench of rotting garbage in a back alley, eating a pie at the footy, chatting with friends, a sublime symphony or the intoxicating beat of an African drums, or anything else that it means to be alive.
At its most rigorous science, uses mathematics to model theoretical forms (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells... all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters and the background radiation) and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, pressure, etc), that together with theoretical constants (Planck’s constant, the Speed of Light, etc) and natural laws (Conservation of Energy, etc) determine their theoretical behavior.
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behavior of the theoretical forms reliably maps or predicts (not necessarily perfectly) the observed behavior of observed forms. That is all
Science can never say anything about the ‘essence’ of ‘things’ nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all things appear, including all theories and observed events and relations.
When scientists make observations they limit their analysis to the observed results, say apparent on a computer screen.
Yet, according to science, the screen is only apparent to the scientist as a result of invisible electromagnetic radiation emitted by the screen which is absorbed by the retina. At that point, there is neither ‘light’ nor ‘colour’ apparent.
Instead, the energy is transmuted into an electrochemical impulse that travels along the optic nerve (though nothing actually moves from one end of the nerve to the other; it is more like a line of falling dominoes). Only as the energy flow enters the visual cortex at the back of the brain do colors appear (no one knows how). The further mystery is that not only do the colors appear, awareness of the colours arises in the same process. It is as if ‘the observer and observed are one’.
On this analysis, there is no little person inside the head looking out through the eyes into the assumed material works. All that are ever apparent to any observer are the immaterial colors (and other immaterial sensations) that are one with the observer.
On this analysis, the existence of the ‘material world’ is a matter of belief that must be taken on faith.
Consciousness on the other hand requires no theory or belief.
It is ‘self-evident’
My book explores the implications of this Reality :)
I look forward to exploring the world and Consciousness with you
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response, Michael. I agree with a great deal of what you are saying. Yes, it's somewhat paradoxical that science can embrace mathematical abstractions about a physical world we can only ever know of second-hand, through a subjective screen, as objective truth. And then can find it largely impossible to say anything useful about the only things which are undeniably real (whatever they ultimately turn out to BE; whatever their relationship to any external reality, whatever their "accuracy"); our subjective experiences and qualia. Yes, it's an intellectual mess...
But of course that mess makes an interesting terrain to explore...
(I feel I should engage further with your ideas here, but I am tired and hungry and need to go home and eat.)
Good luck with your own book, and thank you for your support. We can talk again later...
Hey, how can I not give a "like" to an article that quotes me! I appreciate the clarification of your position and which specific areas of science you're critiquing.
One point on reductionism. How common is this view among scientists really -- that is, outside hardcore particle theorists who arrogantly speak of a "theory of everything"?
I think there is widespread appreciation in science that there is a separation of levels. One can understand chemistry while knowing nothing of quarks. Even more so, knowing the internal structure of nucleons adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of chemistry. Similarly, while we do know that the laws of thermodynamics can be explained based on microscopic phenomena (the domain of statistical mechanics), they can also be understood and applied at a purely macroscopic level. And despite our knowledge that weird quantum behavior is happening all around us at the micro-scale, Newtonian mechanics is absolutely valid at the (sub-relativistic) macro-scale we experience.
Ask your favorite hardcore reductionist to derive the heritability of cystic fibrosis from the Standard Model of particle physics. If he handwaves that it's "in principle" possible but we just don't know all the details, tell him his belief is based on faith, not science.
Well, you're right, they tend to get more reductionist the closer they get to fundamental particles. But that's a lot of the people in astrophysics! Yes, I'm a big fan of the philosophy Philip Anderson outlined, back in 1972, in his piece More is Different: "...at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other."
So, I agree with you! But I think, as you move towards the physics end of things, there are some genuinely hardcore reductionists. They really do think that it can all be explained – the whole universe! – using the Standard Model. And that's the area I am largely writing about here.
I might chime in here and also suggest that a critical difference between astrophysics/quantum physics and other fields such as chemistry/biology/etc. is that the latter can easily state/accept that their field derives or emerges from a more fundamental field (chemistry is fundamental to biology and physics is fundamental to chemistry), while the former essentially claims that their field IS fundamental (either that or it derives from miracles/mysticism).
Thanks to you for generously sharing all your hard work in here, it's been a great time catching up on all the old articles. I just finished today, after joining when you posted "I Wrote A Story For A Friend", and I am a bit sad I have "ran out" of your thought-provoking posts.
Looking forward to all future entries to the substack, take care!
Hey, thanks Toni! I'm impressed that you've gone back and read everything, and I'm sorry (but also secretly a bit pleased) that you're sad you've run out of posts. If it helps, I shall try to up the pace at which I post this year. (I have so many half-finished posts, and scribbled ideas for more!)
Last year I wasn't able to spend as much time on The Egg and the Rock as I would have liked, as I hadn't yet set up paid subscriptions, and so all the work I did here just dug me deeper and deeper into a financial hole, as it was unfunded. Setting up paid subscriptions last month has made a huge difference, as the people who really like what I'm doing are now starting to fund the whole project.
It means we can potentially get into a virtuous circle this year, where the people who like my stuff buy me the time to write more of my stuff, and new readers are attracted because there's lots more going on here. (And of course there are now more people to spread the word by telling their friends, or linking to the posts from social media, etc.) It's getting closer and closer to being self-funding.
So, TL;DR: I'll do my best to give you more posts this year!
This was great! Thank you for writing this book. I also have a suggestion for art in space, and I'm surprised it's not in the examples already shared with you! There is a cofer of David Bowie's Space Oddity that was recorded in the International Space Station, with a music video also filmed in space, by Commander Chris Hadfield, it can be found on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
When I read all of those examples of artists in space I remembered how this video moved me to tears years ago when I watched it.
It's still up, excellent! Yes, I also cried when I first saw this. So moving, to see those lines sung IN ACTUAL SPACE. It was supposed to be taken down after six months or a year or something, but apparently David Bowie fought with his record company to have it stay up. Thanks for reminding me...
But yes, isn't this more evidence that we hunger for art in space? For an artistic response to space? I love Chris Hadfield's tweaks to Bowie's lyrics, to make it map onto his own experience. (He recorded it at his son's urging, and it went up on Youtube the day before Chris returned to earth.) They are clumsy changes (he's not a lyricist), but they have heart. It might be the most emotionally engaging thing to have come out of the space programme.
Julian, I’m writing a book took and may take your lead in opening it to scrutiny during the writing process. I also want it to be free.
One of the insights which you are free to use in your own writing is that science deals only in the behavior of forms. It tells nothing about ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, the hug of a child, the stench of rotting garbage in a back alley, eating a pie at the footy, chatting with friends, a sublime symphony or the intoxicating beat of an African drums, or anything else that it means to be alive.
At its most rigorous science, uses mathematics to model theoretical forms (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells... all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters and the background radiation) and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, pressure, etc), that together with theoretical constants (Planck’s constant, the Speed of Light, etc) and natural laws (Conservation of Energy, etc) determine their theoretical behavior.
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behavior of the theoretical forms reliably maps or predicts (not necessarily perfectly) the observed behavior of observed forms. That is all
Science can never say anything about the ‘essence’ of ‘things’ nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all things appear, including all theories and observed events and relations.
When scientists make observations they limit their analysis to the observed results, say apparent on a computer screen.
Yet, according to science, the screen is only apparent to the scientist as a result of invisible electromagnetic radiation emitted by the screen which is absorbed by the retina. At that point, there is neither ‘light’ nor ‘colour’ apparent.
Instead, the energy is transmuted into an electrochemical impulse that travels along the optic nerve (though nothing actually moves from one end of the nerve to the other; it is more like a line of falling dominoes). Only as the energy flow enters the visual cortex at the back of the brain do colors appear (no one knows how). The further mystery is that not only do the colors appear, awareness of the colours arises in the same process. It is as if ‘the observer and observed are one’.
On this analysis, there is no little person inside the head looking out through the eyes into the assumed material works. All that are ever apparent to any observer are the immaterial colors (and other immaterial sensations) that are one with the observer.
On this analysis, the existence of the ‘material world’ is a matter of belief that must be taken on faith.
Consciousness on the other hand requires no theory or belief.
It is ‘self-evident’
My book explores the implications of this Reality :)
I look forward to exploring the world and Consciousness with you
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response, Michael. I agree with a great deal of what you are saying. Yes, it's somewhat paradoxical that science can embrace mathematical abstractions about a physical world we can only ever know of second-hand, through a subjective screen, as objective truth. And then can find it largely impossible to say anything useful about the only things which are undeniably real (whatever they ultimately turn out to BE; whatever their relationship to any external reality, whatever their "accuracy"); our subjective experiences and qualia. Yes, it's an intellectual mess...
But of course that mess makes an interesting terrain to explore...
(I feel I should engage further with your ideas here, but I am tired and hungry and need to go home and eat.)
Good luck with your own book, and thank you for your support. We can talk again later...
Do you create online content, and if so, is there a link? TIA
https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-Haines-10?ch=17&oid=77090521&share=8abf05db&srid=gg3p&target_type=user
Too not took :)
Hey, how can I not give a "like" to an article that quotes me! I appreciate the clarification of your position and which specific areas of science you're critiquing.
One point on reductionism. How common is this view among scientists really -- that is, outside hardcore particle theorists who arrogantly speak of a "theory of everything"?
I think there is widespread appreciation in science that there is a separation of levels. One can understand chemistry while knowing nothing of quarks. Even more so, knowing the internal structure of nucleons adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of chemistry. Similarly, while we do know that the laws of thermodynamics can be explained based on microscopic phenomena (the domain of statistical mechanics), they can also be understood and applied at a purely macroscopic level. And despite our knowledge that weird quantum behavior is happening all around us at the micro-scale, Newtonian mechanics is absolutely valid at the (sub-relativistic) macro-scale we experience.
Ask your favorite hardcore reductionist to derive the heritability of cystic fibrosis from the Standard Model of particle physics. If he handwaves that it's "in principle" possible but we just don't know all the details, tell him his belief is based on faith, not science.
Well, you're right, they tend to get more reductionist the closer they get to fundamental particles. But that's a lot of the people in astrophysics! Yes, I'm a big fan of the philosophy Philip Anderson outlined, back in 1972, in his piece More is Different: "...at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other."
https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf
I expand on this idea in an earlier post, if you want my more detailed take:
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/in-which-i-talk-about-minecrafts
So, I agree with you! But I think, as you move towards the physics end of things, there are some genuinely hardcore reductionists. They really do think that it can all be explained – the whole universe! – using the Standard Model. And that's the area I am largely writing about here.
I might chime in here and also suggest that a critical difference between astrophysics/quantum physics and other fields such as chemistry/biology/etc. is that the latter can easily state/accept that their field derives or emerges from a more fundamental field (chemistry is fundamental to biology and physics is fundamental to chemistry), while the former essentially claims that their field IS fundamental (either that or it derives from miracles/mysticism).
Thanks to you for generously sharing all your hard work in here, it's been a great time catching up on all the old articles. I just finished today, after joining when you posted "I Wrote A Story For A Friend", and I am a bit sad I have "ran out" of your thought-provoking posts.
Looking forward to all future entries to the substack, take care!
Hey, thanks Toni! I'm impressed that you've gone back and read everything, and I'm sorry (but also secretly a bit pleased) that you're sad you've run out of posts. If it helps, I shall try to up the pace at which I post this year. (I have so many half-finished posts, and scribbled ideas for more!)
Last year I wasn't able to spend as much time on The Egg and the Rock as I would have liked, as I hadn't yet set up paid subscriptions, and so all the work I did here just dug me deeper and deeper into a financial hole, as it was unfunded. Setting up paid subscriptions last month has made a huge difference, as the people who really like what I'm doing are now starting to fund the whole project.
It means we can potentially get into a virtuous circle this year, where the people who like my stuff buy me the time to write more of my stuff, and new readers are attracted because there's lots more going on here. (And of course there are now more people to spread the word by telling their friends, or linking to the posts from social media, etc.) It's getting closer and closer to being self-funding.
So, TL;DR: I'll do my best to give you more posts this year!
Very excited about your project!!!!! (And loved the intro 🥰)
Thank you, Elle!
This was great! Thank you for writing this book. I also have a suggestion for art in space, and I'm surprised it's not in the examples already shared with you! There is a cofer of David Bowie's Space Oddity that was recorded in the International Space Station, with a music video also filmed in space, by Commander Chris Hadfield, it can be found on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
When I read all of those examples of artists in space I remembered how this video moved me to tears years ago when I watched it.
It's still up, excellent! Yes, I also cried when I first saw this. So moving, to see those lines sung IN ACTUAL SPACE. It was supposed to be taken down after six months or a year or something, but apparently David Bowie fought with his record company to have it stay up. Thanks for reminding me...
But yes, isn't this more evidence that we hunger for art in space? For an artistic response to space? I love Chris Hadfield's tweaks to Bowie's lyrics, to make it map onto his own experience. (He recorded it at his son's urging, and it went up on Youtube the day before Chris returned to earth.) They are clumsy changes (he's not a lyricist), but they have heart. It might be the most emotionally engaging thing to have come out of the space programme.
Julian, are you aware of Aideen Barry’s residency with NASA where she produced a performance piece in zero gravity? https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsandculture/arid-41025152.html
Hey, Allan! Lovely to hear from you... Oh, that is so cool. I didn't know about this, no. Thanks a million for the info, and the link...