Essay Abstract

Attempts to model biological organisms, evolution, and the universe as wandering systems based on assumptions used in mathematical physics are asserted to be impossible. An alternative approach based upon established philosophical principles of Aristotelian formal and final cause is recommended for consideration. Axioms to accomplish this are formulated as well as the suggestion that God needs to be reconsidered as a Final Cause in cosmology as well as biology.

Author Bio

Harry H. Ricker III age 69 is a retired Electrical Engineer. He has a BSEE Virginia Tech and MSEE University of New Hampshire. He was employed by Communications Satellite Corporation, and worked at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. His professional qualifications include weapons systems analysis and design of satellite communications systems. Since retiring he has concentrated upon the study of mathematical physics, electricity and magnetism, special relativity, astronomy and cosmology. His other interests include history of science, philosophy, and amateur radio. He resides in Newport News VA.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi, Thanks for writing the essay. But, your article looks more like a literary work as it lacks the modern scientific approach and quantitative formulations. Although in science, mathematics is regarded as a quantitative representation of truth in nature, you seem to loose hope in mathematical formulations as you state in your abstract "Attempts to model biological organisms, evolution, and the universe as wandering systems based on assumptions used in mathematical physics are asserted to be impossible."

Instead of finding scientific answers to questions why there is life, growth, intelligence, goal oriented behavior etc in nature, your essay seems to accept it as assumptions as given in page-7. But, this is against scientific spirit when you stop asking "why" by renaming the observation as an "axiom".

    Hi, Thanks for your comment. I see that you have applied a demarcation rule to my paper, by saying it lacks modern scientific approach. That is your opinion. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion. However, I actually evaluate whether the tools of science are adequate to answer the questions posed and I answer in the negative. Many other essays have answered in the negative as well. I provide a constructive approach by suggesting how the dilemma can be resolved by adopting a different set of conceptual ideas that are better adapted to solve the problem in contrast to the insufficient tools of modern science.

    By the way. Aristotle showed that mathematics was unable to answer such questions such as addressed by the Contest and concluded that mathematics was unable to provide answers. In my review of the contest essays I noted that many others agree as well. So it looks like we have made no progress since Aristotle. Meanwhile the scientific community is promoting the idea that the universe is mathematical when this idea was debunked by philosophers thousands of years ago, and in reading the essays so far submitted, that conclusions remains valid.

    Dear Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

    A good essay analyzing the guideline given by FQXi, and finally bringing in the God, my complements sir.

    It's a long human tradition to put every unknown and in-understandable thing as the creation of God, and we are nobody to question it. If nobody questions it, how the science will develop...?

      Given the present state of scientific methodology, the scientific method has demonstrated limited success in discovering new knowledge. That limited success has led scientists to assume that the method they use is applicable to causes outside the limited material cause. The success in using mathematics is based upon number and quantity. That is applied to the material cause by measurement of quantity and transforming the measurement into numbers and then into mathematical representations called models. To extend that method into the areas addressed by the Essay Contest requires the quantification of goals and intentions. No one seems to have proposed how to do that.

      Regarding the issue of deity, that is a proposed Final Cause that has been successful throughout history. It is incumbent upon scientists to prove that they can develop an alternative final cause that has meaning in human terms. So far there has not been any such proposal other than mathematical natural laws. Such laws are human inventions as is the concept of deity. So far no one has presented a convincing reason for the universe to exist without the necessary conception of deity.

      Harry,

      You have many of the same reservations that I have regarding the essay topic. Science must be testable. This topic is more philosophical than scientific. Having stated this, I must also state that I think your assessment of scientific progress is overly harsh. Much progress has been made and continues to be made. You do know about computers, lasers, super-conduction, meta-materials, space telescopes, space travel, nuclear energy, ... well, you get my point.

      The problem that much of Physics has today is that the theories have become untestable by presently known methods. Rather than bemoaning this fact, it would be much better to identify alternate methods of testing or measurement.

      BTW, if you are interested in a calculation and a testable hypothesis, take a look at my essay. I won't disappoint, but the reading is not easy.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Harry,

        One other thing ... In some ways, I consider this essay contest to be an experiment with a null result. Think about that for a few moments.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

          Hi Gary,

          Thanks for your comments. The essay format is too short to actually explain my position which is that the scientific method is unable to actually prove anything as true, in the philosophical sense, regarding nature. In your comment I think you confuse scientific knowledge with scientific technology. In my view modern science is a form of technology and not a form of philosophy. That is evident since science is no longer called natural philosophy.

          Science as a form of technology has given us GPS. However, there is the following peculiar problem. GPS is supposed to be based upon physical science knowledge and in particular the theory of relativity. But in building the GPS the engineers realized that it would not work. So they built the GPS system so that it works, while ignoring the fact that it does not work if it were built according to the prescriptions of the underlying relativity theory. In particular relativity claims there is no simultaneity of time or no absolute time. Yet GPS is an absolute system of time and depends upon it.

          I don't think my assessment of scientific method was harsh, I think it was not harsh enough. The case of GPS shows us that engineers can make technology work even when the physics theories are false. I can cite many other cases.

          I don't think the problem with science is with regards to methods of testing or measurement, it is that methods of testing and measurement are not done to evaluate theories but to validate them. Then when experiments are done that do not conform to the prevailing belief system they are discounted. I think that is because scientists want to hold on to their prejudices and assumptions.

          See my essay on The Wakefield Experiments which demonstrates an experiment that does not conform to established physics theory:

          http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/12/12/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/

          Hi Gary,

          Here is what I wrote after reading a number of the essays: If the purpose of this essay contest was to beat the woods of science and philosophy and find someone out there who was a genius, and had some hidden secret answer, then the contest failed to find him. What did I find in reading the essays? Basically I found that almost all of the essays agreed that there was no positive answer to the question. So mindless mathematical laws are not a solution to the problem of life in the universe. I however, was unique in proposing that the question was an ill posed one and that the solution did not come from science, but from a different sort of philosophy, and I recommended religion as a better answer than science.

          You can read the entire review essay here:

          http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2017/02/02/fqxi-essay-contest-2017-review/

          Dear Harry,

          You often use the concept "scientific method". You do not use it in the way that physicists tend to use it. However, your paper seems to rely on your interpretation of this concept. Wikipedia gives a precise definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. You also seem to have an idea what science and especially mathematics can and cannot do. This approach differs significantly from my experience with math. Mathematics has many sides, and only a small fraction concerns the description of automata. Your target is the subject of the contest. Many parts of mathematics can be used to investigate that issue. It will be practically impossible to prove that all these parts are incapable of delivering a model that gives rise to aims and intention. The easiest way is to prove the reverse. The best way is to start with a model that has little direct relation to mathematics.

          Let us assume that a creator generates the universe. Now there are several possibilities. One possibility is that the creator generates the universe in one stroke. The other possibility is that the creator does his job in a sequence of steps. A third possibility is that the creator generated a repository that stores all required aspects and a vane scans over this repository as a function of progression.

          In this last possibility, potential observers travel with the vane and get information from the past. A messenger system sends them that information. The information transfer can affect the format of these data.

          This last possibility appears to come close to reality. This example is not a mathematical model. However, mathematical tools can easily model this example.

            Hi Hans,

            Thanks for your remarks. Regarding scientific method. There is a wide difference of opinion on that topic. I studied the philosophy of science books and they don't agree, and I studied the history of science books and they don't agree. My conclusion is that there is only a broad agreement on what it is and agreement that there are many different interpretations of it. If you disagree with my view then that is your opinion to do so.

            There is a large literature addressing problems of method in science and the application of the so called method. I cited several books that address that in my references. You should read them. There is a specific problem regarding the work of Mr Ivor Catt. He has cited an experiment called the Wakefield experiment that refutes the currently accepted theory of EM. His web site has an extensive documentation of resistance to his views. The bottom line is scientists frequently don't follow the scientific method.

            I was able to only briefly discuss my view of the method. My view is that the method only demonstrates sufficiency and can not prove necessity of any tested theory. So it can only say if a theory might be true, and not that it is necessarily true. In the case of Ivor Catt, he cites an experiment that disproves accepted theory, but that is dismissed because of the prejudice that science already knows the truth, so the new theory can never get considered.

            Regarding mathematics. I have read many books on the philosophy and methods of mathematics. Aristotle showed that the idea that the nature is mathematics, a Pythagorean idea, was faulty. Modern science has revived that conception and advocated it without fully understanding what is involved. My view is that mathematics is a human invention and is purely a creation of the human mind in its attempt to understand nature. It is not what nature is made of.

            The thesis of my essay was that the tools of modern science are insufficient to understand the larger aspects of reality, and I proposed going back to the tools of philosophy and specifically suggested Aristotle as a starting point. That introduces the conception of a Final Cause. I suggested some axioms that ought also to be considered as well. My suggestion was based upon the inability of physical science methods to address the philosophical problems being posed in the essay contest.

            As regards the conception of God or deity. It is pretty easy to misinterpret that concept. I am merely suggesting that science take God seriously, or frankly admit that the scientific method excludes it from the discussion. However, doing that severely limits the kinds of knowledge that science can legitimately claim to know. It looks like the current conception of science is to claim it can know or prove everything without limits. That is obviously false, and scientists would be better advised if they would frankly say that they don't deal in truth but only in what might be true about the physical world alone.

            Without a further extension, the above model does not generate objects that are capable of intelligent actions. The universe is filled with objects that either are modules. or they are modular systems. Special mechanisms generate elementary modules that are pointlike objects. These objects possess a location at every subsequent instant. Modular design and construction are optimally suited for generating very complicated systems. Evolution applies this approach in a stochastical way. It took more than thirteen years and many trials and errors to generate intelligent species. But finally, it achieved that result.

              Harry,

              Quaternionic function theory supports a consistent and complete field theory that applies the quaternionic nabla and first and second order partial differential equations. It relies on the fact that the quaternionic nabla obeys the quaternionic multiplication rule. The resulting differential equations are lookalikes of Maxwell equations, but they form a complete and self-consistent set that need not rely on experimental verification.

              Quaternionic Hilbert spaces allow the merge of Hilbert space operator technology, with quaternionic function theory and quaternionic differential calculus that allows modeling the interaction between discrete artifacts and continuums, which embed these artifacts.

              This model allows testing of theories without the necessity to rely on experimental verification. The resulting model shows many features that are recognizable from observing reality.

              This approach does not prove that reality is structured and behaves in that same sense.

              On the other hand, each experiment requires a model for designing it, and it requires a model for interpreting its results. In the end, the measuring results have the same value as prove as the sketched mathematical model will have. It proves nothing. At the utmost, it can explain.

                Hans, Any model of nature implies that the assumptions that go into the model are correct. Since the model is mathematical, that implies that nature is actually governed by mathematical rules, when that may not be true. It may be governed by different causes.

                Modern science and scientific models of reality assume only what I call the material cause and some times that is called the efficient cause. That type of cause assumes that natural actions are mechanical and governed by impersonal mathematical laws. Aristotle says that nature is not so simple that it can only be modeled by material or efficient type causes, and he discusses three other types of cause.

                One type of cause, addresses the actor or agent. This is also called the efficient cause. When the efficient cause is physical process, then the efficient cause is what I call material. I reserve this cause for biological agents and human beings. One real limitation of modern science is that it ignores the role of humans in the process of doing science and their motivations. Any real science has to address this in a better manner than is currently done in modern science.

                I propose in my essay that these other types of cause need to be addressed in any valid attempt to understand nature. I propose some axioms or assumptions that should be put into scientific inquiry in order to expand its ability to account for all of the phenomenon of nature as opposed to only the limited physical phenomenon addressed by physics.

                From what you say of your model, it is only a model of one type of cause in nature, the material, and so I think it too limited to address the types of issues being addressed in the essay contest.

                Hans, I don't object to models and I don't object to making theories.

                My thesis is that modern science, which came out of scholastic philosophy as natural philosophy, is too restricted in its conceptual framework to address the types of causes that are the subject of the essay contest.

                Physics works by restricting the framework of explanation to a manageable problem. Engineers call this "bounding the problem". It involves placing constraints upon the types of solutions that need to be evaluated. This works until people start saying that we need to think outside of the box of the conceptual framework that is being used. Such solutions are then referred to as innovative solutions. I am saying in my essay that physics needs to start thinking outside of the box that they have erected called scientific method and good science.

                Harry,

                The scientific method cannot prove anything true. It can only prove things to be false. After you eliminate as many things that are false as possible, you are left with something that contains truth. This is not a new idea ... it is the foundation of the scientific method. Experiments are what are used to determine what is false. That's the whole point to doing them.

                Regarding a GPS ... it works because there are a different number of Cesium atom ticks in a unit of time at the surface of the earth vs the same unit of time at the satellite ... and yes, engineers can make almost anything work.

                You are correct, I equate science with technology rather than science with truth ... it is mainly useful to me in that it produces weapons and tools.

                With regards to the present state of science ... I respectfully disagree ... folks just cannot come up with the right experiments or the right insight. Perhaps we have gone as far as science will allow ... I don't know for certain but I don't think so. In any evert, religion does not offer any testable hypotheses either.

                And yes, most folks want to hold onto what ever scientific beliefs they hold ... science advances because old scientists die ... a morbid thought but true nonetheless.

                Good Luck,

                Gary Simpson

                Harry,

                I feel left out ... I calculated the size of the proton for God's sake ... does that not merit at least a passing comment:-) Or do you assume I must be wrong because I did not use QED? Check your premises Mr. Rearden.

                Regards,

                Gary Simpson

                Harry,

                One cannot deny that evolution after thirteen billion years evolution created intelligent species. The above model suits both creationists as well as evolutionists. In a single stroke, the creator created a storage model and made it possible that a collection of observers scan this repository as a function of progression. A quaternionic Hilbert space represents a usable repository and stores time-stamped locations of pointlike elementary particles in quaternions. Quaternionic Hilbert spaces can merge operator technology with function theory and differential calculus. Thus it enables the embedding of discrete items in continuums that take the role of fields. It is easy to take the capabilities of these powerful pieces of mathematics too lightly.

                You may be right with respect to the fact that this storage structure does not contain the mechanisms that generate the triggers, which install the dynamics of the model. Special stochastic mechanisms must generate the locations of the elementary particles. However, this is covered by another part of mathematics. Contemporary physics does not consider these mechanisms. This fact does not say that mathematics cannot tackle that subject.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #19

                Interesting read, Harry. Sounds a bit like scientific nihilism though. Your Hylozoist axiom, in principle, sounds like Jeremy England's description of matter naturally following entropic principles to more efficiently dissipate energy by restructuring and making copies of itself. (Physical Laws exist to implant biological principles, as forms or souls, into primordial matter to create corporeal being.) Your Hylomorphist Axiom reminds me of the tendency of scientist to express science matters with anthropomorphic tendencies. As for God's presence in nature, its not a substitute for science but an expression of faith in what we can't comprehend. I believe that matter can be alive through our self-expression (art, sculpture) but not materially in a pantheistic sense.

                Jim Hoover

                  Interesting read, Harry. Sounds a bit like scientific nihilism though. Your Hylozoist axiom, in principle, sounds like Jeremy England's description of matter naturally following entropic principles to more efficiently dissipate energy by restructuring and making copies of itself. (Physical Laws exist to implant biological principles, as forms or souls, into primordial matter to create corporeal being.) Your Hylomorphist Axiom reminds me of the tendency of scientist to express science matters with anthropomorphic tendencies. As for God's presence in nature, its not a substitute for science but an expression of faith in what we can't comprehend. I believe that matter can be alive through our self-expression (art, sculpture) but not materially in a pantheistic sense.

                  Jim Hoover