It’s trendy for pre labelled “proper” scientists to scoff at questions of philosophy and metaphysics especially by banding them as part of the same spectrum as religion,voodoo,magic and superstition.
But I was reminded upon recounting some of Roger Penrose’s attempts to give objective meaning to quantum reality and his use of the density matrix as a mathematical tool to link U evolution ( of superposed quantum wavefunctions or states) with R phenomena ( the macroscopic wavefunction collapse to a single state).He confesses his own bias for needing a realists assumption about the the fundamental reality of existence at all levels.
Henceforth we follow various mathematical formalisms and follow them to their consistent implications or possibilities.
But it does come back to the scientific equivalent of Keynesian hubris.
That it is far more attractive to think that the problem can be understood and hence manipulated than the unbridled Hayekian alternative,namely:
That our intrinsic need to frame a problem with our own cognition limits the solutions to an extent that makes the result meaningless or ,even worse,deceptively meaningful.and that the conclusions we derive from playing out our various self generated theories 1) on behaviour,can be interpreted in as many ways as there are protagonists and 2) happen to be as predictable and reliable as some random function.
And I propose that if a log could be made of all investments ever made then the profit/loss of such investments normalised to account for bulk purchases would ultimately conform to a normal Gaussian distribution making investment outcomes as random as peoples heights.
The real challenge to change the status quo would effectively be to out do our own instinct and unpredictably dabble with the human ecosystem by adopting transgenerational policies spanning several lifetimes to see if we can even influence economies and social structures at all,never mind within our own lifetimes.
My own feeling being that the supposed perceived success of capitalism shows that in real financial terms the twentieth century has had the greatest extremes of inequality,with the super rich enabling massive mobilisation of multi billion dollar projects that have constituted human progress in science,communication and medicine but the fallout is that when things don’t work out:recessions,depressions,wars and famine,not to mention natural disasters and nuclear explosions:unprecedented numbers of people are affected.
So the argument is that real (scientific) advances (and their dominant influence on social structure) is only possible thru financing that can be generated by a society of extremes and inequality,whereas an artificially equal or “socially supportive” society would exist at a more subsistence level of progress due to its less manipulateable workforce and access to large single injections of cash…the key assumption here being once again that the human spirit would preclude large swathes of the population from acting in concert to collectively generate the same financial backing.
Another fundamental assumption being that we need a mechanism of financing to provide a source of stimulus for action in the first place which again,we assume to be true because prior to that we exchanged finite goods which whilst in harmony with resources could not inject the catalyst that credit does.
So we have the answer: money itself is the source of inequality and scientific progress with secondary social policies necessarily moulded to dripfeed a population sufficiently enough to continue expanding the wealth of the minority.and evolution to money was as inevitable and deterministic as our own complete inability to steer in any other direction.
Tell me that’s not philosophical
And tell me that Berkeley’s comment about a falling tree not making a sound if its in an empty ,say,island doesn’t touch upon the fundamental assumption which even quantum physicists are afraid to consider:
That not perceiving is isomorphic to not happening and all history that is assumed to be prior to consciousness and necessary for current existence of consciousness might quite possibly be a self fulfilling invention concocted by a cognition incapable of considering anything outside the scope of a binary yes/no approach (ie itself) which reflects the very world we have created for ourselves and in our own image and not the image of reality ( outside us) at all ( which could consistently be a fluid thing that comes and goes with perception…that’s not any crazier than some arbitrary collapse of a wavefunction actually…and in fact is precisely that).
The set of all sets that are not members of themselves is an articulation of the failure of binary semantics.
The same binary semantics that we believe has got us thus far today ( but actually hasn’t)
Even George bush was onto the fundamental limitation of quantum reality in the phrase about ” unknown unknowns”
At this very basic and disempowering level it becomes clear that our thinking has its limits and when a race turns inwards and reaches some logically impossible demonstration of its own essence it is sowing the most clandestine seeds of its own extinction that no meteor or nuclear winter could ever outwit,so actually the trick is to always be driven to this misguided quest and never dare reach such a conclusion.
Like the first time Adam asks about the forbidden fruit and realises he is naked,there is no way back from loss of innocence.When we see what we are and what we aren’t we will usher in the final fall of man
PS I am not on antipsychotics,nor have I been prescribed them and nor do I believe that a worthy but self deluded Keynesian quest of the Brain Institute can ever map the brain in a way that will lead to some insight into human behaviour which really is some superposed summation of some unmeasureable “whole” whatever and more importantly wherever that is..
Thankfully most evolutionarily useful people are not programmed to even begin to worry about such questions and as long as that remains the case the human race will continue progressing in exponentially imaginary revolutions of exp(2pi i)
so is it helpful to differentiate 2 approaches and who exactly is the beneficiary of such a separation.
Between those who deal with nature And those who deal with the man made
And what about man himself?
How manmade is man when his ideas come from within do they reflect an expression of nature with man as conduit or is man processing nature and spewing out something altogether artificial that is somehow necessary for the very idea of him to function to his strength through false illusions of order that help empower his species.
Is the very question a manmade and leading construct destined to find the answers it implicitly implies
Have we reached the limit of being able to derive useful extrapolations from the natural world into the manmade world and man himself prove the exception to the general rule of applicability.why?
So maybe it is for lack of anything better that we continue to employ an antiquated rule of generalisability to the unknowns of nature.
man remains curiously steadfast on au tightrope because he Is the mediator between conceptualised man made logic and the unknowability of his environment.
The only natural environment simple enough to be conceptualized precisely has been an environment devoid of complicated constituents…space.
As soon as life comes into it logic seems to make a chaotic leap into the realm of probabilities and guesswork.
You can dissect something manmade but you cannot take apart life and expect to understand it with the same approach.all you will find is the machine in man’s method reflecting back his own unconscious bias for the red herring of manmade logic
The hypothesis of number theory embodied in a platonically idealised sense of exactness…an assumption directly contrary to the shady world of indivisibility and discreteness.
So how can we expect a godelianally incomplete theory of logic to answer questions about who and what we are when your means of reasoning are tied up with the finite constraints of linguistic semantics so you don’t even know how to ask the right question?
I’ve implied it before but I will say it now
Douglas Adams put it best in expressing how we as a species might be the best way of bypassing the verbal restrictions of trying to understand what the question itself..of life,the universe,etc- might be,and how the vague search for some ill defined answer (42!) is in itself not the right response to such a ” question”.
Compare above with recent spam message I received stating following:
“That they both equally wish to gathering and still have enjoyment.When the indications are wide and varied,there’s a simple inequality relating to where did they heal many people on the whole in addition to the way they start treating people today there’re romantically associated with. http://Www.Jointheteam.Com Www.Jointheteam.Com By point in time this specific vigor features tv it is actually means by having a foggy,puzzled together with egoic human being imagination,it is actually initial ‘tune’ is certainly altered fairly”
If you can’t beat bullshit,just join the team!
This by the way is one of those 90s gems on so many levels.before shoegazing became a cliche ( cuz the term didn’t exist) ,and one of the most underrated guitar solos I can remember- builds and builds and before you know it you’re just hypnotized staring at your own shoelaces.definitely an American indie band for a British audience.
Jim morrison turns to ray manzarek who is playing Hammond with his flairs
” out here there are no stars..”,ray’s eyebrow pops out above his rainbow specs to catch some desert sun “out here in galaxie 500,we is all stoned immaculate shoegazers…”
Diffracting the arc of our sphere’s horizon
An azure blue maelstrom of life
A shimmering mirage
Marooned in black seas
A swirling undream
Of silent night screams.
Stone cold to your pleas
To sense your true essence
Ignore all your senses
And follow that voice that only you hear
Carving your spacetime in our stratosphere
To forge paths beyond limits
Beyond questions and points
Falling and stateless,innocent In grace
Cradled in ozone
Towards Mother Earth’s face.
Hazy coloured memories
Silhouettes and negatives
remixing the notsoold
Into a strangely chaotic and current concoction
Same but different
History never quite repeating itself
In the anti universe
this l’il redo just has some weird nostalgic vibe about it…prob the vocals…bit…oh i dunno…talking heads…and old fashioned home video quality distortion like some old MTV videos.
is it a trained ear that can get pleasure out of such a cacophony,
does it prove that classical music snobbery was just another form of acquired taste like…erm..hardcore gabba and this whateveryouwannacallit.
or would most people agree this is quite a pleasing composition
Musically Tangential Guerrillas with Wordprocessors