Do the most sophisticated inventions of a particular time always or often tend to match how we conceive of the universe?
I’m thinking of and for instance.
If yes, is this a criticism or not?
Are mechanistic models unavoidable? Are there other models that make any sense? For those who are unsatisfied with a model of the universe, is really the only other option? Is for instance anti-mechanistic? Does it actually offer a fundamentally different way of conceiving of reality?
Are mechanistic models ultimately akin to theism in the end? The universe as if not an actual invention, at least like an invention? Or is this going too far?
Perception has a lot to do with inventions during the time periods they were developed. War probably is the largest purveyor of most the technology we use today. Such is the case of the cell phone. Repeating transmitters makes them possible to work over long distances. This was the brain child of an actress who was an electronics engineer who made it possible for the military to communicate a half a world away in WWII. The microwave is another example along with a myriad of other devices. As the saying goes: “Necessity is the mother of invention”. It’s hard to come to terms with the technical wonders we use in our everyday lives as being earlier creations for the military.
Are you saying it’s more the military than the particular invention that’s the interesting thing? Does our conception of the universe tend to be inherently militaristic?
Well, what I was getting at is the military is largely responsible for a lot of the technology we have today, Whether it’s a militaristic advent that directs this end is up for debate. Humans are materialistic and you know how one thing leads to another. In order for heads of state to stay in charge, they need armies. Thus it stands to reason they would pour money into devices to prortect their sovereignty. Humans sometimes forge their weapons into plowshears for the advancement of the species.
But my question is about the relationship between these technologies and how we conceive of the universe. I’m not sure if what you’re saying is related to that topic or not.
It is in a sense. Not directly at first. I believe the universe is here for a purpose, however esoteric. From what I perceive through my experiences, the universe is here from no coincidence due to my theistic upbringing.
As things became more apparent through observation, ideas for measuring and classification made it necessary for things to be created to make sense of the world around us. Mostly though, devices like the wheel were developed to aid in movement and clocks to manage our time.
Some people use different models for perceptual comforts, whether it’s empirical, theistic or whatever. People who deal solely in facts don’t satisfy the spiritual side of their nature. People who deal solely in their spiritual don’t necessarily feel the need for further information. Those who can combine both and put them in their proper perspective can possibly have a better existence than the two afore mentioned. Balance and perspective seem to be the key.
I think a distinction needs to be made between ‘mechanistic’ and ‘reductionist’. Mechanistic just means that things have a regular, physical cause. Reductionism, on the other hand, means that those regular, physical cases can be explained purely as the sum of their parts. Holism, on the other hand, suggests that things cannot be explained purely as the sum of their parts.
But the distinction between reductionism and holism is less than you’d think. Even the most ardent reductionist will admit that a collection of gears is not a clock – that the way the components are organized matters. That sounds a whole lot like a mild version of holism. Likewise, those who embrace holism can’t help but be awed by the power of a reductionist approach to the truth. So they end up having to do an awkward shuffle and say, “Well, erm, while reductionism does explain most of the phenomena we observe it doesn’t explain everything! What doesn’t it explain? Errr, a pile of gears is not a clock! Wait, no, that doesn’t work . . .”
As for technological inventions flowing from how the universe is conceived, that seems to be rather intuitive, doesn’t it? Invention involves applying the scientific principles which are known, so it follows that inventions would rely on those principles, which are, in turn, based in how the universe is conceived.
As for the universe being like an invention, I think what you are maybe hinting at is that the universe is a hermeneutic construct. Does that sound like what you are talking about? So the universe isn’t an invention but how the universe is interpreted does greatly affect what sort of inventions will arise.
very nice post! I like the first point…where did you get that idea from???
I think if yes then its certainly a criticism but it allows for conceptual ideas that can/have helped progress science. eg Einstein thinking about clocks allowed him to define time in a such a way as to formulate relativity. But by sticking to the concept of time inspired by clocks he couldn’t think of time being defined in another way that would be more useful to understand other areas of science(thermodynamics, biology, quantum mechanics etc.).
personally i feel holism is the way to think about physics ‘properly’ in a philosophical sense and to understand that mechanical concepts are only a useful tool for understanding how a part of the universe works if it where sufficiently separated from the rest of the universe. To me then the probabilities introduced in quantum mechanics are due to not taking into account the whole environment in which the atom(or whatever) is in.
maybe going to far with the theism thing…but then again you may be on to something…Einstein’s views did seem to be constrained by his belief of some kind of god i.e. spinoza’s god.
Ok, though mechanistic and reductionistic seem quite related to me. I think a mechanistic outlook might limit ourselves to certain ultimately inadequate explanatory modes through a limited understanding of cause and effect.
I agree that the distinction between reductionism and holism is questionable. For instance Lewontin talks about “obscurantist holism” which is essentially a refusal to engage in any form of reductionism. On the other hand many prominant and influential scientists would have us believe all sorts of rubbish in the name of “science”.
Intuitive, yes, but that’s a double-edged sword. The very obviousness of it makes me wonder how it can be believed in, as if it is a truth “out there” rather than a conceptual model related to a situated species with minds that are in fact both products of this same reality and also actors participating in the creation of this reality.
I don’t mean that the universe is an invention, and I do agree that “how the universe is interpreted does greatly affect what sort of inventions will arise”. But I’m also saying that it seems strange to believe so strongly (as some people actually do) that our ever-changing and evolving concepts actually correspond to the way things are apart from or seperate from us.
The questions I’m bringing up aren’t a critique of science, but they might be a critique of a materialist view that creates an imaginary schism between “mind” and “reality”.
Thank you. I was introduced to the question through reading a book by B. Allan Wallace called “Hidden Dimensions”. I’m not sure exactly what his point was to be honest, but it just struck me as interesting.
That makes sense to me - I agree.
That also jives with my way of thinking. I’m struck in part by how natural laws are true “all other things being equal”. That seems like an important footnote.
Depending on how I choose to look at it, “God” can be either the ultimate form of “greedy reductionism” or the ultimate form of “obscurantist holism”. Either way I think the concept can have a tendency to create a situation where things go unexplored - where knowledge becomes inhibited, and pliancy becomes solidified.
I don’t think a materialistic view does create a schism between ‘mind’ and ‘the universe’, indeed, I think materialism demands that the two be treated as the same.
The dualist says: The mind and the universe are two separate things!
The idealist says: My mind is the universe!
The materialist says: The universe is my mind!
This topic kinda got touched on in the neural buddhism thread – with the differences between ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ materialisms.
As for your critique of the materialist view, why not merely view the universe as that to which the operation of the mind is directed? That would seem to collapse the problem, wouldn’t you agree?
Well there are many very different views of the world being expressed by people these days, and many of them are called “materialism” for one reason or another. I’ve found that most of the people I come across who call themselves “materialists” can be characterized by certain traits, and those traits strike me as far more radically dualistic than is typical in the general population. I mean, is there any more obvious example of radical Cartesian dualism in a psychological sense than is found in Daniel Dennett’s writings? That he sees himself as a champion of materialistic monism is either highly ironic (the words are opposite to the meaning conveyed) or telling (materialistic monism is actually an extreme form of dualism). I’m not sure which. The modern radical divorce of psychology from philosophy results in these kinds of absurdities. That divorce is largely a project of materialist thinkers, working securely within the tradition of Descartes. “Divide and conquer”…
Casual dualism without the misguided project of substantializing either mind or matter is a much more natural and integrated way of approaching life (and understanding “reality”) than “solving” a problem through conflation. Convergent thinking has very distinct limitations in saying anything insightful about real-world problems.
I can agree with a lot of that, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is part of the growing pains. Dualism is pretty intuitive (most classical philosophies are extremely dualist, monism develops as a reaction to it not the other way 'round), and so it shouldn’t surprise us that Western culture has a very large dualist baggage (Eastern cultures do too). So monism is often a reaction to dualism, which means that monists hold dualistic views that they are in the process of refuting. Furthermore, since they are arguing with dualists, they have to frame their monism within dualism. Nothing too surprising there, if that didn’t occur they couldn’t have much of a conversation. It is like atheism as an ideology, it is most often (or at least most vocally) argued by those whose position is a reaction, a negative. What is your point?
Well, I’m just seeing where you are going with this. Holding up a weak exemplar is normally indicative of a strawman argument, which is normally associated with some end-goal in mind. You know?
My OP was 95% just open inquiry - I thought a few of the philosophy of science types might have a lot more to say about it than I do. That didn’t happen.
A few posts later I said:
That probably accounts for the other 5% of my outlook here. It seems pretty clear to me - I’m not sure why you’re bringing up this “strawman” stuff - I was pretty specific about what I don’t agree with.
All in all this is a pretty laid back thread. I’m not attacking anything and I don’t have much of an end-goal other than communal inquiry.
I figured as much, that is why that odd 5% confused me. I agree with your objection, I was just wondering what (if anything) you wanted to do with it or where we should go with it? Since monisms tend to be a reaction to dualism, they have a dualistic sensibility about them for a variety of reasons. What does this tell us? Should we adopt a neither/nor position, like Nagarjuna?
I guess I think that when it comes to substance dualism the idea of substance is more problematic than the idea of dualism. What problem is there with everyday common sense dualism? I’m me and not you. Mind and brain are different. Big deal! It is the idea of substance that leads one to believe that there is a real gulf seperating the apparently separate. If looked at as a matter of balance, dualism in a non-substantial sense (i.e. not substance dualism) is far less dualistic than substance monism - to me that is the great irony. Of course this is just a tendency I identify as common - it’s not necessarily the case that a self-proclaimed “materialistic monist” shares that psychological orientation.