Science is structured as a relationship between formal theoretical frameworks on the one hand and actual ‘reality’ on the other. A refinement of this idea will involve a separate ‘measurement domain’ for the Theory of Objectivity whilst classical science is careful to draw distinctions between matter, energy and information.
Here is Robert Rosen’s diagram of the relationship between the two separate worlds of Natural (biological) systems and Formal (theoretical) systems. The two are not the same but operate in parallel and an assumption is made that the structure of one reflects the nature of the other.
So we have:
- The Real World
- A formal system, a ‘model’ of reality
- A proposed relationship between the two (here referred to as encoding and decoding)
Proofs in the Formal System (here referred to as Implication) are assumed to correspond with events (causation) in the Natural System
Calculations are made within the theoretical system and these are translated to predictions in the real world. Experiments are performed and the results are then translated back to the the formal system to see if they agree with theory.
If results disagree with theory then either the theory or the proposed relationships are inappropriate. I don’t say the theory itself is ‘wrong’ because it is within a mathematical framework and will hopefully be mathematically (theoretically) correct. The problem will be that it simply does not correspond to reality.
The New Biology movement. Many members of the New Biology movement have trouble with this and want to discard the whole left hand side of this diagram. They don’t understand scientific modelling and so they don’t understand science and therefore try to re-define it as they see fit.
They complain that there is no ‘proof’ within formal systems but this is just not true. The idea of ‘proof’ has a very specific definition within mathematics and this is the only place where the idea of ‘proof’ does make any sense. There is no ‘proof’ within actual reality, only (subjective) observations. Moreover, you can never really ‘prove’ that you have the correct model as there may always be an alternative yet to be discovered.
The introduction of a ‘measurement domain’
This diagram shows a clear separation of theory and reality and introduces a conceptually separate ‘measurement domain’
Observations are made of real events and are translated to quantitative measurements which are then plugged into some interpretive system (theoretical model) where calculations are made, the results of which are translated back to the measurement domain to make predictions concerning future ‘real’ events.
Note that space, time, gravity etc. are purely theoretical constructs and never directly observed and yet many will still think of these as ‘fundamentals’ of reality.
Scientists working with these constructs have come to think of them as real and somehow immutable and that has hampered progress for a hundred years. According to the Theory of Objectivity of Konstantin Meyl, all of time, space and gravity are ’emergent’ properties of the theory and do not ‘exist’ as independent variables.
Think about what we actually observe, we cannot ever observe time directly, nor speed, force or temperature. all we can ever do is look at the position of something whether it be clock hands, a dial on a speedometer or the trajectory of a falling apple.
None of these give us a good idea of how to predict future events nor do they confer any ‘understanding’ of nature until they are interpreted within the model as ‘everyday’ concepts such as time, weight, speed etc.
The reality of our perceptions is tied more closely to the theoretical domain than it is to actual reality. Consciousness provides us with a working model that is good enough for survival and reproduction but insufficient for the endeavours of contemporary science. The ‘inner’ task of the scientist is to use the developed theoretical model to create a new intuitive structure with which to investigate the world.
Top down causality – bottom up emergence.
A diagram adapted from the Baverstock paper gives an overview of the patterns of causality in biological systems.
From the bottom: An electromagnetic bio-field guides molecular organisation in the form of ‘gene expression’ and protein construction. Information from here is organised via attractor patterns into a cellular phenotype and thence to an entire organism.
Feedback from the emergent behaviour is funnelled back down through the attractor to instigate meaningful changes at the sub-molecular level. Information ‘persists’ in the bio-field and can be passed on to the next generation.
Most important to note is that top-down influence is predictable and so can reasonably be described as ‘causal’ whereas bottom-up influence is via emergent properties whose behaviours are not derivable from their component parts and therefore cannot be classed as such.
Summary:
- All the ‘work’ in science takes place within a strictly theoretical framework
- The idea of ‘existence’ is not addressed as it is not necessary for scientific enquiry
- Causality in biology is via attractor patterns, emergent properties
- The ‘fundamentals’ of physics such as space and time are purely theoretical constructs – they do not ‘exist’ as usually understood
- The most reliable representation we have of Reality is a set a ‘measurements’ but this confers no meaning or understanding which is why the theoretical constructs are necessary.
Related pages: