Does Science reduce to simplicity?

[Stepupandpost]

A paradox seems to arise made possible by the fabulous valence of the carbon atom. It would seem that the subject of biology, because of its vast amount of possible varieties, is more complex than the subject of chemistry. This was Dawkin's opening argument in his book 'The Blind Watchman,' as to why the question of evolution should remain on the biological level. Likewise, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the subject of physics is ultimately more simple than the subject of chemistry. The question is what should be considered chemistry and what should be considered theoretical physics? If many of the theories today dealing with theoretical physics were ultimately determined to be part of chemistry, then chemistry itself would reduce down to an even more simple physics or physic--just a single metaphysical explanation. In other words, there are many theories in physics today that exist in the noumenal of deep theory, like photons, string theory, anti-matter and so on. All these theories of physics have their own reduced down frequencies. However if there is a mother to all these frequencies, then should all these other theoretical frequencies be bumped up and considered part of chemistry?
If so, then science would reduce down from that of a very complex biology, to that of a very simple physical solution.

[Tiggy]

A paradox seems to arise made possible by the fabulous valence of the carbon atom. It would seem that the subject of biology, because of its vast amount of possible varieties, is more complex than the subject of chemistry. This was Dawkin's opening argument in his book 'The Blind Watchman,' as to why the question of evolution should remain on the biological level. Likewise, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the subject of physics is ultimately more simple than the subject of chemistry. The question is what should be considered chemistry and what should be considered theoretical physics? If many of the theories today dealing with theoretical physics were ultimately determined to be part of chemistry, then chemistry itself would reduce down to an even more simple physics or physic--just a single metaphysical explanation. In other words, there are many theories in physics today that exist in the noumenal of deep theory, like photons, string theory, anti-matter and so on. All these theories of physics have their own reduced down frequencies. However if there is a mother to all these frequencies, then should all these other theoretical frequencies be bumped up and considered part of chemistry?
If so, then science would reduce down from that of a very complex biology, to that of a very simple physical solution.

The Blind Watchman? I thought it was the Blond Watchman. Or maybe the Blind Witchmaker. Bland Watermelon. Whatever.

- t

[Stepupandpost]

The Blind Watchman? I thought it was the Blond Watchman. Or maybe the Blind Witchmaker. Bland Watermelon. Whatever.

- t

You might jest, but this goes along with my missing number theory. Science and math tend to become so arrogant and complicated, that they fail to see the simple, missing numbers right under their noses. This is what happened to the Greeks when they concluded that the concept of infinity and the number zero were irrational. The expressions or concepts of zero and infinity are indeed numbers and the Greek ignorance of them eventually left them looking like ancient fools in history. So could the incredibly complex subject of biology reduce down to a simple subject of physics or physic -- one ultimate solution? (After the presently known theories in theoretical physics are bumped up and added to the subject of chemistry of course)

[rogue06]

You might jest, but this goes along with my missing number theory. Science and math tend to become so arrogant and complicated, that they fail to see the simple, missing numbers right under their noses. This is what happened to the Greeks when they concluded that the concept of infinity and the number zero were irrational. The expressions or concepts of zero and infinity are indeed numbers and the Greek ignorance of them eventually left them looking like ancient fools in history. So could the incredibly complex subject of biology reduce down to a simple subject of physics or physic -- one ultimate solution? (After the presently known theories in theoretical physics are bumped up and added to the subject of chemistry of course)

A simple typo proves your missing number theory... then I must be living proof of Chaos Theory

You think the Greeks are regarded as "ancient fools" due to their lacking mathematical abilities? The people who produced Pythagoras and Euclid among others?

[Stepupandpost]

A simple typo proves your missing number theory... then I must be living proof of Chaos Theory

You think the Greeks are regarded as "ancient fools" due to their lacking mathematical abilities? The people who produced Pythagoras and Euclid among others?

My point is that science and math are both complex and simple. The complex tasks are often times made obselete by the simple discovery of a missing number. So we should remain humble and ever watchful of our arrogance, else we be made to look foolish in the eyes of modern people.

I did not say the Greeks were ancient fools altogether. The Zenith of Greek philosophy gave birth to science, of course. As you mention, there were indeed sage like presocratic 'philosophers' in the ancient world of Greece -- mainly on the western coast of Turkey. But no more than any of the other ancient worlds of kingdom run city-states like China, India, Egypt and Persia. However, the Greeks didn't accept the concepts of 'zero' or 'infinity.' These fellows believed that they lived in a finite universe without the number zero and they have their own arrogance to blame for such silliness.

[rogue06]

My point is that science and math are both complex and simple. The complex tasks are often times made obselete by the simple discovery of a missing number. So we should remain humble and ever watchful of our arrogance, else we be made to look foolish in the eyes of modern people.

I did not say the Greeks were ancient fools altogether. The Zenith of Greek philosophy gave birth to science, of course. As you mention, there were indeed sage like presocratic 'philosophers' in the ancient world of Greece -- mainly on the western coast of Turkey. But no more than any of the other ancient worlds of kingdom run city-states like China, India, Egypt and Persia. However, the Greeks didn't accept the concepts of 'zero' or 'infinity.' These fellows believed that they lived in a finite universe without the number zero and they have their own arrogance to blame for such silliness.

So I guess they have only their own arrogance to blame for their inability to conceive of everything (or nothing as in the case of zero ). They were no different than any other group of ancient city-states; didn't contribute much of note. All of their supposed great strides go for naught in light of these humiliating failures. Glad you explained it Step

[Stepupandpost]

So I guess they have only their own arrogance to blame for their inability to conceive of everything (or nothing as in the case of zero ).

Arrogant people will always have a difficult time realizing the missing numbers, the missing rational dialectics (truth engines) and the simple missing theories in science. Should these siimple task be the responsibily of the philosophy of science?

They were no different than any other group of ancient city-states; didn't contribute much of note.

The Presocratics didn't know any more about definition and categories than any of the other ancient sage like people who lived in the city-state kingdoms of India, Persia or China. They did mention something about 'best principle,' but this doesn't reduce down to inductive definitions. That is where the western argument gets weak, when they include the presocratics as actual 'scientists.' Persia, China and India, amongst other kingdoms, had scientific like people. The Greeks don't really start zipping away from everyone else until Socrates arrives in the picture with the idea of definition. What is? What is definition? How may we define terms and ultimately write a dictionary?

All of their supposed great strides go for naught in light of these humiliating failures. Glad you explained it Step

The Greeks were odd in that they couldn't just accept reality like other cultures, The Greeks weren't happy just catching fish in the water like most cultures around the world, but wanted to know how their boats actually floated on top of it. They untimately figured out that they actually float on top of incompressible water -- the weight of the boat displaces almost the exact amount of weight in water. They had a lot of free time on their hands. Their civilization was advanced and had managed to set up a rigorous system of competition -- the Olympics for example. But a line wasn't drawn between science, art, religion and the other fields until the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The Chinese and Indians never did make clear distinctions between their science, religions and arts. This doesn't mean they weren't scientific, religious or artistic. Still because the Greek Zenith managed to make clear distinctions between them, they did in a few hundred years what the Chinese and Indians couldn't do in thousands.

[joel]

Physicists label chemistry as a branch of physics. And when I took chemistry in college, our professor jokingly remarked in the same fashion, that he considered physics to be a branch of chemistry.

[Stepupandpost]

Physicists label chemistry as a branch of physics. And when I took chemistry in college, our professor jokingly remarked in the same fashion, that he considered physics to be a branch of chemistry.

It is all confusing indeed. If one is a realist and believes that science is reducible, then one should be able to demonstrate that biology reduces to chemistry and, likewise, chemistry to physics. Physics is supposed to be the ultimate expression of what is scientifically happening in reality, so ultimately one should be able to demonstrate reality as one formula.

Perhaps this is why science should scrap the method of theory. All theories ultimately become fictional classification systems for many reasons, but the main reason that they do so is because of the reason of empowerment. The reason of empowerment supercedes all other types of rational systems. All decisions ultimately are determined by someone in a position of empowerment and they don't need to be rational, irrational, sane or insane to make that decision. In other words, all reason is ultimately managed and compromised by those in positions of empowerment, for the purpose of public consumption.

If science started narrowing itself down from numerous assorted theories to two or three metaphysical solutions, then this would likewise narrow down how it is misdetermined by the reason of empowerment.

An example of a metaphysical solution is the simple game of tic tac toe. One doesn't need to use logic when playing the game, but abide by a formula. If one abides by the formula, then one never loses and at worst ties.

[Barry Desborough]

It is all confusing indeed. If one is a realist and believes that science is reducible, then one should be able to demonstrate that biology reduces to chemistry and, likewise, chemistry to physics. Physics is supposed to be the ultimate expression of what is scientifically happening in reality, so ultimately one should be able to demonstrate reality as one formula.

Perhaps this is why science should scrap the method of theory. All theories ultimately become fictional classification systems for many reasons, but the main reason that they do so is because of the reason of empowerment. The reason of empowerment supercedes all other types of rational systems. All decisions ultimately are determined by someone in a position of empowerment and they don't need to be rational, irrational, sane or insane to make that decision. In other words, all reason is ultimately managed and compromised by those in positions of empowerment, for the purpose of public consumption.

If science started narrowing itself down from numerous assorted theories to two or three metaphysical solutions, then this would likewise narrow down how it is misdetermined by the reason of empowerment.

An example of a metaphysical solution is the simple game of tic tac toe. One doesn't need to use logic when playing the game, but abide by a formula. If one abides by the formula, then one never loses and at worst ties.

I would recommend that everyone who hasn't done so, should read Richard Dawkins' essay, What is True? from A Devil's Chaplain. You need to read the full essay before you can appreciate the final paragraph :-

Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention.

Copyright © 2003 by Richard Dawkins

[Stepupandpost]

I would recommend that everyone who hasn't done so, should read Richard Dawkins' essay, What is True? from A Devil's Chaplain. You need to read the full essay before you can appreciate the final paragraph :-

Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention.

Copyright © 2003 by Richard Dawkins

Rather than feel intimidated by someone who knows a little about the philosophy of science, sir, perhaps you should take a course? The reason I brought up this topic in the first place was because Richard Dawkins himself argued that the question of evolution should stay on the level of biology, because physics reduces down to simplicity. Please note that this did bother Dawkins enough that he addressed it first in his book entitled The Blind Watchmaker. The whole idea that the question of evolution could be reduced down to the simplicity of physics is downright scary for evolutionary biologists. If Dawins is right and the scientific expression of reality reduces down to simplicity, isn't that a paradox in itself?
By the way, sir? Have you discovered a simple missing number today? What about a missing rational system in science? Certainly arrogant scientists won't ever accomplish such a feat, when complexity serves their best interests so well. Yet when simple new numbers and rational systems get discovered, they literally overthrow lots of unnecessary complexity (Like having to learn Latin for example). Since science itself can't achieve this, the philosophy of science is needed to do so.

[Mark Little]

By the way, sir? Have you discovered a simple missing number today? What about a missing rational system in science? Certainly arrogant scientists won't ever accomplish such a feat, when complexity serves their best interests so well. Yet when simple new numbers and rational systems get discovered, they literally overthrow lots of unnecessary complexity (Like having to learn Latin for example). Since science itself can't achieve this, the philosophy of science is needed to do so.

Could you repeat this in simple English for those of us on the sidelines that are trying to understand what you are attempting to say?

I'm afraid the connection between simple new numbers and learning Latin escapes me completely.

[shadowmaster]

I would recommend that everyone who hasn't done so, should read Richard Dawkins' essay, What is True? from A Devil's Chaplain. You need to read the full essay before you can appreciate the final paragraph :-

Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention.

Copyright © 2003 by Richard Dawkins

It is clear to Shadowmaster that Stepup and Dawkins may be distinguished from one another by noting that Dawkins copyrights his sayings. Has Stepup ever considered doing this?

[Mark Little]

It is clear to Shadowmaster that Stepup and Dawkins may be distinguished from one another by noting that Dawkins copyrights his sayings. Has Stepup ever considered doing this?

I assume from this comment that the books sold by the ASA (to which I think you said you have/had some sort of connection) are not copyright to the authors?

[rogue06]

t is clear to Shadowmaster that Stepup and Dawkins may be distinguished from one another by noting that Dawkins copyrights his sayings. Has Stepup ever considered doing this?

I think SM is being a bit playful here. Having looked into the hearts of men he knows that you have to write something worth repeating to make copywriting worth while