I haven't found a way to get past that line with my e-mail setup, so I'll
begin here. Howard, I wonder if you are asking the wrong questions. Let
me begin with the unfulfilled assumption that M-theory or some other GUT
provides a full unification of all the forces and whatever may be needed
to complete physics. Is the current physical vocabulary adequate to deal
with all these phenomena? I suspect that it is not, that as quarks and
chromodynamic terms had to be invented, so new terminology would be
needed for the GUT. But the assumption is that the micro theory will
explain all the macro phenomena, even though it seems very strange to me
to suggest that the mass of small particles depend on the supermassive
Higgs boson. But the terminology of the macro relationships is hardly
identical with that of the micro forces/particles/whatever terminology.
If we now move to chemistry, the presumption is that the forces holding
molecules together, the mass of the component atoms, and all the other
chemical matters is explained by the physical micro stuff. But to present
the quantum view of even a simple molecule is surely unwieldy. We'll do
better to have a vocabulary that covers the grosser relations, like
hydroxyl ion or acetic anhydride. Organic chemistry uses other language
to describe its greater complexity. While the simple acid/base/salt/etc.
that serves inorganic chemistry is inadequate, I assume that in principle
the quantum relationships will explain the way proteins hold together and
fold, the action of enzymes in catalyzing reactions, and the rest of the
activities that we are just beginning to explore. We use very different
vocabularies to describe these matters, but the common assumption is that
a humungous quantum description could cover what goes on within and
between the molecules.
The next step gets us into controversy. While vitalism is officially
dead, there is a kind of aura remaining, certainly when one asks about
the origins of life, and often when the question of biological functions
is raised. It appears that the more we learn about what goes on in a
cell, the more we find an incredibly complex or chemical reactions under
tight controls, also of a physical nature. We have to consider that, if
chemical reactions of all sorts are in principle reducible to quantum
considerations, then life can also be similarly reduced.
I have in the above sloughed over the notion of emergence, that when
stuff at a lower level becomes sufficiently complex and organized, new
functions appear. To cite the usual illustration, a computer is a very
complexly organized silicon pattern of minute impurities and metallic
connections whose function can be explained in terms of the flow of
minute current pulses. However, with the input of complex sets of bits,
something like a conglomeration of data points that one cannot interpret
can be input, processed and output in a form that can produce the famous
aha! reaction. The "scientific" descriptions of phenomena do not usually
take into account that, outside of the lab, all kinds of stuff is
impacting and interacting with the unisolated stuff. In all our
scientific investigations, we have not found more than matter.
One can argue that this is because there is nothing other than matter in
the universe. Or one can claim that the methods used can encounter
nothing other than matter and the forces affecting it. I see no way to
establish one of these as THE TRUTH by techniques acceptable to all.
Things only get messier when mental phenomena are brought into the
picture. Is emergence adequate, or is there something more--at least in
human beings? In the end, we'll have to dig deep to understand what is
going on among us. I suspect that most often we'll decide, "If you assume
this, then that clearly follows. But I don't accept this." We're too
limited to get further.
Dave
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:49:55 -0500 "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@novagate.com> writes:
From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
I thought about this some more. Let me try again.
Assertion 1: "Chemistry is nothing more than physics." IOW, if we
understood physics better, we could explain chemistry.
Assertion 2. Biology is nothing more than physics/chemistry. IOW, if we
understood physics/chemistry better, we could explain biology.
Assertion 3. Consciousness is nothing more than
physics/chemistry/biology. IOW, if we understood
physics/chemistry/biology better, we could explain consciousness.
If asked to agree/disagree with the above, I'd say
1. Yes
2. Maybe, but I think not.
3. No.
John: Here's a set of related questions for fun:
1. Does physics have a conceptual vocabulary that is adequate to handle
all the phenomena & questions that chemistry must deal with?
2. Does physics/chemistry have a conceptual vocabulary that is adequate
to handle all the phenomena & questions that biology must deal with?
3. Does physics/chemistry/biology have a conceptual vocabulary that is
adequate to handle all the phenomena & questions that a study of
consciousness must deal with?
I think a case could be made for saying that each time we go "up" the
disciplinary ladder (related to the complexity of the systems whose
behavior is under scrutiny) from
physics-->chemistry-->biology-->consciousness we encounter the need to
expand our conceptual vocabulary to deal with phenomena/behavior not
exhibited by simpler systems.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 23:48:08 EST