• Tzeentch
    3.3k
    Disclaimer: this thread is inspired by recent interviews by Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet, which raised questions about the limits of the mechanistic worldview. The ideas and questions I present here are for the most part my interpretation of what he has said, and not my own.


    The Mechanistic Worldview

    The mechanistic worldview, also the scientific worldview (though not the same as the scientific method), found its origin during the Age of Enlightenment, during which it can be said that the dominant method of understanding the world went from religious and spiritual beliefs, to scientific theories and rationality.

    Through observation and calculation it was found to be possible to understand the complex phenomena that underlie our reality.

    Great strides were made in many fields of human understanding, confirming the validity of this (mostly) new way of looking at the world.

    Today, the scientific worldview is dominant. We have narrowed our understanding of reality down to elementary particles and quantum physics, and the prevailing view is that every phenomenon can be understood as long as we can understand the way these elementary particles interact with one another.


    The Allure of the Mechanistic Worldview

    In an era where men were thought of as slaves to God, the scientific worldview raised them to masters of reality. One by one, "God's" secrets fell at the hands of increasingly thorough and complex scientific study.

    The mechanistic worldview contains within it a promise of power. A promise of complete control over our reality. A promise of certainty - of complete understanding.

    Man, trapped as he is in a complex and uncertain reality, desires this security of knowing above all else, and the mechanistic worldview promises that.

    The nature of morality changes when its basis is no longer fuzzy debates over thousand-year-old scriptures, but instead reason, rationality and hard facts and logic.

    Therefore the power that was promised did not limit itself to the physical world, but extends also to the world of thought, offering new, supposedly conclusive justifications of our ideals.


    The Limit of the Mechanistic Worldview

    The scientific method has brought mankind very far indeed, and it has made good on many of it promises.

    However, today we are also increasingly confronted with its apparent limits. Complex systems theory, chaos theory and quantum mechanics are examples of fields of study that bring man close to what is ominously called the edge of chaos - the boundary between predictable order and unpredictable disorder.

    Concepts like the Lorenz system and the Malkus waterwheel show us that chaotic systems, while still possibly deterministic, as evidenced by the fact that plotting its movements seems to yield all kinds of geometric shapes (reminiscent of Plato's forms, perhaps?), may yet be inherently unpredictable by man.


    The Need for a New Worldview

    While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge, the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it.

    It clings to past promises, but no longer seems to require a scientific basis for any of them.

    Instead, it assumes that all of these things are 'right around the corner', and when science will (soon) make good on these promises, its conclusions will definitely coincide with today's preconceptions.

    We may observe this mode of thought when it comes to complex systems such as the human body, the human brain and psychology, human societies and politics, virology, climate, etc.


    Increasingly we see that, where once the mechanistic worldview was a source of progress, humility and scientific rigor and critical thought, it instead is becoming a source of arrogance and wishful thinking.

    Especially in the realm of politics we see how governments eagerly seek to turn the mechanistic promises of power over reality, into power over people. The slightest scientific hint or statistic is enough to justify the most far-reaching conclusions, and through it, the most far-reaching intrusions into the lives of citizens.

    Citizens, meanwhile, are seen as little more than soulless objects, not unlike the machinery that once instilled us with trust in the mechanical worldview. Given the right input, the citizens can be made to exhibit the politically desirable output. Through processes of social engineering man can be constructed to suit the purposes of other men. Man has become a machine.


    So, what is the alternative?

    If you believe I will now suggest a return to the days of scripture and dogma, and of the selected few who by their extraordinary faculties had the ability to tell us of the nature of God, you are wrong.

    In fact, I will argue we are already back at this unfortunate state of affairs.

    The mechanistic promises of absolute power over reality and life and death is the new God and paradise. It's dogmas the theories that provide nigh-unbounded power over citizens and promises that have yet to find any grounding in our observed reality.

    And its clergy? No, not the scientists themselves. Indeed it were never the religious philosophers or theologians that went on turn their intellectual fruits into a tool for subjugation. Politicians are the new clergy, appointed by the masses (if even that) and thereby divinely qualified to interpret the facts and distill from it exactly the kind of power they may now wield over the unknowing 'common folk'.

    They have churches which we now know as 'media outlets' in which their gospel is preached and the followers faithfully sing along.

    I could carry on this simile for a while, but I think the image I am sketching is clear.

    They even have an inquistion - legions of ideologically possessed fanatics that have a special knack for rooting out heresy and other 'dangerous' ideas that may challenge their worldview. Obviously people are no longer burned at the stake upon suspicion of heresy. The days of such barbarity are far behind us(?). Instead today we practice 'cancel culture', but in addition to bullying disobedient individuals into silence, we allow them to live.

    Oh, how far we've come.


    So, the alternative? I don't presume to answer such questions for others. I'll leave that up to you to discuss and decide.
  • Bret Bernhoft
    217
    From my research, you're correct in that a new worldview is emerging. A popular title that I've seen this "new worldview" referred to as is "non-duality". Wherein the interconnectedness of all is acknowledged, leaving only a single, indivisible reality. But I think it's dangerous and shortsighted to assume that science isn't capable of embracing this emerging paradigm; call if whatever you wish.

    IMO, the new worldview can be found at the intersection(s) of science and mysticism.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    The mechanistic world view is dependent on the idea of continuous time. If, in reality, the flow of time is not continuous, then there are aspects of reality which are located outside "time", as represented by us, as continuous. In other words, it may be the case that the mechanistic world view is based in an inadequate understanding of time.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Modern science is a tool. Though not without its limitations, it is still the most efficacious and prolific tool-developing tool ever developed for self-correctively adapting to nature; and, like all tools, modern science has been misused (misapplied) in many instances. The solution to the problem of misusing a tool is to stop misusing the tool and not, however, in luddite / primitivist reaction, just to abandon and/or replace modern science with demonstrably less self-corrective, less adaptive "traditional" tools. Gross misusage of "traditional", or pre-scientific, tools (e.g. magical thinking, mysticism, spiritualism, sectarian dogmatics), no doubt, five centuries ago had begun driving the exponential development of modern science, which has been so widely adopted precisely because it remains more self-correctively adaptive to nature than modern science's precessors. Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k
    IMO, the new worldview can be found at the intersection(s) of science and mysticism.Bret Bernhoft

    We can see it as an intersection both disciplines, indeed. But sooner or later you would need to pick one or other. Mysticism stills lack of demonstrative practices. It is good to debate about some theories related to knowledge and how the world should works but we need to put them in practice or at least show it both empirically and physically.
    For example: The distance between the earth and the moon is 384.400 km. This is not a mystery but a solid evidence proved thanks to science.

    Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider.180 Proof

    :100:
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Science can tell you what will happen if you burn fossil fuels, but it cannot tell you how to stop.
    Science can help you to build better and destroy better, but it cannot tell you what to build or what to destroy.
    Science can increase life expectancy, but not fulfilment.

    If you need a tool, science is the best, but if you need a friend, it is worse than useless; science can only tell you how to manipulate people as tools. And anyone can see that friendship is what is needed tomato best use of science for everyone. If we we were friends, we would not be polluting each other's world. One need not reject the great tool that is science, but one needs to learn how to be a friend.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    The solution to the problem of misusing a tool is to stop misusing the tool ....Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider.180 Proof

    Reasonable suggestion. But...this also depends on the criteria of what is considerred "adaptive," which to a large extent are enmeshed with the objectives and methods of science. So a bit of a vicious circularity there.
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    Disclaimer: this thread is inspired by recent interviews by Prof. Dr. Mattias DesmetTzeentch
    A quick Google search indicates that Dr. Desmet is primarily concerned with The Psychology of Totalitarianism. And I infer that he views the current trend toward Fascist politics as a return to the ruthless top-down control of the Catholic Church, that eventually led to the Protestant rebellions and to the Scientific emancipation from Inquisition-enforced dogma. One ironic result of the rise of sectarian & secular worldviews was the emergence of NAZIism in Germany a few centuries after the Enlightenment era. The Industrial Revolution, built upon scientific knowledge, but allied with top-down Capitalism, fostered the rise of robber barons, and allowed Hitler to produce the most powerful war machine the world had ever known. His radical worldview was a sort of secular revival of the "glory that was Rome", including the imperial Roman Church. Hitler's implementation of that dream of world dominion was also based on a belief in essential superiority & purity of the Chosen People. A pseudo-religious political worldview, based on strict obedience to authority.

    Although that kind of Totalitarianism was tamped-down for a while, it is currently resurgent in the secularized & scientized Western democracies. Donald Trump, among others, has revived the spirit of Totalitarianism, by synthesizing politics with a religious inclination to worship a higher power, as embodied in an all-powerful Father Figure : the Fuhrer, the King, the Pope. Apparently, some people are not comfortable with free-thinking; preferring to be told what to do, and to believe. Such top-down control systems -- in both Fascist & Communist forms -- tend to emphasize the collective "Folk" over individual persons, and conservative traditions over progressive innovations. Yet it utilizes the fruits of Science -- technology; weapons, etc -- while ignoring the free-thinking philosophy underlying its Mechanistic Power over Nature.

    Perhaps it was the observation that Totalitarian Politics is based on a Mechanistic Paradigm of centralized power, that roused Dr. Desmet to call for the End of the Mechanistic Worldview. I'm not sure what alternative egalitarian political system he has in mind, but I doubt it requires submission of Science & Philosophy to Politics & Economics & popular Media. Tzeentch, do you know what he envisions as a Non-Mechanical Worldview to guide a multi-cultural & querulous planet, that is about to conquer new worlds beyond Terra Firma? :smile:
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    I'd say, if my use of "adaptive" is circular (it's not), then it's virtuously circular.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k

    ok. well if we're adapting to nature, and there is more to nature than fits in the current scientific worldview, then it wouldn't be so virtuous. Since the history of science is full of paradigm shifts, this would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis. The scientific method has evolved, who is to say that it isn't still evolving? A thousand years from now, our science may be as unrecognizable as alchemy.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    has been so widely adopted precisely because it remains more self-correctively adaptive to nature than modern science's precessors. Nothing mentioned yet suggests a demonstrably more adaptive alternative to modern science which, if there were such an alternative, would be reasonable to consider.180 Proof

    This is of critical importance. Reminds me of Jacob Bronowski : -

    Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    A thousand years from now, our science may be as unrecognizable as alchemy.Pantagruel
    Sure, but science "a thousand years from now" will not be inconsistent with, or refute, science today (which, btw, will never be comparable to "alchemy") but will extend it as e.g. Copernicus extended Ptolemy and Einstein extended Newton.
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    What we need now is a non-human mechanistic Fuhrer/Pope AI who can choreograph global sustainability while minimizing human suffering.

    The trick would be intolerable by human standards. How does the AI ensnare you to believe that everything you are doing as a contributor to the grand plan of a better future is what you want to do? And is it allowed to "assassinate" anyone or perform acts of God. How could it transcend the current limits of human powers to enforce its mission?

    When does your freedom become one with global servitude (all for one and one for all)? What is it allowed to take from you that you currently feel you are entitled to now? Aren't you afraid of this? How will it mollify your paranoia?

    But maybe this is the utopian dream of the power of the mechanistic world view, the very kind of thinking that is dangerous (because nobody will know what is really going on to futilism, crippling paranoia). The mess of human affairs is a mess, due to the blindness inspired by local needs/fulfillment, entropic trade-offs, resource limitations, the void of eternal unsatisfaction in the being of all creatures, short term versus the long term thinking. Catastrophe, soft or hard, is probably likely.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    A quick Google search indicates that Dr. Desmet is primarily concerned with The Psychology of Totalitarianism. And I infer that he views the current trend toward Fascist politics as a return to the ruthless top-down control of the Catholic Church, that eventually led to the Protestant rebellions and to the Scientific emancipation from Inquisition-enforced dogma.Gnomon

    Desmet recently became known for that work you named, which deals primarily with societal dynamics during the covid epidemic.

    The mechanistic worldview is connected to totalitarianism, perhaps even caused its rise in the early 20th century, in that it suggests man is able to find a singular truth, including to those complex systems such as how human civilization should be ordered.

    Totalitarian states have been characterized by such beliefs in singular truths; a belief that complex human systems and problems can be solved like scientific or mathematical equations.

    I'm not sure if Desmet makes the comparison to the church as explicitly as I did in my post, but I thought it was a striking metaphor.

    Although that kind of Totalitarianism was tamped-down for a while, it is currently resurgent in the secularized & scientized Western democracies. Donald Trump, among others, has revived the spirit of Totalitarianism, by synthesizing politics with a religious inclination to worship a higher power, as embodied in an all-powerful Father Figure : the Fuhrer, the King, the Pope.
    Apparently, some people are not comfortable with free-thinking; preferring to be told what to do, and to believe.
    Gnomon

    I think this problem goes deeper than the political tribalism and demagoguery our world is currently plagued by. Desmet argues that what seperates totalitarianism from a dictatorship is that totalitarianism arises from within the population, so in that sense it is actually 'bottom-up', though to classify it as such would be too simple.

    It arises from a desire within the population for certainty and security, and their willingness to abdicate power to the political figures that promise it.

    I think your observation about the synthesis of politics and religious inclination is striking, though I would add to that worship of higher power also the worship of ideals, which in totalitarian societies often were much stronger than the worship of a single person or party.

    Perhaps it was the observation that Totalitarian Politics is based on a Mechanistic Paradigm of centralized power, that roused Dr. Desmet to call for the End of the Mechanistic Worldview.Gnomon

    That might be pretty close. You might find his works interesting. He has also given many publically available interviews in English. I probably do a poor job at conveying all the details and nuances of it. All in all I found Desmet to be a very clear and nuanced thinker.

    Tzeentch, do you know what he envisions as a Non-Mechanical Worldview to guide a multi-cultural & querulous planet, that is about to conquer new worlds beyond Terra Firma?Gnomon

    It goes beyond my current familiarity with his work to give you a precise explanation of what he believes the alternative might be.

    It might be as simple as instead of ignoring the boundaries of science, we acknowledge them and adopt a more humble attitude towards the human relation with reality. If we are able to acknowledge our own limited understanding of reality, we may also be less inclined to follow demagogues down the primrose path when they profess to have all the answers.


    For clarification; the mechanistic / scientific worldview is not the same as science or the scientific method. Desmet is obviously not calling for the end of science!

    Perhaps it is more accurate to say that our current societal application of the scientific method is, ironically, unscientific.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Perhaps it is more accurate to say that our current societal application of the scientific method is, ironically, unscientific.Tzeentch

    I don't think so. Propaganda works. Terrorism works. This is the appliance of science to the mechanisation of humans. If you want to control the temperature, use an air-conditioning unit and a thermostat, if you want to control people, use propaganda and terror.

    The problem, is in that conditional "if you want..." - there is no mechanism to control that control mechanism, and it is caught up in its own propaganda and terror.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    What are you calling for?
  • Bret Bernhoft
    217


    We can see it as an intersection both disciplines, indeed. But sooner or later you would need to pick one or other. Mysticism stills lack of demonstrative practices. It is good to debate about some theories related to knowledge and how the world should works but we need to put them in practice or at least show it both empirically and physically.

    I can understand where you're coming from, at least I assume I do. But what seems to be missing from your response is an appreciation for how mysticism already plays an integral part in modern science. From the periodic table to the speed of light to the discovery of the shape of DNA, mystical states of consciousness are responsible for sudden understandings of many great scientific truths.

    I would go as far as to say that (for example) Einstein was a mystic of his time; given that his habits for contemplating new and revolutionary ideas involved masterful hypnagogic daydreaming. It is the non-ordinary state of consciousness that brings about truly innovative thinking. But I could be wrong.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k


    Probably I am wrong but I personally think that you are misunderstanding mysticism with researching or critical thought. I even these concepts are contradictory or opposed to each other.
    According to Encyclopaedia mysticism is defined as the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them.
    As you see these "rites" depend on someone's practice of faith, thus religious ecstasies.

    This is why I do not see mysticism as a complement to science but literally the opposite.
    You put as example the periodic table. Oxygen is a chemical element which is there in the periodic table. It is not a "myth" or a "legend" that the we the humans need oxygen to live. Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen by the thermal decomposition of mercuric oxide, having isolated it in 1774. During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of carbonated water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen).
    As you see in this examples the discovery comes thanks to scientific research. Priestley didn't have mystical thoughts... but a good knowledge and work in chemistry.
  • Yohan
    679
    Modern science is a tool. Though not without its limitations, it is still the most efficacious and prolific tool-developing tool ever developed for self-correctively adapting to nature180 Proof
    Naturalistic science is the best tool with which to do naturalistic science. Go figure. :100:
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    I don't think so. Propaganda works. Terrorism works. This is the appliance of science to the mechanisation of humans. If you want to control the temperature, use an air-conditioning unit and a thermostat, if you want to control people, use propaganda and terror.unenlightened

    Maybe I phrased it wrong, but I don't think those things are all that scientific. Defining the means and ends of propaganda and terrorism into scientific equations that produce consistent results seems like an impossibility.

    I see your point though.

    The issue seems more that we have the illusion that such a thing is possible. We're increasingly unaware of the limitations of science, luring for example politicians into believing they can engineer society to their liking.

    What are you calling for?180 Proof

    I think that we need to acknowledge the boundaries of science, instead of throwing them aside and letting wishful extrapolation, that is to say: fantasy, take over. Ignorance and delusion aren't all that productive in and of themselves, but in the hands of the powerful they're downright dangerous.
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    Totalitarian states have been characterized by such beliefs in singular truths; a belief that complex human systems and problems can be solved like scientific or mathematical equations.Tzeentch
    One "singular truth" of the Mechanistic worldview may be the assumption that humans in a "state of nature" are completely selfish, and always in a "war of every man against every man", as Thomas Hobbes put. So his solution, like Plato's, was to appoint a "philosopher king", presumably from among the aristocracy, to rule over the unruly masses. But history shows that "philosopher kings" are in short supply. Which is why Democracy eventually seemed to be the least-bad option for controlling the irrational urges of human animals. And that common-people-rule premise may be based on the "wisdom of crowds" postulate, which mathematically averages-out extremes in favor of moderate positions. Yet again, reality reveals that not all crowds are wise : e.g. stock market stampedes & crashes.

    What then are we to do? Today, many Western societies seem to be leaning toward the sovereign king solution. Technically, Hitler was not elected to his position, but he was popular in some segments of society, frustrated with the debacles of Democracy. And his simplistic mechanical logic seemed to promise a more orderly state. Unfortunately, that group order was purchased at the cost of diminished individual rights. Ironically, his avowed goal to Make Germany Great Again had popular appeal to both aristocrats & plebeians. So, it seems that societies tend to vacillate between the poles of loosely bound Liberty and rigid mechanical Order. And the statistical political math usually produces a muddled middle state that is not acceptable to either pole of the political spectrum.

    Organized state religions have always been integral to the political purposes of ruling factions. For example, the Pagan Romans had an official chief priest, called a "Pontifex". And that political role was transferred to the Christian Church after it became the official state religion. However, over the years, the top-down rule of the secular & sacred Empire varied from Liberal (weak) to Totalitarian (strong), depending on internal & external circumstances. When economically & militarily stable, it relaxed the rules. But when threatened from within & without, it tightened the reins of the reign. Consequently, it seems that a simple singular solution to social order has not been found by the heuristics of history. :smile:
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    I think that we need to acknowledge the boundaries of science ...Tzeentch
    This is, in fact, how science works (e.g. peer review, experimental testing and repeatability, defeasibility, etc).
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    I believe man should always strive towards rational understanding. However we have now come to a point where rational understanding has us admitting rationality won't bring us further, at least for the time being.

    This seems like a good opportunity to clean up our view of science, refamiliarize ourselves with its limits, and hopefully in the process make a step towards depoliticizing science, which I think is starting to become an increasingly large problem.

    It seems to me the more man is aware of his own ignorance, the more free and pluralistic a society can become. However, I'm not so optimistic we will get there soon, since we are still going to have to deal with the death throes of a dying, technocratic system.

    This is, in fact, how science works.180 Proof

    Yes. That's why I sought to distinguish between what Dr. Desmet calls the 'mechanistic worldview' and science itself.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    I've read the OP but it's not clear to me what the "mechanistic worldview" is distinct from science (or scientific worldview).
  • Manuel
    3.9k


    This (quite long) essay, which I posted on another thread, is most excellent, and makes the issue rather clear, with plenty of evidence, but it has little to do with power, and is more related to the limits of understanding. You may want to take a look at the history involved in the collapse of the "mechanistic" worldview:

    https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/ChomskyMysteriesNatureHidden2009.pdf
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    As you said, science is a tool. The 'mechanistic worldview' can perhaps be understood best as a set of opinions we have derived from our use of science.

    These opinions are not about things that science can do or prove (that would just be science), but about things we believe science will be able to do in the future, or perhaps illusions about things science is already able to do (which would be a misuse of science).

    In my view it is characterized by attempts to oversimplify systems that science has shown to be complex, thereby characterized by a disregard for the boundaries of science and thereby unscientific.

    Very interesting! When I get the time I will give it a thorough read.
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge,the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it.Tzeentch
    Perhaps, the "mechanistic worldview" you are referring to is the philosophical faith labeled "Scientism"*1. It seems to consider mechanistic Classical Physics as a final revelation of the absolute Truth about Reality. That worldview envisions a Newtonian clockwork universe, which runs reliably until human egos & passions (and religions) interfere to knock the smoothly-running system off course. However, that simplistic model of reality was called into question by two parallel developments in the early 20th century : Quantum Physics and Information Theory.

    Quantum Physics undermined the ancient Atomic dream of a firm foundation to reality by revealing that particles of matter, hopefully labeled "Atoms", were actually composites of even smaller bits of stuff. Scientific slicing & dicing of matter has continued to the point where now the foundation of the material world is considered to be merely matter-less mathematical fields of abstract potential*2. At the same time Information Theory was revealing the ubiquitous role of Information (Ideas) in the real world. That led physicist John A. Wheeler to conclude that we live in a "participatory universe", where the minds of men can interact with the physical world*3. He wasn't talking about Magic though, but about Meta-Physics*4 (ideas & intentions).

    Wheeler was re-interpreting Classical Physics in terms of Information Theory. And that novel concept is also at the root of my personal worldview : Enformationism. Such analog holistic views (e.g. Systems Theory) are already beginning to fill some of the gaps in digital reductive science. This development does imply an "end of the Mechanistic Worldview", in the sense of outdated physical models. The information-based approach doesn't do away with the reliability of physical mechanisms though, it merely learns to control them more accurately, with meta-physical understanding, to allow us to work with the Fuzzy Logic, and spontaneity, of the quantum foundation of reality. :nerd:


    *1.What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism :
    Conclusion. The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
    https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

    *2. Quantum Non-Mechanics :
    "One of the least mechanical aspects of QT is the “wave/particle duality”. What Schrodinger’s wavefunction equation refers to is neither a wave in a medium, nor a particle standing alone, but BothAnd. “In fact it’s not a wave that corresponds to any concrete physical property. It is just a mathematical abstraction . . .” Surprisingly, the equation that is the primary tool of QT includes Imaginary Numbers. And its solution is not a “description of an entity”, but a “prescription” for a future measurement. It doesn’t refer to a physical thing, but information about a possible thing. Which is why Ball says that QT is "a theory about Information." quotes from___Philip Ball, Quantum Weirdness
    http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

    *3. Participatory Universe :
    Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
    https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

    *4. Meta-Physics :
    This is not the scholastic topic of gods & ghosts, but the Aristotelian observation that human intentions can make a difference in the physical world. For example, the Panama Canal was nothing but a dream in imaginative minds (1513), until their designs were implemented in money & machinery to literally move mountains (1914). What Nature (physics) had left undone after millions of years, Culture (metaphysics) accomplished in a few generations.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    In my view it [the mechanistic worldview] is characterized by attempts to oversimplify systems that science has shown to be complex, thereby characterized by a disregard for the boundaries of science and thereby unscientific.Tzeentch
    Examples would help clarify exactly what you mean by this.
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    Is this view point arguing for something like the precautionary principle? The discoveries of scientific empiricism always involve trade-offs when applied at industrial scales. The problem is more of science from narrowed economic concerns, what is done from local incentive with ignored consequences/externalities. It's less about what science can do in principle and more about what humans can't organize due to all kinds of other depressing limitations.

    The science is great tool assuming one could overcome the hurdle of an uncoordinated pluralism (many states acting independently) to implement global coordination toward sustainability and human welfare. But let's not kid ourselves.

    Choloroflurocarbons used in refrigerants degraded the ozone layer. Luckily it was reversible and there was enough universal agreement to implement a fix.

    Just read that all rain fall on earth is contaminated with PFAs at levels that pose risk to human health.

    Maybe someone will try geoengineering if the planet gets crazy hot but there could be unforeseen trade-offs with that also.

    No matter what the prevailing dream is, it's depressing. :shade:
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    I think a good example might be our perception of the role of modern medicine in curing depression.

    In typical mechanistic thinking some seem to believe something as complex as an individual's mental well-being can be reduced to a chemical imbalance and cured with antidepressants.

    I go to the doctor, I take a pill, and my ailments are gone.

    The reality is often a lot more stubborn, and antidepressants can have serious adverse effects even in relation to the things it supposedly cures.

    That doesn't mean there's no scientific basis for its use, but it seems a mechanistic worldview draws doctor and patient alike into believing that basis is more conclusive than it actually is.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    'Seeking simple solutions to complex problems' is a psychological bias as old as language, religion & politics, not just a product of a "mechanistic worldview". By default people (primates) are lazy, especially cognitively (which is calorie-intensive / expensive); thus, the path of least mental effort (e.g. magical thinking). The need to overcome this atavism IMO, had given rise millennia ago to (gradually) developing philosophy and science – ways of demystifying and self-correcting "common sense" (e.g. magical thinking, folk conceptions, prejudices), respectively.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment