Phenomena, Rules, and Organizing Principle--- The Universe Model Science observes phenomena, and attempts to work out the rules which these phenomena obey. But what science cannot do is answer the question, why are there rules in the first place? Let’s suggest a productive way of thinking about that unanswerable question.
Start by drawing a picture of what I just said. It’s very simple to do. Draw a circle. Then, inside, draw another circle, concentric to the first, with about half the radius of the first. Then, at the center, draw a dot, representing the exact center of the two circles. What we now have is an outer band (sort of a donut), an inner disc, and a central point. Voila, the universe. Really. The outer band represents phenomena, the things that we can see, sense, and measure. This is the material universe, our world of everyday experience. The inner disc represents the abstract universe, consisting of its natural laws and conceptual framework, such as numbers and logic. We can never see the abstractions, but we know they are there. By analogy, we never see air, but are assured of its presence by its effects. So far so good. But now we encounter a conundrum. We know that the center of the two circles is a reality. We know that a circle cannot exist without a center. Yet, in a seeming paradox, there is very little else that we can say about the center. Unlike the circles, the center has dimensions of zero. And, therefore, it has no shape. The circle may be defined as the set of points equidistant to the center. But the center cannot be so easily defined. It has some properties similar to those of the number zero. Is zero really a number? It does not behave like any finite number. You cannot divide by it. And multiplying by it always results in the multiplicand becoming the multiplier. By analogy, the center of a circle does not share the properties of the circle which is defined in reference to it. So then, what does the center of the circle represent in our model? It is the ineffable essence of the universe. And using it as an analogy, we can begin to understand how to answer (or at least think about) questions regarding the organizing principle of reality. First, we see that we cannot hold the ultimate organizing principle of the universe to the same criteria that we hold its phenomena to, nor that we hold its abstractions to. For example, it has been said that if the universe is the result of some earlier cause, then that earlier cause must itself have had an even earlier cause, and that therefore there must be an infinite regression sequence of causes. The circle model shows that that is not necessarily the case. For we cannot assert that there is some yet more fundamental center of the circle. The center is the end of the regression. Of course such a simplified model has many limitations, and analogies can become very inelastic when stretched too far. But I believe that we can use this picture model as a plausible basis for explaining the physical reality which we observe. The universe we observe consists of phenomena. Those phenomena are governed by a coherent framework of principles which we call natural law. But those natural laws rest upon a central unifying framework from which they all arise. We cannot hold the ultimate organizing principle to the same rules which govern the abstract and phenomenological world we observe. That would be putting the cart before the horse (do people still say things like that?). Indeed, the organizing principle is itself the ultimate context to which all else is subordinate, to which all else conforms. We cannot say that just because the circle is round, the center must also be round. (For the center of a square drawn outside the circle would still be the same center.) The ultimate organizing principle of the universe gives rise to all the abstract realities of the universe, which in turn give rise to all the phenomena. We can work backwards from the outer circle, to the inner circle, and then toward the center. But when we arrive at the center, we have arrived at a singularity. There is a conceptual leap to be made. We can no longer apply the rules of the phenomena to the singularity. This is not to say that there is a disconnect, a gap, or a contradiction. It is simply to say that at some point near (or at) the center, our intellect finally fails us. We have attempted to exceed our maximum intellectual potential. Our finite minds cannot hope to comprehend the infinite. And there the matter might well end once and for all, a darkness into which our vision can never penetrate. Unless, if…. And indeed there is an “unless.” There is an “if.” If the ultimate organizing principle is not some blind, mindless, indifferent force, but is instead, alive (after all, does it not give rise to the phenomenon of life?), if it is indeed conscious (does it not give rise to consciousness?), and if indeed it is benevolent, then we might expect some certain things from it. We might expect it to wish to be known to us according to the capacity it gives us to understand it. And that is a matter for discussion in a separate conversation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
