From holism, boundlessness and difference — to a ‘4th law’: A is A because of non-A
This follows on from last month’s blogpost about those aforesaid three postulates, spiralling into the intersection of metaphysics with physics. Here I want to briefly talk about what I dubbed ‘the 4th law’ in the 2017 PDF (‘A / Not-A’ page). This was my presumptuous add-on to the three classical laws of thought; the law of the excluded middle, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction. I spoke about it as the missing link, the bridge between logic and actual physical reality.
In last month's post I described the universe as potentially holistic, yet boundless and also composed entirely of differences. Those three postulates become less paradoxical if taken all together — the universe as a boundless whole of (owing to) mutually-generating differences.
Similarly, the three classical laws of logical thought work as a whole package, each law is defined by the other two in an almost absurdly obvious way.
In passing I’d like to mention that perhaps there’s a fit, a pairing of sorts between each of the three law of logic and my three theoretical descriptors of physical reality. It’s rather tentative, somewhat shoe-horned-in, but I’ll throw caution to the wind and set it out here…
Law of identity: A is A = Boundlessness
(the rationale being that there’s no external comparison for A, it just is — bounds be damned)
Law of excluded middle: either A or non-A = Holism
(A and non-A are separate, no parts intersect — yet any either/or binary opposition is subsumed by an overarching holistic context)
Law of non-contradiction: A = not non-A = Difference
(it’s all about being different to what it is not — a difference that makes a difference)
Anyway, the ‘4th law’ is what gets cashed out when the (atomistic-coaxing) three laws of thought are set into a (holistic-coaxing) physics as described by my three postulates; existence fundamentally fashioned out of mutually-generating differences, with no prior bounds so no externality, plus no intrinsic scale to the potential universe.
So could an entity actually just pop-out of difference?
Or, to put it more fundamentally, could relata be no more than the result of relational, structural differences?
Quite a bit has been written about this in contemporary ontology, often addressing concerns thrown up by theoretical and experimental physics. A key text would be James Ladyman & Don Ross's 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized which sets out their stall for Ontic Structural Realism. However, in their encapsulation of OSR they seem to prioritise relations over relata, suggesting that relata are merely abstractions from relations when we drill further down.
Ibid. (p.153–4):
…the claim that relata are constructed as abstractions from relations doesn’t imply that there are no relata; rather the opposite. A core aspect of the claim that relations are logically prior to relata is that the relata of a given relation always turn out to be relational structures themselves on further analysis.
Our everyday common-sense view is that things come first, while the structure in which those things relate with one another simply gets unavoidably cashed out by dint of there being multiple things. But Ladyman & Ross seem to reactively over-swinging the other way (at least in the second half of the above quote). I don't believe there can be real relations without some-sort of real relata, any more than relata without relations: relata/relation are mutually defining concepts.
It seems a better solution would err towards dissolving any notion of priority in the relata/relations dichotomy. Scale is key: it is true that what looks like a relatum at one space/time scale will dissolve into a structure of smaller component relata at a smaller scale. Relata (and their relations) are scale-dependent entities, they exist in the context of their own space/time scale, that's the granularity at which entities can be said to be different from their surrounds. Furthermore, there is no reason to impose a physical limit on this fractal-like ‘dissolving’ at ever-smaller scales, indeed the pattern can reasonably be inferred to repeat, potentially ad infinitum in both micro and macro directions (well beyond our measuring capabilities). But importantly, this zoom-in ‘dissolving’ of relata isn't denying that atoms or leptons exist — they very much do exist, yet they do so in the context of their own meaningful scale, the scale on which they make a difference. Just as tables and chairs exist on our own meaningful-to-us scale, just as the Milky Way exists as an entity on the galactic scale, and whatever entities galaxies might be part of, et cetera, potentially without end.
Back to the question: yes, something can pop-out of mere difference, indeed it can't avoid doing so because ‘thing’ essentially is about difference from what-it-is-not. Difference here means fundamental distinctiveness in some sort of basic, reciprocal ‘concentration-or-not’ process (at the relevant space/time scale) which results in the reified ‘stuff of space’ — the mechanics of which ought to be left for experimental physics to help figure out, rather than armchair physics.
All I'm seeking to do here from my armchair is to suggest that ‘nothingness’ is no more likely than ‘something’. Existence isn’t magic but based upon unavoidable differences which necessarily percolate as become spacial in various concentrations and with their consequent complexities (including us).
But here abounds an infinite regress — what makes the spacial zones a flux in the first place (the very differences that ushered in space-stuff itself)?
I don't yet know, but when we're in the game of deliberating upon the existence of the universe itself, I'd venture that we are along the right lines when we…
Anyhow, where on earth to go from here?
I feel that I’m at a fork in the road: I can either take the route deeper into the valley where metaphysics meets fundamental physics, or head up to the hills where there's the panorama of an entire philosophy to sort through.
So I think that I might place a stone upon the foundational metaphysics of existence, at least for now.
A trip up to those healthy uplands awaits…
It seems a better solution would err towards dissolving any notion of priority in the relata/relations dichotomy. Scale is key: it is true that what looks like a relatum at one space/time scale will dissolve into a structure of smaller component relata at a smaller scale. Relata (and their relations) are scale-dependent entities, they exist in the context of their own space/time scale, that's the granularity at which entities can be said to be different from their surrounds. Furthermore, there is no reason to impose a physical limit on this fractal-like ‘dissolving’ at ever-smaller scales, indeed the pattern can reasonably be inferred to repeat, potentially ad infinitum in both micro and macro directions (well beyond our measuring capabilities). But importantly, this zoom-in ‘dissolving’ of relata isn't denying that atoms or leptons exist — they very much do exist, yet they do so in the context of their own meaningful scale, the scale on which they make a difference. Just as tables and chairs exist on our own meaningful-to-us scale, just as the Milky Way exists as an entity on the galactic scale, and whatever entities galaxies might be part of, et cetera, potentially without end.
Back to the question: yes, something can pop-out of mere difference, indeed it can't avoid doing so because ‘thing’ essentially is about difference from what-it-is-not. Difference here means fundamental distinctiveness in some sort of basic, reciprocal ‘concentration-or-not’ process (at the relevant space/time scale) which results in the reified ‘stuff of space’ — the mechanics of which ought to be left for experimental physics to help figure out, rather than armchair physics.
All I'm seeking to do here from my armchair is to suggest that ‘nothingness’ is no more likely than ‘something’. Existence isn’t magic but based upon unavoidable differences which necessarily percolate as become spacial in various concentrations and with their consequent complexities (including us).
But here abounds an infinite regress — what makes the spacial zones a flux in the first place (the very differences that ushered in space-stuff itself)?
I don't yet know, but when we're in the game of deliberating upon the existence of the universe itself, I'd venture that we are along the right lines when we…
- Maintain the mutual interdependence of relata with structural relations (on all scales);
- Integrate the One (universe) in the Many (the differences that make up its parts);
- Avoid contradicting the three integrated classical laws of thought;
- Consider physical reality to be potentially holistic, boundless and based entirely upon mutually-generating differences;
- Grasp that 1 difference = 2 ‘things’ (assuming holistic mutually-generating differences);
- Don’t spurn the absurdly simple explanations for fundamental physical reality;
- Err towards thinking in terms of reciprocal processes rather than static ‘things’ to explain entities;
- Doubt absolute discreteness, actual limits to space/time scales (Planck scale, Standard Model as ultimate account, etc.);
- Make provision for the forces of ‘anti-matter’, the hidden inverse that generates detectable space-stuff (rather than mere forces of concentration/expansion);
- Digest how figure/ground is mutually defining (and can flip, as in the GIF above).
Anyhow, where on earth to go from here?
I feel that I’m at a fork in the road: I can either take the route deeper into the valley where metaphysics meets fundamental physics, or head up to the hills where there's the panorama of an entire philosophy to sort through.
So I think that I might place a stone upon the foundational metaphysics of existence, at least for now.
A trip up to those healthy uplands awaits…
No comments:
Post a Comment