Physics Lournal

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

Introduction-AM

Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

Anarchism, as medicine for Epistemology and for the Philosophy of Science.

"History generally, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more many-sided, more lively and subtle than even the best historian and the best methodologist can imagine" - Lenin.

Some implications of this are that when we think about, speak about, or write about History, we are inevitably simplifying it, because the complexity of the reality of any historic event, is larger than we can ever communicate.

A true, albeit hyperbolically true, history, would have to keep track of the activities of every particle in the universe. If we attempt to scale this down we find that we can't do it satisfactorily even at seemingly "small" scales, such as cities, when compared to the hyperbole, perhaps even neighborhoods, and households, down to a person in fact: we are forced to omit detail.

They say History is written by the winners, and the victors, but this perspective rules out that binary perspective, with History being many-sided- of course one can pick a side as a "Winner", lumping the other sides in the losers group, but this is of course, another one of the simplifications we must do.

"[History is full of] accidents and conjunctures and curious juxtapositions of events...[and demonstrates the] complexity of human change, and the unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of any given act or decision of men." - Herbert Butterfield

There's a very leap-of-faith feeling to taking this perspective on history, as we like to think of it as an accurate road-map to modern times, but the idea of it being filled with plot-holes, and loose-ends, is very unsettling, as it means we don't have the manual for human success that we felt we did. And of course, this adds more mystery, as there can only be wondering done about the influences on the trajectory of history that were lost to it. Not only do we not know what happened, we never will.

These rapid changes are phase-transitions., and we generally can only understand them in hindsight, which betrays their unexpected and sudden, almost Black Swan like nature.

Really, History is an example of complexity. The "unpredictable character of the ultimate consequences of decisions", has a striking similarity to non-linearity, and chaos in complex systems:

Unpredictable behavior, and real-world events that can affect production environments, can make distributed systems chaotic.

This is from Chaos Engineering, which is very interesting.

History displays so many characteristics of complexity/complex systems: Dense or high connectivity of components, as this increases, these take precedence over the properties of components.

"...nations and governments have never learned anything from history".

Cheeky, but appreciated, one could certainly come to this conclusion in general, looking at how many structural or procedural failures have propagated throughout time and civilizations.

"Is it not clear that successful participation in a process of this kind is possible only for a ruthless opportunist who is not tied to any particular philosophy and who adopts whatever procedure seems to fit the occasion?"

Well, I don't know if I would describe the necessary characteristic as "ruthless opportunism"- for me, the idea of being dedicated to open-mindedness, seems to be the true crux of an individual being able to respond maturely to changes in scientific beliefs or representations. Really, it is the ability to integrate new information and respond accordingly that makes one able to do good since continuously.

This perspective, however, is backed up by an additional quote from Lenin: "...in order to fulfill its task, the revolutionary class [i.e. the class of those who want to change either a part of society such as science, or society as a whole] must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception [it must be able to understand, and to apply, not only one particular methodology, but any methodology, and any variation thereof it can imagine]…; second [it] must be ready to pass from one to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.”

What stands out to me, is the emphasis on involvement with society as a whole, as opposed to a scientific community. I do see why the word ruthlessness, could be applied here, as the affairs of the human world do tend to engender and present such a trait as a pathway to success, but I can't imagine the scientists would be applying this ruthlessness- in fact it seems moreso that it would be people like Feyerabend, who would apply this technique, in order to make room for the ideas of scientists.

This of course, is not to at all imply that scientists, aren't, or can't be truly ruthless, in the deepest meaning of the word, as the behaviors of people like Mengele and Edison do show that scientists can be ruthless, and in the case of Mengele, downright cruel.

We also have some commentary from Einstein that lends itself in support of "ruthlessness":

“The external conditions which are set for [the scientist] by the facts of experience do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted, in the construction of his conceptual world, by the adherence to an epistemological system. He, therefore, must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist.…”

The deep irony here is that eventually, Einstein reneged on this very belief of his, refusing to accept Quantum Mechanics, and searching for a Unified Field Theory, despite QM being highly successful with predictions, as well as informative about nature, and despite there being little success with developing a UFT: there were facts of experience set forth by external conditions of the field of science and the associated knowledge that he couldn't incorporate into his conceptual world, and thus likely missed out on potentially many more opportunities to put his mark on science via taking great strides forward, where the pathways were clearer, and less obstructed.

More evidence from Lenin: “Two very important practical conclusions follow from this [character of the historical process]: First, that in order to fulfill its task, the revolutionary class [i.e. the class of those who want to change either a part of society such as science, or society as a whole] must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception [it must be able to understand, and to apply, not only one particular methodology, but any methodology, and any variation thereof it can imagine]…; second [it] must be ready to pass from one to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.” “

So far what seems to be taking place is a representation of the enterprise of science as not necessarily hostile, but chaotic, and in the midst of such chaos, as the old proverb advises, one must bend, lest one breaks in the wind. The wind (chaos) being societal pressures, funding pressures, the data and laws of nature themselves even. The philosophical perspective that most effectively embraces this is the one of the anarchist: bound to no order, no rule, no law. The scientist must be bound to no (scientific) order, (scientific) rule, or (scientific) law (save for nature's laws- but even those can be overturned).

One method for simplifying the environment of the scientist, is to simplify the scientist: scientific history is not just comprised of the stuff of science, but rather, perspectives, opinions, analyses, and conflicting interpretations. In truth, there are no "absolute" facts in science. It makes sense that the history of science would be just as varied in its contents as the field itself. Conversely, a little brainwashing will go a long way in making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more “objective” and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchangeable rules.

Scientific education as we know it today has precisely this aim. It simplifies “science” by simplifying its participants: first, a domain of research is defined. The domain is separated from the rest of history (physics, for example, is separated from metaphysics and from theology) and given a “logic” of its own. A thorough training in such a “logic” then conditions those working in the domain; it makes their actions more uniform and it freezes large parts of the historical process as well.

Domains of Research:

Physics being separated from that from which it sprang (partially theology, and Metaphysics, but also Alchemy, and the occult), may have been very destructive to the fields ability to source new perspectives on reality, from influences who were analyzing it from a fundamentally different angle.

It's never been lost on me that one of the most famous moments in Robert Oppenheimer's life is a quote from the Bhagavad-Gita.

It's rumored that Einstein was a fan of Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophy movement.

One of the main tenets of the Theosophical movement, was that it embraced the essential truth underlying, among many other things science, even going so far as to produce its own cosmological perspective.

It's not hard to imagine that Einstein, the lovable, quirky and personable scientist, is a much more- rather was/has been a much more palatable image to present to the public, than Einstein the affable physicist and occultist.

The stark separation of Physics from Metaphysics always seemed a bit odd to me: considering that Metaphysics is "beyond Physics", there should be a bridge between the two, so that there can always be information shared about what belongs to who, and where that boundary is.

Also, at some point, Physics is going to either only be left with, or begin approaching unintentionally, problems that have traditionally been considered the realm of Metaphysics, and the chasm between the two will only make this more frustrating.

In fact, with regards to Quantum Mechanics, Physics is already there, with questions about the fundamental nature of time and Space- it would be foolish not to interact with the field built upon people who think and have thought deeply about these very questions.

Logic:

The uniform actions of scientists inundated with strict and unflinching rules about the history of science, is exactly the kind of dogma that has lead String Theory to be the dominant research programme, whilst being relatively unfruitful in terms of what of its promises it has been able to deliver on.

There seems to be a hint here at the simplification of scientific personalities: disconnecting religious belief, metaphysical perspectives, and sense of humor help squish scientists into forms that can then be passed onto the public, and made exemplary for new entrants to the field, as something to allow themselves to be moulded into.

Without a doubt, the simplification of scientific personalities is key in why more kids aren't interested in doing hard science- they have no heroes. Alternatively, you have a number of "popularizers of science" who make a living off of their very personality, yet this freedom is not allowed to practitioners. There's a perceived stain with regards to any non-seriousness that stifles the field.

It is thus possible to create a tradition that is held together by strict rules, and that is also successful to some extent. But is it desirable to support such a tradition to the exclusion of everything else?

Reasons why the answer is no:

The space we want to explore is largely unknown, leaving no room for assumptions, and pre-emptive restrictions.

There's no way to guarantee that any given epistemological system (way of knowing) that is pre-scribed is the best system that can be found and applies.

The aforementioned style of scientific education is incompatible with humanitarian attitudes.

It is in conflict "...with the cultivation of individuality which alone produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings..." and it "...maims by compression, like a Chinese lady’s foot, every part of human nature which stands out prominently, and tends to make a person markedly different in outline..."

Quoted from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

If we think about the fact that the goal of science largely is to increase the station of humanity, anything that limits the opportunity of science to do so, is detrimental to our station.

If we then force the people who carry out science, to fit into neatly labeled boxes, and do the same to history, and theory, then we are taking one step back in the system, and beginning our limitations of humanitarian goals even closer to the source.

Furthermore, we naturally want to place no unnecessary bounds on science (within the bounds of the rights of humans), which sounds a lot like a lack of rules, or an anarchist environment.

In short, the nature of the history of science presents a much more chaotic and messy territory than is generally presented, and it is this true history that logically calls for an anarchist approach to science, in order for one to be free enough to persist in spite of the forces that would push you one way or another. In addition to this, the simplification of science and scientists, is a hindrance on this freedom to do science, that has widespread detrimental effect. Lastly, to place limits on science and scientists, in the name of dogma and purity, is at its core, a deeply un-humanitarian approach, which is contradictory to the ultimate goal of science.

Referenced in

**Introduction-AM**