If
this is your
first visit to CwHD, a brief introduction is available. Just click on
the CwHD
Intro link.
To return, simply click the Home
link.
EXPLICATING
THE GREAT PERHAPS
tongue
and cheek by jowl through the little gray cells
If
quantum physics must supplant Newtonian physics, what are the
implications for biology (and all the other sciences, for that
matter, not to mention philosophy, ethics, and whatever else you care
to name ... linguistics, anyone?)? At some point physics and biology
must agree. (Or not. For those who know, things are just as they are;
for those who don’t know, things are … just as they are.) If
atoms come together to form molecules that come together to form both
diamonds and dogs, the same process (processes, if you wish) must act
on both. If matter is energy and energy matter, if nothing has
substance, then substance is nothing, neither dogs nor diamonds. All
and everything is naught but potentialities, possibilities.
Metaphors,
analogies, analogs take on more important roles in this unified
notion of science. Dawkin's notion from The Selfish Gene that
humans are "gene machines" must yield in the new order of
things. Mechanistic metaphors add a simplicity that is misleading to
the proceedings and fatally misstates the nature of organic things
(inorganic things as well no doubt). Newtonian physics does the same.
If
the static view of the process of atoms and universes is adopted,
this stasis underlines the dramatic quality of both planets and
peanuts. They become tangible items, objective, 'real'. Understood as
a dynamic process, however, these peanuts and planets (and all that
other 'real' stuff) become something if not intangible at least less
substantial, merely an energy blip, say; and a 'solid' then becomes
more like electricity or water (or like the spinning rotor of a
helicopter, 'acting' rather solid, but not solid at all).
A
solid that is a solid, but that is not a solid, sounds a bit like one
hand clapping. Allow me to turn to linguistics now to deal with this
business of words and the meaning of words and so reach some
conclusion about reality.
Language,
like particle physics, is not a static business. Language is nothing,
in my view, if not a dynamic process. A story told of T.E. Lawrence
is that he spelled the names of his Arab characters in The
Seven Pillars of Wisdom
using a variety of letter groupings. When an editor called Lawrence
to acquaint him with his various misspellings, Lawrence replied,
Perfect. The names, in T. E.'s view, were not static entities, but
changed in accordance with situational demands: emotion, location,
inclination, and a host of others. English speakers do much the same
thing. Tommy becomes Thomas becomes T-dog.
Most
studies of language generally use various categories to create a more
manageable subject. The four most common are phonology, morphology,
syntax, and semantics. More, no doubt, have been added. We are
pattern seeking folk and where a group of two might do, a group of
four will do even better, and a group of eight better yet and a group
of ... hair splitting ad nauseam. Be that as it may, the basic group
stands. Phonology is the study of the sounds of the language (and the
human physiology necessary to make those sounds). Morphology studies
the grouping of those sounds into intelligible groupings of sounds
(not, technically, 'words', though 'words' certainly gives the flavor
of what morphology is about). Syntax is the organization or structure
of words, the rules concerning how they can be grouped. Semantics is
the study of the meaning of words.
Wittgenstein's
theory from the 1930's that meaning is derived from use seems to be
holding its own. Given that, the meaning of words (and phrases and
sentences and paragraphs and entire well crafted essays) remains a
slippery slope. 'Solid', as we have already seen, can be used a
number of ways. Clearly, Mr. Johnson's rock was a solid. Mr.
Einstein's rock was not.
The
question that arises is, so what? Does it matter? Can we ignore
'solid' and take a shortcut through the bank walls picking up some
spending money on the way? No problem. Well, some problem.
Physically, nothing changes. Hit the wall, raise a bruise.
Intellectually, everything changes. To give but one example: To
understand that nothing has substance is to understand the subjective
nature of all prejudice, whatever the -ism. No basis for
differentiation exists. Value systems, ethics, morals will have to be
reexamined. (A counter argument is, of course, that anyone who can
understand the argument made here will understand the folly of
prejudice. To add one more loop, reason explicates the argument;
emotion feeds the bias: A logician might still be a racist.)
So,
what?
Any
attempt to write a cogent Unified Theory combining all the
sciences---primarily particle physics and biology---might require a
team comprised of a competent batch of evolutionary biologists, a
competent batch of nuclear physicists, a few generalists from other
scientific endeavors, a mathematician or two, a linguist (only one
would be best for no two can agree), and a tolerant metaphysician. If
Merlin became available, he would be perfect for the job. The various
roles of the scientists and the mathematicians seem self-evident; the
job of the linguist is less obvious. He or she would be needed to
clarify possible meanings of words and to help construct an
appropriate metaphor. The metaphor would be, from where I sit, the
critical piece. (Spare me, please, the computer.
Any
semblance of a resemblance between organisms and binary systems is
naught but smoke and mirrors. Ask this question: Is language a binary
system? Might it be? One hundred muscles and a dozen or more physical
components [lips, teeth, tongue tip, tongue body, tongue base,
epiglottis, larynx, to name just the most obvious] produce the sounds
of the language. All of these 'parts' have to work together nearly
simultaneously in order to do their work. All of these 'parts' seem
to be networked with groups of neurons in the brain that initiate the
process. To say, 'Yikes! There's a worm in my apple' begins with
perception [we see the worm in the apple, neurons fire, a message is
sent to the amygdale and, if we had first taken a bite, we might spit
before we apprehend the message about the worm)]. Perception leads to
messages to various neuron groups; a word is formed, or words, and we
say: Yikes! There's a worm in my apple. And this explanation is
probably simplistic. At least three rather complex networks work to
produce the words. A binary system? Doesn't seem so to me.)
Before
one generates a theory of what language is and how it works, perhaps
a theory of what perception is should be offered. Language seems to
begin with simple pattern recognition: Perceive a pattern (Yikes!
There's a worm in my apple.). After perception, comes language; and
the rules for symbolic representation of perceptions (commonly, for
English, using some expandable notation such as NP + VP + Obj or
Subject-Verb-Object)
can be applied to explicate what is said. Most linguistic studies
work at expanding the model to be all-inclusive. The object might be
defined as a NP with a prepositional phrase embedded that contains a
NP and on and on. This is usually known as a recursive system (loops
looping within loops) and allows for an infinite number of unique
expressions.
If
one begins begin with the notion that the human animal is a
pattern-seeking creature (before language or ideation, there is
organization and differentiation), and that this pattern-seeking must
precede language, then some form of symbolic representation is needed
to explicate the pattern-seeking. The proposal here takes the form
of an either-or-proposition. The statement proposed seems applicable
to everything organic from amoebae to aardvarks (not just the human
animal; and, as we‘ll see, to the inorganic 'creatures' as well).
The statement is:
either: P
= aHA
where
P = seek pattern, and aHA = stop at harmonious array.
or: P
=
pp » ppp
»
pppp .…. A
where
P = seek pattern, and pp » ppp »
pppp = continue seeking pattern, and A = analysis that leads
to theory.
The
second part of the statement indicates a comprehensive search for
fundamental particles (some harmonious array), a search that
continues infinitely, or ends when analysis yields to theory. This is
science. Occasionally one might have an aHA moment when analysis and
intuition merge to some conclusion, an ending fraught with
potentiality.
a
harmonious array
