By Tom Mandel
Thales Theory of Stuff led to a different, and most well known theory of the Atom or Atomos. This theory was not at all well known at its beginning, however. Leucippus and Democritus formulated the original theory of the atom, conceiving of it as a bit or atomos existing in a space. Obviously this is a special case of Thales more general model (Schroedinger also made this comparison.), but not of systems as it leaves out their relationship. The theory went nowhere as it was ridiculed by Aristotle severely (Aristotle even wanted to burn Democritus' books.) Fortunately, The philosopher Epicurus wrote of the Atomos concept incorporating it into his philosophy, but that philosophy died off, and with it went the atom theory. Around the turn of the millennium, he Roman poet Leucretius came across the writings of Epicurus and wrote the long poem "On the Nature of Things." which incorporated the theory of Atomos. This poem was lost, and with it, all reference to the atom during the dark ages. It would remain hidden for centuries until a French philosopher Gassendi found it and passed it on to Boyle, (I believe), and eventually became the second book published on the Gutenberg Press. The poem was read by Dalton who then modernized the theory of the atom, retaining the name "atom" out of deference to the earlier Greek theory of Atomos.
Ironically, many scientists chose not to believe in the atom, and general acceptance didn't occur until 1895 when the electron was found. The final proof of the atom's existence was provided by Einstein in his Brownian Motion paper which ironically used the same principle "dancing motes of dust in a beam of sunlight " (in his Brownian motion paper) that Leucrtius used in his poem two thousand years earlier.
As physicists delved into the interior of the atom, theory after theory crumbled to dust. The absoluteness of Newtonian physics was shattered when space and time were found to be aspects of each other rather than the separate absolute entities Newton claimed they were. The accepted methodology of science was proven inadequate and had to be fundamentally changed by Planck's concept of quanta - a unit of action. Finally, the ontological basis of Identity was disrupted, if not washed away, by Bohr's complementarity. The Wavacle, described in strict classical terms, is and isn't, contrary to Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. Yes, a thing can be a thing and not a thing at the same time. Furthermore, as science began to delve even further into the interior of the atom, looking for the ultimate particle everything must be made of, they found no entity, i.e., matter, what they found, succinctly put by Erwin Schroedinger, one of the founders of Quantum mechanics, was,
"Form, not substance - the ultimate concept."
The atom is not a stuff after all...
ERWIN SCHROEDINGER
"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that their individuality was based on the identity of matter in them...The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something. that it must be a material substratum is required to take on a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles constituting matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an individual speck of material...
...On the other hand...the mere contention that every observation depends on both the subject and the object, which are inextricably interwoven - this contention is hardly new, it is almost as old as science itself...But I must mention one point, in order not to be accused of injustice towards the quantum physicists of our days. I said their statement that in perception and observation subject and object are inextricably interwoven is hardly new. But they could make a case that something about it is new. I think it is true that in previous centuries, when discussing this question, one mostly had in mind two things, viz. (a) a direct physical impression caused by the object in the subject, and, (b) the state of the subject that receives the impression. As against this, in the present order of ideas the direct physical causal, influence between the two is regarded as mutual. It is said that there is also an unavoidable and uncontrollable impression from the side of the subject onto the object. This aspect is new, and, I should say, more adequate anyhow. For physical action is always inter-action. It always is mutual. " [19]
Instead the parts, or things, that ontologically must exist, the physicists found patterns. Instead of a single element of everything, the physicists found a relationship between different things. Instead of bits and pieces, the physicists found the whole. A new physics was born. (Eventually it would be found that the new physics must include the old, but both as aspects rather than separate absolutes.) Gregory Bateson explains it this way:
GREGORY BATESON
"My central thesis can now be approached in words. The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. It is that metapattern which defines the vast generalization that, indeed, it is patterns which connect." [3]
Several hundred books have been written about the quantum revolution in elementary physics. The simplicity of the object under study reduced the variables to a minimum, and thus the problems of investigation were likewise reduced to their minimums. For a long time enigma after enigma emerged, until finally a new paradigm emerged. While several excellent summaries of this paradigm shift have been published, Capra's approach fits best with what we are doing in the General Systems Sciences.
HINTZ PAGELS
"We live in the wake of a physics revolution comparable to the Copernican demolition of the anthropocentric world -- a revolution which began with the invention of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first decades of this century and which has left most educated people behind" .[0]
In 1976, Fritjof Capra wrote "The Tao of Physics" in which he described the parallels in Eastern thought and Quantum Physics in the common and ordinary language. This book set off a continuing stream of ordinary language philosophical interpretations of Quantum Physics written in ordinary language for the lay public There also was a resurgence of talk about a General Theory, the Secret of the Universe, a concept that has settled around the terms Theory of Everything. Below are excerpts taken from his books and lectures. It is, in our sense, The Best of Systems Thinking from the point of view of physics.
FRITJOF CAPRA
"The dramatic change in concepts and ideas that happened in physics during the first three decades of this century has been widely discussed by physicists and philosophers for more than fifty years...The intellectual crisis of quantum physicists in the 1920's is mirrored today by a similar but much broader cultural crisis. The major problems of our time...are all different facets of one single crisis, which is essentially a crisis of perception...Like the crisis in quantum physics, it derives from the fact that most of us. and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated world view...At the same time researchers...are developing a new vision of reality...What we are seeing today is a shift of paradigms not only within science but also in the larger social arena...The social paradigm now receding had dominated our culture for several hundred years, during which it shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world...This paradigm consists of...the view of the world as a mechanical system, the view of the body as a machine...the view of life as a competitive struggle...the belief of unlimited of unlimited progress achieved through economic and technological growth and the belief that the female is subsumed under the male...During recent decades all these assumptions have been severely limited and in need of radical revision. Indeed, such a revision is mow taking place...In science, the language of systems theory. and especially the theory of living systems, seems to provide the most appropriate formulation of the new ecological paradigm. I would like to now specify what is meant by the systems approach...I shall identify five criteria of systems approach...1. Shift from the parts to the whole. The properties of the parts can be understood only from the dynamics of the whole. In fact, ultimately there are no parts at all 2. Shift from the structure to the process. In the new paradigm, every structure is seen as a manifestation of an underlying process. 3. Shift from objective to epistemic science. In the new paradigm, it is believed the epistemology - the understanding of the process of knowledge - has to be included explicitly in the description of natural phenomenon...4. A shift from building to networks as a metaphor of knowledge. In the new paradigm, the metaphor of knowledge as a building is being replaced by that of the network. 5. Shift from truth to approximate descriptions. This insight is crucial to all modern science...in the new paradigm, it is recognized that all scientific concepts and theories are limited and approximate...One of the most important insights of the new systems theory is that life and cognition are inseparable. The process of knowledge is also the process of self-organization, that is, the process of life. Our conventional model of knowledge is one of representation or an image of independently existing facts which is the model derived from classical physics. From, the new systems point of view, knowledge is a part of the process of life, of a dialogue between subject and object. I believe that the world view implied by modern physics is inconsistent with our present society, which does not reflect the interrelatedness we observe in nature. To achieve such a state of dynamic balance, a radically different social and economic structure will be needed; a cultural revolution in the true sense of the word. The survival of our whole civilization may depend on whether we can bring about such a change. It will depend ultimately, on our ability to...experience the wholeness of nature and the art of living with it in harmony." [7]
(The cutting edge experiment today is Bell's Theorem, and its philosophical implications are that either there is faster than light travel (arrives before it left), or, b, subatomic particles remain as a whole even while separated by any distance. )
While Western civilization began on the shore of the Nile and Euphrates river deltas, there also arose a Eastern civilization on the shores of the Yangtze river delta, now known as China. Five thousand years ago, a document was produced introducing the art of acupuncture. In this document reference was made to the Chinese system known a the Yin/Yang. This symbol is said to be a birds eye view of a mountain, with dark and light side. The form of their symbol implies a movement of the light around the mountain, a flow, if you will. Indeed, the essence of their system is about movement or flow.
Around the time (3OO-500 B.C.) about when Heraclitus was formulating his concepts of change, or thereabouts, the Chinese were hard at work formulating their own system but using pictures to write it down. The Tao Te Ching is thought to be authored by either a group of writers or by the man called Lao Tzu. It doesn't matter now who wrote it, what mattered was that at nearly the same time in history, while the Greeks were thinking about their system of earth, the Chinese were also writing down their system. Thousands of miles away, someone wrote down these words. Compare them to the whole of the pre-Socratic Greek systems philosophy we have speculated on above --
Written down in the ancient book, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42, Lao Tzu wrote:
"The Tao begot one,
one begot two,
two begot three.
The three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things embrace Yin and express Yang.
Harmony is achieved by combining these forces." [12]
Compare this to the Greek idea of stuff and space and a relationship as a whole according to the principles of love and hate. One made two and two is of three and three are many and many are harmonized by Yin/Yang. Systemically, they are the same.
Isn't it interesting that the Chinese have written up a system five thousand years ago, and to this day it hasn't changed? Moreover, nearly every Chinese book written refers to this concept, clearly it is useful to them.
Isn't there an extraordinary range of "twos" not only in our literature, but nature as well? What about complementarity? The opposites? Why was Dualism so popular? Where did it fail? Subject - object?
What about that memory trick - "association?" Why is it easier to remember two things than it is to remember one? And what about "this and that?" And everyone knows there are two sides to every coin.
Madden says in "The Structure of Scientific Thought" (1960, p6) "...let us say, as a simple approximation, that a law is a functional relationship between two independently meaningful variables." Minski also observed this in his book, I forgot the name, in the Glossary under interactionaism, "...I find it curious that most of all laws have been stated as the interaction between two elements, hardly any are in terms or three or more."
Why is cell division always into two parts? Is it because two is a part of that particular process? Or is because two is a necessary? And isn't DNA two?
And why is that the one of the few exceptions to the two rule is color? Not all things come in pairs, there are three primary colors. Ah, an inconsistency. Of course we could look at them as merely different vibratory frequencies, and there is our two. But let us work this through.
Yes, color is made of three primary's, not two. But most colors are made from two, not three, right? At least that is how it is when I adjust the filters on my color enlarger. Only two of the three are manipulated - never all three. But how the eye deals with those three is most interesting of all. Those three primaries are matched, as would be expected, by three corresponding cones in the eye, one cone for each of the three colors. Wouldn't we also expect the pathways from those cones to the brain to follow this triple scenario? They do not. Instead of three pathways for three colors from the eye to the brain, there are two. The third pathway is achieved by a modulation of the two. If in fact this is confirmed to be the case, this inconsistency might be a proof. It is at the least a significant clue.
Of all these examples, the simplest but the most profound is the fact that it takes at least two somethings to create a difference. To produce news of difference, i.e., information, there must be two entities real or imagined) such that the difference between them can be immanent in their mutual relationships; and the whole affair must be such that news of their difference can be represented as a difference inside some information-processing entity, such as a brain, or, perhaps, a computer. "To what questions have fifty years of science led me? This chapter has defined and exemplified a manner of search and therefore it is the moment to raise two questions; For what am I searching? To what questions have fifty years of science led me. The manner of search is plain to me, it might be called the method of double or multiple comparison."Thus the whole, in which such instances are placed...become a display inviting the reader to achieve insight by comparing instances one with another,"[3]
STEWARD & COHEN & SIMPLEXITY
"The central aim of science is to render the complexities of the universe transparent, so that we can see through them to the simplicities beneath...We have to find a way to combine content and context, reductionism and high-level-features, into a seamless whole. We think that the key is to understand complicity, not as an incredibly complex reductionist network, but as the interaction of features within different spaces of the possible...So what we need is a theory of features...We must find a theory of mathematical complicity between the quantitative and the qualitative. [28]
Part of the post-quantum physics dialog centers around the search for a Theory of Everything as John D Barrow (1991) outlines in his book, "Theories of Everything, The Quest For Ultimate Explanation." Following is a selection of excerpts that tell his story:
"...modern scientists believed thay have stumbled upon a key. a "monumental Theory of Everything."..a theory of everything which will unite all the laws of nature into a single expression... an abbreviated representation of the logic behind the universe's properties...a single coherent framework...an encapsulation of all the laws of nature...a simple and single representation...the ultimate directory...an independent prescription which appeals to simplicity, naturalness and economy...a union of perfect and unique intercompatibility..a general principle...which can be applied in a variety of different situations without becoming embroiled in their pecularities...Perhaps there exist a whole set of basic rules about the development of complexity which reduce to some of our simpler laws of nature in situations where the level of complexity is essential nil. If such rules do exist, then they are not like the laws which the particle physicists seek. But is there any evidence that such principles exist? A collection of 1027 protons, neutrons and electrons may be all that a desktop computer is at some level, but clearly the way in which those subatomic particles are put together, is what distinguishes the computer from a crowd of 1027 separate subatomic particles. ...The question of the existence of a "secret of the Universe" amounts to discovering whether there is some deep principle from which all other knowledge of the physical world follows..."
But the story of science here does not end here, for Barrow concludes his book with the last statement:
"There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight, for to see through everything would leave us seeing nothing at all." [2]
Barrow is right as far as he goes. No particular Theory of science will ever be general. Science, by definition, cannot explain everything. The Principle of Verification, which is the cornerstone of empirical science, requires specifics. It is these specifics that preclude generality. Specifics replace generality (misplaced generality.)P> PRINCIPLE OF EVERYTHING
This problem is old news to General Systems people. The Primer Group in ISSS is presently dialoging on a general definition of System(s) in preparation for our ISSS General Systems Primer. Our work has led us to the conclusion that the idea of a General System "Theory" is wrong. The terms "General" and "Theory" are exclusionary - they cannot be stated at the same time. A General System "Principle" is a different story, and not even one that we question; Bertalanffy himself said that the science of Systems is about finding general principles. So their "Theory of Everything" is our "Principle of Everything." We know what it is, we just don't know how to say it in a way that everyone would understand. Or do we?
We in the Primer Group, have been able, through transdiscliplinary collaboration, to deconstruct and reconstruct a two-part complementary dialectical process-based definition of the General System that has none of the pitfalls a strictly scientific version faces. We are approaching the definition Problem by simply having both a general and a particular as opposed to having both together. Our postmodern definition, supported by general field theory, can be grasped in one word - Family. And, we are pleased to report, it works... (14)
ISSS PRIMER GROUP
"A System is a Family of Meaningful Relationships (between the members acting as one whole.)"
While knowledge in Western civilization started out unified at the beginning of recorded history, the division into the separate aspects of philosophy and science, as well as it has served us, has produced a world made of myriad parts. Unfortunately, the chasm between science and philosophy, and along with it the world, has persisted to this day. Subsequently, the lack of ontological alternatives has misled all of us into believing these so-called parts are real. In some cases this belief leads to a assumption that these parts are all that is real. Not.
Contrarily, modern science, particularly quantum physics, has shown us that the universe cannot be described faithfully in terms of parts, it is better viewed as a whole in which the so-called parts are actually interrelationships woven into a seamless web in which their distinctions as parts ultimately fades into background. What matters is what they do.
Interestingly, contrary to popular thought, and not at all like the infinite entities of classical science, the principles of relationships are not that numerous. The elementary families of relationships at the elementary physical level, the forces of nature, number only four. Three of the four have been unified into one (SEW) and that remains yet to be unified with gravity. Do we know what the general form of their unification will be?
GERARD t'HOOFT
"A long standing ambition of physicists is to construct a single master theory that would incorporate all the known forces. One imagines that such a theory would reveal some deep connection between the various forces while accounting for their apparent diversity. Such a unification has not been attained, but in recent years some progress may have been made...What may ultimately prove more important, all four forces are now described by means of theories that have the same general form. Thus if physicists have yet to find a single key that fits all the known locks, at least all the needed keys can be cut from the same blank." [13]
Life is a novel that has no end, and science is like reading the novel. The story you just read is merely an introduction, and what lies beyond is a new beginning. We leave you with a question. What does this "Blank" key look like to you? And what should ours look like?
Acknowledgments:
This paper is part of an ongoing dialog among participating members of the ISSS Primer Project Group. We are Tom Mandel, editor, Ken Udas, Bruce Francis, Harbans Bhola, Matthew Shapiro, Helmut Burkhard, Arne Collen, Robert Valle, Charles Francios, Gary Boyd, Markus Schwaninger, Bela Banathy, Anatol Rapoport, Alfonso Montouri, . Our goal is to collectively write a ISSS Primer, a "General Systems Made Simple" for the general reader.
[1] Anderson & Carter, 1984, Human Behavior in the Social Environment. New York, Aldine Publishing
[2] John D. Barrow, 1991, Theories of Everything. Oxford University Press.
[3] Gregory Bateson. 1979, Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity, Bantam Books, New York, pp92.
[4] Ludwig von Bertalanffy, 1968, General System Theory. New York, George Braziller, pp. 45.
[5] David Bohm, 1980, Wholeness and the Implicat order. London, Ark,
[6] Fritjof Capra, 1980, The Turning Point. New York, Bantum, pp. 77.
[7] Fritjof Capra, The Role of Physics in the Current Change in Paradigms. in The e World View of Contemporary Physics. Edited by R.F. Kitchener, New York, State University of New York Press,
[8] Mark Davidson, 1983, Uncommon Sense, the Life and Thoughts of Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Houghton Mifflin, pp.184.
[9] Ibid pp. 100.
[11] A. Einstein, 1954, Ideas and Opinions. New York, Crown Publishers.
[12] Gia-fu Feng and Jane English, 1972, Tao Te Ching. Random House, New York, Chapter 42.
[13] Gerard t' Hooft, 1980, Gauge Theories of the Forces Between Elementary Particles. Scientific American, June pp.104.
[14] Aldous Huxley 1954, The Doors of Perception. New York, Harper and Row, pp. 23.
[15] Thomas Mandel, 1991, Journal of the Obvious Principle, LaGrange, TNT Press
[16] Thomas Mandel, 1994 Proceedings, Perspective on General System Principles, ISSS, pp1425
[17] Heinz Pagels, 1983, The Cosmic Code. Bantum, New Tork, pp. 310.
[18] Abraham Pais, 1986, Inward Bound. New York, Oxford University Press. pp262
[19] Erwin Schroedinger, 1952, Science and Humanism. New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 18.
[20 ] Matthew Shapiro, 1994, Trilogy, One Nature. Unpublished Paper
[21] D.T. Suzuki, 1956 Zen Buddhism. New York, Doubleday pp174
[22] M. Mitchell Waldrop, 1992, Complexity, the Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos., New York, Simon & Schuster, pp. 348.
[23] Ibid pp. 279.
[24] Alan Watts, 1951, The Wisdom of Insecurity. New York, Vantage books, pp. 44.
[25] Steven Weinberg, 1992, Dreams of a Final Theory. New York, Vantage, pp6
[26] Ken Wilber, 1985, The Spectrum of Consciousness. Quest Books, Wheaton, pp176
[27] Ken Wilber, 1979, No Boundary. Boston, Shambhala, pp. 19-59.
[28] Cohen & Steward , The Collaspe of Chaos. 1994, New York, Viking Press, pp440.
Go To End (beginning?) of Long Tour