|
| |
The Reflexive Universe
by Arthur M. Young
(295 pages, pb, $12.95)
Robert Briggs Associates, 1974
ISBN 0-9609850-6-9
Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell helicopter, is another one who possesses a great
*synthetic* mind. He brings an incredible synthesis of ideas together to propose new
insights.
But then, that is the definition of genius.
Chapter Titles
I The Fall
II Light as Purposive
III More on Light
IV The Four Levels
V The Turn
VI Atoms
VII The Molecular Kingdom
VIII The Plant Kingdom
IX The Animal Kingdom
X Protoplasm and Psychic Pseudopods
XI Animal Instinct and the Group Soul
XII Evolution Applied to Man
XIII The Substages of Dominion
XIV Beyond Man
XV Process as Described in Myth
Selected quotes:
pp. 17-20
"What is remarkable is that the path followed by the light through the layers of
atmosphere is precisely that which gets it to its destination in the shortest possible
time. In driving from a point in the city to a point in the country, we can reduce the
total time if we shorten the time spent in the city, even at the expense of going a longer
distance. Fermat, the famous 17th-century mathematician, was the first to solve this
problem of the path for the minimum time. Yet light, going from a denser to a rarer
medium, follows just this path. As Planck himself said of the phenomenon: 'Thus, the
photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all
possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their
goal.'
This law, that light always follows the path taking the shortest time, is known as the
principle of least action. According to Planck again: '[It] made its discoverer Leibniz
and soon after him also his follower Maupertuis, so boundlessly enthusiastic, for these
scientists believed themselves to have found in it a tangible evidence for the ubiquitous
higher reason ruling all nature.'
As the reader is probably aware, the notion of purpose or teleology is forbidden in
science, among biologists especially, who, while they must be strongly tempted to invoke
it at every turn, avoid it as a reformed alcoholic avoids a drink. Physicists avoid it
because their problems don't require it.
Yet we find one of the greatest physicists [Planck] saying that: '...the historical
development of theoretic research in physics had led in a remarkable way to a formulation
of the principle of physical causality which possesses an explicitly teleological
character.'
But I do not wish to make an issue of this question of teleology here. Let us simply note
one thing: that there is only one exception to the exclusion of purpose from science, and
this exception is light, which these several scientists have seen fit to regard as having
a purposive behavior. Let us also note that the purposiveness is associated with that
aspect of light known as the principle of action (or least action).
What did Planck add to this principle of action that was not already present in the ideas
of Leibniz? It was the notion that action comes in quanta or wholes, and that this unit is
constant. Note that despite the tendency to refer to energy as quantized--a habit which
even good physicists are given to--it is not energy but action that comes in wholes.
Action = E x T (Energy x Time) = Constant (h)
Action is constant, energy is proportional to frequency. (T is the time of one
cycle.)
So far, except for the reference to purpose, I have kept within the bounds of accepted
science. Now I would like to go further to track down this notion of purpose which Planck,
and before him Leibniz, felt was indicated by the principle of least action.
As we have noted, purpose is barred from science. As Bacon said: 'Purpose like a virgin
consecrated to God is (for science) barren.'
But as Whitehead pointed out in his Function of Reason: 'Scientists, animated by
the purpose of proving they are purposeless, constitute an interested subject for study.'
As Whitehead went on to say, we must distinguish 'between the authority of science in the
determination of the ultimate categories of explanation.' Whitehead obviously wants to
include purpose as an ultimate category of explanation.
How may we include purpose in cosmology (the ultimate categories of explanation) while
still excluding it from the methodology of science?
We know that science builds its entire edifice on three measures: mass, length, and time,
and their combination, and all scientific formulation can be expressed in these terms.
Clearly, there is no evidence of purpose in any of these: it is not in mass, nor in
length, nor in time.
The only suspicion of it, as we noted, occurs in the formula for action. Action has the
measure formula ML squared/T. This combines mass (M), length (L), and time (T). Is it
possible that there is something present in the whole that is nor in the parts?
This is clearly the case here. Consider any device made of parts, say a bottle and its
cork or a flashlight and its bulb. Is it possible to find the function of the device in
the parts? Surely, no. Only when the device is put together can it express its function
and its purpose, something its parts alone could never do.
It was Planck's epoch-making discovery that action comes in wholes, a discovery
which in retrospect we can see to be true of human actions. We cannot have 1 1/2 or 1.42
actions. We cannot decide to get up, vote, jump our of the window, call a friend, speak,
or do anything one-and-a-half times. Wholeness is inherent in the nature of action, of
decision, of purposive activity. Planck's discovery about light touches home: it is true
of our own actions. But we didn't really know this until the physicists had made this a
principle."
the Arthur Young Home Page
|