Philosophy in Science: Reductionism versus Emergence
Thesis: A clash over nanotechnology among some of the most esteemed scientists in the world underscores the role of philosophy in considering questions yet beyond the reach of empiricism.
As seen in the highly publicized debate between proponents of evolution and intelligent design, the media often provides coverage of impassioned debates between elemental groups and lobbies in the United States, such as the religious and scientific communities. These issues are important and tap society for the discussion and weighing of heartfelt and treasured values. What the media often fails to capture, however, are the debates that occur within these camps, some of them axiomatic in nature. Such debates thrive in the scientific community in which truth and knowledge must be tested and agreed upon through consensus.
Some of my previous posts have discussed artificial intelligence and the tension between designing fully architected systems and self-organizing systems (i.e. emergence-based systems). This theme extends into the whole of science in the form of "reductionism" versus "emergence" and is debated on the highest levels. A post by nanotech blogger Richard Jones (April 15, 2005 Nobel Laureates Against Nanotechnology) , author of Soft Machines, discusses one such debate in the scientific community. Jone's post discusses a book in which two Nobel Laureates, and proponents of studying emergence, argue that the philosophical paradigm on which nanotechnology is based (reductionism) is flawed, i.e. that breaking down matter and controlling every aspect of it is not how science and technology will ultimately achieve its full potential. The trajectory of science has carried human observation deep into the nano-realm revealing the peculiar laws and secrets of quantum mechanics. As science has enabled the study of increasingly smaller particles, questions have been raised as to whether a unified theory, or a "theory of everything," is achievable through continued reduction.
Reductionists believe that complex systems can be understood through its most fundamental elements and processes. In such a quest to explain reality, physics has in recent years superceded the atom and quark and embarked on various mathematical constructs, noteably string theory and m-theory, to link observed forces in exoteric dimensions. Because of its theoretical nature, string theory is largely untestable which conflicts with a key tenet of science, begging the question, will we ever find grand meaning in the small?
Emergence holds that the underlying organization of a system is as or more important than constituent elements and their properties. One need only look to the human body, the most sophisticated system on earth and the product of billions of years of biological "computing power," to see the value of emergence. Although we might catalogue and every gene and record the movement of every protein in the human body, such a databank would hardly capture the fundamental automata that underly the emergence of human intelligence from a pinpoint of genetic information. A proponent of emergence would argue that the seemingly immeasurable complexities of the human body can be surmised in certain, more general organizational principles represented in the system.
The battle over the virtues of "open source" code long waged between figureheads Microsoft and Sun Microsystems provides another example. When a program is compiled from language-based code (understandable to a programmer) into machine code it is impossible to reverse engineer and unlock the original "program" for development or manipulation. Microsoft only releases their code in a compiled format so that it remains proprietary. From the perspective of a third party, the machine code is inscrutible, and in fact, a given set of machine code could represent an infinite number of "programs" in any language. Similarly, the developer does not understand their program through its final elements (1's and 0's) and the trillions of operations they can adaptably perform in response to a potentially infinite number of scenarios. The meaning of the program is locked away in the organizational constructs inherent in the programming language and code itself. Like "open source" advocates' frustration with Microsoft, one must wonder if man can ever access the organizational principles fundamental to nature's grandest inventions. And so one must ask, where does meaning lie, and how does our understanding of the universe--be it reductionist or emergent--relate to our ability to eventually fabricate intelligent systems?
There may not be a need to draw a line in the sand between these two paradigms. Yes, they are dichotomous, but one may well be the vehicle for the other. Technology is, by definition, the fabrication of tools useful in the lives of men. Reductionism and the pursuit of nano-scale control will better position man to study and build emergent systems. For instance, the two paradigms might be united in the context of empiricism. Using reductionism, one could develop an understanding of the operations and emergent properties and phenomena of an ant colony. Although individual ants are generally ignorant, their systematic behavior yields an emergent intelligence that can build complex structures such as bridges to achieve collective objectives. One could then model the system and adjust various operations or schemes of operations (i.e. organizational principles) to learn how the emergent phenomena of the collective change. I think a lot of biomimicry will do exactly this--unite these divergent paradigms under empiricism.
Philosophical debates between scientific rock-stars such as these have occurred since the dawn of science, from Aristotle and Plato to Hobbes and Boyle to Einstein and Bhor. As we discover more and more about our world through science, questions are answered and paradigms arise; but then exceptions are found and crisises result until a yet more refined paradigm brings resolution. Philosophers scout and break the dreamy and untestable ground that engineers and scientists--equipped with increasingly sophisticated tools--later venture to conquer. Nanotechnology promises the nexus of engineering and the sciences, but perhaps also the resolution of some of the most triumphant and previously irreconcilable philosophies in man's intellectual history. Indeed, science may finally begin to grasp the most elusive of philosophical inquiry, metaphysics (the study of concepts seemingly beyond the realm of science such as "consciousness"), as we become masters of emergence.
As seen in the highly publicized debate between proponents of evolution and intelligent design, the media often provides coverage of impassioned debates between elemental groups and lobbies in the United States, such as the religious and scientific communities. These issues are important and tap society for the discussion and weighing of heartfelt and treasured values. What the media often fails to capture, however, are the debates that occur within these camps, some of them axiomatic in nature. Such debates thrive in the scientific community in which truth and knowledge must be tested and agreed upon through consensus.
Some of my previous posts have discussed artificial intelligence and the tension between designing fully architected systems and self-organizing systems (i.e. emergence-based systems). This theme extends into the whole of science in the form of "reductionism" versus "emergence" and is debated on the highest levels. A post by nanotech blogger Richard Jones (April 15, 2005 Nobel Laureates Against Nanotechnology) , author of Soft Machines, discusses one such debate in the scientific community. Jone's post discusses a book in which two Nobel Laureates, and proponents of studying emergence, argue that the philosophical paradigm on which nanotechnology is based (reductionism) is flawed, i.e. that breaking down matter and controlling every aspect of it is not how science and technology will ultimately achieve its full potential. The trajectory of science has carried human observation deep into the nano-realm revealing the peculiar laws and secrets of quantum mechanics. As science has enabled the study of increasingly smaller particles, questions have been raised as to whether a unified theory, or a "theory of everything," is achievable through continued reduction.
Reductionists believe that complex systems can be understood through its most fundamental elements and processes. In such a quest to explain reality, physics has in recent years superceded the atom and quark and embarked on various mathematical constructs, noteably string theory and m-theory, to link observed forces in exoteric dimensions. Because of its theoretical nature, string theory is largely untestable which conflicts with a key tenet of science, begging the question, will we ever find grand meaning in the small?
Emergence holds that the underlying organization of a system is as or more important than constituent elements and their properties. One need only look to the human body, the most sophisticated system on earth and the product of billions of years of biological "computing power," to see the value of emergence. Although we might catalogue and every gene and record the movement of every protein in the human body, such a databank would hardly capture the fundamental automata that underly the emergence of human intelligence from a pinpoint of genetic information. A proponent of emergence would argue that the seemingly immeasurable complexities of the human body can be surmised in certain, more general organizational principles represented in the system.
The battle over the virtues of "open source" code long waged between figureheads Microsoft and Sun Microsystems provides another example. When a program is compiled from language-based code (understandable to a programmer) into machine code it is impossible to reverse engineer and unlock the original "program" for development or manipulation. Microsoft only releases their code in a compiled format so that it remains proprietary. From the perspective of a third party, the machine code is inscrutible, and in fact, a given set of machine code could represent an infinite number of "programs" in any language. Similarly, the developer does not understand their program through its final elements (1's and 0's) and the trillions of operations they can adaptably perform in response to a potentially infinite number of scenarios. The meaning of the program is locked away in the organizational constructs inherent in the programming language and code itself. Like "open source" advocates' frustration with Microsoft, one must wonder if man can ever access the organizational principles fundamental to nature's grandest inventions. And so one must ask, where does meaning lie, and how does our understanding of the universe--be it reductionist or emergent--relate to our ability to eventually fabricate intelligent systems?
There may not be a need to draw a line in the sand between these two paradigms. Yes, they are dichotomous, but one may well be the vehicle for the other. Technology is, by definition, the fabrication of tools useful in the lives of men. Reductionism and the pursuit of nano-scale control will better position man to study and build emergent systems. For instance, the two paradigms might be united in the context of empiricism. Using reductionism, one could develop an understanding of the operations and emergent properties and phenomena of an ant colony. Although individual ants are generally ignorant, their systematic behavior yields an emergent intelligence that can build complex structures such as bridges to achieve collective objectives. One could then model the system and adjust various operations or schemes of operations (i.e. organizational principles) to learn how the emergent phenomena of the collective change. I think a lot of biomimicry will do exactly this--unite these divergent paradigms under empiricism.
Philosophical debates between scientific rock-stars such as these have occurred since the dawn of science, from Aristotle and Plato to Hobbes and Boyle to Einstein and Bhor. As we discover more and more about our world through science, questions are answered and paradigms arise; but then exceptions are found and crisises result until a yet more refined paradigm brings resolution. Philosophers scout and break the dreamy and untestable ground that engineers and scientists--equipped with increasingly sophisticated tools--later venture to conquer. Nanotechnology promises the nexus of engineering and the sciences, but perhaps also the resolution of some of the most triumphant and previously irreconcilable philosophies in man's intellectual history. Indeed, science may finally begin to grasp the most elusive of philosophical inquiry, metaphysics (the study of concepts seemingly beyond the realm of science such as "consciousness"), as we become masters of emergence.
posted by Clayton at 3:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home