The New World Reader An Electronic Idealetter November 1994 Vol. 1 * No. 1 Contents- What is The NWR? >From the Editor: The End of the World Communications Extreme Reductionism: Theories of Everything Looking Back Scientific Currents Books ___________ What is NWR? The idea for The New World Reader (NWR) was conceived exactly two years ago in November 1992 just after the presidential elections. I saw a need for a publication which considered not the current political issues, but current political ideas and how these ideas affect our lives. The theme of "change" in the last election caught my imagination and I began to think about what this word really meant. What sort of change was Bill Clinton talking about? What sort of change would take place? I thought NWR should track this change and act as an impartial gauge to measure the success or failure of "change." This idea was doomed to failure. Even with the resources of the Internet at my finger tips, I could not possibly keep up with the workings of government and society on my own. After the attempted composition of two issues, I decided I had taken on too great a task. The idea of change stuck with me though and has lead me to recast the intent or goal of NWR. Change is the coming or realization of the future. That which is now becomes what is to yet to be. This is change. The twentieth century is replete with change. Many biographies of prominent figures in this century give accounts of how these figures were born before automobiles, airplanes, indoor plumbing, etc. and witnessed the emergence of atomic energy, men on the moon, and e-mail. This century will be known for the changes that have taken place in the way people live. NWR will still track change, but not just the change promised by Bill Clinton. I propose to look to the future to anticipate the changes that will take place. This will require some looking back, some examination of the present human condition, and some tentative predictions. In some ways, I will be continuing in the spirit of Alvin Toffler's program which he presented in his book "Future Shock." In order to be prepared for what is coming, we must have some knowledge of it. Since we cannot have certain knowledge of the future we must settle for speculation. Why is it important to anticipate change? Beyond avoiding the shock of future, by envisioning what will come we have more control over the future. By planning for the future we are able to determine it so that it reaches us in a form we recognize. To avoid looking forward is to blindly accept whatever development comes. We cannot afford to take such a relaxed position in a time when future developments could literally mean the fate of the world and the survival of civilization. Enough prologue. NWR should speak for itself. __________ >From the Editor: The End of the Century, the Millennium, and the World First, a confusion needs clearing up. The end of the century and the millennium is not December 31, 1999; the last day is December 31, 2000. I will prove this with a simple argument: the present century is called the twentieth century; to deprive the twentieth century of the year (2000) that gives it its name is absurd. The climax of the twentieth century is reached when 20 times 100 years is complete. Don't even think of celebrating the end of the century at the end of 1999, unless you wish to celebrate the coming of 2000 the final year of the twentieth century. When a time period comes to an end, it inspires all sorts of things, not just confusion about when that end actually occurs. The confusion over the last day of the twentieth century mirrors another confusion: the defining characteristic of the generation that is presently coming into their maturity, the so called Generation X. The X tells us that no one has a clue what this generation is all about. That ethnic groups are trying to define themselves with labels in the form of X-Americans (fill in anything you want for the X) shows that people are searching for something with which to identify. We have experienced an explosion of diversity so complex that the underlying unity is buried under the social rubble. The great melting pot is in the throws of a psychological metldown. The meanings of words are changing. Bad is good and good, bad. What was once positive creative alienation has become alienation from the self. The fragmentation that enabled us to conduct productive lives now threatens to dissolve the ties which bind together the family just as it has brought an end to community. The end of society is rapidly approaching. In light of this, it is no surprise that most people secretly desire the end of the world. Those who are defeated look to the future and find it bleak. Because they are defeated they lack the power to do anything about the future; mass suicide seems to be the only answer. A successful campaign has been waged against the dignity of humanity. We have suffered many losses: a loss of meaning, of commitment, of hope. Even though, a solution is possible. A positive worldview can be resurrected from the ashes of this self inflicted degradation. Indeed, viewing the world and humanity in a positive way is necessary for our preservation. NWR is committed to the preservation of humanity. This commitment encourages us to illuminate meaning in our lives and combat all forms of reductionism. We have hope that our future will be bright, but realize that much needs to be done to prepare modern people for present and the future world. Trevor Austin, Editor of NWR __________ Communications [Send in your comments. They will be included in this section.] __________ Extreme Reductionism: Theories of Everything by Donavan Hall "The theologians think they know the questions but cannot understand the answers. They physicists think they know the answers but don't know the questions." JOHN BARROW Sometimes when we look around, open to the magnificence of world around us, a quiet voice inside of us asks: where did it all come from? Why is everything here? What possible answer can we give to such a question? Most of us just shrug in the certainty that the world is here, an inescapable fact, and we go on with our lives. Others who think more deeply, try to give an explanation. Some theologians contend that a being created the universe and established the natural laws; this being made everything out of nothing. Some scientists say that at some finite time in the past the physical configuration of the universe was such as to make the idea of time an absurdity and out of this incomprehensible initial state everything we know today came to be. On the surface there is not much difference between the two views: both invoke unknowable initial conditions. The development of the cosmos after the point of coming into being is where science diverges from theology. In their zeal to explain why everything is here, scientists have begun asking questions about the very first seconds of creation. They are trying to understand the physical laws that applied to conditions of the embryonic universe. If a Theory of Everything (TOE) can be found which explains how the present universe came about from that initial state , then hasn't some explanation of why we are here been given? Some scientists, such a Stephen Hawking, say yes. These scientists are only deluding themselves. Science lacks the method of inquiry required to answer "why" questions. Explaining that the initial state of the universe was this or that tells us nothing about why it was in this or that initial state. Let us take one step back. We asked if a TOE could be found? This is a big question by itself. We should first consider whether such a theory is possible. Does a TOE exist? The answer to this question lies in science's ability to formulate the theory and then test it experiementally. The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) was intended to be the next step in our search for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), the precursor to a TOE. The GUT would explain electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces simultaneously. A TOE would add gravity to the list of forces, thus explaining all the forces of nature in a single theory. The demise of the SSC has not stopped the flow of theoretical speculations about GUT's and TOE's in the scientific journals. These theorists are pushing the scientific envelop in that they are journeying far down the speculative road without the company of experiment to check their way. Experimental verification of these theories would require the construction of larger and larger colliders (even larger than the SSC), a task that present technology and the world economy cannot possible support. Without experiment, then we must find another way to test whether the theorists are describing reality are just playing a very elaborate mathematical game. When inquiring about the possibility of explaining everything, we need to have some idea of what we mean by the word "everything." Do we mean all physical phenomena or every event, action, or process in the universe? Science is clearly confined to addressing questions pertaining to the physical realm of existence, but for some (materialists) the physical realm is the only realm. Hawking would be very inclusive about what "everything" means--everything that is real is physical. Many scientists adhere to the position of materialism which denies the reality of that which is not material. This might seem rational, but then ask yourself of what material a thought or a feeling is made. Contending that thought is immaterial is not a convincing answer for some, and thus the deeper problems related to the nature of human consciousness must be explored. That can be done elsewhere. Let us continue. But for our present discussion, let us assume "everything" refers to material and physical processes. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg gave a lecture a few years ago at Southern Methodist University in which he told those of us in the audience that it would not be long before physicists worked out the details of the GUT. He described physics as a process of pealing layers off an onion of knowledge. Each generation works to probe nature at smaller and smaller length scales. He said it was inconceivable that this onion had an infinite number of layers. At the center of the scientific onion is the TOE. Weinberg's faith and optimism that the TOE will be found is commendable, but his analogy betrays the true complexity of the task before science. If science is suited for pealing off layers from knowledge onion, then how is it to recognize the center when it gets to it? Might not science go on pealing until nothing is left of the onion? As an investigative discipline science explains things in terms of components or "fundamental" parts. Disassembly of the fundamental object is outside the purview of science; the fundamental object cannot be taken apart or explained by simpler principles than itself. Perhaps philosophers would call this fundamental principle Being. Clearly, we are getting into waters where science is unequipped to swim. Through the process of reduction, scientists proceed to describe how the universe is put together. Beginning with any macroscopic object, it can be reduced to "fundamental" constituents. My desk is made of wood. Wood is a collection of molecules; molecules, a collection of atoms; atoms, a collection neutrons, protons, and electrons. Neutrons and protons are made of quarks. Electrons and quarks seem not to be made up of anything; they have no internal structure. When internal structure is not discernible this line of reasoning terminates. To leave our description of matter at this stage does not satisfy the truly curious. How do we explain what a quark or an electron is without reducing it to something more fundamental than itself? Scientists can give an accurate account of the physical properties of quarks and electrons, but they can never say what these particles are without ultimately stepping outside science and into philosophy. Theory has advanced beyond the experimenter's ability to check it. This is a precarious position for a science to be in. Because of this, particle physicists are becoming concerned about the future of their field. The particle theorists working on GUT's and TOE's engage in a highly mathematized philosophy. When theory gets too far beyond experiment it is no longer science. Science is investigative, grounded in experiment. Without experiment the development of thses theories must be considered a non-investigative pursuit. They may conform beautifully to the presuppositions that scientists have concerning what a GUT or a TOE should look like, but they are nonetheless only well founded speculations not certain knowledge of objectively existing objects. The lines dividing philosophy and science have blurred in the search for GUT's and TOE's, because it is here that the true character of scientific knowledge, that of well founded opinion, is revealed. Does it matter whether a TOE is out there to be found? Not really. Searching for the ultimate or final theory has made us better scientists and better humans. The benefit of the quest for the TOE is not the finding but in the searching. Aristotle would likely agree as he says in the Nicomachean Ethics that the highest pursuit is that which has an end in itself. __________ Looking Back [This section is for an article on how things were in the past. Part of looking forward to the future is knowing what has taken place and where those past events have lead us. We can learn much about the future from a consideration of history.] __________ Scientific Currents [This section is for items of current scientific interest. Send in announcements of those cutting edge discoveries.] __________ Books [This section is for book reviews. Please include publisher and ISBN when submitting reviews.] __________ NWR Information Subscriptions to NWR are free via e-mail. Send a note to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM requesting to be put on the mailing list. Contributions should be sent electronically to NEWORLDR@AOL.COM. Essays should be 1000 words or less; book reviews 500. copyright, 1994 NWR