Reductionism (1&2)

[jporter]

Thank you, Terrence, for that discussion and references re: reductionism.
All of which are apropos to what Laughlin is getting at in the two articles
I cited. They are both available from the PNAS website, unfortunately, you
must be a subscriber to view them in their entirety. I have reprints
obtained from the library. If we can agree what reductionism is, and
perhaps, as well, what it fails to be, then- you'll pardon me here- the
concept of "emergence" begins to emerge.

The papers cited are directed at physicists and involve the way physicists
look at phenomenon, particularly high and low temperature
superconductivity, with it's cooper pairs, magnetic insulation, etc., etc.,
unnecessary detail for this discussion, but maybe more relevant- the
details at least- for a discussion of M&D. It's clear, however, that
Laughlin, et. al., are not just thinking about physics, but about a whole
new way of knowing and seeing reality- primarily in order to explain those
details- but more generally, as well. The paper talks about the "mesoscopic
scale" as opposed to the micro and macroscopic:

"The miracles of nature revealed by modern molecular biology are no less
astonishing than those found by physicists in macroscopic matter. Their
existence leads one to question whether as-yet-undiscovered organizing
principals might be at work in living things. This is by any measure a
central philosophical controversy of modern science....[snip]....We call
the search for the existence of mesoscopic protectorates-the proof or
disproof of organizing principles appropriate to the mesoscopic domain- the
middle way."  [R.B. Laughlin, et. al. "The Middle Way," PNAS, 1/04/2000,
vol. 97, no.1, pp32-37.]

One very key point they make regarding the existence (or not) of
mesoscopically organizing phenomenon:

        "The emergent physical phenomenon regulated by higher organizing
principles have a property, namely their insensitivity to microscopics,
that is directly relevant to the broad question of what is knowable in the
deepest sense of the term." [ ____.,"The Theory of Everything." PNAS,
pp28-31.]

Hence the term "protectorate" above. Contrast that acknowledgement of the
failure of reductionism with this quote from the quantum physicist, David
Albert- a colleague of the late David Bohm:

"Moreover, all available experimental evidence suggests that those laws
govern the evolutions of the wave functions of every single isolated
microscopic physical system under all circumstances. So, because
microscopic systems are the constituent of everything that exists, there
would on the face of it seem to be good reason to suppose that those linear
equations are the true equations of motion of the entire physical
universe....Any incapacity to carry out those calculations, is necessarily
in this theory an epistemic uncertainty. It is a matter of ignorance and
not a matter of the operations of any irreducible elements of chance in the
fundamental laws of the world." [David Z. Albert, "Bohm's Alternative to
Quantum Mechanics." Scientific American, May 1994. pp58-67].

Perhaps more appropriate for this list, contrast the notion of
"insensitivity to microscopics" from the physicist Laughlin, above, with
Mason's line in M&D- I can't remember the page, but it goes something like:
"He who controls the microscopic controls the world." Which I read as very
much in character for Mason- ever seeking to be, but never quite in
control- as well as, a finger in the measuring eye of reductionism.

So P. brings us back around to the key characteristic of the "meso" world:
agency or control. Just because brilliant, nobel prize winning physicists
like Laughlin et. al., have recognized that phenomenon of major importance
are incapable- even in principle- of being described by the laws that
define the behavior of their microscopic constituents- that are, in fact,
insulated or protected from them- and may be organized by as yet undefined
higher order organizing principles, don't think they don't mean to discover
those principles and use them to their advantage:

        "The discovery of the physical principles at the mesoscale will
reinforce the attack by biologists on the mysteries of cellular function.
But, beyond this, a framework for understanding mesoscopic organization
will be an extraordinary help in the effort to create AN ENTIRELY
ARTIFICIAL SYSTEM WITH COMPLEX ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTIC OF LIFE [my
emphasis]. Such artificial systems should be capable of a variety of
functions that present biological systems cannot perform." [The Middle Way.
p36]. [Is it just me, or does that seem a little creepy?]

Laughlin, et. al., clearly believe that they have identified an impending
paradigm shift- in every sense of that loaded word:

"We call this physics of the next century the study of complex adaptive
MATTER [my emph]. For better or worse we are now witnessing a transition
from the science of the past, so intimately linked to reductionism, to the
study of complex adaptive matter, firmly based in experiment, with its hope
for providing a jumping-off point for new discoveries, new concepts and new
wisdom." [The Theory of everything. p30.].


The dream of ultimate control seems almost unavoidable. Maybe it's a
species specific trait related to competition. I don't know. At any rate,
it seems to be emerging unscathed from the flames of reductionism.

Thanks,

jody