KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA62 (Mikes)

Commentary 3

ABSTRACTION THEORY;
A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PATH TO HOLISM ?
by Joseph Johnson
15 September 2003, posted 23 September 2003

<1>
I am indebted to Dr. Mikes for his challenging essay on the role of complexity in relation to reductionism and the movement toward holism. Holism is a goal we share, though we approach it from quite different perspectives. I will try to show that reductionism is not really the enemy. Ironically, it fails only in that it is not pursued far enough. Its fallible and limited metaphors and narrow disciplines nevertheless reflect the structure of natural order with sufficient relevance and meaning to enhance physical survival, i.e. it delivers our science and technology so must remain part of the answer.

<2>
But of course, more than science and technology, long-term physical survival requires, first and foremost, survival of mind and its creativity. Rather than replace reductionism with systems that do not even address questions of survival, I offer a way to build upon the objectivity of reductionism to include the subjectivity of mind. The result is abstraction theory (AT) that relates both the objective and subjective to a single coherent structure of natural order. Here, I attempt a condensed overview. My TA53 and subsequent responses to commentaries thereto are more detailed earlier versions of the same material.

<3>
Very briefly, the relevant rules of abstraction theory (AT) are:

Analysis of a particular identifies the abstract. The particular is an expression of the abstract.

There is no particular, subjective or objective, that is not the expression of an implicit abstract necessity, here called "natural order."

There is no finite abstract that is not also a particular expression of a higher abstract necessity, implying an abstraction 'ladder' with no finite top.

The higher the abstract, the more inclusive of particulars.

The highest abstract (the implicit necessity of natural order) is inclusive of the whole cosmos of particulars, and is non-finite.

<4>
AT recognizes the interior first-person rationale for the way mind conceives an abstract necessity and then gives it increasingly more refined expression through (down the ladder of) more complex systems (particulars) with emergent properties at each level, each more nearly expressing the abstract necessity. If one thinks about it with a little effort, it will be seen that both mind and nature (the cosmic whole) are creative in EXACTLY this same pattern. Therefore, AT recognizes that evolving MIND is the integral agency carrying forward the same creative process that began with Creation. What so befuddles science is that when we observe any such creative process in nature from the "outside" (such as atoms to molecules to organisms, etc.) we cannot "see" the interior (subjective) rationale that links successive levels of complexity and their emergent properties as a coherent and directed expression of the implicit necessity. It is nowhere 'signed' in nature as quantifiable attributes are, so is simply denied by the sciences. But AT reminds us that there is no explicit expression without an implicit (interior) necessity. Thus, if we would search for cosmic purpose, AT is the roadmap that will reveal it. It does not matter whether the implicit necessity is chosen by an intelligence as many believe, or if it is no more than a chance constraint as science asserts. In either case, it is singular and coherent, and will have exactly the same relevance to our existence, the same sense of positive and negative values as - whatever it is - evolved mind is its integral agent.

<5>
If there is cosmic purpose, then "process" is the highest abstract of "means." If we can raise a definition of process that fits all experience, then we will have an objective way of talking about purpose. Borrowing from Stapp's quantum theory of evolution we construct an objective definition of the cosmic imperative explicit in all process:

Every process from quantum to cosmic sustains long enough to evolve into a more refined expression of natural order.

We can interpret "refinement" from two perspectives: parts and the whole. In the narrow view, refinement may mean a creative or dissipative evolution. From the holistic view, however, simple observation suggests that refinement in the evolution of cosmos (as a whole, collectively across an indefinite front of particulars) has the meaning of "ever-increasing system complexity," i.e. the indefinite emergence of increasingly novel properties and their relationships. Were it not for the emergent organic properties of carbon, etc., the evolution would have ended eons ago with the fire and ice of a lifeless cosmos, but through the creative agency of mind, the evolution of complexity can possibly sustain until the last star winks out and the last planet turns to ice.

<6>
This "arbitrary termination" of the evolution of complexity after unnumbered billions of years implies that the expression will be left unfinished; that there can be no finite set of processes, no finite description that will fully express or define natural order, i.e. natural order is not Turing-computable. I take this as an index of subjectivity. The objective world is simply a means toward an undefined subjective end and the evolution of mind is the effective agency of that process.

<7>
Thus, the objective cosmic process that "sustains the increase in system complexity" suggests a modern subjective complement: "survival through science and technology," where sustaining the process "requires" survival of mind, and mind survives by increases in system complexity. But we remember well the prospect of mutually assured destruction. What is lacking in our science and technology, and what is the solution ? In other words, as faculties of mind evolve through eons of conflict and competition, a point is reached in the power of mind where continued conflict becomes self-destructive, and survival requires less conflict and more cooperative creativity. How does natural order provide for this relatively sudden and profound need for change in tactic? For the answer, we go back to Creation, said to be the breaking of a dynamic invariant symmetry.

<8>
Imagine two savages, each thinking himself the center of his universe and each ready to kill the other in conflict over limited resources. The problem is one of confused perspectives. Was Einstein's notion of Relativity a physical principle, or did it merely resolve confused and conflicting perspectives suffered by creatures with limited perceptions? The "symmetry solution" to Relativity is that "All laws must look the same from every frame of reference." Wherever did we get the idea of "Equality under the law"? The idea certainly predates Einstein, but it is the same solution to the same problem.

<9>
Let us look again at creation, the breaking of a "ground" described as a "dynamic invariant symmetry." The old reductionists might argue that it is no more than a random event with a non-zero probability made certain by the passage of infinite time, and that this is all we can say about the ground of creation. However, once again, AT takes us beyond our expectations. It tells us that "symmetry" must be a lower particular of higher, more inclusive abstracts such as ethics, aesthetics, beauty, love, etc. By definition, the abstracts of symmetry point in the direction of the highest all-inclusive abstract necessity of which all cosmos is an expression, while its lower particulars are embodied in conservation laws (Noether's theorem) and the like. Again, the failure of reductionism was the failure to "reduce" natural order beyond what is explicit; the failure to explore the more abstract subjective realm of implicit order implied by AT.

<10>
This means that somewhere in our response to ethical behavior, justice, aesthetics and higher abstracts of symmetry, are the related emotions that color our interior perceptions of such qualities, turn us from conflict toward love and respect, and so guide our more social and cooperative creativity. It is no accident that the evolution of mind selected not only for our analytic/ synthetic faculty for conceiving and manipulating abstractions, but no less for emotions essential to eventually overcoming the instinct for conflict and for exploiting the potential synergies in the creative potential of countless evolving minds.

<11>
Each of us makes choices between self and others depending upon how positive or negative our life experience, and this in turn depends upon the quality of our civil order that creates and sustains civilized culture (or not). Within our accepted group we tend to seek the justice of equality under the law. Where we remain greatly challenged is in the content of our laws that too often tend to favor hidden interests rather than imbuing them with the higher abstracts of symmetry.

---------------------------------

Joseph Johnson