DECEMBER 8, 2021

The citizens of contemporary society are clearly divided by a great cleavage which announces itself everywhere, and has gotten to the stage where State Premiers are placing broad bans on the ‘unvaxxed’, bayed on by most Australians. How are we to reconcile contradicting views when we find convincing experts on each side of any argument? We need only a starting point, and can attempt to locate the source of such division later. Let us set science as this starting point; more specifically, the contradicting understandings of science.

On one hand, science is understood to be merely reductionist, while on the other hand that reductionism is thought to be sufficient. The difference is subtle, but it is there. It lies between understanding the whole as either greater than the sum of the parts, or equal to the sum of the parts. The latter is clearly a nominalist position which will render its adherents unable to perceive universals and abstract objects, which we’ll simply refer to as ‘hidden forces’.

Let us consider the non-reductionist stance by understanding that in the attempt to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws, we fail sufficiently to capture various remainders which will act as ‘hidden forces’. The ‘three-body problem’ of Newtons classical physics illustrates this point; that is, his equations predict perfectly motion where no more than two bodies are being studied. Add a third and prediction quality goes out the window. The reason being that ‘hidden forces’ are exerting effects.

That in the attempt to start from fundamental laws and hoping to reconstruct parts of the universe (in predicting the motion of planets for example), these ‘hidden forces’ disrupt the predicted unfolding of cause and effect. A university economics unit required us to include “all else being equal” when comparing the effect of one variable upon a second if we wanted to get all the marks on offer. It seemed like a throwaway line at the time, but is far from it. By keeping all other variables constant, we can observe/measure the effect upon one variable that is produced by altering a second variable. By changing the price, we can see how sales quantity changes. In reality, variables are all interconnected, and changing one variable will affect all other variables to varying degrees, each of which will produce effects of their own. Statistics enter the frame, managing only to further conceal the fact that there is still a remainder that can’t be easily done away with.

“Chaos theory” was born out of Lorenz’s full realisation of this reality in the 70s. He created a weather forecast model, which produced a printout. Wanting a second copy, he inputed conditions from the printout into his model and ran it again. The printout appeared identical until it began to diverge wildly after the 8th day. How had this happened? While the printout included 3 decimal places, his input allowed 6. This means that minute differences in initial conditions alone can render predictions worthless. 

The above was relayed to me by John Gribbin in his book ‘Deep Simplicity’ and perhaps the following line best sums up the extent of the realisation. “Simple laws, nonlinearity, sensitivity to initial conditions, and feedback are what make the world tick.”

Unlike a simple pendulum, when’s Lorenz’s weather system is plotted in phase space (which represents possible states of the system) it doesn’t settle at a fixed attractor, nor a repeating loop. The system will never revisit the same state once it is run. If you could restart the plot with the exact same initial conditions (infinite decimal places = impossible), you would get the exact same result. Starting with a wide range of initial conditions, each path evolves onto a state on an ‘object’ – called the attractor. “It seems like a paradox, but this system is both deterministic and unpredictable.” Further, “each path is an infinite curve in a finite space. How is that possible? Fractals.” [See the Veritasium video above – likely inspired by John Gribbin’s book too.]

Jordan Peterson explains that “you can’t predict the future. You can only predict parts of the future in an extremely limited way, for some purposes, for some span of time, and often you don’t even know how long that span of time is.” Whilst we understand that weather can be predicted with some accuracy up to 8 days ahead of time, the same can’t be said for other more complex systems. With weather systems, we understand the possible range of outcomes and have some understanding of the probability of each (phase space). Further, we understand that weather systems are localised (geographically), and would be naive to assume that they aren’t interconnected. Further, it would be naive not to consider systems of systems, or that complex systems are widely interconnected even when they appear disparate. Perhaps one ought to consider the sum of attractors, or at least attempt to consider such a concept.

This is all to say that contrivance is not possible, even as the world remains highly intelligible. At worst, contrivance will engage all these ‘hidden forces’ on the side of destruction that not one in a million will diagnose. Many will have heard the expression “that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” At best these ‘hidden forces’ can be engaged on the side of creation, whereby serendipity is the result. We can arrive at a place where unplanned but fortunate outcomes abound. Contrivance is not possible either way, and one must either be humbled or embarrassed. 

Those often described as ‘science deniers’ simply have a more profound appreciation of science than their foolish detractors. What possibilities does such an appreciation afford? How ought we go about life when the only certainty is that what we don’t know is more important than what we do know? Perhaps one can begin to appreciate how such investigations can and will cross the lines of all disciplines and even enter into the religious realm.

Before we do, let’s remain in the highly ‘scientific’ realms of physics and mathematics with Philip W. Anderson and George Ellis:

“The behaviour of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead at each level of complexity, entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviours requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other.”

— Philip W. Anderson, 1971.

Anderson points out that following Newton there was a thrust in culture to explain everything as originating from the behaviour of fundamental particles called atoms, and that this was highly successful. However, there remained anomalies that the Newtonian frame did not explain. The aforementioned ‘three-body problem’ among them. A further shift came in learning that atoms were not fundamental (or foundational) after all. They themselves consisted of parts; subatomic particles called electrons, neutrons, and protons. This discovery gave rise to the realm of chemistry, which is no mere extrapolation of physics, bestowing a new set of gains upon humanity. We cannot simply extrapolate downward to an understanding of quantum physics, nor upward to understand the wealth and poverty of nations.

Each level of reality (and enquiry) must be regarded as important as any other, while observing that there is a relation (or hierarchy) between them. Anderson is not merely considering systems in isolation, but in aggregate. That is, chemistry can be understood as more elementary than physics, itself more elementary than biology, which can be understood to give rise to sociology. This ‘upward’ flow of information can be understood as emergence, whereby new properties, behaviours or possibilities emerge when the parts interact in a wider whole. 

Some years ago I saw a Facebook post marking an anniversary of the passing of Andrew Brietbart with a quote. He had stated that “politics is downstream of culture.” That quote set me to thinking because it didn’t fit within the ’emergence’ frame that I was using at the time – in fact, initially it seemed to reverse the flow of information. Within sociology, which is more elementary? Economics or politics? Politics or culture? Could there be a reversal of information somewhere within sociology? Only within sociology? Or could it have effects outside of sociology? Could upward and downward flow of information meet at a point in the hierarchy? If not a pure reversal of information, a simultaneous flow of information in both an upward and downward direction throughout the hierarchy? I already knew emergence was true, and I understood how it gave rise to different levels of complexity. This was not a question of either/or, but a question of both/and – both emergence and what I would come to understand as emanation (the downward flow of information). 

I cannot remember how I came across George Ellis (a mathematics professor from the University of Cape Town), but I had recorded a few quotes in a notebook, and now I had an immediate urge to re-read the source material. I hunted around the ‘Reading’ folder on my laptop and found the relevant paper (Top down causation and emergence), and it was as if I were seeing it for the first time. I got busy with highlighter in hand.

“Structured systems such as computers constrain lower level interactions, and thereby paradoxically create new possibilities of complex behaviour.”

“Higher level logic drives lower level events.”

“The whole can shape the behaviour of the pieces in ways the pieces alone could never find by themselves.”

“Bottom up emergence by itself is strictly limited in terms of the complexity it can give rise to.”

“Emergence of genuine complexity is characterised by a reversal of information flow from bottom-up to top-down.”

“Adaptive selection of goals in a feedback control system, thus combining both feedback control and adaptive selection.”

“Top down causation works by setting the constraints for lower level causation. Thus channeling lower level interactions while respecting lower level physics, which paradoxically creates new possibilities.”

I could understand all of this given my own experience. Top-down causation is extremely fragile because it is easy to disrupt downward information flow. That is to say, that all the specifics matter, and therefore explains the frequency of machinery breakdowns. I considered the 2018 harvest – with just 500ha of a 5,500ha program to go, I had turned the harvester around at the end of a run, and 20m into the new run the header front shut off while the rotor was still running. I stopped and had a look to make sure rocks nor stumps were the cause of the issue. Next, I thought the feeder sensor might be acting up and double-checked the connection. I then knew there was no mechanical issue and should be able to carry on. I flicked the switch and got the front engaged. I continued harvesting, but turning around at the end of that run, I encountered the same issue. However, this time my screen was flashing all kinds of errors. It was asking me to put my auger back in, open up the lids and so on, despite all such conditions already being met. I knew something was causing several sensors to fail. I now knew that the issue was purely electrical. Furthermore, I thought it would be possible to ignore the errors and continue harvesting, but the electronic system prevented me from engaging the mechanical systems. The harvester was out of action until a mechanic came out and located the trouble connection many hours later.

“Bottom up emergence by itself is strictly limited in terms of the complexity it can give rise to”, whereas “emergence of genuine complexity is characterised by a reversal of information flow from bottom-up to top-down.” Consider a pile of iron ore; it will not turn into steel (never mind a harvester) on its own accord, not even with many millennia. What is required are several levels of increasing logic, with each dependent upon and automatically controlling all the levels below.

To further this understanding, consider this descending list of higher level logic required to have the Internet on your computer or mobile phone:
8. Global network
7. Local network
6. Computer
5. Motherboard, memory banks
4. CPU, memory circuits
3. ALU, primary memory bus
2. Logic circuits, registers
1. Transistors, resistors, capacitors
0 Molecules
-1. Atoms
-2. Nucleons
-3. Quarks
-4. Superstrings

And once you have the internet on your mobile, consider all the programming languages required to open a website. The lower level language (say JavaScript) creates new possibilities upon its conception, which emerge as JavaScript frameworks over the course of a decade. Each framework (such as React or Vue) provide the developer a higher level logic to command all the fundamental languages (and hardware) below automatically.

But websites and nations (or religions) are very different indeed. So whilst emergence can be described as deterministic, emanation is both highly fragile and highly dependent on human choice and action. This view of both emergence and emanation brings to mind a concept of John Vervaeke – namely that of reciprocal expansion (or contraction). It also brings to mind a Northrop Frye quotation – that “conception and execution are one and the same thing.” We can consider that the societal choice of political system drives lower level economic events. And further that cultural choices drive the lower level political events. Further, the extent and quality of emergent properties is dependent upon the level from which they emanate – or cease to emanate. This begins to explain the divergent economic outcomes between the two countries in which I have lived (Zimbabwe and Australia).

Such increasing levels of logic will represent a system of systems, whereby the higher levels transcend and include the lower, allowing the automatic control of all lower levels subsumed into a hierarchy of reciprocating cause and effect. The highest level is known in religious terms as the absolute* unity**, which in a manner is beyond manifestation. Thus, the various world religions are instantiations of this absolute unity. Which religion (and her subordinate ideas) has instantiated itself to the greatest degree? Even still, it is not immediately obvious which produces the greater outcomes, nor what the difference is, that makes the difference(s).
* Absolute = universal = applies to everything, everywhere, and for all-time.
** Unity = makes every fact logically consistent with every other fact.

A system of systems

“You move from one knowledge structure to the next, which transcends and includes the previous one because it covers more territory.”

— Jordan B Peterson

“How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.” 

— Charles Darwin

This view of emergence and emanation as not opposed but unified, paradoxically resembles evolutionary theory. The logic proceeds; that if there is variation, and if there is selection, then you get evolution. That is survival of the fittest, and it applies at the level of biological organisms (genetics), but also at the level of competing cultural ideas (memetics). It is typically assumed that the environment acts as the sole selection mechanism. One big question is whether that environment is constant or whether it is dynamic? I contend that the environment is dynamic in that it too is evolving and is itself selected/created by the variants. Call it a co-adaptation between variants (and levels thereof) and environment. Some selection mechanisms are chosen at a personal level (as values or principles) and determine individual outcomes such as mental health/state. Some selection mechanisms are chosen at a societal level and produce collective outcomes, such as economic decline.

If we are to assume that Christianity can be considered the most successful complex adaptive system, which version ought we favour? Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism? And if Protestantism, which denomination now that each man appears to be his own church? Perhaps the experiment is still ongoing? What we are struggling with here is the lack of a simple and obvious choice, likely because it is not there to be had.

“If we consider what the work of attention is like, how continuously it goes on, and how imperceptibly it builds up structures of value round about us, we shall not be surprised that at crucial moments of choice, most of the business of choosing is already over. This does not imply that we are not free, certainly not. But it implies that the exercise of freedom is a small piecemeal business which goes on all the time and not a grandiose leaping about unimpeded at important moments.”

— Iris Murdoch

Having laid the groundwork here and considered science alongside broader existence, we can examine the tricky piecemeal business of freedom as it applies to enterprise, economics, politics, psychology, and pathology. We shall do this in Part 2. Consider the following as further preparation: