Marxism & Physics

Marxism & Physics: a new series from Shape Journal

A Prologue

This essay, plus a following extended series to be posted weekly upon SHAPE Blog, addresses a crucial hole in Marxism, which arose since Lenin's Materialism and Empirio Criticism - a book that vigorously attacked the significant slide in Physics Theory, away from Materialism, at that time, epitomised by the positivist ideas of Henri Poincaré and Ernst Mach.

Since that time, this crucial question - not only for Science, but also for Marxism as a truly, generally applicable Philosophy, was not seriously addressed.

The one incomplete exception was surely embodied in Christopher Caudwell's The Crisis in Physics, but never taken further, as he was killed fighting the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War, while still a young man.

This major omission in the most advanced Philosophy available, was crucial for the discipline of Physics, but also for both the reach and depth of the Marxist Method too.

So here, this physicist, who has been a Marxist all his adult life, and throughout has been aware of this discrepancy, has finally grasped the nettle, and this summer, after 50 years of trying, has finally achieved a breakthrough.

Enjoy!

Jim Schofield

August 2016

The Black Hole in Marxist Theory

(How Physics Temporarily Escaped)

A crucial question arises out of the clear failure to recruit professional intellectuals into a Marxist philosophical stance in the last century.

Up to the Russian Revolution it had been precisely within those ranks that Marxism first appeared and developed: indeed, the whole leadership of the Bolshevik Party were such people, and had been wrested from their natural Class stance, by commitment to that Revolutionary alternative presenting a truly enormous potential.

But, the possibility that such Social Revolutions were now possible with conscious, pro-Working Class objectives, changed the emphasis completely, and it was activism and organisation, towards such an outcome, that dominated attitudes among those involved.

You might imagine that the revolutionary transformation of traditional Mechanical Materialism in the Sciences, made possible by Karl Marx's wholesale transfer of Hegel's achievements in Dialectics from an Idealist Stance to one of Materialism, would bring the scientists flocking in. But, it didn't happen!

The crisis precipitated by the discovery of the Quantum, and by the positivist ideas of Henri Poincaré and Ernst Mach, which Lenin quickly and vigorously criticised in his book Materialism and Empirio Criticism, would, certainly, lead us to believe that the defeat of such backward tendencies in Science was nigh. 

After all, the new anomalies and crises in Science were proliferating at an accelerating rate, and it should have been clear that what was needed to tackle the increasing mess, and its ever-strengthening swoop into Idealism, had to be in breakthroughs made by Hegel and, most particularly, Marx! 

The basis of their revolution had been the switch to include Qualitative Changes, Development and, as with Darwin, Evolution (not only of Life, but of all Reality!). And, it wasn't only a change of view, for though primarily based upon Marx's study of Capitalist Economics, Dialectical Materialism - as a method, could profitably be extended to Science: indeed Science would surely be its natural home, and give that stance a deserved, widespread credibility, as well as addressing the many problems clearly mounting up within that discipline.

How could this crucial extension not occur?

Indeed, Lenin had effectively managed his remit upon this question, very effectively, in spite of not being a physicist: surely the task cried out for Marxist physicists to complete the rout! But, once more, it didn't happen. And, there were reasons.

In the Socialist Movement, there was an increasing dominance by Democratic Socialists, who rejected Revolution, and with it the philosophical stance of Marx and his followers, and even within those who remained "Marxist", there was increasing emphasis upon political agitation and organisation, and also clear a break from that Social Democracy, with the setting up of Communist Parties across the World.

Clearly, the emphasis with these "Marxist" parties was activism among the Working Class, and work with Middle Class intellectuals, gradually, but increasingly, fell away.

Soon, most professional physicists didn't even hear about Marxism, except, perhaps, as a threat to their privileged existence. And, clearly, several factors within the historical, cultural and intellectual development of Science were crucial in politically countering that possible influence. 

First, culturally, literally all scientists were from a very different Class to the workers, as with all professions. Science was totally dominated by privileged Classes, even up to including the Aristocracy (like Cavendish, for example) .

And, as a full-time, demanding and expensive career, it could not be adopted by those without the necessary and substantial resources. Thus, the Class content within the cultural ideas of scientists, certainly, did not gel with the Class conclusions of Marxism.

But, even that wasn't all!

Science itself, had grown spasmodically, in fits and starts, and in a peculiar ad hoc way - commencing with Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", and actually maintaining that as a fall-back position, throughout its history. And, though it had gradually broke from religion, and settled into a thoroughly materialist stance as its bedrock, that actually came very much later, than an early and very close relationship with the first ever intellectual discipline of all - namely Mathematics, which brought in a decidedly Idealist stance into the mix which has also remained there throughout its history.

For, it was Mathematics that first involved an attempt to grasp the quantitative and geometrical patterns so evident in Reality.

Clearly, Science was never a single stance, but a pragmatic mix of contradictory stances, also separated into innumerable and unavoidable sub-divisions, and the gaps between them could never, via the currently available stances, be rationally transcended.

It was a patchwork in every sense!

Indeed, though more correctly termed the "Handmaiden of Science", Mathematics was considered by many scientists to be the Queen of the Sciences, for the discovered relations in the found patterns, enabled formulae to be constructed, which could successfully be employed to predict outcomes, which, along with pragmatism, soon enabled many new uses.

The surprising amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism flexibly, if inconsistently, allowed a kind of piecemeal progress upon many different fronts, with Pragmatism providing the necessary enabling "glue".

And, as the most reveal-able route, Science became besotted with practical applications, and the very philosophical academicism of Marxism, seemed very airy-fairy, compared with all the burgeoning practical uses.

The scientists certainly preferred their amalgam! As a physicist myself, I can safely affirm that, as a group, scientists make lousy philosophers!

But, also there were reasons within the Working Class Movement, and even among self-professed Marxists.

It was because no-one bothered to study the crucial Dialectics of Hegel with regard to its applications in Science. Neither Hegel nor Marx had been up to it, for it required dedicated theoretical work within Science, which as described above was fast becoming a philosophical minefield, with its simultaneously necessary, yet totally contradictory standpoints, and, of course, would have to be carried out by suitably-equipped Marxists, to have any real chance of succeeding! 

Marx, himself, had known precisely what the level of work had to be, and he carried it out, spending many decades in the British Museum studying Capitalist Economics, to finally deliver Capital - his Dialectical Materialist analysis of the Economics of the Capitalist System. Inherent in that work, were the methods required to do the same in other disciplines, but no-one took on the tasks necessary in even one of the Sciences.

Instead Activism was decided upon as the only achievable option!

Sitting in a University Library studying an abundance of works by non-Marxist, and totally eclectic scientists, was an onerous activity, for it not only involved becoming a professional scientist, but also in establishing a consistent, coherent and comprehensive approach applicable across the board.

Not a soul tried!

NOTE: There is a current brilliant exception to this generalisation, though he did the job he tackled correctly, he still only took on today's Capitalist Economics. It is, as you may already be aware, Professor Richard D. Wolff, the American Professor of Economics at the New School University in New York City, USA, who has spent his adult life studying and teaching Economics, and now criticises it with truly devastating effect. He is not only a professional Marxist but also a professional Economist, and his critique is unanswerable.

To show how difficult this could be, let me give an example that I know a great deal about.

I am a qualified physicist, with an Honours Degree in the subject, and very early on indeed, in my University course, I joined the Communist Party of Great Britain (the CPGB), in order to become a Marxist. But, I found no one there, who could (or even wanted to) teach me what that actually meant, and how I could use it.

Instead, we were supposed to learn by reading the classic works of people like Marx, Engels and Lenin. But, though I did precisely as I was advised, it certainly did not make me a Marxist.

And, of course, such advice was rubbish - not only didn't it deliver to me any ideas of method, it also could never ever do that: they were not written to achieve such things.

For, all these works were written long ago, at particular times in the past, and many were only the results of applying a not-overtly-included-method, which though they delivered good advice for the activists of that time, would be useless to inform modern-day Marxists-to-be, on how to address today's many problems: for they were clearly very different. 

Manufacturing #10A, Cankun Factory, Xiamen City, 2005, Edward Burtynsky

Situations would literally never match after a century of vast changes, so it would have to involve, initially, the establishment of the clearest possible philosophic stance, AND, only then from that basis, could crucially-clear and detailed descriptions of the methods used be adjusted to fit wholly new contexts.

And, it would involve nothing like the application of the same technical steps as used historically. Indeed, even the factors acting now, would be of a very different order to what were critical then.

If, perhaps, the reader had substantial experience and had done detailed studies of how things are today, he or she might be able to begin to extract methods, from the classic works, and re-cast them in a modern context. But, for most of us, that would be totally impossible. The advice given was useless, and to my mind, totally irresponsible!

If you were an activist, it would be the only advice you could give. And, mere activism does not a Marxist make!

I, of course, asked about such things, but only got the same advice - "Consult the classics!".

But, Marx never had time to write theoretically about the Method that he was creating, as well as using - not least because the heart of that Method was Holism, which, as distinct from the usually subscribed-to opposite, Plurality, instead insisted that "Everything affects everything else!".

And, it also dealt with the whole normally totally neglected areas concerned with Qualitative Development and Collapse, and with Stability and Emergence. Compared with the usually adhered-to Plurality, Holism was vastly more complex - no easy rules and tidy encapsulating equations here.

And, crucially, NO extractable causality in the Key Emergent Transformations at all. Compared with his work on Capital, the holist, dialectical method would be both an even more enormous, and also an unavoidably ongoing task. Clearly, most followers of Marx didn't really understand exactly what his Method involved: yet that was the true essence of his contribution!

It was, in retrospect, no wonder that I got no help on such a crucial question: they didn't know either!

The population of real Marxists (by which I mean professional researchers developing rather than revising the theory) was never large enough for these questions to be fully addressed. It clearly was Marx alone who had made the transcending transition, so, it was his remarkable analyses that won followers, and NOT his revolutionary Method! 

For, "Marxism" to become a fully developed stance, it needed many dedicated theorists, who were not only specialists in their own professional fields, but also committed to doing what Marx had done with Economics. And, that has never really been the case!

Even the very best of those professionals, who did attempt it, such as V. Gordon Childe, the archaeologist, John Berger and Georg Lukasz, the critics, and even Christopher Caudwell, the philosopher, never really cracked the methods involved. The establishment of that crucial and always continuing task remains to be achieved.

And, this loss had significant repercussions, not just in the many ignored specialisms and Subjects, but within Marxism itself. Marxism is still too young to already be able to supply all the answers in every single sphere. Marx himself read bourgeois Economics for decades, before gradually finding the right way to tackle it in a "Marxist Way"!

So, getting back to this particular physicist, I was far too young too, and found no members who could help.

Indeed, my task was particularly difficult, for I had to tackle the monolith of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - no small undertaking!

In spite of knowing, intuitively, that Copenhagen was a major and debilitating retreat, who was I, a 19 years old student, to take on the World's leading Physicists, especially when I could find no one to help, within what was surely the best place to find a solution?

Only slowly in an academic career that took in Mathematics, Biology and Computing, as well as Physics, did I make any progress at all. And, it was many years later, when I was the Computer Programmer in a Higher Education establishment, dedicated to helping researchers across the whole range of disciplines with their programming needs, did the penny finally begin to drop.

And, surprisingly, it happened when working with an expert in both Dance Performance and Choreography teaching, that the research that I personally had to undertake, finally revealed the real problem in Science. In dealing with the analysis of movement on Video and Film under computer control, I did finally realise what a Dichotomous Pair really was, and how Hegel had addressed the consequent impasse that was always the inevitable result.

As a result, I applied what I had learned to the Key Dichotomous Pair in Copenhagen, usually termed Wave/Particle Duality, and was, thereafter, able using Hegel's method, to crack a whole series of consequent impasses within that stance.

It had taken me 50 years (by myself) to be able to do it!

The key was Zeno's Paradoxes involving the use of the contradictory concepts of Continuity and Descreteness, when attempting to analyse movement over time. Clearly, this Dichotomous Pair arose just as Hegel had discovered - due to flaws within the usually unstated premises which were the basis for both these concepts.

Hegel found that he had to identify exactly what, in those premises, was causing the contradiction. And, he found, that if the flaw was corrected, the halting dichotomy would dissolve into a clear forked path with strictly logical reasons for taking each option. 

Clearly, I had to solve an identical kind of problem in delivering both Access and Control of the Video and Film footage of key movements, and was able to solve them.

But, in addition, I had finally understood the method involved and in Wave/Particle Duality knew that the key to transcending this impasse would be found in the common premises which delivered both of these conceptions.

I studied the premises (usually never overtly stated) and I found the flaw!

Now, looking for concepts, as Hegel had to do when considering Thinking, at first waylaid me, but he was an idealist, and the problem here was about Reality. It turned out that what was wrong in these premises was an physical omission! 

What had been dispensed with in the 19th century because it could not be detected, turned out to be essential for making sense out of the whole panoply of impasses in Sub Atomic Physics.

What was essential was the presence of a Universal Substrate.

And, after much research into a material, but undetectable, Substrate, I managed to remove every single anomaly in the famed Double Slit Experiments. And since that time, I have been able to dismantle item after item within the Copenhagen Stance, and, philosophically, make significant contributions to the processes and productions of Abstraction, as well as delivering an extended Theory of Emergences.

Is Reason Merely Formal Logic? (Part 1)

Difference Engine

Let us begin to Define its Successor!

Introduction

As a scientist and mathematician, I have, to my own surprise, spent most of my adult life opposing the dramatic changes that have occurred in a part of my specialist area, which have taken it a million miles from the principles and premises that sustained it throughout the period of its greatest flowering, in the 18th and 19th centuries.

You may consider that, in saying this, I am harking back to the “Good Old Days”, in a similar way to the Romanticists, who rejected Science during the latter half of that period. You may even think that such a "backwards step" is an indication that I don’t understand the Great Revolution that has occurred, and long for the simplicities of that former stage, but that would be a mistaken conclusion! Indeed, compared to the group that I criticize, who are generally very narrow in knowledge and experience, outside of their own specialism, while I have studied well beyond my qualifications, and am amazed at the philosophical immaturity of almost all scientists.

Even the giants, who have contributed greatly to the achievements of Science, have proved to be infants when it comes to Philosophy. And, the reasons are easy to find. For, they all think that what they do in Science IS Philosophy, and are absolutely sure that they are the only ones in this "most basic" of all fields, and thus are those who can, indeed, instruct the philosophers themselves in this crucial area. 

Reactionary Science

But the categorisation of the modern changes in Physics as revolutionary, are as mistaken as those who similarly categorised Nazism in the same way. Both trends were wholly reactionary, and very dangerous! After all, it was this precise group of physicists that delivered exactly how to make the atomic bomb, without, in any way, investigating its immediate and lasting effects.

The changes marked a significant retreat on the part of the majority of my colleagues: delivering instead a significant and damaging decline that, only now, is beginning to be revealed as a major abandonment of all the key principles of scientific endeavour.

And, for what can only be described as an approach, which is both blatantly pragmatist, and, perhaps surprisingly, wholly idealist.

Science as explanation is now considered condemned (in Physics at least) as both impossible and ignorable self-kid, while the way-out speculations of the mathematical physicists’ apologists are given the title of “theories”, while we are expected to embrace unobservable Strings, Physical Singularities and Parallel Universes, yet sneered at for expecting sound, scientific explanations of everything in the World that can be studied.

No, the position which I demand is the correct one of Science-as-Explanation, and to combat the pragmatists and idealists, who have invaded our properly won territory, with their inexplicable formulae and mammoth speculations. We must deliver a theoretical drubbing, that will expose their lightweight approach for ever.

We must study Mathematics and Physics AND the versions of Logic and Reason which underpin them, and determine exactly how they should be correctly and productively related in delivering what Science is supposed to be about – Understanding!

What is Logic & Reason?

The earliest profound realisation of what was possible using disciplined thought was embodied in the system of Geometrical Theorems of Euclid, at the time of the ancient Greeks. His bringing together, in a meaningful and coherent sequence of all the discoveries of the Greeks, in this area, was the first significant achievement of Logic by means of a valid set of processes or manipulations. It was not only a coherent and consistent exposition of that extensive body of knowledge, but was also a demonstration of the power of Thinking itself.

Previously, Mankind had built up a collection of “truths”, about various aspects of the World, but they were generally unrelated fragments. The Greeks, and particularly Euclid, realised that they were indeed related, and the relations were to do with Form. From some, of se Forms, used-together, others could actually be derived via series of processes termed Proofs.

Euclid managed to organise them into a system, where from a small number of assumptions and premises, the Whole set could be systematically proven, in a clear series of logical steps.

This had never been achieved before, in any area of study, so, it was a profoundly important achievement and has, quite rightly, become a vital part of Education ever since.

It was for me, the most significant single piece of purely logical thinking I had ever been presented with, and so profoundly affected me, that I embraced it whole-heartedly, as the centre of my personal education, and quickly became adept at proving every one of the full set of theorems to which I was introduced.

I also thoroughly expected the rest of Mathematics to be similarly dealt with, and attempted to settle into very similar methods in all the subsequent areas of the subject that I was taught and used.

I actually chose to remember nothing, and instead took great delight in working out “everything” from first principles, whether in problem-solving situations, or, perhaps, surprisingly, even in Examinations. It was not long before I achieved my first 100% in a Mathematics Exam, and was subsequently “most disgusted” if I ever dropped below this “necessary” standard. After all, I wasn’t remembering things, neither was I, each and every time, showing my cleverness. I was simply deriving everything by well-oiled and well-learned methods which delivered "The Truth"! Mathematics seemed to be the Essence of disciplined Thinking, and surely ALL problems could be solved by such sound methods?

Of course, I was only 13 years old!

But, as you might expect, few other subjects were so easily susceptible to such methods.

Though, from that time onward, while at school, I never abandoned my “rational” approach, it was very soon evident that the World (and its study) was certainly not as pure and processable as the study of Mathematics might lead us to think.

(I only very much later realised that Mathematics existed in its own private world of Pure Form, which, in fact, set it well apart from the rest of my studies).

Yet, the strict Logic of Mathematics did, somehow, become the broader “Sweet Reason” of most other academic studies, the attitude embodied in my mathematical approach, even though it was not likely to be applicable in all problems of understanding in the World at large.

Indeed, there was, and could only be, a small selection of areas amenable to such a treatment.

My next significant revelation occurred, with my first encounter with Physics, which unlike Mathematics was NOT a monolithic World composed only of one thing, namely Pure Form, but, indeed, considered that its area of application was our surrounding World – everyday Reality itself, and which set as its task the explanation of all real-world phenomena.

But, though we were not limited to Mathematics or its absolute proofs, we were entirely subject to concrete Reality itself, and our techniques of revealing its properties, hidden relations and processes.

At least in my education, Physics was not Mathematics, but more like Natural Philosophy.

It explained things!

It found causal factors and investigated how they affected things and WHY! It named, studied and experimented to find sufficient to construct explanatory theories of exactly why things were the way that they were. This was clearly different to Mathematics. This was Reason in causal action!

Once more, we had a consequent approach which arose out of the physical division of the World into its supposed constituent Parts, and thereafter, via level within level, down to what were considered to be the most fundamental bases of everything.

To the young student, here was an approach which promised ALL! (As before, it was only later that I realised that Physics was no God-like passive, observational process, but, on the contrary, an effective interventionist means of controlling limited sections of the World in order to study them).

My World came (for me) to be built out of such logically amenable areas of study.

Epistemology & Being III

Our Understanding of Reality and the Consequences for Theory

The Emergence of an Alternative?

True scientific thinkers were always aware of the patchy nature of their studies, and determined to go beyond what had been extracted, to attempt an Explanation of why things were the way that they were.

This was a significant development! Essentially, Mankind had been using his Knowledge of Reality, without understanding its causes. His techniques were descriptive rather than explanatory, and knowing what-happens-next was sufficient for a successful intervention.

But, by asking, “Why?”, he was requiring a great deal more!

He was impelled upon this path, because, if he could “understand” the reasons for things, he could apply them elsewhere in analogous situations and build a coherent, comprehensive structure of explanations, which would certainly truncate the long-winded process dependant ONLY upon inexplicable description alone.

And, for a while, these Explanatory scientists were highly successful (if only in very limited areas), and their explanatory contributions did make significant contributions.

But, of course, they had to be insufficient or even downright wrong! Depending, as they did upon a framework of “do-able” studies, their attempts at explanation were too narrowly based to ever deliver the “full Truth”.  Each and every Theory was always compromised, and could be no other. But, these scientists soon realised that though their contributions were incomplete, they necessarily contained significant “objective content”.

They were NOT mere fictions, but always delivered something of real value.

These real scientists expected their Theories to be superceded by better ones, and indeed embraced the approach, which came to be called The Scientific Method, wherein hypotheses (probable theories) were purposely subjected to attempts at disproving them by experimental testing “to, and beyond, their limits”.

This led to the demolishing of clearly incorrect theories, but also stretched some theories to extended areas of applicability, and even led to improving modifications where the evidence merited them.

They approached a much deeper understanding of the relation of their Theories to the “Truth”. All “truths” achieved by the normal, pluralistic methods were clearly “relative”, “partial” truths, and subject to updating, or even total replacement.

But, sadly, even this improvement turned out to be insufficient. All this work was still based upon other long established assumptions that were intrinsically flawed, and THE most profound flaw appeared in the occurrence of cataclysmic Events of Change, which came to be called Emergences.

Indeed, these were precise Events, as were mentioned earlier, such as the Origin of Life on the Earth!

The Bottom-Up approach could NOT deal with Emergences.

Why was this?

The whole method, being pluralist, depended upon the identified “constituent Parts”, which made up a given situation, but these were destroyed as such in an Emergence. They simply ceased to exist, and the laws relating them meant nothing any more. The very things we would need to “explain” the new situation were no longer available. We had NO bases for explaining the turnover. Our methods did NOT deliver the real Truth, but instead a truth relative to a particular set of circumstances that now NO LONGER APPLIED.

New forms, entities, relations and, indeed, laws appeared “out of the woodwork” – at least as far as our “understanding” was concerned.

The new Level that appeared could NOT be dealt with purely in terms of our Lower Level entities, relations, processes and laws. What had occurred was NOT explicable in terms of our current Knowledge, because it was, and always had been, INCOMPLETE.

Now, if that was not enough to scupper an investigation of the newly emerged Level, there was a further complication. The new Level actually began to constrain, if not determine, those prior, lower-Level processes. There was an irrefutable top-down mediation of “now contained” lower level processes.

How on earth could our current assumptions cope with that?

There are millions of examples of this, but I must at least mention one.

On the pre-Life Earth NO free Oxygen could exist in the atmosphere. Oxygen is very reactive, and any that became available, by any means whatsoever, was immediately taken up in what are called oxidation processes, and ended up as solids embedded in the geological accumulations of the ground itself. The atmosphere, replenished by natural, non living processes, was mainly of volcanic origin. There was NO free Oxygen at all.

But, early living things changed all of that. Photosynthesis, in plants, using sunlight and available Carbon Dioxide, produced Oxygen as a waste product in their cell building processes, and this proliferated to such an extent that, in spite of continuing oxidising processes, the amount of free Oxygen in the atmosphere increased until it became a substantial and transforming proportion. There is even clear evidence that it, at times, was much greater than it is now (currently about 20%). And this process was ongoing. Any reduction, due to other processes, was continually offset by new productions by the plant biomass.

For the first time in the history of the Earth, free Oxygen was maintained at a substantial level in the atmosphere. This revolution had changed its own context. Situations emerging due to a given context had then proceeded to change that context substantially. And, this meant that new things could happen that were impossible previously.

Indeed, Life, which caused the situation, could thereafter develop in entirely new ways. Oxygen breathing animals could evolve and fill the empty Land areas without the need for what had been essential before – the ocean environment.

This tale reveals the significance of Emergences. Following such an Event, entirely new forms appeared which could NOT be explained in terms of the pre-Emergence processes.

Emergences were, and are, Creative!

The Necessity of Holistic Science And a wholly New Methodology

Now, these profoundly important Events could NOT continue to be ignored. And an alternative approach to Reality, based on Holism, also had to be resurrected. Not, obviously, the old impenetratable Holism of antiquity, but one based on the recognition of its paramount role in the Evolution of Matter – the development of Reality.

Plurality had to be relegated to a purely pragmatic methodology that took the obvious unevenness of Reality, and constrained its more amenable areas for detailed study, and the subsequent construction of initial, obviously, limited models of these areas, as a first step towards a more general understanding.

To complement this scheme of work, it has become evident that the complementary study of Emergence is the most important direction to take in revealing the imperatives of a holistic world.

Certainly, the significant failures of pluralistic science were revealed by Emergences, and also have significantly redirected our conception of the nature of Reality, AND, importantly, of our understanding of Reality.

This paper was written in response to an article – Essence of Thought by Gregory T. Huang - in New Scientist (2658) about the Human Brain. The scientists involved were undoubtedly and unconsciously, pluralist, as described above, and could not see that their methods were incapable of transcending the mechanisms of Lower Level systems. They believed that they could find their “Theory of Everything in the Brain” via Neural Nets and brain localities, but because they are as mistaken as the Physicists, who expect to find their Theory of Everything in Strings of Pure disembodied Energy (or some other purely mathematical forms), they too must fail.

Soon as we look at Human Understanding in its present state, we see the products of past Emergences in ALL subject categories, be they Physics, Biology or Chemistry, or in Neurology, Psychology and Psychiatry. Each and every area is determined by its own Emergent Event, and no-one can, no matter how hard they try, use their current, pluralist methods to bridge the gaps.

Obviously, this paper is but a preface to one that takes the positions expressed here into a critique of the article that precipitated this reaction.

Back to Part 2

Epistemology & Being II

Our Understanding of Reality and the Consequences for Theory

The Route to an Alternative?

So, what are the glaringly crucial questions which we wilfully ignore?

The number one question has, surely, to be an explanation of the Origin of Life on Earth. Can you think of a more important question? And, as soon as that type of question has ever been posed, a whole avalanche of related ones pour out – the most obvious becoming the different Subjects which we have set up to deal with different areas of Reality.

We have, of course, Biology to deal with the Science of Living Things, which in turn is quite separate from Physics, which deals with aspects of inanimate or material objects, and finally we should mention the even higher level areas of study, such as Psychology, concerning the minds of human beings.

And, it is clearly crucial that each of these areas have very rapidly become walled-cities, wherein each has its own set of related approaches, which are necessarily unique to their own discipline, while the important connections-between these "subjects" are largely ignored.

The classic "explanations" of these “categories” do not allow the slightest criticism. They extrapolate the “local” successes of reductionism that are possible only in tiny sequences of explanation, into an overall, world-wide methodology, which, “in time”, is expected to explain ALL such connections – but not yet!

Any determined criticism of the bases of such assumptions sees them, inevitably, to be deemed to "fall at the very first fence", by the consensus defenders.

And, I do mean the first!

Zeno, for example, exposed our false assumptions in how we deal with Time and Space (particularly with respect to movement) with his famous Paradoxes, and that was about 2,500 years ago, and the consensus still simply chooses to ignore such revelations to this day!

And the assumptions that we make are not just the ancient ones, such as Plurality and Reductionism, but even the relatively modern approaches that we employ in Experimental Science and even in the famed, and even sacrosanct, Scientific Method.

These unquestioned assumptions MUST be addressed, and the mechanist view of the richness of Reality and its reduction to basic, immutable elements overturned for ever.

It just isn’t true!

And, it is clear to me that the key to addressing these mistakes (perhaps surprisingly) must reside in tackling such Revolutions as the Origin of Life on Earth, and similar vital overturns, which have occurred throughout the History of Matter, “since the Big Bang.”

No-one has yet got within a million miles of explaining the Origin of Life, in terms of more basic, non-living relations and entities, and the reason is precisely connected with the assumptions with which they all attempt to tackle the problem.

They merely expect to climb a ladder of relations and processes all the way from inanimate matter to the first occurrence of Living Things.

Rodchenko

Needless to say, they always and inevitably FAIL in that endeavour!

Why? The answer lies in their assumptions, as you will by now have already guessed. They MUST, on principle, explain everything, even including Life itself, in strictly material terms, and the only ones that they have available turn out to be totally inadequate to the task. They expect unbroken processes, and smoothly continuous sequences of relations, to do the job, and they simply cannot do that!

The Origin of Life on Earth was never such a process, nor even a very rare and unlikely version of such processes.

It was an Emergence!

On hearing the mention of such a label as “Emergence”, most scientists run like hell.

They spent their lives correctly opposing religious mysticism, and replacing it with reductionist materialism, and “Emergence” smacks altogether too much of the enemy’s approach. If such things turn out to be inexplicable in their usual terms, then it seems to be opening the door to mystical alternatives.

But, in that, they are entirely wrong!

An Emergence needs NO mysticism, or God, or any outside intervention to bring it about.

It is wholly due to material processes, BUT they are NOT pedestrian, pluralistic processes, nor are they predictable in the usual way. But, they are real, concrete processes. They are not strictly organisational, wherein some higher form appears as “built” out of lower order processes and relations – mere complication!

So, what is it that actually occurs in an Emergence?

To address this question we must totally renovate our basic conceptions of the nature of Reality. We must embrace the opposite of Plurality, which is termed Holism!

Reality is NOT a strictly one-way, bottom-up erection. Holism conceives of Reality as multiply-mediated – bottom-to-top, top-to-bottom, and every side-to-every-other-side.

It allows Recursions of many kinds: a simple ladder upwards will never do it!

All things are multiply-connected, and, indeed, multiply-determined, at least potentially, by literally everything else. So, our cherished premise, for example, of Stability not only being the norm for development, but actually essential for it, has to go.

Indeed, Stability, when it gets established, makes new developments wholly impossible!

It is an actively-maintained balance between diametrical opposites, and will, when achieved, persist for long periods, until its internal contradictions begin to successively undermine it, finally leading to a terminal crisis, which ends in a wholesale collapse.

But, the consequent swoop to oblivion is only of the constraining Stability and its self-maintaining sub processes.

Its demise leads to a Revolution, in which wholly new systems of processes arise, and can occasionally erect a wholly new Stability.

That is how Life arose!

The Phoenix must arise from the flames of destruction!

Revolutionary Routes

You can see how it is causal, but NOT in any direct traceable sequence from the pre-life level. An actual Emergence is essential to allow such radical changes.

Now, this was realised (also around 2500 years ago) by Siddartha (The Buddha), but as an almost incomprehensible system. There certainly was order there, but it seemed impenetratable.

Siddartha also conceived of the problem from a wholly human perspective – the purpose had to be a personal realisation of Man’s place within the Universe. Those who realised the holist nature of Reality HAD to dedicate their whole lives to its study and ultimately hope for Nirvana.

Though Holism is certainly a sound approach, it did not take account of the undoubted unevenness of Reality.

For Reality is not homogeneously interconnected, with multiple mediations of relatively equal weight, determining every discernable thing.

Yet, such things were not necessarily locked into indeterminable complexes of mediations, these mediations were, inevitably, of very different magnitudes in any particular situation. Some would be so tiny as to be both invisible AND undetectable, while others could be so dominant as to reveal themselves literally all the time, partially obscured, but quite evidently present.

To treat all situations as composed of contributions of comparable weights would certainly prohibit ANY progress in understanding. So, holistic Buddhism did NOT precipitate its own Science of Reality.

Holism was correct, but both insufficient, and had no analytic methodology with which to investigate Reality, and reveal all its contributions. Its defence of total interconnectedness and universal mediations seemed to prohibit the development of a means of penetrating Reality in some revealing way.

Parallel with the holist view was the pluralist view, and though the latter was certainly incorrect, it would, in time, provide a means of analysis and study, but NOT for a further 2000 years.

To deliver anything at all, even a pluralist approach HAD to be allied with a wide already-existing Knowledge of dealing with things, and bending them to particular outcomes successfully.

Now, this was, indeed, available in day-to-day living, where Mankind increasingly learned how to control situations to his own advantage.

Edward Burtynsky - Manufactured Landscapes - China

Modern pluralist Science was born when Mankind could intervene in Reality with considerable control to constrain situations artificially, in order to reveal dominant relations, and, indeed, for the very first time, measure them. 

Then, Plurality could be employed as an effective pragmatic method, in both holding down, and also measuring Parts of Reality, to reveal their evident dominant relations.

Its gains were both considerable and remarkable, but its “paths to Truth” were considerably constrained. You could only find relations that were both evident AND revealable. You had to study only those areas where control could be established and dominant relations were quite obviously there, even if embedded.

The difficult areas, which did not display such prospects, were simply not available for study. Their significant contributions were just not evident, so you did not know in what way to control the situation, in order to reveal any of them for isolation, extraction and indeed abstraction.

These areas offered NO means of approach.

This meant that many areas were unavoidably ignored, and because of this biased selection, Reality was NOT revealed in its essential nature, but instead delivered piecemeal, via only its more amenable and relatively simple areas.

The totality of such studies gave the false impression that the whole of Reality was like these amenable areas.

It wasn’t and isn’t!

Nevertheless, mankind had been exploiting whatever he could glean from Reality for many, many millennia, and even these limited paths were quickly turned into “paths to something”.

The gains became blueprints for Productions, and the Industrial Revolution was born.

Next PART

Back to PART 1

Marxism

A Reissue! MARXISM III

This set of papers was originally published on the Shape Blog under the title Why Socialism? It was written as an multi-part introduction to the topic and became a very popular series on that site, vastly increasing its visitor numbers during the period.

Clearly many questions were still needing answers, for in spite of a long and illustrious history since the original publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels in 1848, Socialism has accrued countless failures and even betrayals. Yet its central tenets are as true today as when they were first written down in that document, well over 150 years ago.

The position was not like that of the Utopian Socialists, but was based upon a materialist philosophic standpoint - a meeting of German philosophy, English political economics and French social history. It was, and is, a magnificent amalgam, founded upon the necessary processes of social revolution, to finally dismantle old class regimes and liberate the masses.

Yet, only in a few places was this possible, where the working class was in a position to carry through a revolution by itself. In most cases the only possible route to a successful uprising was via an alliance of classes, including both the peasantry and often a large slice of the as-yet unliberated middle class. The problem was always what would happen once the repressive regime had been vanquished. Could the task of establishing Socialism be straightforward, or would the classes of this revolutionary alliance break apart and begin to work for their own dominance? The answer to such questions has been produced time and again by history, in Russia, Germany, China and right up to the present day with the avalanche of revolutions precipitated by the Arab Spring.

Socialism grounded in solid Marxist theory is needed now more than ever, as Capitalism faulters and people across the globe take to the streets in their millions.

Let this collection of essays on Democracy, Economics and Revolution, by a life-long Marxist, help with the problems of this, the most widespread unrest since the Europe-wide Year of Revolutions in 1848.

Read more...

Epistemology & Being I

Our Understanding of Reality and the Consequences for Theory

Introduction: Stance and Means

If we are serious about understanding Reality, we must be absolutely clear about the methodology that we will use, and, indeed, depend upon, to reveal its inherent nature. Does our usually employed assumptions and methodology actually deliver Being to us, as it really is, or, is it something much less that we actually obtain?

The obvious answer is that the latter must be much closer to the truth!

At best, our methods only deliver fragments of Reality, unavoidably divorced from their necessary context, AND severely filtered by our usual assumptions and techniques.

The results obtained are fragmentary, in other ways too, in that they are gathered into various quite distinct categories of study. Hence, the results so-obtained are both patchy and imperfect, though they do allow effective intervention, when using them, in very specially constrained circumstances, to various purposeful ends.

In philosophical terms, we must be conscious that what we have in our hands are our conceptions of Reality, rather that Reality itself. The consideration of this is termed Epistemology.

To get what we have, we had to interact with Reality in particular ways to achieve anything at all.

We have to actively intervene, to constrain and simplify aspects of Reality, in order to make it amenable to study, and also to achieve anything useable.

Without this essential pre-structuring of the situation under study, the elements of Reality are often too enmeshed and mutually obscuring for us to be able to see the wood for the trees. 

Photograph by Michael 'Conflux' Coldwell

Premises

So, we embrace the construct of Plurality – the division of all things into Wholes and their constituent Parts, and, on this basis, set about “releasing” significant Parts from their embedded-ness in order to study them, and reveal their nature.

In addition, we assume that the explanation of any such Whole must reside with the roles played by these constituent Parts.

Now, this was always a pragmatic decision, but our history is littered with such short-cuts, gradually becoming ppromoted into Principles of Reality, and various effective tricks, seemingly being seen as “explanations”

It was, therefore, not long before Mankind considered that absolutely everything could be definitively “explained” in terms of such Parts, as long as they had ALL been revealed by our now well established methods.

Of course, that is NOT the situation at all!  Plurality had been assumed, mainly as a means of simplifying complex and often opaque Reality – to effectively “get us going”, and NOT to be the sole and sufficient means to reveal Being itself - full and entirely sufficient!

Yet, that is what we came to assume, and even more than that, we considered that the process of division into Parts could be repeatedly employed to go “all the way down” to finally arrive at some immutable set of basic units and fundamental laws, which could alone generate the Whole of Reality.

The myth of a possible Theory of Everything was born!

There can be NO difficulty with the pragmatic imperative as such, of course, whereby any task of understanding would be initially purposely limited in accordance with Plurality, and carried through until some useable formula was established. That is the pragmatic way to get desired results, in specially provided, highly controlled contexts.

But, the difficulties began to accumulate when scientists immediately truncated the necessary process of study as soon as such an equation had been made available.

This truncation then made the possible units of further explanation, the only things actually in our hands – the quantitative, pluralistically-derived formulae. That was, and always is, totally untenable!

We had replaced a study of Reality, with a study of Form – Mathematics! And, these purely formal descriptions were being seen as the drivers of Reality. That, I'm afraid, is not Science, it is a stance called Idealism!

Finally, we must address that unavoidable division of Reality into multiple “Areas of Study”, for only, by so doing, was it possible to intervene with our controls to effect an achievable set of useable results. Of course, our queue-jumpers would loudly protest! They would insist that all these multiple areas of study would ultimately, and by the very same means, as they are now using, be, automatically, condensed into a “single, all-embracing Science”.

Absolutely Not!

On the contrary, that can never be the case, while depending solely on pluralist methods!

For, to achieve such things, all “seekers for Truth” must overtly admit-and-establish their ground, slow their headlong dash to technological solutions (where these drive a search for “useful” applications), and, instead, place their work in a sound, and consciously-admitted, epistemological context.

No eternal Natural Laws actually exist, indeed the laws, which are claimed to be such, are totally dependant upon an absolutely essential context!

Assumptions and premises such as Plurality and Reductionism pervade the whole of present day Science, and prohibit thought-through Explanation of the many, as yet obviously unsolved, problems, which demand attention.

Instead, we willingly blinker ourselves to address ONLY separate, disembodied “problems”, and turn our backs on the requirements outlined above.

Next PART

New Special Issue: Charge + Magnetism II

Read issue

This is part two of our new series of issues on magnetism.

These papers comprise the current work-in-progress, by this theorist, upon an as yet incomplete attempt to explain these crucial properties of Matter.

Many would consider that such a project was completed long, long ago, and could certainly point to a host of achievements in this area, with literally centuries of brilliant experiments, explanations and formulae to show for those efforts. But, these are technological gains, rather than any demonstration of intrinsic understanding, so the process is far from complete...

You can read Part 1 here.

Capitalism vs Worker Coops

Psychology, Economics, and Orlando

Another good show from Prof. Richard Wolff and Dr Harriet Fraad

Wolff on Brexit

Support Corbyn! Defeat the Traitors!

A vital vote is coming in the Labour Party.

Literally all of what remains of Blair's New Labour are trying to remove Jeremy Corbyn as Leader in spite of his massive majority when elected.

And all this just when the extreme right-wingers are taking over the Tory Party, and will be running the country for the next five years, having lied to take us out of:

- the EU safeguards for Workers
- The Human Rights Charter

The New Tories will certainly intensify their attacks upon us.

You can:

JOIN the Party

(ower fees for Youth and OAPs)

16,000 have joined in the last 3 days

Sign up as a SUPPORTER

as soon as the Election is declared then you can sign up to vote

AFFILIATE as a Trade Unionist

Kick out the Pro-Capitalist Right. Return the Labour party to its true constituency:

The Working Class!

Brexit and the murder of Jo Cox

No one is saying it but it needs to be said!

The murder of Jo Cox has highlighted the crucial sides in the Brexit debate.

The murderer is a right-wing fanatic, who considered her to be the real enemy.

Yet, consider the reactions of the ones who really care, who came out strongly about the way she was and what she did for people.

In this increasingly nasty, nationwide argument between the right-wing of Toryism, who want to lead that party, and the rest of us who are trying to survive, the rantings of the Leave Leaders show a marked contrast.

The UKIP leader, Farage, thought putting out his racialist poster was ill-timed, because of Jo's murder. Contrast that with the genuine out-pourings of love from those who knew her.

Don't let the Right win by voting LEAVE!

If they do they will take over the Tory Party and the nation! And you will be faced with five years of these reactionaries, who will, most certainly, intensify their policy of making us all pay for their Slump.

Vote REMAIN to defeat the Reactionary Right!

New Special Issue: Charge + Magnetism I

Read the issue

These papers comprise the current work-in-progress, by this theorist, upon an as yet incomplete attempt to explain these crucial properties of Matter.

Many would consider that such a project was completed long, long ago, and could certainly point to a host of achievements in this area, with literally centuries of brilliant experiments, explanations and formulae to show for those efforts. But, these are technological gains, rather than any demonstration of intrinsic understanding, so the process is far from complete.

In addition, a very different philosophical stance is involved in this endeavour, moving theory away from primarily formulae-and-use, and, instead, attempting to investigate the true causal Nature of Matter itself, via a holistic and wholly materialist approach.

And, such objectives ensure that what is achieved in these papers will certainly be superseded: they are not, and cannot be, the last word on such a theoretically revolutionary approach.

Nevertheless, these initial musings, in a wholly new direction, certainly need to be out there. For, currently, many diverse groups, and even more individuals, are struggling to explain this crucial area, all of whom are convinced that the current consensus on these matters, especially at the Sub Atomic level, is totally wrong. Yet, they are all struggling, in the main, with a theoretical inheritance that actually prevents a breakthrough, and hence is delivering no chance of an integration of many valuable aspects, into a consistent, coherent and comprehensive overall Theory.

So, these papers are a relatively, wide-ranging set of thoughts about what this theorist believes are the key problems. And, they are not what is usually considered!

Primarily, it is the Philosophy of the scientists involved that is considered to be significantly at fault, so that without substantial improvements there, no real and profound contributions will be possible - no common ground available to enable an overall integration!

Here, I hope, will be some of the necessary, and currently missing, ideas that will lead to this objective.

Read more
 

The Eternal Golden Braid

A Matter of Approach IV

Reality is indeed complex!

But, what kind of complexity are we talking about? For, in “Mathematical Chaos and Complexity Theories” there is a special kind of “emerging” phenomena suggested, which are very different, indeed, from any holistic view of an Emergence, as a creative and, indeed, Revolutionary Event. So, let us attempt to clarify.

Starting with Laplace we had the classical idea of Causality, where natural causes produce entities or situations , which, in their turn, can cause another layer of complexity - but completely predictable from the causalities involved.

Now, such a sequence delivers a wholly linear conception, which can always be traced both forwards – as Prediction, and backwards - as Reductionism. Yet, attempts to trace backwards never succeed beyond a few, same-level, steps, and can never be carried through-and-beyond any full- blown Emergence Event – in either direction! So, such conceptions are rarely held with conviction these days.

Yet, versions of such are still legion, including the fabled “Complexity”, wherein many such simultaneously- present, “linear causalities” produce overall mixes of consequences, which can have very different results and varied overall properties.

It is these higher level consequences that are incorrectly termed Emergences – because they seemingly “emerge” from a given complexity,

In such cases, an important principle is involved, though only very rarely overtly stated. It is the crucial Principle of Plurality, which effectively asserts that that all the causal strands involved are completely separable, and the resultant, “combined laws” so coming out from that situation are considered eternal!

With such a premise, the validity of the widely-used statistical approach is said to be confirmed, and many “Laws”, of such a composite nature, can be revealed and used. And, theoretically, at least, the causal strand is involved, and, being “totally separable”, can be traced back. But, it doesn’t take a great deal of research to undermine the assumption of Plurality, for it can never explain any kind of qualitative change, nor, most important of all – the actual Evolution of things.

To attempt to reduce Human Thinking, in such a way, is derisory. Indeed, you simply can’t! Plurality has been useful, especially in carefully designed and maintained situations, but it certainly isn’t true generally. It is a pragmatic trick!

So, what other way of dealing with Causality do we have? It has to be the opposite conception to that of Plurality – indeed, it can only be that based upon the Principle of Holism. For, within that concept, “Everything affects everything else!” And, this means that any found relations are NOT separable! There can be NO eternal Natural Laws, such as those assumed to be delivered by carefully organised pluralistic experiments. What Plurality delivers is a simplified and idealised general relation, which will always vary in different contexts, due to its unavoidable modification by everything else!

The pluralist route can give us a first order of approximation, as to what is actually going on, but it does not deliver the fabled eternal Natural Laws!

Clearly, to impose such fixed Laws in all contexts is erroneous. If the reader doubts this analysis let him consider the USE of pluralist Laws. To ensure that they are obeyed, the exact same conditions as were necessary for extraction have to be replicated in use! If a complex item is to be manufactured, it can never be achieved in a single, fixed context: every single step of its construction will require the right conditions for each Law used – sometimes quite separate factories are the only way to achieve success, with each specialising in its own limited set of processes!

So, how are we to consider so-called Complexity? For, surely, that is actually the simultaneous occurrence of multiple causal effects, all happening in the very same context? 

It cannot be that the pluralists’ eternal Natural Laws are acting, exactly as they were found, each one in its own special tailor-made circumstances. So, the simple addition of those Laws (exactly as found) has to be incorrect. 

While Plurality is supposed to just “weave-them-together unchanged” – in an “Eternal Golden Braid”, Holism sees them unavoidably affecting one another, which can result in an overall effect – they have all both “changed and melded” into an overall effect at a higher level!

The combined result cannot simply be analysed from a summation of the unchanged, “separable” components involved. They will all have new forms in such a combined context – more like the formation of a functional “tissue” than a mere knitted braid of unchanged parts. The various contributions have been both changed and merged into something else, with its own properties.

Pluralist analysis may correctly identify what components were involved, but it will say nothing about HOW they have been changed, and HOW the forms behaved to produce what finally came about!

The alternative the holistic version of an Emergence, involving different orders of complexity, can, indeed, be meaningful at every level of Reality, all the way to Human Thought.

But, though the analysis is assumed to be easy in an assumed to be pluralist world, it falls to the ground in an holistic World. For, we cannot merely separate each and every cause, and manipulate them into an “explanation” of the higher level behaviours merely via the “addition of fixed Laws”. We have, on the contrary, to see what Qualitative Changes are most certainly involved, which can never be derived from the “producing” level. There is, though, a chance that, once occurring, the new situation could be explained NOT purely as a summation of separate and fixed causes, but as the creation of something wholly new, where possibilities are instituted with completely new properties. Indeed, real Development or Evolution requires such creation: it can be explained no other way!

Yet, such things don’t necessarily happen immediately, or even automatically. In fact, they are rare, and are usually stopped from occurring for very long periods, by prior inhibitory structures, which we term Stable Systems.

These Stabilities are largely self-maintained Systems, which intrinsically react to prevent innovation and maintain the status quo, against any significant Qualitative developments.

Now, this role of Stabilities modifies the trajectory of changes in such Systems radically. Normally, such Systems resist change for long periods, but are never permanent set-ups.

There will always be crises, which are resolved to re- establish an adjusted version of the Stability.

But, always, changes at some point in a crisis, are sufficient to precipitate a wholesale collapse that is not recovered, but swoops ever downwards into a total dissociation of the prior System.

But, it must be emphasized that it is the system- maintaining-factors that are overwhelmed: the majority of the contained processes continue as before, but are no longer constrained into a persisting System of Stability.

Now, what we end up with is “something like” Chaos. For, now innumerable processes are un hindered and all continue without restraint. This transforms the situation radically! Inter-relation associations occur, and multiple mini-systems, of kinds previously prohibited, now grow unhindered, and gradually a new Stability is constructed. Interestingly, the key solidifiers of the new system, will be its defensive processes to prevent competing alternatives from getting a hold.
With the integration of cooperating processes and the defensive palisade of prohibiting policeman processes, a Stability finally emerges.

Issue 44 now available

This paper is the fourth and final part of a series of articles published here weekly, on the theme of Marxist Philosophical Practice. This work isn’t about Capitalism or Socialism, and certainly says nothing about Economics. This is about Marxism as a philosophical approach, applicable to any field of study, any aspect of reality. The series takes four very different issues in Philosophy and investigates them via this Marxist stance, which is termed Dialectical Materialism.

These papers are also collected as a new issue of the Shape Journal (44) available here