Seventh in a series on the edges of science
Truth is truth, right?
Well, perhaps not. Any fact can be viewed from different dimensions that are all equally valid.
In 1979, Douglas Hofstadter won a Pulitzer prize for the book Godël, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braidˆ The cover art shows two wooden blocks. Depending on how you look at the blocks, you might see any of the three letters. What is the truth of those blocks?
Consider the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. To a microbiologist, the cause of the pandemic was a specific virus named SARS-CoV-2 that attacks the lungs and respiratory system. To an epidemiologist, the cause of the pandemic was the worldwide transmission of that virus through the availability of rapid travel. To some (since discredited) scientists, the cause was spontaneous mutation of a bat virus in a “wet market” in Wuhan. To some fairly reliable sources, the cause was experimentation with dangerous viruses coupled with insufficient security in a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan. What is the truth about the cause? All of these approaches are documented with very real data.
The problem here is not that truth is relative (a completely different argument than advanced in this essay), but that truth can be viewed in different dimensions.
The primary goal of science is to experimentally describe the truth of reality. But if truth might vary in different dimensions, what can science do with that variation?
In some cases, science has chosen to describe the truth in each dimension separately. Hence, an electrical engineer describes voltage and current, a classical physicist describes the flow of valence electrons in a conductor, and a quantum physicist describes the particle interactions that implement that flow. All of these are useful. Even though all describe the same phenomena, no one is particularly more “true” than the others.
In other dimensions, however, science simply has no idea (yet?) of how to describe truth. One such area is consciousness. Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of the mass of nerve cells that is the brain, but we have no idea how it happens—nor even how to describe it. Does a dog exhibit consciousness? Is a crab self-aware?
We can describe the mass and physical characteristics of a human brain, thereby indicating the (deceased) owner overused alcohol. We can describe the electrochemical flows that implement neurons in the brain, thereby diagnosing functional neurological disorders. But consciousness? That is a dimension beyond our knowledge.
There are many other similar areas, such as weather prediction, economies, electrical distribution networks, and traffic flow. Like consciousness, the behaviors in these areas defy our science. In each case, there is a self-evident truth that we can perceive at a higher dimension of truth. Weather exhibits frontal systems and hurricanes. Economies stagnate and inflate. Electrical blackouts happen with little warning. Traffic flow creates strange and inexplicable backups. In a prior post, I explored complexity. One key characteristic of complexity is the existence of emergent behaviors. We see the emergent phenomena in these complex areas, but only if we view the whole rather than the parts. Often, these higher-level dimensions are beyond our ability to describe or predict.
Is it perhaps that the best way to observe truth is to look at the higher-level whole? But this presents two significant problems.
- First is to define “whole.” The entire universe is interconnected. The “whole” of weather prediction is but a single part of how the whole-Earth Gaia operates, and the Earth is but one body in our solar system. How high do we have to go before we have a true “whole”?
2. Second is that our minds cannot conceive both the whole and the totality at the same time. Consider the New York street scene in the picture. Imagine it as an integral part of the Milky Way, along with every other detail in the galaxy. It boggles the mind. We simply cannot keep both scales in our mind at once.
These two problems make it impossible for us to reconcile the different dimensions of truth simply by looking at the higher level. Science seems to have no solution.
In my science fiction, I write the future to illuminate today. However, the more I ponder what might happen in the coming centuries, the more I see the limitations of our current methods. Science is marvelous, very useful, rigorous—but science does indeed have its limitations.
I wonder what future methodology might extend our knowledge beyond science.
Doc Honour
November 2023
Doc Honour Books 