Yes, the above statement by Land was a satirical jibe at the type of scientistic view that we can roll the universe into some kind of ultimate theory; and, of course, this is and always will be impossible: the universe is a productive, ever changing force, that cannot and will not be reduced to some mathematical theorem. Even Einstein's E=mc2 was only a partial non-local concept not a fully qualified explanation. Yet, math is the only descriptive language we have at present that can describe aspects of those tensions in the universe. Natural language is the other. An asymmetrical relation if there ever has been one.
This is one of the main points of a Speculative realist philosophy: that everything in the universe is fully deployed and that we cannot have access to all the facts of the case, only to that slice of the pie that we apprehend at any one time; but that implies that there will always be a remainder, something outside of our theorems, something that cannot be put in some totalistic system of mathematical or natural language. For, as many in SR imply the universe is based on asymmetrical relations, and yet many of those objects that make up this cosmos are at times asleep and withdrawn from view; for we never have access to the real object, only its sensual interface; or to use a musical analogy: we only have access to the real object's musical notes, not the object itself.
Anyhow, not sure if I buy into Gleiser's 'humanocentric' revisioning of science: that puts us back into the ultimate seat as the masters of the universe scenario. Rather we are only one among many forms of life that might have that rare trait we call 'consciousness', and it might in itself not be all that special anyway. The generosity of a universe without God or gods is that everything is a special case with none rising above the others in some hierarchy of relation....
And, yes, science as we know it now is more or less controlled by the economic engine, guided by larger investments and moneyed conglomerates, rather than being some impersonal pursuit of truth; and, yet, for scientists themselves on the other hand, there is a need to move toward democratic ideals rather than any form of despotic or tyrannical control of the sciences to the exclusion of 'truth'; for if you eliminate the pursuit of truth as a democratic process then what do you have? A rhetorical question without a need for an answer... for we all know where that would lead!
This is one of the main points of a Speculative realist philosophy: that everything in the universe is fully deployed and that we cannot have access to all the facts of the case, only to that slice of the pie that we apprehend at any one time; but that implies that there will always be a remainder, something outside of our theorems, something that cannot be put in some totalistic system of mathematical or natural language. For, as many in SR imply the universe is based on asymmetrical relations, and yet many of those objects that make up this cosmos are at times asleep and withdrawn from view; for we never have access to the real object, only its sensual interface; or to use a musical analogy: we only have access to the real object's musical notes, not the object itself.
Anyhow, not sure if I buy into Gleiser's 'humanocentric' revisioning of science: that puts us back into the ultimate seat as the masters of the universe scenario. Rather we are only one among many forms of life that might have that rare trait we call 'consciousness', and it might in itself not be all that special anyway. The generosity of a universe without God or gods is that everything is a special case with none rising above the others in some hierarchy of relation....
And, yes, science as we know it now is more or less controlled by the economic engine, guided by larger investments and moneyed conglomerates, rather than being some impersonal pursuit of truth; and, yet, for scientists themselves on the other hand, there is a need to move toward democratic ideals rather than any form of despotic or tyrannical control of the sciences to the exclusion of 'truth'; for if you eliminate the pursuit of truth as a democratic process then what do you have? A rhetorical question without a need for an answer... for we all know where that would lead!
Reply
Leave a comment