The World is Not Atomistic, Deterministic, Materialistic

Blinded By “Science”

History of Atomism, Determinism, Materialism

Democritus in 300 BCE outlined a view of the world that has strongly shaped perceptions of reality to this day. All physical things can be reduced to smaller particles (atoms) that are irreducible. Everything can be “explained” by these particles.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/

The progress of science since 1500 has been shaped by a principle, called Occam’s Razor, which asserts that a simpler explanation is better than a more complex explanation. This is an untestable assertion, let alone a “law”, but the general progress of “science” and the “scientific method” since that time has reinforced this bias toward simple, rational, linear, logical explanations.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

The progress of modern science was accelerated by Rene Descarte’s 3-dimensional right-angle coordinate system of space. It led to the belief that all space was composed of a substance called “the ether”. Physics experiments showed that this “materialist” view of space was inaccurate.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ether-physics-and-astronomy

However, the progress of science reinforced the atomist, determinist, materialist concept of the universe through the end of the 19th century (1800-1899).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-modern/

Early Modern Physics was Not Atomistic, Deterministic, Materialistic.

Newton defined concepts and equations for gravity and calculus. These were true breakthroughs, but perhaps misinterpreted as purely mechanical breakthroughs.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/168406-nature-and-nature-s-laws-lay-hid-in-night-god-said

To this day, we can describe gravity, but we have no idea how it works through space and time and matter. Gravity does not reinforce atomistic concepts, it challenges them with the notion of force at a distance, affecting those atoms.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

The next major progress in physics was in describing “waves”, as they flowed between atoms. Curvilinear, not linear. Waves have a role to play in mechanics, but they are more important in electromagnetic waves.

The equivalence of electricity and magnetism was one of the first true innovative discoveries in modern physics. Counterintuitive. Not atomistic. Not easy to understand. Not understood by most.

Click to access CHAP03.PDF

The role of heat or thermodynamics in physics and chemistry was one that allowed atomistic views to continue into the 20th century. With a plausible description of probablistic Brownian motion, the atomistic view remained ascendant through 1900.

Click to access CHAP03.PDF

Research into the “nature” of the atom eventually revealed that atoms were comprised of “particles”: protons, neutrons and electrons. However, the tiny electrons did not stand still. They rotated about the core of protons and neutrons. They also rotated at specific fixed distances away from the center of electrons. Or, they “tended” to appear at these 4 distances (SPDF) away from the center, based on a very complicated probability function. Atomistic, deterministic, materialistic concepts did not apply. This did not destroy the atomistic world view, I know not why.

Modern Physics Rejects Atomism, Determinism, Materialism: Einstein

Einstein showed that time is “relative” to other factors in the universe (gravity/speed). The simple world view of “fixed” time is wrong.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-famous-twin-paradox-of-special-relativity-explained

Einstein’s theory also asserted that space is curved, rather than linear as always assumed previously. No simple “billiard ball” universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space

Einstein did not like the new “quantum theory” of the universe that was described in his time. The inherently probabilistic nature did not resonate with him, even though the physics community adopted it.

https://www.livescience.com/65697-einstein-letters-quantum-physics.html

Einstein was a “determinist” at heart and devoted his later life to finding a way to reconcile the very different “forces” of gravity, electro-magnetism and atomic forces. He failed to find a simple, deterministic explanation of the universe.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200512/history.cfm

Modern Physics Rejects Atomism, Determinism, Materialism

The universe appears to have a history and a future, it is not static.

https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Light is a wave. No, it is a particle. No, it is both.

https://www.thoughtco.com/wave-particle-duality-2699037

All of reality is based on probability. Quantum theory of physics says that particles are connected/entangled at a distance. We don’t know which reality is real until we observe it.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/schroedingers-cat-experiment-and-the-conundrum-that-rules-modern-physics

How Bell’s Theorem Proved ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ Is Real

If we try to observe nature more closely, we effect nature. Hence, we can never, ever, really know the world.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/uncertainty-principle

The very best modern physics theory that attempts to integrate gravity, electromagnetic forces and atoms is “string theory”. It has no experimental evidence, only logic to support it. A world of “many dimensions” is far removed from an atomistic world.

Other Modern Applications of Probability or Non-Determinist Logic

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is based upon probabilistic events. Sexual reproduction. Genetic changes. Population results.

True Darwinism Is All About Chance

Mathematicians attempted to “systematize” their discipline at the end of the 19th century. Bertrand Russell was the leader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Unfortunately for those who longed for a solid, formal structure, Kurt Goedel proved in 1931 that any logical system worthy of the name of mathematics could not be proven from a finite set of obvious first assumptions. Mathematicians, physicists and other scientists had long looked at classical logic and geometry as a model for their work. Goedel showed that this was impossible. Again, the world should have digested the implications of this HUGE change, but due to the complexity of the arguments it was, and has been, largely ignored.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Godels-first-incompleteness-theorem

Modern portfolio theory, the basis of our financial system, is based upon system level probabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory

Political theorists have determined that no voting system can fully represent the preferences of the voters.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/arrows-impossibility-theorem.asp

All modern scientists conduct experiments trading off alpha and beta risks. The hypothesis may be right, but stats say it is wrong. The hypothesis may be wrong. but the stats say it is right. This is an unavoidable conflict. No deterministic system can solve this.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/alpha-risk.asp

Determinist Philosophy

The scientific community, in reality, works based on existing paradigms, and changes its views slowly based upon new evidence and new paradigms.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Human consciousness remains a challenge to the deterministic world view.

The practical use of machine learning / artificial intelligence does not use pure logic. It searches for probabilistic patterns.

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learning-explained

Summary

Atomism, determinism, materialism is an attractive view of our universe. However, we have much evidence to reject this world view. Our world is based on multiple levels of reality and probability. Most of it is “logical” and consistent, but it cannot be simply reduced to a mechanistic base.

Moral Foundations Theory of Politics

The Righteous Mind-Jonathan Haidt 2014

Political views are rationalizations of moral intuitions. They are demonstrably not the result of dispassionate analysis by individuals.

A small number of moral intuitions are broadly held across time and cultures and can be “explained” on the basis of evolutionary pressures on mankind.

The prevalence of the six logically defined and statistically confirmed dimensions differ markedly between liberal and conservative minded people in various cultures.

1. Care/Harm

Desire to protect children and weaker others from harm. Caring, kindness, gentleness, nurturance, compassion, feelings, empathy. Liberals and conservatives both show an interest in this dimension of morality. Liberals value this dimension most highly. Conservative men and libertarians, on average, show much less interest in this dimension.

2. Fairness/Reciprocity/Cheating

In a social setting, there is a need to rely upon others keeping their word, being honest, doing their share of work, etc. Justice, rights, cooperation, deception, trust. Liberals tend to interpret this in terms of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunity and equal results. Conservatives are closer to the evolutionary basis as seen in game theory / the prisoners dilemma / “tit for tat” winning strategy. They highly value proportionality, closely linking results to inputs or effort.

3. Liberty/Oppression

No one wants the “alpha dog” to take advantage of their position. Individual and group opposition to domination, tyranny, restrictions, bullies and cruelty. Liberals and conservatives both value this dimension in modern, western, secular, commercial societies. They define the oppressor differently, with liberals focusing on business and institutional sources of power and conservatives focusing on government and regulators. Libertarians value this dimension most highly. These first 3 sources of morality are more individual oriented, mediating the tensions between individuals and groups.

4. Group Loyalty

Clear commitment to the group. More than “limited liability”. Betrayal, in-group attachment, patriotism, nationalism, betrayal, self-sacrifice, us vs. them, tribe, religion, party, flag, clan, neighbors, family. Conservatives value this dimension very highly, with felt loyalties to several groups. Liberals value this dimension, but not nearly as highly; with a tendency to value the largest groups: nation, humanity, nature. The liberal focus on “diversity” and valuing others, outgroups and the “oppressed” is very different from the conservative worldview. Western, secular, commercial societies value this dimension less.

5. Authority/Respect

Larger groups require some degree of hierarchy. Leader and follower. This is a complement to the liberty/oppressor value. Respect for authority, leader, institution, rules, history. Safety, order, predictability. Obedience, deference, submission. Against subversion, revolution. This is the classic conservative value, supporting the known value/benefits of a given system against the potential value/risks of change. Modern, individualistic liberals tend to not value this dimension highly, instead choosing to “challenge authority”.

6. Purity/Sanctity

The sixth dimension differs from the first 5. It is not so clearly about managing the “individual to group” challenges. It focuses on the disgust/gag reflex to things or situations that are so threatening as to be beyond consideration. This takes place at both the practical and the abstract levels. Degradation, disgust, disease, infection, dirt, germs, contamination, carnality, body, sex. Piety, chastity, temperance, compliance, burning, cleanliness, food rules. Everyone has some sensitivity to this dimension, but conservatives have much higher concern. Research says that conservatives, on average, have a lower interest in new (unsafe, novel) activities or experiences. Moral values 4-6 retain higher priority outside of western, commercial, secular societies. Liberal references to purity may focus on things like the environment.

Basic References

https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

https://www.wired.com/2012/10/the-psychology-of-liberals-and-conservatives/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoY-PBhCNARIsABcz773DJzBnc5VoJf5iUksyynjWCWM-bcXuNVXNGat-dSIuvliFr7UOl9EaAh9zEALw_wcB

Applications

Haidt is a self-professed “liberal” who intuitively/instinctively rejected the “rational” morality theories he learned in graduate school in the 1980’s. During his early research on alternate approaches, he had the “aha” insights that 1) other cultures have very different moral values and that 2) moral/political views are intuitive and rationalized. He hoped/hopes that liberals can see that their more limited moral palate (3 items) is not the only one and that this difference between including or not including the other 3 bases is a huge insight, even if liberals choose to not value the other 3 dimensions. He analyzed national politics in each election cycle from 2000, highlighting the large advantage that Republican politicians have in monopolizing the 3 other dimensions. In 2016, he advised the Dems to fight against Trump on the “conservative” moral dimensions of loyalty (Putin?), authority/order (Trump chaos/revolution/policy changes), and purity (sex allegations) instead of policy positions or personal character.

How the Democrats Can Use Moral Foundations Theory Against Trump

Haidt collaborated with a CATO scholar to analyze the 2016 Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, analyzing their supporters in terms of the Moral Foundations Theory.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10918164/donald-trump-morality

https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trump-supporters-think-about-morality-differently-other-voters-heres-how

Research and Critics

The Wiki post has some references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

The basic conclusions are supported, but all details are not. The 1 Care / 2 Fairness versus other dimensions emphasis between liberals and conservatives is supported. But, statistically, there may just be individual versus group moral foundations (2 dimensions versus 5-6).

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/03/15/do-liberals-and-conservatives-really-have-different-moral-foundations-differences-may-be-less-clear-cut-than-often-claimed/

Group? Which group? Small or large? In-group or out-group? Research is now focused on defining questions that clarify in-group versus out-group attraction and then, the difference between liberals versus conservatives, if any.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908/full

Academics have been busy working on the details. One criticism is that the 5 or 6 dimensions were defined in an ad hoc manner, rather than part of an overall theory of how man evolved. One group has stepped up to propose a theory that is solely based upon the various forms of cooperation, resulting in 7 dimensions.

On the academic left, Haidt’s “moral equivalence” approach to the 3 modern, secular, liberal values and the 3 historic, religious, conservative values has been sharply criticized. An alternate view that highlights bias/bigotry, social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, Schwartz Value Theory and Evolutionary/Coalitional Theory (ECT) has been proposed.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/02/are-trump-supporters-evil-or-just-wrong-political-scientists-struggle-with-morality/

Summary

Haidt and his colleagues have defined 6 dimensions of moral thinking which underly modern political views that make sense based on evolution. The “west” could clearly learn something about the moral/political views of other societies that did not have the same historical evolution into a commercial/largely secular situation. Politicians could seek to more effectively target their messages to trigger all of these 6 values in their target audiences. Civic minded individuals could promote greater understanding of these insights to lessen the Manichaean “good versus evil” polarization we see in politics today.