A working definition borrowed from Dr. Stephen Kellert:
“The qualitative study of unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic nonlinear dynamical systems.”
Kellert's argument against determinism also rests upon uncertainty:
Quantum mechanics says a one-particle system cannot be said to have a point-like state in state space: the totality of physical information about it suffices only to identify it as a patch of finite area with a lower bound on its size.
Chaos theory says that two otherwise identical chaotic systems with slightly different initial conditions will eventually diverge greatly, no matter how small the initial difference.
Therefore: Two physically identical chaotic systems with identical boundary conditions and laws and with their one particle in the same physical state at t0 can be in different states at t > t0. That is, determinism as uniqueness of evolution fails to hold.
Chaos theory, along with the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, suggests that, at the simplest level of construction, we lack any ability to describe and quantify any given state of a system.
You’re wondering, “what’s the question?”
If you take the view that everything in the universe is explicable via material causes, and therefore no need exists to consider the existence of a creator (Occam’s razor), how would you reconcile this belief against the possibility that the laws of physics (and other natural ‘laws’) that we have come to rely upon as the cornerstone of evolution theory are in fact only inaccurate “snapshots” (at the micro level) of a larger more complex system that we cannot begin to identify or quantify?
Could it be simple empiricism? We rely on the view of the universe achieved by accepted scientific theory, because it works. It's not meant to be an explanation of everything, or a belief system. Science is often just a means to material ends. Inaccurate snapshots can be adequate for the purpose.
Alternatively, where science is attempting something more ambitious and abstract - an objective description of the universe without recourse to magical revelation or wishful thinking - the problems you discuss are perhaps more about limitations in our ability to describe and conceptualise, rather than a fundamental flaw in the approach.
In either case, of course, the existence of a creator remains a matter of faith. Even if everyone on the planet gave up on rational enquiry tomorrow, saying, "It's no good, our little, formed-by-evolutionary-chance brains will never get it..." the existence of God would not be proved.
Thinking about it, I guess the problems you mention are different from a “God of the Gaps” idea. “God of the Gaps [in our knowledge]” is shorthand for the tendency to see the hand of God in anything not yet explained by scientific observation. The problem is that the divinity thus defined has been in retreat ever since the Enlightenment. Chaos theory and quantum uncertainty don’t seem to be, however, about things we have yet to explain, but about things unknowable in principle.
On one level this doesn’t affect the theory of evolution (for example) at all. That would be like saying that a table is not really a table – because we can neither place it exactly in a chaotic universe, nor describe it at a sub-atomic level. That’s true, of course, but it doesn’t stop you eating breakfast off it.
My buddy, Kenneth Miller, sees God in the chance (chaotic) happenings which affect the course of evolution. That seems to reconcile science and religion, although it’s a little like having the undetectable pink unicorn in your room. If you have faith in a divinity that works in ways undetectable by science, no one can argue, but there isn’t (scientifically speaking) a need to consider such a divinity. The need comes from somewhere else, outside the scope of science.
Newnick, thanks for your usual thoughtful answers. I think you are right on the money with empiricism. And, I agree that we have to define a table in a way that makes sense to us both, even if our definition is somehow flawed or incomplete.
I don't think chaos undermines evolution theory but actually supports it in that it allows for the idea of order arising from (what appears to be) random chance. (It aids a head as thick as mine in getting a grip on the concept – call it ‘Hovind Hangover’) It seems to me that at least one problem chaos theory can present is that of casting serious doubt on what we believe we know about how evolution (or the rest of the universe for that matter) really works. Chaos opposes the reductionism that is so prominent in the way we consider and test our theories due to the ‘meta' approach it informs.
Granted, proving we don't know as much as we think does not prove the existence of God, but that's not the point. For the person who takes the approach, “There is no need to consider what I cannot see, or even think about ways to investigate it, because what I can see explains everything satisfactorily”
Chaos suggests…
“No. What you see is neither a clear nor complete picture. In fact, your ability to see the picture clearly is so inadequate that you can’t even predict next week’s weather with any certainty. If that’s the case, how can you state with any confidence that what you see suffices to explain everything?”
This is not to say that we should throw up our hands and start believing in magic. Even a faulty view based on reason is better than one based on ignorance or propaganda.
Fantastic answer, Mike! The beautiful thing about science is that it teaches us how much we don't know. As every religious tradition has to teach us, a little humility goes a long way.
It shows us how truly bizarre and incredible this universe is. There is so much we have to learn. Thanks.
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
