Month: March 2023

Reductionism works with the idea that a complex system is the sum of its parts. It is a philosophical and scientific theory that believes a phenomenon can be explained by analyzing the simpler, more basic mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon. Approach’s are based on the idea that complex systems can be understood by examining the more fundamental components, and studying the relationships and interactions of the different parts.

Concepts and influences of reductionism can be traced back to the 17th century Enlightenment, and as far back as ancient Greece. Reduction got it’s -ism in the 20th century from the philosophy of science, when people were theorizing the ideas that would become what is now the basic out line for modern thoughts on reductionism.

Reductionism is commonly described by three different types; ontological, methodological, and epistemological.

Ontological reductionism is a philosophical belief that reality as a whole can be reduced to and explained by simpler, more fundamental entities or properties. It’s based on the idea that the fundamental constituents of reality are the building blocks of everything else. This approach is concerned with understanding the nature of reality and the relationship between the different levels of it.

Methodological reductionism is a scientific approach that attempts to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into simpler, more fundamental entities. Goals are to isolate specific components of a system and study them in order to understand how specific variables and factors can effect the larger parts.

Epistemological reductionism is the philosophical idea that the knowledge of one domain whether it be philosophical, scientific, or any other form of knowledge, can be reduced to and explained by a simpler, more fundamental domain of knowledge and theories. At it’s core this is about studying the nature of knowledge and how to obtain it in it’s purest, most fundamental and easiest form to understand.

Reductionism has faced criticism for oversimplifying complex phenomena, but it has also provided insight into complex systems. It comes down to when and how it is used. There is an obvious reductionism that exists in psychology, biology, and chemistry, that has provided valuable scientific insight. There is also a wide spread understanding that these major fields can be reduced to and are governed by the laws of physics.

One key idea that philosophical reductionists focus on, is the possibility for the unification of all science. This is most likely going to remain a work in progress for a very long time, because science still has a long way to go before it can be considered unified, and done so by a universally accepted system. When and if science reaches this point, there will probably still be a lot of fine tuning as time goes on.

Some on going debates in reductionism include, how to understand the relations between disciplines, how to communicate scientific theories and their progress, how to determine the legitimacy of reductionist research strategies, and it’s over all capabilities and limitations.

There is also the concept of emergence, which is the opposite of reduction. This acknowledges how the properties of reality evolves with time. A view to come out of emergentism is that a system can have properties or behaviors that none of the parts do, and as a result reductionism isn’t able to explain these types of features. This requires the study to take place in the realm of the system with the emergent feature.

When I wrote the blogs that ended up leading to me writing this book, I never mentioned the word reductionism. However, applying the idea was a common theme. This stems from something much older than the blogs. A concept I created to go along with my music. The basic idea is to have an album for each fundamental force, including The Unified Field, which is a statement claiming all the forces of the observable universe come from one super force. Once I started thinking about all the layers of reality, and the extaordinay hierarchy it consists of, I realized I had a very fruitful concept. I think it shows in the statement included with my album Unified Field.

“In the most fundamental reality there is a singular entity that gives rise to the universe, past, present, and future. It is the unified field. It vibrates in plancks constant creating spacetime, this is where leptons and quarks come from. Which make protons and neutrons to build atoms, then molecules and from this cells.”

Where the music concept is a claim on how the universe works, it comes from an emanating point of view, but because the blogs were and now this book is an explanation of the levels in reality, and an atempt to prove The Unified Field, it only makes sense to include a reductionist approach. Another thing to come out of the blogs was how I incorporated religion and culture. One of my intentions is to introduce an expanded reductionism that combines philosophy and science in a unique way.

Individually reductionism has probably been applied to just about everything. Some examples are linguistic, economic, aesthetic, ethical, and social reductionism. In mathematics, to go all the way with reductionism should bring us to a (TOE). In my expedition to find The Unified Field, I’m not only unifying reductionism, my goal is to implement a fresh, new point of view and manner in how to go about the process.

A hypothesis is the part of the scientific method that is a proposed explanation or prediction for a phenomenon. The Unified Field is a proposed fundamental essence of reality, and we are on a journey to find out if it is real. Some questions that will be on going are, does it qualify as a phenomenon, so it can have it’s own hypothesis performed on it, or does The Unified Field itself qualify as the cause in a hypothesis, because it is the proposed creator of all phenomena, and either way how much prior knowledge or theoretical reasoning is there to support any of this?

A hypothesis is a statement that needs to be testable with the goal of explaining something about the phenomenon at question, but in this case, the thing we’re trying to investigate is supposedly the thing that creates everything. This puts us in a unique situation when trying to apply a hypothesis. We’re at the end of this process. It’s all the levels of reality after that point that gives rise to us. What we have to remember is we are in the macroscopic realm, trying to peer into our own building blocks. What we find is a reality that has many layers.

If there is a most fundamental reality that gives rise to everything else, you should be able to ask any question and keep asking why to every answer until it brings you back to that reality. I’ve incorporated this idea into a top-bottom procedure called Reductionist Hypotheses (RH). The top being the macroscopic realm and bottom being the most fundamental cause. Hypotheses is plural because there should be a chain of many individual hypothesis in this approach. The phenomenon is all existence and the experiment is to see if layer by layer anything and everything can be reduced to The Unified Field. If this works we will be seeing many unifications.

I considered making hypotheses in (RH) singular instead of plural, because it could be looked at as one process, and a lot of the layers in reality could be considered understood beyond the need for their own hypothesis. I went with plural, to be a reminder that each step of the way should be it’s own thought out process, and that everything should be questioned along the way, instead of just going with what is believed to be true.

(RH) is something that can be done over and over again in many different ways, from many places in reality. Performing them is something everyone should do and it can and should be customized by the individual doing it. When a particular (RH) is completed, a Methodological Evaluation (ME) should be performed to determine how effective the performance and out come was. This would consist of asking and writing about questions like, did it provide any information that can be used to prove or disprove The Unified Field, is it creative, intellectual, elegant or thought provoking, are there any gaps in the layers of reality, and are there any other things worth mentioning or asking? You can and should do your own (ME) but the scientific method requires your peers to do it as well.

If there ends up being a (RH) that actually does reveal The Unified Field, that would be truly incredible, but more realistically it’s expected that many of them are probably going to arrive at the point where the next thing could be The Unified Field. For (RH) to be considered a scientific experiment, it is going to take time. We are looking for anomalies, disconfirmation, and hopefully, eventually confirmation. A key idea built into the (RH) concept is, after many of them have been performed, to then study all of them as a whole, looking for any information, evidence or proof, hidden somewhere in the data, that can take our understanding of reality to the next level. Perhaps a serendipitous consequence or a new way of looking at things, maybe a reoccurring theme of previously over looked importance.

I sometimes find myself referring to Reductionist Hypotheses as Reversed Hypothesis, because there is a process of reversing going on with starting from the realm of the created and going backward in the direction of the increasingly more fundamental, through the details of each level, in an attempt to reach the beginning thing that has done the creating. When I first caught myself doing this, these expressions meant the same thing. Although, there is a twist that comes out of using the word reversed with hypothesis. Can the phenomenon be used to answer the cause?

(RH) can also be applied to argumentation as well, because properly you should establish a premise as a starting point. After you have had a discussion based on that premise, then try to create a second premise that could be a discussion that leads up to the first one. Once you’ve finished this discussion set a third premise in the same fashion and so on.

By investigating cause and effect you can also apply (RH) to time, by looking for the cause of an event/effect. Once you have identified the cause then try to find the cause of that cause, then the cause of that cause and so on. If there is a beginning to the universe, although it would be a very long process, you could eventually arrive at it’s origin. If you’re up for a mind-bender, you can do a philosophical spin off by incorporating a causal loop into the (RH).

The following is an example of a short (RH).

At the top I will start with the common human. We can use our own personal sensory perception to determine the human body consists of many different parts. We can use the following to zoom in to the building blocks of these parts.

Phase-contrast microscopy can view biological cells. This was invented in the 1930’s. Atomic force microscopy can form images of molecules and atoms. This was invented in the 1980’s. As we zoom into our bodies, we find that we are made of biological cells, which are made of different combinations of molecules, and molecules are made of different combinations of atoms.

In 1911 Ernest Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom. This was later understood to be the proton, Rutherford gave it its name in 1920. In 1932 James Chadwick discovered the neutron. Besides hydrogen only having a proton for its nucleus, it’s different amounts of the proton and neutron that make up the nucleuses for all of the different atoms that exist.

Joseph John Thomson discovered the electron in 1897. In 1956 Clyed Cowan, Frederick Reines, F.B. Harrison, H.W. Kruse, and A.D. McGuire published the confirmation that they had detected the neutrino. The up and down quarks were first observed in 1968 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. The remaining four quarks, two neutrinos and two electrons would be discovered over the next twenty-six years at numerous places. The up and down quarks are the building blocks for the proton and neutron. Quarks, neutrinos and electrons, referred to as elementary particles, are the most fundamentally known building blocks for matter.

Albert Einstein published his paper special relativity in 1905, a theory of the motion of objects in relation to one another, then in 1915 his theory of general relativity, a theory of space-time and gravity, was a continuation of this.

In 1900 Max Planck introduced his concept of quantizing energy in discrete unites. This was the beginning of quantum mechanics. The Planck constant is the smallest measurements for space and time as well as other phenomena in the universe.

The following is an example of (ME) to go along with this (RH).

This (ME) could and should be far more elaborate and in doing so might possibly provide important insight, but for now I just want to do a quick one as part of this example. As far as evidence proving or disproving the existence of The Unified Field, on the surface the only evidence is that it doesn’t disprove it. In actuality, The Unified Field fits very nicely as a possible cause of the contents in this (RH). However, in their unelaborated form the (RH) and (ME) examples here are only a tiny amount of data, and it’s going to take a lot more creativity and a lot more (RH) and (ME) to provide adequate information in fulfilling our goal. One thing I want to point out is, the people that are given credit for these discoveries are only a small fraction of the people involved, and there are many details and processes as to how they arrived at these conclusions. When researching how a discovery came about, there’s always contributions by other people that deserve credit. Quite often there are also other people that were independently on the same track. This (RH) is a good model for basing other ones on because there’s so many more directions you can take it.

I like the thought of looking at (RH) as reverse engineering the universe, but first we will have to see how effective it is. After we have reduced the universe to its most fundament essence, will The Unified Field be there, and if so, as I’ve already mentioned, will it qualify as the cause in a traditional hypothesis? This would mean we understand it enough to make predictions and test them. If The Unified Field ends up qualifying as a phenomenon, that would mean we believe it exists, but we are trying to figure out how to understand it better. There’s also the question, is there a cause before The Unified Field? In theory, if there is a cause before it, then a traditional hypothesis could be performed on The Unified Field, to better understand it. If we could successfully achieve any of these scenarios, it would be a huge leap forward, because we would be moving closer to a (TOE).

As unity-seeking inquiry takes place, the curator needs their unification library, so they can have the harmonization of ideas, the analysis of data, the synthesis of theory, and framework for conceptual integration.

General unification (GU) is the categorical lay out and the systematic approach of collecting and documenting unification. This is the basis for the canon. By design this enterprise covers it all, literally any and every unification has a place here. This also includes the task of making New Unification Proposals (NUP).

Because there are so many unifications to be had, (GU) has four categories for documenting.

1. Similarity Comparison (SC): The research, collection and documentation of any philosophical or scientific material, that can be interpreted as saying the same thing that The Unified Field is suggested to be.
2. Philosophical Unification Research (PUR): The research, collection and documentation of all philosophies of unification. (PUR) can be broadened to applying philosophy to any unification, including scientific.
3. Meta Unification (MU): The process of unifying different theories and systems to an elevated, more comprehensive scope, and higher abstract level of analysis. It’s the research, study, and documentation of the convergence of scientific evidence, and the goal of mapping out the unification of all scientific theories. (MU) can be broadened to a scientific view applied to any unification, including philosophical.
4. New Unification Proposals (NUP): The documentation of new proposals unifying anything, philosophical or scientific. One process is to collect and analyze disparate concepts and fields of knowledge, with the aim of unifying them into a coherent and comprehensive whole. While inventing new unifications are encouraged, (NUP) can also be opinions, reviews, and debates over pre-existing unification theories. Scientific (NUP) will need to enter the scientific process, and philosophical ones will need to be conveyed at a symposium among peers.

There is a widely debated topic in the philosophy of science and physics, as to whether or not physics would be complete if a (TOE) was achieved. There is no question that a (TOE) would be a major milestone in our understanding of the universe, but there is no consensus on if it would mean the end of physics as a field of study. One side argues that a (TOE) would provide a complete and comprehensive explanation of all physical phenomena, leaving no unanswered questions or unexplained observations. The other side points out that there will still be many practical and theoretical challenges in physics to be addressed, like developing new technologies to test the predictions of a (TOE), and exploring the implications and connections physics has with theories for other fields of science and philosophy.

A (TOE) should give an explanation for the existence of all phenomena, but that does not mean that each and every phenomenon in the universe will be understood. A successful (TOE) will be a new era in physics, and the next phase will be to unify the (TOE) with all of the other theories for each of the many individual phenomenon in the universe, fill in the missing links within the branches of theories and unifying them with each other, make refinements where necessary, and study what it all means and how to use it.

Since the original concept of a (TOE), which is the proposed possibility of a mathematical formula unifying all the fundamental forces of the universe, the meaning has been expanded. This is because it’s easy enough for just about anyone to grasp an understand, simply by taking the phrase “Theory Of Everything” literally. Once you have done that, all you have to do is let your imagination run wild and include it as part of “Everything”. On the extreme end of this point of view, “Everything” could include being able to experience identically what someone else is experiencing. Regardless of the amount of knowledge that is possible to have and how much we can actually do with it, now we have more than one kind of (TOE). To avoid an oxymoron, I acknowledge two types, a traditional (TOE) and an expanded one. The following are basic discirptions.

A traditional (TOE): The creation of a formula that explains the nature of matter and energy, the behavior of particles at the quantum level, and the structure of space and time.

An expanded (TOE): The creation of a theory that allows someone to develope the ability to understand all of the phenomena in the universe, and experience it intimately as a unified whole.

As scientific and philosophical theories are being unified by (GU), it will be building a tree like structure where a (TOE) belongs at the base, and the full structure is the Tree Of Everything (Tree-OE). As this hierarchy of reality continues to be mapped out, the goal is to be able to travel through all knowledge and the human story seamlessly. If the (Tree-OE) reaches a high enough level of development, it might even become the expanded (TOE).

The word theory is derived from Greek theoria. In ancient Greek philosophy, theoria referred to the act of observing or contemplating the natural world in order to gain knowledge and insight. During the middle ages, Latin scholars had a renewed interest in ancient Greek philosophy, and theoria was adapted to mean a system of ideas or principles used to explain a particular phenomenon. Then during the 17th century scientific revolution, when the scientific method was developed because of a new emphasis on empirical observation and experimentation, the use of the word theory became closely associated when referring to something that could explain and predict natural phenomena.

To theorize means to create or develop a theory or set of ideas that explain a phenomenon. Theorizing often involves making assumptions and hypotheses based on available evidence, and then testing these hypotheses through further observation, experimentation, and analysis. The goal of theorizing is to generate new knowledge and ways of understanding, so they can be used to predict future outcomes, solve problems, or improve existing processes and systems. Someone who theorizes is a theorist or theoretician.

The word theoretical refers to a proposed theory, that could be at any point of a wide spectrum of validity, starting from a conjecture and varying through all the levels of scientific testing. With the scientific method, theoretical work can develop conceptual frameworks that provide a starting point, and can guide on going empirical research. It can help synthesize and organize existing knowledge, and generate new hypotheses. Processes can include mathematical modeling and simulation. While the scientific process uses empirical observation and experiments, theoretical work is concerned with the speculation of theories, and quite often uses abstract reasoning and the manipulation of symbols and equations.

Theorem is a term most commonly used in mathematics. It is a statement that is believed to be true by using logical reasoning, based on axioms and assumptions. Hypotheses play a role in proving theorems, but they don’t follow the same procedure as the scientific method. In these cases the hypothesis of a theorem is an assumed truth that is followed by a statement called the conclusion. After the conclusion, the proof consists of a logical argument based on mathematical reasoning.

The significance of mathematical theorems come in the form of when they can solve problems and develop new theories. Some of the fields that theorems have had a successful impact on include, physics, engineering, computer science, and economics. Many of the most important and influential theorems in mathematics have been developed over hundreds of years, and they continue to be refined and extended. The concept of theorem is the fundamental basis for all mathematical research and the development of mathematical models.

Science has been so effective, that the modern usage of the word theory usually refers to a confident, well-supported and widely accepted explanation for what it is explaining. However, revision and refinement as new evidence and interpretations emerge, remind us to never consider a theory to be a final and absolute truth, but rather an evolving and dynamic explanation of nature.

The following is a standard check list for evaluating and refining scientific theories.

Empirical evidence: The theory must be supported by evidence that was gathered through observation, experimentation, and measurement. Mathematics can be applied in a variety of ways. The evidence should be consistent and reproducible, and should support the theory’s predictions.

Falsifiability: The theory must make specific predictions that can be tested empirically, and that the results of these tests must be able to potentially disprove the theory. This approach can help avoid conformation bias, and it is more realistic to believe something when you can’t disprove it.

Logical consistency: The theory must be logically consistent and not contradict other established theories or laws of nature.

Parsimony: The theory should be as simple and straightforward as possible, while still accounting for all available evidence.

Predictive power: The theory should be able to make accurate predictions about future observations or experiments. These predictions should be testable and supported by empirical evidence.

While this list provides some helpful guidelines, it’s not always clear on how to apply or interpret its results in every situation, and sometimes scientists will even disagree on the validity of certain theories. Besides scientist not always agreeing with each other, in society among the non-scientific community, there are even more grey areas and blurred lines. It’s not uncommon for the word theory to be used when the claim is actually wrong. Sometimes it’s used in referring to a suggested idea when people are trying to understand something, and other times it’s used for things that are still theoretical.

The expression “in theory” show us even more ways the word theory can be used.

“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” Albert Einstein

“In theory, if we could travel faster than the speed of light, we could go back in time.” Stephen Hawking

“In theory, all men are created equal. In reality, not everyone has the same opportunities.” Mahatma Gandhi

“In theory, quantum computing has the potential to solve complex problems that are impossible for classical computers.” David Deutsch

“In theory, everything is possible. In reality, some things are just highly improbable.” Pierre-Simon Laplace

The word theory is obviously used very broadly. To help with the endeavor of unifying theories, I designed the Theory Accuracy Description (TAD). This is an epistemological approach for understanding and defining philosophical and scientific theories, by rating theory with a 1-10 ranking system. The goal is to determine just how theoretical a theory is or isn’t, and what kind of role it can play in the grand scheme of things. A written description is required as well, because the 1-10 ranking system might lack the dimension required for fully explaining a theory. The following descriptions are for each of the 1-10 ratings.

1. A theory that has been thrown out because of disconfirmation. Sometimes hypotheses have to many contradictions. This is revealed when a theory just couldn’t hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. Disconfirmation can occur through various means such as, empirical evidence, logical analysis, and new insights that challenge the validity of a particular idea. During the scientific process, disconfirmation and confirmation are critical steps that are achieved by subjecting the hypothesis or theory to rigorous testing. As testing continues, variables are usually slightly changed to determine if the theoretical model can hold up to it’s predictions. This process often consists of little bumps up or down in validity, through on going analysis of data and the refinement of the hypothesis when necessary. While disconfirmation can be exhausting for the scientist, the hardship of this painstaking process is always out weighed by the excitement of when a theory can move up the scale in validity.
2. A theory that has elegance, but no mathematical or experimental support. Inviting, but without empirical evidence, only the potential for success. Such theories are often based on intuitive reasoning, analogies, and philosophical arguments. Sometimes there is enough aesthetic and conceptual appeal to make them attractive to researchers, even in the absence of empirical evidence. Elegant concepts have even inspired research, leading to new discoveries and insights, although it is important to note that such theories are often speculative and may not have a place in reality. Theories with conceptual elegance are desired at every level of validity, in all fields, because of the explanatory and coherent power they can have over more complex theories that attempt to explain the same things.
3. A theory based on observation, but no mathematical or experimental support. Observational studies are typically used to collect data in natural settings without manipulating any variables. Such theories can inspire and inform the development of hypotheses, but without additional support from mathematical models or experimental data, they can often be subjective, open to bias, and can be influenced by the observer’s perspective, interpretation, and expectations. While observation is only one of numerous important parts of the scientific process, there are areas of research, for example, anthropology and history, where observation is the primary source of information. Observational studies are usually not considered experiments, but occasionally they can be.
4. A theory that has no mathematical or experimental backing, but is successful at achieving what it is applied to. This is common in philosophy where ideas and concepts can be explored and debated without the need for empirical evidence. Theories of this nature are also used in engineering and technology fields, when they sometimes use heuristics or “rules of thumb” to design systems or devices that work effectively without a complete understanding of the underlying scientific principles.
5. A theory that has mathematics or experiments supporting it, but only one or the other. It is not uncommon to have a theory that has mathematical backing but not experimental. In theoretical physics for example, many proposed theories have not yet been experimentally confirmed, but they are still considered important and worth exploring mathematically. This is because mathematical consistency and elegance often suggest that a theory is worth investigating further. Experiments without mathematic are not as common, but they do exist. One example is, sometimes experimental results may lead to new theories or models that have not yet been fully developed mathematically. Another example is, sometimes complex systems such as the brain or ecosystems are to challenging to develop mathematical models that accurately capture all the interactions and dynamics involved. In such cases, experimental observations may be used to refine or modify existing theories.
6. A theory that has both mathematical and experimental conformation. When a hypothesis has been mathematically and experimentally tested and the out come is logically consistent with the predictions, this is when a scientific model is on its way to becoming a real theory.
7. A theory that satisfies all of the criteria for empirical evidence. When a hypothesis has confirmation from observation, mathematics, experiments, and measurements, this is when a theoretical model becomes a scientific theory. When a theory has come this far it is now established and very hard to disprove. Although, testing should continue and all it takes is one little anomaly in the data to show that it is incomplete.
8. A theory that is the unification of theories. This is when the convergence of evidence from multiple disciplines or approaches lead to a coherent and integrated understanding and theory of particular phenomena. As theories come together, philosophy should be going through it’s own convergence process as well. This would be a result of philosophers focusing more on the new unified facts and their implications, where as before, they had to concentrate on all of the proposed theories that existed before the new unification brought an understanding to the situation.
9. A traditional Theory Of Everything. The unification of all fundamental forces. This will also be an era in which the convergence of other scientific theories now have a base to connect to. Philosophy will have a base as well, and instead of speculating on what the origin of the universe is, philosophers will be able to theorize on the implications of an understood origin for the universe, based on science.
10. The Tree Of Everything. The unification of all phenomena, scientifically and philosophically. The scientific and philosophical methods require that on going testing, analyzing, and refinement continue in the pursuit of parsimony, how to understand the (Tree-OE), and how to use this knowledge.

The (TAD) system itself should also be worked on and improved over time. Some things that might need to be addressed are, how to rank all the different combinations and levels you can have with, observation, mathematics, experiments, and measurement. There’s also the issue of unifying theories without empirical evidence. Again, this is why writing a description along with the rank is very important.