Alternative Modes of Thought

Question:-

If I have understood you correctly, you argue that Western Science is based on Newton's Laws of Motion and these depend on Greek or Aristotelian Logic though there is also a vicious circle involved in them. You reject Aristotelian Logic in favour of what you consider to be much more compatible with Islam, namely the Fundamental Axiom that "A has a relationship B with C under condition D."

If this is correct than this would give rise to an alternative system of science. Could you comment on that?

Answer:-

This proposed Logic is based on the Islamic notion of Tauhid which sees the whole of Reality as fundamentally a Unity and, therefore, the Universe as a single system in which all things, including human beings, are inter-dependent, in accord with Quranic verses such as the following:-

"Surely We have created everything according to a measure. And Our command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye." 54:49-50

"(Allah) Who created death and life that He may try you as to which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving, Who created the seven heavens one above the other in harmony; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any flaw?" 67:2-3

Things cannot, therefore, be considered in isolation but must be seen within a context of a system which is itself seen in a greater context.

It is necessary to point out (in case some "wise guy" raises inane objections) that it is not the case that this system of thought is to be based on the assertions contained in the verses, but that the verses point to something fundamental about existence which is to be taken seriously.

Yes, this form of logic would produce a different view of the world. But it is a more comprehensive way of thinking with wider applications than in Science and may not be accepted as science seen as a restricted system of thought. We can speak about knowledge rather than science which constantly changes. It would be difficult to dislodge the present scientific view and also difficult to create a whole new system. This is so not only because of the inertia and resistance that old habits of thought produce but also because much effort would be required in rethinking and the present system has certainly proved useful. However, it seems that science is approaching a frontier where the traditional concepts and frameworks of thought are proving to be inadequate. But, I do not have a fully formed alternative theory.

The vicious circle involved in the Newtonian Laws of Motion is the notion of force. Force is assumed to be the cause of change, but if we ask for proof that it exists, then its existence is proved by the change, the effect. This could, of course be an argument for the existence of God which scientists reject. In either case it is a piece of insight, inspiration or revelation rather than a logical inference. Ultimate, of course, we have to take the existence of something for granted in terms of which all things are explained, but is not itself explicable.

The main problem, however, are the unproved axioms of Logic. They are really instructions on how to think, falsely presented as truths. For instance, there is the notion of "either this or not-this" when, in fact, we know that there are mixtures of many degrees in between. This is becoming more important in the new frontiers of science such as Quantum Theory, where ordinary logic no longer holds. The fundamental particles are not either corpuscular or wavelike. Things are defined according to certain sets of features, but as this depends on the power of discrimination, things may not be similar or identical or remain the same, though thought to be so. Logic deals in words and these are never the same thing as the experiences or objects they refer to and what applies to them does not necessarily apply to the others. There is also a tendency to suppose that all relationships that are discovered locally must necessarily apply to all other localities and to ignore the conditions or context in which things exist.

The Universe is a Unity in which all things are connected. Anything that is isolated from it could not be known. It also tends to form a pattern such that there are differences between the parts though they have a role in the whole. So when we speak of motions we are speaking of a change relative to a background that may itself vary. We could say that:-

"The motion of an object depends on the interaction of it with its environment."

Or more Universally,

"Changes depend on the function in the context in which they occur."

Do we need the idea of "force" to define these interactions? I think we need only the concept of relationship and the concept of Truth (or order or information). This would replace the Laws of Motion. Newtonian Gravity also requires that there is interaction at a distance and that nothing in between has an affect. This view is also rejected by the above formulation. It is also a view that is more compatible with that of Einstein's idea of Gravity where it is a curvature of space-time. Massive objects create dents in space-time and the motion of objects depends on the curvature of the space-time they pass through. The idea that things are inert and require an external force to determine a change can be discarded. When there is interaction the result will depend on the nature of all the factors involved. No metaphysical notions of matter will be required, but only types of order at various levels.

It is also possible that this alternative view can solve a major problem in Cosmology. The problem is this: The motion of the stars in Galaxies requires a certain amount of mass. But the amount of observed mass in the Galaxies is less than 10% of that required. 96% of the mass is missing. Either the mass is in as yet undiscovered form, known as Dark Matter, or else there is something wrong with Newton's idea of Gravity. It could be that it is not uniform everywhere. Perhaps it increases slightly with distance. Perhaps when we look at distant Galaxies there is some kind of lensing effect and the motion of light is not independent of the space-time it passes through.

In the Fundamental Axiom, any one of the factors A, B, C or D can be the variable with respect to which the variation of some other factor is studied while any two others can be constant. The condition D could refer to (a) the environment or (b) the observer or (c) the socio-cultural context (the body of ideas, the conceptual system, the framework of reference, the interests, the needs and forms of activity and organisation etc. It is, for instance, not necessary that the concept A should always be A. "A" could be a class of things or a complex concept in which individuals vary. What applies to one member need not apply to another. Or conversely what applies to a member of one class could apply to a member of another class. Not only may an object "A" change to another object as the environmental conditions change, but our idea of it may change under different socio-cultural conditions or as attitudes and conditions affecting the observer change. An object is not completely distinct from another, but it may share various numbers or amounts of its characteristics with others. Two or more concepts could be represented as circles that overlap each other. We know and distinguish objects according to their characteristics, but these depend on their interactions with their environment. If this changes then the characteristics change. In what way, we could ask, is it the same object? We assume this because of temporal continuity. But this applies to all things - they all derive from a single origin.

All this assumes, contrary to usual assumptions, that the observer is not seeing objects, but the effects that objects have on his mind. That being the case, we recognise units of experience and each experience is a separate one. Our concept of an object is constructed from all the various units of experience by association, analysis, relation and synthesis. We abstract similar elements that reinforce each other, leaving dissimilar ones that must be reinforced by other experiences.

The significance that the experiences have for the person must also be taken into consideration, both from the point of view of how the experience fits into the system of experiences and how it fits into his life style and ultimately as a person adjusted to Reality. That after all is the purpose of knowledge.

In other words Epistemology and Logic should be derived from a study of Psychology rather than from formal logical speculation.

These are tentative suggestions and much work requires to be done. Positive constructive contributions from others will be welcome, but opinions based on mental fixations will be ignored.

----------<O>----------

Contents