... there
is nothing more critical to the well-being
of a natural science than the continuous
re-examination
of the building blocks of its
foundation ...
I.
Setting up the Framework of our Foundational
Inquiries
atural
Sciences differ from both Mathematics and Philosophy when
it comes to acquiring their theoretical results. While
Mathematics and Philosophy can acquire their theoretical
results from a set of primary propositions, principles,
or axioms which can have no relationship or counterpart
to the physical reality of Nature, natural sciences
(Physics, Astronomy, Biology, and Chemistry with all the
derivative sciences accompanying them), on the other
hand, cannot enjoy such a luxury of discretion. In fact,
it is a mortal, cardinal sin for a natural science to
embark into paving theoretical roads without regard to
whether their founding blocks have a rational
justification for their existence. It is because of this
marked difference that the theories of natural sciences
attempting to explain Nature need, in addition to being
logically sound and coherent, be built upon foundational
blocks that have a rationality for their existence and/or
be derived from self-evident principles furnished by
Nature. This focus and distinction is paramount for
understanding what is at stake here, and therefore, let
us magnify and articulate further this critical point
that needs to be made, and made again, for our
foundational inquiries into the theories of natural
sciences.
As already noted, Mathematics
and Philosophy can derive and incorporate into their
theoretical bodies results that have nothing to do with
the reality of our physical world. And this is not
because these theories contain some hidden aberration of
logic to lead us to "false" results. Nothing of this
sort. In fact, many of the theories of Mathematics and
Philosophy are with no equal in beauty, finesse,
elegance, subtility in logic and deductive reasoning
elevating the Mind more than any other science. However,
these beautiful theoretical results are nothing more than
results and "products" of the Mind with no counterpart or
association with the real, physical, world outside the
existence of our Mind. And this is because these
theoretical results, while impeccable in their logic and
structure of presentation, were derived from axioms
and/or principles that have nothing to do with the real,
physical world. To magnify further this point let us take
a look at Geometry as a discipline of
Mathematics.
The geometry that we all know
and can associate with, in our everyday experience and
surroundings, is the ancient geometry formalized by the
3rd century B.C. Greek mathematician Euclid, and known as
Euclidean geometry. The reason that we can associate the
results of Euclidean geometry with our everyday
experience is because the foundational blocks of this
deductive mathematical system (i.e., its primary
propositions known as axioms) are derived from our
everyday experience and considered and regarded to be
self-evident. Because Euclidean axioms are derived from
the physical, real world surrounding us, physical
theories, having at their substratum Euclidean geometry,
attempting to explain the same physical word surrounding
us, will be "correct" as far as their mathematical
foundational structure is involved. The entire
theoretical body of Classical Physics is based upon such
a mathematical foundation as well as that of Chemistry,
Biology, and "traditional" Astronomy.
Toward the end of the 19th
century a stunning realization began shaping up, namely
that Euclidean geometry needed to be "corrected" and be
further formalized into an abstract body to be in tune
with the rest of the emerging forms of Mathematics and
that, it ought to be considered not as THE Geometry of
Mathematics, but rather as one of the geometries of
Mathematics. It become clear to leading mathematicians
that a geometry, as an abstract mathematical discipline,
need not have at its foundation anything that could or
should be associated, in any way, with the physical
reality as this need not be a concern for Mathematics.
The primary concepts or "elements" of Euclidean geometry
vested in points, lines, planes, and the set of all of
them called space need not have any association with the
physical, real word but rather be construed as "pure"
abstract concepts devoid of any preconceived meaning. In
fact, any set of propositions can be laid down, as
axioms, for a particular geometry as long as these
propositions cannot be derived from one to another and
that they do not lead to two contradictory results,
i.e., that they do not yield two contradictory
theorems. The detachment of Mathematics with its abstract
start-up elements and axioms from the real, physical
world, set Mathematics free to explore various new worlds
in all fields of its endeavor and not only in Geometry.
Spectacular theories and fields of Mathematics were being
created of dazzling abstractness, beauty, and formidable
complexity.
Parallel with the new
direction and development of modern Mathematics,
20th century Physics began searching for new ways
and new theoretical tools to study Nature in general, and
the atomic and subatomic world in particular. Following
the tremendous success of Mathematics in being able to
create and explore new abstract and formalized worlds of
incredible depth, theoretical physicists began borrowing
heavily from the advancement of the new Mathematics
creating an advanced mathematical theory for the atomic
and subatomic world called Quantum Theory or Quantum
Mechanics. The rest of natural sciences (such as
Astrophysics, Physical Chemistry, and Molecular Biology)
soon began incorporating into their foundational
theoretical work the principles and results from Quantum
Mechanics making therefore Quantum theory the most
prevailing foundational theory of all natural sciences.
Vested in a most elegant form
of presentation, that is provided by the formalism and
abstractness of the new Mathematics, Quantum Mechanics
became, by far, the most formalized and abstract theory
within all theories of natural sciences. Because of its
high degree of mathematical formalism, accessibility to
the theory of Quantum Mechanics was severely restricted
to only those who possessed a considerable mathematical
education and expertise.
All Quantum Mechanics'
results are mathematical results derived, as noted, from
advanced, formalized theories of Mathematics. While its
results are impeccable (as Mathematics provides
unsurpassed rigor for its results) the meaning of those
results are open to a wide range of interpretation,
debate, and speculation. This is where Quantum Mechanics
appears to break down: in our inability to relate in a
clear, unambiguous, and coherent language the results
obtained. In fact, many (most notably Werner Heisenberg)
have blamed the Language itself for not being able to
express in an adequate way the intimacy and the
intricacies of the atomic and subatomic world. Others
(most notably Steven Weinberg) have suggested that the
human brain may be biologically limited in some way to
deal with atomic and subatomic world arguing, for
instance, that in the same manner as we cannot teach a
dog calculus regardless of how hard we may try, we,
humans, perhaps are similarly biologically limited in
understanding and forming a mental picture of the atomic
and subatomic world. Still others, in various books and
treatises of Quantum Mechanics, have pleaded and argued
for the necessity of introducing elements of the
Irrational. Most notably among them was P.A.M. Dirac, one
of the founders of Quantum Mechanics, who in the Preface
to the First Edition of his classic book
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics,
articulated this last point as follows:
"It has become
increasingly evident in recent times, however, that
nature works on a different plan. Her fundamental laws
do not govern the world as it appears in our mental
picture in any very direct way, but instead they
control a substratum of which we cannot form a mental
picture without introducing irrelevancies."
Whatever justification was
embraced for this dramatic departure in allowing
speculations and "irrelevancies" to be introduced into a
theory of nature, this attitude eventually became the
prevailing attitude unleashing an incredible number of
theories expressed in a language devoid of any meaning or
correlation to the reality which it was set to explain.
What is the purpose of all this intellectual effort if
indeed, we, humans are not "equipped" to understand, in a
Rational fashion, the atomic and subatomic
world?
Because the study of the
atomic and subatomic world affects at the fundamental
level, all natural sciences, Quantum Mechanics shall
receive a paramount attention and emphasis in our
Foundational Inquiries section. Another notable departure
and theory of nature embraced by the 20th century Physics
was the Special and General Theory of Relativity of
Albert Einstein. Although these are stand alone theories
of Physics, their profound philosophical consequences
warrant a special attention as their theoretical
foundation not only constituted the prelude to the
Quantum Mechanics theory but also to a revolution in
thought through the introduction of the space-time
concept.
The acceptability of Quantum
Mechanics theory opened a door never before available to
natural sciences --that of allowing into its theoretical
body elements and concepts based on speculations and
"irrelevancies" with no rational basis or justification
for them. Following suit, Astronomy by being, by far, the
most vulnerable among natural sciences to speculative
ideas, began incorporating into its theoretical body
incredible concepts of a totally speculative nature which
now are part of its theoretical foundation. Concepts like
these ones,
·the
Big-Bang theory of the Universe, where it is assumed
that from a point of infinite mass the whole Universe
originated and expanded to its present form;
·the
Black Hole concept assumed to be something that is
able to suck everything in around it (including light)
with no possibility of escape; or
·the
concepts of dark (or invisible) matter and antimatter
conceived as "different" forms of matter introduced to
"explain" the results of certain mathematical theories
of the Universe;
are now part of the
mainstream theoretical work in Astronomy.
In addition, Einstein's
Special and General Theory of Relativity, where bold
assumption with respect to the nature of the geometrical
space of the Universe, as a 4-dimensional space
incorporating Einstein's space-time concept, was being
introduced and gradually incorporated into the
foundational theoretical work of Astronomy. All this new
theoretical foundation of Astronomy had no precedent and
no continuity from its past theoretical studies.
Chemistry was less
susceptible to incorporating speculative ideas although
the modern Molecular Chemistry cannot be divorced from
Quantum Theory. And this is because any time a
foundational question arise as to why a particular
chemical element or chemical reaction display a set of
properties and not another, its ultimate explanation is
always tied to the Quantum Theory. The most celebrated
and profound discovery in Chemistry that that all
chemical elements of nature can be grouped, because of
their periodic similar properties, into a Periodic Table
is also being explained from results and theories of
Quantum Mechanics.
The only natural science that
was not directly affected by the advent of Quantum Theory
was Biology. Evolution, through the Natural Selection
process, as a proposition of understanding Nature, has
captured and dominated the entire theoretical work of
Biology. Modern studies of Evolutionary Biology deal with
refining and expanding the theory of evolution introduced
by Charles Darwin through the natural selection process,
as a universal force of genetic change, as evolution is
recognized beyond dispute as an universal biological
force similar as gravity is recognized, beyond dispute,
as a universal force of the inanimate matter. The only
dispute for evolution, as in the case for gravity, is not
whether it exists but whether we have the full mechanism
for explaining all of the details as well as, at the
fundamental level of inquiry, for explaining the
underlying origin of its existence. For us, therefore the
central question to tackle and entertain here, in our
Foundational Inquiries section, is the big WHY of
Nature, i.e., why evolution exists in the first place and
NOT whether it exists.
The big WHY of things in
nature is the underlying question for all of our
foundational inquiries to be presented in this section as
this collective WHY has many answers for the many fields
and subjects of inquiries presented.
With respect to issues of
Philosophy at the foundational level, the big WHY here
shall be vested in the question why the human Mind and
Brain 'function' in the way it does --through its
deductive reasoning-- mirroring the way physical Universe
'functions' and 'operates'.
Let us conclude here with
these generalities by stressing again that the object of
our Foundational Inquiries is devoted to examine and
re-examine all major theories of Nature through one and
only one filter --that of their primary foundational
blocks, principles, and premises upon which various
theories of nature were build up. Here, as a general
proposition, we do not question various mechanisms upon
which Nature appears to operate but WHY do these
mechanisms exist in the first place. It is a daunting WHY
which shall never escape our focus of inquiries, so let
us begin. Choose your field of interest (Physics,
Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, or Philosophy) from the
Navigational Bar of this page's heading to enter into the
respective field-page.
II. Issues
for Debates for Foundational Inquiries and The List of
Most Wanted Solutions.
At the foundational level of
inquiries, issues for debates affecting the study of
Natural Sciences and Philosophy shall revolve around
these two (2) major categories:
-one, with respect
to HOW we can discover, explain, and derive the
proprieties of Nature from theoretical principles and
thus, what should be our theoretical methods, tools,
and techniques in exploring Nature; and
-the other one, is with
respect to the big WHY of things in Nature, i.e., why
the discovered properties of Nature exist in the first
place, i.e., what is their origin and rational for
their existence. Also another big WHY which needs to
be entertained, at a foundational level, is with
respect to the way our brain functions: WHY we are
able to reach, through our faculty of reasoning,
mental results which conform with the way Nature
"operates", in other words, why the logic upon which
our brain "functions" appears to be identical to the
logic upon which Nature "functions"?.
As noted and detailed in our
Issues for Debates' HomePage, each Issue for Debates
posted shall be entertained and deliberated through the
following process:
1. The very first
article written on the subject at hand, known as the
Initial Stirring article, shall have as its primary
function to stir, incite, and provoke the interest
into the subject itself by presenting, whenever
possible or feasible, a singular or devil's advocate
view challenging the established or the prevailing
point of view.
2. Either simultaneously
or thereafter, the second article to be published,
known as the Initial Countering article, shall have as
its primary function to annihilate, demolish and
freeze in its tracks the Initial Stirring
article.
3. After the two initial
articles were published, the Initial Stirring and
Countering articles, the articles to follow, known as
the Debating articles, shall support or oppose one or
both views, through a back-and-forth debate which can
last up to and including five (5) rounds of
debates.
4. Should after
five (5) rounds of a back-and-forth debate, the
issue still remains unresolved, the entire matter, as
a general rule, is transferred for further analysis
and review to our highest forum of debates --The Hall
of Fame Forum of Debates, after the said matter was
posted in our List of Most Wanted
Solutions.
Once a Foundational Issue for Debates was transferred to
The List of Most Wanted Solutions, it shall be controlled
by the Rules and Regulations governing The List and
Auxiliary List of Most Wanted Solutions as outlined in
its HomePage.
From here, you can reach to all the Foundational Issues
for Debates for a particular field (Physics, Astronomy,
and so on) by clicking on the respective field from the
main Navigational Bar above located in this page's
heading. Foundational Issues of Debates affecting all
fields and not one particular field all listed in the
next section below.
This overview section shall be updated from time to time
to reflect new changes or new and perhaps better
articulation of various elements comprised in this
important site of our publication.
F o u n d a t i o n a l
I n q u i r i e s 
.
What's New In
Site Overview
Of
