Chapter 6: Integrating the Philosophy of Nature into the Scientific Interpretation of Natural Activity

 

Chapter 6: Integrating the Philosophy of Nature into the Scientific Interpretation of Natural Activity

In this study, we have addressed the complex relationship between causality and reality, raising questions that concern both science and philosophy: the structure of causality in the cosmos. We have defended the existence and relevance of a necessary first cause, based on logical and mathematical arguments and trying to articulate them with scientific evidence. This effort has led us through an exploration that transcends the mere cause-effect relationship, toward an understanding where causality is not only a link between facts of experience but also the fabric underlying reality itself, structuring the universe from its most primordial origins to its most complex and emerging manifestations.

Throughout this reflection, a reasonable defense of causality has been attempted, relying on the pillars of contemporary physics—from the Standard Model to Big Bang cosmology—to illustrate how these scientific theories, far from challenging our theses, complement and deepen them. However, it is at this point where our path forks, leading us in a new direction: the exploration of the Philosophy of Nature.

The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, twofold. First, we seek to reinforce the previous argumentation, opening a dialogue between the theses of the present study and the fundamental principles of the Philosophy of Nature. More precisely, we aim to deepen the understanding of how natural laws and causal activity intertwine to shape the universe. Secondly, we aspire to demonstrate how this philosophical discipline not only validates our perspective but enriches it, offering a holistic vision that recognizes the complexity of reality without sacrificing the coherence and intelligibility of the cosmos.

By placing special emphasis on the relationship between natural laws and causality, this chapter not only serves as a bridge between science and philosophy but also proposes a synthesis that overcomes the apparent dichotomy between the two disciplines. Ultimately, we seek to show that our position and the Philosophy of Nature share common ground, one where the pursuit of truth about the reality of the universe becomes a joint venture that challenges the traditional limits of human knowledge.

Theoretical Core and Protective Theory in this Study

The discussion on the interpretation of quantum mechanics and its impact on our understanding of causality and reality, as a reality independent of the observer, constitutes a key point in the integration of the natural sciences and the philosophy of nature in our work. By exploring how certain quantum interpretations interact with the central theses proposed in this essay, we venture into complex territory, marked by the contrast between classical and quantum paradigms of physics. This section aims to elucidate the relationship between these interpretations and our central argument, emphasizing the potential concordance between the theoretical model studied here and the findings of quantum mechanics.

First, I will begin by acknowledging the epistemological distinction introduced by Mario Bunge regarding the interpretation of natural laws and causality. Bunge argues that the view of scientific laws can vary significantly depending on the philosophical stance. On one hand, there is an objectivist interpretation, which sees laws as reflections of real and objective connections in the physical world, independent of human observation. On the other hand, there is the subjectivist or indeterminist interpretation, which understands laws as emerging patterns of empirical observation, without necessarily implying the existence of independent objective connections. This epistemological dichotomy becomes particularly relevant in the context of quantum mechanics, where phenomena such as superposition and entanglement challenge our traditional understanding of causality.

Quantum mechanics introduces the notion of probabilistic causality, whereby the future states of a system are not determined univocally by previous states, but are subject to probabilities. This view contrasts with the classical deterministic conception but does not necessarily invalidate it. Instead, it suggests that our understanding of causality must be open to include both determinism and indeterminism, depending on the level of reality we are examining.

The Schrödinger's cat paradox serves in this context as an exemplary illustration of how observation can influence the state of a quantum system, leading some to argue that reality at the quantum level is partly dependent on the observer. However, this interpretation does not necessarily imply that the objective and necessary causality proposed in our strong theoretical core is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Rather, it suggests that reality is stratified, and that different rules may apply at different levels.

Therefore, our theory, by emphasizing the existence of a primordial cause and finite causal series at the macroscopic level or in a more general framework of reality, is not contradicted by quantum mechanics. On the contrary, it complements it by recognizing the complexity and plurality of forms of causality that operate in the universe. This understanding allows us to harmonize observer-dependent interpretations in the quantum microcosm with a more objectivist and deterministic view in the macrocosm, highlighting the coherence and integrity of our approach to causality and natural laws.

I will use the relevant distinction established by I. Lakatos for his research programs. The distinction between the theoretical core and the protective theory comes from the methodology of scientific research programs proposed by Imre Lakatos. The theoretical core of a research program includes the fundamental hypotheses that scientists commit not to refute, while the protective theory includes a set of auxiliary hypotheses and conjectures designed to protect the theoretical core from empirical refutations. In the context of this study, the theoretical core encompasses the definition of an abstract model of causality, the thesis of its finitude, and the need for an independent first cause. The protective theory, on the other hand, could be interpreted as the adoption of a realistic view of causal connections and the existence of realities independent of the observer's mind. The distinction between these components of the research program underscores the structure and strategy underlying our argumentation.

In conclusion, the distinction between a central theoretical part or strong theoretical core and an applied or realistic protective theory in our work reflects an attempt to reconcile the objectivity of laws and causality with the relativity of quantum phenomena concerning the observer. This distinction is not only relevant but essential for a comprehensive understanding of nature, demonstrating that, far from being incompatible, the philosophy of nature and quantum interpretations can enrich and deepen our vision of the universe.

Paul Davies's Perspective on Natural Laws

The perspective of the present study closely aligns with the conception of laws and causality offered by Paul Davies in his book "The Mind of God". Davies argues that the laws of the universe, far from being mere descriptions of natural activity, are manifestations of fundamental and universal principles that govern the cosmos. He finds a profound relationship between legality and causality, considering that the laws of nature dictate causality in the universe, suggesting that they are inherently mathematical and reflect a deep rationality in the structure of the universe. In his reflection on the origin and foundation of natural laws, Davies opens the door to the possibility of a first cause or organizing principle. Although he does not adhere to a traditional theistic interpretation, he proposes that the existence and specific form of natural laws point towards a fundamental organizing principle or intelligence.

Far from using the opinions of the popular scientist as an argument from authority, which would be fallacious, his mention is justified by finding compatibility and complementarity with the general vision that this study aims to give of causality, affirming an objective and necessary causality underlying chaosmos. By exploring the relationship between laws and causal activity, Davies opens the door to the possibility of a necessary first cause or organizing principle, a concept that reinforces the strong theoretical core of our study. The compatibility between both approaches is highlighted in the recognition of an inherent order in the cosmos, pointing towards a deep reality grounded in causal principles that transcend randomness. This dialogue between Davies's ideas and the theses defended here enriches the understanding of the structure of the universe, offering a broader and more nuanced perspective on causality and the rationality that guides the evolution of the cosmos.

Mariano Artigas: Relationship between Causal Activity and the Laws of Nature

In his book "Philosophy of Nature," Mariano Artigas addresses causality and natural activity by responding to the question of how causality manifests in the physical and spiritual world, proposing an analysis that transcends mere observation to delve into the laws and principles that govern the universe. His approach, which integrates both the scientific and philosophical dimensions, presents a vision of the world where the complexity and intrinsic dynamism of nature are understood through the constant interaction of its components.

Artigas approaches the topic of causality from a holistic perspective, arguing that natural activity is essentially characterized by the interactions among various beings and elements of the universe. According to him, no agent acts completely isolated; every natural phenomenon results from a complex network of actions and reactions that mutually influence each other. This conception of natural activity as an endless series of interactions highlights the idea that the universe is a dynamic and intertwined system, where each component, from the most insignificant to the most complex, plays a crucial role in the fabric of reality.

In his analysis, Artigas distinguishes between substantial and accidental changes to explain how these interactions lead to the continuous transformation of the natural world. Substantial changes involve an alteration in the essence itself of the substances involved, leading to the emergence of new entities, while accidental changes only affect the properties or states of the substances without altering their essence. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the changing nature of the universe and the role that causality plays in this process of constant transformation.

Furthermore, Artigas delves into the discussion of natural laws and their relationship with causality, differentiating scientific laws—human constructions that seek to describe and predict natural phenomena—from natural laws themselves, which are the intrinsic regularities of the universe. This distinction underscores the idea that our scientific knowledge, however advanced it may be, will always be an approximation to the complexity and richness of the natural order.

Artigas's exploration of causality would not be complete without his analysis of the four Aristotelian causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) and how they manifest in nature. Each of these causes provides an answer to different questions about existence and change: What is something made of? (material cause), What is something? (formal cause), What made it exist? (efficient cause), and Why does it exist? (final cause). The integration of these four causes provides a coherent framework for understanding how and why natural phenomena occur, from the simplest to the most complex.

A crucial aspect of Artigas's thought is the relationship between laws and causal activity in nature. Although scientific laws attempt to capture the regularities of the universe, efficient causality—the action that influences the existence or change of something—reveals that reality is much more complex and not always predictable. This recognition of the role of chance and contingency in natural activity challenges the notion of a completely deterministic universe, suggesting instead a cosmos where necessity and freedom coexist in a complex dance of possibilities.

In conclusion, Mariano Artigas's work offers a rich and detailed vision of causality and natural activity, intertwining science, philosophy, and metaphysics to reveal a universe of intricate order and dynamic beauty. His analysis reminds us that behind every natural phenomenon, from the movement of galaxies to the development of life on Earth, there is a network of causes and principles that, although sometimes elusive to our complete understanding, invite us to continue exploring and marveling at the complexity of the cosmos.

Our study presents a similar analysis, exploring causality from a different methodological perspective (the intention, until this point, has been to deliver a predominantly analytical and logical discourse). Nonetheless, it can be stated without any problem that the vision offered by the former is as enriched as it is complementary to the ideas of Mariano Artigas's philosophy of nature. In both cases, causality is recognized as a fundamental pillar for understanding the cosmos, although each approach illuminates different aspects of this complex theme.

Causality, according to Artigas, manifests through interactions among entities, a network of actions and reactions that shape reality. This perspective highlights the importance of substantial and accidental transformations that arise from the intrinsic dynamism of nature. Additionally, Artigas emphasizes the relevance of understanding natural laws—distinct from scientific laws—as expressions of the universe's intrinsic regularities, a concept that invites reflection on the relationship between scientific knowledge and the reality of nature.

On the other hand, this study delves into the need for a necessary first cause, offering a vision that, while focusing on causality from a philosophical and scientific viewpoint, also seeks to explore the implications of a causal chain that requires an uncaused origin point. Here, causality is examined not only as a phenomenon of interactions but as a sequence that leads to a primordial cause.

The complementarity between the ideas of Artigas and this study is manifested in their shared focus on the importance of causality. While Artigas provides a framework for understanding causality through natural interactions and transformations, this study extends to the contemplation of a "first cause," weaving a connection between the dynamism of nature and the fundamental principles underlying the universe.

Additionally, the discussion of natural laws versus scientific laws raised by Artigas finds an echo in this study's reflection on how the laws of the universe and the underlying causality integrate within a cohesive scientific and philosophical framework. Both perspectives acknowledge the complexity of interpreting scientific laws in relation to causality, offering a rich and nuanced vision that underscores the interdependence between science, philosophy, and the understanding of the cosmos.

In conclusion, the integration of Artigas's and this study's approaches highlights the continuity and enduring relevance of causality in understanding the universe. Through a detailed exploration of natural activity, transformations, and the search for a first cause, a comprehensive and profound vision of the cosmos is offered, inviting continual wonder and exploration of the complexity and intricate order of the natural world.

Notes:

(1) The Philosophy of Nature, as addressed in this work, is inspired by and engages with the contributions of prominent figures in the field of philosophy and science, including but not limited to Mariano Artigas, Mario Bunge, and Paul Davies, whose works offer rich and diverse perspectives on the interaction between natural laws, causality, and the structure of the cosmos.

(2) Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers.

(3) The interpretation of quantum mechanics, especially in relation to phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, poses challenges to our traditional understanding of causality. In the quantum realm, causality is presented as probabilistic, suggesting that effects do not follow from causes in a deterministic manner but are subject to probabilities. This approach does not deny causality but demands a reinterpretation of its nature in the quantum context. Schrödinger, E. (1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik." Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807-812.

(4) Lakatos, I. (1970). "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

(5) Artigas, M. (2014) Philosophy of Nature. Third edition. EUNSA, University of Navarra.