COMMENSAL ISSUE 105

Note : This essay was written in reply to some criticism concerning my pilot paper: "Scientific Theosophy & Ethics" (Commensal, No. 98, Sept. 1999, pp. 28-46; Telicom, Vol. XII, No.35, Sept. 1999, pp. 29 ff.). All remaining footnotes (2-55) and a long list of scholastic references were omitted here for the sake of saving space. Readers interested in the complete version may consult the Author (frankluger@hotmail.com).

As the vast majority of new knowledge has recently been obtained through the scientific method, Science can justifiably be said to serve as Humanity’s main ride toward the unknown. Every ride has ‘operational’ rules, and here, one of the unwritten ones is that the ‘vehicle’ has to yield to those roadblocks which represent danger (Eternity), even if the Rider fails or refuses to do so. If the ridden animal should thus appear to be, on occasion, capricious or reluctant to trot on habitual roads, maybe that’s because some of those roads are no longer adequate. Therefore, instead of beating the poor creature, it may be more worthwhile to take a closer look at the motives as well as the wisdom of Science, that is, if you will, Balaam’s ass.

Despite its inherent limitations and occasional blunders, Science has superseded all previous epistemic endeavors; and its theoretical trustworthiness and pragmatic usefulness are amply proven, especially by predictive ‘wonders’ and technological ‘marvels’. For example, in 1846, Adams in England and Leverrier in France, independently of each other, had discovered Neptune merely by paper-and-pencil calculations! Examining the data of nearby planets, they found slight orbital discrepancies, which could be reliably corrected by theoretically adding another planet (of a certain size, mass, density, etc.) whose gravitational effects would get rid of the discrepancies. So, Adams and Leverrier sent telegrams to observatories; and lo! Neptune was discovered exactly on their instructions. As far as technological ‘marvels’ are concerned, one has but to take a good look around. When I was a child, I calculated with nothing fancier than an abacus. Now my desktop computer can do doctoral level mathematical research and beyond… And that’s within maybe half-a-century! Today’s wonders and marvels in Science are tomorrow’s trivia!

That Science sometimes is vulgarized and made nefarious, or conversely, turned into a religious substitute, as for example in scientism, is no fault of Science itself. The remarkable success of Science is largely due to its method, thanks to which objective and factual knowledge can be obtained in a quantifiable and (reasonably) unambiguous fashion. Precisely because Science can be misused and abused, we need empirical verifiability requirements as its methodological safeguards, by means of which to sift wheat from chaff.

Scientific methodology is characterized by objectivity and (thus) neutrality, as well as quantifiability. For these reasons alone, Science is ab ovo more dependable, than other ways of knowing. However, Science insists on reliability and validity, as its chief criteria; over and above its (factual) objectivity, neutrality, and quantifiability. It has solid, well-developed yardsticks for evaluating its data in terms of these criteria; and a built-in, automatic self-correction requirement ensures, that results falling short are trashed without hesitation. No other epistemic endeavor can boast of such method, which is why the success of Science remains unparalleled in the intellectual history of Mankind; and that scientific methodology is a whole lot more than organized common sense.

Few of us, in our daily routines governed by organized common sense, would undertake systematic inquiries of such rigor and exactitude as demanded by proper Science. Few of us would, in our usual petty dilemmas, embark upon cyclic hypothetico-deductive-inductive investigations, as our method toward conjectured solutions. Few of us would painstakingly build mathematical models in the course of the majority of our problems, and then test the models over and over again, by accurate methods of great precision. Few of us would carefully design, set up, and conduct a series of experiments (not in the statistical sense of an event, but in the rigorous sense of manipulating the variables of interest while holding all other variables constant), just because we happen to have some unanswered questions. So, by its methods, Science is much more than just organized common sense; and even more than a gradual accumulation of reliable and valid facts. It is a dynamic epistemological activity of rigorous discipline. Of course, Science values its time more than chasing will-o’-the-wisps; and its inquiries are neither haphazard, nor concerned with myths or phenomena considered totally unverifiable.

Direct or indirect observability may have been a requirement of empirical verifiability in macroscopic studies of classical nature, but by now, it is extended and superseded by potential observability and the reduction principle. Something is potentially observable if its existence may justifiably be conjectured and inferred from features of directly or indirectly observed reality. The reduction principle states that new theoretical constructs must reduce to established theories upon appropriate change of parameters. For example, both Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics deal with only potentially observable phenomena; and both in fact reduce to Classical Mechanics, once the required manipulations are carried out. This is how, like a careful snail in a treacherous forest, scientific knowledge slowly advances, by gradual and meticulous extensions and constant insistence on methodological rigor.

It is patently false to maintain that because our observations are limited by sense-perception, the reliability-validity of scientific knowledge is also limited accordingly; and that our knowledge is therefore largely subjective. If this were the case, recent Science in general and modern Physics in particular could not have arisen. But we can walk on the Moon and split the atom as many times as we please with dependably consistent results, precisely because properly proven mathematical models had not only transcended human limitations; but also because they had enabled us to separate the observer from the observed, and thus provide objective, reliable, and valid knowledge instead of the subjectivism inherent in sense-perceptions. No matter how many different individuals examine a triple integral in mathematical Physics, it means the same thing to all of them- provided of course, that they are competent enough to recognize it.

It is exceedingly irritating that the most vehement critics of theoretical Physics are usually the least competent in it and more often than not, their mathematical understanding, let alone knowledge, is deplorably abysmal. Let’s face it: theoretical Physics in general, and modern mathematical Physics in particular cannot be properly understood, and its breathtaking philosophical implications cannot be properly evaluated, unless and until one acquires the necessary tools of understanding- in this case, advanced mathematics. This is neither elitism, nor condescension; but a fact, perhaps tough but a fact nevertheless. Both Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics are so far removed from everyday reality, that their essential mathematical natures is entirely unavoidable. There are no shortcuts, no royal roads. Advanced mathematics is sine qua non for seriously doing theoretical Physics and for properly appreciating its philosophical perspectives. This is not necessarily the case in the ‘softer’ sciences.

In the social sciences, a good background in (Advanced) Statistics is usually sufficient in addition to sound training in research methods. In Econometrics one also needs Approximation Theory, (Non)Linear Programming, Graph Theory, etc. In Biology and Chemistry, one needs (multivariate) Calculus and (preferably) Differential Equations, maybe even a course in Measure Theory. However, in theoretical Physics and especially in mathematical Physics (yes, there is a difference), one needs rather advanced, even very sophisticated Mathematics; and it is not unusual to become a mathematician first and then turn to Physics. There are good reasons for that, as mentioned in my essay: "Necessitas Mathematicae"(Commensal, No.100, March 2000).

At this point it may be worthwhile to quote Nobel-Laureate P.A.M. Dirac, from his "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory" (ed. by A.R.Marlow, New York: Academic Press, 1978): "One should keep the need for a sound mathematical basis dominating one’s search for a new theory. Any physical or philosophical ideas that one has must be adjusted to fit the mathematics. Not the way round (italics not in original). Too many physicists are inclined to start from some preconceived physical ideas and then try to develop them and find a mathematical scheme that incorporates them. Such a line of attack is unlikely to lead to success. One runs into difficulties and finds no reasonable way out of them. One ought then to realize that one’s whole line of approach is wrong and to seek a new starting point with a sound mathematical basis."

Why is all that? Why is mathematics so unreasonably effective (to paraphrase another Nobel-Laureate, Eugene Wigner)? Especially given the fact that mathematics is a human creation, not some divine truth handed ‘down from on high’?

Well, well. While it’s true that 80-85% of higher mathematics is mere mental gymnastics with beauty and consistency requirements, and as such, has nothing to do with physical reality; what concerns us here is the remaining 15-20%, which has a lot to do with physical reality. That works! And it works precisely because it appositely reflects the ways in which Nature works! And that has nothing to do with the fact that mathematics is a human creation. We may say that this part of mathematics represents factual discovery, whereas the rest of mathematics represents human creation. Mind you, maybe our notation leaves much to be desired, maybe on other planets other symbols are used if symbols are used at all, etc.; but what matters is that mathematics is reliable and valid for the investigation and elucidation of Nature, at least the vast majority of observable Nature. Recall the discovery of Neptune. Recall Maxwell’s Laws without which there could be no radio or anything else that has something to do with the electromagnetic spectrum. There are plenty of other examples as well, but the point is clear: mathematics works because it coincides with the way Nature works. How we represent those ways is of course dependent on our (mathematical) culture, and has no bearing on independent reality.

Here we come to an important point, that of scientific realism. There are different philosophical orientations, even among scientists. Realism is a philosophical view asserting the reality of abstract terms maintaining that established scientific theories are at least approximately true and in this sense refer to real, existing entities (scientific realism). Opposed to this is instrumentalism, which is an earlier philosophical view asserting that reality is assured only in the (in)directly observed facts, and that theory plays the role of a tool, an instrument, that relates these facts. No commitment to the truth of theories is made, nor can one ascribe reality to its constructs. The realist and the instrumentalist view of Science differ in the ontology of Nature.

In other words, while the instrumentalist forever laments about the limitations of subjectivism and human sense-perception, the realist simply accepts that gravitation is really there, whether it be described by forces (Classical Mechanics) or by spacetime curvatures (General Relativity); even if there’s no human, hence imperfect observer in sight. The instrumentalist sees Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as a consequence of human limitations, but the realist sees it as a limitation inherent in Nature, signalling a blurred mode of existence and as such, one of the frontiers of Virtual Reality. Scientific realism is just as aware of human limitations as instrumentalism, but instead of bewailing them, it looks for ways to transcend them.

In the course of doing so, scientific realism makes two (necessary) assumptions. First, there is a world ‘out there’ that really exists and that is independent of our attempts to observe it and in fact independent of our very being; secondly, scientific investigations can and do make this world comprehensible to us. Instrumentalism questions the first assumption and accepts as real only what is (directly or indirectly) observable, and regards the rest as mere theoretical constructs. Instrumentalism rejects the probabilistic nature of the quantum world as intrinsic to its being (ontic indeterminism) and regards it as a sign of our incomplete knowledge (epistemic indeterminism). Scientific realism, on the other hand, is predicated upon the premise that theoretical constructs (with certain exceptions) refer to actually existing things which are described differently on different levels of theory. Scientific theories are descriptions of independent reality; while there is only one reality, it has many descriptions (faces).

The instrumentalist interpretation of Nature, it must be remembered, was developed at a time when philosophy of science in Europe was under the strong influence of logical positivism.This view was very sympathetic to instrumentalism, since it championed empiricism; and because many of its proponents lived around Vienna, Austria, it became known as the ‘Vienna Circle View’. However, after WWII, criticism of logical positivism increased at the same time as its philosophical program was unable to produce the anticipated results. As a consequence, the attractiveness of logical positivism declined over the years so that by the 1970’s it was no longer a viable doctrine in the philosophy of Science. This trend was also reflected by increasing questioning of the philosophical soundness of the Copenhagen (instrumentalist) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; and in recent times logical positivism has become obsolete and instrumentalism in microphysics has been superseded by quantum realism, which is explicitly based on scientific realism. The same story happened in macrophysics and cosmology, where many theoretical constructs previously thought to be purely conjectural, such as black holes, dark matter, etc. have been verified to the point that their independent existence is no longer in doubt; thus the soundness of scientific realism has further been confirmed. Scientific realism has never been questioned in classical Physics. And now, that it has amply been confirmed in modern Physics as well, instrumentalism is no longer a serious, scientifically tenable alternative to realism, but of mere historical interest in superficial armchair discussions.

It is to similar fireside chitchat that most of the traditional-historical concepts in theology and organized religion belong. Their dismal failure is clearly shown in the moral erosion and degeneracy of Mankind. That is an utter tragedy. Even if one could overlook their continued insistence on erroneous world-views and the enforcement of those erroneous world-views throughout History, there can be no overlooking of their failure in terms of moral leadership, let alone contradiction-free moral integrity. Their moral failures are in fact tantamount to forfeiting their very justification for existence. Neither theologies nor organized religions have succeeded in producing viable and sound, let alone reliable and valid concepts of Eternity and the Eternal. Oh, no; au contraire, they have merely produced, nay, created, God(s) in the image of Man. Their God(s) have always filled emotional (love) needs while pretending to fill cognitive (truth) needs; and as such, have always represented but historical misconceptions brimming with anthropomorphic ignorance and anthropocentric arrogance. The disciples in the New Testament really believed that Jesus was taken up to Heaven in a tangible, physical sense. Joan of Arc really believed that Jesus came down from Heaven to entrust her with the holy mission of saving France. The dogmatism and bigotry of Christian theology had claimed an awful lot of victims through the horrors of the Inquisition. Islam was made victorious by the sword. There are many-many other examples to show that by now, the world-views of theologies and organized religions are just obsolete; and their morality- leadership is a miserable failure. Yet people still need God, maybe even more than ever!

Hence arises the need for scientific theosophy and ethics. In this context, the world-view of Science is that of scientific realism, while the ethics of Science per se is neutrality for now, and here I refer not to the deontology of scientific methodology (intrinsic ethics) but to the possible moral leadership of future Science (extrinsic ethics). Please, see my paper: "Anthropocentrism vs. Cosmocentrism: Groping Toward a Paradigm Shift" for a historical overview of the evolution of world views from the ancient flat-Earth myth to the present mess. In ancient times, philosophy, religion, science, etc. were ill-defined and ill-distinguished; for example, in early Judaism, there was no word in Hebrew for ‘religion’. That’s because religion was not religion, but a complete way of life, from birth to death, as regulated by the Laws of Moses, etc. Only after the Babylonian exile (586 B.C.E.) was a word imported from Persian, so that Judaism could, by that time, be distinguished from Hellenism, Zoroastrianism, and other kinds of religion. Inquiries into the greater questions of life were met by various mixtures of fact and fiction, inasmuch as few facts were known, but myths and legends were abundant; and people’s truth-needs and love-needs were filled the best that was possible by philosophy and religion within reasonably consistent world-views, up to the beginning of the XVIIth-century, i.e. until the advent of modern Science. Thereafter, theologies and organized religions had gradually lost their truth-need filling adequacy while retaining their emotional appeals; and Science has become the proper source of factual, objective truth. However, Science has no love-need filling capacity comparable to religions, at least for the time being. Perhaps it never will. It hardly matters for the moment. What matters is that while primitive Man may have needed love before truth, modern Man needs truth before love. Here, I refer to adults having attained sufficient emotional maturity and autonomy; and the reason is simple- the human brain has evolved over the millenia. Mankind has also evolved in various ways, as shown by the numerous and torturous lessons of History.

Painful they may be, but all those lessons of History clearly show that without unequivocally credible moral guidance, Mankind has slim survival chances. For the absurdity of Evil has already clearly been shown in Auschwitz and Hiroshima, for scientists as well as the rest of the world. Therefore, it is urgent to learn those lessons and start looking for sober, realistic hope; for all of us, for all Mankind.

True, growing up has always been confusing, difficult, and painful. However, adolescent Mankind has entered, since Auschwitz and Hiroshima, the most turbulent and dangerous period in all History. For Man is increasingly lost in his intellectual labyrinth and ethical jungle; and the predictable consequences of frustration, in the forms of aggression and regression, are already conspicuous with accelerating frequencies. Concurrently, Man has created selfish toys and myopic processes which are beginning to run out irreversibly out of control. By extrapolation, in about 15-20 years the convergence of destructive forces and the accumulation of erosive factors must result in a global crisis, such as never seen. By a combination of natural and man-made disasters in an abyss of godless bestiality, overall devastation and self-extermination must follow within another generation as surely as the Sun must reach zenith- or, rather, nadir in this

sadly tragic and utterly absurd case.

As I wrote earlier, Man will emerge from fratricidal-suicidal adolescence only when Man will give up trying to rape Nature in our Procrustean bed of anthropocentric arrogance. Yet, truly compelling transcendental morality requires a cosmic lawgiver whose legislation is evident in cosmic order, rather than in man-made truths full of anthropomorphic ignorance. If God exists as the Absolute (perhaps along the lines of the dozen criteria in my paper), then Science can help to show the road toward the (humanly relevant) essence of God- which is cosmic morality- and help to avoid pursuing woefully inadequate man-made versions of God and cosmetic moralities. But that is the last step, contingent on a number of previous steps; and the success of each step is indispensable before proceeding. Mind you, I am not saying that God exists or that God must exist. What I am saying is that we don’t know, but thanks to the methods of Science, we may, perhaps, find out. Even if we fail, who knows what exciting things we may find out while we are trying? Never underestimate the role or the value of serendipity!

Traditional theologies and organized religions have failed to give us God in the sense of dependable fact. Therefore either God does not exist, or God exists in a way different from that suggested by theologies and organized religions. Science is our last hope to find God as dependable fact. Now, of course no one in his right mind would suggest an observational study or a laboratory experiment to find God. This is why I said that we can use the methods of Science provided that we know how to look and what to look for. Because the Absolute –ex hypothesi- is beyond even the blurred mode of existence, which represents the current frontiers of Virtual Reality, only mathematical modelling can help. The model can be tested by not what it is but what it does. Analogously to invisible wind, the unobservable may be tested by its observable effects.

A word of caution about mathematical modelling. Most people are used to think of mathematical models as linear programming ones or similar simple constructions or even complicated algorithms, all based on dichotomous (Aristotelian or classical) logic. Obviously, this sort of thing would be hopelessly naïve and out of place here. First, I mean mathematical modelling as used in theoretical physics; and not even any theoretical physics, such as continuum mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, or what have you. Rather, I mean in those domains which are far removed from our normal worlds; such as the cutting-edge frontiers of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory-Cosmology. In these domains mathematical modelling is a damn’ sight more complicated and demanding than ‘common sense’ might suggest. One needs such tools as complex functional analysis, Hilbert-space operators, tensor-differentiable manifolds, abstract algebraic topologies, etc. Even the underlying dichotomous logic may prove to be inadequate. This is why, quite independently, there’s already quantum logic as a rapidly growing field in its own right; and this is as different from Aristotelian logic as higher, more advanced forms, such as modal-intensional logics are different. Because of my suspicion that none of these may be adequate in the world of the Absolute, I am suggesting single-valued (Absolute) logic, which, analogously to the only possible positive absolute value of numbers, can only be true. Together with its proof methodology, this is what I termed transcendental logic, on the basis of which, once properly established, transcendental mathematics needs then to be built, followed by transcendental physics and psychology and finally, ethics.

In other words, there’s a very long sequence of steps needed between transcendental mathematics and transcendental ethics! And these steps are none other than proving by lots and lots of testing of the model, if possible, the factual existence of God! Assuming that this is successful- which may never be the case, we don’t know before we try- then comes the next major step, which is to build transcendental physics; i.e. a synchronous synthesis of the mathematical model with physical reality! Right now, we may think that spherical symmetry is the most efficient physical form; but this may be wrong. It could be a tetrahedron, thus maybe the tetrahedron proves to be a basic building block in microphysics, perhaps for thermodynamic stability reasons. Then there’s the whole question of Cosmology, Cosmic Evolution (and all other implied evolutionary chains, such as the chemical or the biological), Galactic Dynamics, and plenty of other considerations before we may meaningfully discern the nature of God, even if the existence of God had long been satisfactorily settled. Finally, once we confirm that the essence of God implies cosmic legislation; then, and only then, can we start to look into cosmic morality- which may then serve as the template for human, ‘pedestrian’ morality. All this had been explained in the original paper, in the proper sequence.

Mathematics, at least the part that represents the way Nature works, does have a life of its own, in contemptuous disregard of whether we have discovered any part of it or not. Nature works very precisely. It is our techniques of approximation that have been crude at first, but perforce become more and more refined over the centuries. A Fourier-series approximation is stronger than the techniques used in Newton’s time. Calculus and functional analysis have come a long way since the crude methods of Archimedes and other mathematicians of antiquity. The calculus of variations is far more sophisticated today, than in the times of the Bernoullis or even Euler. Perhaps the key word is generality. The more general a mathematical structure or function is, the greater the likelihood that it will (more or less) fit some aspect of independent reality. Hilbert-spaces are more general than Banach-spaces. Semi-topogeneous orders are more general than orders in metrizable or Euclidean spaces. Semigroups and groups are more general than rings, lattices, or fields. Perhaps this explains why they are increasingly useful in mathematical Physics. These are no figments of (mathematical) imagination. There are a number of very tangible physical phenomena which do behave exactly as groups and semigroups. Now, of course, we have invented the words for them. But the concepts happen to link our words with independent phenomena. And these concepts are invariant. They are predictable, hence dependable and trustworthy. Failures to appreciate the central significance of invariants in Science betray either crass ignorance and / or colossal arrogance. The man-made and the nature-made meet and fuse in concepts that represent invariances- they are our rickety bridges to Eternity.

There’s no such thing as: "…the absurd possibility of knowing everything about nothing!". This is would be an extrapolation, and rather inappropriate in this context. My original paper was about possible synthesis, which is the opposite of analysis. I am not proposing to build a ‘Theory of Everything’, for such naivete is brimming with illusions and delusions. The term "Theories of Everything" is only used in laymen literature, but I know of no bona-fide scientist who takes it seriously. Even the so-called "Grand Unifying Theories" (G.U.T.S.) are but euphemisms or linguistic conveniences to indicate that the aim of the synthetic effort is the unification of the fundamental forces of Nature. Three out of the four fundamental forces have already been successfully unified. There remains gravitation, and a lot of theoretical effort is directed toward Quantum Gravity, with some interesting results. It’s too soon to tell.

However, none of these represent the "science bridge from virtual reality to ultimate reality". I had made it clear, I believe, that in order to build that bridge, existing tools (including logic and much mathematics!) are no longer adequate; therefore new tools are needed, such as transcendental logic, mathematics, physics, and psychology. These new tools are sine qua non in this endeavor, without ever falling into the tool illusion. Therefore, there can be no question that "a computer model may, for the sake of argument, bring us close to a glimpse of the infinite reality of the Absolute…"; for computer models have nothing to do with the new tools mentioned above. Of course, there’s no guarantee of success; and there are plenty of perils along the way, even with new tools. That is, like Balaam’s ass, in the cosmocentric quest for the Absolute, Science has encountered some roadblocks representing true Eternity; therefore, to avoid the danger of distortion and thus the repetition of the mistakes of History, it’s advisable to take a detour or perhaps stop until the requirements of Eternity are met. It seems that Balaam’s ass of Science is behaving in a humble and wise manner in the interest of its Rider, not himself, and without anthropocentric arrogance at that!

Yes, we need the use of Science to purge our thinking of the twin evils of anthropomorphic ignorance and anthropocentric arrogance; and no, they absolutely do not represent the natural state of affairs! How many harmful myths, superstitions, and dangerous misconceptions have we been able to get rid of thanks to modern Science! Let’s recall that ‘witches’ had been routinely burnt as little as three hundred years ago! How about charms, magic, evil eyes, and a sundry assortment of superstitions; and their countless victims? Before atmospheric electromagnetics had been cleared up by Science, was it not normal to fear thunderstorms as the wrath of God(s)?! Before modern Science has done away with biblical naivity and religious misbeliefs, in terms of Heaven and Hell, or guardian Angels and malicious Demons, or the ‘divine spark’ giving Man superiority and dominion over Nature; how many lives had been lost or irretrievably damaged? If it were not for recent Science, even today, anthropomorphic ignorance and anthropocentric arrogance would continue to decimate Mankind!

Yes, there can be an Absolute, which is (among others) perfectly homogeneous, isotropic, and non-material. For once again, these are not man-made concepts- only the words are; but the concepts themselves coincide with idependent physical reality, which sometimes, is best described mathematically. That spacetime or (empty) space is homogeneous and isotropic is a trivial fact in mathematical physics; but of course, much depends on the level of discourse and theoretical description. Something can be non-material in complement or extension of the material world. Remember, that spacetime, matter, and field are the fundamental categories of current physical theorizing. Matter is only one of the three. Quantum Field Theory has been remarkably successful in dealing with many previously difficult phenomena, such as the fundamental (nonmaterial) field in and out of which virtual particles ‘jump’ all the time. Virtual particle fluctuation could perhaps be a kind of bridge between virtual and ultimate realities. Just as mathematical modelling allows the study of the fundamental field or of cosmological spacetime, it may allow an eventual understanding of Ultimate Reality. Who knows, maybe this is the Holy Grail quest of Science! My suggestion is, again –ex hypothesi- to find out whether there is an Absolute, using the methods of Science; rather than metaphysical speculation or speculative metaphysics, as until now. There’s nothing pretentious about this as a real-time solution, especially given the dismal failures of theologies and organized religions.

Altogether, the only fundamental problem to be seriously pondered is the opposite philosophical orientations of instrumentalism and scientific realism. My paper was explicitly predicated on the premise of scientific realism, and even proposes to extend that into a more general form, and create cosmic realism thereby. All other problems may be avoided by a patient and careful study of my paper, and by a deeper appreciation of what mathematics can do and does in the Pure Sciences and why. My pilot paper was an informal progress report on some 15 years of eclectic and generalist, rather than specialist, research. It deals with a number of diverse scientific and nonscientific fields, as per topic of interest; and it cuts across different Gordian knots, perhaps with less energy than Alexander, but with no less determination. An awful lot of ground had to be covered and very little could be explained. Sooner or later, writing a book or two may be called for. There can be little doubt, however, that scientific theosophy and ethics, in one form or another (not necessarily mine!) will be needed to get out of the present quagmire and perhaps even to make some progress with cautious, long-range optimism.

Scientific theosophy and ethics will be realities iff (if and only if) their times come, that is, when the Zeitgeist will be ripe for them. Said my Grandfather: "The Sun does not rise because of the rooster, but the rooster greets the rising Sun". There are plenty of intellectuals in general and philosophers-scientists in particular who acutely suffer because modern Man has driven himself into an intellectual-moral cul-de-sac. Thus, there must be plenty of them thinking along similar lines and groping for some way out; and here I do not refer to the recent overtures of some physicists toward Eastern mysticism, or New Age fads; not even such formidable, albeit somewhat sterile endeavors as Supersymmetry theories or other purely theoretical ventures. Rather, I mean those people of responsible integrity, who, with healthy skepticism, explore novel ways of thinking and physical theorizing and perhaps even attempt some overall scientific-philosophical synthesis. One way or another, we need Science as our trustworthy ride on the way toward the future, on the road to solid, reliable and valid knowledge. Of course, whenever we encounter Eternity, we ought to modify our path- or we perish by shortsightedness and conceit. We ride on the back of Science, like Balaam rode on the back of his ass. This animal was blessed with a special sight to perceive dangers and acted accordingly. Balaam’s ass is thus a good ass. We don’t have its gifts of keen foresight and deep wisdom. We may not always understand why it behaves in strange ways, but one thing is sure. Lambasting a good ass is futile- it makes more sense to appreciate what it does for us; and to govern ourselves accordingly, now or ever.

Frank Luger

Budapest (frankluger@hotmail.com)