EXPERIMENTAL TRADITIONAL SCIENCES

and

BEHAVIOURAL KNOWLEDGE

 

The objective of this text is to show that beside applied science there are other means of reaching knowledge. Epistemology, as well as the procedures of applied science form constraints which leave out of a field of investigation a vast expanse which cannot be submitted to experimentation and which must, however be ruled by laws.

We try here to determine the limits of science, without wanting to disparage the quality of research. Then to propose a different approach to observe the behaviour of reality.

 

1) applied science, quantified

While schematising, we can observe:

- this science notes that an A put in the presence of a B produced an R,

- it neglects the "connection",

- it sticks only to A and B isolated from their environment,

- it presupposes that A and another A, identical in appearance, are completely identical and will behave identically,

- it assumes that each time that an A is put in the presence of a B, ineluctably an R is produced,

- it seeks and generally succeeds in quantifying the relationship between A, B, and R,

- it tries to explain these relations by concepts,

- it is constituted in disciplines studying the relationship between A, B, and R,

- owing to the fact that all A and B are elements isolated from their context, the disciplines which study them are also insulated from other specialists in A, B or C.

- then applied science notes that an A put in the presence of a B produced an R,

Under this apparently simplistic formulation we can find all the operations of applied science. Whatever the nature of an experiment, a body A, or an entity A is physically approached (put in contact) with a body B, in an enclosure able to contain them both.

A and B can be physical bodies, inert or alive. R is a result. It can be a modification of A or B or both, or an action. R is what appears.

The enclosure can be narrow or wide or subject to other conditions. It is appropriate to the experiment. Cyclotrons, boxes for microbe cultures, and Wilson cloud chambers are some examples. An enclosure can be neutral, or be used to transmit heat or cold, or movements. When A and B are included in the enclosure they cannot "escape". (except for an explosion!)

Should A be introduced first, or B, the result will be identical. That means that A and B take part in the action, and that it is not one which transforms the other. They are both parts inter-reacting.

In an experiment,

- one does not take account of (delete "of") the connection, which implies a movement, which implies movement generated by a third entity

- inside the enclosure, A and B "behave" differently than if they were distant.

- does one know from which distance A and B will begin inter-reacting?

- do slow or fast bringing to proximity produce the same result?

 

- A and B are isolated from their environment, a setting in enclosure insulates A and B, and the product R produced in the enclosure is often observed out of enclosure, which is an environment different from that of the enclosure. Is this always the same R? Is the observation of R out of the enclosure similar to that of R in the enclosure?

- it considers that A, whatever it is, cannot be anything different from all As

A is observed on the level to which it appears to us as an A. However, in the lower parts of levels of observation exists a hierarchy of levels that range from the appearance of A as a complex system down to the molecules, the atoms, particles, the lowest supported by a quantum level. Each one of these levels, to remain stable, is a self-regulated system; it remains stable as long as constraints do not break a lower level. This self-regulation implies the existence of variables since regulation is active there. What are these variables? They come from the environment of A. That means that no A is the clone of another A.

Science presupposes that A and another A are identical and will behave identically;

- It assumes that, each time that A is put in the presence of a B, ineluctably an R is produced,

In experiments, and on the level of appearance, it is exact. But it is not same A and B, which were put together, and the R obtained is not the same one as on the preceding occasions.

- it tries to explain these results by concepts,

The experimental operation provides a result. To explain the behaviours of A and B, science uses notions/concepts such as: forces, kinetic or potential energy, gravitation, attraction, magnetism, electromagnetism, surface tension, viscosity, etc, all concepts that science succeeded in quantifying. I.e. to establish mathematical relations between the behaviours of A and B according to their nature, which make possible to envisage "values" concerning the results.

These concepts do not explain the behaviour of A or B, but measure it.

- it neglects what is its way of connection

The connection is universal. Without it, there are no actions or reactions, dynamics, diversity, evolution. It is the engine of all activity of reality, which results from permanent connections.  However, it does not seem that science utilizes in its experiments what occurs in a connection, and how this intervenes in the variations of A and B when they are put together.

- it is constituted in disciplines studying the relationship between A, B, and R.

Owing to the fact that all A, B are elements isolated from their context, the disciplines which study them are also insulated categories, specialists in A or B or C.

 

2) Behavioural ", dynamic science "

 

Can we propose another way to another knowledge?

Science is a means of knowledge of our environment, extremely useful and effective and the base of all our technological activity, but it is not the only access to reality.

We propose another approach to knowledge, which would not measure, or use concepts such as energy, gravitation etc, but which would try to observe, to explain the dynamic behaviour of reality such as it appears to us, on our level.

The observation of the behaviour of entities that are concrete and identifiable opens a new field of reflection, and the confrontation of these methods of knowledge, through interdisciplinarity, can be advantageous for the whole of "Science" (sapere = to know).

- how does proximity intervene on the interactive behaviour between A and B, producing R?

- what is this dialectic movement? How does it act?

- do all the connections act in the same way whatever A, B, or D and E, or F and G, or H, I, J and K?

- can these "behaviours or comportments" be similar in disciplines that are apparently very distant?

- can they give place to "behavioural" systematisation, which would be a meta-science?

A drop of oil falls on the surface of calm water. What occurs? The drop breaks on the surface air/water, thus creating a disturbance. It then falls under the surface of the water (according to height of its drop and subsequently remounts). Then, gradually the interface air/oil forms a circle on the surface of the water and a volume, (section of sphere?) under this surface. Calm then returns. Apparently.

It seems to be a question of a phenomenon comparable to that of the three bodies of the mathematicians. If it is possible to determine, perhaps roughly, the interactive relations of two bodies it is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate those of three bodies inter-reacting, and in this case, water, air and oil.

If it is impossible for us to anticipate the phases of the interactive evolution of three systems, nature regulates the problem in its own manner, since we note the very fast evolution towards a result, appearing by an apparent balance, that is always disturbed when one of the elements varies. However, we know that stability does not exist in reality.

The question is: how does nature act?"

Certain physicists will cite gravitation. This sets up the three elements according to their respective densities. If one replaces nature by gravitation, the problem remains whole. How does gravitation solve this problem of the three bodies? Or is this problem only a concept in our spirit, reality being very different? Is it gravitation which gives the circular form to the oil drop?

A large ship is in a sea agitated by a storm. She rolls and pitches. She assumes immediately all the intermediate positions which she is obliged to take. Waves with the wind are transformed by the presence of the hull and differ according to the wind. The wind itself is transformed into swirls when passing over the deck  At every moment the position of the boat is conditioned by the force and direction of the wind, by the direction and the force of each wave, the characteristics of the currents, by its centre of gravity at the time of observation, by the power of its engine, the angle of its rudder, and by hundreds of other parameters, such as its former position.

In this instance, a steel ball falls on a steel plate. The concept of "gravitation" explains this movement. The shock causes the ball to rebound:  it bounces up. It is not antigravitation which drives it. How did the ball receive the force that propelled it upwards?

Imagine an undisturbed balance: two plates are "in balance". I delicately put a very small piece of paper on one of the plates. The whole of the moving part of this balance is set in action. From where comes the energy that drives it? It does not come from the tiny mass of paper. How is information on the presence of this paper diffused to the whole of the balance?

How can this rigid boat integrate the action of all these elements and assume the single, inescapable position which it should have all the time? To answer the question of the integration of the various forces which are exerted on the hull is not (in my opinion) only a question of language. If there is integration, how is it carried out? Or is this a problem conceived by our spirit, which does not exist in reality? Isn't this question comparable to the paradox of Zenon?

 For all this, here a series of concepts would not exist here if there were not in reality an expansion of signals resulting from particles, atoms, molecules, systems simple or complex, and vertical hierarchies of systems. This proposal is difficult to formulate, because our reasoning is limited by the physical designs and mechanisms that form our representation of reality, as by the limited sensory means by which we have to try to apprehend it. Any item, inert or living would emit characteristic signals, which are specific to him it, and as a function of the state in which it is. They would be related to its nature. The nature of these signals is unknown to us, as well as the means by which they are propelled (if they are propelled). In the same way the existence of a possible support (a medium) poses a problem.

1) Everything emits signals, at whatever the level, including the subquantic level

2) a complex system emits all the signals of its components  

3) these signals cross the air, water, and the "vacuum"  

4) these signals are only perceived by receivers "appropriate" to the signal

5) they are transformed into information by the receiver

6) they lead to the release of a process (tropism)

7) the process engaged by information is a physical action of predation" or an action of escape.

1) Everything emits signals, whatever its level; I look at a page of newspaper and observe something white that appears flexible", on which there are dark or black spots, apparently on lines. These spots seem to be laid out waywardly. However, certain spots appear more often than others. Some are larger than others. I receive these signals. Any person can receive them. A camera can see them and record them. All these signals are available. Are they emitted? Or available "on the spot"? . I take a microscope using a weak enlargement. I see what seems a fibre tangle, some being stained and others not. I observe different signals available at a lower level. These signals coexist with the precedent ones. A stronger enlargement will show cells dependent between them, some coloured, others not. A more thorough analysis would show molecules characterizing this sheet of newspaper. In all cases, and at all levels, the signals exist. These signals could appear from the infra/particle in the cosmos. We know well that our sensations are limited and that we cannot apprehend them all even with the assistance of machines. These signals which we are unable to perceive would be observed on the level at which they were emitted.

2) a complex system emits all the signals of its components. They exist and vary in time according to their interactions with their environment. The signals noted for cigarette smoke vary more quickly than those of a sheet of newspaper, which in a few years would give different signals; the white would be probably yellow (according to our standards) and grey and the ink very pale. Are these signals emitted or are they in the nature of items observed. Can it be known to us? Is it significant to know? The questions asked. For facility of language, we will presume they were transmitted.

 

3these signals cross air, water, and "vacuum".  With regard to the air, it is obvious. In water, diver can see the colours of coral. The stars forward to us their light through the intersidereal vacuum. But is it vacuum? Some stars emit magnetic signals. Does there exist one or other "spaces" in which signals and receivers are connected (at) levels that we cannot reach and that, therefore, we are unaware of? We know that there exists, at the quantum level a "space" in which information is transmitted instantaneously, a field in which time, as we perceive it, does not seem to exist?. Out of our reality, we can take part in these levels and thus be the interpreters of phenomena such as sympathy, antipathy, intuition, telepathy, mystical states and all other states, which we feel and cannot "locate"., and some seem to transcend time.

 

4)            these signals are perceived only by receivers appropriate to the signal, and here is the boldest assumption! Any item at any level has a receiver of signals. We know from observation that one cannot mix oil and water. When an oil molecule is in contact with water a receiver indicates the signals emitted by water, and conversely. This receiver is ready to receive the signals of water, and perhaps other signals Is it able to receive specific signals? Probably. But how does it function?

 

5 to take an example; a sheet of newsprint becomes information when its contents are received by our eyes and when our culture/knowledge gives the necessary direction. This direction is unique for any individual. The attention span decides which signal will be transformed into information. Can physiology or psychology give some explanation?

 

6) they lead to the release of a process (tropism). Some information, amongst all that received, is absorbed "without continuation". That remaining involves some action   I look at a clock. I observe that it indicates 8 hours and 5 minutes. I know that at 8 hours and 10 minutes I must be in my car to arrive on time at my work. I start off, take my raincoat and go off to the car. The signal received starting from all the watch elements is transformed into information, which is integrated into the system which I am and starts a certain process. I went voluntarily to seek this information. It could have happened by somebody saying to me "It's 8 hours 5 (I would have received this information orally and it would have caused the same steps. However, if on Sunday somebody says to me that it is 8 hours 10, no action would follow.

 

7) the process engaged by information is a physical action of bringing proximity and "predation", or an action of escape. Analysis of the behaviour of live beings shows that any action fits into one or the other category, namely "to go towards" or "to move away from". Its motivation seems to be the need for individual survival and, thus, of the species   To go towards food, to go towards a masculine/feminine counterpart, and to flee danger. In live beings, the outward journey towards the pleasant, and the avoidance of the unpleasant is the emotional translation of these tropisms.

 

 

Affectivity, or the rationalization of behaviours, masks the bases of these motivations, that psychoanalysis sometimes tries to update. What happens to inanimate beings (according to our standards)? It would seem that there is this same concept of tropisms. Some chemical bodies have affinities and can amalgamate (oxygen and hydrogen). Others refuse fusion (water and oil). Do their receivers transform signals guiding their behaviour? We cannot answer. But there are disconcerting analogies between the behaviour of living matter and that known as inanimate (without senses) with regard to the reaction to stimuli. Let us note, while passing, that the matter known as alive consists of "non-alive" elements! Can one conceive that in a unit all the signals of the components are emitted simultaneously, and that the receiving unit decodes each signal on the level at which they were emitted? The translation of information signals always appears to us to be very short, if not instantaneous.

Each level of a unit answers the signals that it has decoded. The verticality of the elements of a complex system globalises the decoded signals and answers the levels overall.  What excludes successive approaches from interacting in the problem of the three bodies would explain Nature's speed in solving quickly the problems of N bodies. The instantaneous response of the boat would be due to the very fast reactions of the elements (levels) which constitute it, answering at an elementary level that which "attacks it". Analyse the behaviour of the oil drop in the light of these proposals.  When the oil molecules remounted to the surface, the form of the unit was unspecified. At the end of the process, the unit was circular. What occurred?

From our point of view, each molecule, whether near the interface or inside the drop, received information, which led it to react. This is to probably obtain the "best conditions of existence" and the least pressure on its "borders" We do not know how this molecule acts, nor which are its best conditions of existence (or another finality). Nor what are its borders. That seems to indicate that any inert body also has a finality and an aptitude to safeguard itself. What could that be?

 From there another question arises which concerns the same problems. A small object, placed on a table, is still. Move it. The initial push is applied to a small surface of this object. How does the rest of the object react to the push, and move In other words, how does the push applied to a point extend to the unit? Conversely, as the push is applied gradually, how does the unit "know" when it should move? There is obligatorily a passage of signals from the point of application to the unit. How? Without neglecting the interaction between the object and the table which supports it. But it is a fact that a "sufficient" push on an object will move it. Can one find an explanation from the individual behaviour of each element of the object, with all their levels, as well as those of its support? However, it is noted that the pusher seeks to penetrate the space of a solid object. Let us suppose that on the interface, the solid object is deformed (in the molecular plan) and that this deformation involves those others that "defend" it in an even manner. For us, "hard" is incompressible. Reality is perhaps different. The molecules of contact between the ball and the plate of steel inter-react as if steel were "elastic", and therefore compressible.

Since the beginning of this text we developed completely heretical proposals compared to those generally accepted and also compared to the current state of the development of science, namely:

-         taking part in "reality" is carrying signals, characteristic of its nature and its state. These signals are emitted (or available) overall

-                 a complex system emits all the signals of its components on (at) their level

-                 the levels of the systems could be inserted on the side of particles and beyond what we describe as the cosmos.

-                 Every participant in this reality has receivers, specific to his or her own nature, which enable him or her to receive signals.

-                 these perceived signals are sometimes transformed into information

-                 information sometimes starts a process of negative or positive tropism (escape or bringing together)

-                 - motivations of tropisms, perceived or not, would be the survival of the individual and that of the species in live beings.  With regard to the others, it seems that there is a finality configuring their "behaviour"

-                  

-                 Perhaps can we thus start research on connections whose mode of intervention seems universal. From the point of view of research, there are two subjects:

- how do connections behave? This has been outlined above  

- how does an entity at its various levels assume exchanges with its environment, and inside its own elements?

 

That is the concern of "systemics".

Of course, all this is seen as an anthropogenic prospect. We cannot do otherwise) than to perceive reality through our senses, and to confer on events a "behaviour" such as we conceive it. For us, reality is "as if" and we do not have any possibility (at the present time?) to differently formulate the observation of facts other than by analogies with our behaviour, which is the only one that we know.

 

Let us recognize that reality is very different and probably unknowable. and let us try to translate it (partially!) into a language which we can understand.

Page d'accueil