TO THE STARS
Posted by anthonynorth on October 10, 2007
Astronomy is the science of celestial bodies, including the Sun, moon, planets, stars, galaxies, comets, asteroids and other wandering elements of the universe.
Concerning itself with positions, motions, distances, origins and evolution of the cosmos and everything in it, astronomy has many sister disciplines, including astrophysics and cosmology. But could it be that these sciences do not offer facts of the universe, but delusions?
EARLY STAR GAZING
The oldest known science, it was practiced by the Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, Mexicans and, even in Britain, Stonehenge has long been held to be a form of observatory. However, it was the ancient Greeks who devised what can be called modern astronomy.
The 4th century BC saw two central cosmological systems laid out. Aristarchus of Samos argued that the sun was centre of the universe, whereas Aristotle won the day with his erroneous idea that the Earth was stationary and the centre of the universe.
The celestial bodies moved unendingly around the Earth on a number of celestial spheres. Such a view formed the basis of Ptolemy’s famous ‘Almagest’ in the 2nd century AD, offering a complicated Earth-centred system.
BUT IT MOVES
Astronomy was to be lost to the European as Christianity rose, but the Islamic world was to carry the knowledge on. Finally, as the Aristotelian system seemed to agree with the Bible, it began to be accepted in Europe.
However, when irregularities arose with the calendar, Polish monk, Copernicus, was asked to look at the problem. Reviving the ideas of Aristarchus, he proposed a Sun centred universe in 1543.
The Christian authorities virtually ignored his work. But when the argumentative Galileo turned a telescope upon the planets, they eventually reacted. In 1608 Galileo saw the satellites of Saturn, the phases of Venus, and he could no longer believe in an Earth-centred universe. But he was dragged before the inquisition for his views and only just escaped with his life.
UNIVERSAL FORCES
In 1609 Johannes Keplar published the first of his laws of planetary motion, identifying the elliptical, thus confirming theoretically that the Sun was centre of the Solar System.
And by 1687, Newton’s law of universal gravitation confirmed a seemingly mechanical universe held together by gravity.
Indeed, when Newton saw the apple fall, he realised that the law of attraction involved also held the moon in orbit, and the entire cosmos in its position.
From this point on, understanding of the universe followed two distinct paths. On the one hand, observation through telescopes was to be vital for identifying the celestial bodies of the universe and realising some lights in the sky were distant galaxies.
When the eye was no longer powerful enough to see, the radio telescope came into its own. Essential to such observations were those of Edwin Hubble, who noticed that celestial bodies were moving away from each other.
By 1930 he proposed his expanding universe theory, which was to lead, when combined with the idea of the universe having extreme age, to the Big Bang Theory.
On the other hand, theoreticians also looked at the universe, and combined their ideas with ideas of the smallest parts of the universe, the atoms and particles. Principal amongst such theorists was Albert Einstein, who published his initial Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. And the universe he described placed a huge hole in Newton’s physics, leaving us with an enigmatic universe at the macro level as well as the micro.
RELATIVELY SPEAKING
Essential to Einstein’s Relativity was the idea that nothing was at rest in the universe. Hence, if everything moved, from where, in the universe, could we measure it? The answer was from wherever the observer happened to be. What he observed was relative to him.
Such an idea created a severe problem. Light seemed to travel at an exact speed – 186,000 miles per second. But if the observer was moving relative to the speed of light, how could the speed of light always be constant? The answer, it seemed, was that time slowed down to allow the speed of light to remain the same.
Such an enigmatic concept changed science forever. And it was to get worse in 1915 with his General Theory of Relativity.
SPACE TIME
Einstein had proposed the concept of space-time, where space could not be considered without its place in time. And one of the geometrical outcomes of the concept was that space time would be modified locally by the presence of a body with mass, such as a star or planet. In 1919, this was confirmed during an eclipse of the Sun, where light was observed to bend around it.
The general theory modified the movements of planets and meant there was no need for such a thing as gravity. A planet’s orbit around a sun arises from its natural trajectory in space-time. Although Newtonian gravitation is still used as an explanatory model, it is no longer correct.
But just exactly how an exact mechanism works is still unknown. The Holy Grail of science is now an attempt to marry the macro universe with the micro, producing a total explanation in a quantum theory of gravity.
At this time, science is nowhere near achieving this. And the universe remains as enigmatic as it did to the first astronomers at the dawn of history.
MIND MODELS
What can be said about this brief history of understanding of the universe? The first theories were Earth centred, and this survived because it fitted nicely with the Christian view of reality.
With Newton, our understanding became ‘mechanistic’, which again fitted in perfectly with the cultural expectations of the times. With the arrival of the more surreal ideas about reality, our view of the cosmos changed in kind.
At its heart, cosmological knowledge is a relationship between ideas and math producing a ‘mind-model’, which is then validated or discarded through observational data. But is this really the case?
REDUCTIONISM
At the heart of scientific method is the idea of Reductionism, where everything is reduced to its simplest form to allow better understanding. Now, as a method, this is excellent, and should never be abandoned.
However, we must ask if this is enough by itself. Could reductionism be shortsighted, missing evidence and data from a wider view of reality that can best be termed ‘holistic’?
In effect, we must ask: could there be a deep seated relationship between a mind-model and the observational data that arises from it?
THE OBSERVER
Quantum theory holds many enigmatic concepts, and one of the most remarkable is the role of the observer in the universe. In its natural state the math of the particle tells us that it is probabilistic, in that it can be in any position possible.
When a particle is actually ‘observed’, it takes on a ‘definite’ reality, in that we can observe it as being somewhere specific. In effect, the probability of its existence has changed to a definite.
What causes this change in status? It is generally accepted that it is the act of observation that gives the particle the nature of the reality being observed. The observer and universe are therefore inter-related. What we see is what we get.
DATA
Does this idea allow us to see ‘data’ is a new way? For instance, when we observe something, what we see is that ‘something’ plus our own interpretation of it based on how the mind rationalizes sense experience of it.
We can take this concept even deeper. We have the power to concentrate on the specific, and what we actually observe is more often than not a result of attention on the specific. In other words, we do not see everything there is to see.
Bearing these points in mind, could it be that the mind-model of what we expect to observe is confirmed by us seeing only the ‘data’ we expect to see? If so, then the observational ‘proof’ of a mind-model could be ‘adjusted’ by our observation to confirm a theory, and even ‘omit’ anything that denies it.
CONSENSUS
Observational evidence of a theory may not be what we think it is – or rather, it IS what we THINK it is, and not necessarily the reality we believe it is supposed to be. But if so, what forces are at play to ‘define’ the data to agree with a mind-model?
If we take the paranormal, it is interesting that a phenomenon seems to be more defined the more it is placed within culture for cultural interpretation. It is almost as if the ‘story’ becomes confirmed by our experience.
Alien abduction is a classic example. When the phenomenon first appeared, ‘entities’ were varied in character. Yet, as the ‘story’ of the ‘grey’ became more and more culturally defined, the higher the statistical bias towards being abducted by a ‘grey’.
IN CONCLUSION
It is almost as if it is culture and ‘consensus’ that defines what we will experience and observe. And as a scientific mind-model becomes more and more accepted, I would argue that it is ‘consensus’ that plays a vital role in what is observed.
Further credence is given to this possibility by the nature of the observations of the universe. There are no ‘photographs’ of the distant cosmos as we know it. Rather, various forms of energy and matter scanning and analysis are involved.
Does the non-existence of definites in the nature of our data analysis and interpretation allow for data to have a touch of the delusional, as suggested above?
Maybe, maybe not. But I can’t get it out of my head that the universe, as we see it today, is a blank canvas waiting to be filled, our observational devices being more akin to an artist’s brush as it creates an ‘understandable’ universe from pictures within the mind.
© Anthony North, October 2007
Have you clicked Diary of a Writer on Blogroll? Meet me, up close and personal.
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
If you like fiction, click Fiction Page on Blogroll for my short stories.
Check out the pages. Find my Links on Eye On the World.
BEYOND THE BLOG 
nouseforadave said
On Reductionism
I agree – reductionism can only go so far. Eventually, lazy scientists everywhere will have to go the way of ecologists and sociologists: the study of systems vs. parts of systems.
On Consensus
“Observational evidence of a theory may not be what we think it is – or rather, it IS what we THINK it is, and not necessarily the reality we believe it is supposed to be.”
This statement confused me. Theory is based in observation, inevitably. Theories don’t claim to define reality, only describe it.
“But I can’t get it out of my head that the universe, as we see it today, is a blank canvas waiting to be filled, our observational devices being more akin to an artist’s brush as it creates an ‘understandable’ universe from pictures within the mind.”
I especially liked this. Arguably, although you focus on physics, the same can be said about any field of science. Creativity can go a long way in science, and often groundbreaking work requires creative problem solving. That said, many theories are, as you say, art – but unlike art, specific ‘laws’ (theory supported by 1000’s of observations) govern the validity of scientific theory, whereas art is much more subjective (i.e. personal).
anthonynorth said
Hi Nouseforadave,
Welcome, and thanks for your kind words. You make some good comments here. Your statement that ‘theories don’t claim to define reality, only describe it’, may well be right, but science itself is sitting uncomfortably with the idea.
As I point out in the post, the role of the observer is becoming more fundamental. Are we approaching a point where there is a possible ‘reality’ that our ideas DO create reality? Or at least, a reality that works for us.
Mind and what it observes are perhaps more closely related than we think. Philosophers have suspected this for centuries.
museditions said
Looks like you are leaning a bit towards the metaphysical camp here! I am looking forward to a world where science and meta-science can comfortably coexist. I particularly enjoy your explaination of “consensus”. Yes! There can be 10 million observations of a phenomenon, yet the interpretation is “merely” consensus. And what is “observation” exactly?
anthonynorth said
Hi Museditions,
What is ‘observation’ exactly? I think you’ve answered it. What consensus says we can ‘expect’ to see.
Unless, of course, we open our eyes …
red pill junkie said
Great essay. I find particularly inspiring that those first scientist who began to challenge the long-held idea of geo-centrism were, also, deeply religious men. Copernicus actually worked for the church, Galileo WANTED to be a priest in disobedience with his father’s wish that he became a doctor; and Kepler was a devout protestant who, in pursuit of a “perfect platonic order” in the movements of the planets, grudgindly had to accept that the planets followed an eliptical orbit, which paved the way to Newton’s findings. Curiously, Newton ended his life studying the Bible…
anthonynorth said
Hi Red,
Newton went as far as learning Hebrew, and his million words on alchemy ended up being bought by British economist Keynes, who asked of Newton:
Was he the first great scientist, or last great magician?
I think the reality is, he was both. He realised there was more to ‘reality’ than the material. And his well known outbursts make it clear what he thought of consensus.
delusionofmyownmind said
i think what you’re trying to get at here is the phenomenon known in psychology as confirmation bias – memory is malleable and attention easily distracted from what exists in the ‘real’ world toward that which seems to confirm our expectations.
lowerpericles said
In Conclusion or Inconclusion? Tq.
Observations on Observation « MusEditions said
[…] on October 19th, 2007. I got into a mini discussion over on Anthony’s blog the other day, during which the question “What is observation?” came up. […]
RogerScott said
I’m sure some readers of this will be reminded of Rupert Sheldrake’s principle of “morphogenesis” or morphogenic fields and the so-called “hundredth monkey” effect. As a child of a student of John Dewey, brought up on the faith in scientific method and the “methods of intelligence”, I find the idea that faith in accuracy of communications of objective observation versus consensus “theories” about observed phenomena really does boil down to my having to have some uncertainty about the “concensus” we currently call science. While I have faith in scientific method, it really is difficult now to have faith that all the facts are being reported in an unbiased manner. I am most disappointed by the filter imposed by the publishing criteria and the way sincere investigators are shut out of the loop when peer review is implicitly colluding against “contrary” ideas when to put them through (publish) might cast the peer’s status in question due to falling outside the “accepted” trends of the scientific community. So contrarians have to self-publish or publish in other countries, or publish in pseudo-scientific venues, just to get the word out. I wonder how many useful insights have been lost in this way. How many “mere” engineers have not gotten their results out because they didn’t have the PhD now so widely required by journals just to be considered, let alone accepted for publication?
At any rate, I want to make reference back to the question of the observation affecting function. I believe this is a wrong interpretation. I believe people confuse scientific apparatus used to observed subtle phenomena and mere “thinking” about phenomena. How many people think that watching an atom in a vapor tank leaving trails is the same as the same atom moving through the vacuum of space? The experimental apparatus (observation) alters the behaviour of the atom. This is the kind of observation that was originally intended by the “uncertainty” principle. How it got converted to a metaphysical concept I have no idea, unless it came about by confused scientists seeing something physical in reading the metaphysical concepts of Far Eastern thought. Well, it is it possible they were enchanted because they had their first principles in doubt? We know very well today that first principles in physical science today says that matter and energy in nature are conserved. There is no “de novo” energy or matter, but transformations of existing sub-stratum. I see an inconsistency. What number of alterations or combinations of matter or energy can result in consciousness or “life”? Before you jump to the conclusion I am a creationist, consider that we began thinking of matter as continuous, and then moved irresistably towards atomism. From atomism to sub-atomism, and so onto “strings” (read vortices). Our theories are oscillating like the drunk who is unsure if he should go home or sleep in the gutter out of fear for his wife’s reaction. The vortex-atom, aethers, to aether, no aether, etc. A striving that allows us to question why we need to begin with merely matter and energy. We could as easily begin with substance, power and intelligence as co-equal, and just as minute in their invididuality. They can combine, co-exist and evolve and, with some mechanisms for memory and sustaining or continuity or memory, contribute to a memory bank that permits for the manipulation of energy and matter by the atom of intelligence, and yet that same atom of intelligence controlled or constrained by energy and matter or energy/matter. There must be laws that govern these things. The blind eye towards intelligence or at least sensibility primally seems to me to be a fatal flaw of scientific method, right there in first principles. As Carl Krafft said, an ether-vortex theorist, it seems impossible to solve the problem of a beginning of such a thing as life, so why struggle with it, allow it to be there, but it is not neccessary to attribute to it all knowledge and foresight. It may merely be a sensitivity and reactivity that deals with equally non-temporal things. By combining in the eminsity of extension, various beginnings arise, evolve, come to see in innumerable sensing units and manipulate their worlds. But merely “seeing” is not necessarily an active process, but a passive reception. Otherwise, I fear, we may come to believe we can do as we please, for it is all a mere “dream”. This is the “intelligence is all, all is only consciousness” concept. Charles Manson thought like that. This is the problem with Far Eastern thought, despite the true roots saying the exact opposite in its sources. Krishna in Mahabharata, not the Gita which is only a chapter of that tome, mocked the central characters for falling into themselves, hoping to “dream” a new reality without action. I find I have to agree with that. You can’t just dream away matter and energy to suit your wishes. You have to adapt and accomodate, and there must be laws we can learn to facilitate this. Maybe even to such an extent primitives such as us today would say it is “magic”, but it has to be science we haven’t learned yet.
We can observe more closely, but altering the subject by mere observation is an egoistic dream. Perhaps by changing our concept of a thing we can transmute it in substance is what the “metaphysical physicists” are saying? Maybe. Turn these rocks into bread, eh? Well, why not just create space itself into bread then? Turn your enemies into frogs? I think it a worthy subject for experiment. It is a fearsome topic, a fearsome idea and yet hopeful a little. If people will just walk on the sunny side of the street, they may make this a little better world, and turn back from utter destruction, or at least, from an uglier world. We still have to act. Merely observing it does nothing much, I think. It is interpretation that alters what we see perhaps. Then that is attitude. It can be humorous, or cynical I suppose.
anthonynorth said
Hi Roger,
At the end of the day, our view of what we are is always based on our understanding of the metaphysical, from an existant God, to superstrings. And that view always defines what we are capable of achieving.
Our perception is a large part of the observation, and decides the actions we can then take.
RogerScott said
I do buy that. I mean, the way we interpret things as a springboard towards what we will do next. We are linear in that way, and, of course, like anyone who has ever rued some choice made in the past, could imagine what a better world it would be if we could switch over to one of those “other universes” in which we didn’t make that choice. I’m just dubious about the interpretation so prevalent today about Heisenberg’s comments about experimental methods and the popular idea that it is kosher to mix in Schrodinger’s cat-in-the-box-dead-and-alive-at-once idea. Why? Because maybe some simple-minded people (myself included) may come to the conclusion that objective observation is impossible. The suspension of the will to conclude, or being at ease with being uncertain is my primary point here. Which is why, in part, I mentioned John Dewey. The most careful scientists are comfortable with being uncertain. I am aware this, too, can be carried to extremes. However, I can use my own prior post to illustrate: I posted one opinion, and then, being uncertain it said what I wanted to say in full, I edited it. At one point, two posts existed at once: one okay, the other better. They both existed at once, not because of some uncertainty about perception of the printed page, but because in fact I wrote both of them. I THOUGHT I had not submitted the prior post, and so turned back in my page history and edited the post page. The computer said I had not submitted the prior post, but in reloading the page, it showed two posts with important differences. Yet this new page was an accurate representation of actual actions I myself took, and I wrote you about my desire to have one post erased as inadequate to my desired expression. My uncertainty served a future end (with your co-operation and accomodation, for which I thank you). I could have just gone to bed, and believed with all my might that only the one I wanted to express my completer views would remain. Do you think that would have come about? I had to make an action to change the outcome. So, now, I’m going to go to bed, and wonder whether this will show up tomorrow or not. Why wouldn’t it both exist and not exist? So, I’ll check the day after tomorrow, too.
anthonynorth said
Hi Roger,
We’re going very deep here. Regarding your latest comment, I can now play God with your experience. Things are out of your hands as you sleep. Your uncertainty is, for a time, intact, even though, by the time you read this, it will be reality.
But who opened that damned box?!
Objective observation may be possible, but the concept behind it changes, and changes our appreciation of how the objective ‘became’. And in that appreciation we change our view of what we can do with, or see of, the objective.
Could certainty and uncertainty therefore co-exist?
lord said
I have only one thing to say: seeing is “not” believing.
Rogerscott said
It’s been some time sine I’ve been here, but note that Anthoy “lord”‘s comments are pertinent to
answer the question: yes, certainty and uncertainty certainly can occur at once. And “seeing” is
not believing. In terms of the dichotomy of certainty and uncertainty, we do keep tally lists,
and we usually land on the side with the most chic-marks. Even if that means rejecting a
possibility that could have come about, but our summing of the chics gives favor to negate that
possibility. But we act on what we believe, not on what we don’t believe. That “Y” in the road
has always been the impetus for looking to advisors or flipping coins. Personally, I think that
this very question has relevance for believing in reincarnation in the development of our
souls, since no single, finite life-time could possibly merit an infinite effect such as living
forever in a “hell” as opposed to living forever in heaven. There are far too many parameters
that must be fulfilled to satisfy our ability in making choices. Only experience, direct first
hand experience of something, gives us the certainty that makes a choice fully informed. But we
face unknowns every day that are a crap-shoot in terms of outcome. As far as “seeing is believing”
is concerned. Why do we shake our heads when we see a shaddowy figure down the road, and wonder
“is that a man waving at me, or a tree?” Seeing is pregnant with uncertainty. Uncertainty is part
and parcel of the joy of being alive. If we were to achieve the implied ideal of yogis, that
enlightenment will give us omnisciene, we would probably turn to stone, not having any need to get
up and investigate. We know by being still, we understand without asking questions. Maybe. I don’t
know. In terms of physics, I find it conceivable our brains can interpret subtle vibrations in
the dynamic fields of the world so as to at least approximate outer reality to some degree, but
my own personal experience doesn’t allow me to believe it is a very “exact” degree. There is still
some uncertainty. Many different records of people using “esp”, out-of-body detection of hidden
number-codes or messages only visible by penetrating some faraday-cage or lead-lined box, shows that
they sometimes get it right, more often get it wrong, but close. So there are limits. We have no
wonder-worker example of a perfected system of knowledge. No doubt exists in my mind that perception
can extend beyond the mere physical senses by means of getting up and looking. I recall reading
about Richard Alpert and his experience with “Neem Karoli Baba” telling him about how his mother
got sick and died. But he didn’t describe things in any exact way, but in a way that had profound
meaning to Alpert (Ram Das). Information is obviously being radiated in all directions. There is
still a lot of intermediate bodies that may aberrate this information or even amplify it. In this
sense, “reality” is a kind of “olio”, a mixed bag of true things altered in ways that leaves it
mangled in some way. So “consensus” reality is still not reality. It is a rough, imperfect and
way-out-of focus residuum of what actually is. So I reserve my right to think about any “theory”
or approach, “maybe, but not quite there”
TONY ON CREATIVITY, TT #25 & MORE « BEYOND THE BLOG said
[…] Astronomy is the science of celestial bodies, including the Sun, moon, planets, stars, galaxies, comets, asteroids and other wandering elements of the universe. Concerning itself with positions, motions, distances, origins and evolution of the cosmos and everything in it, astronomy has many sister disciplines, including astrophysics and cosmology. But could it be that these sciences do not offer facts of the universe, but delusions? … read more … […]
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
This is a great post (as usual).
Reductionism I guess is another way of referring to “Occam’s Razor”. I agree with the “K.I.S.S.” principle to a certain degree but are we in fact limiting ourselves to selective data by considering the ‘ordinary’ rather than the ‘extraordinary’? And it is after all only a ‘preferred’ method.
Consensus is also a problem if it is only limited to the field of science (hooray for Philosophy!). I think that confirmation holism (a single scientific theory cannot be tested in isolation) is worthwhile considering here. If all ‘theories’ impact on each other to some degree then when unexpected data arises scientists must use judgements on which theories to accept/reject. Who is creating the consensus here? I just had goosebumps, this also takes me back to the specialists versus generalists debate. More ‘proof’ of the cyclic nature of life?
On a lighter note:
C.F.S. (def): Certified Frankness Sender?
or
M.E. (def): ‘Middlin’ Enthusiast? i.e. Encourages wide debate from extremes to arrive at a well considered and more balanced conclusion.
Please take care of yourself, philosophers are an endangered species!
Best wishes, Chris
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Yes, you highlight the problems with the present approach well here. In the final analysis I have no problem with reductionism as a tool, but it really should be then placed into a holistic framework and debated – the philosopher obviously comes in here.
Loved your definitions, by the way 😉