The Language of Science

Tetrapolygon_perspective.jpgScience is toolshed of deductive tools.  At it’s core: logic.  The framework and perspectives used by scientists are virtually the same as those used by mathematicians – in fact, mathematics is often referred to as being synonymous with the category of science.  However, one thing sticks out to me here as ironic.  With the rapidly shifting world changing around us as a result of technological advancements due to science, science itself is locked into a limited deductive capacity.  Logic is as old as the ancient Greeks.  The word actually originates from the Greek word “logos” meaning word.  There is a long history connected to the multipurpose concept of logic, which can also be synonymous with reason.  It is further ironic, then, to discover a mathematical discovery of a “chaos theory”.  The Greeks are recognized most for their utilization of logic, but the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians before them understood concepts of geometry, sophisticated language, and astrological investigation.

Today, science is considered the uninterrupted conclusionary apparatus for confirming truth.  But one place (among others) is in the linear nature it is built on.  Logic is archaic in that is based on a base-2 language: black or white, on or off, in or out, 1 or 0.  Binary.  Yes, our current cutting edge of science includes quantum experimentation with superpositions and qubits, but it is still just an extension of a base-2 language, and interestingly, computer scientists are still having difficulty trying to position qubits in such a way that true quantum computing is achieved.  Logic Is, according to the field of neurology, contrasted with the concept of intuition.  Where logic is linear, intuition is peripheral.  One is direct, the other is indirect.  While it would seem direct is better, the “functional-flux” of intuition opens up computation to resemble that of the human brain.  On the outside, we perceive all computation as logical, including how we approach a problem, but in reality, things like experiences, feelings, and worldviews are not factored in to our problem solving.

Logic beginning to be acknowledged as limited.  A linear approach is simply not capable of multitasking – which is something our world is craving – perhaps because we are actually wired that way.  A look into our brains or greater nervous systems will reveal a very peripheral design.  A very reactive and interconnected state of function.  If it really is the case that human beings are relational by nature, then logic is really a pipe dream, a bottleneck we have retained as an analytical device for a defining how things work and what is real.  While brute force is still a viable option for unlocking the secrets of the universe, a relationally-connected perspective might enable a much-improved discovery time, with greater post-analysis interfield effects.  Where logic fails in one area, or shows signs of deprecation, may be the suspect of other areas using the same archaic deduction method.