Boyd (69 page)

Furthermore, the consistency cannot be determined even when the precision and subtlety of observed phenomena approaches the
precision and subtlety of the observer—who is employing the ideas and interactions that play together in the conceptual pattern.
This aspect of consistency is accounted for not only by Gödel’s Proof but also by the Heisenberg Uncertainty or Indeterminacy
Principle.

The Indeterminacy Principle uncovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 showed that one could not simultaneously fix or determine
precisely the velocity and position of a particle or body.
¹⁴
,
⁹
Specifically he showed, due to the presence and influence of an observer, that the product of the velocity and position uncertainties
is equal to or greater than a small number (Planck’s Constant) divided by the mass of the particle or body being investigated.
In other words,

V Q ≥ h/m

Where:

V is velocity uncertainty

Q is position uncertainty and

h/m is Planck’s constant (h) divided by observed mass (m).

Examination of Heisenberg’s Principle reveals that as mass becomes exceedingly small the uncertainty or indeterminacy becomes
exceedingly large. Now—in accordance with this relation—when the precision, or mass, of phenomena being observed is little,
or no different than the precision, or mass, of the observing phenomena the uncertainty values become as large as, or larger
than, the velocity and size frame-of-reference associated with the bodies being observed.
⁹
In other words, when the intended distinction between observer and observed begins to disappear,
³
the uncertainty values hide or mask phenomena behavior; or put another way, the observer perceives uncertain or erratic behavior
that bounces all over in accordance with the indeterminacy relation. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty values represent
the inability to determine the character or nature (consistency) of a system within itself. On the other hand, if the precision
and subtlety of the observed phenomena is much less than the precision and subtlety of the observing phenomena, the uncertainty
values become much smaller than the velocity and size values of the bodies being observed.
⁹
Under these circumstances, the character or nature of a system can be determined—although not exactly—since the uncertainty
values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior nor indicate significant erratic behavior.

Keeping in mind that the Heisenberg Principle implicitly depends upon the indeterminate presence and influence of an observer,
¹⁴
we can now see—as revealed by the two examples just cited—that the magnitude of the uncertainty values represent the degree
of intrusion by the observer upon the observed. When intrusion is total (that is, when the intended distinction between observer
and observed essentially disappears),
³
the uncertainty values indicate erratic behavior. When intrusion is low the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed
phenomena behavior, nor indicate significant erratic behavior. In other words, the uncertainty values not only represent the
degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed but also the degree of confusion and disorder perceived by that observer.

Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
¹¹
,
²⁰
Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, or the degree of confusion
and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a
low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion and disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in
this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.
²⁰
From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system—or, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate
in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.
²⁰
Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system—a concept and its match-up with reality—we
should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine
the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher,
yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder.

What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot—in general—determine the consistency, hence the character or nature,
of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in
the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any
inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree
of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg
Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent
inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion
to increase until disorder approaches chaos—death.

Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction
and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first
shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since
the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns.) Next, we must find some common qualities,
attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together
as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop
a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this—in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics—we
find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside
and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating
a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.

However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept—within its own pattern of ideas and interactions—to
produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins
to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once
again. In other words, as suggested by Gödel’s Proof of Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure,
Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this
unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more
and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle
of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive / inductive activity
to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction
of decision models needed by individuals and societies for
determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action. Furthermore, since this
engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be
the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation
toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system,
the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder
towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch
of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we’ll call it, the
destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy
a goal-oriented need for increased order. Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring
of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the
entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work
in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive / creative, or deductive / inductive, action—that we have described
herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and
expanding universe of observed reality.
²⁸
,
²⁷
As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining
and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environment—or to improve their capacity for independent action.

Bibliography

1. Beveridge, W. I. B.,
The Art of Scientific Investigation Vintage Books,
Third Edition 1957

2. Boyd, John R., “Destruction and Creation,” 23 Mar 1976

3
. Brown, G. Spencer,
Laws of Form,
Julian Press, Inc. 1972

4. Conant, James Bryant,
Two Modes of Thought,
Credo Perspectives, Simon and Schuster 1970

5. DeBono, Edward,
New Think,
Avon Books 1971

6.
DeBono, Edward,
Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step,
Harper Colophon Books 1973

7. Foster, David,
The Intelligent Universe,
Putnam 1975

8. Fromm, Erich,
The Crisis of Psychoanalysis,
Fawcett Premier Books 1971

9
. Gamow, George,
Thirty Years that Shook Physics,
Anchor Books 1966

10. Gardner, Howard,
The Quest for Mind,
Vintage Books 1974

11
. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas,
The Entropy Law and the Economic Process,
Harvard U. Press 1971

12
. Gödel, Kurt, “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of the Principia Mathematica and Related Systems,” pages 3–38,
The Undecidable,
Raven Press 1965

13
. Heilbroner, Robert L.,
An Inquiry into the Human Prospec
t, Norton and Co. 1974

14
. Heisenberg, Werner,
Physics and Philosophy,
Harper Torchbooks 1962

15
. Heisenberg, Werner,
Across the Frontiers,
World Perspectives, Harper and Row 1974

16. Hoyle, Fred,
Encounter with the Future,
Credo Perspectives, Simon and Schuster 1968

17. Hoyle, Fred,
The New Face of Science,
Perspectives in Humanism, World Publishing Co. 1971

18. Kramer, Edna E.,
The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics,
Fawcett Premier Books 1974

19
. Kuhn, Thomas S.,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
University of Chicago Press 1970

20
. Layzer, David,
The Arrow of Time,
Scientific American, December 1975

21. Levinson, Harry,
The Exceptional Executive,
Mentor Books 1971

22. Maltz, Maxwell,
Psycho-Cybernetic
s, Wilshire Book Co. 1971

23
. Nagel, Ernest, and Newman, James R.,
Gödel’s Proof,
New York U. Press 1958

24
. Osborne, Alex F.,
Applied Imagination,
Scribners and Sons 1963

25
. Pearce, Joseph Chilton,
The Crack in the Cosmic Egg,
Pocket Book 1975

26. Pearce, Joseph Chilton,
Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg,
Pocket Book 1975

27
.
Piaget, Jean,
Structuralism,
Harper Torchbooks 1971

28
. Polanyi, Michael,
Knowing and Being,
University of Chicago Press 1969

29
. Singh, Jagjit,
Great Ideas of Modern Mathematics: Their Nature and Use,
Dover 1959

30. Skinner, B.F.,
Beyond Freedom and Dignity,
Bantom / Vintage Books 1972

31. Thompson, William Irwin,
At the Edge of History,
Harper Colophon Books 1972

32. Thompson, William Irwin,
Evil and World Order,
World Perspective, Harper and Row 1976