The Physical Aspect

Defining the Aspect x

Kernel: x

• Energy
• Field interactions
• Also material and mass, but see below
• Forces (the four basic forces, and everything that derives from them)
• Mechanism
• Everything that derives from the above. .

rather than:

Some central themes x

• Field Interactions. Some say 'interaction' is the kernel of the physical aspect, but this could be mistaken for relatiohal interaction, which is part of the social aspect. Instead, all the interactions found in physics are field interactions, i.e. interactions in and because of some field. Gravitational, electro-magnetic, strong and weak nuclear fields (whether treated separately or unified).
• Grand Unified Theory (GUT) and 'Theory of Everything' (TOE).
• Fluid mechanics.

Common Misconceptions x

• A mountain? But where does that mountain stop and the next begins, or the plain begins? Physical laws can give us no way of telling. Our delineation of a mountain is due to our analytic or possibly sensitive activity. The mountain is part of the entire rocky terrain and substructure and not a separate thing, and the forces it exerts on the substructure are continuous.
• A river or lake? Surely we can tell physically where the edge of this is? Wet means river, dry means non-river. But can we? Look more closely: the rocks at the edge give no clear boundary. And even rocks are often semi-permeable and absorb the wet. Even at the macro wet-dry boundary, this changes as ripples and waves play on the solid.
• A cloud? Again look closely at the indistinct boundary. A cloud is merely air in a particular state of precipitation of water vapour.
• A fire? Surely the flames are distinct? But if we look with infra-red eyes we will see the edge of the flames in a different place. Flames, like clouds, are merely air and gases in a particular physical state, seen by us as distinct.
• A shadow? This has a sharp edge, does it not? First, at the micro-level, its boundary is not sharp because of the non-zero diameter of the light source. Second, what is the 'existence' of the shadow? It is merely a lack of light in contrast with some light - both of which occur by the field of light. (Note: 'in contrast with' is a sensitive and analytical notion.)

In most of these examples the supposed 'things' are distinct only when we experience them via our sensitive and/or analytical functioning. From the physical aspect, therefore, we cannot speak of 'things'; we can only speak of 'stuff'. To get real 'things' we must go to the biotic notion of organism.

But most of these examples are medium-sized. What about electrons, atoms, molecules, etc. and planets, galaxies, etc.? Are not these 'things'?

• An electron? Surely this is a physical 'thing' if anything is? But does not modern physics say it is wave, whose position cannot be strictly delineated?
• However, Dooyeweerd discussed how the atom is a 'whole', and thus it might be thought to be a 'thing'. The atom is 'distinct' in some ways, but it is not fulfilled in its physical meaning by remaining alone. Atoms only gain their full physical meaning when bound with others in molecules and crystals. In a crystal, there is again no distinctness, except at its broken edge.
• The molecule is, perhaps, a physical 'thing'. But not in the same way as a cell is a biotic 'thing'. The molecule is only a more-or-less temporary arrangement of atoms; for example acid an chalk molecules become other molecules. Whereas, for its meaningful temporal 'existence' a cell never becomes something else.
• Planet? Galaxy? Again, these seem to be things because of the boundary between them and vacuum, but they are not physically distinct from the rest of the cosmos, and are subject to pervasive physical laws. So planets especially keep on gaining and losing material.

However molecules and planets do have some temporary thingness, which anticipates biotic thingness.

The Aspect Itself

Non-Absoluteness x

Special Science x

• Physics
• Chemistry; see below
• Materials science

Institutions x

Shalom x

• Irreversibility. In earlier aspects, things may be reversed, but from this aspect onwards, they cannot be.
• Persistence. For example, if you leave a physical something in a particular state, it will stay like that until acted upon. This is the basis for memory.
• Reliable functioning. Because this aspect is determinative (at least at macro level) things that are subject only in the physical aspect will function in a way that may be relied upon. This is why computers are reliable in their basic operation.
• Functioning within its immediate environment; impacting on stuff around.

Harm x

Contributions from the Field x

Grand Universal Theory

In any case, the GUT (Grand Universal Theory) is not a TOE (Theory of Everything, as it has sometimes been dubbed), because 'everything' must include all the other aspects. And they are, fundamentally, irreducible to the physical aspect. Therefore the GUT that physicists are perhaps nearing is only for the physical aspect; each of the other aspects might have their own GUTs, which will be different in style and nature and will never be reducible to the physical GUT. For some aspects the science is so young that no serious glimpse of a GUT has even appeared.

The Aspect Among Others

Law-dependencies x

• As the 20th century has shown, physics is heavily dependent on mathematics. Whilst it is normal to think that physics can be reduced to mathematics, Dooyeweerdian approaches would suggest strongly that it cannot be reduced, even though there are strong links.
• In the anticipatory direction, we can see many physical things that anticipate life, such as the sodium pump in cell membranes, and even organic chemicals which, without knowledge of life, would be mere speculative curiosities.

Analogies x

• The physical aspect is retrocipated into the kinematic aspect. In particular, the kind of movement we find in fluids could not emerge within the kinematic aspect itself; it needs its application in the physical aspect to open it up.

Antinomies x

Common Reductions x

Genetically Modified Foods

Notes x

On Causality

It is this deterministic character of our physical functioning that provides the reliability of our predictions, and ensures that all these things occur reliably. Physical determinative causality is a blessing which we take for granted.

But through the lens of quantum theory physicists believe that at very tiny distances, physical functioning is not so determinative. There is indeterminacy, because even particle have wavelike properties, and one cannot tell precisely where a wave is nor the spatial extent of its influence. This has been used by some to try to escape the materialistic implications of physical determinism; see the notes on freewill and choice.

On Material and Mass

We can see why when we remember two fundamental findings of twentieth century physics. First, energy and mass are equivalent, under Einstein's famous theories, so that only one is strictly necesssary. Second, when we go down to the tiny 'particles' like the electron, the uncertainty principle states that their position is not determined - because they behave more waves (energy) than like particles of matter. Hence energy is considered the proper kernel of the physical aspect.

Chemistry

The answer is that the laws of chemistry are wholly derivable (in principle) from those of physics, while the laws of biology are not. That is, we can derive laws of chemistry merely by lots of calculations using the laws about energy levels, masses, momenta, etc. of all the atoms and molecules involved. But we cannot, claims Dooyeweerd, reduce the laws of the life sciences to physics/chemistry in this way. Life processes are governed by laws over and above those that govern chemical processes.

(Of course, many today who were brought up on the assumption that life processes are merely chemical happenings will be upset by such a claim. But the fact that it has been (much) harder to bridge the gap between life functions and chemical processes than between chemical and physical processes is evidence that perhaps the claim may be correct.)