No more Mirror Stage: Ressonance and Coupling as Parameters of Unity of Science

Stephanie Wenner

Naturalism and the Unity of Science

Jan Wolenski
(Institut of Philosophy, Krakrow UNiversity, Poland)

The program of the unity of science (PUS) was based on various foundations. The philosophers from the Vienna Circle proposed physicalism consisting in expressing science in the unique linguistic frameworks, that is, the physicalistic language. Another possible solution takes into account methodological unity of all sciences as employing the same method, in particular, the same standards of rationality. However, any  of PUS programs have to meet serious challenges. Is mathematics “physicalisable”? Are humanities and social sciences consistent with physicalism? Which method is the method of science: induction, deduction, hypothetico-deductive, etc.? Are values and norms treatable by scientific procedures conceived from the point of view of  PUS? Is the operation Verstehen compatible with PUS?

Most versions of PUS are modelled on advanced natural sciences. This suggests sometimes that other science are still underdeveloped, for example, their mathematization did not achieve a sufficient degree. Thus, the idea of an unequal progress of science is a by-product of PUS. On the other hand, such a program is attractive in itself and will be always pursued. My claim is that linguistic and methodological versions of PUS are too limited and do not give justice peculiarities of particular fields. On the other hand, naturalism seems to be a  view which respects the unique character of all phenomena subjected to scientific research. This view can be characterized by three principles (due to Hume): (1) there exist natural things and their complexes; (2) only natural epistemic capacities are admitted in science; (3) w should trust natural epistemic capacities. Thus, the unity of science, from the point of view of naturalism, has its foundations in the unique ontological character of the world.

There are many problems to be discussed from the naturalistic point of view. Two seem to me of a particular interest, namely the status of logic and mathematics and the relation of is and ought. It seems that abstract concepts and structures investigated by formal sciences arose as natural devices securing information against its dispersion. The naturalistic solution of the is/ought problem appeals to the fact that non-derivability of modal statements from non-modal ones is a common phenomenon.


Appearance or Existence of the Entity Realism “Sense” or Mind

A. Yazdani
(Physics Department, Faculty of Basic Sciences - Tarbiat Modares, University Tehran, Iran)

Two limiting boundaries exist in the domain of physics. In one, the prime task of fundamental physics is to understand the objects, laws, or what ever which is the basis of all observed phenomena. In the other there is a rhythm and pattern between the phenomena of nature which is not apparent to the eye, but to the conscious mind of analyzer. On the other hand the development of scientific techniques has increased our ability of detailed observation and so the complexity of formalism. Consequently the concept of basic conditions and the character of physical laws as the fundamental principle of physics should be clear out. It should be thought that, how some one can find a formalism to understand the phenomena or/and conduct an experiment, and completely at the opposite side, how and why some one forget themselves or even run away in each point of view?
What does the concept mean? What are the phenomena and under what conditions they exist? What is the truth about them? What is the correspondence principle of mind and phenomena? What should be the nature of space, related functions (or equations) and formalism in which the natural phenomena could be considered. How ever, suppose we were able to find a theory which explains all observed (or existing) phenomena but what are the basic processes through which some one can construct a behavior and character of essential concept of a phenomena? There should be conscious mind to be able to speculate the relation between the basic conditions, physical parameters and even physical principles.
Experiments on the progress of modern science signify its penetration into the wide range of mysterious research in this century. Principles of symmetry played little explicit role in the theoretical physics. The everyday definition of symmetry is; 
I. Having an exact correspondence in size or shape between opposite sides of a structure, or 
II. The regularity between parts of exchange where the both sides look exactly the same. The generalized crystallography closely related to the theory of symmetry applied with the success concepts of packing, order and structural hierarch to discuss the complex natural structures. 
The ever growing attention is attributed to a special type of the hierarchical ordering on the fractal structures and on the other hand, the existence of symmetric relation among cognitive capacities. In addition, the topological and symmetrical properties of the space and time, gauge invariance, act in physical space for conservation law of the surrounding world.
Thus the symmetry, systematicity, regularity and the ordering parameter seems to be absolutely fascinating to the human mind, as the conscious mind should be. This should be defined as the correspondence principle of geometrical of conscious mind and geometry of space. In this case some one have a feeling or imagination about the physical laws of nature which is very close to the feeling of corresponding symmetry of objects and mind, namely the symmetry of the laws. 

More information regarding this Colloquium may be obtained from the website