PL ISSN 0459-6854

BULLETIN
DE 2009 Recherches sur les dformations e pp. 718 Richard A. Carhart and Adam Cenian IMPLICATION OF PROVEN LIMITS ON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE: GODELS PROOF, QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY, CHAOS THEORY AND SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY OF INFORMATION THEORY
Summary

LA SOCIETE DES SCIENCES ET

DES

LETTRES DE LODZ Vol. LIX Vol. LVIII

Each step of progress in science and technology has encouraged people to believe and to proclaim that we can use it to achieve full knowledge and control over the world. Some prominent modern scientists (like Dawkins) even claim that scientic knowledge is the only valid knowledge of reality humans can achieve. However, four discoveries of modern science: Gdels incompleteness theorems, quantum uncertainty, chaos theory, and, tentatively, complex specied information theory show us specic ways in which our ability to know and control nature is limited in principle, not only in practice. These limitations on human scientic knowledge are explored in this paper, and a possible, more encompassing world view than mere ontological naturalism is suggested.

1. Introduction
For centuries the human race has wanted to achieve full knowledge and control of the world. Each step of progress in science and technology has encouraged people to believe this can be done. The great success of science and technology has led modern people to believe that we can understand and control any part of nature and human life that we choose to. One should really admire the new achievements of microelectronics or medical science. Fig. 1 present a microchip in the mouth of an ant, showing the fascinating ability of miniaturization of electronic devices. This example is only a beginning, as many applications of nanotechnology are already in advanced development. Laser technologies applied in medical sciences enable not only precise readjustment of our lenses (see Fig. 2a), but also precise treatment of cancer cells or laser bio-stimulation of skin healing (see Fig. 2b.)

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian

Fig. 1: New electronic chip technology enables fascinating density of electronic elements on surface (after Gitt [1]).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2: Laser applications in medical science: (a) apparatus for vision correction (Lasik technology); (b) eect of laser bio-stimulation of skin healing (after Fiedor et al. [2]).

Each time a new eld of science is opened, we are encouraged to expect that all human problems related to this eld will be solved. For example, molecular biologists are telling us that they will be able to cure all chronic diseases by modifying the sick persons DNA. Many want to produce human embryos in order to harvest embryonic stem cells and grow replacement organs. They predict that we can enjoy extremely long life spans in this way. What are the real prospects for complete knowledge and mastery of the world based on the laws of science? Does what we know of science and mathematics point in the direction of complete knowledge and control? A second related claim by many scientists today is that only scientic knowledge is real, rational, and objective. They say that all other knowledge, such as the existence of a Creator of the world, is purely an opinion and is completely personal.

Implication of proven limits on scientic knowledge

For example, Peter Atkins says, There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence [3]. In particular, many say that it is all right to speak of God or religion as long as people dont claim that God has any objective existence, or that religious belief constitutes actual knowledge of reality. Only science deals with the lawful world of real events that can be observed and measured. This view automatically rules out the idea that the universe was created for a purpose or was designed. It denies the objective existence of a Being that created the universe and could act in the material world as well as beyond it. It also implies there is no way to have a real experience of a personal God who actually exists, or any revelation of valid knowledge about God or the intended pattern and purpose of life. The Judeo-Christian Bible claims to be a self-revelation of the Creators character, purposes, and plan for human life. This is a truth claim. It is either true or false, not just a matter of private opinion, no matter how dicult it is to decide the question. The Bible contains teaching that many believe illuminates aspects of the origin and nature of the real physical world. One such very important teaching is that the natural world is rationally intelligible to humans.

2. The foundation of science; belief in the rational intelligibility of nature

Noble Laureate Prof. Eugene Wigner has argued at length that we have no right to expect nature to be rationally intelligible and understandable in terms of human logic and mathematics [4]. Without assurance of rational intelligibility, science itself has no basis to claim validity. If all things arise out of an automatic, purposeless machine of nature that simply exists, then how can we trust the results that the human organism obtains in experimental observations, logic, and mathematics? Dr. John Lennox, among others, has clearly explained in more detail the irrationality of the purely naturalistic view, its self-contradiction, and how it undermines the legitimacy of science itself [5]. Pure Naturalism gives no real explanation for the rational intelligibility of the natural world, but as we shall discuss below, the Bible does give a clear, simple, logical explanation of this miracle that Wigner writes about so eloquently.

3. Proven limits on scientic knowledge

Our rst important question is, Within science, how sure or certain is the body of knowledge and what are its proven limits, if any? Science has proven that it cannot produce a complete and accurate prediction of all real physical events in three specic rmly established mathematical and physical theorems or principles, and probably a fourth limiting theorem that is being developed. Fig. 3 illustrates this schematically. The rst three are Gdels Theorems, quantum uncertainty, and the o

10

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian

time development of deterministic macroscopic chaotic systems. It is likely that a fourth area, the origin of complex specied information in living systems, will yield new principles involving an extended form of information theory. We will discuss each of these four limits in more detail. 3.1. Loss of logical completeness: Gdels theorems (1931) o Logic and mathematics are the basis for all scientic work, the base upon which the scientic enterprise rests, along with our ability to observe nature directly and measure many aspects of it. Diculty in logic and mathematics, therefore, causes direct diculty in the certainty of scientic knowledge. Everybody thought that with the standard axioms of established mathematical systems there would be a proof that any meaningful theorem you could formulate can be proven either true or false. Euclid dreamed about a formulation of mathematical (geometrical) statements that would produce one complete set of all true assertions, a virtual heaven for mathematicians. At the end of the 19th Century, David Hilbert entered into a bitter dispute on the limits of scientic knowledge with a German physician and physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond. The latter was the main proponent of the famous Latin maxim ignoramus et ignorabimus: we do not know and will Fig. 3: Limits to scientic knowledge. not know. On 8 September 1930 Hilbert proudly opposed Bois-Reymonds view in a celebrated address to the Society of German Scientists and Physicians, in Knigsberg: We must not believe those, who today, with philosophical bearing and deliberative tone, prophesy the fall of culture and accept the ignorabimus. For us there is no ignorabimus, and in my opinion, none whatever in natural science. In opposition to the foolish ignorabimus our slogan shall be: We must know we will know! Unfortunately for Hilbert, another mathematician, Kurt Gdel, nally resolved the o ignorabimus problem in a way which destroyed mathematical heaven. Gdels two incompleteness theorems established that within any system as como plicated as ordinary arithmetic, theorems may be stated that cannot be proven either true or false. Therefore, we are in the uncomfortable position that the basic mathematics and logic underlying all science is incomplete. The signicance of Gdels incompleteness theorems for empirical science was o not immediately evident. But authors like Stanley Jaki and Stephen Hawking have publicly written that our hopes for a theory of everything are shaken by them.

Implication of proven limits on scientic knowledge

11

Hawking says, Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a nite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Gdels theorem [6]. o Jaki says that it is not maybe, but that it is transparently true that a theory of everything with a nite number of laws is not possible [7]. The theorems imply that every formulation of physics, no matter how advanced or complex, will be incomplete. It is impossible to have an ultimate theory containing a nite number of principles of which it can be said with certainty that this theory is nal. Though incomplete in the sense proven by Gdel, logic and mathematics have shown themselves to be quite powerful as the basis of science, and we expect to continue to rely on them. However, our condence in the perfection of the underlying mathematics has been shaken. We should be more humble in our attitude toward describing the world. 3.2. Loss of microscopic determinism: the quantum uncertainty principle In quantum mechanics we must adopt a formulation that sets limits on simultaneous knowledge of important complementary variables in physical systems, such as the position and velocity of any particle. Thus, motion becomes essentially statistical on the microscopic level and not deterministic.

Fig. 4: Scheme of classical and quantum motion.

12

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian

For example, for an electron only the motion of the probability wave (wave function) describing its state of motion is deterministic in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. The diculty is that although the probability wave moves deterministically, its absolute square has the essential meaning of the probability for where one will measure an electron in that state of motion. The actual measurement values for position and velocity are statistically random within that probability distribution. For example, in classical mechanics people thought of an electron as a small hard ball (like a billiard ball). By equations of classical mechanics the electron has a denite path and speed at each moment, and suered known collisions. But in quantum mechanics, valid at the atomic level, only the probability wave for the electrons location has a deterministic motion, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, actual events on the microscopic level cannot be predicted deterministically, but only statistically. This fact is not a temporary practical limitation, but an inherent limitation we cannot go beyond. It cuts deeply into human hopes for predicting and controlling the world completely. One important example is whether the functioning of the human brain can be taken as deterministic from a scientic viewpoint. Since thought processes are probably initiated at the molecular level by events subject to quantum uncertainty, we should not assume that human thought can be described scientically in a fully deterministic way. 3.3. Uncertainty predicting the future in macroscopic, deterministic systems: chaos theory The statistical eects of the uncertainty principle become immeasurably small as we go from the microscopic world of atoms and nuclei to the macroscopic world of meters and kilograms where we live. It has been proven that systems of dierential equations for macroscopic systems will give essentially deterministic predictions. It would appear that we can recover our hopes for prediction and control in the macroscopic world. However, another type of limitation on scientic prediction has been proven for the nonlinear systems that creates a kind of macroscopic uncertainty principle! Systems of ordinary or partial dierential equations with nonlinear couplings are called chaotic systems for certain ranges of initial conditions. Almost all interesting macroscopic systems we want to study obey equations of this type. For chaotic systems it has been proven that no matter how accurately we know the initial conditions of the system, the dierence between the solution and the actual physical system will grow rapidly over time and become great. We hoped that small uncertainties in initial conditions would lead to solutions that only diered a little over time from physical reality, as is true for linear systems. This is not the case, and we cannot prevent large dierences from occurring over time by knowing the beginning conditions of a system more accurately. In fact, arbitrarily small dierences in ini-

Implication of proven limits on scientic knowledge

13

tial conditions will lead over time to large dierences in the prediction of the time evolution of deterministic classical systems. In practice, then, long-time prediction is impossible! For example, the equations governing Atlantic hurricane dynamics are a set of coupled nonlinear partial dierential equations. They exhibit chaos under weather conditions favorable to hurricane formation. Such predictions are very important in giving advance warning to people from Cuba and the Bahama Islands up the Eastern Coast of the U. S. A. to the state of Maine. The advance predictions for hurricane Isabel in 2003 as made by the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), presented in Fig. 5, illustrate the diculty. As we can see from this gure, in actual practice we face indeterminate predictions on the macroscopic level as well. Please note that 5 days before landfall, Isabels cone of uncertainty includes the whole Eastern Coast, except for Florida. Even 2 days before landfall 40% of the East Coast is still at risk. With this predictive uncertainty, it is hard for citizens and ocials to take proper advance action, because what area is actually at risk is not yet clear. This uncertainty comes from the chaotic behavior of the equations as much as from any uncertainty in meteorological data. Unfortunately, because the equations are being solved in a region of conditions that makes the solution chaotic, improving the input data will not greatly improve the predictions! Predictive uncertainty in macroscopic chaos theory has been proven, and we cannot remove it by knowing the beginning conditions of a system more accurately. Arbitrarily small dierences in initial conditions will lead over time to large dierences in the prediction of the time evolution of deterministic classical systems. (The technical statement is that in the vicinity of a given set of initial conditions in initial condition space, the initial conditions that will lead to widely dierent motion after long times are mathematically dense.) 3.4. Uncertainty for living systems from information theory: a developing result? As we discover more about the origin and development of living organisms, it is becoming apparent that yet another boundary may be developing. These ideas are still in the descriptive phase of science, but are attracting increasing interest. This tentative boundary would come from information theory. Even organisms made of a single cell have a large genetic code in the form of a base 4 coding system (using the letters A, C, G, T.) This genetic code is like a computer program. An arbitrary single sequence of a million of these letters is extremely improbable. Further, the vast majority of such sequences would not allow an organism to form, much less function. Only very specic sequences can code for the processes in the organisms living cell. These processes are many, highly complex, and highly coordinated with one another. The term specied complexity has been suggested to describe such living systems.

14

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian

(a)

(b)

(c) Fig. 5: Predictions for hurricane Isabel in 2003. (a) Prediction on 13 Sept. 2003, 17:00 (5.5 days before landfall). (b) Prediction on 15 Sept. 2003, 11:00 (3 days before landfall). (c) Prediction on 16 Sept. 2003, 11:00 (2 days before landfall).

Implication of proven limits on scientic knowledge

15

In the entire experience of the human race apart from living systems, no such specied complex systems, very rich in information, ever arise except as the result of the design and action of an intelligent source. That source is usually a human being. There has been no demonstration within molecular biology of how such information can arise spontaneously within a natural system. Thus, it may be necessary to postulate action of an intelligence inside [8] or outside of the natural order to explain the origin of the complex specied information (CSI) in living organisms. Application of information theory to systems rich in complex specied information is still in the descriptive phase of investigation. Proven precise theorems are not yet available. Still, some concepts are emerging and gaining acceptance among scientists. Systems contain complex specied information when they can carry out a complex set of interrelated complicated processes to achieve a recognizable goal. The more numerous and complex the processes, the higher the complex specied information (CSI) content of the system. Scientists have not yet been able to dene CSI quantitatively, as they have done for Shannon information. Shannon information concept could not be applied strightforwardly to the CSI content in the system. According to his denition, a longer string of binary bits has larger information content than a shorter one. And if the string contains too much noise, the receiver of the string will not be able to obtain the information content accurately. But, as W. Gitt rightly points out [1], this is not the case when the information must produce a single specic action or a sequence or network of interlocking actions. This is the case when the DNA code directs the processes of life. In the case of the information basis of life, Gitt discusses a hierarchy of information types, including statistics analogous to Shannons concept, but also including syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. The information theory which could apply to the CSI content of living systems, Gitt says, must include all of these levels. Even in Shannons theory, you must have two intelligent agents involved: a sender and a receiver of the information. Based on these considerations we must imagine action from an intelligent agent to build a system with a high CSI score. At the very least, these systems are designed and assembled by even more CSI-rich systems. One widely quoted example of such specied complexity is the cascade of reactions necessary for human blood to clot. A second common example of a high degree of specied complexity is the agellar motor used for locomotion by E. coli bacteria. The DNA for E. coli contains about 4.000 genes and 4 million base pairs. The number of possible sequences of this length is 102.400.000 . The particular sequences having the amount of CSI needed to code for even this simple bacterium with its agellar motor, are extremely improbable. The DNA must not only code for the proteins needed for the 40 subunits of the motor. It must also provide the correct assembly sequence, and the switching on and o of production when the right size subunit has been made. Amazingly, this information is also written with the highest known information density of 1, 88 1021 bite/cm3 [1].

16

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian

Further fascinating examples can be viewed on the internet in an 8-minute animation lm commissioned by Harvard University Medical School for its medical students available at http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim innerlife hi.html. Can you nd the bipedal locomotor in the lm. If it is designed, the Designer must have a sense of humor! These ideas, while clearly empirical and scientic, are as yet only descriptive and tentative. What is needed to establish these ideas as a rm scientic limit, is to develop a quantitative measure of complex specied information (CSI), as was done in information theory for Shannon information of signals. Then, theorems must be proven to determine what level of CSI can arise from natural processes. Even Shannon information theory and other theorems related to coding systems (like the DNA/protein relationship) have yielded tentative information theory limits on our scientic knowledge of biological systems. One researcher who has produced a body of respected research [9] on the limitations imposed by theorems on only the Shannon information in organisms and its transmission with regard to our theories of the origin of life is Hubert Yockey. Yockey concludes, The segregated, linear and digital character of the genome has allowed us to apply information theory and other mathematical theorems about sequences or strings of symbols to make a quantitative rather than an anecdotal and ad hoc discussion of signicant problems in molecular biology. This procedure has led us to avoid a number of illusions common in the literature. The application of these mathematical procedures will play a role in molecular biology analogous to that of thermodynamics in chemistry. A very helpful further discussion of the information issues relating to biological life based on very recent research results has been assembled by John Lennox in the book already cited [10]. Although mainly qualitative, his treatment helps dene the quantitative directions biologists either are pursuing or need to consider. It seems that the scientic community may be so comfortable with Neo-Darwinism that it has not invested in the scientic development of life-related information theory. This is a genuine issue of freedom of inquiry in intellectual life, whether in the university or the academy. This author recommends: give free inquiry a chance!

4. A possible more encompassing world view

Four discoveries of modern science: Gdels incompleteness theorems, quantum uno certainty, chaos theory, and, tentatively, specied complexity of information theory, show us specic ways in which we cannot achieve complete knowledge and control of nature. This enforces humility and shows us that science cannot serve as a God substitute. Science and technology will continue to be very useful, but we will not be able to use them to understand and control the world completely! We should be humble, honest, and careful with our science and technology. It is interesting that if we combine scientic results with the possible truth of the Bibles claim to be an accurate revelation to us from the Creator of the universe,

Implication of proven limits on scientic knowledge

17

we can achieve a rm basis for science and a broader explanatory system. The Bible makes four relevant statements: 1. There is a supernatural Designer who created and maintains the Universe and its laws [11]. 2. Humans are made in The Creators image so we can understand nature [12]. 3. Mathematics and science give us much valuable knowledge and control of nature [13]. 4. Our knowledge is imperfect and incomplete, so science cannot enable us to play God [14]. The rst two points guarantee the ultimate validity of the scientic enterprise against a variety of contemporary attacks (including postmodern one) and assure us of the rational intelligibility of nature. They explain the origin of the miracle that Wigner (an atheist) mentions 12 times in his article [4]. They also tell us to whom we should express the gratitude that Wigner says 4 times we should experience. The third point encourages us to pursue scientic knowledge and its technological application. The nal point agrees with the proven scientic limitations discussed above, and keeps us from expecting too much from science. It encourages us to nd ultimate meaning in another place. Our best course may be to integrate knowledge from dierent valid sources to achieve a fuller knowledge of the real nature of our actual universe. Scientic knowledge has denite proven limitations, and you cannot nd the equations of Einsteins general theory of relativity in the Bible.

References
[1] W. Gitt, Am Anfang war die Information, Haenssler, Ulm 2002. [2] P. Fiedor, T. Kcik, et al., Review of laser application in medicine (in polish), Dom e Wydawniczy Ankar, Warszawa 1995. [3] Natures Imagination: the Frontiers of Scientic Vision, ed. J. Cornwell, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995, p. 125. [4] E. P. Wigner, The Unreasonable Eectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, Communications On Pure And Applied Mathematics, 13 (1960) 114. [5] J. C. Lennox, Gods Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (in english), Lion Hudson plc, Oxford 2007, p. 3843. [6] S. Hawking, Gdel and the End of Physics, o http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/ [7] S. Jaki, A Late Awakening to Gdel in Physics, o http://pirate.shu.edu/ jakistan/JakiGodel.pdf [8] For an example of inside the natural order, see: F. Crick and L. Orgel, Directed Panspermia, Icarus 19 (1973) 341 . [9] H. P. Yockey, Origin of Life on Earth and Shannons Theory of Communication, Computers and Chemistry 24 (2000) 105123; Information Theory, Evolution and the

18

R. A. Carhart and A. Cenian Origin of Life, Information Sciences 141 (2002) 219225; Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, New York 2005, p. 259. op. cit., p. 117165 For example, Genesis 1:124, John 1:17 (Word in the Greek manuscript is logos, the root of logic), and Colossians 1:1517 For example, Genesis 1:2628 For example, II Chronicles 1:10, II Chronicles 2:13, II Chronicles 9:18, and Proverbs 6:68. For example, Isaiah 55:89.

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Faculty of Physics University of Illinois at Chicago 3605 Brierhill Drive Island Lake, IL 60042 USA and European Scientic Network e-mail: rcarhart@uic.edu

The Szewalski Institute of Fluid-Flow Machinery Polish Academy of Sciences Gen. Fiszera 14 PL-80-231 Gdask n Poland e-mail: cenian@imp.gda.pl

Presented by Leszek Wojtczak at the Session of the Mathematical-Physical Commission of the Ld Society of Sciences and Arts on November 19, 2008 o z

SKUTKI I ZNACZENIE GRANIC WIEDZY NAUKOWEJ WYNIKAJACYCH Z TWIERDZENIA NIEZUPELNOSCI GODLA, ZASADY NIEOZNACZONOSCI HEISENBERGA, DETERMINISTYCZNEGO CHAOSU ORAZ WYSPECYFIKOWANEJ ZLOZONOSCI W TEORII INFORMACJI
Streszczenie Staly postp w nauce i technologii zachca ludzi by wierzy, a nawet glosi, ze nauka e e c c umo liwia peln wiedz oraz kontrol nad wiatem. Ponadto, pewni prominentni naukowcy z a e e s jak Dawkins glosz dzi, ze nauka jest jedynym rdlem sprawdzonej wiedzy jak a s zo ludzko mo e zdoby na temat rzeczywistoci. Jednak e, cztery odkrycia nowoczesnej sc z c s z nauki: twierdzenia niezupelnoci Gdla, zasada nieoznaczonoci Heisenberga, chaos deters o s ministyczny oraz prawdopodobnie wyspecykowana zlo ono w teorii informacji dowodz z sc a w sposb szczeglowy, gdzie nasza wiedza i mo liwoci kontroli nad natur traaj na o o z s a a granice wynikajce z praw natury, a nie jedynie praktyki. W pracy przedstawiono i poda dano analizie te ograniczenia ludzkiej wiedzy naukowej oraz zaproponowano wiatopogld s a du o szerszy ni naturalizm ontologiczny w czystej formie. z z