Participatory observers replacing observers in the scientific method
Science means “to know” , which would extend to knowing about physical nature with us humans as observers and physical nature the object of observation.
At the outset one would like to challenge this approach by proposing that, one should include human subjects/human designed instruments as participatory observers and not mere recorders or measurers of the object of observation. When observers are replaced by participatory observers, it makes the process of doing science a continuous and integrated endeavor, as opposed to splitting or breaking into parts the scientific process/method into parts. The concept of participatory observers was first proposed by the physicist John Wheeler who stated that, “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe… Observer-participancy gives rise to information.”( https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/ ).
Lacunae in the present day methods used in scientific investigations
The assumptions that the present day scientific method makes, is that it assumes a linear hierarchy in disciplines i.e. a hierarchical organization of the simple and the complex, with mathematics being the simplest discipline and increasing complexity toward physics, chemistry, biology . The present day scientific investigators treat these subjects as rigid disciplines, and not as a lens or approach to describe a particular aspect of nature. This viewpoint does not take into account the fact that each of these lenses may be applied at any scale/layer, of physical nature to describe the interconnectedness of nature, as evidenced recently by presence of networks present ubiquitously in physical nature.
In the context of studying nature at the biological level, an example of a signal transduction pathway is discussed here i.e. when a stimulus/signal/ligand binds to a cell surface receptor, it triggers a downstream cascade of signaling events which results in a cellular response. This stimulus-response event can be described at the molecular/cellular biology level in terms of a series of intracellular , intermolecular events which involve interactions of biomolecules with each other, in a modular manner due to organization at the biological level; it can be described at the level of chemistry as the binding chemistry of ligand moieties to receptor moieties. It can be further described at the level of physics as the change in dynamics of conformational changes in receptor on ligand binding followed by clustering of the receptor at the cell surface, as well at the quantitative mathematical level in context of the number of molecules of ligands/stimulants binding to the receptor, leading to amplification of the signaling cascade. The above approach uses a linear hierarchical method. Instead, if biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are viewed as approaches or lenses for study or analyses then they may be considered as dynamic or plastic approaches as opposed to a static viewpoint. At the physical level, the lens can always be molded due to its plastic malleable nature. The analyses outcome of study at one level could be used to
2
direct scientific hypotheses and design experiments at a different level. For example, the chemical interaction layer of a particular receptor-ligand may be used to design experiments at the biological level, and there may not be a 1: 1 correspondence of physical, chemical, biological, mathematical layers, but a one is to many or many is to one correspondences.
3
Present day Scientists are in a Plato’s Cave
Present day Scientists are similar to prisoners in plato’s allegorical cave, as suggested in “ A Beautiful Question” by Frank Wilczek, as these prisoners see a projection of reality, and take it for granted that it is reality itself. This is because, they ignore the fact that they are perceiving reality through their senses ( which are under the control of a mind with priors), and thus is a mediated conditioned reality and not intuiting the world as it is, via a mind free of priors and thus cognitive biases.
One solution proposed for this problem, is to have different participators (for example scientific investigators in cell-biology with normal vision versus color-blind vision, for experiments involving colored compounds , also known as fluorophores) at the level of design of experiments, recording observations, and interpreting observations. The pattern common to different participators at each step, would be the ground of truth as opposed to relative or contextual truths, contingent upon the observer.
In this process of doing science, the scientist becomes, and gets released from the plato’s cave of the mind.
How to circumvent Mathematical equations in the Scientific Method: Probabilities and Cellular Automata
Scientific modeling need not be described in mathematical terms only. Mathematics devises general equations that try to predict. Instead, contextual descriptions could be obtained based on ascribing probabilities, and observations could confirm which probability is at work under the given set of conditions. For example in quantum mechanics, the probabilistic outcome of a cat being dead or alive, determines whether light functions as a wave or particle, and the physicist Schrodinger, described these probabilistic outcomes mathematically using the wave function equation. It is proposed here that, instead of equations describing probability based outcomes, probabilities could directly describe, whether light behaves as a particle or wave under different external conditions. A mathematical equation is based on the prior of balancing out the values on both sides of the equal to (=) sign, as a consequence of which constants are created or assigned, and then science investigators as experimental physicists, go on searching for these constants, as physical evidence. Instead, if the scientific method is probability based, then the need for artificially introducing constants to derive an equation, for prediction purposes gets eliminated , and based on the conditions of experiment and actual measurements under these conditions, probabilities are assigned to predict how light will behave under certain conditions.
Science would be fundamentally different if it was based on cellular automata, rather than differential equations, because the basic unit is not an equation i.e. balancing values on the two
4
sides of an equal to (=) sign, rather the basic unit is a cellular automaton, which is basically “ a collection of cells arranged in a grid of specified shape, such that each cell changes state as a function of time, according to a defined set of rules driven by the states of neighboring cells”. Cellular automata are based on interactions, that dynamically change over time. The cellular automaton uses a more holistic approach, since if the cellular automata was reduced to a differential equation, all cellular units would be considered approximately equal, thus eliminating the tiny but significant dynamical differences between cells, due to their differing local microenvironments. The rules need not always be general and could depend on scale . Rules can be specific/contextual and reducing a specific rule to a general rule may be eliminating small, but significant contributions of local variables such as microenvironments of cellular automata. Reduction and algorithmic compressibility may be detrimental in the long run to construct a holistic model of the participatory observer contingent physical universe.
Technologically Advanced Aliens provide an insightful lens
Meeting technologically advanced aliens addresses the issue of the subject/observer- object relationship in the scientific method. If the subject is altered or changes, the lens to view the universe changes, and the outcomes of the scientific observation changes. Only those observations compatible with different alien civilizations and humans , will lead to a non-contextual ground view of reality, which is different from experiencing reality as it is.
Cognitive biases could be common to both aliens and humans, and the only way to minimize or eliminate such biases is to have an experimental set up under conditions that expose bias. For example recency bias, i.e. weighting recently available observation more heavily, could be regulated or minimized, by checking assumptions on setting up an experiment based on recent information, followed by a control experiment, where the weightage given to the more recent information is minimized. Analyzing the outcomes of the two types of experiments, could expose the recency bias.
Human Blind Spot
Development of scientific technology with reasoning, understanding, and design, is an anthropocentric feature , the alternative to which is physical nature, which is the outcome of trial and error ( Darwinian natural selection). The only way to design without reasoning is to randomize the input elements of the design process under varying local conditions, and let nature take its course, for example during the construction of an artificial cell, ,humans are presently using extremely targeted approaches, which results in missing the woods for the trees. So, the humans blindspot of not knowing what humans do not know is at work. This can be dealt with, nature taking its course in uncontrolled experiments, followed by human investigators, analysing and interpreting outcomes.
5
Science is both idea driven and tool driven. If the tool making feature of humans was more advanced or ahead of the human ability to generate ideas, biology woud be more advanced than physics. However the peculiarity of the human brain is that, ideas precede tools. Maybe there could be alien civilizations where the reverse is possible. To counter this human centric bias, an approach is to design machines, that work on algorithms that do not mimic the human brain, for example a robot walking backwards.
Future Human Societies
The human brain functions to survive at cost of others. In human history, hierarchical societies were created partly, so that one layer of society benefited at the expense of the other. In another historical timeline ,a society free from prejudice and bigotry, would allow free exchange of ideas and methods, without it being a privileged right of only a few. This would lead to enhancement of features of local communities, where the lack of ideas can be fulfilled by these free flow of ideas. Thus, this is the first step towards developing a world of abundance.
What to sustain, what to eliminate and what to develop
The fundamentals of scientific theories should sustain the following features: data ( which provide the holistic, big picture), simulation ( which makes assumptions and gives direction as to what works) followed by prediction (for survival of life). The distractions should be eliminated or investigated as they could be associated with cognitive biases and they include consistency ( sustained pattern seeking as in some contexts there may be no patterns), beauty ( something which gives pleasure), simplicity ( since it is easy to understand the simple versus the complex, and one cannot always reduce/algorithmically compress complexity/networks/interactions to simple equations).
The following is necessary for the field of scientific investigations to develop further: The approach of subjective/participatory observers in a continuous interaction with the observed during the experience of observation, rather than subject object split-which reduces and eliminates the interactive component between subject and object.
Science as the Future
Science may be made more equitable /effective through online transnational interactive sessions, irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity, profession of the participants. A diversity quotient in the context of participant background, during online interactions could be developed.
6
Science could be made better, by being easily affordable and accessible to all. Reproducibility of scientific investigations is a key for success of transmission of knowledge to subsequent generations. Science resources such as virtual interactive experiments, facilitators, may be made available to the public at large, via a phone and a barcode/QR code scanner. The innovation in the publishing field could involve four science investigators i.e. one non-subject expert for the outsiders interdisciplinary perspective, one subject expert for reviewing the approach and why a particular scientific topic was chosen for investigation, two technical reviewers for robustness of data and conclusions that are claimed. An online repository of video filming the experiments i.e. how the experiments and investigations were carried out so that the emphasis is process driven. Universities could offer course work structured in the hybrid mode (both online and offline) based on (a) discipline selected by a student (traditional present-day method) (b) students socio-economic background (non-traditional); for example a student from an agricultural family background could take courses relevant to advancing the agricultural sciences technologically and (c ) personality traits based, for example the big five personality traits, the weightage of each trait determining, the requirements of a particular student and is custom -made. Students ranking high on openness could be encouraged to take STEM oriented fields.
