We began this series with a question that seemed almost embarrassingly simple:
What does a particle do?
The question was deliberately modest.
By "function", we meant no more than what it does. We were not looking for purpose hidden inside matter, nor for intentions attributed to particles. We wanted to know what physical capacities become possible when the properties of particles enter into relations with other things.
That question took us somewhere rather unexpected.
The electron led us into atoms and molecules.
The photon led us into detection, information and semiotics.
Physical capacities led us into ecologies of mutually enabling and constraining processes.
And eventually we found ourselves asking when a capacity becomes a function: when a physical possibility becomes part of an organisation upon which that organisation depends.
Now, at the end of the journey, the pieces begin to fit together.
Perhaps the deepest lesson is this:
The physical world is not merely an inventory of things. It is an architecture of possibilities.
And perhaps what we call emergence is, in large part, the process by which that architecture becomes progressively richer.
From things to possibilities
Our ordinary picture of physical reality begins with things.
Particles.
Atoms.
Molecules.
Stars.
Planets.
Organisms.
We then ask what properties these things possess.
The electron has charge.
The photon has energy and momentum.
The atom has an electronic structure.
The molecule has a particular geometry.
The organism has a metabolism.
This is indispensable.
But it does not yet tell us what reality can do.
For that, we need to consider relations.
An electron's charge matters because it can participate in electromagnetic interactions.
An atom's electronic structure matters because it constrains and enables particular bonds.
A molecule's shape matters because it determines what other molecules it can interact with.
A membrane matters because it can selectively regulate exchange.
A photoreceptor matters because it can respond differently to different electromagnetic conditions.
A nervous system matters because its organisation makes possible forms of detection, integration and action.
Properties tell us what a thing is capable of.
Relations tell us which possibilities become available.
This is why the language of possibility has gradually become more useful than the language of inventory.
The universe is full of conditional possibilities
There is an important word hiding in all this:
if.
If an electron encounters another charged system, certain interactions become possible.
If atoms have compatible electronic structures, chemical bonds can form.
If molecules are arranged appropriately, particular reactions can occur.
If a chemical network produces a gradient, other processes can exploit it.
If a membrane maintains a concentration difference, energy can be extracted from that difference.
If a photoreceptor responds selectively to electromagnetic radiation, environmental distinctions can become detectable.
If a nervous system can integrate those distinctions, behaviour can be altered.
If organisms can communicate, information can circulate socially.
If symbols can be combined, propositions can be formed.
The world is therefore saturated with conditional possibilities.
Reality is not simply:
this happened.
It is also:
given this organisation, these other things can happen.
And those possibilities can themselves become the conditions for further possibilities.
Possibility is relational
This is why possibility cannot be located entirely inside individual objects.
A bird's wing does not possess the possibility of flight in isolation.
The wing participates in flight within an organism, in an atmosphere, under gravitational conditions, with a particular morphology and a particular pattern of muscular control.
A key does not possess the possibility of opening a lock all by itself.
Its shape becomes relevant within a relation to a particular lock.
A receptor does not possess "information" inside itself.
Its physical sensitivity becomes informational when it participates in an organised relationship with states of the environment.
The possibility belongs to the configuration.
This does not make possibility subjective.
Quite the opposite.
The world really does constrain which configurations can work.
Some keys open particular locks.
Some molecular shapes bind to particular receptors.
Some organisms can survive particular temperatures and not others.
Some chemical reactions occur readily and others do not.
Some structures are stable and others collapse.
Possibility is therefore neither arbitrary nor merely imagined.
It is structured by reality.
Constraints are part of the architecture
This is perhaps where our earlier discussions of constraint acquire their full significance.
We tend to think of constraints as things that reduce possibility.
A wall prevents movement.
A membrane prevents certain molecules from crossing.
A chemical bond restricts molecular configurations.
A physical law forbids certain events.
All true.
But constraints also make possibilities possible.
A membrane's selectivity creates a difference between inside and outside.
The difference makes gradients possible.
The gradient makes energy transduction possible.
A molecule's restricted geometry makes particular interactions possible.
The restriction gives the molecule a stable identity.
A grammatical constraint prevents arbitrary combinations of words.
But because it does so, meaningful sentences become possible.
A musical scale excludes infinitely many frequencies.
But because of that constraint, particular harmonic relations become available.
A game has rules that prevent arbitrary actions.
But those same rules create the possibility of playing the game.
Constraint is therefore not the enemy of possibility.
It is one of its architects.
The strange productivity of restriction
This gives us a deeper way to think about the universe.
A completely unconstrained world would not necessarily be a world of maximal possibility.
If everything could interact with everything in every conceivable way, stable structures might be impossible.
Nothing would hold its form long enough for organisation to develop.
The very persistence of structures depends upon restrictions.
Atoms are possible because quantum mechanics does not permit arbitrary electronic arrangements.
Molecules are possible because chemical interactions are constrained.
Stars are possible because gravity and thermodynamics impose regularities.
Cells are possible because membranes, reactions and molecular interactions are constrained in highly specific ways.
Life does not emerge by escaping constraint.
It emerges by exploiting constraint.
The architecture of possibility is therefore built from both openings and closures.
What cannot happen helps determine what can.
Possibilities can be nested
We have also discovered that possibilities are often nested.
The electron participates in possibilities available to atoms.
Atoms participate in possibilities available to molecules.
Molecules participate in possibilities available to chemical networks.
Chemical networks participate in possibilities available to cells.
Cells participate in possibilities available to organisms.
Organisms participate in possibilities available to ecosystems.
Organisms with nervous systems participate in possibilities involving perception and action.
Social organisms participate in communication.
Symbol-using organisms participate in language.
Language users participate in science, mathematics, law, literature and technology.
At every stage, earlier possibilities remain.
But they are reorganised within a larger space of possibilities.
A human being remains a physical system.
The physics has not been suspended.
But a human being can also speak a sentence, solve an equation, compose a symphony or formulate a hypothesis.
These possibilities are not visible in the isolated properties of electrons.
Nor do they float free of those properties.
They arise from the organisation of physical capacities into systems with new forms of activity.
Emergence is the opening of a new possibility space
This may give us a particularly simple way of understanding emergence.
We often ask:
How can something genuinely new emerge from things that were already there?
The answer need not be that new fundamental ingredients suddenly appear.
What can become new is the space of available behaviour.
Hydrogen and oxygen have particular physical capacities.
Water has a different organisation and therefore a different range of possible interactions.
A collection of amino acids has one set of possibilities.
A folded protein has another.
A collection of molecules has one set of possibilities.
A self-maintaining cell has another.
A collection of neurons has one set of possibilities.
A functioning nervous system has another.
The new thing is not necessarily new material.
It is a new organisation of what the material can do.
Emergence is therefore not magic.
It is possibility becoming structured in a new way.
The electron's long journey
We can now look back at the electron's journey.
At the beginning, it seemed almost absurd to ask what an electron has to do with life.
The answer was not that the electron secretly contains life.
It was that its physical capacities participate in a chain of increasingly elaborate organisations.
Electromagnetic interactions contribute to atomic structure.
Atomic structure contributes to chemical bonding.
Chemical bonding contributes to molecular structure.
Molecular structure contributes to reaction networks.
Reaction networks contribute to cellular organisation.
Cellular organisation contributes to organisms.
And organisms create new environments for physical and chemical processes.
The electron did not travel anywhere in this story.
What travelled was the organisation of its consequences.
Its capacities became incorporated into structures that opened further capacities.
The electron's "journey" was therefore really a journey through possibility.
The photon takes another route
The photon showed us a different branch of the same architecture.
Electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter.
Matter can respond selectively.
Selective response makes detection possible.
Detection preserves differences.
Preserved differences can become information.
Information can become significant to an organism.
Significant information can guide behaviour.
Behaviour can alter the environment.
The altered environment produces new signals.
And eventually, systems can use signs to refer to things that are not immediately present.
The photon did not become semantic.
The physical world became organised so that electromagnetic differences could participate in semiotic systems.
This is an important distinction.
Physics did not cease being physics.
It acquired another layer of organisation.
From causation to significance
Perhaps the most remarkable transition in the whole series is the transition from causation to significance.
Physics gives us causal relations.
One physical state can affect another.
But in a sufficiently organised system, a causal difference can acquire another role.
It can become an indication.
A signal.
A representation.
A sign.
The footprint does not merely exist.
For the tracker, it indicates an animal.
The sound does not merely vibrate the air.
For the listener, it can indicate danger.
The pattern of photons does not merely strike the retina.
For the organism, it can indicate food, shelter or another organism.
The physical event has acquired a role within an economy of possibilities.
This is why meaning cannot simply be identified with causation.
But neither does meaning have to be supernatural.
Causal relations can be organised into systems in which some causal differences become significant.
Again, organisation opens the possibility.
Life is an architecture that acts on possibilities
We can now see life in a slightly different way.
A living organism is not merely a bag of chemical reactions.
It is a system that continually organises physical processes so that its own organisation can continue.
It takes in matter.
It transforms energy.
It regulates internal conditions.
It detects environmental differences.
It changes its behaviour.
It reproduces.
It repairs.
It adapts.
It learns.
At each stage, the organism is negotiating a space of possibilities.
Some states are viable.
Others are not.
Some resources can be exploited.
Others cannot.
Some environmental differences matter.
Others can be ignored.
Some actions increase the range of future actions.
Others close it down.
Life therefore does something extraordinary.
It does not merely occupy a possibility space.
It actively maintains itself within one.
And through behaviour, it can sometimes alter that space.
Evolution explores the architecture
Evolution then gives us a mechanism by which possibility can be explored over historical time.
Variation generates differences.
Some differences alter capacities.
Some capacities alter interactions.
Some interactions affect persistence and reproduction.
Those differences can become more common.
New forms of organisation appear.
Some disappear.
Others create new ecological possibilities.
The evolutionary process therefore explores the architecture of possibility without foresight.
It does not know where it is going.
There is no need for it to.
Selection preserves local consequences.
But the cumulative result can be astonishing.
Eyes.
Wings.
Leaves.
Nervous systems.
Social communication.
Language.
The evolutionary history of life is, among other things, a history of discovering what physical organisation can do.
Evolution does not create possibility from nothing
This gives us a useful correction to the language of "invention".
Evolution invents eyes.
Evolution invents wings.
Evolution invents nervous systems.
But it does not invent them from nothing.
It rearranges available capacities.
It recruits molecules.
It modifies existing structures.
It duplicates and repurposes genes.
It exploits physical regularities.
It discovers new combinations.
The same is true of human technology.
We did not invent electricity.
We discovered ways of organising materials so that electrical phenomena could perform particular functions.
We did not invent electromagnetic radiation.
We learned how to generate, modulate, detect and use it.
We did not invent computation as a fundamental physical phenomenon.
We organised physical systems so that they could implement computations.
Creativity, in this sense, is often the discovery of new organisations of existing possibility.
The world is not a catalogue
We can now return to the opening contrast.
Perhaps the most impoverished picture of reality is a catalogue:
Here are the particles.Here are their properties.Here are the forces.Here are the laws.Everything else is commentary.
But if our argument is right, this leaves out something essential.
The laws and properties do not merely specify what exists.
They constrain a vast space of possible interactions and organisations.
Some of those organisations are stable.
Some are transient.
Some are self-maintaining.
Some are adaptive.
Some can detect their surroundings.
Some can communicate.
Some can represent.
Some can reason.
Some can construct technologies that transform their environment.
The catalogue is therefore only the beginning.
The deeper story is about what the catalogue can become.
Reality as an architecture
Architecture is an attractive metaphor here because architecture is not merely a collection of materials.
A building depends upon materials, but its possibilities arise from their arrangement.
A doorway affords passage because of its position and shape.
A staircase affords ascent because of its structure.
A room affords particular activities because of its geometry and relation to other rooms.
The building creates a structured space of possibilities.
Likewise, the physical world consists of entities with properties, but their arrangements create structured spaces of possible interaction.
The metaphor should not be pushed too far.
The universe has no architect in the relevant sense.
But an architecture does not require an architect as a conceptual description.
We can speak of an architecture whenever constraints and affordances are organised into a structured space of possible action.
The physical universe has precisely such a structure.
An architecture without a blueprint
This gives us a rather beautiful paradox.
The universe can possess an architecture without having a blueprint.
Its architecture emerges from the regularities of physics.
Particles have certain properties.
Fields interact in certain ways.
Conservation laws constrain transformations.
Quantum mechanics restricts possible states.
Gravity shapes large-scale structure.
Thermodynamics constrains energy flows.
Chemistry emerges from these regularities.
Biology emerges from chemistry.
Ecologies emerge from organisms.
Semiotic systems emerge from organisms.
Culture emerges from social and symbolic organisation.
There is no need to imagine a master plan.
The architecture is generated through the interaction of constraints and capacities.
And once a new level of organisation appears, it becomes part of the architecture within which further possibilities can emerge.
The architecture grows
This is perhaps the most provocative thought in the series.
The architecture of possibility is not fixed in the sense that the available possibilities within the universe remain at one level of organisation.
The fundamental laws may be fixed.
But what those laws can support depends upon what structures actually arise.
Before stars existed, there were no stars.
Before planets existed, there were no planetary environments.
Before life existed, there were no organisms.
Before nervous systems existed, there were no nervous systems.
Before language existed, there were no languages.
Before science existed, there was no scientific practice.
Each new organisation became a new node in the space of possibility.
Once language existed, propositions became possible.
Once writing existed, new forms of memory became possible.
Once mathematics became institutionalised, new forms of reasoning became possible.
Once computers existed, new forms of information processing became possible.
The universe's fundamental possibilities may be ancient.
But its realised architecture of possibilities becomes richer through history.
Possibility can create possibility
This is the deepest recurring pattern we have encountered.
A capacity makes an interaction possible.
An interaction makes a structure possible.
A structure makes a new capacity possible.
That capacity enables another interaction.
The resulting system alters its environment.
The altered environment creates new possibilities.
So we have:
possibility → organisation → new possibility → new organisation → further possibility
This is not a circle in which nothing happens.
It is a generative spiral.
Each turn can enlarge or transform the space available for the next.
The universe therefore has a remarkable property:
what becomes possible can itself become the condition for further possibilities.
That may be the simplest formulation of the entire series.
Why this matters for our understanding of emergence
This also changes how we should think about emergence.
Emergence is often presented as a problem.
How can chemistry emerge from physics?
How can biology emerge from chemistry?
How can mind emerge from biology?
How can meaning emerge from physical processes?
The question assumes that the higher-level phenomenon must somehow be hidden inside the lower-level description.
But perhaps that is not the right picture.
The higher-level phenomenon need not be secretly present as a miniature version of itself.
What needs to be present are the conditions under which its organisation can arise.
The electron does not contain chemistry.
But its capacities participate in the physical conditions that make chemistry possible.
Chemistry does not contain life.
But chemical organisation can create conditions under which self-maintaining systems become possible.
Neural tissue does not contain language.
But particular forms of neural and social organisation can make language possible.
The lower level therefore supplies affordances and constraints, not miniature copies of the higher level.
Emergence is the actualisation of a possibility through organisation.
The irreducibility of the new
This does not mean that higher-level phenomena violate physics.
Nor does it mean that they can be predicted from physics alone.
Those are different claims.
A chess game is physically implemented.
But knowing the mass and charge of every atom on the board does not make "checkmate" an irrelevant concept.
A sentence is physically implemented.
But describing the electrical activity of the reader's brain does not eliminate its grammatical structure.
A cell is physically implemented.
But describing every molecular collision does not make metabolism disappear.
The higher-level organisation is real because it has real patterns of dependence and possibility.
Reduction can explain the substrate.
Organisation explains what the substrate can do as a system.
Function revisited
This brings us back to the previous essay.
We can now understand function as one of the ways an architecture of possibility becomes visible.
A component has a function when its capacity contributes in a relatively stable way to the possibilities of the organisation.
The heart makes circulation possible.
The photoreceptor makes visual detection possible.
The membrane makes selective exchange possible.
The electron's physical behaviour makes particular chemical structures possible.
The photon makes certain forms of electromagnetic interaction possible.
Function is therefore not something added to physics from outside.
It is a description of organised possibility.
And this gives us a way of retaining our original modest definition.
A thing's function is what it does.
But what it does becomes interesting when we ask:
What does its doing make possible?
That question moves us from isolated effects to architecture.
And this changes what "explanation" means
Suppose we ask why an organism can see.
We could explain the optics of the eye.
We could explain photochemistry.
We could explain retinal signalling.
We could explain neural processing.
All of these are legitimate.
But a fuller explanation asks another question:
Why is the system organised so that electromagnetic differences can become useful distinctions for behaviour?
That requires us to consider the ecology.
The organism.
Its evolutionary history.
Its environment.
Its behavioural possibilities.
Its dependence upon particular information.
The explanation becomes relational.
Likewise, to explain why electrons participate in molecules is not merely to list their properties.
It is to understand how those properties operate within the constraints of quantum mechanics and electromagnetic interaction to produce stable structures.
Explanation increasingly becomes an account of what a system makes possible.
The physics of affordances
We began this series wondering whether there might be something like an ecology of particle physics.
Perhaps we can now give that intuition a more precise form.
The physical world contains affordances at every scale.
An electron affords particular interactions.
An atom affords particular bonds.
A molecule affords particular reactions.
A membrane affords selective transport.
A gradient affords energy extraction.
A photoreceptor affords detection.
A nervous system affords integration.
An organism affords behaviour.
An environment affords a niche.
A language affords combinations of symbols.
A mathematical formalism affords certain forms of inference.
These affordances are not arbitrary.
They arise from the physical and organisational structure of the systems involved.
And because systems can create environments for other systems, affordances themselves can become ecologically coupled.
The world is therefore not merely a space of objects.
It is a space of what can happen between things.
The deepest unity of the series
We can now see why the electron and the photon belonged in the same story.
At first they seemed to represent two unrelated examples.
The electron was about bonding.
The photon was about light and information.
But both reveal the same underlying pattern.
A fundamental physical property becomes consequential through interaction.
Interaction creates organisation.
Organisation opens possibilities.
Those possibilities can become functions.
Functions can become components of larger organisations.
Larger organisations can create new environments.
New environments make new capacities consequential.
And the process continues.
The electron and photon are therefore not interesting because they are somehow secretly biological.
They are interesting because they show how ordinary physical capacities can participate in extraordinary chains of possibility.
There is no final level
And now we encounter an intriguing consequence.
If possibility can generate new possibility, there may be no final level at which the story simply stops.
Particles form atoms.
Atoms form molecules.
Molecules form cells.
Cells form organisms.
Organisms form societies.
Societies form institutions.
Institutions form technological systems.
Technological systems create new forms of interaction.
Each level can reorganise the possibilities inherited from the previous ones.
There is no reason to imagine that the present configuration of reality exhausts what physical organisation can become.
The architecture is open.
Not because anything whatsoever is possible.
Quite the opposite.
It is open because within constraint there remain many unrealised possibilities.
The future is therefore a physical question
This gives the title of our series one final twist.
The Physics of What Becomes Possible is not merely a philosophical reflection on physics.
It suggests a way of thinking about the future.
The future is constrained by what the physical world permits.
But it is not specified simply by listing the fundamental laws.
Between the laws and the future lies an enormous space of organisation.
Some possibilities will never be realised.
Some are physically possible but ecologically inaccessible.
Some require structures that do not yet exist.
Some require combinations of capacities that evolution has not discovered.
Some may require deliberate technological construction.
And some may depend upon forms of organisation that we cannot yet imagine.
The fundamental question is therefore not only:
What is possible according to the laws of physics?
It is also:
What organisations could make new possibilities accessible?
That is a much more open question.
Physics does not tell us what will happen
This is not an argument against physics.
It is an argument for appreciating what physics actually gives us.
Physics supplies extraordinarily powerful constraints.
It tells us what cannot happen.
It tells us what must be conserved.
It tells us what interactions are possible.
It tells us how systems evolve under specified conditions.
But between the fundamental laws and the history of the world lies an enormous combinatorial and organisational space.
The laws do not say:
"Eventually there will be eyes."
They do not say:
"Eventually there will be language."
They do not say:
"Eventually someone will write a blog series about electrons and photons."
Yet none of these things violates physics.
They are historical realisations of physical possibility.
This is perhaps the most important distinction between possibility and prediction.
The universe can make something possible without making it inevitable.
What physics makes possible is larger than physics
There is therefore a strange humility at the heart of the subject.
Physics is fundamental in one sense.
But what physics makes possible can be vastly richer than anything that appears in the vocabulary of fundamental physics.
Physics makes chemistry possible.
Chemistry makes biology possible.
Biology makes perception possible.
Perception makes behaviour possible.
Social organisation makes language possible.
Language makes mathematics and philosophy possible.
And mathematics and philosophy can turn back upon our descriptions of nature.
The higher levels are not outside physics.
They are among the things that physics makes possible.
That may be a better way of thinking about the relation between the sciences than the familiar image of a pyramid with physics at the bottom and everything else stacked on top.
It is less a pyramid than an expanding ecology.
The universe becomes articulate
We can now return, one last time, to the photon.
At the beginning, it was simply a physical entity participating in electromagnetic interactions.
Then we discovered that electromagnetic differences can be detected.
Then that detected differences can become information.
Then that information can become significant.
Then signs can emerge.
Then symbols.
And symbols can describe the universe.
Something remarkable has happened.
The universe has become capable, through certain forms of organisation, of describing itself.
Not because the universe as a whole possesses a mind.
Not because photons are secretly little messages.
But because physical organisation has produced organisms capable of constructing symbolic systems.
Those symbolic systems can represent the physical world.
And those representations can be used to discover new physical possibilities.
The architecture has become reflexive.
Reality has produced systems capable of forming representations of reality and using those representations to alter what reality does next.
That is perhaps the strangest possibility we have encountered.
And now the plough turns
We began by asking what particles do.
We ended by asking what organisations make possible.
The shift is significant.
The first question directs our attention toward behaviour.
The second directs it toward possibility.
And perhaps the second is ultimately the more revealing.
A particle does not need a purpose.
A molecule does not need a plan.
An organism does not need to understand evolution.
Yet through their interactions, structures can arise that make new things possible.
Those new things can become organised.
Those organisations can create functions.
Functions can create new ecological relationships.
Ecologies can create new forms of information.
Information can become meaning.
Meaning can become symbolic.
And symbols can become instruments through which new possibilities are deliberately explored.
The world does not merely happen.
It continually opens onto what else can happen.
The architecture of possibility
Perhaps, then, we can give the whole series one final formulation.
The physical world consists of entities with properties.
Those properties give rise to capacities.
Capacities enter into interactions.
Interactions produce structures.
Structures create new capacities.
Capacities become organised into functions.
Functions participate in systems.
Systems modify their environments.
Environments create new possibilities.
Living systems detect differences within those environments.
Differences become information.
Information becomes significant.
Significance becomes semiotic.
Semiotic systems become symbolic.
And symbolic systems can deliberately explore the space of what might become possible.
So the trajectory is:
property → capacity → interaction → organisation → function → ecology → information → meaning → possibility
But the arrow is not a simple ladder.
At every stage, the process folds back upon itself.
Organisation changes the environment.
The environment changes what is possible.
New possibilities enable new organisations.
New organisations create new functions.
New functions alter the environment again.
The architecture is therefore recursive.
Possibility produces organisation.
Organisation reshapes possibility.
What, finally, does a particle do?
Perhaps we can now answer our original question in a way that would have seemed impossibly ambitious at the beginning.
What does a particle do?
It does what its physical capacities and circumstances permit.
But that answer is only the beginning.
Because those capacities can participate in organisations.
Those organisations can create new possibilities.
And those possibilities can become the foundations of further organisation.
The electron does not know chemistry.
The photon does not know vision.
The molecule does not know life.
The organism does not know evolution.
Evolution does not know where it is going.
And yet, through all of them, the physical world discovers—or rather, instantiates—new ways of being able to act.
That is the astonishing thing.
Not that matter secretly contains everything that will ever exist.
But that matter possesses capacities from which new architectures of possibility can arise.
The physics of what becomes possible
We can now perhaps see why the original title turned out to be better than "functional physics."
"Functional physics" would have directed us toward what things do.
But our real subject has turned out to be larger.
We have been interested in what physical capacities make possible.
The electron does not merely bind.
Its behaviour contributes to a world in which molecules can exist.
The photon does not merely propagate.
Its behaviour contributes to a world in which organisms can detect differences.
A receptor does not merely respond.
Its organisation contributes to a world in which information can guide action.
An organism does not merely survive.
Its organisation contributes to an ecology in which further organisms, signals and possibilities can arise.
And humans do not merely inherit this architecture.
We can now deliberately modify it.
We build instruments.
We construct molecules.
We engineer organisms.
We create symbolic systems.
We build computers.
We alter environments.
We explore physical possibility deliberately.
We have become, in however modest a fashion, participants in the architecture.
One final thought
There is a temptation, when thinking about the universe at its most fundamental level, to imagine that the deepest reality must be found by stripping everything away.
Away with organisms.
Away with language.
Away with perception.
Away with meaning.
Away with function.
Away with everything except the elementary constituents and the equations governing them.
There is good reason for doing this.
It reveals extraordinarily deep regularities.
But perhaps there is another sense in which the deepest understanding requires us to move in the opposite direction.
Not merely downward toward constituents.
But outward toward what those constituents make possible.
The electron matters not only because it has charge.
It matters because charge participates in an architecture of interaction from which atoms, molecules and living systems can emerge.
The photon matters not only because it carries energy and momentum.
It matters because electromagnetic interaction can become part of an architecture in which the world becomes detectable, informative and eventually meaningful.
The universe is therefore not exhausted by its ingredients.
Its possibilities are part of what it is.
And those possibilities are not all given at once.
They become available as reality organises itself.
Perhaps, then, the deepest lesson of our little adventure is this:
Reality is not merely what exists. It is also the structured space of what what exists makes possible.
And perhaps that is why the most interesting question we can ask of anything in the universe is no longer simply:
What is it?
Nor even:
What does it do?
But:
What can become possible because it is there?
That question takes us from the particle to the molecule, from the molecule to life, from life to meaning, and from meaning to the future.
It is, perhaps, a good place to stop.
For the architecture is still being built.
And we are inside it.
No comments:
Post a Comment