“Rovelli is convinced we must work together. “Co-operation is better than competition,” he says. “Physics has reinforced the fact that we are all part of an interactive web and there are no solutions to our global problems without recognising and embracing that. There is no God-like perspective from which the universe can be observed. There is no universe “out there” because we are in it. So we need to think from within: “All we can ask is: what is our particular perspective from within and how does it relate to all the other possible internal perspectives?”
“Those words, at once modest and profound, convey all the favourite themes of Rovelli’s work: interaction, contextuality, relationality. The things that make up the world at its deepest level are intertwined and work together. We too are intertwined and must work together. It is the only way ahead Rovelli sees for the human race.
“Everything is interaction. Subatomic particles such as electrons and photons are not objects that exist independently of being prodded and poked, but merely the sum total of their interactions with the rest of the world. “Basically, physics confirmed what several philosophers over the centuries have suspected—that the world is a web of interactions and nothing exists independently of that web,” Rovelli tells me. “It is at the atomic and subatomic, or quantum, level that we confront this truth most dramatically.”
Can quantum physics reveal the secrets of the universe—as well as humanity’s entangled nature?
This sounds very similar to the work of theoretical biologist, Stuart Kauffman, and Reinventing the Sacred. It appeals very much to those people, heavily oriented towards the natural sciences, who are leery of politics and ethics and their uncertainties. But it is enormously question begging. If it is true, then why the need to issue so many imperatives to enjoin cooperation? We would all be interacting harmoniously anyway. The idea that we are all intertwined and need – indeed ‘must’ – work together is no great insight. It is central to the religious understanding of the world that human beings are God’s partners in Creation – with this difference: the religious tradition understands that human beings possess a degree of moral autonomy with respect to reality, and that ‘working together’ is not a naturalist given but a moral endeavour.
Do we really need theories drawn from physics to establish a basis for ethics and politics? If naturalism were enough, there would be no need for so many imperatives to unite and cooperate.
God made human beings to be His partners in the creative process of Earthly flourishing. Genesis chapter one presents a summary of the six days of creation. After describing the creation of the man and the garden in chapter two (7-14), verse 15 says, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to take care of it.”
If the natural processes of physical Creation were enough for flourishing, then God could have made the garden to be self-sustaining with no need for human agency to ensure its care. Instead, human beings were created to “work” the garden and to “take care” of the garden with the idea of making it flourish. Verse 5 reads: “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.” The reason for the creation of Adam is “to work it (the garden) and take care of it (the garden).”
It doesn't matter whether one believes this story to be true or not. Certainly, those who are science based will pay far more attention to physics and biology. But note well the extent to which Ravelli, Kauffman, and all such naturalists employ moral imperatives to insist that 'we must' join together, work together, cooperate etc. If naturalism were enough, there would be no need to issue such imperatives. And if human beings do not naturally and inevitably cooperate and work together - as the issuing of such imperatives imply - then it is plain that Nature itself cannot be the moral referent for such imperatives.
Ergo, the politics and ethics of human cooperation only make sense from a transcendent and theistic perspective - the ethics of immanence are self-contradictory.
I do agree with the appeal for cooperation, though.
Spending time on social media is a real education in this respect. I have come to the conclusion that should enter social media in the manner of an anthropologist, observing the strange, paradoxical behaviour of its inhabitants in a cool and detached manner, and never getting involved. Today, I came across some citing the latest theories in physics and biology to argue that we are all intertwined with life and that, therefore, "we must" work together and cooperate - little realising that if the naturalism they take their stand on were enough, then we would all be working together and cooperating without the need of so many moral imperatives to that effect. Such people are still in Eden. As I read these posts, I also saw many more others proving how disagreeable and downright unpleasant human beings really are. The Duke of Edinburgh dies today at the age of 99, and so argument and unpleasantness breaks out all over the place, with people making the cheapest of remarks at the expense of the Royals. What about x, y, and z who died on this day umpteen years ago, who are so much more important, what about much more important news, ask a couple of philosophers, eminently reasonable people you would have thought. As for the abuse and snide commentary, it is better to move on in silent contempt. As I say, observe as an anthropologist. Because if you took any of this seriously as a participant, you would die of despair. Human beings are nowhere near as reasonable and sociable as they are meant to be - insofar as we take likeness to God seriously. I do, hence my constant disappointment. It is easier to give up and join everyone else.
As for the idea that we are all intertwined with each other and with Nature, do we really need theories drawn from physics to establish a basis for ethics and politics? If naturalism were enough, there would be no need for so many imperatives to unite and cooperate. And people wouldn't be so wretched to others.
There seems to be an acceptance of the view that human beings are basically disagreeable creatures, with victory going to those who can be the most disagreeable and make life the most unpleasant for others. In games theory, it is all about the sanctions each can apply to the other. Against which, I much prefer my naturalist friends still in Eden with their dreams of cooperation and harmony. I just wish they would take religion seriously rather than dismiss it as illusion, because they will find there the things they are looking for, something more than the endless war of all against all.