The Pattern Paradigm: The Science of Philosophy

By Bruce S C Robertson

Have you ever wondered how we know what we know?
The Pattern Paradigm looks beneath the surface of
what passes for truth and presents a new way of
understanding. It tells the story of how knowledge is
achieved; starting from the basics and progressing to
the pyramid of patterns which lie at the heart
of thinking.
It describes how the pattern paradigm is superior
to the status quo paradigm that pervades much of
philosophy today. It is able to do this because it is a
paradigm of great simplicity and great power. It opens
up a new and more accurate way of understanding.
It provides the missing link between sense-data and
knowledge. It provides new insights into old problems
which are not only amazing but also robust and
self consistent.
It is a book for both keen philosophers and for anyone
else interested in philosophy, as it is easy to read and
written in layman’s terms.
If you only ever read one book on philosophy, make it
this one.
‘This is a work of genius.’- J. E. Shearer.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris NZ
• Release date: Jul 24, 2012
• ISBN: 9781477131732

Bruce S C Robertson

Bruce Robertson BSc, MSc, Dip. Ed. has been working on and studying philosophy for most of his life. He is the author of “Rocks and Waves - an Image of Reality”. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand, with his wife and two children. He enjoys sailing and playing the guitar.

Book preview

image002.jpg

The

Pattern

Paradigm

The Science of Philosophy

Bruce S C Robertson

Copyright © 2012 by Bruce S C Robertson.

Cover Design by Bruce Robertson using a computer generated image based on a variation of a Mandelbrot set.

Library of Congress Control Number:       2012911143

ISBN:         Hardcover                               978-1-4771-3172-5

                   Softcover                                 978-1-4771-3171-8

                   Ebook                                      978-1-4771-3173-2

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

0800-891-366

www.xlibris.co.nz

[e-mail]

700295

for

Jane

Contents

FOREWORD 

INTRODUCTION 

PART 1 THE FACTS 

1/1 The White Paper 

1/2 Sense Data 

1/3 Patterns 

1/4 Self and the External World 

1/5 More on Patterns 

1/6 Paradigms and Pragmatics 

1/7 Truth and Certainty 

PART 2 THE ABSTRACTS 

2/1 The Abstract System 

2/2 Axioms and Mappings 

2/3 Mathematics and Abstract Systems 

2/4 The Alphabet and Abstract Systems 

2/5 Syllogisms and Abstract Systems 

2/6 Notes on Abstract Systems 

PART 3 FACTS AND ABSTRACTS 

3/1 Notes on Facts and Abstracts 

PART 4 THE STATUS QUO PARADIGM AND ITS FAILINGS 

4/1 The Status Quo Paradigm 

4/2 Black Boxes and Mapping 

4/3 Foundations 

4/4 Logic and Abstract Systems 

4/5 There is no problem of induction 

4/6 Truth 

4/7 Logic and the law of bivalence 

4/8 Science 

4/9 Cracks 

4/10 Scientism and Scepticism 

PART 5 BEYOND FACTS AND ABSTRACTS 

5/1 Man is not a machine 

5/2 Certainty of Doubt 

GLOSSARY 

REFERENCES AND NOTES 

FOREWORD 

G’day! My name is Bruce Robertson and I would like talk to you about philosophy. Not the convoluted and obscure philosophy that you might find in a typical philosophy book, but real philosophy; the sort of philosophy that is clear, precise, understandable and actually makes sense.

My aim is to explore the fundamentals of thought processes, to find out how knowledge is possible and what it means to know something. This aim is similar to that of John Locke who wrote: ‘My purpose is to enquire into the original certainty and extent of human knowledge’.¹

I take a fundamental, scientific approach; discovering fundamental facts and searching for possible explanations.

My approach is supported by The Oxford Companion to Philosophy: ‘It has been claimed that the method of reasoning adopted by science is the method of reasoning that philosophy should also adopt’.²

Some of what I have written is fairly simple and some of it not so simple. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are of the fairly simple variety as they constitute a linear argument that starts from the basics and proceeds to an explanation and understanding of how we know what we know and what it means to know something.

Part 4 is slightly more complex as it seeks to show the flaws in the commonplace philosophy that is prevalent today. In order to do this it is first necessary to explain some of the background to these flawed theories, before exposing their flaws. Of course those of you who never adopted these theories in the first place and have no interest in understanding how philosophers could be so misguided, can skip that part; though it may still be of interest to see how the pattern paradigm supersedes the status quo paradigm. However, those of you who have adopted those theories or perhaps have read the philosophy books and have taken the ideas on board without realising they were flawed might find this part particularly interesting.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. My background is in science, I was trained as a physicist and then as an astronomer. But after a few years full-time work as an astronomer, I realised that what I was really interested in was philosophy. But not the philosophy of the universities or the philosophy books, but real philosophy that made sense of the world we live in.

So I went out and explored the world with scant regard for the writings of the classical philosophers. Which according to at least one philosopher, (Bryan Magee), is the way philosophy should be done: ‘The basic drive behind real philosophy, is curiosity about the world, not interest in the writings of philosophers.’³

In 1989, I wrote the book: ‘Rocks and Waves—an Image of Reality’, which laid out the kernel of the ideas for this book. But the ideas themselves were somewhat nebulous and it has taken me a further 20 years to clarify the ideas and display them in a clear and relevant form. This book is the culmination of that work, and is the first of a planned trilogy.

In order to acknowledge the works of earlier philosophers who have contributed to the treatises of this book and also to authenticate the views of those whose arguments are flawed, I have included a number of referenced quotations.

I would just like to mention here the pleasure it has been to refer to the ‘Oxford Companion to Philosophy’, as demonstrated by the many quotes I have gleaned from it. I have accepted the assertion of the editor Ted Honderich who writes in the preface: ‘This book is for all those who want authoritative enlightenment, judgement by good judges’⁴. And while I might sometimes disagree with the judgements, I do not question their scholarship.

I have subtitled the book ‘The Science of Philosophy’ to indicate that it takes a scientific approach. It looks at the data and evidence regarding knowledge and then seeks out the simplest patterns to explain such knowledge. It also looks at the underlying ‘nuts and bolts’ that constitute the edifice of knowledge.

In this respect, it is markedly different from the approach of traditional philosophers such as Kant, who seek a priori ‘truths’ from which logical inferences can be made to generate further ‘truths’. They fail to realise that a priori ‘truths’ are in fact based either on induction or come from an entirely abstract system.

The book is titled ‘The Pattern Paradigm’ because this is what it describes. The processes for inference described in this book are somewhat different from that of traditional philosophy. I have endeavoured to ensure that the inferences used in this book are consistent with those described in this book. In other words, I have endeavoured to ensure that the book is self consistent.

Also, in describing the pattern paradigm I have sometimes presented a brief overview and then subsequently gone into greater detail. Or sometimes I have described the same part of the pattern from one perspective and then subsequently from a different perspective. This has entailed some repetition of key ideas.

Some people might think, Oh no, this can’t be philosophy because I can understand it! But there is no inherent reason why philosophy should be hard to comprehend. In fact the contrary is the case, the very roots of understanding should be very simple and it should be possible to communicate these concepts in a simple and meaningful way.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy also preaches this approach: ‘Clarity and simplicity of style, the minimising of technical expressions, abstaining from formal apparatus when ordinary language can be adequate also express concern to be understood and to let argument and evidence alone carry the persuasive weight.’⁵

So I have tried to make the writing in this book as simple and clear as I can.

However, much of modern philosophy fails in this regard of clarity and simplicity.⁶

For a long time there has been disquiet and dissatisfaction with the state of modern philosophy. This is evidenced by a number of writers: ‘After a few years infatuation with philosophy as an undergraduate I became disenchanted. The insights of the philosophers I studied seemed murky and inconsequential compared with the dazzling success of physics and mathematics… . some of [the current work on the philosophy of science] I found to be written in a jargon so impenetrable that I can only think that it aimed at impressing those who confound obscurity with profundity’.⁷—S. Weinberg.

‘Half of philosophy is a tremendous labouring of the obvious, and the other half is speculation that has very little relation to the known facts’.—H.L. Mencken.

‘The traditional philosophic approach seems to have resulted only in abstract and complicated word-games which have not been of much practical use’.⁸—E. de Bono.

Clearly, there is a need for a new approach to philosophy, a new paradigm.

So let me be your guide in this exploration of the fundamentals of thought.

But first, just a few words about the writing structure. The book is one long argument. Each draft was written from start to finish so that at each stage I was clear what had been asserted and described and what had not. In Parts 1, 2 and 3, I have followed a line of argument that stems from the assertion in Chapter 1/2, on ‘sense-data’, that all knowledge of the real world is achieved through a process of pattern creation. This assertion is fundamental to the pattern paradigm and is what I have termed an ‘anchor point’. Throughout the first three parts I have avoided complicating the line of argument by omitting any discussion of alternative or conflicting viewpoints. It is only in Part 4, ‘The Status Quo Paradigm’, that I have discussed (and in the most part refuted) alternative viewpoints.

The story that it tells from Chapter 1/1 through to Chapter 3/1 is of how sense-data is transformed into knowledge of the real world through a process of pattern creation. Along the way it describes how self-awareness can come about and also a new understanding of the meaning of truth. It completes the story of knowledge by describing a model for abstract systems such as mathematics. In Part 4 the problems with the status quo paradigm are exposed. Then the theme of the pattern paradigm is picked up again in Part 5 where some of its implications are described.

INTRODUCTION 

Before getting started on the main thesis, I just want to put in a little bit of background.

One of the prime aims of philosophy is to explain the nature of the universe in as simple terms as possible. While the sciences focus on specific parts of the universe (e.g. physics, biology and astronomy), philosophy takes a general approach, seeking to find links between seemingly disparate areas of knowledge.

However, the clichéd ‘search for truth’ that is ascribed to philosophers may not be the real goal. For as Niels Bohr wrote about science: ‘The task of physics is not to find out how nature is but only what we can say about nature’, so too it can be said about philosophy: ‘The task of philosophy is not to find out what the truth is but only what we can say about the truth.’ This is a subtle distinction which, despite being important,