Does order exist in nature or is it imposed by the mind?

(LR: Laurice Visco, Angelica Angeles, Nichole Arellano, Kenneth Torres, Nino Buendia, Matt Labra)

14 May 2008. The debate was on the question of whether there is truly order in the world, or whether order is only an imposition of the human mind.

Government (Angeles, Torres, Visco) argued that the real world may follow certain actions, but these are not orderly. It is our mind that tries to make sense of these actions by giving it names, like “eating”. The corresponding real event may simply be a random interaction, say between a rabbit and a carrot; the two meet and of them disappears. One evidence is that perceptions of people are not all the same.

Opposition argued that the mere fact of the world being intelligible is already evidence that there is some order in reality. What happens is that the order we come up with may be temporary, but it is still based on observation. Scientists don’t “impose” in the sense of doctoring nature. We systematize, but it is not all just a matter of perception. Perceptions, it is true, change, but this is not evidence of disorder in nature but rather a progressive approach towards increased understanding of the real.

We gave this debate to the opposition mainly because we felt that, technically, they were more articulate. I pointed out, however, that the strongest evidence in their favor was not something they elaborated on. It came from the audience: progress is itself evidence that there is some order in nature. Why, for instance, do we consider the fact that we have identified 114 elements in contrast to the medieval 4 as progress? Because it is an improvement. An improvement of what? Greater improvement in usefulness and in consistency. That means we are approximating the real more and more.

I reflected an insight in that we always view the world through some kind of filter between us and reality. The filter is concept, language, perception. What lies on the other side is probably much richer than what goes through the filter. Scientific progress is a question of changing the filter to make it more useful and consistent, but it seems that we might never reach the point where we will be able to see reality as it is through science alone.

Thus, there is something on the other side of the filter, but it is probably not science which provides the best means for us to get to know it. Science is limited and changing. To see the other side we will need the methods of another field: religion, philosophy, art.