How deep can we go?

Why do we always try to unpack everything? We pull things apart, break them up, inspect them, tear out their insides and put them back together again. What do we do it for? Why do we magnify things and look at their atoms, and go even deeper than that? Why do we try to explain everything only by their bare parts? Could we ever describe a human by their parts, should we just start calling our friends big bunches of atoms, and look at them like they are dead?

If we write a computer program, it would be absurd to try to describe it using its binary code, but why do do the same with physical structures? Do we really need to include everything if we can understand things well enough by throwing away some information? I've spoken about the dangers of models before, but the truths is that models, in their appropriate context, definitely have their uses.

The other extreme, breaking up literally everything into its parts to try to build as accurate models as possible, is also a way to try to solve this issue, but it will never work. It will only kill whatever is alive. When I look at a puppy, I see a puppy, not a robot made of neurons and bones and flesh, or even a bunch of molecules. The truth is that by thinking excessively in this way, we kill whatever lives. Think of Descartes, that went so far down the rabbit hole that he eventually started seeing people as machines.

Think about what happens if we start seeing ourselves as bunches of atoms. Well, if we're just a big ball of dead matter floating on another ball of dead matter, it doesn't matter what we do does it? We can do anything, we can drink excessively, do drugs, be rude. Who cares? I can't control it after all, I'm just a machine made of molecules!

That's one way to see it, but it really doesn't work this way. It's lying to yourself. Whatever we are, we are something that can control ourselves, at least to a certain extent. The external world and our emotions do like to kick us in the ass sometimes, but what can you do. We try to compromise with these sides of ourselves if possible, as these influences are our mental room mates. This fact still doesn't make us complete machines.

If we are truly made of atoms, there must be more to this whole determinism thing. Some kind of weird doodly doo magic that makes dead things come to life somehow. Still active research.

I suppose the real fix to killing everything we look at is by putting models into their right place. Not obsessively trying to improve our models by going deeper and deeper and deeper, but knowing that our models are flawed, being aware of their problems, and appreciating their use, making them as simple as needed.

Of course, there's no problem with decomposing things to their essential parts for fun, but I do wonder what the real practical use is, or maybe that's short sighted from my end.

I am someone that likes to keep things simple, bare principles over brain hurting details. I love general overviews and clarity, even if it intentionally leaves out some information. There's a lot of things that have a connection to a lot of other things, principles that could be called 'universal' and that work everywhere because of their generality, crossing separate domains in the process. That's the kind of stuff I like, and I believe that they should be explored more often.

Anyway, this whole post was a tangent. I was reading about this today so this was on my mind. I was reminded of the two views of the world we possess, our narrow perspective and our broad perspective. Both valid perspectives, but just different. I looked up at a tree, and simultaneously saw it as the living creature that it was, and as the dead lump of molecules that it also was.

I try to remember that what lives really has a life. Sometimes I wonder if I'm driving myself mad with all this research, but it's just too interesting. I get pulled to it.