Borderless

Borders are what define all of human creation. They are inevitably necessary for the formation and functioning of any system, organization, theory or science. Nature does not have borders, but our creations do. This can limit our way of thought, and hence we need to go ‘borderless’.

That’s the crux of what I want to write here. But let’s not go too fast. We’ll take it in step by step and comprehend what I’m trying to say here in a more structured fashion. First I’d like to establish a meaning of borders in a more broad sense.

If you give it a thought, you’ll realize that borders and classification are essentially the same thing. Whenever you classify a given system into categories, you are defining ‘borders’ between the categories. You define traits of each category and sort the objects of the system accordingly. Contrasting traits between two categories form the ‘border’. This border is often fixed or rigid since the traits of the categories are also fixed. So a classification and its corresponding borders go hand in hand; they essentially are the same phenomenon, it’s just that the words differ in how we choose to describe it.

So we see that classification is, in fact, the act of defining borders. Borders as implied here are not just fences dividing land, but are fences dividing any continuum—whether abstract or physical. Just as fences on land are man-made, so are all of these borders. They are an ‘invention’ of man—an imaginary device that helps man to understand and manage a system or science bit by bit, part by part. This is the broader perspective of ‘borders’ I wanted to establish.

Having that established, let’s now think of some concrete examples to understand this idea.

A very visual example would be that of the colors of a rainbow, or color spectrum. We’ve all been taught in school that there are 7 colors on a rainbow given by ROYGBIV. As a child, before I had ever seen a rainbow, I used to think a rainbow looked like this:

Nicely spaced, discretely visible colors. That’s how a rainbow should look, shouldn’t it? I thought. Much to my disappointment when I actually saw a real one, it looked like this:

Not very discrete huh? All the colors appeared smudged on to each other, much like shading we did with oil pastels. I was never really able to identify indigo until very recently. One can easily see here that this natural phenomenon has been discretized, or, has been imposed with borders by us—borders that distinguish colors. A rainbow doesn’t really have 7 colors, it has a continuous band of colors. I was reminded of this fact again on a school field trip to TIFR. There, the scientist showed us how they selectively chose a color of the visible spectrum when performing experiments in the lasers lab. On such a sophisticated scale of research, colors are obviously not denoted by name, but by a number which is the wavelength. So the number 538.6 (nm) meant that the color of the laser was green. Of course, 538.7 also appeared green, so did 539 or even 559. The word ‘green’ generalizes this whole range between 520 and 560nm.

The choice of calling the 520-560nm range as green is very arbitrary and anthropocentric. Our eyes happen to perceive and interpret that range as similar looking, and hence we denote it by a common name ‘green’. Had we been (scientifically curious) bees, or some other intelligent species, we would have assigned different names to different arbitrary ranges altogether.

So we saw an example where a physical continuous phenomenon—the visible spectrum—is imposed with borders and made conveniently discrete for description. But what happens when borders are used to describe scientific concepts?

How about the distinction or border between solids and liquids? (I mean to ask conceptually, not about the interface.) At elementary levels in science, we’re given a rough feeling of what it means when a substance is solid, and when liquid. Given some common substances like oil or wood, we can easily distinguish the two. But then there are things like toothpaste or hair gel that can deform and are somewhat liquidy. On which side of the solid-liquid border do these substances lie? At this point, we ask ourselves, is it even meaningful to determine which side, ie, whether it’s a solid or a liquid? Even if it is categorized as one of the two, since it is still in the fuzzy region between them, it is bound to show heavy characteristics of the other one as well.

To my mind it appears that the difficulty is only imaginary and not real. Rigidity and plasticity are not absolute terms but relative, and all solids are in fact both rigid and plastic… When great masses and great forces are involved… the distinction loses value.

– Grove Karl Gilbert, American Geologist

It is here, in this fuzzy transition region that our border or classification of solids and liquids fails, or rather, loses relevance. This can be called an artefact of our theory, or further, an artefact of our thinking itself. Why do we classify things? Why do we create borders in a system? It is simply so that we can focus on smaller topics one at a time and understand them bite by bite. It simplifies the problem. It simplifies the description. But there has to be a trade off, and this trade of is this artefact arising at the border. Improper descriptions, improper assumptions, improper explanations near this border that deviate or do not explain true nature precisely.

In material science we have overcome this by defining phases with reference to distinct arrangements of atoms and molecules in the bulk. Thus we move away from calling a substance a solid or a liquid based on its rigidity, plasticity or viscosity. Where one border system fails, we introduce another one. But that too, will have its fuzzy transition zones and limitations.

Although, these limitations may not be of immediate concern to the person imposing them in the given scenario, attention must be paid that they may cause malfunctions or confusing consequences in cases that are near the border.

For example, consider the border between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We use classical mechanics to describe all day-to-day phenomenon. Being comfortable with classical mechanics, we tend to try to extend it to apply to as many situations as possible, ie, we try to classify a system to be on the classical side of the border. But as we try to explain phenomenon on smaller and smaller scales, we come closer and closer to the border and may realize that classical theory is no longer explaining the phenomenon. This is what happened when researchers tried explaining a reaction in photosynthesis. The first reaction in photosynthesis involves photons from sunlight striking a chromophore molecule and inducing the creation of an exciton, which is a charged quasiparticle. This exciton is required to traverse a lattice of molecules before reaching a reaction center where it’s energy will be converted into chemical energy. Classical mechanics predicts that it is very difficult for the exciton to reach the center, however we know from fact that the energy transfer is very efficient. This is where we realize that we are in near the border, and that quantum mechanics is to be summoned.

This need to use quantum mechanics took researchers by surprise. However, it shouldn’t be as surprising as it may seem. As Chris Fields, has said:

Classical and quantum mechanics are labels humans invented to describe the theories they developed; nature doesn’t have to acknowledge this distinction. Plants photosynthesised, robins migrated and enzymes catalysed even before humans discovered quantum mechanics. 

Chris Fields, Independent Scientist

Is it possible to devise an approach that does not consist of borders? This shall be left as an exercise for the reader. 😉 However, till such an approach has been devised or disproved, it is necessary to acknowledge these man-made borders as mere tools that help us understand nature and organize our thoughts, rather than deem them to be true nature itself.

As a researcher, I feel you always need to keep in mind where you are with respect to your borders. These borders can be ‘drawn’ if the assumptions are clearly stated. If the assumptions are wrong, you are on the wrong side of the border, try solving the problem with the correct assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, yet there is absurdity, you may be near a new undiscovered border—or in other words, an opportunity for a new theory altogether!

Use borders to conquer, but remain borderless in philosophy.