I’ve written of the desirability of using tensor-type thinking in qualitative fields where there is, even in principle, no way of particularizing the tensor equations to equations which could actually be used to calculate numbers. A reminder: by intelligent use of tensors (call it reasoning in more abstract spaces by way of differential geometry if you wish), Einstein was able to derive a description of theories of gravity (or of spacetime) which would satisfy his equivalence principle so that Maxwell’s equations and other established laws of physics, even Newton’s laws of motion and of gravity at the local level, would be satisfied in all frames of reference, even those which were accelerating. To be sure, the acceleration had to be accounted for in applying most laws, but that was hardly an obstacle to Einstein’s work. At the same time, Einstein himself—so far as I know—never developed a specific set of equations describing a gravitationally bound system.
The first to do so? While at the front lines in World War I, the German astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild particularized the field equation of general relativity into a set of equations describing a system which was spherically symmetrical and which could be quantitatively solved. Professor Schwarzschild died in an epidemic shortly after mailing his solution to a journal.
There is little in this discussion that should be of surprise to my regular readers but I find it valuable to restate in terms of my worldview truths already part of at least some of our accepted ways of thought. Subtle differences, sometimes more than subtle, will emerge over time or perhaps will be obvious immediately.
Terminology of this sort, meta-this and meta-that, is used and abused and generally meaningless, but I’m claiming it can be used to say something meaningful about the knowledge of the spectrum of being from abstract to concrete. As we travel roads through this spectrum, we need to explore, map, experiment, propose various sorts of theories and meta-theories, and test it all, subject it to the selective processes which can take place when an honest and reasonably well-formed mind uses reality as the first test, more complex worldviews as successively advanced tests as the explorer moves through life and through his small part of Creation. We actually don’t have to bootstrap and may not be capable of it in any case. We start off in life with something akin to a worldview, such as a baby’s strong belief in continuous existence of objects and also various levels of conscious and unconscious prejudices (in a neutral sense) of how to make sense of these confusing signals coming in through our eyes and ears. It’s probably better to say, analogously, that we start off with a capability to learn symbols of various sorts and, culture permitting, we learn some system of hieroglyphics or a phonetic alphabet or whatever, and some will move on to develop higher skills of literacy and the sorts of conceptual skills related to literacy. There might still be only a few truly powerful and creative thinkers, but it becomes possible for good quality minds to explore the thoughts of a Plato or a Poincaré and to come to some serious understanding. In fact, there are many with good quality minds who can correct the creative thinkers or expand their results in many ways even though they might not be able to develop a new way of thinking from scratch.
Meta-theories play a role in all of this, the creative thinking and the proposal of new understandings and the teaching of any understandings which have legs. They play a role because human thinking and all that comes from it is an effort to shape a mind which corresponds to Creation or some part of it. Meta-theories are efforts to understand at relatively more abstract levels of created being and thus are a part of reality. Remember: abstract levels of created being are still real and aren’t just imaginary efforts to understand some alleged `true’ reality of a concrete sort.
The human mind mostly enters abstract regions of created being on a speculative basis—after all we don’t directly see the particles of modern physics nor the groups of modern mathematics nor even the patterns of history; we should think of those regions as places where we explore, map, experiment as we try to achieve more profound understandings of created being. This isn’t pure speculation as most would think of it because speculation as I conceive it is more a glue tying together different parts of concrete being, of abstract being, of concrete and abstract being. This is why I can see true freedom on the part of creative thinkers or doers or artists at the same time I propose they are doing `no more’ than trying to imitate the Creator in His acts-of-being. Our very creativity is within the constraints of reality.
I’m writing about speculation and speculation mixed with theory and both mixed with fact. The foundational idea remains as I’ve stated it often: created being is a spectrum ranging from the concrete stuff of this universe up to the abstract sort of stuff it was shaped from, some of that stuff being part of the story of the so-called Big Bang, and the more abstract stuff from which that was shaped right up to the primordial level of created being, the truths God manifested as the raw stuff of His Creation. Our minds, our ways of thinking and remembering should correspond to created being, to reality so long as one realizes reality includes some very abstract realms of created being. Thinking isn’t something transcendental to created being, something which renders judgment upon Creation or any part of it. Thinking is, in a manner of speaking, the soulish aspect to created being. Moving forward from God’s creation of the raw stuff of Creation to God’s shaping of the concrete realm of flesh and blood and rocks, we can follow God with our minds and our hearts and our hands, imitating God as He goes about His work. We’re children who pick up a stick and move it in ways analogous to our Father as He shapes stars and abstract realms of mathematics, making up our stories to explain what He does and what we try to do in imitation of Him. Over time, if the intellectually and pedagogically talented members of the Body of Christ do their jobs, we’ll refine those stories and the underlying thoughts and feelings and acts so that they correspond ever better to God’s own works of creating and shaping, His acts-of-being.
Our speculations, including the speculative levels of theories of even the most concrete matters, are always about levels of abstract being as well and, in some strong cultural and implicit sense if not in an explicit sense, also about the entirety, the whole ball of wax, all of Creation. We can have a theory which covers some part of being in a more abstract realm and that theory can be particularized to cover some part or aspect of the concrete realm of created being which is our universe.
In the relatively distant past, I’ve dealt with the idea of a more generalized selection theory of which Darwin’s would be a particular family of theories, not a particular theory. This is where my thoughts had turned several days back. `Natural selection’ can be stated, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in this way: those organisms which survive to reach the age of reproduction have a chance to reproduce, may the luck be with them. It needs to be particularized to make total sense—as Darwin did himself in an exploratory way, crippled by lack of knowledge about DNA and by the lack of perspective which comes with time when we can accustom ourselves to a way of thought.
Let me present a list showing some examples of selection processes organized according to some basic attributes of such processes:
- Selection processes with goals
- Brain development
- Most scientific research projects
- Writing serious novels
- Growth of a human community — short-term
- Selection processes without identifiable goals
- Darwinian `evolution’
- Natural selection (for survival)
- Sexual selection (for specific reproductive opportunities)
- Growth of a human community — long-term
Here’s the same scheme in a poorly designed but understandable chart: 
At least I think it’s understandable. Note that I didn’t place the development of a worldview in this scheme, despite the fact that I’ve described the process in this essay in terms of selection. I’m uncertain about the correct scheme for understanding selection processes and uncertain about some of the examples I’ve used above, but I’m very uncertain about how to classify the development of a worldview.