Pedro wrote:
>Putting it differently, the hierarchies between scientific disciplines
were fashionable particularly in the reductionism times; but now
fortunately those decades (70s, 80s) are far away. Actually, the new views
taking shape are not far from the term "knowledge recombination" that
appears in some of the principles discussed.
I would like to rebut this put-down by pointing out that reduction (while
still meaningful) is no longer the sole burden of hierarchical
formulations. Rather, the major interesting point is that the disciplines
‘higher’ up in the hierarchy:
{physics {chemistry {biology {sociology}}}}, with (lower {higher}}
provide context for the lower ones. For example, while chemical actions can
be observed to exist, putatively, outside of a biological context, that
chemistry in our universe must have been organized in such a way as to
potentially give rise to biology. That is, biology, and sociology were
operative implicitly before they existed in fact -- as attractors. Thus,
such top-down influences must have been active in OUR universe during its
inception, as contextualizations (uninfluenced universes cannot be shown to
exist!). Anything must happen somewhere. Possibly the best evidence for
this has already emerged in the observations of QM, as an implication of
the (sometimes currently disparaged) concept of the role of the observer. I
think it unproblematic that Information can flow from a higher level to a
lower, as a constraint. Indeed the field of QM, with all of its very
expensive equipment, is a good example of this.
Yes, I appear to be arguing for a scientific role for Final Cause. For
example, if a naturalist goes out to a forested region to study, say, birds
of paradise, where can these be found that has not already been modified by
humans (even by the camera)? Is information science intrinsically opposed
to to finality?
STAN
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
