On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
But if you respond to the request rather than discoursin gon it - we
would
soon enough know where the difference may lay and potentially
adjust our
own responses to those differences -
All of a sudden, I got this flash of insight into this extended topic:
The problems enunciated by Cheerskep and the counter responses of
others form a near-perfect analog of the Heisenberg Principle in an
area outside nuclear physics. In the flux of conversation and
discourse, the particles we use--the words--seem to drift within
regions of signification, which we call the "meaning" (or "meanings")
of the words. Within the discourse, some meanings are less suitable to
forming a complete or coherent "understanding" (in a functional sense)
than other "meanings." More precisely, some *potential* meanings are
less suitable, as are some energy states, velocities, or vectors of
subatomic particles.
In order to ascertain the specific quantum state of a particle, a
scientist has to observe it, and to observe it, he has to *stop* it,
virtually, by measuring one of its dimensions. But by doing that, the
other dimensions cannot be accurately measured. They are
indeterminable and thus uncertain. Hence the Uncertainty Principle.
The quantum states are described as probabilities. (Mind you, the
probabilistic distribution of quantum states doesn't often cause a
building to fall down or an atom of carbon to irradiate the artist
wielding the charcoal stick.)
By analogy, the functional use of words serves us sufficiently well in
most circumstances, until, under close scrutiny, we find we cannot
determine both the "velocity" of the word and its "position" in space.
This is Cheerskep's acting as the observant scientist, constantly
locking down the speed of a word or its location, only to see the
other quality slither away uncertainly.
This whole matter of the "meaning" of words also resembles the degree
of overlap between Newtonian and quantum physics. Newtonian physics
works pretty well until we get to extremes of size and speed, at which
point it fails from lack of extension. Quantum physics can reach where
Newtonian physics cannot, and when the discussion comes down to
matters of subatomic behavior, quantum physics is better suited. But
Newtonian physics is quite up to the task of describing the mechanical
effects of engineering stress and loads, of gravity at the Earth's
surface, and the reactive force of rocket motors or a kid kicking a
scooter along the sidewalk.
Let me bring up, once again, my message of March 30 about the way we
perceive coherent and focused activity that passes us by--it looks
clear, we see things "in focus," the appearance of things is "normal."
But when the movement is stopped, as by a camera, we see many
oddities, small exaggerations of posture, unexpected details, and a
lot of blurred edges in the still picture.
Clarity of meaning is much like that, I submit. It's understood with
greater definiteness in a dialogue of several voices, all refining the
stress on the words and stabilizing their relationships with other
parts of the conversation, both within the context and pointing
outside to other things (connotation, referencese, etc.).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
