Compared to a previous paradigm, what are the critical features, the
key notions, for a Newtonian (or post-Newtonian?) paradigm?
I think they are:
* the distinction between the animate and the inanimate.
(Obviously, people always distinguished between the living and the
dead; what I mean is making the distinction in otherwise
irrelevant endeavors.)
Rats are not billiard balls.
* simple entities can be sufficiently described by mathematics.
Planets conceived as point masses.
Species with describable variations.
* the application of the mathematics of probability by humans.
thermodynamics of atoms,
evolution of species
* the (frequently unarticulated) application of the notion of
`falsifiability' in a manner that exceeds the constraints of a
categorical or nominal scale, an equivalence relation; the
application of judgment to say more than `true' or `false',
`black' or `white'.
Thus, in biology, the realization that geographically distance
seagulls cannot interbreed successfully, thereby indicating that
they are members of two different species, even though every
geographically intermediate seagull can interbreed with its
neighbors. The latter would suggest, if it be always true that
equivalents to the same other are equal to each other, and that
interbreeding is the right measure, that the two birds belong to
the same species.
* paying at least a little attention to the reasoning, observing,
and experimenting of strangers.
A century ago, the French read of the German discovery of X-rays
and Americans noted that French `N-rays' were bogus.
* the degree to which entities `remember' or `learn' over
generations.
Electrons/positrons combine and turn into high energy
electromagnetic rays; and high energy electromagnetic rays can
turn into electrons and positrons. Such changes might be
perceived as marking generations, the one (I am not saying which)
being the `genome' and the other being the `genome carrying
entity' (such as horses and humans). But the species (of
positive and negative electrons) is not varigated within itself
like species of horses or human, none change, and none are
selected differently.
Incidently, does the possibility of evolving mark the distinction
between living and nonliving? Or does it require more criteria
(which I have suggested before: selecting, eating, excreting,
healing)?
What do you think?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
