Hi Steven, I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural order and process order. At least I think this is another way of describing your distinction. I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred. With this restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted answering the question "what is order?".
If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of structural order. I think structural order (e.g., patterns, gradients) is objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the foundation of empirical science. The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting to some degree. Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive range, accuracy and precision. Science has improved our ability to interpret the perceived data. All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I think we are also far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to believe. You seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned beyond the raw data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy. Is that a fair approximation? I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence of universal natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem. Regards, Guy on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dear Guy, > > Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you > mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is > manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order. This > is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address. > > Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an > ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension (perception)? > > For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of > apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal > numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1 > being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond apprehension). > > However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?" > This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived > order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology > from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are > universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is > orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a > consequence of primitive nature. > > The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is > that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature > from which to derive them. > > With respect, > Steven > > On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: > >> Greetings all, >> >> I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend >> slight modifications of the question. Frankly, I think it is >> undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of >> disorder, in Nature. I also think we would all agree that Nature >> constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs >> other instances of orderliness. The timely questions in my mind >> include: >> >> To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change >> over time? >> >> How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder >> within Nature at large? >> >> Regards, >> >> Guy Hoelzer >> > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
