Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us for the purpose. Laws are highly corroborated regularities so discerned. Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined observation. Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats. Here we are confronted by predictable sequences. The relation of such as these to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the beats. Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical procedures! Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate regularity (= order). Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in 'primitive nature'. We might however, note that we know this sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate. Then too, when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated. I feel forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.
STAN >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 _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
