Dear Stan, "Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive knowledge constructs its own order.
Best wishes, Loet ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions > > 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 > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > >_______________________________________________ > >fis mailing list > >fis@listas.unizar.es > >http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
