Loet - the point of my moon example was only that, when seen from the moon the regular day / night transitional order that we observe spontaneously disappears. This means that even naively encountered order in the world cannot be taken to be independent of the observational platform.
STAN >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: [email protected] >> 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 >> >> [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 >> _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
