Dear Stan, If you would not go yourself to the moon, but send Ptolemy, he would not "observe" what you can see about day and night on earth. Not the observation, but the understanding is crucial.
Thus, you statement: "I feel forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation." is erroneous. 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 8:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions > > 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 > _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
