On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:47 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
> v.547.8 Steven writes:
>
> "However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly
> uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely."
>
> I disagree.
> for reasoning see comment to v547.12
>
>
> v547.12 Steven writes:
> The universe, independent of any conception, is profoundly uniform and it is
> this uniformity that is the basis of perceived universals. Our conceptions
> can have no intrinsic uniformity unless they are founded upon this profound
> feature of the world.
>
> I find Steven's statement of principle to be exact.
> Of, course, this line of reasoning explains virtually nothing.
> With the conceptualization of "mass", nature is striped of her identities.
> In my view, the only intrinsic uniformity is of space and time.
> The twisting of the remainder of reality to fit into the uniformity prison,
> distorts the truth of matter and the truth of matters.
> This line of reasoning perfectly excluded the mental, bilogical and chemical
> sciences because of the necessity for irregular extension. The essence of the
> distortion of universality begins with the effort to strip the atomic
> numbers of their individuality. The other consequences follow from this
> antecedent.
Dear Jerry,
I elaborated on my earlier post on my blog at:
http://stevenzenith.info/the-profound-uniformity-of-the-world
I am not convinced by your contention that there is a "necessity for irregular
extension" that invalidates the conjecture of uniformity and ask you to
substantiate that claim.
This is not to say that there are not such extensions and that they are not
necessary for the refinement of ideas. Surely they are. But from a strictly
epistemological point of view they are indicators, pragmatic and temporary
aberrations that are ultimately resolvable by applying the necessary uniformity
conjecture.
As I note often: if a logical reduction fails it is never an indicator of the
supernatural or a justification for metaphysics. It is an indicator that we
must, of necessity, review the logical construction that failed and ultimately
revise it.
The central point of my argument is that no scientific epistemology is possible
without this conjecture of profound uniformity. If we reject it or worse, if we
find evidence that the universe is not uniform in this way, by finding a galaxy
that does not conform to the laws observed in the others for example, then all
bets are off and no scientific epistemology is possible.
Since I take space and time to be merely a way of speaking about mass/energy,
as did Einstein, its uniformity or not is a matter of conception alone. If you
disagree then you essentially affirm the case I make since space and time would
characterize all structure in such a system and the uniform laws and principles
would be laws and principles of space and time.
Incidentally, for me "explanation" is the identification of causes. The notion
of profound uniformity identifies the casual basis, the functional dependence,
of all scientific knowledge; as such it is an explanation of why such a system
works.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
