Dear Jerry,
A world of change and diversity does not at all imply that the underlying laws
are not uniform. A move from antecedent to consequence is the first response,
it is not the ultimate response of constructive science which seeks to
overwhelm the superficial by the identification of basis.
The fact that science is a process of refinement, and consequently incomplete,
only serves to indicate that there is more work to do.
You contexts illustrate only the continuing need to unify science, to provide a
single context for the description of nature. Chemical elements are merely
differences, they still adhere to the same underlying laws and principles.
Your conjecture that the uniformity of nature is the ploy of mathematical
physicists to justify the ability of their conceptions to describe the world is
cute. But, unfortunately, this is no more than saying that God is the ploy of
theologians. Of course, both are the case but one is demonstrably more
effective than the other.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info
On Apr 3, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
> Vol. 547.20 Steven "On uniformity"
>
>
>
> Thank you for your reference to your blog.
>
> Here are some assertions from your blog:
>
>
>>
>>
>> The concept of uniformity in nature underpins the whole of scientific
>> knowledge.
>>
>> This profound uniformity is necessary to enable any scientific statement,
>> without it there can be no science.
>>
>> To say the world is profoundly uniform is an existential statement, not an
>> epistemological one; yet it has direct consequences for scientific
>> epistemology and provides its foundation.
>>
>> The universe, independent of any conception, is then necessarily and
>> profoundly uniform if we are to have any scientific knowledge.
>>
>> This uniformity is that which underlies the laws and principles of our
>> observations; it is the scientific assertion that the determinant features
>> of the world, apprehended as laws and principles, are everywhere the same.
>>
>> The profound uniformity of the existent universe is the necessary basis of
>> scientific knowledge; without it all bets are off.
>>
>>
>
> If you want to invalidate science you need only demonstrate one case in which
> the uniformity is denied.
>
>
>
> Ordinarily in scientific philosophy, the arguments run from antecedents to
> consequences.
>
> Your blog simply iterates, in somewhat varied rhetorics, your singular belief
> in uniformity. It appears to be an initiating belief of your personal
> philosophy.
>
>
>
> My response to your assertions is simply that the principle of uniformity is
> contrary to my experience.
>
> I experience a world that is richly textured with diversity and uniqueness,
> one that changes second by second, minute by minute, day by day, month by
> month, year by year, decade by decade, and, if I believe history, generation
> by generation and even from branch to branch on the tree of life.
>
>
>
> I have many forms of logic to interpret by experience, one of then, emergent
> from the logic of Lavoisier / Dalton, operating on invisible particles, is
> that matter has an identity that is preserved under transformation of
> properties. This uniqueness of identity is not a uniformity, rather the
> properties of an identity is a basis for separating this from that.
>
>
>
> The formal logic of this system is a number system, the atomic number system.
> The atomic number system is based on the principle that each chemical element
> is non-uniform with respect to other chemical elements. The notion of the
> alchemists that a hidden uniformity existed in matter was rejected after
> several centuries of failure. The formal logic of the atomic number system is
> irregular, valences are irregular, they are not uniform. Further, valencies
> are context sensitive, the non-uniformity of contexts changes the behavior of
> valences. This context-sensitivity is amply demonstrates by the change of
> inorganic matter into living matter by life itself.
>
>
>
> Thus, I assert that my examples do NOT invalidate science in general but do
> demonstrate, in any extremely rough way, non-uniormity of the chemical and
> life sciences. It is not the efficient causality of Aristotle, the
> manifestation of space and time, of which I write, rather, it is material
> causality of Aristotle that generates biological reproduction.
>
>
>
> The philosophy of physical uniformity is known to me from other sources. It
> appears to be rooted in notions of continuity of the line and the existence
> of Newtonian derivatives. In other words, it is my conjecture that the
> concept of uniformity is merely a ploy to express a belief in continuous
> mathematics and higher order mathematical structures essential to express
> physical beliefs.
>
>
>
> The quotation from Einstein expresses his view about mathematical uniformity
> rather succinctly:
>
> ""As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
>
> are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
>
> refer to reality."
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
