Re: [Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

Dear Bob, I agree with you that: neither of existing models (Newtonian physics, original Darwinian formulation of evolution) is sufficient for explaining how real change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in nature. And that: Chance and disarray in natural processes are n

Re: [Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

Dear Gordana, "Law" is a slippery concept. Most physicists make the theological assumption that the laws of physics pre-existed the Big Bang. I rather doubt that. I see the laws as having evolved (precipitated?) out of inchoate configurations of processes.

Re: [Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

Dear Friends - the miracle is not that there is stuff but rather that the stuff of which we are made can ask the question why is there stuff and what does that mean? The fact that the questions can not be answered does not matter because it is always the questions that are most important and not

Re: [Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

Dear fis list: It is impossible to have a system that does not have some order in it. Even a mathematically random collection has regions the are ordered. So order itself is hardly miraculous, given that there is something. I agree with Gordana that the question of why there is something rather

[Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as Loet says "order is always constructed (by us)"- but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the universe). Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)? To me miracle is how i

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions. I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle. Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a Given (in a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us) and can/needs to be explained.

Re: [Fis] Origin?

Well now i can't withstand commenting on phenomenolgy, symbols and time. This is too much screaming for formalisation. The three concepts mentioned above can be abstracted into the mother of all symbols, the collection of natural numbers. Let us pose the question of interrelatedness of time conce

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

Dear Malcolm, On 21 Feb 2016, at 22:51, Malcolm Dean wrote: All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions. I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle. With the digital mechanist assumption, the miracle can be limited to the axioms of elementary arithmetic (or comb

Re: [Fis] Origin?

Marcus -- You have an interesting point regarding plants and phenomenology. Their behavior occurs over a time scale where we phenomenologists see nothing happening. This slow time scale was illuminated by non-phenomenological science studies, while also inquiring into faster-than-phenomenological

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 25

*Dear Editors, * *on file attached is my comment on Dr. Plamen essay on time. * *Yours Sincerely, Amrit Srečko Šorli* * Beauty of Physics is elegant Simplicity. * *Foundations of Physics Institute - FOPI* www.fopi.info *ORCID ID* http://orcid.org/-0001-6711-4844 essay

[Fis] _ Re: _ Re: Maxine’s presentation

Dear FIS colleagues, I didn’t know Maxine’s work, and I’m very glad to have been introduced to it – I’ve been reading through the 1972 edition of the Phenomenology of Dance. In reading this, and in reading the contributions on the list, I’ve found myself reflecting on the relationship between “