As my first posting for this week --
Replying to Steven --
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <
ste...@semeiosis.org> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
> ...
>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <
ste...@semeiosis.org> wrote:
>>
>> ... I agree with that there is "no knowledge outside the knower."
>>
>> However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly
uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely.
>
> Well, if by 'uniformity' you mean that the results of our activities have
some predictability, I would say that what this actually refers to is that
our conceptual tools (laws, expectations, etc.) are usually successful in
aiding our projects. That is a great intellectual achievement. But as to a
supposed actual uniformity (?statistical) of the universe, that is a product
of, and exists in, our discourses.
>
No, this is not what I am trying to convey.
My assertion is an existential one not an epistemological one. 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.
Nor am I referring to statistical uniformity. Again, I make an existential
statement, not an epistemological one. I refer only to uniformity that
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.
This, of course, is the position of most scientists. It makes sense of their
activities. I know of only one corroboration of this position outside of
the scientific community -- the technological / industrial /business
community -- which pays for the research. But this really makes up only a
single intellectual community.
> Then, to Steven again:
>
>
>> I still do not understand the appeal to postmodernism. There does not
seem to me to be anything postmodern about "no knowledge outside the
knower." Indeed, it is a modern idea developed by logicians of the modern
era.
> I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists,
requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured
by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von
Uexküll's 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the
postmodern view is anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal
understanding, which modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science,
the famous incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics
might have engendered a kind of postmodernism. Instead, it has sent many
brilliant minds upon the evidently thankless task of trying to ‘square the
circle’!
>
I doubt your view warrants the term "postmodernism" for the reasons I have
already stated.
Your claim that "modern science implicitly pretends to" a "supposedly
universal understanding" misses the point made in the above comments. If
there is an unspoken dependence then this is it.
A view that "eschews any supposed universal understanding," simply cannot be
scientific. It is the view of disenchanted sociologists, philosophers or
diplomats, perhaps.
And their kinds of knowledge are to be eschewed as ... what? ... unuseful?
To what projects? Incorrect? Judged from what vantage point?
The profound existential uniformity that I refer to is the necessary basis
of scientific knowledge, without it all bets are off. It is certainly a
conjecture, both verifiable and fallible, but without it there can be no
science.
I think this raises the issue of what science is for. I will suggest that
it is for the purpose of furthering technology. That pragmatic role has
not, I think, much value in the search for 'truth'!
As to the famous incongruity between GR and QM, each focus upon distinct
aspects of nature. Our failure, so far, to have a unified view of these
evident aspects of the world is simply an indicator that there is work to
do. If it has engendered anything it is a literal mindedness that has closed
minds to the revisions necessary and thus we have stalled. "To the man with
a hammer, everything is a nail." I take it to be a warning that we must be
more rigorous, not less.
Supposing the incongruity to lie in discourse rather than in the World, then
it seems there is warrant to question the validity of these ideas. Are they
really any better than those of "disenchanted sociologists, philosophers or
diplomats"? The world of the 'small' is a mechanical (experimental)
construction, while the world of the large is a mathematical construction. It
is true that their discourses both ride upon mathematics, and how can it be,
then, that they cannot be made to come into agreement? Perhaps Goedel has
told us?
Incidentally, I elaborate on my earlier "Science Abandons Absolute Truth"
posting on my blog:
http://stevenzenith.info/science-abandons-absolute-truth
With respect,
Steven
Replying to Gavin -
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Gavin Ritz <garr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Stan
I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists,
requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured
by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von
Uexküll's 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the
postmodern view is anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal
understanding, which modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science,
the famous incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics
might have engendered a kind of postmodernism.
The incongruity relates to the simple fact that QM focuses only on matter
(only 4% of the universe) whilst Relativity takes into account the entire
universe (70% exotic repulsion stuff and 26% exotic matter both totally
unknown).
These differences should easily have been linked by logic if there was any
underlying unity to the two models. I think there is likely not. They were
constructed by different folks focusing on there own prefecture.
Maybe the European particle accelerator folks will find the Higgs Field.
Then we can all sigh a breath of relief.
Let us put our faith in money expenditure, of course!
Instead, it has sent many brilliant minds upon the evidently thankless task
of trying to ‘square the circle’!
I agree Stan; another Joke is also on us in actually thinking there is even
such a thing as information. I cannot find one robust article on what
information is how it is transported or conveyed, its structure/processes on
anything other than a logic abstraction. Or anything other than a
configuration we have dreamed up. Probably only representing an energy
signature and/or transformation.
I know this is one hellava statement and it’s going to piss a lot of people
off. I’m afraid the emperor has no clothes.
For example, when someone reads a spectral pattern (in fact all of science
is about spectral patterns), they say, that’s the information relating to
Cyanide. But what they should really say (which we don’t in normal dialogue)
that’s a combination of sight and sound configuration (because that’s what
really happening) relating to chemistry (another form of energy too). So
there’s an agreed logical structure (form) and content behind all energy
configurations.
You would like Bridgman's 'Logic of Science' - early postmodernism from
within!
All that language really is, is a sight and sound combination configuration
plus time. Basically an energy configuration. No information here, logical
structures yes.
That is what physical understanding is.
Everyone seems to be complicit in this strange deception, Richard Dawkins
says in one of his books we know that living matter is a combination of
“matter and information” and that’s the difference between living matter and
all other matter. It’s rather complex chemistry (a complex energy
configuration). Saying it is just information plus matter is plain wrong.
There was one well know scientist commenting on how much “bits” the eyes can
absorb, I did a quick calc and it was one million times more than the
visible electromagnetic spectrum, the eyes have nothing to do with “bits”.
All human sensory inputs are “energy transduction” systems. No information
here.
This depends upon your definition of 'information', which is the important
object in the present discussion.
STAN
What’s going on?
Regards
Gavin
Replying to Jerry --
v547.7 Stan
Your conceptualization of the concept of properties as a way of knowing
appears to be grossly deficient with respect to the chemical sciences.
Metaphorically consistent with category theory, the chemical way of knowing
emerges from the commutativity of the grammar of chemistry as derived from
Dalton's "ratio of small whole numbers."
The critical notion is the commutativity among the nominative case, the
properties as "universals" and the arrangement of parts of the whole. This
commutativity creates a mathematical and logical intimacy among ostension,
extension and intention. (While this a triadic argument, it differs
substantially from the icon / index / symbol triadicity of C S Peirce.)
Your writings appear to me to be a personal metaphysics which cannot support
this intimacy of commutativity and therefore your are left to reject the
role of properties in the study of nature.
Or, do I mis-read the intent of your communication and metaphysics?
My metaphysics is developmental, thus directional. Past and future are not
‘commutative’. The material basis of my metaphysics is represented by the
compositional hierarchy -- [whole [part [part of part]]]. Parts are
generally organized in all but the simplest cases, and so not
interchangeable, therefore, not ‘commutative’ among themselves at a given
level. And, since a bottom-up procedure will not generally successfully
recreate a whole, wholes and parts don’t ‘commute’, even without a temporal
frame. My metaphysics is informed as well by dialectics. This too is
directional (evolutionary), so again, the synthesis does not commute with
the prior contradictions. I see commutativity as belonging to some kind of
‘block universe’ conception.
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
