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