----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:17
AM
Subject: Re: Physics and Metaphysics -
systems and environment
JohnM,
You
wrote:
That
has a double consequence:
1. I am part of it, not a spectator, (skip part
2)
TG:
I
probably wouldn't use the phrase "part of it" *. As Judith noted, the
partitioning into self and other is fundamental for science to occur.
JM:
The problem is semantic:- PART OF - meaning both the
dualistic partitioning (your take) and the wholistic unity (my take). The
first implies a conglomerate of parts, the second ONE complexity, where parts
cannot be separately considered. This, exactly, is my
point.
WE cannot formulate an 'independent' view of the environment of
which WE are inseparable ingredient(s?) of. I disregard "science to occur" -
it refers to the reductionistic science topics - I am considering the
'totality'.
But this
is a conceptual partitioning of the physical world by us,
and just because we can conceive of this clear dualism does not thereby
entail that the physical world can actually be studied as if they
were two fractionable pieces: a subjective observer and an entirely
objective environment of that observer.
("your take" see above, - not mine)
If all observables or percepts are the
result of the physical interactions of at least two systems, then to be an
observer is to be in physical interaction with other systems. This
makes the notion of a subjective observer fractionable from an
objective environment an untenable position, unless one asserts a
priori that systems in isolation and environments of those systems in
isolation can produce no new behaviors when brought into interaction with each
other. But such an assertion is clearly (at least to me)
false.
Of course, it is. I am not speaking about A observing B
(systems) in "physical"(!) interaction. Observation IMO is acceptance of
information, maybe within ONE natural system as in other cases callable:
(self?)reorganization. "MY" mental aspect within the "environment" (totality)
is enriched and changed.
No dualism. No system-interaction.
This
line of thinking of observables as requiring system interactions also
roughly forms the basis of Rosen's book Fundamentals of
Measurement.
* I wouldn't use the phrase "part of
it" (where "it" refers to "environment") because to me that phrase
implies that the self/environment dualism is being maintained, at least
linguistically.
So let me correct my initial sentence to:
"as integral, unseparable complexity-component (part) of
it" -
as I meant it.
SKIP part 2
Regards,
Tim
Regards
John M