|
John K. has inspired some new ideas with his post... especially
this part:
Given that definition of laws, they are presumed to exist
as an absolute
and untestable REALITY (recall my earlier attempt to point
out that the
disagreement is over different concepts of reality?). That is a
dogmatism which cannot be challenged on rational grounds. It is a belief
that nature is governed by formal laws, whether we know them or not,
which is OK in itself; but it is also a belief that those laws are
absolute and unchanging, sitting "out there" to be discovered by science
if science can state some formal representation of it.
Rosen's is at
its core a different kind of epistemology, although it
does not contradict
the above; it is larger than the above. It has the
potential for explaining
where the laws themselves arise from. The laws
themselves are a formal
product of reality, which is a complementarity
between formal and realized
components of a system. This metaphysic,
unlike the law-based metaphysic, is
capable of emergence and new law as
a natural phenomenon. The other one is
only capable human discovery, and
as such precludes the discovery of
anything truly creative. That seems
to be excluding the recognition of life
itself.
Although my father never did set down a list of what he
suspected the knowable "Laws of Nature" were (insofar as he had been able
to tell), I think I have a glimmer of what they would be, if he had.
It might be a useful exercise to play with some of these ideas (although it
would be a miracle if we all agreed on any of it!)
1.) Causality is possible because of the co-organization of space
and time.
2.) The universe as we perceive it is part of the effects of the
complex organization of space, time, and causality.
3.) Causality in the universe is a closed entailment loop such
that everything in the universe is entailed by something else in the
universe.
4.) The universe entails itself (Causality entails space/time and
space/time entails causality).
I've got to go drive one of my kids to violin lessons, so I'll
have to stop at #4 but I'll post these beginnings and those who are interested
can add their two cents worth. We'll see what comes of it.
Cheers,
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:36
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Fundamental problems
in Physics
Howard,
I think the question is indeed an inquisition.
Here's why:
HP: I usually mean by physical laws the natural laws that I
imagine
exist whether
or not I have created a model of these
laws.
Given that defintion of laws, they are presumed to exist as an
absolute
and untestable REALITY (recall my earlier attempt to point out
that the
disagreement is over different concepts of reality?). That is a
dogmatism which cannot be challenged on rational grounds. It is a belief
that nature is governed by formal laws, whether we know them or not,
which is OK in itself; but it is also a belief that those laws are
absolute and unchanging, sitting "out there" to be discovered by science
if science can state some formal representation of it.
Rosen's is
at its core a different kind of epistemology, although it
does not
contradict the above; it is larger than the above. It has the
potential
for explaining where the laws themselves arise from. The laws
themselves
are a formal product of reality, which is a complementarity
between formal
and realized components of a system. This metaphysic,
unlike the law-based
metaphysic, is capable of emergence and new law as
a natural phenomenon.
The other one is only capable human discovery, and
as such precludes the
discovery of anything truely creative. That seems
to be excluding the
recognition of life itself.
So, the answer I would give to your
question, which is a heavily loaded
question, is absolutely yes. Not only
does life violate physical laws
and invent new ones, but even physical
systems do. The reason is simple:
there is not a one-to-one correspondance
between any formal system
(e.g., laws) and any natural system, and yet
they are in intimate
co-defining relationship. Each one may therefore
exceed the other. So,
what do we see? Realized natural systems
continually exceed any laws we
can write about them, AND, mathematics -
the set of laws we can write
plus the process of inventing them -
continually exceeds what seems to
exist in nature. This is exactly what
the view I present would expect,
and exactly what the view your
definition of law implies, would
preclude. Whether we call one view
"right" or not is irrelevant, the one
that encompases both phenomena that
we have carefully established must
be the more useful view.
Please
point out my error.
John Kineman
Howard Pattee
wrote:
> Judith, and anybody else,
>
> I asked in a post
to Judith what I think is an important question for
> clarity in this
discussion. I realize it sounds like
> cross-examination, and of course
no one has to answer.
>
> Here is the crucial question: Do you
believe that living systems at
> any level of complexity or
organization can violate or evade physical
> laws?
>
>
Howard
|