Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[John M <***>]

Dear JohnK,
I planned to reply to Howard's question but you did it much broader and
better. I consider physical laws the recurring cases in the model callable
physical observation of nature, limited to such observations and formulated
as ubiquitous and eternal. Nature is considered as all of THESE observations
(or: observables). I consider nature in a broader sense, not even fathomable
how broad, and life is 'also' part of it: a process with slightly different
components and intereffectiveness than restricted within only in "physical"
observations. Now physics caught up and 'observed'  events of life as well,
but cannot fit everything in the existing system of calculable data.
The mental effects come mostly under 'somehow'. In your dreams/thoughts you
can exceed the limitations of space and time restrictions. Experience and
feelings are hard to convert into joules or mAs. They are facts of life, no
matter that biology cannot handle them either.
Physics and biology (and all others) IMO are topical models of nature. They
may overlap, but none covers the total (wholeness).
You said it better.

John Mikes

--- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: 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