|
Hi, Pete,
I am thrilled for having been able to lure you
into such a meaningful post.
I did not intend to provoke a discussion on
Tipler et al. because I am in no favor of a position that "we are the real and
only children of the Creator (God) and he did everything in our favor" or
something alike. We are an unimportant component in a huge universe and
IMO as a 'lifeform' not essentially different from other processes in it, maybe
with more concern and activity to observe its (our) details. I am no
fan of the oscillating universe either, I consider it a cop-out
to transfer the fundamentals into infinity. Similarly, I am no fan of
the infinite(?) expansion either, as a matter of fact I consider the genius of
Hubble a (strong and good) chance to explain the redshift, but not the only one
- before ALL others (including the not yet discovered, even thought-of
ones) are all phased out. I drew up a cosmological narrative for myself, in
which this universe (among innumerable other ones with unlimited quality
differences) occur as an inevitable asymmetry flash
in an unlimitedly symmetrical plenitude (no info
from there) and in the same flash dissipates back into the timeless
invariance - which from the 'inside' looks as our entire world.
"IF" it expands, it still goes into infinite
dissipation. But this is the matter of another list.
Your remark: "...evolutionary course that all systems seem to follow toward
greater complexity and greater self-referentiality..." refers to a segment of
the total, chosen for a reference. Darwin chose the C-based bio segment, now
evolution is extended to more than just that, but even in the bell-curve of the
bio-items it concentrates on the buildup, disregarding the destructional
phases (processes). I identify as 'evolution' the history of this
universe from appearance to final dissipation and I (we?) don't know in which
phase of that history we sit. Complexity is usually judged by the interacting
items we know (observe) and disregard the 'rest'. So instead of 'higher
complexity assemblage' I may say: the ones we know more about. This pertains of
course to limited models/machines.
I would not judge the open ended non-computable
natural systems. How 'complex' are they? So the "evolution" of the universe IMO
is a zero-sum game. Starts and ends with nothing - atemporarily, no matter
how long it is considered in the inside view to 'last'.
I value, however, your "self-referentiality"
which I have to consider and will.
Life - as we usually talk about it - is a very
negligible episode in our universe, conscious life even thinner - whatever we
assign to such. "Think about how (what) they think about" sounds excellent, but
even Wheeler's self ogling universe picture looks with a human-like eye - and
this is said more than formalistically. Of course in such - let us say -
anthropocentrically arranged views 'life' is our No.1 concern and biology can
hold itself more important than physics (forget now about the opposite from the
other side). Indeed physical views SHOULD pertain to a larger part than the
negligible C-based physiologic aspect even in our universe, hadn't it been for a
similarly 'anthropocentric' view, so absolutely inevitable in the reductionistic
capabilities of our thinking. Chosen a narrow range of (all kinds of)
magnitudes, a restricted view of (some!) processes, all quantized in the limited
model state of an un-enriched level of epistemic cognitive inventory,
explained at the appropriate (timely) level of the startup thinking - yet
sticking to such, even when additional knowledge-base deemed things as
paradoxical/ chaotic/ and unsatisfactory. (Example: a linear retrogradation of
our present status to the Big Bang).
I appreciate your words on 'civilization',
although in my original (European) mindset I differentiate between civilization
(=toothbrush) and culture (mental level and activities).
My take on 'freedom' goes one little step further
(quoted from me on the 'Gaia' list):
"... in freedom I am free to do
anything that does not reduce the similar freedom of others."
It is how I
expand your "The price of freedom is personal
responsibility".
Participatory AP? Again our ego. If WE interfere
with nature (and we do) that is just as deterministic in the overall changes of
the universe as anything else. No 'random' idea to interfere because we don't
see parallel (different) nature(S) caused by such. Our ideas are based on
existing experience plus impact from I/O - all within nature's deterministic
ways. So our 'participation' is no different from a hurricane (metaphorically
speaking).
(Please, do not valuate my words
wordly).
I do not appreciate thought-experiments: they may
be a good game, and the EPR kept physicists excited for 7 decades, but the 'let
us assume' secures unreal circumstances to make our point. To me Aspect's early
result was not much more realistic than the EPR onset. Maybe for a physicist his
items were acceptable, I found them exaggerated. But then again, I never
understood the Bell theorem in its details.
What do we participate in, anyway? do we transfer
the Solar system into a cosier position in the Milky Way? Do we stop a
supernova? do we ...oops, whatever I wanted to ask came out as "yes", eg. change
the composition of the seas/atmosphere, alter DNA,
revive the 'dead', so I stop with one opposing
remark: the biggest "participatory" change so far (we know of) was by the
blue-green algae (not anthropic). They changed the biosphere. "It was their pure
biology" you could retort, well, so is ours. Maybe more complex, if you
like this _expression_.
Your views are physics-based (of course),
emphasizing its exponential 'upheaval' over the past century with objectivity
though:
"physics?indeed, all of science?is frequently in epistemological upheaval
as a normal condition "
and I would go even further in
generalization: our life underwent the
power-law.
Politically, economically, philosophically,
emotionally, in art and lifestyle, all the way.
I may not agree with 'the new', but I am 'from
the old'. Not in sciences.
As you conclude: RR spoke about 'the sciences',
not physics or biology only.
Thanks again for your meaningful
writing
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
|