|
HP and JR:
(Although I agree with HP's topical discipline
remark)
since the Rosennean vocabulary is so particular
and mostly differently identifiable from the classical sci. dictionaries IMO we
have to be very careful of the words as and how we use them. (eg.
'objective').
Not only the 'profanum vulgus', but most of
us on this list as well, are tempted to accept in the back of our mind the
usual meanings and use of terms and in many cases that is
disturbing.
Howard's precise definition about objective,
adding:
"That is all *physicists* mean by an objective model. I am sure
Rosen would agree so far...."
is IMO correct, understood that Rosen would agree in 'just
*conventional* physicists mean...' - not in the (model-based) definition.
(Besides we can only assume what Rosen WOULD agree in. Even repeating his
words is not decisive IMO, both of you had a long standing connection with RR
while he was formulating his ideas over the decades. It depends whether the
quoted words are the latest version?)
Also:
quotes from his earlier books (IMO) are phrases written for the 'profanum
vulgus' of conventional scientists...
I take it with a dash of salt, comparing what "I" feel his (proper?) ideas
would be in their latest development.
I may be wrong in this. I speculated too much myself.
I am not the Savonarolla, I m the Giordano Bruno.
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:27
PM
Subject: Re: Empirics and Life
Judith,
I think our
discussion of objectivity is veering away from Rosen's ideas of modeling
life.
At 11:05 AM 1/29/05 -0500, Judith wrote:
Applying my own definition of
logic to the subjectivity of measurements in science, I question whether we
CAN put an objectively verifiable number on "the speed of light". I question
whether we CAN verify objectively that this is one of the invariant values
in the universe.
HP: Of course according to your logic
you are correct that everything is subjective. But I don't think that is the
issue in modeling life. As I said last post, we all must make choices about
what to believe and what to doubt, and in your inclusive sense all these
choices are indeed subjective. My choice of Aristotle's narrow logic is just
as subjective as your choice of Judith's inclusive logic. To believe the
evidence that the speed of light is an objective invariant value in the
universe is also a subjective choice. To believe any epistemology, like the
Hertzian condition for a good model, is also a subjective choice. But that is
not the crux of the problem that physics addresses.
The crux is that
if you accept the Hertzian condition, then you will find that a model
of Natural laws in which the speed of light is not a constant of Nature will
not satisfy the Hertzian condition. Your model and your measurements won't
commute. That is all physicists mean by an objective model. I am sure Rosen
would agree so far. What Rosen says (and I agree) is that a model of life
based only on state-determined Newtonian dynamics won't commute. What I am
trying to make clearer in my own mind is just what specific encodings and
formal models of life Rosen believes will
commute.
Howard
|