Dave, thanks for jumping in to have some fun with questions; I make no claim
they are the right ones, or the best ones.
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Howard, I wonder if you are asking the wrong questions. Let me begin with
the unfulfilled assumption that M-theory or some other GUT provides a full
unification of all the forces and whatever may be needed to complete
physics. Is the current physical vocabulary adequate to deal with all these
phenomena? I suspect that it is not, that as quarks and chromodynamic terms
had to be invented, so new terminology would be needed for the GUT. But the
assumption is that the micro theory will explain all the macro phenomena,
even though it seems very strange to me to suggest that the mass of small
particles depend on the supermassive Higgs boson. But the terminology of the
macro relationships is hardly identical with that of the micro
forces/particles/whatever terminology.
Yes, the specific terminology is different. That's why I used the phrase
"conceptual vocabulary." The new terminology in elementary particle physics
is still terminology about the physical properties and interactive forces
among particles. As such, it strikes me as being different words dealing
with the same sort of concepts as we have used for some time. Nonetheless,
I think you're correct to note that the conceptual vocabularies of each of
the disciplines listed in the question set is itself a dynamically changing
thing.
....skip a bit ....
I have in the above sloughed over the notion of emergence, that when stuff
at a lower level becomes sufficiently complex and organized, new functions
appear.
Yes, the emergence of new properties and, perhaps even more importantly, new
capabilities (or functions) does often demand that new concepts be added to
one's vocabulary. Not merely new words, but new concepts.
In all our scientific investigations, we have not found more than matter.
One can argue that this is because there is nothing other than matter in the
universe. Or one can claim that the methods used can encounter nothing other
than matter and the forces affecting it.
As I see it, your second possibility definitely deserves consideration.
Things only get messier when mental phenomena are brought into the picture.
Is emergence adequate, or is there something more--at least in human beings?
Yes, that's when the "only matter matters" approach wears thin and a flood
of new concepts from far outside of the domain of physics must be allowed to
flow into the discussion. (But I'm sure you already knew that, as well as
what follows.) The natural sciences, using the limited conceptual vocabulary
of "physical/material systems" have allowed us to understand a great deal
about significant portions/aspects of the Creation. But that Creation -- the
whole array of creaturely systems -- has a character ( or a manner of being)
that is not exhausted by the conceptual vocabulary of the physical sciences.
That's why we respect the natural sciences for telling us a valuable partial
story, but do not claim that they tell us the whole story.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 16 2001 - 08:54:04 EST