At 11:43 AM 06/23/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:35:06 -0400, you wrote:
>Newton's descriptions are one set of descriptions of the world which
>are now seen as being a subset or speical case (subject to the Lorentz
>transformations) of the special and general theories of relativity.
That sounds like an allforabit right there, but I'm not up on physics
(to put it mildly). Do you mean that there is peace and harmony in the
physics community on the question of the relation of Newton's laws to
Einstein's visa vis Heisenberg? Just my weekly perusals of the NY Times
Book Review make that seem unlikely, but maybe you could say just a bit
(for all, or holos can you go?) more?
And then what of Blake and "Newton's swoon" etc? Was Blake just not privy
to Heisenberg, in absolute chronological terms, or did he have a legitimate
>The relationships of the various sets of descriptions, including those
>not yet formulated, are set out in Physics and Philosophy by
>There is no overturning but a succession of paradigms which must each
>be taken as a whole:
It does sound nice, but the skeptic in me gets glum thinking of
"relationships...set out" among things that don't exist.
>"When a part so ptee does duty for the holos we soon grow to use of an
>allforabit." FW p19
>One paradigm's science is another paradigm's poetry / mythology.
Maybe, but we're not seeing the universe in a grain of sand here, are
we? Isn't this ("grow use to") a habit of mind, the habit being here taking
the ptee part for the whole?
Does Tom Gray have some thoughts on this?