LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  June 2001

TSE June 2001

Subject:

Re: The Hollow Men and the end of the universe

From:

Jonathan Crowther <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:01:50 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:11:38 -0400, you wrote:

>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?
>
1.  Newton assumed an absolute space and time from an absolute
perspective.  Einstein in the relativity theory started from what an
observer would see.  Since what an observer would see depends upon the
velocity of light, the velocity of light "c" becomes a term in the
equations.  These equations are the Lorenz transformations.  When the
velocity "v" of a particle mass is infinitessimal compared to "c" the
equations of special relativity approximate Newton's equations of
motion.  When v is significant compared to c Newton's equations no
longer give the correct result.

2. Under quantum theory, to which Einstein was vigorously opposed,
although he invented it, light (it's always light, lux mea crux!) can
be a wave or a particle (to see the world in a grain of light), the
behaviour of things is determined by their being perceived and natura
salta fecit (the so called quantum leaps).

3.  A way of reconciling these theories is a fuzzy logic square.
Imagine a square.  One corner is pure time = chaos = pure potentiality
= pure indeterminancy = entirely undpredictable; the opposite corner =
pure space = cosmos = = pure actuality = the entirley determined = the
always predictable.  The other two corners = (1) spacetime i.e x + y +
z + t = the world of special relativity and (2) timespace ie t' + t''
+ t''' + x = the world of quantum mechanics.

4. FQ is just such a square where (1) =  I am here there or elsewhere
in my beginning and (2) = time past, time present and time future plus
one place. Then there is the "absolute zero summer" of pure timeless
place and the Dry Salvages of pure spaceless time = the sea.

5.  That's about as holos as I can go.  How's that for middling?

>  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 
>beef?
>

Blake saw through the implications of Newton's absolute point of view.
Poets intuit science before scientists discover it.  This is the
answer to some of the problems posed in The Grammars of Creation.

Blake saw that Newton's physics leads to the hells of either infinite
regression or eternal recurrence for those who have lost the good of
the intellect.

>>The relationships of the various sets of descriptions, including those
>>not yet formulated, are set out in Physics and Philosophy by
>>Heisenberg.
>>
>>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.
>

The paradigms I take to be Bradley's finite centres which are the only
realities, at least that we can experience.

Heisenberg starts with ordinary language which is needed to describe
the experiment.  But the experiment must use a different order
language to describe its result.  These universes of discourse are
fine or even true as far as they go but if they attempt to usurp the
other orders then as Blake would say Urizen becomes God.

All the paradigms are need to describe the Reality since each fails in
some way. 

>>"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?
>

I guess that before we can understand any instance in the paradigm we
must understand the whole, have what Blake called a fourfold vision of
it.

Incidentally Heisenberg concludes that quantum theory "proves"
Aristotelian ontology.

>  Does Tom Gray have some thoughts on this?

Pass. 


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager