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
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 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.
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
>>"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
Incidentally Heisenberg concludes that quantum theory "proves"
> Does Tom Gray have some thoughts on this?