Jon - I don't think that the reminder by Soren was addressed specifically to
you, despite your statement of gratitude at being reminded. I think it was
addressed to Steven and any of us who might be interested in that article
and its arguments.
And, I completely disagree with your statement:
"Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than
"the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were",
which historically speaking is just the usual case."
That's a fallacious argument, for it claims that 'this axiom (of evolution
of laws) is due to and only to our ignorance of those laws. Any changes we
might see aren't due to evolution but to our becoming 'less ignorant' of
those laws'. That's a fallacy-of-a claim-to-ignorance.
The argument about the evolution of laws isn't based on us, on we humans and
our knowledge base. It is based on the laws themselves - and some of us
assert that evolution is, in itself, a law, which is to say, a universal
reality - and that the rules of organization of matter within this universe
are capable of adaptation and evolution ..to enable more complex forms of
matter.
This also has little to do with 'variables varying over time' - which
removes those variables from a causality due to interaction with the
environment and reduces them to merely a causality due to the linear passage
of time. The theory of adaptive evolution on the other hand inserts an
informational networking of organisms with other organisms/envt...and
suggests a freedom, a spontaneous and informed change to adapt to the
requirements of the environment. Nothing to do with time.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
To: "Søren Brier" <sb....@cbs.dk>; "Steven Ericsson-Zenith"
<ste...@iase.us>; "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>; "Peirce List"
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 10:40 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Thread:
SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15879
SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15880
Søren, List,
Oh, of course, it was nice to be reminded, and that inspired me
to scan through a sample of what had been said before, plus I'm
really fond of that particular quote I featured on my blog, and
I thought the glancing review from NPR was kind of interesting:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real
To my way of thinking, the whole thing is really a pseudo-issue.
Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than
"the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were",
which historically speaking is just the usual case.
To say that "the laws of physics evolve" is just to say
that the laws of physics we know contain parameters that
we used to believe were constants but now we believe are
variables, and all that does is initiate an inquiry into
the laws that rule the time evolution of those variables.
Which is again just another variation on the usual theme.
The form of inquiry itself persists.
Regards,
Jon
On 3/20/2015 5:46 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
Jon
Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern physicist
found it possible to uphold his position while having a view close to
Peirce's.
Søren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32
Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Re: Søren Brier
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
Søren, List,
Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the instigation, of
much discussion here and there around the web a couple years ago.
From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached the
topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the rest
of the summer:
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html
I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in connection with
a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity and the theory
of computation:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
Regards,
Jon
On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
Dear Steven
Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for the
evolution of laws?
The Singular Universe….THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME
Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014.
Synopsis
This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. We
argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of
the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into
natural philosophy –- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries
between science and philosophy.
The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to
scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither
does it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized
readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to
people in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics.
In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea of
an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they
maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This
second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a
new picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the
methods of fundamental science.
The book develops four inter-related themes:
1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many
worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The
current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious
reasoning.
2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature
which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has
revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.
3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There
is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs
that they govern..
4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to
be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism)
in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.
We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as well
as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way
theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner
that is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable
experiments.
And Smolin’s Time Reborn
“What is time?
It’s the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so obvious. And
yet, to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an illusion.
If you could somehow get outside the universe and observe it from there,
you would see that every moment has always existed and always will. Lee
Smolin disagrees, and in Time Reborn he lays out the case why.
Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the reality of
time and the openness of the future. Smolin’s groundbreaking theory
postulates that physical laws can evolve over time and the future is not
yet determined. Newton’s fundamental laws may not remain so
fundamental.”
Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that
different laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe
over time.
Søren
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
