Re: [-empyre-] metaphor

["Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>]

This is the scientific model: we're discovering what's already there. But if
our observations, our measurements, also change the outcome, as quantum
mechanics tells us, isn't there an irony here? We're discovering what we're
creating!

-Joel


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim@panix.com>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] metaphor


>
>
> I tend to believe that mathematics was discovered, not invented - and
> within this lies, literally, all the difference in the world. - Alan
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:
>
> > Scientific models work to describe the world for which science is
equipped
> > to find. The moment mathematics was invented it set this course. But
there
> > may be worlds that science has not adapted to recognize. After all,
science
> > was evolved by the brain, and the brain evolved in order to allow our
> > species to survive. Science, and its proactive partner, technology, has
more
> > to do with survivability than the possible spectrum of reality.
> >
> > On the other hand, art is not about _how_ to survive, but the _reason_
to
> > survive. Thus, in countries that practice institutional violence, like
the
> > present US Government, science is well-funded, while art is something
extra.
> >
> >  -Joel
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> > To: "Soft_Skinned_Space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 2:16 PM
> > Subject: [-empyre-] metaphor
> >
> >
> > > It's interesting to think of the role of 'superstition' in science
over
> > the
> > > years and how that has continually been regarded with a dubious eye.
Some
> > > would think it is no longer present in scientific discourse, but talk
> > about
> > > such relatively mysterious realms as quantum mechanics is, at least in
the
> > > popular literature, full of references to shamanism and consciousness
as a
> > > 'force' that acts upon things. The more scientific training it takes
to
> > > actually understand the science, the more open it becomes to popular
> > > misconception. Literary science? Science fiction or science email?
Also,
> > > fallacious 'proofs' (Penrose) that humans can do things like solve the
> > > halting problem are published and become best sellers. We live in a
> > magical
> > > time, do we not? Giordano Bruno's time has nothing over on ours, in
this
> > > regard.
> > >
> > > The alchemy of poetry and art is, at least in part, in the way that it
> > > operates metaphorically in such a way as to make it profoundly
resonant
> > with
> > > the inner world. Its truth is of a different kind than the truth
sought by
> > > science. Are the propositions of science, couched within mathematical
> > > abstractions, essentially metaphorical in that they are directly about
the
> > > abstract models and only indirectly about 'a way the world is', or are
the
> > > mathematical models in some fundamental correspondence with 'the way
> > things
> > > are'? We can amass experimental evidence to the point that, for
instance,
> > > the existence of the atom, as described in the mathematical models,
can
> > > hardly be contested, yet our conceptions about it are necessarily
models,
> > > metaphors. So perhaps our understanding is necessarily metaphorical in
its
> > > operations and there will always be this diffusion of superstition
through
> > > science, which nonetheless seeks some objectivity from the vaguely
> > personal.
> > > To imbue stones with consciousness, to postulate an animistic
universe, is
> > > quite resonant with the inner world, isn't it. Whether it is a
hypothesis
> > > that is of any use in science is another matter.
> > >
> > > It is probably like the question of how many angels can dance on the
head
> > of
> > > a pin. That is my feeling, also, about the question of free will vs
> > > determinism. The question of how many angels can dance on the head of
a
> > pin
> > > involves assumptions that are not required in science (angels) and the
> > > 'answer' is inconsequential to science. The question of free will
versus
> > > determinism, in popular thinking, often involves the assumption that
an
> > > algorithmic model of how thought operates limits thought in ways that
> > cannot
> > > be demonstrated.
> > >
> > > ja
> > > http://vispo.com/animisms (kinetic poetry with soul)
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > empyre forum
> > > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre