Re: [-empyre-] metaphor

Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com> · Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:02:57 -0500 (EST)

Well, not really I think. The outcome is always changed along predictable
lines - it's not random. It's qualitative and bounded at least within
fuzzy set theory, probabilities, etc. Heisenberg's tricky that way -

Alan

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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