Posted on 11/30/2004 6:21:11 PM PST by betty boop
Yes, especially with the copula. But language is not the only example. It is common to human thinking through abstraction, including mathematics. It is a weakness through abuse; in the case of abstraction, it can be an advantage and we couldn't do without it. If one doubts abstraction fails to map to reality, you've got the Cartesian shivers, real bad.
I meant to add that it is possible to utter perfectly formulated logical statements in which each premise is undeniably true, and still reach a conclusion that conflicts with reality. That is a problem with language.
Usually it is easy to find some obvious fallacy or misuse of language, but not always.
And if mathematics is the language with God has written the universe, then Goedel must be Satan.
Are you asserting that relativity is absolutely true, or is it a really good approximation?
Perhaps StJacques is needed more than ever now, he has a very clear definition of science (we'll promise not to press him about his quantizing habits).
Zeno's paradoxes would have been forgotten by now if they did not illustrate some deep problem. There has got to be some problem in the language of his formulation, or the language with which we discuss change and movement.
In our world, Achilles will catch up and pass the tortoise every time. In a thought experiment, such as Zeno's, he never catches up. That thought reality is only real in Zeno's head
Right. And it is a problem with the nature of human thought. Ol' Parmenides slipped out the back when he claimed the equivalence of thinking and being.
This reminds me of the chipmunk we chased until it sat behind an old oak tree and we surprised the critter, coming from both sides of that big trunk and when he saw that he gave up the ghost. We hung him dead on a branch and the next morning we pulled on his tail and it slid off.
The paradoxes depended heavily on "nextpoints" and "next instances". With a continuity, we have no need of next, perhaps the Dedekindest cut of all
Sure, Doc, it might be. The point about the rock and the type of system in nature that it represents is that it is divisible into fairly uniform units of itself (chemically speaking) of whatever size; yet there is little variety, if any, from unit to unit, so to speak. If the units get small enough, we can start to speak of "sand." The point is the chemical composition alone is what makes a rock what it is, or its sand if it's ground up fine enough.
But the rock is a different system in nature from a living organism. Living systems are not divisible into uniform components. Indeed, living systems are composed of an enormous number and variety of other living systems -- cells, tissues, organs, etc. -- that all must "work together" in order to express that particular living system. This "work together" business strong suggests the existence of some kind of "global governance," which I imagine must be information-based.
If one reduces a rock down unto sand, I don't think much changes, thermodynamically speaking. But if you start to cut up a living system, the matter of which it is formed instantly begins to try for the shortest possible route to thermodynamic equilibrium. If it loses its information source, then it returns to the "captivity" of the least action principle; in other words, it is returned to the governance of the physical laws alone.
In short, the loss of information is what sets up the "heat death."
Living systems are mechanisms, with moving parts and a control device. And typically a means of reproducing themselves. Even apparently simple single cells have very small moving parts and a control device. And, as you point out, separate the parts from one another, or separate them from their control device, and whatever else they are, alive they are not.
Typically, also, cells that work in concert with other cells have a means of organizing themselves, which is to say communications, either with those adjacent cells, or with another higher control device, or probably both.
We know that for us to devise something similar, or something analogous, takes some fairly talented people. Its difficult to imagine such things assembling themselves.
Fascinating in this regard is that afterwards, especially the Stoics, supposed a World Soul.
That's not entirely true. Some primitive species are known as "composite organisms," and they are made of parts that function quite well when separated. Example: THE BIOLOGY OF LICHENS.
You can cut up a bacteria colony into particles smaller than a grain of sand (even smaller than clay particles) and they still live. If you cut up a geode, it's no longer a geode at all.
From relativity/Riemannian geometry to mirror symmetry to physical dualities - math is unreasonably effective.
As to the language God used in speaking the world into existence, perhaps it has an element of math. The Hebrew alphabet, for instance, is mathematical.
But I would expect the speaking itself to manifest the harmonics we observe - from sound waves in the early universe to information in biological systems [Shannon paraphrased successful communications] to vibrations of strings [string theory].
Seems to me there will be a mathematical relationship between the geometry and the harmonics. When it is found, if I am still around to do so, I'll make a 4th item on my list of things from science which "scream" that He is eternal God.
For Lurkers, the three on my list so far are:
2. the unreasonable effectiveness of math and,
3. the presence of information [Shannon] in biological systems.
PatrickHenry: That's not entirely true. Some primitive species are known as "composite organisms," and they are made of parts that function quite well when separated. Example: THE BIOLOGY OF LICHENS.
The Shannon-Weaver definition would have covered all the bizarre life cycles including the lichens, spores, pollen, viruses, bacteria and even the spooky Pfiesteria piscicida - all of which continue to communicate throughout their life cycles. Once the communication is lost, the biological life ceases.
But alas, now we have an erased blackboard with the words "Quantization of Continuum fallacy" writ large. Moreover, many distinctions are now fallacious quantizations of the continuum. In the continuum, there is no clear distinction between lichens and geodes, reptiles and lizards, life and non-life - instead, it is flexing boundaries and fuzziness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.