ELE and Roger
> PUZZLED ELEPHANT TO MARCO RE ENTROPY:
>
> MARCO WROTE:
> > IMO when an electron captures energy and performs a quantum leap, it
> > simplifies experience. IMO when light passes through a prism and splits
in
> > colors, it simplifies experience. "Experience" is simply interaction
within
> > an environment, and behavior is the answer to the experience. The
behavior
> > is always organized according to simple patterns, even at the inorganic
> > level.
>
> ELEPHANT WROTE:
> I wonder if the fact that entropy doesn't get in the way of your thesis
> about simplifying experience means that for you the simplification is
> performed by the conceiving of the object, not the object itself (where
> 'itself' is understood to be something separate from the conception).
> Anywhere near the mark?
>
>
> MARCO WROTE:
> > 1) You say that entropy does not get in the way of my thesis. Can you
> > please explain further your point?
>
> ELEPHANT:
> What I was getting at was this: is your thesis about simplifing experience
> really connected to the physics of the situation? I mean, if it is (and
you
> do discuss electrons), then it would seem that considerations like entropy
> would be relevant. But you don't even discuss entropy, or anything like
> that, so maybe your thesis isn't about the physics. That was the point.
Marco:
Oh, I was discussing physics...
ELE:
> entropy is the simplification by which everything becomes completely the
> same.
>
> What might be interesting and informative to reflect on, is whether this
> could be the kind of simplification you are talking about.
Marco:
At the contrary!
"One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys [the gravity
law] is a measure of its degree of evolution.[...] A similar analysis could
be made with other physical law such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and
it seemed to Phaedrus that if one gathered together enough of these
deliberate violations of the laws of the universe and formed a
generalization from them, a quite different theory of evolution could be
inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis of physical laws, then the
overwhelming evidence that life deliberately works around these laws cannot
be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that
something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of
gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts the
molecules' freedom". (Lila, chapter 11)
I well remember the first time I 've read this passage in Lila. And the
second time, and the third time. I remember all three because I've read it
consecutively three times. Entropy is probably the most static physical
law. IMO, it's a Platypus. Sooner or later someone will prove it. However,
the simplification I was talking about it's the contrary. It's the creation
of simple patterns which allow evolution, in opposition to the entropy
devolution to an undifferentiated continuum.
ROGER:
As written by James and acknowledged by Pirsig, reality is "dynamic and
flowing," and concepts are "static and discontinuous." This may relate to
another disagreement between us, as indicated by your view that inorganic
events are simplifications of experience. However, this will lead us way
off
topic, so I will let it go.
MARCO:
Just as it's relevant here, I don't let it go..... The problem is reality,
here. If reality is Quality, DQ is flowing. IMO sQ (that is every "things"
made of sQ) is discontinuous, not only concepts. My example of the electron
was that when it is stroke by energy, it is experiencing DQ. It's leap could
just be the attempt to dominate the undifferentiated flux. An attempt to
disobey entropy. The 99.999999% of times its attempt fails. But when life
arose, what a leap! Is this patterned behavior real (behavior as is), or
just an intellectual simplification (our concept of it)? MU. I like to think
it's also in some way real (even if different from the way we know it), so
that I can apply the same scheme of behavior to all four levels. However
I'm not a physicist, so I can't tell you a lot.
Back to ELE:
> ELEPHANT:
> ... I think you stand in the right
> place. However, having established that you don't beleive in Kantian
> noumena, I am then a bit puzzled about your talking of the simplification
in
> terms of electrons. Maybe you can help me out there.
Hope I did.
So I'm certified Kant Free 100%? :-)
Ciao
Marco.
p.s. to Roger:
thanks for the answer about intellect and art. Let me few days...
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST