Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:30:46 +0100
Subject: Science and Silence (was: Phenomenology and Science)
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


Anthony a little while back on my suggestion of the Unified Field Theory
being impossible (analytically: of course it could be attempted concretely
and even proclaim its success, but...) said this:

> Further, I don't know that a
> Heideggerian must hold that a Unified Field Theory is impossible, because
> such scientific theories deal with the world as subject to scientific
> calculation, and the world as subject to calculation may indeed be subject
> to TOTAL calculative unifying (and not necessarily in the classical
> deterministic mechanistic sense, since contemporary physics is not
> mechanistic or deterministic).

Anthony, it's not that a Heideggerian (is that me?) must hold the (analytic)
impossibility of a UFT, but that such a complete and final theory of
Everything is impossible since it would need to include the theory itself
(which perhaps does not conform to the criteria for inclusion as some thing
that could be a part of Everything {the great nexus of the calculable and
subject to calculation), something directed towards the world in such a way
as to exclude the seemingly senseless passion of humans to pursue science
and philosophy rather than just biologically get on with life; i.e.,
scientific theories, however all-embracing, pleasing, powerful, etc (all
passionate), should not be themselves included in a UFT according to the
dictates of a passionless science. To exclude such a phenomenon as the
passionate production of theory in a theory of Everything is to once again
commit the 'sin' of Aristotle as I have described it vis-a-vis the marking
of of the parts of being taking no notice of being itself, etc. Most
importantly, the enterprise that ignores its enterprisability (i.e.,
presumes it can leave out language, human speech (the theorising of the
UFT), in the depiction of the multivarious beings that comprise the
Universe, even as it depicts and presumes in human speechforms {whether
natural language, mathematical equations, ikons, collections of data, etc}).
Such a calamitous enterprise, like that of its cousin (Nominalism), ends in
silence (analytically impossible in its own terms of possibility) whilst
making a very big bang (as usual with such pretensions).

regards

mP



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---