File spoon-archives/seminar-14.archive/marx-bhaskar_2001/seminar-14.0102, message 34


From: "Greg Hall" <gregoryjayhall-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Things left open
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:46:58 -0700



In trying to understand the material presently before us I find a difficulty 
in an issue that we discussed earlier when Hans proposed the devil's 
advocate argument about water boiling.

In Bhaskar's argument on page 65 in RTS,he argues for the distinction 
between open and closed systems.  He writes, "Leaving aside astronomy it is 
only under conditions that are experimentally produced and controlled that a 
closure, and hence a constant conjunction of events is possible."  I would 
like to take issue with this in hopes that someone can explain and possibly 
defend Bhaskar.

I would change his statement to say that only under conditions that are 
experimentally produced and controlled that a closure, and hence  constant 
conjunction of events is observable.  It seems like constant conjunctions of 
events happen continually in nature and hence open systems.  However, it is 
difficult for humans to perceive these constant conjunctions.

Let me try to produce an example.  Let's say that a scientific law is the 
second law of thermodynamics: that energy is never created nor destroyed, 
but merely is transformed.  (Pardon my crude scientific formulations.  I'm 
not much of a hard scientist.)  Suppose there existed a superhero by the 
name of Supersight.  Supersight can see energy it whatever form it is such 
that he can visually measure energy.  If Supersight goes out out in the 
forest and watches things go on, it seems like she could see that in all of 
the events that took place, energy was never created not destroyed.  She 
could actually observe and document and measure of the phenomena that she 
saw what was transformed into what and in what quantities.  Thus, she could 
keep track of the energy to verify that none was created nor destroyed.  Or, 
to make her task easier she merely observed the metabolism of food of an 
animal or plant.  Since the animal would eat regularly and each time the 
animal ate, the energy in the food would be transformed into whatever the 
animal needed to perform its bodily processes, and each time this process 
happened energy was neither created nor destroyed, would not Supersight be 
viewing a constant conjunction of events?

If she can see a constant conjunction of events, then they do exist in 
nature or open systems.  This would mean that experimental activity is 
merely a way for the laws to become observable to humans.  If humans can't 
see constant conjunction in nature it is because they have insufficient 
powers of perception rather than the case being that the constant 
conjunction of events do not happen.

Any thoughts?

Greg
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



     --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005