Re: metaphors

Dear Rafael, Koichiro and All:

The following comments and questions may be a bit radical for this
group; nevertheless, it is possible that they are of some interest to
some.

Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote:
> I we start (as we do,
> when we do science) from the present tense, then, I guess, we have no
> possibility (or only the _leap_) to bypass to the other one. But this start
> is not the original point of view. Evolution starts with the present
> progressive tense and science comes (logically and temporally _after_ and
> therefore always too late). So the _leap_ (or _jumping back_) is possible
> because we are primarily as living beings in the present progressive tense.
> kind regards
> rafael

I question how any thought, including scientific thought, could be
initiated outside the present progressive mode. By what criteria can
one differentiate active thinking into scientific thought and, for
example, ethical thought?

A basic metaphysical question needs to addressed before these
suggestions become persuasive to me. Given the limitations of semantic
expressions, (that is, linear sequences of words composed into
sentences) which should be given priority in scientific discourse:
matter? time? space?

These three terms are tightly intertwined and interlinked in empirical
observations. What personal values are authors co-communicating when
one of these three, for example, time, is selectively given semantic
priority? (Prigoginian thermodynamics is very forthright in proposing
that time should be given priority! And, by separating entropy flow in
time into endo and exo components, one could argue that space is
elevated into a secondary position. This is all rather ironical; if one
starts with the third law of thermodynamics, then entropy exists only as
a consequence of matter in motion! (Recall that the third law of
thermodynamics states that all motion ceases at absolute zero
temperature. Empirically, experiments by Morowitz in the 1960s showed
that living organisms could be cooled to very, very near absolute zero
without significant loss of viability upon warming to normal
temperatures. These empirical experiments imply that biological
information is independent of heat entropy.))

If time is given metaphysical precedence over matter and space, then can
it be treated as anything other than a continuous variable? If one
starts with time as a continuous variable, then one is adopting some
version of the coherence theory of truth. The flows of time in natural
systems (as exemplified by expereinces such as watching a river flow, a
bird soar, a deer flee or a garden grow,) are not readily objectified.
In order to objectify, one must imagine objects, objects with at least
some aspect of stability in time. Such objects are then subject to
another theory of truth, ie, the correspondence theory and the
accompanying rules of counting or enumerating. (Frege and Dummett have
both explored the implications of these two theories of truth.)

The notion that:
>science comes (logically and temporally _after_ and
> therefore always too late).
 
needs to be critically examined.

Consider, for example, antibiotic therapy for infectious disease, the
construction of weapons, travel by jet planes, and internet
communications, which are based on a sense of trust, intiguity and value
about the course of future events. From my perspective, the essential
nature of science is predictability. In the absence of some sense of
predictibility, either in the coherent, correspondent or pragmatic sense
of truth, one is hard pressed to call it "science" in the normal usage
of the scientific community. Thus, to me, the profound implication of
science for values, ethics and morals is the nature of predictions
emerging from it and the subsequent impact on our humaness and our human
habits.

Rafael's suggestions generate the following questions:

1. What criteria can be formed to assign prioty to matter? time? or
space?
2. What mechanisms can be formed within any natural science which allows
for a "leap in time"?
3. Is it a scientific or a metaphysical question to speak of the "start
of evolution?"
4. Should scientific values be excluded from the set of human values?
5. How are scientific values differentiable from other human values such
as those expressed in law, medicine or accounting, or even mathematics?
6. If one views biological information from the perspective of third law
and its empirical existence at absolute zero temperature rather than
the second law and Shannon information, will a fundamentally different
perspective of the relationships between science and values, ethics and
morals emerge?

My own thinking and writings are often grounded on a positive answer to
the sixth question.

Cheers

Jerry LR Chandler
Received on Wed Dec 09 09:56:32 1998