Re: Observer and natural law

Andrei raises an interesting theme - the nature of the fundamental
constants. Are they a priori, ie, Platonic, or evolving, ie,
Aristotelian?

Andrei wrote:
> Arising to Leibniz, the idea in general is following: the
correspondence of
> mental and physical events could be possible only at certain values
of
> fundamental constants and correspondingly at certain formulations of
natural
> laws. This needs further substantiation, but the fact that we all
have
> similar picture of the world can be substantiated by some
"objective" values
> for realizing observation (quantum measurements), otherwise the
individual
> pictures will be inconsistent to each other. This view is
essentially
> Platonic, and I cannot see any other possibility of consistent
explanation
> of natural law and anthropic principle. In this framework, the
natural law
> represents some canon of perfection realized in selection of our
world from
> a set of possible worlds.

First- can there be a full correspondence between the object-sign and
the interpretant-sign? Understand the object-sign relation as a
physical event and the interpretant-sign relation as a mental event,
to correlate with Andrei's terms.
Theoretically, yes, but only if the fundamental constant that mediates
the two operates at the same energy level as the two 'sides' of the
relation. Think of E=MC2, where C2 is the fundamental constant
(Representamen) that mediates between E and M. Energy, as an
object-sign is equivalent to Matter as an interpretant-sign only when
both are operative at the C2 level.
This would be encoded, in semiotic terms as 2-2-2
.Object/Representamen/Interpretant.

But in most relations, the Representamen or fundamental constant has
a more complex codification than the Object, and the Interpretant has
the least complex - ie - it cannot fully corresond to the full nature
of the Representamen or the fundamental constant.

Andrei suggested that the fundamental constant operates within an
'essentially Platonic' frame. I agree with the necessity for the
mediate process of a fundamental constant but feel that it is itself
evolutionary. It evolves and is not 'ante rem' (before the entity) but
'in re' (mixed with the entity). Therefore, as both material and
mental interpreants evolve, so too do the fundamental constants.

In the physico-chemical realm, these fundamental constants 'seem' to
us as fixed Laws, inviolate, but that is only because they evolve very
slowly. In the biological realm, the fixed constants made a sudden
leap and changed radically...but..they too evolve, albeit at a faster
pace... Our planet has moved from prokaryotic domination to eukaryotic
domination. And at the socioconceptual realm, our fixed constants
change rapidly.

As for the counterfactual exploration of What If Other Choices had
been made...well, I think that remains in the realm of What If
stories.

Edwina Taborsky
Received on Sun May 26 17:13:25 2002