RE: Observer and natural law

Dear Colleagues,

I appreciate Edwina's comment about fundamental constants. I would like to
clarify shortly my vision of this problem. I would not in general so
strictly oppose Plato and Aristotle. Fundamental constants are not given a
priori in our world, they appear (evolve) in the process of its reflection
and by this way can be substantiated in frames of anthropic principle. So I
do not think that they are results of some kind of "world equation" as it
could be proposed in Pythagorean approach (again if it is taken sensu
stricto), but their values themselves make possible some consistent
equations in our world. However some fundamental values appearing as perfect
limits of iteration are objective in strong Platonic sense and they can be
regarded as anthropic constants of certain processes. VA Lefebvre
(Psycoloqui 1995, 6, 29; J Math Psychol 1992, 36, 100-128) considers golden
section as a fundamental constant in psychology. Also some symmetric
structures (like Plato's polygons) appear during morphogenesis. Yes, they
are evolving but they are evolving as limits of iterative process and
represent 'objective' perfection canons (for all times). So Plato's and
Aristotle's traditions are complementary in this sense.

If the main physical constants like c, h and G are changing their value, is
probably not a question that we can solve within our discussion. There is a
desire to solve this experimentally, but postulating of something constant
is needed to define that another value is changing. Probably this is not
only an experimental question. But the problem of their evolution is
certainly valid, e.g. Kant thought that Euclidean space is a priori given
mode of perception, but this is not generally true. But he was right in
general: 3D+T perception is given a priori and I don't think this could be
wrong. Some works appearing that model possible physical universes, this
seems encouraging.

Best regards
Andrei
  
 
Received on Wed May 29 10:18:28 2002