Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!husc4!hadeishi
From: hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Characterization
Message-ID: <405@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15-Oct-86 13:23:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.405
Posted: Wed Oct 15 13:23:18 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 20:39:19 EDT
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Organization: Harvard Science Center
Lines: 81
Summary: Value of assumption discussed

>In article <16@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <388@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>>   ... it might be desirable to consider what kinds of viewpoints of reality
>>might be generated if we did *not* assume the universe was completely char-
>>acterizable by Man.  Or ... it might be desirable to consider what kinds
>>of viewpoints might be generated if we simply assumed that it was [is] not
>>possible in practice to do so.
>
>   I have this strange feeling that you and perhaps others are continuing
>to ascribe to me a belief which I have not stated and do not hold.  I do
>not claim, and have never claimed, that the universe is completely character-
>izable by Man.  I merely object to statements made by Gallmeister and others
>since that the universe is not so characterizable, when they are presented
>with no evidence but with the implication that, "It is obvious that there
>must be things that Man will never know."  This is *not* obvious, and no one
>has presented *any* evidence to support it.

	Granted.

>>   ... both "stances" are valuable; when I am doing physics, for example,
>>I implicity assume the plausibility of the first case
>
>   Exactly my point.  Some degree of this assumption seems necessary to do
>physics.  Perhaps it is enough to believe that the universe is "mostly
>characterizable" in some peculiar sense, but a physicist, in order to justify
>his work, must at least believe that there is reason to think that the laws
>of physics will continue to operate as they have in the past.  This is char-
>acterizability at its most basic level.

	Not exactly.  Characterizability is not the same as stability.
Of course there may well be fundamental laws of the Universe (i.e.,
a pattern which is unchanging in some sense) but the complete characterization
of these laws may simply be beyond the capability of Wo/Man :-).  Again,
I am speaking here of the practical realizability of the goal.  I personally
feel that something like this is the case.  However, when dealing with
very simple systems (atoms, ideal billiard balls, etc.) it *is* possible
to characterize behavior to a very high degree of accuracy; however it is
well known that the laws which *we* have arrived at are not THE laws
of physics but simply provisional patterns which we have managed to
deduce.  Even if it will be possible to arrive at a complete physical
theory (that accounts for ALL experimental and experiential data)
we can never be sure this theory will remain complete (Newtonian physics
was once thought to be the final physics . . . if only it were, then
the task of physics education would be so much simpler!) in the light
of new theory.

	It IS clear, however, that once we begin to study more complex
systems (chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) exact predictive
power (characterizability) breaks down very rapidly.  It is well known
that even in chemistry there are no perfect theories; although you
might say that chemistry is "in principle" derivable from the
relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation, even this is known
to be an approximation as well.

	In addition, there may be important effects occuring at higher
levels of complexity which will also never be possible to characterize
in the same way as we can characterize, for example, the orbitals of
the hydrogen atom.  (This is assuming these effects are not direct
consequences of the simpler theories, i.e., they are fundamental effects).

	Again, irregardless of what is actually the case, the fact
remains the characterizability by Man is different from mere lawful
behavior.  The remarkable fact is that the Universe is as amazingly
simple as it is, and that we have been able to make some rather
impressive headway in understanding fundamental (and simple) systems.

	However I must emphasize the same is not the case for
more complex systems, and I believe never will be the case.  (I.e.,
to characterize these systems in terms of a simple set of
well-defined "laws".)

	I am not sure if you read my rather long posting which
goes into more detail about the value of living life without assuming
it is characterizable in the sense of physical theory.  If not, I
will repeat the argument to you in a later posting.  If so, please
notify me of this fact.  Suffice it to say that living life in this
manner is far from "comforting"; it can be quite frightening.  However,
I believe it leads closer to truth than any other path of which I am
aware.

				-Mitsu