Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!desj From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Impossibilities (...and Recommended Reading) Message-ID: <15832@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 07:49:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15832 Posted: Fri Sep 26 07:49:06 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:16:22 EDT References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3634@ism780c.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 64 >>>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >>> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >>> bring our own bias into the matter. [Gallmeister] >> There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >>uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >>(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). [dJ] In article <3634@ism780c.UUCP> marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes: > "The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety" seems to me to be >a true statement. I can never know the state of the universe because the >memory required to hold that state would be bigger than the universe itself. >Even when somebody does discover the GUT theory, it won't characterize the >universe in its entirety; we will use it to characterize whichever small >part of the universe we are looking at. > As for "...we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >bring our own bias into the matter." This is a restatment of the underlying >principle of quantum mechanics that says, when we do an experiment, our >observations change the results. Ah! This is a different interpretation of Gallmeister's statement, which is in fact true. We certainly cannot characterize the exact state of the universe, even in theory; it simply is not possible to measure and record the states variables of all of the different particles. However (although I don't have the context at hand) I don't think this is what Gallmeister meant. His meaning (I am paraphrasing a statement with which I disagree, so be careful!) was that the exact characterization by Man of natural law is impossible. And this is that with which I disagree. Suppose we lived in a Newtonian world. Suppose in fact that Newtonian machanics were sufficient to predict exactly all physical occurrences (I will leave aside the question of whether life, or intelligence, could exist in such a universe). Then we *would* be able to characterize the universe, by those Newtonian laws. Similarly, I see no evidence that we do *not* live in a completely characterizable world. And I do see some evidence to indicate that we *do* live in a characterizable world; the success of any partial char- acterization is evidence (say, in the Bayesian sense -- I know PL doesn't believe in such things, so he may diagree as to whether it constitutes evidence) for characterizability, since it would be implied by character- izability but would not be implied by noncharacterizability. And I there- fore feel justified in claiming that the question is not settled. I do *not* make the opposite claim, that the universe *is* characterizable; if I were to do this I would be as guilty as Gallmeister of reaching conclusions unsupported by evidence. All I claim is that it *may* (or may not) be characterizable; I prefer to *believe* that it *is* character- izable, since I find that the assumption of noncharacterizability leaves science essentially without foundation or justification. >People should be criticized when they are *too* sure of themselves. Perhaps >Bill's point was off the mark, but people who are *too* sure of themselves, >whether they be scientists, mystics, or whatever, probably are in a rut. Exactly *my* point. I am *not* sure of myself. Gallmeister is the one who made the positive assertion that the universe is uncharacterizable; I only note that the question is at least open. -- David desJardins P.S. to Mr. Harter, and anyone else to whom my meaning is unclear. When I write "characterizable" or "uncharacterizable" without qualification in the above, I mean "characterizable in its entirety by Man" or "uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man" respectively. P.P.S. The above P.S. applies to all future articles I write on this subject.