Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-apple!arndt
From: arndt@apple.DEC
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re. A Rational Universe
Message-ID: <3047@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 11:01:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3047
Posted: Tue Jul  9 11:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:37:04 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 65

I disagree with a posting by beth.

Beth says the 'order' we see in the universe is a function of our attempts
to see it. 

 "*We've* set up an 'order' with the one and only purpose of
describing the universe.  So it's no surprise that the universe appears
ordered.  But it's humans that have IMPOSED THE MATHEMATICAL ORDER ON THE
UNIVERSE, not a supernatural force. (italics mine)"

I think she doesn't understand what Heisenberg said.  I'm not at all sure what,
"And if you look at things without the preconceived (very human) notions of
physics, the universe *does* seem pretty random." means???

The 'notions' of physics that are 'preconceived' appear to be very few if not
only one - that there IS order (symmetry) in the universe which makes thinking
and speaking about it possible!  She appears to be saying is that if there
is 'order', we can't really tell.  Why couldn't one just as rationally say
that if one didn't believe in the 'laws' of order coming from a GUT theory
(Superforce) one could see 'order' coming from a metaphysical source?  I 
mean since, according to her thinking, 'order' is a product of our minds
(scientific solipsism?) why are not metaphysical answers just as valid?
                                                                      
Besides, science rejects her interpretation of what it is scientists are
doing.  That is, imposing order.

This is a common argument against 'design' used by those who reject a
'designer' behind it all.  (you know who)

May I quote from Paul Davies in SUPERFORCE - he's not a Christian and does
believe in evolution and not in God (see his GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS).

Speaking of the argument Beth uses:
"(that) we impose order on the world to make sense of it.  The point here
is that the human mind is most adept at finding patterns amid a tangle of
data, a quality which presumably confers evolutionary advantages on us."
                                                                       
"Nevertheless, the argument is not wholly convincing when applied to science.
There are objective ways of determining the existence of order in a physical
system. The order of living organisms, for example, is clearly not a figment
of our imagination.  When it comes to fundamental physics, the laws of nature
find expression in mathematical structures which are often known to
mathematicians well in advance of their application to the real world.  The
mathematical description is not simply invented to give a tidy mathematical 
description of nature.  Often the fit between the world and a particular
mathematical structure comes as a complete surprise.  The mathematical order
EMERGES as the physical system is analysed."
 
"A good example is provided by the eleven-dimensional description of the
forces of nature.  The mathematical 'miracle' that the same laws which
govern the forces can be expressed in terms of some previously obscure
geometrical properties of a multidimensional space must be considered
amazing.  The order that is being revealed here has not been imposed, but
has emerged from lengthy mathematical analysis."
                                               
"No physicist would seriously believe that his subject matter was in fact
a disorderly and meaningless mess, and that the laws of physics represented
no real advance of our understanding.  It would be ludicrous to suppose
that all science is merely an artifical invention of the mind bearing no
more relation to reality than the constellation of Pisces bears to real fish."
p 237.

Regards,

Ken Arndt