[Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
la teoria delle super stringhe o delle corde che risentono della tensione
energetica dell'ambiente in cui si verificano i fenomeni della fisica,
sottratte alle dimensioni puntuali e alle traiettorie lineari, dando luogo
ad una sorta di danza; la "danza" delle masse solari dei buchi neri prima
di scontrarsi  e fondersi, dissipando energia ed emettendo onde
gravitazionali; il modo di camminare e correre del giaguaro e degli animali
in genere, uomini e donne compresi, etc., sono principi teorici o
paradigmatici che attraversano anche la mia "Nuova economia" che vi
risparmio per non tediarvi. Comunque ricordo solamente che Ilya Prigogine
diceva che la scienza dovrebbe adottare il paradigma della musica. In
questo momento sto pensando alla forma elicoidale e femminile del DNA!
Un abbraccio a tutti e soprattutto a Pedro, regista impareggiabile. Grazie
Francesco Rizzo.

2016-02-23 7:24 GMT+01:00 Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdh.se>:

>
> Dear Bob,
>
> I agree with you that: neither of existing models (Newtonian physics,
> original Darwinian formulation of evolution) is sufficient for explaining
> how real change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in
> nature. And that: Chance and disarray in natural processes are necessary
> conditions for real change. Randomness contributes richness and autonomy to
> the natural world. (From the description of your book A Third Window:
> Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin). Complex phenomena and
> self-organisation are subject of intense research within science and by no
> means understood as miraculous.
>
> It seems to me that all depends on how we conceptualise “miracle” vs.
> “law”. “Laws” need not be deterministic and they can also evolve, as
> physicists are talking about unification of forces under conditions of
> early universe. In analogy with the previous posts regarding “miracles” we
> can imagine minimising “laws” to one in our model of the early universe and
> then follow how the “laws” emerge together with the rest of everything.
> I imagine “miracle” as something going beyond our understanding forever,
> while natural phenomenon is something we believe to be able to find a good
> model for, no matter how long it may take.
>
> If we imagine “miracles” as explanation for things we do not have good
> models for, the world would be full of miracles. As a scientist I just
> react to the word “miracle” being used to explain what we do not understand
> in nature. I have seen human laws in practice, and I was taught about
> “natural laws” in school. I have never seen a “miracle” and I do not
> believe in “miracles” other than poetic figures of speech.
>
> All the best,
> Gordana
>
>
> On 23/02/16 02:20, "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <ulan at umces.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Gordana,
>
> "Law" is a slippery concept. Most physicists make the theological
> assumption that the laws of physics pre-existed the Big Bang. I rather
> doubt that. I see the laws as having evolved (precipitated?) out of
> inchoate configurations of processes.
> <
> https://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PhilPrax.pdf
> >
>
> Under the prevailing metaphysics, miracles are impossible. For that
> matter, so is real change! If we switch metaphysical foundations, however,
> the boundary between law and miracle grows permeable.
> <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/philosophy/3rdwindow/>
>
> Best wishes,
> Bob
>
> To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as
> Loet says "order is always constructed (by us)"-
> but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the
> universe).
> Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)?
> To me miracle is how it all started. From vacuum fluctuations? But where
> the vacuum comes from?
> But then, why should we call it a miracle?
> Perhaps the better name is just natural law, finally equally inexplicable
> and given,
> but sounds more general and less mystic.
>
> Best,
> Gordana
>
>
> From: Fis
> <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>
> <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es%3E>> on
> behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
> <loet at leydesdorff.net<mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net>
> <loet at leydesdorff.net%3E>>
> Organization: University of Amsterdam
> Reply-To: "loet at leydesdorff.net<mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net>
> <loet at leydesdorff.net%3E>"
> <loet at leydesdorff.net<mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net>
> <loet at leydesdorff.net%3E>>
> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
> To: 'Bruno Marchal' <marchal at ulb.ac.be<mailto:marchal at ulb.ac.be>
> <marchal at ulb.ac.be%3E>>, 'fis
> Science' <fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>
> <fis at listas.unizar.es%3E>>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24
>
>
> All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.
>
> I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.
>
> Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a
> Given (in a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us)
> and can/needs to be explained.
>
> No "harmonia praestabilita", but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology,
> but chaology.
>
> With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or
> nature as a given; however, vaguely defined.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160223/e1d1c384/attachment.html>