> Popper understood that the prime motivation of philosophers and
> scientists since Plato has been not to understand change, but to make it
> go away. Because from Plato right down to Helmholtz they have always
> feared change. Then Came Darwin, and the true dimension of that insight
> still has not been completely explained or appreciated, not even by the
> Holy Trinity of Dawkins, Dennett, and Gould. For Darwin demonstrated
> that change was not necessarily a bad thing.
>
This statement is not accurate. A good example was Heraclites and his school of
thought. About the same time as Plato, taught that "change" is the only reality.
There were many such instances in Greek philosophy. One for the more common concepts
then was, and pardom my paraphrasing as i dont have the material on my person now,
You can and cannot step into the same river twice, the water is not the same water,
and the river describes a course but not the water, which is the river. I know I
did not do this concept justice. sorry.
> The Open Universe -- the only one in which our own existence is possible
> -- is one in which change can mean developmental evolution, and not only
> the entropic breakdown of order which is the only change that classical
> science allows.
>
This is wrong too, although pretty in concept, there is still a lack of
understanding of the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. Just because something looks more
ordered, does not mean the cost of the order was not higher than the end product. In
fact, complex systems tend to become more ordered at the cost of energy. The cost of
developement means greater cost in resources. Therefor the open Universe is not
necessary. Also, there is no suggesytion that the Universe is infinate, it is much
more likely not to be infinite.
> In an Open Universe of indeterminate ambiguity, in balance with
> understandable laws of cause and effect, novelty, surprise, innovation,
> and creativity are not only possible, they're automatic.
This is automatic either way, open or closed.
>
>
> The idea of an Open Universe involves many other collateral ideas,
> including the Auto-Catalytic Set of Logic, the Evolutionary Stable
> Strategy, and the Emergent Universe, all of which I have adopted/stolen
> from other, better writers, and would be happy to elucidate to those
> interested. And even more happy to see these ideas criticized. After
> all, as Popper explained, the proper attitude of the true scientist is
> that of Socrates, the questioner, secure in the certainty that no one has
> all the answers, and the best way to spend our lives is by learning.\
I would like more info on the subjects you mention above. I do agree with the last
statement regarding Socrates though.
>
>
> The Open Universe rejects the current millennial fixation on the Ends of
> things (The End of History, The End of Science, The Last Three Minutes),
> all of which depend upon the closed notion that there is an Answer to All
> Things (which Douglas Adams satirized so well in his Hitchhiker series).
> It also rejects the false belief that just because there is no final end
> to our quest for knowledge, there can then be no standard for measuring
> the truth of a proposition.
Common sense eliminates most of these too, Open Universe is an unnecessry addition.
Occams razon needs to be used here I think. First, I see no reason to think that
there is not an answer to all things. Why is there no answer? Just because something
is too complex or the data is too much for us to handle, does not mean there is not
an answer. Our brains are complex relative to our capability to understand so far,
but the Universe as a whole is much more complex. We are expecting, in our own
vanity, that our capabilities are so tremendous that we as individuals can be
omniscient, and then are disappointed at how innadequate we are when we fail. There
is no flaw, we are simply small devices trying to handle way too much information.
>
>
> I can think of no happier prospect than this: that the future is filled
> with infinite possibilities. I can think of no more sobering thought
> than that the responsibility for the future we actually realize rests
> nowhere but on our own shoulders. Our descendents could command the
> cosmos, or our line could end in two or three more generations. It's up
> to us alone; there's noone looking after us. How exciting!
Yes, i agree whole heartedly here, but like I said, open universe is not a necessary
factor.
>
>
> David: You are welcome to post this to the ListServe, and I welcome
> reaction from one and all. I still can't sign on until I get my home
> hookup, but seek some validation -- or shootdown -- of by ideas in the
> meantime.
>
> And I also welcome discussing more about putting more of this on an Open
> Dialog web page. Wait 'til you see my plans for that!
>
> ***************************************
> C. David Noziglia
> Desk Officer for India and Sri Lanka
> USIA Washington, D.C.
>
> phone: (202) 619-4906
> fax: (202) 619-5605
> dnozigli@usia.gov
>
> "Information is easier to produce and harder to control than stuff you
> can drop on your foot." Wired Magazine
> **************************************************************************
> *******************************
I look forward to hearing more from you, and love your input. Thanks.
Sodom
Bill Roh
I have seen the light and I am it!