Re: Physics is a human construct

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

Leigh,

The insects are unique for their sheer survival; spiders for their
instinctive structural engineering; bees and ants for their social
engineering; etc.  But, if I may abuse the language for emphasis, I would
argue that homo sapiens is unique in a unique way (as evidenced by what
we are now doing)!

Just one aspect of this uniqueness (apropos to our field) is man's
invention of science to satisfy his unique intellectual curiosity.  Other
species search for food, shelter, reproduction, etc;  as far as we know
none of them would have chosen to go to the moon out of sheer
intellectual curiosity.  (As many of us would have, even though the
historical event was surely driven by more mundane pressures.)

At the root of man's unique uniqueness is his conscious awareness of his
own existence and his mental states, which itself is inexplicable through
"already explained phenomena";  it is knowable by personal experience or
not at all.

As part of evolving nature, we are (as far as we know) unique in "knowing
what is going on"  and even (though it may be a cruel illusion) in
feeling that we can have a hand in determining the course of reality both
on a personal scale and on the scale of evolution itself.

-Bob

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (ret)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Physics is a human construct


> > This is a very fundemental question for ALL of philosophy/science.
> > Far from being limited to physics.
> >
> > Are we human beings merely a part OF nature,
> > or are we somehow APART FROM nature.
> >
> > Either extreme is, of course, untenable.
>
> The first alternative is comfortable; the second dangerous. The
> separation of man from Nature is merely a matter of language.
> We designate as "natural" (or, more trendily, "organic") things
> that are not "artificial". How would God look on these things
> if she were to take a fancy to taxonomy? How would she classify
> a coral reef or a beaver dam or the Great Wall?
>
> It all comes down to relativity.
>
> Bob Sciamanda adopts the egocentric (after Cromer) frame:
>
> > As far as we can tell, we are UNIQUE in observable nature.
>
> So, I'm told, is the platypus. So what?
>
> Leigh