|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Archetypes: Natural or Artificial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Is the solar system like an atom? Is the earth like an apple? Is water like electricity? Is mathematical elegance like a haiku poem? Does nature work with any organizational templates or archetypes? And do natural archetypes, if they exist, have anything to do with design?
I take my inspiration for this topic from Arthur M. Young, an early helicopter designer at Bell Labs. In his book The Geometry of Meaning (1976), he reasons geometrically (and somewhat circuitously) that the twelve signs of the zodiac and the twelve “measure formulae” of physics can be aligned on a circle according to their prevailing archetypes (or ancient meanings, in quotes): Aries ~ acceleration (L/T2) ~ “Spontaneous Act” Taurus ~ mass control (ML/T3) ~ “Establishment” Gemini ~ power (ML2/T3) ~ “Knowledge” Cancer ~ velocity (L/T) ~ “Change” Leo ~ force (ML/T2) ~ “Being” Virgo ~ work (ML2/T2) ~ “Fact” Libra ~ position (L) ~ “Observation” Scorpio ~ momentum (ML/T) ~ “Transformation” Sagittarius ~ action (ML2/T) ~ “Impulse” Capricorn ~ control (L/T3) ~ “Control” Aquarius ~ moment (ML) ~ “Significance” Pisces ~ moment of inertia (ML2) ~ "Faith” Now, I am not out to promote astrology. Neither was Arthur M.Young (p. 118):
quote: A. M. Young may have been way out there with the New Age crowd; I’ll admit that. But I still can’t shake the question: Does nature operate in any way through some template assistance from archetypes? In that respect, I take notice of the fact that the flow of water molecules in a gravitational system can be modeled using the same equations that express the "flow" of electrons in an electromagnetic system. And those two systems stand very far apart in nature; indeed they are quite separate forces. Ah, but are they held together by archetypes, maybe? And does this have anything to do with design in nature? As scientists, we have to be careful here; it could get us into as much trouble as Haeckel got into with his delusion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. (I suggest this topic be placed under "Is It Science?") ”HM Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
"Is It Science?" No - it's bollocks It's amusing how "New Age" always seems to be half-an-age behind actual phsyics. And why is it always engineers that come up with most utter bullshit? There are very deep connections between all of the forces and between every dimensional and dimension-less quantity. This was not known in the 19th Century. The 20th Century physics revolution unified just about everything we know about - not necessarily to the level of strict theory - but at the very least to the general idea/hypothesis. These connections are often sufficiently deep that most laymen will be unaware of their existence - thus leaving the door wide-open to all sorts of mumbo-jumbo bullshit. As we have here... All of phsyics is a unified whole - there is no need to suggest bizarre made-up connections, for we already know of the very real connections. And often they are far more mind-blowing than anything these muppets can think up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cavediver writes:
Yes, it could be MJB. But wait. Has physics really unified the whole? Are all the important questions already answered? Do you really know why a photon is both a particle and a wave, or why gravity is associated with mass? And is there no connection between the past and present of physical objects in terms of our evolving understanding of nature? Do we know everything knowable about physics? And why does the juice in a copper wire behave like water in a hose? Why does gravity obey an inverse square law like that of a electromagnetism? And why are planetary orbits round or elliptical instead of square or rectangular? These connections are often sufficiently deep that most laymen will be unaware of their existence - thus leaving the door wide-open to all sorts of mumbo-jumbo bullshit. As we have here... And perhaps the buggiest of all questions: Why is biological code digital like that of a computer? Answer: Because there are constraints on natural organization that limit variety and uniqueness to families of archetypes. If that were not true then there would be no need to invoke metaphors to explain physical phenomena. Please try to describe anything in nature without using metaphor, simile, or analogy. You can't do it. Why? Because the universe is chuck full of archetypes. In fact, the universe itself is an archetype: we speak of its life, its history, its age, its size, its expansion, its future as if it were a fat old man. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Well, even if your questions are rhetorical they do have answers.
Do you really know why a photon is both a particle and a wave
Simply because it is. Why is grass a plant?
And why does the juice in a copper wire behave like water in a hose?
It doesn't. Water in a hose is several times more complicated than electricity in a wire.
Why does gravity obey an inverse square law like that of a electromagnetism?
It's simply how something spreads out in a spherical volume.
And why are planetary orbits round or elliptical instead of square or rectangular?
Those are the solutions to Newton's equations or rather the fact that gravity acts with an inverse square combined with F = ma means that those are the orbits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Son Goku writes:
OK, SG, that's a pretty good answer. But force was perceived by man long before Newton took it to a mathematical description. Furthermore, Newtonian force depends upon the mass of the forceful object, but electromotive force does not. Yet there is still force, per se, that accounts for mechanical interaction. Way couldn't that appreciation of force stand as an archetype in nature, just as power or momentum stood for earlier descriptions of archetypes that were later resolved mathematically? HM writes:
Those are the solutions to Newton's equations or rather the fact that gravity acts with an inverse square combined with F = ma means that those are the orbits. And why are planetary orbits round or elliptical instead of square or rectangular? My point here is that science, as we know it today, has done a better job of resolving those archetypes, but they were already known to exist in both nature and in the minds of men (and probably women) long before Newton got ahold of them. The ancients, some of them anyway, saw force as a lion”perhaps "the force of being"”and they called it Leo. Later it was described as F =ma. Science is a great tool of the mind, but men tooled around mentally long before science arrived. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
My point here is that science, as we know it today, has done a better job of resolving those archetypes, but they were already known to exist in both nature and in the minds of men (and probably women) long before Newton got a hold of them. The ancients, some of them anyway, saw force as a lion”perhaps "the force of being"”and they called it Leo. Later it was described as F =ma.
That is totally wrong. Do you know what links all the forces? What makes them all similar? It's the fact that they are gauge invariant, which is not something the ancients knew. I'm well aware of the history of pre-scientific conceptions of force and they were semi-accurate. However there is still a difference between force as understood by Newton and force as understood originally. Newton found the direct link was between force and acceleration, something which wasn't known. Also Galileo who first argued that force had nothing to do with steady motion, which was the common perception at the time. Science did not merely clear up or tighten this understanding. So Force was not "really" known before these insights, only the concept of physical effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
SG writes:
Now you're playing with words, but that's OK because archetypes are all about words and concepts. Wouldn't you agree that the concept of force was well known to the ancients as something that involved both strength and motion. When Newton defined "force" he reached out for a metaphor”a word concept”that fit what he was describing. I don't know where he got it, maybe he got it from II Samuel 13:14:
...So Force was not "really" known before these insights, only the concept of physical effort. quote: King David, The Lion, forcibly raped the fair maiden, because he was stronger and therefore more powerful than she. These are all ancient archetypes of mechanics. Newton didn’t go out and invent the word force. He simply provided a more elegant explanation for it. But even then, he used the metaphor “force,” as, say, in David’s strength of a lion, King of Beasts. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Wouldn't you agree that the concept of force was well known to the ancients as something that involved both strength and motion.
No I would not. Physical effort is not the same as force in the scientific sense. For instance force has nothing to do with strength and motion, it is related to mass and acceleration. One of the insights of Galileo was that it had nothing to do with motion.
King David, The Lion, forcibly raped the fair maiden, because he was stronger and therefore more powerful than she. These are all ancient archetypes of mechanics.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It is an english translation of a forceful act of an ancient semitic king. I don't see how it provides an archetype also borrowed by Newton for his mechanics.
Newton didn’t go out and invent the word force.
True and Maxwell didn't invent the word field, but that doesn't mean the electromagnetic field is a linguistic refinement of an enclosure where you grow crops.There is only a superficial relation between "force" in the every day sense and the scientific sense. Although they share a word for etymological reasons, one is not a sophisticated version of the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
True and Maxwell didn't invent the word field, but that doesn't mean the electromagnetic field is a linguistic refinement of an enclosure where you grow crops. Nice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 182 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Cancer ~ velocity (L/T) ~ “Change” This is an obvious error. I am a Cancer (birthday = July 20) and nobody would think to use "velocity" or any other motion related term to describe me. At least the zodiac must be updated with several signs for measurable quantities the he left out: diffusion, electric charge, the Yakawa potential, and stupidity. However, I do agree with you that Young was onto something here:
winter is the time when growth has ceased would explain why no children are ever born in the winter. I suspect that Young came to these revelations when he realized that the helicopters he designed could only accelerate in the springtime. ______________________________________If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
SG writes:
What? If acceleration doesn't have anything to do with motion then I wouldn't know what to do after the traffic light turns green. When we speak of mechanics we speak of mass, length and time, which are the fundamental units of motion. You know that.
For instance force has nothing to do with strength and motion, it is related to mass and acceleration. One of the insights of Galileo was that it had nothing to do with motion. There is only a superficial relation between "force" in the every day sense and the scientific sense. Although they share a word for etymological reasons, one is not a sophisticated version of the other.
Are you saying that pyramid builders, spear makers, and chariot drivers had no concept of force? Are you saying that a cave man didn't know the difference between a small stone and large rock when either one was dropped on his toe? I'm saying he knew quite well that the rock would hurt more than the stone because he already knew instinctively about the direct relationship between mass and force. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Logic Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 31 From: Australia Joined: |
Are you saying that a cave man didn't know the difference between a small stone and large rock when either one was dropped on his toe? I'm saying he knew quite well that the rock would hurt more than the stone because he already knew instinctively about the direct relationship between mass and force Your assuming here now let me assume. The cave man didn't know of mass or force, he just new from prior experience that a large rock would cause greater pain then a smaller rock. He didn't know how this worked he just knew it would. Knowing the outcome of an action dose not mean you know the reason for its consequence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AIG writes:
Yes, I know. A. M. Young was wearing his helicopter hat when he came up with his zodiac alignment. And I'm not about to defend him, so go ahead and scorn. But I had never before seen this sort of thing coming from an aircraft designer, and it fascinated me. This is an obvious error. I am a Cancer (birthday = July 20) and nobody would think to use "velocity" or any other motion related term to describe me. At least the zodiac must be updated with several signs for measurable quantities the he left out: diffusion, electric charge, the Yakawa potential, and stupidity...would explain why no children are ever born in the winter. I suspect that Young came to these revelations when he realized that the helicopters he designed could only accelerate in the springtime. Nevertheless there are archetypes in nature, I will assume here, that seem to show remarkable resonance across a spectrum of domains. But maybe "archetype" is the wrong word for whatever I think is resonating. I wonder, for example, if there is such as a thing as a digital archetype”taking a clue from the observation that both genetics and the Internet are digital operations. And, as if genetically, you and I are out here trying propagate our POVs on another digital landscape. That's what genes do. And memes, too. So is that stupid? ”HM ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Logic writes:
How's that again? If you mean technical reason then, yes, that didn't come until Newton. But I'm saying that ancients also had a worthy appreciation of force, work, inertia, momentum, power, control, etc., long before Newtonian physics came along. Knowing the outcome of an action dose not mean you know the reason for its consequence. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024