X-Message-Number: 17475 Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:55:03 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Re: Metaphors >Message #17468 >From: >... >I don't want to recapitulate the whole uploading discussion, (and I don't either!) > but consider >briefly the following from Mike Perry's #17464: > > >"[R]elationships, rather than things, are the fundamental elements of >reality." > > >Quoted from Chet Raymo's review, appearing in *Scientific American*, of the > >book, *Three Roads to Quantum Gravity*, by Lee Smolin (amazon.com). All right, I started this again--not thinking it would go very far--because it seemed a worthwhile reminder that others outside our group are interested in the ideas, and some prominent scientists do support the informationist/patternist position. To me this is a point of view and not something that can ever be finally proved or disproved. But adopting it, I think, has certain strong advantages from a philosophical perspective (covered in my book). > I think > >it may have general relevance, despite a seeming circularity. > >This is just another version of the isomorphism-is-everything stance, and >close to being patently absurd, it seems to me. Are all metaphors equal? As >an old and simple example, you can simulate definite integrals through a >variety of analog computations. ... for example, you could >use electric circuits (dq/dt) or mechanical disks (ds/dt), among others. Does >this mean a rotating disk is the "same" as an electrical surge ...? The differences here are important because you perceive them; you are "on the outside looking in"; some relevant *relationships* are different! But differences you don't and can't perceive are another matter. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17475