Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Next in threadHm. I agree that an antiscientific philsophy and an alienating science are undesireable, but I don't see how a rigid conception of time contributes to either. Just because the conception is rigid does not mean its application and the systems within which it functions are. Time is the way we measure and notice change. Maybe I don't understand where Prigogine and Stengers are coming from or what theories they are refuting. But I see my definition of time as rigid (law-like, I don't know about reversable), and yet I don't think a universe with such a time function is incapable of producing living beings. Obviously it isn't. Time is just an abstraction, a way we describe changes. What do these writers mean? maya > "To deny time - that is, to reduce it to a mere deployment of a reversible > law - is to abandon the possibility of defining a conception of nature > coherent with the hypothesis that nature produced living beings, > particularly man. It dooms us to choosing between an antiscientific > philosophy and an alienating science." > > - Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers |
