natura, cultura o legge?

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/nature-culture-or-law

Quando hai un problema sociale, hai sempre tre tipi di soluzione: naturale, culturale, legislativa.

Esempio: Razzismo. Puoi lasciare che le le razze convivano e le persone si accorgeranno "naturalmente" che tutti siamo uguali. Oppure puoi guardare dall'alto in basso i razzisti e disprezzarli. Oppure puoi fare una legge che punisca i razzisti.

Altro esempio: Demografia. Puoi lasciare che la civiltà collassi nella speranza che la nuova abbia imparato la lezione, oppure puoi mettere in concorrenza i gruppi umani cosicché prevarranno i più fertili. Ma puoi anche disprezzare chi ha pochi figli. Oppure puoi tassare chi non ha figli.

Tutti i grandi problemi possono essere affrontati in questi termini.

La mia idea è che cultura e legislazione, in questo ordine, siano strade seguendo le quali è facile perdersi. D'altro canto, possono essere considerate scorciatoie utili ad accelerare i processi. Come distinguere i vicoli ciechi dalle scorciatoie? Beh, bisogna studiare bene la natura e in caso di dubbio, lasciarla lavorare autonomamente.

Internalismo e esternalismo

Su quella questione dei colori, abbiamo poi ragione noi o i daltonici?

L' oggettivista pretende di rispondere.

Il sordo può descrivere perfettamente un suono ma non può ascoltarlo.

Il cieco può descrivere perfettamente un colore ma non può osservarlo.

Il robot può descrivere una situazione ingiusta ma non può giudicarla.

Al sordo manca il senso del suono. Al cieco manca il senso della vista. Al robot manca il senso morale.

Per l'oggettività tutto è nell'oggetto. Il suono, il colore, la moralità stanno nelle cose.

Per il soggettivista le qualità degli oggetti si producono nel soggetto che le sperimenta. Il colore, il suono, la moralità sono esperienze intime del soggetto.

Dubbio. L'assassino che uccide l'innocente ci fa gridare all'ingiustizia oggettiva. Basta descrivere.

Risposta. Perché ci sia ingiustizia occorre che ci sia intenzione dell'assassino, quindi qualcosa di inosservabile. Qualcosa che è presente a parità della descrizione. Qualcosa che il robot non può cogliere poi che riguarda la coscienza e lui non sa cosa sia la coscienza.

Nonostante tutto questo sembrerebbe che soggettivismo e oggettivismo siano solo due modi di descrivere le cose. E qui torniamo ai daltonici.

Un'ape che vede i fiori in bianco e nero, si sbaglia? Oppure ci sbagliamo noi che li vediamo a colori?

Il modo di vedere dell'Ape è funzionale alla sua natura. Il modo nostro di vedere e funzionale alla nostra natura. Sia l'uomo che l'ape non si sbagliano. L'uomo è l'ape costituiscono un armonia.

Solo il soggettivismo rende conto di questa armonia.

3 Are the Laws of Nature Fixed? The Science Delusion: Feeling the Spirit of Enquiry by Rupert Sheldrake

3 Are the Laws of Nature Fixed?Read more at location 1480

Note: 3@@@@@@@@@@@ iniziato per dibattito facebook ma mai terminato Edit

On the basis of two or three hundred years of earthbound research, how can we be sure that the laws were always the same and always will be, everywhere?Read more at location 1483

Note: CAMPIONE SCARSO Edit

For most of science’s history, eternal laws of nature made sense. Either the universe was eternal and had needed no God to create it, or it had been made by God and stayed the same thereafter, guaranteed by God’s eternity. But in an evolutionary cosmos, does the theory of fixed laws make sense?Read more at location 1485

Note: EVOLUZIONISMO. PERCHÈ NN DOVREBBERO EVOLVERE LE LEGGI DI NATURA? Edit

First, the very idea of a law of nature is anthropocentric. Only humans have laws. For the founders of modern science, the metaphor of law was appropriate because they thought of God as a kind of cosmic emperor whose writ ran everywhere, and whose omnipotence acted as a cosmic law-enforcement agency.Read more at location 1489

Note: PROBLEMI CON L IDEA DI LEGGE FISSA. SILO L UOMO HA LEGGI Edit

Some philosophers of science avoid these awkward questions by denying that scientific laws are transcendent, eternal realities; they argue instead that they are generalisations based on observable behaviour. But this amounts to an admission that the laws of nature evolve and may not be fixed for ever.Read more at location 1494

Note: CHI SCHIVA IL CONCETTO DI LEGGE DI FATTO AMMETTE L EVOLUZIONE Edit

Nevertheless, whatever some philosophers may say, eternal laws are deeply embedded in the thinking of most scientists. They are implicit in the scientific method.Read more at location 1498

Note: IDEA INCORPORATA NEGLI SCIENZIATI Edit

Observations should be replicable. Why? Because the laws of nature are the same at all timesRead more at location 1500

Note: c Edit

In this chapter, I suggest an alternative to eternal laws: evolving habits.Read more at location 1501

Note: EVOLVING HABIT Edit

Eternal mathematicsRead more at location 1504

Note: t Edit

The materialists thought that changeless atoms of matter were eternal, while Pythagoras and his followers believed that the entire universe, especially the heavens, was ordered according to eternal non-material principles of harmony.Read more at location 1506

Note: LE DUE RISPOSTE GRECHE AL BISOGNO DI ETERNO Edit

Plato (428–348 bc) was strongly influenced by the Pythagoreans but went further. He generalised the notion of eternal mathematical truths to a wider vision of Forms or Ideas (Platonic Forms and Ideas are traditionally written with initial capitals), or archetypes or universals, including not only mathematicsRead more at location 1513

Note: PLATONE E LA MATEMATICA COME LA CONOSCIAMO Edit

The cosmos is ordered by this realm that transcends it.Read more at location 1517

Note: TRASCENDENZA Edit

Plato famously compared the objects of sense experience to shadows in a cave experienced by prisoners, permanently chained so they can watch only the blank cave wall, with their backs to a fire.Read more at location 1519

Note: ESPERIENZA: OMBRA CHE VEDOAMO DALLA CAVERNA Edit

Many elements of Platonic philosophy were incorporated in Christian theology, and are implicit in the opening of St John’s gospel, which, like the rest of the New Testament, was written in Greek. ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ ‘Word’ with a capital W is the translation of logos.Read more at location 1532

Note: DA PLATO AI CRISTIANO Edit

Note: GIOVANNI IL LOGOS TRASCENDE TUTTO Edit

He compared God to a gardener forming the world according to the pattern of the logos.Read more at location 1539

Note: FILONE D ALESSANDRIA: DIO UN GIARDINIERE CONFORME AL LOGOS Edit

The founding fathers of modern science, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Kepler and Newton, were all essentially Platonists or Pythagoreans. They thought that the business of science was to find the mathematical patterns underlying the natural world,Read more at location 1541

Note: I NEO PLATONICI E IL FONDAMENTO DELLA SCIENZA Edit

Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity was firmly in this tradition, and Arthur Eddington, who provided the first evidence in favour of the theory, concluded that it pointed to the idea that ‘the stuff of the world is mind stuff . . .Read more at location 1550

Note: RELATIVITÀ NELLA TRADIZIONE PLATO Edit

Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum mechanics:   [M]odern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word: they are forms, structures,Read more at location 1557

Note: PLATONISMI NELLA MECCANICA Q Edit

How constant are the ‘fundamental constants’?Read more at location 1564

Note: t Edit

Some constants are considered to be more fundamental than others, including the velocity of light, c, the Universal Gravitational Constant, known to physicists as Big G, and the fine-structure constant, ?, which is a measure of the strength of interaction between charged particles, such as electrons, and photons of light.Read more at location 1564

Note: LE COSTANTI DELLA FISICA Edit

Unlike the constants of mathematics, such as ?, the values of the constants of nature cannot be calculated by mathematics alone: they depend on laboratory measurements.Read more at location 1567

Note: C CALCOLATE IN LABORATORIO Edit

They are continually adjusted by international committees of experts known as metrologists.Read more at location 1571

Note: AGGIUSTATE PERIODICAMENTE Edit

However, some physicists, notably Paul Dirac (1902–84), speculated that at least some of the fundamental constants might change with time. In particular, Dirac proposed that the Universal Gravitational Constant might decrease slightly as the universe expands.Read more at location 1577

Note: DIRAC Edit

Note: LE COSTANTI DECRESCONO Edit

he was merely proposing that a mathematical law might govern the gradual variation of a constant.Read more at location 1580

Note: c Edit

Newton’s Universal Gravitational Constant, Big G,Read more at location 1584

Note: t Edit

shows the largest variations.Read more at location 1584

Add a note

the disparity in measurements of G by different laboratories increased, rather than decreased.10 Between 1973 and 2010, the lowest value of G was 6.6659, and the highest 6.734, a 1.1 per cent differenceRead more at location 1585

Note: CRESCE Edit

What if G really does change? Maybe it does so because measurements are affected by changes in the earth’s astronomical environment, as the earth moves around the sun and as the solar system moves within the galaxy.Read more at location 1597

Note: CAUSA DEL CAMBIAMENTO: AMBIENTE ASTRONOMICO Edit

Mikhail Gershteyn, of the Massachusetts InstituteRead more at location 1605

Add a note

Gershteyn’s team looked only for daily fluctuations, but G may well vary over longer time periods as well;Read more at location 1608

Note: VARIAZIONI GIORNALIERI E DI LUNGO Edit

Another way of looking for real changes in nature is to compare astronomical observations of galaxies and quasars of different ages to see if there is any difference in the light they emit that implies long-term changes in constants. The Australian astronomer John Webb has applied this approach to the fine structure constant,?.16 Around the turn of the millennium, his team found that ? was slightly smaller in distant parts of the sky, suggesting that it had changed over billions of years.Read more at location 1614

Note: FINE TUNE Edit

Finally, what about the speed of light, c? According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute constant, and modern physics is based on this assumption. Not surprisingly, early measurements of the speed of light varied considerably, but by 1927, the measured values had converged to 299,796 kilometres per second. At the time, the leading authority on the subject concluded, ‘The present value of c is entirely satisfactory and can be considered more or less permanently established.’20 However, all around the world from about 1928 to 1945, the speed of light dropped by about 20 kilometres per second.21 The ‘best’ values found by leading investigators were in impressively close agreement with each other.Read more at location 1626

Note: VELOCITÀ DELLA LUCE Edit

How can the drop in c between 1928 and 1945 be explained?Read more at location 1644

Note: c Edit

The implications of varying constants would be enormous. The course of nature would no longer seem blandly uniform; there would be fluctuations at the heart of physical reality.Read more at location 1658

Note: IMPLICAZIONI Edit

Multiple universesRead more at location 1660

Note: t Edit

According to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, the fact that the ‘laws’ and ‘constants’ of nature are just right for human life on this planet requires an explanation. If these laws and constants had been even slightly different, carbon-based life would not exist.Read more at location 1661

Note: SENZA LE COSTANTI ZERO VITA. FINE TUNE. COME SPIEGARE? Edit

One response is to suggest that an Intelligent Designer fine-tuned the laws and constants of nature at the moment of the Big Bang so they were exactly right for the emergence of life and human beings. This is a modern version of deism.Read more at location 1663

Note: RISOSTA TEISTA Edit

many cosmologists prefer to think that there are innumerable actually existing universes besides our own, each with different laws and constants. In these ‘multiverse’ models the fact that we occupy a universe that is just right for us is explained very simply. This is the only universe that we can actually observe precisely because it is the only one right for us.Read more at location 1665

Note: RISPOSTA MULTIVERSO Edit

The multiverse model is popular among cosmologists for two other reasons. First, models of an ultra-rapid period of inflation in the earliest stages of the Big Bang suggest that if this period of inflation could generate one universe, our own, it could also generate many others, and go on generating them.Read more at location 1669

Note: INFLAZIONE INIZIALE E MULTIVERSO Edit

The other theoretical reason for the popularity of the multiverse is superstring theory. This ten-dimensional theory and the related eleven-dimensional M-theory generate far too many possible solutions, which could correspond to different universes, as many as 10500.Read more at location 1673

Note: SUPERSTRINGHE E MULTIVERSO Edit

Some theorists go even further. The cosmologist Max Tegmark proposes that any mathematically possible universe must exist somewhere: ‘Complete mathematical democracy holds – mathematical existence and physical existence are equivalent, so that all mathematical structures exist physically as well.’Read more at location 1676

Note: TEGMARK E MULTIVERSO Edit

Some physicists and cosmologists are unhappy with these speculations. A vast number of unobserved universes violates the canon of scientific testability.Read more at location 1687

Note: MERE SPECULAZIONI Edit

Note: NN TESTABILITÀ Edit

Lee Smolin summarised the situation in 2006:   Hundreds of careers and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the last 30 years in the search for signs of grand unification, supersymmetry, and higher dimensions. Despite these efforts, no evidence for any of these hypotheses has turned up.Read more at location 1692

Note: SMOLIN. NESSUNA EVIDENZA A SUPPORTO Edit

Another class of speculative theories suggests that the universe is part of a series of universes, the progeny of a previous one and the progenitor of the next.Read more at location 1704

Note: ALTRA IPOTESI: UNIVERSI IN SERIE Edit

In modern cosmology, this ancient cyclic theory takes the form of the ‘bouncing universe’ model. After the Big Bang the universe expands for billions of years until its expansion slows down; it finally stops, and then begins to contract again under the force of gravity, finally collapsing in on itself in a Big Crunch. This in turn is the beginning of a new universe – a Big Bounce.Read more at location 1708

Note: c BOUNCING Edit

Note: BIG CRUNCH Edit

Note: BIG BOUNCE Edit

What all these theories have in common is a belief in the primacy of mathematics.Read more at location 1718

Note: L ELEMENTO COMUNE DI QUESTE TEORIE Edit

Evolutionary habitsRead more at location 1721

Note: t Edit

The alternative to Platonism is the evolution of the regularities of nature.Read more at location 1722

Note: L ALTERNATIVA A PLATONE Edit

In the late nineteenth century, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914; pronounced ‘purse’) pointed out that fixed laws imposed upon the universe from the outset are inconsistent with an evolutionary philosophy. He was one of the first to propose that the ‘laws of nature’ are more like habits, and suggested that the tendency to form habits grows spontaneously:Read more at location 1735

Note: PIERCE. IL PRIMO PRIPONENTE Edit

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), writing around the same time, went so far as to suggest that the ‘laws of nature’ underwent natural selection:Read more at location 1742

Note: NIETZ NELLO STESSO PERIODO Edit

William James (1842–1910)Read more at location 1749

Add a note

Likewise, Alfred North Whitehead suggested, ‘Time is differentiated from space by the acts of inheriting patterns from the past.’ This inheritance of pattern meant that habits built up. Whitehead said, ‘People make the mistake of talking about “natural laws”. There are no natural laws. There are only temporary habits of nature.’Read more at location 1755

Note: WHITEHEAD Edit

The Big Bang theory became orthodox only in the 1960s.Read more at location 1761

Note: BIG BANG Edit

Morphic resonanceRead more at location 1762

Note: t Edit

My own hypothesis is that the formation of habits depends on a process called morphic resonance.41 Similar patterns of activity resonate across time and space with subsequent patterns. This hypothesis applies to all self-organising systems, including atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, plants, animals and animal societies. All draw upon a collective memory and in turn contribute to it.Read more at location 1763

Note: L IPOTESI DI UNA MEMORIA NELLA MATERIA Edit

A growing crystal of copper sulphate, for example, is in resonance with countless previous crystals of copper sulphate, and follows the same habits of crystal organisation, the same lattice structure.Read more at location 1767

Note: ESEMPIO Edit

resonance may pass through the quantum-vacuum field, also known as the zero-point energy field, which mediates all quantum and electromagnetic processesRead more at location 1797

Note: LA RISONANZA SI TRASMETTE NEL VUOTO QUANTICO Edit

Habits of crystallisationRead more at location 1803

Note: t Edit

The hypothesis of morphic resonance predicts that when chemists make a new compound for the first time, it might be difficult to obtain crystals of this compound because a morphic field for this crystal-form does not yet exist. When the crystals appear for the first time, a new pattern of organisation comes into being. The second time the compound crystallises, there will be an influence from the first crystals by morphic resonance all over the world. The third time, there will be an influence from the first and the second crystals, and so on.Read more at location 1804

Note: LA SECONDA VOLTA È SEMPRE PIÙ FACILE Edit

Habit and creativityRead more at location 1866

Note: t Edit

Habits alone cannot explain evolution. They are by their very nature conservative. They account for repetition, but not for creativity. Evolution must involve a combination of these two processes: through creativity, new patterns of organisation arise; those that survive and are repeated become increasingly habitual.Read more at location 1867

Note: PER AVERE EV OCCORRE ANCHE CREATIVITY Edit

Creativity is a mystery precisely because it involves the appearance of patterns that have never existed before.Read more at location 1870

Note: MISTERO Edit

Our usual way of explaining things is in terms of pre-existing causes: the cause somehow contains the effect; the effect follows from the cause. If we apply this way of thinking to the creation of a new form of life, a new work of art, or a new idea, we infer that the new pattern of organisation was already present: it was a latent possibility. Given the appropriate circumstances, this latent pattern becomes actual. It is discovered rather than created.Read more at location 1870

Note: LA CONCEZIONE PLATONICA DELLA CREATIVITÀ. SCOPERTA DI CIÓ CHE ESISTE DA SEMPRE Edit

Henri BergsonRead more at location 1878

Add a note

Bergson (1859–1941) was an evolutionary philosopherRead more at location 1879

Add a note

Bergson argued that we need not attribute to these possibilities, which are unknowable until they actually happen, a pre-existent reality transcending time and space.Read more at location 1892

Note: LA CREATIVITÀ RADICALE DI BERGSON Edit

Henri Bergson attributed this creativity to the élan vital or vital impetus. Like Darwinians, Marxists and other believers in emergent evolution, he denied that the evolutionary process was designed and planned in advance in the mind of a Platonic God.Read more at location 1897

Note: c Edit

What difference does it make?Read more at location 1905

Note: t Edit

The Big Bang theory locates cosmic creativity at the beginning. In the original miracle, all the laws of nature and all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly arose from nothing, or from the wreckage of a previous universe.Read more at location 1906

Note: BIG BANG: L UNICO MOMENTO CREATIVO È ALL INIZIO Edit

By contrast, a radically evolutionary view of nature implies an ongoing creativity, establishing new habits and regularities as nature evolves.Read more at location 1908

Note: CREATIVITÁ E MENTI OVUNQUE Edit

Questions for materialistsRead more at location 1920

Note: t Edit