Posted by Reilly Atkinson on June 08, 1999 at 18:14:19:

In Reply to: Whole vs. Coincidence posted by ron dw on June 08, 1999 at 08:03:43:

To ron dw: As Hawkings will attest, the macroscopic theories of the universe, based mostly on Einstein's General Relativity have yet to be reconciled with the Quantum Theory, which provides a remarkably accurate picture and reductionist understanding of matter. The opposition of the two approaches can be described in many ways, mathematical and conceptual. The most promising approaches to overcoming the macro-micro gap to date all involve enormously complex and highly arcane mathematics.

There may be a manner in which the macro world can be understood in terms of necessity. But this mode of understanding is quite contrary to the understanding of physicist - the concept of necessity as applied to reality is not a part of physics. Microscopic phenomena are not understod in terms of coincidence. Rather the understanding is based on the interaction of particles by means of electromagnetic and other forces.

Einstein would have no difficulty with the spatialization of time. It is, just as is the temporality of space, a core concept of Special Relativity -- that is, space and time can be arbitrarily mixed via Lorentz transformations.

It's been forty years since I read Bergson and Kant and their collegues - so I'm not competent to discuss their work. However, as you use it,"necessity" has a very Aristotilian ring to it - like prime mover. Most things Aristotilian make modern physicists, most scientists in fact, quite uncomfortable.

I would be most grateful to see an example of a philosophy with good ontologies.

Thanks, Reilly Atkinson

---

Follow Ups:

• Good philosophical ontology? ron dw 09:19:25 6/09/99 (2)
  • Re: Good philosophical ontology? Reilly Atkinson 21:16:09 6/11/99 (1)
    • Re: Good philosophical ontology? ron dw 09:56:27 6/13/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: