Questions on Objectivist metaphysics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

My problem with a reductionist view is that we can explode powerful bombs by rearranging subparticles (designed from the top down, of course), but we cannot create life from inanimate matter.

One day if we ever achieve that, I will revise my view that life is more than a property of matter. Until then, it is too early to say with absolute certainty one way or another.

Nathaniel Branden was once asked what consciousness was made out of. He responded, "Consciousness."

I am at that point right now.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

My problem with a reductionist view is that we can explode powerful bombs by rearranging subparticles (designed from the top down, of course), but we cannot create life from inanimate matter.

One day if we ever achieve that, I will revise my view that life is more than a property of matter. Until then, it is too early to say with absolute certainty one way or another.

Well, if it took nature several billions of years to create primitive life forms from inanimate matter, is it then surprising that we don't succeed immediately in a few decades? Anyway, does it matter? Life must have evolved on earth from inorganic matter, vindicating reductionism, or do you believe in supernatural intervention?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My problem with a reductionist view is that we can explode powerful bombs by rearranging subparticles (designed from the top down, of course), but we cannot create life from inanimate matter.

One day if we ever achieve that, I will revise my view that life is more than a property of matter. Until then, it is too early to say with absolute certainty one way or another.

Well, if it took nature several billions of years to create primitive life forms from inanimate matter, is it then surprising that we don't succeed immediately in a few decades? Anyway, does it matter? Life must have evolved on earth from inorganic matter, vindicating reductionism, or do you believe in supernatural intervention?

Dragonfly,

There is a world of difference between "must have" and "did." And "does it matter?" is begging the question.

(btw - Did you ever getting around to zapping those little suckers and making them come alive? )

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Darrell,

My problem with a reductionist view is that we can explode powerful bombs by rearranging subparticles (designed from the top down, of course), but we cannot create life from inanimate matter.

One day if we ever achieve that, I will revise my view that life is more than a property of matter. Until then, it is too early to say with absolute certainty one way or another.

Michael,

Are you saying that science seems to be better at identifying the principles of disintegration than it is the principles of integration? This would make some sense since reductionism is itself based on a mental process that begins with the principles of differentiation and disintegration. Where do we find the mental processes of dialectic and integration? And how would such processes tend to shape a different worldview from pure reductionism? Oh! ...we're not allowed to use them because they are not science. Never mind. It seems I am just a fool who sees the ghosts of bad science in the shadows of "good" science. I see room for synthesis and dialectical integration beneath the reductionist worldview, that can identify the principles that cause the emergence of matter, life and consciousness.

So far, science can only tell us how to take the universe apart. It does not tell us, to my satisfaction anyway, how it comes together. It tells us that we cannot observe anything beyond the quantum limit. But it cannot tell us there are no principles of causation and integration operating beyond this limit. Science just tells us there is a limit to how far we can physically observe the reduction of the universe. It cannot tell us it can be reduced no further.

I think what you are looking for, Michael, is for science to provide us with a principle of integration that can account for the existence of life and consciousness from the bottom up. If science is defined by the method of reduction, it will never provide this principle. You will come closer by reading Sciabarra's definition of dialectics. The principle of integration that will account for the existence of life and consciousness comes from an understanding of the dynamic interplay between the parts of systems and systems as a whole. This is fundamentally non-reducible. By this I mean the behaviour of the parts cannot be completely reduced to their internal dynamics and the assertion of its identity, plus the actions of other things upon them. The form of the whole system shapes the degrees of freedom available to the parts and thus causally participates in the actions of the parts. This element of causation is lost in the reductive process and cannot be identified by a scientific methodology that is reduced to a reductive process.

Life and consciousness initiate actions as an integrated unit for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the integration of that unit. What principle of action in physics can account for this?

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you saying that science seems to be better at identifying the principles of disintegration than it is the principles of integration?

. . .

I think what you are looking for, Michael, is for science to provide us with a principle of integration that can account for the existence of life and consciousness from the bottom up.

Paul,

Science not only identifies the principles of disintegration, it allows man to reintegrate the subparticles into new products based on their principles of functioning. But if man controls the process, the new integration is essentially designed and guided from the top down by an outside force (man) until it is complete. The subparticles do not simply jump into a new form of their own accord.

This is an oblique manner of explaining what I was talking about before about mid-level principles. I think there is more than subparticles randomly jumping into forms and entities not influenced by man, making all the elements, energies, planets, etc. I cannot rule out Cosmic Accident as an organizing force, but it certainly does not convince me enough to exclude other possibilities.

I do not really seek a bottom up principle of integration that can account for life and consciousness. I am pretty happy with life as a primary (or even secondary). But, once again, I do not rule out the possibility, either. If science makes life under the microscope, hey. We gotta accept that and adjust our thinking accordingly.

It is too early to make absolutely certain statements about this. More needs to be known first.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

There is a world of difference between "must have" and "did."

No there isn't. This is an example of logical inference, I thought that would be clear, but apparently it wasn't. So I'll spell it out: In the beginning (good phrase to start with) there was no life on earth (agreed?). Today there is a lot of life on earth. We know that in the course of billions of years complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. So at a certain time t(1) there is only inorganic matter on earth and at a certain time t(2) > t(1) there is life on earth. Now what could have happened? 1) The first possibility (the scientific hypothesis) is that the somehow life evolved automatically from inorganic matter (we don't know yet by what mechanism exactly, several models have been proposed, but they are difficult to test, due to the lack of data). 2) The second possibility (which is rejected by science) is that some miracle happened, that God created life or some other supernatural phenomenon. One could think of a third possibility, namely that life was brought to earth by extraterrestial creatures, but that would merely shift the problem to a different planet, so this option is not relevant for our question. Now I ask you: what option is the correct conclusion? Or do you see a third option that I might have missed?

And "does it matter?" is begging the question.

Not at all. Confirming a hypothesis about some event in the past by reproducing a similar event may be nice, but it is not necessary. We know for example fairly well how stars are born, what happens inside a star and how they evolve and how they end. Do we have to be able to build a star before we accept such a theory?

(btw - Did you ever getting around to zapping those little suckers and making them come alive? )

Not yet, but rest assured that I never kill cockroaches.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now I ask you: what option is the correct conclusion? Or do you see a third option that I might have missed?

Dragonfly,

Actually, I do see a third option and I have mentioned it before. It is the thought that our sense organs might not provide us with contact to all of reality. I can't get the idea of top-down organization in addition to bottom-up out of my head, and I keep coming across that "emergence" thing, where the ultimate answer to why it occurs is "We don't really know."

And "does it matter?" is begging the question.

Not at all. Confirming a hypothesis about some event in the past by reproducing a similar event may be nice, but it is not necessary. We know for example fairly well how stars are born, what happens inside a star and how they evolve and how they end. Do we have to be able to build a star before we accept such a theory?

I think you missed my point here. When you are dismissive, you miss the argument entirely. A dismissal is not an argument, rebuttal, refutation or proof of anything. It is merely a statement that you do not wish to examine an idea.

The problem isn't in saying that the emergence of life from a reductionist viewpoint is probable. The problem is in saying that ALL OTHER possibilities have thus been refuted by a simple dismissal. You can tell me much about a star except why it emerges in the form it does instead of, say, a black hole or whatever. But I suppose it doesn't matter. When reality doesn't fit the theory, knowledge is not really necessary or even important. So why even think about it?

Wait a minute! Isn't that what you always accuse Rand of doing?

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Actually, I do see a third option and I have mentioned it before. It is the thought that our sense organs might not provide us with contact to all of reality. I can't get the idea of top-down organization in addition to bottom-up out of my head, and I keep coming across that "emergence" thing, where the ultimate answer to why it occurs is "We don't really know."

Why do you think that our sense organs might not provide us with contact to all of reality? Do you have any evidence to support that idea? That our sense organs don't provide us with direct contact to all of reality is of course obvious, we can for example only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and we can't see bacteria with the naked eye, neither can we hear ultrasound. But thanks to science and technology we can translate all such information into a form that we can directly observe, for example by using infrared cameras, X-ray apparatus, radio receivers, microscopes etc. We can detect the elusive neutrinos and all kinds of exotic particles, like the Σ0 particle that exists only for 0.00000000000000000007 seconds. So what are we missing?

Anyway, this doesn't anwer my question. Can the first living systems have developed from inorganic material by physical means which can be explained by the laws of physics as we know them? Or do you think we need some new physics? Even then the explanation would still be fully reductionistic. The only alternative I see is an explanation that in principle cannot be detected by physical means: literally a supernatural explanation. In that case I think it's useless to continue this discussion, as I am not interested in supernatural explanations, as one of my axioms is that supernatural explanations are meaningless.

I think you missed my point here. When you are dismissive, you miss the argument entirely. A dismissal is not an argument, rebuttal, refutation or proof of anything. It is merely a statement that you do not wish to examine an idea.

I don't understand what you're referring to. If it is a supernatural explanation you're right, then it is the end of the discussion.

The problem isn't in saying that the emergence of life from a reductionist viewpoint is probable. The problem is in saying that ALL OTHER possibilities have thus been refuted by a simple dismissal.

If you mean that I dismiss supernatural explanations, then indeed do I dismiss them, I'll leave them to the theologians.

You can tell me much about a star except why it emerges in the form it does instead of, say, a black hole or whatever.

Oh, but I can tell you why a star emerges in the form it does or whether it will become a black hole or not (and a specialist in that field will be able to give you even much more details).

But I suppose it doesn't matter. When reality doesn't fit the theory, knowledge is not really necessary or even important. So why even think about it?

Where does reality not fit the theory?

Wait a minute! Isn't that what you always accuse Rand of doing?

I'm not sure what you mean by "always" accuse Rand of doing. When I have criticisms of her theories I've always explicitly stated what my objections were and not just hurled some unfounded accusations.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I seriously doubt you can explain why stars emerge. You can probably explain a good deal about how they emerge, but not why.

You can push, but the sad reality is that I am not proposing a supernatural explanation. I think you know that, which is why you repeat it so much (trying to make it real). But like the guy with the losing hand in poker, no amount of staring at the cards will make them change. I am perfectly capable of saying (on my own and without help) I believe in God if I did. Have I ever said that?

The other sad fact is that reductionism alone does not explain birth, death, reproduction, etc., and you (at least) must always put the principles of creating life from innate matter within a context of the first time having happened a long time ago. I think this is to sidestep the reality that reductionism simply does not explain this. We make nuclear explosions without that time qualification. It didn't really matter to the scientists who made it possible when the first nuclear explosion happened in the first star. Why that consideration is necessary to create life in the laboratory is a mystery to me.

Since I have been duly dismissed and mischaracterized, however, I also think it might be wise to take a breather.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I seriously doubt you can explain why stars emerge. You can probably explain a good deal about how they emerge, but not why.

That is a meaningless distinction. Every "why" is nothing but a more detailed "how". What we call an explanation of some phenomenon is in fact a description on a deeper level where we fit the phenomenon into a more general, more encompassing theory. Take for example the phenomenon of a burning candle. At the lowest level we just describe what we observe, the color, temperature, that the candle becomes smaller with time etc. Then we may ask: why do we see what we see, why that particular color, why the high temperature etc. We can give an explanation in basic physical and chemical terms, reaction with oxygen, release of energy, increase of temperature leading to the emitting of light etc. But we can always continue asking questions: why does the stearin react with oxygen and why does that reaction release energy? Then you get into the quantummechanical basis of chemical reactions etc. etc. until you arrive at a theory of everything and/or the ultimate and probably unanswerable question "why is there anything"?

You can push, but the sad reality is that I am not proposing a supernatural explanation. I think you know that, which is why you repeat it so much (trying to make it real). But like the guy with the losing hand in poker, no amount of staring at the cards will make them change. I am perfectly capable of saying (on my own and without help) I believe in God if I did. Have I ever said that?

Supernatural doesn't necessarily mean belief in God, it's any explanation that claims to be outside a scientific description of the world and I can't help that it seems to me that that is where you're heading. When you feel that I'm pushing, the reason is that I can't make any sense of what you're saying, so I try to make it more concrete, but I'm afraid this is a doomed exercise.

The other sad fact is that reductionism alone does not explain birth, death, reproduction, etc., and you (at least) must always put the principles of creating life from innate matter within a context of the first time having happened a long time ago.

Of course I do that while that is the only point about which we don't have detailed knowledge yet, so I can at least understand that you may question that. Birth, death and reproduction however can be perfectly explained in a reductionist manner. You really need to brush up your biology.

I think this is to sidestep the reality that reductionism simply does not explain this. We make nuclear explosions without that time qualification. It didn't really matter to the scientists who made it possible when the first nuclear explosion happened in the first star. Why that consideration is necessary to create life in the laboratory is a mystery to me.

It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. The only thing I wanted to convey is that creating life in the laboratory is just a technologically enormous demanding task. It's not just a question of mixing a few ingredients and voilà, there is life. In principle that method might work, but we have very good evidence that it will take a few billions years, so that's not a very practical method.

Since I have been duly dismissed and mischaracterized, however, I also think it might be wise to take a breather.

I think this is not fair. It is not my intention to mischaracterize you or dismiss you, I'm only trying to make sense of what you're saying, and unfortunately with little success. Perhaps someone else can explain what you really mean.

[Brant Gaede]

"Why is there anything?"

Because there isn't any nothing. :aww:

--Brant

[John Dailey]

Brant:

~ I'm tempted to agree, but, the prob is: what is the epistemologically fundamental 'basis' for concluding such (other than 'playing' with logic-terminology) coupled with, is such sufficient for 'knowledge' about such?

~ Empirically, to determine that 'X' has no-existence-in-the-knowable-universe-ANYwhere (which is the way all 'philosophers' argue about 'existence of X'), does one not nececessarily have to search ALL corners of the universe to supposedly 'knowably' say that 'X', even if it's 'nothing', is not there?

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

~ I'm tempted to agree, but, the prob is: what is the epistemologically fundamental 'basis' for concluding such (other than 'playing' with logic-terminology) coupled with, is such sufficient for 'knowledge' about such?

~ Empirically, to determine that 'X' has no-existence-in-the-knowable-universe-ANYwhere (which is the way all 'philosophers' argue about 'existence of X'), does one not nececessarily have to search ALL corners of the universe to supposedly 'knowably' say that 'X', even if it's 'nothing', is not there?

LLAP

J:D

I don't think so. You don't have to search for "nothing" as long as there is "something," for if nothing is something then nothing is nothing.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] It is not my intention to mischaracterize you [MSK] or dismiss you, I'm only trying to make sense of what you're saying, and unfortunately with little success. Perhaps someone else can explain what you really mean.

I can't. I agree with Michael in this respect: I think that reductionism is not the be all and end all of scientific explanation. I think that human beings -- even Euglena, any form of self-motile entity -- wouldn't be here if it were. And it seems to me that an increasing number of scientists have doubts about reductionism as the sole explanatory paradigm. I don't mean merely those scientists -- I'm tempted to say "so-called" -- who are adopting some form of "intelligent design" idea. I think there's a development toward the idea that the whole of a system -- starting with the system of the universe entirely -- is needed fully to explain the actions of the parts, that you can't get certain results by starting with the behavior of the minutest parts and adding and adding from there. A non-elegant way of expressing the point, I know; just trying to give you the general idea.

On the other hand, I don't myself understand Michael's views about "life." I tend to think that they result from his not having read much of the work of evolutionists. Wherever, whenever life started, it evolved from relatively basic chemical interactions. Even with an extraterrestrial seeding of life origins on earth sort of theory, still, life would have to have evolved somewhere else at some time else.

Supposing that Big Bang theory is wrong -- in all its variants -- supposing there never was a "Big Bang" (properly, initial expansion), it might be that there's some "principle" which has always been which might be described as "life," some sort of organization of stuff which inherently has a replicability property. But even then, this principle would have to kick in on particular planets, and proceed to evolve.

So, no, I don't really understand why Michael believes that there's something in life processes which can't be explained on the basis of some form of evolution from inanimate processes.

(Michael, I apologize for addressing your views in the 3rd person. Since I was answering Dragonfly, shifting to 1st person seemed stylistically awkward.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... the idea that the whole of a system -- starting with the system of the universe entirely -- is needed fully to explain the actions of the parts, [and] . . . you can't get certain results by starting with the behavior of the minutest parts and adding and adding from there.

Ellen,

You expressed my views (outside of life) very well. Given the enormous variety of forms that combinations of subatomic particles can make, there have to be principles for why the universe is in the form it is in and not in the forms of the other variations that could be created. I am calling these top-down principles since I am winging it right now. (I read the term somewhere and I liked it.)

On the issue of life coming from inanimate matter, until this is absolutely proven (and the only way to prove it is to create life under controlled conditions from inanimate matter), what is wrong about speculating the following?

1. If the physical universe always existed, why couldn't life as a form of existence have always existed? Because life forms evolve? That's change, I admit, but then, inanimate things like stars constantly change.

2. If the physical universe came from a big bang, why couldn't life as a form of existence have been blasted into existence out of nothing also at the same time? Simply because we have not seen leftovers yet?

I see nothing supernatural or stupid in wondering about these things, especially in the absence of solid proof that life emerged from inanimate matter. (I do admit that I am partial to the emergence theory, but theory is all it is. It certainly is not a law of nature yet.)

Also, on my speculations about a possible missing sense organ, quantum physics is standing so much on its head that I find it reasonable to speculate that we are simply not perceiving everything—that the behavior of these particles is only telling us part of the story as they come in and out of forms that are perceived (or not) by our capacity for awareness, that we are merely perceiving what we are capable of perceiving, that there is more to perceive if we can figure our how to do that, that we might be able to find a way to track those particles when they change forms and go out of our awareness field, thus open that door to our perception.

It's only an approach, but I see no reason not to explore it. The alternative, if one wants to dismiss it out of hand, is simply to say that quantum physics is weird, and that's just the way it is, and there is to be no further discussion on a mega level about the why of the weirdness. Why no more discussion? Would it be because the mega level, as currently known, has already been proved to be the full story? No. It's because someone said so and no further reason is needed than that person saying so. That's why. (That's what all arguments are going to boil down to at this point in time.)

Michael

[Dragonfly]

2. If the physical universe came from a big bang, why couldn't life as a form of existence have been blasted into existence out of nothing also at the same time? Simply because we have not seen leftovers yet?

Nonsense. Life is based on self-replicating molecules. For any life form that has the complexity of the even the simplest life form we know now carbon is the essential ingredient of such molecules, as it is the only atom which can form such an enormous amount of different complex molecules that are needed for the intricate machinery of living cells. Well, at the beginning of the big bang there weren't any atoms at all. The first hydrogen atoms were only formed after 300000 years, but for the forming of carbon atoms you need stars and the first stars were formed 200 million years after the big bang. The earth wasn't formed until about 10 billion years later. Although the necessary elements were there life was still impossible, as the earth was a molten glowing sphere and it took another billion years for the first one-celled life forms to appear and some 2 billion years more for the first multicellular organisms to be formed, about 2,7 billion years ago. The rest is history. So your theory that life was "blasted into existence out of nothing at the same time as the big bang" is herewith blasted out of existence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

1. I thought it was clear that I was not proposing a theory, just speculation outside the box.

2. You are still looking from the bottom up and absolutely refusing to look from the top down. I didn't say carbon atoms could have been blasted into existence at that point in time. I said life as a form of existence. Like subatomic particles as a form of existence. If it is reasonable to assume that the subatomic world came from a blast of nothingness, why is it ridiculous to assume that formation principles also came from a blast of nothingness?

Let me try to explain what this means by example, but it is a sorry example because it insinuates God if you take it one step further. Man himself is a top-down force on specific groups of subatomic particles. He rearranges subatomic particles into forms that they would never migrate into on their own. He literally carries them from one place to another (which they would never do on their own), subjects them to temperatures, selective contact with other particles, etc. (which they would never do on their own), and so on. But because of the inner properties of subatomic particles, new forms are thus created (which would never emerge without the top-down force adding to what they can do).

I speculate that there are some kind of "entity forming" principles at work in the universe, which is why some forms emerge and others that are just as possible do not. The idea of random emergence of forms and actions on this level is one possibility, just as the idea of predetermined emergence of forms and actions from the nature of subatomic particles is. But from my example, there is at least one top-down force operating in the universe: man. The fact that man can do it shows that it exists in one form—a volitional form. This is why man has traditionally pushed it one step further and postulated a super-volition or mega-volition: God. It's an easy speculation based on his own nature.

But how about a nonvolitional form of top-down principles? Once again, quantum mechanics is showing us that we have only scratched the surface in rationally understanding the universe from the reductionist viewpoint alone.

I remember that Nathan Hawking on the old SoloHQ threads used to talk about organization being another axiom of existence. I am beginning to suspect that this is what he meant.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

The first hydrogen atoms were only formed after 300000 years, but for the forming of carbon atoms you need stars and the first stars were formed 200 million years after the big bang.

That reminds me of something Carl Sagan said in his Cosmos series. He said this more than once, and I saw the series more than once, and each time I heard this I felt a numinous chill -- a shiver down the spine, a cold tingling of the stomach. I'm feeling that now remembering:

"For we are star stuff. The very atoms of our flesh were forged in the furnaces of the stars."

He'd sometimes then add a statement of his desire that we one day "reach the stars," whence we "came."

Shivery.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, Dragonfly wins this one. Maybe the only thing infinite is our ability to speculate. In science speculation has its place, for instance: setting up experiments, directing inquiry. How can we use your speculations to these effects? Writing science fiction?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

To tell you the truth, I didn't realize I was competing for anything.

Do you mean to say that Dragonfly has proved conclusively that his reductionist position is all there is? I missed that part about how life springs forth from inanimate matter. Sorry to ask, but how does that happen again?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I missed this post before; it appeared just about when I was posting.

But from my example, there is at least one top-down force operating in the universe: man. The fact that man can do it shows that it exists in one form—a volitional form.

Except Dragonfly doesn't think man is top-down; he things it's bottom-up all the way. ;-)

I remember that Nathan Hawking on the old SoloHQ threads used to talk about organization being another axiom of existence. I am beginning to suspect that this is what he meant.

I never had time to get around to trying to figure out what he meant. How sad a loss, his death. And his website was taken down, so there isn't even a record of what he'd written there, insofar as I know. Might there be something findable on that Wayback Machine retriever you use?

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

To tell you the truth, I didn't realize I was competing for anything.

Do you mean to say that Dragonfly has proved conclusively that his reductionist position is all there is? I missed that part about how life springs forth from inanimate matter. Sorry to ask, but how does that happen again?

Michael

That atoms didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang doesn't mean matter came from "nothingness," just as close to nothingness as we can know. Life is out of matter, not nothingness. How life comes out of matter we don't know, not that it doesn't.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Do you mean to say that Dragonfly has proved conclusively that his reductionist position is all there is? I missed that part about how life springs forth from inanimate matter. Sorry to ask, but how does that happen again?

In science you don't prove a theory, you can only disprove it. The theory that best explains the available data is accepted. Unfalsifialbe fantasies that are not based on empirical evidence may be popular in some circles but they don't count in science. And if you missed the part how life springs forth from inanimate matter, I'd suggest that you read for example some of Dawkins' books where several of such theories discussed. As I said in an earlier post, we don't have the data yet to say which theory is correct, but each theory can explain the emergence of life in a completely natural manner without having to resort to extraordinary, supernatural hypotheses. Any extraordinary hypothesis that goes agains current scientific knowledge demands extraordinary evidence, and as there isn't even any evidence for such extraordinary hypotheses (personal feelings are irrelevant), we may safely ignore them, the more so when we don't need them at all.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I read out of one of your earlier posts that you may be arguing against determinism generally, not just for human beings. Something to do with QM.

On another subject you touched on, just because we may lack a certain sense organ doesn't mean we can't compensate. For the organs we do have there is only a range of perceptions. We don't see ultraviolet light.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I remember that Nathan Hawking on the old SoloHQ threads used to talk about organization being another axiom of existence. I am beginning to suspect that this is what he meant.

I never had time to get around to trying to figure out what he meant. How sad a loss, his death. And his website was taken down, so there isn't even a record of what he'd written there, insofar as I know. Might there be something findable on that Wayback Machine retriever you use?

Ellen

___

Go to Rebirth of Reason, click on people, click on members, go to member 1345 or Nathan Hawking, click on him, click on all his user posts. I'm not giving a link for I found out that they don't seem to work for this. As for his Website, I never went there except briefly.

--Brant

Edited March 14, 2007 by Brant Gaede