SUO: Re: Physical and Abstract
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John,
What you are doing here is telling a story about certain imaginary beasts
called "atoms", "photons", and "other subatomic particles", of which the
creatures called "quarks" have most recently occupied our imaginations.
When this genre of folktales is told by folks who really know how to
tell it well, well, its makes the sort of story on which our very
lives depend. But the concepts -- or the "constructs", as they
are often called -- of <atom>, <baryon>, <boson>, <electron>,
<fermion>, <hadron>, <lepton>, <meson>, <muon, <neutrino>,
<omega minus particle>, <photon>, <pion>, <positron>,
<quark>, and that whole imaginary bestiary, remain
the phyla of fauna and flora whose taxons are spun
into being solely in the wilds or in the zoos of
a narrative that may just as easily pass away
tomorrow aftenoon if they do not continue to
receive the sustenance they derive from
our imaginations of helping us to live
in reality. This is the phenomenon
that is due to be explained here.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Yes. Photons are physical, according to the
> first criterion: you can see them directly
> if they are in the visible range, feel them
> if they are in the infrared range, or detect
> them indirectly by various instruments.
>
> But as I said, the criteria for being abstract
> include not being physical. Therefore, photons
> are eliminated. Then I added some positive
> criteria, such as being able to be transmitted
> at the speed of light.
>
> Negroponte had a good "sound bite" for making
> the distinction: atoms vx. bits. If it's made
> up of atoms, it's physical; if it's made up of
> bits, it's abstract. However, he should have
> generalized the term "atom" to include photons
> and other subatomic particles.
>
> But as I said before, I am not claiming that
> my definition (or Negroponte's) exactly covers
> all the cases that people commonly use in
> ordinary language. That is why I put the caveat
> in my KR book that the labels Physical and Abstract
> are just mnemonic aids for my technical categories
> P and A.
>
> John
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> > John,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> >> Besides not being physical (i.e., having negative
> >> answers to the above questions), abstract entities
> >> have affirmative answers to the following questions:
> >>
> >> 1. Can it have physical replicas, embodiments,
> >> instances, encodings, or whatever similar
> >> term you would prefer to use?
> >>
> >> 2. If you are given a physical replica of an abstraction
> >> at one place and time, can you transmit it (the
> >> abstraction, not the replica) at the speed of light
> >> to another place and time where another physical
> >> replica, sufficiently similar to the original by
> >> whatever criteria you choose, can be reconstructed?
> >
> >
> > The second criteria seems incorrectly worded, since only physical things
> > (i.e. photons) can be transmitted at the speed of light from one place to
> > another.
> >
> > Phil Jackson
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o