Pynchon & Politics( Lacey essay)

Markekohut markekohut at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 1 09:33:56 CST 2013


Occam's Razor is just another label for nothing left to fabricate. 

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

>   I'm not saying Occam's razor isn't a useful method of sorting the value of ideas, but apart from theoretical math/physics most ideas are more empirically testable and it was improved empirical observations that originated the heliocentric theories and tested them against the Ptolemaic model. 
> 
> It looks to me that Einstein's work didn't so much  eliminate the aether as reconsider its meaning and nature. The following is from wikipedia. Dirac's ideas have also gained  empirical evidence.  Tesla appeared to think the ether/quantum vacuum might be a source of energy . The energy has been shown to exist but so far no one has a plug-in technology. 
> 
> 
> Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.[6]
>   "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.[7]"
> 
> ]Quantum vacuum
> Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. It has been suggested by some such as Paul Dirac[8] that this quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether. However, Dirac's aether hypothesis was motivated by his dissatisfaction with quantum electrodynamics, and it never gained support by the mainstream scientific community.[9]
> 
> Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
> It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[10]
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> 
>> The getting the planets in the cosmos right could be seen as an example of Occam's
>> Razor leading to scientific discovery. Check out the epicycle-rigged "universe' when
>> the supposition was that the earth was the center..............
>> 
>> Occam's Razor cuts away the abstract, theorizing, bloviated ideas....It is open to empirical verification--or falsification.
>> 
>> This Charles Pierce we been talking of, praised, elaborated and refined early notions like it from John Duns Scotus, scholastic logician.
>> It became a pragmaticist [sic. Pierce's word; you can also write pragmatist] principle: To see what happens without created phantasms (ideas,
>> preconceptions, projections, etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Wikipedia sez:
>> The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.[b]
>> In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[9][10][11]
>> 
>> From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:08 PM
>> Subject: Fwd: Re: Pynchon & Politics( Lacey essay)
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:    Re: Pynchon & Politics( Lacey essay)
>> Date:    Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:06:19 -0500
>> From:    Paul Mackin mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
>> To:    Joseph Tracy mailto:brook7 at sover.net
>> On 1/31/2013 12:43 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>>> I would like to hear an actual example from the records of science of choosing among equally explanatory hypotheses using Occam's razor. This sounds a little too theoretical and  abstract . Does Mr. Glen provide a fewexamples of this generalization.  Isn't it more about whether a hypothesis holds up to empirical tests, or perhaps what is lucky enough to make it into the academic canon of the day?
>> 
>> True, there's no empirical evidence to show that the simple answer is 
>> always the correct one.  But simplicity is a good thing to keep in your 
>> sights.  There's the famous example of Einstein's explanation of 
>> space-time.  Others tried to explain it in terms of a media (ether) but 
>> Ein bypassed the middle man and won the day.>
> 
>>>  Anyway, if this were to be applied to maybe...Pynchon crit.,  wouldn't everybody use Old Occam's shaving tool to reveal their own favored profile?  In the world of letters the final gatekeepers used to be academia, the press, and the publishers. Is that still the case?
>>> 
>>> This problem of choosing among hypotheses comes up in the dialogue between Pointsman and Mexico  (with further complications from the ghosts of the White visitation and the long term ethical implications of rocket delivered weapons).  Both are partly right , the rockets  go where you Point.. them  but the exact point of impact  and  general distribution  is afunction of probability and randomness.   How and why  they are used gets dicier, and in the novel are  a function of planetary hard-ons, blowback,  religious fantasies, capital investments. These factors, taken together with all the other millions of factors  make predictability, guidance,and probability  seem inadequate to the dangers we talking monkeys are facing with our current array of thermonuclear devices, space based weapons, drones, rockets, and flouridated water.
>>> 
>>> Help us Obi Wan
>>> 
>>> To the degree that Lacey gets P's political sensibilities right, do Pynchon's writings provide a particularly informed and wholistic basis for aworthwhile political conversation? Apart from P's literary creativity Isfriend Tom simply one more humane voice who has seen the darkness at theend of the historic tunnel and who ends up offering a classic group of options: end, resist, expose colonialism in all forms and treat others theway you want to be treated( karmic adjustment), enjoy and explore sex, love, friendship, music, play, and non-violent forms of transcendent spiritual practice as rejuvenating forces of creativity, meaning and pleasure. Don't fill the world with  violence and shit since what goes around comes around.  His biggest break with happy-ever-after Jack tales is  his  implication that  bags of gold are all suspect and  that real freedom involves stepping  away from the system as much as possible and being willingto disappear so that
>> the soul is never owne
>> d and  
>> only one's spirit speaks or acts.
>>> 
>>> I can hear the argument that P is not prescriptive but descriptive and even subversive of all attempts at meaning, but  I find that argument to be fatally flawed In that the more you accept it the more it becomes the very thing it argues against.  What I am interested in is how the writingchanges the way other people think since I feel it has seriously worked over the way I think.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:28 AM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> William Glen observes that
>>>> 
>>>> the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not
>>>> simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or
>>>> reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to
>>>> stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and
>>>> areas of vagueness.[56]
>>>> 
>>>> In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or
>>>> "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they
>>>> here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is
>>>> nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor
>>>> serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable amongst a
>>>> group of equally explanatory hypotheses.
>>> 
>>>>>>> Pierce is very logistic. That is the nature of his " analysis". He
>>>>>> revolutionized Logic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OK. But I stick to what I wrote. It's a matter of terms. Just because
>>>>>> a person uses logic, or computation, or even if she works to
>>>>>> revolutionize logic, does not mean that her method is logistic.
>>>>>> Descartes' method is logistic. He, like Peirce wrote about his search
>>>>>> for and use of his method. Peirce, pardon the pun, doubted Descartes
>>>>>> doubting, and this because he disentangled it, he used his method, not
>>>>>> computation or logic, but analytic.
>>>   logistic originates as a military term referring to the pragmatic problems of supplying soldiers with their needs. It has come to refer to the  plans/difficulties/options  of any complex practical venture.
> 



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list