X-Message-Number: 17468
From: 
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:56:23 EDT
Subject: metaphors

I don't want to recapitulate the whole uploading discussion, but consider 
briefly the following from Mike Perry's #17464:

>"[R]elationships, rather than things, are the fundamental elements of 
reality."

>Quoted from Chet Raymo's review, appearing in *Scientific American*, of the 
>book, *Three Roads to Quantum Gravity*, by Lee Smolin (amazon.com). I think 
>it may have general relevance, despite a seeming circularity.

This is just another version of the isomorphism-is-everything stance, and 
close to being patently absurd, it seems to me. Are all metaphors equal? As 
an old and simple example, you can simulate definite integrals through a 
variety of analog computations. For integrating dy/dx, for example, you could 
use electric circuits (dq/dt) or mechanical disks (ds/dt), among others. Does 
this mean a rotating disk is the "same" as an electrical surge, and both are 
the "same" as a graph on paper? Obviously not. They are the "same" in the 
sense that, and to the extent that, they are the same, period. Are the 
differences important? Again, the differences are important if, when, and to 
the extent that they are relevant.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
www.cryonics.org 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17468