>Einstein, Schrodinger--the geniuses--called such thinking
>"sinister", Winfried. Not Ken Wilber: Einstein.
Steve,
let me remind you, that it was not me who brought Ken Wilber into the
picture. Your point was: One must not compare apples with pears. I agreed
with a: Yes, BUT both are fruit.
It was my fault to catch the ball. Schrodinger and Einstein were talking
about the microscopic world of quantum physics. Entropy is different. As a
thermodynamic entity it deals with the macroscopic world, the world we are
living in. And especially Schrodinger was puzzled by this. From the
empirical evidence of order in our world - and I am not sure whether he
would have excluded the order in his mind - he postulated an entity he
called Negentropy, or Anti-Entropy. Schrodingers mindset was influenced by
the understanding of entropy at his time: Measure of disorder. Today we
can know that entropy is a measure of organization, irrespective whether
this organization manifests as order or disorder. So we can (and
Schrodinger certainly would) apply Occam's razor to negentropy.
The issue of science and belief is a different thread. I clearly admit
that I am grounded much more in belief than in science. I apply science
only where I believe in it's value, the value of which cannot be decided
by science. I never met a scientist who did not speak as a believer - at
least as a believer in science.
>If you are not speaking as a scientist, but as a believer, that is of
>course another matter.
In order to feel respected as a person, Steve, please confirm that you do
NOT mean: believers are heretics of science. And also that your very
general "that is of course another matter" does NOT imply: there is no
need to talk to a believer, no chance to come to something sensible.
Steve, I am not sure whether I am offending you by asking for your
confirmation above, but I am really not sure about you. On one hand I
think that you are very aware that Einstein was a great believer. I can
imagine that it was Einsteins intend to insist on the priority of belief
over science, when he called the invasion of science in the realm of
belief "sinister", as you quoted. On the other hand, whenever it comes to
belief, it seems to me as if you have a mental sign warning you: "Caution!
Do not enter! Knowing is safe, believing is dangerous." May be a
misperception from my side?
I would say, and I feel really close to Einstein with this: There is no
safe knowledge without a solid ground in belief. And there is only one
thing that can provide solid ground for belief: LOVE.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>