The notion of time

This is a much too brief place to discuss the full history and meaning of the notion of time. This post will progressively fill up...with time.

The first idea that I would like to start with is the fact that time, in terms of the dynamical evolution of the objects and systems which surround us, has not always been an obvious concept in the History. A surprising example is the static view of the world that the Greeks had. Heracles may have been the only one at his time to notice that "you do not always cross the same river", that things are changing and are not immutable.

More generally, the Greeks thought the world was in balance. As Ludwig von Bertalanffy notices, "Greek physics did not contain a time dimension" (General System Theory, Chapter 10). That is why, among other things, the Greeks spent so much time on geometry.

The question that I would like to ask is if the notion of time was absent only from the teachings and the work of the scholars only or if it was generally absent from the psyche of people. On one hand, it is hard to imagine that anybody could not have noticed that objects can fall, things got unbalanced and stones have trajectories. Should apes notice that the world is constantly changing? Or did the humans have to learn such concept which appears so "obvious" to us?

If you see an ape or an ancient Greek, don't hesitate to ask him.

To be continued.

Advantages and disadvantages of modelling

Ludwig von Bertalanffy writes about any attempt to model Nature and its constituents:

"Conceptual models which, in simplified and therefore comprehensible form, try to represent certain aspects of reality, are basic in any attempt at theory; whether we apply the Newtonian model in mechanics, the model of corpuscle or wave in atomic physics, use simplified models to describe the growth of a population, or the model of a game to describe political decisions. The advantages and dangers of models are well known. The advantage is in the fact that this is the way to create a theory -i.e. the model permits deductions from premises, explanation and prediction, with often unexpected results. The danger is oversimplification: to make it conceptually controllable we have to reduce reality to a conceptual skeleton- the question remaining whether, in doing so, we have not cut out vital parts of the anatomy. The danger of oversimplification is the greater the more multifarious and complex the phenomenon is. This applies not only to «grand theories» of culture and history but to models we find in any psychological or sociological journal.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General system theory, Chapter 8

A debate between theory and observations?

It seems that there is in academia some debate opposing the theoreticians on one side and the observers on the other, between the creator of ideas and the gatherer of empirical data. And the debate questions which ones are the most useful to science, which ones do not spend his time and people's money on futile work.

I am afraid that such debate is nothing less than another victim of human's favorite game to create divisions where there is none. For instance, Ludwig von Bertalanffy amuses himself in noting how much theory there is actually behind any observations:

"According to widespread opinion, there is a fundamental distinction between «observed facts» on the one hand-which are the unquestionable rock bottom of science and should be collected in the greatest possible number and printed in scientific journals-and «mere theory» on the other hand, which is the product of speculation and more or less suspect. I think the first point I should emphasize is that such antithesis does not exist. As a matter of fact, when you take supposedly simple data in our field [...,] it would take hours to unravel the enormous amount of theoretical presuppositions which are necessary to form these concepts [...].
Thus even supposedly unadulterated facts of observation already are interfused with all sorts of conceptual pictures, model concepts, theories or whatever expression you choose. The choice is not whether to remain in the field of data or to theorize; the choice is only between models that are more or less abstract, generalized, near or more remote from direct observation, more or less suitable to represent observed phenomena.
On the other hand, one should not take scientific models too seriously. [...] I believe a certain amount of intellectual humility, lack of dogmatism, and good humor may go a long way to facilitate otherwise embittered debates about scientific theories and models."

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General system theory, Chapter 7.

Boltzmann on reason and passion

Read what have to say great scientists, historical figures or artists on contemporary problems, popular culture or on the little things in life can be either worrisome, such as the recent comment by the co-discoverer of DNA saying that black people are less intelligent, or charming such as L. Boltzmann, the great scientist from the late 19th century, commenting on our everyday struggle between reason and passion.

Far from defending a pure rational behavior, L. Boltzmann not only accepts the human weakness of reacting instinctively but also recognizes that at times instinct can very much enlight people's life. L. Boltzmann writes:

"How far removed we are from pure rational grounds being the motives of all our actions! The innermost impulses to action mostly still arise from innate drives and passions, that is from instincts germinating within us without our concurrence, which do indeed become harmful and reprehensible if dominating the intellect, but nevertheless are necessary to lend our actions liveliness and our character its peculiar colouring. The machinery of the world maintains itself, as Schiller says, «today, as ever, by hunger and love, and the time is as yet far off when philosophy will hold the universal circuit together»."

Ludwig Boltzmann, On the principles of mechanics, in Theoretical physics and philosophical problems

Such observation has been made over and over during History. For instance, during the Thirty Years War, Sweden chancellor expressed it as followed:

"Nesci, mi fili, quantilla ratione mundus regatur"
"you don't know, my dear boy, with what little reason the world is governed"

cited by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in General system theory.