FA[on D.Kllinghoffer "if a
particular artistic subtlety in that perfection is beyond the ability of a
predator to perceive, how did nature select it?"] I gather VN might
argue that they may exist simply to entertain whatever creator might be out
there, and who can argue with that?
JA: ...Nabokov did indeed respect
Darwin with quibbling differences [...] There's Nabokov the scientist, who is a
rock-solid evolutionist, and Nabokov the artist, who thinks/feels that things
"don't quite" (strong opinions) end with death [...]
JM: I can agree with FA if the
term "creator" is applicable to any sensitive human predator (creation
lies in the eye of the beholder). I find the other issue, about how a useless
trait ("non-adaptive) is preserved, more complicated to
understand because it is impossible to be sure of what, in the long
run, is "useful", including the philosophy that revolves on cause-effect
or "usefulness". But I'm sure others shall know the answer.
There are various other instances that show that Nabokov respected
Darwin (although he differed in relation to specific issues, such as the role of
natural selection, etc etc...) How could he not, I wonder? JA's doubts
puzzle me. As a scientist VN was observing and
experimenting, like his fellow scientists and he did recognize that,
like them, he had no final word about his scientific conclusions ("another fellow will show how wrong I was in this or that. Herein
lies the difference between science and art."). As an artist he could
risk and rely on intuition to voice his indignation against the fact
that, like any other commoner, his physical self would become dust
among dust.
I finally found an entry into Langevin and the Twin
Paradox. What I found most interesting, as a laywoman (?), were two
informations: (a) following special relativity theories there is no
absolute present ["A present is defined as
a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given
observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so
switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the
present."] and the related observation that "special relativity does
not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at
rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent." This clarifies
issues about predator-creator-observer-deity (or, so I hope). An artist may
board an imaginary space ship and leave the scientist on earth?