The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[Robert Campbell]

There hasn't been that much traffic at amazon yet. Mostly sound and fury over one dopey, near-contentless negative review.

By contrast, a negative review with some very good points in it was contributed by a former participant here:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R20KFQPMYAI4J1/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

I don't agree with Mr. Wissler when he declares that child psychology is irrelevant to epistemology (though I do agree that Harriman's uses of child psychology aren't very apposite, and rely exclusively on Peikovian authority instead of data).

However, he makes strong critiques of the Peikovian doctrine of first-level generalization and the Peikovian doctrine of contextual certainty.

Robert Campbell

PS. Has anyone hear heard the Peikovian doctrine of first-level generalization referred to as the "gen theory"? I'm wondering whether that's in-house slang at ARI.

[Brant Gaede]

If you try to make physics conform to a philosophy your work will be greeted with scorn by physicists or, more likely, ignored completely. If you actually have good work in physics you would never present it to the scientific community except in the most professional way.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I expect the book will just be ignored by working physicists, chemists, and the like.

Almost for sure. No math.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is one thing that is really amusing to me. Mathematics is the language of science. The quantitative predictive power of science is astounding, yet the very people who should appreciate it complain about the bounty. Science is doing its job, prediction.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

Descartes, as Neil Parille previously noted, is written off as a foolish fantasist. His conception of the aether doesn't even come up. In fact, Harriman somehow manages not to mention that anyone in the 17th century (i.e., before modern chemistry) ever made any claims about atoms or "corpuscles"—except Robert Hooke, and poor foolish Descartes.

Interesting. Newton was an atomist and that is how he explained light. Later on Einstein redeemed Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

As to the "foolish Descartes", he came up with a very accurate description and an anatomical analysis of the human eye. He nearly got human vision right. And of course that "foolish" man was a co-inventor of analytic geometry which is absolutely essential to the analytical program in mathematics, the program that worked. Greek synthesis hit a dead end very early in the development of mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

For those who want an enlightening window on scientific genius and the creative process in science, I recommend the excellent collection of short biographies from Scientific American entitled Scientific Genius and Creativity. There are ten well written biographies: Harvey, Newton, Boyle, Lavoisier, Gauss, Galois, Henry, Darwin, Wegener and Millikan. There is a nice balance in that Gauss and Galois have just the right amount of math for a biographical segment and there are plenty of biographies for which math is not necessary. There is a nice blend of fields and there are theoreticians and experimentalists. There is also an excellent essay on Scientific Creativity by Jacob Bronowski.

Jim

Edited July 20, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[kiaer.ts]

Um, Harriman does mention Buridan and the concept of impetus.

Much of the criticism of the book seems to be based upon preconception, upon the fact that Harriman did not write the dense mathematical treatise or the comprehensive history of science of our dreams. Nor did he write To Lorne Dieterling, unfortunately. Neither filling it with calculus nor mentioning the frumious influence on moxibustion of the Akond of Swat was necessary to his thesis. He wrote a popular and accessible book. How dare he!

I am personally no fan of Harriman's. His book is imperfect, and his own views are often rationalist claptrap. But the book is well worth reading on its own merits.

It is far, far better than Kelley's book on induction.

Wissler's review amounts to the assertion of how much smarter than the author Wissler is.

[BaalChatzaf]

Um, Harriman does mention Buridan and the concept of impetus.

Much of the criticism of the book seems to be based upon preconception, upon the fact that Harriman did not write the dense mathematical treatise or the comprehensive history of science of our dreams. Nor did he write To Lorne Dieterling, unfortunately. Neither filling it with calculus nor mentioning the frumious influence on moxibustion of the Akond of Swat was necessary to his thesis. He wrote a popular and accessible book. How dare he!

I am personally no fan of Harriman's. His book is imperfect, and his own views are often rationalist claptrap. But the book is well worth reading on its own merits.

It is far, far better than Kelley's book on induction.

Wissler's review amounts to the assertion of how much smarter than the author Wissler is.

Dense mathematics is the proper and necessary language of physics. No math, no physics. Physics has been done mathematically since the time of Newton and perhaps a little before by Galileo who was nowhere as mathematically sophisticated as Newton.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[DavidMcK]

Thanks Stephen for your two suggestions (post #13). I just ordered 'The Beginnings of Western Science' from Amazon.

Edited July 20, 2010 by DavidMcK

[kiaer.ts]

Um, Harriman does mention Buridan and the concept of impetus.

Much of the criticism of the book seems to be based upon preconception, upon the fact that Harriman did not write the dense mathematical treatise or the comprehensive history of science of our dreams. Nor did he write To Lorne Dieterling, unfortunately. Neither filling it with calculus nor mentioning the frumious influence on moxibustion of the Akond of Swat was necessary to his thesis. He wrote a popular and accessible book. How dare he!

I am personally no fan of Harriman's. His book is imperfect, and his own views are often rationalist claptrap. But the book is well worth reading on its own merits.

It is far, far better than Kelley's book on induction.

Wissler's review amounts to the assertion of how much smarter than the author Wissler is.

Dense mathematics is the proper and necessary language of physics. No math, no physics. Physics has been done mathematically since the time of Newton and perhaps a little before by Galileo who was nowhere as mathematically sophisticated as Newton.

Ba'al Chatzaf

First, Harriman explicitly agrees; no math, no physics. But this is not a book on physics. He is neither teaching physics nor doing physics. Your repeated objection is contrary and beside the point, like Eric Holder expressing a legal opinion of a law he had not read. Why not get it from the library and then tell us what you have to say once you have read it?

[BaalChatzaf]

First, Harriman explicitly agrees; no math, no physics. But this is not a book on physics. He is neither teaching physics nor doing physics. Your repeated objection is contrary and beside the point, like Eric Holder expressing a legal opinion of a law he had not read. Why not get it from the library and then tell us what you have to say once you have read it?

O.K. Then let us ask if physics is arrived at incrementally and inductively (induction in the Baconian sense)? Answer: not often. For example the success of Maxwell's theory of light as disturbances in the electromagnetic field fairly shouted out that electromagnetic radiation must be continuous and differentiable consistent with the Maxwell's Equations. Is it so? Not so. First, the emission of charge from metal bombarded by ultra-violet (high energy) light is such that the energy of the emitted charge is not proportional to the intensity of the incoming light. Rather it is proportional to the frequency of incoming light. Example: Shine a low frequency infra-red beam on a photographic plate and it will not expose the plate, no matter how high the intensity of the infra-red beam. Second, the energy exhibited by black-bodies tails off at the high frequency end. According to the Raleigh-Jeans formula which assumes the continuity of electromagnetic radiation the amount of energy emitted at the high frequency end of the spectrum should be as high as it is in the middle (at a given temperature). The energy should be proportional to the temperature (measured in Kelvins). Not so. All of the findings in electromagnetic radiation produce nothing but a riddle when it came to black-body radiation and the energy sparks emitted from charged metal wires when ultra-violet light fell upon them. This effect was noted by Hertz in his experiments verifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light and energy emission.

Max Planck was at his wits end when resorted to curve fitting a formula to the empirically measured black-body curve. What he got was that the energy of the body was proportional to the frequency of the light. This could only be the case if light was emitted in chunks and not continuously. So Planck was forced to assume, against all prior observations that light (electromagnetic energy) was not emitted continuously from heated bodies. The radiation came in pieces. In latter years Einstein would show this is true also for light moving in space when he explained the photo-electric effect. In fact it was Einstein's work on the quantized nature of light radiation that put Planck's theory squarely on the map. This is the work for which Einstein got the Nobel Prize in 1921.

As one can see the results did not flow smoothly and incrementally from prior observations. In fact Planck never was easy in his mind about his assumption that oscillators in bodies worked in a quantized fashion and not continuously.

Ask the same of Albert Einstein. Many of his correct and revolutionary idea fly in the face of common sense and require a denial of the obvious. Time and distance depend on how one is moving. That flies in the face of the obvious assumption that distance purely a relation between two bodies and is not dependent on the observer or measurer. Not so. What is invariant is the space-time interval. Neither the time interval nor distances is a property entirely of the things of observed or timed. Even more surprising is that measured mass is a function of the motion of a body (relativistic mass goes up with velocity). Only rest-mass is invariant when measured by several observers moving with different velocities in a fiduciary frame of reference. This goes against a body of assumptions seemingly upheld inductively.

Now ask the question: Are the revolutions in physics arrived at smoothly and incrementally? The answer in some cases is clearly No. Some new ideas have to be born by Caesarian section, ripped out the womb of troubled inquiry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Ted,

Dragnfly made some interesting, critical comments on Harriman and Peikoff:

(quoted in # 249 here):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8903&st=240&gopid=103199entry103199

[kiaer.ts]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him. (He approaches the notion in one of his podcasts and then abandons it as irrelevant without quite understanding it.) Rather his objections are based on his failure to understand the geometry and an ad hominem slur. The theory is not even about a physicaal law, just an assertion of historical fact; that space is expanding (red shift); that it was once of a (not perfectly) uniform temperature (COBE map); that the Big Bang is consistent with models of hydrogen and helium frequency; and that the further galaxies are away, the more primitive they are in structure. That last fact is the clincher, unless you want to advocaate for a heliocentric universe model. Their objections are so puerile they are risible.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

First, Harriman explicitly agrees; no math, no physics. But this is not a book on physics. He is neither teaching physics nor doing physics. Your repeated objection is contrary and beside the point, like Eric Holder expressing a legal opinion of a law he had not read. Why not get it from the library and then tell us what you have to say once you have read it?

O.K. Then let us ask if physics is arrived at incrementally and inductively (induction in the Baconian sense)? Answer: not often. For example the success of Maxwell's theory of light as disturbances in the electromagnetic field fairly shouted out that electromagnetic radiation must be continuous and differentiable consistent with the Maxwell's Equations. Is it so? Not so. First, the emission of charge from metal bombarded by ultra-violet (high energy) light is such that the energy of the emitted charge is not proportional to the intensity of the incoming light. Rather it is proportional to the frequency of incoming light. Example: Shine a low frequency infra-red beam on a photographic plate and it will not expose the plate, no matter how high the intensity of the infra-red beam. Second, the energy exhibited by black-bodies tails off at the high frequency end. According to the Raleigh-Jeans formula which assumes the continuity of electromagnetic radiation the amount of energy emitted at the high frequency end of the spectrum should be as high as it is in the middle (at a given temperature). The energy should be proportional to the temperature (measured in Kelvins). Not so. All of the findings in electromagnetic radiation produce nothing but a riddle when it came to black-body radiation and the energy sparks emitted from charged metal wires when ultra-violet light fell upon them. This effect was noted by Hertz in his experiments verifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light and energy emission.

Max Planck was at his wits end when resorted to curve fitting a formula to the empirically measured black-body curve. What he got was that the energy of the body was proportional to the frequency of the light. This could only be the case if light was emitted in chunks and not continuously. So Planck was forced to assume, against all prior observations that light (electromagnetic energy) was not emitted continuously from heated bodies. The radiation came in pieces. In latter years Einstein would show this is true also for light moving in space when he explained the photo-electric effect. In fact it was Einstein's work on the quantized nature of light radiation that put Planck's theory squarely on the map. This is the work for which Einstein got the Nobel Prize in 1921.

As one can see the results did not flow smoothly and incrementally from prior observations. In fact Planck never was easy in his mind about his assumption that oscillators in bodies worked in a quantized fashion and not continuously.

Ask the same of Albert Einstein. Many of his correct and revolutionary idea fly in the face of common sense and require a denial of the obvious. Time and distance depend on how one is moving. That flies in the face of the obvious assumption that distance purely a relation between two bodies and is not dependent on the observer or measurer. Not so. What is invariant is the space-time interval. Neither the time interval nor distances is a property entirely of the things of observed or timed. Even more surprising is that measured mass is a function of the motion of a body (relativistic mass goes up with velocity). Only rest-mass is invariant when measured by several observers moving with different velocities in a fiduciary frame of reference. This goes against a body of assumptions seemingly upheld inductively.

Now ask the question: Are the revolutions in physics arrived at smoothly and incrementally? The answer in some cases is clearly No. Some new ideas have to be born by Caesarian section, ripped out the womb of troubled inquiry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

This is exactly the problem. We are often not able to use inductive methods in physics because the manner in which some new and different phenomena is new and different is utterly outside our previous experience. In many cases, our previous thought paradigm kept us from the new discovery for a long, long time. In Richard Dawkins' words it is "queerer than we can suppose". Sure, quantum mechanics could not have been discovered without prior knowledge. However, there was nothing in prior knowledge that would lead us to believe that QM was true, if fact prior knowledge was misleading us in important ways. Nature doesn't care what we think.

Jim

[kiaer.ts]

First, Harriman explicitly agrees; no math, no physics. But this is not a book on physics. He is neither teaching physics nor doing physics. Your repeated objection is contrary and beside the point, like Eric Holder expressing a legal opinion of a law he had not read. Why not get it from the library and then tell us what you have to say once you have read it?

O.K. Then let us ask if physics is arrived at incrementally and inductively (induction in the Baconian sense)? Answer: not often. For example the success of Maxwell's theory of light as disturbances in the electromagnetic field fairly shouted out that electromagnetic radiation must be continuous and differentiable consistent with the Maxwell's Equations. Is it so? Not so. First, the emission of charge from metal bombarded by ultra-violet (high energy) light is such that the energy of the emitted charge is not proportional to the intensity of the incoming light. Rather it is proportional to the frequency of incoming light. Example: Shine a low frequency infra-red beam on a photographic plate and it will not expose the plate, no matter how high the intensity of the infra-red beam. Second, the energy exhibited by black-bodies tails off at the high frequency end. According to the Raleigh-Jeans formula which assumes the continuity of electromagnetic radiation the amount of energy emitted at the high frequency end of the spectrum should be as high as it is in the middle (at a given temperature). The energy should be proportional to the temperature (measured in Kelvins). Not so. All of the findings in electromagnetic radiation produce nothing but a riddle when it came to black-body radiation and the energy sparks emitted from charged metal wires when ultra-violet light fell upon them. This effect was noted by Hertz in his experiments verifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light and energy emission.

Max Planck was at his wits end when resorted to curve fitting a formula to the empirically measured black-body curve. What he got was that the energy of the body was proportional to the frequency of the light. This could only be the case if light was emitted in chunks and not continuously. So Planck was forced to assume, against all prior observations that light (electromagnetic energy) was not emitted continuously from heated bodies. The radiation came in pieces. In latter years Einstein would show this is true also for light moving in space when he explained the photo-electric effect. In fact it was Einstein's work on the quantized nature of light radiation that put Planck's theory squarely on the map. This is the work for which Einstein got the Nobel Prize in 1921.

As one can see the results did not flow smoothly and incrementally from prior observations. In fact Planck never was easy in his mind about his assumption that oscillators in bodies worked in a quantized fashion and not continuously.

Ask the same of Albert Einstein. Many of his correct and revolutionary idea fly in the face of common sense and require a denial of the obvious. Time and distance depend on how one is moving. That flies in the face of the obvious assumption that distance purely a relation between two bodies and is not dependent on the observer or measurer. Not so. What is invariant is the space-time interval. Neither the time interval nor distances is a property entirely of the things of observed or timed. Even more surprising is that measured mass is a function of the motion of a body (relativistic mass goes up with velocity). Only rest-mass is invariant when measured by several observers moving with different velocities in a fiduciary frame of reference. This goes against a body of assumptions seemingly upheld inductively.

Now ask the question: Are the revolutions in physics arrived at smoothly and incrementally? The answer in some cases is clearly No. Some new ideas have to be born by Caesarian section, ripped out the womb of troubled inquiry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

This is exactly the problem. We are often not able to use inductive methods in physics because the manner in which some new and different phenomena is new and different is utterly outside our previous experience. In many cases, our previous thought paradigm kept us from the new discovery for a long, long time. In Richard Dawkins' words it is "queerer than we can suppose". Sure, quantum mechanics could not have been discovered without prior knowledge. However, there was nothing in prior knowledge that would lead us to believe that QM was true, if fact prior knowledge was misleading us in important ways. Nature doesn't care what we think.

Jim

So the complaint is that we don't know how to know what we don't yet know before we know it.

[Philip Coates]

> It is far, far better than Kelley's book on induction.

Ted, a book on induction? What book are you referring to?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

First, Harriman explicitly agrees; no math, no physics. But this is not a book on physics. He is neither teaching physics nor doing physics. Your repeated objection is contrary and beside the point, like Eric Holder expressing a legal opinion of a law he had not read. Why not get it from the library and then tell us what you have to say once you have read it?

O.K. Then let us ask if physics is arrived at incrementally and inductively (induction in the Baconian sense)? Answer: not often. For example the success of Maxwell's theory of light as disturbances in the electromagnetic field fairly shouted out that electromagnetic radiation must be continuous and differentiable consistent with the Maxwell's Equations. Is it so? Not so. First, the emission of charge from metal bombarded by ultra-violet (high energy) light is such that the energy of the emitted charge is not proportional to the intensity of the incoming light. Rather it is proportional to the frequency of incoming light. Example: Shine a low frequency infra-red beam on a photographic plate and it will not expose the plate, no matter how high the intensity of the infra-red beam. Second, the energy exhibited by black-bodies tails off at the high frequency end. According to the Raleigh-Jeans formula which assumes the continuity of electromagnetic radiation the amount of energy emitted at the high frequency end of the spectrum should be as high as it is in the middle (at a given temperature). The energy should be proportional to the temperature (measured in Kelvins). Not so. All of the findings in electromagnetic radiation produce nothing but a riddle when it came to black-body radiation and the energy sparks emitted from charged metal wires when ultra-violet light fell upon them. This effect was noted by Hertz in his experiments verifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light and energy emission.

Max Planck was at his wits end when resorted to curve fitting a formula to the empirically measured black-body curve. What he got was that the energy of the body was proportional to the frequency of the light. This could only be the case if light was emitted in chunks and not continuously. So Planck was forced to assume, against all prior observations that light (electromagnetic energy) was not emitted continuously from heated bodies. The radiation came in pieces. In latter years Einstein would show this is true also for light moving in space when he explained the photo-electric effect. In fact it was Einstein's work on the quantized nature of light radiation that put Planck's theory squarely on the map. This is the work for which Einstein got the Nobel Prize in 1921.

As one can see the results did not flow smoothly and incrementally from prior observations. In fact Planck never was easy in his mind about his assumption that oscillators in bodies worked in a quantized fashion and not continuously.

Ask the same of Albert Einstein. Many of his correct and revolutionary idea fly in the face of common sense and require a denial of the obvious. Time and distance depend on how one is moving. That flies in the face of the obvious assumption that distance purely a relation between two bodies and is not dependent on the observer or measurer. Not so. What is invariant is the space-time interval. Neither the time interval nor distances is a property entirely of the things of observed or timed. Even more surprising is that measured mass is a function of the motion of a body (relativistic mass goes up with velocity). Only rest-mass is invariant when measured by several observers moving with different velocities in a fiduciary frame of reference. This goes against a body of assumptions seemingly upheld inductively.

Now ask the question: Are the revolutions in physics arrived at smoothly and incrementally? The answer in some cases is clearly No. Some new ideas have to be born by Caesarian section, ripped out the womb of troubled inquiry.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

This is exactly the problem. We are often not able to use inductive methods in physics because the manner in which some new and different phenomena is new and different is utterly outside our previous experience. In many cases, our previous thought paradigm kept us from the new discovery for a long, long time. In Richard Dawkins' words it is "queerer than we can suppose". Sure, quantum mechanics could not have been discovered without prior knowledge. However, there was nothing in prior knowledge that would lead us to believe that QM was true, if fact prior knowledge was misleading us in important ways. Nature doesn't care what we think.

Jim

So the complaint is that we don't know how to know what we don't yet know before we know it.

There are a whole bunch of assumptions built into the human epistemological framework, because of what we are as human beings that keep us from thinking correctly about certain problems. There are certain realms for which there is no conceptual edifice and we are back to purely an empirical level and more perversely, our current conceptual edifice and sense perception milieu handicap us in making further progress.

Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him.

Ted,

That kind of stuff is a major problem in our subculture. And it's not just in science, either.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him.

Ted,

That kind of stuff is a major problem in our subculture. And it's not just in science, either.

Michael

The problem is self-appointed Objectivist authority figures who look into the mirror too much and see--Ayn Rand.

The universe is unbounded because space is unbounded, space being nothing there is nothing to bound the universe. What we know as outer space is not the space I'm talking about; that space has things in it, radiation at least. The space I'm talking about is beyond the universe, assuming there is a beyond the universe. The 15 billion year-old light that is now reaching us also went out in the opposite direction. If 15 billion years have passed since the light started its journey that in itself is a 30 billion year light spread before you can even logically think about where empty space or non-existence begins. All this is expanding, too boot. Where is the source of that old light now?

--Brant

this ain't physics, just ignorant-intelligent blather--seriously

[James Heaps-Nelson]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him.

Ted,

That kind of stuff is a major problem in our subculture. And it's not just in science, either.

Michael

Michael,

That Peikoff feels the need to address these topics is a big red flag that official Objectivism doesn't have the answer to them. When Peikoff opens his mouth and removes all doubt... :-).

Jim

[kiaer.ts]

>I am personally no fan of Harriman's. His book is imperfect, and his own views are often rationalist claptrap. But the book is well worth reading on its own merits.

>It is far, far better than Kelley's book on induction.

Ted, a book on induction? What book are you referring to?

Exactly.

[kiaer.ts]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him.

Ted,

That kind of stuff is a major problem in our subculture. And it's not just in science, either.

Michael

The problem is self-appointed Objectivist authority figures who look into the mirror too much and see--Ayn Rand.

The universe is unbounded because space is unbounded, space being nothing there is nothing to bound the universe. What we know as outer space is not the space I'm talking about; that space has things in it, radiation at least. The space I'm talking about is beyond the universe, assuming there is a beyond the universe. The 15 billion year-old light that is now reaching us also went out in the opposite direction. If 15 billion years have passed since the light started its journey that in itself is a 30 billion year light spread before you can even logically think about where empty space or non-existence begins. All this is expanding, too boot. Where is the source of that old light now?

--Brant

this ain't physics, just ignorant-intelligent blather--seriously

Brant, who is saying the words I put in italics?

[Brant Gaede]

If Leonard Peikoff were able to explain to me the concept of a finite yet unbounded universe, and then tell me why he still rejected the Big Bang, I might listen to him.

Ted,

That kind of stuff is a major problem in our subculture. And it's not just in science, either.

Michael

The problem is self-appointed Objectivist authority figures who look into the mirror too much and see--Ayn Rand.

The universe is unbounded because space is unbounded, space being nothing there is nothing to bound the universe. What we know as outer space is not the space I'm talking about; that space has things in it, radiation at least. The space I'm talking about is beyond the universe, assuming there is a beyond the universe. The 15 billion year-old light that is now reaching us also went out in the opposite direction. If 15 billion years have passed since the light started its journey that in itself is a 30 billion year light spread before you can even logically think about where empty space or non-existence begins. All this is expanding, too boot. Where is the source of that old light now?

--Brant

this ain't physics, just ignorant-intelligent blather--seriously

Brant, who is saying the words I put in italics?

Moi. Who else would? I never ever fail to properly indicate quotations.

--Brant

Edited July 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

[Correction of my # 36 post - I had accidentally given the wrong post number]:

Ted,

Dragonfly made some interesting, critical comments on Harriman and Peikoff:

(quoted in # 250 here):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8903&st=240&gopid=103199entry103199

Edited July 21, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Yes, Xray,

I had read those posts, and again, my response would be this. I have seen no evidence that Harriman or Peikoff actually understands the notion of the finite unbounded universe. Until I hear either of them explain this concept correctly, and then say why they dismiss it, I will simply assume that their dismissal of the big bang is based on a combination of ignorance and ad hominem.

Brant,

You confuse me by saying something confused and then dismissing it as nonsense. Maybe you mean that you admit that you cannot speak clearly, and dismiss others who cannot do so? If I have it wrong you can explain.

Your speculation of "empty" space beyond a 30 billion lightyear wide sphere is indeed flawed. It assumes an infinite absolute space.

Consider if we didn't realize we lived on a globe, and thought the world was flat. The question would arise, is there an edge - is it finite yet bounded? Or does it go on forever, unbounded and infinite? Either assumption leads us into absurdities, and imagining that space is only potential until we get there is no solution - that is the plottheme of a Stephen King story called The Langoliers.

The solution is to realize that the world is spherical, bent in a third dimension which we do not find it easy to conceive just looking out over the apparently world at our scale. But consider that if, instead of a flat infinite surface, we have a surface curved in a higher dimension than the two dimensions of a page of an atlas we get a surface that is both actually finite, yet which has no edge.

The concept of the curved earth allows us to overcome the aporias of a flat earth.

Well, just as the land we live on is curved in three dimensions, spacetime is likely curved in a higher dimension (this can be tested, but would probably require an interstellar space ship to take the angle measurements) with all of space being a higher-dimensional hypersphere a minimum of 30 billion light years in circumference. Just as if you walk straight in any direction on earth you will come back where you started after 24,000 miles, so with curved spacetime, if you could travel 30 billion light years in any direction (assume the universe hasn't expanded that much again in the meantime) you would come back where you started. Hence space can be finite yet have no edge and no need for some potential absolute space outside of itself to contain it.

Now this is hard to get and I know from what he has said on his podcast that Peikoff does not get it. He simply doesn't have the concept that would allow him to make sense of the big bang.

Spacetime is simply an expanding hypersphere which at the moment of the Big Bang approached a point in size.

Indeed, we can take the analogy further, and reduce all spatial dimensions to the single dimension of longitude on a globe, with time being the north-south dimesion of latitude. The big bang would be the south pole of this spacetime sphere, the lowest point in time, and the place where the circumference of space reduced to a point. There would be no "before" the big bang in the same way there would be no "south of the south pole."

Imagine you walk in a straight line toward the south pole. Once you reach it you can continue, assuming the heat doesn't melt you, but you will find that you are now walking north again, forward in time, even though you did not change direction. Just as the south pole doesn't pop out of some previous southness to create the surface of the earth, neither does the instant of the big bang pop out of any prior time to create time. The question of what is before the big bang - of what is south of the south pole - is meaningless, because as Einstein holds, space and time are relative.

Augustine may have been evil but in the finity of time he was a hell of a lot smarter that Peikoff and Harriman.

I recommend the following very inexpensive Dover Book, a preview is available at Google Books:

http://books.google....=gbs_navlinks_s

Geometry, relativity, and the fourth dimension Rudy von Bitter Rucker 26 ReviewsCourier Dover Publications, 1977 - Mathematics - 133 pages

Edited July 21, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Brant Gaede]

"Space" does not exist. The space we think of as space comes more and more into existence as the universe expands. This can be expressed as space between certain objects or the density of space. For the universe to have a boundary it'd have to run into something somewhere. For the universe to stop expanding gravity would have to stop it resulting in a contraction to another Big Bang. I have no opinion on the Big Bang beyond it sounds logical. Existence has always existed because there cannot be non-existence. We can certainly posit we are in the sweet-spot of existence, at least for us, and it is hard to imagine that this has arisen only once over all time and will never again as the universe grows old and cold. And why only one universe? The universe did not create space it expanded it. Even inside the insularity there must have been space, an unimaginably small space but there nevertheless. No space, no bang.

I hardly think your speculations are much better than mine, even if more erudite and informed. I don't really know much about the universe and existence and neither does anybody else. It awes me. Existence is God.

--Brant