Victor Pross
Aug 18 2006, 10:38 PM
QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe? by Victor Pross
The question of Quantum physics: Recently, the concept of Aristotle’s incredible philosophic triumph has been under attack: his discovery of the laws of logic. We are now told by a “unique species of subjectivists” that A can be NON-A, that the universe is not objective; it is, after all, subjective. What is it that these modern subjectivists cling to their bosom as the final refutation of those old, moldy ideas that Aristotle discovered? QUANTUM PHYSICS!
In this article, I will briefly cover the concept of objective reality with an understanding of quantum physics. I will put to rest this emotionally charged whim-ridden notion that quantum physics supports, in any measure whatsoever, the idea of a “subjective universe.”
Perhaps it is needless to say, but my position is that all mystical interpretations of quantum mechanics are invalid. How quantum physics came to be a field of science infiltrated by subjectivists and mystics in the first place is a mystery to me. But there you have it.
I also found this perplexing as well: it seems to be an undue arrogance when physicists make claims of finality in their field of study, but there you have it. There was a time when physicists liked to rejoice that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except the details.*(1.1) But the history of science following proved this to be an unwarranted assumption.
Quantum physics is a vast advancement of rationality and science. It has delved successfully into the fundamental secrets of nature further than anyone could have dreamed. Yet, given its limitations, it surely is presumptuous to claim that its victory is complete.*(1.2)
***
Before continuing, a few preliminary remarks about the concept of an “objective reality” needs to be outlined. Let's define our terms:
Fundamental starting point---reality is objective:
The three axioms of Objectivism are: existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.
The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.**(2.1)
The basic opposing concept of "objective reality" is the “primacy of existence” over consciousness.
This is: consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity**(2.2)--NOT the other way around.
Existence comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness—anyone’s perceptions, feelings or wishes.***(3.1) Facts are facts.
The definition of consciousness is: "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive. If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity: otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.
This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.**(2.3) ["A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something"-Ayn Rand.]
NOTE FROM MSK: The Rand quote is from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.The opposing view is the “primacy of consciousness”: consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence. Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.**(2.4) This is the popular mode of “thought” among mystics and religionists and every other sundry subjectivist.
With this type of approach,
consciousness cannot exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).
To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead?
Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.
A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of a hypothesis, if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.**(2.5)
The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are captured in three propositions:
*Existence exists.
*Existence is identity.
*Consciousness exists.
*Consciousness is identification.****(4)
The question to ask: does the above support or contradict the findings in Quanta physics?
An understanding of what Quanta physics is will answer the question.
Now, having said that, let’s move on to the question
of Quanta:
The claim is made that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values. The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that “consciousness is primary.”
This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary.
Consider one quantum stance: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is traveling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them.
It is not observation---nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, 'mindless' interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!*(1.3)
As human beings with brains geared to our scale of things, we find it mind-bending to try to grasp how quanta can behave so, to visualize what they are. We have the same problem with things on the relativistic scale, for the same reason. But these are problems of visualization, not understanding: though their physical reality is extremely strange from our perspective, it remains an objective one, not a subjective one. And we can know it, measure it and use it.*(1.4)
Reality: subjective or objective?
There nothing within the study Quantum physics to support the idea of a subjective universe—that is, a “primacy of consciousness” orientation. There is no leap in logic to connect the two.
Quantum physics has been developed by the scientific method, by the interplay of observations, hypotheses and experiments. It has achieved extraordinary success, and revealed a picture of a quantum reality so bizarre that our minds are unable to grasp it fully.*(1.5) THIS, however, is not an escape latch to a mystical or subjective universe whereby “mind” controls and creates reality.
Conclusion:
We have a new species of subjectivists who have been weaned on old fashioned religious ideas and too many repeat viewings of Matrix movies—all sprinkled with osmosis dabs of our Kantian culture.
What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.
What quantum physics reveals is not a subjective universe somehow dependent on consciousness. What it reveals is that quanta behave in ways quite bizarre to our thinking: propagating as waves but being absorbed as particles, having no fixed states until they interact with other quanta. They always act thus, because that is their nature...and sometimes, we happen to observe it. And what quantum physics demonstrates is that reality is so uncompromisingly objective that, by testing our ideas against it, we can arrive at the truth no matter how strange or alien to our minds and preconceptions it may be.*(1.6)
The Objectivist position of existence is that no alternative to the fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All facts are necessary. In Ayn Rand’s words, the metaphysically given is ABSOLUTE.***(3.2) A is A. Facts are facts. Existence exists.
***
NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:
Plagiary first identified here.
* Plagiarized from Subjectivism, Reality, and Quantum Physics by Robin Craig. The original passages read as follows:
(1.1)
Beware of physicists bearing claims of finality. It seems to be an occupational habit. In the 19th century, physicists liked to gloat that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except to dot the i's and cross the t's!
(1.2)
I regard quantum physics as one of the great achievements of rationality and science. It has delved successfully into the fundamental secrets of nature further than anyone could have dreamed. Yet, given its limitations, it surely is presumptuous to claim that its victory is complete.
(1.3)
The claim is made, based on Heisenberg's Uncertaintly Principle*, that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values. The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that consciousness is primary.
Such claims betray a remarkable failure of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured. They have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary, not primary.
Consider one quantum queerness: the wave-particle duality of matter and energy. There is no doubt that light, for example, propagates as a wave but carries energy as particles called photons. Even if a light source is so dim that only one photon is travelling at a time, the light still produces wave diffraction patterns when split into two paths! Now, does anyone dispute that light falling on plants on a deserted island has gone there as a wave, yet is absorbed by the leaves as photons? I suppose some people clinging to subjectivism might dispute it, but quantum physics in no way supports them. Nor does the existence of trees on deserted islands!
It is not the act of observation, nor the cognizance of consciousness, which "collapses" quantum states (as in the "collapsing" of a light wave into a photon). It is the simple, mindless interactions of matter and energy. Quanta act this way not by our permission, but because that is what they are: they are things whose nature is to travel as waves but be absorbed as particles, to have no fixed states until an appropriate interaction occurs. Throughout space and time, that is what they are doing, quantum states and "probability waves" collapsing willy-nilly every time energy is exchanged. They behave no differently when we observe them doing so, or when we don't. Otherwise the universe would fall apart!
(1.4)
As human beings with brains geared to our scale of things, we find it mind-bending to try to grasp how quanta can behave so, to visualize what they are. We have the same problem with things on the relativistic scale, for the same reason. But these are problems of visualization, not understanding: though their physical reality is extremely strange from our perspective, it remains an objective one, not a subjective one. And we can know it, measure it and use it.
(1.5)
Quantum physics has been developed by the scientific method, by the interplay of observations, hypotheses and experiments: by creativity tested with facts. It has achieved remarkable success, and revealed a picture of a quantum reality so bizarre that our minds are unable to grasp it fully.
(1.6)
No, what quantum physics reveals is not a subjective universe somehow dependent on consciousness. What it reveals is that quanta behave in ways quite bizarre to our thinking: propagating as waves but being absorbed as particles, having no fixed states until they interact with other quanta. They always act thus, because that is their nature: and sometimes, we happen to observe it. And what quantum physics demonstrates is that reality is so uncompromisingly objective that, by testing our ideas against it, we can arrive at the truth no matter how strange or alien to our minds and preconceptions it may be.
** Plagiarized from Objective reality by Francois Tremblay. The original passages read as follows:
(2.1)
What does it mean to say that reality is objective ?
The three axioms of Objectivism are : existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is associated with existence because they both treat the same phenomena (i.e. that something exists). The concept of existence includes identity.
The two basic concepts are therefore existence and consciousness. The relationship that we attribute them is at the base of our view of reality. Whenever we attribute primacy to existence or consciousness shapes how we view epistemology and thus everything else.
(2.2)
This is, that consciousness exists and is therefore subject to existence, and thus identity.
(2.3)
The definition of consciousness is : "Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists". Consciousness, like any other entity, exists, or it would not be able to perceive.
If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity : otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.
This is what is meant by "primacy of existence" over consciousness. Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary.
(2.4)
The opposing view is the primacy of consciousness : consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence.
Existence resides in the realm of consciousness, and is molded by it.
(2.5)
Consciousness cannot therefore exist, since it is beyond existence. This leads to the view that the mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence (like the immaterial souls or the undetermined mind).
To what kind of vision of epistemology do both these beliefs lead ?
Objective reality, which is based on the primacy of existence, leads to the search of truth and existence with the use of perception and reality. This is examining the exterior world as reality and guide to reality.
A concrete representation of this viewpoint is science, where the notions of hypothesis, experimentation and rejection of hypothesis if necessary, are acknowledgment of an objective reality that must be explored with our senses.
*** Plagiarized from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. The original passages read as follows:
(3.1) (p. 18)
Existence, this principle declares, comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness—of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings.
(3.2) (p. 23)
The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All such facts are necessary. In Ayn Rand's words, the metaphysically given is absolute.
**** Copied from Objectivist philosophy - Objectivist principles formerly on Wikipedia and now at several points on the Internet. The original passage reads as follows:
(4)
The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are captured in three propositions:
* Existence exists.
* Existence is Identity.
* Consciousness is Identification.
(Note from MSK: The original material for (4) is in the public domain, but the text was used as if it were original writing. Within the present context of a large quantity of plagiarisms, mention was deemed merited.)
OL extends its deepest apologies to Robin Craig, Francois Tremblay and Leonard Peikoff.
Paul Mawdsley
Aug 19 2006, 01:45 PM
Victor,
A number of thoughts have been stirred in my mind by your post. Time restraints stop me from
getting too involved. There is one overriding judgement that I wanted to express. I have been
questioning whether or not it is appropriate to call myself an Objectivist-- renegade or otherwise.
There is much that is said and done under the flag of Objectivism that is so very against my view.
The treatment of Dragonfly, Jonathan, and Ellen on RoR is one such example. Your post above is
another.
Objectivism is defined not only by what it is but, also, by what it isn't. Objectivists like to assert
what perspectives of reality are unimportant and should be morally condemned. This appears to be
what you are doing in your assessments of the "undue arrogance" of physicists. Is there undue
arrogance in the field of physics? I'm sure there is. But your post is overflowing with traditional
Objectivist arrogance. You are looking at the world through a particularly narrow version of an
Objectivist lens, using only narrowly Objectivist language, and make narrow Objectivist
pronouncements on the value of other perspectives. The specific aim seems to be at devaluing
other perspectives rather than understanding and evaluating them against an objective standard–
e.g.: the evidence integrated by reason.
It is the devaluing of other perspectives, which seems to be so entwined with the Objectivist
tradition (which goes back to Rand herself), that makes me cringe at the thought of calling myself
an Objectivist. Labeling a group of individuals as "subjectivists and mystics" has only one
purpose: to devalue their perspective so the information about reality they symbolize can be
ignored. I refuse to accept Objectivist dogma and devalue information sources simply because they
do not have Objectivist approval. Does this make me not an Objectivist? I don't know. I do know
that my perspective must include an integration of perspectives Rand said we should disvalue.
I too have my disagreements with the orthodox view of quantum physics but I do not assume
possible errors are the result of evil thinking. Most times errors are due to honest mistakes in
judgement. Instead, I prefer to look for the underlying causes of possible mistakes in judgement and
try to untangle the reality that lies beneath. I often find those considered evil by orthodox
Objectivism have angles that can provide valuable insights into the nature of reality. Physicists
who accept the Copenhagen interpretation are one such group.
An interesting point to note is that it can be considered an extreme act of objectivity that has led to
the Copenhagen interpretation of Heizenberg's uncertainty principle. If we assume we cannot say
anything about reality without the evidence on which to base and support our claims, and there is a
point beyond which we are physically unable to observe events, it is the height of objectivity to
accept that reality contains an element of randomness at its root. It is a similar height to that of
Einstein accepting that time and space must be relative. Rather than pointing to physicists and
saying they are "subjectivists and mystics," we should be holding them up as the epitome of
objectivity. They have refused to apply subjectivity to go beyond the objective evidence. This has
led them to conclude that causality is illusion at the quantum level despite how this conflicts with
their intuitions about the world. My argument would be that they are not being subjective enough.
Go figure, eh!
Paul
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 19 2006, 04:20 PM
Paul,
You are an Objectivist in my mind. Don't let self-proclaimed spokespeople for Objectivism wrench the name from you by the loudness of their speech. Many speak for Objectivism. What is important is the content of their ideas. Loud voices without content always disappear down the black hole of history. Your small quiet voice has more content about the principles of causality than most everything I have read so far.
Victor,
You made some amazing claims about people who work with quantum physics. You also say you will "put to rest" their notions. Here is a sample:
QUOTE(Victor)
Recently, the concept of Aristotle’s incredible philosophic triumph has been under attack: his discovery of the laws of logic. We are now told by a “unique species of subjectivists” that A can be NON-A, that the universe is not objective; it is, after all, subjective.
(...)
I will put to rest this emotionally charged whim-ridden notion that quantum physics supports, in any measure whatsoever, the idea of a “subjective universe.”
(...)
There was a time when physicists liked to rejoice that all important knowledge had been discovered, and nothing remained except the details.
(...)
The claim is made that quantum phenomena have no definite values until they are observed, with the implication that the act of observation creates those values.
The further implication argued by subjectivists is that objective reality is an illusion, and that “consciousness is primary.”
(...)
The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame.
(...)
We have a new species of subjectivists who have been weaned on old fashioned religious ideas and too many repeat viewings of Matrix movies—all sprinkled with osmosis dabs of our Kantian culture.
What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.
That should do for a start. Do you have any examples, quotes, names, etc.? I can't help it, but I am most intrigued by the idea of a cry-baby quantum physicist and how you have managed to put that cry-baby to rest.
Michael
Victor Pross
Aug 19 2006, 08:57 PM
M,
I love physics. I was a teen-age nerd, you know. That was way before I became the cool cat artist I am today. Aside from samples, is there anything you specifically contest in this post? Any questions? Where did I go wrong?
Oh, when I said “cry-babies”—I don’t necessarily mean all the professional scientists, but some. Also, I knew some fellow nerdy intellectual types who made it a point to use this field to support the belief in that good ol’ first cause—God---and were not against Aristotelian logic. [some were, mind you].
Don’t you meet these creatures, M? Ever?
Victor Pross
Aug 19 2006, 09:16 PM
Hi Paul,
You wrote: “I too have my disagreements with the orthodox view of quantum physics but I do not assume
possible errors are the result of evil thinking. Most times errors are due to honest mistakes in
judgement.”
I agree. There are honest errors. And then sometimes---not. Purposeful distortion and evasion on a grand scale is a fact. There is such a thing as evil.
You also write: “It is the devaluing of other perspectives, which seems to be so entwined with the Objectivist
tradition (which goes back to Rand herself), that makes me cringe at the thought of calling myself
an Objectivist. Labeling a group of individuals as "subjectivists and mystics" has only one
purpose: to devalue their perspective so the information about reality they symbolize can be
ignored. I refuse to accept Objectivist dogma and devalue information sources simply because they
do not have Objectivist approval. Does this make me not an Objectivist? I don't know. I do know
that my perspective must include an integration of perspectives Rand said we should disvalue.”
I’m not an egalitarian of knowledge. I don’t consider all claims worthy of consideration or of equal value. Truth and fact is the focus. Now I’m not saying you are pinning this big E tag on me, but I don’t care if some perspective has ‘Objectivist approval”---there’s a flat out slap-in-the-face as to what Objectivism stands for. You make Objectivism sound like just another brand of subjectivism. Really, who is the final authority in knowledge? Reality and the independent mind engaged in discovering it. You know what I mean.
You know, some perspectives deserve to be disvalued---either out-of-hand or after careful examination. It depends on the perspective. God is one of them. Off to the trash-heap it goes.
Victor
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 19 2006, 09:50 PM
Victor,
I am going to give you a writer's critique on your question to me (where did you go wrong?).
I know very little about quantum physics. Someday I hope to research this, but for now, my level of knowledge is pretty primary. I think some of the stuff I have read in the popular media is kinda cool and that's about it. Well, maybe I know a bit more, but that's essentially my level as a reader.
Now the point of your article was to denounce a whole class of intellectuals as subjectivists, whim worshipers and whatnot. I have no way of judging "some people." I certainly have no crystal ball to be able to look into your head to see who you are talking about. I depend on what I read for that.
Look at Ayn Rand's essays when she went into denounce mode. She practically always provided a representative example with quotations. (Still, she could cut her own monkey-shines. For example, she once dismissed the entire field of choreography as "all but extinct" in "Art and Cognition" in The Romantic Manifesto without a single example.)
So you tell me that there is a bunch of whim-worshipping subjectivists running rampant out there and you are going to "lay to rest" all their irrational notions about quantum physics. But you don't tell me who they are. I even have to take your word for it that they said all those dastardly things you mentioned, too.
From what I have read in the popular media, I certainly have not heard of any such people among the quantum physics scientists. Some are religious, that's true. But they always come across as extremely objective and rational in discussing their work. Dragonfly here on OL once mentioned a whole slew of benefits we now enjoy because of quantum physics and the different theories behind it, including the computers we are now using.
I judge your article as more of a rant, and a very subjective one at that. It certainly did not convince me to hate anybody because I don't know who I am supposed to hate yet.
Michael
Victor Pross
Aug 19 2006, 10:34 PM
M,
Your writer's critique was helpful, thank you.
I’m not trashing the discoveries of QM. The reason QM is unfinished, as I said, is that physics and informatics are divided disciplines and so people trained as physicists fail to account for information [and for situations] in which information is extracted by “measurement” from a physical system. This is because, I suspect, they just don't think of information as real in the same sense that matter is real. This is an example of compartmentalization in science. It is an epistemological short-coming, and these scientists would benefit greatly from Rand’s work in epistemology. It would be revolutionary!! There is so much that could be said on this matter and with Objectivist epistemology...such as the complexity theory and emergence. The whole concern of "scientific realism" hinges on the ontic/epistemic divide with respect to reduction, bringing us back to the mind-body problem...further complicating the reductionism issue is the question of direct vs. indirect realism! After all, Objectivist ontology--existence is identity; information, having identity is real! Unfortunately, even physicists who are self-described “REALISTS” often fail to observe, in explicit terms, the very methodology they practice, and so they confine their application of deduction in physics to criticism of current interpretations---focusing on the current debates about the nature of the building blocks of “matter.”
V
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 19 2006, 11:18 PM
Victor,
Now here's the critique of the country bumpkin to all your criticism about how quantum physics scientists get reality all wrong:
From all the complicated stuff they build, they sure are getting something right. Doesn't sound like a pack of whim-worshippers at all.
Michael
Dragonfly
Aug 20 2006, 05:29 AM
QUOTE(Victor Pross @ Aug 20 2006, 06:34 AM)
I’m not trashing the discoveries of QM. The reason QM is unfinished, as I said, is that physics and informatics are divided disciplines and so people trained as physicists fail to account for information [and for situations] in which information is extracted by “measurement” from a physical system. This is because, I suspect, they just don't think of information as real in the same sense that matter is real. This is an example of compartmentalization in science.
I don't know where you got that strange notion; it's complete nonsense, whole libraries have been written about information and physics.
QUOTE
It is an epistemological short-coming, and these scientists would benefit greatly from Rand’s work in epistemology. It would be revolutionary!!
Rand's work on epistemology is completely useless to scientists; the latter know much better what the real problems are, which can't be solved from an armchair in an ivory tower.
Victor Pross
Aug 20 2006, 05:33 AM
Ah, another critic. I'll post later and try to clear up some things. Anything else you wanna blast me for?
Dragonfly
Aug 20 2006, 07:23 AM
I was pleasantly surprised by
Ed Hudgins' post on RoR. At last a prominent Objectivist who isn't ranting about the "corrupt philosophies" of scientists. He surely must be despised now by the orthodox faction.
vanvlietart
Aug 20 2006, 08:30 AM
"This is an extraordinary lapse of logic: a failure to distinguish between the means of observation, and the act of observation itself. The misleading use of the words "observe" and "measure" is to blame. Quantum states do not have indefinite values which become definite when they are measured---they have indefinite values which become definite when the quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. The means of observation are these interactions, which are going on all the time whether we are watching or not: our observations depend on them, not vice-versa! Observation is secondary--not primary."
I am new here, so bear with me if you will.
When I started painting and dealing with oil colors, I believed that color was absolute, but artists would tell me that it is relative (subjective). My brain told me a subject was wearing a white shirt, thus I wanted to paint it white. My work suffered immensely because what an observer sees is almost everything but pure white yet Our indoctrination has informed our mind to judge it white. With my simple understanding of objectivism I recoiled that my senses could be deceived. However, this is my current understanding and it came to mind from the above quote from Victor.
Color as we know it is a relationship subject to an interplay of several elements: The object observed, the observers eye and interpretation by his mind (some see red others blue), light and atmosphere between the object and observer. Sometimes (certain conditions, interplay) we may say the object is blue, then the light chances and now it is red, or in the case of a chameleon the object changes, or fog roll in and changes our observation, or we take a hit of acid and our interpretation changes. What does not change is the nature and identity of any of the elements interplaying.
When quantum theory states that quanta change due to observation, perhaps they do. Does that change their nature? Does that mean that reality is subjective and not objective. I don't think so. To me that is like saying a red object nature is changed because through interplay with an observer it now measures blue. Certainly by our language of measurement it is now blue, but that just instructs us as to its nature.
I certainly think that ones pre-disposition to philosophy influences many scientists pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum Physics.
A brilliant friend of mind PhD Nuclear Physicist turn Evangelical Preacher, gave up on science because Quantum Theory instructed him that Man really at the end of the day can know nothing, because the world is all a massive illusion wielded by the Master Magician.
Again, please use patience with me if you can. I hope that this reply adds something useful to this discussion.
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 20 2006, 12:09 PM
Is this thread what happens when painters talk about quantum physics?
Michael
vanvlietart
Aug 20 2006, 02:03 PM
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Aug 20 2006, 02:09 PM)
Is this thread what happens when painters talk about quantum physics?
Michael
Well at least you can still smile. Perhaps we can not understand or see the world until we paint it.
Victor Pross
Aug 20 2006, 04:35 PM
"Well at least you can still smile. Perhaps we can not understand or see the world until we paint it.
"
I'm with you on that, brother. Paint it, and exaggerate it.
Bob_Mac
Aug 21 2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE(vanvlietart @ Aug 20 2006, 10:30 AM)
When quantum theory states that quanta change due to observation, perhaps they do. Does that change their nature? Does that mean that reality is subjective and not objective. I don't think so.
The exact experiment escapes me at the moment, but there's evidence to suggest that an outcome of an experiment can depend on whether or not ONLY the
possibility of observation exits, not whether it is observed or not. QM has deep, strange, and other not-too-well-understood (at least by me) implications.
I have a background in physics and it makes my head ache. Although I must say there's a certain value in doing the math (literally). When I read the text-only versions of QM in popular books I wonder how totally whacky it must appear to the non-physicist. The math helps one understand a little better I'd say, but it's tough to put into words.
Bob
Bob_Mac
Aug 21 2006, 12:31 PM
Here's another in the "wacky" column. Forgive me (and correct me) if my physics is rusty - it's been a while.
According to QM, an electron exists as a "probability distribution" around a nucleus. This is not like a 'normal' orbit - there's nothing round or spherical here. Think of a three-dimensional "figure 8" as an example. There is a non-zero probability of the electron existing anywhere in either lobe, but a zero probablility of it existing at the centre. That totally doesn't make sense. How can it be on either side of the bridge (and go to the other side freely) but can never actually cross the bridge?
Or a better question is: What is it that it can do this?
The lesson here is that I think it's a big mistake to assume macroscopic intuition is reliable. To assert anything is true microscopically based on macroscopic evidence (or axioms and deductions for that matter) is questionable.
Edit: To be more clear, intuition is not immutable. We can learn new truths and our intuition can grow and improve. Special relativity was just amazing, personally, for me in this regard. At first it doesn't make sense, but eventually it does and it's a moment of intellectual growth. A simpler example is Aristotelian vs Newtonian ideas of motion. What if Aristotle had got it right?
Bob
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 01:26 PM
Hey Bob,
Welcome aboard! I hope you like it here in Objectivist civility-land.
I agree with most of what you said. On the fundamental axioms, though, I have a small comment. You will agree with me that electrons and so forth exist? If they don't exist, what are we talking about?
I have had this discussion with Dragonfly before. Too many online Objectivists use the fundamental axioms for more than they are supposed to be used. As he says, they wave "A is A" around as if it were a magic wand that explains everything. Unfortunately, this, together with a lot of obnoxiousness, pushes independent minds into a defense posture and I see many go too far the other way because of it. Some even start denying the fundamental axioms altogether.
An axiom, at the bottom, does not delimit reality. Our consciousness is only a part of reality, which is infinitely bigger and more complex than we are. This is where both sides usually get it wrong when they go into attack mode. Axioms merely validate our cognitive faculty as being a proper tool of understanding the universe. They identify a quality that is observed by human beings in everything they behold and sense. They establish a link between "out there" and "in here."
It is proper to use a fundamental axiom even with complex scientific knowledge. It won't get you very far, but it still will be observable - and necessary for the rest. For instance, it is correct to say that relativity exists. That doesn't let you understand very much about Einstein, but if you claim that relativity doesn't exist, you can't examine it. You can postulate that it doesn't exist to test it, but even then, you also have to postulate that it does exist for the testing. If you use the laws of relativity for anything practical like, say, making an atomic bomb, you must accept that those laws - and the phenomena they explain - exist. You can't build anything out of nothing. No exist, no boom.
Axioms are merely a starting point. Nothing more. I do wish more online Objectivists would understand this, especially the arrogant ones.
Michael
Bob_Mac
Aug 21 2006, 01:47 PM
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Aug 21 2006, 03:26 PM)
Hey Bob,
Welcome aboard! I hope you like it here in Objectivist civility-land.
I have had this discussion with Dragonfly before. Too many online Objectivists use the fundamental axioms for more than they are supposed to be used.
Michael
Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.
Bob
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 02:19 PM
Bob,
On identity, what is not being addressed is a delimitation of reality. What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason. Causality merely states that we observe that things have particular aspects that behave in specific manners, thus they can be studied.
Nothing more.
Neither of these axioms puts a limit on what makes up the thing or how many aspects it has or even whether our sense limitations have led us to wrong conclusions about it. On the contrary, these axioms are merely observations about what exists by a mind that also exists - and these observations are available to all healthy cognitive minds.
(Like I said, I wish more Objectivist "preachers" understood this. Then they might fling their pronouncements around with much less arrogance.)
One of the most intelligent things I have ever heard about those two axioms was written by David Kelley. See my post
here for the quote.
Michael
Bob_Mac
Aug 21 2006, 02:48 PM
Thanks Michael,
I do think I essentially understand the assertion(s). Understanding, however, does not bring me into agreement. Something is not sitting well with me. I will try to explain, but am having trouble right now not coming off sounding like a hardcore skeptic. Since I am indeed not a skeptic in this way, I'll need to chew on this a bit more until I can describe my hesitations accurately.
Bob
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 03:09 PM
Bob,
That sounds wonderful.
Here's another little tidbit to chew on. One of the reasons Rand put so much negative emotional fuel in stating things like "A is A" in Atlas Shrugged was that she was trying to get at faith at the root - especially a dogmatic type Christianity that permeated the culture she lived in all her life (here and in Russia).
What do you say to a person who tells you that there are two realities, but you have to deny the only one you know in order to access the other? Then you see decisions in the one you know - decisions involving guns and killing your folks and stuff like that - being made by people who say they did it because they received knowledge from the other "reality"?
She was simply trying to get people to see the obvious. But our dear Internet gladiators want to relive Rand's glory days when people actually did think things like a literal war could be won by divine intervention and prayer (or "universal brotherhood" or whatever), and without guns or killing people.
Nowadays this view is marginalized and most everybody accepts the axioms because of the tremendous advances in communications and technology. for instance, very few people would try to make a computer work by prayer alone and without electricity. Even when they posit things like an afterlife, they no longer claim you have to deny this one in order to access it. They now try to furnish proof and methods in this one.
Frankly, fundamental axioms are so obvious today they are boring. Only our loudmouthed friends use them rhetorically anymore.
(I have read some of your remarks about intuition. I am not using "faith" here in that manner. I am using it as a specific denial of what your reason tells you because of a "higher" knowledge. There is a big difference in adding to something under appropriate circumstances and denying it outright - another subtle difference our warriors often miss.)
Michael
Dragonfly
Aug 21 2006, 03:20 PM
Hi Bob, welcome on this forum; here you won't be immediately burned at the stake if you have some disagreements with Objectivist theory, there are more heretics here.
QUOTE(Bob_Mac @ Aug 21 2006, 09:47 PM)
Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.
I agree. The Objectivist formulation of the law of causality (is there anyone else who uses this particular formulation?) is equally devoid of meaning: "a thing must act in accordance with its nature". That doesn't say
anything about what "its nature" is. Usually it's tacitly implied that its nature is a deterministic nature (via "in the same circumstances it behaves in the same way"), but this is an
extra assumption that in no way is contained in the law of identity. If the nature of a thing is that it behaves in a random way this doesn't contradict in any way the definition, nor the law of identity. You just can't derive any meaningful statement about the world from those two definitions, except that the world does exist, that there is "something". Well, I'd suspected that already, so what else is new?
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 03:42 PM
Dragonfly,
You merely left out one other observation about axioms and that is about the whole kit-'n-kaboodle:
QUOTE(Dragonfly)
... that the world does exist, that there is "something"...
And that we can know it.
Bedeh bedeh bedeh...(pause...)
That's all, folks!Michael
Bob_Mac
Aug 21 2006, 05:15 PM
"Hi Bob, welcome on this forum; here you won't be immediately burned at the stake if you have some disagreements with Objectivist theory, there are more heretics here."
Although my feet are still smoking, I do think I have much to learn and hopefully something to contribute as well, so I'll try again.
I have no need, I suppose, to nag at the law of identity, so I'll let it be unless in the midst of an argument it gets pulled out in "support" or to "refute" an idea. This is when people (OK, I) get bent out of shape.
Bob
Barbara Branden
Aug 21 2006, 06:34 PM
Victor, you wrote: "What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects."
Among the "cry-babies" in the physical sciences are men and women who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the pursuit of knowledge, and have benefitted mankind beyond anyone's power to repay. And in order to do so, they have employed a theory of knowledge, an allegiance to their best understanding of reality, that should cause lesser people to remove their hats in salute. Do they ever make mistakes? Sure. Everyone does -- even Ayn Rand. But for someone who is not an expert in the physical sciences, and whose well-being is made possible by such men and women, to employ sweepingly-negative generalizations -- such as "whim-worshippers." "subjectivists ," and "mystics" -- in order to denigrate them and to use against them jargon-filled arguments which he clearly has picked up on the fly and barely understands, is truly repulsive.
In my talk on "Objectivism and Rage," I said the following:
"The view that ideas can be evil is held implicitly or explicitly by a great many Objectivists. If someone tells us, for instance, that he is religious, presumably we know—without knowing his context, the extent of his understanding, or the depth of his commitment—that this is an evil idea that cannot be accepted by a mind devoted to reason. Therefore, at least to the extent of his religiosity, we know that the person is evil. Or again, if a man tells us he is a political liberal, presumably we know—again without knowing his context, the extent of his understanding, or the depth of his commitment—that this, too, is an evil idea that cannot be maintained by a mind devoted to reason. Therefore, at least to the extent of his liberalism, we know that the man is evil.
"How do we know it? How do we decide which ideas are proof of evil? What the argument ultimately amounts to is that mistaken ideas of a fundamental sort—fundamental to whichever branch of knowledge is being considered—are evil. The concept of error, of innocence, vanishes, and error is transmuted into evil.
"And worse. What do we hold to be the mistaken ideas that constitute proof of evil? Why, those ideas that contradict our own, of course. We are not religious mystics, we do not believe that the use of force is permissible in human society, we despise non-objective art, we know that certainty is possible, we know that emotions are not tools of cognition—and those who do not recognize these truths are our mortal enemies, Satanic beings to be shunned, denigrated, denounced.
"It makes moral judgment so very easy, does it not? All we require in order to know that someone is worthless is to know that he holds convictions contrary to our own.
"And if we hold such a view, we necessarily will morally denigrate and verbally abuse those who do not agree with us. We will be indignant at our opponents’ presumption in asking that we even consider or attempt to disprove their evil ideas. Instead, to the cheers of those who agree with us, we will ringingly denounce their dishonesty, their irrationality, their evasion, so that the world will recognize them for what they are.
"And what superior and virtuous beings we are! And how incredibly smug and self-congratulatory! We cavalierly dispense with most of the human race for not agreeing with our philosophy. Socialists are evil, theists are evil, determinists are evil, so are Democrats and so are Conservatives and so are Libertarians, so is anyone who has read Rand and is not an Objectivist, and so are many who call themselves Objectivists but who don’t think ideas can be evil. As someone once said, 'That leaves you and me, my friend . . . and I’m not so sure about you!'"
You wanted me to use more examples in my talk on "Objectivism and Rage?" Your statement that I quoted at the beginning of this post is one I could use as Exhibit A. I would only have to add quantum physicists to my list of the damned. You disagree with quantum physics? Then, clearly, you have the power to peer into the minds of quantum physicists and to pronounce them whim-worshippers, subjectivists, mystics, cry-babies who want reality to conform to their wishes and their false beliefs and who hate the fact that reality is objective.
Victor, it's time you took a cold, hard look at the means by which you arrive at your tendency to fling moral accusations at those you disagree with, time you learned to consider whether it is your own false beliefs and wishful thinking that have led you into grave error. It's time you began seriously working to correct that error. I don't know if you'll do so. I know you have the power to do so.
Barbara
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 06:43 PM
Paul, Michael, Bob:
There have been some misunderstandings. Let me establish some context here: It was the 1920’s when a revolution occurred in fundamental physics that shook the scientific community and focused attention as never before on relation the relation between the observer and the external world. Known as the quantum theory, it forms a pill in what became known as the “new physics”—and it challenged previous established paradigms. It provided the most convincing scientific evidence yet that consciousness plays an essential role in the nature of physical reality. Quantum theory demolished cherished “commonsense concepts” about the nature of reality. By blurring the distinction between subject and object, cause and effect, it introduces a strong “holistic element” into our world view. This was seen as a “loop hole” for certain mystic types to enter.
At the heart of the subject--among other things--lies the bald question: is an atom a THING, or just an abstract construct of the imagination usual for the explaining a wide range of observations? If an atom really EXISTS [and would thus have an identity] as an independent entity, then at the very least it should have a location and a definite motion. But the quantum theory denies this. It says that you can have one or the other but not both. [It’s here, Bob, where I see you having a problem with The Law of Identity and I would like to have you to please speak freely. Let’s pursue whatever concerns you about it].
Given the above, it’s here, again, where certain “mystic types” have infiltrated the area, and proceeding from a “primacy of consciousness” orientation, have attempted to concoct quantum physics [via its 'loop holes'] as establishing "a case" for the existence for God. It was in the news at one time or another. I remember reading some science journal years ago announcing something like “Science discovers God” or some such nonsense. I found it funny then, and I still do. I don’t, however, want to give the impression that all I have to do is wave an “Objectivist wand” to explain everything about reality, but the Objectivist metaphysics does wipe clean any variant of the supernatural or a “subjectivist universe.” That’s all I was trying to do, and I didn’t mean to get Paul all upset. That’s what I was poking fun at in my article.
The ideas of quantum ideas have percolated through to the laymen, so that even a simple-minded fool like me can comprehend it enough. It’s no wonder really, because the quantum theory is, in its everyday application, a very down-to-earth subject with vast body of supporting evidence. The “new physics” should not unsettle Objectivists either, or perceive it as a threat to the axioms of Objectivism. I have come across this in my experiences.
As Ed Hudgins said: "After all, Newton's description of motion in the universe was correct in context. When the context changed and we looked at a different aspect of reality -- matter accelerating to near the speed of light -- you must add Einstein's insights."
Victor
[edit: this post was written before I saw Barb come in. Yikes, you misunderstand me, Barb, I just read your post and I will respond.]
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 08:02 PM
Barbara,
I can see that I’m continuing to make a good impression on you. I’m afraid you entirely misunderstand me, and I can take a share of the blame as I’m primarily a visual artist, and being a “writer” is second hat. I still have a lot to learn about article writing.
Nevertheless, I will address some of your criticisms, and we'll see if we can come to a better understanding so that fruitful discussions might result.
Of course I grant the men and women “who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in the pursuit of knowledge the highest kudos and esteem. As an Objectivist, how could I not know and appreciate this. My criticism was targeting a small and deserving minority. I’m not--repeat NOT—trashing the scientists of quantum physics. If I gave that impression, I’m very sorry.
But my criticisms still stand, and I can substantiate my “sweepingly-negative generalizations” of those who are, no doubt, worthy targets. In the briefest possible way, I will concretize my claims a little further:
I recall reading, again some years ago, an article that declared: “There’s bad news for atheists these days, from—of all places—the world of science.” What intrigues me is the way the “super-scientists” are talking about a “mind” or God in the cosmos. [“Mistakes of this size are not made innocently.”]
One of the other accounts I recall of how science is “finding God” was on the cover of an issue of The Atlantic. Over a color photo of a butterfly runs the caption: “Did the Universe just happen? The subhead reads: “Controversial scientist Edward Fredkin says no—the universe is a computer and was built for a purpose.” Another writer followed up on this by asking: “Who or what set the computer in motion? Where is it, in some fifth or sixth dimension within the universe or in some meta-universe beyond?”
All this is a mere fragment of examples of what’s going on. And I just want to give a few examples to show that I might, after all, have reason to be critical.
Now, let me ask you, Barbara, why is it that I’m reading things like this? What’s the cause behind a head-line like this? Do you not grant the phenomena of “junk science” and are these men and women not to be morally evaluated at all?
What else would explain such a phenomena as described above, other than the fact that you do have “mystics” entering---or rather---“hijacking” a rational field, such as science, to undermine it entirely? I don’t attribute this as “innocent errors.” The same criticisms are to be hurled against the “global warming” crowd, too—even more fiercely. Mistakes? Innocent errors? I think not.
Conclusion:
Science, like politics, is not a primary—it is subject to the veto power of philosophy. The physical sciences rest on a philosophic foundation. And that’s why, as I said in an earlier post, Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking discoveries in epistemology would be truly revolutionary. I really believe that.
Respectfully,
Victor
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 09:48 PM
Gordon, you wrote: "I certainly think that ones pre-disposition to philosophy influences many scientists pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum Physics."
How about this: I think that one's pre-disposition [like the scientist himself] to philosophy [what kind of philosophy?] influences many scientist's pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum physics.
Bingo!
Yes, I agree. But then, this is my whole point, isn't it? This is what I wish to draw attention to in my article. Philosophy is primary.
Victor
Paul Mawdsley
Aug 21 2006, 10:07 PM
QUOTE(Victor Pross @ Aug 21 2006, 08:43 PM)
... I didn’t mean to get Paul all upset.
Can somebody please pass me a tissue?
Victor, you didn't get me "all upset." I have been questioning my relationship to Objectivism for some time now. Something Ellen said to me a few months ago has been bouncing around in my head, drawing my attention to the role Objectivism has in my life. I read your post while asking myself, for quite different reasons, "Am I an Objectivist?" From where I sit, your post was a fine example of the dark side of Objectivism. I did a little venting but your post was not the cause, only the release valve. I know I'm not the kind of Objectivist your post represents. Perhaps you are not either.
The tougher question for me is: do I see myself to be in alignment with Objectivists like Michael, Barbara and others here who have earned my respect? Or is Objectivism just an important source, among others, of the principles that make up my own authentic and autonomous personal perspective of existence? Should I think of myself and the world outside of the Objectivist box? Is my perspective larger than Objectivism? I'm still thinking this one through.
I have questions for you, Victor. Do you ever read your own posts over before posting, with a critical eye questioning whether your writing expresses your intended meaning? You seem to be often misunderstood. I am wondering if it might be because you are mis-expressing. I'm sure you have very vivid images that are the source of your writing. Are the images well defined? Are they being translated well into words so they can be translated into the images you intended in someone else? Is the moral element that comes through in your writing an expression of your own perspective or an expression of the Randian software program that is automating elements of your responses? Your moral tone and language has the flavour of randroidism. I wonder if you have noticed.
Paul
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 10:12 PM
Paul,
I don't want to get into a war-of-words with you. Let's leave my "style" out of this and let's leave any hemlock at the door. What doubts do you have about being considered an Objectivist? Is it other people OR the philosophy itself? Come on, let's talk about that. That might be more interesting.
Victor
ps
I was like this before I came across Rand. If you saw my paintings, that would explain a lot.
Paul Mawdsley
Aug 21 2006, 10:33 PM
Victor,
I wasn't talking about your style. I was talking about your content. If you would rather not talk about you, that's fine.
I didn't say I have doubts "about being considered an Objectivist." I said I am doubting that I should consider myself an Objectivist. It's more the psychology of Objectivism than the philosophy. At the root, I think there is a contradiction to having an autonomous perspective and adopting a philosophical system as one's own. Psychologically, you listen to the voice of one or the other.
I don't have time right now to discuss further.
Paul
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 10:39 PM
Victor,
I can assure you that poison was the last thing on Paul's mind. I think his questions came from a good place inside him and were aimed at a good place inside you.
If that post had been made elsewhere by another person out here in Objectivism-listland, well maybe it could have been aggressive...
Paul is one of our gentle voices of wisdom around here. You don't have to agree with him, but from my own experience, reflecting on his words have always made me wiser.
Paul,
I have a description of the basic principles of Objectivism I am preparing from an outline given in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand by David Kelley. His critics NEVER mention that part. I definitely see you there. But of course, you will decide for yourself.
Coming soon...
Michael
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 11:00 PM
Victor,
M, you wrote: "I can assure you that poison was the last thing on Paul's mind. I think his questions came from a good place inside him and were aimed at a good place inside you.
If that post had been made elsewhere by another person out here in Objectivism-listland, well maybe it could have been aggressive...
Paul is one of our gentle voices of wisdom around here. You don't have to agree with him, but from my own experience, reflecting on his words have always made me wiser."
**
Okay, I'll take your word for it. You know him better than I do, and I suppose I was on a 'defense premise' here. ;] I have been slapped around, and sometimes I brought it on myself...and sometimes not. If I misunderstood the man...well, like Maxwell Smart would say: "Sorry about that!"
Edit: I'm only interested in talking about the subject matter of this thread--not my psychology or my style or my so-called Randian content or my dark side and all that crap. Sorry, it's all beside the issue. You can toss that at me if you wish, but I decided that I won't respond. My points and views in the article stand and I'm sincere in expressing of them. Back to the subject...
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 21 2006, 11:40 PM
Victor,
When times were really ugly and Barbara and Nathaniel were heavily under attack from of the PARC crowd (with a plethora of foul language and behavior even more embarrassing than now), I came across
this post from Paul on NB's Yahoo list. I liked it so much I wrote to him and asked him if I could post it on OL (I did not know him then and he was not a member here).
He agreed. I put it up, Roger then had some other wise things to say, and then I wrote the following in that thread:
QUOTE(Me)
You know what I like the best about Paul's post? He is over here in the corner, sipping a nice tall glass of iced mint tea, watching all the acrimony pass by without ever paying any real attention to it. He throws a log in the fireplace and sits down, instead.
As he stretches out his legs on the hammock and opens the book he's been reading, Getting it Right with The Wisdom of the Ages, he speaks to those passing by.
His voice is soft and melodious. Well articulated. Pleasant.
He speaks of what you see and the importance of understanding how you see it. He speaks of gazing inward with the same eyes you use for gazing out. He speaks of how short life is for anything less. He speaks of health as the good.
The storms rage all all around him, yet here he sits with his mint tea and book by the warm fire, telling his message of life to anyone who will listen.
When the storms die down and newcomers arrive, I have a feeling that this quiet voice of reason will not be the one that is silent.
His statement, "...if you are blind to elements of your inner world you will be blind to corresponding elements of the outer world as well. Sight works in both directions or it works in neither," has been a very good one that helped improve my own life. It is one of the things that help convince me to abandon the acrimony.
When you need to get ballsy, gently pulling a trigger shoots someone just as dead as pulling it with a lot of noise and bluster (and you usually aim better).
I believe this is part of where he was coming from with you - and if I know him, he came in peace with intention to help.
Michael
Victor Pross
Aug 21 2006, 11:48 PM
M,
Angie brings out the better side that IS in me. If you read the 'sex' thread, you'll see a bunch of fun-lovin' and wicked good humor going down.
Now to return to our program.
Dragonfly
Aug 22 2006, 05:51 AM
QUOTE(Victor Pross @ Aug 22 2006, 02:43 AM)
At the heart of the subject--among other things--lies the bald question: is an atom a THING, or just an abstract construct of the imagination usual for the explaining a wide range of observations? If an atom really EXISTS [and would thus have an identity] as an independent entity, then at the very least it should have a location and a definite motion.
HALT! How do you know this? You state this as if it is an obvious condition, but the point is that it isn't. It seems obvious to you while you've never experienced anything to contradict this, and possibly our brains are already prewired to perceive the world that way, as it would be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view, while it enables us to interact succesfully with our environment. Now it
might be a reasonably first conjecture to extrapolate the rules of behavior of things as we know them to the behavior at a subatomic scale, our whole intuition is screaming that it should be so! But intuitions can be wrong. If your intuition is in disagreement with the scientific evidence, then so much the worse for your intuition.
QUOTE
Given the above, it’s here, again, where certain “mystic types” have infiltrated the area, and proceeding from a “primacy of consciousness” orientation, have attempted to concoct quantum physics [via its 'loop holes'] as establishing "a case" for the existence for God.
No doubt many mystic types like new age gurus and quack doctors have tried to use QM for their own purposes to give their theories some scientific aura; it is even possible that some former scientists have joined the bandwagon. But it's silly to blame the scientific community for such aberrations, just as it is silly to blame Darwin for what the Nazis have done (as some Christians apparently do). Sensational headlines in the media about some crank theories are in no way representative for the scientific concensus.
QUOTE
The ideas of quantum ideas have percolated through to the laymen, so that even a simple-minded fool like me can comprehend it enough.
I think that is a dangerous notion. As one of my professors once said: "You should first study the subject and work with it - philosophizing comes later". Popular presentations never can give you the same understanding as a real study of the theory. That's hard work, but there is no shortcut.
QUOTE
As Ed Hudgins said: "After all, Newton's description of motion in the universe was correct in context. When the context changed and we looked at a different aspect of reality -- matter accelerating to near the speed of light -- you must add Einstein's insights."
In fact Newton's theory was wrong, as it was built on the hypothesis of an absolute space and time and on the notion of instantaneous action. That doesn't in any way diminish Newton's magnificent achievement - his theory is for many purposes still an excellent approximation, but we shouldn't evade the fact that it was in fact wrong by using weasel words like "context". There is no contradiction between the fact that Newton was one of the greatest scientists and the fact that he has been proved wrong.
QUOTE
Science, like politics, is not a primary—it is subject to the veto power of philosophy. The physical sciences rest on a philosophic foundation. And that’s why, as I said in an earlier post, Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking discoveries in epistemology would be truly revolutionary. I really believe that.
Philosophy may in a
hierarchical sense be the foundation of science, but that doesn't mean that the
actual knowledge in these fields reflect such a relation. In the optimal case they would be developed together, and perhaps this has been the case in former centuries, but nowadays philosophy is hobbling far behind science and in the case of orthodox Objectivism it's just standing still at the time of Newton. Such a lag between science and philosophy is probably unavoidable, as it is the scientists who obtain new knowledge that sometimes may shatter the foundations that once seemed to us to be self-evident, and not the philosopher in a comfortable armchair in an ivory tower who is pronouncing judgements
ex cathedra.
Kat
Aug 22 2006, 06:37 AM
Victor, I saw the article the same way as Paul and Barbara did... as a sweeping generalization and just another rant. I cringe when I see people, especially Objectivists, dismiss an entire scientific field offhand like this. I've seen this done a lot with psychology as well. I think that one has a lot to do with the fact that NB was a psychologist though.
Science is based on evidence, hard work and rational thought, not mysticism and whim worshipping. Sure you find nuts in every group, but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Try to keep that chip on your shoulder in check if you want to be taken seriously as a thinker and a writer (or even dating material).
Kat
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 07:55 AM
Victor Wrote:
"Philosophy is primary".
I do not agree, not always. When a concept in philosophy seems to contradict reality, it's time to check premises. There is absolutely nothing wrong with philosophy, especially a reality-based philosophy, using advances in science to improve/re-examine itself. Using science to validate philosophical concepts is just as valid as the other way around. Often the line between the two is very blurry anyway, especially in fields like basic physics.
Bob
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 08:28 AM
Here's an identity conundrum - for me at least.
My coffee mug has an identity. I say (coffee mug)=(coffee mug) from day to day. In other words, it's the same mug it was yesterday - same matter, same atoms. It doesn't matter whether I observe it or whether I live or die.
Now, when it comes to people (and consciousness) things get really messy. I am Bob today, I was Bob yesterday, and hopefully I'll be Bob tomorrow, but why? Certainly not for the same reason. My physical matter has totally changed multiple times in my lifetime. It partially changes every day. I am most certainly NOT 3-year-old Bob in any physical way at all. Well, then why am I Bob? What about psychological continuity? I "am" the same person as 3-year-old Bob because of psychological continuity, I mean what else is there? But wait, that doesn't work either...
Now lets say I am on the starship enterprise and I get transported to the surface of a planet. My atoms are disassembled and put back together the same way, so to me I'm fine and off I go. What if they were only copied? Well the guy on the surface wouldn't know, he'd have total continuity but he wouldn't really "be" me would he? What about the guy left behind he would really "be" me right? But they BOTH have psychological continuity and good luck convincing the guy on the surface that he's not me. In a psychological sense they are both "me". But not physically, but then physicality(matter) doesn't matter for people (at least sometimes) - problem here.
So that doesn't work either (continuity) when it comes to consciousness/people. So when it comes to people and consciousness how and when is Bob=Bob??? The answer just ain't that simple is it?
This is certainly not the only identity problem either.
Bob
vanvlietart
Aug 22 2006, 08:35 AM
[quote bob]
Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.
[quote michael]
On identity, what is not being addressed is a delimitation of reality. What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason. Causality merely states that we observe that things have particular aspects that behave in specific manners, thus they can be studied.
Nothing more.
[reponse]
The about question/comment and answer/reply helps me tremendously work through everyday dialogs I am involved with. In my conversations with individuals of different persuasions I at least want the other party to walk away with well supported reponses to think about. Michael you seem to have the ability to do this well... and Victor also. Dialog between the two of you is interesting and instructive. I need better disapline and tools for sorting out issues as both of you seem to have.
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 08:53 AM
Emphasis mine...
QUOTE(vanvlietart @ Aug 22 2006, 10:35 AM)
QUOTE
What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason.
Nothing more.
[reponse]
The about question/comment and answer/reply helps me tremendously work through everyday dialogs I am involved with. In my conversations with individuals of different persuasions I at least want the other party to walk away with well supported reponses to think about. Michael you seem to have the ability to do this well... and Victor also. Dialog between the two of you is interesting and instructive. I need better disapline and tools for sorting out issues as both of you seem to have.
Well, if it helps you that's great, but it doesn't help me. I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.
Bob
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 22 2006, 09:47 AM
Bob,
QUOTE(Bob)
Well, if it helps you that's great, but it doesn't help me. I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.
Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?
Or do you mean to say that according to what you do know, you have to revise it periodically with new discoveries? And that some of the discoveries will show a deficiency of mental and/or sensory processing?
Be careful here, because if the answer to this last is yes, in order to
know that a new discovery has invalidated the previous information or understanding,
you need to use your reason. You either use it or you don't. You can't use it and not use it at the same time and claim any kind of logical validity. The whole method of falsifiability is predicated on this.
Are we on the same page?
Michael
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 10:11 AM
"Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?"
No.
"Or do you mean to say that according to what you do know, you have to revise it periodically with new discoveries? And that some of the discoveries will show a deficiency of mental and/or sensory processing? "
Yes, basically.
"Be careful here, because if the answer to this last is yes, in order to know that a new discovery has invalidated the previous information or understanding, you need to use your reason. You either use it or you don't. You can't use it and not use it at the same time and claim any kind of logical validity. The whole method of falsifiability is predicated on this."
Disagree. Or maybe I agree - not sure. What I disagree with is the notion that since we do not have perfect reliability that what we have is useless. Science progresses quite well with senses and reasoning that is "good enough". Improvements seem to be inevitable.
"Are we on the same page?"
Yes, I think so.
Bob
Victor Pross
Aug 22 2006, 10:49 AM
Repeat:
Of course I grant the men and women “who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in the pursuit of knowledge the highest kudos and esteem. As an Objectivist, how could I not know and appreciate this. My criticism was targeting a small and deserving minority. I’m not--repeat NOT—trashing the scientists of quantum physics. If I gave that impression, I’m very sorry.
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 10:54 AM
""Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?"
No.
Let me clarify this. When I examine more closely how I really feel about this I find that it's more accurate to say that in some cases, the level of uncertaintly is so small that I am comfortable dismissing it.
Certainty, perhaps a bad choice of words, is not 1 or 0. It is a continuum. In ones thinking there are degrees of certainty in most, if not all cases.
Can you be certain beyond any doubt whatsoever of anything? Tough question. I think we can maybe, but not about most things at least - but that's OK, this doesn't break anything for me. Am I certain that we cannot be certain? Not completely ;-)
Bob
Michael Stuart Kelly
Aug 22 2006, 11:24 AM
Bob,
Here is where many people get axioms wrong. Certainty is always contextual because we are not omniscient. We can only know a part of the whole shebang. That is given.
BUT
Is you mind a valid and reliable faculty to judge what you do know - even judge your uncertainty?
The answer to that question is the reason for the existence of axioms.
Like I said: nothing more.
(You unfortunately have engaged people who are very confused about this.)
Michael
Paul Mawdsley
Aug 22 2006, 11:31 AM
QUOTE(Bob_Mac @ Aug 22 2006, 10:53 AM)
I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.
I have reached a similar conclusion. I wouldn't say it is reason, per se, that is lacking in the case of understanding QM. We have used reason to create a mathematical description of the quantum world. The breakdown seems to be in matching our mathematical descriptions of reality with our intuitive/experiential descriptions. Is this breakdown caused by a fundamental inability to grasp quantum reality in intuitive/experiential terms? Or is it because we have not yet grasped the underlying principles that will allow us to build the right intuitive/experiential model? I think it is the latter. I also think that it is the concepts of identity and causality that have to be made more precise and more inclusive. This requires that we abstract and integrate specific principles of identity and causality from the evidence-- an a posteriori approach to identifying metaphysical laws and epistemological principles.
I think a causal account and an intuitive/experiential account of quantum reality is possible. I also think an intuitive/experiential account of relativity is possible with the right principles. But I tend to be a bit of a dreamer.
Paul
Bob_Mac
Aug 22 2006, 12:01 PM
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Aug 22 2006, 01:24 PM)
BUT
Is you mind a valid and reliable faculty to judge what you do know - even judge your uncertainty?
The answer to that question is the reason for the existence of axioms.
Like I said: nothing more.
(You unfortunately have engaged people who are very confused about this.)
Michael
The way I see it is that we do not
need perfect reliability to function.
Bob
Dragonfly
Aug 22 2006, 12:16 PM
QUOTE(Paul Mawdsley @ Aug 22 2006, 07:31 PM)
I have reached a similar conclusion. I wouldn't say it is reason, per se, that is lacking in the case of understanding QM. We have used reason to create a mathematical description of the quantum world. The breakdown seems to be in matching our mathematical descriptions of reality with our intuitive/experiential descriptions.
Right. But if you do the hard work by really studying the subject and working with it, you
will develop some intuitive feeling for it. However, there is no shortcut to translate it into our intuition we use in daily life. Take for example the notion of spaces with more dimensions than the 3-dimensional space we live in. If you work with such spaces they'll become in a sense familiar. But can we really
visualize for example a 5-dimensional space, not to mention an infinite-dimensional complex space, like we can visualize a 3-dimensional space? I don't think so, we're just not equipped for it, these things are outside our direct experience. In the same way the world of subatomic particles is outside our direct experience. It is not
reason that is lacking, on the contrary, it is reason that tells us how this world really is, it is only our imagination that can't handle it well.