SoAMadDeathWish
-
Posts
698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by SoAMadDeathWish
-
-
Every day right now students and the public are being mis-educated concerning the kinds of mathematics required to do physics, the foundations of physics required to understand
cosmology and future physics advances, the requirements of the scientific method, and what is and is not actual science being touted as science in the public arena. These errors
have a direct impact in our daily lives.
Dennis
Ok, but, what does that have to do with our discussion?
-
Dennis, how is any of this at all relevant right now?
-
SoAMadDeathWish,
I have to apologize. I thought you were interested in ideas and I was taking you seriously at first.
You give a definition of intuition from psychology and say this is a math procedure--as you conveniently leave out the link? Go on. Click on it and read the big honking word "psychology" in the title.
I wonder why you left that out, I wonder.
Then you even use a definition that says "acquire knowledge" and talk about "intuiting a theorum"--which is not knowledge, but the attempt to gain it?
You're faking it.
So I'm not going to waste your time or mine. I'll let others engage you. I'm not interested in phoney-baloney games presented as intellectual largesse to bestow upon the unwashed. If you want to play that game, at least have something solid behind it, not faking for God's sake. (That's a freebie suggestion, but you don't have to accept it.)
Enjoy the forum and please stay within the posting guidelines.
Michael
Michael, yes the definition I gave was from psychology. Appropriate, I think, since I was in fact talking about the psychological phenomenon of intuition. You're making it seem like I'm trying to hide something. I'm not.
I have never called intuition a math procedure. I merely said that that's how actual people think about math.
Again, I don't understand what I've done to you to earn your enmity. This is the second time you've accused me of "playing games" or some such.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_reasoning
Never underestimate non-verbal reasoning.
The best example I've run into in my life was in 1987-1988 in a graduate class on complex variables. The professor used the example of complex variable
integration around a hole - expanding the results outward giving an Airy disk-like result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
In his mind this "proved" that everything relating to quantum mechanics as far as diffraction and interference was already well understood - this
was his mathematical intuition at work,
His level of understanding was already more than a century old and neglected all of the interesting physics but it could be presented in the form
of a "proof". A proof of course is only as good as its underlying assumptions and your level of understanding of the subject matter.
Speaking of interesting questions:
Agree or disagree and why?: The real results of all complex variable problems can in theory be arrived at without the use of complex variables.
Dennis
It's not clear to me what point you're trying to make with your professor anecodte....
But to answer your question... I think the answer depends on what you mean by "complex variables". If you regard C as a real vector space, then it is isomorphic to R^2, and then I think that you can do physics without using complex variables. However, if you regard C as a complex vector space, then I'd have to say the answer is that you can't.
-
SoAMadDeathWish,
That's intuition?
I still don't understand.
I'm not busting on you. I'm serious.
I don't get what part of this is intuition.
Michael
Here's a definition from wikipedia:
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference and/or the use of reason.
To illustrate further, you could use your understanding of the equation in my previous post to automatically intuit that e^(i*(pi/2)) = i, e^(i*(3pi/2)) = -i, e^(i*(pi/4)) = Sqrt(2)/2 + i*Sqrt(2)/2, etc. simply by fixing a unit length at the origin of the complex plane and rotating it by the apporpriate angle. You can therefore know a true statement without having to prove it rigorously first.
This is how mathematicians work. They intuit a theorem first, and then try to prove it.
-
Again, each blob represents a galaxy, or if you prefer, millions of them. In this case, however, each shrinks in size but maintains its position in space in relation to the others.
My question is this: If in both scenarios, we are basically a tiny speck on one of the blobs, how would we determine which of the two scenarios represented what we were observing from within the system?
If, in the second scenario, we and the instruments that we used to observe and measure relationships were "shrinking" along with everything else, how would we establish that the universe was not expanding, but that we were actually "shrinking" and only misinterpreting the universe as expanding?
J
The shape of spacetime is described by something called a metric tensor. The shape of spacetime explains gravitational effects, but extremely simple modifications to the metric tensor explain the spatial expansion of the universe.
Matter and radiation in general relativity is described by a mathematical object called a stress-energy tensor. Making everything shrink in such a way as to reproduce the observations would require fine-tuning every single physical system in the universe. There is no simple modification you could make to the stress-energy tensor of a universe to explain the data, as far as I know.
-
My point is that, just because no one understands some equation or other on an intuitive level, it doesn't mean that QM is a bad theory. Which is what I think you were trying to say in the OP.
SoAMadDeathWish,
What does understand "some equation or other on an intuitive level" mean?
I've got nothing against equations and nothing against intuition, but I'm having trouble groking this.
MIchael
By that I mean to be able to connect the equation to some basic, concrete experience. For example, e^(i*(pi)) = -1 can be understood as a rotation of a unit length through 180 degrees around one of its ends.
-
"Time dilation is an effect. What is the cause?"
I guess I don't really disagree other than I see time dilation as a simple deduction rather than an "effect". The speed limit is an effect where the cause is interesting.
Bob
If time dilation were not an effect then there'd be no way to experimentally confirm it.
Shayne
sjw, you are confusing "events" and "observations". Time dilation is an observation that has to do with relationships among events but itself is not an event (and therefore needs no physical cause). You should educate yourself on the basiscs of the theory of relativity before attempting to criticize it and denouncing those better educated than you as frauds.
-
Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.
What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?
Shayne
Time dilation does not have a cause because it is not an event in the first place.
-
Yes, did you have anything to add to the discussion?
Dennis
My point is that, just because no one understands some equation or other on an intuitive level, it doesn't mean that QM is a bad theory. Which is what I think you were trying to say in the OP.
-
Michael, I was only asking for your help. Whether you choose to give it or not is entirely up to you, but I don't think I've said or done anything to you to warrant such hostility.
-
I'm pretty sure something similar is going on here, too, but I don't have a clear explanation right now.
Or this might be another case of a scope problem.
Like I said, I have to reflect on it.
At least I can now see where you got your notion.
Michael
Thank you. If you could find the source of the confusion that would be really helpful.
-
Replying to #8:
Here is what I referred to in Letters of Ayn Rand:
I certainly maintain that an egoist is a man who acts for his own self-interest and that man should act for his own self-interest. But the concept of "self-interest" identifies only one's motivation, not the nature of the values that one should choose. The issue, therefore, is: what is the nature of man's self-interest? Since arbitrary desires, wishes or whims are not a valid standard of value or criterion of self-interest—an egoist has to have a rational standard of value and a rational code of morality in order to be able in fact to achieve his self-interest.The "traditional" concept of egoism assumes that an egoist's standard is: "My self-interest consists of doing whatever happens to please me." A drunkard, a drug addict, a hot-rod car driver are men who act on that standard; they could hardly be regarded as exponents of self-interest.
Okay, your quote from The Objectivist Ethics is about life being an end in itself, but the argument you present in #1 says nothing about acceptable means to that end.
I don't think that matters when we have not yet established that C3 is true. Unless you adopt one or the other form of (P2) there can be no such thing as an Objectivist ethics. To reiterate, if you accept the first form of P2, then any means are acceptable for someone who does not choose life as the standard of value. Thus, we cannot rationally condemn non-objectivists. But if you go with the second version, then all means are necessarily acceptable as they all necessarily promote one's own life. I don't think that either of these conclusions are acceptable for a rational system of ethics.
-
SoAMadDeathWish,
Of course it is. That's because Objectivism (as I understand it) is a philosophy where one induces principles from reality at the start rather than trying to deduce reality from principles. (This last comes later after a solid reality foundation, not at the start.)
It's easy in these academic-like discussions to say "agent" and deduce stuff all over the place, including things like consciousness does not exist (not saying this is you), while leaving out the fact that one is an "agent" whose very acts contradict the premises of the deduction.
I don't agree with everything in the Objectivist canon, and I believe there is a serious scope problem in many of Rand's pronouncements, but I 100% agree with her approach of grounding logic in reality for knowledge about reality.
Michael
An appeal to consequences fallacy is not a method of induction, it's a fallacy and irrational no matter how you look at it.
-
Hi Michael. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
1. The source for P1 is in my previous post in response to Merlin.
2. If Rand holds that art is an and in itself, then she is contradicting herself.
3. I understand the idea, and you've explained it quite clearly. However, your justification for the claim that "One ought to accept Man's life as the standard of value", i.e. "Nature will take care of you in pretty short order, anyway, and you will no longer exist." is merely an appeal to consequences.
-
1. Arguably, the argument is only about the agent's motivation and says nothing about the nature of what the agent chooses to value. See page 554 of Letters of Ayn Rand as a start. It can be read on Amazon using the "look inside" feature (hardbound or paperback).
2. Was P1 intended to mean the agent could not value the life of another person or happiness?
1. Can you just post the relevant paragraph? It doesn't look like its available on Amazon's look inside feature.
2. It's from The Objectivist Ethics, and no. It seems to me that it says that only an agent's life could be an end in itself. The agent could have other values, but not as ends in themselves.
1. I suspect you used the Kindle edition. That's why I said hardbound or paperback. A search for motivation will get to page 554.
2. Where? Quote, please.
1. It won't let me look at it on any edition, even when I'm signed in.
2. There are multiple versions of the book, but this is the relevant passage:
No choice is open to an organism in this issue: that which is required for its survival is determined by its nature, by the kind of entity it is. Many variations, many forms of adaptation to its background are possible to an organism, including the possibility of existing for a while in a crippled, disabled or diseased condition, but the fundamental alternative of its existence remains the same: if an organism fails in the basic functions required by its nature—if an amoeba’s protoplasm stops assimilating food, or if a man’s heart stops beating—the organism dies. In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life. Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life. (P1)
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself:(C3) a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
-
P1 should be: for all agents, only an agent’s own life is an end in itself setting the agent’s values for making that life. It would be incorrect in Rand’s philosophy to say that only an agent’s life is an end in itself. Every life is an end in itself according to this philosophy, and right understanding for right actions includes recognition that one’s fellows, like oneself, are ends in themselves.
I understand what you're trying to say, Stephen. However, up until that point, Rand has not yet established that "only an agent’s own life is an end in itself setting the agent’s values for making that life" or that "Every life is an end in itself".
-
1. Arguably, the argument is only about the agent's motivation and says nothing about the nature of what the agent chooses to value. See page 554 of Letters of Ayn Rand as a start. It can be read on Amazon using the "look inside" feature (hardbound or paperback).
2. Was P1 intended to mean the agent could not value the life of another person or happiness?
1. Can you just post the relevant paragraph? It doesn't look like its available on Amazon's look inside feature.
2. It's from The Objectivist Ethics, and no. It seems to me that it says that only an agent's life could be an end in itself. The agent could have other values, but not as ends in themselves.
-
Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from Game of Thrones. Sorry to say it, but none of Rand's villains come even close to how evil this guy is.
He is 100% focused on obtaining power. Whereas Toohey and Taggart were trying to destroy what is good and human, Baelish, when he doesn't totally disregard them while comitting horrific misdeeds, sees the good and the human as mere obstacles at best and as detestable weakness at worst. He simply doesn't care. To top it all off he is really smart and good at what he does, and he does it in style.
-
I don't see that there is anything baffling about what they are finding. Enough time passed for there to be multiple human groups spread all over. Likely a dozen or more groups remain undiscovered.
Dennis
Exactly. It always astonishes me how alleged "scientists" are baffled when their tight little belief systems get shattered by facts.
It's just journalism, calm down.
-
"Look, physics has definitely avoided what were traditionally considered to be foundational physical questions, but the reason for that goes back to the foundation of quantum mechanics. The problem is that quantum mechanics was developed as a mathematical tool. Physicists understood how to use it as a tool for making predictions, but without an agreement or understanding about what it was telling us about the physical world. And that's very clear when you look at any of the foundational discussions. This is what Einstein was upset about; this is what Schrodinger was upset about. Quantum mechanics was merely a calculational technique that was not well understood as a physical theory. Bohr and Heisenberg tried to argue that asking for a clear physical theory was something you shouldn't do anymore. That it was something outmoded. And they were wrong, Bohr and Heisenberg were wrong about that. But the effect of it was to shut down perfectly legitimate physics questions within the physics community for about half a century. And now we're coming out of that, fortunately."
Have you ever actually had any experience with modern physics or mathematics beyond the highschool level? The mathematics of even the simplest physical systems in GR and QM goes WAY beyond present human understanding very very quickly.
I can't really explain how my computer works in everyday language, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a computer or that it doesn't work.
-
Hi guys, this is gonna be my first post on this forum.
A bit about myself, I've been an objectivist since I was 16, when my econ101 teacher in Highschool turned me onto Atlas Shrugged. I've been studying the works of Rand and Piekoff for about 6 years.
Anyway... lately I've been talking about Objectivism with one of my friends by email. She pointed out what seems to be a flaw in Rand's argument for egoism.
Now, she practically wrote a book about this, but to get to the bottom of it, the problem is basically this:
P1: For all agents, only an agent's life is valuable as an end in itself.
(P2): Agents ought to act to obtain their own values.
C3: Therfore, agents ought to act to promote their own lives.
The first problem is that Rand's ultimate conclusion, C3, does not follow unless you also accept the implicit premise (P2, a premise that Rand didn't include in her arguments, but that is necessary to keep the argument valid).
There's something tricky about P2, though. In one sense (and I think the one that Rand seems to imply), the "ought" can be interpreted practically. That is, in the sense of, "If I want to quench my thirst, I ought to drink water". In this case, the premise is tautological, essentially saying that agents ought to do what they ought to do. However, the "practical interpretation" doesn't fit with the rest of the argument, because the "ought" in C3 is a moral "ought" and not a practical "ought". The conclusion that would follow from this interpretation of P2 would not be C3, but rather C3*: "If an agent values its life as an end in itself, then it ought to act to promote its own life". Now, obviously, there's no issue here if the agent values its life as an end in itself. But what if the agent doesn't value its life as an end in itself? In that case, we cannot conclude that it ought to act to promote its own life. More disturbingly, it would mean that the Toohey's and second-handers cannot be judged on the basis of rational ethics! If we accept the tautologous sense of P2, we are literally compelled to believe that "Hitler did nothing wrong"!
The trouble with going in the other direction and interpreting P2 as a moral "ought" is that the argument then essentially begs the question.
My objection at this point was that P2 is true by tautology, regardless of sense. However, if we accept that agents cannot choose other than to promote their moral values, then ethics becomes impossible! Any action you take would then necessarily be promoting your own life (even suicide).
I've been going over this for hours and I can't figure out the flaw in her argument. Little help?
Flaw in Rand's Argument
in 3 - Ethics
Posted
If you accept this conditional interpretation of Rand's ethics, then the last two sentences definitely do logically follow. Under this interpretation, the objectivist imperative has the logical form "If A, then B", more specifically "If you choose to live, then you ought to do so as a man." However, if you do not choose to live, i.e. you believe that "not A" is true and you also believe that the objectivist imperative is true (that "If A, then B" is true), then it does not follow that "B" or that "not B". You cannot rationally conclude that you ought to live as a man.
Thus, if we know that Hitler does not choose to live, then we cannot say that he ought to live as a man. In conclusion, we cannot say he was doing anything wrong since no moral "oughts" apply to him.
If you deny this anyway and believe that the objectivist imperative is true as well as that "Hitler ought to live as a man", then you're simply begging the question, and have no rational basis for ethics.