QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, you wrote the following:

"But my criticisms still stand, and I can substantiate my 'sweepingly-negative generalizations' of those who are, no doubt, worthy targets. . . .

"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.']

". . . 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.'"

Sure, Victor. It is now clear to me that Einstein, for instance, who in later life acepted the existence of God, -- which you point out is not an innocent error, although you don't explain how you know that -- entered the rational field of science for the purpose of hijacking it and undermining it entirely. And just as clearly, he was a subjectivist cry-baby who just could not abide the fact of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.

I grow very impatient when I read about scientists accepting religion. I sometimes FEEL that it is

inexcusable, expecially for a scientist. But I remain aware that I do not have ESP, that I do not have a direct line into their consciousness -- and that ideas are not evil.

Paul made a very important point, which you need to think about, when he asked you: "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."

Victor, regurgitating the words of Ayn Rand -- and often out-of-context -- is a very dangerous means of communication and argument. I want to make a suggestion, which, of course, you may take or leave. When you prepare a post, try, at least for a time, to imagine that when you make value-estimates, you are addressing them to intelligent people who have never heard of Rand and consequently will not understand Objectivist jargon such as "whim-worshippers," "mystics.," "subjectivists," etc. Try to put your estimates in your own, commensensical, ordinary language. And see what happens.

[bmacwilliam]

Paul wrote:

"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."

Maybe. I also think intuition growth and adjustment is possible but not always. I have a somewhat intuitive grasp of special relativity at least, but no matter how hard I try I can't grasp 5 dimensions like Dragonfly said.

You may feel that a causal account of QM is possible and there certainly have been opposing viewpoints to the Copenhagen interpretation (some crazier than others), but the jury is still out as far as I know.

I wanted to clarify a bit what I meant about faulty reasoning. When we find out that a theory that fits well with reality but defies a basic tenet of our reasoning framework, either the theory is flawed or the logical framework and/or reasoning is flawed. Since I question the strict requirement of our intuitive, or let's say "standard" causality model, I do not rule out the possibility that our "rationality" is faulty in this way.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob

The way I see it is that we do not need perfect reliability to function.

We are talking about two different things.

If you don't think your mind is reliable on a basic level, how do you know it isn't? It all just becomes an opinion. Wherever the wind blows. One opinion is just as good as another. The computer you use could be a banana or hair tonic. It doesn't matter if that is your standard.

This gets complicated when you eat. If you decide to eat a computer because your mind isn't reliable, or is only partially reliable (it just didn't work at that moment and the "banana" did look tasty), you might have a serious problem with digestion.

I don't think you are talking about that, though. You are talking about the fact that the mind can make mistakes, accepting a theory as true, then have it overturned later by more knowledge. Or the fact that if you are tired or whatever, you can make mistakes. Things like that.

Now here's the catch. A mistake can only be called a mistake against a standard. If there is no standard, it obviously is not a mistake. There is only one way to set a standard - with a reliable mind (in my sense).

When I talk about "reliable," I am talking about an organ that can be used for dealing with reality and understanding it.

When you talk about "reliable," you are talking about MTBF - mistakes - standards.

Without my kind of "reliable," there cannot be even an "unreliable" of your kind.

Two concepts, not one. Unfortunately, both use the same word and that creates confusion.

(btw - I just saw your 5th dimension post. I agree that our reason is limited by the sensory input it receives. Some things are extremely difficult to process by reason. If there is a part of reality for which we have no sense organ, we need to devise instruments that can access it and translate attributes into things we can process.)

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Sure, Victor. It is now clear to me that Einstein, for instance, who in later life acepted the existence of God,

Is that true? Do you have a reference for that? I ask, while I've never heard of this. On the contrary, Einstein explicitly denied the belief in a personal God. That he sometimes used "God" in his statements, like "God doesn't play dice" is a red herring, this was only meant as a metaphor, somewhat like "Mother Nature".

Einstein:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task…

Albert Einstein in: Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

It seems unlikely to me that he changed his mind later, and I have never heard he did.

[Dragonfly]

Bob

The way I see it is that we do not need perfect reliability to function.

We are talking about two different things.

If you don't think your mind is reliable on a basic level, how do you know it isn't? It all just becomes an opinion. Wherever the wind blows. One opinion is just as good as another. The computer you use could be a banana or hair tonic. It doesn't matter if that is your standard.

You're really talking about two different things. Bob said that we don't need perfect reliability to function, but you translate it as "totally unreliable", not even seeing the difference between a computer and a banana. If the mind were that unreliable, we wouldn't be able to survive long. But that is of course a caricature and therefore a straw man. "Not perfectly reliable" still can be quite reliable in general, enabling us to get around and to survive, while still allowing for occasional malfunctioning. After all we do make mistakes, don't we? I've never understood this insistence by Objectivists on absolute reliability and absolute certainty, our senses are fallible and our mind is fallible, but no, that does NOT make us blind, deaf and incompetent. Neither is perfect reliability necessary to observe those malfunctionings, just as it is not necessary to observe other things around us and draw conclusions about them.

[Rich Engle]

Dragonfly to the rescue! I've been looking for that quote for a good while, it is of great interest to me. To me, it shows he totally "got it." These remarks, I think, are largely pointed not at spirituality, but at problems in the ecclesiastical community, traditional theism, all that dreck. Moreso, it's pointing to the need to find peace between spirituality and science as discussed these days in books like (for the zillionth time I mention) Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Spirit .

The whole idea of a personal God has been incredibly lethal in the hands of the fundamentalists, always has been. The idea of a personal God is not a bad one, if it is not misinterpreted, which it nearly always is.

As far as Einstein ever becoming a traditional religionist, I never heard of it, I'd like to know. From what little I've run into, his spirituality seems to be more along the lines of something like monism. Certainly not the Guy in the Sky...sheesh, I hope not!

Edit: I started tooling around, there's this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/index.htm

And further in there, notably this:

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. "

rde

Resident spiritual dude, guitarist, occasional swing dancer

Edited August 22, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

E tu Brute?

Er... you do understand that I am talking about reliability on the fundamental axiom level...

Is it possible for something not to exist all of a sudden and consider that merely a malfunction?

Is it possible for identity to become suspended and a computer become a banana? If that is too ridiculous, and if you wish to suspend the axiom of identity at times, where is the cutoff point? Is there one?

I repeat, we are talking about two different things. (This insistence on a kind of "blindness" to two ideas, refusing to see one of them, is similar to the Peikovians, who cannot see the difference between cognitive and normative abstractions.)

When you and Bob talk about "perfect reliability" or "total reliability" you are talking about judging our sometimes unreliable minds against a reliable standard axiom-wise, not performance-wise.

I am speaking only at the universal axiom level - the starting point. You are speaking at the experience level where a standard (reality, something and a mind) is already in place and the mind has to perform. For it to be able to perform - there must be existence, something must exist and your mind must exist. If any one of those elements are missing, the mind breaks down. (Like I said, axioms are boring.)

I thought you had already grasped that idea.

btw - I fully agree with you about the folly of the arguments I have seen out of Objectivists trying to argue that our minds or senses don't fail. Being biological, our minds even die, but that fact seems to have escaped them.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Michael, I've really no idea what you're talking about. I do understand what Bob means when he writes:

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.

But in your reply you're talking about confusing computers with bananas and things that exist and suddenly no longer exist. I really don't see how that refers to what Bob said. Nowhere he said nor suggested (nor did I) that there doesn't exist anything, that there doesn't exist a mind, so I really don't understand why you bring that up.

BTW, this is not the first time you call me Brutus. Surely he was an honorable man!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Don't forget that Brutus came to bury Ceasar, not praise him.

Our initial discussion was about fundamental axioms. (Precisely the things you mentioned - and that's why we were discussing them - because they kicked off the discussion.) Whenever I discuss axioms, someone (usually someone intelligent) who has been bitten hard by a Randroid starts talking about the mind's performance.

On the axiom level, there must be reliability. Either the mind is made for thinking or it isn't. If it isn't, then don't think with it! Use something else to think with if you can find it...

After the axiomatic level is in place (usually in early infancy, which is why axioms are boring), you go to the next level: performing with the mind. That's where all hell breaks loose.

Why Rand was so adamant about stressing axioms is that certain philosophies were popular at the time she wrote that stressed that nothing could be known. Ever. She went into denounce mode against them and then it was hard to pull herself out. Even after the problem was no longer a danger and other problems appeared.

The true believers wish to emulate her, relive the glory and kill the bad guys (the ones who are no longer around). Not having a bad guy for real around, any old guy then has to do...

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Sure, Victor. It is now clear to me that Einstein, for instance, who in later life acepted the existence of God,

Is that true? Do you have a reference for that? I ask, while I've never heard of this. On the contrary, Einstein explicitly denied the belief in a personal God. That he sometimes used "God" in his statements, like "God doesn't play dice" is a red herring, this was only meant as a metaphor, somewhat like "Mother Nature".

My impression is in agreement with Dragonfly's. God is synonymous with reality. He just makes the personification of reality transparent and metaphorical.

Einstein’s God:

...he said that he believed in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God that concerns himself with the fate and actions of men... much of Einstein’s writing gives the impression of belief of a God even more intangible and impersonal than a celestial machine minder, running the universe with undisputable authority and expert touch. Instead, Einstein’s God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely marvellous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty of a craftsman’s wristwatch, and at the stellar level with the majesty of a massive cyclotron.... Einstein’s God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go on searching for them. (Ronald W. Clark, 1971.)

Paul

[Barbara Branden]

Dragonfly, I hope I wasn't being unfair to Einstein. I do know, as indicated in your quote from him, that for much of his career he rejected all of the various concepts of religion, but since then I had read and heard that this changed as he grew older. Unfortunately, since this was a long time ago, I no longer recall my sources. Perhaps mistakenly, I assumed it was common knowledge, and so I did not put any references to it in my files.

However, it does appear, from Rich's quote of Einstein's words, that his thinking led him to Deism at the very least.

I've just read the articles Eiinstein wrote on science and religion on the web site that Rich cited, and they are fascinating. Clearly, he rejects the idea of a personal God who interferes in the world of mankind. So I was mistaken, at least at the point in his life when he wrote these articles, in saying that he "in later life accepted the idea of God." But just as clearly, he is convinced that reason and science alone cannot discover the purposes for which mankind should live -- that is, cannot discover moral truths -- and that only religion can do so .And although it's difficult to discern precisely what he means by "religion," one can see that he separates it from rationality.

He wites:

"To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.

"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. . . .

"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.. . .

Reading these articles, much of which I disagree with, I nevertheless was left with the feeling: What a remarkable man!

Barbara

[Paul Mawdsley]

can we really visualize for example a 5-dimensional space

Dragonfly,

In the sense suggested by modern physics, no I can’t. Any time I hear someone try to explain the causation in the physical world via reference to alternate dimensions my response is to role my eyes and say, “Next!” Before we move to the nonphysical, let’s give the physical a good try.

However, I have played with an image of visualizing extra dimensions that is in no way supernatural and is something I think you have played with also.

In general, when given entities act and interact, they are doing so in 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. In circumstances with sufficiently complex dynamics, the actions and interactions of these entities can integrate to form a *new dimensional entity* which behaves as a unit at a higher scale than its component entities. A new entity is created through the integrating dynamics of the entities at the smaller scale. The new entity, acting as a unit, now influences the behaviour of its components in a causally reciprocal loop between the whole and the parts. The form of the whole influences the degrees of freedom for the dynamics of its parts. The dynamics of the parts gives form to the whole entity. These new entities act and interact according to distinct laws that, while rooted in the actions of its component entities, are not present at the level of the component entities.

For example, subatomic particles/waves integrate to form atoms; atoms integrate to form molecules, molecules integrate to form the complex structures we observe as matter at the macroscopic scale; some of those complex structures are entities we call human beings who create more complex structures called societies. At each level, the entities have properties that are rooted in the actions and interactions of the component entities but not possessed by the component entities. At each level of complexity, the entities exist and interact in their own dimension. Subatomic particles do not interact with atoms. They interact with other subatomic particles, even the subatomic particles in other atoms. Atoms do not interact with people. They interact with the atoms in people.

In this way I imagine extra dimensions to exist all within our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. My intuition only gets messed up when I try to imagine dimensions existing outside of space and time. I have no experience to base an experiential model of extra space and time dimensions upon. And I wonder if such ideas indicate a weakness of intuition or a weakness in the interpretation of mathematical descriptions of the world. I wonder if the principles of existence can be discovered within 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension with the addition of multiple dimensions found in the scale of entities.

One side note since I happened to think about it: Does our measurement of relative space and time necessitate an interpretation of existence that states time and space are not absolute? If so, why?

Paul

Edited August 23, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Paul Mawdsley]

I wanted to clarify a bit what I meant about faulty reasoning. When we find out that a theory that fits well with reality but defies a basic tenet of our reasoning framework, either the theory is flawed or the logical framework and/or reasoning is flawed. Since I question the strict requirement of our intuitive, or let's say "standard" causality model, I do not rule out the possibility that our "rationality" is faulty in this way.

Bob,

Have I seen your writing elsewhere? I have spent almost no time on other Objectivist sites, ever. I did take a little tour of RoR some time ago. I remember coming across a thread on quantum physics I was very tempted to join. Did I see your name there? Regardless, welcome. I do enjoy your comments, your tone, and the glimpses I am getting of your particular slant on the world. I'm interested to see what you have to say about where the fault lies in the standard view of causality. I wonder if you have another concept of causation to propose. How would another concept of causation change our interpretation of the evidence provided by science?

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

Couldn't life be considered as a fifth dimension?

Seriously.

That certainly would explain volition.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Don't forget that Brutus came to bury Ceasar, not praise him.

Those were Marcus' words, not mine!

[bmacwilliam]

On the axiom level, there must be reliability. Either the mind is made for thinking or it isn't. If it isn't, then don't think with it! Use something else to think with if you can find it...

After the axiomatic level is in place (usually in early infancy, which is why axioms are boring), you go to the next level: performing with the mind. That's where all hell breaks loose.

Why Rand was so adamant about stressing axioms is that certain philosophies were popular at the time she wrote that stressed that nothing could be known. Ever. She went into denounce mode against them and then it was hard to pull herself out. Even after the problem was no longer a danger and other problems appeared.

The true believers wish to emulate her, relive the glory and kill the bad guys (the ones who are no longer around). Not having a bad guy for real around, any old guy then has to do...

Michael

I think I understand the axioms on their own. What I do not understand is why reliability is a requirement though. I am willing to keep an open mind about it and will try my best to understand the arguments.

At this point the argument that if you have no certainty then you cannot be certain you have no certainty either and this is a contradiction - I do not buy this. Certainty is not a black or white concept in practice.

"Coherentism" makes sense to me in this way, although I do not agree with it completely.

Any comments on my identity conundrum???

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Have I seen your writing elsewhere? I have spent almost no time on other Objectivist sites, ever. I did take a little tour of RoR some time ago. I remember coming across a thread on quantum physics I was very tempted to join. Did I see your name there? Regardless, welcome. I do enjoy your comments, your tone, and the glimpses I am getting of your particular slant on the world. I'm interested to see what you have to say about where the fault lies in the standard view of causality. I wonder if you have another concept of causation to propose. How would another concept of causation change our interpretation of the evidence provided by science?

Paul

Yes, I was participating for a while on RoR and got bent out of shape over this issue. I'm glad you enjoyed what I had to say. My trouble there was what I perceived to be an attitude that reality must conform to certain preconceptions and an unwillingness to question these preconceptions. I say PREconceptions because at the fundamental sub-atomic level we are just beginning to discover what's going on all we have is preconceptions of our macroscopic world and millions of years of evolution to work with. Our conceptions need to be open to change as we probe deeper. Reality is not required to conform to how we think it should or must behave.

I wish I had another concept of causation to propose. At this point I simply suspect that we will eventually discover many new counter-intuitive truths. In fact I think we need to actively suspend this "Newtonianish" (for lack of a better word) intuition to improve our understanding. Replacing an old intuition with a new one (for me it was relativity that did this) is one of the most rewarding things one can do intellectually.

Bob

[Paul Mawdsley]

Yes, I was participating for a while on RoR and got bent out of shape over this issue. I'm glad you enjoyed what I had to say. My trouble there was what I perceived to be an attitude that reality must conform to certain preconceptions and an unwillingness to question these preconceptions. I say PREconceptions because at the fundamental sub-atomic level we are just beginning to discover what's going on all we have is preconceptions of our macroscopic world and millions of years of evolution to work with. Our conceptions need to be open to change as we probe deeper. Reality is not required to conform to how we think it should or must behave.

Actually Bob, what you say here speaks to the reason I question whether or not I should call myself an Objectivist. I don't really care if someone else operates with preconceptions about reality. I just wonder if accepting Objectivism as a system of thought necessitates the application of such preconceptions which preclude specific integrations. At this stage I am asking myself questions and taking in information to assist my processing.

I wish I had another concept of causation to propose. At this point I simply suspect that we will eventually discover many new counter-intuitive truths. In fact I think we need to actively suspend this "Newtonianish" (for lack of a better word) intuition to improve our understanding. Replacing an old intuition with a new one (for me it was relativity that did this) is one of the most rewarding things one can do intellectually.

If you are interested, the metaphysics forum contains some elements of ideas I have had on a more precise and more inclusive concept of causation. I say elements because I have been dancing around the core ideas. One thing I am trying to do is find the time to sit and put the intuitive/experiential perspective I have built into words. I keep starting along paths in discussions and come to a stop because I need to dedicate a substantial block of time to saying what I want to say. My discussion with Dragonfly in the Metaphysics forum is currently in this state.

Paul

[Rich Engle]

Hi, Barbara!

I'm not so sure about your conclusion that Einstein was a deist...maybe. I don't know at all, but the way he talks about religiosity/spirituality, it bears an amazing resemblance to how William James writes about it- like when Einstein writes:

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being."

He definitely rejects the personal god notion, and frequently. Outside of that, he seems like he is talking about individual religious consciousness, the experience itself. I notice he uses the word "awe," which is one of the common descriptions you hear in the many accounts James cites in "The Varieties of Religious Experience." There are certain repetitive themes James talks about seeing in accounts of those talking about the religious mind.

I think if we took the word "religious" out of it completely there would probably be less trouble- it's a hot trigger.

The other thing he seemed to get at was talking about the empirical, the "it" part of the world- how science cannot and should not tell us what something means, but instead what "is." It seems like he was going there in at least one statement.

I notice he is very careful about how and where he uses the word "God." God means many different things to many different people... often it does not mean a separate entity. Wilber uses "Spirit."

Bottom line, though, agree- the best part is reading this stuff. What a mind!

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

Couldn't life be considered as a fifth dimension?

Seriously.

That certainly would explain volition.

Michael

Why only the 5th? There is certainly something special about the physical integrations that make living entities and conscious entities.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

Just to take friendly issue with you....

Quoting you here: “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 judgments ex cathedra.”

And: "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." [?]

The above is a confusing sentence. As far as I can see, you are still speaking of birth before the conception. To speak of a “scientific method” there was first establishing a certain metaphysics and epistemology that allowed the sciences to flourish in the first place. Philosophy deals with the widest possible abstractions and is, therefore, primarily epistemological. Science deals with specilized knowledge and is aided by instruments. Again I say, science is not a primary: It rests on a certain philosophical foundation—a certain approach to epistemology. The “scientific method” is the application of reason to the physical world of particulars.

Victor

Edited August 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Going into tricky and interesting ground here, Victor... B)

As long as philosophy is nimble enough to adjust to what science brings to it. Science tells us what "is," not what it means , it's true. But what "is" can be quite the ball-buster, no?

If a philosophy is rational, doesn't that mean it has to respect what science brings it, no matter how unseating that might be? I heard a quantum guy talking somewhere or another, about, you know, the real unsettling stuff (at least for me)- things like where you might think the chair is "here," but in fact it might also might be going here, here, here... that sort of thing. That's the kind of stuff that will mess with epistemology, at least in an abstract way. For now, all I need to know is the effing chair is over there across from my desk, but still .

Can we think of examples where science has forced philosophy to reconsider things?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I think I understand the axioms on their own. What I do not understand is why reliability is a requirement though. I am willing to keep an open mind about it and will try my best to understand the arguments.

I usually don't like to explain something by examples (I prefer to illustrate by them instead), but I see you having a hard time trying to grasp the simplicity of what axioms do. I very much sympathize with you on this, too, as I witnessed some long drawn-out explanations that went nowhere and a lot of acrimony in a few of your online exchanges. It seems like something is being left out with my explanation, otherwise what was the shouting all about? (The answer is: nothing at all. Just scratching neurotic itches, from what I could tell, while getting a lot of simple stuff all wrong.)

The mind is a conscious organism's tool for dealing with reality. (It also houses the majority of the organism's consciousness, but that is another issue outside the scope here.) Just like a hand is a tool or a set of teeth is a tool.

Let's look at another tool - a hammer. It can be used for many things, especially beating on things, but it is perfect for beating on nails. That is its metaphysical purpose, so to speak. It is a nail beater.

You can call the notion reliable at this level - that a hammer is a tool for beating on nails, so you can use it and be sure that by using it, you are using it for what it was made to be used for. That means that, barring outside interfering factors, it will work.

That word "reliable" is usually used for its performance, though, not the basic definition level. (How did that word sneak into this, anyway?) Here is where other elements come into play. Maybe a nail is too small for a particular hammer to be very useful. Maybe the hammer will be ineffective against a huge spike. When those situations are encountered, other solutions will have to be sought. But one of the solutions will never be to claim that hammers are not used for beating on nails. In fact, if you found a hammer small enough or large enough (and corresponding people or sources of directed force small or large enough), it would work just fine for your small nail or spike.

Sometimes a hammer will break. Sometimes you will miss the nail and whack your thumb. When you beat on a nail, you can see that the length the nail sinks often changes. If you hit a nail sideways, it will bend. So you can call a hammer unreliable at times because of all this. Also, when you encounter a screw, a hammer can work sometimes, but not very well. Basically you need another tool.

But none of this challenges the basic nature of a hammer. You can be sure (certain - reliably convinced) that a hammer is made for beating on nails and it will work if you use it correctly.

That conclusion is what the axioms do with respect to the mind and dealing with reality. Oh, they give a start to logic and a connection to sensory evidence, but the reason is to state the nature of the beast - sort of like saying that hammers deal with nails by beating on them. The real purpose is not to show how or why the beating is done, nor to deal with the characteristics of nails, which is implicit.

Axioms merely identify the mind as a proper tool that you can use for thinking and interacting with reality.

Nothing more.

There is minor point - a sometimes confusing thing about fundamental axioms. They are not exclusive. One isn't valid without the others (and I have seen many convoluted arguments trying to isolate them as if they were). I use the example of facets of a gemstone. You can look at a facet separately. You can grind it into more facets or merge it with another. But you cannot remove it. A gemstone will always have a minimum of three facets.

Thus you can't talk about identity without implying existence and a consciousness that perceives it.

Did this help some?

(If all this seems really obvious, like on a child level, that's because it is. Like I said, boring. Axioms don't tell you very much at all. Knowing that a hammer is the tool you use for beating on nails will not go far in building a house. That's just a starting point. The real job comes after you pick the thing up and start using it.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

"Can we think of examples where science has forced philosophy to reconsider things?"

Your question shows me how much we take science for granted--as if it were an axiom!

I'm still with Rand on this one: 'Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science, the reverse is true.' There would be no "science" were it not for a CERTAIN type of epistemology, this being a feild in philosophy. Let's ask this question: Would science be possible [as we know it] if it rested on Plato's metaphysics?

Edited August 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Just to take friendly issue with you....

I may growl, but I don't bite...

The above is a confusing sentence. As far as I can see, you are still speaking of birth before the conception. To speak of a “scientific method” there was first establishing a certain metaphysics and epistemology that allowed the sciences to flourish in the first place. Philosophy deals with the widest possible abstractions and is, therefore, primarily epistemological. Science deals with specilized knowledge and is aided by instruments. Again I say, science is not a primary: It rests on a certain philosophical foundation—a certain approach to epistemology. The “scientific method” is the application of reason to the physical world of particulars.

The foundation doesn't necessarily come before the application. As I said, both were in earlier centuries probably developed together. Don't forget that at that time what we now call science or physics was then called natural philosophy. But when in the course of time what we now call the "scientific method" became the norm, natural philosophy became science and took off on its own. Science and philosophy now became two different disciplines; the first one was enormously successful and no longer needed the second one. Science had now its own philosophy that really worked in practice while the academic philosophy lost contact with reality and became an armchair discipline, split in countless warring factions. Frustrated philosophers still may claim that they can tell us what the foundations of science should be, but they are just too late. The scientific method has been proved to be far more powerful, not only in creating practical results, but also in deepening the understanding of its own foundation. Scientists have now a much better understanding of things like causality, information, determinism, the universe and all that than the philosopher, who can't keep up with the new developments and can only mutter about the "philosophical corruption" of physics. Well, if that is corruption, we need more of it! On the other hand there are some philosophers who realize that they need science for developing their theories, like Dennett and the Churchlands, so maybe there is still some hope.