The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

I noticed that in a couple places Harriman uses the concept of the "arbitrary idea" in a Peikovian sense, i.e., an idea that an Objectivist is supposed to disagree with. I'm not sure what makes Newton's view of time and space being absolute "arbitrary" as opposed to wrong. Apparently Newton's view of time and space has something to do with his religious beliefs in Harriman's mind.

He doesn't like the big bang theory, apparently because it was proposed by a Catholic priest and it has theistic implications in the eyes of some.

In general I think the tone of the book is a little better than Peikoff's books but not as scholarly as the books of, say, Tara Smith.

-Neil Parille

[merjet]

I've only been able to skim the book. I thought Harriman's attack on Descartes was unfair. Whatever one thinks of Descartes I don't think his "feelings" were the center of his philosophy.

Is it fair to call Poincare' and Duhem the equivalent to members of the "Flat Earth Society"?

Care to elaborate? Did he say anything about Descartes' inventive work in analytic geometry? That would qualify as a "logical leap" in my view.

[Philip Coates]

> He doesn't like the big bang theory, apparently because it was proposed by a Catholic priest and it has theistic implications in the eyes of some. [Neil]

Or maybe he disagrees with it because he thinks the evidence for it is flawed. Why would you assume an insincere and irrational explanation for his view?

[i don't know if this is Harriman's view, but one very real question is -- just as with God as the irreducible beginning -- what caused the big bang and what came before? The way it's presented in some textbooks is just dumb.]

Edited July 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[bmacwilliam]

I have explained several times what Kant meant by the noumenal world. It is the world beyond the realm of "all possible experience." Kant didn't think we can reasonably talk about things that cannot possibly be experienced. But you do, apparently, so please tell us how such knowledge can be acquired. If you fail in your attempt, I will declare you a skeptic, denounce you as an enemy of reason, and place you on my short list of the most evil people in the history of western civilization.

"Kant didn't think we can reasonably talk about things that cannot possibly be experienced."

To me, this seems like a position that only one that has a fundamental lack of understanding of mathematics could hold. Something like Banach-Tarski (post Kant though) should tell us - I think - that we can indeed acquire knowledge that not only is outside of experience, but seemingly pretty much in total contradiction to it.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Further discussion doesn't seem interesting. I don't see the point of what you're saying or where you agree or disagree with me.

Bob,

As I suspected.

We definitely disagree on a very deep level. You are going to have to try if you want to see where. If not, OK...

Michael

You wrote:

"In other words, in my view, it is impossible to have a mind where "external, sensory experience" is not fundamental to its existence. There is no "in here" and "out there" on a metaphysical level. There is only "in here" and "out there" to the agent perceiving reality. Thus, the stuff that goes on "in here" cannot be divorced on an existential level from "out there" since it's all the same stuff."

The relevant point here is whether or not we can access knowledge that is outside of our sensory experience. If you contend that "thinking" about it qualifies as sensory experience then fine, but you just defined the problem away. It doesn't make much sense to tell me I have to "try" when you've done what you've done. If that's not what you meant then YOU have to "try" to explain yourself more clearly - OR - if that is indeed what you meant then you've ended the discussion.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The relevant point here is whether or not we can access knowledge that is outside of our sensory experience.

Bob,

I hope I don't regret this, but I will try.

I have no idea what you mean by "access knowledge." So if there is a "relevant point here" that you wish to explain to me about my views (which admittedly you do not understand), I'm all ears.

Do you mean that knowledge exists in some metaphysical form and all the mind does initially is "access" it?

If that is not your meaning, what is?

Michael

[merjet]

MSK, maybe this link will help.

Bob_Mac referred to the Banach-Tarski paradox. Paraphrasing part of the link, we cannot experience an infinitely divisible finite sphere.

[bmacwilliam]

The relevant point here is whether or not we can access knowledge that is outside of our sensory experience.

Bob,

I hope I don't regret this, but I will try.

I have no idea what you mean by "access knowledge." So if there is a "relevant point here" that you wish to explain to me about my views (which admittedly you do not understand), I'm all ears.

Do you mean that knowledge exists in some metaphysical form and all the mind does initially is "access" it?

If that is not your meaning, what is?

Michael

You're off the rails already.

I am not explaining, nor attempting to explain your views. This is a particularly annoying and quite unnecessary tactic you employ far too often.

I was simply exploring the knowledge that can be acquired via sensory experience that we are all very familiar with vs knowledge that can be acquired without external sensory input. I'm not even sure exactly where I stand on this for what it's worth, but I was concentrating on 2 main points.

1) Mathematics and the nature of Mathematical knowledge (which is often misunderstood I think). And that while sensory input is required to get our brains rolling, there's a world of knowledge that can be obtained without external connections.

and

2) That your definition/equivocation of external/internal precludes discussion.

YOU, not ME wrote:

", the stuff that goes on "in here" cannot be divorced on an existential level from "out there" since it's all the same "

And to answer the question:

"Do you mean that knowledge exists in some metaphysical form and all the mind does initially is "access" it?"

Well I'd say at least that Mathematical truth exists in some form whether we discover it or not.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

MSK, maybe this link will help.

Bob_Mac referred to the Banach-Tarski paradox. Paraphrasing part of the link, we cannot experience an infinitely divisible finite sphere.

The idea has stranger implications. To me is says we cannot conceptually grasp what "solid" or "non-empty" is. This theorem proves that you can cut up a single solid sphere and rearrange the pieces into two SOLID spheres IDENTICAL to the first - yes, doubling the volume.

also, from your link.

"It is interesting to note that one corollary of this paradox is that you can take a sphere, cut it into n pieces, remove some of the pieces, and reassemble the remaining pieces back into the original sphere without missing anything. "

????

It is not a trick. I think it illustrates that Math can lead us to strange but true places that have no connection to our experience and can even be contradictory to our intuitions formed from experience.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not explaining, nor attempting to explain your views. This is a particularly annoying and quite unnecessary tactic you employ far too often.

Bob,

See?

You're still trying to explain to me my views. I'm not using any kind of "tactic." I'm calling it as I see it. And, frankly, anyone who tries to explain to me what my views really mean--especially in the hamhanded style you prefer--is the annoying part for me. Quite annoying, in fact. I wish you would stop. It throws macho crap into an intellectual discussion.

Well I'd say at least that Mathematical truth exists in some form whether we discover it or not.

Your post really didn't answer my question. And this last statement made it worse. Are you really claiming that truth without the mind exists "in some form"?

I do not detect in your comments a distinction between metaphysical and epistemological. And that is the major objection I have to your views here.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I am not explaining, nor attempting to explain your views. This is a particularly annoying and quite unnecessary tactic you employ far too often.

Bob,

See?

You're still trying to explain to me my views. I'm not using any kind of "tactic." I'm calling it as I see it. And, frankly, anyone who tries to explain to me what my views really mean--especially in the hamhanded style you prefer--is the annoying part for me. Quite annoying, in fact. I wish you would stop. It throws macho crap into an intellectual discussion.

Well I'd say at least that Mathematical truth exists in some form whether we discover it or not.

Your post really didn't answer my question. And this last statement made it worse. Are you really claiming that truth without the mind exists "in some form"?

I do not detect in your comments a distinction between metaphysical and epistemological. And that is the major objection I have to your views here.

Michael

The last part I'll address first. Yes, I do in fact struggle with the metaphysical/epistemological nature of Math. I suspect that Math is fundamentally connected to reality in a very strong way and I don't have a well developed view on this. If the universe/reality exists independent of us then so does math. Math perhaps, could be all that exists - but again, I'm not really clear here...

For the first part - I'm simply telling you I find your accusation unfounded, annoying, and repetitive. You accuse me of "explaining to you what your views really mean" YET AGAIN. Sorry, that's just wrong.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

That thing reminded me of word games. I really liked this statement:

First and foremost, we're talking about a mathematical sphere, not a physical sphere...

Franky, I have no idea what this is. I know what a mathematical projection of a physical sphere is, but not what a mathematical sphere per se is. Especially as it is defined by the same person as "the set of points that lie within a 3-dimensional spherical area."

So what the hell is a "spherical area"?

Isn't that something that exists in space and time? It's kind of funny how this paradox just ignores space and time after that and plays numbers games--ones that would be impossible if real space and time were not ignored.

A tooth fairy is just as imaginary and she can make all kinds of "paradoxes" work.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Merlin,

That thing reminded me of word games. I really liked this statement:

First and foremost, we're talking about a mathematical sphere, not a physical sphere...

Franky, I have no idea what this is. I know what a mathematical projection of a physical sphere is, but not what a mathematical sphere per se is. Especially as it is defined by the same person as "the set of points that lie within a 3-dimensional spherical area."

So what the hell is a "spherical area"?

Isn't that something that exists in space and time? It's kind of funny how this paradox just ignores space and time after that and plays numbers games--ones that would be impossible if real space and time were not ignored.

A tooth fairy is just as imaginary and she can make all kinds of "paradoxes" work.

Michael

Don't dismiss set theory along with the tooth fairy. It's not number games. What it means is this...

1.) Infinities have whacky "off-world" implications as well as incredibly useful "real-world" ones - like Calculus.

2.) We do not understand the concept/implications of a "solid" object.

So what the hell is a "spherical area"?

A solid.

3.) We can indeed learn things that do not connect to experience. Or even reality?? (not sure about that)

Bob

Edited July 19, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Dragonfly]

Merlin,

That thing reminded me of word games. I really liked this statement:

First and foremost, we're talking about a mathematical sphere, not a physical sphere...

Franky, I have no idea what this is. I know what a mathematical projection of a physical sphere is, but not what a mathematical sphere per se is. Especially as it is defined by the same person as "the set of points that lie within a 3-dimensional spherical area."

So what the hell is a "spherical area"?

That is defined in the next line:

By mathematical sphere, I mean the set of points that lie within a 3-dimensional spherical area in ℜ3, where ℜ is the set of all real numbers. For simplicity, let's assume a radius of 1, so our sphere would be the set:

S = {(x,y,z) | x²+y²+z² <= 1 }

Isn't that something that exists in space and time? It's kind of funny how this paradox just ignores space and time after that and plays numbers games--ones that would be impossible if real space and time were not ignored.

No, it is a mathematical definition, as I've said so often, mathematics may be applied to physical problems, but in itself doesn't tell us anything about reality. The Banach-Tarski paradox is a good example of an exact mathematical result that has no counterpart in the physical world and also a good illustration of the essential difference between an analytical truth and a synthetic truth.

A tooth fairy is just as imaginary and she can make all kinds of "paradoxes" work.

Well, if you think that mathematics is equivalent with word games and tooth fairies... Anyway, the Banach-Tarski paradox is not a real paradox, it's only called a paradox while it is so counterintuitive, but it is in fact an exact result of a mathematical theory that uses the (so very intuitive) Axiom of Choice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I understand it, it works like this:

1. Here is something physical.
2. Here are some ironclad rules (I will call mathematics) I use to think about that physical thing.
3. When I throw away the physical thing and only keep my rules, I can get two physical things without violating those rules.
4. My rules are truth.

Somehow that doesn't grok with my way of thinking. Wouldn't it at least occur to people who hold this that maybe the rules need a little work?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

As I understand it, it works like this:

1. Here is something physical.
2. Here are some ironclad rules (I will call mathematics) I use to think about that physical thing.
3. When I throw away the physical thing and only keep my rules, I can get two physical things without violating those rules.
4. My rules are truth.

Somehow that doesn't grok with my way of thinking. Wouldn't it at least occur to people who hold this that maybe the rules need a little work?

Michael

Actually, that's not a bad way of looking at it though I'm not sure about (3). There are no physical claims.

The problem is though if you can't find a problem with #2/#4, it's our thinking that we should reevaluate. Our thinking needs work.

In fact, there's a relatively simple way of explaining this as the article outlined.

( A ) Consider the set of all positive integers {1,2,3,4......}

( B ) Consider the set of all EVEN positive integers {2,4,6,8......}

Which is larger? The answer is they are the same size. Really???? How is that??

You would agree that if you perform a simple little calculation on each element of B, the actual number of ELEMENTS is still the same right? Well, just divide B by 2 and you have A. Therefore the sets are the same size.

Conclusion: Infinity is just a little whacky...

That's not a word game...

Bob

Edited July 19, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, that's not a bad way of looking at it though I'm not sure about (3). There are no physical claims.

Bob,

I'll restate it like this.

3. When I throw away the physical thing and only keep my rules, I can get two rule-based equivalents of the physical thing without violating those rules.

Does that work for you?

Anyway, if infinity according to the rules (an epistemological concept) is wacky, doesn't that say more about the rules than about the notion of infinity as a metaphysical concept?

Michael

[merjet]

Actually, that's not a bad way of looking at it though I'm not sure about (3). There are no physical claims.

Fortunately, hard scientists and engineers stand on firmer ground instead of clouds.

[bmacwilliam]

Actually, that's not a bad way of looking at it though I'm not sure about (3). There are no physical claims.

Bob,

I'll restate it like this.

3. When I throw away the physical thing and only keep my rules, I can get two rule-based equivalents of the physical thing without violating those rules.

Does that work for you?

Anyway, if infinity according to the rules (an epistemological concept) is wacky, doesn't that say more about the rules than about the notion of infinity as a metaphysical concept?

Michael

Not sure, here's how I would describe/restate using a similar approach:

1 - Here is a mathematical representation of truly SOLID object

2 - This representation contains concepts that (as far as anyone knows) are ironclad

3 - Really strange things are true that don't fit with "the physical" at all

4 - The rules/logic are correct

I think what it says is that either reality and this description are not connected, or at the very least, we actually do not "intuitively" understand what SOLID means at all. But this is not meant to understand or describe reality as much as it's just a mathematical implication of what we think "solid" means.

Bob

[Neil Parille]

Merlin:

Harriman implies that Descartes' commitment to geometry got the best of him when it came to more empirical sciences (although everything is empirical to Harriman, except when it is an axiom that we have to assume to be true). I don't recall him acknowledging that Descartes made contributions to science, even math.

Phil:

The first thing Harriman mentions when it comes to the big bang is that a Catholic priest developed it and that it has theistic implications. This is what Peikoff says in the DIM lectures.

I am enjoying reading the book, but it is typical Ortho'ism: the good guys with good ideas and the bad guys with bad ideas (because they are bad people).

-Neil Parille

Edited July 19, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Dragonfly]

The first thing Harriman mentions when it comes to the big bang is that a Catholic priest developed it and that it has theistic implications. This is what Peikoff says in the DIM lectures.

Typically a stupid Harriman argument. Newton was a theologian, so his physical theories must be wrong too? And Mendel was also a priest - does that invalidate his discoveries?

[Philip Coates]

> The first thing Harriman mentions when it comes to the big bang is that a Catholic priest developed it and that it has theistic implications. This is what Peikoff says in the DIM lectures.

But is that the only thing mentioned about it by either man?

An ad hominem but no actual criticism?

[Dragonfly]

> The first thing Harriman mentions when it comes to the big bang is that a Catholic priest developed it and that it has theistic implications. This is what Peikoff says in the DIM lectures.

But is that the only thing mentioned about it by either man?

An ad hominem but no actual criticism?

From my earlier post about Peikoff's DIM-nonsense:

Big Bang: a total floating theory, and as Dave pointed out: not a single correct quantitative prediction has been made from the theory nor of course has there been any validation, inductive or otherwise of the Big Bang. It is an issue of faith in the religious sense.

The Big Bang is now treated as a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory. Cosmologists play the role of theologians, protecting the faith.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Big Bang was originally proposed by a physicist who was also a priest.

Peikoff and Harriman: a folie à deux. Why should we take the nonsense of these two fools seriously? They've really no idea what they're talking about.

[Xray]

Are you trying to wriggle out, MJ? From discussing with you, I know you that you do have interest in epistemology and that you do like to explain, elaborate and point out your discussion opponent's errors. I appreciate this aproach, and am convinced that if you could have answered the question, you would have.

Many times I have asked you questions you didn't answer. Why did you evade them? Thanks, but you're wrong, despite your conviction. May I conclude that when you didn't answer my questions you were incapable of doing so?

If you would please provide links to questions you claim to have asked me "many times" and which I didn't answer.

I'll ask you again: Do you agree with Rand's claim "that a concept has to involve two or more similar concretes"?

If yes, what are the two or more concretes of e. g. the concept "pride" (the Objectivist virtue)?

Edited July 20, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

equations may or may not be relevant. In any case, I find it curious that people are so eager to dismiss a book that they haven't even looked at, much less read.

That is probably because they're already acquainted with Harriman's idiotic ideas, some of which I've mentioned on this forum before, for example that Einstein's general theory of relativity is an "unphysical rationalistic floating abstraction" or that quantum mechanics "is not a physical theory" or that physicists with chaos theory "have given up causality" or speaking about the big bang: "I believe that theory came more from the metaphysics of Augustine than that it did from observational evidence". Well, we don't have to take such a fool seriously, do we? So even if I've not read his new book, I'm sure that it is not much better than what he's uttered before. I'd like to dissect the book if anyone sends me a free copy, but I'm certainly not going to waste my money on it.

From my earlier post about Peikoff's DIM-nonsense:

Big Bang: a total floating theory, and as Dave pointed out: not a single correct quantitative prediction has been made from the theory nor of course has there been any validation, inductive or otherwise of the Big Bang. It is an issue of faith in the religious sense.

The Big Bang is now treated as a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory. Cosmologists play the role of theologians, protecting the faith.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Big Bang was originally proposed by a physicist who was also a priest.

Peikoff and Harriman: a folie à deux. Why should we take the nonsense of these two fools seriously? They've really no idea what they're talking about.

If Peikoff and Harriman reject the Big Bang as a scientific theory, what is their theory then? Do they still believe in a 'steady state' universe?

Edited July 20, 2010 by Xray