David Harriman's Book

[Ellen Stuttle]

My only major objection is to the assertion that the problem of induction has not hitherto been solved. In terms of fundamentals, it has been solved -- many times. [....]

Please state what you think "the problem of induction" is which you think "has been solved -- many times."

I've covered this several times on other threads -- most recently on the "dirt" thread. I don't want to go through it again.

Ghs

I haven't yet read the "dirt" thread. You can't state it in a phrase -- like "how to guarantee the truth of a universal derived from experience" -- or your alternate notion? Or link to a post where you stated it?

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Later edit:

Ellen, I forgot that your eyesight might make it difficult to scan a thread, so I provided a sample passage in another post below.

My only major objection is to the assertion that the problem of induction has not hitherto been solved. In terms of fundamentals, it has been solved -- many times. [....]

Please state what you think "the problem of induction" is which you think "has been solved -- many times."

I've covered this several times on other threads -- most recently on the "dirt" thread. I don't want to go through it again.

Ghs

I haven't yet read the "dirt" thread. You can't state it in a phrase -- like "how to guarantee the truth of a universal derived from experience" -- or your alternate notion? Or link to a post where you stated it?

Ellen

You can go through that thread as easily as I can. It's not all that long.

I know you read at least one of my explanations earlier, because you responded to my remark "Permit me to interject some common sense here" -- and that's where I gave a brief answer to your question. (One among several.) This post was later transferred to the "dirt" thread.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

I concur with George's statements so far. The book makes some overblown claims, and Harriman's objections to modern physics are enough to discredit him personally with serious and philosophically sophisticated scientists, but the book is well worth reading as food for thought.

What objections to modern physics are you thinking of?

Harriman (p. 248) sings the praises of quantum theory as "a mathematical formalism," calling it "enormously successful." What he calls into question are some of the kooky metaphysical interpretations of it, such as Bohr's claim that "elementary particles have no identity." Harriman (p. 250) also criticizes the "failure to properly integrate the wave and particle models."

I see nothing in these and other critical comments (e.g., about Big Bang theory) that renders Harriman philosophically unsophisticated. In fact, he is far more philosophically sophisticated than your run-of-the-mill physicist. This doesn't mean he is right, of course, but at least he understands the need for coherent explanations of the findings of physics.

I have been known to insist on this point myself.

Ghs

I don't have the book in front of me. I don't remember exactly what he criticizes where. He does complain that relativity is absurd, because space is a relation, not an entity, and that space cannot be bent. This is a perverse refusal to understand the metaphorical language being used. It is simpler to say that the gravity of masses bends space than it is to say that the path of light and bodies passing through a space is modified by the gravitic fields of the masses in it. His criticism of the big bang as a doctrine professing the creation of the universe out of nothing is either a willful distortion or a negligent ignorance of the fact that the big bang model posits neither a time nor a space during which there was a nothing for the universe to pop out of.

[George H. Smith]

Ellen,

This is one of several explanations I gave. Some of the earlier ones were more elaborate, but I think they appeared in that interminable "Logical Leap" thread, and I'm not about to wade through that.

Ghs

Why do we generalize that dirt is bad to eat on the basis of a few samples? Upon eating dirt as children, did we merely think, in effect: This dirt is bad; that dirt is bad; therefore all dirt is bad? No, we did not merely enumerate instances. Rather, after a few samples, we thought, "This stuff is dirt, and it is not good to eat. So when I encounter other samples of the same kind , I will know that it is also dirt and not fit to eat." In other words, we made a conceptual identification of the substance we call "dirt" and rationally concluded that other substances with the same nature will have the same negative effects.

In sum: We reasoned from particular instances to a generalization about the nature of dirt, and we then applied this generalization to instances as yet untried. This is pretty much what J.S. Mill had in mind when he said that induction consists of reasoning from particulars to particulars by means of an intervening generalization. (I discussed the problem of exceptions in my last post.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I don't have [Harriman's] book in front of me. I don't remember exactly what he criticizes where. He does complain that relativity is absurd, because space is a relation, not an entity, and that space cannot be bent. This is a perverse refusal to understand the metaphorical language being used.

I haven't read that part yet.

About calling space "bent": On another thread a while back, I made a point similar to yours, raising the question of whether this language should be taken literally. Some of our resident "experts" in physics jumped all over me, insisting that space is literally bent.

Judging from those replies, Harriman didn't misunderstand this particular point.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't have [Harriman's] book in front of me. I don't remember exactly what he criticizes where. He does complain that relativity is absurd, because space is a relation, not an entity, and that space cannot be bent. This is a perverse refusal to understand the metaphorical language being used.

I haven't read that part yet.

About calling space "bent": On another thread a while back, I made a point similar to yours, raising the question of whether this language should be taken literally. Some of our resident "experts" in physics jumped all over me, insisting that space is literally bent.

Judging from those replies, Harriman didn't misunderstand this particular point.

Ghs

The Ricci tensor in the neighborhood of a massive body is not zero. Which why light bends around the Sun and there is gravitational lensing. Light follows the shortest path possible in space-time. The curvature tensor says what the shortest path is.

Do the math. That is what Einstein did which is why his prediction came out right.

When in doubt follow the result of the experiments, especially when they come out the same way time after time after time. Facts Rule.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I don't have [Harriman's] book in front of me. I don't remember exactly what he criticizes where. He does complain that relativity is absurd, because space is a relation, not an entity, and that space cannot be bent. This is a perverse refusal to understand the metaphorical language being used.

I haven't read that part yet.

About calling space "bent": On another thread a while back, I made a point similar to yours, raising the question of whether this language should be taken literally. Some of our resident "experts" in physics jumped all over me, insisting that space is literally bent.

Judging from those replies, Harriman didn't misunderstand this particular point.

Ghs

The Ricci tensor in the neighborhood of a massive body is not zero. Which why light bends around the Sun and there is gravitational lensing. Light follows the shortest path possible in space-time. The curvature tensor says what the shortest path is.

Do the math. That is what Einstein did which is why his prediction came out right.

When in doubt follow the result of the experiments, especially when they come out the same way time after time after time. Facts Rule.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How do you know that light always follows the shortest path possible in space-time?

I am not challenging this claim. I'm just curious how you know it.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

How do you know that light always follows the shortest path possible in space-time?

I am not challenging this claim. I'm just curious how you know it.

Ghs

The underlying assumption is that light follows the shortest path in a vacuum (an application of the least action principle). That is a hypothesis which has been tested and has not been falsified yet. Is there a guarantee that some odd condition won't exist in which light does not follow the shortest path? No there isn't. All science is based on hypothesis and evidence, not apodictic certain statements. Science is empirical at the basement level, not a priori.

So far The General Theory of Relativity has held up, but in an extremely twisted gravitational field such as the inside of a Black Hole, who knows? We have no way of finding out. At this juncture General Relativity has been tested on moderate gravitational fields such as exist in our solar system. We may yet find a situation where it does not hold. That is why the theory continues to be tested in situations that have not been met before. Then we will have to cook up a better theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

How do you know that light always follows the shortest path possible in space-time?

I am not challenging this claim. I'm just curious how you know it.

Ghs

The underlying assumption is that light follows the shortest path in a vacuum (an application of the least action principle). That is a hypothesis which has been tested and has not been falsified yet. Is there a guarantee that some odd condition won't exist in which light does not follow the shortest path? No there isn't. All science is based on hypothesis and evidence, not apodictic certain statements. Science is empirical at the basement level, not a priori.

So far The General Theory of Relativity has held up, but in an extremely twisted gravitational field such as the inside of a Black Hole, who knows? We have no way of finding out. At this juncture General Relativity has been tested on moderate gravitational fields such as exist in our solar system. We may yet find a situation where it does not hold. That is why the theory continues to be tested in situations that have not been met before. Then we will have to cook up a better theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay, fair enough. But I assume you can define "shortest path possible" independently of the path that light follows in space-time. If not, then to say that "light follows the shortest path possible in space-time' would be a tautology. This underlying assumption would be true by definition and incapable of falsification.

So how do you define "shortest path possible" without reference to the path of light?

Ghs

[Xray]

You have not questioned or even identified any belief of mine. You cannot refute an idea you do not understand.

There's plenty to identify in terms of your belief, given the fact that there exist posts by you where give the clear message that you firmly believe in Rand's theory of concepts and also agree with most (if no all) of what she says in ITOE.

You do not rise to the level of a critic.

It is only natural that you would react like that. Who knows, if I myself were that convinced of a philosophy, I probably would not welcome its critics with open arms either.

If you have studied ITOE - have you discovered the 'angel fallacy'? For if you apply Rand's own premises, you get the baffling result that angels exist. Let me know if you are interested and I'll dig up the post for you where I demonstrated it.

This is just one example of the many inconsistencies in ITOE.

A lot s revealed about a philosophy from the way its founders and advocates deal with its critics. We know that Rand was harshly critical of skeptics.

When reading what George H. Smith quoted in The Case Against God p. 140, I get the impression that he was much influenced by Rand's attitude toward the "skeptics".

Ghs quotes from Conman/Lerner, Philosophical Problems and Arguments, (p. 111):

Conman/Lerner: ... a fundamtenally important goal of language is to make sense of things. What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards, and those standards reflect our conception of reality.

Can you imagine what the world would look like if skeptics had never questioned any "epistemic standards" and "conceptions of reality"? We would probably still believe that the earth is flat.

Conman/Lerner: The skeptic is implicitly and clandestinely rejecting those very standards and conceptions.

My deepest thanks to all skeptics who have been able (not only clandestinely but also openly) to unmask questionable "standards" and expose false conceptions of reality. Quite a few of them had to pay with their lives for showing such courage and still have today.

Conman/Lerner: By so doing he is also rejecting the very language he speaks.

Won't fly. The skeptic is not rejecting the very language he speaks, but the ideas represented by the audiovisual symbols.

Conman/Lerner: But now the epistemic treachery is exposed

A skeptic rejecting epistemic standards is a traitor, yeah right. One would think that 1968 text was written in the dark ages of the Inquisition.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

I concur with George's statements so far. The book makes some overblown claims, and Harriman's objections to modern physics are enough to discredit him personally with serious and philosophically sophisticated scientists, but the book is well worth reading as food for thought.

What objections to modern physics are you thinking of?

Harriman (p. 248) sings the praises of quantum theory as "a mathematical formalism," calling it "enormously successful." What he calls into question are some of the kooky metaphysical interpretations of it, such as Bohr's claim that "elementary particles have no identity." Harriman (p. 250) also criticizes the "failure to properly integrate the wave and particle models."

Does Harriman offer an idea how to properly integrate it?

What is his interpretation of what Einstein called "spooky action at distance": the entanglement of quantum particles over a distance where superluminal speed would be neded to transfer info from one particle to the other?

What does Harriman make of the fact that the theory of local hidden variables has been refuted?

Bohr's interpretation was that the entangled particles are not really separated - a fascinating thought. When you think of how it all began with "everything" being concentrated in one point prior the big bang, the big expansion - is the thought of many connections still existing that absurd? Not at all imo.

It is true that the human brain can't grasp many things because it is hardwired to function in a macroscopic sphere, but imo to reject interpretations as kooky because they don't fit our idea of reality would disregard how cerebrally limitated we humans are to make such judgments.

I see nothing in these and other critical comments (e.g., about Big Bang theory) that renders Harriman philosophically unsophisticated. In fact, he is far more philosophically sophisticated than your run-of-the-mill physicist. This doesn't mean he is right, of course, but at least he understands the need for coherent explanations of the findings of physics.

"Coherent" is an apt word in that context. But the coherence may not be what we expect to find on the basis of our "cause end effect" thinking in the macroscopic world where the laws of classical physics apply.

So the "coherences" may be found at a much deeper level ...

Edited September 12, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

"Coherent" is an apt word in that context. But the coherence may not be what we expect to find on the basis of our "cause end effect" thinking in the macroscopic world where the laws of classical physics apply.

So the "coherences" may be found at a much deeper level ...

Not only deeper as in smaller scale but deeper as in a more abstract comprehension of the physical nature of the world and its laws. The underlying symmetry of physical laws is one of the more deep "coherences" found in physics. It is the symmetries that account for most of the conservation laws. Momentum, angular momentum are conserved not just because of happenstance, but because there exists an underlying symmetry in the operation of world. Why does the symmetry exist? No one really knows at this time. But the happenstance, the just so part has been pushed down to a lower level.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I concur with George's statements so far. The book makes some overblown claims, and Harriman's objections to modern physics are enough to discredit him personally with serious and philosophically sophisticated scientists, but the book is well worth reading as food for thought.

What objections to modern physics are you thinking of?

Harriman (p. 248) sings the praises of quantum theory as "a mathematical formalism," calling it "enormously successful." What he calls into question are some of the kooky metaphysical interpretations of it, such as Bohr's claim that "elementary particles have no identity." Harriman (p. 250) also criticizes the "failure to properly integrate the wave and particle models."

Does Harriman offer an idea how to properly integrate it?

What is his interpretation of what Einstein called "spooky action at distance": the entanglement of quantum particles over a distance where superluminal speed would be neded to transfer info from one particle to the other?

What does Harriman make of the fact that the theory of local hidden variables has been refuted?

Do you seriously expect me to act as your private book reporter? Read the book yourself.

Bohr's interpretation was that the entangled particles are not really separated - a fascinating thought. When you think of how it all began with "everything" being concentrated in one point prior the big bang, the big expansion - is the thought of many connections still existing that absurd? Not at all imo.

It is true that the human brain can't grasp many things because it is hardwired to function in a macroscopic sphere, but imo to reject interpretations as kooky because they don't fit our idea of reality would disregard how cerebrally limitated we humans are to make such judgments.

Are the brains of physicists similarly hardwired such that they cannot grasp many things about the subatomic world? If so, why do you listen to anything they say?

I see nothing in these and other critical comments (e.g., about Big Bang theory) that renders Harriman philosophically unsophisticated. In fact, he is far more philosophically sophisticated than your run-of-the-mill physicist. This doesn't mean he is right, of course, but at least he understands the need for coherent explanations of the findings of physics.

"Coherent" is an apt word in that context. But the coherence may not be what we expect to find on the basis of our "cause end effect" thinking in the macroscopic world where the laws of classical physics apply.

So the "coherences" may be found at a much deeper level ...

If a physicist told you, "All mimsy were the borogoves," you would no doubt swoon at the deep coherence of his statement.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

When reading what George H. Smith quoted in The Case Against God p. 140, I get the impression that he was much influenced by Rand's attitude toward the "skeptics".

Ghs quotes from Conman/Lerner, Philosophical Problems and Arguments, (p. 111):

Conman/Lerner: ... a fundamtenally important goal of language is to make sense of things. What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards, and those standards reflect our conception of reality.

Can you imagine what the world would look like if skeptics had never questioned any "epistemic standards" and "conceptions of reality"? We would probably still believe that the earth is flat.

Conman/Lerner: The skeptic is implicitly and clandestinely rejecting those very standards and conceptions.

My deepest thanks to all skeptics who have been able (not only clandestinely but also openly) to unmask questionable "standards" and expose false conceptions of reality. Quite a few of them had to pay with their lives for showing such courage and still have today.

Conman/Lerner: By so doing he is also rejecting the very language he speaks.

Won't fly. The skeptic is not rejecting the very language he speaks, but the ideas represented by the audiovisual symbols.

Conman/Lerner: But now the epistemic treachery is exposed

A skeptic rejecting epistemic standards is a traitor, yeah right. One would think that 1968 text was written in the dark ages of the Inquisition.

Are you aware that the kind of skepticiam being criticized here involves the denial of all knowledge?

You're a loon. You will probably be unable to appreciate the deep coherence of my assertion.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I concur with George's statements so far. The book makes some overblown claims, and Harriman's objections to modern physics are enough to discredit him personally with serious and philosophically sophisticated scientists, but the book is well worth reading as food for thought.

What objections to modern physics are you thinking of?

Harriman (p. 248) sings the praises of quantum theory as "a mathematical formalism," calling it "enormously successful." What he calls into question are some of the kooky metaphysical interpretations of it, such as Bohr's claim that "elementary particles have no identity."

For those who, like Xray, don't understand how ludicrous Bohr's claim is, allow me to illustrate.

I go to the office of a private detective and tell him that I want him to locate a Blictri.

"Okay." he replies, "What is a Blictri?"

"A Blictri has no identity, no determinate characteristics. It is nothing in particular."

He asks, "So how will I know a Blictri if I find one?"

"You won't. Have you been listening to me? It has no identity.

"So are there any signs, tracks, or whatever that I can look for?"

"Nope. I don't know what a Blictri is -- no one does; there is no way to identify one -- so I cannot tell you what to look for."

The private detective, failing to appreciate my profound understanding of Blictris, throws me out of his office and tells me never to come back.

Ghs

[Xray]

Are you aware that the kind of skepticiam [sic] being criticized here involves the denial of all knowledge?

You're a loon. You will probably be unable to appreciate the deep coherence of my assertion.

You fly off the handle very fast, don't you. But your tantrums don't impress me.

For some reason the kind of skepticism "denying all knowledge" seems to rock your boat. Why? The skeptics belonging to that group may simply be very aware of the limitations our senses impose on us, and therefore reject the idea of any 'absolute truth'.

Skepticism has many variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Harriman (p. 248) sings the praises of quantum theory as "a mathematical formalism," calling it "enormously successful." What he calls into question are some of the kooky metaphysical interpretations of it, such as Bohr's claim that "elementary particles have no identity." Harriman (p. 250) also criticizes the "failure to properly integrate the wave and particle models."

[Xray]: Does Harriman offer an idea how to properly integrate it?

What is his interpretation of what Einstein called "spooky action at distance": the entanglement of quantum particles over a distance where superluminal speed would be neded to transfer info from one particle to the other?

What does Harriman make of the fact that the theory of local hidden variables has been refuted? [end quote Xray]

Ghs: Do you seriously expect me to act as your private book reporter? Read the book yourself.

Have you forgotten that you yourself said you were going to answer questions on the book?

I will post a brief comment afterwards so you will all know what to think of the book. This will settle this matter once and for all, and no more discussion will be necessary -- unless you wish to ask me questions.

Ghs

Edited September 12, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

All this context-dropping gainsaying and equivocation makes me suspect, George, that we are dealing with an artifical language program. We say "x" and she says "how do you know x?" And "that just what I would expect to hear from someone who believes x." I could write a program that does that in a few minutes. No where do we have any proof this entity can explain anything in her own words or learn anything new.

I don't know about you, George, but until Xray explains to us in her own words just what a stolen concept is, why it is invalid, and provides a few examples, I am going to act on the assumption that its possible she doesn't even exist. She will no doubt admire my skepticism.

[George H. Smith]

Are you aware that the kind of skepticism [sic] being criticized here involves the denial of all knowledge?

You're a loon. You will probably be unable to appreciate the deep coherence of my assertion.

You fly off the handle very fast, don't you. But your tantrums don't impress me.

For some reason the kind of skepticism "denying all knowledge" seems to rock your boat. Why? The skeptics belonging to that group may simply be very aware of the limitations our senses impose on us, and therefore reject the idea of any 'absolute truth'.

The passage you quoted addresses universal skepticism -- the denial of all knowledge, not just the denial of "absolute truth." That entire section of my book deals with universal skepticism. But did that stop you? No, course not. You bounced on the scene with no understanding of what that discussion was about. This is very insulting, not to mention a waste of my time, so don't bellyache to me about my "tantrums."

Skepiticsm has many variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Do you think I don't know this? That's why I wrote in ATCAG:

We shall begin our examination of skepticism with a doctrine known as universal skepticism. While few philosophers or theologians explicitly adhere to this position, its basic theme often arises in less sweeping varieties of skepticism. By noting the flaws of universal skepticism, we are able to arrive at the general principles with which to answer other skeptical objections to knowledge. (New italics.)

When and if you start showing some intellectual integrity in your posts, then I will treat you seriously. Until then I am going to revert to my previous policy of ignoring your posts.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> How do you know that light always follows the shortest path possible in space-time? [GHS]

> The underlying assumption is that light follows the shortest path in a vacuum...That..has been tested and has not been falsified yet. Is there a guarantee that some odd condition won't exist in which light does not follow the shortest path? No there isn't. [baal]

A simple example in everyday life here on earth of light not always following the shortest path is light refraction: The "bent stick" experiment as light changes direction moving between air and water.

Draw a triangle. The first leg is the path of the light ray in air, the second leg the path of light in water. And the third leg is the straight line between the ends of the two rays. Third leg is shortest, it's the direct straight line. But it's not the path light actually travels and it doesn't require any gravitational 'bending' (or curvature of space metaphor) to make it not follow the shortest path.

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWsJcg-g1pg

[Philip Coates]

I'm trying to paste in a refraction diagram, showing the angle of incidence and angle of refraction -->

Edited September 12, 2010 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

I'm trying to paste in a refraction diagram, showing the angle of incidence and angle of refraction -->

Don't try. Do.

[anonrobt]

I'm trying to paste in a refraction diagram, showing the angle of incidence and angle of refraction -->

Don't try. Do.

yes - do or not do; there is no try...

[Philip Coates]

Thanks for the work ethic advice, guys. What about my point about how light travels in post #169?

[Xray]

Skepicism has many variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Do you think I don't know this?

I posted that link for others on this public board who it might interest.

I don't know about you, George, but until Xray explains to us in her own words just what a stolen concept is, why it is invalid, and provides a few examples, I am going to act on the assumption that its possible she doesn't even exist. She will no doubt admire my skepticism.

As a skeptic, allow me to be skeptical about you being serious here.

As for the "stolen concept" issue, I of course plead not guilty of ever having pinched any concept to which I had no "epistemological right". (Ghs)

The passage you quoted addresses universal skepticism -- the denial of all knowledge, not just the denial of "absolute truth." That entire section of my book deals with universal skepticism.

Here's one for you to chew on, George:

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." (Niels Bohr)

Here's another one:

"No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical." (Niels Bohr). That one would have made Rand hit the roof I suppose. ;)

Bohr also had a remarkable sense of humor: "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." (Niels Bohr). Good one!

Regarding the section in your book (TCAG, p. 148) with the dialogue between the "Antiskeptic" and the "Skeptic" about the senses: you made it vey easy for the Antiskeptic to push the Skeptic into a corner because the Skeptic did not question the premise of an objective reality existing 'out there'. He only claimed that our senses are deceptive. So it was child's play for the Antiskeptic to get the Skeptic into a corner because the Skeptic accepted the premise 'objective' reality as such. In short, the Skeptic was no radical skeptic at all, but got stuck halfway, and that's where the Antiskeptic got him.

Remember the exchange about 'objective reality' on the logical leap thread? (# 1355, # 1361))

Xray: "I call this the "fish fallacy": Imagine a fish in the ocean could reflect on existence and rejected the idea of life outside water being possible on the grounds that it does not match a fish's idea of "objective reality"."

Ghs: "Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."

Xray: "Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one?"

Ghs: "Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental."

The phrase "from its own perspective" you used acknowledges relativity.

The philosophical question arising from that is: Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

What are your thoughts on that?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Xray