David Harriman's Book

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suppose Peikoff or Harriman could say that "Newton's" context is, roughly, whatever well-educated physicists were in a position to know between 1665 and 1895.

Even if they used that way of defining "Newton's" context, no physicist then or since was in a position to know what Newton hypothesized -- that gravity is a force of attraction acting instantaneously at a distance.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

The limiting case is the speed of light. If light traveled at infinite speed (it doesn't) then the world would be Newtonian.

Then I object to your calling the theories "inconsistent." They are perfectly consistent.

Shayne

The two theories (even though some of the predictions they made were similar) were structured differently, and had different notions of time and space. The theories were mathematically dissimilar. They also made quite different predictions in some cases, for example, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. For planets far from the sun they make similar predictions of motion. In Einstein's theory, gravitation is not a force. It is a curvature in a manifold.

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Newton's laws were justified within the context of knowledge available at the time; they were therefore true. Relativity theory is similarly justified, so it is true as well.

Here's a different problem with the Peikovian formulation.

How do you define the relevant context?

If "Newton's context" is taken mean the knowledge actually available to Issac Newton, prior to his death in 1727, why would you even be inclined to expect that Newton's laws would apply in circumstances about which Newton possessed no data but later physicists did?

If "Newton's context" means something broader than the knowledge actually available to Newton, where does it leave off and a different context of knowledge begin?

I suppose Peikoff or Harriman could say that "Newton's" context is, roughly, whatever well-educated physicists were in a position to know between 1665 and 1895.

But how could they make this particular demarcation, except in hindsight?

Robert Campbell

Your points are well taken.

Coherence theory is pretty much something you need to run with all the way or not at all. For example, according to the doctrine of "degrees of truth," even true propositions are partly false. The reasoning behind this statement would take a while to explain, but it is something that even Brand Blanshard defended.

Peikoff has turned coherence theory inside out, so to speak. Instead of claiming that our limited contexts of knowledge render all our judgments partly false, he maintains that we can claim contextual certainty for such judgments. This is problematic, however, for the reason you mentioned, namely, the problem of determining what constitutes an adequate context.

I am not saying that this problem is insurmountable. At this stage I'm just enjoying the speculative back-and-forth. My best guess is that Peikoff adopted only those aspects of coherence theory that he thought would support Rand's contextualism. But some of those aspects turned out to be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

Ghs

[sjw]

By"inconsistent" I mean "inconsistent." The theoretical frameworks from which the predictions are made aren't consistent with each other, as Ba'al has explained.

No, by "inconsistent", you mean "different."

Here's another example. People holding the theory that the motion of heavenly bodies was circular could manage to mathematically describe the observed orbits of the planets by adding epicycle upon epicycle, but the theory isn't consistent with the Newtonian (or the Einsteinian) theory explaining planetary orbits.

That is a wholly different distinction than the relevant one between Newton and relativity. I understand that you do not grasp it, it's the crux of the issue. As wrong as Harriman is (and he's wrong), he's more right than you are.

As I said in my Amazon review, Harriman plays into your hands with his description of the pendulum experiments of Galileo. Really he doesn't understand this issue any better than you do, he merely accidentally seems to support the right side. It's totally inadvertent on his part that he does, it's like Peikoff's "A is A" in the sand/parrot example.

Shayne

[sjw]

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why don't you come up with some other alternative for why I disagree than that I'm unfamiliar with the theories? Your lack of imagination is really disappointing, it's almost as if you actually want anyone who disagrees with you to be a stupid fool.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Robert,

Here is another passage by Brand Blanshard in The Nature of Thought (chapter titled "Coherence and Degrees of Truth," p. 309). Although I don't wish to suggest that Peikoff would put the matter the same way, there are some interesting similarities.

Blanshard is discussing the case of a "school-boy who begins with the reading of school history books and ends as a historian. As a boy he makes the judgement, 'Napoleon lost at Waterloo.'" Blanshard then poses the question of whether the meaning of this statement is the same for the boy as it will be when he grows up and becomes a historian. Blanshard says No, and here is part of his reasoning.

As the boy's historical grasp advances, he may repeat verbally many times his judgment about Napoleon, but it may be that at no two repetitions of it is he asserting precisely the same thing. His accumulating knowledge penetrates his earlier conceptions through and through. He cannot think of Napoleon in the old way, now that he has explored the Napoleonic character; Waterloo has become a complicated set of military evolutions....The earlier thought has been not so much annihilated or directly contradicted as dissolved in a new medium. From all this it is clear that meaning, in the sense of what we mean to affirm when a certain form of words is used, is undergoing incessant and insensible change....The school-boy's advancing thought, so far as it is an advance in knowledge, implies also an advance in truth, and it is incredible that the first of these should admit degrees and the others not.

Ghs

[merjet]

There is another inroad to coherence via Ayn Rand. She championed integration. Integration achieves coherence.

The New Intellectuals will be those who will take the initiative and the responsibility: they will check their own philosophical premises, identify their convictions, integrate their ideas into coherence and consistency, then offer to the country a view of existence to which the wise and honest can repair. (For the New Intellectual, 51)

Edit: When I first posted this, I did not see that George Smith used integration and coherence together here. However, it was about Peikoff, not Rand.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why don't you come up with some other alternative for why I disagree than that I'm unfamiliar with the theories? Your lack of imagination is really disappointing, it's almost as if you actually want anyone who disagrees with you to be a stupid fool.

Shayne

You asked why and how Newton's and Einstein's theory differ and I gave some answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why don't you come up with some other alternative for why I disagree than that I'm unfamiliar with the theories? Your lack of imagination is really disappointing, it's almost as if you actually want anyone who disagrees with you to be a stupid fool.

Shayne

You asked why and how Newton's and Einstein's theory differ and I gave some answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know how they differ. The question was about how they are inconsistent. But for you and Ellen, there is no distinction: to differ is to be inconsistent. For me that is not the case. They can differ in the respects you stated and still be consistent.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why don't you come up with some other alternative for why I disagree than that I'm unfamiliar with the theories? Your lack of imagination is really disappointing, it's almost as if you actually want anyone who disagrees with you to be a stupid fool.

Shayne

You asked why and how Newton's and Einstein's theory differ and I gave some answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know how they differ. The question was about how they are inconsistent. But for you and Ellen, there is no distinction: to differ is to be inconsistent. For me that is not the case. They can differ in the respects you stated and still be consistent.

Shayne

If you know how they differ then the question is answered. One theory (Newton's) assumes Euclidean Geometry. The other (Einstein's) assumes non-Euclidean geometry. Right there is a contrary distinction. Both theories cannot be right or although both might be wrong.

Spacetime cannot be both globally flat and locally curved at the same time.

Newton's theory sees gravitation as a force operating in a flat three space. Einstein's theory sees gravitation as curvature in the spacetime manifold.

Why are you having trouble grasping this?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Why are you having trouble grasping this?

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is you who cannot grasp how I both assent to the differences without assenting to there being a contradiction.

And I quite realize that there are contradictory elements in each theory (such as Newton's idea of absolute space), but I do not swallow each theory whole; it is not necessary to accept each and every detail of a given theory to accept that it is essentially correct.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

It is you who cannot grasp how I both assent to the differences without assenting to there being a contradiction.

And I quite realize that there are contradictory elements in each theory (such as Newton's idea of absolute space), but I do not swallow each theory whole; it is not necessary to accept each and every detail of a given theory to accept that it is essentially correct.

?????

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

It is you who cannot grasp how I both assent to the differences without assenting to there being a contradiction.

And I quite realize that there are contradictory elements in each theory (such as Newton's idea of absolute space), but I do not swallow each theory whole; it is not necessary to accept each and every detail of a given theory to accept that it is essentially correct.

?????

Robert Campbell

?????? !

[Robert Campbell]

George,

Interesting passage from Blanshard.

Most of it could have been said by quite a few other people; really, by anyone who believes that learning produces qualitative changes in one's knowledge.

Like the programmer in an old study I did about learning to program in an object-oriented language, noting that when he reached a certain level of proficiency he now understood the slogan "Everything is done in Smalltalk by sending a message to an object" in a very different way than he had when he started.

These other folks would be nodding right along with Blanshard ... until they got to his final sentence.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Why don't you look at the way the theories are formulated to see how different they are?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why don't you come up with some other alternative for why I disagree than that I'm unfamiliar with the theories? Your lack of imagination is really disappointing, it's almost as if you actually want anyone who disagrees with you to be a stupid fool.

Shayne

You asked why and how Newton's and Einstein's theory differ and I gave some answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know how they differ. The question was about how they are inconsistent. But for you and Ellen, there is no distinction: to differ is to be inconsistent. For me that is not the case. They can differ in the respects you stated and still be consistent.

For me and, I feel safe in saying, for Bob, not all differences are inconsistencies. But some differences are inconsistencies. Those which Bob has detailed between Newton's and Einstein's theories are inconsistencies. Therefore, I'm mystified by your claim that the theories can differ in those respects and still be consistent.

HOW???

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

Why are you having trouble grasping this?

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is you who cannot grasp how I both assent to the differences without assenting to there being a contradiction.

And I quite realize that there are contradictory elements in each theory (such as Newton's idea of absolute space), but I do not swallow each theory whole; it is not necessary to accept each and every detail of a given theory to accept that it is essentially correct.

Shayne

Newton's theory is not (generally) correct. It fails to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example. In addition it does not account for the slowing of clocks in strong gravitational fields (gravitational red shift). The Newtonian theory does not lead to the GPS system, for example.

In moderate or weak gravitational fields Newton's theory produces reasonably good predictions. The celestial navigation for our probes of the solar system is based on Newtonian gravitation.

Ba'al Chatzf

[George H. Smith]

George,

Interesting passage from Blanshard.

Most of it could have been said by quite a few other people; really, by anyone who believes that learning produces qualitative changes in one's knowledge.

Like the programmer in an old study I did about learning to program in an object-oriented language, noting that when he reached a certain level of proficiency he now understood the slogan "Everything is done in Smalltalk by sending a message to an object" in a very different way than he had when he started.

These other folks would be nodding right along with Blanshard ... until they got to his final sentence.

Robert Campbell

The argument that I have the most problem with is Blanshard's claim that the proposition "Napoleon lost at Waterloo" has a different meaning when stated by a boy who is just learning history than it does when that boy becomes a knowledgeable historian. I don't agree with this at all. The understanding of the historian will be richer and deeper than that of the boy, but the proposition means the same thing in both cases.

Nor is it correct to say that the proposition when stated by the historian is more true than when stated by the boy. The historian will have better reasons to believe in the truth of the proposition, so he will have more justification to accept it, but the proposition is equally true when stated by the boy. (One of the chief objections to the "degrees of truth" doctrine is that it violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. Blanshard deals with this objection, but not very satisfactorily.)

The best critique of the coherence theory of truth (including the "degrees of truth" theory) that I know of appears in A.C. Ewing's Idealism: A Critical Survey (London, 1934). Blanshard repeatedly addresses Ewing's criticisms, but I think Ewing comes out on top.

Ghs

[sjw]

For me and, I feel safe in saying, for Bob, not all differences are inconsistencies. But some differences are inconsistencies. Those which Bob has detailed between Newton's and Einstein's theories are inconsistencies. Therefore, I'm mystified by your claim that the theories can differ in those respects and still be consistent.

HOW???

Ellen

I don't have a name for the aspect of my epistemological theory that makes me say that. Objectivists call it a "contextual" view of knowledge, I suppose I could call it a "perspectivist" view of knowledge. Take a cylinder. From one side it looks like a circle. From another a rectangle. From every possible perspective, it's a cylinder. All perspectives are true knowledge about the cylinder. One is obviously superior, and we prefer it -- when we can get it. Often we cannot. We have to be satisfied with the perspectives we have.

Newton only had a certain range of perspectives available to him. He saw a "circle." Indeed, it was, and from that perspective (when we limit the speed toward zero) it still is. The relativistic perspective (I actually do not like relativity theory, I think an aether theory must be true, but often use the word "relativity" to refer to the undisputed effects that happen at high speeds) concerns what happens at high speeds. Adding that perspective doesn't conflict with the earlier one -- which is why when the velocity approaches zero it reduces the system to Newtonian mechanics.

I don't think we even now have all the possible perspectives, and as I said before, I think we can possibly keep blasting things into smaller and smaller parts, potentially leading to an unlimited number of finer-grained perspectives. We can never exert a highest pressure, or a highest magnification, or a highest speed. Some perspectives are beyond our experimental reach. We have to be satisfied with the perspectives we can reach, and deal with those as rationally as possible.

Shayne

[Xray]

This merely illustrates once again the problem of conventional human-scale notions not being applicable.

Your comment merely illustrates your astonishing inability to grasp even the most fundamental of philosophical issues.

Please enlighten me: what do you believe are "the most fundamtental of philosophical issues"?

Your critical faculties, such as they are, are reduced to a quivering blob whenever you encounter some nonsensical statement -- literally nonsensical, in Bohr's case -- by some physicist.

Does Harriman provide a direct quote from Bohr on identity? If yes, could you post it here?

I'm surprised how difficult it seems to be for you to think off the beaten track here. Imo you are far too quick to mentally shut out what is inconceivable for you to imagine.

Here's a quote from another physicist genius, Richard Feynman (transcribed from an interview shown on YouTube):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8903&st=840&p=105716entry105716

"There's still a school of thought that cannot believe that that the atomic behavior is so much different than large scale behavior. I think that's a deep prejudice. And it's a prejudice from being so used to large-scale behavior.

And they are always seeking, to find, (and waiting?) for the day that we discover that underneath the quantum mechanic, there's some mundane, ordinary balls hitting each other and moving us on.

I think they're gonna be defeated. I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax." (Richard Feynman)

Would you call Feynman's last sentence "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax" a "nonsensical statement" as well?

Edited September 16, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Would you call Feynman's last sentence "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax" a "nonsensical statement" as well?

Construed literally, the statement is merely false, not nonsensical. Nature does not have an "imagination." I assume Feynman was speaking metaphorically, in which case I don't have a problem with what he said. Spinoza, Francis Bacon and many other philosophers have said exactly the same thing.

Harriman quotes Bohr as follows: "There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum description."

Harriman then has the temerity to ask: "What, then, does the theory describe?"

Moreover, if Bohr is correct, if "there is no quantum world," then all your statements about how mysterious the quantum world is come to naught.

Many of the early QM theorists, including Bohr to some extent, were influenced by logical positivism and its verificationist theory of meaning. Statements like Bohr's are based on a philosophical theory of meaning, not on physics per se.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Would you call Feynman's last sentence "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax" a "nonsensical statement" as well?

It isn't. Feynman is saying that nature is always at least one step ahead of us. Just when we think we have it All figured out, Nature will provide us with yet another surprise.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Would you call Feynman's last sentence "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax" a "nonsensical statement" as well?

It isn't. Feynman is saying that nature is always at least one step ahead of us. Just when we think we have it All figured out, Nature will provide us with yet another surprise.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Indeed. Personally, I even find it difficult to keep up with which nouns Ba'al is going to choose to capitalize on any given day. :-)

REB

[George H. Smith]

Please enlighten me: what do you believe are "the most fundamental of philosophical issues"?

In this context, the most fundamental issue is to make sense, to speak intelligibly. No one, not even a physicist, has a special privilege to speak gibberish while expecting others to take him seriously.

If a physicist were to declare that subatomic particles have a sense of humor and like to play practical jokes on each other, then -- assuming he means this literally -- I would dismiss the assertion out of hand. You, in contrast, would probably accept the statement at face value, ponder the wonders of the subatomic world, lecture me about the deep meaning of the claim, and quote Feynman once again.

I have no doubt that the subatomic world is not easily understood; indeed, we may never understand it completely. But we should deal honestly with our ignorance and treat it as ignorance, rather than ascribing mystical properties to a world we do not adequately understand.

Ghs

[Xray]

Would you call Feynman's last sentence "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax" a "nonsensical statement" as well?

Construed literally, the statement is merely false, not nonsensical. Nature does not have an "imagination." I assume Feynman was speaking metaphorically, in which case I don't have a problem with what he said. Spinoza, Francis Bacon and many other philosophers have said exactly the same thing.

It was quite obviously meant in a metaphorical sense.

Harriman quotes Bohr as follows: "There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum description."

Harriman then has the temerity to ask: "What, then, does the theory describe?"

What does Harriman think the theory describes?

Bohr directed the focus on THE philosophical issue: how "real" is what we call "reality"? We have no way of ascertaining that the phenomena we perceive via our senses (and via the measuring apparatuses developed by us) are "the real thing", the reason being that we ourselves are elements of a system we want to examine and therefore don't have the possibility of assuming the position of an outside observer. Even if you imagine beings existing in the universe who are far more 'cerebrally developed' than homo sapiens sapiens who has only been around for a very short time - they too would be limited by being an element of a system they want to examine.

Here is the original quote from Bohr:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

http://www.firstscience.com/home/poems-and-quotes/quotes/niels-bohr-quote_2435.html

"What we can say" is the key phrase. One could express it even more radically as 'What we can say about what we call reality' - given the limited nature of our knowledge and confined by our brain, which is programmed for our survival, filtering through our senses what we need, constructing our so-called 'reality', just like a fish's brain constructs its "reality".

Since our brain is more developed than the fish's, we are at least aware of those limitations.

Moreover, if Bohr is correct, if "there is no quantum world," then all your statements about how mysterious the quantum world is come to naught.

Not if "quantum world" is used a metaphorical sense. Bohr directed the attention to the metaphorical nature of the term "quantum world".

Edited September 17, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Here is the original quote from Bohr:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

http://www.firstscience.com/home/poems-and-quotes/quotes/niels-bohr-quote_2435.html

"What we can say" is the key phrase. One could express it even more radically as 'What we can say about what we call reality....'

You have not been nearly radical enough. You should say: What-we-call "we" can what-we-call "say" about what-we-call "call" about what-we-call "reality."

You are quite the philosopher. What shall we discuss next -- whether or not you exist? I would bet on an affirmative conclusion, but I would be delighted with a negative one.

Ghs