Philosophy and Physics

[Dan9999999]

A claim that has bothered me for a long time is the idea that a theory of philosophy can be used to explain physics. While everything we have seen so far, at least in anything lager then a molecule, conforms to the law of identity, this is not to say everything will. When dealing with physics, an area where there is the possibility of determining an absolute unequivocal truth, any rule must conform to physics not seek to conform physics to it. More importantly while the truth of quantum physics has not been totally proven, many sections seem to go against the "laws" of objectivism. This is not to say that we should adjust morality to encompass quantum mechanics, rather it is to say leave the physics to the physicists. Physics is essentially an experimental science and laws will eventually be proven or disproven.

[AshRyan]

...When dealing with physics, an area where there is the possibility of determining an absolute unequivocal truth, any rule must conform to physics not seek to conform physics to it...Physics is essentially an experimental science and laws will eventually be proven or disproven.

A possibility of determining an absolute unequivocal truth by what method? Laws will eventually be proven or disproven by what means?

Any specialized science necessarily depends upon more fundamental philosophical premises. To even know that physics is an experimental science, or what the proper method of expirementation is, presupposes many things in epistemology and metaphysics.

In short, physics does indeed have to conform to philosophy, because to demand that philosophy conform to physics doesn't even make sense.

[Dan9999999]

Philosophy is essentially a creation of man mind. It only exists because people exist. Physics is not. The speed of light would be the same whether we where here to measure it or not. While there may be some crossover, the idea that we uses experiments to test hypothesis in physics rather then mysticism, could potentially be called philosophy. But when the laws are universal and only our methodology is in question physics becomes independent of philosophy. Philosophy could be different if people where different, while physics would remain the same.

[AshRyan]

The speed of light would be the same whether we where here to measure it or not.

I find it hysterically funny that in the very attempt to question the fundamentality of philosophical principles you end up here, assuming the law of identity, the primacy of existence, etc.--all basic metaphysical principles of Objectivism. It just goes to show that philosophy truly is inescapable. In the very attempt to question it, you must presuppose it. I hope that you are able to see the logical error you are making (the fallacy of the stolen concept).

[Dan9999999]

Well you seem to have me there. Maby the best point I have left is what happens when physics contradicts Objectivism. In quantum physics, a science that has proven extreamly accurate in all tests, the rules of objectivism are contradicted. Causes have different effects based on notheing more then probability, etc.

[poohat]

The problem is that all physical events require interpretation to some degree.

I couldnt even begin to imagine an experiment where the law of identity could be 'disproven' - the concept doesnt even make sense. Certain interpretations of certain experiments could lead someone with an irrational philosophy to assume that identity had somehow been violated, but there will always be alternative explanations. Take quantum physics for example. I know of no experiment that has yet been done that even comes close to 'disproving' identity (despite what you seem to be suggesting). Some explanations of experiments and equations certainly do claim this, but there are a number of competiting theories where identity is preserved.

To select between competiting theories, we need some kind of metatheory to determine what properties our theories must possess (examples of metatheories in this context would be Occams Razor, or falsificationism). Rational philosophy says that theories must conform to certain basic laws, such as identity, therefore any theories which assume identity does not exist should be abandonded in favour of more rational alternatives.

To paraphrase someone who's name I forget, "there is no such thing as philosophy-free science, only science which does not realise it has taken on bad philosophy".

[Ragnar]

In quantum physics, a science that has proven extreamly accurate in all tests, the rules of objectivism are contradicted. Causes have different effects based on notheing more then probability, etc.

This is a very good article on the discussion at hand.

[Dan9999999]

While I agree that different theories need a framework for evaluation the fact that quantum objects may simply not act in what we would a rational framework in the non-quantum world could invalidate selecting between formulas based on principles for the non-quantum world. Moreover in response to the article suggested just as I am suggesting philosophers should not consider themselves physicists, physicists should not consider themselves philosophers.

[poohat]

Moreover in response to the article suggested just as I am suggesting philosophers should not consider themselves physicists, physicists should not consider themselves philosophers.

I think labels like this are stupid, it makes no real sense to talk about someone 'being' a 'physicist' or a 'philosopher'. Some people practice and think about physics, some think a lot about philosophical questions, some do both, and some do neither. Can a physicist consider himself to 'be' a cook? If not, how does he eat?

One of the key aspects in Ayn Rand's thought is the impossibility for humans to escape from philosophy. Having a 'philosophy' is not some kind of optional luxury for people with MAs and PhDs after their names - it is an essential aspect of conscious life that constitutes a pre-requisite to almost all other actions. Any act of interpretation requires a metaphysical framework in which the interpretation is carried out. Any act of valuation implies a moral system which gives meaning to the term 'value'. Any synthesis of knowledge implies an epistemology in which knowledge is evaluated.

Philosophy and epistemology is a pre-requisite for all interpretation of physical data. There is no such thing as 'objective' knowledge arising from the 'passive' receival of sensory data - knowledge exists as a result of being processed by a conscious mind, and this requires both the existence of a philosophical framework, and the use of reason. All scientific theories are interpretations, but not all interpretations are rational. A significant number of existing quantum interpretations certainly arent.

You don't get a choice about whether to adopt philosophy, only whether the one you choose will be rational or irrational.

While I agree that different theories need a framework for evaluation the fact that quantum objects may simply not act in what we would a rational framework.

I agree to an extent. Certain so-called philosophers (generally of the Rationalist persuasion) like to make ridiculous a priori declarations of what reality 'must' be like, and get antsy when empirical evidence shows them to be incorrect. This isnt what Objectivists are trying to do to physics, and Rand herself would certainly have had no time for speculation of this kind. In an interview, when asked what philosophy had to say on the 'ultimate' construction of the universe, Rand's answer was essentially that the nature and existence of entities in this sense was a question for science. The only thing that philosophy can say on the subject is that whatever is finally found to be the 'fundamental' building block of reality (if anything), it will have identity.

You seem to be confusing your definitions of rational - rationality doesnt consist of making wild predictions in advance, and then complaining when reality doesnt conform to your ideas - it consists of the use of reason and logic in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, certain things about the nature of light in special relativity seem to be VERY different from what would we might have expected. Does this mean that reality is 'no longer rational', or that the identity of light has somehow been violated? Of course not; it simply means that we were previously incorrect about it's nature.

[Guest satanist]

I'd like to go back to the original post at the start of this topic.

Occasionally, I hear this idea ( in various forms, either by implication or as a flat statement ): "Something about quantum theory / quantum physics seems to contradict my understanding of Objectivist philosophy".

The predictable immediate result is usually a flat statement or quote of Objectivist philosophy. Not very helpful in resolving the alleged or apparent contradiction. However, it all seems to start with an undefined contradiction in the first place; the people who I've heard claiming a contradiction exists never seem to explicitly define the apparent contradiction. Thus, what could be a meaninful analysis of the facts and an eventual clarification and possible eradication of the contradiction gets lost in a cloud of back-and-forth exchanges about fundamental philosophical principles.

For the record, I'm an Objectivist. Have been so since highschool, back in the late Seventies. Starting with the lightning bolt out of the blue the was "The Fountainhead" and ending with my eventually reading everything of Rand's I could get my hands on, I currently see no contradiction in Objectivist epistomology or metaphysics ( as written by Rand herself; I'm not an expert on later writings by her followers ). I accept that *all* the results of *any* physics experiments must eventually be resolved without logical contradiction if they are to be interpreted in a meaningful way.

I was saddened to see that another thread on this board was closed due to the predictable disintegration that I've seen many times when people who are asking questions are met with statements of principle. I would encourage Dan9999 to seek out a specific contradiction instead of claiming "while the truth of quantum physics has not been totally proven, many sections seem to go against the "laws" of objectivism." I saw a flash of hope when someone in the now-locked topic brought up the double-slit experiment ( a classic conundrum in need of a solid analysis from an Objectivist philosopher-physicist ). However, the topic was already locked before I even found this forum.

I was also amused to see people claiming to understand Objectivism also claiming that 'ether' had existence. It was fascinating to see them directly quote the Law of Identity, and yet fail to identify this 'ether' in any way other than to apply a label: 'ether'. It was laugh-out-loud funny to read someone claiming that they couldn't understand how something could move through nothing, as if a lack of existence somehow formed an impenetrable barrier. ( I'm obviously not quoting directly here, just summarizing. Still, it was funny. This idea that motion itself automatically implied a medium is unsupportable; If I move, that proves nothing about my surroundings. Nothing at all.) My understanding of the Law of Identity was not claiming that 'existence was absolutely everywhere', but rather a statement of a relationship; *if* something exists, *then* it has an identity. ....and this is exactly what I mean by a specific contradiction. I hope people who think they've spotted a violation of an Objectivist metaphysical principle ( like the Law of Identity ) will point out the details of their observation so we can all look at the facts. By sticking to specifics and the repeatable results of experiments maybe we can have a thread that clears up apparent contradictions. I hope that this is such a forum.

[RadCap]

" It was laugh-out-loud funny to read someone claiming that they couldn't understand how something could move through nothing"

I actually find it "laugh-out-loud funny" you believe a thing can move "through" nothing. The concept "through" requires a SOMETHING which one traverses. Your statement therefore is a contradiction because it treats nothing AS a something.

One needs no other information than that to understand that something MUST indeed exist there. In other words, one needs NO other information to IDENTIFY the *existence* of that something. And whether one is able to FURTHER identify that something - ie identify other specific attributes BEYOND its existence - has no bearing on the identification that the something DOES exist.

I find it "laugh-out-loud funny" you believe futher identification IS requires.

The thing that "amused" me most though is that someone who claims to be an objectivist chooses the name "satanist" to represent himself here.

[y_feldblum]

Two points.

First, satanist is a welcome breather from Matt and Capitalist.

Second, as I understand it, movement sans ether is only a contradiction if it's movement through. Movement is, however, in relation to.

[RadCap]

" as I understand it, movement sans ether is only a contradiction if it's movement through. Movement is, however, in relation to."

The MEASURE of movement is made by comparing the locational changes of entities. (And measurement requires SOMETHING to measure. Feet - of SOMETHING; miles - of SOMETHING.)

The ACT of movement, however, requires means, method, object, and locations among other things.

In other words, the act and the measure of an action are two different things. Do not confuse them.

[Guest satanist]

Thanks y. (blush)

And you hit the nail on the head. Using the word 'through' is merely a convention, an obvious holdover from our ongoing human context of living in ( and moving through ) an atmosphere, where we do move through air ( or various liquids ) in our normal existence. So I guess I'm guilty of the High Crime of Sloppy Terminology. My bad.

A classic example of why this happens is when you take a quick poll of the people who you see every day and ask them this: "What happens if you're standing on the moon, and you hold out a pencil, and then let go? Does it fall? Does it float? Does it drift away?" Try it! I think you'll be surprised at the answers you'll get, but it gets even funnier when you ask them to justify their answer. I'll bet you get some bizarre reference to 'heavy boots' in your first few tries. Context is automatically assumed, and it leads to silly corollary assumptions. Toss people out of their comfortable, normal context and watch what they assume!

I noticed that RadCap has apparently nullified the very concept of existence. Since he leaves no possible conceptual context for void, vacuum, empty space, etc., we are left with nothing with which to compare 'existence'. Way to go RadCap! Oh, and by the way, I'm still waiting for you to justify your concept of 'ether'. Since you're the one making the claim ( 'Ether exists'), then you're the one who is required to prove it. Please cite your evidence. The rest of us get to assume that void, vacuum, empty space, etc., are meaningful concepts. High fives all round! ( And since you seem interested, I use the tag 'satanist' to help me identify people like you. )

[Guest satanist]

"The ACT of movement, however, requires means, method, object, and locations among other things."

Which one of these is 'ether'?

[RadCap]

"RadCap has apparently nullified the very concept of existence. Since he leaves no possible conceptual context for void, vacuum, empty space, etc., we are left with nothing with which to compare 'existence'"

Ah - so now we have an "objectivist" claiming non-existence MUST exist, otherwise we have nothing to compare to existence. In other words, existence REQUIRES non-existence.

Objectivist? Put delicately - Bullshit.

Lying troll. Oh yeah

[y_feldblum]

RadCap is right in this - nonexistence only means you're not talking about anything.

However, going back to Galileo, the statement this entity moved ten feet is invalid.

Location is not a primary, like an attribute; it is a relationship between attributes or between entities. Eg, an entity is the same entity - absolutely the same attributes, absolutely no difference - whereever and whenever it is. But an entity changing locations means that its spacial relationship with all other entities has changed - in this example, by ten feet.

Moreover, there is nothing detectable, nothing with identity, where entities are not. There is no universal reference point by which to judge what is moving. There are plenty of reference points - eg you, me, the planet, the sun, the ocean current - and one can compare any one with another, but he can't say "this is at coordinates 12, 3, 54" without saying "from this reference point."

Like the number line which extends to infinity in both directions, you have to put the "0" tick mark somewhere, but you can put it anywhere. Only after you place it can you specify the location of other things.

On another topic, the term troll most often designates avowed Kantians and Marxists who troll, and not necessarily people who would be better advised to keep their scoffing inside their own head.

Satanist, you're hereby advised not to snicker or call people names in print.

[y_feldblum]

"Measure" is an epistemological tool, a function of cognition. One can measure qualities, relationships, etc. The way to measure the distance between two locations is to take a ruler to it. You are measuring the ruler, not the ether. Or if it's not the ruler that you're measuring, it's the angle between incoming rays of light, etc. It's decidedly not ether because there's no way to detect it and measure it.

[RadCap]

If all of that is aimed at me, then you have a bunch of straw men there. I did not make claims you are attacking in your post. If you believe one of my statements was incorrect, please qoute the statement, summarize what you think it means, and explain how you think it is wrong.

As to the use of the term troll, it is not limited to the two catagories you provided. I stand by my entire accusation against S. "Scoffing" was the least of it.

[y_feldblum]

That was all to say that, first, location is a relationship between entities, not an attribute of an entity independent of all other entities; and second, to measure movement, you use a ruler: "ten feet of the ruler."

Notiquette is the fastest way to get noticed. But to form the concept correctly, I suppose I have to say, "avowed Marxists who troll, avowed Kantians who troll, and anyone like them."

[RadCap]

"first, location is a relationship between entities, not an attribute of an entity independent of all other entities;"

Ok - since I didnt say anything which would be contradicted by that statement

"to measure movement, you use a ruler: "ten feet of the ruler.""

Again, doesnt contradict any of my previous statements. If they were just for purposes of supposed clarification, great. However, you made them seem as if they were corrections. They are not.

--

"Notiquette"? Is that a typo or a concept I am as yet unaware? (or both?)

[y_feldblum]

"The concept 'through' requires a SOMETHING which one traverses."

But since motion is not through, but in relation to, that concept does not imply anything to traverse. Specifically, motion is not traversing another entity, but is changing relationships between two or more entities.

"And whether one is able to FURTHER identify that something - ie identify other specific attributes BEYOND its existence - has no bearing on the identification that the something DOES exist."

But then it's arbitrary, and one should immediately dismiss it. It's like saying, "I've got a unicorn, or a spirit, in my backyard, but the only thing is, it's impossible to see, to hear, to touch, or to detect in any way whatsoever." An entity is its attributes; if a thing has no attributes, it is not an entity. Existence is to have identity. To have identity is to have identifying attributes. If a thing doesn't affect anything in any way whatsoever, and the only way to use it in a sentence is, "it must exist," why are we even considering it? In fact, it is impossible to form a concept of that thing with no attributes called ether: first, there can never be more than one such entity, ever; second, it has no qualities whose measure to forget. Any concept whose referent is that entity is an invalid concept. Since ether is not definable, by virtue of it not being conceptualizable, and since it is not perceivable (you can't point to it), how does it exist?

[y_feldblum]

"Notiquette" is a word I just made up expressly for the purpose of designating all that is not netiquette.

[y_feldblum]

They are only my corrections of background convictions I thought you held (based on my reading of your posts). If you don't hold those convictions, great! - my comments would not be corrections to any convictions you hold, then.

[Socionomer]

For a refutation of the absurd Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics I recommend Lewis Little's 1996 paper on The Theory of Elementary Waves.TEW