Ignorance in Philosophy

[StrictlyLogical]

What sorts of facts of reality can be ignored by philosophy?

 

Can anything in reality be ignored as too "sciency" or properly the realm of "physics" and not metaphysics?

 

Or is it really that all of reality and all "implications" of it must inform philosophy (without the conclusions of science or assertions re. knowledge interfering with philosophy) but that philosophy itself should not attempt to solve the problems of science? 

 

 

I have heard slightly contradictory conclusions regarding the division of labor, independence, and/or relationship between science and philosophy.

[Grames]

Strictly speaking, nothing can be ignored by philosophy in the sense that no contradictions are ever acceptable throughout the span of all human knowledge.

 

Philosophy proper is about high level abstractions and principles that apply to all that exists and all persons, and in the nature of reaching such wide abstractions there is a great deal of omission of particulars.   Omission is not quite the same as ignoring.

[absols]

philosophy is not about anything nor through all ways

 

philosophy is only about positive truth of superior ways

 

the principle of superiority in truth, is what it means positive certainty

 

then positive truth would reveal superior freedom out of it existing

 

so you cannot question anything nor any absolute facts even nothing, only absolute value is the object of superior free relative existence

 

that is how philosophy study always positive fact such as life and existence, what is hundred percent positive thing for everyone, to know more objectively, for freedom out of it to be possibly real, so for existential issue of conscious individuality

 

philosophy never mean to solve any problem, it can only provide something new from knowing better what is truly positive for superior present freedom, the philosopher

Edited November 8, 2013 by absols

[Devil's Advocate]

What sorts of facts of reality can be ignored by philosophy?

...

Or is it really that all of reality and all "implications" of it must inform philosophy (without the conclusions of science or assertions re. knowledge interfering with philosophy) but that philosophy itself should not attempt to solve the problems of science? 

...

Can facts of reality be ignored without undermining the credibility of whatever is being considered?  Philosophy should not attempt to solve the problems of science, but neither should it stand in the way of, or mislead scientific investigation by contradicting what is known or knowable.

 

...

Philosophy proper is about high level abstractions and principles that apply to all that exists and all persons, and in the nature of reaching such wide abstractions there is a great deal of omission of particulars.   Omission is not quite the same as ignoring.

I agree, and yet there is some danger of omitting particular truths in order to maintain high level abstractions and principles.  I guess what I'm wondering here is the degree to which science is employed to validate philosophy and vice versa.  Probably not worth pursuing in this thread, but some of what you said seems to parallel the sentiment that errors of omission aren't the same as lying.

[Grames]

Actually my use of the word 'omission' is supposed to harken back to the idea of "measurement omission" in Rand's theory of concepts, not errors of omission.

[Devil's Advocate]

Actually my use of the word 'omission' is supposed to harken back to the idea of "measurement omission" in Rand's theory of concepts, not errors of omission.

Thank you for clarifying this for me.  I can see how the measurement of particulars is less relavent to the philosophical abstraction of Man than the empirical study of Man, so omission in this case ≠ a denial or misrepresentation of reality.

 

However it seems to me that philosophical vs empirical measurement of particulars may be troublesome in terms of establishing finite boundries.  For example, a logical finite scale to the universe may remain unvalidated by empirical study of it, leading to conflicting opinion as to whether the scale of the universe is in fact finite.  In this case, asserting a logically finite scale while ignoring the particular units of measurement, i.e., how many feet, meters or whatever it takes to go from one end to the other, seems problematic.

[Grames]

Thank you for clarifying this for me.  I can see how the measurement of particulars is less relavent to the philosophical abstraction of Man than the empirical study of Man, so omission in this case ≠ a denial or misrepresentation of reality.

 

However it seems to me that philosophical vs empirical measurement of particulars may be troublesome in terms of establishing finite boundries.  For example, a logical finite scale to the universe may remain unvalidated by empirical study of it, leading to conflicting opinion as to whether the scale of the universe is in fact finite.  In this case, asserting a logically finite scale while ignoring the particular units of measurement, i.e., how many feet, meters or whatever it takes to go from one end to the other, seems problematic.

I am mortal, yet I do not know the day or the hour of my death.  Is that problematic?

[Devil's Advocate]

I am mortal, yet I do not know the day or the hour of my death.  Is that problematic?

Without knowing the particular length of ones life, the scale of ones life (and life in general) is known to be finite by observation of other lives.  How does this fact translate to resolving the scale of the universe??

Edited November 10, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tadmjones]

If the Universe is taken to mean every thing that exists, what possible scale could there be to put it in perspective?

[Devil's Advocate]

If the Universe is taken to mean every thing that exists, what possible scale could there be to put it in perspective?

If the Universe means everything that exists, and if logic tells us that everything that exists is finite, meaning everything has some obvective scale, and the fact that no outer or inner scale to our Universe has yet to be determined, what logical proof is there that the Universe is, in fact finite, and not infinite?

[tadmjones]

I think there is a difference between every thing and everything, and what is meant by "our" universe?

[StrictlyLogical]

Perhaps we can shift the issue to these 2 questions:

 

1 is there in reality a finite or infinite volume spanning all entities

 

2. is there in reality a finite or infinite number of entities

[tadmjones]

I am not sure if the question/answer is philosophically important, and fairly certain it is scientifically unanswerable/nonprovable.

[Devil's Advocate]

I am not sure if the question/answer is philosophically important, and fairly certain it is scientifically unanswerable/nonprovable.

In terms of importance, I refer you to Leonard Peikoff's description of infinity:

 

"There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there’s no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far. . . . That’s Aristotle’s point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite." ~ Infinity, Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

In the Weak vs Strong Emergence topic, Grames cited an interesting science article (post #39) which concludes:

 

"... The critical point is that quantum field processes have no existence that is independent of their configurations: quantum fields are processes, and can only exist in various patterns. Those patterns come in many sizes, of many different physical and temporal scales, some as large as a human person, or a social institution – but they are all equally patterns of processes. There is no ‘bottoming out’ level in quantum field theory – it is patterns of process all the way down, and all the way up..."

 

The implication being (unless I'm mistaken) that current science suggests an infinite scale to the universe and everything it contains, while logic dictates the actual universe is finite.  If this is the case, then we are caught between two credible positive assertions that draw contradictory conclusions.  In terms of importance, one would have to determine whatever influence one assertion has to the other.  Should the scientific claim be discarded, for example, because it's not logically possible?  Or should the logical claim be revised to admit the possibility of an infinite universe??

[dream_weaver]

The law of identity is derived from the fact that everything is finite.

Is the proposal to change the law of identity to state that everything is finite, except the universe?
Or perhaps a motion can be entertained to repeal the law of identity altogether because. like reality, it is uncompromising?

 

An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. Leonard Peikoff OPAR, pg. 31.

 

Does the implication being that current science suggests an 'identityless' scale to the universe and everything it contains, make sense?

Edited November 12, 2013 by dream_weaver

[tadmjones]

DA , for whatever reason(s?) I can not seem to use the quote feature properly, so I apologize if my responses seem disjoint, not to mention my thinking process and articulation and such.

I was/am familiar with Peikoof's take on the (concept) of infinity, it is that concept I use when I use the term. My main point being that the concept Universe refers to the totality of existence taken as a whole. Or at least this is the way I understand or use the term(concept). It seems that these arguments or questions of the 'size' of the Universe seek to answer questions on a more spatial level. The finite spatial view would seem to suggest a boundary between existence and nonexistence. My understanding of nonexistence would not permit such a 'boundary'. I suppose this is the logical claim that you suggest may need to be revised?

I think logical revision may need to be applied to the concepts or terms finite and infinite.

And especially to phrases like " the universe and everything it contains", that seems like a description of two separable things or groups with the 'actual universe' being added as a third alternative, but perhaps I didn't understand the statements the way you intended.

Finite or infinite, existence exists, so philosophically it would seem to be unimportant ( or perhaps even invalid), and since scientifically 'infinity' could never be conclusive , or have an end state, how could it be demonstrated?( the edge may just be a little further "along")

[Devil's Advocate]

The law of identity is derived from the fact that everything is finite.

Is the proposal to change the law of identity to state that everything is finite, except the universe?

Or perhaps a motion can be entertained to repeal the law of identity altogether because. like reality, it is uncompromising?

 

An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. Leonard Peikoff OPAR, pg. 31.

 

Does the implication being that current science suggests an 'identityless' scale to the universe and everything it contains, make sense?

 

As I understand it, the current scale of the universe being finite is delimited to everything we can see, which in terms of the actual extent of the universe is sort of like ancient maps which identify unexplored territories with the statement,  "here be dragons".  As long as everything we can see remains boundless, where is the logical certainty that an actual boundary exists?  I don't think this contradicts the law of identity, because the law identifies finite contents of the universe and presumes the sum of the contents to be finite as well, as may indeed be the case.  But if the universe is all there is, and a universal wall beyond which nothing exists makes no sense, aren't we left with an infinite collection of finite objects??

[tadmjones]

Does infinite quantity of discreet objects sound, better ?

[StrictlyLogical]

The law of identity is derived from the fact that everything is finite.

Is the proposal to change the law of identity to state that everything is finite, except the universe?

Or perhaps a motion can be entertained to repeal the law of identity altogether because. like reality, it is uncompromising?

 

An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. Leonard Peikoff OPAR, pg. 31.

 

Does the implication being that current science suggests an 'identityless' scale to the universe and everything it contains, make sense?

 

 

The logical argument that "infinity" is not a number, or that "a quantity" cannot be identified as "infinite" because it would no longer be a quantity, is true.  How does this apply to quantification of existents?  I think it applies thusly:

 

If something in reality is quantifiable, it has quantity and we can determine its quantity and that quantity has identity.  If something in reality is not quantifiable then we cannot ascribe a quantity to it, it is nonsense to attempt to do so, for such an "alleged" quantity would have no identity.

 

E.g.

 

Quantifiable:

Number of parking spots in a parking lot. 

Number of marbles in a bag

height of a building

 

Unquantifiable:

Number of frequencies in the E-M spectrum

Number of amplitudes a buoy undergoes in a rise and fall on the ocean.

Number of frequencies a guitar string undergoes while being tuned.

 

 

If there are a finite number of particulars in the universe, then enumeration of things has a quantity which of course has identity, if enumeration of all particulars is not possible and hence is unquantifiable, then there is no identity to such a thing (i.e. it is meaningless) as "the number" of all particulars in the universe would not exist.

[Devil's Advocate]

Does infinite quantity of discreet objects sound, better ?

 

In terms of what we know, it sounds truer...  but I suspect I'm caught up in some fundamental error

[Devil's Advocate]

The logical argument that "infinity" is not a number, or that "a quantity" cannot be identified as "infinite" because it would no longer be a quantity, is true.  How does this apply to quantification of existents?  I think it applies thusly:

 

If something in reality is quantifiable, it has quantity and we can determine its quantity and that quantity has identity.  If something in reality is not quantifiable then we cannot ascribe a quantity to it, it is nonsense to attempt to do so, for such an "alleged" quantity would have no identity.

 

E.g.

 

Quantifiable:

Number of parking spots in a parking lot. 

Number of marbles in a bag

height of a building

 

Unquantifiable:

Number of frequencies in the E-M spectrum

Number of amplitudes a buoy undergoes in a rise and fall on the ocean.

Number of frequencies a guitar string undergoes while being tuned.

 

If there are a finite number of particulars in the universe, then enumeration of things has a quantity which of course has identity, if enumeration of all particulars is not possible and hence is unquantifiable, then there is no identity to such a thing (i.e. it is meaningless) as "the number" of all particulars in the universe would not exist.

 

My problem is that I agree with the 1st highlighted statement, but the 2nd highlighted statement leads me to believe the scale of the universe cannot (at least as yet) be resolved.  Therefore to claim the universe is finite but cannot be resolved, seems as meaningless as saying the universe is infinite...

[tadmjones]

Is existence finite?

It is the same question, yes?

[Plasmatic]

All existents have identity. The question "how do we know that all existents have identity without seeing all existents?", is equivalent to waiting for more data to inform us to wether the universe is finite.

Existence is is a synonym for universe and they both are concepts that stand for all the particulars that exist. No particular is infinite. The very concept particular pressupposes a multiplicity.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Devil's Advocate]

All existents have identity. The question "how do we know that all existents have identity without seeing all existents?", is equivalent to waiting for more data to inform us to wether the universe is finite.

Existence is is a synonym for universe and they both are concepts that stand for all the particulars that exist. No particular is infinite. The very concept particular pressupposes a multiplicity.

 

Does this mean that what we consider the universe cannot be a particular, because a particular universe presupposes a multiplicity of universes?  If so, not being a particular would imply infinite wouldn't it?  Otherwise what is the point of saying, no particular is infinite??  And saying the universe is finite, i.e., particular, would seem to posit a universal boundary as well, only substituting nothing with additional universes on the other side.

[StrictlyLogical]

Plasmatic

 

Do all (the totality) of frequencies in the E-M spectrum exist?

Do all the amplitudes a buoy undergoes in a rise and fall on the ocean AS IT RISES AND FALLS exist?

Do all the frequencies a guitar string undergoes while being tuned exist WHILE it is being tuned?