Ignorance in Philosophy

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

 

Not to step on Plasmatic's reply but, all the things you've listed exist and are bounded, yes?  Like we know life exists and is finite, because we know there are some places where life doesn't exist.  But again, unless I'm missing something, it's the boundary that posits the finite and allows any particular to have identity.  This tells me that until a universal boundary can be found, and science suggests no upper or lower limit to existence, claiming to know the universe is finite is premature at best.

[dream_weaver]

To measure something that is bounded is to identify its size in an appropriate standard unit.

To accept that the universe is unbounded, one would have to ask what is being measured?

Must the universe have the attribute of size?

Existence is eternal. To ask when it began it to try to apply some standard of time measurement to that which time is inapplicable. Eternal is not an "infinite" amount of time, eternal is an identification that something is outside the provence of time altogether.

 

How many angels can dance on the head of pin?

[Plasmatic]

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?

Given what those words mean to me, yes.

[Plasmatic]

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.

No, universe presupposes a multiplicity of entities. Universe is a collective noun.

[Devil's Advocate]

To measure something that is bounded is to identify its size in an appropriate standard unit.

To accept that the universe is unbounded, one would have to ask what is being measured?

Must the universe have the attribute of size?

Existence is eternal. To ask when it began it to try to apply some standard of time measurement to that which time is inapplicable. Eternal is not an "infinite" amount of time, eternal is an identification that something is outside the provence of time altogether.

 

How many angels can dance on the head of pin?

 

In order to claim the universe is finite, I don't see how one can avoid acknowledging the attribute of size.  It may not be known how big it is, but claiming that it is finite asserts that it is only so big, and not bigger; that it is measurable.  To say the universe is outside the province of size is equivalent to saying it is infinite and cannot be measured.  How many other objects of reality cannot be measured?  When StrictlyLogical asks about frequencies and amplitudes, these are all bounded by some measurement of point A to point B, such that there is some observable point beyond where there is no frequency or amplitude; the same with life, or with angels on a pin... OK, well perhaps not angels, but the head of a pin is finite.

 

If the universe is like a yardstick, such that one can measure intermediate inches and feet (finite), but one can also add or subtract feet and inches infinitely, then the assertion that the universe is finite is only bound to that which is observable, and whatever lies beyond is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.  I don't see that this impedes the law of identity because one can only identify what is observable, i.e., finite.  So this leads me back to the belief that the universe is an infinite collection of finite objects, just as a yardstick is an infinite collection of finite feet and inches.  Anyway, thanks all for your patient feedback.  I'll have to reflect on this further...

 

Edit:  More to topic, the omission of particulars discussed earlier with Grames, suggests to me that a certain level of ignorance is tolerable where the particulars have to do with units of scale for similar objects of various lengths, but only when some objective scale is presupposed, i.e., bounded, and not infinite.  One can accept the concept of Man of various heights, but not the concept of Man whose height cannot be measured.  What I see as problematic isn't so much the omission of particulars as the omission of some necessary upper and lower boundary for those particulars.  This seems to me like claiming the universe is finite (measurable), but cannot be measured (infinite).

Edited November 13, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

StrictlyLogical, on 12 Nov 2013 - 3:59 PM, said:

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?

Given what those words mean to me, yes.

 

Are each of these unquantifiable? 

 

i.e. is it meaningless to try to state "the number" of all frequencies, "the number" of all amplitudes, etc?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

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?

What is measurement?  When we talk about a certain object's length, width, depth or weight (etc), what terms must we frame it in?  To measure something is to find how it relates, quantitatively, to something else, such as a ruler or some other standard for comparison.

To measure the total size of the entire universe, one would have to step outside of it first.

 

I'll explain my reasoning in more detail, if you'd like, but I'm fairly certain the universe itself is countably infinite.  However far you travel, there'll always be further to go- but no matter how far you go, you'll always end up somewhere specific and finite.

 

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.

Yes, the universe as a whole cannot be particular.  Yes, it would allow (but not necessitate) multiple universes.

But we're using "universe" to mean "the sum of every thing which exists".  If there are parallel dimensions, they're part of the same philosophical-sense "universe".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

How many angels can dance on the head of pin?

Precisely 42. 

 

Are each of these unquantifiable? 

 

i.e. is it meaningless to try to state "the number" of all frequencies, "the number" of all amplitudes, etc?

 

The dial on my radio thinks so.

No, such things can't be quantified in neatly discreet integers.  This doesn't mean they can't be quantified at all.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

*My own thoughts, only*

 

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

Depends on which philosophy; none for Objectivism.

Valid scientific discoveries, since they directly concern reality, must be taken into account by any reality-based philosophy.  Their relevance can vary quite widely, but so long as they're logically sound, they can't be outright ignored.

 

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

The primary thing I've noticed in comparing scientific and philosophical thought is this.

 

Scientific theories are self-abstracted.  The goal of the scientific method is to arrive at theories which concern some fact or attribute of reality and are universally accurate, regardless of whom observes it or where or when.

Philosophical theories, in contrast, are self-integral.  They concern you and I, our thoughts, desires and actions, and nothing else.  Even when philosophers attempt to make some "a priori" deduction about scientific knowledge, they usually seem to do so from the exclusive perspective of how that fact impacts them.

So science and philosophy seem to correlate to the is-ought division.  Or more precisely, self-omitted [is] and self-integral [ought].

---

 

DA:  The only plausible way for the universe itself to be finite, would be if it were wrapped up around itself (like the Pac-Man maze) so that travelling in a straight line for long enough will return you to your origin.

However, because of the finite speed of light and the rate of space's expansion (galaxies which are farther apart, move even farther apart more quickly), we have no idea what lies beyond a certain horizon because past that point, any objects are literally outrunning their own light emissions.

 

So whether space is countably infinite or ultimately wrapped around itself is a question we can't answer until we can go and see it.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On self-abstraction, interestingly, try comparing it to the "Uniformity of Nature" premise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism and then to the Primacy of Existence, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Solipsism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism.

I think that quite a few things hinge on the concept of observer-independence.

[Devil's Advocate]

What is measurement?  When we talk about a certain object's length, width, depth or weight (etc), what terms must we frame it in?  To measure something is to find how it relates, quantitatively, to something else, such as a ruler or some other standard for comparison.

To measure the total size of the entire universe, one would have to step outside of it first.

Not necessarily.  A bounded universe is still measurable as a volume.  Like ones backyard, one needn't step out of it to measure it.

 

I'll explain my reasoning in more detail, if you'd like, but I'm fairly certain the universe itself is countably infinite.  However far you travel, there'll always be further to go- but no matter how far you go, you'll always end up somewhere specific and finite.

Yes, this is my conclusion too...

 

Yes, the universe as a whole cannot be particular.  Yes, it would allow (but not necessitate) multiple universes.

But we're using "universe" to mean "the sum of every thing which exists".  If there are parallel dimensions, they're part of the same philosophical-sense "universe".

Yes, this too...

 

DA:  The only plausible way for the universe itself to be finite, would be if it were wrapped up around itself (like the Pac-Man maze) so that travelling in a straight line for long enough will return you to your origin.

However, because of the finite speed of light and the rate of space's expansion (galaxies which are farther apart, move even farther apart more quickly), we have no idea what lies beyond a certain horizon because past that point, any objects are literally outrunning their own light emissions.

 

So whether space is countably infinite or ultimately wrapped around itself is a question we can't answer until we can go and see it.

Perhaps, but boundaries are the measure of what is finite.  if we left Earth on a straight line and arrived back at Earth, then Earth would be the boundary and the distance between would still be measurable, i.e., finite.  The problem with infinite is, how does one know that a boundary isn't actually just ahead beyond the horizon??  In a way, I think I'm really describing a virtually infinite universe composed of finite objects.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Grames]

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??

You are mistaken, greatly mistaken, in your understanding of what was being stated there.  That there is no "bottoming out" in quantum field theory does not imply an infinity, it means only the denial that there is some subatomic discrete building block a kind of "physical pixel" which is the only real thing that exists.  

[Plasmatic]

Campbell is very clear:

"Once we have made the conceptual shift required to free ourselves of the age-old prejudice of a substance metaphysics – of which particle metaphysics is the most recent manifestation – it is far from clear that there is any basic level. That is, there might well be no fundamental plane of organization, ‘lower’ than which it is not possible to go. Still, this much at least is clear: if the organization at some level cannot be shown to be necessary , then one could never have logical grounds which ensure that that level of organization was not itself emergent from a yet more basic one"

[Devil's Advocate]

You are mistaken, greatly mistaken, in your understanding of what was being stated there.  That there is no "bottoming out" in quantum field theory does not imply an infinity, it means only the denial that there is some subatomic discrete building block a kind of "physical pixel" which is the only real thing that exists.  

My bad, but I'm not understanding how "patterns of process all the way down, and all the way up", with no floor or ceiling, doesn't imply infinite in either direction.  I guess I was associating a philosophical column of turtles where there's always another turtle above or below.

 

Campbell is very clear:

"Once we have made the conceptual shift required to free ourselves of the age-old prejudice of a substance metaphysics – of which particle metaphysics is the most recent manifestation – it is far from clear that there is any basic level. That is, there might well be no fundamental plane of organization, ‘lower’ than which it is not possible to go. Still, this much at least is clear: if the organization at some level cannot be shown to be necessary , then one could never have logical grounds which ensure that that level of organization was not itself emergent from a yet more basic one"

Here again I'm reading no floor, i.e., that planes of organization resolve downward indefinitely.  And now I'm feeling really dense...  Is the issue of finite vs infinite simply not addressed in these statements??

 

Someone help me out here, and explain it to me like I'm 4 years old.

[Plasmatic]

DA said:

"Here again I'm reading no floor, i.e., that planes of organization resolve downward indefinitely. "

That is indeed Campbell's point.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Just a shot in the dark, here, but it seems like the "fields" issue revolves around whether or not matter is at some level indivisible.

[Grames]

My bad, but I'm not understanding how "patterns of process all the way down, and all the way up", with no floor or ceiling, doesn't imply infinite in either direction.  I guess I was associating a philosophical column of turtles where there's always another turtle above or below.

 

Here again I'm reading no floor, i.e., that planes of organization resolve downward indefinitely.  And now I'm feeling really dense...  Is the issue of finite vs infinite simply not addressed in these statements??

 

Someone help me out here, and explain it to me like I'm 4 years old.

Is it a fair reading of the phrase "made of concrete and steel all the way down and all the way up", when applied to a skyscraper, that the writer is claiming skyscrapers are infinitely deep or infinitely tall?  If not, then the same with this phrase about patterns of process.

 

I will respond with more, but wanted to get this comment out there.

[Devil's Advocate]

Is it a fair reading of the phrase "made of concrete and steel all the way down and all the way up", when applied to a skyscraper, that the writer is claiming skyscrapers are infinitely deep or infinitely tall?  If not, then the same with this phrase about patterns of process.

 

I will respond with more, but wanted to get this comment out there.

OK, thanks - I printed out the full document you cited in the 'Weak vs Strong Emergence' topic to reread it for clarity, mostly because the subject fascinates me.  Any additional insights you'd care to pass along will be much appreciated...

[Devil's Advocate]

DA said:

"Here again I'm reading no floor, i.e., that planes of organization resolve downward indefinitely. "

That is indeed Campbell's point.

Thanks

 

I'm trying to determine the degree to which omitting particular measurements involving scale influences a logical assertion regarding the scope (overall scale) of a particular concept, e.g., the Universe being finite.  When a concept is necessarily difficult to delimit it seems all such claims presuppose that one can only reference what is objectively observable, such that the claim, the Universe is finite, only means, that portion of the Universe that has been explored is finite.  In this case, the actual extension of the Universe appears virtually infinite, so the finite claim seems misleading...

Edited November 14, 2013 by Devil's Advocate