Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why cannot the future be random? (or: invalidating axioms?)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Futhermore consider what you are saying. It is utter contradiction. You suggest that the entity's future is then random, but you just said that it has 'jumped out of existence'. So which is it? It exists or it doesn't. An entity that doesn't exist cannot have a future, it doesn't exist! It has no identity. It isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Futhermore consider what you are saying. It is utter contradiction. You suggest that the entity's future is then random, but you just said that it has 'jumped out of existence'. So which is it? It exists or it doesn't. An entity that doesn't exist cannot have a future, it doesn't exist! It has no identity. It isn't there.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about physics but isn't such "jumping" observed in the field of quantum physics?

No. Even if a particle disappears from our ability to detect it, that is not existentially going out of existence. Current physics is corrupted by bad philosophy. There's a lot on this kind of thing within the Objectivist community. David Harriman's lectures and book are fantastic if you are interested. The key point is that observation requires rational interpretation. Evidence is crucial but without the mind it is just sense data. It is the mind that intergrates and understands what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law of casualty of course ... But what if all things can potentially "jump out of existence"? The things' future will then be "random".

 

What is the objectivist respons?

What does "random" mean in this context? Does it mean something happens with no cause at all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ...Current physics is corrupted by bad philosophy. There's a lot on this kind of thing within the Objectivist community...

 

Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.

 

 

I don't actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you'd suggest that physics is "corrupted by bad philosophy." Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn't fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.

It's more that conclusions made don't really follow. Someone could say "big bang, therefore something came from nothing". Well, no, you aren't even able to make that conclusion since the theory is about the expansion of the universe and doesn't literally describe the beginning of existence per se. Part of the reason is that "something from nothing" really is incoherent. There's no evidence to say anything truly appears spontaneously, so to say physics is corrupted by bad philosophy is only to say that physicists make unwarranted conclusions that stem from philosophical errors. It doesn't mean that the observations are false or bad science even. Of course, saying "it's bad philosophy" might mean failing to understand the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.

 

 

I don't actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you'd suggest that physics is "corrupted by bad philosophy." Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn't fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe. 

 

Philosophy comes prior to science in the hierarchy of knowledge. A proper philosophy is required to interpret your observations. That's all. No philosophy could invalidate observations but it will definitely affect what conclusions are drawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more that conclusions made don't really follow. Someone could say "big bang, therefore something came from nothing". Well, no, you aren't even able to make that conclusion since the theory is about the expansion of the universe and doesn't literally describe the beginning of existence per se. Part of the reason is that "something from nothing" really is incoherent. There's no evidence to say anything truly appears spontaneously, so to say physics is corrupted by bad philosophy is only to say that physicists make unwarranted conclusions that stem from philosophical errors. It doesn't mean that the observations are false or bad science even. Of course, saying "it's bad philosophy" might mean failing to understand the science.

 

I don't have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn't help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there's currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do... well, anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn't help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there's currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do... well, anything.

You say science has a specific method for dealing with errors. You are presumably defending the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method (as I do), that is part of your philosophy, in particular your epistomology. You're bringing your philosophy "into it" just as much as anyone else. That is because there can be no science without philosophy.

 

If Objectivism is correct, and at least it's metaphysics certainly is, then yes, reality must agree with it. Other wise, Objectivism wouldn't be correct. If science proves that things can contradict their identities, events can happen without cause, that consciousness is the creator of reality and that consciousness doesn't exist, then Objectivism is wrong. The thing is, the scientific method and it's practise requires that all of those things not be true. Any conclusion that contradicts the axioms of existence can automatically be dismissed since implicit in the practise of science is the acceptance of those basic axioms. The acceptance of the validity of science is philosophy. You can't not bring philosophy into science without pulling the rug out from under it.

Edited by oso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It means that if we could not say something about an objects future (because of it's potentiall to "jump out of existence"), we will experience the object's future as "random". 

You answered "The law of casualty of course ..." to your question of "why cannot the future be random". The law of causality does not mean that all things are predictable. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, for example, does not violate the law of causality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there's currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others...

There's no turnkey way for reassuring everyone about *anything*. Some conclusions will be more obvious than others, but all information of all kinds must be validated.  Why should philosophy be exempt? Why does it matter how easy it is to "reassuring everyone"? And, to meander down this type of argument on a forum dedicated to a philosophy named after (and dedicated to) the very "reassurance" you're denying...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn't help anything.

Scientific claims are based on one's understanding of reality. One's understanding of reality is philosophy. By philosophy, I don't mean simply mean random ideas, but philosophy as a field of thought and deeper than mere opinion on life. That makes the scientific method a philosophical belief which scientific contentions are based on. Sometimes bad science is simply bad observations. Other times, bad science is undermining the scientific method or undermining one's basic observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn't help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there's currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do... well, anything.

So why do you believe in science? (I assume you'll say "because it works", but how do you know that it works?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do you believe in science? (I assume you'll say "because it works", but how do you know that it works?)

 

Empirically, it does work. There's nothing in science where you cannot, through some means, point to how the theory or idea relates to reality and what it does. Even the most abstract theories exist because of some real world phenomena.

 

But that's not really why I believe in science. I believe in science because I have no choice but to believe in it. The scientific method formalizes our only means of proving anything about reality from the evidence of reality - i.e. it formalizes induction. If I don't believe in it, then I can't really believe in anything. If I don't believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything? Believing something requires evidence, and if I don't believe in evidence... well, nothing can help me then.

 

Scientific claims are based on one's understanding of reality. One's understanding of reality is philosophy. By philosophy, I don't mean simply mean random ideas, but philosophy as a field of thought and deeper than mere opinion on life. That makes the scientific method a philosophical belief which scientific contentions are based on. Sometimes bad science is simply bad observations. Other times, bad science is undermining the scientific method or undermining one's basic observations.

 

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality. If a scientific theory doesn't jive with your philosophy and you can't find a scientific reason for why that theory is wrong, then your philosophy is wrong. Philosophy gave us induction, and from induction, science. Philosophy did not give us reality, and it cannot take it away. If the evidence of science disagrees with your philosophy, your philosophy has nothing to stand on. If a scientific theory is wrong, there's a scientific reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the evidence of science disagrees with your philosophy, your philosophy has nothing to stand on. If a scientific theory is wrong, there's a scientific reason why.

Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn't exist.

Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven?

 

Let us say that some "scientists" do "prove" that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.

 

 

I don't actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you'd suggest that physics is "corrupted by bad philosophy." Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn't fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe. 

Oh yes, science is allowed to make logical fallacies and contradict basic philosophical facts of reality since it doesn't need to conform to anything as unreal and frivilous as philosophy because science is all about evidence not thinking. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Empirically, it does work.

Why is empirical evidence valid?

But that's not really why I believe in science. I believe in science because I have no choice but to believe in it.

Is that a rejection of free will, or are you just using imprecise language when you claim to have "no choice"?

The scientific method formalizes our only means of proving anything about reality from the evidence of reality - i.e. it formalizes induction. If I don't believe in it, then I can't really believe in anything. If I don't believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything? Believing something requires evidence, and if I don't believe in evidence... well, nothing can help me then.

That's your personal philosophy (very similar to some of Ayn Rand's philosophy, though not as eloquently worded), and it's just one particular philosophy among many. Not even the most established one. What makes it objectively right?

If I don't believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything?

There are many ways, as evidenced by all the people who do believe in things that don't rely on induction. If you want the specifics, ask a priest, he will tell you exactly how to go about it. Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality.

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice. The other people asking you questions seem to think you're denying philosophy is important to science. You're not doing that, though. I think science and philosophy are inseparable for the most part making all scientific claims to some extent philosophical. But it's important to remember that Objectivism approaches all knowledge, even philosophy, in a scientific way, i.e. with observation, induction, and logic as all valid methods. Think of it this way. To call a scientist a bad philosopher is to just say the scientist undermines his or her ability to do science in the first place. That's why it is considered a philosophical error rather than strictly a scientific one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...