Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ilya Startsev

Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins: Something from nothing?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What on earth?  Do we perceive fields, YES.  Existence consists (solely?) of perceived particles of mass, NO. 

What do you mean by a perceptual field? Remember that we are talking about physics here. Now you are telling me that existence is not solely the universe we perceive.

 

dream_weaver, on 06 Oct 2014 - 6:01 PM, said:snapback.png

That is a correct observation of a non-identity rather than of nonexistence. The difference is that nonexistence is a concept that is formed in relation to all that does not exist, i.e., the spacetime where everything can exist, including where it already exists.

Brushing aside the difference between all and some, Greg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by a perceptual field? Remember that we are talking about physics here. Now you are telling me that existence is not solely the universe we perceive.

I’m finding it impossible to figure out where you’re coming from.  You need me to explain how physicists perceive the sub-atomic level?  How they gather evidence about it, its properties?  Or are you saying empty space is not something we perceive?  As in, there’s the earth, then there’s the moon way up there, but the distance between is not “perceived” because we see right through it?

 

I’m about ready to follow Dream Weaver’s lead if you don’t start talking sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m finding it impossible to figure out where you’re coming from.  You need me to explain how physicists perceive the sub-atomic level?  How they gather evidence about it, its properties?  Or are you saying empty space is not something we perceive?  As in, there’s the earth, then there’s the moon way up there, but the distance between is not “perceived” because we see right through it?

 

I’m about ready to follow Dream Weaver’s lead if you don’t start talking sense. 

Physicists do not perceive the subatomic level, since we (i.e., humans) do not exist on such level. If you think otherwise, then you are the same as Kantian materialists, who think that there is only substance (identity/something) and no form (existence/everything). Instruments are not tools of perception; they are tools of sensation. The only way to describe particles is through sensation. We don't literally see them individually, but we see light that is coming from them or constitutes them. The same observation applies to stellar objects beyond our planet or galaxy. We do not directly perceive particles, but particles make up our senses and thus we can find out that they exist. In Rand's epistemology, sensation is the stage following conception, i.e., we conceive of sensations but do not directly perceive them.

 

Yes, we perceive sensations of stellar objects right through space. The space itself is there but it is not in a concrete sensed form. Dark matter and energy, for example, is not sensed by any instruments and thus constitute vacuum as an inseparable whole (unless we find evidence to the contrary). Particles that we do not perceive make up fields visualized by physicists (e.g., Faraday's magnetic fields). These fields are space (whether empty or filled), and they were shown by Einstein to have electromagnetic and gravitational properties. Vacuum is one such space of the entire universe. The universe is not the same as vacuum. The universe is the perceived (or sensed) existence--not just a collection of stellar objects; it is the order in which these objects are organized. That's why the universe was called Cosmos (i.e., order) by the Ancient Greeks. Vacuum, on the other hand, is the unperceived (or unsensed) existence of the universe, that is, it is space that contains all stellar objects and their order. Perhaps all stellar objects are organized through vacuum just as gravitation of stellar objects organizes them into solar systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 In Rand's epistemology, sensation is the stage following conception, i.e., we conceive of sensations but do not directly perceive them.

 

In ITOE:

Although, chronologically, man's consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage.

The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ITOE:

Although, chronologically, man's consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage.

The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery.

 

That's correct--exactly as I said. Harry Binswanger also organizes the epistemological stages in his presentation on Perception in the following way:

  1. Perception
  2. Conception
  3. Sensation

I would also like to add that we perceive what's in our perceptual field of awareness, i.e., objects as identities or environment as a whole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct--exactly as I said.

Brushing aside the difference between the section on stages listing sensation prior to perception and conception vs. your claim that it follows?

This is not exactly as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brushing aside the difference between the section on stages listing sensation prior to perception and conception vs. your claim that it follows?

This is not exactly as you said.

If you look at my diagram above, I also list sensation prior to perception and conception. However, although we start with sensation as the most fundamental stage, we actually are beings of perception, not sensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physicists do not perceive the subatomic level, since we (i.e., humans) do not exist on such level. If you think otherwise, then you are the same as Kantian materialists, who think that there is only substance (identity/something) and no form (existence/everything). Instruments are not tools of perception; they are tools of sensation. The only way to describe particles is through sensation. We don't literally see them individually, but we see light that is coming from them or constitutes them. The same observation applies to stellar objects beyond our planet or galaxy. We do not directly perceive particles, but particles make up our senses and thus we can find out that they exist. In Rand's epistemology, sensation is the stage following conception, i.e., we conceive of sensations but do not directly perceive them.

 

Yes, we perceive sensations of stellar objects right through space. The space itself is there but it is not in a concrete sensed form. Dark matter and energy, for example, is not sensed by any instruments and thus constitute vacuum as an inseparable whole (unless we find evidence to the contrary). Particles that we do not perceive make up fields visualized by physicists (e.g., Faraday's magnetic fields). These fields are space (whether empty or filled), and they were shown by Einstein to have electromagnetic and gravitational properties. Vacuum is one such space of the entire universe. The universe is not the same as vacuum. The universe is the perceived (or sensed) existence--not just a collection of stellar objects; it is the order in which these objects are organized. That's why the universe was called Cosmos (i.e., order) by the Ancient Greeks. Vacuum, on the other hand, is the unperceived (or unsensed) existence of the universe, that is, it is space that contains all stellar objects and their order. Perhaps all stellar objects are organized through vacuum just as gravitation of stellar objects organizes them into solar systems.

This is nonsense.  I suggest you give David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses a try.  I don't have the time or patience to continue.

 

But this I can't resist: "Kantian Materialism"?  How about "Up Down", or "Black White"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya Startsev said: Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins consider their sciences as legitimate grounds to philosophize,

 

Ayn Rand wrote in "The Art of Nonfiction":

First, you need to grasp that there is no such thing as Objectivism or any other philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality. "Fundamental" refers to a principle or truth which is present in a vast number of concretes. To say something is fundamental means that many other truths depend on it. To say philosophy studies the fundamentals of reality means it studies those facts present in, and those principles applicable to, everything that exists.

 

What facts are being toted here that are present in, or which principles are being identified as being applicable to, everything that exists?

I would just like to point out that the word "thing" in the first sentence of the Rand quote you give here is italicized in the book, which somewhat changes the meaning of the passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that the word "thing" in the first sentence of the Rand quote you give here is italicized in the book, which somewhat changes the meaning of the passage.

So it is. My copy/paste function does not work directly to the reply window. Notepad removed the italics and I did not notice the omission at the time. Good observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he still doesn't know what metaphysics is.....hehe

And neither do you because you start at it. I actually try to analyze metaphysics.

 

This is nonsense.  I suggest you give David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses a try.  I don't have the time or patience to continue.

 

But this I can't resist: "Kantian Materialism"?  How about "Up Down", or "Black White"?

Yes, Kant made belief in soul and God meaningless. Moreso, he was a master materialist, whom people keep misunderstanding, just as he misinterpreted Aristotle. For an elaboration on my reasoning, read my post on Kant.

 

I would just like to point out that the word "thing" in the first sentence of the Rand quote you give here is italicized in the book, which somewhat changes the meaning of the passage.

Rand probably meant the word "thing" in the metaphysical sense, and Objectivism is not reality, and neither is it a selective recreation of reality. Objectivism is merely a view starting at a metaphysical notion of reality and epistemologically ending in the empirical sensations of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is. My copy/paste function does not work directly to the reply window. Notepad removed the italics and I did not notice the omission at the time. Good observation.

I'm sure that it was perfectly obvious to you and everyone else posting in this thread what Rand meant, of course, but you never know when some newbie is going to come along and get confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that it was perfectly obvious to you and everyone else posting in this thread what Rand meant, of course, but you never know when some newbie is going to come along and get confused.

Welcome to OO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Kant made belief in soul and God meaningless. Moreso, he was a master materialist, whom people keep misunderstanding, just as he misinterpreted Aristotle. For an elaboration on my reasoning, read my post on Kant.

If you want to talk philosophy with people who have some backround it’s a bad idea to use common terms and classifications in a way that contradicts normal usage. Kant is classified as a (or rather the) Transcendental Idealist. And a sharp critic of Materialism. You may as well call Rand an Irrationalist, because she opposed Rationalism, if this is going to be your MO. And before long no one will bother talking to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Philosophical_objections

I was drawn to this thread because I’ve read Krauss. I like Krauss, I find him very entertaining and engaging, and his use of the term “nothing” sometimes needs explaining, so I was happy to share my thoughts. Now I’ve done that, and I hope some readers have found my contributions worthwile. I find you too tedious to continue with, though I give you credit for being polite. So happy trails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to talk philosophy with people who have some backround it’s a bad idea to use common terms and classifications in a way that contradicts normal usage. Kant is classified as a (or rather the) Transcendental Idealist. And a sharp critic of Materialism. You may as well call Rand an Irrationalist, because she opposed Rationalism, if this is going to be your MO. And before long no one will bother talking to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism#Philosophical_objections

I was drawn to this thread because I’ve read Krauss. I like Krauss, I find him very entertaining and engaging, and his use of the term “nothing” sometimes needs explaining, so I was happy to share my thoughts. Now I’ve done that, and I hope some readers have found my contributions worthwile. I find you too tedious to continue with, though I give you credit for being polite. So happy trails.

Ninth Doctor, thank you twice: for making me question whether nothing is mistaken for some form of existence and for identifying the issue I have with Objectivism. It is not metaphysics; it is Kantianism. I have started a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illya said:

And neither do you because you start at it. I actually try to analyze metaphysics.

You mean I haven't read that book on my shelf called "Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology" by David Chalmers?...... You have no idea what your talking about, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean I haven't read that book on my shelf called "Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology" by David Chalmers?...... You have no idea what your talking about, as usual.

That's interesting. Would you then give your analysis of Rand's concept of existence and show how it compares to other philosophers' metaphysics? I am not a metaphysician myself, but I will not simply take for granted Rand's concept of existence above all of Aristotle's categories or Kant's a priori concepts. In fact, I think that Rand's way of cherry-picking a concept from its complete context is pathological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because all is some (A is I):

Some S is P (type I) can be used in place of an All S is P (type A) in a syllogism.

contradicts:

Substituting a 'type I' expression for a 'type A' expression does not convert to "A is I". All S is P is not Some S is P.

 

Because some is not all:
All S is P (type A) cannot be used in place of Some S is P (type I).
 

All fallacies deny identity to the subject matter at hand, where "fallacies" is S and "deny identity to the subject matter at hand" is P.

implies:
Some fallacies deny identity to the subject matter at hand, where "fallacies" is S and "deny identity to the subject matter at hand" is P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substituting a 'type I' expression for a 'type A' expression does not convert [it] to "A is I". All S is P is not Some S is P.

 

I don't know if you are claiming this is a contradiction on my part, or trying to state something else that just looks, to me, like you are claiming this is a contradiction on my behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substituting a 'type I' expression for a 'type A' expression does not convert [it] to "A is I". All S is P is not Some S is P.

 

I don't know if you are claiming this is a contradiction on my part, or trying to state something else that just looks, to me, like you are claiming this is a contradiction on my behalf.

It does not convert it--it presupposes that "A is I" for there to be a substitution in the first place. It's like in math: A=I; I=I. Since we know that "S is P" is equivalent to "S is P", all we need to look at is all and some.

 

One can also claim that existence is the universe. The universe is an identity, so one can substitute the identity for existence. Yet, you also claim (correctly) that existence is identity. Yes, there must be a contradiction on your part.

 

Consider how the following relate and whether you see any relation between the two:

  1. All physical objects exist.
  2. Some physical objects exist.

If I claim that all physical objects exist, do I not claim that some physical objects exist? If you say that all and some are not thus related, then you are probably only thinking about a loss of meaning entailed in converting all to some. Yes, there is a loss of some meaning, but the essential meaning is retained, that is, that physical objects exist. Of course, I do not support statements that conceive of the universe only as a collection of particles, but essentially they are right. The universe is particles, even though the proposition ignores that besides the universe and particles there are other things in existence. Other things, such as human bodies, for example, are beyond the mentioned propositions or are simply implied by them in their intermediacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×