Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vik

Regulars
  • Posts

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Vik

  1. Laws of Nature describe cause-effect relations which define the mode of interaction between entities. Objectivism views Law of causality as Law of Identity applied to action. That means that Laws of Nature are not invented. They are intrinsic properties of entities which have to be discovered.

    What do you mean by "intrinsic properties" in this context?

    Are you referring to the fact that causation is entity-based?

  2. You dont need a law to explain what is obvious to perception, that may be the boundary. The "law" is an induction of sorts. "Rocks fall" is self evident "every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle....." is an induction. And the identification of an invariance is only formulated into a law if the invariance is induced beyond what can be perceptualy grasped.

    The purpose for using empirical evidence to formulate a law is epistemological, almost like a form of unit economy. Once confirmed and automatized the new "law" can then be used as a metaphysicaly given fact to be plugged into new theories in an ever expanding conceptual framework. Thats why the word "principle" in my earlier definition works well, I think. Its funny how often Rands theory of concepts applies directly to a given line of thought.

    Sounds like that would include anything passed first-level generalization, but you aren't pushing any particularly high level of abstraction. That's a slightly wider scope of "principle" than I've seen.

    Thank you for the clarification.

  3. The axiomatic concepts are perceived or experienced directly, but have to be grasped conceptually.

    Other concepts are perceived or experienced directly, but they are also grasped via the process of observation.

    If there are any other axiomatic concepts, the precedence suggests that they would have to be grasped conceptually as well. The key to identifying it as axiomatic is it being something which is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge.

    Yes, but how? Where would we begin to look? How do we identify something that is implicit? Does some type of approach lead us there? What enables us to focus on one aspect rather than another? Such as emphasizing identity rather than existence?

  4. I'm not sure that it's correct to say that any concept formation is different than another. I think it's better to say that axiomatic concepts are *validated* in a different manner than those which are non-axiomatic.

    They're all the same in that there's a selective focus, integration, and something similar to measurement-omission.

    What's special is we're dealing with metaphysical fundamentals. This isn't a simple matter of pointing at distinguishing characteristics. It's not like we can point at some "non-existence" and make a distinction. We cannot differentiate existence from a void. We have to integrate all existents.

  5. It is my understanding that axiomatic concepts are formed through a different process than what I would use to form a concept of some particular existent.

    Rather than differentiating one group of existents from others, I'm supposed to integrate ALL existents and arrive at something basic.

    What is it that I do when I underscore a primary fact?

    Could there be other axiomatic concepts besides "existence", "identity", "consciousness"? Or are they all corollaries, like how "causality" is?

    I understand that in order to form any axiomatic concept, I need a sufficient body of knowledge and a developed ability to introspect.

  6. A word on axiomatic concepts. I was reading chapter 7 again in my quest for a clearer understanding of "characteristic" when I recognized this:

    "Since axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existent from others, but represent an integration of all existents, they have no Conceptual Common Denominator with anything else"

    What role do characteristics play in this process--if any?

    If none, what do we reference to integrate the units?

  7. Like universal gravitation, or the chemical process of combustion. A "law of nature" should be more than "things fall downward" or "fire burns paper", theres a more fundamental way of looking at it. It should also be noted as Grames pointed out, that "laws of nature" dont exist per se, so a reference to a conscious identification of facts should be included as the differentia.

    Hm...

    "Things fall downward" can be used to explain why letting go of a pen--or any other object--will result in its fall to the ground.

    Galileo's law of fall will explain fall times but it won't explain the fall.

    Newton's theory WILL explain the fall.

    The first is not considered a law but the second two are. Where is the boundary of the concept?

    If it is explanation, why is the identification of an invariance a law?

  8. Unless the narrowed usage in physics is legitimate, then like the term "selfish" it may be misused. Peikoff makes use of it when he states on page 16: The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary.

    Astronomical observations lead to the idea that there is a definite beginning to the observable portion.

    However, you cannot have something from nothing. And infinite regress doesn't make any sense.

    There must be something that causes without being caused by anything, a prior "stuff" that eventually led to the observable portion of the universe. Maybe the universe is on a cycle that cannot be described by thermodynamics. Or maybe we're following an asymptote that never quite reaches zero. Or maybe everything just stops. Whatever's going on, SOMETHING is doing it and there is nothing beyond that something and its effects.

    he said that Peikoff just applied eternal to the universe without validating it. Well, he is validating Objectivist principles as he comes up to them, not every term he introduces in the book.

    Time is a measurement of change of relationship between (or among) existents within the totality of what exists.

    It has no meaning outside of those relationships.

    What we know about the universe implies that there must be something that is of such nature that the concept of time is not applicable.

    I suppose you could say there is a sort of "eternity" in that sense, but you should distinguish that sort of eternity from the idea of infinite time. Those are very different ideas.

  9. how about...

    Conscious identification of an overarching principle among the causal relationships of entities.

    Would you consider identifications of invariance to be such principles? that something remains the same despite variation in something else?

    An entity has compositional invariance when constituents remain the same despite structural transformations.

    An entity has structural invariance when its structure remains the same despite a particular component being replaced by another particular component that is compatible with the previous component's niche.

    A system has functional invariance when its function remains the same despite changes in the composition or structure of the system.

    Those sorts of thing?

  10. There are no laws in nature. What exists in nature is just nature, laws are man-made. Those man-made laws of nature guide us on what is permissible to think will happen next, or happened in the past. Like other laws, the subjects of laws of nature are people.

    Genus: laws, principles that set forth a normative guide for action, that specify what should be done.

    Differentia: acts of thinking about nature, the physical world.

    "Law of nature" is a misnomer, they are actually "laws of science".

    I do not view them as guiding behavior, so "law" must be an inappropriate qualifier.

    Hm... what would be a better way of putting it....

    I'm trying to talk about an actual physical relationship that we've described by means of combining concepts in a certain way. As opposed to a proposition that does not fit the facts or does not apply the concepts correctly.

    I'm trying to talk about a true scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

    I'd say "scientific principle", but a lot of people associate "principle" with top-level abstractions.

    Hm...

  11. I dislike using the term "universe" to refer to the sum of everything. "Universe" has a very specific meaning in physics that's too narrow for us to objectively claim as everything. I think "totality" would be far less confusing. I have a few things to say about "totality" but not all of it directly relates to your topic so I will start a new thread.

    co-worker: I agree with one adjustment - I would say we have this universe, and by extention, existence.

    Entities exist. By extension, we have everything else.

    Existence is not something on top of entities.

  12. TYet, even describing something between attributes and or relationships, the connection to the entity still exists. At the risk of being myopic on the subject, as you bring up later, Laws of Nature seem to identify (a) causal relationship(s) of one or more existents.

    Note: Existent does include attributes, relationships, concepts and other non-tangibles.

    Yes, it's indirect in the sense that the entities are implied but their interactions are left unspecified on the principle that some laws of nature are concerned with a consequence of interactions rather than the interactions per se.

    Isn't this redundant. Law of Nature - Nature is Actual. How would a law of nature apply to something only imagined?

    It's about as redundant as "facts of reality", but it serves to underscore the difference between a law of nature and a proposition supposedly about a law of nature.

    OTOH, there are similarities between that issue and the problem of universals. It's a bit like asking if relationships are "out there". (I understand them as a subcategory of existents that do not exist apart from entities)

    Are there Laws of nature that is are not an identification of a causal relation?

    Was this thread isolated from another? The heading and the quest seem a little disjointed.

    Just a grammar error. I finished finals yesterday.

  13. A law of nature identifies a causal relationship of one or more existents.

    I think of causation in terms of entity interaction. Strictly speaking, attributes and relationships do not exist apart from entities. Things interact giving rise to everything else.

    If a law of nature involves two existents where neither is an entity, it seems more descriptive to me than explanatory.

    Actual(?) if it is not actual, can it be described?

    What is not actual can only be imagined.

    Are all laws of nature expressed in a single proposition?

    Identifies describes what the discription is trying to accomplish.

    When we have the knowledge and adequate concepts, we can express a law as a single proposition.

    Are you trying to reduce law of nature or define it?

    I'm trying to collect basic facts about laws of nature because I am having trouble distinguishing laws of nature from other types of relationships.

    Is there anything more to causal relationships than laws of nature? Is there some type of causal relationship that's NOT a law of nature?

    How should laws of nature be expressed so we don't run into the problem we had with Mill's rules of reasoning? Namely that we cannot know all the conditions necessary for a consequence. Do we simply tack on "ceteris paribus"? Or can Objectivism enable us to do more?

  14. Hmm well as you said, you have described the conceptual framework for a law of nature, but that's not enough for a definition.

    Maybe you should start with what you would presume to be a law of nature and deconstruct it until you understand it better. So, name a specific law...

    I have three wires. Let's call them A, B, and C. I connect them together so that you can say that current "flows out" from A & B and "flows into" C.

    So A + B = C

    This equation is a specific instance of one of Kirchoff's laws:

    "At any node in an electrical circuit, i.e. where the wires meet, the sum of currents flowing into that node is equal to the sum of currents flowing out of that node."

    It presumes knowledge of wires and electric current.

    It describes a quantitative relationship, but it doesn't explain much. I'm not trying to sell it short. It can certainly be used to explain quantitative change. It can certainly be used to predict whether the addition of a fourth wire will cause a reduction in the current in C. However, it says NOTHING of action beyond that. And it gives little insight about the entities involved.

    In order to apply this law to the real world, somebody must use a measuring device, such as an ammeter.

  15. This thought should cause us to ponder the nature of absolute certainty. The critical characteristic of absolute certainty is that certainty develops from the definition of one's terms.

    Checking differentia of "certain"...

    "Certain" represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion. What other types of assessments are there? "probable", "possible", "impossible", "arbitrary", etc.

    "Probable" means that there is statistical evidence for generalizing from a sample of data. this is very abstract so it's dependent on the certainty of definitions.

    "Possible" means that although definitions allow it, and it doesn't contradict anything we know, we don't know enough to "fully affirm" it.

    "Impossible" means that it implies a contradiction to something we already know.

    I would say that definition is *incidental*, not essential.

    McLaurin series values

    This is a good example of how definitions can be used to rule out certain types of errors.

    The application of definitions to the assessment of particular conclusions is a deductive process.

    I'm not sure how this is related to induction or causal inference though. It is my understanding that mathematical induction is actually a type of deduction.

    Could you provide more background on what you're trying to say?

    Also, mathematical objects only exist, however objectively, in the mind. We define and represent objects such as point, line, circle, angle, etc with what we sense in the real world but we don't sense the objects themselves. We develop the concepts of geometric and mathematics objects by thinking about the nature of what we perceive.

    Would you say that there is no mathematics apart from attributes abstracted from reality?

  16. Here is what I have so far. Additions and clarifications are highly welcomed.

    A law of nature is an actual relationship that can be described by a single proposition.

    True propositions identify actual relationships among the units subsumed by appropriate concepts. They capture some of the laws of nature. Laws of nature cannot be described or explained without an appropriate conceptual framework. First you form concepts. Then you apply them to specific situations by means of propositions

    Concepts can be applied to particulars to yield universal affirmatives. For example, the concept of an elliptical can be used to reconstruct Kepler's laws when applied to astronomical data.

  17. Great video about the double slit experiment;

    Double Slit Experiment

    Electrons do not split in two before reaching the slit. That idea is just a convenient fiction.

    Also, I take issue with "the very act of measuring or observing which slit...".

    Physicists try to determine which slit it "passed through" by throwing something at it or interacting it with by some less direct means. Since the same type of interaction happens with each electron that's sighted, they land in the same spot. Nothing mysterious here.

    What's mysterious is that, left to themselves, they form an interference pattern.

    Feynman did a great deal to clarify the nature of this "shakiness".

    Here is a nice intro to the issue:

  18. This is the only physics discussion on ObjectivismOnline that I have ever seen go right! Light does weird things in some experiments as well as any particle, it doesn't mean that the whole wave/particle thing is all wrong, it just means that neither is completely correct, and that we don't know exactly what is going on! I've read that this phenomenon has been observed in molecules as large as buckey balls! (soccer ball of carbon atoms)

    We're on the verge of a new concept as revolutionary as Faraday's concept of "field" was.

  19. This experiment means nothing. Apparently the suggestion is that the balls emulate thermal particles in a gas, but nothing could be further from the truth. The movement is far from random, in fact it is a primitive model for the functioning of a water wheel: you pump up water that falls then down due to gravity and you extract some of the energy you put continuously into the system. Had the experimenters never heard of a self-winding watch, a centuries-old invention?

    Hitting the soft side of a vane some of the energy of the beads is absorbed, that would mean that the temperature of that soft side increases. In a real gas that would mean that the particles there would be moving faster, but the whole analogy with thermal particles is false and Feynman's conclusion isn't in any way falsified.

    Well said! Feynman was talking about nano-wheels, not enormous paddles.

  20. I didn't say random. I said chaotic. Randomness implies lack of identity. Chaos simply means that something is very sensitive to initial conditions and APPEARS random.

    I thought random meant "without pattern", as in APPARENT disorder? e.g. when I can't *deterministically* predict the outcome based on limited available information? (I'm talking about statistical contexts where the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated because of the finite cardinality of the set of possible outcomes)

  21. Perhaps I should ask a different question. In quantum mechanics, is the 'collapse of the wave function' an actual physical phenomenon?

    Different interpretations say different things:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

    I believe there is not sufficient information at present for a meaningful answer.

    Is it the case that at time T there is a waveform, and at some later time T+n the wave has 'collapsed' into a fully determinate state?

    You can have a state of knowledge such that you know a particle could end up in a handful of locations but you don't know enough to say which. So you draw up a waveform. When you know enough, you can calculate a determinate state and dispense with the waveform.

    But before you're tempted to call the waveform a mathematical artifact, you should consider something.

    If you fire electrons, one after another, through a double slit, you will get an interference pattern--a wavelike pattern alternating bands of high concentrations of electrons separated by "bands" where there are no electrons. If you want to know which slit the electron passed through, you could shine a light on it to find out. However, this interaction changes the behavior of the electrons so that they all pile up in one place. So we have reason for thinking there WOULD HAVE BEEN a wavelike pattern if we hadn't violated the condition(s) that made it possible.

    Why is there a wavelike pattern in the first place? Do electrons interfere with themselves? Maybe. But if they do, why should the interference pattern disappear when photons interact with electrons? Obviously the interaction caused it. But WHY?

    What if electrons normally interact with virtual particles? What if shining a light overwhelms the electrons so they all go one way?

    There are several problems with this conjecture.

    First, I don't know any way for testing it.

    Second, Feynman diagrams, which employ virtual particles, were originally intended to aid memory for the purpose of calculation. It's a bit like saying "Ok I don't know enough about the particle to know what it's been interacting with. But I know enough to say that there is a certain probability that there will be an interaction with A. But there is also a certain probability for interacting with B. And there is another probability for interacting with C, but only if D does X. Given all these probabilities and a list of many others, here is what I predict the measurement will be".

    What's interesting about this approach is that the more possibilities you consider, the closer your prediction will be to reality.

    Thus Feynman's Path Integral is a tool for summing over all possible histories to arrive at the probability for a particular event. It is a very reliable tool in that it enables you to calculate the probabilities to an arbitrary accuracy. (By "possible histories" I mean that we don't know enough to say which one happened.)

    Feynman's approach sidesteps the observer problem, but it doesn't say why the interference pattern goes away. Furthermore, the Feynman diagrams are horrifically messy in QCD. This suggests severe limitations on using the diagrams to get a feel for what's really going on.

    The QCD messiness reminds me of the era of astronomy between heliocentric-ism and Kepler, when astronomers used a complicated system of circles to approximate planetary orbit because they didn't think of an ellipse. There is a crucial difference though. In the case of astronomy, it was eventually found that you could NOT approximate the orbit with circles. No such problem exists with the Feynman path integral. That device remains shockingly useful.

    If so, then my question is what triggers or causes this event, out there in reality? It can't be triggered by any event that reduces to a choice or identification by consciousness for reasons I think we agree on.

    AFAIK, no serious physicist believes that consciousness causes collapse.

  22. This is something that's always bugged me, from my layman's perspective: what is a "measurement"? I see only two possibilities. Either a measurement is an interaction between existence and consciousness, or it's an interaction between one part of existence and another. The first model is the "people cause wave collapse" approach and would require building consciousness into the foundations of quantum mechanics -- something that is not the case as far as I know.

    Nope. Just a common misrepresentation on the part of "science" writers.

    The second model sounds like what you're describing, the "what you're trying to measure" and the "measuring apparatus" being the two parts of existence in question. But that raises the question of what makes the measuring apparatus a measuring apparatus? Is it something inherent in its nature? If so, what? Or is is just that when we're doing the calculations we decide to treat the measuring apparatus using the principles of classical physics and the "what you're trying to measure" using the principles of quantum mechanics? (A non-Objectivist former co-worker of mine, who had a Ph.D in theoretical physics from Cambridge, once described the measurement process to me in essentially those terms.) I find that explanation unsatisfying because it still ultimately reduces to consciousness -- in this case, a decision by consciousness to label part of existence as a measuring apparatus and to crank the mathematical formalisms accordingly.

    I do not see how we can avoid labeling something as measuring apparatus and something as measured.

    First, when measuring anything with any device, it is necessary to account for possible errors due to the setup of the device or some other fact about how the device works.

    Second, a double-slit surface is huge in comparison to a photon. So huge that the old equations for interference are "good enough" to predict the locations of bright and dark fringes. But if you try to figure out "which" slit a SPECIFIC photon went through, you have to throw something big at the poor tiny photon so you can say "here it is". Once the photon interacts, it will do something DIFFERENT than what it would have done if you hadn't thrown something at it. This has to be accounted for.

    It has been suggested to me that if we applied quantum to all the little particles of the measuring device and tried to figure out how to describe the device as a whole, we'd end up with the classical description of the device. So apparently the "choice" is simply a way to avoid unnecessary math.

    I don't know if I'm missing something obvious here or if this is a real lacuna in the theory, but I've asked a number of knowledgeable people this question, Objectivist and non, and have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense to me -- and this doesn't look like something you can ignore if your goal is to describe and explain what is actually physically happening in reality.

    What do you think of Richard Feynman's explanation of the electron double slit?

×
×
  • Create New...