Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What does philosophy tell us about the universe?

Rate this topic


msb

Recommended Posts

RadCap,

I actually had the precise phrase Rand used in mind when I objected to your distinction between what exists and what "actually exists". I just looked up the term in at m-w.com, and it lists "in actuality" as a synonym for "in reality." So maybe it's just that I've studied too much Aristotle and I have a non-standard concept of actuality in mind, but what I had in mind is this: actuality is usually contrasted with potentiality, which is not the sort of contrast you're trying to get at when distinguishing between what exists in reality and what exists in consciousness. You can use "exists in reality", but I don't think that's ideal either: the contrast to "real existents" is "unreal existents", and that's not an accurate description of consciousness either.

I don't have an ideal word in mind, but I think either of these would be in a sense an improvement, though they both have problems. "Concretely exists" is probably the best I can come up with. (Incidentally, anyone know of a source for a definition of the meaning of "concrete" as used in Objectivism?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RadCap,

I was referring to the concepts embodied in the "Big Bang", particle creation - virtual and otherwise, black hole creation and evaporation, etc. But, after further reading of posts asserting the presence of the ether, etc., I believe I should refrain from entering discussions involving science as it would be very frustrating for me and then in-turn for other forum members.

thanks for your clarifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt

As you demonstrate, the other concepts do not reference the idea I am trying to get across. Since I identified the context as the difference between existents of reality and existents of consciousness, I believe within that context "what exists" and "what actually exists" suffices. I too would prefer more precise terms for this context. However, if they exist, I am not aware of them (or at least not able to dredge them up from my memory, which means essentially the same thing).

As such, given the explicitly identified context, I believe these terms are the best to identify my ideas.

--

So does all this now mean that you accept the concept "universe" as I have been identifying it? Or are you still mulling that one over?

--

Ash -

Sorry I did not respond to your post sooner. Matt's post which challenged remarks made quite a few posts earlier distracted me. ;)

I agree that the appropriate referent is, at least at this point in human knowledge, physical science. I simply took it as read that everyone would understand it as such. Sorry for not being more precise.

BTW - I know that AR called logic the "art" (not science) of non-contradictory identification. I forget, did she ever identify philosophy specifically as a "science" and not an art or the like? If so, do you recall the basis on which she identified it as a science? My understanding is that all the sciences are the *application* of the primary philosophic principles to specific fields of study - ie they are derivatives of philosophy and are identified as sciences because they differ FROM philosophy by begin with more specific axiomatic concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - I know that AR called logic the "art" (not science) of non-contradictory identification.  I forget, did she ever identify philosophy specifically as a "science" and not an art or the like?  If so, do you recall the basis on which she identified it as a science?  My understanding is that all the sciences are the *application* of the primary philosophic principles to specific fields of study - ie they are derivatives of philosophy and are called sciences because they begin from more specific axiomatic concepts.

Circa Aristotle science used philosophy as a critical underpinning. IMHO it was the genius of Newton that recognized a fundamental difference and began the divorce process. Circa Einstein/Dirac, et al, the divorce was finalized. A few (perhaps many, definition dependent) still attempt a reconciliation, but science no longer finds philosophy essential, or perhaps even helpful in describing the world. I mean no slight, both fields have strengths, weaknesses, and areas of worthwhile investigation still to be accomplished. However, I believe requiring an objectivism philosophical underpinning for science would have prevented the discovery of many the things we generally take for granted today, i.e., lasers, integrated circuits, etc. While I have less experience in mathematics I suspect that field has undergone a similar revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Aristotle is know (among other things) as the Father of Science, for, while he did not create the scientific method, with his discoveries about logic and reason and identity etc., he made science possible.

Your response, however, does not answer the question I was actually asking.

Furthermore, I disagree with your claims related to the 'divorce' of philosophy and science. If you wish to discuss them further, you should start them in a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the appropriate referent is, at least at this point in human knowledge, physical science.  I simply took it as read that everyone would understand it as such.  Sorry for not being more precise.

I figured that was the case. I was just making sure.

BTW - I know that AR called logic the "art" (not science) of non-contradictory identification.  I forget, did she ever identify philosophy specifically as a "science" and not an art or the like?  If so, do you recall the basis on which she identified it as a science?  My understanding is that all the sciences are the *application* of the primary philosophic principles to specific fields of study - ie they are derivatives of philosophy and are identified as sciences because they differ FROM philosophy by begin with more specific axiomatic concepts.

I think there are two uses of the term "science." The first would be as it is differentiated from philosophy, as you indicate here. And actually, the context of your previous post did make it clear that this was the sense in which you were using--so my objection was made in error. Where I got confused is that I think there is also a wider sense of the term (as I indicated in my previous post) that means simply "any methodical inquiry into the nature of reality, aimed at discovering truths about it." In this wider sense, philosophy certainly counts. But perhaps this wider sense is an incorrect usage on my part?

I thought that I had heard (or read, actually) Ayn Rand call epistemology a "science" once, but I can't find it now, so I may be mistaken.

Regarding the "divorce" of science and philosophy, well, I wouldn't use exactly that term. Originally, the special sciences were all subsumed by philosophy, which simply means "love of wisdom" and covered all fields of inquiry. But with figures like Newton who made huge progress within certain fields (physics), it began to become more specialized. If I understand it correctly, in his own time Newton was referred to not as a physicist but as a philosopher. And I believe that Aristotle referred to physics as "natural philosophy." At least, that is the historical development of the terms as I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap,

Still mulling.

I've seen "science" defined by Objectivists as "an integrated body of knowledge", but I don't know if that comes from Rand or not. The definition Peikoff used in OPAR was "systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation." So if you buy those definitions, philosophy is definitely a science.

I think I recall Rand describing ethics as a science, too. But I don't have a source on hand for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand definitely calls philosophy (and metaphysics and epistemology and ethics) a science, with some frequency. "But philosophy is a science that deals with the broadest abstractions..." (Censorship: Local and Express) "...and that there is only one science that can answer them: philosophy." (Philosophy: Who Needs It) "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence." (The Chickens' Homecoming) "'I'm studying philosophy,' said Leo, 'because it's a science that the proletariat of the R.S.F.S.R. does not need at all.'" (We the Living)

Etc. But, she distinguished between philosophy and the "special sciences" fairly frequently too.

I think the use of the term is contextual. On one hand, "science" has come to be fairly synonymous with the physical sciences. On the other hand, its good to emphasize that philosophy is a science in the sense that it is a rational, integrated, relavent body of knowledge. I think the context of this discussion has made it clear so far what has been meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I think the more limited version of the term amounts to a frozen abstraction: it takes the "hard sciences", i.e. those which are quantifiable, and then tosses the rest out. The rest get packaged-dealed into "non-science", which would include anything from philosophy to psychology to astrology -- implying that there's no use for distinguishing between those fields have integrated bodies of knowledge logically acquired from perception and those which are guesswork or pseudo-science.

Also, I suspect the change to this use of "science" is fairly recent. I don't know this for sure, but here's why I'd guess that. When such fields as psychology and philosophy get tossed out from the category of science, psychologists and philosopers get annoyed. Of course they want to have a science! Psychology pretty much started in the 19th century, so I won't comment on that, but in philosophy the first attempts to reduce the field to quantification started, at the earliest, with the early Rationalists. There were historical attempts to use a geometrical model, like with the Pythagorians and Spinoza, but they were largely aberrations. As the frozen abstraction usage of "science" became more widely used, you find such things as the "hedonic calculus" and, more recently, Bayesian epistemology entering into the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to get this one concept cleared up - it involves randomness.

Do you believe in it, or do you see events as purely deterministic, and causal? I am inclined to agree with the latter, and this is why I do not think that our "free will" really is "free" - many many many events come together, and cause us to do stuff, say stuff, etc.

The central point though comes to ramdomness - is there such a thing? Or do you see the universe as purely deterministic?

-Falafel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer from QM is - a kind of bounded randomness. Certain things exist not as infinitely precise, but as multiples of the fundamental unit or as probability spreads (which are actually different ways of describing the same thing). In any event, individual microscopic motions are weighted-random (causally related to reality), and macroscopic motion is the total of such, usually very close to the expected total. The universe is not deterministic - QM squashed that conception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But philosophy DOES tell a person if the conclusions they draw from their 'observations' are valid or not.

Regardless, as has been noted, this is a topic about philosophy, not physics. Do not persist in posting physics responses to philosophic questions. We do not want a repeat (or worse) of previous topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[The post this was in reply to has been deleted, so this message is no longer relevant. -Matt]

Actually, I've found this thread to be very interesting. I've learned quite a bit from it. And I'd appreciate it if you would not bring up QM, GR, or physics--or if you do, to do it in a different thread. We're discussing specific metaphysical axioms and corrolaries. If you consider this empty sophistry, then butt out and leave us to it, please. I started this thread for a specific purpose, and I think it's done quite well without any special scientific knowledge.

As an aside I do sympathize with your objections, perhaps more than most of the others here. But they are errors, they are off-topic, and they will suck the value from this thread. I know you disagree, but please just leave us be; we're headed in the direction we want to be going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y

Your latest off-topic post has been removed.

You have been warned multiple times now. Previous threads in which you carried on in the same manner were closed because you could not control yourself. Any further posting off topic will NOT result in the closing of this topic, but in your removal from it.

Thus, despite your assertions to the contrary, one way or another you will NOT post like that again. This is your LAST warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been busy with career concerns and have not been able to post for a while. I will recap to save others the time of digging through this thread...

Assumptions about all that exists as it pertains to the concept 'universe' (not assumptions about 'existence')...

All of x possess spacial boundaries (the sum of all that exists)

When you state: "All of x possess spacial boundaries" do you mean that each and every x possesses a "spacial" boundary? Or are you trying to say that the SUM of all that exists possesses a spatial boundary? (I assume it is the former, because the latter would be assuming what you are trying to prove, thus making the argument circular. However, I wanted to know for certain which it was you meant.)
Each and every x possesses a spacial boundary, a spacial boundary in this context defined as limits for the existent in categories such as mass, volume, etc...

x is a physical existent

I include the above because we are discussing the concept 'universe' (I.e.- What is 'out-there') and to distinquish a thing from its attributes and/or actions, which exist as relationships between existents, but they themselves have no physical extension. Whatever the primary constituents of physical existents are, we can be sure of two things. They exist, therefore possessing identity, and they exist finitely. When I speak of 'all that exists' in the context of this discussion, I mean all physical existents. At present I am not concerned with entities (mental or otherwise) or attributes of existents (even though they exist). I am concerned with whatever that fundamental building block(s) is(are) and its nature. This fundamental building block exists, has identity, exists finitely (even if we cannot measure it accurately), and it possesses spacial bounds (since it is a physical existent). This is all I am concerned with in this discussion, establishing this. The relationships between existents will be resolved accordingly.

relationships between existents include the temporal

All that exists, exist finitely (I.e.- Is limited in quantity)

All that exists possesses spacial properties, and relationships between these existents include the temporal.

The word is not the thing. The term 'universe' has two tenses.

First, it is a collective noun of quantity. I agree when spoken of in this sense that time, space, etc. do not apply. How could they apply to a collective noun...

But, when the concept 'universe' is taken in its literal sense, 'the sum of all that exists' it becomes limited. The concept 'sum' by its nature is limiting.

If every existent is spacially bound, then all existents are spacially bound, and all that exists has a spacial boundary (I'm visualizing an imaginary sphere that includes all existents in its volume). The same goes for the temporal. If every existent is spacially bound, then existents have temporal relationships with other existents.

The fact that you cannot compare the movement of everything to nothing, etc. does not matter. This speaks of the concept 'universe' in the collective noun sense, and stops there.

The parts cannot contradict the whole (when a new entity is not involved, we have established the 'universe' is not an entity). If time and size are properties and relationships of all existents, and all that exists (all existents) have spacial and temporal properties. Then size and time apply to the whole (the whole being all existents).

Our inability to measure this *quantity* of 'that which exists', does not negate the possiblity of a finite quantity 'that which exists', it just means we can't measure it at present.

Now, I'll answer specifics if your post...

Furthermore, what is your definition of spatial boundary? Your referent for it is "physical existent". As such, conceptual boundaries would not be included. For instance, "solar system", while an existent, is not a *physical* existent. It is a *relationship* between physical existents. As such, it would be excluded from your "assumptions".

This is true, solar system as you describe it would not be included. But, the individual existents that we, for convienience, collectively call 'solar system' are included. I am going broader that the concept planet, star, etc. I am speaking of that fundamental building block(s) of the physical existent, what ever that happens to be. 'Spacial boundary' in this context means those spacial properties possessed by that fundamental building block.

So it appears, then, that your x refers *specifically* to entities and not to any other form of existent. Since we have already established that "universe" is NOT an entity, and since the above statement refers specifically TO entities, then whatever is said above does NOT apply to the concept

"universe".

I am not following you here... An 'existent' is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. I use physical existent above to differentiate a thing from its attributes or actions. An 'Entity' is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action as percieved and integrated by a human consciousness (eventually, entities become regarded as units). I include these definitions to make sure we are discussing the same thing. My goal is to distinguish something that exists independent of human consciousness (existent), and something that exists independently and is perceived and integrated by a human consciousness (entity).

You are correct, the 'universe' is not an entity. But I am also not speaking of entities, but existents. Existents, not entities, are ultimately the fundamental building block of 'all that exists' in the context of the 'universe'. To say that entities make up this fundamental building block is like saying somehow the 'universe' is predicated on human consciousness, or at the very least tied to it somehow. I am certain that the universe would still exist even if there were no consciousness to percieve it.

As I noted above, the concept 'universe' is a collective noun of quantity and in this sense is an integration of our consciousness. As you noted in a previous post:

"Universe is not an entity unto itself, possessing anything of itself, including any unique attributes, characteristics, etc.. There are ONLY the characteristics, attributes and relationships of those things included in the concept OF "universe" which is "all that exists".

What are those things included in the concept 'universe'? All physical existents and all their properties, attributes, and relationships amongst themselves independent of the recognition of human consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to get this one concept cleared up - it involves randomness.

       

        Do you believe in it, or do you see events as purely deterministic, and causal? I am inclined to agree with the latter, and this is why I do not think that our "free will" really is "free" - many many many events come together, and cause us to do stuff, say stuff, etc.

        The central point though comes to ramdomness - is there such a thing? Or do you see the universe as purely deterministic?

-Falafel

Since nobody really responded to this, I think a couple of errors should be cleared up.

First, causality is universal--but causality is not synonymous with determinism.

Second, free will is not possible only if there is "randomness" involved. In fact, if free will simply amounted to different actions being possible only due to the presence of "random" factors, then it wouldn't really be free will--the person's own (non-random) choice would not be the cause of his actions.

Since causality is universal, randomness (in the sense meant here) does not exist. But since free will is not randomness, causality does not imply determinism and rule out free will.

You are probably relying on a wrong view of causality, namely the action view, which states that an action is caused by an antecedent action. What causality properly states is simply that an entity acts in accordance with its nature. That is, the nature of the entity acting is the cause of that particular effect. (Drop entities, which are primary, out of the picture and look only at actions, and you end up like Hume, denying causality altogether.) Part of man's nature is that he is a volitional being. His choices are caused--caused by him--but they are also choices--they are free.

If you drop the question-begging view of causality, you should be able to see that the question "Is there randomness or is the universe purely deterministic?" is a false alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, causality is universal--but causality is not synonymous with determinism.

Ok, after a couple seconds of though on this, I can agree with it. But for the time being, let us leave out free-will and conciousness - for now.. we'll come back to it.

Just so I understand you correctly, (AshRyan), are you saying that:

* There is no such thing as a random event in the universe. *

?

-Falafel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something of a side issue, but to clarify what Ash said, since you (Falafel) seem to be confused about the concept "random":

Yes, there are random events in the universe all the time--if you properly understand what random means. Random doesn't mean uncaused, it means causally unrelated to something. The result of a coin toss is causally unrelated to my wishes for it to land heads or tails. But it acts perfectly causally.

To bring it back to the nature of the universe: The law of identity tells us that everything has a nature. Causality tells us that everything acts according to its nature. Nothing in the universe violates this, including free will--free will is just man acting according to his nature by causing his own actions. There's nothing uncaused (or random) about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result of a coin toss is causally unrelated to my wishes for it to land heads or tails. But it acts perfectly causally.

Umm....

Of course the result of a coin toss is totally unrelated to your wishes, or to say, what the days' soup special is. However, would you not agree, that weather or not you get heads or tails, depends on something? (Like the initial position of the coin in your hand, the amount of energy you impart to it, and the angle at which you impart the force to it.). Since it depends on those conditions, how can you call it random?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, well this is new. Randomness is relative? The American Heritage dictionary defines random as:

"Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements."

Would I be paraphrasing you correctly if I said:

"A coin toss is random with respect to your wishes, but not random with respect to forces imparted onto it."

"A pool ball falling into the left pocket is a random event to you if you dont think about how you hit it, but it is not a random event to the physics governning pool balls."

"The temperature outside is a random number, relative to you, (since you do not see any pattern to temperature), but it really does have pattern based on the laws of physics".

Coming back to tossing coins:

"You cannot see a pattern to the results of a coin toss (ie random w.r.t you), but in reality, there is a predictable pattern to the coins results based on the laws of physics."

If this is true, it would seem the concept of randomness (if I understand you correctly) amounts to a failure of perception - the failure of seeing a predictable pattern, when in fact there is a pattern that can be predicted, based on laws of science.

-Falafel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the dictionary definition is right. "Random" means "causally unrelated." Patterns have nothing to do with it.

Randomness is not a "failure" of perception, and it is only secondarily about predictability. It means, first and foremost, that x event (a coin toss) is causally unrelated to y (everyone's wishes about its results). Your examples are strange and unhelpful. Just PM me if you're still confused, please.

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...