Quantum Reality And Objectivism

dsandin · June 13, 2004

In reply to Vaclav (Jun 10 2004, 10:58 PM):

The old concept of ether was much better way of doing away with void because the concept of ether was quite generic, i.e., it didn't smuggle in anything beforehand and physicists could make it whatever they actually found out there in physical world to exist and/or they could give it any properties they saw fit in the light of their various theories/hypotheses.

"The metaphysical fact that there must be things everywhere" is a way of saying that existence is a plenum; that to exist is to be something, and a physically existing "hole" devoid of all existents would be a contradiction of identity as surely as an infinite physical measure would be such a contradiction. I'm at a loss to see how the fact that existence is a plenum is not utterly generic.

If you want to use the concept of an ether without specific physical content, so as to allow for whatever gets discovered as "filling the void" without rationalistic physical assumptions, then you're merely replacing a word ("ether" for "plenum"), not an idea. But "ether" suffers not just from quaintness to the ear, but from historical association with a discredited approach to the nature of space and time. The idea of filling a void too easily leads to, or fails to dispel, fundamental misconceptions. So I opt for plenum.

In the same vein, I don't believe in talking of entities or their attributes (like size or whatever) when you are thinking of the most fundamental stuff the existence is made of.

To exist is to be something. You're talking about rejecting identity when it comes to the most fundamental stuff. You mention size. There is a world of difference between recognizing that this quality may not apply to the fundamental entities, and saying that no qualities do.

I also do not happen to believe that postulating densely packed entities does away with void in a satisfactory fashion.

"Plenum" and "densely packed entities" are not the same thing. Dense packing applies to material objects being efficiently crammed together. It assumes concepts that may not have anything to do with the plenum of entities throughout existence.

I do not believe any discrete stuff as such, entities or whatever will do in that regard, never mind that you are taking macroscopic picture of reality as presented to our senses down to the most fundamental level.

I think another reading of what I've written on this topic would show that I most explicitly am not "taking [the] macroscopic picture of reality as presented to our senses down to the most fundamental level".

Why is any 'discrete stuff' not satisfactory? Well, for one, it still implies the existence of void albeit one that is 'banished' by being filled with entities.

No. First, "void" assumes absolute space and time as a physical container of the universe. Everything I argue for rejects space and time as physical and pre-existing; it rejects "void" in the first place and accepts only physical entities as concrete existents.

Second, "discrete stuff" means only that an entity, fundamental or otherwise, is what it is and is a separate thing from other entities. This is a way of phrasing the concept of identity. It does not imply that existence is not a continuous whole. "Discrete" applies to individual entities. "Continuous" applies to existence as a whole and is simply a restatement of "no voids". A key here is that existence as a whole is not an entity.

Then you have many questions as to the exact conditions existing at the interfaces of those discrete entities related to closeness of contact among those filling entities and you will be asked about theories you have developped as to the motion of particles of matter in these entities or through them and if you have some integrated picture of how exactly matter as we know it relates to this substratum made of denselly packed entities...

Whatever valid questions may lurk in there are exactly what we must expect physicists to ultimately address. In particular, it's not as if metaphysics presribes the answers. Or as if the questions can't be asked. By way of example, an impressive effort has been made regarding "the motion of particles of matter in these entities or through them and if you have some integrated picture of how exactly matter as we know it relates to this substratum made of denselly packed entities". You may see this in Dr. Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves at

http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW

as I've mentioned previously. The point in this context isn't that you should accept the TEW; the point here is what a great example the TEW is of doing physics the right way by accepting the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum.

vaclav-KI · June 14, 2004

"The metaphysical fact that there must be things everywhere" is a way of saying that existence is a plenum; that to exist is to be something, and a physically existing "hole" devoid of all existents would be a contradiction of identity as surely as an infinite physical measure would be such a contradiction. I'm at a loss to see how the fact that existence is a plenum is not utterly generic.

If you want to use the concept of an ether without specific physical content, so as to allow for whatever gets discovered as "filling the void" without rationalistic physical assumptions, then you're merely replacing a word ("ether" for "plenum"), not an idea. But "ether" suffers not just from quaintness to the ear, but from historical association with a discredited approach to the nature of space and time. The idea of filling a void too easily leads to, or fails to dispel, fundamental misconceptions. So I opt for plenum.

Yes, plenum and ether are both quite generic terms, total agreement here. I take it they both mean the same thing and are postulated for the same reason - to get rid of the void which is an epistemological dead end.

[edit - halfway through replying, I determined to use only the term 'ether' throughout this post and stick to it in my other work as well, 'plenum' is a term that has much wider usage than ether has and that could lead to confusion]

I also see the term 'ether' as quaint and carrying lots of negative historical associations and the reason I prefer it to plenum is perhaps precisely because of that, somewhat in that spirit that AR chose 'selfishness as virtue' for the title of her book. Plenum is a term that a philosopher would be more likely to employ and ether would be more likely chosen by a physicist

In this connection, if you get rid of the problem of void by accepting ether (something currently unspecified that is everywhere), why fill it with entities then. As I understand this view, that is being done precisely to get rid of the void, when you are trying to specify what the ether actually consists of because you want to make a step beyond just stating 'there is something everywhere'... that is, your densely packed entities are then what the ether consists of. That's why I took the densely packed entities for your specification of ether and pointed out its shortcomings as I did - that it won't do as ether and its not just its discretness but more importantly, that it is entities, i.e., matter. Ether is more fundamental than matter (entities).

Again, once you agree there is ether, there is no need to pack it with entities to solve the problem of the void and if you introduce it for other reasons (as something existing above the underlying ether, like filling it or whatever), then it really should be part of some wider theory. That should be so whenever you go past what philosophy can specify and it certainly cannot go as far as specifying the nature of ether or any specification like entities everywhere etc. There you are on the grounds of physics.

As it stands, I grant you it seems like a logical thing to do, especially for one with knowledge of Objectivism in which philosophy, entities play major and fundamental role. It is then just one short step to make them into what the ether actually consists of. But I don't think you will get far that way, working from bottom up by specifying entities in what seems unavoidable choice and then presenting it to physicists working in the field and awating if they come up with something.

I believe the nature of the ether as it will be uncovered one day will be arrived at from the top - from macroscopic phenomena down to microscopic - and it will be mostly if not solely done by process of induction (the last steps that will end at the plenum anyway) and with no prior assumption being made about its nature. Reason being that it is almost certain, new concepts will have to be coined along the way, same as physicists of today use concepts that didn't exist before the new fields of physics were opened up, like 'strangeness' or 'spin' etc. properties of particles of matter for example that have no counterpart on macroscopic level (those words denote new concepts of particle properties but old existing words have been used to denote them in the context of particle physics)

That gets me to another objection you made:

...To exist is to be something. You're talking about rejecting identity when it comes to the most fundamental stuff. You mention size. There is a world of difference between recognizing that this quality may not apply to the fundamental entities, and saying that no qualities do.

There are qualities/properties (attributes) of ether but appart from those logically required ones such as finiteness etc., they will be all new qualities that matter/entities do not have and they will be determined in the course of working down to the level of plenum. There are certain attributes that ether does have and that are known today but not recognised as such and they are not qualities that matter can have and that's all that I am ready to state. I write about all this in my unpublished paper 'Inertia and Gravitation' and so will not reveal those things here for understandable reasons. Ether doesn't have the properties usually found in matter simply because it is not matter.

..."Plenum" and "densely packed entities" are not the same thing. Dense packing applies to material objects being efficiently crammed together. It assumes concepts that may not have anything to do with the plenum of entities throughout existence.

Here you use the term plenum in way that is not compatible with it being synonymous with ether (ether wouldn't be used the way you used the word plenum here). I said above all that I wanted to say on this particular point and now will just make short note on this different usage of plenum and ether. You seem to use the term plenum here to denote entities around us like tables, planets, stars... all making up universe ("plenum of entities throughout existence").

But you would never use ether concept that way, ether specifically means background 'something' to matter but it doesn't include matter/entities in it. Somewhat like the soil of farmers field forms background to vegetables growing on it but the field is not vegetables and vice versa. You'd never use the term ether to say 'ether of entities throughout existence' as you do above with plenum.

I never paid much attention to how pple use the concept of plenum but it can apparently be used in expressions that are not compatible with the ether of physics (the ether of Michelson-Morley experiment in short) although it can be used in the way ether is. I will use the term 'ether' here in this post and in my other writings exclusively henceforth.

...I think another reading of what I've written on this topic would show that I most explicitly am not "taking [the] macroscopic picture of reality as presented to our senses down to the most fundamental level".

That view I assumed because I took those densely packed "entities" to play the role of ether, that is of general background to matter or something fundamental like that.

...No. First, "void" assumes absolute space and time as a physical container of the universe. Everything I argue for rejects space and time as physical and pre-existing; it rejects "void" in the first place and accepts only physical entities as concrete existents.

Its not enough in physics to reject void in a statement, you have to provide something, some idea of something (such as ether) to banish it from consideration at its root. Those who wave arms around and point at entities around us and claim 'this is all that is and it fills the world to scuppers'... well, I never understood that and take it for mysticism. Not saying that's what you are saying but it seems something like that ('accepts only physical entities as concrete existents').

What you say above about void and absolute space and time etc. is confusing to me and I can't comment on that.

...Second, "discrete stuff" means only that an entity, fundamental or otherwise, is what it is and is a separate thing from other entities. This is a way of phrasing the concept of identity. It does not imply that existence is not a continuous whole. "Discrete" applies to individual entities. "Continuous" applies to existence as a whole and is simply a restatement of "no voids". A key here is that existence as a whole is not an entity.

Well, why not replace those many densely packed entities with one big entity and be done with it.

But on more relevant note. I simply see all this talk about entities in this context (nature of ether) as not productive, leading anywhere. Talking of entities in other ways than say philosophy of Objectivism talks about them is just rationalism (I mean when other posters here talked about their 'smallest size' and all that, almost recalled to me that line about how many angels can stand on the pointed tip of needle, surely you will know the allusion). If you didn't mean those densely packed entities to mean stand in for ether (the background continuum to all of existence that ensures there is no void), then I am lost and if you and other posters here meant it as such, then I just say, I don't see it as a valid picture of ether. Ether cannot consist of matter (entities), which claim is somewhat similar to that one where consciousness was argued on this forum as not consisting of matter or reducible to it (view to which I subscribe).

But I am affraid this discussion should be continued on a more appropriate thread already out there in progression.

...By way of example, an impressive effort has been made regarding "the motion of particles of matter in these entities or through them and if you have some integrated picture of how exactly matter as we know it relates to this substratum made of denselly packed entities". You may see this in Dr. Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves at
http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW

the point here is what a great example the TEW is of doing physics the right way by accepting the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum.

Great, this will take us solidly back on topic but I think I should comment on that in another post here.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

Betsy · June 14, 2004

As I understand this view, that is being done precisely to get rid of the void, when you are trying to specify what the ether actually consists of because you want to make a step beyond just stating 'there is something everywhere'... that is, your densely packed entities are then what the ether consists of. That's why I took the densely packed entities for your specification of ether and pointed out its shortcomings as I did - that it won't do as ether and its not just its discretness but more importantly, that it is entities, i.e., matter. Ether is more fundamental than matter (entities).

I think that you are construing "entities" too narrowly to mean only material entities with the properties of size, shape, weight, etc. I don't think everyone here is using the term that way.

There are also mental entities like thoughts and entities composed of other entities such as an ocean. What makes something an entity is that it is a specific existent with identifiable characteristics. "The ether" would be an entity and so would whatever individual components of that ether might be.

stephen_speicher · June 15, 2004

Yes, plenum and ether are both quite generic terms

Not at all. Unlike the more general use of the notion plenum, the ether comes with a great deal of specific history in the form of a fluid ether, a mechanical ether, an elastic solid ether, an electromagnetic ether, etc. Plenum is a much more general term since it simply stands for that which is, where nothing else is, minus the historical baggage.

Plenum is a term that a philosopher would be more likely to employ and ether would be more likely chosen by a physicist

Not if he were a physicist who also thought in terms of philosophy. The term ether has taken on so many disparate forms in the history of physics, while the plenum has pretty much remained what it has always stood for. If one were to develop a modern ether-based theory, the word would connote a great deal of historical baggage.

But you would never use ether concept that way, ether specifically means background 'something' to matter but it doesn't include matter/entities in it.

Then you are not familiar with the history of the ether, say, from Newton to the early 20th century. I can recommend some very good books on the history of the ether if you want to learn about it.

I never paid much attention to how pple use the concept of plenum but it can apparently be used in expressions that are not compatible with the ether of physics (the ether of Michelson-Morley experiment in short)

What "ether of Michelson-Morley experiment?" The experiment gave a null result, as has every valid MM-type experiment performed since then.

vaclav-KI · June 15, 2004

I think that you are construing "entities" too narrowly to mean only material entities with the properties of size, shape, weight, etc. I don't think everyone here is using the term that way.

There are also mental entities like thoughts and entities composed of other entities such as an ocean. What makes something an entity is that it is a specific existent with identifiable characteristics. "The ether" would be an entity and so would whatever individual components of that ether might be.

I am going to quote a short passage from my own paper that I mentioned in my post already:

from unpublished paper Inertia and Gravitation - vaclav - Knowledge Integration ... We have already made the first step towards the requirement of the inapplicability of motion to ether by classifying it broadly as an 'existent' and not an entity which is a much more specific, narrow and primarily matter based concept to which the idea of motion typically applies. Existent on the other hand allows for much more freer interpretation in this respect and it is an especially appropriate term to be used to denote new phenomena about which as yet little is known.

"An existent is a concrete. "Existent" is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and even mental events. They exist. ...The concept "existent" refers to something which exists." [quoting from: Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (Expanded Second Edition) New American Library Books, 1990, p. 241.]

Thus, classifying the ether as an existent leaves the issue of its precise nature conveniently open and most importantly, such classification does not falsely (mis)lead us to identify it as some type of matter (which might be the case with the term 'entity') because then we could not avoid the applicability of 'the idea of motion' to it. Ultimately though, the material origin of the ether is ruled out by its fundamental position within the logical hierarchy of the model of the universe that will be presented in this series of papers. As will become more apparent later on, the relationship between ether and matter can be illustrated by means of an analogous relationship between a vegetable field and its produce. Just as it would be wrong (for a farmer) to classify together, in the same category, the field's soil and the produce growing out of it so, in a similar way, it would be wrong for us here to classify together the ether and matter in one common category. Although the produce is, in a sense, just another form of the field's soil, that does not yet make the soil itself any kind of vegetable produce and similarly it is the case with matter and ether. The ether is a unique existent, it is not some fifth kind of matter or any kind of matter at all.

('the idea of motion' mentioned in the quote of course refers to Einstein's stipulation on the inaplicability of motion to ether as one major restriction on it, one which I agree with and I make sure ether conforms to it)

On p. 157 at top in ITOE, AR calls concepts mental entities...

I recall some discussion on this issue perhaps in a Q&A with L. Peikoff somewhere, where people asked about cloud of gas, is it an entity... and so on (yes it is in certain perspective, as well as the ocean and puddle and drop of water etc.) I also recall a statement that entities primarily mean concrete physical things we perceive, things that form a definite unit that holds together in a definite shape and is separated from its surrounding... something to this effect, I think it might also come from ITOE.

I just take the position that for the purpose of basic philosophy, entities are primarily your plain concrete material objects that we perceive with our unaided senses but the term can also be used in the extended abstract meaning such as when concepts and mental events are said to be mental entities. However, in physical science context, it might be advisable to relegate entities back to their primary meaning to refer to just physical matter in all shapes and forms and for the rest use the term existent. Point here is, this is physics and not a paper in philosphy and also it is writen for other audience than just Objectivists. Even talking of entities in a physics paper is pushing it I think.

Also observe that you said 'mental' entity - not just entity but mental entity - when you refered to thought. That qualifying term 'mental' serves to clasify this particular class of entities to special category of abstract entities. Keyword is 'special'. Outside of Objectivist circles, people do not think of thoughts as entities or mental entities and entity to them normally means a thing. That I believe is also how AR wanted people to view entity in basic philosophical discussions like in ITOE.

"The ether" would be an entity and so would whatever individual components of that ether might be.

I came to see it as wrong to think of ether in terms of 'individual components', be they entities or whatever and to approach it like that in general. Ether is the most fundamental existent there is in all of existence, it is at the bottom of everything and nothing is at the bottom of it. [that's good line, I might include it in my paper] It is the last stage of existence as we may know it, unique in itself, nothing like matter, and as such, our knowledge of it will always of neccesity remain quite limited in comparison to our knowledge of matter world that arises out of it and that our material senses can directly or indirectly detect.

In short ether is not something to be investigated same way as we investigate matter to find its component atoms and then find their component particles and state that matter consists of subatomic particles or as we can divide the ocean into drops of water and study the molecules of those drops and then state that ocean consists of densely packed entities and those entities are molecules of water...

It is misguided to talk about components or parts of ether.

from unpublished paper Inertia and Gravitation - vaclav - Knowledge Integration ...Every inquiry ends somewhere, period. Our inquiries into the nature of matter end at the level of ether and there we can make models of how ether operates to explain what happens on the level of matter but that is quite differrent from investigating the nature of the ether itself, of what it is composed, what it consists of and such. Ether is something that we must just accept as being here and being what it is and consisting of whatever it is and that's it. If we approach its study on the premise of it being just another object of study similar to matter, it will not be long before we throw our hands up in dispair and exclaim, 'there is nothing there' and join the vast leauge of ether denying physicists that is ever growing in numbers since the times of the the Michelson-Morley experiment, the misinterpretation of which led them to decide for the first time that ether doesn't exist.

We as creatures of this world of matter are detectors of matter par excellence and only of matter. We can only detect components of matter because they are themselves matter. Matter is hierarchically dependent for its existence on ether and that is one reason why ether cannot be another kind of matter. Ether not being matter is then open to investigation only via an indirect method, the method of inductive logic - similar way that we might investigate a 'black box' containing some unknown machinery and try to determine what the machinery inside is, just from what the actions/responses of the black box are that result from our pressing buttons and moving levers located on its exterior.

We can observe various matter phenomena and develop theories on that ground of what model of 'matterial mechanistic picture' could best account for the given observed matter phenomena being studied and that is that. Perhaps one day, we might be able to carry such model making far enough and end up with one universal model that will explain all the fundamental matter phenomena but even then, most that we will be able to state about the nature of ether will be that its workings are something like our model of it, without being able to claim that that is the actual way how the ether is doing whatever it is doing. But the point is, our aim is not to find out how the ether does what it does but to understand how matter phenomena of this world are working.

The various models of ether that the method of induction will allow us to build will, in consequence, present us with something akin to a rough sketch of a picture whose finished appearance we may not ever be able to see, but the nature of which the sketch will enable us to grasp. The idea is that we will, upon examination of a particular model of ether exclaim "now I see how gravitation/inertia/whatever... works, there must be some such working arrangement of elements of ether out there akin to the model presented here." At the same time though, we should recognize that while the particular model of working arrangement of elements of ether is very unlikely to be an exact model of what is actually out there, it is nonetheless real in some way and working out there.

When Newton came up with his formula for gravitational force, he was told that it only described what happened when two bodies of given mass were given distance appart but that it didn't explain how gravitation itself worked. Now I am able to explain in terms of a model of ether how gravitation (and inertia) works but I cannot tell how is my model implemented out there in reality because I am certain that the artifices that my mind is limited to working with do not exist out there as such in reality in ether.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

vaclav-KI · June 15, 2004

Not at all. Unlike the more general use of the notion plenum, the ether comes with a great deal of specific history in the form of a fluid ether, a mechanical ether, an elastic solid ether, an electromagnetic ether, etc. Plenum is a much more general term since it simply stands for that which is, where nothing else is, minus the historical baggage.

well, I take ether idea in its plain original meaning, that there is something out there everywhere permeating everything including matter, so that universe can be full of something which insures void doesn't exist because that would be logical impossibility.

I can't walk in shoes of other physicists that worked with the concept before me. In the paper, I state it plainly, after briefly describing the unfortunate history of ether that we have to leave all that behind and make new start with ether.

It is somewhat on the parallel with AR's claiming back the concept of selfishness and even calling it a virtue and all that on the cover of a book.

I hope I can say enough of substance about this new approach to ether to make people start thinking that it is something fresh and worth looking at this time around but mainly I have to rely for its new acceptance on getting new results in physics that I get by working with the idea of ether as opposed to conventional physics which is today stuck on many fronts with no solutions in sight and it is preciselly because they threw the bad ideas of ether with ether itself (throwing out baby with bath water comes to mind).

Not if he were a physicist who also thought in terms of philosophy. The term ether has taken on so many disparate forms in the history of physics, while the plenum has pretty much remained what it has always stood for. If one were to develop a modern ether-based theory, the word would connote a great deal of historical baggage.

True enough but I have never given much thought to the term plenum and never used it and that was source of some confusion on my part. Problem seems to be that plenum can be employed fairly liberaly it seems whereas ether is historically firm, for better or worse and you say worse. That is one thing I can always change when its completed.

Then you are not familiar with the history of the ether, say, from Newton to the early 20th century. I can recommend some very good books on the history of the ether if you want to learn about it.

I posted something on ether while you were posting this, right after this one of yours, you can see I am plowing my way and doubt very much I could get much help from history. I suppose it shows that I am no expert on history and its true, I just pay lip service to it to get to my own thing.

What "ether of Michelson-Morley experiment?" The experiment gave a null result, as has every valid MM-type experiment performed since then.

I may have phrased it awkwardly, that's precisely what I meant, that it gave the null result and as consequence, (some) physicists in light of this experiment decided to abandon the idea of ether because they interpreted that result to mean that the ether couldn't exist.

this is how I treated it in the paper currently in progress:

from unpublished paper Inertia and Gravitation - vaclav - Knowledge Integration ...Ether wind experiment of Michelson-Morley constituted a turning point in the development of the ether idea that lead to its eventual dismisal by the majority of modern physicists. Light was found to travel with unvarying speed regardless of the changes in the orientation or motion of the earth at different times of day or with changing seasons. As interpreted at the time, this experiment demolished the idea of an ether at rest with the earth moving through it since no ether wind was detected yet, on the other hand, it was unacceptable to believe that the earth had the privileged position of always being at rest relative to the ether. Various attempts were made to explain the experiment, the most notable among which were that the ether immediately surrounding the earth was completely carried along with it (ether drag hypothesis) or that all physical objects were foreshortened along the direction of the ether motion (Lorentz theory) but both of these explanations had their own difficulties. The dilemma thus stood unresolved until the year 1905 when A. Einstein published his Theory of Special Relativity.

Looking at it now, I capitalized the 'Theory of Special Relativity' but I would like to ask what is the difference between Theory of Special Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity if there is any. I am inclined to think it is a matter of taste. Also if it should be always capitalized in text, my grammar is failling me here and it shows I am not native English speaker and so any remarks you want to make in the way of grammar are welcomed.

Thanx for your and Betsy's comments, they are stimulating and who knows I might get back to writing those papers that I mention here, most of what I figured out so far is still in my head only.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

stephen_speicher · June 15, 2004

well, I take ether idea in its plain original meaning, that there is something out there everywhere permeating everything including matter, so that universe can be full of something which insures void doesn't exist because that would be logical impossibility.

If you want to try to reclaim the ether concept, that is fine. Whether you do so successfully, or not, will depend upon the physics that you present. I get a new paper every week from engineers or other non-physicists who want me to consider their "new" ether theory. There is good reason in the physics community that the concept of the ether has become a pejorative term. Almost all of these ether "theories" being proposed demonstrate a rather incredible ignorance of physics and experimental fact. So, if you choose to resurrect the ether concept, you will have an upwards battle to fight.

But, anyway, I was just responding to your claim that the plenum and the ether were equally generic terms, by simply pointing out that the historical context of the ether has corrupted the term through association with an endless array of sometimes silly but, always, failed theories.

I hope I can say enough of substance about this new approach to ether to make people start thinking that it is something fresh and worth looking at this time around but mainly I have to rely for its new acceptance on getting new results in physics that I get by working with the idea of ether as opposed to conventional physics which is today stuck on many fronts with no solutions in sight and it is preciselly because they threw the bad ideas of ether with ether itself (throwing out baby with bath water comes to mind).

Just a word of caution to you, meant as a helpful suggestion. It is quite common to see in these new "revolutionary" theories proposals that suggest new physics. Unfortunately, all too many of these proposals do not first show that the theory can account for what is already known as experimental fact. No real physicist will, and rightfully so, have any interest in your "new" physics if the theory contradicts the facts of reality that are already known.

True enough but I have never given much thought to the term plenum and never used it and that was source of some confusion on my part. Problem seems to be that plenum can be employed fairly liberaly it seems whereas ether is historically firm, for better or worse and you say worse. That is one thing I can always change when its completed.

I am not really against you resurrecting the term ether. Only be aware that in doing so you need to carefully disassociate yourself with centuries of failed approaches, and often absurd approaches, at that. Besides, the plenum is a more philosphical concept, rather than a scientific one. My own thoughts on this are that if you correctly identify the physics involved it will mostly give birth to its own suggestion of terminology which will more accurately describe the phenomena you identify.

I posted something on ether while you were posting this, right after this one of yours, you can see I am plowing my way and doubt very much I could get much help from history. I suppose it shows that I am no expert on history and its true, I just pay lip service to it to get to my own thing.

My attitude is somewhat different. There is great value to be gained by studying the history of physics. You would be amazed at how many times I have pointed out to some "new" ether theorist that his idea was first developed by so and so, so many years ago. But, the real value of history is not just learning what has failed, and why, but in understanding what has succeeded, and why. A real understanding of the history of physics provides you with a broad context of knowledge and facts that greatly help to understand the current more modern issues in physics.

I may have phrased it awkwardly, that's precisely what I meant, that it gave the null result and as consequence, (some) physicists in light of this experiment decided to abandon the idea of ether because they interpreted that result to mean that the ether couldn't exist.

Hardly any physicists adandoned the ether because "the ether couldn't exist" based on the MM experiment. The experiment gave a null result for a class of ether theories, but left open the possibility of others. In fact, in their 1887 paper detailing the results of the experiment, Michelson and Morley specifically refer to George Stokes' partially entrained ether as not being ruled out as a consequence of this experiment. Those who abandoned the ether did so mainly because there were no really viable theories that led them to any new horizons in physics.

Looking at it now, I capitalized the 'Theory of Special Relativity' but I would like to ask what is the difference between Theory of Special Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity if there is any. I am inclined to think it is a matter of taste. Also if it should be always capitalized in text, my grammar is failling me here and it shows I am not native English speaker and so any remarks you want to make in the way of grammar are welcomed.

Historically, when Einstein presented his main "Foundation" paper on general relativity in 1916, he referred to his older theory as the "special theory of relativity." Over the years the more common usage in the literature has become simply "special relativity" alone, or, more formally "theory of special relativity." And, no, "special relativity" is not generally capitalized.

dsandin · June 18, 2004

vaclav-KI wrote on Jun 13 2004, 10:07 PM

In this connection, if you get rid of the problem of void by accepting ether (something currently unspecified that is everywhere), why fill it with entities then. As I understand this view, that is being done precisely to get rid of the void, when you are trying to specify what the ether actually consists of because you want to make a step beyond just stating 'there is something everywhere'... that is, your densely packed entities are then what the ether consists of. That's why I took the densely packed entities for your specification of ether and pointed out its shortcomings as I did - that it won't do as ether and its not just its discretness but more importantly, that it is entities, i.e., matter. Ether is more fundamental than matter (entities).

This is where you go wrong. Entities are whatever exists. This is the metaphysical starting point for getting everything right about physics. That which exists is that which has a specific identity, exhibits specific attributes, and performs specific actions in contacts with other entities. This necessarily includes the plenum of entities that exist everywhere, no matter what material entities may or may not be present.

Also, it is not the case that I'm talking about recognizing a plenum in order "to get rid of the void", as if this solves a problem. There is no issue of the void, no need to explain why it isn't there, since "void" is an invalid physical concept (being a reification of nonexistence). There is no metaphysical problem there at all. As to any physical problem, there is of course the problem of identifying the physical nature of the plenum objects. This may be the ultimate, and hardest, job in physics, but in the widest sense it is not special since it is the precisely the purpose of physics to identify the nature of _everything_ that concretely exists.

In some other recent postings you have made reference to OPAR and ITOE in expressing your case. Thus it's appropriate for me to point out Ayn Rand's discussions of entities and ultimate constituents in the Appendix to ITOE. In particular, the section "Properties of the Ultimate Constituents" in the chapter "Philosophy of Science" makes the point that these constituents are entities, whether or not they might be considered as matter. What entities are matter, and what entities are something else, is to be discovered, not assumed in advance. Overcoming the unsupportable--and in fact arbitrary--notion that physical entities are limited to material objects or particles is a must, and perhaps that section can help.

vaclav-KI · June 21, 2004

I have already explained in my reply to Betsy why my take on entities is the way it is. I just made a mistake talking here on Objectivist forum about entities the way I do in my paper on Inertia and Gravitation.

On one hand, you (you and Mr Speicher) would have me ditch the term 'ether' in favor of the term 'plenum' because of how it is perceived nowadays by physicists, on the other, you would (you and Betsy) have me employ the term 'entity' as if I was addressing my physics paper solely to Objectivist community for whom it is a staple, stock in trade term so to speak to use. Thing is, you hardly see physicists making use of the term (unless they are Objectivists) and they only understand the term in the way the general public does.

If you talked to little kids and wanted to speak about entities, you'd do well to speak just of 'things' and confine yourself only to objects easily encompassed by direct perception with clearly delimited outlines etc. If you addressed yourself to general adult audience, you might speak of entities but still you'd be well advised to confine yourself to more basic and common usage of the term. Addressing yourself to physicists is really the same as addressing general public when it comes to speaking of entities. Its all a matter of context.

Ether as such is perfectly general concept (same as plenum is) of the ultimate 'stuff' existing out there everywhere in homogeneous form. Sure there are many physicists out there who as soon as they see the word in your paper, they will query you about the kind of ether you talking about (and or what you gonna do about this or that model of ether that was developed in past by somebody and that they might still believe in) because they automatically assume everybody must choose some historical model of ether and perhaps modify it but essentially continuing with some ether that somebody in past worked out. I am not addressing myself to such physicists and they don't count anyway if they approach physics that way - that you start where your predecessors left off (AR said something to this effect in ITOE and if I should have a motto, this one would be it).

In that section of ITOE to which you call my attention to ("Properties of the Ultimate Constituents" in the chapter "Philosophy of Science") My opinion is that AR talks of the 'ultimate constituents of universe' because the question was brought up in that form by the seminar participants who were practicing professionals from various fields (incl. physics likely). That is how the problem is approached by mainstream physics today, where the thinking is in terms of going deeper and deeper into the heart of matter in that style where you go from matter to molecules to atoms to protons/neutrons/electrons and then you go to quarks and then... and you end when you can't find anything deeper down. While that is one valid approach to investigate reality, the ultimate picture of reality might not be of this kind at all where you would say, these are the ultimate constituent particle entities (or puffs or whatever) and they are the most basic stuff there is and they have such and such properties etc.

What if it is not numerous 'constituents', entities (like some tiny particles or something) but a 'constituent' (singular) - an ether/plenum homogeneous single entity existing out there that is nothing like particles of matter and of which we might not be able to find its constituents (parts of it) in that traditional fashion of working our way down as when we talk of matter. But the question formulated the way it was brought up in ITOE brings such premises into it and I don't think it is warranted at all.

That is why I wouldn't feel bound some way to what AR says there or would seem to imply (that the ultimate stuff of universe should be entities, except for the usual rational approach to investigation of the ultimate reality that she gives a guidance there for.

I propose only that there is ether, a unique existent (an entity) spanning the whole universe which is existing everywhere permeating all of existence throughout and which is finite (definite) as regards the properties it may be determined to have and that is all. Any further determination as to whether it has parts qua numerous discrete entities and what those parts might be etc., that should all be driven from top down by demands of particular physical theories, not postulated philosophically as some logical starting construct.

I've seen it quite a few times when Objectivists (students of) took up some line or idea from AR as a lead up to some theory of their own (as deductive start for it) but it never came to anything.

So many decades passed already with Objectivism being known by many people, amateurs and professionals in sciences but we have yet to see some advance in sciences made, on major or even minor scale. You'd think that rational philosophy of science that Objectivism supplies would be a powerful springboard to those scientists familiar with Objectivism and that they would virtually monopolize Nobel prizes awards and put on even keel some ill areas of physics but nothing like that happened, there are not even advances yet unrecognized in the field (ok, there is TEW but I've no idea if its author even benefited from Objectivism plus I have serious misgivings about the theory). Instead you only hear about 'hot discussions' on various subjects going on among Objectivists for years but there are no results.

Apparently, rationality and correct philosophy of science is by itself not enough to come up with something.

"There is no issue of the void, no need to explain why it isn't there, since "void" is an invalid physical concept (being a reification of nonexistence). There is no metaphysical problem there at all."

[sarcasm] Yes, void creates no metaphysical problem for majority of professional physicists, they easily admit void or imply it and don't apologise for it. [/sarcasm]

It would be nice world if you didn't have to even mention the word (as one properly shouldn't have to in this context), if the issue of it didn't come up at all in physics of today. OK, shoot me down because I didn't formulate what I said there like a lawyer in a fool proof way. I didn't mean it to imply that void actually exists out there and that we have to postulate ether or plenum to banish it, that was just a way of speaking that I didn't expect I would be caught up on.

I really would much rather have you arguing for those densely packed entities and putting that picture into some broader setting of some physical theory. Then we might argue over that.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

stephen_speicher · June 21, 2004

On one hand, you (you and Mr Speicher) would have me ditch the term 'ether' in favor of the term 'plenum' because of how it is perceived nowadays by physicists ...

That is not what I said. I first argued against your claim that the notion of the ether and the plenum were equally as general, by pointing out that historically there have been a great number of conflicting and contradictory scientific formulations of the ether, while this was generally not the case in regard to the plenum. The overall point was that the plenum is more of a philosophical concept whereas the ether is highly associated with differing scientific theories. And then, contrary to what you claim in your quote up above, I said:

"If you want to try to reclaim the ether concept, that is fine. Whether you do so successfully, or not, will depend upon the physics that you present."

I do not know if this is due to English not being your first language, but you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding what people write.

Addressing yourself to physicists ... there are many physicists out there who as soon as they see the word in your paper, they will query you about the kind of ether you talking about

Based on the excerpts you have made here, I doubt that many physicists will even get that far. So far all I have seen is a (confused and mistaken) philosophical presentation, with no physics at all. If you want to address physicists, you need to have physics to be addressed.

vaclav-KI · June 21, 2004

That is not what I said. I first argued against your claim that the notion of the ether and the plenum were equally as general, by pointing out that historically there have been a great number of conflicting and contradictory scientific formulations of the ether, while this was generally not the case in regard to the plenum. The overall point was that the plenum is more of a philosophical concept whereas the ether is highly associated with differing scientific theories. And then, contrary to what you claim in your quote up above, I said:

"If you want to try to reclaim the ether concept, that is fine. Whether you do so successfully, or not, will depend upon the physics that you present."

Well, if you said that ether concept was not equally as general as the concept of plenum, that ether carries negative historical baggage as you outline here and that this was generally not the case in regard to plenum... then I take this to mean, you were advising me to go with plenum, that it would be wiser choice. Nothing more and nothing less.

It is quite another thing that you then pointed out that it is fine with you if I choose the other. Point remains, you didn't think that ether would be the better choice of the two and that if it was your choice, you'd go with plenum.

I think now, it was my poor choice of word I used there (ditch), I think that's what made you come at me as you did. It was a bit strong and I apologise.

I do not know if this is due to English not being your first language, but you seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding what people write.

That reference was uncalled for. I am truly sorry now I asked you for anything.

Based on the excerpts you have made here, I doubt that many physicists will even get that far. So far all I have seen is a (confused and mistaken) philosophical presentation, with no physics at all. If you want to address physicists, you need to have physics to be addressed.

That was just a short quote and on the point, I hope you didn't imagine there is nothing more, you didn't expect me to quote here the full paper or even the whole page with the rest of the history of ether and inertia??

You pointed out in previous post in reference to one of the excerpts that

(stephen_speicher) Hardly any physicists adandoned the ether because "the ether couldn't exist" based on the MM experiment. The experiment gave a null result for a class of ether theories, but left open the possibility of others. In fact, in their 1887 paper detailing the results of the experiment, Michelson and Morley specifically refer to George Stokes' partially entrained ether as not being ruled out as a consequence of this experiment. Those who abandoned the ether did so mainly because there were no really viable theories that led them to any new horizons in physics.

That is what the "confused and mistaken" refer to I take it. Point is, if I went into such a great detail of the history of ether as you mention it here, I would be writing a paper or even a whole book on the subject of history of ether alone. This is just a paper, not a treatise and history will be only small part of it. It will be long only several tens of pages.

In the paragraph before the one in which I mention MM experiment, I talk about Newton and in the paragraph after the MM experiment, I talk about Einstein and then I talk for couple pages about ether, rest of the paper deals with physics at hand - Inertia and Gravitation. The idea is to leave the rest of ether argumentation after physics are dealt with, that way one has support of some physical theories worked out. It is better that way in my opinion than to try and attack the ether directly without having any examples to illustrate and argue from. The historical account is supposed to be only a brief introduction to the paper, only a cursory examination of major historical points as they have bearing on the paper at hand to establish context, that all.

All ether theories of old are dead and none has shown in some believable way how to account for the fact that speed of light is constant which is a single major hurdle for any ether theory to pass, old or new. If it can't deal with that, I wouldn't care for the rest of what it might say. And while you are perfectly right that MM experiment 'left open the possibility of other ether theories', the point is, those theories didn't subsequently explain the null result, not in any satisfactory fashion. And that is why I said the following: "wind experiment of Michelson-Morley constituted a turning point in the development of the ether idea that led to its eventual dismissal by the majority of modern physicists." Notice that I didn't say there that those ether theories were abandoned in the aftermath of the MM experiment, right there and then. I have said that MM experiment "led to [ether theories] eventual dismissal" and that they were dismissed by the "majority of modern physicists" which clearly implies that some of those theories had some middling existence long after MM experiments for them to be dismissed by modern physicists but dismissed they were and even if that happened for some other reason, they wouldn't have passed the new criterium that the MM experiment established (of light speed being constant) anyway. That's what I meant when I said what I said.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

stephen_speicher · June 21, 2004

Well, if you said that ether concept was not equally as general as the concept of plenum, that ether carries negative historical baggage as you outline here and that this was generally not the case in regard to plenum... then I take this to mean, you were advising me to go with plenum ...

I am not "advising" you "to go with" anything. I do not care if you call your notion "gradheuwiorwsy," or anything else. Why are you having such difficulty understanding the points that I made?

I think now, it was my poor choice of word I used there (ditch), I think that's what made you come at me as you did. It was a bit strong and I apologise.

I would be happy to accept your apology, if I knew what you were apologizing for. I do not have a clue as to what you mean.

That reference was uncalled for. I am truly sorry now I asked you for anything.

Feel free to stop asking anytime you like.

That was just a short quote and on the point, I hope you didn't imagine there is nothing more, you didn't expect me to quote here the full paper or even the whole page with the rest of the history of ether and inertia??

You have already demonstrated to me that you do not have a good understanding of the history involved, so I would have little interest in seeing more of the same. What I am simply pointing out to you is that if you want to address physicists you need to provide some physics. All I have seen so far is a bunch of pronouncements lacking any substance. It is nice to know that you think so many people are wrong and you are going to revolutionize physics, and when you get around to the revolution feel free to let us know.

dsandin · June 23, 2004

[...] you would (you and Betsy) have me employ the term 'entity' as if I was addressing my physics paper solely to Objectivist community for whom it is a staple, stock in trade term so to speak to use.

Since Stephen Speicher has definitively addressed "ether", I'll not follow up on that further.

"Entity" is the basic idea anyhow, equally for plenum or ether. Yes, I would have you employ "entity" here as if you were addressing the Objectivist community; that's the context of this forum. But beyond that, theoretical physics properly starts from the same understanding. The bedrock subject matter of physics is concrete entities of any and all kinds -- what they are, how they act. Advance restriction by physics as to what sort of wholly new entities may turn out to exist -- beyond strict conformity with identity and its corollaries -- is a philosophical error, and it's by grasping the metaphysical concept of "entity" from the beginning that we fully realize that.

I propose only that there is ether, a unique existent (an entity) spanning the whole universe which is existing everywhere permeating all of existence throughout and which is finite (definite) as regards the properties it may be determined to have and that is all.

The essential point against this is that the universe is not an entity in itself. Existence is the collection of all things that exist, not a concrete thing having attributes -- it's the open-ended list or sum, so to speak, of whatever things exist. To presume the universe consists of a single thing (or is coextensive with a single thing) is a fallacy. Whatever it is that fills existence, whatever that turns out to be in specific physical terms, the law of identity tells us that it is composed of specific existents.

Put another way, to exist is to be something that exists, not everything that exists.

I didn't mean it to imply that void actually exists out there and that we have to postulate ether or plenum to banish it, that was just a way of speaking that I didn't expect I would be caught up on. I really would much rather have you arguing for those densely packed entities and putting that picture into some broader setting of some physical theory. Then we might argue over that.

I know you don't actually think that a void pre-exists and things fill it. I just think that nonexistence should not enter the discussion except as the crux of a refutation of an argument's validity. Presumably you wouldn't speak of the plenum or ether as filling all of God's creation and not expect us to trip over it. Same point about "void".

As for "dense packing", once again I point out that it's a concept applicable to material entities in particular. We have no physical idea of what it might mean for plenum objects to "pack" (i.e., abut each other) or even if that notion could have a shred of meaning for something nonmaterial, given the continuous character of the plenum. What we know is the generality that a given such entity must coincide in a given moment of its existence with some of the other entities in existence, and not coincide with the rest of the entities in existence. Beyond that little push, it's not the job of philosophy to do physics; only to supply the primacy of existence and the law of identity.

You make light of the supposed lack of Objectivism-inspired physics -- as if it ought to just happen if Objectivism really had something of deep relevance to contribute. In reality it is fantastically hard to do original and profound physics. It's worlds apart from unpublished speculative musings about things that Relativity rendered all but totally obsolete 88 years ago.

To top it off, you brush aside the actual case of a serious and brilliant job of highly original and profound physics which actually concludes in physical detail what the plenum entities (or ether if you will) specifically are and how they act on each other and on matter -- all done according to the right principles. This, again, is the TEW, and you know where to find it.

oldsalt · June 23, 2004

I want to thank those in this discussion. It has helped me understand more about philosophy and physics and the way in which physics depends on philosophy. I always knew this was so, of course, since the evaluation of any knowledge depends philosophy. (Whether the metaphysics and epistemology is correct is another matter.) But this discussion points out what can happen when one's philosophy isn't explicit (or correct).

I know nothing of physics, but I do know philosophy. Vaclav's postulation sounds like the substratum Locke contrived to hold together the attributes of entities in reality. Of the nature of the substratum, he said, "It is Something, I know not what."

I know that both Stephen and dsandin were not addressing their answers to me, but I fancy that I've gleaned more from it than Vaclav. Thanks to you both for your patience and generosity. It's been very educational.

vaclav-KI · June 24, 2004

The essential point against this is that the universe is not an entity in itself. Existence is the collection of all things that exist, not a concrete thing having attributes -- it's the open-ended list or sum, so to speak, of whatever things exist. To presume the universe consists of a single thing (or is coextensive with a single thing) is a fallacy.

Yes I fully agree with that view of universe that it shouldn't be viewed as entity in itself and that was preciselly the reason why I initially didn't want to call my conception of plenum/ether an entity because I conceived of it as coextensive with the universe. That was why I chose to call it existent (perfectly valid term, more general than entity as per ITOE quote in my post) and leave it provisionally there till I or somebody else comes up with some physical theory that would demand some specific differentiation of that existent, almost certainly into the entities that you have as your plenum only then I will be able to have some model and will be able to postulate more about them than just saying they are entities and packed etc.

There is an interesting quote from L Peikoff on the entity definition from his 1976 lecture series on tapes. It is also in H Binswanger's Lexicon p146 hardcover.

I will just select few brief sentences.

"An entity is a thing"
"An entity in the primary sense [...] in the primary sense, fluids are not entities."

"An entity is perceptual in scale, in size. In other words it is a "this" which you can point to and grasp by human perception. In an extended sense, you can call molecules - or the universe as a whole - "entities" becasue they are self-sufficient things But in the primary sense, when we say that entities are what is given in sense perception, we mean solid things which we can directly perceive."

I see this as supporting the very view I was arguing for (a while back on this thread), just didn't recall at the time where I got it from. Note specially the 'primary' and 'extended' senses plus that universe can be talked about as entity also, albeit in extended sense. Interesting isn't it?? But enough of that. I can say for myself that your view on plenum will not be lost on me and I will work myself to something just like that via some physical theory in due time.

I know you don't actually think that a void pre-exists and things fill it. I just think that nonexistence should not enter the discussion except as the crux of a refutation of an argument's validity. Presumably you wouldn't speak of the plenum or ether as filling all of God's creation and not expect us to trip over it. Same point about "void".

Ok, trip, that's fair but don't make it too pointed, you can always get to that in second round if I maintained it in argument once you pointed it out to me. But I think I was also guilty of coming out too sharp on some points of yours that I commented upon. Lesson learned.

As for "dense packing", once again I point out that it's a concept applicable to material entities in particular. We have no physical idea of what it might mean for plenum objects to "pack" (i.e., abut each other) or even if that notion could have a shred of meaning for something nonmaterial, given the continuous character of the plenum. What we know is the generality that a given such entity must coincide in a given moment of its existence with some of the other entities in existence, and not coincide with the rest of the entities in existence. Beyond that little push, it's not the job of philosophy to do physics; only to supply the primacy of existence and the law of identity.

When we speak about ether, plenum, and its makeup like if its composed of entities etc., its all physics, not philosophy at all although one uses philosophic principles to determine the plenum in some basic ways. And one can't go much further as to its makeup without some physical theory dictating further details.

You make light of the supposed lack of Objectivism-inspired physics -- as if it ought to just happen if Objectivism really had something of deep relevance to contribute. In reality it is fantastically hard to do original and profound physics. It's worlds apart from unpublished speculative musings about things that Relativity rendered all but totally obsolete 88 years ago.

You haven't seen the paper, how can you judge it from the little I posted here. I refer to the last sentence in this quote, comments like that don't belong on intellectual forum. So please, refrain from making these belittling remarks. They are simply not warranted even if you were right in them. Thank you.

First off, I do not make light of it at all, on the contrary I see it as a matter for serious discussion. Philosophy of Objectivism does have 'something of deep relevance to contribute' and that is rational philosophy of science as found in ITOE and in various contributions from Objectivist intellectuals. I definitely believe that that is invaluable intellectual 'toolbox' but not much has been done with so far.

Yes it is hard to do original and profound physics. And it doesn't help if whatever one comes up with on here, one meets exacting demands of having it all 100% agreeing with Objectivism on all points regardless if its still a working concept or developping theory. What I mean is that anything that is original and profound will not be always up to scratch to stand up to full out criticism simply because original physics takes long time before it settles in one's mind and gets properly integrated etc. It is not helpfull at that point to have to explain at every point how it conforms to Objectivism to one's critics.

For example, if those physicists who worked out quantum mechanics from Poincare to Einstein and Bohr had to defend their theories (while they were working on them) here on this forum if they happened to be Objectivists (which they weren't of course) then we would have no quantum mechanics today because you wouldn't allow them proceed, they would get bogged here into defending their irrationalities and would never get anywhere. With all their shortcomings, they did make something that I'd rather we have today even if it has irrational picture of physical understanding that came with it rather than have nothing. When Einstein said to Bohr that famous line about God not playing dice, Bohr certainly didn't turn on Einstein accusingly with 'you believe in God??' and the rest of discussion certainly wasn't argument on that point (but it would be so I imagine, if Bohr really thought Einstein might really believe that).

While Objectivism is the greatest thing that happened in the past century any way you look at it, if you will attempt to do original work in physics (or in any science for that matter) and check every single step you make as you make it if it conforms fully with all Objectivist tenets, you will just get started on your original work and that will be as far as you will get, I mean it will end at start very likely in my opinion. I grant you, such strict compliance is required and quite realistically possible if you do just low level thinking over old grounds with some minor variations on established theories (pretty well all 'new' physics in field are of that kind). But when it comes to really original thinking, you will soon find that you can't always have it proceed in orderly way by the book and at every step conforming clearly with the right principles or Objectivist philosophy of science.

That happens simply because new concepts, new original ways of thinking have to be digested first, identified, integrated etc and before that fully happens (might last several years, even a decade), you will be an easy catch for the critics honed in their art (because that's all they usually do), who will want you to explain it in ways that do not conflict with Objectivism on any point and if you won't be able, they write you off.

But much worse thing is that you don't even need to face harsh external critics, the selfimposed criticism of this kind is enough to stifle you. (I speak generally here of any Objectivist, don't mean you in particular of course, nothing here I write is aimed at anybody in particular). That is the reason I think, why scientific discussions of Objectivists typically never get off ground and go somewhere and become new original discoveries (of course I mean students of Objectivism but that is too long to write all the time).

Instead the rule is that original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field. That's a fact of history and I just thought tables should be turned now that we had several decades with Objectivism in finished and settled form.

I imagine I am not alone thinking along these lines, that Objectivism should start bearing some fruits.

To top it off, you brush aside the actual case of a serious and brilliant job of highly original and profound physics which actually concludes in physical detail what the plenum entities (or ether if you will) specifically are and how they act on each other and on matter -- all done according to the right principles. This, again, is the TEW, and you know where to find it.

PLEASE!! BRUSH IT ASIDE?? I believe I said something there that I will make a statement on TEW. I have it now half written and might finish it by this weekend.

I got to know TEW (only roughly) in late nineties and I read on it quite a bit in the month before I started posting on this forum but I didn't expect writing a statement on it. It is not easy to formulate if one doesn't think its the greatest latest... because then I wouldn't have to face much any criticism, you must understand that. Perhaps you also might write few lines why you think its great as you say here (beyond stating that it complies with locality determinacy etc. as you posted few posts back here)

Thing is, the hostility (evident in certain remarks made in reference to my person or my ideas I presented here - like that '88 year' remark which is meant to ridicule or bellitle or...) that I perceive here in some comments of yours and other people here do not make it easy for me to even come with pleasure on the forum or write a statement on TEW, that is another reason it takes more time than I would have thought. I cannot promise anything because of that.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

Tom Rexton · June 24, 2004

I don't see how "strict compliance" with objectivism would retard any progress in physics (or any science)--for the only requirement it imposes is compliance with the law of identity and causality.

RadCap · June 24, 2004

But tom - if you keep the law of identity and causality, how are you going to allow contradiction? And without contradictory conclusions, where would physics be today?

nimble · June 24, 2004

HAHAHAHAHAHA

stephen_speicher · June 24, 2004

You haven't seen the paper, how can you judge it from the little I posted here.

You reveal a lot about yourself -- your basic approach and ideas -- in the several posts that you made. You do so, again, in this post. For example:

For example, if those physicists who worked out quantum mechanics from Poincare to Einstein and Bohr had to defend their theories (while they were working on them) here on this forum if they happened to be Objectivists (which they weren't of course) then we would have no quantum mechanics today because you wouldn't allow them proceed, they would get bogged here into defending their irrationalities and would never get anywhere.

This implies that their "irrationalities" were of help in developing their successful theories. Not only is this a fundamental epistemological error, it is also further evidence that you have no understanding of the history of physics, of just how the theories of relativity and the quantum were, in fact, developed.

if you will attempt to do original work in physics (or in any science for that matter) and check every single step you make as you make it if it conforms fully with all Objectivist tenets, you will just get started on your original work and that will be as far as you will get, I mean it will end at start very likely in my opinion. I grant you, such strict compliance is required and quite realistically possible if you do just low level thinking over old grounds with some minor variations on established theories (pretty well all 'new' physics in field are of that kind). But when it comes to really original thinking, you will soon find that you can't always have it proceed in orderly way by the book and at every step conforming

This is amazingly revealing. Adherence to Objectivist principles is possible for "just low level thinking over old grounds with some minor variations on established theories," but god forbid that one be constrained by such principles when it comes to "original thinking." And you wonder how people can judge what to expect from you, based on what you write here?

Instead the rule is that original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field.

Yes, that about sums it up. :lol:

But I imagine I am not alone thinking along these lines, that Objectivism should start bearing some fruits.

I will refrain from (obvious) comment.

vaclav-KI · June 28, 2004

Dsandin said:

"The point in this context isn't that you should accept the TEW; the point here is what a great example the TEW is of doing physics the right way by accepting the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum."

Accepting "the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum" is NOT in any way any sort of guarantee or even an indication of the correctness of any theory, that is, satisfaction of these rational requirements is not by itself sufficient to establish any theory's validity. Those are very simply only the necessary preconditions that must be met by any theory just to qualify for attention and nothing more. The fact that TEW complies with these requirements may thus be viewed as a great example of doing physics (I agree with you there) but that alone doesn't yet make it a great theory. It is very well possible that the theory may be totally wrong despite satisfying those 'proper metaphysical foundations of identity...' etc. A theory may satisfy all those proper foundations indeed yet it can turn out to be totally arbitrary (and in that case, it wouldn't be a great example of doing physics then, would it. Whether the physical facts of TEW represent a correct identification of reality or not hinges solely on the fact whether the reality really is functioning the way that TEW claims it does. If it should turn out that reality doesn't work as the theory says, than what good is it saying that it was a great example of doing physics...

Those proper metaphysical foundations should be applied to one's theory as a background running check to see if one is still on correct tracks vis a vis metaphysical reality (one then knows theory should be changed if it doesn't satisfy them) but of themselves they can be quite pernicious if employed as some selective criterion or guidance when making one's theory which is just what the author seems to be doing here when he applies the requirement of locality (see following quote):

But unless one is
already wedded to the usual quantum picture, what one has here is

a direct experimental observation of the fact that something moves

from the screen to the particles. There is no other local manner in

which one can explain what is observed. (TEW96paper.pdf, p. 2)

In the case of TEW, we do not have a single piece of positive evidence for the physical existence of the reverse waves/fluxes the prediction of which lies at the very heart of the theory, nor do we have a single piece of positive evidence testifying for the theory in the way of some hitherto unexplained results of some experiments or theories that TEW would handily expect them to be just as predicted and readily explain them, i.e., TEW doesn't bring with it any new hitherto unknown integration of known physical facts and thus no additional new physics as one would typically expect from new theory. The closest in this respect would have perhaps come the re-explanation of the special theory of relativity but there again, nothing new is (or apparently will be) discovered and that which would be new (reverse wave 'influence on the velocity of particles'** with all it implies) again relies totally on the existence of those reverse waves (or 'waves/fluxes').

Given that

"...the reverse waves are real. They are not a mathematical fiction or an imaginary construct or an ensemble representation. All waves in this theory are real, physical objects. " (TEWchap1.pdf, p 10)

and that

"the waves/fluxes exist as separate objects and on the same level as the elementary particles " (TEWchap1.pdf, p 38)

it is to be hopped that 'being on the same level', they might soon be verified in similar and positive way that particles were verified to exist (I assume, by the 'same level' is meant the same level of metaphysical reality).

"... all of the evidence cited above in support of the conclusion that a
forward wave theory necessarily leads to contradictions is evidence, albeit of

an indirect nature, that the waves move in reverse.

However, on the principle that contradictions do not exist, the double slit

experiment provides direct evidence of the fact of reverse motion." (TEWchap1.pdf, p 29)

The argument made in the double slit experiment doesn't qualify as supplying in some way a "direct evidence of the fact of reverse motion" unless the author considers the logical processes of his mind constituting such. This claim bases its validity on the logical process of exclusion (elimination), that if the forward wave picture leads to (admittedly) unsupportable contradictions, that the only other logical alternative one can think of - the reverse wave picture - (which in addition complies with 'the proper metaphysical foundations') must of necessity constitute physical reality - hence the claim that it "provides direct evidence".

"It must be the quantum waves that move in reverse. We know
by direct observation that the particles move forward; and we

know, with near certainty, if not complete certainty, from the

mathematics of the current theory that nothing other than the

particles and the quantum waves is involved. It is difficult to

imagine how some third thing might be involved, and yet still

permit one to recover the current mathematics. So the only thing

left to move in reverse is the quantum wave itself." (TEW96paper.pdf, p. 4)

There is one thing about this argument that I think deserves being pointed out: that argument is based on the unquestioning acceptance of facts as presented in the classic quantum mechanical interpretation of the double slit experiment, i.e., that two elements are involved - particles and quantum waves - and those are both taken as given and the solution is found in the rearrangement of one of them (the waves are postulated to move the other way than they do in classic description). As a rule, it generally doesn't pay in physics or in any science to simply accept the basic elements of any established but questionable theory, no matter how rock solid they may seem and how long they might have been established.

----------------------

I myself couldn't and wouldn't put any such weight on our logical processes in a case like this one. What if some premise in that argument might be wrong.

"Particles are particles, not waves; a particle cannot be both a particle and a wave—i.e., both a particle and not a particle." (TEWchap1.pdf, p 29)

The only part that would be indubitably correct in that statement is that "a particle cannot be both a particle and a wave" ...at the same time and in the same respect... I would add. That could not be contested. All the rest in that quote is highly debatable (surprising as it may seem to some, especially to Objectivists). At least I personally suspect viable alternatives there that could possibly lead to satisfactory resolution of the whole quantum mechanical weirdness while also being compliant with most and perhaps all those 'proper metaphysical foundations' listed above.

In my opinion, to claim a 'direct evidence' for some theoretically postulated new physical phenomenon, one must either have a direct experimental evidence for the phenomenon that proves its existence (the double slit experiment doesn't qualify as such, that evidence is only of logical inferential kind, not direct experimental evidence of the phenomenon at hand) or there should be (a whole slew of) fresh integrations following the identification of the phenomenon which would tie together some loose ends of our previous hitherto acquired knowledge and which would thus make us more secure about the overall validity of our knowledge while at the same time expanding it. Apart from the direct evidence of the senses and the basic axioms of (Objectivist) philosophy, the only other way we have of being sure of something - of anything for that matter - is that we can seamlessly join it, integrate it into our knowledge base we have acquired so far and that we hold is a correct identification of reality. When that something is a new piece of knowledge, a fundamental new knowledge at that, such as the phenomenon of reverse waves in this particular case, we expect more than just seamless (i.e., non-contradictory) joining, we expect to see new connections and thus deeper integration of our current knowledge, especially when we talk about such fundamental piece of new knowledge that these reverse waves certainly are.

------------------------

It would seem that many adherents of TEW are sold on its validity because they see it "doing physics the right way by accepting the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum" and because they see the double slit argument for the existence of reverse waves to be watertight. However it may be, I believe that one can disagree with the theory and yet remain an Objectivist (that is, its rejection should by no means be interpreted as disagreement with the proper metaphysical foundations or as agreement with the current QM interpretation of the double slit experiment). Of course, if there really is a 'direct evidence' for those reverse waves, than the disagreement would imply that one doesn't accept 'direct evidence' for some physical phenomenon out there and that would put the matter into a different light...

The usual saying that 'the onus of proof lies on those who come up with new idea' applies here.

=============

** these two quotes do not quite seem to 'square', on one hand, the waves/flux is only supposed to guide particles but in the second quote, it can determine the velocity (dynamics) of particles (photons)... what gives??

"Although the following will not become evident until the complete theory
is presented, it must be stated at this point that the action of a reverse wave

in guiding the motion of a particle is entirely unlike the action of a classical

field. No pushing or pulling—no momentum transfer of any kind—occurs

between the wave and the particle." (TEWchap1.pdf, p 20)

"Chapter 4 presents the elementary waves explanation of the special theory
of relativity. And by “explanation” I mean exactly that. The amazing fact

is: The theory as presented above is already relativistic as it stands. What

does the theory say? It says that a particle—any particle—obeys a dynamics

determined by a wave coming from the detector that will observe that

particle. This is true, in particular, for particle photons. So the dynamics of

a photon is determined by a wave from the observer (detector). Specifically,

the velocity of the photon particle will be determined by that wave. So it is

the frame of the observer that determines the photon’s velocity." (TEWchap1.pdf, p 40)

vaclav (knowledge integration)

stephen_speicher · June 28, 2004

As I made clear in previous posts, I will not discuss the TEW on any forum that is not moderated. This is because of a small group of slimeballs who follow me around to public groups, lying and distorting facts for the purpose of smearing. (I do not mean to imply that that is what vaclav-KI has done. He has not.)

Fortunately, in vaclav-KI's post there was not a single specific point of criticism in regard to either the physics or underlying philosophy of the theory, so no response about that on my part is necessary. Should vaclav-KI actually have a specific criticism of the physics or philosophy of the TEW, he should feel free to bring it up on on the approriate forum. In fact, I challenge him to do so. And, should vaclav-KI ever actually present any physics of his own, I would be happy to address that here on this forum.

There is one point, however, that I simply cannot resist commenting on. vaclav-KI laments that he finds no "deeper integration of our current knowledge" in the theory. This is a truly amazing statement. A single theory that explains quantum mechanics, provides a physical basis for the foundation of special relativity, gives a physical reality to the geometry of general relativity -- a theory that unifies all of modern physics, a single theory which makes these previously disparate disciplines one physical whole -- is not an example of a "deeper integration of our current knowledge?" My god, this is the Holy Grail of physics! It is one thing to argue that the theory is wrong (and for this one needs to make an argument on evidence), but not to see that the theory provides a deeper understanding and integration of all the important yet disparate disciplines in physics, is just bizarre.

stephen_speicher · June 28, 2004

Fortunately, in vaclav-KI's post there was not a single specific point of criticism in regard to either the physics or underlying philosophy of the theory ...

To be fair, I just noticed a section at the end (was it added in edit?) with "**" in which vaclav-KI provides two quotes and follows it with "what gives??" While not a criticism, it is a question, though one that belies some lack of understanding about a fundamental. If vaclav-KI asks the question on the appropriate forum, I would be happy to answer it there.

dsandin · June 28, 2004

In light of the points I've been making all along, I would just add one thing to Stephen Speicher's reply to vaclav-KI. Namely, that this amazing integration offered by the TEW is precisely what one would ultimately expect from an approach that makes great strides in identifying and elucidating entities at the fundamental level of physics. If physics is essentially the identification of concrete entities and their constituents -- and if reality is a noncontradictory whole -- then quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity must ultimately find their common ground in, and be integrated by reference to, these most fundamental entities.

vaclav-KI · July 2, 2004

This implies that their "irrationalities" were of help in developing their successful theories. Not only is this a fundamental epistemological error, it is also further evidence that you have no understanding of the history of physics, of just how the theories of relativity and the quantum were, in fact, developed.

Yes, you can see it that way and I admit it implies that - *if* you want to see it that way. Thing is, I meant that when venturing on new grounds, one can easily fall into the trap of some irrationalities that one may not recognize as such immediately. That's simply the consequence of doing something new as opposed to sticking to the familiar. It has happened to better people one could say here. It is not any problem to steer clear of possible irrationalities when one is not doing anything original but realistically it can and does happen when one does original work. I certainly wouldn't think that irrationalities help one to develop successful theories. But they happen and it is no tragedy if you correct them when you recognize them as such.

This is amazingly revealing. Adherence to Objectivist principles is possible for "just low level thinking over old grounds with some minor variations on established theories," but god forbid that one be constrained by such principles when it comes to "original thinking." And you wonder how people can judge what to expect from you, based on what you write here?

Here, you claim that I said something which I never said or even implied. Read again what I said there:

I grant you, such strict compliance is required and quite realistically possible if you do just low level thinking [...]But when it comes to really original thinking, you will soon find that you can't always have it proceed in orderly way by the book and at every step conforming

Everybody not bent on interpreting the worst out of what I said in that quote (turning the meaning around) would see that I meant to say in that second sentence that "it doesn't always work that way that you are able to go from beginning to end product of some original thinking and not make any mistake there, even serious one at times and one may labor for a while with that error."

I grant you that if you carry the meaning from the first sentence there to the next one literally, then yes, I would be saying that "for really original thinking, the strict compliance with Objectivist principles is not required and not even realistically possible". But that's just ferreting the worst possible meaning taking out of context what I said there, nothing else.

I will refrain from (obvious) comment.

I understand that obvious comment would have been that if I talk about those things that I do (original work etc), that it would be fitting if I came up with something first before I criticize anything. If that is the case, you would imply there that only those with original work behind their belt can properly talk about these matters, else it is arrogant to do so and one should keep silent. I don't see it that way though I admit I raised some expectations there which I perhaps shouldn't have given the work is still in progress and as you have yourself identified, its riddled with fatal holes, so its back to beginning for me I guess.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You quoted me there: "Instead the rule is that original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field."

From the comment you made there, I gather you put the worst possible meaning (others there obviously did anyway) that could be read into it as it stands, taken out of context. That context (which gave it meaning) was, that Objectivists do not seem to produce much original thinking as one might think should be the rule, instead the rule is that "original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field" and what a shame and puzzle that is and why Objectivists can't do it if the non Objectivists can (somehow).

I didn't want to imply there that Objectivists principles somehow stifle creativity, that not being particularly rational somehow fosters or facilitates one's creativity (like when one is let roam freely as some mad genius). Rather I believe the case is that those creative people with all the possible irrationalities (that they might have) actually happen to have a very healthy first hand grasp of facts of reality which translates to their having highly integrated knowledge in a given area (usually in a very specific delimited area of their interest) and thus they are able to come up with original work in that area. Of course, it doesn't simply 'happen' to them, they almost certainly worked hard on acquiring that grasp from childhood onwards (the phenomenon of 'thinking child' applies here).

On the other hand, one can have people thoroughly familiarized with Objectivism, with its new revolutionary view of reality and the magnificent 'toolbox' that its philosophy of science represents, yet they never do any original work and do not seem capable to. The reason is that they lack that first hand grasp of reality and the concomitant deep integrations of one's knowledge that it implies that one either does or does not acquire during one's early childhood formative years and when they become acquainted with Objectivism later on in life, they are not capable of turning those tools of Objectivism to their advantage. It doesn't matter how thoroughly they get to know that philosophy, it is extremely unlikely if at all that one could gain that kind of first handedness at some later stage in life that enables one to be creative and come up with original ideas if one didn't gain it during one's very early years of life.

That I believe is the secret why some individuals are original inventive thinkers even while they may have explicitly rejected philosophy of Objectivism due to some form of irrationality or other, while others more honest and in consequence equipped with superior tools that Objectivism can offer are not capable of employing those tools to generate original thought. Those magnificent tools remain dead tools in their hands, being just tools they cannot help them overcome their creative sterility. One's creativity must come first and tools can only enhance it, not bring it about.

Of course, there are degrees of creativity, it is not the case that one either has it or one does not. But clearly if one doesn't have it, in no way should that imply that Objectivism is somehow at fault. Also I can see that this is a sensitive issue to discuss, one risks to earn ridicule if one takes up this issue while he didn't (yet) come up himself with anything, on the other hand, those with proven track record of coming up in past with original ideas would be seen as boasting... but I believe the issue can be discussed objectively without bringing in personal issues of one's creativity or the lack of it as the case may be.

vaclav (knowledge integration)

stephen_speicher · July 2, 2004

I grant you that if you carry the meaning from the first sentence there to the next one literally, then yes, I would be saying that "for really original thinking, the strict compliance with Objectivist principles is not required and not even realistically possible". But that's just ferreting the worst possible meaning taking out of context what I said there, nothing else.

Perhaps if I closed my eyes and clicked my heels three times I could find a more charitable context for all your words, but that would be in the context of the Land of Oz.

Sign In

Quantum Reality And Objectivism

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics