Unknowability

[andie holland]

* To determine if the law of identity is incontrovertible, it needs to be important enough to you to understand the difference between it a simply a belief.

 

** The Commutative Law is not epistemology. understanding why it is true employs epistemological tools.

 

*** Understanding the roll of identity as a first principle of logic enables you to use it as an epistemological too.

 

**** QM is not really my forte.

 

***** Questioning fundamentals is ok. It can assist one in discovering what is assert-able.

 

****** Thinking people can have plenty of personal doubts about many things. It is how they deal with those doubts that can make a difference.

 

Couching: "Nevertheless, my view of philosophy is a questioning of all truths said to be 'inconvertable' [sic]. Otherwise, you're simply deducting from a belief system." in response to:

"Let me remind you that the law of identity and the commutativity are not on trial here.

 

It is up to those who desire to posit QM's veracity to demonstrate its compliance with these incontrovertible truths in this court." just tells me you haven't discovered this for yourself.

DR, thanks for your response. Reading over our point/counterpoints, here's how I sum up our rather mild disagreement:

 

For me, metaphysics is a large-scale thinking- tool that purports to show how the world hangs together in the most general sort of way. As such, it's a deductive machine.

 

Epistemology is the method of truth-justification with respect to said metaphysical machine. It tries to inform us as to why we believe a particular metaphysic is true.

 

OTH, certain beliefs seem to require no such justification, as they appear to be self-evident. For example, commutativity. To this end, we'll still balance our checkbooks regardless of whether or not arithmetic demonstrates an epistemology--or is even logically finite (Godel). 

 

Laws of logic, such as 'identity'  fall outside the purview of metaphysics>epistemology. as well. It moreover appears to us as a derivative of our natural ability to think. Therefore, laws and different forms of logic (of which there are many) are reiterative, formal  statements as to how we process data. 

 

The 'apples v oranges' content of the data, however, is a metaphysical question. For example, to say, "if i had four apples and took away three oranges, how many would i have left?" is a senseless statement. A is not B because we've already decided what A and B are--orange-ness and apple-ness are a matter of truth-justification.

 

In sum, i don't believe that it's the role of philosophy to serve as an uber-legislator of truth. Logic is a tool that we use  to make  sense of data. To the extent that data conclusively contradicts a metaphysic, deny the metaphysic because, again, it's only a tool, and being of the largest scale does not infer otherwise. 

 

This, btw, is the history of western thought and why we overtook the Islamic variety which became stuck, as it were, in the rantings of Al-Gazali that science inconsistent with Islam is 'tahafuk', or false. The solar system is heliocentric because that's what is observed--regardless of the accepted Aristotelian metaphysic that demands other wise.

 

For me, then, QM guys are the new Copernicus. Tiny things do not follow th rules of normal-sized things. So if a particular metaphysic demands that they should, alter the metaphysic accordingly. Tossing in 'identity' and 'commutativity' won't help. Rather, you're legislating.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

Clearly, then, your switching of New Buddha's comment about the the law of identity, by itself, is fairly meaningless to "I believe that you are quite correct in stating that, by itself, A=A is meaningless." can only mean you have some other means in mind of guiding your reasoning processes. This is how I'll sum up the gulf you described "as our rather mild disagreement."

[andie holland]

Clearly, then, your switching of New Buddha's comment about the the law of identity, by itself, is fairly meaningless to "I believe that you are quite correct in stating that, by itself, A=A is meaningless." can only mean you have some other means in mind of guiding your reasoning processes. This is how I'll sum up the gulf you described "as our rather mild disagreement."

There is no such distinction between Buddha's comment and my own. Otherwise, proclaiming logical laws does not make one either more reasonable or logical.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

A is A is not a proposition - it is an axiom.  Your A (xy) = A (yx) is NOT an axiom, it is an algorithm, based on an axiom(s).

 

That internal angles of a triangle = 180 degrees is not an axiom - it is a proposition.  But it is based on axiom(s).  Under different axioms, the angles need not equal 180 degrees.

 

A is A, by itself is fairly meaningless.  To be understood, it must be integrated into a much wider context than you appear to be doing.  By context dropping, you are changing axioms mid-stream.  I'm not sure what you are intending to demonstrate by doing so.  For the sake of argument, what changes if A is not A?  Does the Universe shift?  Does life have no meaning?  Is all to be forsaken?

 

 

I believe that you are quite correct in stating that, by itself, A=A is meaningless. For example, both Aristotle and Leibniz used 'identity' as a basis of system building within logic.

 

Therefore, the Commutative Law, or AB=BA is based upon the assumed 'identity'  that both A and B possess the same quantity on both sides of the equation: that A really does equal A, and B really does equal B.

 

In QM measurement, however, the commutative principle seems not to hold true. This means that the sequence of measurement determines the outcome.

 

By 'seems', one has to say that either all multiplication is not commutative, or that, in actuality, the asserted A and B's on both sides of the equation are not identical. Therefore A does not equal A, and/or B does not equal B. 

 

 I would dare say that, faced with this dilemma, all working scientists and mathematicians would strongly prefer to give A=A the heave ho- rather than The Commutative Principle. After all, there are still checkbooks to balance and your children's multiplication table to scrutinize. And after all, you yourself stated that, by itself, identity is somewhat useless...

 

AH

 

There is no such distinction between Buddha's comment and my own. Otherwise, proclaiming logical laws does not make one either more reasonable or logical.

 

AH

The facts suggest otherwise. Incidentally, this is where I picked up your inclusion of 'identity' and 'commutativity'.

 

Tossing in 'identity' and 'commutativity' won't help.

If you want to understand QM from an objective point of view, then you would have to adopt an objective point of view of QM in order to do so.

 

It is on this basis that I would agree with Harrison on time/space not making sense, but would disagree that that it is a step in the right direction.

Edited December 5, 2014 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

@ Andie

 

QM's veracity has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of 95% of the Physics community.

 

Are you saying that if you put 95 of 100 QM physicist in the same room, then they will all have 100% agreement on all things QM?  There will be no disagreement, or difference of interpretation of observed events?

 

So if Objectivism rejects QM that's fine.

 

QM is an interpretation of observed events that occur at an atomic/sub-atomic level. Are you saying that Objectivism rejects that this realm exists?  Or that the conventional interpretation might be flawed?

 

I recently came across this quote from one of the founding fathers of QM, Niels Bohr.  You might want to spend a moment contemplating its meaning:

 

"“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature …”

[andie holland]

The facts suggest otherwise. Incidentally, this is where I picked up your inclusion of 'identity' and 'commutativity'.

 

If you want to understand QM from an objective point of view, then you would have to adopt an objective point of view of QM in order to do so.

 

It is on this basis that I would agree with Harrison on time/space not making sense, but would disagree that that it is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps you meant to write OM from an 'objectivist' pov? If so, kindly explain what that might be.

 

Otherwise, 'objective' only means 'subject -independent', ostensibly the method of any science.

 

I believe that Harrison's 'time/space' referred to General Relativity: 4D timespace manifold with Ricci curvature, on the left side of the equation, that defines gravity. With the exception of some exotic deep space issues, the field equations give identity-consistent results.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

I meant to write what I wrote.

 

The OP cited Peikoff on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The relationship between the law of identity as it applies to action is expressed in the law of causality and lays a foundation for analysis.

 

Adherence to it is volitional.

Edited December 5, 2014 by dream_weaver
spelling

[andie holland]

I meant to write what I wrote.

 

The OP cited Peikoff on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The relationship between the law of identity as it applies to action is expressed in the law of causality and lays a foundation for analysis.

 

Adherence to it is volitional.

I assumed that Harrison was referring to GR because The Heisenberg is about d-position and d-velocity (standard left-side calculus) being greater or equal  to reduced Planck divided by half. If Harrison is cited elsewhere in regards to time/space, kindly inform.

 

Because of Aspect's work, the quanta itself is said to flux without external cause--its causes itself. To this extent, uncertainty is not an observer issue (subjective), rather an inherent property, or 'objective'.

 

i would imagine, then, that the quanta has no 'identity' as such; Each observation/measurement gives values a,b,c,d....therefore, no cause, no identity, but yes, 'objective'.

 

So to answer Harrison's original post (howdee!), quanta exist independent of any observable external cause. Proof of their non-causality is indicated by the 'nothingness' of their vacuum states causing a universe to exist.

 

Peikoff stands refuted by the day-to-day workings of astro/particle physics.

 

AH

[andie holland]

@ Andie

 

QM's veracity has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of 95% of the Physics community.

 

Are you saying that if you put 95 of 100 QM physicist in the same room, then they will all have 100% agreement on all things QM?  There will be no disagreement, or difference of interpretation of observed events?

 

So if Objectivism rejects QM that's fine.

 

QM is an interpretation of observed events that occur at an atomic/sub-atomic level. Are you saying that Objectivism rejects that this realm exists?  Or that the conventional interpretation might be flawed?

 

I recently came across this quote from one of the founding fathers of QM, Niels Bohr.  You might want to spend a moment contemplating its meaning:

 

"“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature …”

Two points on Bohr, please:

 

* His version of QM flowed from Mach, which in turn stemmed from Kant. We observe and measure only the phenomenal world. The neumenal remains hidden due to our sensory incapacities. These remarks were made in the ongoing debate with Einstein, who took a materialist view that what we observe is real.  

 

I would imagine that Rand sided with Einstein...

 

** Bohr's point was ridiculed by Bell, who challenged QMers to demonstrate why Einsteins' 'EPR' or' lost glove' fails to explain the alternate spins of photons.

 

This, again, were the famous 'Aspect experiments' which demonstrated that non-locality (spooky non-causal action at a distance) really does exist.

 

Now at this point, the Bohr/Einstein scuffle became moot. As measured, quanta positions were non-causal, non-identical, non commutative, yet observer independent, or 'objective'. 

 

Physicists such as Feynman say that no one understands the why's of this because it's so counter-intuitive. My 95%- plus acceptance, therefore was in reference to accepting the Aspect results as somewhat final.

 

Yet, indeed, if you get ten Physicists i a room, you'll get eleven reasons as to why QM is the way it is.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

I assumed that Harrison was referring to GR because The Heisenberg is about d-position and d-velocity (standard left-side calculus) being greater or equal  to reduced Planck divided by half. If Harrison is cited elsewhere in regards to time/space, kindly inform.

 

Because of Aspect's work, the quanta itself is said to flux without external cause--its causes itself. To this extent, uncertainty is not an observer issue (subjective), rather an inherent property, or 'objective'.

 

i would imagine, then, that the quanta has no 'identity' as such; Each observation/measurement gives values a,b,c,d....therefore, no cause, no identity, but yes, 'objective'.

 

So to answer Harrison's original post (howdee!), quanta exist independent of any observable external cause. Proof of their non-causality is indicated by the 'nothingness' of their vacuum states causing a universe to exist.

 

Peikoff stands refuted by the day-to-day workings of astro/particle physics.

 

AH

Now don't forget to apply your view of philosophy and question this refutation. You wouldn't want to be simply deducing from a belief system.

^{The commutative law is not on trial because that's how addition and multiplication are done.}

 

^{Identity isn't either  IFF you accept the interpretation  that photons exhibit one of many states when measured (Feynman).}

 

Nevertheless, my view of philosophy is a questioning of all truths said to be 'inconvertable'. Otherwise, you're simply deducting from a belief system.

 

^{QM's veracity has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of 95% of the Physics community. For Objectivism, that's either important or not.} 

 

^{In this respect, i'm just an interested party trying to define Objectivism by virtue of the genre of questions that I'm used to hearing.} 

 

^{So if Objectivism rejects QM that's fine. And since I don't intend to offend the beliefs of others, i'll quit posting to this thread.}

 

AH

Or perhaps you should have gracefully removed yourself from this conversation earlier. I've done a few head butt's during my martial arts training. They really smart. But, if you want to butt your own head against your own wall . . .

DW,

 

I had intended to gracefully remove myself from this conversation because i'm really not interested in butting heads. Yet your last post raises some interesting questions to which i'd like to respond:

 

^{* If a statement is valid, then it does not require an individual to see its 'importance'.} 

 

^{** IMO, The Commutative Law is not an epistemology because it doesn't justify the truth of doing addition or multiplication. Rather, it's a retrospective generality  as to what, in general, is done every time.}

 

^{*** Identity is the first principle of logic. It says nothing of justifying truth-content, which is what epistemology does.}

 

^{****Multiple methods yielding multiple results is another topic. I was referring to the sequence of photons within one experimental site.}

 

^{***** Yes, 'academic' philosophy is all about questioning fundamentals, rather than asserting them.} 

 

^{****** Thinking people have 'personal doubt' that has nothing to do with the beliefs of others.}

 

^{Lastly, a personal opinion: Science appears to work on 'second principles' of prioritizing what is observed over what can be asserted as 'first-principle' truths. For more on his, perhaps you might want to Google up P Maddy's article, "Second principle".}

 

^{Hence the conflict between O-ism and QM...}

 

AH

Just out of curiosity, have you asked yourself what was meant by the following selection from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (this could be just a rhetorical question as it presumes you've actually read and tried integrated it):

 

It is worth noting, at this point, that what the enemies of reason seem to know, but its alleged defenders have not discovered, is the fact that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man's mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason—and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.

 

While there is merit to the pursuit of understanding what aspects of QM may be on track, and where it may stray from the straight and narrow - the path you appear to be traveling is rather wide, and the destination is already known to many here.

[andie holland]

In the last several posts I have patiently tried to explain how QM works. Now 'patiently' seems particularly operative in the sense that QM is not my field of expertise; nor is it yours, obviously.

 

My own field is Spanish Lit (PhD candidate), to which I apply a strong background in Philosophy of language and Linguistics. My Physics was only acquired at the suggestion of friends, family and advisers that I round out my education with science. Me being me, i also indulged myself in Philo of Science--hence some understanding of the Bohr v Einstein issue and Bell's inequality.

 

Yet regardless of the thin-ness of my background, it seems nevertheless obvious that QM qua science appears to contradict much of First-principle philosophy. Now I'n using the Cartesian term to indicate that as a specific philosophy, Objectivism stands as a version of this--however updated and excellent Rand's writings are.

 

To this end, I strongly imagine that if Rand were living today, she'd consider QM a problem to be resolved within the bounds of reason, because that's what 'excellent' really means: seeking out solutions to hard, apparently contradictory realities.

 

In other words, again, I have no resolution; rather, i'm just posing the problem as it stands.

 

Yet certain individuals on this site appear to say, "If QM doesn't conform to first -principle statements ('axioms') as we understand them to be, so much the worse for QM".

 

Furthermore, many within the community of scientists have adopted what Maddy has termed 'Second philosophy', ostensibly saying that said 'first philosophy' is useless nonsense. Philosophic principles must always conform to the basis of what we know.

 

In other words, the polemic, head-butting issue becomes, 'who legislates whom-- Philosophy or Science?"

To this end, i'm neutral. What i want to see is a real solution of the sort that i imagine that Rand herself would have devised.

 

Many thanks, then, to Harrison for having posted the real, essential problem. 

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

One of the sources I like to watch to see developments across a wide band of topics has posted these over the last couple of years.

 

'Compressive sensing' provides new approach to measuring a quantum system

Summary:

In quantum physics, momentum and position are an example of conjugate variables. This means they are connected by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says that both quantities cannot be simultaneously measured precisely. Recently, researchers have been developing novel techniques, such as 'weak measurement,' to measure both at the same time. Now physicists have shown that a technique called compressive sensing offers a way to measure both variables at the same time, without violating the Uncertainty Principle.

 

Getting around the uncertainty principle: Physicists make first direct measurements of polarization states of light

Summary:

Researchers have applied a recently developed technique to directly measure for the first time the polarization states of light. Their work both overcomes some important challenges of Heisenberg's famous Uncertainty Principle and also is applicable to qubits, the building blocks of quantum information theory.

 

Scientists cast doubt on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Summary:

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. The principle has bedeviled quantum physicists for nearly a century, until recently, when researchers demonstrated the ability to directly measure the disturbance caused by measuring a property of something, and confirm that Heisenberg was too pessimistic.

 

And one last one, just because I like the play on words in the headline:

Quantum uncertainty: Are you certain, Mr. Heisenberg?

Summary:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is arguably one of the most famous foundations of quantum physics. It says that not all properties of a quantum particle can be measured with unlimited accuracy. Until now, this has often been justified by the notion that every measurement necessarily has to disturb the quantum particle, which distorts the results of any further measurements. This, however, turns out to be an oversimplification, researchers now say.

 

As a rather over-simplified analogy, (sparked from seeing A = A used for A is A) The square root of 4 is either 2 or -2. 2 is not -2 nor is 2 equal to negative 2. However 4^1/2 = 2 and 4^1/2 = -2. Yet 4^1/2 is neither 2 nor -2.

 

Grasping conceptually that existence is identity and that causality is the law of identity applied to action, if you examine the OP question of "It must be asked: what could possibly show that something in reality is causeless?" - Peikoff answered that with existence as such, as there can be nothing outside of existence to act as a cause.

 

Within existence, further elaborating on the OP of "when something seems random, we can attribute that to a lapse of causality itself or a lapse in our knowledge of it," which should be used? I think Newton answered this rather nicely by providing both the Opticks, and the Principia.

[dream_weaver]

In the last several posts I have patiently tried to explain how QM works. Now 'patiently' seems particularly operative in the sense that QM is not my field of expertise; nor is it yours, obviously.

 

My own field is Spanish Lit (PhD candidate), to which I apply a strong background in Philosophy of language and Linguistics. My Physics was only acquired at the suggestion of friends, family and advisers that I round out my education with science. Me being me, i also indulged myself in Philo of Science--hence some understanding of the Bohr v Einstein issue and Bell's inequality.

 

Yet regardless of the thin-ness of my background, it seems nevertheless obvious that QM qua science appears to contradict much of First-principle philosophy. Now I'n using the Cartesian term to indicate that as a specific philosophy, Objectivism stands as a version of this--however updated and excellent Rand's writings are.

 

To this end, I strongly imagine that if Rand were living today, she'd consider QM a problem to be resolved within the bounds of reason, because that's what 'excellent' really means: seeking out solutions to hard, apparently contradictory realities.

 

In other words, again, I have no resolution; rather, i'm just posing the problem as it stands.

 

Yet certain individuals on this site appear to say, "If QM doesn't conform to first -principle statements ('axioms') as we understand them to be, so much the worse for QM".

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. "If QM doesn't conform to first-principle statements ("axioms") as we understand them to be, so much the worse for QM"

Pointing out that QM raises a paradox simply acknowledges that the paradox exists. Paradoxes are useful in showing that there is an epistemological error somewhere in the mix.

Furthermore, many within the community of scientists have adopted what Maddy has termed 'Second philosophy', ostensibly saying that said 'first philosophy' is useless nonsense. Philosophic principles must always conform to the basis of what we know.

 

In other words, the polemic, head-butting issue becomes, 'who legislates whom-- Philosophy or Science?"

To this end, i'm neutral. What i want to see is a real solution of the sort that i imagine that Rand herself would have devised.

 

Many thanks, then, to Harrison for having posted the real, essential problem. 

 

AH

The science of philosophy and the science of physics studies existence from different perspectives. In this sense, QM does not have veto power over the science of philosophy. For the science of philosophy to point out that QM is not properly applying the law of identity is not a matter of legislation, it is identifying that an epistemological error is being made somewhere along the line.

 

New Buddha brings up the fact that the science of measurement (mathematics) is involved too. Note that within set theory of mathematics that there are paradoxes that arise as well. As Dr. Corvini points out, to measure something with infinite precision, one has to invoke an infinite process of measurement refinement. Set theory uses a method by which it assumes it contains all the ratio numbers. But does it? Or does it import the invocation of an infinite process into the mix inadvertently? How does this square with the actual physical limitations inherent in any measurement process?

[New Buddha]

Note that within set theory of mathematics that there are paradoxes that arise as well. As Dr. Corvini points out, to measure something with infinite precision, one has to invoke an infinite process of measurement refinement. Set theory uses a method by which it assumes it contains all the ratio numbers. But does it? Or does it import the invocation of an infinite process into the mix inadvertently? How does this square with the actual physical limitations inherent in any measurement process?

This addresses the heart of the OP - that mathematical/quantum/relativity/structural engineering/traffic engineering models etc. are tools used to accomplish ends -they are not ends within themselves.  However, this does not mean that they are subjective or "merely" pragmatic.  Concept formation is objective due to the validity of the senses - something which subjectivism and pragmatism reject, but Objectivism does not.

 

Rand when to great length demonstrate the flaws behind "pure science" via the Galt vs. Stadler relationship in Atlas Shrugged.  To Galt, science is a tool, a means to and end, not an end within itself.  If Newtonian mechanics gets your rocket to Mars, then fine.  The goal is to get to Mars.  If using Pi to two decimal points (3.14) works for your purpose, then fine.  If you need more precision, then use more decimals.  Pi is a tool.

Edited December 8, 2014 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

This addresses the heart of the OP - that mathematical/quantum/relativity/structural engineering/traffic engineering models etc. are tools used to accomplish ends -they are not ends within themselves.  However, this does not mean that they are subjective or "merely" pragmatic.  Concept formation is objective due to the validity of the senses - something which subjectivism and pragmatism reject, but Objectivism does not.

 

Rand when to great length demonstrate the flaws behind "pure science" via the Galt vs. Stadler relationship in Atlas Shrugged.  To Galt, science is a tool, a means to and end, not an end within itself.  If Newtonian mechanics gets your rocket to Mars, then fine.  The goal is to get to Mars.  If using Pi to two decimal points (3.14) works for your purpose, then fine.  If you need more precision, then use more decimals.  Pi is a tool.

And it was thru the lens of concept formation that she (Corvini)  examined this. Set theory, like QM, when it introduced it was considered very controversial. Because it worked (for the most part) it has become to be viewed as a necessary addendum and eventually adopted into mathematics. I step back from the allegation of subjective or pragmatic, at least in a philosophic sense here. The pragmatism is implicit in the adopting it because it seems to work (again, as it does . . . for the most part), not as a conscious embracing of Pragmatism.

 

Being that it is embodied in a core science, makes it influential - although it was not expounded on directly in the content.

 

I just noticed you edited your post prior to my quoting it. Your example of PI is exact. The application of math to the physical world gets the context for the amount of resolution or precision required from the physical world. Math, on the other hand, is generalizable to any level of precision. In measurement omission terms, there must be some level of precision, but math is open ended to what level of precision it may be. Math can be extended to any level of precision required, and beyond that, if desired. Zeno exploited this fact in many of his paradoxes. I wouldn't think of PI a tool though. PI is a specific relationship. We recognize it now as the relationship between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter. The Greeks held it as the relationship between the area of two differently sized circles and their respective diameters through the method of "squaring the circle".

Edited December 9, 2014 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

I wouldn't think of PI a tool though.

By tool, I mean that it helps us solve problems such as the circumference of a circle/sphere or the area/volume.  However, we have been solving those types of problem for 1,000's of years prior to the modern computation of Pi.  I can use a compass to scribe a circle in the sand and then use a length of rope to measure the circumference.  Or I can use rope to measure the circumference of a wheel, and then count the number of times that the wheel rotates to measure distance.  Or I can use the Method of Exhaustion to find the volume.  The level of precision is determined by the use.  Orthographic circles don't exist in nature.  Pure spheres don't exist in nature.  We create them, as tools, to solve problems.

[dream_weaver]

My mistake. I was addressing a different sense of "what is it".

[andie holland]

This addresses the heart of the OP - that mathematical/quantum/relativity/structural engineering/traffic engineering models etc. are tools used to accomplish ends -they are not ends within themselves.  However, this does not mean that they are subjective or "merely" pragmatic.  Concept formation is objective due to the validity of the senses - something which subjectivism and pragmatism reject, but Objectivism does not.

 

Rand when to great length demonstrate the flaws behind "pure science" via the Galt vs. Stadler relationship in Atlas Shrugged.  To Galt, science is a tool, a means to and end, not an end within itself.  If Newtonian mechanics gets your rocket to Mars, then fine.  The goal is to get to Mars.  If using Pi to two decimal points (3.14) works for your purpose, then fine.  If you need more precision, then use more decimals.  Pi is a tool.

From the pov of the creator, by far the greatest part of math and science was done as an end in itself.

To this end, there is no time in human history in which imaginary activity did not exist side-by side with the practical.

[New Buddha]

From the pov of the creator, by far the greatest part of math and science was done as an end in itself.

To this end, there is no time in human history in which imaginary activity did not exist side-by side with the practical.

Not really.  Historically, the overwhelming majority of brilliant minds were artists/scientist/inventors/mathematicians all rolled into one person.

[andie holland]

Not really.  Historically, the overwhelming majority of brilliant minds were artists/scientist/inventors/mathematicians all rolled into one person.

Historically, those who you might consider 'brilliant minds' would indeed possess all those qualities that you consider 'great-mindedness'.

 

Otherwise, you're deferring my statement regarding 'greater part' of math and science in terms of the specific contributions themselves. In this sense very few of the contributions were made with stated, practical ends. 

 

You wrote: "To Galt, science is a tool, a means to and end, not an end within itself."

 

At the risk of contradicting the hero of Atlas, he's wrong. Or perhaps he confused 'ultraviolet catastrophe' with an over cooked microwave dinner or a rock band.

[dream_weaver]

At the risk of contradicting the hero of Atlas, he's wrong. Or perhaps he confused 'ultraviolet catastrophe' with an over cooked microwave dinner or a rock band.

Claiming Galt is wrong does not show how or where you think he was mistaken.

 

Confusing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' with an over-cooked microwave dinner or a rock band comes across to me as a joke, although I would have found using 'electromagnetic catastrophe' more humorous.

Edited December 13, 2014 by dream_weaver
Capitalization correction.

[New Buddha]

You wrote: "To Galt, science is a tool, a means to and end, not an end within itself."

 

At the risk of contradicting the hero of Atlas, he's wrong.

How so?

[andie holland]

Claiming Galt is wrong does not show how or where you think he was mistaken.

 

Confusing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' with an over-cooked microwave dinner or a rock band comes across to me as a joke, although I would have found using 'electromagnetic catastrophe' more humorous.

Greg,

 

'The UV catastrophe was a real thermodynamics/physics problem circa 1880. This is because the standard equation which defined measured inputs of energy against outputs within a 'black box' will eventually go vertical: at a certain point on the function above UV you derive infinite energy.

 

Planck 's measurement simply refuted this equation, or rather 'revised' it at the level of high energy inputs. His explanation was the 'quanta', or particles of energy that absorb radiation as they bump into each other, so to speak.

 

This happened in 1900...

 

AH

[andie holland]

How so?

Make a list of all the significant theoretical breakthroughs in science and math. next, attach the names of the creators of said theories. Then do a quick bio of the people. i believe that what you'll find, for the part, is no expressed intent to the practical. 

 

However that might be, for the sake of argument Galt/Rand might have taken the position that was later later made famous by Nancy Cartwright that 'all laws of Physics lie". What you're left with is specific mini-laws that refer to practical problems. If so, then Rand can put another feather in her cap. 

 

In this regard, perhaps the computer revolution is illustrative. The basics were founded by Neuman, Turing, and Church as part of a purely mathematical argument. Then you have the creation of small, magic boxes that compete for smallness and user friendliness; the winners get described by publications such as Time as geniuses that give us the future (Thanks!). 

 

A twist to the story comes with the publicly-funded Franco-German collaboration at Strasburg that demonstrated that magnetic resonance can be ramped up to a 'gigantic' scale. Hence, the Nobel prize for 'GMR'--a theoretical issue that dates back prior to the birth of Gates & cie

 

The application, of course, gives us the possibility of mini-phones, etc, thanks to European tax monies.

 

AH

[dream_weaver]

Greg,

 

'The UV catastrophe was a real thermodynamics/physics problem circa 1880. This is because the standard equation which defined measured inputs of energy against outputs within a 'black box' will eventually go vertical: at a certain point on the function above UV you derive infinite energy.

 

Planck 's measurement simply refuted this equation, or rather 'revised' it at the level of high energy inputs. His explanation was the 'quanta', or particles of energy that absorb radiation as they bump into each other, so to speak.

 

This happened in 1900...

 

AH

Still microwaves are in the infrared band of the electromagnetic sprectrum, not the ultraviolet range. although Wikipedia does reference the musical band you mentioned.

 

Is this supposed to show how or where Galt is allegedly wrong?

Edited December 14, 2014 by dream_weaver