An Attempt at Applying Objectivism to the Foundations of Physics

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 5/7/2016 at 4:46 PM, SpookyKitty said:

The configuration shouldn't have to be incorporated directly into an o-statement. The configugration should itself be defined only in terms of o-statements.

I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work. Could you give me an example?

 

8 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

We have no explanation how a metaphysics-ontology would aid one in doing fundamental physics without violating the general vs special methods that differentiate Philosophy from Physics and keeps both grounded in perception. 

Given her rationalistic tendencies, I assumed that she was using "physics" to mean "the scientific method".

7 hours ago, AlexL said:

Agreed. Especially if one misplaces the dividing line between metaphysics and the natural sciences.

I've never quite been able to square myself with that distinction. I still think of it all as one massive field of study.

Whether this is your error or mine, that's where I'm coming from.

 

7 hours ago, AlexL said:

But I was not questioning the books she has read! Unless you can quote me to the contrary.

 

OK, Alex:

 

On 5/5/2016 at 4:42 PM, AlexL said:

I checked your profile and found that you have some experience with Objectivism.

Do you also have some experience with exact sciences? What is your experience with physics, especially with fundamental physics?

You certainly understand why I am asking...

On 5/6/2016 at 7:59 PM, SpookyKitty said:

I read books.

On 5/6/2016 at 3:48 AM, AlexL said:

What books? Have you only read them, not studied?

On 5/7/2016 at 5:40 PM, AlexL said:

[She] should have

 

(1) a good understanding of the Objectivist metaphysics (=ontology!), and

(2) a good understanding of the concepts of fundamental physics.

 

About the physics part… she "read" some yet unspecified books…

 

You've been asking about her experience and knowledge, without even the pretense of a reference to her actual ideas.

 

Many people have tried telling me that I ought to listen to my elders because they know more than I do, by virtue of having had more experiences (as recently as last week). I've stopped trying to point out that all the "experience" in the world won't tell you a damn thing about the truth of anything, if you don't think about it (it seems to prompt some sort of hysteria, which I just don't care to be a part of). Your insistence that she should only approach this issue after having read X, Y and Z is precisely the same sort of argument.

 

Do you see what's wrong with it or must I be more explicit?

[AlexL]

15 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

[...]I assumed that she was using "physics" to mean "the scientific method".

Does she mean "the scientific method" also in her description of what she is trying to do, that is an "attempt to apply Objectivist Metaphysics to the foundations of physics"? Because if she does (I hope she will confirm or infirm this), then proficiency in physics is not an absolute prerequisite

15 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

Agreed. Especially if one misplaces the dividing line between metaphysics and the natural sciences.

I've never quite been able to square myself with that distinction. I still think of it all as one massive field of study.

See here some suggestions to the contrary: Other comments in that thread might also be relevant.

15 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

But I was not questioning the books she has read! Unless you can quote me to the contrary.

OK, Alex:

[many quotes]

You've been asking about her experience and knowledge, without even the pretense of a reference to her actual ideas.

This is false. I have been asking about her familiarity with physics with clear reference to her actually stated objective of applying Objectivist metaphysics to the foundations of physics.

HD: Many people have tried telling me that I ought to listen to my elders because they know more than I do… Your insistence that she should only approach this issue after having read X, Y and Z is precisely the same sort of argument.

 

1. Do you deny that for interdisciplinary studies one must be knowledgeable in both disciplines? (I was just asking about one of them, because her profile was silent about it.) This is perfectly reasonable. I insist: if she intends to apply metaphysics to the foundation of physics, she must be familiar with both, from books, unless she is capable of discovering everyting by herself, which I won't assume. If she intends to axiomatize the Objectivist metaphysics, or anything else, she should know the subject, as well as the axiomatization methods used until now – unless… you know!

2. I did not prescribe her that she should read the authors X, Y and Z and not A, B and C, if that is what you meant.

HD: Do you see what's wrong with it or must I be more explicit?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out to prerequisites and you are obviously overreacting.

In general, regarding the subject of applying Objectivism to physics, one should never forget the disaster that was the "revolutionary" "New Explanation of Fundamental Physics" by a certain Lewis E. Little, and its impact on the reputation of a number of highly regarded Objectivists who embraced uncritically his visions. Just lookup TEW on this forum and on 4aynrandfans.com

Edited May 9, 2016 by AlexL
Format

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

8 hours ago, AlexL said:

I insist: if she intends to apply metaphysics to the foundation of physics, she must be familiar with both, from books, unless she is capable of discovering everyting by herself, which I won't assume.

And yet you seem perfectly content to assume her incapable of discovering anything for herself.

 

---

 

I should revise a statement I made last night: you referred to the content of her paper exactly once (which was a quotation of an earler quotation of it). Your comment was in no way false or misleading (it was a well-chosen quote, if I do say so myself) but your silence on the entirety of everything else she wrote, in light of your lack of silence in general, gives me the distinct impression that you haven't actually read it.

 

That's by no means a mortal sin. As has been well-established, at this point (even by SK, herself), it has some serious flaws. Nor is it a mortal sin to point out prerequisite knowledge to someone who needs it.

However, to insist that someone isn't qualified to know anything about a certain subject, for any reason which isn't reducible to what they do know (even such nonessentials as books, experiences, degrees or titles), is not rational. It's an appeal to authority; the authority of someone else's brain over your own grasp of the truth.

 

To base your knowledge on someone else's authority is perfectly excusable for issues which aren't important enough to merit the time and energy required for their firsthand understanding. If your neighbor says that he ate a Danish for breakfast that morning, for example, it isn't necessary to launch a proper investigation into it; one may take his word for it - because it doesn't really matter, either way. 

To accept an answer on someone else's authority is to declare that the question, itself, isn't really worth your consideration. When the nature of the question involves every single aspect of human life (as philosophical queries do), to declare it unworthy of consideration is to declare life, itself, as essentially worthless.

To justify a philosophical idea on the grounds of some third party's authority is to demand that your victims get down on their bellies and invalidate themselves in that manner.

That is what it means to tell someone their ideas couldn't be valid unless they discovered them in a book.

 

---

 

You really don't seem to see any problem with assuming someone incapable of discovering anything for themselves, nor asking them to join you in it.

 

10 hours ago, AlexL said:

HD: Do you see what's wrong with it or must I be more explicit?

 

 

There is nothing wrong with pointing out to prerequisites and you are obviously overreacting.

 

I don't think so.

 

Wrong, maybe, but I'm fairly certain the conclusion warrants the reaction.

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:

Quote

If you ask me, it looks like you are committing empricism type of error by apparently not wanting to engage the -actual- argument. 

"Not engaging" an argument is not a defining characteristic of "empiricism....

louie said:

Quote

Just because an argument is abstract doesn't mean it is rationalistic or demands immediate skepticism. 

No shit... I didn't claim any such nonsense. However, all valid "abstractions" (even strings of them constituting an argument) are reducible to a perceptual base. 

Louie said:

Quote

 I don't even know what you're talking about - what symbol manipulation? Point it out, don't just assert. Engage the argument if there are errors. That's what I did.

I did point it out, previously! I don't cater to intellectual laziness, or context dropping. You would have to integrate the fact that I said "this list suffers from the same "divergences" as SK's previous thread" and then consult the previous thread for context. That would be the intellectually responsible thing to do before spouting off about someones post. In that thread SK says herself, that she thinks metaphysical concepts "cannot be reduced to experiences".... That means her "concepts" are "floating abstractions". A common error identified by Ms Rand. Look it up. Statements made by folks holding floating abstractions are merely making sounds and moving symbols.

Besides, technically she doesn't "argue" anything, she just asserts claims about certain strings of symbols "defined" by fiat. Oist don't engage arbitrary claims!

 

Louie said:

Quote

"Ontological pluralities", as though Rand ever talked about it. I can't refer to Rand's works to understand this. Obtuse words don't help if you don't define them.

Surely you don't think that a concept, to be understood has to have be discussed in the wording Ayn Rand happened to choose, right?   

Yeah, this is a perfectly good example of what a dictionary is for. And when that fails to bring clarity, asking clarifying questions is a good practice.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

Okay Plasmatic, then open up SK's document and start pointing out mistakes!

The only sense I got from you is skepticism of abstraction, that because it sounded too abstract (that would be a defining characteristic of the empiricist error), you didn't need to engage the argument. A dictionary would not help me understand what you said, you didn't define your term, and it was not a term Rand used. I couldn't possibly just replace the definition with your word. It should go without saying that probably no one else but you would know how you define the term. Or, you can cite the writer who did use the term.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Eiuol

[AlexL]

On 5/10/2016 at 8:51 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That is what it means to tell someone their ideas couldn't be valid unless they discovered them in a book [...]

Look, SK admitted that in order to apply the Objectivist ontology to fundamental Physics, she needs to be familiar with the latter. If you assume that she, or anyone else, is capable of rediscovering all by herself the necessary knowledge, then you believe that after Aristotle nothing happened in physics. Nowadays the essential knowledge is accessible in book form (or through the university level courses, which finally also means books). Therefore, the fact that I was asking SK about her familiarity with physics (and she answered that she studied relevant books) has nothing to do with any form of appeal to authority.

Indeed, studying exact sciences, physics in particular is not like blindly believing on someone's authority and then memorizing. It is true that some people try to "learn" even physics by pure rote, and the only important question for them is the author of the book – "is he "reliable"?" But most people are active learners - they "see" that what they are reading is true because they check the reasonableness of authors' assumptions, follow the reasoning/logic/computations, solve problems and exercises, discuss with lecturers/colleagues, and so on.

So that your sermons about "basing your knowledge on someone else's authority is perfectly excusable for issues which aren't important enough to merit the time and energy required for their firsthand understanding" are true, but totally irrelevant to what I really said. You should realize that you are fully into the straw man fallacy. Here is one of the many examples: "to insist that someone isn't qualified to know anything about a certain subject… is not rational". Of course, I did nothing of the kind.

I'll skip for now over other – false – claims you've made about my assertions.

PS: To the TEW disaster I mentioned above, I forgot to add the very recent attempt to promote here a crackpot paper which tries to invalidate QM by challanging one of its pressuposed assumptions, Kirchhoff's Law, in a thread called "Good bye Plank?"

Edited May 11, 2016 by AlexL

[Plasmatic]

Alex said:

Quote

PS: To the TEW disaster I mentioned above, I forgot to add the very recent attempt to promote here a crackpot paper which tries to invalidate QM by challanging one of its pressuposed assumptions, Kirchhoff's Law, in a thread called "Good bye Plank?"

That thread, and our exchange in it, is on my list of things I have to spiral back to. 

You will note that the form of the thread title and the questions asked in the thread are not instances of "accepting uncritically", anything.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Plasmatic

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, Plasmatic said:

Alex said:

Quote

PS: To the TEW disaster I mentioned above, I forgot to add the very recent attempt to promote here a crackpot paper which tries to invalidate QM by challenging one of its presupposed assumptions, Kirchhoff's Law, in a thread called "Good bye Plank?"

That thread, and our exchange in it, is on my list of things I have to spiral back to. 

Oh, there is no urgency, after more than a year of patience I can easily wait another year...

[Plasmatic]

34 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Oh, there is no urgency, after more than a year of patience I can easily wait another year...

When one has sincere premises and questions they don't rush to meet others expectations, because they are products of a personal value hierarchy. I do only what I want, when I have nothing better to do. 

How others interpret the time frames involved doesn't matter to me.

[AlexL]

17 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:

When one has sincere premises and questions they don't rush to meet others expectations [...]

My only expectation was a certain level of civility : when one is engaged in a debate and wants/has to interrupt it in the middle, one signals it, for example by a "sorry, I can't/won't continue right now" ("sorry" being optional).

[Plasmatic]

25 minutes ago, AlexL said:

My only expectation was a certain level of civility : when one is engaged in a debate and wants/has to interrupt it in the middle, one signals it, for example by a "sorry, I can't/won't continue right now" ("sorry" being optional).

 

I'll consider the notion that that is an instance of politeness. I havent considered it as such before, in a forum context. It seems to go without saying that there is no onus to post.