Philosophy and Physics

[Socionomer]

Sorry. Here is the proper link: TEW

[Richard_Halley]

To put it in the simplist words I can think of, Satanist's claim is essentially this: There exists a thing which is non-existant.

That is all that needs to be said on the subject.

[Capitalism Forever]

"And whether one is able to FURTHER identify that something - ie identify other specific attributes BEYOND its existence - has no bearing on the identification that the something DOES exist."

But then it's arbitrary, and one should immediately dismiss it.

Once we have identified its existence, it isn't arbitrary.

An entity is its attributes; if a thing has no attributes, it is not an entity.

Ether does have at least one attribute: namely, it is the thing that material objects move through. That is how we have identified its existence.

If a thing doesn't affect anything in any way whatsoever, and the only way to use it in a sentence is, "it must exist," why are we even considering it?

Ether does affect us: it allows us to move through it.

In fact, it is impossible to form a concept of that thing with no attributes called ether: first, there can never be more than one such entity, ever; second, it has no qualities whose measure to forget.  Any concept whose referent is that entity is an invalid concept.

Here, you are effectively saying that a concept is valid if and only if there at least two instances of it. Now this is an arbitrary assertion. There is only one Universe--does that mean that "universe" is an invalid concept? There is only one reality--does this make "reality" an invalid concept?

(Note that the word "ether" has multiple meanings. One of them is "a rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space." This is clearly not the sense in which RadCap used it; he used in the sense of "that which we move through"--IOW it's a synonym of "space.")

[y_feldblum]

Capitalism Forever, I believe your position is inherently flawed. Richard Halley's point applies equally to this.

Once we have identified its existence, it isn't arbitrary.

But he have unidentified its existence in saying it exists without identity. The assertion that "it has identity but we just can't identify it" is invalid; it is arbitrary. Ether has no attributes whatsoever, yet you claim it exists without identity. That assertion is false. There is no difference between that and claiming to have an utterly undetectable unicorn in your backyard.

Ether does have at least one attribute: namely, it is the thing that material objects move through.

That's not an attribute, but it is a flaw in logic. It's a relationship, but entities sans identity qua entities cannot have relationships. Ether is not composed of any form of material, or we would be able to observe, define, detect it; and all physical entities must be made of material. Ether is not a mental entity, not an emotion, not a checking account.

Ether does affect us: it allows us to move through it.

Again, that's invalid reasoning. Ghosts, or utterly undetectable unicorns, affect you by allowing you to move through them, while retaining no identity and therefore no existence. Even when moving through it, there is no way to detect its existence. What you are claiming is that a "dispositional property" (eg, quote from ITOE Appendix: When you say, "That glass is fragile," you mean only that if you drop it, say on concrete, it will break.) But that notion, that an entity can have as its identity "dispositional properties" (requiring counterfactuals), "presupposes and summarizes a causal relationship." "All there is is the constituent properties and the capacities for action" - meaning, "dispositional properties" arise only from actual properties, from the attributes of an entity. Claiming a counterfactual "dispositional property" as the primary and the only attribute of an entity is simply illogical.

Here, you are effectively saying that a concept is valid if and only if there at least two instances of it. Now this is an arbitrary assertion. There is only one Universe--does that mean that "universe" is an invalid concept? There is only one reality--does this make "reality" an invalid concept?

No, I said that's how to form a concept. I meant that concepts whose referents have no qualities whose measurements can be omitted is invalid, as well as being impossible to form. Moreover, is it not true that "universe," "reality" are collections of entities? But come to think of it, a concept with only one referent is invalid as well.

(Note that the word "ether" has multiple meanings. One of them is "a rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space." This is clearly not the sense in which RadCap used it; he used in the sense of "that which we move through"--IOW it's a synonym of "space.")

Clearly, RadCap isn't suggesting, "there's an ether up there - I think I'll go touch it and identify it." That's exactly why I'm disputing the validity of the concept. It's a concept without omitted measures; its referent (so that the concept could never be formed) has no attributes, only a supposed existence. I'm arguing that the concept ought not be used; it is invalid, meaningless, referentless - and utterly nonsensical. Moreover, there is not anything necessarily through which we move. Motion is not through, but in relation to, as the primary definition. Sure, we move through air; but where there is no air, and even where there is, we move in relation to something.

And now, with the all refuting argument: please point to it [ether]. It is a thing which by definition cannot be perceived or sensed, let alone conceptualized. It does not interact with anything, has no properties, and is arbitrarily assigned a relationship with other entities as the definition of its existence.

An entity, if it is to exist, must have identity, meaning must have identifying attributes. Existence is identity, and an entity is its attributes. An entity's relationships and actions arise only from its nature, meaning its identity, its attributes. Without identity, without attributes, an entity cannot act, cannot have relationships - and cannot exist. These fundamental metaphysical principles are not to be overlooked!

"Ether" is an absurd notion!

[y_feldblum]

... A property which is defined in terms of a relationship between two entities presupposes and is a consequence of the attributes of that entity which give rise to that relationship.  And therefore, if a charge [for example]is definable only in terms of an entity's relation to others--its effects on them--then charge couldn't be primary, it would have to be a derivative from something else in the entity that gives rise to that kind of effect.

"Prof. E", approved by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Appendix, "Properties of the Ultimate Constituents".

[AisA]

Socionomer, thanks very much for the link to Lewis's paper. How was it received in the quantum physics field? I have only just started it -- and I am not certain I will be able to follow it fully -- but it seems brilliant.

[Socionomer]

The physics community was able to find several problems with the theory which have yet to be resolved. Articles on these can be found at www.objectivescience.com

What I admire though about Little's theory is that it challenged the conventional view of quantum mechanics and demonstrated that it could be understood objectively, without refuting reality, by showing that the cause and effect at the subatomic level operates on the same grounds as the rest of physics.

The false assumption has always been that waves and particles travel in the same direction. While logical, it lead to results that were nonsensical. His theory that waves actually travel in the opposite direction (from detector to the source) is completely counterintuitive but better as a basis for explaining the actual experimental results.

I first learned of the Theory of Elementary Waves from Socionomist Robert Prechter who used Little's paper to draw parallels between the physical sciences and his own discoveries in human social behavior which are similarly revolutionary, counterintuitive, and "heretical", yet better reflective of reality. It is known as Elliottwave Theory (EWT). I'm not surprised you appreciate Little's paper so far since its only natural for Objectivists to rejoice when long standing "error pyramids" are demolished by objective reason.

[dondigitalia]

to measure movement, you use a ruler: "ten feet of the ruler."

You use a ruler to measure distance, not movement. "Ten feet" designates only that a distance exists, not that any movement has occured. A measure of movement would have to include velocity as well.

If in movement, there must be at least two locations between which the movement occurs (and there must), we can start with basic middle school geometry. If you you have location A and location B, there MUST be a *something* between them. If there were no space, then point A and point B would be the same location, or point A and point A. Something can not move from point A to point A without there being at least one point in between that does not share the same location as point A. Otherwise there would be no motion. Ether is the *something* between them.

The only way for an entity to change position without traversing through measurable, 4-dimensional space-time would be for it to travel faster than the speed of light and traverse a 5th dimension. The concept of ether includes that 5th dimension.

If ether were undefinable and had no attributes on which it's identity is based, you wouldn't even be able to form the concept.

P.S. for Satanist: Did I satisfy your request for a definition of ether without merely applying the label of "ether"?

[RadCap]

there is no way to rationally address y's assertions.

To speak of nothingness as valid - as something which 'exists' in reality is to speak in contradictions. There is no way to referencce nothing. there is no way to point to nothing. there is no way to prove nothing. Nothing is an anti-concept. It CANNOT be referenced EXCEPT by treating it as if it WERE something. Since that is a contradiction, then when one TRIES to speak of nothing - of the NON-real - of the NON-existent, one is engaging in illogic.

To claim non-identity IS is to void all logic. Doing so also voids any ability to engage in rational - ie logical - conversation.

This is why we state 'ether' must exist. Ether is the name given to that which we have been unable to detect so far, but know exists because there is no such thing as NOTHING.

(I must point out to those who may not understand the error of part of his argument. y DEMANDS we point to a thing - otherwise it is invalid to even entertain of such a thing. This rules out deductive and inductive knowledge. In other words, the demand to point is the demand to reduce man to concrete bound mentality. Also - greeks couldnt point to air. They too thought the space between objects was NOTHING, precisely because they could not point to it. However, a few smart greeks later DEDUCED its existence. They STILL couldnt point to it, but they certainly were able to identify its existence.)

[RadCap]

The physics community was able to find several problems with the theory which have yet to be resolved.  Articles on these can be found at www.objectivescience.com

Actually, I believe LL has rejected most of the 'problems' as misinterpretations of his statements (he does not specify whether they are intential misinterpretations or not). The one he did see as a 'problem' I think he just got through revising.

This is recollection - and not even phrased properly - but I believe you probably get the idea.

[y_feldblum]

dondigitalia -

One measures "how far it moved" with a ruler.

Points in geometry are not metaphysical existents, but epistemological aids. Points do not exist as entities, but as mental entities. Assuming they're physical entities, just to prove the notion wrong: all the attributes of a point are arbitrary - ie, subject to my will - ie, nonexistent. There is not anything between points A and B; the other points you claim exist there are tools of cognition.

Entities, in moving, change their relationships to all other existents - not to existence, not to an absolute, non-definable, non-perceivable ether subsuming all.

RadCap -

There is a way to rationally address my assertions: point out the flaws in them.

I do not speak of nothingness as a valid concept in its own right. But I do not make the mistake of assuming things into existence.

You make the mistake of deducing the existence of something a priori. It is cogito, ergo id est (I think [deduce], therefore it is; and yes, I got some help on that).

Even the Greeks from your example knew that they had to validate their concept of "air." Science has been trying for centuries to validate the concept of "ether," to find at least one attribute; the only answers anybody has been able to find are: that attribute doesn't apply; it has no identity; it doesn't exist, so far as the world, with all its scientific instruments, can tell.

Concepts must be formed from percepts, whether directly or indirectly, not the other way around.

I claim that a thing without identity, such as ether, is not an existent. To exist is to have identity. An entity is its attributes. Ether, without identity is not. Ether, without attributes, is not.

You can only counter the claim above, as far as I can tell, by asserting that ether does have identity and does have attributes which for some reason we have no evidence of. But then your counter is arbitrary, precisely because we have no evidence of it.

To speak of the non-correspondence of a claim is valid. To observe that a certain concept references nothing and is therefore valid is a must. To demand some perceptual evidence - direct or indirect, by pointing or by research - to validate a claim is correct. "Ether" is an anti-concept. It cannot be referenced except by treating it as if it were something, as if it had identity. Since that is a contradiction, when one tries to speak of an unidentified ether one is engaging in illogic.

As far as I can tell, your argument is: nothing exists - therefore, something exists. That "nothing exists" means: . Or, - therefore, something exists. It is a sylogism without any premises.

I understand your assertions regarding the concept of not (and if you don't believe me, I plead LucentBrave). But I don't understand how you assert the existence of a thing, when everything I know calls that assertion arbitrary, a priori. And it is that question to which I'm looking for an answer.

Capitalism Forever -

"it is the thing that material objects move through"

Science has looked for that thing which material objects move through, but has not found it.

In the analogy of air (before I continue: argument by analogy is, at the least, highly suspect), when an object moves "through" it, what one means is that the air parts (is pushed out of the) way for it, and the object moves where once was air. The object does not move "through" space as though moving "through" other entities - that is just how people say it: it is an equivocation on "through." To move "through" an ether means one of two things: either moving object is a ghost, or the ether is a ghost.

(Pardon the disorganized muddle to which I've reduced my thoughts; perhaps it reflects my lack of understanding, though I'd rather think not. Also, "you make the mistake of" (or any similar statements) means, in effect, "your claim contradicts all that I know to be true.")

[Capitalism Forever]

Science has looked for that thing which material objects move through, but has not found it.

I think you still don't understand our concept of "ether."

When we say "ether," we do not refer something that science has to "find." We do not refer to a material object. Our concept of ether simply means "all space in the Universe put together."

You agree that there is space in the Universe, don't you? You agree that one can form a collective concept that subsumes all the space there is? Voila, there you have ether.

There is nothing wrong with simply naming something that you know exists. What is wrong is to ascribe attributes to the thing arbitrarily or from another meaning of the name given. Thus:

• "There is space in the Universe. Let's call all the space in the Universe 'ether.'" -> OK
  
• "Ether is filled with purple-haired unicorns because I say so." -> WRONG
  
• "The ancients thought ether was a rarefied element. We call 'all the space in the Universe' 'ether.' Therefore, all the space int he Universe is filled with a rarefied element." -> WRONG
  

[y_feldblum]

"There is space in the universe."

To consider space an independent existent is wrong, in my opinion. The notion is implicit in the concept "exists" and "identity". For example, in a game of chess, each of the pieces is an independent existent. By virtue of it existing, we know it obeys certain rules, such as that the relationships between it and the the various other entities that may exist are always based on a certain one geometry and not any other. The chessboard is not an existent (from the point of view of the game); only the pieces are.

To say "there is space" is to say "all existents obey the rules of pseudo-Riemannian geometry," just as to say "there is a chessboard" (it's the pieces talking here) is to say "all pieces obey the rules of chess-geometry." But to insist that "space exists (with the standard sense of the word) as a metaphysical absolute" is, in my opinion, wrong.

[Richard_Halley]

Feldblum, in order for there to be distance between two things, there must be something between them. Maybe it is air, or ether, or space, but there must be an existent in the area between your chess pieces or they would all be right next to each other (i.e. touching).

[y_feldblum]

It seems to me that that notion comes from switching epistemology and metaphysics. In a geometry, between any two points there is a third - not because you can will things into metaphysical existence, but because geometries and points are tools of cognition.

If you switch epistemology and metaphysics like that, then it is reasonable (on that standard) to postulate the existence of infinite entities or infinite collections of discrete entities - which is what you are doing. "Something exists everywhere" means that there is an infinite existent. But the fact is: to exist is to exist finitely.

Distance - the quality, not the measurement - is determined by the relationship between two existents; it's independent of a third anything, whether air or ether or space.

Just as a thought exercise based on your post, what would happen to oranges and no ether - or circular chess-pieces and no ether?

[y_feldblum]

Note also that the chessboard, though it is the board on which the game is played, is not a part of the game: it's presupposed by the concept "game of chess".

[Richard_Halley]

Feldblum, your argument consists of the claim that there may be a distance between two objects, but yet be nothing between them. This amounts to, there exists, between two objects, something which does not exist.

In order for two objects to be seperate, there must be something seperating them.

And, incidentally, my argument was not, as you claim: "something exists everywhere." Rather, it is: "everywhere, there exists something."

As for your oranges with nothing between them (I assume you are allowing things to exist around them), there would be no distance between them... you figure it out.

[y_feldblum]

your argument consists of the claim that there may be a distance between two objects, but yet be nothing between them

That's an equivocation on between: "distance between" and "something betwee" mean entirely different things.

In order for two objects to be seperate, there must be something seperating them.

The identies of two entities does not depend on a third entity. I think you're also reversing cause and effect. I would phrase it as: in order for something to exist between two objects, they must already be separate.

everywhere, there exists something

That's the same, mathematically speaking and for this purpose, as "something exists everywhere". Any entity that exists over a finite volume at every point as the supposed ether must - has infinitely many parts and is infinitely subdividable. Such a thing cannot exist.

there would be no distance between them

Certain geometries (such as our universe's) have distance defined as a rule of the geometry. Meaning, there is a certain distance between any two points and the method (formula) of determining that distance is defined. Applying this principle: it is possible to determine the distance between any two entities just by their identities, by the fact that they exist and, qua entities, follow the rules of existence.

[Richard_Halley]

That's an equivocation on between: "distance between" and "something betwee" mean entirely different things.

You are arguing against my point, merely by stating its negation... this is getting us nowhere.

The identies of two entities does not depend on a third entity. I think you're also reversing cause and effect. I would phrase it as: in order for something to exist between two objects, they must already be separate.

The identity of one object does not rely on a second object... the relationship between two objects may (as far as I can tell) rely on a third (or at least rely on that there exists a third)... unless you can give some reason why it may not.

That's the same, mathematically speaking and for this purpose, as "something exists everywhere". Any entity that exists over a finite volume at every point as the supposed ether must - has infinitely many parts and is infinitely subdividable. Such a thing cannot exist.

Assuming that "everywhere" is infinite, yes. But it appears to me that the argument provided by CapFo is that space is an existant and therefore, is finite. In any case, your argument holds, as a premise, something which directly contridicts the claim which it is intended to refute. You are going to have to give some reason for that premise, or your argument holds no ground in this debate.

Applying this principle: it is possible to determine the distance between any two entities just by their identities, by the fact that they exist and, qua entities, follow the rules of existence

This plays right into my hands . If I view the universe as a giant grid, placing one object at a random point, and another object at another, there exists "empty" universe between them. If I choose to, I may place another object at any location between them.

Your claim is that there need be nothing there, i.e. there may exist, between them, something which does not exist.

[y_feldblum]

I do not understand the assertion that there is (or must be), everywhere, something.

I can see how it comes from confusing points on a geometry (eg, on a geometrical plane) with actual existents. But points do not exist metaphysically - only by analogy.

But if that's not the case, all I see are baseless assertions about the existence of something with no identity, whether one calls it ether or space.

For the mathematics, map r to 1/r (assuming an origin and angle and polar coordinates).

Your viewing the universe as a giant grid - and the "empty" universe you see - are tools of cognition: epistemological. The universe is not a giant grid, and "empty" universe does not exist (rather, no entities exist, or there is nothing there).

Your claim is that there must be something, some identity-less entity, where there are no entities. My claim is the negation of yours, and the premise-checking that yours is based as far as I can tell on a mixup between metaphysics and epistemology, by transforming "I can use this tool to think of it in this way" into "the tool is a metaphysical phenomenon".

[Richard_Halley]

Firstly, I said nothing about identity-less entities...

You are claiming that, between two objects, there may exist nothing, and that still, the relationship between those two objects is such that they are far apart.

Why is the relationship that way unless there is something between them. If you can give a valid answer for that, than your entire view on the matter is correct, in my opinion. For now, I can see no reason why the relationship between to objects would be that they are far apart, unless there is something between them.

So my question to you is, what makes two entities far apart, other than that there is something between them.

[y_feldblum]

You're asking me to derive that there is nothing where there is nothing and yet the concept distance still pertains. I can only say: it is so, and I can refute all objections.

Distance is a property of existence - it's part of the rules of the game. In calculating it, one does not take into account anything except: (a.) the two entities and (b.) the rule for calculating it.

The relationship between any two entities does not necessarily depend on the relationship between each of them and a third entity (and continue the process ad infinitum).

If two entities existed, plus ether, and the bodies were moving with respect to each other, how would the ether be moving? Moving with respect to one of them and stationary with respect to the other, or moving with respect to both? (Alternatively, phrase it in the reverse: which body, if not both of them, is moving with respect to the ether?) Galileo correctly posited that there is no absolute position or motion with respect to the universe at large, so "moving with respect to space" is an invalid concept.

[Richard_Halley]

You're asking me to derive that there is nothing where there is nothing and yet the concept distance still pertains. I can only say: it is so, and I can refute all objections.

You are going to have to do better than that... you are going to have to give a reason why the concept of distance is valid, when there is nothing between two objects. Otherwise, you are arguing against distance altogether.

And, besides, you have not yet refuted the objection which your above statment is in response to, so your claim that you can refute all objections is without meaning.

Distance is a property of existence - it's part of the rules of the game.  In calculating it, one does not take into account anything except: (a.) the two entities and (b.) the rule for calculating it.

B, in this statment, is what you have to define. What is the rule for calculating distance, which does not rely on the existance of something between the two objects?

And besides, why? Why is distance a rule of the game? And of what meaning is distance except as a measurement of all things between two objects?

The relationship between any two entities does not necessarily depend on the relationship between each of them and a third entity (and continue the process ad infinitum).

Correct, it does not necessarily depend on a third entity, but that does not mean that it doesn't.

And besides, your description of my claim is misleading. My claim is not that the relationship between two entities must depend on itself and a third entity... but rather, is that the relationship between two entites may depend on another entity.

As for your last paragraph...

I am not, at this time, arguing anything other than this: "in order for there to be distance between two objects, there must be something between them." So that entire paragraph is not, at this time, relevent.

And besides, how does air move around an object... as far as I can tell, RadCap's ether reacts the same way (at least I can't see any reason for you to suppose it must be different). Plus, no one mentioned "moving with respect to space," so where this argument came from is beyond me.

[Capitalism Forever]

it appears to me that the argument provided by CapFo is that space is an existant and therefore, is finite.

A portion of space (such as the space between two material entities) has dimension attributes, such as length or width; these attributes have finite values. The totality of space does not have dimension attributes.

[Capitalism Forever]

Y, we need to distinguish between "nothing" and "nothing material."

In other words: "empty space" != "nothing"

Empty space does have at least one attribute: to wit, it is empty.