Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences including physics.
> Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > symbolically represented (put) on paper?
Yes.
> I do not think so. A reality > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > and cannot take place on paper?
Reality never changes. However, some events are sensitive to time, i.e. the dog is sitting on my foot right now (9:55pm EST, 28/10/2002), and probably will not be in 2 minutes. The dog-foot-sitting at that time will remain true and a fact of reality, end of story. A symbolic statement that fails to capture the relevance of time is therefore just plain wrong. However, some things like conservation of charge don't give a rats ass about time (me waiting to get hammered by the physicists....).
> This negative aspect of symbolic (or > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > including physics.
> Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > including physics.
So, symbolic expressions cannot accurately represent reality? I suppose the space shuttle was designed without a single mathematical operator being used. And I'm quite certain that when I wake up tomorrow, the concept of differentiation will help me determine how to best maximize the volume of my field with a given amount of fencing. To be sure, there are some elements of "reality" which are too complicated or not well-enough-understood to be modeled by symbolic expressions, but to deny that mathematics has any basis in solving real world problems is downright nutty.
-- Jeff Evans "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -John Galt from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" Remove .NOSPAM for email.
> Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > including physics.
Most physical theories cover objects that show consistent properties, that is, ones that don't change arbitrarily over time. The set of reactions they will have to definiteperturbations or disturbances will reamin identical, disregarding the time variable, as long as they exist.
> > Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > > symbolically represented (put) on paper?
> Yes.
> > I do not think so. A reality > > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > > and cannot take place on paper?
> Reality never changes. However, some events are sensitive to time, i.e. the > dog is sitting on my foot right now (9:55pm EST, 28/10/2002), and probably > will not be in 2 minutes. The dog-foot-sitting at that time will remain true > and a fact of reality, end of story. A symbolic statement that fails to > capture the relevance of time is therefore just plain wrong. However, some > things like conservation of charge don't give a rats ass about time (me > waiting to get hammered by the physicists....).
> > This negative aspect of symbolic (or > > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > > including physics.
> No.
I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a symplifying assumption) or a conclusion. I am sure "reality never changes" or "irreversibility is an illusion" cannot be a conclusion. We have two problems: we cannot express and communicate 'state of change' and all mathematical calculations are reversible. It is strange that we accept 'something' that is neither a conclusion nor a fact of life, as true - you are telling me to accept that the destruction of WTC is either an illusion or a change that is reversible! If this is a fact then why should we believe in GOD? Are we seeking knowledge from illusion in order to apply it to illusion? Progress in technology does not prove that we have understood nature. Progress is through experiments and 'trial and error' and 'course corrections'. If reality never changes then 'progress in technology' is neither true nor necessary.
V.Gopal wrote: > I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all > sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an > illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a > symplifying assumption) or a conclusion.
It is a premise, based on the meaning of "reality" as "that which exist" (to use an ungrammatical tenseless form). In other words, as I understand the concept "reality", it encompasses more than "the state of the universe at this one moment in time"
> We have two problems: we cannot express and communicate 'state of > change' and all mathematical calculations are reversible.
The latter statement about mathematics is untrue: for example the mod function, the absolute value function, and so on
> you are telling me to accept that the > destruction of WTC is either an illusion or a change that is > reversible!
I said neither. It was not an illusion. It is certainly repairable (i.e. rebuildable). Whether or not time can be caused to flow backwards is a scientific question, so I have no opinion on that front.
> If this is a fact then why should we believe in GOD?
But I don't. So that puts paid to that argument.
> Progress in technology does not prove that we have understood nature.
It could indicate that we know something that we didn't know, or that we got lucky and don't understand how we did it.
> Progress is through experiments and 'trial and error' and 'course > corrections'. If reality never changes then 'progress in technology' > is neither true nor necessary.
What? You're confusing changes in knowledge with changes in reality.
> > I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all > > sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an > > illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a > > symplifying assumption) or a conclusion.
> It is a premise, based on the meaning of "reality" as "that which exist" (to > use an ungrammatical tenseless form). In other words, as I understand the > concept "reality", it encompasses more than "the state of the universe at > this one moment in time"
Yes, I agree, and that "encompassing" is something you cannot know, anymore than Heraclitus can prove the opposite view from his own supposedly holistic/omniscient viewpoint.
That is why I mentioned Heraclitus before in response to your Parmenidean comment. Objectivists are split into two camps over this issue, but both sides surmise that they can "know the whole" well enough to assert that it is either changeless, or changing. Objectivists try to reverse the intellectual trend toward such holistic thinking instead of away from it as they should.
malenor wrote: > That is why I mentioned Heraclitus before in response to your > Parmenidean comment. Objectivists are split into two camps over > this issue, but both sides surmise that they can "know the whole" > well enough to assert that it is either changeless, or changing. > Objectivists try to reverse the intellectual trend toward such > holistic thinking instead of away from it as they should.
If you have some spare time to burn and feel merciful, you could briefly educate me about this matter (presume no prior knowledge of philosophical traditions on my part, 'cuz I'm not a philosopher). I know I can look it up, but I probably won't get to it this year at the current rate
V.Gopal <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote: > Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > including physics.
This is why the symbolic expressions have variables.
Regardless of that, there is such a thing as engineering, and people have been doing it for thousands of years. People use "expressions" to make good predictions about reality all the time, and they also abstract expressions out of reality. It is not even very hard. If you have some theory that says there is no such thing as engineering, or that engineering is pointless or does not work, that is a problem with your theory, not with engineering.
> > That is why I mentioned Heraclitus before in response to your > > Parmenidean comment. Objectivists are split into two camps over > > this issue, but both sides surmise that they can "know the whole" > > well enough to assert that it is either changeless, or changing. > > Objectivists try to reverse the intellectual trend toward such > > holistic thinking instead of away from it as they should.
> If you have some spare time to burn and feel merciful, you could briefly > educate me about this matter (presume no prior knowledge of philosophical > traditions on my part, 'cuz I'm not a philosopher). I know I can look it up, > but I probably won't get to it this year at the current rate
I thought you had a basic understanding of Parmenides and Heraclitus, whose diametrically opposed theories found their synthesis in Aristotle's. (But then, there are those who will claim they were not really diametrically opposed, for Heraclitus held that chaos was a permanent feature of the universe.)
I should add that Objectivists are not *explicitly* split into two camps over this issue, but it is an observable fact that, depending on which ones you speak to, you can get an answer to the question either way. But when confronted with such contradictions, they rationalize it away as "mere academics." However, "Rand" herself did not rationalize that way at all, in fact she considered such philosophical questions to be of extreme relevance to everyday human existence. So it just seems ironic that Objectivists have turned away from the academic, and only when they feel like it, when their own founder was billed as philosophy's greatest sales(wo)man.
Malenor wrote: > But when confronted with such contradictions, they rationalize it away > as "mere academics." However, "Rand" herself did not rationalize > that way at all, in fact she considered such philosophical questions to > be of extreme relevance to everyday human existence. So it just > seems ironic that Objectivists have turned away from the academic, > and only when they feel like it, when their own founder was billed as > philosophy's greatest sales(wo)man.
Ironic is extremely generous. I would disagree that it is a characteristic of all Objectivists (if you meant that) and I have an existence-disproof of the strongest statement. I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to as "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or are they just a highly visible minority.
> Ironic is extremely generous. I would disagree that it is a characteristic > of all Objectivists (if you meant that) and I have an existence-disproof of > the strongest statement. I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of > ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to as > "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they > constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or > are they just a highly visible minority.
I don't paint with broad strokes like you suggested, however my experience *in this group* at least has been that whenever an Objectivist (Randroid, ARIan, whatever) is defeated on intellectual grounds, suddenly "the issue was only academic anyway."
> Malenor wrote: > I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of > ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to as > "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they > constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or > are they just a highly visible minority.
The majority of Objectivists do not understand Objectivism. That, as opposed to reason, is Objectivism's principal means of survival. x
> > I cannot understand whether "reality never changes", which means all > > sensible changes are illusion (and also irreversibility is an > > illusion, therefore all changes are reversible) is a premise (or a > > symplifying assumption) or a conclusion.
> It is a premise, based on the meaning of "reality" as "that which exist" (to > use an ungrammatical tenseless form). In other words, as I understand the > concept "reality", it encompasses more than "the state of the universe at > this one moment in time"
> > We have two problems: we cannot express and communicate 'state of > > change' and all mathematical calculations are reversible.
> The latter statement about mathematics is untrue: for example the mod > function, the absolute value function, and so on
> > you are telling me to accept that the > > destruction of WTC is either an illusion or a change that is > > reversible!
> I said neither. It was not an illusion. It is certainly repairable (i.e. > rebuildable). Whether or not time can be caused to flow backwards is a > scientific question, so I have no opinion on that front.
> > If this is a fact then why should we believe in GOD?
> But I don't. So that puts paid to that argument.
> > Progress in technology does not prove that we have understood nature.
> It could indicate that we know something that we didn't know, or that we got > lucky and don't understand how we did it.
> > Progress is through experiments and 'trial and error' and 'course > > corrections'. If reality never changes then 'progress in technology' > > is neither true nor necessary.
> What? You're confusing changes in knowledge with changes in reality.
If knowledge is The Truth, then knowledge can never change only the reality changes. Knowledge is not information. Knowledge is that which helps us to find the means of achieving our goal and foresee things in advance. If you do not believe in the existence of GOD it means no body can kill you and you can defy death. Even the greatest scientists who talk about Origin of the Universe and Theory of everything, believe in the existence of GOD. It is a miracle that science is possible. The scientists talk like The Creator, but matter re-created (conceived) form knowledge about it des not and will never possess, exhibit and provide the same knowledge again. The fact that we have to begin with the premise that all changes are illusion and reversible proves that we have failed to realize The Truth.
And it isn't. You can have knowledge OF the truth, and that knowledge may be better or worse. But it shouldn't be confused for *being* the truth.
> If you do not believe in the existence of GOD it means no body can > kill you and you can defy death.
That's comforting. Although I hadn't thought in terms of my newly discovered infinite lifespan, in terms of retirement planning. So apparently, only taxes are certain.
> > I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of > > ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to > as > > "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they > > constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or > > are they just a highly visible minority.
> The majority of Objectivists do not understand Objectivism. That, as opposed > to reason, is Objectivism's principal means of survival.
Well, this objectivist understand enough that if you want to make such a case, you would be better serverd by providing some reason to believe it!
> > > I'm fairly certain that it's a defining feature of > > > ARIans that they reject "academic hair splitting" and what Rand refers to > > as > > > "chewing" on a concept. It's completely unclear to me whether they > > > constitute the majority of people who label themselves as Objectivists, or > > > are they just a highly visible minority.
> > The majority of Objectivists do not understand Objectivism. That, as opposed > > to reason, is Objectivism's principal means of survival.
> Well, this objectivist understand enough that if you want to make such > a case, you would be better serverd by providing some reason to believe > it!
Read hpo. Practically every Objectivist suscribes to a different version. Plus Leonard Peikoff claims that David Kelley does not understand Objectivism, plus ARI adherents claim that Rand was mistaken when she said that Nathaniel Branden understood Objectivism at the time. This means that they accuse Rand of failing to understand Objectivism! Plus many Objectivists oppose the nuclear anihilation of Teheran while others advocate it. But more importantly there are profound implications of Objectivism that the innocents don't even suspect. But since I'm not about to write an essay, don't take my word. With my word and that of others, caviat emptor.
> And it isn't. You can have knowledge OF the truth, and that knowledge may be > better or worse. But it shouldn't be confused for *being* the truth.
> > If you do not believe in the existence of GOD it means no body can > > kill you and you can defy death.
> That's comforting. Although I hadn't thought in terms of my newly discovered > infinite lifespan, in terms of retirement planning. So apparently, only > taxes are certain.
"We can have knowledge OF the truth." Okey! I thought our 'experience' of the world is the truth and that 'change' is part of the truth. I believe that we 'receive' knowledge from our sensible experiences and that 'knowledge' is part of our conscious mind. The term 'of the truth' places 'the truth' out side our mind-body complex for ever. We also begin by assuming that the intelligible world is immutable. Then what is the essential characteristic of the truth, that becoms our Endless 'knowledge'?
V.Gopal wrote: > I > believe that we > 'receive' knowledge from our sensible experiences and that 'knowledge' > is part of our conscious mind.
Yes, except I presume you meant "from our sensory experiences", not "sensible". And also it would be more accurate to say that we construct knowledge based on those sensory inputs and some kind of mental processing, like "reason", whereupon it becomes part of the conscious mind.
> The term 'of the truth' places 'the > truth' out side our mind-body complex for ever.
Okay. But I think you'd be better served, in the pursuit of truth, by speaking of reality and knowledge. There is a reality, our goal is to know it, and wishing doean't make it so (or not so). Metaphysics and epistemology are different enough that the difference should be reinforced with separate words (reality and knowledge). It's easy to slip into Platonic views of disembodied knowledge floating in a glowing orb on some higher plane (I presume it's higher and not lower).
> We also begin by > assuming that the intelligible world is immutable.
I don't know what you mean by "immutable". "Change" is a statement about conditions at different times; I don't think anyone ever believes that we are in a stasis field. People may, though, think that the changes you see in the world are "non-essential" differences.
> Then what is the > essential characteristic of the truth, that becoms our Endless > 'knowledge'?
I yam what I yam, sez Popeye the sailor man. Or, A=A. Or, some comment about my grandmother and her gonads.
> > Can a symbolic expression or a formula written down on a piece of > > paper, or a figure drawn on a sheet of paper help help us to foresee > > (calculate or predict) something about any reality that is > > symbolically represented (put) on paper? I do not think so. A reality > > can be in a state of change, but its symbolic representative on paper > > can never be in a state of change. Then how can the expression on > > paper correspond to a change that does take place out side the paper > > and cannot take place on paper? This negative aspect of symbolic (or > > applied) mathematics has to be accepted as true in all sciences > > including physics.
> Most physical theories cover objects that show consistent properties, > that is, ones that don't change arbitrarily over time. The set of > reactions they will have to definiteperturbations or disturbances will > reamin identical, disregarding the time variable, as long as they > exist.
In fact only electromagnetic field, gravitational field and atoms of elements have certain properties that are predictable with absolute certainty and zero error. When we talk of behaviour, only the 'behaviour' of electromagnetic and gravitational fields are predictable with certainty. If we cannot predict the result of interaction between objects on objects themselves, it means we know nothing about objects themselves. What purpose do the formulae serve if they do not predict the result of interaction between objects on objects themselves?
> In fact only electromagnetic field, gravitational field and atoms of > elements have certain properties that are predictable with absolute > certainty and zero error... What purpose do the formulae serve > if they do not predict the result of interaction between objects on > objects themselves?
This is the fault of the measurements used to provide initial conditions for the model under prediction, not the model itself. Go ask Heisenburg for a refund.
|
