About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 3:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam:
     I will probably get back to you re this thread with pithier comments, but 1st, I'd like to ask if you think that 'space', per se, is properly even a subject for philosophy (ontology), or is it not akin to 'matter,' 'fields,' or 'stuff-of-the-cosmos,' hence, really a subject for cosmology instead?
     Or, do you think that cosmology is a subject-heading under philosophy?

LLAP
J-D


Post 1

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 5:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is obviously an interface, to my mind, since space's ontology can be in question. This is just the sort of thing philosophy is charged with doing.

Post 2

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 6:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article, Adam. I agree with its main point.

However, I decided to make another point - not that I expect it will sway Adam.

"An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designated to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate." - Ayn Rand

Nominal measurement (mere labeling with numbers) is a good example.


Post 3

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Adam,
Such attributes are not difficult to find. For example, the gravitational field of every mass extends throughout space. The electric field of a charge also extends through all points, and so on. Therefore the strength and direction of physical fields (such as the electric and magnetic fields) are attributes that have specific values at each specific location in every inertial frame of reference. Therefore every point in space is an existent in its own right. "Space" refers to a collection of real existents—and therefore space exists.
First, points are traditionally viewed as infinitesmal, which could mean there're an infinite number of them. Do you accept that there can be an infinite number of something?

Second, the examples of attributes you gave look more like the attributes of other things, not of space. Like an attribute of a mass' gravitional field or of the charge of an electric field is its extension through space. Extension through space isn't an attribute of space. And "space" here could really just be synonymous  with "dimension."  Does dimension exist? Sure. Does it exist independent from material existents? Not so sure.

Third, there is some evidence that space is materially filled, that each point is filled with material. Discussing vacuum fluctuations as the stuff space is made of, Timothy Ferris, in his The Whole Shebang: A Statement of the Universe Report (1998, pg 236), writes:
The plenum held sway in the nineteenth century, when most physicists assumed that space was full of the so-called aether. Then the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the aether does not exist, and Einstein demonstrated that it was theoretically superfluous as well.

But no sooner had the vacuum been emptied than quantum physics filled it up again The quantum vacuum is a frothing sea of activity... Owing to what is called wave-particle duality, quantum physics sees nature as if through two eyes, one of which beholds particles and the other waves. Look through the particle eye and we find that for every "real" (meaning long-lived) electron there are countless "virtual" electrons and positrons. Look through the wave eye and we find the quantum field roiling the vacuum like winds across water. We tend to think of fields mostly in terms of energey ("force fields"), but matter, too, may with equal accuracy be depicted, via wave mechanics, as composed of quantum fields. (Asking which is "really" nature - particles or fields - is like asking with which eye you are really seeing when you have both eyes open.)

So the vacuum today is a kind of mix. As the nuclear physicists Hand Chrisian von Baeyer writes, "The modern vacuum represents a compromise between the opinions of Democritus and those of Aristotle: The former was right to insist that the world consists of atoms and the void, and the latter when he claimed that there is no such thing as true and absolute emptiness...The dynamic vacuum is like a quite lake on a summer night, its surface rippled in gentle fluctuations, while all around, electron positron pairs twinkle on and off like fireflies. It is a busier and friendlier place than the forbidding emptiness of Democritus or the glacial aether of Aristotle."
All for now. Interesting topic.

Jordan


Post 4

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Space is that volume which exists inside the convex hull of matter of the universe. It is meaningless to speak of that which exists outside that convex hull. When the universe expands it creates 'space'.

Sam


Post 5

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good essay, Adam. Thought-provoking.

As to your critics above -- I think it would help if you were to answer these 4 questions:

1) Is space an entity (or collection of entities)?

2) Is space an existent (like attributes, actions, and relations are), which is something that is ontologically dependent on entities FOR ITS OWN existence?

3) If space is an existent, is it a "new" one, or is it one of the "old" ones (attributes, actions, relations)?

4) [as per Jordan's insight] Can space be infinite, and still exist?

Ed

Post 6

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Or is 'space' the less concentrated aspects of existance...

Post 7

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam:

Great essay!!!

It certainly makes sense to me.

Take care.

Ed


Post 8

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a bunch of crap. Professionally trained philosophers just can't get down to something concrete — you're out in your airy fairy ivory towers. Space is a volume. You don't have to go any more abstract than that. Why is this a subject of discussion?

Sam


Post 9

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

I think "volume" is traditionally used to mean the amount of 3-D space that an object occupies. Note that volume doesn't equate to a space. It equates to an amount of 3-D space, and not just any 3-D space, but 3-D space that an object occupies. So I don't think "space is a volume" is a sound formulation, at least when considering traditional use of the term "volume." Further, I think Objectivists would argue that just as length is always length of something, so too, volume is always volume of something. "Volume of nothing" doesn't make sense in the context of Objectivism, so far as I can tell.

Jordan


Post 10

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan writes:
>Third, there is some evidence that space is materially filled, that each point is filled with material.

Hi Jordan

Actually the "plenum" theory goes back way further than the 19thC. It was known in Greek antiquity. The equally antique objection to it is logical ie: if there is no emptiness, and all space is filled, movement is impossible.

regards

Daniel



Post 11

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

"Volume of nothing" doesn't make sense in the context of Objectivism, so far as I can tell.

As I said previously, it is meaningless to speak of something that is outside the universe ... that would be talking about the "Volume of nothing." The volume contained in the convex hull of the universe contains something, namely: everything.

"I think "volume" is traditionally used to mean the amount of 3-D space that an object occupies."

Then you would also think that an area is the amount of 2-D space that an object occupies. But an area isn't restricted to the boundaries of an object — an area can be bigger than the object.

You're restricting yourself to the view that objects are actually solid, but they are composed mostly of 'space'.

Sam


Post 12

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam writes:
>But an area isn't restricted to the boundaries of an object — an area can be bigger than the object.

What, like the Tardis in "Dr Who"?

;-)

- Daniel

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Everybody,

I want to thank all of you for excellent comments. I cannot predict exactly when a submitted article will be published, and right now I'm handling some fairly difficult situations outside SOLO, so I probably will not have time to sit down with your comments and learn more until late evening or tomorrow. Rand's "breakthrough idea" that I used here is that the category of existents is not limited to entities. More later.

Merlin: To reply in detail to your critique of "nominal scales" - that is, of categorical measurement - I will probably need a whole article, which I will eventually find time to write. Rand's identification of extrinsic measurements as the building blocks of identity was, among other things, the conceptual breakthrough that made the "arguments from illusion" of previous anti-epistemologists untenable. But to do this, the mental operation of measurement must be "bootstrapped" from ostensive categorization - and ostensive categorization is in fact how children first acquire objectivity. Exactly how Rand's concept of measurements qua existential values of attributes constitutes a valid generalization of the concept of measurement, and why it subsumes categorization - as in my example of a child's categorization of colors - is something I'll have to write about later.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 8/28, 8:07pm)


Post 14

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

"I think "volume" is traditionally used to mean the amount of 3-D space that an object occupies."

O.K. I'll buy into that idea but it leads to what I'm talking about. What is the volume of an object? My definition is that it's the convex hull of the outermost atoms, which are constantly vibrating. Thus, the volume is constantly changing to some miniscule degree. The volume is described by the coordinates of those points. If you want to propose a different measure of the volume I'd be receptive. 

This is a direct comparison to the volume of the universe i.e. space. The outermost atoms (or whatever particles you choose to identify) are constantly moving and, even if  their coordinates are not capable of being measured in any practical sense, space is that volume contained in the convex hull.

So, I argue that the universe is just one big object and 'space' is a measure of how large it is.

Sam


Post 15

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To demonstrate exactly how it is wrong, one must track the concept of space back to the very identity of existence qua existence. And existence is identity.
I've read advanced math books and understood what they meant...but I really don't know what this means.  (But then I always get lost when philosophers start saying "qua.")

If "existence is identity", does that mean we have to track the concept of space back to the very existence of existence qua existence?  Or perhaps back to the very identity of identity qua identity.

This is the kind of philosopher-talk I never understand.




Post 16

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"However, once existence is understood as coextensive with identity, then the only requirement of an existent is that it have attributes with measurements."

I like this Adam. Good article. This is why love etc can be said to exist without being a "material" entity.

John


Post 17

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, I finally have time for some detailed discussion of points raised.

Jordan:

In "Do you accept that there can be an infinite number of something?" - what do you mean by "something?" If you mean "entities," there can be at most a countable infinity. But not all existents are entities. Locations are existents but are not entities. And there is no reason why there might not be a non-countable infinity of them.

Ed:

Space is the (infinite) set of locations (points). Locations have identity (e.g. field vectors) and therefore are existents, but not entities. Therefore:

(1) Is space an entity (or collection of entities)?

No.

(2) Is space an existent (like attributes, actions, and relations are), which is something that is ontologically dependent on entities FOR ITS OWN existence?

Locations (of which space is the total set) are existents that are, indeed, ontologically dependent on entities for their own existence. The identity of a location consists of field strengths at that location; gravitational and electromagnetic fields do not exists except as generated by entities.

(3) If space is an existent, is it a "new" one, or is it one of the "old" ones (attributes, actions, relations)?

A location (of which space is the total set) is either a relation, or a new (but relation-like) kind of existent - this needs more analysis.

(4) [as per Jordan's insight] Can space be infinite, and still exist?

See my response to Jordan, above.

John:

I suspect that love, and states of consciousness in general, are relations. Relations have identity, and therefore are existents in Ayn Rand's sense. Robert Campbell discussed, in an earlier thread, some approaches to the measurement of states of consciousness.

Daniel O'Connor:

In my own work as an information scientist, I sometimes find that without a philosophy of science - including ontology - I literally don't know what I'm working with. Another way to put it, is that every scientist has a philosophy of science, but few of us know anything about what their philosophy of science is; some of us are trying to find out.

Post 18

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks for the article, Adam. Very interesting.

I’m confused by the following. So confused I can’t formulate a question about it. Would anyone care to rephrase it for me?

“Studying light further, one will notice that colors of the same scalar wavelength may still look different from each other. That is because the retina of the human eye has three kinds of color-sensitive receptors, and light in which the same wavelength seems dominant may in fact contain different proportions of light that stimulates red, green and blue cells.”

Does this mean that two different colors *look the same* to us, even though they are in fact composed of different proportions of red, green and blue? How?

Post 19

Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

The operation of measuring is necessarily based on comparison - but comparison with what?

If the only available comparisons are with a finite set of named colors, the closest match will be one of those named colors. If the only available comparisons are with pure spectral colors that differ only in the dominant wavelength/frequency, the closest match will be one of those, even if the original sample color is not a pure spectral color. If a color is not a pure spectral color, but a mixture or a distribution, then it can be even better matched by adjusting RGB values. Etc.

Does this answer the question you have in mind?

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.