RoR: Forum

I look forward to Adam's article whenever he get around to it.

I realized my comment about "nominal measurement" may not have been clear to readers. Adam used "nominal measurement" to refer to a child categorizing colors. That use is unusual. The usual meaning is sorting by assigning numbers, which I indicated in parentheses. The child does not do this with regard to colors. Putting numbers on baseball uniforms and assigning social security numbers would be examples. In his reply Adam even coins an entirely new term (to me), "categorical measurement." This is probably what I would call simply "categorizing."

In his article Adam goes on about colors being ultimately measurable in terms of light wavelengths. This is true. However, what the retinal cones do, along with further subconscious processing, is not what the child experiences. What the child experiences (is conscious of, perceives) is colors, not numbers. It's my view at least that concept formation begins with what is perceived.

That's enough for now. An article of the kind Adam indicates could raise a host of deep and complex issues -- quality vs quantity, subconscious vs conscious, and more, including animal cognition. So again, I look forward to Adam's article whenever he get around to it.

Post 21

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 7:53am

Adam:

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

"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."

A point does not have location. A point is a location. A point is defined by a set of coordinates and a reference point (you may call them field vectors if you wish but it just adds an unnecessary level of abstraction). They distinguish that point from all other points, thus they can be regarded as the name of the point. A location is a name. Moreover the name is arbitrary depending on the coordinate system used and the reference point. Thus the argument degenerates into whether or not a name is an existent. Certainly not especially when the name is arbitrary.

A name is a name is a name is a name and nothing else. A is A.

Sam

Post 22

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:24am

Hi Adam,

But not all existents are entities. Locations are existents but are not entities.

Then what are they? Just that which has attributes? "Nothing" can have attributes too. Can "nothing" be an existent?

Daniel, I was quoting Ferris, to be sure. Don't shoot the messenger! :-)

Hi Sam,

I don't have quips with your definition of volume. Kind of interesting actually. Makes me wonder if you'd get the same volume of an object by using your method compared to calculating the individual volumes of each atom within the object. I doubt it, but anyway... Here's where I'm having trouble:

The volume contained in the convex hull of the universe contains something, namely: everything.

If volume is concerned only with the outermost atoms, then it is silent on whatever is not outermost. Within any object, can there be emptiness, a true vacuum? And does anything exist between atom X, which is the closest atom to atom Y, and atom Y? The whole "space" controversy doesn't happen at the edges of objects; it happens within and between them. And you can see the problem with acknowledging that "nothing exists" between or at some points within objects.

Jordan

Post 23

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:38am

Merlin and Sam:

I guess that I should not have assumed that the concept of measurement - and why measurement is objective - are already clear to everyone on SOLO. An arbitrary enumeration is certainly not measurement, and prior to Merlin's last post I have never encountered this specific misuse of S.S. Stevens' recognition of objective categorization as a type of measurement ("nominal measurement.") "Nominal" rather clearly refers to (category) names; I don't even understand why anyone would refer to arbitrary numbers as "names" or to arbitrary assignment as "measurement." I guess that an article on concept of measurement, and why measurement is objective, is badly needed here.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 8/29, 10:28am)

Post 24

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:52am

Jordan,

I am using Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" as the starting point for the development of an objective philosophy of science. This includes the distinction between entities and other types of existents. If you disagree with ITOE on this point, then please say so explicitly and give your reasons.

Post 25

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:03am

Jordan:

The discussion seems to be on what coordinates should one use to calculate the volume of the universe. This is akin to Mandelbrot's fractal problem of determining the length of a coastline. It all depends on the length of the measuring stick and it turns out that if you use an infinitely short stick you will follow every indentation for every atom (let's assume that the atoms are stationary) and you will come to the conclusion that the coastline has infinite length.

If you follow the outermost atoms or particles in the universe and join them so that the surface is convex (i.e. no indentations) then you can be assured that there is nothing outside that volume. That is the largest necessary volume that can contain all matter. The opposite extreme would be to connect to every particle, without crossing the paths, until all the particles are connected, backtrack to the starting point making sure you enclose every particle. The backtracked legs have zero width so that you have enclosed all the particles but there is no 'space' whatsoever. By doing so we have shown that 'space' does not exist.

Sam

Post 26

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:51am

Adam Reed wrote:

prior to Merlin's last post I have never encountered this specific misuse of S.S. Stevens' recognition of objective categorization as a type of measurement ("nominal measurement.") "Nominal" rather clearly refers to (category) names; I don't even understand why anyone would refer to arbitrary numbers as "names" or to arbitrary assignment as "measurement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_data

Post 27

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 11:53am

Merlin,

This just shows that some Wikipedia articles are written by poseurs who don't know what they are writing about. Stevens makes clear that he introduces the "nominal scale" to account for categorization as a type of measurement. The Wikipedia article acknowledges that "Variables that are measured only nominally are also called categorical variables." But then it gives examples that have nothing to do with objective categorical measurement.

There are reasons why the sciences have a technical literature.

Post 28

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 12:28pm

Sam,

The discussion seems to be on what coordinates should one use to calculate the volume of the universe. This is akin to Mandelbrot's fractal problem of determining the length of a coastline.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. But again, the edge of the universe is not where lies the controversy of "space."

Hi Adam,

This includes the distinction between entities and other types of existents. If you disagree with ITOE on this point, then please say so explicitly and give your reasons.

It's been awhile since I visited ITOE. I thought Rand asserted that all existents were entities. I might be misremembering. Whether I disagree that all existents are entities is, at this point, unimportant.

Jordan

Post 29

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 1:01pm

Jordan,

This is why I gave the specific reference, including the page number, in the target article.

Post 30

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 1:31pm

Jordan:
>Daniel, I was quoting Ferris, to be sure. Don't shoot the messenger! :-)

Heh. I think the antique argument still stands up rather well tho, don't you?

- Daniel

Post 31

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 2:22pm

Adam:

I don't even understand why anyone would refer to arbitrary numbers as "names" or to arbitrary assignment as "measurement."

I don't understand why you have a problem with my treating a name as a location. There can be a Leonardo diCaprio and a Danny DeVito and those kind of names denoted the location where that person could be found. Likewise there could be a 'Charlie Fartbuster of Podunk Station S.C.' or, alternatively, 'Charlie Fartbuster Lat 37degrees N, Long 82 degrees W'. or simply just 'Lat 37degrees N, Long 82 degrees W'.

There is nothing to restrict a name from being measurements. The string of characters can be any symbols, including numbers that you want as long as they're understandable. The location is the name and the name is the location. They are one and the same.

It is irrelevant that this situation might not have been mentioned in a treatise in 1946.

Sam

Post 32

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 2:56pm

Adam:

I think you're going to come back at me with an argument based on the type of variable that comprises the name as in Fortran programming where one declares the types of variables as integer, real, alphanumeric, etc. Well, I think we could invent a type of number composed of x, y, z real numbers without any problem and that this could be the type of variable that is associated with the 'name/location'.

Sam

Post 33

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 3:59pm

Geez Adam,

And I really did read both your article and IOE. My memory just stinks. Sorry bout that. But my question still stands - what is a location or what is space? Rand says that an "existent" can be a thing, an attribute, or an action. (IOE, pg5). I don't see how location or space could be any of those. Maybe the list isn't exaustive; maybe there's something else the existents can be, but I can't think of what. Also, I think Sciabarra suggests in his Ayn Rand: Russian Radical, that Rand accepts entities as ontologically basic and rejects attributes or actions as basic. That is, attributes and actions exist as a part of entities, but cannot ontologically stand alone. Yet actions and attributes can be epistemologically basic in that they are mentally isolatable. But it's been awhile since I read Sciabarra, so I might be misinterpreted him as well. Assuming for now that I haven't, I think your article demonstrates how space can be mentally isolatable even if nothing fills it, but I'm not sure your article explains whether space in terms of ontology.

Daniel,

Heh. I think the antique argument still stands up rather well tho, don't you?

It's a persuasive argument, but then I think there're three ideas (maybe more?) that might get around it. The first is the idea that the universe could be full but full of flexible stuff. I don't see why the stuff filling up the universe has to stay put. Why can't it move around so long as every point the stuff moves into pushes some other stuff out of that point, and every point that the stuff moves out of is filled by yet some other stuff? The second is the evidence I mentioned from Ferris' book that discusses vacuum fluctuations. The third is just the trouble with wrapping our heads around empty space (a nothing) existing. I just can't seem to make sense of that.

Jordan

Post 34

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:13pm

Jordan,

I already addressed this issue in post 17, in answer to Ed's question (3). I say "addressed" rather than "answered," because I'm not sure about the answer at this time.

Post 35

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:24pm

>The first is the idea that the universe could be full but full of flexible stuff....and every point that the stuff moves out of is filled by yet some other stuff?

I guess the problem would be: where would it initially "flex" to to start the process? Imagine one of those puzzles, where you move the squares around in a certain order to make words. They always have to leave one square empty in order start the movement in the first place. That's roughly the situation.

>The second is the evidence I mentioned from Ferris' book that discusses vacuum fluctuations

No vacuum to fluctate. Everything - and I mean everything - is filled, right?

>The third is just the trouble with wrapping our heads around empty space (a nothing) existing.

That isn't really the empty space's problem...;-)

I mean, you could be ultimately right, but it's not too bad an old argument, even on closer examination.

- Daniel

Post 36

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 11:41am

Jordan:

If you followed my argument of the second half of my post #25 you will understand that it is possible to enclose all the matter (atoms and particles) of the universe within a closed boundary that excludes everything that is not material. We are left with the boundary enclosing each particle and each particle being connected others by an infinitely thin route, each side of which is outside the boundary. Nevertheless we have 'distance' between each particle which we can measure with an infinitely thin (i.e. it has length but not width) measuring stick.

Since everything outside the boundary is not of the universe and the only things within the boundary are atoms or particles then 'space' as it is generally understood cannot exist.

A 'point' in 'space' cannot exist because in order to determine the location one must measure it and the measuring stick itself must be part of the universe not just out in space.

While I have described this process in two dimensions it can be expanded to three.

Sam

Post 37

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:46pm

Adam,

Oh, now I understand Ed's question about "old" and "new." Thanks for referring me to it.

Daniel,

I understand the analogy between the universe and a shift-puzzle without a space. That sort of screws my flexible stuff idea. The best way I can think to salvage it is to say that all the stuff fills up the traditional 3 dimensions. It moves within that 3 by shifting in and out of some other dimension(s). Those dimensions are otherwise empty, which is fine, because dimensions outside the traditional 3 (or maybe 4?) don't constitute space anyway.

Sam,

I'm not following. I'll chew on your post #25 a bit more. What confused me is this:

The opposite extreme would be to connect to every particle, without crossing the paths, until all the particles are connected, backtrack to the starting point making sure you enclose every particle. The backtracked legs have zero width so that you have enclosed all the particles but there is no 'space' whatsoever.

Post 38

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:20pm

Jordan:

The opposite extreme would be to connect to every particle, without crossing the paths, until all the particles are connected, backtrack to the starting point making sure you enclose every particle. The backtracked legs have zero width so that you have enclosed all the particles but there is no 'space' whatsoever.

Maybe it's because I'm not sure what you mean by "connect." Do you mean "squish together" or "draw a line betwen"? I think it's the latter, but that's just not making sense to me. If you would use other words, that might help.

Yes, it's the latter. Just take out a piece of paper, and draw, say, 20 random dots (representing matter). Connect them one after the other until you get to the original one. You can find a path that connects them all without crossing any previous path. You have now defined a boundary where all the points are points on the boundary. If you went clockwise everything to your left is outside the 'universe'. Now, without lifting your pencil enclose the first point and backtrack to the previous point. The distance between them is connected by a channel infinitesimal width. You are now going counter-clockwise and anything on your left is outside the 'universe'. Continue backtracking and enclosing points until you are at the starting point. What you are left with in the interior is an area that is also outside the 'universe'. All that remains are the points and the connecting lines which have no width.

There is no area that can be considered 'space'.

Sam

Post 39

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 7:17pm