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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn and Bill, you two have made some excellent posts, not only in this thread, but in the other related ones recently. Thank you.

I actually find this debate very interesting from a methodology point of view. I have a bunch of thoughts, and I've been trying to organize them for the last week, but there's so many!

For instance, since there are multiple competing theories that explain the QM experimental results, one would think the debate would be about the standards one should use for selecting between them. I think Glenn and Bill have made contributions here. But the other side, which in this thread is Cal and Bob (in other threads there were others), seems to accept readily the Copenhagen model as the default, and instead criticize others for letting their philosophy bias them. I haven't seen any discussions of methodology to show why the Copenhagen model is better than any others. It comes off as an argument from consensus or authority.

Also, I see the "pro-science" side (I don't really consider them pro-science at all) rejecting philosophy in favor of science. But if they knew almost anything about Objectivism and philosophy, they would remember Rand's quote:

"A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown." -- Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It

You don't have a choice about having a philosophy, or being guided by it, or interpreting your experience by it. You only have a choice to recognize it, and allow yourself an opportunity to evaluate it and modify it. The "pro-science" side has a philosophy as well, and it their science is equally affected by it. The difference is that they try to ignore it. They choose to ignore contradictions. They choose to ignore the Law of Identity. They choose to ignore the law of causality. And they think that by ignoring these, they are being "scientific".

I wrote an article about those who see an opposition between science and philosophy.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Philosophy_vs_Science.shtml

And when you reject philosophy, it shows. What a tangle of stolen concepts, floating abstractions, contradictions, and logical fallacies! Induction without identity. Predictability without causality. Theory without standards of reasoning. Selection without evaluation.

That's why I don't consider the "pro-science" side really pro-science. It's not philosophers vs. scientists. It's people who understand the philosophical basis of science vs. people who try to ignore or reject it, and are doomed to be a slave to their unspoken and unrecognized beliefs. The first camp is the real pro-science group.



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph Wrote:

seems to accept readily the Copenhagen model as the default, and instead criticize others for letting their philosophy bias them.
Greater minds than I accept this model.  Right now, as far as I know, no theory refutes QM in favour of a deterministic explanation.  Arguing from authority is not a logical reason to dismiss or accept anything, but QM has more than authority going for it.  I get angry though when I perceive a philosophical bias taking precedent over evidence.

The law of identity proves nothing, and offers evidence for nothing.

and are doomed to be a slave to their unspoken and unrecognized beliefs.
I believe this to be true of Objectivists.

Bob


Post 42

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob Mac - I don't see a conflict between Objectivism and science due to QM, even if the universe really has probabilistic inputs at some level. I prefer the idea of something deterministic underlying everything observed at a quantum level and hope future evidence will bear that out, but don't see it as philosophy-shattering if there's not.

The potential for some seeing such a conflict I think could really be slightly different meanings of causality. At a macroscopic scale, say you're running a computer taking keyboard input. I'd call it a causal system as long as a known, unchanging program is running and processing the input by an algorithm - regardless whether you always type a specific scripted input or randomly bang on the keyboard. I think there is a harder-core view of causality many Oists are using, and by that view you'd have to regard the computer system as not causal unless all inputs were also known in advance. Does causality mean just consistent, immutable natural laws for how things interoperate? Or does it mean that - plus requiring all inputs be fixed such that everything is truly deterministic?


Post 43

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn Wrote:

The first is an insult only if you have as little regard for logical positivists as I do.  But, I put the little smiley face in there, so it can't be an insult. . 

Let's follow your logic.

The first sentence.

I only insulted him if I have the disdain that I do in fact have.

Translation "I only insulted him if ...meaningless because admitedly true.  Therefore, I insulted him."

But, the smiley (before the statement) means it's not an insult.

That's bullshit and I think you're being deliberately dishonest.  The smiley was BEFORE you called him something that you admittedly have great disdain for.

You've accused me of willingly ignoring "the search for real truth" in order to rationalize my Objectivist philosophy.  And finally, after I've made an effort to explain my agreement with Bohm's theory, and after repeated admissions on your part that you don't know much about it, you tell me: "let's be clear that you have not actually said much of anything yet". 

You have only asserted your agreement with Bohm, with the reasoning only that it's deterministic and it doesn't contradict evidence and (between the lines) it feels better.  I have understood what you have written so far, so until you write something that I do not understand, the fact that I don't know much about Bohm doesn't matter yet.

I need to understand more I admit that.  I insulted you, I get angry, I think you have a faith-based addiction to Objectivism and I admit all of it.

You sir, have been caught in a deliberate lie.  You insulted him, you admitted you insulted him, then you said you did not insult him.

Two men say they're Jesus.  One of 'ems gotta be wrong.

Bob


Post 44

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Comrades, although my fingers are itching when I read all the posts, I'll have to refrain from continuing these discussions for a while, as I'll be very busy the coming weeks. At the moment I just can't keep up with the discussions on all the different forums in which I participate, so I'll have to restrain myself, how frustrating that may be. See you later.

Post 45

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron wrote:

I prefer the idea of something deterministic underlying everything observed at a quantum level and hope future evidence will bear that out, but don't see it as philosophy-shattering if there's not.
Wonderful - seriously.  This is an attitude I greatly admire and I believe this is the "hope" that others have but won't admit. 

I am not an Objectivist, but I'll go out on a limb here and guess that other will not agree with the assertion that it's not philosophy-shattering.  But hey - could be wrong about this.

Bob


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob wrote:

"Greater minds than I accept this model."

And that was in response to my statement "It comes off as an argument from consensus or authority". Nice.

He goes on to say:

"I get angry though when I perceive a philosophical bias taking precedent over evidence."

Interesting thought, but I have yet to see a single person who is letting philosophical "bias" take precedent over evidence. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single person who has denied the experimental data. The question completely revolves around interpretation of the data.

Also, I don't your use of the phrase "philosophical bias". It's not philosophical bias that's being promoted. It's objective standards of judgment.

Which makes me wonder what you think science is exactly? If there are no standard for science, why is it such a good thing? If there are standards, isn't that just "philosophical bias"?

It's an important question, and one I'd love to see answered. From the Objectivist (and scientific) perspective, there must be means by which you can select among theories, and even reject them. But so far, I'm hearing that any such means are just "philosophical bias". Well then, guilty as charged!



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, since 'philosophy' means an integrated view of existance, then to be 'philosophically biased' is to prefer integrated viewing over non-integrated or dis-integrated viewing.....

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph Wrote:

And that was in response to my statement "It comes off as an argument from consensus or authority". Nice.


I wrote

"Arguing from authority is not a logical reason to dismiss or accept anything"  What? You didn't read that?

"Nice"?  What's that supposed to mean?  I was agreeing with you.

Interesting thought, but I have yet to see a single person who is letting philosophical "bias" take precedent over evidence. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single person who has denied the experimental data. The question completely revolves around interpretation of the data.


No.  The question involves why one is chosen over the other, when arguably the data supports QM (Copenhagen) more.  The question is why one interpretation is rejected, against the grain of the scientific mainstream (although that's just incidental), as opposed to keeping an open mind.  I say this is irrational.  The question comes down to "faith", but noone will admit it.  Well, Aaron was honest enough at least.

If there are standards, isn't that just "philosophical bias"?
The universe is not required to comply with our "hope" of what reality might be.  The bias is the bias of a closed mind based on a possibly flawed philosophy.  The jury is still out out on whether reality conforms to Objectivism.  Right now it looks like it doesn't, but I need to learn more.  Several papers I have read now say it comes down to personal preference and from a 2003 paper on Bohm...

"there is really nothing that counts as evidence that the world is deterministic at the fundamental level"

EDIT: There is a lack of evidence that the world is deterministic, therefore Objectivism DEMANDS that you do not believe it.  You may as well say that you believe in God.   After all, Bohm does...

Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy here? 

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 4/25, 5:32pm)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

You state "The question involves why one is chosen over the other, when arguably the data supports QM (Copenhagen) more".

Let me make two comments here. First, I don't believe that's the case. As Glenn has mentioned, many people have theories for how QM evidence should be interpreted, and the ones I've seen all claim equal support by the data. You're making an assumption I don't think you're able to support.

But there's another comment I need to make. I wrote an article called Fundamental Premises. Check it out here:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Fundamental_Premises.shtml

The point is that a bad philosophy can claim the data supports it. For instance, let me make a few bad theoretical claims.

1.) The world is ultimately controlled by magic. The randomness in QM is proof.
2.) God exists, and directs the world in subtle ways. The randomness in QM is proof of his divine intervention.
3.) Our senses our flawed. The world is an illusion. Even when we construct the same experiment, it comes behaves different, proving we are not truly connected to the external world, and it's all a figment of our imaginations.

Each of these "theories" is fully supported by the evidence. In fact, they are supported by even more evidence than QM. Therefore, they're better theories!

Obviously not. Fitting the data with the theory is only one benchmark for evaluating a theory. If that were all, then "God did it" would count as a legimiate theory. There must be more.

You then say "The question is why one interpretation is rejected, against the grain of the scientific mainstream (although that's just incidental), as opposed to keeping an open mind. "

I'll ignore the argument from authority. Now what's left? You ask why should a theory be rejected, instead of keeping an open mind? But if you apply that consistently, you can't reject any theory at all. Clearly an important aspect of reasoning is that theories are able to be rejected on some terms or by some standard. Keeping an "open mind" does not mean accepting anything and everything.

Let me ask you an honest question. Do you think divine intervention is good theory for QM? Seriously. And if you do say no, aren't you guilty of philosophical bias and not keeping an open mind? Why not?

As for all being about faith, that's ridiculous. The Objectivist response is that faith is belief without or in spite of reason. That's not what's going on. A call for objective standards, rules of logic and reasoning, and an integrated understanding of science is not simply "faith".

But let me add that your conclusion is entirely consistent with my expectations. When someone tries to reject philosophy, when they try to sever it from science, they're left without a criteria for judging theories. For them, it really does seem to be all about faith. Every theory is equally good. I actually did predict it in that last article and following thread that I mentioned.

You suggest reality doesn't conform to Objectivism. One way science can go bad is to leap into the area of non-falsifiability. Say someone claims that contradictions exist in nature. What evidence could they give to support such a theory? If confronted with a contradiction, the proper process is to try to figure out what you're missing, since contradictions don't exist. The improper process is to conclude contradictions do exist. One involves applying logic to one's conclusions, and judging them accordingly. The other involves rejecting logic, while still pretending to be "scientific", whatever that means after logic is discarded.

Do you think, when faced with a contradiction in your theory, that it's equally good to accept the contradiction as it is to reject it? Whatever your answer is, that's philosophy! That's why you can't disconnect science from it. The only thing you can do is make sure the philosophy is correct so the science will be too.





Post 50

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Careful with where you ascribe faith. Belief with no reason is different from induction, hope or agnosticism. I don't hold any strong belief on an interpretation of QM, though I do hope a deterministic one eventually turns out right. Similarly, one can hope that somewhere among trillions of stars there is alien life, or that cold fusion can be harnessed - but not believe in either now.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rowlands ROCKS!

Ed
[a short sentiment, from a guy who wrote a primer on the inherent intersection of philosophy with science]


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob Mac wrote,
I get angry though when I perceive a philosophical bias taking precedent over evidence.
My dear departed mother, God rest her soul... (Oh, I forgot, there is no God, and no departed soul.) Oh well. Where was I? Oh, yes, my presently non-existent mother once said, "All the world's queer, except me and thee, and even thee's a little queer." (Or was that Shakespeare? Maybe, but I heard it from my mother first.) Anyway, one could say the same about bias: All the world's biased, except me and thee, and even thee's a little biased. But not you, Bob - definitely not you! ;-)
The Law of Identity proves nothing, and offers evidence for nothing.
But it sets the standard for judging evidence, does it not? Like a philosophical chief executive, it carries a certain veto power. The law of identity cannot be violated. If the evidence you have is paradoxical - if it seems contradictory - then you have a problem; you need to resolve the paradox; otherwise, you don't have a satisfactory theory.

In Post 21, I wrote, "But it is that very principle of induction that is incompatible with metaphysical randomness. The action of the ball on a roulette wheel is random to the casual observer, because he is not privy to all of the forces acting on it, but in reality its action is governed by strict causality. It is no different for subatomic particles, however random their behavior appears to the observer. Like probability, randomness is epistemological, not metaphysical. Bob replied,
This is not a line of reasoning. This is simply an assertion that is not supported by evidence.
Well, it's the conclusion of a fairly extensive line of reasoning, if you were to read the rest of my post, so I wouldn't call it "simply an assertion." You can't separate a conclusion from its reasons and then claim that it doesn't constitute a line of reasoning. That's a little disingenuous, don't you think?! In any case, my supporting "evidence" is philosophical. If you're going to take issue with my conclusion, then you ought at the very least to address my reasons for it. Would you say that it's simply an assertion to invoke the law of non-contradiction in arguing that a theory lacks logical consistency? If not, then why is it simply an assertion to invoke the law of identity in defense of the view that like causes imply like effects? Quoting H.W.B. Joseph,


[I]f a thing is to have any determinate nature and character at all, there must be uniformity of action in different things of that character, or of the same thing on different like occasions. If a thing a under conditions c produces a change x in a subject s - if, for example, a light of certain wave-lengths, passing through the lense of a camera, produces a certain chemical change (which we call the taking of a photograph of Mount Everest) upon a photographic film - the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is. It could only act differently, if it were different. As long therefore as it is a, and stands related under conditions c to a subject that is s, no other effect than x can be produced; and to say that the same thing acting on the same thing under the same conditions may yet produce a different effect, is to say that a thing need not be what it is. But this is in flat conflict with the Law of Identity. A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connection between a and x implies that a acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be. [Introduction to Logic (1906), p. 407, 408]



- Bill



Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill wrote

But it is that very principle of induction that is incompatible with metaphysical randomness.

Induction is useful, but inherently flawed and unreliable especially when hidden variables exist. Inductive rules never been successfully formalised.  Wishing it, or stating it doesn't make it true.

Here's an example

"A favorite example used by critics of the Method of Agreement is the case of the Scientific Drinker, who was extremely fond of liquor and got drunk every night of the week. He was ruining his health, and his few remaining friends pleaded with him to stop. Realizing himself that he could not go on, he resolved to conduct a careful experiment to discover the exact cause of his frequent inebriations. For five nights in a row he collected instances of a given phenomenon, the antecedent circumstances being respectively scotch and soda, bourbon and soda, brandy and soda, rum and soda, and gin and soda [ugh!]. Then using the Method of Agreement he swore a solemn oath never to touch soda again!"

Catch the hidden variable here and how that so easily breaks the inductive chain?

may yet produce a different effect, is to say that a thing need not be what it is. But this is in flat conflict with the Law of Identity.
 
The law of identity tells us nothing and proves nothing, the line of reasoning is non-existent.

Bob


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph Rowlands wrote:
Since there are multiple competing theories that explain the QM experimental results, one would think the debate would be about the standards one should use for selecting between them. I think Glenn and Bill have made contributions here. But the other side, which in this thread is Cal and Bob (in other threads there were others), seems to accept readily the Copenhagen model as the default. (Emphasis added.)
There are not just those two sides participating here. The path integral interpretation of QM (which is a sum-over-possible-histories interpretation) mentioned by Kurt Eichert, like the transactional interpretation that I discussed (I'll place that disussion below), are not in the Copenhagen court nor in the Bohmian court. I'll try to write a note on the contemporary histories interpretations in a few days. Then I'll be in a position to state pertinent specific criteria for selecting between these two interpertations of QM. Most likely, those criteria will be pertinent to assessing other interpretations as well. We'll see.

              [Post #53 in that other thread on this topic (16 April 2006)]
In this note, I want to partially assess the consistency of the transactional interpretation with Rand’s metaphysics. I rely here on John G. Cramer’s presentation (1986) of the transactional interpretation in Reviews of Modern Physics 58(3):647–87.

 

The basic element of this interpretation is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The transactional interpretation is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell inequality, yet it is relativistically invariant and fully causal. . . . The transactional interpretation permits quantum mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as “mathematical representations of knowledge” as in the Copenhagen interpretation. (647, emphasis added)

 

The transactional interpretation accepts a principle of contrafactual definiteness (CFD): “For the various possible measurements (perhaps of noncommuting variables) which might have been performed on a quantum system, each would have produced a definite (but unknown and possibly random) observational result. . . . [CFD] is completely compatible with the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but it is in some conflict with the positivistic element of the Copenhagen interpretation” (648). It is also in conflict with the following interpretations: Hidden Variables; Guide-Wave (de Broglie); Collapse of State Vector (von Neumann); Many-Worlds; and Advanced-Wave (de Beauregard or Davidon).

 

An interpretation of quantum mechanics must provide a physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism. This enables experimental tests. A second function of an interpretation is to “define the domain of applicability of the formalism” and to “interpret the unobservables in such a way as to avoid paradoxes and contradictions” (650).

 

Is the CFD principle, which is a central component of the transactional interpretation, consistent with Rand’s metaphysics as stated in her published works? CFD is certainly consistent with Rand’s view that external reality exists and has definite objective characteristics whether we measure them or not. The possible conflict between Rand’s metaphysics and CFD would be in the latter’s factor of definite but possibly random observational results. The transactional interpretation takes the mathematical state vector, which carries canonically conjugate quantities, to be a real wave. That means that the Heisenberg uncertainty relations (dispersion relations) implied in Schrödinger’s equation are indeterminacy relations in external objective reality.

 

Rand takes the law of causality to be her rich law of identity applied to action. She states the law of causality this way: “All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved” (1973). If by determined Rand means to say that every particular result of an experiment, even the particular values of canonically conjugate quantities, is uniquely determined prior to the instant of the experimental test, then her version of the principle of causality (and her version of identity) would need a modest adjustment to accommodate the CFD principle in the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

A second central component of the transactional interpretation is its abandonment, in the quantum regime, of the principle of locality, which has borne much good fruit in classical physics. The transactional interpretation embraces correlations established faster-than-light between parts of a physical state vector separated by spacelike or negative timelike intervals. Rand’s metaphysics is not in conflict with this sort of physical nonlocality.


Post 55

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to bring up some questions:

Objectivism states the universe is knowable, therefore deterministic.
Objectivism believes in the volitional nature of consciousness, therefore "free will"

Science (based on QM) often states that the universe is not knowable, therefore NOT deterministic.
Science (often) claims that human behavior is deterministic and that "free will" is an illusion.
(see threads on QM and Behavior/Consciousness here and quotes from dissenting advocates of Science)

I use "often" because there is no unified agreement in "science"

Is there a conflict between volitional consciousness and a deterministic universe?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a comparison of the attitudes, toward the double-slit experiment, of a physicist/non-philosopher, Richard Feynman, and a physicist/philosopher, John Bell.  This is from an article in Physics Today, back in April 1998, by Sheldon Goldstein.
(Note: For purposes of full disclosure, I should say that Goldstein is one of the major proponents of Bohm's theory today.)
 
Feynman:
[The two-slit experiment for electrons is] a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.  In reality it contains the only mystery.  [Emphasis in the original.] [From The Feynman Lectures.]
[This experiment] has been designed to contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per cent. ... How does it really work?  What machinery is actually producing this thing?  Nobody knows any machinery.  Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description of it.  [From The Character of Physical Law.]
Bell:
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle?  And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave?  De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in [the] screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes.  And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate.  This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.  [From Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics.]
 
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 57

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

The contingent character in objective reality that is necessary for life and intelligence and free will is already available at the classical level. Everyday contingency and the kind of indeterminism it entails is here whether or not quantum indeterminism is the case.

As for Rand's Objectivism (MvMM, 1973): "Any natural phenomenon . . . could not have occurred differently or failed to occur" (p.29). Whether the basic constituents of the universe "are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy," the universe "is not ruled by . . . chance, but by the Law of Identity" (p.25).

Is this element of Objectivism, stated by Rand in the preceding paragraph, compatible with the view of contingency and indeterminism I expressed in the first paragraph? I think they can be made compatible only if one corrects Rand's view that contingency enters the world only with conceptual consciousness. Engineering-type contingency is in the world, before any life is in the world, let alone any consciousness.

Allan Gotthelf improved Rand's express views on chance and identity in this way: "Things in the world come to be by nature---by the natures of the individual acting entities. (Chance is not an alternative to nature---it is just the . . . interaction of independent causal chains.)" (On Ayn Rand p.49) That is getting more compatible.

Stephen

Post 58

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,

My earlier comment was to distinguish between those promoting philosophical evaluation of scientific theories, and those arguing essentially that science should be independent of philosophy (my characterization, not theirs). It was not to distinguish between those supporting Bohm and those supporting Copenhagen. Although I may have missed it, I wasn't even aware that Bill had offered any support for Bohm. So the question isn't which competing model is better. The question is what standards are used to pick those models, and if there are standards, whether those standards are rooted in philosophy.

Kurt, you might want to start a different thread on that topic! It's a rat hole! My own take, though, is that there is no conflict between a causal universe and free will. In fact, I think they have to go together.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen wrote:

Things in the world come to be by nature---by the natures of the individual acting entities.
But seriously, how does that actually mean anything?  The discussion is about what the 'nature' really is, or might be.

Bob


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.