Richard: Are there differences between *scientific truths* and PITS *truths?* I agree, generally, with Georges take on the matter, except I would not call *absolute statements* meaningless. *Nothing can exceed the speed of light,* though it is an unprovable working conjecture, does have a great deal of meaning. ================ G: To keep it straight, the statement *Nothing can exceed the speed of light* does not exist in physics. What you doubtless mean is *information cannot exceed C*, which is the well known theorem of SR, derived from the axiom of invariance of C. Now this theorem is in no way absolute. It's relative to the axiom, to the SR model, out of which it's meaningless and to thousands of experiments trying to falsify it, of which some, like Aspect's pretend (IMO falsely) to have succeeded. The axiom itself, like all axioms is relative to some context which suggested it - here the MM experiment -, and otherwise arbitrary, thus relative to the knowledge and intuition of the propounder and to the model which it is destined to found. The widespread error consists in believing that scientific statements describe, explain, etc. the transcendental "World Out There", "Nature", "Reality" and what not. They are strictly confined to respective abstract models and beyond them have no meaning. Thus, they are all relative. Their export to the "World Out There" is known as "reification". Once reified, they may play absolute universality, flamenco, or anything. ================ Richard: Hi Realist - nice to hear from you again. Yes, for me in the sense that objects don't need human observers to guarantee their actuality as characterised by the *thing-in-itself* concept is sound common sense
Jud, I have never assumed that Kant’s thing-in-itself was referring to the differences between naïve and representative realism. I thought that Kant was talking about some kind of meta-quality, or separate ontological reality of entities, as opposed simply what can be observed. Perhaps a Kantian scholar out there can set me straight on this?? ================ G: Without being Kantian or any scholar, I have studied Kant's system because it represents a rigorous synthesis of the first enlightenment - the prerequisite to my study of the second. I have written my conclusions in the chapter "KANT AND EINSTEIN" http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0f_kant_and_einstein.html My present post can be understood only in the light of this chapter. The Realist above seems to imagine Kant creating his Noumenon (Ding an Sich) in order to refute the shamanic claims of the Copenhagen Interpretation assesing that "real objects" are called to "existence" by conscious observations and upon the end of observation return to "nothingness". Now, even shelving the chronological discrepancy, that is obviously wrong, because Kant considered intelligent thinkers whom he respected, like Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and, had he lived today, he could have discussed Einsteins Physical Reality, but would not even notice the fatuous CI. So, whatever the DaS may mean, it has nothing to do with the cat existing before opening the box. Then, what does it mean? Wrong, what DID it mean? It does not mean anything for us, because the whole Kant's system reposed on subsequently falsified axioms and does not keep for us any meaning else than historical and methodological. Well, what's DaS's definition? Kant gives only rather vague descriptions, which seem to boil down to the following: -The abstract label "table" points to a structure of memorized qualities, form, size, color, hardness, function, position in space and time, material, constructing procedures, etc. If I scrap them all, what stays? The empty abstract label "table" as meaningless as "hrrmpf" and having the same null existential status. We call it "noumenon" and ban it from the human universe of discourse. So did also Kant and very strongly, but not consistently. He was slave of his theorem of Synthetic Statements Apriori and to justify it had to base it on Categories of "Pure Reason", which is an euphemism for DaS' or Noumena. To resume: For us noumena are empty abstract labels, without any existential pretensions. Bestowing on them "existential" or "real" status is a still stupider reification than exporting to the "World Out There" abstract constructs of scientific models. Kant's system is paradoxical, as on the one hand it bans noumena, but, on the other hand, is founded in noumena called Categories of "Pure Reason". It got falsified and thus is entirely meaningless for us, but remains a lesson of deriving, for the first time in history, sincerely and rigorously from the concurrent state of science, arts and know-how, a scientific, axiomatic, falsifiable ontology. ================ Richard: As bad as reification is, inferring that cancer cells, or any cells for that matter have *intelligence* and purposeful actions, is teleological thinking and just as bad. Richard Dawkins did not help any with the title of his book: The Selfish Gene. Imparting intelligence to living tissue is not only absurd, it is dangerous, since, for those who innocently take these things as truth, it enforces the idea that nature has guided purposefulness. ================ G: We are back to the above: *The widespread error consists in believing that scientific statements describe, explain, etc. the transcendental "World Out There", "Nature", "Reality" and what not. They are strictly confined to respective abstract models and beyond them have no meaning. Their export to the "World Out There" is known as "reification". Once reified, they may play absolute universality, flamenco, or anything.* Causality, whether effective or final is an abstract construct strictly confined to its respective abstract models and beyond them having no meaning at all. Once you reify it by exporting to "nature", you may say whatever you wish, all being equally meaningless. I cannot follow you there for having never met "nature". I may be slightly surprised by your banning of teleology from "nature". Indeed, human behavior can only be modeled teleologically and I suppose that you consider humans as "natural", which would mean that teleology "exists" in your "nature". And "natural" humans made doubtless of "natural" living tissue, I don't see how you can avoid imparting teleology to living tissues. But that's neither here nor there, as I ignore all about the WOT and can try to talk turkey only about models. What IMO is dangerous, it's not to prattle about "nature", but to choke scientific models by virtue of reified theist, atheist or whatever beliefs. If some model uses the abstraction of teleology, anti- gravity or teleportation, it should be free to do so, subject to factual falsification, but not to refutal with transcendental (anti)religious beliefs. Regards. Georges --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
