There already is a lot of precision with language in the area Craig (just remember how hard the logical positivists tried). Reality is often held to be 'somewhere else' and there are all kinds of measurement problems - the Copenhagen one that has been tossed out to the layman being relatively uninteresting to scientists. There are many competing views. Science is often more concerned not to let the Idols skew decent thinking or prevent experiment than with words - thinking just really ain't about language, but then comes the point of discussion with others and so on. The danger then is that people outside your field don't know enough of your specialist language-games to understand what you are on about. 'Reality' as a term bobs around in many language-games - it would be a mistake to pin it to one definition, and it's probably a mistake to conflate the reality in someone's head to the real - we are surely aware of something beyond unless we have gone mad. Sooner or later we end up with a gadget or concept that crosses boundaries, and as Pat says, sooner or later science may all lapse to dross. If it happens next wek I hope I give it up more gracefully than those dolts who cling to religion!
On 25 Mar, 18:05, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > What is it about relativity and quantum mechanics that causes so much > trouble? > > I think it comes down to this: > > Relativity: In classical physics there is an image of what is at any > given point in time. Given two observers one can then use the physics > to predict what the results of their observations will be. However, > relativity breaks this concept down. There is no "what is at a given > point in time" rather the image that one must use to predict what one > will see is relative to the frame of reference meaning it is different > for two people who are moving relative to each other.. So if you ask > the question "What is right now?" the relativist will answer "relative > to which frame of reference?" Once you know what frame of reference > you are talking about then you know which image to use and you can > predict what observers will observe. > > Now this property of the theory causes many to equivocate it with > philosophical relativism. The claim can be made that the fact that > there is no answer to the question "What is right now?" means that > philosophical relativism is correct where the term philosophical > relativism means roughly that what is real is relative to the > perceiver and there is nothing tying different perceiver's perceptions > together. Several aspects of the scientific theory however causes this > equivocation to be false: First, the total set of events that occur is > the same for all observers. It is just when and where things occur > that is relative not whether and what occurs. Second, the way the sets > are arranged is not arbitrary. There are transformation equations > that, given one set of pictures corresponding to the nows of a frame > of reference, will allow me to produce any other observers pictures. > Third, by conceiving of the reality in a four dimensional space with > an appropriate metric one can, through a process of projection that is > very similiar to the way classical physics projects reality onto > observers, determine the "presents" of all frames of reference. > Fourth, relativity preserves the possibility of causality. Fifth, for > a given frame of reference all observers have the same set of nows and > the process of observation is like in classical physics. Sixth for all > frames of reference the observations are the same at collocated > points. No one disagrees about what is observed only how to arrange > that into a series of images that represent time by means of > calculations. > > Quantum Mechanics: The problem here is with the wave particle duality. > Prior to quantum mechanics there was a clear image of "what was" at > any given time. Either light was a wave or it was a particle. There > was no doubt that it could be both because they are not the same > thing. Everyone knew reality had to be in some imaginable way. Quantum > mechanics however does not state that there is some particular > objective image that constitutes the way things are. Quantum mechanics > does this by assuming that there are waves the amplitude of which > predict the probability of appearing of a particle. There is nothing > other than this probability of appearing in the theory that would > correspond to an image of "what really is". Due to the nature of waves > there are inherent uncertainties in what can be predicted. The > observation of the location of a particle results in complete > uncertainty about its motion and that uncertainty cannot be eliminated > by more careful observation-it is inherent in the reality. However, > again this cannot be equated with philosophical relativism since the > reality (here the actual appearings that really do appear at the > probabilities predicted by the theory) are the same for all observers > and again objectivity in the sense of something being the same for > everybody is preserved. > > It seems to me that the "objective" world of science is preserved > therefore and relativity and quantum cannot be equated with > relativism. The real philosophical issues therefore arise equally in > both classical and modern physics. The fact is that physical reality > is not determinable logically. One cannot derive physical law without > observation. Therefore it is dependent on observation. However, the > fact is that when observation is conducted then the laws of physics > that result are remarkably stable. They result to an amazing degree in > constraints on the logical possibilities. Throw a baseball. Logically > it can go out from your hand five feet then stop and hover. Physically > it won't, a statement that is not absolutely certain as it is based on > observation but is still very certain given the stability of the > essent and our to date scientific experience. The mystical > interpretation of reality are all based in careful analysis of > observation itself and on the basis underneath science and really are > about the foundation of science itself. The scientific theories do not > speak to it and the questions being asked are not scientific > questions. On the other side, mystical insight can frequently be > misinterpreted as science and you have the mistakes that can be seen > in "New Age" fundamentalism. > > So the net effect is to just eliminate naive objectivity in which one > imagines the world as a bunch of little marbles or as a wave continuum > or something. Still there is a description of a reality that allows > one to make predictions about future appearances - admittedly with > some uncertainty due to quantum mechanics. And these theories have > existential implications given our incarnate nature and the > possibility of death. > > Science does not lead to philosophical relativism and leaves open all > of the work necessary underneath the physical theories to determine > their meaning. The philosophical issues remain open to philosophical > inquiry and since the science is all based on observation the > uncertainty inherent in the process is always present. Those who > interpret scientific theory ontologically and state that scientific > law is true for all of the future and that scientific theories > determine all reality are making a simple non sequitor. They are > concluding that things will be as they have been. This conclusion is > justifiable scientifically (explicitly it is the assumption of > homogeneity of time) but is unfounded philosophically. In fact there > is the permanent possibility that future scientific experiment could > contradict current theory. They are also making another non-seqitor > when they extrapolate what happens in the repeatable results that they > obtain in the lab with the possibility that something in violation of > the laws they obtain has ever happened or is happening right now. The > error here is the problem of too small of a sample size. However, they > are making a bigger error. They simply are missing the philosophical > meaning of the situation and have no access to the meaning of > alternative ontology. They interpret the philosophical statements > scientifically and then reject them based on science. > > So the naive view that either science is right and that is what > reality is or it is wrong and then anything can happen is the real > problem. It's a false dilemma. The fact is that science is amazingly > right but that it is not impossible that it could be violated in the > future or even that it has been or is being violated right now > somewhere. Furthermore the meaning of reality is not understandable > through science and requires genuine philosophical inquiry the results > of which can bear on aesthetics, ethics etc. > > So -roughly- the problem is resolved in a simple statement: If you > want to know what reality is you must think philosophically and if you > want to know what will probably happen in it think scientifically. > > On Mar 25, 5:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 Mar, 09:26, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What the topic raises ( uh, umpteen time ! ) is that, while the " > > > thing i.e.reality " is never in doubt, we yet do not know what it is. > > > What it appears, in experience or science, is only what we see, > > > believe, surmise or establish ( on concrete consequential evidence, > > > too ), is just that : appearance. > > > > For most of us, this appearance of reality is adequate. Very, very few > > > refuse to rest at that ; they want to know the reality, as it is, not > > > as it appears, believability notwithsatanding. > > > > Yes, KC, Space and Time is what we understand, define and take it to > > > be. They are a part or, more exactly, features of the " appearance." > > > Exactly. Whilst it's possible that 'that which is' could have > > folded differently and revealed different features, our noting of any > > features in the whole is, in reality, a reflexive act in which we gaze > > at the larger part (feature) of ourselves that IS the whole. > > > > On Mar 25, 12:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That's really only the start of the argument Craig, though a sensible > > > > introduction that assumes a circular form rather too quickly. Most > > > > arguments like this 'return to the subject', yet within subjectivity > > > > we then insist on objectivity - relativity insisting that it describes > > > > space-time everywhere and so on. Actor-network theory (for instance) > > > > claims to be ontologically relativist and epistemologically empiricist > > > > - which is not a statement of there being no reality apart from space- > > > > time, but rather one that allows speculation on the nature of reality > > > > under rules of evidence. In principle, legal systems operate in a > > > > similar matter, being led to conclusion by evidence (though in reality > > > > they are often really a mess of lies and human interests- that is > > > > ideological). Modern relativism has reached a conclusion a bit like > > > > yours in that it believes the reality hypothesis is implicit in its > > > > reasoning, questioning what appears the inevitable theory-ladenness of > > > > observations. I > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
