Supernatural philosophy/natural philosophy

[sandwiches]

Maybe you need to look at the questions in post #47. I was trying to avoid a leading question - to give you a chance to express your position. But it seems you don't have one, and others have said they like the questions in #47 better.

Well, I didn't understand your question about the nature of the existence of 'c' or whatever it was but the question in post #47 is clearer to me.

Ideas, numbers, thoughts, dreams, are real in the sense that they're processes which happen in our brain through chemicals and electricity. Numbers specifically are mere abstractions of sets, abstractions being real as thoughts. So, they're real. However, if you're asking if a number exists outside a processing unit like a brain or a computer, then no. It's like asking if color exists separate from light. Just as color is result of interactions between light and different objects, the idea of numbers is the result of interactions between neurons, electricity, ions, etc. Does 'color' have a location? Does my 'happiness' have a location? Does 'building a bird house' have a location? I'm not sure any of those questions make much sense if used in the same way as "Does a chair have a location?".

 

[sandwiches]

So, I was trying to point out that one idea can refer to another idea. No problem with that. But light is something we can perceive. It's not just an idea. So, at some point, we move from referring to an idea to referring to something we consider to be real.

If number is just an idea, then referring to the speed of light with the statement, "The speed of light = c" is a reference to an idea, not to something we perceive. If that's all science is - mind games about imaginary things - well, I don't think I would find it as useful as I do for my daily job.

So, when we perceive velocity, what physical thing are we perceiving? The question is again phrased differently, but it's the same thing I've been trying to ask all along.

We're perceiving distance traveled relative to a reference point in a given amount of time. This distance travel is real and so is the time it took to move said distance. The number we use to refer to this distance traveled in a given amount of time is an idea we call velocity or speed. We refer to the speed of light as 'c' or about 299,792,458 meters per second (according to Google.)

 

[Resha Caner]

... if you're asking if a number exists outside a processing unit like a brain or a computer, then no. It's like asking if color exists separate from light ...

And so you seem to make "3" some type of adjective similar to "red". You also seem to be saying that just as the human concept of red is not necessary for light to exist, so also "3" is not necessary for light to propagate at a constant velocity.

We're perceiving distance traveled relative to a reference point in a given amount of time. This distance travel is real and so is the time it took to move said distance. The number we use to refer to this distance traveled in a given amount of time is an idea we call velocity or speed.

So, if the number doesn't exist outside the brain - if it's not necessary for light to propagate - is number necessary?

Let me ask this 2 different ways:
1) If number is not necessary for the propagation of light, it seems, then we do not speak of the "thing in itself" when we use the number. So, is there some way to describe velocity without a concept of number?
2) Even if number is not necessary for the propagation of light itself, is it necessary that we use it for the human idea? To express our human perception of that propagation of light?

 

[sandwiches]

And so you seem to make "3" some type of adjective similar to "red". You also seem to be saying that just as the human concept of red is not necessary for light to exist, so also "3" is not necessary for light to propagate at a constant velocity.

So, if the number doesn't exist outside the brain - if it's not necessary for light to propagate - is number necessary?

Is it 'necessary?' Well, it's necessary if you wish to do calculations and use it in technology and whatnot.

Let me ask this 2 different ways:
1) If number is not necessary for the propagation of light, it seems, then we do not speak of the "thing in itself" when we use the number. So, is there some way to describe velocity without a concept of number?

Just quick disclaimer: I mistakenly made 'velocity' and 'speed' to mean the same thing but velocity differs from speed in that it is a vector. So, velocity is speed and a direction and thus I think we're talking about the 'speed' of light.

Now, 'speed' by definition is distance traveled in a given amount of time. So, I don't know of any other way of describing this other than distance/time.

2) Even if number is not necessary for the propagation of light itself, is it necessary that we use it for the human idea? To express our human perception of that propagation of light?

I would say so. Some concept of sets and naming convention for them is needed to express the set size of the amount of units of distance traveled in a given set size of units of time.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would say so. Some concept of sets and naming convention for them is needed to express the set size of the amount of units of distance traveled in a given set size of units of time.

Some would disagree with you, and my example was Hartry Field. As such, he sets out to show that scientific concepts can be expressed without the number concept. I don't think he succeeded, but it was a worthy effort - more than I could have ever done, and it introduced me to some fascinating ideas.

So, moving forward, from your view, we are not expressing speed - the propagation of light - as the "thing in itself". All we are explaining is our perception of it. Therefore, the number we use for that speed is an instrument of the description (an instrumentalist philosophy of science).

We cannot, therefore, claim our description to be exact. It is only an approximation.

 

[sandwiches]

Some would disagree with you, and my example was Hartry Field. As such, he sets out to show that scientific concepts can be expressed without the number concept. I don't think he succeeded, but it was a worthy effort - more than I could have ever done, and it introduced me to some fascinating ideas.

I'll leave that for the more mathematically inclined than me. I don't know of any way to convey abstract ideas such as subtraction and addition without some representation of sets.

So, moving forward, from your view, we are not expressing speed - the propagation of light - as the "thing in itself". All we are explaining is our perception of it. Therefore, the number we use for that speed is an instrument of the description (an instrumentalist philosophy of science).

We cannot, therefore, claim our description to be exact. It is only an approximation.

Yep. Go on...

 

[Resha Caner]

Yep. Go on...

By saying our model is only an approximation, I'm reaching for more than signficant digits. It's not a matter of whether c = 299,792,458 or 299,792,459. It means we can't claim to know the speed of light is constant. It's just a model.

And so, we can't attach "constant" as an aspect of the material.

 

[sandwiches]

By saying our model is only an approximation, I'm reaching for more than signficant digits. It's not a matter of whether c = 299,792,458 or 299,792,459. It means we can't claim to know the speed of light is constant. It's just a model.

Just a model based on our best available information. Right.

And so, we can't attach "constant" as an aspect of the material.

Does not follow. How does the "And so..." part come in? What does out measurement of the speed of light have to do with what we call a constant in physics?

It seems you're reaching very strange conclusions based on what is being said. So, far I've seen these two:

p) Numbers aren't things (based on the previous posts)
c) We can't measure them with precision.

p) We can't measure the speed of light with precision
c) We can't attach "constant" as an aspect of the material.

I don't see how either conclusion follows its respective premise.

 

[Resha Caner]

I guess I jumped too far ahead. So, I'll back up and focus on this statement:

It means we can't claim to know the speed of light is constant.

I'm not sure if you responded to that statement.

 

[sandwiches]

I guess I jumped too far ahead. So, I'll back up and focus on this statement:

I'm not sure if you responded to that statement.

It's constant to the best of our abilities to measure it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't see how either conclusion follows its respective premise.

My impression as well. The speed of light is an empirical matter, and may very well involve some educated guesswork or metaphysical reasoning as to whether it is truly a constant or if it is instead variable within a tiny range. But that has little, if anything, to do with an epistemological philosophy of numbers.

Personally, I think that any measurement in terms of units is philosophically like a comparison. For example, when we take a walk, we have a perception of having travelled a certain distance and havng done so for a certain length of time. We don't have to attach numbers or units to this right away, because at this point it is simply an experience. However, we may certainly procede to do so.

But, first we may think in terms of comparisons. How many yardsticks could be laid end to end to reach the store? How many ticks on one's watch before one gets there? And from this basic activity, which we can relate to on a personal level, we can extend our imagination to experiences that we have never had. We can speak of how long we'd have to walk if we had to walk to the Moon, or how many yard sticks we'd have to put end to end to reach the Moon. This too is a comparison. Units are an abstract result of thinking in terms of comparisons, and a count of those units helps us to do the math.

I don't see how this poses any serious problems for science. It doesn't prevent us from measuring the speed of light and understanding what that measurement means. Any uncertainty, I think, comes from an overly skeptical, almost Humean, approach to doubting that we have any understanding of life experience, such as relating to commonsensical concepts as length, distance, duration, etc. I don't think that such concepts are at root about numbers. Rather, they are about the way in which we experience our lives. From this, we may make comparisons. And from comparisons we may abstract units and counts of units. Numbers are a cognitive tool founded on our ability to form concepts and make comparisons.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For all i know the universe may be morphologically rippled or concetinad and the speed of light may go up and down like a sin wave: slower faster slower faster. Only our perception is its constant because we dont see the ripples. Only in science they use Occams razor whichvwould reject the idea as over complex. That doesnt nullify possibilities though but excludes them on more grounds of princple. I think we may know the speed of light is constant; with skill but also a spoonfull of luck. After all it may turn out that there is some form of possiblyy undetectable structural ripple we cant know empirically at present. By ripple imean either space or time may not bevconstant in dome way. So if speed is distance over time if one is inconstant in somecway the constancy of velocity would be an illusulion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For all i know the universe may be morphologically rippled or concetinad and the speed of light may go up and down like a sin wave: slower faster slower faster. Only our perception is its constant because we dont see the ripples.

Sure. And perhaps it is worth noting that "c" refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is slower in different mediums. So the speed of light does vary based on context!

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I never claimed any privileged position. I don't even know where that came from. I realize that in your view our communication problems are 100% my fault, but you honestly confuse me. You seem to say one thing one time, and the opposite another time - hence the 2 quotes above. If it really is all my fault, I guess you'll just have to stoop to my level and hope I can improve.

If you post stuff on a discussion forum, it's bad form to get offended when people discuss it.

But anyway, I'm not the one appealing to the really real as if it meant something, so I don't see how the quotes contradict myself.

When I read the word "cube", yes it associates with something in my brain. The same when I see or touch a cube. But in spite of that similarity, I consider those 2 cases to be very different. Do you see differences in those 2 cases? If so, what?

Yes, in one case you're looking at words and in another case you're looking at something else. You'll have to explain if I've correctly guessed that is the difference you were hoping I would guess, and if so, what I'm supposed to conclude from it.

This just seems like a debating tactic. A way to pick apart the semantics rather than address the content. Here's a challenge for you. Take a shot at fixing my statement with a word you think is better than "real" as a way to convey what you perceive to be my intention.

External would be a guess, but the reason I asked was because I hoped you could answer.

So now define "change" for me in the specific context in which you used it without the concept of number.

It was in one place and now it is in another.

And, so I don't have to mention this later, you probably need to define what you mean by position in order to define how it changes.

This just seems like a debating tactic. A way to pick apart the semantics rather than address the content. Here's a challenge for you. Take a shot at fixing my statement with a word you think is better than "real", uh I mean "change" as a way to convey what you perceive to be my intention.

It very much applies to our discussion. Do you know what a phase plane is?

Do you?

 

[Resha Caner]

If you post stuff on a discussion forum, it's bad form to get offended when people discuss it.

Frustrated maybe, but not offended. I simply thought it was time to explain what dominates your posts as I interpret them. Again, this is just how I read them. If you intend something different, it's not coming through to me.

IMO your posts are dominated by comments on semantic issues. Your very first post said that all you expected was word games. That followed with questions of what I mean by ontology, exist, real, etc. There were more questions about what context I intended for object, location, number, etc.

When I try to define a word, your reply often seems to ask for definitions of the words within the definitions. When I push back on that, your replies become flippant. For example, I don't know whether I should take your definition of "change" seriously. I was not asking you to guess. It is common in communication to paraphrase what another has said as a means to verify understanding. Again, when I asked for that your reply seemed flippant to me. This is, at least, my impression. To that end, I will offer the following:

1. The only words for which I am offering a new definition are "material" and "immaterial".
2. For all other words I will use the definitions specified here:
Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
3. The one caveat to #2 is when discussions of math or science require further definition of terms. For example: c = the speed of light in a vacuum
4. Requests for context will be answered in one of two ways:
a) By clarifying which of the multiple definitions offered by #2 is intended
b) With an example. However, all effort should be made by both sides to not expand the example. If the example turns out to be insufficient, it will need to be abandoned in favor of something better.

Is that clear enough? If so, discuss on.

 

[Resha Caner]

My impression as well. The speed of light is an empirical matter, and may very well involve some educated guesswork or metaphysical reasoning as to whether it is truly a constant or if it is instead variable within a tiny range. But that has little, if anything, to do with an epistemological philosophy of numbers.

I disagree. As shown by Godel, all mathematical objects and the constructs built upon those objects can be represented by numbers. As such, number is a key concept to mathematics. As I understand it, "set" is the more fundamental concept than number, but I hope we don't get hung up on that. Number is basically the key concept to formulating "speed of light".

[edit] I forgot to mention that I agree with you about the problems of being overly skeptical. I would like to avoid that as well. If we get to the "we don't know anything" point, the conversation is probably over. Unfortunately there is no measure of skepticism that will allow us to agree on what is too much and what is too little.

Sure. And perhaps it is worth noting that "c" refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is slower in different mediums. So the speed of light does vary based on context!

Yes. And when has the speed of light ever been measured in a perfect vacuum?

There seems to be a difficulty among several people to understand the metaphysical leap that is made when one assigns some form to a measurement. I made a picture at the following link:

http://www.christianforums.com/users/269139-albums3648-41763/

In the picture I measure the speed of some thing 9 times and plot it. What is the "form" of speed of this "thing" I have measured? Is it a constant such that I can ignore deviations as measurement error or does it have some other shape - some factor that I am not considering?

Whichever assumption I make, I now assign an equation to speed. I have made an implict assumption that my measurement correlates to a cause (or no cause at all) as modeled by some equation ... and hopefully we all realize the dangers of assuming that correlation is causation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I disagree. As shown by Godel, all mathematical objects and the constructs built upon those objects can be represented by numbers.

Entirely irrelevant.

As such, number is a key concept to mathematics.

I'm sure that it is. But that doesn't mean that our most basic thinking is mathematical. It certainly can be represented in mathematics, but until it is represented in this way, it's not mathematical psychologically.

I forgot to mention that I agree with you about the problems of being overly skeptical. I would like to avoid that as well. If we get to the "we don't know anything" point, the conversation is probably over. Unfortunately there is no measure of skepticism that will allow us to agree on what is too much and what is too little.

Okay. Noted.

Yes. And when has the speed of light ever been measured in a perfect vacuum?

Are you going to get nitpicky about how "perfect" vacuum is?

The speed of light has been measured in very close to a perfect vacuum. That's good enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

I disagree. As shown by Godel, all mathematical objects and the constructs built upon those objects can be represented by numbers. As such, number is a key concept to mathematics. As I understand it, "set" is the more fundamental concept than number, but I hope we don't get hung up on that. Number is basically the key concept to formulating "speed of light".

[edit] I forgot to mention that I agree with you about the problems of being overly skeptical. I would like to avoid that as well. If we get to the "we don't know anything" point, the conversation is probably over. Unfortunately there is no measure of skepticism that will allow us to agree on what is too much and what is too little.



Yes. And when has the speed of light ever been measured in a perfect vacuum?

There seems to be a difficulty among several people to understand the metaphysical leap that is made when one assigns some form to a measurement. I made a picture at the following link:

http://www.christianforums.com/users/269139-albums3648-41763/

In the picture I measure the speed of some thing 9 times and plot it. What is the "form" of speed of this "thing" I have measured? Is it a constant such that I can ignore deviations as measurement error or does it have some other shape - some factor that I am not considering?

Whichever assumption I make, I now assign an equation to speed. I have made an implict assumption that my measurement correlates to a cause (or no cause at all) as modeled by some equation ... and hopefully we all realize the dangers of assuming that correlation is causation.

Two things first:
1) What does this have to do with the material/immaterial definitions your provided and with your larger argument?
2) Why would you say that you would like to avoid being overly skeptical and then you act overly skeptic in the second part of your post?

We know that the speed of light could actually be variable by a minute amount. So?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sure that it is. But that doesn't mean that our most basic thinking is mathematical. It certainly can be represented in mathematics, but until it is represented in this way, it's not mathematical psychologically.

OK. Your answer is different than sandwiches (post #64). I had been asking what thing apart from the brain "speed" refers to and we got a bit diverted for a time. If the most basic thinking is not mathematical, then what is this most basic thinking of "speed"? It seems you are saying it involves no concept of number.

Are you going to get nitpicky about how "perfect" vacuum is?

No, that misses the point - actually 3 points - though I suppose some of the differences are subtle.

1) Does a perfect vacuum exist somewhere that we can access? I think the answer is no. If so, our model is based on an ideal that has never physically (materially) manifested. Among other things that means there is no possible falsification test.

2) Can one prove that the "error" in a measurement is due 100% to the instrumentation? I would say no. As such, it means there are aspects not being captured by the resulting model, likely will never be captured. If all we're interested in is an engineering "good enough" OK. But that leads to the "we don't know" conclusion I mentioned earlier, i.e. a dead end.

3) Correlation is not causation, and yet that is what we're depending on to say the speed of light is constant. With regard to developing models for my engineering job, I have a reference from one of the world experts on model building that (to paraphrase) states that selecting a model is often arbitrary because of the difficulties of correlation. Selecting a different model has huge consequences on the conclusions drawn.

 

[Resha Caner]

Two things first:
1) What does this have to do with the material/immaterial definitions your provided and with your larger argument?

One aspect of my immaterial definition was the word "constant". We keep diving deeper and deeper into that. I'm not sure we'll ever come up for air. That is, the conversation will probably die before this gets tied back into the original definition. But, it is what it is. One can only try.

2) Why would you say that you would like to avoid being overly skeptical and then you act overly skeptic in the second part of your post?

It seems to me that the reason you think so is because you're not getting what I'm driving at. See my reply to Eudaimonist.

We know that the speed of light could actually be variable by a minute amount. So?

This is 3 questions, not 2. I think the answer is the same as question 2, though.