Philosophy Now Forum

JSS wrote:Throughout all of your posts, you give the very serious impression that you actually know nothing at all

That's because I do know almost nothing but that doesn't mean I can't tell when someone else is talking nonesense.

Harbal wrote:

JSS wrote:Throughout all of your posts, you give the very serious impression that you actually know nothing at all

That's because I do know almost nothing but that doesn't mean I can't tell when someone else is talking nonesense.

Yes it does. And that is one of those things you don't know.

JSS wrote: Yes it does.

Oh no it doesn't.

JSS wrote:The affectance field is an ontological element (a "stuff"), in the same way you think of an electromagnetic field (which happens to be made of the affectance field).

Then you don't understand the point I am making, it is precisely that, for the purposes of physics, an electromagnetic field is not ontological. EM and all the other forces of nature that physics examines are epistemological. They are about what happens rather than what is.

JSS wrote:

uwot wrote:We know what happens, but it seems to me that you are conflating 'what happens' and 'to what'. As I understand you, the medium is the message, whereas I, and recent developments in physics, particularly at CERN and LIGO, suggest that there is in fact a medium, and 'affects' are waves, perturbations, some distortion in that medium.

Again, "what happens" IS what it is happening to.

As I said, the medium is the message, but I haven't seen you explain how affectance affects.

JSS wrote:There is nothing else other than how much.

That is 'hypotheses non fingo' or 'shut up and calculate'; it is the language of instrumentalism.

JSS wrote:And if you understood the logic, you would know that it seriously makes no difference what CERN suggests or says they saw.

I have never claimed to be much of a logician, but show me the argument that you think I don't understand.

JSS wrote:And no, "we" don't know what happens. I do, and maybe they do, but certainly you and most people throughout the world do not.

You have already shown that you don't understand special relativity, that you don't know the difference between to be and to do, and that you are a conspiracy nut; who are 'they'?

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:The affectance field is an ontological element (a "stuff"), in the same way you think of an electromagnetic field (which happens to be made of the affectance field).

Then you don't understand the point I am making, it is precisely that, for the purposes of physics, an electromagnetic field is not ontological. EM and all the other forces of nature that physics examines are epistemological. They are about what happens rather than what is.

I disagree with that. I grant you that as a scientist, one can only say what appears to happen, having no certainty of what is. But logic and laguage come to the rescue when something like a field is defined as a region wherein a specific thing happens. The field becomes the ontological element. Further logic associates cause of what is happening to said field, giving the field itself physical property.

So yes, a physics field (not counting quantum physics) is a physical, ontological construct.QM doesn't deal with physical anything. QM is strictly about mathematical probabilities and equations as "objects".

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:

uwot wrote:We know what happens, but it seems to me that you are conflating 'what happens' and 'to what'. As I understand you, the medium is the message, whereas I, and recent developments in physics, particularly at CERN and LIGO, suggest that there is in fact a medium, and 'affects' are waves, perturbations, some distortion in that medium.

Again, "what happens" IS what it is happening to.

As I said, the medium is the message, but I haven't seen you explain how affectance affects.

How it affects is easy. It adds.

The only thing an affect can do is change another affect. It can add to it or subtract from it (depending on your perspective). And consequentially adding causes a slowing in propagation. On a macroscopic scale, one can say that an affect can change the direction of affect propagation, even though on the infinitesimal scale, that isn't exactly what is happening (and depends on how you choose to precisely define an affect).

It is the adding and consequential slowing of the propagation that causes particles to form and have inertia (the reluctance to further change).

uwot wrote:I have never claimed to be much of a logician, but show me the argument that you think I don't understand.

That is what I have been trying to do.

The first step of the logic is the "axioms". And in this case, the only axiom is a definition, the declared definition of existence equating to affect. Because this is a basic ontological construct, existence being affect is an irrefutable part of the language of the ontology.

Then one must realize what the concept of "to affect" means. And that is to cause change. At this point in the construct, there is nothing but affect and thus there is nothing to cause change in except other affect, other existence.

The question then arises as to what kind of change can an affect have on another affect. If an affect is merely an ability to cause change (also known as "energy"), then the only affect must be to change that ability, increasing it or diminishing it.

I can go on into the exact necessary construct of every field and subatomic particle and why they must behave exactly as they have been observed to do. But can you see that AT THIS POINT, there is nothing but logical consequence following from the fundamental concept that existence is made of the property of affect?

If a scientist implies that he has observed something that has literally no affect at all, then I immediately know that he is wrong (as you should as well). It isn't up to some prophet at CERN to proclaim that such a witnessing has taken place. You and I already know that it cannot happen, by definition.

uwot wrote:You have already shown that you don't understand special relativity, that you don't know the difference between to be and to do, and that you are a conspiracy nut; who are 'they'?

Oh, bullshit.

JSS wrote:I disagree with that. I grant you that as a scientist, one can only say what appears to happen, having no certainty of what is. But logic and laguage come to the rescue when something like a field is defined as a region wherein a specific thing happens. The field becomes the ontological element.

For someone who argues that meaning should be set in stone, it is ironic that that isn't what ontological means. Here is the relevant extract from Newton's General Scholium:

Isaac Newton wrote:Hitherto we have explain’d the phaenomena of the heavens and of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assign’d the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the Sun and Planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates, not according to the quantity of surfaces of the particles upon which it acts, (as mechanical causes use to do,) but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides, to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances. Gravitation towards the Sun, is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the Sun is compos’d; and in receding from the Sun, decreases accurately in the duplicate proportion of the distances, as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelions of the Planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelions of the Comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

Long story short, for the purposes of physics, it doesn't matter that you don't understand the cause, "to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist". The gravitational field is where things are attracted, this attraction can be measured and described mathematically, so we know what happens, but to this day, we don't know why. It seems to me that you have created an hypothesis out of your belief about what happens, granted you have supported your claims with some neat graphics based on your own mathematical model, but I don't remember seeing any physical evidence that this is how it works. You can create any number of models to explain certain phenomena, (these tend to be data spikes, rather than actual phenomena these days) but if there is nothing that your model does that others already successfully in use don't already do, why should anyone change?

JSS wrote:QM doesn't deal with physical anything. QM is strictly about mathematical probabilities and equations as "objects".

Well now, here is another irony: quantum field theories, QED, QCD, Higgs, are all premised on the assumption that 'particles', real and virtual, are disturbances in actual ontological fields.

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:I disagree with that. I grant you that as a scientist, one can only say what appears to happen, having no certainty of what is. But logic and laguage come to the rescue when something like a field is defined as a region wherein a specific thing happens. The field becomes the ontological element.

For someone who argues that meaning should be set in stone, it is ironic that that isn't what ontological means. Here is the relevant extract from Newton's General Scholium:

Isaac Newton wrote:Hitherto we have explain’d the phaenomena of the heavens and of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assign’d the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the Sun and Planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates, not according to the quantity of surfaces of the particles upon which it acts, (as mechanical causes use to do,) but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides, to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances. Gravitation towards the Sun, is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the Sun is compos’d; and in receding from the Sun, decreases accurately in the duplicate proportion of the distances, as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelions of the Planets; nay, and even to the remotest aphelions of the Comets, if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phaenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferr’d from the phaenomena, and afterwards render’d general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

..none of which had anything to do with "what ontology means"

on·tol·o·gy (ŏn-tŏl′ə-jē)
n.
The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.

na·ture (nā′chər)
n.
6. The set of inherent characteristics or properties that distinguish something:

be·ing (bē′ĭng)
n.
1. The state or quality of having existence:

met·a·phys·ics (mĕt′ə-fĭz′ĭks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

An object only exists as an ontological object or a thing because we gave a name to its particular properties. When we give the property of gravitation within a region a name, it becomes a thing, an ontological element ("gravity field"). Without the name, we can't speak of it as a thing, whether it is there or not. We can only speak of the named things around it that might be the cause of the properties (or that property might be the cause of them - which actually turns out to be more true).

A gravity field is a part of the nature of being uniquely distinguishable from other parts and thus an "element of".

So how is a gravity field NOT an ontological element, a "thing"?

What is causing that field is another issue. I haven't gone into details concerning that, but it certainly has a cause, merely waiting to be appropriately named. And I have given it an appropriate name.

uwot wrote:Long story short, for the purposes of physics, it doesn't matter that you don't understand the cause, "to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist".

As long as you don't want to know any more than that. Why not just say "God does it"?

God is not an ontological element in science, NOT because of any suspicion of nonexistence, but rather because as an ontological element, it answers no questions, gives no details that can be used for predicting critical concerns (the very purpose of science).

Now you are doing the same thing as religion: "Gravity just is and acts. Don't question it! You don't need to know."

uwot wrote: The gravitational field is where things are attracted, this attraction can be measured and described mathematically, so we know what happens, but to this day, we don't know why.

And the way you are talking, you will never know why. I am in the midst of explaining WHY (the "metaphysics") while also explaining how to MEASURE not merely that gravity, but ALL existence (the "physics"). Of course you can already do some of it without understanding what you are trying to measure. But you also get all confused because by not understanding what you are measuring in sufficient detail, you imagine that you are measuring things that are not there, giving them names, and extending theory into fantasy.

uwot wrote:It seems to me that you have created an hypothesis out of your belief about what happens, granted you have supported your claims with some neat graphics based on your own mathematical model, but I don't remember seeing any physical evidence that this is how it works.

You don't "see the evidence" before you know what it is that you are talking about. Again, one who argues the existence of God without even knowing what a god is. We haven't gotten to the empirical evidence yet. We are just now talking about the necessary LOGIC behind an upcoming hypothesis that hasn't even been formed YET.

You keep trying to think, "Well I already know most of what is going on. And you aren't agreeing with what I already know." And that would be fine is I was merely trying to ADD to what you already believe. But I am starting from SCRATCH. What you think that you know is irrelevant at the moment.

I am discussing the very beginning of understanding, not some theoretical appendage to your beliefs.

uwot wrote:You can create any number of models to explain certain phenomena

And you can bitch about every one of them until you are blue in the face. Until you examine the logic being presented, you know nothing and contribute nothing.

Understanding doesn't begin with observations of the unknown, but with defining its affects then measuring them. Gravity within a region, a "gravitational field" is one of the affects of that unknown universe out there. So give it a name and define it.

uwot wrote:why should anyone change?

So they can learn more than they already know (believe). Why not just stick with Christianity and the Bible?

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:QM doesn't deal with physical anything. QM is strictly about mathematical probabilities and equations as "objects".

Well now, here is another irony: quantum field theories, QED, QCD, Higgs, are all premised on the assumption that 'particles', real and virtual, are disturbances in actual ontological fields.

Tell that to the "collapsing waveform", "particle wave", and "entangled particle".

JSS wrote:An object only exists as an ontological object or a thing because we gave a name to its particular properties.

That's an odd way of looking at it, you may be right, but personally, I think objects don't give a monkeys whether we name their properties and are content to exist entirely independently of language.

JSS wrote:So how is a gravity field NOT an ontological element, a "thing"?

It all depends on what you decide makes a 'thing'. In the context of your definition above, the thing and the property are the same. There are no further properties, therefore a gravity field isn't a thing. As I said though, I think that's an odd way of going about it.

JSS wrote:What is causing that field is another issue. I haven't gone into details concerning that, but it certainly has a cause, merely waiting to be appropriately named. And I have given it an appropriate name.

So what is it waiting for? And what effect does naming things have on the behaviour of the universe?

JSS wrote:Now you are doing the same thing as religion: "Gravity just is and acts. Don't question it! You don't need to know."

No I'm not. I am saying that for the purpose of physics, you don't need to know the cause. Philosophically, I would go further and argue that you can never know what the cause is, because any hypothesis is necessarily underdetermined, for the simple fact that there is no way of knowing that any hypothesis, or mathematical model, will account for all future observations.

JSS wrote:...by not understanding what you are measuring in sufficient detail, you imagine that you are measuring things that are not there, giving them names, and extending theory into fantasy.

Do you mean like calling a gravitational field a thing?

JSS wrote:You don't "see the evidence" before you know what it is that you are talking about.

If there is no evidence, what reason is there to think you are talking about anything at all?

JSS wrote:Again, one who argues the existence of God without even knowing what a god is. We haven't gotten to the empirical evidence yet. We are just now talking about the necessary LOGIC behind an upcoming hypothesis that hasn't even been formed YET.

What has 'God' to do with it? More to the point, what is your logic based on if not observations?

JSS wrote:What you think that you know is irrelevant at the moment.

What I know is twofold:
1. There are phenomena.
2. All explanations of those phenomena are provisional. (Technically, because they are underdetermined, though this is a minority view amongst philosophers of science; more popular is the realist Inference to the Best Explanation.)

JSS wrote:Understanding doesn't begin with observations of the unknown, but with defining its affects then measuring them.

Well, without observations, there is nothing to understand, even Descartes, the archetypal rationalist knew that, it was the substance of I think, therefore I am.

JSS wrote:Gravity within a region, a "gravitational field" is one of the affects of that unknown universe out there. So give it a name and define it.

It's called gravity and it is the measurable force of attraction that any two or more objects exert on each other. As I said, we still don't understand the mechanism. My own pet hypothesis is that gravity is the product of refraction, but I see no need to change the name.

uwot wrote:why should anyone change?

You have built a straw man by taking this out of its context.

JSS wrote:So they can learn more than they already know (believe). Why not just stick with Christianity and the Bible?

Because there's nothing in them about how to build a mobile phone. Why do you keep bringing up religion?

JSS wrote:Tell that to the "collapsing waveform", "particle wave", and "entangled participation".

I don't see what your point is. Are you assuming that those things are real? If so, how does your theory account for " collapsing waveform ".

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:An object only exists as an ontological object or a thing because we gave a name to its particular properties.

That's an odd way of looking at it, you may be right, but personally, I think objects don't give a monkeys whether we name their properties and are content to exist entirely independently of language.

I said "as an ontological object" because we gave it a name. Of course the referent object is independent of such naming.

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:So how is a gravity field NOT an ontological element, a "thing"?

It all depends on what you decide makes a 'thing'. In the context of your definition above, the thing and the property are the same. There are no further properties, therefore a gravity field isn't a thing. As I said though, I think that's an odd way of going about it.

There is no distinction between the set of properties of a thing and that thing. If you remove all properties of a thing, there is nothing left at all.

JSS wrote: There is no distinction between the set of properties of a thing and that thing. If you remove all properties of a thing, there is nothing left at all.

A "thing" is only definable in terms of its observable properties which means that a "thing" has no ontological status at all because observable means that which is specified by the observer. A "thing" is a purely epistemic construct. Kant 101.

Obvious Leo wrote:

JSS wrote: There is no distinction between the set of properties of a thing and that thing. If you remove all properties of a thing, there is nothing left at all.

A "thing" is only definable in terms of its observable properties which means that a "thing" has no ontological status at all because observable means that which is specified by the observer. A "thing" is a purely epistemic construct. Kant 101.

I couldn't care less about Kant, and a thing CAN be defined by many unobservable properties. But if it is rationally defined, it is a part of the ontology in which it has been defined. And it has nothing to do with epistemology (the study of knowledge) other than the fact that you gave it a definition to begin knowledge construction.

JSS wrote:I couldn't care less about Kant

I noticed. You wear your Platonist heart on your creationist sleeve.

JSS wrote:I said "as an ontological object" because we gave it a name.

I see. So the flying spaghetti monster and unicorns are ontological objects.

JSS wrote:There is no distinction between the set of properties of a thing and that thing. If you remove all properties of a thing, there is nothing left at all.

So what's your take on the Ship of Theseus?

uwot wrote: So the flying spaghetti monster and unicorns are ontological objects.

Don't knock the monster, mate. The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been officially recognised under New Zealand law as a legitimate religious institution, being neither more nor less plausible than any of its competitors in the battle for the credulous dollar. I understand that a decision on the status of the unicorns is pending.

JSS is fond of stressing the importance of using precise definitions of terms in the philosophical discourse, an emphasis with which I heartily concur. He should be heeding his own advice and not speaking of the term "ontological" in a context other than in its commonly accepted usage.

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:I said "as an ontological object" because we gave it a name.

I see. So the flying spaghetti monster and unicorns are ontological objects.

They are. That doesn't mean that they physically exist anywhere. They are designated as "fictional characters". And you just proved their existence in concept by using them as you just did .. as "fictional characters".

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:There is no distinction between the set of properties of a thing and that thing. If you remove all properties of a thing, there is nothing left at all.

So what's your take on the Ship of Theseus?

Because the properties of the ship were not changed at any time (including its ownership) except the newness of the parts, it is the same ship with new parts, not a another ship.