Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Ya know part of me wants to say there is some truth in newtonian physics because it works.

This is actually the official definition of mathematical physics, be it Ptolemaic, Newtonian, spacetime or any other kind of physics. Physics is "what works" and thus it is intrinsically tautologous. If it didn't work then the geeks would just keep tweaking the equations until it did. It is for this reason that physics can make no truth statements about the nature of physical reality.

Dude, you're gonna have to explain this to me like I'm five. Are you saying it can't make statements about reality because it is only focused on what works (as opposed to what is true)?

Wait, are you saying physics is antirealistic? Cause I know that word.

What I mean is that mathematical physics is specifically designed to model observations and an observation is an act of cognition. Therefore, instead of modelling what is going on in the universe the physicist is only able to model what he thinks is going on in the universe and what he thinks is going on in the universe is what is known as a theory. All of his subsequent observations are then mathematically tailored to conform to his theory because his theory is itself designed to predict what the observer will observe. When we design our theories specifically to predict what the observer will observe we can claim only a Pyrrhic victory when the observer duly goes ahead and observes what our theory has predicted because this methodology is inherently tautologous. It's good for making bombs and iPads but it's fuck-all use for telling us anything about the universe. Physics can tell us how matter and energy will behave in the universe but it can never tell us why matter and energy should behave in the way they do, even in principle.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein.

Sounds like antirealism, I think. Thanks, bud.

Hey, Leo. You inadvertently helped me understand something new about Plato. Thanks, buddy.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein.

This quote is not true concerning non-conceptual cognition.

The quote is true for scientific prediction.

Jaded Sage wrote:Sounds like antirealism, I think. Thanks, bud.

I'm not crazy about the labels which many philosophers like to bandy about but my stance on physics could probably be correctly described as anti-realist in those more traditional terms. However fashions change in such things and because I'm exclusively a process philosopher I'd probably be more precisely defined nowadays as an ontic structural realist. We're still an exclusive band of brothers but we're the "next big thing".

Walker wrote:This quote is not true concerning non-conceptual cognition.

What the fuck is non-conceptual cognition?

Wanna hear something wild about that Einstein quote? A dude named Katz theorized the same thing about mystical experiences. Only Buddhists can experience enlightenment. Only Hindus can experience moksha. Etc. I didn't buy it at first, I read and entire book to get an explanation and didn't find one. Not saying Albert is wrong. I'm just semi-skeptical as to where it applies.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Sounds like antirealism, I think. Thanks, bud.

I'm not crazy about the labels which many philosophers like to bandy about but my stance on physics could probably be correctly described as anti-realist in those more traditional terms. However fashions change in such things and because I'm exclusively a process philosopher I'd probably be more precisely defined nowadays as an ontic structural realist. We're still an exclusive band of brothers but we're the "next big thing".

Dude! Teach me something! I've found that explaining things is a great way to induce new insights. I literally just did it 5 minutes ago. But remember: super simple. If you're too busy, I understand. Duty calls.

Albert isn't wrong and some of his deepest insights are revealed in some of his casual throwaway remarks. This quote is just a simple re-statement of the Kantian metaphysic which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. A dog is only a dog because that's what we've mutually agreed to call a particular configuration of matter and energy. Its "dogness" is a property of our cognition and not a property of the matter and energy which encode for it. Exactly the same thing can be said for the objects of physics. A quark is only a quark because that's the way the geeks have mutually agreed to codify a particular class of observations in their interrogation of the subatomic world. Its "quarkness" is a property of the cognition of the physicists and not a property of the physical world. They don't take kindly to having this pointed to them in their logical positivist zeal but in fact this is a completely uncontroversial proposition in cognitive neuroscience, or indeed in any of the major schools of philosophy.

JS. Even a brief tutorial on ontic structural realism is a very big story which lies well beyond the scope of a forum such as this.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Walker wrote:This quote is not true concerning non-conceptual cognition.

What the fuck is non-conceptual cognition?

Yeah. Sorry about that.

I looked up the definition of cognition and it doesn’t really fit what I meant.

Neither does, “apprehension.”

What fits is: awareness that precedes thought, or, awareness in which there is no cognition. Awareness without thought.

Leo: yeah, maybe it's not the same thing. Or it is but not for the same reason. It's hard to remember. When he explained it it seemed almost like he was cheating. When you say it it makes complete sense. Also, I understand. Could you please explain why logical positivists have a problem with it?

Walker: how about intuition?

I don't know if you'd call it intuition. More like just knowing things.

But Theory requires thought which shapes perception. Perception without thought has no theory.

Walker wrote: What fits is: awareness that precedes thought, or, awareness in which there is no cognition. Awareness without thought.

Yes I can buy that and intuition is a useful enough word to define it. I rely heavily on intuition myself although its not a lot of use in philosophy unless you can find a way to structure your intuitions into a coherent procedure of thought, which is no easy task.

Walker wrote: Perception without thought has no theory.

That's the hard bit. Until we can formalise our perceptions into words they have no intrinsic meaning and once we ascribe a meaning to them they then become a theory. This then puts us in the same conceptual minefield as the physicists where our cognition of our objects is only able to confirm our cognition of our objects, which is insufficient for truth. I just settle for the Kantian cop-out and concede that the Noumenon is unknowable and then hope like hell that the rest of the shit I make up can make sense until I think of something better. Process philosophy is all about the journey and not about the destination.

Jaded Sage wrote: Could you please explain why logical positivists have a problem with it?

Logical positivism makes no metaphysical distinction between the ontological and the epistemological narratives of reality. It's bullshit of the highest calibre.

Yeah, I don't quite like intuition for it either. I think apprehension can be non-conceptual, can't it? Or maybe something like insight. So it's like intuition and insight, but it's not them. I don't think there's an english word for it. So I say we say apprehension can also be non-conceptual. Call it like direct apprehension, or something.

Also, what about all a-rational perception? Surely, reason must be involved for concepts to be involved. When I burn my hand on a hot stove, I perceive the heat, but not via reason, and therefore non-conceptually. The way it feels isn't influenced by some theory I have of it, not naturally anyway. Maybe if you later become a masochist you could say that, but not in a naturally occuring situation (not to say masochism isn't totally beautiful, in fact, in some ways I think it's kind of evolved).

Obvious Leo wrote:Until we can formalise our perceptions into words they have no intrinsic meaning and once we ascribe a meaning to them they then become a theory.

Does that mean a word is a theory?

I remember rejecting LP in school because it wasn't self-consistant. But I think that rejection of the distinction between the ontological and the epistemological sounds genius. Maybe I'm just addicted to bullshit. Everyone on this site just snickered a little bit

I'm new to Noumenon, but I've heard a little. That's the objective reality that only God can have knowledge of, right? I need to remember to research that concept. Someone mentioned it before, but I brushed over it in my laziness.