I have been giving some thought to quantum physics of late, and I would like to share my thoughts on the subject here.
Quantum physics studies the absolute smallest particles possible. There is no reason, therefore, that the properties of these subatomic particles would apply at the macro level. Why? Take, for example, table salt, sodium chloride. This molecule has neither the properties of sodium nor chlorine. It may well share some properties, but it lacks many others, and has its own unique properties. The same can be said of any molecule -- the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. Therefore, what works for a single atom may not work for a molecule or a collection of highly complex molecules.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are still a relatively new science, and poorly understood. We do not yet know what exactly the smallest particles look like, or what they do, or if the properties we have currently identified CAN be applied on higher levels. This does not discount the usefulness of quantum mechanics. It is simply to suggest that, until we have a better understanding of them, a wider body of evidence, and experiments on a higher level, it is not useful to our considerations as philosophers.
To end with a question: is this analysis of quantum physics fair? Can we disregard this as-yet poorly understood field of science, and suspend our judgement until further research has been completed, or do we have an obligation to consider it, even if it is very likely to change as more data is collected and more experiments run?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The "Problem" of Unexperienced Rocks
Radical constructivism criticizes realism for its insistence on the existence of an unexperienced world. To the radical constructivist, at least as I understand it, the unexperienced rock, say on the bottom of the ocean, or the moon, is not relevant to our understanding of the world.
I would like to challenge that. Let us explore the concept of this unexperienced rock. Just because we have not experienced the rocks, say, on the moon, does not mean that we lack the POTENTIAL to experience them. If we act upon this potential, then this rock becomes part of our experience. It seems to me rather absurd to reject those objects which can potentially be experienced merely on the grounds that we have not yet experienced them.
I propose the following syllogism:
1) All rocks that are relevant to our understanding are those objects we have experienced.
2) All rocks must first have the potential to be experienced before they can be experienced.
3) Potential for experience remains unchanged regardless of whether that potential is acted upon.
4) All rocks that we have experienced can be potentially experienced.
5) All rocks must have the potential to be experienced.
6) Therefore, all rocks, both experienced and unexperienced (or, put another way, potentially, but not yet experienced) are relevant to our understanding of the concept of "rock."
Given this, it would be quite relevant that there is an unexperienced world, which calls in to question the metaphysical agnosticism the radical constructivist so clings to.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist respond to the syllogism above?
I would like to challenge that. Let us explore the concept of this unexperienced rock. Just because we have not experienced the rocks, say, on the moon, does not mean that we lack the POTENTIAL to experience them. If we act upon this potential, then this rock becomes part of our experience. It seems to me rather absurd to reject those objects which can potentially be experienced merely on the grounds that we have not yet experienced them.
I propose the following syllogism:
1) All rocks that are relevant to our understanding are those objects we have experienced.
2) All rocks must first have the potential to be experienced before they can be experienced.
3) Potential for experience remains unchanged regardless of whether that potential is acted upon.
4) All rocks that we have experienced can be potentially experienced.
5) All rocks must have the potential to be experienced.
6) Therefore, all rocks, both experienced and unexperienced (or, put another way, potentially, but not yet experienced) are relevant to our understanding of the concept of "rock."
Given this, it would be quite relevant that there is an unexperienced world, which calls in to question the metaphysical agnosticism the radical constructivist so clings to.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist respond to the syllogism above?
Monday, April 19, 2010
The "Problem" of "Unconceptualized Apples."
Over the last week, we have been grappling with the "problem" von Glasersfeld presents of the "unexperienced world." I do not see this as a problem at all, and that von Glasersfeld has misconstrued the entire question.
The "problem," as von Glasersfeld puts it, is that "we cannot possibly (rationally) conceive of an unexperienced world." I do not think that this statement is correct. We, as a species, possess an unlimited ability to conceive of things, to conceptualize, to rationalize. It is how our species has gotten to where it is today -- through advancements of conceptualizations, a process of developing theories, testing them, refining them, combining them, and generating ever more knowledge. It is how we have brought our understanding of the world to where it is today, how we have created the very words we are using to communicate and explain these concepts, the computers through which I am typing and you are reading, the electricity that powers the computer, the refinement of the materials to produce it, etc.
To reference the argument that Professor Johnson has been attempting to reconstruct, I hit a snag on premise 9, "An “unconceptualized apple” is not a concept." This is, I think, a false statement, because of the phrase "unconceptualized apple." There cannot exist an "unconceptualized apple." Simply the word "apple" contains the concept of apple, which we necessarily conceptualized, experienced or not. By invoking the very concept of apple in the use of the term, the "unconceptualized" qualifier has been negated.
One might argue that the terms "unexperienced" and "unconceptualized" are synonymous, thus negating my argument above. I think this is false, a misuse of terms. We can have concepts of things we have never experienced -- concepts of loss without ever having lost, concepts of unicorns without ever having experienced a unicorn. Though perhaps most damning is that of faith, of belief in a god without evidence (or despite evidence to the contrary). The mere fact that we have a concept of a thing like a god, and that some people can accept it as real despite the utter lack of evidence or experience to back up the belief in the concept, represents perhaps the most prevalent example of the conceptualization of the unexperienced, reflecting the gulf between our experiences and our concepts.
To end with a question: Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
The "problem," as von Glasersfeld puts it, is that "we cannot possibly (rationally) conceive of an unexperienced world." I do not think that this statement is correct. We, as a species, possess an unlimited ability to conceive of things, to conceptualize, to rationalize. It is how our species has gotten to where it is today -- through advancements of conceptualizations, a process of developing theories, testing them, refining them, combining them, and generating ever more knowledge. It is how we have brought our understanding of the world to where it is today, how we have created the very words we are using to communicate and explain these concepts, the computers through which I am typing and you are reading, the electricity that powers the computer, the refinement of the materials to produce it, etc.
To reference the argument that Professor Johnson has been attempting to reconstruct, I hit a snag on premise 9, "An “unconceptualized apple” is not a concept." This is, I think, a false statement, because of the phrase "unconceptualized apple." There cannot exist an "unconceptualized apple." Simply the word "apple" contains the concept of apple, which we necessarily conceptualized, experienced or not. By invoking the very concept of apple in the use of the term, the "unconceptualized" qualifier has been negated.
One might argue that the terms "unexperienced" and "unconceptualized" are synonymous, thus negating my argument above. I think this is false, a misuse of terms. We can have concepts of things we have never experienced -- concepts of loss without ever having lost, concepts of unicorns without ever having experienced a unicorn. Though perhaps most damning is that of faith, of belief in a god without evidence (or despite evidence to the contrary). The mere fact that we have a concept of a thing like a god, and that some people can accept it as real despite the utter lack of evidence or experience to back up the belief in the concept, represents perhaps the most prevalent example of the conceptualization of the unexperienced, reflecting the gulf between our experiences and our concepts.
To end with a question: Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
Social Construction
Emily asked, "What is the relationship between social constructs and cognitive constructs of knowledge?"
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Political Opposition, and the US War Effort
I'm not sure how many of you have heard, but it would appear that a violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan has overthrown the government.
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Time As A Unit of Measurement
From my reading, I didn't find a precedent for this (if I missed it, please enlighten me), but I would like to explore, for a moment, this thought I've been bouncing around my mind: time is a unit of measurement.
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)