Massimo, I heard a philosopher here in Brazil suggest that materialism has limits in explaining non-material phenomena, such as why the sum of all the internal angles of a triangle is 180º. How can we explain this? Is it because our mind, being attached to the material body, must use it to identify mathematical axioms?
Victor, yes, that's a common argument. However, those advancing it never actually explain how non-materialism accounts for the same sort of problems.
Moreover, it depends on how one think of mathematics, logic, and geometry. If one is a Platonist and thinks that mathematical objects somehow exist independently of our minds, then a materialist may have a problem. But, again, it's not like the non-materialist actually has an explanation for them.
But I'm not a Platonist. I think math, logic, etc. are human inventions to help us make sense of the world. So of course we grasp "truths" like the internal sum of the angles of a triangle. Such truths are so by definition: a triangle is a geometrical figure for which the sum of the internal angles is 180. There really is no surprise there, nothing to explain.
By the way, in Brazil right now, to celebrate my 60th birthday with my daughter and wife. Lovely country!
I don't think the next step in physics will displace QM. String theory, etc. are all based on QM, they just play around with the ingredients.
In a way Quantum Theory is not a theory, but more like the framework for building theories.
I don't like the language due to Eisenstein that QM violates 'reality'. The entangled pairs of spins in Bell's inequality experiments are 'real', it's just that reality is not the way we think of it. They really are a superposition of the possible spin states. If superpositions were not real, the experiments would not work out.
The electrons in every atom are in a superposition of positions and if they weren't things would not hold up and be able to make stuff.
Well, a discussion of QM would definitely bring us too far afield. My understanding is that we don’t have a truly fundamental theory yet. This doesn’t mean QM is wrong, just incomplete. As for what is “real,” I’m a constructivist, I think the answer depends on the level of analysis.
The only incompleteness to QM is the inability to include gravity. Superposition will survive at least for the things where it's been shown to work. There are currently efforts to leave General Relativity unquantized, but the synthesis of Heraclustus and Parmindies should survive.
String Theory if it works out (not going that well) will be a quantum theory.
Hi Massimo....very informative thanks....can you recommend any good sources that explain fundamental principles of logic for dummies?? Especially of the types used in arguments......thanks
Quantum Physics is more subtle than the distinction between everything fluctuating and everything static.
While the ground state of a system (like a 'quantum vacuum' or a harmonic oscillator) is often described in pop lit as fluctuating, the state they are in does not change with time. It has all its positions and motions at the same time, i.e., they are superimposed. If you ask what's the probability of finding a particle at a position that does not change with time, but in a wave/excitation-like manner, it is at all possible positions at the same time. The 'amount' (probability amplitude' at any given position does not change.
Calling this state of affairs 'ground state fluctuations' seems highly misleading to me though it is admittedly a difficult concept to get across.
One might regard quantum superposition as the ultimate synthesis of Heraclitus and Paramindies.
I like that idea: the ultimate synthesis of Heraclitus and Parmenides! Of course that assumes that QM is the ultimate word on things, which it doesn’t appear to be. We’ll see what the next iterations in fundamental physics will bring about.
Oh it's good to see this, Massimo. I've not read anything Aristotelian myself, but from what I've read that referenced Aristotle, I'm left with impression that his school of thinking laid the foundation for Western rational thinking, thereby the scientific method.
However, I can't help but feeling Aristotle is, how should I put it, too linear? We can forever perform experiments, draw relationships and calculate feedback effects, but we still can't predict everything, like you said, there's the effect of providence. These days, I'm inclined to believe that the most important events are unpredictable, e.g. The failure of various algorithms for machine controls are not that they are ineffective but because we can't find a good embedded software engineer to implement it!
However, I'm just speculating, because I've not read Aristotle. So I'm glad to see that you are comparing it to Stoicism side by side so I can understand a bit more haha 😂.
Victoria, Aristotle was certainly a major influence on the development of both western philosophy and culture. Absolutely worth reading. And yet, somehow, he never grabbed me, especially when it comes to the ethics. The Stoics certainly resonate with me much more clearly and compellingly.
I may have a go at your recommendation, however, I can't help but feeling that's not on top of my reading priority! Sorry. ☹️ so I'm hoping that I can understand Aristotle more by reading your essays!
I think I did read some stuff about the story Aristotle told about Thales who bought the usage of olive press before a year of extremely plentiful harvest. Aristotle seemed to think Thales made his money by being scientifically minded (I.e. Predicting weather) but really I thought Thales was also a very good speculator in the future market haha 😂.
Victoria, I hear you! Aristotle is difficult to read. And yeah, it’s not a bad idea to approach him indirectly, through commentators such as myself. I also recommend this recent book by John Sellars: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61034687-aristotle
As for Thales: yup, he was a good observer of nature, and demonstrated that philosophers can make money, if they care to!
I just thought Thales could be an excellent future trader on wall street if he lived now. 😂. In fact, I'm absolutely sure there are a number of Thales on wall Street right now proving philosophers can make money to shut their friends up. 😂
Massimo, I heard a philosopher here in Brazil suggest that materialism has limits in explaining non-material phenomena, such as why the sum of all the internal angles of a triangle is 180º. How can we explain this? Is it because our mind, being attached to the material body, must use it to identify mathematical axioms?
Victor, yes, that's a common argument. However, those advancing it never actually explain how non-materialism accounts for the same sort of problems.
Moreover, it depends on how one think of mathematics, logic, and geometry. If one is a Platonist and thinks that mathematical objects somehow exist independently of our minds, then a materialist may have a problem. But, again, it's not like the non-materialist actually has an explanation for them.
But I'm not a Platonist. I think math, logic, etc. are human inventions to help us make sense of the world. So of course we grasp "truths" like the internal sum of the angles of a triangle. Such truths are so by definition: a triangle is a geometrical figure for which the sum of the internal angles is 180. There really is no surprise there, nothing to explain.
By the way, in Brazil right now, to celebrate my 60th birthday with my daughter and wife. Lovely country!
Grazie mille, Massimo. They do have: God, but it is not a good answer for me as well haha
I hope you enjoy here, we have beautiful places. Take care.
Yeah, not a good answer. "God did it" is just a label for our ignorance, not an explanation of anything.
And yes, I'm in Salvador right now, definitely a beautiful place!
I don't think the next step in physics will displace QM. String theory, etc. are all based on QM, they just play around with the ingredients.
In a way Quantum Theory is not a theory, but more like the framework for building theories.
I don't like the language due to Eisenstein that QM violates 'reality'. The entangled pairs of spins in Bell's inequality experiments are 'real', it's just that reality is not the way we think of it. They really are a superposition of the possible spin states. If superpositions were not real, the experiments would not work out.
The electrons in every atom are in a superposition of positions and if they weren't things would not hold up and be able to make stuff.
Well, a discussion of QM would definitely bring us too far afield. My understanding is that we don’t have a truly fundamental theory yet. This doesn’t mean QM is wrong, just incomplete. As for what is “real,” I’m a constructivist, I think the answer depends on the level of analysis.
The only incompleteness to QM is the inability to include gravity. Superposition will survive at least for the things where it's been shown to work. There are currently efforts to leave General Relativity unquantized, but the synthesis of Heraclustus and Parmindies should survive.
String Theory if it works out (not going that well) will be a quantum theory.
Hi Massimo....very informative thanks....can you recommend any good sources that explain fundamental principles of logic for dummies?? Especially of the types used in arguments......thanks
David, I think I can! My favorite is this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1747582.Petit_cours_d_autod_fense_intellectuelle
But also: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/703712.Logic
Thanks...
Quantum Physics is more subtle than the distinction between everything fluctuating and everything static.
While the ground state of a system (like a 'quantum vacuum' or a harmonic oscillator) is often described in pop lit as fluctuating, the state they are in does not change with time. It has all its positions and motions at the same time, i.e., they are superimposed. If you ask what's the probability of finding a particle at a position that does not change with time, but in a wave/excitation-like manner, it is at all possible positions at the same time. The 'amount' (probability amplitude' at any given position does not change.
Calling this state of affairs 'ground state fluctuations' seems highly misleading to me though it is admittedly a difficult concept to get across.
One might regard quantum superposition as the ultimate synthesis of Heraclitus and Paramindies.
I like that idea: the ultimate synthesis of Heraclitus and Parmenides! Of course that assumes that QM is the ultimate word on things, which it doesn’t appear to be. We’ll see what the next iterations in fundamental physics will bring about.
Oh it's good to see this, Massimo. I've not read anything Aristotelian myself, but from what I've read that referenced Aristotle, I'm left with impression that his school of thinking laid the foundation for Western rational thinking, thereby the scientific method.
However, I can't help but feeling Aristotle is, how should I put it, too linear? We can forever perform experiments, draw relationships and calculate feedback effects, but we still can't predict everything, like you said, there's the effect of providence. These days, I'm inclined to believe that the most important events are unpredictable, e.g. The failure of various algorithms for machine controls are not that they are ineffective but because we can't find a good embedded software engineer to implement it!
However, I'm just speculating, because I've not read Aristotle. So I'm glad to see that you are comparing it to Stoicism side by side so I can understand a bit more haha 😂.
Victoria, Aristotle was certainly a major influence on the development of both western philosophy and culture. Absolutely worth reading. And yet, somehow, he never grabbed me, especially when it comes to the ethics. The Stoics certainly resonate with me much more clearly and compellingly.
I may have a go at your recommendation, however, I can't help but feeling that's not on top of my reading priority! Sorry. ☹️ so I'm hoping that I can understand Aristotle more by reading your essays!
I think I did read some stuff about the story Aristotle told about Thales who bought the usage of olive press before a year of extremely plentiful harvest. Aristotle seemed to think Thales made his money by being scientifically minded (I.e. Predicting weather) but really I thought Thales was also a very good speculator in the future market haha 😂.
Victoria, I hear you! Aristotle is difficult to read. And yeah, it’s not a bad idea to approach him indirectly, through commentators such as myself. I also recommend this recent book by John Sellars: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61034687-aristotle
As for Thales: yup, he was a good observer of nature, and demonstrated that philosophers can make money, if they care to!
I just thought Thales could be an excellent future trader on wall street if he lived now. 😂. In fact, I'm absolutely sure there are a number of Thales on wall Street right now proving philosophers can make money to shut their friends up. 😂
Ah, but are they philosophers, or just traders? 😆
Oh lol 😂, I'm sure both traders and philosophers would "pay respect for grace and virtue" (yes I'm reminded of human by the killers).
This has been my experience too! I only made it halfway through the Nicomachean Ethics...
It’s hard read. But my ongoing series of podcast episodes on the Nicomachean Ethics might help: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/podcast