Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everything'

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Treatid
Posts: 40
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am

Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everything'

Post by Treatid »

I could use some feedback on how comprehensible the following is.

If we accept that there can be no absolute knowledge (fixed point or fixed reference frame upon which to build) then there are certain conclusions that follow. However, the idea of a fixed reference frame is solidly built into large parts of modern life (e.g. the axioms of mathematics and physics).

Philosophers should have a better understanding of the limits of knowledge ('Cogito Ergo Sum' and all that). However, I'm not sure how well this conveys the impossibility of an absolute reference frame and the ensuing reasoning.

Begin

Imagine Everything.

Really.

Imagine every possibility, every conceivable and inconceivable system, state or way of being.

The Cosmic Everything.

Pretty freaking immense, isn't it?

Exactly how big?

Well...

Erm...

What measuring stick can we use?



Oh.

We have no reference.

Pick a point within that cosmic immenseness.



How?

How can we specify a point within everything?

What coordinate system applies?

We have no possible way of identifying any single point or distinguishing that point from any other point.

There are no axioms.

It is not possible to establish a fixed reference point by any mechanism. It can't be done.

There is no foundation for mathematics.

But there is us.

We exist. And we observe.

Hmm...

Observation implies difference.

In order to observe something in the immense reaches of the Cosmic Everything, we need to be able to distinguish between bits of the Cosmic Everything.

We cannot identify (define) anything.

But we can distinguish things.

We can know that A is not B.

That we can distinguish things is necessary for us to be able to observe anything.

So...

Without ever having any comprehension of the make-up of a thing, we can know that it is different to this other thing that is similarly fundamentally unknowable.

Given we cannot have a fixed reference point...

How many different ways can two points be distinguished?

Imagine that we can distinguish between two points within the Cosmic Everything. Perhaps we can also distinguish between another pair of points.



How can we know that the first set of points isn't, in fact, also the second pair of points?

Because we say so? According to what reference system?

One pair of distinctions is functionally equivalent to any other pair of distinctions – indistinguishable.

Currently our universe consists of itself. And one pair of distinctions. (possibly many pairs of distinctions – the result is equivalent to there just being one pair of distinctions).

We need more.

We need to be able to distinguish our distinctions.

Oookkaaaayyy...

But seriously.

For a distinction to be significant, it needs to be distinguishable from every other distinction.

You are free to imagine hordes of indistinguishable entities behind each definite distinction. To do so is redundant and irrelevant.

We are only concerned with the various possible ways two points may be distinguished.

(I refer to 'points'... we have no idea what the things being distinguished actually are. Points are a convenient placeholder.)

Note that while distinctions are necessary for us to exist as observers, we can never justify a set of distinctions. We can only observe that these distinctions must exist.

But how exactly do you go about distinguishing between distinctions?

A distinction says that the start point differs from the end point.

This, of course, implies that change occurs (or, at least, difference exists between the points).

Our points must have internal structure. This internal structure must alter in some fashion such that the resultant state is distinct from the initial state.

(I assume change to be an active process. One can equally view the entire series of states to be a static system with change represented as directional arrows.)

When thinking about the Cosmic Everything you were probably already thinking about it in terms of being composed of many other systems.

Structure must exist.

Change of that structure must exist.

That change must be distinguishable from other change.

This is our given situation.

We are in a universe that has distinguishable states.

While physics tries to justify existence in terms of fundamentally unknowable concepts... (as much as your intuition seems to explain dimensions... as a concept, distance cannot be understood in any degree. Dimensions are whatever you want them to be. That there is a degree of consistency with respect to mathematics is due to our consistency as humans – not some basis in mathematics).

We cannot know what a point is. Fundamental particles cannot be described to any degree. Distance, velocity, time, dimensions, … these are not knowable concepts as fundamental principles (though the qualities we observe must arise...)

Quantum Mechanics is like trying to build an audi car using only audi cars. As a rule – you'll end up with an audi car... But it does rather presuppose that someone actually built it first.

But if we can't define anything...? We know that there is a structure to be explained...?

We can describe structure.

Language allows us to create networks of relationships.

We might invest ideas into some of the things between these relationships... but language only ever describes the relationships. Mathematics works because it describes relationships (not because of magical qualities of integers and Reals).

The only possible structure that we can describe is a network of relationships.

Dimensions are a fiction (emergent quality). Dimensions cannot be understood as an a priori principle. Quantum Mechanics is trying to describe fundamental behaviours using emergent properties. No wonder the poor dears get confused over how to interpret the results.

The only change that we can describe is a change to a network of relationships.

Physics is a network of relationships changing over time.

We no longer have to be concerned about what mass or charge actually are. As basic concepts they are irrelevant.

A change takes a subset of a network and replaces it with another subset. This is the only way to change a network of relationships.

In a deterministic system this means one pattern is replaced for another pattern in a consistent way.

Physics, then, is just a matter of determining the specific replacement pattern of our universe.

That still leaves a lot of different possibilities. Possibly even an unbounded (infinite) number of possibilities.

How might we find our universe in the vast array of possibilities?

Start at the beginning. What is the very least change that can be made to a network of relationships?

Changing a single node doesn't really accomplish much.

Changing a pair of nodes is the minimum significant change possible.

That makes sense. Things interact.

We might note that pairs of things interact (as opposed to triplicates, quadruplets, quints, …)

A pair of “things” must have a pair of relationships each, minimum (one relationship per object leaves you with a chain.... hardly a dynamic and vibrant universe).

This is just the bare minimum, of course. A change might involve any number of “things” each of which could have any number of relationships.

But the minimum change involves just two “things” each of which has two relationships to other “things”.

Hmm...

Our universe is obviously much more complicated... definitely lots more relationships per thing...

But... there are only 23 possible rearrangements of a pair of relationships at a pair of “things” (excluding identity).

We've got computers. We can whack that into a computer and see how these trivial systems behave.

Well... that is interesting for all those complexity theory fans...

And CPT Symmetry does fall out rather nicely...

But I'm sure our universe is much more complicated...

Oh! Gravity is not an overall attractive force. “Distance” is a preserved quantity. As matter condenses there is a proportional separation elsewhere.



Our universe is the simplest possible universe that is consistent with complexity.



Distinction means an entropy increasing environment. If there is a distinction, then there is a corresponding change in entropy.

There is no independent distinction in space. Distinction is intimately tied to change. No change, no distinction.

Which means that our universe has a definite end state (or sequence of states). The universe will continue to exist – but will not change meaningfully. This is unavoidable. There will be a heat death (however organised).

This is now our limitation.

Assuming we manage to avoid killing ourselves...

Knowing exactly how the universe works allows us to do anything within the constraint of the heat death.

Matter and energy can be manipulated at will.

We probably want to dismantle the local galaxies. That horrendous waste of entropy being spewed out randomly. We can package up the mass/energy and use it to productive ends (probably torturing people in new and inventive ways).

Yes – we can dismantle star systems whole-sale.

Yes – we are not qualified to handle the power we now have.

Interesting Times.
Olivershetler
Posts: 9
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 6:25 pm

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Olivershetler »

"The only possible structure that we can describe is a network of relationships."

Interesting point. If relations are the only thing that exist, then relations must be the objects of their own relativity. I've been working on a method that is more abstract than category theory; it eliminates the "nodes" between the arrows, and uses relations as the objects as relations - it looks like a bunch of arrows pointing at each other or themselves. You might find that idea fun to chew over. Try drawing some arrow diagrams and see if anything comes to mind. Let me know if it does; I've been stuck with the concept in my database for a while.

Also, I'm not sure if you're watching my topic, but I replied to your post pretty extensively.

Cheers, Oliver
Treatid
Posts: 40
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Treatid »

In both Category Theory and the "networks of relationships" that I'm talking about, the nodes at the ends of relationships are mere placeholders, just as you say.

Rather than replacing those nodes with relationships, I am inclined to remove the nodes altogether... but then the problem becomes distinguishing between relationships (Same problem applies if we make the nodes into relationships).

This may be a case where an artificial boundary makes it easier for us to visualise the structure. The convention is to draw a relationship as a line. However, the actual structure of a relationships is as opaque as the structure of objects between relationships. To the extent that we can't actually distinguish between nodes and relationships.

Not being able to define anything as an a-priori makes life interesting.

So long as we don't attempt to assign properties to individual nodes or relationships (vertices and edges) we are free to represent them in any way we like. To represent a relationship as a line is arbitrary... but possibly more friendly to human senses than other representations. A line implies two ends... but these ends are a product of our representation rather than a property of relationships (probably).
Olivershetler
Posts: 9
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 6:25 pm

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Olivershetler »

The idea behind making the arrows point at other arrows is to represent that every relation modifies other relations. Further, relations can be distinguished (or identified) by the structure of the diagram. An arrow pointing at itself, for example, is different from the arrow pointing at another and starting from itself, or starting from another arrow, etc. Also, every modifying arrow that exists changes the identity of a given relation.
Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Harbal »

Regardless of how meaningful you think the phrase "cogito ergo sum" is, it has to be admitted that it is short and to the point. There you are at the beginning of cogito and before you know it you're at the end of sum. It's over and done with long before any impulse to abandon it through boredom has the chance to manifest itself, which, I would say, is a point greatly in its favour.
Treatid
Posts: 40
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Treatid »

Harbal:

I sympathise. You have no guide as to whether it is worth investing the time to read, and possibly think about, a piece of text on the internet.

Perhaps the text is obvious rubbish and can be quickly discarded, but that is still twenty minutes of your life you won't get back.

Worse, it might look semi-rational and require a some thought to work out where the flaw(s) lie. Both time and effort are thus wasted.

The chances of it being something meaningful and significant are close enough to zero to be dismissed out of hand...

Unfortunately not everything comes in pre-digested bite-size chunks.

As brief as "I Think, Therefore I am" is... it represents a considerable amount of thought in philosophy. Just as E=mc2 might be taken to represent General Relativity, so does Cogito Ergo Sum represent a significant aspect of modern philosophy.

The phrase might be brief - but the knowledge represented by the phrase is extensive.

It seems to me that if you are honestly looking for twitter size discussions then a philosophy forum may be the wrong place to hang out.

Having said that:

"There are no axioms."

That is all that needs to be understood. Albeit, the ramifications of understanding this simple idea are wide ranging and change the way we approach physics (and philosophy and mathematics).
User avatar
TimBandTech
Posts: 78
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 8:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: Kant
Location: Meredith, NH
Contact:

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by TimBandTech »

I've just been reading http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/de ... 4part1.pdf which is a modernized version that reads very easily.

There is some very good argumenation on skeptical thinking, but then shortly thereafter statements like: "·There’s nothing weird or deviant about inferring God’s existence from the idea of God" come up and I have to consider that Descartes is bending on his own principles so as to be politically correct, or that he simply cannnot practice his own skeptical methods beyond a certain point. While he claims to have challenged his own existence as a basis of philosophy his logic is flawed.

He never considers the rock which exists but does not think. It strikes me that there is a level of ego that he never dove beneath. I enjoy reading him, and enjoy his spirited thinking, but there are thin spots next to strong ones. Well, he of course has Galileo in his midst and we all know that story. Descartes was a Catholic in a time when science was practiced within religion and he is just breaking free of that. Also he was concerned with mechanistic or deterministic principles, which border on nihilism, and it may be that he has preserved positivism via these thin apologetic patches.

We may as well replace god with any conception that is intangible within his own grammatical pattern, but it flies in the face of his own skepticism. Incidentally the naming of the cartesian coordinate system for him seems to be misplaced. It may be so named in his honor, but he did not develop it himself so far as I can tell. I know Treatid's concepts don't actually relate back to this so much, but the title of the thread does cause one to go thereabout.

I do believe that Descarte's concern over the operation of mind is valid and it turns out that in modernity we have studies which are exposing some interesting details. We should admit that we are humans who practice these things and as such any limitations of the human form are of interest in our attempts at achieving an understanding of reality. As such to go straight to the macrocosm may not be a sufficient starting point. We have access to the finite world about us first, then we concern ourselves with the smaller things and the larger things from there. This may seem trivial, but you see that is what we are after; simple theories will always be preferred, especially those which convert from or into complicated theories. When the dynamics of reality are unleashed from a simple basis then you may have a strong candidate.

We do not know the distance to the stars until they are measured, and the means of their measurement will always resolve back to our finite means. It may be true that a theory of the stars need not rely upon those finite means if it is a pure theory, but the consistency of the theory or its correspondence to observed reality will need this, and if it does not then that theory will suffer a deficiency. This is roughly the main criticism of string theory. I think it also applies to branches of mathematics and likely to much philosophy too. Anyway that's everyone's struggle to deal with. It's a good attempt Treatid, but until you can instantiate some concrete examples then I don't think you've got much, and if then it collapses back to the usual systems of thought then you at least will have a parallel theory. You don't actually need a complete TOE. Just a step in the progression will do.
Treatid
Posts: 40
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Treatid »

Defining an absolute is impossible. It doesn't matter what that absolute is named. Whether 'God' or 'Dimension', it isn't possible to define an absolute. Yet mathematics, physics and much of philosophy assumes that there is a definite starting point upon which they can build.

You think axioms work.

Fine.

Define something for me. Anything you like. Your definition must contain no ambiguity or uncertainty. I must understand your definition completely and have no doubt in my mind that we are talking about the same thing (that being what a definition is).

While you might start with ZFC Set Theory and argue that anything can be constructed from there - I will point out that the axioms of ZFC Set Theory are expressed in informal language. I.e. language whose full context is not known.

If you can define just one thing - you have shown I am wrong.
User avatar
TimBandTech
Posts: 78
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 8:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: Kant
Location: Meredith, NH
Contact:

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by TimBandTech »

Alright Treatid. Let's focus on one of your earlier statements: "We have no possible way of identifying any single point or distinguishing that point from any other point." When we were kindergartners or so we would play a game of touching one's finger to one's nose and so on through a silly dance. By bringing these two unique positions into contact we inherently made a connection between two distinct points. This might be regarded as kinesthetic learning, which is supposedly an important means for some humans. We need merely refine this procedure to arrive at a more mature construction. On a flat floor one can plop down a penny and at another position plop down a dime. We call this procedure the positioning of those objects. If we shrink those objects down then we have a more refined system. For instance if you take a fine marker and mark the center of the 'o' in god (American currency) on each coin then those positions are a refinement of the earlier demonstration. bringing those two marks together as closely as possible we might have stacked the coins so that those 'o's line up. Continuing on in states of refinement we see that machinists typically work to the thousandths of an inch, and even a more recent refinement of a very fine pointed probe which supposedly can probe single atoms, but regardless, even the most advanced human technology has some limitation; so the kindergartner's version is sufficient and lacks the complexity of the refined versions. So I must ask you Treatid: can you touch your finger to your nose? If not, then I'm afraid you have fallen into an OCD pattern of denial and that you do deserve a confrontation to help snap you out of it. Even as I talk down to you on this point I don't mean you any harm. It is just that your patterned form of denial here in multiple posts prevents productive discussion. You've dodged countability, which I've brought up several times, and if you quip on which finger to touch to which nose then we can even get into that here which can productively arrive in our radix ten counting system.

I've enunciated to you a fair amount of credibility on your attempt, but I may be mistaken. To me your sensibilities of caution with regard to language and to axioms are appropriate. Unfortunately if your methodology bottoms out in a vacuous state then it isn't really a productive attempt. Well, you've got your relations and distinctions concepts, but seem unwilling to apply them at the finite local level. I'm fairly certain that you will recover a fair amount of standard mathematics if you were willing to work with practical and tangible objects.

Now, to ensure my argument I have touched my left index finger to my nose and I did indeed feel it make contact. At this point you see there is a matter of consensus with regard to communication. An inability to develop that consensus does not bode well for a theory, and yet a lack of consensus does not falsify that theory either. The human form is actually quite frail and you are living in that sense of frailty I suspect. One of the finest therapies that I have found for myself is to work with materials. There are always surprises when working with materials and the incidence of accidental learning can be quite high, so the experimental paradigm which humans as toolmakers have lived by (and that modern experimental physicists still live by) is exposed very cleanly. The repeatability of such events helps explain how we have come to accumulate such riches as modern materials. Unfortunately the means of mass production have likewise deleted the necessity of one of the human conditions: the human as toolmaker. Most modern humans have a kitchen full of dull knives, and that is not all that is dull about them. You are attempting to break out of that I think, and to return to fundamentals is certainly the proper direction. I am actually willing to go there and establish those simple concepts such as countability and uniqueness of objects and their positions. Starting from naught you must go to the local environment and not out to cosmic levels. Such a starter's mind can only see the stars as points of light, and perhaps then as the perfect points which you deny to exist; some toolmaking is required before their angular sizes can be declared. Thus it is that local geometry must be a first step.

Now, given that I've convinced you (or another reader since I doubt I have) then there is fine distinction that can be made on the theoretical point position. Thus far everything that we've enunciated are actually objects, and as such they have rotational attributes, but the theoretical (Euclidean) point has no rotational qualities. Even the smallest objects discovered in physics still carry rotational attributes such as the spin of an electron or the polarization of a photon. I think in this way there is a route to falsify the Euclidean point as real, which then must reflect onto the concept of a point particle. The refinement principle stated above does apply here, but it is easy to see how the Euclidean mode arose. It is very pure and simple. It is also very black and white; so simple that our simple minds can capture it. It also happens to work very well in terms of toolmaking at the finite local level.

If that all is too boring then let's take some constructive freedom and attempt some variation. Staying with the Euclidean model partially we can posit that a dot of ink on one side of a piece of paper (representing a point position) is in fact oriented and that is provable by placing another dot of ink on the opposite side of the paper in the same position and admitting that we can distinguish the two. We can likewise overlay another sheet of paper over the first and get two more surfaces with the same positional attributes(if we can keep them registered properly). Is this productive? I don't know, but it does demonstrate that we do not have to throw away completely all knowledge to arrive at something new. Perhaps the three dimensional version of the simple surface implies that points do indeed carry an orientation, and this would have correspondence to physical reality and the particles that modern theory works with. That's almost a re-Euclidified version of 3D space. There. Now my modification may cause you to have your own modification, and that is a good mode to operate in. Simplification is certainly appropriate where possible. We needn't solve the TOE; just a step in the progression will do. Getting down low is a great place to go. Still, the chances of our having an actual contribution are slim. We take our chances knowing that it is a great pursuit. Free will does not go so far as to allow us to will a consistent TOE out of our ape brains. Maybe it is enough to be happy that we still have ten fingers, or nine if you slipped up.

Treatid wrote:Defining an absolute is impossible. It doesn't matter what that absolute is named. Whether 'God' or 'Dimension', it isn't possible to define an absolute. Yet mathematics, physics and much of philosophy assumes that there is a definite starting point upon which they can build.

You think axioms work.

Fine.

Define something for me. Anything you like. Your definition must contain no ambiguity or uncertainty. I must understand your definition completely and have no doubt in my mind that we are talking about the same thing (that being what a definition is).

While you might start with ZFC Set Theory and argue that anything can be constructed from there - I will point out that the axioms of ZFC Set Theory are expressed in informal language. I.e. language whose full context is not known.

If you can define just one thing - you have shown I am wrong.
Treatid
Posts: 40
Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am

Re: Cogito Ergo Sum Revisited (or 'How to understand Everyth

Post by Treatid »

TimBandTech: Thank you for reflecting back to me what what you read - even while having strong doubts about my sanity.

We know that context provides meaning. When we read, we interpret what we read according to the context provided and our own assumptions.

Knowing our own (often hidden) assumptions can be awkward enough. But trying to allow for the assumptions of other people when talking about new ideas (in philosophy or physics) is a positive minefield.

A set of words may appear to convey something outrageous, until we learn the full intention behind those words when it may turn out that we whole heartedly agree with the sentiment - we just weren't expecting it to be expressed in that form.

A conversation allows a meeting of minds where two disparate view points come into alignment. Whereas straight statements take pot luck as to whether they communicate what was intended.

It is in the light that I say that you misunderstood my intention. By the same token; I failed to communicate my intention with sufficient fidelity.

The gist of what I was getting at with "We have no possible way of identifying any single point or distinguishing that point from any other point." was that in the context I outlined we have no measuring instruments available to us.

We cannot simply know something. Knowledge must be justified. If there is no way to measure something, to judge and quantify it - then we can't know it.

In a similar vein, if we can't communicate it, it isn't knowledge.

Mathematics contains the idea that we can know about a system without specifying how we know about that system. There is the idea that we can view a system omnisciently. This idea is tied up with axioms.

If we want to know something about a system, we must have an appropriate measuring stick for that aspect of the system (weighing balance, thermometer, speedometer, ...).

If you accept axioms as they are currently implemented in mathematics, then you violate this principle. Currently mathematics asserts that it is possible to know things without needing to justify that knowledge.

Specifically, axioms are specified in informal language. Informal languages, by definition, are not fully defined systems.

As much as the idea of "the empty set" may seem intuitively obvious... there is no mechanism to ensure that intuition and reality are aligned. The rules of mathematics are abandoned for informal systems. There is no way to ensure that the idea of "the empty set" is a well formed idea.

[at this point, people frequently leap to the idea that I'm complaining that axioms are arbitrary and unproven. I'm completely happy with the idea of axioms being arbitrary. The moon is made of cheese - fine. Unicorns eat moon cheese and piss rainbows - not a problem. The problem is that the words being used don't have a single definable meaning. You can point to the moon, we can agree really strongly that the moon orbits the common centre of mass of the moon and the Earth. But that hasn't defined a moon made out of cheese in an absolute sense (what would an absolute definition be? it would probably include the fundamental particles that the moon is composed of, and the arrangement of those particles; wouldn't it? Would it still be the same object if we removed the Earth, the Sun, the Solar system, the Galaxy? Surely the orbit of the moon is part of its definition? So where exactly does an absolute definition begin or end?)]

This isn't to say that we don't have reasonably well understood meanings for words. Of course we do - or this communication would be even more futile.

...

You illustrate how we interact with the world. An important aspect of your illustration is that we interact with the world in order to understand it. Our first measuring stick to judge the world is ourselves. We are part of the world we observe.

Next we see that the shape of the world we perceive at our standard human scale doesn't necessarily match the shape of the world at other scales. On the surface of the Earth, Newtonian mechanics is a reasonable approximation - but we find that we can't extrapolate newtonian mechanics to large scales.

Similarly we know that the small scale universe cannot be described as little billiard balls hitting each other.

I can walk down to the corner shop and count the steps. I feel a sense of distance. I can take a box and get a sense of distance in different directions (dimensions).

The perception of distance and dimensions is real to us. That doesn't allow us to extrapolate those perceptions arbitrarily.

What we perceive are highly processed signals. While the end product (our perceptions) have real significance to us, we shouldn't mistake them for the reality that triggered those perceptions. We know that a film is composed of a series of static images. Yet we perceive movement when we watch a film.

That we perceive distance does not guarantee that distance exists as a fundamental property.

...

Me saying we can't rely on this that and the other seems to be nihilistic. We have only our senses. If we can't rely on our senses...

Well... Cogito Ergo Sum and Solipsism.

But we can be more constructive than that.

Absolute knowledge isn't a thing.

But if we can think, then there must exist a system in which thought is possible.

If we cannot explain that system using absolute knowledge (a.k.a. axioms), then there must be another way of describing things.

Take away absolutes and you are left with relatives.

We don't have a fundamental understanding of distance. Or of velocity. Or of time. But we do understand that Distance, velocity and time are related (d = vT).

Axiomatic mathematics wants to view distance, velocity and time as absolute quantities in their own right.

Yet, in practice, we know that we understand things in the context of other things. This is even the prime principle of axioms: A statement only has meaning with respect to a specific context.

Axioms try to specify that context in the wrong way.

Inside a system, the context of any element is always the rest of the system.

What we see are relationships. The pattern of those relationships gives us the distinctions we see between things.

We can only ever describe networks of relationships. That is how language works - we create relationships between concepts (that are, themselves, patterns of relationships), and the new pattern has significance to us according to how it relates to other patterns.

...

Your dot of ink on the paper has some ink molecules related to each other, and the paper, and the air. If there are more relationships between A and B than between B and C then we will tend to observe that A is closer to B than B is to C. This is the first step towards the concept of orientation and/or distance.

The trouble with constructing a description based on stacking sheets of paper is that you don't initially fully understand what a sheet of paper is. You have a good understanding of the relevance of that paper to yourself, but that paper has thickness, length and breadth which haven't yet been defined. The structure of photons, electrons and quarks is not fully understood.

You may well find a correlation between a particular arrangement of items we are familiar with and fundamental physics - but the terms you are using aren't fully understood. The correlation exists - but it is a correlation between one unknown and another unknown. This is the fault that Quantum Mechanics commits. We have a perception of dimensions - but we fundamentally don't understand (and cannot understand as a fundamental) what dimensions are, how they arise, what mechanism governs them.

Quantum Mechanics describes the unknown of the universe in terms of undefinable quantities. For all that it makes predictions - it does nothing to explain how the universe works.

If you understand the fundamental structure of the paper - then you wouldn't need to use it to describe the fundamental structure of the universe. This applies to any concept - you can't use distance to describe the fundamental mechanism of distance.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021