4 ms·

This crisis in Physics makes me happier than anyone can know. It signals the end of the dominance of Kantian philosophy in Physics. Mach's principle (Einstein

by dmfdmf 11y ago

This crisis in Physics makes me happier than anyone can know. It signals the end of the dominance of Kantian philosophy in Physics. Mach's principle (Einstein's polestar), Popperian falsifiability, Cantor's paradise of infinity (as described by Hilbert) and all other derivatives of Kant are the dead-end of a false metaphysics and epistemology. We do indeed, live in interesting (or depending on your worldview, dangerous) times.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
What does physics have to do with Cantor.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  To get to Cantor's theories you have to accept his concept of a "completed infinity". This implies that infinity is a metaphysical concept, i.e. that infinity really exists in the universe. For example, do you believe that black holes are really infinite density or does an infinite property indicate a breakdown in the equations or theory, i.e. infinity is an epistemological concept. Modern physics is not consistent on this question but the error and question all derive from Kant.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    > i.e. that infinity really exists in the universe. I don't see why this has to follow.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
throwaway999888 11y ago
What's the (an) alternative?
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Nothing I say will convince you.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    So don't try to convince. Just give us some alternatives to consider.
  - throwaway999888 11y ago
    I asked for a reason.
- IsaacL 11y ago
  Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (it's available on Kindle) has the kernel of what he is talking about. Oversimplifying out of necessity, there's been a long running philosophical conflict between empiricists (focus on reality) and rationalists (focus on theory). The hard sciences have managed to avoid the problems of philosophy for the last few centuries, but are increasingly running into fundamental methodological limitations. If, following Hume, induction is unreliable, how can we ever know our scientific theories are valid? Ayn Rand developed a novel epistemology and theory of concepts to deal with these issues, but she's almost universally slammed in academia for her political views. All I can suggest is to read both her and her critics and make up your own mind. (But do read her own words, not just what her critics say about her - the book I mentioned above is a good starting point).
tmvphil 11y ago
> derivatives of Kant are the dead-end of a false metaphysics and epistemology Sounds like you've been reading too much Ayn Rand. Nobody else places as much irrational blame on a single philosopher. Even if you think his philosophy is wrong, its much less wrong than things that came before it, and is certainly less wrong than claiming you can found a philosophy on 'A is A'.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  Are quantum computers even possible if A=A?
- IsaacL 11y ago
  There's a direct link from Kant to Hegel to Marx, and from Marx to all the horrors communism brought into the world. A separate link leads from Kant to Frege, Russell and modern analytic philosophy. Which is hardly on the level of Marxism, and it still respects reason and reality, but it led to the idea of logic as meaningless symbol games, rather than a vital tool to understand the world. Rand didn't found her whole philosophy on 'A is A' - this is a common misconception. She isn't trying to create a philosophy based on geometry, where everything is deduced from a few axioms. The law of identity is fundamental, but it's not sufficient - you need observation of reality too.
IsaacL 11y ago
I remember meeting you back in August on Hacker News! Since then I read P:WNI and ITOE on your recommendation, then worked my way through a huge stack of Objectivist non-fiction. I registered for OCON last week - even if you're getting downvoted for this comment your earlier HN comments have had an impact! This article also made me think of Rand, and I wish they had some awareness of Rand's epistemology. They do mention Bayesianism, which is a useful framework, but still has limitations. (Recently I've been reading through classic papers on probability theory (Bayes, Bernoulli, E. T Jaynes) to see if it can be combined with Rand's neo-Aristotelian view of concepts).
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  This makes me happy too! I went to conferences back in the early 90's and they were a lot of fun, watershed moment in my life. I hope you have a great time, you'll meet a lot of interesting and good people. I remember our exchange back in August, I'm glad you followed up on it and it sounds like you are really learning. I've been studying Rand for over 25 years and I recently reread PWNI and learned some new things and I am amazed at her insight. Regarding my comment on the article, it was really just an "excited utterance" when I realized that the "shut up and calculate" and "bury the contradictions" tactics in Physics had run its course. I really wasn't looking to engage and offer Rand as the alternative to Kant. Physicists really want answers and seem more open to questioning their basic premises, including the premise that Philosophy is worthless. I feel like there is "revolution in the air" so to speak. I too like the Bayesian approach to probability especially the work of E.T. Jaynes. I bought his book and though I didn't fully understand it, I like the idea of probability as a generalized logic of science. In his framework the problem of induction becomes when is it valid to conclude a probability is equal to 1.0 not 0.999.... This is the key because the latter is what leaves the door open to the skeptics. (I previously tried to PM you but the email bounced, I will try again).

by dmfdmf 11y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

What does physics have to do with Cantor.

dmfdmf 11y ago
To get to Cantor's theories you have to accept his concept of a "completed infinity". This implies that infinity is a metaphysical concept, i.e. that infinity really exists in the universe. For example, do you believe that black holes are really infinite density or does an infinite property indicate a breakdown in the equations or theory, i.e. infinity is an epistemological concept. Modern physics is not consistent on this question but the error and question all derive from Kant.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  > i.e. that infinity really exists in the universe. I don't see why this has to follow.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

throwaway999888 11y ago

What's the (an) alternative?

dmfdmf 11y ago
Nothing I say will convince you.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  So don't try to convince. Just give us some alternatives to consider.
- throwaway999888 11y ago
  I asked for a reason.
IsaacL 11y ago
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (it's available on Kindle) has the kernel of what he is talking about. Oversimplifying out of necessity, there's been a long running philosophical conflict between empiricists (focus on reality) and rationalists (focus on theory). The hard sciences have managed to avoid the problems of philosophy for the last few centuries, but are increasingly running into fundamental methodological limitations. If, following Hume, induction is unreliable, how can we ever know our scientific theories are valid? Ayn Rand developed a novel epistemology and theory of concepts to deal with these issues, but she's almost universally slammed in academia for her political views. All I can suggest is to read both her and her critics and make up your own mind. (But do read her own words, not just what her critics say about her - the book I mentioned above is a good starting point).

tmvphil 11y ago

> derivatives of Kant are the dead-end of a false metaphysics and epistemology Sounds like you've been reading too much Ayn Rand. Nobody else places as much irrational blame on a single philosopher. Even if you think his philosophy is wrong, its much less wrong than things that came before it, and is certainly less wrong than claiming you can found a philosophy on 'A is A'.

dmfdmf 11y ago
Are quantum computers even possible if A=A?
IsaacL 11y ago
There's a direct link from Kant to Hegel to Marx, and from Marx to all the horrors communism brought into the world. A separate link leads from Kant to Frege, Russell and modern analytic philosophy. Which is hardly on the level of Marxism, and it still respects reason and reality, but it led to the idea of logic as meaningless symbol games, rather than a vital tool to understand the world. Rand didn't found her whole philosophy on 'A is A' - this is a common misconception. She isn't trying to create a philosophy based on geometry, where everything is deduced from a few axioms. The law of identity is fundamental, but it's not sufficient - you need observation of reality too.

IsaacL 11y ago

I remember meeting you back in August on Hacker News! Since then I read P:WNI and ITOE on your recommendation, then worked my way through a huge stack of Objectivist non-fiction. I registered for OCON last week - even if you're getting downvoted for this comment your earlier HN comments have had an impact! This article also made me think of Rand, and I wish they had some awareness of Rand's epistemology. They do mention Bayesianism, which is a useful framework, but still has limitations. (Recently I've been reading through classic papers on probability theory (Bayes, Bernoulli, E. T Jaynes) to see if it can be combined with Rand's neo-Aristotelian view of concepts).

dmfdmf 11y ago
This makes me happy too! I went to conferences back in the early 90's and they were a lot of fun, watershed moment in my life. I hope you have a great time, you'll meet a lot of interesting and good people. I remember our exchange back in August, I'm glad you followed up on it and it sounds like you are really learning. I've been studying Rand for over 25 years and I recently reread PWNI and learned some new things and I am amazed at her insight. Regarding my comment on the article, it was really just an "excited utterance" when I realized that the "shut up and calculate" and "bury the contradictions" tactics in Physics had run its course. I really wasn't looking to engage and offer Rand as the alternative to Kant. Physicists really want answers and seem more open to questioning their basic premises, including the premise that Philosophy is worthless. I feel like there is "revolution in the air" so to speak. I too like the Bayesian approach to probability especially the work of E.T. Jaynes. I bought his book and though I didn't fully understand it, I like the idea of probability as a generalized logic of science. In his framework the problem of induction becomes when is it valid to conclude a probability is equal to 1.0 not 0.999.... This is the key because the latter is what leaves the door open to the skeptics. (I previously tried to PM you but the email bounced, I will try again).