5 ms·

A Man Who Questioned Everything

73 points by Elof 8y ago

yantrams 8y ago
There is a passing mention of Diderot in this book I'm currently reading - Mathematics, the loss of certainity by Morris Kline. It is quite fascinating to see how his view on Mathematics in 1750s was similar to that of the 20th century formalists.
nyc111 8y ago
By coincidence, I'm reading Lucretius' De rerum natura. [1] Lucretius of course is also a materialist. The world is made of "primordial units" which are the indivisible particles. These particles do not have parts. Later Newton picked up this atomic materialism and assumed that "God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles." [2] This view became the official view of nature and is being taught at schools ever since. I guess K. Marx also adopted it from Newton. But now even physicists question atomic materialism. [3] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura [2] Stated in his Optics. [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679150
- n4r9 8y ago
  I wonder how you would define "atomic materialism", especially as opposed to mere "materialism"? A brief Google suggests the term hasn't been used much since the 19th Century, but could mean either that everything is made of indivisible atoms, or that matter is made up of indivisible atoms. However, we've known for a long time that atoms are not indivisible. Looking at your last link, perhaps you mean more that "everything is mass"? But quantum field theory as described in that article has been around since at least the 70s, and I think physicists and philosophers would still regard quantum field theory as a materialist theory. In modern usage, "materialism" is synonymous with "physicalism", i.e. that everything is physical [0]. Most physicists would call themselves materialists. I ask because the same article was posted over a year ago and someone made a very similar looking comment [1]. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15727988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15727988
  - yters 8y ago
    I like how their definition of physicalism uses the word physical. > Physicalism is true at a possible world w iff any world which is a physical duplicate of w is a duplicate of w simpliciter.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      Yeah, SEP is very useful but can have a slightly awkward perspective on these sorts of things. I intuitively think of physicalism as "That which is real is that which can be brought to the attention of the senses (directly or indirectly)". You need various caveats and elaborations to account for hallucinations and the like, but that's the basic idea I have in my head.
      - yters 8y ago
        Hmm, then this definition of physical would also include traditional notions of deity, spirits and soul, since all are thought of as having indirect sensible effects.
        n4r9 8y ago
        You raise a good point. Cultural superstition is just the sort of thing that requires elaborations to the definition. It's much like the problem of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Popper's attempted solution was to say that implicit in "brought to the attention of the senses" is a requirement that one's physical model generates falsifiable predictions of future observations. Thus astrology cannot be said to be part of a physicalist worldview, since horoscopes are so open to interpretation that they cannot be falsified. That said, some notions of deities could be said to be physical, for example the proposition that there is a skygod who will make it rain if you say a certain prayer. This is not unphysical in this sense; it's just wrong. What would make it unphysical if you started moving the goalposts arbitrarily, for example "oh, it will cause rain next year instead" or "oh, you just weren't praying with true belief in your heart".
        8y ago
rafaelvasco 8y ago
Makes me remember how powerful the mentality of "Really ?" is. Like: "Everything is going terribly !" - "Really?" - "I'm so depressed !" - "Really ?". Or: "Everything is going great !" - "Really ?". It shows that everything moves, everything changes, nothing is permanent. So we shouldn't act like it is. Just try to get the best of each moment and let everything that isn't good for us pass away.
- jackhack 8y ago
  That viewpoint is quite close to Stoicism. While the dictionary definition is a little stuffy ("an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.") a more approachable view is to simply be grateful for the good things one has and appreciate them, understanding that things could always be worse. A form of optimism, if you will, but one that should be moderate. The extreme of this was parodied by Dr. Pangloss in Candide, by the French philosopher Voltaire. No matter the horrors the good Doctor observed or the fates which befell him (war, murder, disease, pestilence, etc.) he always absurdely celebrated what he found and proclaimed the majesty and greatness of this, "the Best Of All Possible Worlds!" Voltaire's mockery of contemporary philosophers via this character was as entertaining as it was thorough. Finding a balance is key.

73 points by Elof 8y ago

There is a passing mention of Diderot in this book I'm currently reading - Mathematics, the loss of certainity by Morris Kline. It is quite fascinating to see how his view on Mathematics in 1750s was similar to that of the 20th century formalists.

nyc111 8y ago

By coincidence, I'm reading Lucretius' De rerum natura. [1] Lucretius of course is also a materialist. The world is made of "primordial units" which are the indivisible particles. These particles do not have parts. Later Newton picked up this atomic materialism and assumed that "God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles." [2] This view became the official view of nature and is being taught at schools ever since. I guess K. Marx also adopted it from Newton. But now even physicists question atomic materialism. [3] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura [2] Stated in his Optics. [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679150

n4r9 8y ago
I wonder how you would define "atomic materialism", especially as opposed to mere "materialism"? A brief Google suggests the term hasn't been used much since the 19th Century, but could mean either that everything is made of indivisible atoms, or that matter is made up of indivisible atoms. However, we've known for a long time that atoms are not indivisible. Looking at your last link, perhaps you mean more that "everything is mass"? But quantum field theory as described in that article has been around since at least the 70s, and I think physicists and philosophers would still regard quantum field theory as a materialist theory. In modern usage, "materialism" is synonymous with "physicalism", i.e. that everything is physical [0]. Most physicists would call themselves materialists. I ask because the same article was posted over a year ago and someone made a very similar looking comment [1]. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15727988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15727988
- yters 8y ago
  I like how their definition of physicalism uses the word physical. > Physicalism is true at a possible world w iff any world which is a physical duplicate of w is a duplicate of w simpliciter.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    Yeah, SEP is very useful but can have a slightly awkward perspective on these sorts of things. I intuitively think of physicalism as "That which is real is that which can be brought to the attention of the senses (directly or indirectly)". You need various caveats and elaborations to account for hallucinations and the like, but that's the basic idea I have in my head.
    - yters 8y ago
      Hmm, then this definition of physical would also include traditional notions of deity, spirits and soul, since all are thought of as having indirect sensible effects.
      - n4r9 8y ago
        You raise a good point. Cultural superstition is just the sort of thing that requires elaborations to the definition. It's much like the problem of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Popper's attempted solution was to say that implicit in "brought to the attention of the senses" is a requirement that one's physical model generates falsifiable predictions of future observations. Thus astrology cannot be said to be part of a physicalist worldview, since horoscopes are so open to interpretation that they cannot be falsified. That said, some notions of deities could be said to be physical, for example the proposition that there is a skygod who will make it rain if you say a certain prayer. This is not unphysical in this sense; it's just wrong. What would make it unphysical if you started moving the goalposts arbitrarily, for example "oh, it will cause rain next year instead" or "oh, you just weren't praying with true belief in your heart".
        8y ago

rafaelvasco 8y ago

Makes me remember how powerful the mentality of "Really ?" is. Like: "Everything is going terribly !" - "Really?" - "I'm so depressed !" - "Really ?". Or: "Everything is going great !" - "Really ?". It shows that everything moves, everything changes, nothing is permanent. So we shouldn't act like it is. Just try to get the best of each moment and let everything that isn't good for us pass away.

jackhack 8y ago
That viewpoint is quite close to Stoicism. While the dictionary definition is a little stuffy ("an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.") a more approachable view is to simply be grateful for the good things one has and appreciate them, understanding that things could always be worse. A form of optimism, if you will, but one that should be moderate. The extreme of this was parodied by Dr. Pangloss in Candide, by the French philosopher Voltaire. No matter the horrors the good Doctor observed or the fates which befell him (war, murder, disease, pestilence, etc.) he always absurdely celebrated what he found and proclaimed the majesty and greatness of this, "the Best Of All Possible Worlds!" Voltaire's mockery of contemporary philosophers via this character was as entertaining as it was thorough. Finding a balance is key.