3 ms·

> Each of the above explanations describes the circle's movement as a decomposition into rotation and revolution, but in reality no such decomposition is taking

by xpe 3y ago

> Each of the above explanations describes the circle's movement as a decomposition into rotation and revolution, but in reality no such decomposition is taking place. Comments: 1. This is a specific instance of a widely taught principle from Buddhism: “Concepts are not real things; a conceptualized world is a dead world. Living actualities lose their life when put into concepts.” ― Gyomay M. Kubose, Everyday Suchness: Buddhist Essays on Everyday Living 2. For a broader audience, I'd probably rephrase the above as: "Concepts are human representations; they are different than the actual phenomena." 3. The above decomposition is represented in many of our brains. In that sense it is "real" as any other form of physical matter. Why? The concept is (somehow) encoded in the structure and relationships of neurons (as I understand it). 4. I'm torn: saying that "decomposition" isn't "taking place" is simultaneously insightful and obvious. In any case, as phrased, for a modern audience, it risks missing the point; namely, a decomposition is a useful way of understanding the world. For example, the idea of decomposing motion into {rotation and translation} is similar to decomposing the position of a point by referring to its {position in a coordinate system}, whether it be Cartesian, polar, barycentric, or otherwise. Doing so helps us bring analytic methods to bear.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
You're reading too much into it. "Reality" here is used as a metaphor to aid in learning. Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. None of them is more "real". The metaphor uses that word, but it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). The decomposition is taking place. The decomposition isn't taking place. It's all the same.
- xpe 3y ago
  > You're reading too much into it. What do you mean by this? I'm getting it wrong? I'm mistaking the author's meaning? (How do you know what the author's meaning is?) I shouldn't reflect on this? Something else?
- xpe 3y ago
  > Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. I don't mean to discount this statement, but it is a tautology. > ... it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. Spot on. > As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). Your comments and questions are temporally relevant to my recent experience; I'm listening to a podcast discussion between Tim Mauldin and Sam Harris: "#318, Physics & Philosophy, A Conversation with Tim Maudlin", "the author of books on the foundations of physics, logic, and foundations of mathematics. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within Physics, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time, and Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory." My background includes engineering and philosophy, and I plan on reading more of Mauldin's work. To your credit, your paragraph above is in some ways a better summary of the concepts in play than the podcast above. [1] This particular interview shows Harris not at his best, but Mauldin shines. That said, I'm puzzled by your sentence "Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real." I claim that reality is still there, whether or not we see it or understand it. This is known as epistemological realism. Do you hold this view? I agree that humans have the feeling of unknown as we do deeper "down the stack"; e.g. from molecules to atoms to quarks and so on. So why do we go deeper? Where do we stop? Scientists seek models for explanation and prediction. Philosophers seek truth. At some point, we stop. Why? Likely because (1) we run of technical ability; and/or (2) going further involves adding more words and concepts without aiding our 'project', whether it be models or truth. I agree ([2]) with your rhetorical question "What is an electron, really?". An electron is either a composite of deeper things -- or we stop and say "it exists". [1] Generally speaking, I've gained a lot of insight from Harris, his guests, and the ideas he highlights. ¶ I don't care much for caricatured or uncharitable characterizations of Harris (or anyone). These 'controversies' to me seem to be more of a sign of attention-seeking, brand-building, and tribe-definition than truth-seeking. [2] Can one agree with a rhetorical question?
  - rhn_mk1 3y ago

by xpe 3y ago

rhn_mk1 3y ago

You're reading too much into it. "Reality" here is used as a metaphor to aid in learning. Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. None of them is more "real". The metaphor uses that word, but it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). The decomposition is taking place. The decomposition isn't taking place. It's all the same.

xpe 3y ago
> You're reading too much into it. What do you mean by this? I'm getting it wrong? I'm mistaking the author's meaning? (How do you know what the author's meaning is?) I shouldn't reflect on this? Something else?
xpe 3y ago
> Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. I don't mean to discount this statement, but it is a tautology. > ... it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. Spot on. > As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). Your comments and questions are temporally relevant to my recent experience; I'm listening to a podcast discussion between Tim Mauldin and Sam Harris: "#318, Physics & Philosophy, A Conversation with Tim Maudlin", "the author of books on the foundations of physics, logic, and foundations of mathematics. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within Physics, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time, and Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory." My background includes engineering and philosophy, and I plan on reading more of Mauldin's work. To your credit, your paragraph above is in some ways a better summary of the concepts in play than the podcast above. [1] This particular interview shows Harris not at his best, but Mauldin shines. That said, I'm puzzled by your sentence "Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real." I claim that reality is still there, whether or not we see it or understand it. This is known as epistemological realism. Do you hold this view? I agree that humans have the feeling of unknown as we do deeper "down the stack"; e.g. from molecules to atoms to quarks and so on. So why do we go deeper? Where do we stop? Scientists seek models for explanation and prediction. Philosophers seek truth. At some point, we stop. Why? Likely because (1) we run of technical ability; and/or (2) going further involves adding more words and concepts without aiding our 'project', whether it be models or truth. I agree ([2]) with your rhetorical question "What is an electron, really?". An electron is either a composite of deeper things -- or we stop and say "it exists". [1] Generally speaking, I've gained a lot of insight from Harris, his guests, and the ideas he highlights. ¶ I don't care much for caricatured or uncharitable characterizations of Harris (or anyone). These 'controversies' to me seem to be more of a sign of attention-seeking, brand-building, and tribe-definition than truth-seeking. [2] Can one agree with a rhetorical question?
- rhn_mk1 3y ago