5 ms·

And yet, isn't one of the premiere goals of science, at least of the sort aiming at ontology, i.e. physics, to formulate a "Theory of Everything"? In other word

And yet, isn't one of the premiere goals of science, at least of the sort aiming at ontology, i.e. physics, to formulate a "Theory of Everything"? In other words, one idea to rule them all? Of course such an idea probably won't explain "higher level" structures in the Universe without some additional "subroutines"—just like understanding the periodic table does not result in instantaneous explanation of biochemistry, the brain, or human society (funny, maybe natural selection does something of the sort...). Though I do not fully agree with everything here, and I'm not sure that the author is wholly maligning the state of affairs in his thesis, we should remember there is a degree of immunity to ultra-logical semiotics in literature and (continental) philosophy that imparts subjective states that reinforce one's humanity (and maybe even intangibly touches holy-grail-ontology), and that is by no means an endorsement of at best childish, at worst deleterious, obfuscation.

yid 12y ago
> we should remember there is a degree of immunity to ultra-logical semiotics in literature and (continental) philosophy that imparts subjective states that reinforce one's humanity (and maybe even intangibly touches holy-grail-ontology), and that is by no means an endorsement of at best childish, at worst deleterious, obfuscation. Can you honestly say that you wrote this sentence in order to be understood widely?
- gloriousduke 12y ago
  > Can you honestly say that you wrote this sentence in order to be understood widely? I can't say I didn't. But perhaps my subconscious finally prodded me to go beyond lurking and post my first comment so as to ensure I engage with the masses and thereby improve the clarity of my hermetically sealed self expression. So let me rephrase that: Stuff like great novels and the writings of Nietzsche can make you feel as alive as when you consider the findings from the LHC or read the "Selfish Gene". That being said, I think we should use the ideas of science, and philosophy of science, to improve our art and make it more meaningful and fecund for ideas. Since the results of science have no intrinsic meaning at this point in time (nor do they say anything utterly conclusive about what really exists at the lowest level of ontology), we still need something else. Obfuscation is one way to encourage the reader to really understand the context and layers of some piece of writing by making them dig deeper (there was an interesting link about this a few weeks back).
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Since the results of science have no intrinsic meaning at this point in time (nor do they say anything utterly conclusive about what really exists at the lowest level of ontology), we still need something else. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "intrinsic" in this context? Also, does there have to be an absolute lowest level of anything?
    - gloriousduke 12y ago
      The answer to the first question is related to an interpretation of David Hume known as Hume's Law, paraphrased as, "you can't derive an ought from an is". In other words, the results of science cannot tell us anything conclusive about ethics/morality or what we should do day to day. The submission contained the following quote regarding neuroscience from a well-regarded paper: "it 'can help us see that all behavior is mechanical, that all behavior is produced by chains of physical events that ultimately reach back to forces beyond the agent’s control.'" Some pretty drastic changes to the rule of law could result from equating such results with "there is no free will". How do we decide what ought to comprise such changes? Secondly, as exhilarating and awe inspiring as learning the results of science can be (for me at least), how do we take knowledge and do anything with it? We can use it for technology, sure. But what if tomorrow we conclusively determine there are extraterrestrial beings through the results of one of our scientific instruments? How does society respond in relation to what the discovery means to each person despite the fact the experiment says nothing about such meaning? You could also think of it all this way: what ought we to do once we know every possible provable (or Popperian falsifiable) statement about existence? As for the second question, to me, it makes sense that there has to be a lowest level of ontology, unless the lowest level is some sort of recursive structure (which in a sense would still be a "lowest level thing"). I believe most of us expect that there is some sort of monadic entity that is equivalent to Democritus's atom. In the standard model the quark is that sort of thing (if I'm not mistaken), but the string theorists hypothesize that a lower level (think more complete, i.e. not assuming zero dimensional entities in reality) object is the basis for a quark. Or say, if we can somehow determine our universe is a simulation, then it would be nice to know what the "basement universe" that is running this universe is. Of course, it's possible such knowledge will remain forever inaccessible, in which case, we'll probably need novels and philosophy to deal with the voids left in our hungering minds.
niels_olson 12y ago
Soooo... let me test my understanding: you would agree that Amazon Direct Publishing is a good thing?
- gloriousduke 12y ago
  No, I think only the masters of the ivory towers and those with an eye for the lucrative should decide what is printed.
  - niels_olson 12y ago
    Troll confirmed.
reality_czech 12y ago
"Though I do not fully agree with everything here, and I'm not sure that the author is wholly maligning the state of affairs in his thesis, we should remember there is a degree of immunity to ultra-logical semiotics in literature and (continental) philosophy that imparts subjective states that reinforce one's humanity (and maybe even intangibly touches holy-grail-ontology), and that is by no means an endorsement of at best childish, at worst deleterious, obfuscation." Troll detected.
analog31 12y ago
>>>> And yet, isn't one of the premiere goals of science, at least of the sort aiming at ontology, i.e. physics, to formulate a "Theory of Everything"? In other words, one idea to rule them all? Perhaps a more humble way to describe the pursuit of "theory of everything" is simply to uncover and reconcile contradictions and compromises between the theories that we've already got. The one that comes to mind is between quantum mechanics and gravity. So far as I understand what's going on, the term "theory of everything" is limited to that specific context.
- gloriousduke 12y ago
  You are right, but wouldn't the grand unification provide the framework to lead to the loftier conclusions/insights/ah-hahs? Or are you saying QM and relativity and thereby their presumed common denominator are currently entirely divorced from ontology?
  - analog31 12y ago
    Honestly I don't know. I haven't studied philosophy in any formal sense since the 101 course in college. Physicists differ on whether they are interested in philosophy at all. Perhaps one way to think about it is: Are there different schools or beliefs within ontology, and would a unification of QM an GR help philosophers choose one of those schools from among the others, or develop a new school?
ajcarpy2005 12y ago
I interpret this to mean that you find value in literature, even unscientific as some is, because of the ontology-expanding and vocabulary-expanding potential and for literature's capacity to introduce the reader's mind to new ways of thinking by hinting through ontological structure the author's thought processes...thus hopefully reinforcing or expanding upon the individual reader's humanity by imparting from the sociosphere varied and unique personal human perspectives.

yid 12y ago

> we should remember there is a degree of immunity to ultra-logical semiotics in literature and (continental) philosophy that imparts subjective states that reinforce one's humanity (and maybe even intangibly touches holy-grail-ontology), and that is by no means an endorsement of at best childish, at worst deleterious, obfuscation. Can you honestly say that you wrote this sentence in order to be understood widely?

gloriousduke 12y ago
> Can you honestly say that you wrote this sentence in order to be understood widely? I can't say I didn't. But perhaps my subconscious finally prodded me to go beyond lurking and post my first comment so as to ensure I engage with the masses and thereby improve the clarity of my hermetically sealed self expression. So let me rephrase that: Stuff like great novels and the writings of Nietzsche can make you feel as alive as when you consider the findings from the LHC or read the "Selfish Gene". That being said, I think we should use the ideas of science, and philosophy of science, to improve our art and make it more meaningful and fecund for ideas. Since the results of science have no intrinsic meaning at this point in time (nor do they say anything utterly conclusive about what really exists at the lowest level of ontology), we still need something else. Obfuscation is one way to encourage the reader to really understand the context and layers of some piece of writing by making them dig deeper (there was an interesting link about this a few weeks back).
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Since the results of science have no intrinsic meaning at this point in time (nor do they say anything utterly conclusive about what really exists at the lowest level of ontology), we still need something else. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "intrinsic" in this context? Also, does there have to be an absolute lowest level of anything?
  - gloriousduke 12y ago
    The answer to the first question is related to an interpretation of David Hume known as Hume's Law, paraphrased as, "you can't derive an ought from an is". In other words, the results of science cannot tell us anything conclusive about ethics/morality or what we should do day to day. The submission contained the following quote regarding neuroscience from a well-regarded paper: "it 'can help us see that all behavior is mechanical, that all behavior is produced by chains of physical events that ultimately reach back to forces beyond the agent’s control.'" Some pretty drastic changes to the rule of law could result from equating such results with "there is no free will". How do we decide what ought to comprise such changes? Secondly, as exhilarating and awe inspiring as learning the results of science can be (for me at least), how do we take knowledge and do anything with it? We can use it for technology, sure. But what if tomorrow we conclusively determine there are extraterrestrial beings through the results of one of our scientific instruments? How does society respond in relation to what the discovery means to each person despite the fact the experiment says nothing about such meaning? You could also think of it all this way: what ought we to do once we know every possible provable (or Popperian falsifiable) statement about existence? As for the second question, to me, it makes sense that there has to be a lowest level of ontology, unless the lowest level is some sort of recursive structure (which in a sense would still be a "lowest level thing"). I believe most of us expect that there is some sort of monadic entity that is equivalent to Democritus's atom. In the standard model the quark is that sort of thing (if I'm not mistaken), but the string theorists hypothesize that a lower level (think more complete, i.e. not assuming zero dimensional entities in reality) object is the basis for a quark. Or say, if we can somehow determine our universe is a simulation, then it would be nice to know what the "basement universe" that is running this universe is. Of course, it's possible such knowledge will remain forever inaccessible, in which case, we'll probably need novels and philosophy to deal with the voids left in our hungering minds.

niels_olson 12y ago

Soooo... let me test my understanding: you would agree that Amazon Direct Publishing is a good thing?

gloriousduke 12y ago
No, I think only the masters of the ivory towers and those with an eye for the lucrative should decide what is printed.
- niels_olson 12y ago
  Troll confirmed.

reality_czech 12y ago

"Though I do not fully agree with everything here, and I'm not sure that the author is wholly maligning the state of affairs in his thesis, we should remember there is a degree of immunity to ultra-logical semiotics in literature and (continental) philosophy that imparts subjective states that reinforce one's humanity (and maybe even intangibly touches holy-grail-ontology), and that is by no means an endorsement of at best childish, at worst deleterious, obfuscation." Troll detected.

analog31 12y ago

>>>> And yet, isn't one of the premiere goals of science, at least of the sort aiming at ontology, i.e. physics, to formulate a "Theory of Everything"? In other words, one idea to rule them all? Perhaps a more humble way to describe the pursuit of "theory of everything" is simply to uncover and reconcile contradictions and compromises between the theories that we've already got. The one that comes to mind is between quantum mechanics and gravity. So far as I understand what's going on, the term "theory of everything" is limited to that specific context.

gloriousduke 12y ago
You are right, but wouldn't the grand unification provide the framework to lead to the loftier conclusions/insights/ah-hahs? Or are you saying QM and relativity and thereby their presumed common denominator are currently entirely divorced from ontology?
- analog31 12y ago
  Honestly I don't know. I haven't studied philosophy in any formal sense since the 101 course in college. Physicists differ on whether they are interested in philosophy at all. Perhaps one way to think about it is: Are there different schools or beliefs within ontology, and would a unification of QM an GR help philosophers choose one of those schools from among the others, or develop a new school?

ajcarpy2005 12y ago

I interpret this to mean that you find value in literature, even unscientific as some is, because of the ontology-expanding and vocabulary-expanding potential and for literature's capacity to introduce the reader's mind to new ways of thinking by hinting through ontological structure the author's thought processes...thus hopefully reinforcing or expanding upon the individual reader's humanity by imparting from the sociosphere varied and unique personal human perspectives.