"CHRIS U", a guy with a physics background, writes:
Hmm, very interesting...I don't have a strong enough either philosophical or economic knowledge base to be able to discuss most of this (no time at the moment to read Mises since I've got to read engineering instead...but one day, and one day soon).
I always enjoy discussing Metaphysics in terms of proper Physics...I took a Metaphysics class (which was gay) with a few fellow Physics students, and we shot every theory the class was discussing out of the water with hard Physics. With the concept of Metaphysical realism, where reality is independent...I wonder about it on two grounds. Looking at in 'Quantum-mechanically', where everything exists as a superposition of all possibilities which is not collapsed to a result without observation, then definitely reality can be said not to exist without a consciousness to perceive it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound? Well, until a consciousness measures the sound, it both does and does not, but more importantly until a consciousness measures the existence of the tree, it has both fallen and not fallen (and if you want to progress further it is both there and not there...). It gets a little weird when one expands beyond scientific measurement of electrons and protons and whatnot, but the thought experiments were, i.e. Schroedingers cat and all that. However, how about the fact that anybody measuring the wavelength of the color red, so long as they have established the axiomatic framework of logic and math, will always measure at as 700 nm? They would have at the start of existence, they will at the end...if dogs were smarter they would do the same...it is always the same. In that instance, does it not suggest that reality seems to exist in spit of consciousness or lack there of? If people all died out, so all consciousness was gone, and then robots or something (dumb ones, not Skynet robots) in a med lab found a frozen egg and sperm and recreated a person, and they managed once being born to measure the color red...they would find it being 700 nm...so what does that say about reality?
I'm not sure...I don't really know anything about rationalism, so I might be making an ass out of myself, but it's interesting to discuss! Although I didn't wish to do the actual work of a Physicist for a career, I find Physics to be immensely satisfying mentally...after all, it is determining the very clockwork of the universe! Wicked...
Hmm, now doesn't epistemological empiricism clash with my points about reality (the whole 'red' discussion)? How can perception color the hard sciences when they are based solidly on math and logic, and where measurements are never colored by perception, only by having made the measurement? It seems to me that if one has an actual grip on science, then the first two points of Objectivism clash.
The point about the limited state is interesting, because it always seems like there is a need for some for of a state (mainly, military), and that's a tough one to discuss for me without having read Rothbard's books yet. I know that I am getting more and more fed up with and sick of the state...and yet, I know from reading history that mad men exist. That mad men arise. Weather for lust of power, or religious fervor, or what have you...that evil people appear and will seek to conquer otherwise, seek empire, etc. etc. etc. It's always happened. If that happens in, say, a neighboring region, what does one do if there is no standing military? How does one stop themselves from being victimized and butchered? It seems to be a deep rooted part of human nature that I doubt will ever entirely go away. Will it matter if everyone is living in a free-market society if some religious nut grabs a hold of a pile of fanatical followers, makes a private army, butchers a bunch more people, etc.. and the whole thing snow balls? NOW, I am not advocating the US method of being a peacemaker, and roving the world kicking everyone's ass who doesn't think like them...but again what about defence? If one looks at WWII (and lets not look at the reasons going back the previous half century for the rise of Nazism and all that)...if you look at Poland, they were conquered on both sides by aggressive groups that simply wanted the territory. Having a standing army didn't help them much, no...but being nothing but a free market would not have helped at all. So it seems that it will only work if everyone in the world buys into free-market capitalism at the same time...
I could be making some stupid arguments there, and again I have not been able to yet read the foundation books of libertarianism...and I do truly love the idea, and the bits that I have read of Rothbard (and I watched a lecture as well) he seems fantastically inspiring. But I just wonder about all of that...what are your thoughts?
Thank you for writing. Honestly knowing physics and science is probably, in most cases, better than having a philosophical background when it comes to metaphysics, because at least you can formulate theories that are consistent with hard science, which is on stronger ground than most metaphysical bullshit. And really... what is science, if it is not something that tells us how things work, and what sort of things exist? That is what metaphysics tries to answer. It's not like the two need to be considered in complete separation without reference to one another. To do so, as a crappy metaphysician would be wont to do, would be foolish.
Your point about the wavelength of the color red is important and we can explore that a little further. The fact that reality has an objective reality independent of our individual consciousness does not mean that objective reality is independent of consciousness as such. I would not claim, as the subjective idealists do, the primacy of individual consciousnesses over the "real world." If, like you say, there were no conscious observers at all, then red would still be 700 nm, although practically speaking there would be no one to make that measurement. But if there were, that measurement would be the same for everyone.
I do not think I took care in my previous email to distinguish the two kinds of metaphysical realism and their relation to objective idealism.
I need to clarify two positions:
"Realism" - the view that reality is independent of consciousness.
"Idealism" - (in my nontechnical description) the "stuff" that is in reality is the same "stuff" that is our knowledge in our mind.
These are not, under this formulation, mutually exclusive positions. Properly understood, "objective idealism" is a form of realism. At its most basic level, all realism says is this: there is a reality beyond our individual consciousness, and that the object known is different from the individual mind or thought that knows it. This is fully compatible with objective idealism.
The point where these two positions diverge is when you use a more radical, specific form of metaphysical realism.
This form of realism says, described well by Josiah Royce: "whenever you know any object or being that is not yourself, your object is primarily and logically independent from knowledge. So, whether your knowledge comes or goes, is true or false, your object remains whatever it was." This was Rand's explicit view. It is very similar to Searle's "external realism", and others. It is not an uncommon philosophical position.
So, more radical realist must conclude the "3" I am thinking of is different somehow than the "3" in the three cats I am looking at. But if that is the case, then how is knowledge about the external world even possible at all? This sounds crazy, but this is the consequence of the "radical realist" view -- utter skepticism about knowledge.
On the radical realist theory, our ideas are absolutely independent of their supposed objects, and therefore not linked by any relation -- including causality. The idea has no true relation with its object, and the realist cannot consistently take his own ideas as having anything to do with external "independent" reality. The radical realist theory ends in self-contradiction. It basically makes knowledge about the external world impossible. But we know that knowledge of the external world is possible -- look at the progress of science. So the radical realist position cannot be correct.
Still, there is an "independent reality" beyond our individual consciousness, NO DOUBT. Only subjective idealism denies that an independent reality exists. Objective idealism does not. It merely says that the objects of our knowledge of the external world are the same "stuff" that can be "in" the mind, i.e. reality as such has to be "thinkable." Basically existence and consciousness are abstractions that cannot be understood unless they are basically the same "kind" of "stuff".
As for empiricism, it is easily shown to be self-contradictory. For the empirical thesis that "all knowledge comes from perception" is itself not a proposition that can be known by perception. So there must be some other grounds for justifying knowledge.
As for the limited state vs. anarchism, most arguments against anarchism take the form of "anarchism does not 'work'". If there is no government police or government military, "something bad will happen." But limited government doesn't "work" either. If something bad can happen and that means "X does not work," then any form of government, even strictly limited government, has the same problem. The question is, what would work better? And for that we must consider economic theory -- and economic theory tells us that free markets are always the most efficient way to allocate resources and serve consumers, whereas states are always inefficient. So the anarchist position does not depend on things being perfect, just that it is a) more moral and b) works better economically.
No comments:
Post a Comment