Misplaced Concreteness
Jonathan
"Ian Phillips" <ian.ph...@magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bld07v$8o6$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "andy-k" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:9Tmeb.1484$z43....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > A. N. Whitehead repudiated naive realism arguing that realism is an
> > abstraction not a concrete fact. The logic is inescapable -- that we
> > perceive an object is a concrete fact, but that the object still exists
> > when nobody is perceiving it is merely an abstraction. This reminds me
> > of Berkeley's "Esse est percipi". It might seem obvious to us that the
> > object should still exist when unperceived, but this feeling of
> > obviousness is far from indubitable -- if we weren't better informed it
> > would seem obvious to us that the sun goes around the earth. In this
> > manner we afford abstractions the status of concrete facts, and
> > Whitehead coined a phrase for this error -- the "fallacy of misplaced
> > concreteness".
>
> You slide here from the point about dubitability to the point about
> abstraction.
>
> I don't see why the naive realist could not just claim that when we see
> objects we simply see objects that exist when not perceived. Our experience
> provides direct evidence of their identity conditions. On this point see
> John Campbell's article "Berkeley's Puzzle". You might be able to read it
> online at:
>
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jcampbel/pdf_files/Berkeley's%20Puzzle.pdf
>
> > At about the same time, Einstein was arguing for realism in the quantum
> > theory. Einstein wanted to believe that Max Born's probabilistic
> > interpretation of the wave function was due to statistical spread, just
> > as is the case in thermodynamics, wherein the properties dealt with can
> > be explained in terms of statistical mechanics. Hence his famous quote
> > "God does not play dice". He aspired to prove that quantum mechanics was
> > an incomplete theory, and that some as-yet undiscovered variables lay at
> > a deeper level.
> >
> > Nils Bohr was arguing the opposite corner. Bohr claimed that
> > interactions yield information (i.e. qualities like position, linear
> > momentum, angular momentum, etc.) about quantum mechanical entities like
> > electrons, but that nothing can be said about such entities while they
> > are between interactions (i.e. unobserved). They can't even be said to
> > "exist" in the sense of being "actual objects", but rather are best
> > thought of as "possible qualities". This was clearly a challenge to
> > Einstein's realist position, and Einstein rose to the challenge with a
> > thought-experiment that has come to be known by the initials of the
> > people that created it, namely Einstein and his two young colleagues
> > Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky (hence EPR).
> >
> > John Bell, much later, showed theoretically that Einstein was wrong, but
> > Bell's theory also admitted of empirical testing, which would elevate
> > the exercise from a purely intellectual thought-experiment to proper
> > science. The technology didn't become available for some years, but Bell
> > has since been proven right with increasing accuracy (most recently by
> > Alain Aspect in France). The quantum theory is indeed complete,
> > probability is a fundamental aspect of the world we observe, and naive
> > realism must go. (However, at the level of every-day objects naive
> > realism provides an adequate paradigm, just as Newtonian mechanics does
> > at this level despite having been replaced by the more accurate paradigm
> > of quantum mechanics which, of course, encompasses Newtonian mechanics
> > as a limiting case).
>
> I don't agree with this account of the dispute. Bell (and Aspect) may well
> have showed that certain hidden variable theories are impossible. However,
> hidden variable theories that involve non-locality are fine. This is just
> what the pilot wave or De Broglie Bohm interpretation is. Moreover, even if
> there are other reasons for rejecting this interpretation (I think there
> are - relativistic ones) this does not leave us with only Bohr's view.
>
> There are plenty of other contenders. And one of them is thoroughly realist:
> relative state theory - i.e. a sophisticated Everettian approach. A good
> question: what would Einstein have thought of _that_?
>
> > It seems, then, that science is on the side of Whitehead (and
> > Berkeley?), and the only things that can be considered concrete are
> > immediate experiences.
>
> Aside of the above remarks I don't think that even if science was the way
> you suggest it is this would necessarily have anything to do with the
> psychological realm of perceptions, experiences and attitudes. It is not
> clear the two domains are so directly answerable. After all - if physics
> tells us that nothing exists except fluctuations in quantum fields this
> clearly doesn't mean all object talk is false or wrong.
>
> > Now then, two quantum systems that are undergoing an interaction cannot
> > be considered separate systems -- rather their distinct wave functions
> > merge into a unity from which two distinct quantum system become
> > actualized in subsequent interactions (this is called "quantum
> > entanglement"). Consequently there can be no distinction between a
> > system under measurement and the measuring apparatus, and to put it more
> > bluntly, observer and observed may not be considered distinct. This is
> > evident at the quantum level, but owing to the minuteness of Planck's
> > constant it is not at all evident at the everyday level. Nonetheless it
> > remains valid at this level despite our protestations that the
> > distinction between subject and object is "obvious" (see first paragraph
> > above).
> >
> > Which brings me back to Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness".
> > It seems that the subject of cognizance is not separate from the objects
> > cognized, but rather such a distinct subject is fabricated as an
> > hypothesis and is then erroneously afforded the status of a concrete
> > fact. There is no distinct subject to be found in immediate experience.
> >
>
> There's far too much here for me even to begin discussing but I guess it's
> clear that, e.g., the subject-object distinction's validity - whatever quite
> that means - or the distinctness of the perceiving subject - again whatever
> exactly this means - is thus going to depend crucially on how one answers
> the above points. It's also going to depend on a lot of careful distinctions
> being made before it's clear what exactly QM "says" or what one might
> conclude (if anything) from that about metaphysics or psychology.
It's obvious in this discussion the relationship between quantum
and classical states is unclear. This relationship defines
how to proceed.
When a photon strikes the eye, or a leaf, a quantum interaction
has occurred, yet the eye moves as a result and in
a classical way. This "decohering into classical behavior" is a
result not just of part reactions, but of network characteristics.
One must look at system properties to determine how states
will change between the quantum and classical and why.
Coevolving systems tend to fill every niche across both
space and ...scale. The quantum world simply defines
the lowest scale of this natural process. Looking at
quantum behavior to understand any ...larger questions
is like a weatherman trying to predict a storm
with a microscope.....
You'll never get....anywhere in that way.
You must start with the largest scale first to
understand the smallest, not the other way
around. Instead of asking why quantum behavior
exists and how does it effect 'reality', ask how
does classical motion effect the quantum world.
Ask why does classical motion exist, ask why
does our reality exist...
It exists because.....networks spontaneously turn
random/quantum behavior into stable evolving
structures ...more often than not.
The universe turns quantum behavior into Nature...through the
second law. This process of creating order from disorder...
creating networks from increasing complexity, is tentatively
called the fourth law of thermodynamics, ...originally chaos theory...
then the science of self-organization. ..now complexity theory..
and soon to be considered 'the answer' that the sciences, arts
and philosophy have been searching for. As it works equally
as well with ...all of them.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Investigations.html
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
A TENTATIVE PHYSICAL HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING
CONSCIOUSNESS
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Epilogue.html
"Consciousness is associated with the fine grained "decision making"
leading to alternative behaviors within molecular autonomous agents
that spans the quantum and classical realms and is identical to the
persistent propagation of percolating webbed loops of quantum
coherence that simultaneously are persistently losing coherence hence
going classical. The passage to classical behavior is identical to
"mind" influencing "matter." Consciousness is the inner experience
of the agent of this percolating web of persistent coherence
decohering into classical behavior."
>
> Still, interesting stuff.
Sure is!
Jonathan
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/
http://www.pscs.umich.edu/
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
s
>
> Ian
>
>
Daniel T.
> You must start with the largest scale first to
> understand the smallest, not the other way
> around. Instead of asking why quantum behavior
> exists and how does it effect 'reality', ask how
> does classical motion effect the quantum world.
> Ask why does classical motion exist, ask why
> does our reality exist...
>
> It exists because.....networks spontaneously turn
> random/quantum behavior into stable evolving
> structures ...more often than not.
I thought of it more because quantum behavior isn't purely random, but
statistical in nature (some events are more likely than others.) When
dealing with such a large number of quanta as we do in the systems we
normally perceive, all the statistical anomalies cancel out leaving us
with the norm.
Jonathan
"Daniel T." <postm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:postmaster-2C223...@news02.west.earthlink.net...
When dealing with behavior, random and statistical are
essentially the same thing. Both are analogous to a gas
where the behavior is random and chaotic. So a statistical
approach is the only way to model it.
Such a chaotic attractor is only one part of an evolving
system. The chaotic provides a base for evolutionary
systems, as in the air, space or electorate. It's
a given, no more. By itself the quantum realm is
as interesting as empty space. It's when that motion
is swept up into a dynamic system that things
get interesting.
It's the combination of chaotic, static and dynamic
attractors that make creation go.
Our reality is not defined by what things are, but by
how the components interact with each other.
Any grand unified theory or universal law must
concern underlying structures common to all, not
particles.
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
LECTURE 5
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF A CANDIDATE "LAW"
Coevolutionarily constructible communities of molecular Maxwell Demons,
Autonomous Agents, may evolve to three apparently different
phase transitions:
A) The dynamical "edge of chaos" within and among members of the
community, thereby simultaneously achieving a coarse graining of each
agent's world and maximizing the capacity to discriminate and act
without trembling hands.
B) A "self organized critical" state as a community of coevolving
agents, by tuning landscape structure and coupling, yielding a
power law distribution of speciation and extinction avalanches.
C) A poised position on a generalized "subcritical-supracritical boundary,"
exhibiting a generalized self-organized critical sustained expansion into
the "Adjacent Possible" of the effective phase space of the community.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Lecture-5.html
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
> Great comments Ian, many thanks. Replies below:
>
>
> "Ian Phillips" <ian.ph...@magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:bld07v$8o6$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >
> > "andy-k" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:9Tmeb.1484$z43....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > Aside of the above remarks I don't think that even if science was the
> > way you suggest it is this would necessarily have anything to do with
> > the psychological realm of perceptions, experiences and attitudes. It
> > is not clear the two domains are so directly answerable. After all -
> > if physics tells us that nothing exists except fluctuations in quantum
> > fields this clearly doesn't mean all object talk is false or wrong.
>
> Quite right -- object talk is perfectly adequate within the confines of
> its domain of validity, but the quantum theory seems to be suggesting
> that this domain of validity is restricted rather than all-encompassing.
You have it all backwards! And that is because you are looking
at what things are instead of what they do.
> We err in applying a paradigm beyond its domain of validity, e.g. in
> considering an electron to be a smaller version of a cricket ball,
The error is so simple. The paradigm should be in relative motion, not
particle specifics.
The three realms of interaction are the static, dynamic and
chaotic. As in solid, liquid or gas. As in matter, energy and
light.
Both the electron and ~baseball are in the same realm only
if they both fill the same attractor for each of their defined
systems. As part of the ..same system they clearly fill different
attractors within the paradigm. Comparing the two is
valid in some circumstances, but not others based on the
role each plays for its system. It is the role of the observer
to define the circumstances, the system in advance.
In this way ...all systems are open to analysis with one
mathematics. Whether its a material system, a living
one or intellectual...all can be dealt with in a consistent
and seamless way since interactions and motion are
not dependent on the specific nature of the components.
It doesn't matter if two objects are connected by
two roads, or two forces, when basing the math
on connectivity. With complexity theory one can
analyze a society, an ecosystem or psychology
in the same way.
And all the combined learning of the countless
disciplines can be pooled, for the first time, since
all can now talk to each other in the same
language.
See..
An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/complexity/complexity.html
> or in
> considering velocities to add linearly when approaching that of light.
> But surely things are different in reverse -- we don't err when we add
> velocities relativistically even when those velocities are well below
> that of light. Are we justified, then, in dismissing the idea that the
> quantum paradigm may have implications beyond the quantum domain?
Only if you also dismiss the role the air plays in our biosphere, or
the people play in a democracy, or the role that space-time
plays in the universe.
It is the logical relationships between classical motion, quantum motion
and thermodynamics that should be examined, as it is
the relationships that define whether creation takes place
or not and defines our reality.
You can easily see those relationships whenever considering
the interaction of the land, water and air. Or in genetics, selection
and mutation. Physics needs to be rebuilt within an ecosystem
framework since that is how nature and evolution works.
Because that's what the universe ...does.
Who care what it is, I want to know what it will ...do... next.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fldmnvch552u5rg59...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:07:15 GMT, "Daniel T."
> <postm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"andy-k" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ian Phillips" <ian.ph...@magd.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "andy-k" <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> > > A. N. Whitehead repudiated naive realism arguing that realism is an
> >> > > abstraction not a concrete fact. The logic is inescapable -- that we
> >> > > perceive an object is a concrete fact, but that the object still
> >> > > exists when nobody is perceiving it is merely an abstraction. This
> >> > > reminds me of Berkeley's "Esse est percipi". It might seem obvious
> >> > > to us that the object should still exist when unperceived, but this
> >> > > feeling of obviousness is far from indubitable -- if we weren't
> >> > > better informed it would seem obvious to us that the sun goes around
> >> > > the earth. In this manner we afford abstractions the status of
> >> > > concrete facts, and Whitehead coined a phrase for this error -- the
> >> > > "fallacy of misplaced concreteness".
> >> >
> >> > You slide here from the point about dubitability to the point about
> >> > abstraction.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see why the naive realist could not just claim that when we
> >> > see objects we simply see objects that exist when not perceived. Our
> >> > experience provides direct evidence of their identity conditions. On
> >> > this point see John Campbell's article "Berkeley's Puzzle". You might
> >> > be able to read it online at:
> >> >
> >> > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jcampbel/pdf_files/Berkeley's%20Puzzle.pdf
> >>
> >> up or modifying his website. Anyhow, isn't that a defining
> >> characteristic of the naive realist? If I understand Whitehead correctly
> >> (big IF!) then he is calling naive realism into question on the grounds
> >> of misplaced concreteness -- there can be certainty only of direct
> >> experience, and not of anything abstracted from it. Hence the slide from
> >> dubitability to abstraction -- can the two be separated?
> >
> >Well I managed to bring it up, what useless drivel. Berkeley said that
> >because he can't conceive of something (unperceived existence in this
> >case,) it doesn't exist.
> >
> >To Berkeley, I quote Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and
> >earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Like he, or any
> >human is so god awful important that the universe hinges its existence
> >on his perceptions... What hubris!
Not hubris at all! The universe is ...dependent on our perception.
After all, what has more potential to change the world, a single object
or a single idea?
Modern science considers what is 'real', particles, to be the basis
for its model, in order to understand more complex things.
But it is the logical relationships ....between particles that
define what they are and do. And logical connections
are 'unreal' as they are abstract.
So physics should be based on the 'unreal' in order to
understand reality. Not the other way around.
>
> Can you conceive of a universe of unconsciousness? Maybe.
> Can a universe of unconsciousness conceive of you? No.
Yet the unconscious universe 'conceived' us.
Which is greater, intelligence or that which creates it?
Without one, you can't have the other.
It is the whole that constrains the parts and makes
them more than just particles.
Without consciousness, or more generally, the ability of a
system to act on its own behalf, there can be no universe
as we know it.
Jonathan
s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
andy-k
news:T96dnd4D-uv...@giganews.com...
>
<snip>
> You have it all backwards! And that is because you are looking
> at what things are instead of what they do.
<snip>
<snip>
> Only if you also dismiss the role the air plays in our biosphere, or
> the people play in a democracy, or the role that space-time
> plays in the universe.
>
> It is the logical relationships between classical motion, quantum
> motion and thermodynamics that should be examined, as it is
> the relationships that define whether creation takes place
> or not and defines our reality.
>
> You can easily see those relationships whenever considering
> the interaction of the land, water and air. Or in genetics, selection
> and mutation. Physics needs to be rebuilt within an ecosystem
> framework since that is how nature and evolution works.
> Because that's what the universe ...does.
>
> Who care what it is, I want to know what it will ...do... next.
Thanks Jonathan. You seem to be quite knowledgeable about chaos theory,
so I'd like to put a question to you. The laws of nature may, if I'm not
mistaken, be represented as attractors in some universal phase space.
This doesn't seem to me to explain why the world is the way it is --
rather it simply provides a different way of describing the way it is.
What we would really need to find out is why the attractors are where
they are in this universal phase space. Are they fixed for all time? If
so, then what determined where these locations are? Or do they evolve
over time (i.e. are the laws of nature really invariant)? If so, then
what determines how this phase space evolves? Are we in need of
postulating some kind of "meta-laws of nature" that can't themselves be
represented in this universal phase space?
Jonathan
The reason the three attractor paradigm exists is due to an inherent
property of randomness. Which is that when random objects
become sufficiently complex in terms of their connectivity
they begin to organize spontaneously.
They do so, and it's a very recent discovery, because regions
of higher fitness also have larger basins of attractions. Meaning
that an object is ...more likely to randomly walk into a
region of higher fitness than one of lower fitness.
Evolution is not a random process, the final probable state
is to organize and create the best possible conditions
for evolution to occur. Randomness is a driving force
for evolution due to the properties that appear when
random elements are connected to each other.
A great page to demonstrate the inherent property of evolution
is above....these ideas really do change everything since
the evolution we all know and love applies to non-living
systems as well....think about that for a moment...
It's not a small discovery! It connects the material and
living worlds into a single co-evolutionary framework.
All these questions can be answered now, see the link below for
the writings of one of the founders of chaos theory. It's great
stuff. The universe is far simpler, more elegant and creative than
most can possibly imagine.
> Are they fixed for all time? If
> so, then what determined where these locations are? Or do they evolve
> over time (i.e. are the laws of nature really invariant)? If so, then
> what determines how this phase space evolves? Are we in need of
> postulating some kind of "meta-laws of nature" that can't themselves be
> represented in this universal phase space?
Yes, the fourth law of thermodynamics. It's not yet fully accepted
but one can see it is truth. It's a universal law of structure
or organization that balances the destruction of the second law.
You see, it's so simple, the second law creates disorder or
more randomness, but that randomness increases connectivity
and generates networks that spontaneously organizes and
evolves. In truth the universe becomes more ordered over
time, not disordered as science has for so long implied.
We haven't been able to see this due to our fixation over
what things are, instead of looking at how they
behave, to form our basic laws.
INVESTIGATIONS
THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Investigations.html
Jonathan
s
>
>
>