Who is your favorite Physicist?

@brianjakub,

My reply above to Olivier suggests that no word ever has an absolute non-contextual meaning. In particular the word 'real' is used to signify ' suggested universal agreement as to what is a valid focus of attention'. It only arises when a dispute about that validity is raised. (Consider 'the aether' or 'global warning' for example) .

The philosophical point here is expressed in Wittgenstein's adage; 'meaning is usage'. And I think it may also be useful to think about another adage of his: 'Philosophy is about the fight against our bewitchment by language'.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Ok so you agree that language represents mental images, and that mental images in turn try to represent phenomena.

Even if meanings vary, they DO exist. Eg you probably mean something when you use the term "referent". I might not be entirely sure what you mean by this term or that its meaning is useful to understand or describe the world, but I'm pretty sure you mean something. The word "codes for" some idea. Which it therefore "represents". Similarly, a token always represents something.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Even if meanings vary they do exist.

But what matters is the meaning of the word to the person that presented the idea. The person receiving the message has a responsibility as a show of respect to the humanity of the person creating the message to converse with them and make an attempt through dialogue to understand exactly what that person meant "exactly" . That creator of the message defines its meaning. It sure helps if that message is in agreement with the messages recorded in the physical world, especially if two scientists are discussing scientific observations.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I favour shift the analysis of communication away from 'cognitive events' to communicative events which are defined by joint action or potential action.In that respect I am using the concept of 'languaging' as a special behaviour which co-ordinates general behaviour.
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html
From this point of view, concepts like 'representation' and 'something' are transcended. And before you are tempted by 'a pie in the sky response', consider also the move in physics,(which is what this thread is about) towards specifying 'particles' only in so far as they are useful markers to indicate interaction events.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reality-Not-What-Seems-
Journey/dp/0241257964
I believe Bohr was thinking along these lines with the Copenhagen Convention. Bohr went on record with his views on the applicability of language subatomic physics are 'no different to poetry', and he is known for failing to convince Einstein that words like 'electron' suggested observation events rather than 'things'. (i.e. epistemology rather than ontology)

2 Replies

@fresco,

EDIT SECOND LINK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reality-Not-What-Seems-Journey/dp/0241257964

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

No fundamental disagreement from me here.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Individual actions add up to joint (social) action, so there's no important difference there. It's always communication. Even when one communicates with oneself, for instance when you think over something.

And therefore, there is meaning involved, aka representation. There's no way around it.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Nice point along the lines with my post above.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

If 'meaning' equates to 'givingpropensity for possible subsequent action' then I agree. Nonrepresentationalism is basically a reaction against naive realism in which observer variables (propensities) are ignored.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

@Fresco/Olivier5

Quote:

It sure helps if that message is in agreement with the messages recorded in the physical world, especially if two scientists are discussing scientific observations.

So, if there are messages recorded in the physical universe who wrote them? Are they really messages, or just random information disguised as messages? Could loking at it one way or the other change the way scientists interpret what they mean?

2 Replies

@fresco,

Err... what do you mean by "propensity for subsequent action"?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I am saying that 'meaning' only has substance in a potential ' action scenario'. If somebody comes up to you and vocalizes something, what you 'hear' will be determined by the whole social context of the encounter otherwise you will dismiss it as meaningless. You must surely have expericenced instances 'mishearing' when your expectancies were set up for a different scenario.. (Most jokes rely on switching scenarios for the punch line).

Thus the utterance of a single word like 'tree' is completely meaningless unless modified by other words like 'tree diagram' (in the context of problem solving) or 'tree in the road' (in the context of journeying 'or tree in my garden ( in the context of shading or root damage etc).

What matters is what happens next on hearing a word in context, even if it is only a considered action or a decision to do nothing.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Consider the point that 'physicality' is (merely)a human concept. It represents a human expectancy of interaction via our species specific physiology ( or the signals from our fabricated transducers using that physiology). Physicality has no independent existence from our interactions. Pictures of 'a universe without humans' ignores the human who is doing the picturing !

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Consider the point that 'physicality' is (merely)a human concept. It represents a human expectancy of interaction via our species specific physiology ( or the signals from our fabricated transducers using that physiology). Physicality has no independent existence from our interactions. Pictures of 'a universe without humans' ignores the human who is doing the picturing !
Insofar that scientists have common physiological systems, and communicate via a common paradigm, they are likely to 'agree' about their findings.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Irrespective of any potential action, you generally mean something when you say something, and therefore your words represent something: an idea or set of ideas that you want to communicate.

IOW, there's nothing wrong with representation. It's a natural and useful function of any language. Even QM represents a view (or several) of some natural phenomena. I don't see what the problem is.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Okay. I suppose I'm basically unhappy with the word 'thing'. I cannot come to terms with 'thinghood' not being bestowed by the 'thinger', and not subject to temporal drifting as the communication proceeds even within an imternal dialogue. I'm sure you have experienced such drifting when you arrive at the end of a post and need to edit ! Where the word 'presentation' fits into this is hard to judge. That is why I stress the reactionary aspect of antirepresentationalism to naive realism, rather than looking for the any merits of using the word.

BTW The Maturna reference I cited tests the phrase 'alternative paradigm' with a vengence and for that reason alone is worth reading. On the more practical side it does form a foundation for some of the cognitive psychology studies at Berkeley which have gone some way to replacing failed computer models in neuroscience.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Dear Brian, thanks for your reply:
'I think ideas are real. They aren't physical. All physical things are real. I think matter is just ideas stored in rotation... [etc.]"

When you are through with Fresco and company, please return to my request to you,

Quote:

• Post: # 6,493,184 • Susmariosep | Mon 28 Aug, 2017 05:54 pm

@brianjakub,
Dear Brian, and everyone, I am back.

[...]

Okay, here is now, dear Brian, my inquiry with you as a scientist, what do you say about the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), is it real in my sense of real, or real in your sense of real?

Quote:

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is electromagnetic radiation left over from an early stage of the universe in Big Bang cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation".

Courtesy of google

[...]

This is the beauty of talking over something that is outside and independent of our mind, unlike when you talk with guys like Fresco and company, you can talk for ever and get nowhere, because they are all talking inside their mind, over nothing that is outside and independent of man's mind, like for example, the reality of the nose in our face.

When overly smart fools like Krumple deny the existence of the nose in their face, we can just challenge them to cut a slit in one nostril.

Okay, I am all ears to hear from you or read from you about the reality of the cosmic microwave radiation, it has been in the universe even millions of years before man with a mind came along.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

TYPO
.....where the word 'representation' fits in.....

0 Replies

@fresco,

The way I see it, there's no reason to feel unhappy about any word... especially a very generic term like "things", which can mean whatever you want it to mean. The most basic mistake in philosophy is to take issue with words rather than ideas.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Dear Olie, you tell mankind:
"The way I see it, there's no reason to feel unhappy about any word... especially a very generic term like "things", which can mean whatever you want it to mean. The most basic mistake in philosophy is to take issue with words rather than ideas."

The way I see it, best is to always look up the common experiences of mankind in the world outside and independent of our mind.

Of course we need our mind to think, but always afterwards or even at the same time keep track of the world of experience outside and independent of our mind.

Otherwise like a lot of guys here for example Fresco and Izzy and others, they can go on and on and on forever with talking about all kinds of things inside their brain, without ever factoring in the very crucially decisive important world of experience which is outside and independent of our mind.

For example, the big big big hullabaloo question, why is there something rather than nothing.

Now, if you will only factor in your experience, you will see right away that it is because someone or something put it there.

0 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know