Philosophy: books and discussion

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Blakemore's answer is similar to Beppe's: science cannot describe everything. On the other hand, she believes that it is capable of *explaining* everything.

Are scientists even interested in describing everything? Perhaps they are interested in describing as well as possible those bits of reality that test their theories.

Hi Tim,

I consider describe and explaining as synonymous in this contest.

Again a casual use of the word everything.

Testing theories is just one of the many aspects of science.
Theory development is just one of the many aspects of science.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Blakemore's answer is similar to Beppe's: science cannot describe everything. On the other hand, she believes that it is capable of *explaining* everything.

Are scientists even interested in describing everything? Perhaps they are interested in describing as well as possible those bits of reality that test their theories.

To take the second part first: I suspect scientists are not very interested in explaining everything. Most seem content to operate within their regional ontologies, some explore the edges of those ontologies but only to see what falls within their boundaries.

To take the first part second: if "everything" means something like "all that is known" then there is no a priori reason why science - the individual sciences operating within their regional ontologies - should not explain this, nor, so far as I can see, why science should not also describe it. However, if "everything" means all that is known plus some stuff we don't know, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure. Only metaphysicians and religious people have either the time or the inclination to fret about whether that of which we know nothing is describable or explainable.

[FlorenceArt]

Again, it all depends on what you mean by "describe". If you take Blakemore's example of color: science can describe the optical phenomena happening in my eye, and how the stimulus is conveyed to my brain through the optical nerve, and it can to some extent (and will get better at it) describe what happens in my brain to make me decide that I see, for example, a blue cube. But it cannot describe, and neither can I, my experience of the color blue. It's a physical experience, and if I tell you I see a blue cube, no doubt you will understand what I mean and be able to picture it yourself, unless you are blind or color-blind. But how can I describe my sensation of the color blue?

In this example, science can describe how the sensation happens, but not the sensation itself. Not that it's a problem for science, particularly, or that it would be relevant for science to describe the sensation of blue. But it's an example of something it can't describe.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

But it cannot describe, and neither can I, my experience of the color blue. It's a physical experience, and if I tell you I see a blue cube, no doubt you will understand what I mean and be able to picture it yourself, unless you are blind or color-blind. But how can I describe my sensation of the color blue?

I'm not sure you cannot describe your experience of seeing a blue cube - how about, "Something is going on that is something like what goes on when I encounter blue things"?

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TGS

To take the first part second: if "everything" means something like "all that is known" then there is no a priori reason why science - the individual sciences operating within their regional ontologies - should not explain this, nor, so far as I can see, why science should not also describe it. However, if "everything" means all that is known plus some stuff we don't know, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure. Only metaphysicians and religious people have either the time or the inclination to fret about whether that of which we know nothing is describable or explainable.

everything without a qualifier, like in everything that is contained in my pocket, means literally everything.

You are getting very close to what I think is correct with your second statement:
However, if "everything" means all that is known plus some stuff we don't know, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure.

That I would modify as if "everything" means all that is known plus its complement, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure.
Otherwise, some stuff we don't know is again quite fuzzy, and it poisons the strength of everything.

It is the word everything the gives trouble, like the word always, like the word everywhere. They are simply not applicable to reality, they are applicable only to logic, or to axiomatic sest, that is, if things are done correctly, to a closed formal system.

[beppe]

[QUOTE=TGS;1007981]To take the second part first: I suspect scientists are not very interested in explaining everything. Most seem content to operate within their regional ontologies, some explore the edges of those ontologies but only to see what falls within their boundaries.
/QUOTE]

You can be surer than just suspecting. There are many varieties of scientists, none of them dare to dream to explain everything. Most of them indeed operate in regional ontologies, and the biggest part of those in subregional ontologies. Some, though, operate in multidisciplinary domains. This is the inside parlance for macro-regional ontologies. It has become quite in fashion and fruitful after the advent of powerful computing, after the 2nd world war and the availability of powerful computing and then the semiconductor era.

For the hard sciences it has been a golden age, interdisciplinary research has given to many the sensation of a new Renaissance. Now Progress is presenting its bill again. For a young person, however gifted, to start operating in any field of hard science entails a very high entry point, and a very long period of apprentice: there is so much to acquire before being original. This narrows the scope, inevitably. Therefore we go toward smaller and smaller domains.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by beppe

everything without a qualifier, like in everything that is contained in my pocket, means literally everything.

Saying "everything" emphatically doesn't clarify what it refers to - is "everything" like everything in your pocket in the sense that there is a set of things in your pocket which is a closed set and which is in principle knowable, or is it like everything in your pocket in the sense that there is an open set of things in your pocket about which we cannot be certain whether at any point we can know whether the set is approaching completeness?

Originally Posted by beppe

You are getting very close to what I think is correct with your second statement:
However, if "everything" means all that is known plus some stuff we don't know, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure.

That I would modify as if "everything" means all that is known plus its complement, then to expect science to explain and/or describe this is to set science up for failure.
Otherwise, some stuff we don't know is again quite fuzzy, and it poisons the strength of everything.

I agree that "some stuff we don't know", is fuzzy, and intentionally so, because I don't know what this other stuff might possibly be. But I'm not sure it's more fuzzy than "complement", if I understand you correctly, where I take it to mean something like "that which completes"". They are both black boxes into that of which we know nothing can be tossed.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by beppe

It is the word everything the gives trouble, like the word always, like the word everywhere. They are simply not applicable to reality, they are applicable only to logic, or to axiomatic sest, that is, if things are done correctly, to a closed formal system.

Of course, words, like guns, are not troublesome - it's the uses to which people put them that cause difficulties

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TGS

I agree that "some stuff we don't know", is fuzzy, and intentionally so, because I don't know what this other stuff might possibly be. But I'm not sure it's more fuzzy than "complement", if I understand you correctly, wher take it to mean something like "that which completes"". They are both black boxes into that of which we know nothing can be tossed.

[/QUOTE]

I used the world complement in the mathematical sense (set theory, linear algebra, ...) . Unless specified it is "The difference to the whole". This is not fuzzy at all. It has a unique sense.

Talking of angles one could say the angle and its complement. Implying the complement to the right angle. But this has to be clear the contest.

Discussing of science (I mean hard science in particular) without the ABC of mathematics is tricky.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TGS

Saying "everything" emphatically doesn't clarify what it refers to - is "everything" like everything in your pocket in the sense that there is a set of things in your pocket which is a closed set and which is in principle knowable, or is it like everything in your pocket in the sense that there is an open set of things in your pocket about which we cannot be certain whether at any point we can know whether the set is approaching completeness?

Well, what there is in my pocket is made of a lighter, an handkerchief, and two coins. When I say everything in my pocket, I intend these 4 objects.

When I say everything with nothing added to it nor implied in the contest, I imply an abstraction that is quite difficult to put in words, in reasoning, in algorithms, in whatever. An all encompassing abstraction. Dangerous? Oh yes. Metaphorically dangerous, mind you.

So when you go to a restaurant and you ask your date what she wants to eat and she answer everything, you should just leave and maybe change town, or call GhostBusters.

[TGS]

Discussing of science (I mean hard science in particular) without the ABC of mathematics is tricky.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, and the definition of complement that you offer is well understood. Saying "all that we know plus its complement" however doesn't seem to specify what that complement is any more than "all that we know plus some other stuff that we don't" specifies what that stuff is we don't know.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'm not sure you cannot describe your experience of seeing a blue cube - how about, "Something is going on that is something like what goes on when I encounter blue things"?

Too bad Plato didn't know you - he would have saved a lot of time!

[aabeg100]

Please accept my apologies. I posted a couple of minutes ago and recommended a book of philosophical poetry by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal titled "Asrar - i- Khudi (The Secrets of Self)". I have rewritten this post and removed the link to the book because it feels to me that this work is too religious in content and it does not seem appropriate to present it here.

Sorry for taking up space on this thread I hope you guys will excuse my intrusion on your interesting discussion and forgive me for it.

Anyways, look up the book on Google (I believe its in public domain) if your are not bothered by being confronted with a very strong religious philosophy. I felt it was a little too strong hence the rewrite of the post.

Asim

[FlorenceArt]

Hello Asim, welcome to the thread, I hope you will stay and discuss with us, even though sometimes I'm not quite sure what we're discussing

Oops, I just noticed that you edited your post and removed the link. I don't think that is necessary. If people aren't interested in that book, they just won't click the link, that's all! And we have been discussing religion, as well as science, ethics, and the color blue

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TGS

Discussing of science (I mean hard science in particular) without the ABC of mathematics is tricky.

Indeed, and the definition of complement that you offer is well understood. Saying "all that we know plus its complement" however doesn't seem to specify what that complement is any more than "all that we know plus some other stuff that we don't" specifies what that stuff is we don't know.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, and it is the fault both of everything and of the unknown,in the sense that specifying everything and specifying what we don't know is above my capabilities. It looks to me slightly more specific than some stuff we don't know. Of course reasoning on the unknown will bring us nowhere.

[aabeg100]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I really appreciate it. Anyways, here is the link again and all things considered the concepts of self knowledge presented in the book are quite intriguing.
http://www.feedbooks.com/userbook/14136

Asim