Re: [asa] Leibnitz' objection to atomism

I think it may be a given in some broader "Goedelian" sense that there will
always be the unknown 'x' beyond the edge whether it be concerning atomism,
mathematics, or philosophy, let alone metaphysics. So I certainly wasn't
meaning to suggest that I/we/anybody should be able to give an ultimate final
explanation to anything. It's just a posture we choose to take when we want to
dwell on or celebrate mystery in our existence.

Meanwhile, though, all of us live life on the practical level. If a solar
system model of an atom does a better job explaining both old and current
observations, we run with it. When something better comes along, we run with
that.

While none of us advocates despair just because perfection will never be
achieved, it is a posture we occasionally choose to dwell on temporarily so it
might nudge us back towards humility and realistic self-appraisal. I took your
conversation to be along that kind of existential mood. It can be a good
counter-point towards an enthusiastic Scientism that looks at our cup of
knowledge that will probably be a mere tenth full in perpetuity and tirelessly
trumpets triumphalism about that. But dwell on or celebrate the unknown too
long, and people suspect you of outmoded gappish thought --maybe rightly so.

--Merv

Quoting wjp <wjp@swcp.com>:

> There is a sense in which we could always say there are no
> electrons or there is no God because our conceptions of all
> of these are inadequate and will always remain so.
> Hence, the extension of our connotations is empty.
> In this sense, reality approaches some form of idealism,
> in which reality is ideas.
> I am reminded of Hilary Putnam's comment regarding any form
> of metaphysical realism, wherein we could know no such
> reality since we are only familiar with our ideas.
>
> On the other hand, we must all find this position, not only
> disturbing, but somehow fundamentally wrong. Nonetheless,
> it opens up the Pandora's box of asking who discovered the
> electron, or whether it was ever discovered.
>
> Somehow ontology must precede comprehension. The particular
> and unfamiliar must come first, or at least be first. This
> must be true whether we speak of God or electrons. That He is
> precedes in importance and knowledge our conceptions and
> understanding.
>
> Such a notion may run up against any Heideggerian notion of
> a world, wherein we dwell in and are only in the familiar,
> what is already there. And yet he argues for a place where
> the individual (in angst and dread) finds something of himself
> that is outside the already existent and familiar. In this
> sense the particular, the truly individual and unique is empty
> and terrifying (consider for example Sartre's nausea).
> Nonetheless, it is a place where "we" can be. Indeed, it is
> likely close to the terrifying place that Kierkegaard approaches
> in the absurd: a God beyond our reason and ken, no more, destroying
> reason and sense.
>
> Such is "reality," a reality that we cannot hold or conceive, but only
> stand in silent awe and fear in, chaos. A world perhaps not much
> different from that which Bohr believed confronted us in the world
> of quantums. Still a world that, nonetheless, we do not deny because
> we cannot hold.
>
> Your suggestion that ultimate "matter" is energy solves fewer problems
> for me than it presents. I cannot conceive of an unsubstantial
> energy. In another era we would have called this immaterial and not
> been embarrassed about it. In any case, we are told that there is a
> quantum of energy, and equally inconceivable entity, as a quantum of
> matter.
>
> Finally, your suggestion that certain mathematical limits might be
> finite although prima facie infinite or undefined does not help,
> since in such cases I can understand why the limit is finite in
> some instances and infinite in others. We can even produce pictures
> to understand it.
>
> No, the great mystery to me is that we can believe anything is true,
> and we do, and are persuaded that we do. The mystery lies naked in
> the particular, not in the universal, despite the gallons of ink
> spent on the latter.
>
> bill
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:46:32 -0500, mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:
> > Quoting Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>:
> >
> >
> >> One last question. It has often been argued that X cannot exist because
> > its
> >> very existence is incoherent. Such arguments are employed against God's
> >> existence from the problem of evil or omnipotence. The presumption is
> > that
> >> anything logically contradictory is not possible. We must either
> > conclude,
> >> we
> >> are told, that X does not exist or that our conceptions of X are
> > seriously
> >> flawed.
> >>
> >> If our notions of atoms are incoherent, does that mean they don't exist?
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >
> > It could well mean that the thing we imagine or visualize as our model for
> > the
> > atom does not exist. I recently discovered a children's book about Mars
> > that
> > had been written in the fifties. One could say that "technically" the
> > Mars
> > described in the book didn't exist since their conception didn't yet have
> > information such as actual pictures and data from the surface. Yet even
> > now,
> > the Mars we imagine is still not the "real" Mars though we would hope it
> > is
> > quite a bit closer.
> >
> > Bohr's solar system atom may have been closer to the truth than the "plum
> > pudding" model that preceded it, but it is probably not as close as the
> > quantum
> > model now taught. And our visualization of protons may now have to
> > include the
> > two up-quarks and one down-quark. Who knows how a quark may be visualized
> > if we
> > could really examine one. Maybe your particle X isn't matter, but is just
> > pure
> > energy? That would be one solution to the otherwise proposed infinite
> > regression.
> >
> > B.T.W. in mathematics, infinity times zero is one of those
> > context-sensitive
> > quantities that in general is undefined, but in certain problems can have
> > finite
> > and computable answers. So an infinite number of infinitesimals could
> > give you
> > zero, or infinity, or and answer like 2.6 depending on which got smaller
> > or
> > bigger faster.
> >
> > --Merv
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 7 14:00:31 2009