Sklar on Newton's Force

Here is an excellent quote I found in the library last week:

From Philosophy and the Foundations of Dynamics by Lawrence Sklar (2013)

For Cartesians Newton’s force is, of course, a terrible Aristotelian throwback. It is an “occult quality” that objects possess in and of their nature. For example, all objects, merely by virtue of having their inertial mass, also have what would now be called “active gravitational charge.” They possess the property of affecting the motion of other objects by exerting a gravitational force upon them. (p. 93)

The invocation of the notion of force in the Newtonian sense immediately leads to controversy over what such an element of the world ought to be taken to be. Is force some primitive quality of things? How do we grasp its nature in the world? What is the status of the term used to refer to? Here we see the continuation of a long-ongoing puzzle about fundamental theories. How do we interpret those concepts of the theory that are introduced in its explanatory apparatus in a manner that is internal to the theory, not imported into it from pre-existing language. The concepts relating to the position of things and their variation in time seemed to most of the physicists to be unexceptionable – at least until their “absoluteness” is claimed! But how do we grasp the meaning of “force” as used in Newtonian dynamics, where it has ceased to be merely some measure of a quantity of motion? (p. 115)

The question Sklar poses at the end has never really been answered, at least not in mainstream established physics. In physics force is a verb meaning push or pull. So we always have to ask ourselves what physical entity is doing the pushing or the pulling? What is mediating the push and pull between atoms? We can describe push or pull in an infinite number of ways and this is obvious with all the descriptive forces coming out of the physicists since Newton, e.g. nuclear force, Lorentz force, Van Der Waals force, etc. But we always come back to the fundamental question: WHAT is doing the pushing or the pulling in between. What object is mediating gravitational force between atoms? Electromagnetic force??? Without a hypothesized object doing the pushing or the pulling it is impossible to explain force.  And so the forces are fittingly described as occult, and so can particle physics, quantum mechanics, physical cosmology, relativity, etc. be described as occult.  They do not understand what they are describing.
   

Supplements to the Ontology Article (Object--Concept)

I have researched and found what I think are some valuable add-on notes to the Ontology article I wrote a few weeks ago (and have continued to add on and edit):

Ontology: Object, Form, First Form, Existence, Concept, Referrent

The first is a brief note on Gottlob Frege.

From Philosophy of Language and Logical Theory by Khatchadourian (p.309-11)

A concept-word, according to Frege, is predicative; it is a possible grammatical predicate of a range of otherwise different sentences. To predicate a concept-word of a grammatical subject is to relate a concept to a logical subject, i.e. to an object. Another way of saying this is that to predicate a concept of an object is to state that the object falls under the concept. The predicative character of concepts is what Frege calls “incompleteness” of concepts. In terms of this the difference between a concept and an object is that an object falls under a concept but that the converse is impossible. “An equation is reversible; an object’s falling under a concept is irreversible” (p. 44) [note that Frege never figured out why: objects have form, concepts lack form; they are relations between two or more objects worked out in thought]. It seems to follow from this that “completing” a concept can be regarded as stating that a given object falls or does not fall under the concept. We “complete” ‘() conquered Gaul’ by ‘Julius Caesar’, when we state that Julius Caesar falls under the concept conquered Gaul, i.e. when we make the statement ‘Julius Caesar conquered Gaul’.

Concepts are attributes. Hence what we have said about the “incompleteness” of concepts, put in terms of this notion, is that attributes are “incomplete” in isolation from objects. Another way of saying this is that attributes, in order to be attributes at all, have to be attributes of objects. An attribute is “completed” when it is related to an object, is thought of as attributed to the object [objects precede concepts]. Relations [also concepts], which are in a similar position, are functions with two arguments, i.e. are doubly “incomplete”, and so require two objects to be “completed”. Speaking about concepts Frege says:

It is clear that a concept cannot be represented independently as an object can but that it can occur only in combination. One can say that a concept can be distinguished out of it. All apparent contradictions which one can come upon here result from treating a concept as an object, contrary to its incomplete nature. (Uber die Grundlagen der Geometrie)

Black says that this suggests that Frege’s contention that functions (and so concepts) are “incomplete” is that “it is logically impossible to make a function the subject of an assertion” (p. 246).

Concepts are a relation of two or more objects.  Frege took a sort of negative approach and never completely solved the problem, see my article above.  Gaede on the other hand came up with a perfect definition of 'object' and built an entire philosophy and physics off of this insight. 

The second add-on is a very valuable set of quotes taken from Thought and Language by Vygotskii, considered to be a landmark in cognitive science.  I found it most interesting and will post the notes in the next blog because of length.

Concept Formation in Children by Vygotskii  

I cannot stress enough how important it is to discern between objects and concepts in discourse.  This simple practice has so many implications for philosophy, physics, and even theology and Sacred Scripture interpretation.  

The god words

". . . we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16)

I call the names that refer to these poorly understood and undefined ideas:

god words

Here are some examples of god words:

Space
Time
Energy
Consciousness
Force
Field
Particle
Universe
Mind
Wavefunction
Quantum State
Absolute
Infinite
Big-Bang
Cause

Evolution
Mass
. . .
there are more


Words hold a sort of power, so to speak.  And Nietchze was right. Words can be seductive.  And this has nothing to do with the words, and everything to do with us.  If I see anyone using these names listed above without a clear, consistent, crisp, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition I get suspicious.  And you should too.  I am at the point now where I think we no longer need the idea space.  Space is no longer a word concept, it is a European god that doesn't exist, like Zeus.

Just think of a word such as consciousness.  They say that this word is undefinable.  So much time and money have been spent in service to this word alone.  So much language has been spit out in service to this 'god' word.  It is staggering and astonishing how people are in awe of such a petty word that wasn't even used as today until Locke came along and gave an irrational definition of it. Some few lost souls today think that this concept, consciousness, is a fundamental property of Universe, another concept.  What stupendous folly!  And they are sincere in this belief.

god words

They are undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized and ultimately WORSHIPED.

We live in an age when concepts are worshiped.  This is called figurative idolatry.  

Critical Thinking and Rational Analysis Tools

I've got nothing new today, but I've been harping about critical thinking and rational analysis in my past few articles. Here is a list of conceptual tools that you can begin learning and applying this very moment. Its not difficult, it just takes a little discipline. Everyone needs these tools to help parse through and destroy all the endless b.s. on the internet:

* unambiguously define all key terms in your argument so that they can be used consistently in your dissertation. The term is limited and restricted for crisp, clear and consistent use throughout presentation. Adjectives are used to qualify nouns and adverbs to qualify verbs. This avoids the Fallacy of Equivocation. A does not equal A.

* avoid contradictions; avoid Law of Identity, A is A, is contradictory

* learn to identify and associate synonyms not only in definitions but while parsing discourse.

* continually ask yourself the question "who cares?" to avoid irrelevant issues

* avoid Authority Arguments, i.e. do not appeal to authority

* identify prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

* avoid the Fallacy of Reification: explain why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts.

* skillfully raise relevant questions so as to creatively solve problems.

* When parsing sentences resolve the ontological context of the referent. Which of the two fundamental categories does a word fall into: 1. object or 2. concept? If the referent has shape it is an object. If not it is a concept.

* avoid confusing nouns of syntax with nouns of reality. (Ordinary speech vs. Scientific language).

* do not perform verbs on concepts; do not use concepts to perform verbs

* kill the observer (an expression to be taken in context. It means make observer independent assumptions or be objective)

* avoid limiting your conceptual realm of reasoning by NOT using tautological systems (such as math and logic) that confine your premises by locking them into axioms and cripple your mind. Tautological systems such as math and logic are artificial, and only solve derivational type problems. Mother Nature could care less about formal logic, mathematics and physical laws coming out of Mankind.

* Provide an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.

*Objects and explanations must be conceivable.

* Rational explanations should be able to be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

* DO NOT convert hypothesis and theory into a facts of the Universal Movie

* Intellectual honesty in a debate requires that you directly quote the statements that you are addressing in your arguments. (do not misrepresent another's position)

* avoid premises and assumptions derived from analogy. Do not infer from analogue assumptions. Rather use analogy to illustrate rational premises and assumptions.

* be critical about your own attempts at criticism. Refutations are rarely final, and more often a prelude to further refinements.

* recognize that assumptions and explanations stand or fall on their own merit.

* marshal sufficient data, observations and evidence for brainstorming before committing to hypothesis, theory and conclusion.

* discard irrational hypotheses and theories

* adapt oneself to reality

* Dispositions: realize human irrationale and error. Have an open-minded outlook. Refuse to think that your desires shape Mother Nature (God and Mother Nature doesn't care about your desires). Be tentative.

* resist the notion that some authority, a great philosopher or physicist has captured the whole truth.

* be willing and able to follow an explanation to the only conclusion to be had---possible, or not possible.

* think for oneself

* be detached emotionally

* avoid ad hoc hypothesis fallacy: do not add hypothesis to a theory in order to save it from being discarded

* avoid Rationalization: do not make excuses or bellyache

* use adjectives (static concepts) to describe nouns of reality.  Adverbs (dynamic concepts) describe verbs (dynamic concepts) performed by nouns of reality.  Physics is a study of nouns, adjectives and verbs.  Math is a study of adverbs.

* apply Occam's Razor: 'shave away' unnecessary assumptions. The Medieval saying is "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

* Identify and associate the fact vs. statement of fact dichotomy:

Fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

Assumption, statement of the facts, scientific fact: A subjective statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation. (synonyms: an opinion, a lie)

* Physics is the study of causes and objects.  Philosophy is the study of reasons and concepts.

I also have previous blog posts on Cognitive Biases and Informal Fallacies.  

Quote of the Day: What is the Underlying Ontology of a Concept

Today I am debating with my friends about the concept of self-awareness. I will briefly blog my theory tonight. But in the meantime here is what I consider to be among the most useful sequences of philosophy I have ever read from The Ontology of Language: What is a Concept:

WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING ONTOLOGY OF A CONCEPT? 

Naturally, the critical reader will ask: What objects are responsible in mediating the relation of the lexical concept “concept” or of any other lexical concept in and of itself?
Since any lexical concept, like “concept”, is indeed a concept in and of itself, then it is a relation between objects. This whole abstraction of the underlying inter-related objects is what we collectively refer to as a CONCEPT. The concept is the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) of the word unto itself. We say that such words fall into the category of ‘concepts’ as opposed to ‘objects’. 

The objects that a lexical concept relates are what mediates the brain activity which we usually call THOUGHT. Specifically, the concept (i.e. mental thought) of any word ontologically relates the neurons in our brains and the mediation of signals between them. It is this synchronous motion of neurons (and ultimately atoms) which mediate this phenomenon or state in our brain that we call concept, idea, thought, etc. Since our definition of concept was rational and unambiguous, we were able to use it consistently onto itself without ambiguities or contradictions.