The aftermath: Theme 1
So, 400 words of the things I’ve learned for the past week. Where to begin? We had our seminar today, Tuesday, and it was quite interesting. I found that we touched on several pretty important topics that probably we all should have been introduced to earlier in our studies: what is knowledge, what is truth and how should we behave towards our own understanding of reality.
So, 400 words of the things I’ve learned for the past week. Where to begin? We had our seminar today, Tuesday, and it was quite interesting. I found that we touched on several pretty important topics that probably we all should have been introduced to earlier in our studies: what is knowledge, what is truth and how should we behave towards our own understanding of reality.
My wife
always quotes from Einstein, “Whoever
undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked
by the laughter of the Gods” when I get over my head with something that
she feels I do not have any knowledge of (and of course I do understand that I
need to be humbled by it nowadays she only have to say, “I say what Einstein says” and discussion
ends). But it’s hard. Indeed it’s hard.
I’ve
studied some philosophy so a lot of this introduction or Theme 1 was already known (haha) to me, but I felt it was a good review
and a good crash-course on the subject of epistemology
– which is a pretty heavy subject to talk and think about. I do like the study
of morals better than epistemology but I would like to think that they actually
intertwine or are connected when they ask the big questions i.e.: what is
truth?
I should
probably try to connect this to this course and what it’s about (or really what
I want to make of it) and I think that I start to like it – the course – a bit
more than from when I started it out. At first I wasn’t quite sure what to do with
this course but now I see that it has it’s share of points – I will admit I was
blind. But I do like this reflective approach, and this discussion with myself
in this blog, and hopefully I will gain something resembling knowledge through
it. It’s a good concept so kudos to the teachers.
I also
believe the book by Russell was a good introduction to how we should interpret research
of the scientific approach on a more philosophical ground. That not saying that
I completely agree with the thoughts of Russell or that I really see the
scientific approach as the best solution to everything – some things you cannot
measure – but it’s a great introduction to human thinking and the concept of
the free thought.
Word count: 411
Your reflections are quite interesting, but I disagree only mainly two parts:
SvaraRadera1) Theme 1 being "a good crash-course on the subject of epistemology"
and
2) "some things you cannot measure"
I disagree with the first point simply because I feel like we didn't really have much time to learn the subject of epistemology. Only having a few days to try to understand such a debatable subject is too little. Sure, we may come back to it further into the course, but not in such depth, that I believe, is needed to really understand the area of the problem. Generally, I think philosophy is interesting and something there should be more of in all different kinds of higher education.
2) I don't know on what ground you say this, but I'll share my view on it anyway. I believe you actually can measure everything; it's just that we don't have the tools or the capacity to do so now or ever will. Now you may ask, how is that? Well, too keep it short and not to get lost in semantics, let's say that atoms are the smallest units we can observe. And as we've been taught, they move in probability patterns. Therefore, if we have enough computing power, we should be able to predict everything, no? So even things like emotions, which usually isn't quantifiable, could be predicted, if the assumption made is correct. However, it would require such massive computing power to predict the everything, that we might as well say that we cannot measure some things.
My reasoning regarding 2) may/is not (be) on a higher level; and frankly quite a lack luster; maybe not even dignifying an answer, but I have the belief that you discuss such things in more advanced philosophy.
Well I wan't to dispute your second disagreement with the fact that we today have an understanding - through quantum mechanics - that the phenomena of light is in fact random. I have understood that when trying to build the mathematical concept of light researchers fail because of lights inheritance of randomness.
RaderaThis is from wikipedia: "Instead, modern physics sees light as something that can be described sometimes with mathematics appropriate to one type of macroscopic metaphor (particles), and sometimes another macroscopic metaphor (water waves), but is actually something that cannot be fully imagined. "
You say: "I believe you actually can measure everything; it's just that we don't have the tools or the capacity to do so now or ever will.
The problem lies within the phenomenology of light: Iight is like the concept of God. We can't today understand the phenomena behind it, and therefor we can't measure it because it seems to belong in a diffrent realm (i.e God standing outside the creation not being a part of it). But we can use it within our own limitations and we can interpret it in our own reality. That's why I'm saying "somethings you cannot measure", because of the limits of the human mind to fully grasp reality. And it would be rather foolish to suggest that we can actually create a computer that could in fact calculate everything when it's invented by a limited mind. Bertrand Russell says we should not bother with with this kind of understanding because we cannot grasp it or because it belongs to metaphysics, and yes you can't explain metaphysics you can only reason about it, therefor you can't measure it either.
I also dispute your first argument with the fact that a crash-course is just a mere introduction, and a mere introduction to epistemology is in fact the statement of "there is no such thing as knowledge". It should alas only provoke intrest to actually dig deeper in the subject.
But I may be wrong, and you may be right but as the hitchhiker guide tell us:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened”.
;-)
Thanks for taking time and answering my question, and sorry for not replying sooner. I thought I would get an automated mail from blogger since that's what happens when I get comments on my own blog.
RaderaAnyway, in hindsight, I feel my argumentation was really weak, as you really demonstrate by crushing it ;). An argument in line with what you said ,(but don't quote me on this one) is that mathematicians have "proved" that we'll never be able to understand everything, due to limitations of math. I don't know where I've read it, but maybe in relation to quantum mechanics. So maybe the same argument but different worded.
On the first point we'll have to agree to disagree; the introduction haven't (yet) sparked any kind of interest for me in the field of epistemology. Your point may be true, but I really feel that where too little time to begin to grasp the concepts.
In closing, I would also like to quote from the hitchhiker:
"There's all sort of stuff going on in dimensions thirteen to twenty-two that you really wouldn't want to know about. All you really need to know for the moment is that the universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking it's pretty damn complicated in the first place"
Once again, thanks for replying!
Well I wan't to dispute your second disagreement with the fact that we today have an understanding - through quantum mechanics - that the phenomena of light is in fact random. I have understood that when trying to build the mathematical concept of light researchers fail because of lights inheritance of randomness.
SvaraRaderaThis is from wikipedia: "Instead, modern physics sees light as something that can be described sometimes with mathematics appropriate to one type of macroscopic metaphor (particles), and sometimes another macroscopic metaphor (water waves), but is actually something that cannot be fully imagined. "
You say: "I believe you actually can measure everything; it's just that we don't have the tools or the capacity to do so now or ever will.
The problem lies within the phenomenology of light: Iight is like the concept of God. We can't today understand the phenomena behind it, and therefor we can't measure it because it seems to belong in a diffrent realm (i.e God standing outside the creation not being a part of it). But we can use it within our own limitations and we can interpret it in our own reality. That's why I'm saying "somethings you cannot measure", because of the limits of the human mind to fully grasp reality. And it would be rather foolish to suggest that we can actually create a computer that could in fact calculate everything when it's invented by a limited mind. Bertrand Russell says we should not bother with with this kind of understanding because we cannot grasp it or because it belongs to metaphysics, and yes you can't explain metaphysics you can only reason about it, therefor you can't measure it either.
I also dispute your first argument with the fact that a crash-course is just a mere introduction, and a mere introduction to epistemology is in fact the statement of "there is no such thing as knowledge". It should alas only provoke intrest to actually dig deeper in the subject.
;-)
But I may be wrong, and you may be right but as the hitchhiker guide tell us:
SvaraRadera“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened”.
Maybe I did it wrong?
Radera