[FRIAM] Analytic Idealism
David Eric Smith
desmith at santafe.edu
Tue Mar 22 21:15:08 EDT 2022
Dave —
I’m not sure I understand qualitative and quantitative as a partition, or as a pair of alternative predicates, though of course I recognize the usage of setting one against the other. This is probably because I don’t understand “qualitative” as a category. (Given that I don’t understand Brouwer’s intuitionism beyond the small feature of its requirement for constructions, I probably don’t understand “quantitative” as a category either.)
A place this comes up for me is when I try to teach dimensional analysis to beginning physics students (or sometimes to liberal arts students).
Very little of what we do involves “pure numbers” (and even those often include more; but I’ll come back to that). In all of dimensional analysis, a number has to be paired with a dimension. So I have to explain to my students what “a dimension” is. Since I have told them that we are going to require operational definitions, I have to tell them somehow operationally, and not just say “you know it when you see it”.
What I come up with is that each dimension corresponds to a recipe for a set of _acts_ one can carry out, and the concept of a dimension refers to certain substitutabilities in those acts. So if I say a ruler has length, by that I mean that I can put two objects on a tabletop abutting the two ends of the ruler. Saying that length “is a dimension” is saying that I can take away the rule and put bananas, or king’s feet, end to end and perform the same operation of holding two things apart. A different recipe goes with swinging objects around in a bucket to measure mass, or dunking them in water to measure volume, etc. (Anecdote from Lucy Jacobs, squirrel-woman supreme: During the harvest season, when squirrels pick up acorns, they shake them vigorously a time or two in their teeth, before choosing to keep or to toss. We are pretty sure they want to know which ones have a lot of nut-meat and moisture. Even squirrels understand what mass is, and that it is not identical to weight.)
One has to go a little further than just the recipe for substitution to say that something “is a dimension”; the operation also has to admit subdivision. So in place of one meterstick, I must be allowed to substitute three and 1/3rd kings’ feet, so I am saying that stringing the feet end to end, and so separating them, is an operation _of the same kind_ as using the string of feet or the meterstick to separate to objects on the table. It is in subdivisibility without changing the nature of the operation that I bring in quantity.
To the extent that one program of activity can’t be substituted for another, the dimensions have distinctness. Swinging buckets can’t be used as a surrogate for lining up kings’ feet, or dunking objects in water.
It is conventional, in physics, to see three dimensions (mass, length, time) as “the” dimensions upon which dimensional analysis is built, and to call other things counted “pure numbers”. However, there are many places where I have reason not to leave it at that. Counts of atoms need to be partitioned, sometimes, among which elements they are, and I can use those partition labels as dimensions. Often, in economics, I want to treat goods-types, and also monies, credit denominations, or near-monies, as having dimensions. If I do so, I can do many of the same things done with dimensional analysis in physics with them. The question of what “a dimension” “is” therefore seems to me not to be closed with a memorization of three cases.
So are dimensions “qualities”? To the extent that we perceive them as somehow different in kind, I would assume it is because our nature has become shaped around the different kinds of things one can do, or can witness happening in the world, but I can’t defend that belief with a validated origin story.
The above, for me, are not meant to be exemplars of all notions of “qualitative”, but only some entry-point to whether there is a category, from places where I know how to speak carefully.
My above question, about what relation the “qualitative” aspects of some experience or program have to the quantitative, is about testing whether you can say what you mean. A quite different invocation of the quantitative has always been about being able to hold people to account for whether what they are claiming could ever be said to have “truth-value”, and of what kind? To say “I checked that the rod is 1m long, and you can check it too” has a kind of intersubjective easy fungibility that “I know that God loves me” does not (at least to me) have.
I am _sure_ that wherever the discussion is, it wasn’t meant to be where I cast it above. But I don’t know how one would check whether my certainty is right.
Eric
> On Mar 23, 2022, at 6:31 AM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> "Back in the seventeenth century, when science as we know it today took its first steps, scientists based their entire work on—what else?—perceptual experience: the things and phenomena they could see, touch, smell, taste or hear around them. That starting point, is course, qualitative in nature.
>
> Soon, however, scientists realized that it is very convenient to describe the eminently qualitative world by means of quantities.
>
> But then something bizarre happened: many scientists seemingly forgot where it all started and began attributing fundamental reality only to the quantities.
>
> This, in a nutshell, is the beginning of metaphysical materialism, a philosophy that—absurdly—grants fundamental reality to mere descriptions, while denying the reality of that which is described. ... we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map.
>
> And so now we face the so-called 'hard problem of consciousness': the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities.
>
> In the space of a couple of centuries, we tied ourselves up in hopelessly abstract conceptual knots and managed to lose touch with reality altogether.
>
> Laboratory results in quantum mechanics, for instance, strongly indicate that there is no autonomous material world of tables and chairs out there. Coupled with the inability of materialist neuroscience to explain experience, this is forcing us to reexamine our earlier assumptions and contemplate alternatives. Analytic idealism—the notion that reality, while equally amenable to scientific inquiry, is fundamentally qualitiative–is a leading contender to replace metaphysical materialism."
>
> The preceding was from Science Ideated by Bernado Klastrup.
>
> Factoid: when "perceiving alternate realities," e.g., while on LSD, brain activity decreases when material neuroscience predicts an increase.
>
> "Attention is not just receptive, but actively creative of the world we inhabit. How we attend makes all the difference to the world we experience.
> Forget everything you thought you knew about the difference between the hemispheres, because it will be largely wrong. It is not what each hemisphere does – they are both involved in everything – but how it does it, that matters. And the prime difference between the brain hemispheres is the manner in which they attend. For reasons of survival we need one hemisphere (in humans and many animals, the left) to pay narrow attention to detail, to grab hold of things we need, while the other, the right, keeps an eye out for everything else. The result is that one hemisphere is good at utilising the world, the other better at understanding it.
>
> Absent, present, detached, engaged, alienated, empathic, broad or narrow, sustained or piecemeal, attention has the power to alter whatever it meets. The play of attention can both create and destroy, but it never leaves its object unchanged. How you attend to something – or don’t attend to it – matters a very great deal."
>
> Preceding from Iain McGilchrist's Ways of Attending. I am a big fan of McGilchrist and his book The Master and his Emissary and, I expect, the just ordered two volume, The Matter with Things.
>
> Just throwing some things to see if they stick against anyone's walls and prompts some conversation.
>
> Also, big fan of The Dawn of Everything mentioned on the list in the last couple of days. I think it has some valuable information and insights that would inform a lot of conversations on this list with regard sociopolitical organization and means of effecting change.
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,BO3GjgiOQpr9jc-DKB2ytk2PXtRff2d7-lfcD3_3omC-DfmdHXy1CBri7-wROFCboGyR8uZDRkRnBVc9Jy1KZDxyPx5FEWMNUZ9eFsA4ig,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,BO3GjgiOQpr9jc-DKB2ytk2PXtRff2d7-lfcD3_3omC-DfmdHXy1CBri7-wROFCboGyR8uZDRkRnBVc9Jy1KZDxyPx5FEWMNUZ9eFsA4ig,,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,QMjr1_rSD__blAVoV_m8-MqrNn3y69C7SbWt3u-tRPD3GrAOMCOWHkNAx8lqjvP2prBSccJzBZKEJRYMcY7lwyKiPUud3qFCjrxJM21EwLwcI5ccwZoOHw,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,QMjr1_rSD__blAVoV_m8-MqrNn3y69C7SbWt3u-tRPD3GrAOMCOWHkNAx8lqjvP2prBSccJzBZKEJRYMcY7lwyKiPUud3qFCjrxJM21EwLwcI5ccwZoOHw,,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,H7TYZVfKx0XGLacLqBvOUw0JhqwFFVa9Q0OhWBWaOOTP9F6jLb4H-HY51_wL_INoR3K3be8e0IzI02LsmQdRhF-aVKZat2LFNlxBLI5J8j0LseSwzf1uC_g,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,H7TYZVfKx0XGLacLqBvOUw0JhqwFFVa9Q0OhWBWaOOTP9F6jLb4H-HY51_wL_INoR3K3be8e0IzI02LsmQdRhF-aVKZat2LFNlxBLI5J8j0LseSwzf1uC_g,&typo=1>
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,PbdF05LlEqUwOn-H0cUuXvnH6BVJY0J9RMGTlaebHbA2SBIkm1G8lv2SPtTFliMypJpY-r3kIHHV1Rkiqn5-fje-JrCOhu-OBp9e8_d1xSnWn0HU6w,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,PbdF05LlEqUwOn-H0cUuXvnH6BVJY0J9RMGTlaebHbA2SBIkm1G8lv2SPtTFliMypJpY-r3kIHHV1Rkiqn5-fje-JrCOhu-OBp9e8_d1xSnWn0HU6w,,&typo=1>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220323/1f6df0a1/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list