Why do I say that quality, viewed as distinctly non-mathematical could be an illusion?
Take color for starters; for simplicity I'll stick to red, blue, and green, the primary colors. These three colors appear different from each other but the difference boils down to mathematics: red has a wavelength of 650 nm, green had a wavelength of 550 nm, and blue has a wavelength of 450 nm. Simply put, the unique colors we perceive as red, blue, green are nothing more than numerical variations in wavelength.
Next, consider beauty. Beauty, as per the received view, is also a quality. There's the symmetry theory of beauty that states that faces we find beautiful are those that have good reflection symmetry and that's another quality that ultimately about geometry.
One question:
1. Can everything be reduced to mathematics? Is quality an illusion? — TheMadFool
Ever encountered Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by any chance? This question is at the centre of that book. — Wayfarer
In his book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig examines concepts of quality in classical and romantic, seeking a Metaphysics of Quality and a reconciliation of those views in terms of non-dualistic holism. — Wikipedia
Quantity directly relates to mass, Quality relates to the components that make up a mass. — Peter Paapaa
There is, obviously, such a thing as quality. Why deny the obvious? But to my mind, the qualitative has always been a matter of judgement. A subjective factor that relates to the purposes I intend for the object.
For example; there are two loaves of bread in my fridge. One is stale and the other is fresh. Which is the better quality? If I want to make a sandwich - the fresh bread is better quality. But if I want to make bread and butter pudding, the stale bread is better. (And it really is - stale bread will retain its structure, whereas fresh bread turns to mush.)
The quality of the object is not inherent to the object, but to the suitability of the object for my purposes - and is therefore, a matter of judgement. It's like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a terrible book, but just the right thickness to level my bookshelf. In that regard, it's the best book I've got. — counterpunch
To construct an item with structural integrity, an engineer must first consider a material’s mechanical properties, such as toughness, strength, weight, hardness, and elasticity, and then determine the size and shape necessary for the material to withstand the desired load for a long life — Wikipedia
Reality consists of relations and non-relations. Quantity is a type of relation and quality might refer to non-relations. Ontic structural realism says that there are only relations - relations between relations between relations etc. I think it's ok for there to be relations between relations but relations would be undefined if they were ultimately not grounded in non-relations. Relations and non-relations are inseparable, so it's no wonder that a quality like color is related to a relation like the wavelength of electromagnetic waves. — litewave
I think that quality is a concept which extends into all areas not just maths. However, I think that it goes beyond beauty. This can be superficial and quality is about depth as well. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is if someone wrote a philosophy book, written in the most exquisite language but lacking in sufficient knowledge would it have quality? Certainly,I would see it as rather lacking.
Obviously, the idea of quality has some kind of subjective criteria. For instance, certain literature is viewed as literary fiction. I know many people who find this fiction rather pretentious. I have mixed feelings and read some of this but can see that it is not necessarily of better quality than some fiction which is not ranked as literary fiction. So, I would say that the whole idea of quality is about certain standards, which are socially constructed. — Jack Cummins
Fiction can't be translated easily into shapes. I know that it written in alphabetical shapes but it would be absurd to try to quantify it in this way. It involves stepping into the mythical perspective and this involves specific meaning for different individuals. Individuals are likely to approach it differently according to their personal experiences. I don't think that it would be possible to quantify the whole realm of storytelling at all — Jack Cummins
Name a quality that can't be/hasn't been viewed as a relation. Nothing springs to mind. — TheMadFool
I'm approaching the matter from the position that once a relation is in place, quantity automatically enters the picture — TheMadFool
Red color. How is it a relation? Surely it is related to electromagnetic wavelength of about 650 nm. But what is red about number 650 itself? Or about a wave function? — litewave
Quantity is a relation, it means how many things there are. Or if you meant to say "once a relation is in place, quality automatically enters the picture", I agree. There can be no relations without non-relations (qualities) and there can be no non-relations (qualities) without relations. — litewave
But fiction isn't just about objects. It's about people and their psychological truths. To just view the people as objects would be a very flat level of understanding the whole scope and meaning of literature. Even if you think of the romantic relationships it would be a mistake to think that this is just about beautiful bodies, because so much is about the emotions. — Jack Cummins
I am certainly not suggesting that you think that people should be treated as objects. From what you have written in your many posts it would not make sense.
However, I do feel that you are dismissive the whole aspect of psychological truths in fiction. Just because people in fiction have bodies doesn't mean that fiction can be understood in that way. What I think you are doing is applying the philosophy of reductive determinism to fiction and literature, and this misses the whole purpose of most novels. — Jack Cummins
The key concept (non-dualistic holism) in Pirsig's book has been underlined for your convenience. Take the dualistic notion that lies at the very foundation of all life, to wit hot vs cold: it's said that life found a home on this watery-rocky planet we call earth for the simple reason that it's neither too hot nor too cold thus allowing life-giving and life-sustaining liquid water to exist.
Take a closer look at what hot and cold are. From a dualistic point of view, they're distinct from each other - opposites, yin and yang as it were - but physics (science), the paradigmatic case of the mathematization of the universe, unites these two dualistically distinct qualities under one banner viz. temperature. What our ancient forefathers thought were two separate qualities (hot vs cold) turns out to be simply variations in one same quantity (temperature).
Given the above, it would seem that Pirsig would've made a convincing case for non-dualistic holism had he resorted to mathematics i.e. he should've chosen quantity over quality to make his case. — TheMadFool
Do you have any good reasons to come to the conclusion that subjectivity somehow isn't quantifiable? — TheMadFool
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. — The Buddha
The subject - the mind that makes judgements, that names things and categorises things - is never itself the object of analysis — Wayfarer
for the obvious reason that it’s not ‘an object’ at all. — Wayfarer
In any case, in the non-dualist framework, the apparent divisions referred to above no longer hold sway; the world is no longer divided up that way. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.