But the point is, quantification allows for precise measurement, whereas the qualitative is only ever a matter of aesthetics and ethics. This is also the origin of the ‘is-ought’ problem. However, as you say, quantification is itself an idealisation, we could never describe everything in those terms. What was that saying of Einstein’s? ‘ It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.’ — Wayfarer
what can't be described scientifically can't be described, — Enrique
But the point is, quantification allows for precise measurement, whereas the qualitative is only ever a matter of aesthetics and ethics. — Wayfarer
Positivism, overt or covert, is the default view of a lot of people. Many of them don’t understand what it is, so there’s not much use criticising it when you have to explain what it is your criticising first. It’s like explaining a joke. — Wayfarer
Isn’t quantification simply an act of measurement itself? — Joshs
Is Einstein trying to get in contact with his touchy-feely arational side? — Enrique
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind. — Einstein
When European culture cast off its religion, what was left was a sense of the immensity of the Universe, devoid of anything resembling intent or intelligence, within which life arose as a result of the fortuitous combination of atoms. — Wayfarer
Strangely enough, even the Darwinian idea of living complexity and human knowing as a self -ordered stream of fortuitous events is in its way a more intimate view of being human than the ahistorical religious view. — Joshs
what is quality? Again, for me, quality is those characteristics of an object that allegedly can't be mathematized i.e. qualities can neither be geometrized nor can be hose things butranslated into numbers. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
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 is about geometry. — TheMadFool
Can everything be reduced to mathematics? — TheMadFool
Is quality an illusion? — TheMadFool
The philosophical problem with Darwinism - and this has nothing to do with its veracity as a scientific theory - is that there can only ever be one ultimate in it. And that ultimate is survival. It’s the only meaningful criterion in Darwinism qua philosophy. As soon as you begin to question the meaning of surviving - which is something that only h. sapiens can do - then you’re out of the scope of Darwinism, per se — Wayfarer
I'm a latecomer to this thread, and I haven't read all the other posts. But your question is pertinent to my personal worldview : Enformationism, which assumes that everything in the world is a form of Generic Information, including mathematics, matter, & mind. In that case, "Quanta" are material things that we evaluate in terms of mathematical qualities (values), such as Mass. However, what we call "Qualia" are the mental/mathematical evaluations themselves, which we experience as ineffable Feelings.Why do I say that quality, viewed as distinctly non-mathematical could be an illusion? — TheMadFool
it’s only fair to look at Darwin in a larger philosophical context — Joshs
When expressed in language, we refer to those values as "Meaning". And, for the observer, meaning is relevance to Self. It's a relationship (in mathematical terms, a Ratio), which we basically Feel emotionally (chemically), but eventually rationalize into words (meta-physically). Which is what we call "Reasoning". — Gnomon
I think you’re missing the point, but given that it’s a very difficult point, no blame. — Wayfarer
Dualism proper is, as I understand, about opposites and is definitely not, in my humble opinion, about perspective which the esteemed Pirsig takes great pains to unpack in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance. — TheMadFool
Would you call a student's perspective as contrasted with a cop's an example of dualism? No, they're simple different ways of looking at an issue and are most certainly not what we would consider an instance of dualism for a students and cops aren't opposites. — TheMadFool
That leaves us with only the completely made-up elements in fiction. Interestingly, we come to the realization that fictional things are simply uninstantiated combinations of real objects e.g. a unicorn (imaginary) is a horse (exists and quantifiable) and a horn (exists and also quantifiable) and ergo, by extension, unicorns are quantifiable — TheMadFool
This is what seemed to trouble Einstein so much about quantum physics: the need to write ourselves back into the scientific picture in order to make sense of the world. To recognise that the potentiality of human self-consciousness is the qualitative structure necessary for science to even make sense, let alone achieve anything. — Possibility
‘If only thoughts were reducible to maths! Then I wouldn’t have this problem.’ — Wayfarer
why ‘clinging’? What do you think is motivating that? — Wayfarer
Maybe entertaining, or edifying, but doesn’t count for knowledge, though.
I think here there’s a lesson lurking under the surface, but I’ve done all I can to point it out. — Wayfarer
Who's to say that all thought, even thoughts that are frank contradictions, aren't mathematically describable. That possibility shakes the very foundation of quality as a notion. It's like a digital computer, an AI, having thoughts about quality - whatever those thoughts may be, it's ultimately a combination of 1's and 0's. — TheMadFool
Only beginning? I thought you were on board from day one. :joke:You know, I'm beginning to agree with you. :gasp: — Wayfarer
For me, quantity implies the mathematical i.e. it involves, in a broad sense, geometry (shapes) and/or arithmetic (numbers) — TheMadFool
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.