A common problem in philosophy: The hidden placeholders of identity as reality

Philosophim

This is a conversation piece about the ability to identify, and our belief that it makes it true. I'm working through the issue I'm trying to get to as I type. This is not accusing others, this is a problem I find in myself as well. I will be stating a few examples I've seen, and ask for your viewpoint.

Years ago, there was a theory of reality called "String theory" that used upwards of 10 dimensions. Many people thought the idea of "dimension" meant something like you're taught in school. 2 dimensions is a plane, 3 dimensions Is a plane of planes, and the fourth dimension is time.

So what would 10 dimensions be? Funny enough, it seems that its just the inclusion of a variable. Two dimensions in math are the variables x and y. 3 dimensions is x, y, and z. 4D could be x, y, z, and t. 5D could be x, y, z, t, and a. Now we've identified that if we include an a, we can come to some cool conclusions in math. But it doesn't mean that the identity we added, a, is represented in reality as a "spatial" dimension. To "work" string theory had to place up to 10 variables, most of which were speculation or unknowns. But people interpreted them as being "spatial", when really they were just some loose identities to make an argument work.

Each of these 10 dimensions were identities, but not representations of reality or dimensions as we believe them to be. They were essentially place holders to get a conclusion we wanted. It is these, the hidden placeholders of identity within an argument that I wish to address. They make a cool conclusion, but no evidence that it was a correct observation of reality.

I see this all the time within philosophy, and it is harder to spot because it is built upon language. Language has broad meaning based on contexts, and can be used to unintentionally sneak in propositions or steps in an argument that don't exist.

One example is stating electrons have no mass. Well, they DO have mass. But within the context of certain mathematical conclusions, their mass is an insignificant digit, and it becomes much simpler to round it out of the equation. But within the correct context, I can hold either view and be correct. If I were in a context in which I stated electrons had no mass, but we were at a significant enough measurement level where the mass of an electron was needed, I would be making a mistake of identity outside of the correct context.

It would also be incorrect to come to certain conclusions about reality based on specific contexts. While in one context electrons have no mass, if someone were to conclude a theory about the basics of reality with it being necessary that they have no mass, they would be making a massive mistake. I see problems like this crop up all the time when people address quantum mechanics on the board. People take the underlying specifics of quantum mechanics in a very specific mathematical context, and apply it broadly without it actually representing reality.

It is this case of hearing an identity, not understanding its context properly, or applying it in ways it never should that I am trying to point out in this discussion. Math and physics is not the only realm this happens in, but it appears my post has rambled on enough. I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. What do you think about the topic? Is there a name for what I'm musing about? I do not believe this action is intentional or malicious, but it is something that I see occur.

T Clark

It is this case of hearing an identity, not understanding its context properly, or applying it in ways it never should that I am trying to point out in this discussion. Math and physics is not the only realm this happens in, but it appears my post has rambled on enough. I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. What do you think about the topic? Is there a name for what I'm musing about? I do not believe this action is intentional or malicious, but it is something that I see occur. — Philosophim

Could you give one or two examples from a philosophical perspective. Something mundane and fairly easy to understand.

Banno

One example is stating electrons have no mass. — Philosophim

Who did that, where?

Cartuna

Who did that, where? — Banno

In calculating atomic masses, for example.

Cartuna

I happens everywhere indeed. What is considered irrelevant is left out of the argument. A fundamental Christian leaves out evolutionary arguments, while a quantum physicist leaves out gravity (usually). In celestial mechanics, classical mechanics leaves out general relativity in general, though for satellite orbits this leads to divergences. When I paint a scene, many aspects of the colors I use I leave out. I only look at the color, plasticity, stickiness, brush interaction, and smell occasionally. That's the temporal and local reality. On other occasions I include other aspects, while leaving the mentioned ones out, like drying time or possibility to dilute it. In almost all aspects of life comparable mechanism ring the bell.

Banno

While in one context electrons have no mass, — Philosophim

↪Cartuna

Ah, so the point is not that someone somewhere states that electrons have no mass, but that the mass can be ignored for the purposes of some calculations.

Fine.

What's that got to do with "The hidden placeholders of identity as reality"?

Cartuna

What's that got to do with "The hidden placeholders of identity as reality"? — Banno

Ignoring electron masses or GR effects renders them massless or non-existent effectively in the situatiòn at stake. So the hidden placeholder of a zero-mass electron or non-existing GR effects shapes the identity of the reality for that moment. It worked for Newton, who even thought that gravity was a force, which has taken a prominent place(holder) in high school physics books, shaping high school pupil's reality about falling or orbiting objects (saying for example that for a circular orbit two balancing forces keep an object in circular motion, which makes no sense).

SophistiCat

↪Philosophim

First, I am a bit puzzled by your choice of the words "identity" and "placeholder": I don't think I've seen them used like this before. From the context, you seem to be referring to models, concepts, representations, abstractions, maps (as in "the map is not the territory"). Is that what you mean?

Second, I am struggling to discern your point here. The most specific example that you give concerning the use of extra dimensions in string theories is poorly chosen, since neither you nor most of the readers understand the background enough to have a reasonable discussion about it. That these dimensions are "not representations of reality or dimensions as we believe them to be" is obviously true in one sense: we the common people are used to thinking about space as three-dimensional (and that only because Descartes' invention has been drilled into us from an early age). But what of it?

john27

Years ago, there was a theory of reality called "String theory" that used upwards of 10 dimensions. Many people thought the idea of "dimension" meant something like you're taught in school. 2 dimensions is a plane, 3 dimensions Is a plane of planes, and the fourth dimension is time. — Philosophim

It's a pretty common misconception that the fourth dimension is time. The way dimensions work is that you start with one dimension(a line) and move upwards, adding the dimension you did before it. So for example the second dimension is just two one dimensions, and the third dimension is just the second one infinitely stacked on itself. So what would be the fourth dimension then? Well, here comes the problem. You can only observe a dimension if you perceive in the dimension before it(e.g we live in a 3d world but see things in 2d)so to accurately tell what the 4th dimension is, we would need to perceive in 3d, which is absolutely impossible for us, even in terms of abstractions. So the fact that string theory uses placeholders for spatially relevant dimensions isn't wrong at all I dont think, its kind of like saying "we know it's out there, we just dont know what it looks like."

heres an example of a fourth dimensional object:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

Philosophim

↪T Clark

Could you give one or two examples from a philosophical perspective. Something mundane and fairly easy to understand. — T Clark

Certainly. In philosophy I've seen people take certain identities and believe because such an identity can be claimed, it must be "real" in some way. The most famous I can think of is probably "This sentence is false". There is an initial assumption that a sentence can be true or false, and people spend hours thinking about it.

The reality is, the sentence is rubbish. It doesn't actually claim anything. A better sentence would be, "This is a false sentence". I believe this issue is we abstract away certain details for general communication and believe that the abstraction holds true when we return to detailed communication.

Philosophim

↪Philosophim First, I am a bit puzzled by your choice of words "identity" and "placeholder": I don't think I've seen them used like this before. From the context, you seem to be referring to models, concepts, representations, abstractions, maps (as in "the map is not the territory"). Is that what you mean? — SophistiCat

Yes, this post isn't intended to be a solution, but a puzzle for us to discuss. Its a situation I've seen before that I'm not accurately able to describe, and was wondering what others thought. I believe you have the gist of what I'm going for.

Second, I am struggling to discern your point here. The most specific example that you give concerning the use of extra dimensions in string theories is poorly chosen, since neither you nor most of the readers understand the background enough to have a reasonable discussion about it. That these dimensions are "not representations of reality or dimensions as we believe them to be" is obviously true in one sense: we the common people are used to thinking about space as three-dimensional (and that only because Descartes' invention has been drilled into us from an early age). But what of it? — SophistiCat

I think that is the point. String theory is a detailed idea that is abstracted away into the general populace, and we make improper conclusions based on that abstraction. So here I am doing the same thing. Is there a term for it? Is there a way to spot it easier? What do you do when you find it in an argument? These are the questions I'm looking to see people answer.

Philosophim

It's a pretty common misconception that the fourth dimension is time. — john27

Yes! What I did is exactly what I'm talking about.

So the fact that string theory uses placeholders for spatially relevant dimensions isn't wrong at all I dont think, its kind of like saying "we know it's out there, we just dont know what it looks like." — john27

But do we know its out there? All that a dimension is, is a variable. We don't really know what the variable represents in reality, because we can't observe it in reality. The fact that we abstract it out to spatial dimensions is the problem.

john27

↪Philosophim

Well, depends on how you look at it.

I feel like Goldilocks is a good example of this sort of theoretical application to assert truths:

use knowledge in a negative or positive extremity (i.e all the time or none of the time) and it's distasteful, but apply a nugget of wisdom moderately, and it can help clarify a lot of things.

SophistiCat

I think that is the point. — Philosophim

I still don't get the point. Yes, most people don't have the background to understand a complex scientific theory, and popularizations can be misleading by way of instilling a false sense of comprehension. We probably agree on that. But I don't see a connection from this to the topic that you are trying to develop.

But do we know its out there? All that a dimension is, is a variable. We don't really know what the variable represents in reality, because we can't observe it in reality. The fact that we abstract it out to spatial dimensions is the problem. — Philosophim

What exactly do you see as the problem? Abstract thought?

Philosophim

↪john27

use knowledge in a negative or positive extremity (i.e all the time or none of the time) and it's distasteful, but apply a nugget of wisdom moderately, and it can help clarify a lot of things. — john27

I think the term I've been looking for is "leaky abstraction". Its a term in computer science. In a language, often times extremely detailed sets of functions will be cobbled together into a higher abstraction like, "RunPrintProgram()". You run the print program thinking that it will do so, and 99% of the time, it does. But 1% of the time when interacting with another program, something unexpected ands strange happens. This is because the underlying code doesn't fully function like you think the abstraction would. Thus the underlying reality 'leaks' out into the application, and you get unexpected things happening.

Philosophim

What exactly do you see as the problem? Abstract thought? — SophistiCat

I was looking for a term, or others experience and view point of what I'm trying to put into words. If you don't get it, that's fine. Its a discussion to explore these types of encounters other people have had to see if it can be put into better words. I think I may have found what I'm looking for with the phrase "leaky abstraction" I noted in my reply to John.

john27

↪Philosophim

I see...And you suggest that hidden placeholders and variable realties in our formulas result in leaky abstractions, because they fail to assess the reality beneath?

To be honest, you're probably not wrong. Im sure if you were to include a multitude of precise variables in whatever formula, you'd get a more accurate response, or at the very least avoid a mutation of some sort. However, sometimes it's just more useful for the truth to have mutations; to be wrong in some cases, and right in others.

Unless you're making a rocket ship.

Philosophim

↪john27

I see...And you suggest that hidden placeholders and variable realties in our formulas result in leaky abstractions, because they fail to assess the reality beneath? — john27

Yes, I believe that's what I was trying to put into words. I appreciate everyone's contribution. I feel like leaky abstraction should be a logical fallacy as I see it so often in philosophy. Thanks again!

T Clark

↪Philosophim

I still don't understand. Let me go back to your original post and see if I can work it out.

It would also be incorrect to come to certain conclusions about reality based on specific contexts. While in one context electrons have no mass, if someone were to conclude a theory about the basics of reality with it being necessary that they have no mass, they would be making a massive mistake. — Philosophim

In many situations, the mass of the electron is negligible in relation to the system being described, e.g. gravity is a very weak force when compared to the electromagnetic force. When we are calculating the force of attraction between an electron and a proton, we can ignore it. Recognizing that the mass of the electron is negligible in a particular situation is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. Science does that all the time. We use Newtonian mechanics for most uses, ignoring relativistic effects. Under normal human-scale conditions, they are negligible.

I see problems like this crop up all the time when people address quantum mechanics on the board. — Philosophim

Yes, I get that. I wonder if those discussions even belong on the forum, although I do enjoy them. And you're right, a lot of them are wrong and wrong-headed. In this situation, I'm more interested in talking about philosophical situations that a problem arises. That's why I asked for examples.

I see this same even occur in citing philosopher quotes or conclusions in arguments as well. — Philosophim

I guess this is where I get lost. I can't think of analogous situations in philosophy. Are you talking about reification? Mistaking the map for the territory?

Certainly. In philosophy I've seen people take certain identities and believe because such an identity can be claimed, it must be "real" in some way. The most famous I can think of is probably "This sentence is false". There is an initial assumption that a sentence can be true or false, and people spend hours thinking about it. — Philosophim

I don't see how this is analogous to the electron example.

The reality is, the sentence is rubbish. It doesn't actually claim anything. A better sentence would be, "This is a false sentence". I believe this issue is we abstract away certain details for general communication and believe that the abstraction holds true when we return to detailed communication. — Philosophim

Sorry. I'm still lost. We took on the liar's sentence in a recent discussion. I think it is meaningless, trivial, or both. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between "This sentence is false" and "This is a false sentence."

Banno

This thread is appalling. It consists in a rambling OP and attempts by a few chumps, myself included, to have @Philosophim set out the topic.

A common problem in philosophy: The hidden placeholders of identity as reality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions