But my argument is that time is generated from rotation. — apokrisis
This is of course the quick and dirty account. But it’s based on the maths of the symmetries underpinning quantum field theory. How SO(3) breaks down into its double cover of SU(2). You can get the fluctuation that is a vector gauge boson. A particle that exists as it has the dimensional structure that is an action in a direction. A translational degree of freedom which carries with it a transverse plane of rotation - a spin that cashes out an intrinsic energy. The constant field strength of a quantum oscillator. — apokrisis
So even if you can’t follow these details, you can see how time is an emergent description of what the universe is doing as a material system. — apokrisis
Some people develop areas of expertise, e.g. auto mechanics and MDs — wonderer1
Do you really think that is an accurate claim about yourself? Or do you recognize that an MD is apt to know more than most people, about why your body behaves the way it does? — wonderer1
That's an unjustified conclusion. The evidence implies either an infinite series or something unique to initiate the series. — Relativist
Because an initial state (a unique thing) with potential to produce a subsequent state is also consistent with the evidence. So you need a rational reason to rule this out. — Relativist
The presence of the social whole in his thought ties things together. Without it, things in all their contradictory nature just don't make sense. Thus, the social whole is a valid inference. I admit, of course, that he nowhere deduces it. — Jamal
I don't understand this interpretation. I mean, I can accept that Adorno inherited the very idea of a totality from Hegel, but he explicitly distinguishes it from Spirit. — Jamal
Or, does criticality towards capitalism not imply Marxism? — NotAristotle
In other words, Adorno is saying that relativism is, not logically self-refuting, but hypocritical. It makes use of thoughts inherited from the social world to produce the thought that thoughts are entirely the product of the individual. — Jamal
In truth divergent perspectives have their law in the structure of
the social process, as one of a preestablished whole.
I'm finding it hard to work out how he makes this leap from the thesis of relativism to the contempt for Spirit. I understand the distinction he means, which is that between (1) useful productive work and the financial, class, in general materialist (in the popular sense, as Adorno says, "vulgar") concerns that go along with it; and (2) art and ideas, love and beauty, and God if you're so inclined. But how does relativism produce the exclusive focus on (1) and dismissal of (2)? — Jamal
Some people clearly know more about why things behave as they do, than do other people. — wonderer1
But these days AI can take the labour out of refuting your theological nonsense. — apokrisis
Exactly, potentiality is without constraint. But events demonstrate that constraints can emerge in conjunction with their degrees of freedom – the actualising step that creates now a sea of concrete possibilities.
Once you have the thing of a fluctuation – an action that also has some direction – then everything starts to get going.
No action, no direction. No direction, no action. But actions in a direction? A whole flood of them. Complexity can start evolving. — apokrisis
Time would evolve as cosmology tells us. It develops complex structure through the growth of topological order. As the Big Bang expands and cools, it undergoes a rapid sequence of thermal changes. — apokrisis
In the beginning, all the fluctuations are stuck at the speed of light. They experience maximum time dilation and length contraction – or rather, this relativistic dichotomy can't even apply yet.
Then you get the Higgs mechanism breaking this relativistic symmetry. Now suddenly it is meaningful to talk about objects at rest. Particles that move slower than c. Mass that lags behind the radiation setting the pace. A new topological phase where time has gained a whole new complex structure.
Time changes character quite radically. And it passes through other topological stages too with inflation, or when it is a quark-gluon plasma that may have Higgs mass and yet is still effectively relativistic.
So what is time when you step right back from the physics? It is a duration. A beat that lasts the distance of a cycle. A Planck-scale rotation in its Planck-scale expanse. The fundamental unit of ħ or the quantum unit of action. The spinning on the Poincare invariant spot that defines the gauge fundamental particle. The first moment defined in terms of the symmetry breaking of rotation from translation and thus the birth of concrete dimensionality itself. — apokrisis
All the empirical evidence is for states that were preceded in time by another state, so this pattern would not apply to a hypothetical initial state — Relativist
I suggest it's because of deterministic* laws of nature that cause the prior state to become the next state. — Relativist
Do you agree? If not, then give me your theory. — Relativist
The absolute potential is the potential for the emergence of a hylomorphic order in a co-arising fashion. — apokrisis
Time can get going as changes can be made that are also constructing a collective history. — apokrisis
I hadn't discussed "state of affairs" ontology with you, so had not used the term that way. — Relativist
By "state" or "state of affairs", I am referring to the the totality of existence at a point of time.
...
There are various ideas about what it means to exist. My position is that existence entails objects which have intrinsic properties and that has relations to all other objects (at least indirectly). — Relativist
A brute fact initial state would have properties that accounted for its potential to develop into subsequent states of affairs. IOW: it initiates (=causes) the subsequent causal chain that you misinterpret. — Relativist
State of affairs (so defined) is the most fundamental concept in the ontology. — Relativist
I think this is all pretty thoroughly incorrect. You could start with just understanding Hegelian dialectics. — frank
But you appear to want to defend some version of ontic idealism. — apokrisis
Interesting point. I think it might be a bit misleading, and this hinges on whether such a fixed point can act as, or is equivalent to, a ground, foundation, or first principle, in the traditional philosophical sense that Adorno is addressing. I'm not sure it can. Determinate negation as fixed point is not so much a foundation—it is not a positive proposition on which a system can be built—but is more like method, critical orientation and commitment. — Jamal
I mean, you could take the fixed point to be the ground, but is it interpretatively useful to do so? — Jamal
When the process which is the evolution of a concept is described as Hegelian sublation, the only thing which stays the same, is the process itself. This produces the groundlessness, as an endless process. That this therefore is a false representation, is the grounding of that aspect of negative dialectics which criticizes it. The falsity of Hegelian sublation is the object of that specific aspect of negative dialectics, and the truth of that falsity is a grounding point.Moreover, one of the most astonishing features of the Hegelian
dialectic and one that is especially hard to grasp is that, on the one hand,
categories are ceaselessly promoted as things that are changing and
becoming, while, on the other hand, they are logical categories and
as such simply have to retain their validity, as in any traditional logic
or epistemology.
EDIT2: And there's another candidate for the ground of negative dialectics: material reality, or "the object" as in "the priority of the object". As he has been saying in the Frigility of Truth section, ND starts in the concrete and works out from there. So why not that? I happen to think this is wrong or misleading too, but I won't go into that now. — Jamal
Psychology could be brought to bear to answer how this happened, but what Adorno focuses on is something that should have been obvious from reading Hegel: synthesis is not subject to the intellect. It's not that it's wrong, it's that the mind only deals with a dismantled world. — frank
So you're just making the modest claim that the argument convinces you of god's existence. You are not claiming that it constitutes undeniable proof that no rational person could deny. — Relativist
Nevertheless, I did explain why it might be false: the possibility that there was an initial state of affairs that was physical (no gods). So there are at least 2 logically valid explanations for the existence of the universe: (A) God ; or (B) a physical initial state. — Relativist
You haven't proven (B) false, so you should acknowledge that it is possibly true, and that this implies God possibly does not exist. Do you acknowledge this? — Relativist
I feel like Adorno is saying, "they say that negative dialectics (or critical theory in general) lacks all foundations, but really it's their ontologies that don't have a leg to stand on, so you could say that it's their thinking which is groundless." They are looking for something that isn't there. Heidegger comes up against groundlessness but doesn't acknowledge it or only acknowledges it as a problem to surpass; he tries to uncover the meaning of being and doesn't realize that the groundlessness he wants to get beyond is itself the truth the philosopher ought to be looking for.
It was the alternative translation that put me on the right track: — Jamal
But I believe that precisely
this aspect of positivity, which acts as a corollary to negativity, is
conjoined with the principle of negativity because it resists being fixed
once and for all in an abstract, static manner.
...
Hence, to make this quite clear, the issue is not to deny the existence of a certain fixed
point, it is not even to deny the existence of some fixed element in
thought; we shall in due course, I hope, come to discuss the meaning
whether negative dialectics is possible of such a fixed
element in dialectical logic in very concrete terms. But
the fixed, positive point, just like negation, is an aspect – and not
something that can be anticipated, placed at the beginning of every
thing.
...
At the same time, I should
like to draw your attention to the fact that the status of synthesis in
Hegel is actually somewhat anomalous. The fact is that, when you
read the texts closely, you find that there is much less said about such
syntheses, such positivities, than you might expect initially. And I
believe that if you were to trace Hegel’s use of the term ‘synthesis’
[Synthese] purely lexically – as opposed to the concept of ‘Synthesis’,
as used by Kant in his epistemology – you would find that it occurs
very rarely indeed, in contrast to such concepts as ‘positing’ [Setzung],
‘position’ or ‘negation’ – and this tells us something about the situation.
It is grounded in the subject matter; it is no merely external trait
of Hegelian language. In the three-stage scheme – if we allow for once
that such a thing is to be found in Hegel – the so-called synthesis that
represents the third stage as opposed to negation is by no means
simply better or higher. If you consider an example of such a three
stage dialectic – we might look at the famous triad of Being, Nothing
and Becoming16 – you will find that this so-called synthesis is actually
something like a movement, a movement of thought, of the concept,
but one that turns backwards and does not look forward and produce
something complete to be presented as a successful achievement on
a higher plane. Hegelian syntheses tend – and it would be rewarding
to follow this up with detailed analysis – to take the form that the
thesis reasserts itself within the antithesis, once this has been postulated.
Thus once the identity of two contradictory concepts has been
reached, or at least asserted in the antithesis, as in the most famous
case of all, the identity of Nothing with Being, this is followed by a
further reflection to the effect that, indeed, these are identical, I have
indeed brought them together – Being, as something entirely undefined,
is also Nothing. However, to put it quite crudely, they are not
actually entirely identical. The thought that carries out the act of
identification always does violence to every single concept in the
process. And the negation of the negation is in fact nothing other
than the α¸να′µνησις, the recollection, of that violence, in other words
the acknowledgement that, by conjoining two opposing concepts, I
have on the one hand bowed to a necessity implicit in them, while
on the other hand I have done them a violence that has to be rectified.
And truth to tell, this rectification in the act of identification is
what is always intended by the Hegelian syntheses.
On the contary. You assumed the burden of proof when you said: — Relativist
An "irrefutable proof" can't simply establish that the conclusion is possibly true; it must show that the conclusion is necessarily true. My burden is easy: I merely need to show that one of your premises is possibly false. — Relativist
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand logic. — Relativist
I profess to be a "law realist": that laws of nature actually exist, and this explains why we see regularities in nature. — Relativist
An infinite set of possibilities could fit any probability distribution. — Relativist
There are various ideas about what it means to exist. My position is that existence entails objects which have intrinsic properties and that has relations to all other objects (at least indirectly). A brute fact initial state would have properties that accounted for its potential to develop into subsequent states of affairs. IOW: it initiates (=causes) the subsequent causal chain that you misinterpret. — Relativist
The initial state is causally linked to everything that exists. — Relativist
My assertion was modest: an initial state of affairs is possible. — Relativist
By presenting an alternative you hadn't considered, I conclusively proved your conclusion false. — Relativist
However, an initial state is also conceptually possible: we can conceptualize something just existing by brute fact*. — Relativist
So we have two contradictory metaphysical claims. Both are conceivable, neither is provable (short of making additional assumptions*), but one must be false. Reasoning can take us no further - so you can't rationally claim to show an initial state is metaphysically impossible. — Relativist
I could go further and show that an infinite past is logically impossible, but it's not necessary since I've already thoroughly refuted your claim. — Relativist
Your understanding of the big bang theory is flawed. The theory of the big bang is based on general relativity: the size of the (currently) visible universe approaches zero at increasingly earlier states. So there's a mathematical limit of 0 size and infinite density. This entails a mathematical singularity - from which physicists infer general relativity breaks down. They also note that below a certain radius, quantum effects would dominate. This is currently unanalyzable because there is no accepted theory that reconciles general relativity and quantum mechanics. — Relativist
I quoted the Critique of Pure Reason here where the reality of time is discussed. The expression of "inner versus outer objects" is seen strictly as the activity of the intuitions as the possibility of our experiences. — Paine
Extremist magnet. — jorndoe
You just get angrier as the years go past. — apokrisis
Again, just check out what I already told you seven years ago. Long before AI was around to deal with one's more mundane intellectual chores. — apokrisis
The fact that the language of mathematics treats abstractions as "existing" does not entail that they do. — Relativist
A physicist making a claim about the ontological status of mathematical abstractions is doing metaphysics, not physics. It's a question that cannot be settled by empirical evidence or scientific methodology. — Relativist
Agreed. — Relativist
And once we admit potential as ontologically real, we also re-introduce the idea of inherent directionality — Wayfarer
But it does help to at least know the physics, wouldn’t you agree? — apokrisis
But it does help to at least know the physics, wouldn’t you agree? — apokrisis
The way I took it is that addition of numbers is sequential - first, 7, then 'add 5' giving the result '12'. It is the fact of the sequential order of mental operations that assumes time. The spatial representation (writing the numbers down) is only a useful aid; the grounding of number itself is in time, not space. — Wayfarer
in terms of Kant's language. He made a claim of how little we can know about it since it is how we experience what we do.
Perhaps Kant is not accepting the speculation of your model. — Paine
So physicalism defers to physics the identification of what exists. IMO there's no epistemically superior means of doing so. That deference doesn't entail an ontological commitment to the specific things physics identifies. — Relativist
So the ontology of modern physics is pretty straightforward. It speaks of pure chance in interaction with absolute necessity. — apokrisis
That is very helpful - it helps me understand much better Kant's connection of time with number and space with geometry. :100: — Wayfarer
Of course there's ways he could be unaware! — Relativist
On January 5, 2021, the day before the Washington, D.C., protest that led to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Kirk wrote on Twitter that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 "buses of patriots to D.C. to fight for this president".[51][52] A spokesman for Turning Point said that the groups ended up sending seven buses, not 80, with 350 students.[51][53] In the lead-up to the storming, Kirk said he was "getting 500 emails a minute calling for a civil war".[54] Publix heiress Julie Fancelli gave Kirk's organizations $1.25 million to fund the buses to the January 6 event. Kirk also paid $60,000 for Kimberly Guilfoyle to speak at the rally.[55] — Wikipedia
But God is not an idea. And I am a rational human being who does not rebel against God. God is simple in being, yes, but I should think the creator of all things is even more complex than the greatest complexity found in creation. — NotAristotle
It’s your prerogative to intensely dislike people, and to say as much. — Roke
I hate you.” (Not hate speech?)
“That girl I made out with at the bar turned out to be a tranny!” (Hate speech?)
The word “hate” is a generally well-functioning word. Intense dislike. It’s your prerogative to intensely dislike people, and to say as much. — Roke
By contrast, contemporary physicalism has quietly shifted ground. It still borrows the authority of science, but without committing itself to whatever physics currently says about the world. Instead, it invokes “the scientific worldview” in a more nebulous sense, using scientific facts when they support its claims, but disclaiming any dependence on physics when they do not. The result is less a rigorous ontology than a posture of allegiance: a declaration that, whatever reality ultimately turns out to be, it will count as “physical” by definition. This maneuver preserves physicalism from refutation, but only by reducing its content to a loyalty oath. — Wayfarer
Each of the postulates of physicalism goes beyond what physics can properly do: — Relativist
Firstly it is science that posits the existence of dark matter and energy on the basis of observations. So, they are considered to be a part of the Universe as understood by science. — Janus
If the guide includes evidence from the empirical sciences then the empirical sciences are guiding metaphysical speculation. Intuition is always itself guided by the current state of knowledge or scientific paradigm. Intuition in unconstrained speculative free play can come up with anything that isn't a logical contradiction, so by itself is not a reliable guide at all. I don't prefer referring to it as intuition anyway, but rather as imagination―creative imagination invents hypotheses designed to explain what is observed―it's known as abduction. — Janus
Lots of philosophical issues can be discussed without first establishing a common ontology. This includes discussions of epistemology and science. — Relativist
The judgement is between 2 or more competing hypotheses, for the sole purpose of selecting one. — Relativist
Consider the auditory evidence of a second shooter of Kennedy: this new information doesn't change my relative ranking of the 2 hypotheses. — Relativist
We're just producing a relative ranking of the hypotheses based on whatever information is available. — Relativist
Good description of what often occurs, but do you agree that it can be more rational to reevaluate the hypotheses (there need to be at least 2) than to "adjust and make an exception"? That's my point. — Relativist
How does the fact that there is an ontological ground to epistemolgy (invariably discussed as a supervenience relation) support your claim that physics can replace epistemology? — Relativist
Consider the relation between meteorology and the more fundamental science of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics - which obviously ground it - just one level down.. No one would suggest replacing meteorology with direct application of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. — Relativist
The context is that we're selecting a "best explanation" for a set of data that we are assumed to be facts, from a set 2 or more possible explanations that have been proposed. You still seem be treating this as traditional Bayesianism. — Relativist
Your inductive inference applies to all cases in which an object comes into existence from a state of affairs in which it did not exist. It does not apply to an initial state of affairs (Si); because there was no prior time at which Si did not exist. — Relativist
There's no objective reason to believe an initial, uncaused, physical state of affairs could not have existed. — Relativist
I have just conclusively shown that your argument is non-sequitur. — Relativist
Can you give an example of what the concept <universe> might be extended to in order to include things
other than what is either observable or the effect of something observable? — Janus
So you acknowledge that science is a guide to metaphysical speculation. — Janus
I personally don't think all objective laws are fictions. And I think you are correct that Adorno also believes in objective laws and truth. There must be a reality in the first place for the project of negative dialectics to make any kind of sense. — NotAristotle
I could be wrong but that's how I understood that section, at least. — Moliere
I'm interpreting Adorno as noting a performative contradiction in the relativist. The consciousness must adhere to the law of exchange, but if the entrepreneur were to do that then there is not an equality between labor-power and a wage unless the entrepreneur were to erase himself from the equation. — Moliere
But the capitalist is no relativist, after all -- there is only a very small part of thought which the capitalist relativizes, namely the Spirit and anything that has nothing to do with the productive process, such as the qualitative rather than the quantitative. — Moliere
The presumed social relativity of the intuitions obeys
the objective law of social production under private ownership of the
means of production. Bourgeois skepticism, which embodies relativism
as a doctrine, is narrow-minded.
You're skipping over my key point, in that quote:
that philosophical issues can generally be dealt with while ignoring ontology. Ontology could be more of a distraction. — Relativist
This is a strawman simply because we have no more reliable, or even any other reliable, guide, to "how the universe truly is" than science. — Janus