Comments

  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    . The square was a square (and many other things, too) before the observer saw it, so it must have been sharing in the idea of squareness (th.i. (that is) the Shape / Form / Idea of Squareness) before the obsever saw it. Hence, squareness itself must also have existed before the observer saw the shape. — Tristan L

    I am quite certain that abstract entities broadly and possibilities in particular do in fact “lie around” in some abstract “space”. — Tristan L

    This shows that all the ideas must be abstract and uncreated, — Tristan L
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    ↪Tristan L
    Perhaps the observer finds an instance of a square and then creates an idea of it.
    If I didn't know the idea of squareness, when looking at shapes in the world, I could discover a particular shape having four equal straight sides and four right angles and have the idea that in the world there are shapes having four equal straight sides and four right angles, which for convenience I could name squareness. Ideas are external to the shape, as there is no information within the shape that can establish the shape has a single identity. As the idea of squareness has come after the discovery of the shape, it cannot be the idea that was discovered.

    True, the words invention and discovery have different meanings whether we are assuming a deterministic or non-deterministic world. Even in a deterministic world, it still makes sense to say that the billiard ball has discovered the corner pocket. It is likely that someone who assumes determinism when using the words invention and discovery means something different by them to someone who believes in non-determinism.

    However, I could have an idea and invent a definition to express my idea - for example - I could define X as a square with red inside - as long as I told someone else my definition of X - they would find the same Xness in the world as I do
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    ↪jgill
    My mistake - I should have written Euclidian plane rather than configuration space.
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    Considering four elements A, B, C and D spatially located in a "configuration space" , an algorithm could list every possible instantiation of these four elements within the space.

    An observer not knowing the idea of squareness could look at several instantiations and discover that sometimes the four elements ABCD form a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.

    After observing several instantiations, the observer could invent the idea of squareness, but the observer could never discover the idea of squareness within the instantiations themselves - because there is no discoverable information within the instantiations themselves that links in any special way one particular form within one instantiation to another particular form within a different instantiation.
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    Creativity seems to be popularly held to be some kind of non-deterministic, random process of some kind of magical, metaphysically free will, but I hold that that is not the case at all. I hold that there really isn't a clear distinction between invention and discovery of ideas: there is a figurative space of all possible ideas, what in mathematics is called a configuration space or phase space, and any idea that anyone might "invent", any act of abstract "creation" (prior to the act of realizing the idea in some concrete medium), is really just the identification of some idea in that space of possibilities. — Pfhorrest
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    ↪whollyrolling
    This relates to the problem of the Knowledge Argument (Mary's Room), the thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson intended to argue against physicalism.

    As regards the Knowledge Argument, I agree that there is scientific equipment that can measure the wavelength of red light. But the question is, is the scientific instrument conscious of the colour red, as we are conscious of the colour red.

    As the concrete quality of the wavelength of red light exists independently of an observer it can be discovered in the world, but as the abstract quality of redness doesn't exist independently of any observer it cannot be discovered in the world.

    Similarly, scientific instruments could measure concrete alterations in the brain state when we observe a beautiful object, but there is no current scientific instrument that can measure our abstract consciousness of beauty.
  • Creativity: Random or deterministic? Invention or discovery?
    Considering a statue existing within a marble block before being carved by the artist.

    The statue, being art, must have both concrete qualities (in having a physical form that can be directly observed by the senses) and abstract qualities (such as beauty, that cannot be directly observed by the senses).

    However, both concrete ideas and abstract ideas are dependent on relationships - whether the concrete spatial relationships between the statue's particles of matter or the abstract conceptual relationships that determine the statue's beauty

    In the world independent of any observer, particles of matter exist and space exists. But do relationships exist in a world independent of any observer ?

    If relationships do objectively exist in the world, then in the world every possibility is already present, and the artist, when looking at the uncarved marble, can discover the concrete form and abstract beauty of a pre-existing statue.

    However, if relationships don't objectively exist in the world, and the existence of the statue's concrete and abstract qualities depends on relationships, then the possible relationships can only exist in the mind of the observer. This means that if relationships don't exist in the world then they cannot be discovered in the world, meaning that they must have been invented by the artist.

    My belief is that relationships only exist as mental concepts, because, if relationships objectively exist in the world independent of an observer, then this leads into the mereological nightmare where my pen together with the Empire States Building is a unique object, for example, as unique as a table or chair.

    Concrete ideas and abstract ideas are both mental concepts dependent upon relationships and therefore invented in the mind and not discovered in the world.
  • Patterns, order, and proportion
    Being new to the Forum, I didn't intend my previous post - but cannot see how to remove it.


    As regards whether patterns are objective or subjective, it is probably the same problem as to whether patterns are discovered or invented.

    As noted by Pfhorrest, the concepts quality and quantity are important in explaining a word. The word "pattern" has two meanings.

    As a quality, pattern is a mental concept, a universal definition, and therefore subjective.

    As a quantity, a pattern is a particular thing that exists in the world. A pattern is understood by the spatial or temporal regularities in the elements that make it up. But is such a pattern objective or subjective ?

    Start by considering a pattern dependent on time, such as a musical pattern, where the regularities in the elements that make up the pattern are through time. For a pattern to be objective, the pattern must exist in a world having a space-time of three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.
    But within our world only one moment of time exists. Therefore, in our world, the relationships between the elements that make up a musical pattern cannot be objective. If a musical pattern can only exist through time, then it can only exist in the mind, meaning that such a pattern is subjective.

    Patterns (considered as a quantity) exist in space and time. When we think about patterns - a wave on water, a Derain, a Santana, a fractal leaf, a William Morris design, a Sondheim - we generally don't treat patterns in space as being ontologically different to patterns in time. Therefore, if a pattern in time is subjective, we can deduce that patterns in space are also subjective, ie, all patterns are subjective.
  • Patterns, order, and proportion
    The substratum of what we see is beauty. We look with our right subjective mind and our left objective mind and conclude, with will, that it's objective. But that's choosing what's true. That is, there is faith. Hegel wanted to get rid of faith by knowing nothing and everything, balancing the objective and subjectice. The basic fact is beauty is subjectice, so tim wood has been correct. Hegel kept a homey natural faith to keep from scepticism — Gregory

    Which of his books talk about points and quantity? Wikipedia says Whitehead wrote stuff that was wrong about wholes and parts, while Husserl wrote good things. This is stuff that I'm interested in — Gregory

    I think that what underlies everything is the pure potentiality of Infinity and Finitude. If you have a segment pi in length, then a piece of the segment corresponds to each number. It goes on forever (Infinite) but has a limit (Finite). Where the infinite meets the finite (at the limit) is an infinity mystery. So nature can never even be understood — Gregory

    Chaos vs symmetry... That's a lot to think about. It's deep. Maybe because I suck at math in trying to make up for it by over thinking this stuff. Maybe there are truths that simply can't be said. The college I went to after high school was Catholic and they hated basing math on logic. I feel like I'm trying to do something similar, but I like it. — Gregory
  • Causality, Determination and such stuff.
    ↪Banno
    ↪Banno
    Anscombe follows that particular sentence with "for them to be deterministic is for them, together with the description of the situation, to entail unique results...."

    Anscombe may well mean that a closed system is deterministic if given a situation plus the laws of nature there will be a unique result, but she wrote that for a closed system if given a situation plus deterministic laws of nature there will be a unique result

    If deterministic has one meaning, then either the closed system is deterministic or the laws of nature are deterministic, it cannot be both.

    The problem for the reader is in judging what Anscombe means by the word "deterministic", when what she means may be different to what she has written.
  • Causality, Determination and such stuff.
    I agree. If Anscombe is, as I believe, using the word "deterministic" in an unusual way, then that certainly casts doubt on her conclusion that "the laws being deterministic does not tell us whether "determinism" is true".
  • Causality, Determination and such stuff.
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound

    However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.

    In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article.
    — RussellA

    It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. For the sake of a logical argument, one can define a word in any way the person wants. But a definition ought to be taken as a premise. And a false definition is a false premise.     — Metaphysician Undercover
  • Causality, Determination and such stuff.
    ↪Banno
    I believe that Anscombe's use of the word "deterministic" is different to common usage.

    Throughout her article, Anscombe states that the laws of nature are deterministic, not that nature is deterministic, e.g., "It ought not to have mattered whether the laws of nature were or were not deterministic".

    In mathematics, computer science and physics, it is the system that is a deterministic, i.e., its initial state plus the physical laws as described by equations.

    Similarly, it is nature that is deterministic, i.e., its initial state plus the laws of nature. The laws of nature by themselves cannot determine anything. The laws of nature by themselves are not deterministic.

    It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound

    However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.

    In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article.
  • Causality, Determination and such stuff.
    In her conclusion, Anscombe wrote: "it ought not to have mattered whether the laws of nature were or were not deterministic"
    Because Anscombe uses the words determine, determinate, determined, determinism and deterministic without prior explanation, it sometimes makes it difficult to follow her argument.
    For example, if the path of one ball (in the Galton Board) is determined by its initial state and the laws of nature (such as cause and effect), then nature is deterministic, not the laws of nature.
    Cause and effect is a law of nature. If an effect is determined by a cause, then determinism is a law of nature.
    Therefore, contrary to Anscombe, the laws of nature are not deterministic.
Home » RussellA