The Universe Exists Because It Has To

[wofsy]

There is no such thing as a triangle. There are ways of relating to space by categorizing it from a Euclidean perspective... but that's just a classification of the observed system. If an object has a shape in which we would label as a triangle, that is irrelevant to the actual object itself... it could be made of anything, any color, anything. The triangle itself does not exist, it is just us choosing to classify certain things as that shape.

While this sort of thing gets into rut after a while - it seems to me that observation only exists existentially. it is an impression - our only hope is to converge on concepts that give us a picture of a reality. While we may never be entirely certain of that reality - that does not mean that it does not exist. Mere observation is just an impression.

The idea of existence to me is somewhat meaningless. There are meaningless sense impressions - do they exist? There are theoretical constructs - do they exist? It seems that the only thing we can be certain of is the intellectual processes that enable us to develop fundamental theories - our own minds in the process of rationalizing our experience in terms a fundamental structure of the world. This certainly exists.

But that was not my point about the electron. A lot of science is purely empirical in the sense that it merely describes observed phenomena. In physics Newton's Laws, Maxwell's equation, and the Shroedinger equation are examples. But sometimes the features of the theory contains ideas which are not purely empirical but fundamental - the electron is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics (an purely empirical concept in classical physics) and as a theoretical idea is much like a triangle in that it is exactly what it is rather than some approximation. Later the idea of the electron may be modified but that does not change it's intellectual content within current theory.

 

[Evolver]

While this sort of thing gets into rut after a while - it seems to me that observation only exists existentially. it is an impression - our only hope is to converge on concepts that give us a picture of a reality. While we may never be entirely certain of that reality - that does not mean that it does not exist. Mere observation is just an impression.

The idea of existence to me is somewhat meaningless. There are meaningless sense impressions - do they exist? There are theoretical constructs - do they exist? It seems that the only thing we can be certain of is the intellectual processes that enable us to develop fundamental theories - our own minds in the process of rationalizing our experience in terms a fundamental structure of the world. This certainly exists.

You're teetering on the brink of describing Solipsism. In that case, the only thing that can be proven to exist is the mind and nothing else. Any theories of science would be irrelevant if that were true.

But that was not my point about the electron. A lot of science is purely empirical in the sense that it merely describes observed phenomena. In physics Newton's Laws, Maxwell's equation, and the Shroedinger equation are examples. But sometimes the features of the theory contains ideas which are not purely empirical but fundamental - the electron is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics (an purely empirical concept in classical physics) and as a theoretical idea is much like a triangle in that it is exactly what it is rather than some approximation. Later the idea of the electron may be modified but that does not change it's intellectual content within current theory.

Quantum Electrodynamics, for example, is still a representation. It's a way we classify the universe's behavior as. Think of it like this... an electron only exists in measurements.

 

[wofsy]

Evolver

Existence has been discussed a lot here but no one has defined it. Existence within a theory is very much like a feature of an intellectual construct. If that is existence then a triangle must also exist. Observation is a fleeting impression. Such things as electrons are not observed - we can only say that our impressions are intellectually organized in terms of the idea of an electron.

I still stand by the distinction of empirical and fundamental theories. Both types explain observation - but they are intellectually distinct.

 

[Evolver]

Evolver

Existence has been discussed a lot here but no one has defined it. Existence within a theory is very much like a feature of an intellectual construct. If that is existence then a triangle must also exist. Observation is a fleeting impression. Such things as electrons are not observed - we can only say that our impressions are intellectually organized in terms of the idea of an electron.

I still stand by the distinction of empirical and fundamental theories. Both types explain observation - but they are intellectually distinct.

You are advocating Solipsism. Which is fine, but know that if everything exists only on an intellectual level, then that proves nothing about an 'actual' universe.

 

[wofsy]

You are advocating Solipsism. Which is fine, but know that if everything exists only on an intellectual level, then that proves nothing about an 'actual' universe.

Whatever the actual Universe is doesn't it mean that processes of mind are part of it?

Could you define for me what you mean by the actual Universe?

BTW: Maybe scientific theories could have a criterion of knowability attached to them that requires that they be consistent with an intellectual process - almost as if there were a rational essence to it - but without a deity. This seems to be the heart of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

 

[Evolver]

Whatever the actual Universe is doesn't it mean that processes of mind are part of it?

Could you define for me what you mean by the actual Universe?

BTW: Maybe scientific theories could have a criterion of knowability attached to them that requires that they be consistent with an intellectual process - almost as if there were a rational essence to it - but without a deity. This seems to be the heart of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Well the alternative to solipsism would be a universe that was not effected by the beings observing it. What you are saying about the universe being innately linked to the processes of the mind could in fact mean there is no universe at all, simply the mind. Because if the processes are all that matters, the universe is not necessary. Descartes talks about this in depth. So if that's the case, there's no point in relying on any observations or measurements as they would all only be further illusions of the mind.

 

[wofsy]

Well the alternative to solipsism would be a universe that was not effected by the beings observing it. What you are saying about the universe being innately linked to the processes of the mind could in fact mean there is no universe at all, simply the mind. Because if the processes are all that matters, the universe is not necessary. Descartes talks about this in depth. So if that's the case, there's no point in relying on any observations or measurements as they would all only be further illusions of the mind.

This is interesting. Can you suggest some Descartes reading?

Well maybe we could do Science as though there were a rational mind and hope to come up with a scientific picture of reality consistent with it. Maybe that is as close as we can get (and that might not work either).

 

[Evolver]

This is interesting. Can you suggest some Descartes reading?

Well maybe we could do Science as though there were a rational mind and hope to come up with a scientific picture of reality consistent with it. Maybe that is as close as we can get (and that might not work either).

"Meditations on First Philosophy" is one of his most comprehensive works.