A few initial thoughts, as this is a new topic to me.
I am inclined to agree that universals do not have any kind of supernatural existence in a non physical / temporal realm. They also don't "exist" in time and space in terms of being something we can point to, because if that were the case they would be particulars.
But, as we saw in the previous modules, we can talk about things that don't exist in space and time in a meaningful way, and so they must have some kind of subsistence.
My initial reaction, having thought about how I would describe universals, is that they seem to be (or at least have their origin in) some kind of "rule" for describing things (either properties or relations).
We can all understand what someone means by "higher" or "redder". These are terms which help us to talk about particulars, and to understand what we mean when we want to convey complex ideas. So the universal "red" is a rule which allows us to ascribe a subjective sense experience (or perhaps a particular wavelength of light).
The universal "red" only seems to be of use in communication of some form. Without communication I'm not sure that universals serve much purpose.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Before the Big Bang
I have picked as an example of an ontological dispute the argument over whether there was something before the Big Bang. I am not a scientist and therefore my post will focus on the ways we might approach the question.
There are a number of competing theories about what happened before the Big Bang. It is unlikely (impossible?) that all of them are true. I conclude from this that we can formulate concepts which don't exist, if by exist we mean exist in space and time. But the concepts which turn out to be non-existent are not necessarily meaningless.
To be given serious (scientific) consideration, each hypothesis needs to be coherent and not contradicted (falsified) by experimental evidence. It is this coherence which allows the concept to have meaning, an incoherent or self-contradictory theory is either false or meaningless.
Many scientists believe that the Universe began at the Big Bang, estimated to have taken place 14 billion years ago. Was it at that point that space and time began? Some argue that there was nothing before the Big Bang. But it seems odd (incoherent?) to describe a scenario where there is no "before" (just as it is odd to think of no "after"). Kant would argue that our ideas of space and time are essential to our understanding of reality, I am inclined to agree with this view. I therefore instinctively reject the idea of a beginning of space and time as incoherent.
But is our idea of the existence of space and time dependent on the existence of light? If there was no energy before the Big Bang, and no light to travel at lightspeed, would there still be time? Does our idea of time require distance and speed to have meaning?
Modern science has developed theories about the "time" before the Big Bang by using quantum physics. But even if we devise a theory which gains widespread acceptance, does this mean we would regard it as "true". In the absence of time travel how would we know?
My final comment is that some people prefer a supernatural explanation; for them, some questions are not answerable scientifically.
There are a number of competing theories about what happened before the Big Bang. It is unlikely (impossible?) that all of them are true. I conclude from this that we can formulate concepts which don't exist, if by exist we mean exist in space and time. But the concepts which turn out to be non-existent are not necessarily meaningless.
To be given serious (scientific) consideration, each hypothesis needs to be coherent and not contradicted (falsified) by experimental evidence. It is this coherence which allows the concept to have meaning, an incoherent or self-contradictory theory is either false or meaningless.
Many scientists believe that the Universe began at the Big Bang, estimated to have taken place 14 billion years ago. Was it at that point that space and time began? Some argue that there was nothing before the Big Bang. But it seems odd (incoherent?) to describe a scenario where there is no "before" (just as it is odd to think of no "after"). Kant would argue that our ideas of space and time are essential to our understanding of reality, I am inclined to agree with this view. I therefore instinctively reject the idea of a beginning of space and time as incoherent.
But is our idea of the existence of space and time dependent on the existence of light? If there was no energy before the Big Bang, and no light to travel at lightspeed, would there still be time? Does our idea of time require distance and speed to have meaning?
Modern science has developed theories about the "time" before the Big Bang by using quantum physics. But even if we devise a theory which gains widespread acceptance, does this mean we would regard it as "true". In the absence of time travel how would we know?
My final comment is that some people prefer a supernatural explanation; for them, some questions are not answerable scientifically.
Plato's cave
The analogy of the cave is used by Plato to point the way to towards a new discipline - the discipline of metaphysics.
By pointing out that a higher level of understanding is attainable, and by drawing a distinction with a life lived in ignorance of this higher level, Plato is making a case for allowing philosophers to pursue their interest in metaphysics, for the good of everyone.
The prisoners in the cave have a limited understanding of their world, this is not because they are not intelligent or perceptive enough to achieve that understanding, but because they are (literally) chained. The analogy with philosophy is that philosophers are chained by their failure to ask the right questions and look in the right direction. If they were to think about the right things (e.g. Forms) they would be freed from their metaphorical chains and thereby have access to a whole new level of understanding about the world.
By pointing out that a higher level of understanding is attainable, and by drawing a distinction with a life lived in ignorance of this higher level, Plato is making a case for allowing philosophers to pursue their interest in metaphysics, for the good of everyone.
The prisoners in the cave have a limited understanding of their world, this is not because they are not intelligent or perceptive enough to achieve that understanding, but because they are (literally) chained. The analogy with philosophy is that philosophers are chained by their failure to ask the right questions and look in the right direction. If they were to think about the right things (e.g. Forms) they would be freed from their metaphorical chains and thereby have access to a whole new level of understanding about the world.
Plato's Forms
Plato develops his theory of Forms in order to try and explain how things that we experience are the way they are.
Plato's theory has an extremely wide scope - it is aimed at addressing a number of fundamental metaphysical questions including:
The argument for the existence of Forms seems to be abductive, inference to the best explanation.
The key issue for me in debating Forms is to try and understand what Plato actually thinks they are, this is not an easy question!
Plato's theory has an extremely wide scope - it is aimed at addressing a number of fundamental metaphysical questions including:
- how do we explain resemblance?
- the problem of universals (the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are)?
- what do we mean by matter and substance?
- what is change?
The argument for the existence of Forms seems to be abductive, inference to the best explanation.
The key issue for me in debating Forms is to try and understand what Plato actually thinks they are, this is not an easy question!
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Change
I have started 'Reality, Being and Existence: An Introduction to Metaphysics'. There are 36 people on the course, which is a good number and considerably more than on my previous two courses. Students come from all around the World, including DRC, which I think must be a first.
As part of the introduction I have been contemplating the concept of change.
Firstly, there seems to be a very close relationship between the idea of change and the idea of time. It seems that any definition of change needs to refer to or utilise the idea of time. I can't see any way of explaining change other than by using the concept of time. 'States of affairs being different at different times' is a simplistic way of defining change, but captures the essence of the concept.
I also think that the idea that time is bi-directional, we can talk about time moving forwards and time moving backwards. Times arrow shows us that time moves in one direction in the physical universe. This idea seems to be related to entropy. It is generally accepted that the universe displays entropy as a universal law, and that this entropy shows us the direction in which times arrow points.
The status of the arrow of time seems to be a fundamental metaphysical question. This leads to some fascinating ideas such as time travel and whether time has a beginning or end.
As part of the introduction I have been contemplating the concept of change.
Firstly, there seems to be a very close relationship between the idea of change and the idea of time. It seems that any definition of change needs to refer to or utilise the idea of time. I can't see any way of explaining change other than by using the concept of time. 'States of affairs being different at different times' is a simplistic way of defining change, but captures the essence of the concept.
I also think that the idea that time is bi-directional, we can talk about time moving forwards and time moving backwards. Times arrow shows us that time moves in one direction in the physical universe. This idea seems to be related to entropy. It is generally accepted that the universe displays entropy as a universal law, and that this entropy shows us the direction in which times arrow points.
The status of the arrow of time seems to be a fundamental metaphysical question. This leads to some fascinating ideas such as time travel and whether time has a beginning or end.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Personal website now moved to bravenet
I've finally got round to setting up a new website now that btinternet are no longer providing a free hosting service:
http://losenotaminute.bravesites.com/
http://losenotaminute.bravesites.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)