View Single Post
Old 01-12-2001, 02:48 PM   #42
cguzik
Location: Tulsa, OK
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 166
Offline
Physics and Ontology

Quote:
Brian wrote:
1 + 1 = 2. If I know that 1 represents a singular object/unit, I know that if I have one more, I have twice that 1, or what we refer to as two.
Correct; to relate this to Bones' statement, the singular object/unit is a component of your perceptual schema.

The concept of "1" is a component of the cognitive metaphor (i.e., mathematics) of that perceptual schema.

It just so happens that we chose a cognitive metaphor that matches our perceptual schema quite well (not by accident, of course -- one that didn't match would not be very effective and would be nothing more than a possibly interesting intellectual game).

Quote:
This is not imagination, but truth. 1 + 1 DOES = 2. I don't think I know this, but realize this as truth.
Correct again. This is a true statement about your cognitive metaphor (mathematics). Unfortunately, the only reason to believe that corresponding statements about actual things are true is because mathematics matches our perceptual schema pretty well.

Why do we believe that mathematical statements are true of actual things? Mostly because of experience, intuition, and yes, faith. These are the same reasons that for many years it was believed that the laws of Newtonian physics were true of actual things. Now we know that there are physical things regarding which Newtonian physics does not work.

Don't assume that the perceptual schema cannot change; it can and has many times. When it does we scramble to find a new cognitive metaphor that matches accordingly.

Quote:
Thus, I have taken what I DO know and learned/solved something else from it.
Indeed. Unfortunately the assumption that your logical framework always holds in the real world may not be valid.

I think this is part of the point Bones was making.

Quote:
I am not trying to argue the origin of math, but simply to display that logical thought is indeed important.
Fair enough, but when you are trying to apply logic to prove something metaphysical (or even about the nature or origin of physical stuff), you have to consider what logic actually *is* and how it relates to what's actually happening. Logic has some nasty limitations.

Quote:
I cannot name right off the top of my head the name of the law, but I can assure you that no physical thing can create itself. I'll keep searching for the name, but while I do, ask yourself this- what physical thing CAN create itself?
Actually, the law of conservation of matter and energy says that neither matter nor energy are created or destroyed, only converted from one to the other. (I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure that's correct).

Quote:
Time itself is not a physical thing- it is the measurement of the movement and change of matter and energy. It itself is not a form of matter, space, or energy- it's just something we created for our convenience.
Actually, special relativity says that time and space are not different. (Once again, I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure that's right).

Note that special relativity, the law of conservation of matter and energy, mathematics, and logic are all cognitive metaphors. There is always the possibility that we will find a situation in which inconsistencies arise.

It may be that a direct consequence of Goedel's Theorem that:

If our world is a logical place (i.e., we don't find physical inconsistencies) then we will discover that there are things in the world logic cannot touch. Conversely, if logic can apply to everything, then it will break in some situations and there will inevitably be physical inconsistencies

Is this an aikido-related topic?

Probably not for most, but it is for me: I would not have discovered this art had I not been perplexed by these very issues. There is something about direct experience that I don't think logic applies to. For me, aikido is one way to study this.

Chris Guzik

[Edited by cguzik on January 12, 2001 at 01:52pm]
  Reply With Quote