32 ideas
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: How are we to determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §2) | |
| A reaction: Nice question. If I say 'philosophy is the love of wisdom' and 'philosophy bores me', why should one be part of its definition and the other not? What if I stipulated that the second one is part of my definition, and the first one isn't? |
| 17536 | If it can't be expressed mathematically, it can't occur in nature? [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The solution was to turn around the question How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? and ask Is it true that only such situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism? | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) | |
| A reaction: This has the authority of the great Heisenberg, and is the ultimate expression of 'mathematical physics', beyond anything Galileo or Newton ever conceived. I suppose Pythagoras would have thought that Heisenberg was obviously right. |
| 17545 | Quantum theory shows that exact science does not need dogmatic realism [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: It is only through quantum theory that we have learned that exact science is possible without the basis of dogmatic realism. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 05) |
| 17538 | Quantum theory does not introduce minds into atomic events [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: Certainly quantum theory does not contain genuine subjective features, it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as a part of the atomic event. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 03) | |
| A reaction: This should be digested by anyone who wants to erect some dodgy anti-realist, idealist, subjective metaphysics on the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. |
| 17534 | A 'probability wave' is a quantitative version of Aristotle's potential, a mid-way type of reality [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The 1924 idea of the 'probability wave' meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of 'potentia' in Aristotelian philosophy ...a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] As far as I can see, he is talking about a disposition or power, which is exactly between a mere theoretical possibility and an actuality. See the Mumford/Lill Anjum proposal for a third modal value, between possible and necessary. |
| 17553 | We can retain the idea of 'substance', as indestructible mass or energy [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: One could consider mass and energy as two different forms of the same 'substance' and thereby keep the idea of substance as indestructible. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) |
| 17544 | Basic particles have a mathematical form, which is more important than their substance [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The smallest parts of matter are not the fundamental Beings, as in the philosophy of Democritus, but are mathematical forms. Here it is quite evident that the form is more important than the substance of which it is the form. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
| A reaction: Heisenberg is quite consciously endorsing hylomorphism here, with a Pythagorean twist to it. |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: It is one thing to believe something a priori and another for this belief to be epistemically justified. The latter is required for a priori knowledge. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: Personally I would agree with this, because I don't think anything should count as knowledge if it doesn't have supporting reasons, but fans of a priori knowledge presumably think that certain basic facts are just known. They are a priori justified. |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Understanding is itself based on a priori commitment. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: This sounds plausible, but needs more justification than Horwich offers. This is the sort of New Rationalist idea I associate with Bonjour. The crucial feature of the New lot is, I take it, their fallibilism. All understanding is provisional. |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: Our a priori commitment to certain sentences is not really explained by our knowledge of a word's meaning. It is the other way around. We accept a priori that the sentences are true, and thereby provide it with meaning. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §8) | |
| A reaction: This sounds like a lovely trump card, but how on earth do you decide that a sentence is true if you don't know what it means? Personally I would take it that we are committed to the truth of a proposition, before we have a sentence for it. |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: A priori knowledge of logic and mathematics cannot derive from meanings or concepts, because someone may possess such concepts, and yet disagree with us about them. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §12) | |
| A reaction: A good argument. The thing to focus on is not whether such ideas are a priori, but whether they are knowledge. I think we should employ the word 'intuition' for a priori candidates for knowledge, and demand further justification for actual knowledge. |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: If we stipulate the meaning of 'the number of x's' so that it makes Hume's Principle true, we must accept Hume's Principle. But a precondition for this stipulation is that Hume's Principle be accepted a priori. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §9) | |
| A reaction: Yet another modern Quinean argument that all attempts at defining things are circular. I am beginning to think that the only a priori knowledge we have is of when a group of ideas is coherent. Calling it 'intuition' might be more accurate. |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |
| Full Idea: One potential source of a priori knowledge is the innate structure of our minds. We might, for example, have an a priori commitment to classical logic. | |
| From: Paul Horwich (Stipulation, Meaning and Apriority [2000], §11) | |
| A reaction: Horwich points out that to be knowledge it must also say that we ought to believe it. I'm wondering whether if we divided the whole territory of the a priori up into intuitions and then coherent justifications, the whole problem would go away. |
| 21506 | A coherence theory of justification can combine with a correspondence theory of truth [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: There is no manifest absurdity in combining a coherence theory of justification with a correspondence theory of truth. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.1) | |
| A reaction: His point is to sharply (and correctly) distinguish coherent justification from a coherence theory of truth. Personally I would recommend talking of a 'robust' theory of truth, without tricky commitment to 'correspondence' between very dissimilar things. |
| 21509 | There will always be a vast number of equally coherent but rival systems [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: On any plausible conception of coherence, there will always be many, probably infinitely many, different and incompatible systems of belief which are equally coherent. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: If 'infinitely many' theories are allowed, that blocks the coherentist hope that widening and precisifying the system will narrow down the options and offer some verisimilitude. If we stick to current English expression, that should keep them finite. |
| 21503 | Empirical coherence must attribute reliability to spontaneous experience [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: An empirical coherence theory needs, for the beliefs of a cognitive system to be even candidates for empirical justification, that the system must contain laws attributing a high degree of reliability to a variety of spontaneous cognitive beliefs. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: Wanting such a 'law' seems optimistic, and not in the spirit of true coherentism, which can individually evaluate each experiential belief. I'm not sure Bonjour's Observation Requirement is needed, since it is incoherent to neglect observations. |
| 21511 | A well written novel cannot possibly match a real belief system for coherence [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: It is not even minimally plausible that a well written novel ...would have the degree of coherence required to be a serious alternative to anyone's actual system of beliefs. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: This seems correct. 'Bleak House' is wonderfully consistent, but its elements are entirely verbal, and nothing occupies the space between the facts that are described. And Lady Dedlock is not in Debrett. I think this kills a standard objection. |
| 21510 | The objection that a negated system is equally coherent assume that coherence is consistency [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: Sometimes it is said that if one has an appropriately coherent system, an alternative system can be produced simply be negating all of the components of the first system. This would only be so if coherence amounted simply to consistency. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: I associate Russell with this original objection to coherentism. I formerly took this to be a serious problem, and am now relieved to see that it clearly isn't. |
| 21505 | A coherent system can be justified with initial beliefs lacking all credibility [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: It is simply not necessary in order for [the coherence] view to yield justification to suppose that cognitively spontaneous beliefs have some degree of initial or independent credibility. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 7.2) | |
| A reaction: This is thoroughly and rather persuasively criticised by Erik Olson. But he always focuses on the coherence of a 'system' with multiple beliefs. I take the credibility of each individual belief to need coherent assessment against a full background. |
| 21504 | The best explanation of coherent observations is they are caused by and correspond to reality [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: The best explanation for a stable system of beliefs which rely on observation is that the beliefs are caused by what they depict, and the system roughly corresponds to the independent reality it describes. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] Anyone who links best explanation to coherence (and to induction) warms the cockles of my heart. Erik Olson offers a critique, but doesn't convince me. The alternative is to find a better explanation (than reality), or give up. |
| 21508 | Anomalies challenge the claim that the basic explanations are actually basic [Bonjour] |
| Full Idea: The distinctive significance of anomalies lies in the fact that they undermine the claim of the allegedly basic explanatory principles to be genuinely basic. | |
| From: Laurence Bonjour (The Structure of Empirical Knowledge [1985], 5.3) | |
| A reaction: This seems plausible, suggesting that (rather than an anomaly flatly 'falsifying' a theory) an anomaly may just demand a restructuring or reconceptualising of the theory. |
| 17550 | We give a mathematical account of a system of natural connections in order to clarify them [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: When we represent a group of connections by a closed and coherent set of concepts, axioms, definitions and laws which in turn is represented by a mathematical scheme we have isolated and idealised them with the purpose of clarification. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) | |
| A reaction: Attacks on the regularity theory of laws, and the notion that explanation is by laws, tend to downplay this point - that obtaining clarity and precision is a sort of explanation, even if it fails to go deeper. |
| 17549 | Seven theories in science: mechanics, heat, electricity, quantum, particles, relativity, life [Heisenberg, by PG] |
| Full Idea: Science has seven closed systems of concepts and axioms: Newtonian mechanics; the theory of heat; electricity and magnetism; quantum theory; the theory of elementary particles; general relativity; and the theory of organic life. | |
| From: report of Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
| A reaction: [my summary of pp.86-88 and 92] It is interesting to have spelled out that there are number of 'closed' theories, which are only loosely connected to one another. New discoveries launch whole new theories, instead of being subsumed. |
| 17540 | Energy is that which moves, and is the substance from which everything is made [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: Energy is the substance from which all elementary particles, all atoms and therefore all things are made, and energy is that which moves. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure what energy is, but I like this because it says that nature is fundamentally active. Nothing makes sense without that basic assumption (on which Leibniz continually insists). |
| 17541 | Energy is an unchanging substance, having many forms, and causing all change [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: Energy is a substance, since its total amount does not change. ...Energy can be changed into motion, into heat, into light and into tension. Energy may be called the fundamental cause for all change in the world. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
| A reaction: Grandiose stuff. I remain unconvinced that Heisenberg (clever fellow, I'm told) has any idea of what he is talking about. |
| 17548 | Maxwell introduced real fields, which transferred forces from point to point [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: In the theory of fields of force one came back to the older idea, that action is transferred from one point to a neighbouring point. ...With Maxwell the fields of force seemed to have acquired the same degree of reality as the body's of Newton's theory. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) |
| 17533 | Radiation interference needs waves, but radiation photoelectric effects needs particles [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: How could it be that the same radiation that produces interference patterns, and therefore must consist of waves, also produces the photoelectric effect, and therefore must consist of moving particles. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) |
| 17532 | An atom's stability after collisions needs explaining (which Newton's mechanics can't do) [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The first new model of the atom could not explain the most characteristic features of the atom, its enormous stability. No planetary system following the laws of Newton's mechanics would ever go back to its original configuration after a collision. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) |
| 17537 | Position is complementary to velocity or momentum, so the whole system is indeterminate [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The knowledge of the position of a particle is complementary to the knowledge of its velocity or momentum. If we know one with high accuracy we cannot know the other with high accuracy; still we must know both for determining the behaviour of the system. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 03) | |
| A reaction: This is the famous Uncertainty Principle, expressed in plain language by the man himself. At this point we lost our grip on the prospects of determining the behaviour of natural systems. |
| 17551 | It was formerly assumed that electromagnetic waves could not be a reality in themselves [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: The idea that electromagnetic waves could be a reality in themselves, independent of any bodies, did at that time not occur to the physicists. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) | |
| A reaction: 'At that time' is when they thought the waves must travel through something, called the 'ether'. |
| 17543 | So-called 'empty' space is the carrier of geometry and kinematics [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: From our modern point of view we would say that the empty space between the atoms was not nothing; it was the carrier of geometry and kinematics. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
| A reaction: I'm not sure what the 'carrier of geometry and kinematics' means, but it is interesting that he doesn't mention 'fields' (unless they carry the kinematics?) |
| 17552 | In relativity the length of the 'present moment' is relative to distance from the observer [Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: In classical theory we assume past and future are separated by an infinitely short time interval called the present moment. In relativity it is different: future and past are separated by a finite time interval dependent on the distance from the observer. | |
| From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) | |
| A reaction: Not sure I understand this, but it is a revelation to realise that not only is time made relative to observers, but the length of the 'present moment' also becomes relative. The infinitesimal present moment has always bothered me. |