Can you get a do from an is?

[MonDie]

But a principle is of our design. There is a thing, causing us to derive the principle, but as you say, there could be other explanations. The thing itself remains extant, and complicated, and extremely capable of continuing to be, without us writing the ultimate equatiion for it.

...

Doubtful that the principle itself has any way to be real, without the manifested reality from which we derive it.

 

The representation of a principle isn't the real thing, but it does refer to the real thing.

 

If principles don't exist, how does our world behave as it does? You might assert that "things" exist, defining a "thing" as what is, and a "principle" as what it does. Well, we only need to explain how things do, not how they are. If you cannot get a "do" from an "is", abondon this notion of a thing separate from its principles.

 

---

 

D'oh!

"Do" is infinitive, and "is" is present tense. I will never let this go.

Please don't repeat my error. Say "get a does from an is."

Edited April 28, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Quantum mechanics is an area of physics dealing with phenomena where the action is of the order of the Planck constant. The Planck constant is a very tiny amount and so this domain of physics is typically on the distance and momentum scale of atoms and elementary particles in general. Action is a general physical concept related to dynamics and is most easily recognized in the form of angular momentum. The most tangible way of expressing the essence of quantum mechanics is that we live in a universe of quantized angular momentum and the Planck constant is the quantum. A tangible result of the quantization of angular momentum is the existence of discrete electron orbitals, each with a principal quantum number and each orbital with an associated angular momentum that is an integer multiple of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics has many implications on the microscopic scale, some of which are obscure and even counterintuitive.

Classical physics explains matter and energy at the macroscopic level of the scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies. It remains the key to measurement for much of modern science and technology. On the other hand, at the end of the 19th century scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. Coming to terms with these limitations led to the development of quantum mechanics, a major revolution in physics. This article describes how physicists discovered the limitations of classical physics and developed the main concepts of the quantum theory that replaced them in the early decades of the 20th century.[note 1] These concepts are described in roughly the order they were first discovered; for a more complete history of the subject, see History of quantum mechanics.[1]

Some aspects of quantum mechanics can seem counter-intuitive or even paradoxical, because they describe behavior quite different than that seen at larger length scales, where classical physics is an excellent approximation. In the words of Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as She is absurd."[2]

Many types of energy, such as photons (discrete units of light), behave in some respects like particles and in other respects like waves. Radiators of photons (such as neon lights) have emission spectra that are discontinuous, in that only certain frequencies of light are present. Quantum mechanics predicts the energies, the colours, and the spectral intensities of all forms of electromagnetic radiation.

Quantum mechanics ordains that the more closely one pins down one measurement (such as the position of a particle), the less precise another measurement pertaining to the same particle (such as its momentum) must become. This is called the uncertainty principle, also known as the Heisenberg principle after the person who first proposed it.

Put another way, measuring position first and then measuring momentum does not have the same outcome as measuring momentum first and then measuring position; the act of measuring the first property necessarily introduces additional energy into the micro-system being studied, thereby perturbing that system.

Even more disconcerting, pairs of particles can be created as "entangled twins." As is described in more detail in the article on Quantum entanglement, entangled particles seem to exhibit what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," matches between states that classical physics would insist must be random even when distance and the speed of light ensure that no physical causation could account for these correlations.[3]

 

So you really can get a do from an is!

[MonDie]

Let me do some reading before I respond to this. It may take a day or so.

[dimreepr]

Let me do some reading before I respond to this. It may take a day or so.

 

Read this, @Arjun Deepak Shriram how exactly do you get this ‘do from an is’?

[Arjun Deepak Shriram]

Let me do some reading before I respond to this. It may take a day or so.

Sure. Please take your time. Many thanks for the pleasant response. Help is always avaiable wherever we look.

[PeterJ]

In my view, being a fan of Lao Tzu, everything comes from an 'is'. It's not as if the laws of nature can exist in some disembodied form apart from the phenomenon they govern.

[MonDie]

Sure. Please take your time. Many thanks for the pleasant response. Help is always avaiable wherever we look.

 

No, you are the one with the pleasant response.

 

Read this,

 

I don't have textbooks for nothing...

... ... ... ...

Edited April 30, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[MonDie]

I've been busy, but I found time to contemplate this subject. Arjun was kind, but I still cannot follow his reasoning. However, I have found quantum mechanics to be relevant to the topic.

In my view, being a fan of Lao Tzu, everything comes from an 'is'. It's not as if the laws of nature can exist in some disembodied form apart from the phenomenon they govern.

I should have articulated better, but this thread is an off-shoot I made to avoid flooding ydoaPs' thread with irrelevance. When I said 'is', I meant any property of composition or location, i.e. I was talking about the states of physical things. When I said 'do', I was talking about causality, the supposed consequences of the 'is' properties.

Now I will address your concerns.
We tend to think of principles as mere abstractions, and our language doesn't help us overcome this problem. When an object-describing word doesn't describe any existent objects, we say the thing doesn't exist. When a principle doesn't describe actual behavior, we say the principle is false. Despite this linguistic partition, both are examples of abstract concepts describing reality, both are references to real phenomena.
You say a principle cannot exist "disembodied," but I could turn this around by saying "things" could not exist unless some principle directed them to exist. And, although we seem to privelage object-type existence over principle-type existence, I think it is the principles that should be privelaged. We cannot see a thing exist; we cannot see space nor time; we only see colors spread upon a field of vision. However, we can plainly see that the world around us follows principles, and these principles are what scientists seek to explain. If things actually exist, it is the principles that should suggest this to us.

However, quantum mechanics are not deterministic. Electrons don't "move," they just jump around randomly within orbitals defined by probabilistic ranges. To me, this seems to upset the idea that current states causally determine future states (do from an is), but maybe one of the physicists can burst my bubble.

Here's a video introduction to quantum indeterminacy.
BACKGROUD INFO: In Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Δx × Δp ≥ h/4π, Δ means uncertainty. Δx is uncertainty about position, and Δp is uncertainty about momentum. The more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can know the other.

 

---

Moving on from PeterJ's concerns, it's hard to make a conclusive argument that physical things are or aren't mere manifestations of principles.
One easily arrived at argument for monism is that two things of inherently different natures (e.g. principles and "things") would not interact with one another, but this is a flawed argument. To see, you only have to ask "How do I know two inherently different things cannot interact?" and, from there, "What are two other things that I know to be inherently different?"
One argument for thing-ism could be that, in order for a principle to determine future states from current states, things must exist one way or the other, either as manifestations of principles or as things separate from principles. It is just as easy to imagine either. Indeed, they could argue that I've simply performed a bait-and-switch, i.e. "Oh no no, you still get to keep your things, but now we call them 'principle manifestations'. *wink* "

However, I did toy with some interesting ideas. At first, I assumed that a monistic world would require two types of principles. One tells things to exist, and the other processes present existence to generate future existence (i.e. if/then rules, cause and effect). However, one can imagine these as one unified principle as well. Instead of the principle having an if/then portion, it simply states how things will unfold. By this I mean that the patterns of causality we observe would be just that, patterns. There would be no if/then rule, but simply a systematic process going "then, then, then, then..." without ever judging any ifs.
What's coming up is perhaps the most interesting part. The persistent idea that every thing has a cause is not actually a logical necessity, it's merely a consistent observation. If these principles are what are responsible for causality, they may not need any external cause.

But, again, those who actually know physics may come in and burst my bubble.

That's as far as I've gone. I hope this post can spark some interesting discussion.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[PeterJ]

Monday - Have you considered the possibility of a phenomenon that is unmanifest? One that is prior to spacetime and causality?

 

Lao Tzu tells us that the laws of the human world derive from the laws of Heaven, and that the laws of Heaven are as they are 'Tao being what it is'.. I.e he would agree with you that it begins with an 'is'. Given Tao, all else would follow.

 

I think that the most basic principle for Middle Way Buddhism would be nonduality.

[MonDie]

Monday - Have you considered the possibility of a phenomenon that is unmanifest? One that is prior to spacetime and causality?

 

I have, but the principles are (or refer to) manifestations. I don't think there is anything unmanifest in this philosophy.

 

When I looked up "unmanifest," I wandered to the Wikipedia page on acosmism. It's always fun to contrast Western concepts with Eastern concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism

 

---

 

Lao Tzu tells us that the laws of the human world derive from the laws of Heaven, and that the laws of Heaven are as they are 'Tao being what it is'.. I.e he would agree with you that it begins with an 'is'. Given Tao, all else would follow.

 

I didn't say it necessarily begins with an 'is' (with the meaning given in the OP). The principles we can directly observe are the principles regarding the doings, not the 'beings' (or is's), and it is those principles that must suggest the 'beings', if any, that are necessary to explain the 'doings'. Although the 'doings' can be the referents of language, they don't 'exist' in the typical sense.

 

Tao's Wikipedia page seems to describe the same idea as I, but I'm sure there are other ways to interpret the following.

 

In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

 

---

 

I think that the most basic principle for Middle Way Buddhism would be nonduality.

 

I'm not a Buddhist.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[PeterJ]

I have, but the principles are (or refer to) manifestations. I don't think there is anything unmanifest in this philosophy.

In which philosophy?

 

When I looked up "unmanifest," I wandered to the Wikipedia page on acosmism. It's always fun to contrast Western concepts with Eastern concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism

 

---

 

Fun? This Wikki article is not great.

 

I didn't say it necessarily begins with an 'is' (with the meaning given in the OP). The principles we can directly observe are the principles regarding the doings, not the 'beings' (or is's), and it is those principles that must suggest the 'beings', if any, that are necessary to explain the 'doings'. Although the 'doings' can be the referents of language, they don't 'exist' in the typical sense.

 

Tao's Wikipedia page seems to describe the same idea as I, but I'm sure there are other ways to interpret the following.

 

---

 

Erm. Nothing follows. But we probably agree here.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not a Buddhist.

 

 

Nor am I. What's this got to do with anything?

 

But I've said my piece. You won't find another explanation of origin that survives in metaphysics. But I've discovered that it's no good telling people this, or even proving it. .

[MonDie]

In which philosophy?

 

Philosophy

Idea

 

Fun?

 

Yeah.

 

This Wikki article is not great.

 

I only read the intro. I just wanted to attach some sort of meaning to the word.

[PeterJ]

Sorry Monday - my last reply was a poor one.

 

By the way, my criticism of that article was that the author equates advaita Vedanta with monism, The term advaita means 'not two', which is used precisely because it does not imply monism. But superficially it's something like monism, so there is much confusion. The Wikki article adds to it.

 

.

Edited May 12, 2013 by PeterJ