Modern physics is idealist

By -
"after all, what could be more mysterious, or could be more awe– inspiring, than to find that the structure of the physical world is intimately tied to the deep mathematical concepts, concepts which were developed out of considerations rooted only in logic and the beauty of form?" -- Physics Nobel prize winner Chen Ning Yang

The world is a world of ideas.

Comments

  1. rob8:25 PM

    Why couldn't material objects be "intimately tied to the deep mathematical concepts, concepts which were developed out of considerations rooted only in logic and the beauty of form".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:33 PM

      They are indeed so tied, rob!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:28 AM

      Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but isn't that essentially what was said?

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell11:44 PM

    I don't understand idealism. What exactly does "the world is a world of ideas" entail? I've noticed that you're a member of an association of British idealists and that Michael Oakshott, whose works converted you to classical republicanism, was a Hegelian. So it would seem to me that one's political philosophy is derivable from one's metaphysics or epistemology. For instance, is socialism (a word I don't really like to use) radically different from liberalism in metaphysics or epistemology? I've been trying to understand how socialist thinking is different from liberal thinking and it seems to reject the concept of rights, which I would think they would like to adopt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:21 AM

    So I'm a little weak on philosophy - explain to me exactly why the universe is tied to mathematical ideas and not the other way around.

    I'm not saying the other way around is right, I'm just saying your decisiveness on the question is confusing to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:35 PM

      Daniel, if A is tied to B, then B is tied to A. So I think the "tying" goes both ways, not one or the other.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:51 PM

      But idealism very much has it going one way, does it not?

      Delete
    3. gcallah5:15 PM

      The only idealists home I am aware of four home that is true are some of the Indian, Vedic philosophers. From Berkeley on, that would not be a true statement about any western idealist I know of.

      Delete
  4. Samson Corwell8:27 PM

    On a related note regarding optics, when I read that Herr Hoppe thought Ludwig von Mises had laid out the foundations for optics as well as ethics and geometry I realized just how terrible a "philosopher" he really is. When an economist not worth his weight in paper money (a joke considering what he's said about it) ventures into making such brain dead scientific claims then you know he's bad.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more