Objectivity and Space: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Objectivity and Space » Objectivity and Space

Objectivity and Space

Timothy
Undead Mariachi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: 04°34'N 74°00'W

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 2077

Posted 06/13/09 - 04:43 PM: Subject: Objectivity and Space	#1
What is the connection between objectivity and spatial representation/recognition/cognition? Being able to have objective experience implies being able to represent space? Does spatial representation suffices to understand objective assertions? This seems to put 'objective' in a direct opposition to 'subjective'. So, for example, I can understand that a given phenomena is objective because I ceased observing it, and in a later time observed it again and re-identified it as the same phenomena I was observing earlier. In this case, I had to represent a 'space' where the phenomena took place when I was not observing. On chapter two of Individuals, P.F. Strawson tries to imagine a being whose experience is completely auditory, and concluded that if such a being is to have objective experience, he must have a representation analogue to space. Any thoughts on the matter?
"Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic." P.F. Strawson

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4126

Posted 06/13/09 - 10:41 PM:

Symmetry and ratios are common metaphysical arguments that are then extended into epistomology. The Tao Te Ching, for example, contains a rudamentary assertion that:

From the one came the two,

From the two came the three,

And from the three came the infinite things.

Mathematically speaking 3 factorial is only 6, nowhere near infinity, so you might ask how did they come up with the idea of three of something leading to infinity. The obvious answer is that the literal mathematical translation is wrong and that the quote is referring to the principle of synergy.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 06/14/09 - 05:12 AM:	#3
A couple of years ago I made an attempt to reduce the SI table of 7 elemental units down to 2, namely metre and second. This was succesful through the elimination of certain "natural" constants like the gravity constant that turned out to be completely arbitrary and based on the relation between arbitrary measures, so setting 6.67*10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2 = 1 you should be able to derive the unit for mass in terms of metre and second. Initially my idea was that mass is nothing more than a description of the distribution of forces of gravity in space, and thus its unit must be defined in terms of its effect on other objects, namely the acceleration of other objects, and this is dependent on the inverse square rule that I later found out Kant attributes to the 3-dimensionality of space. The unit thus should be unit of acceleration per unit of distance to the power of -2 i.e. m^3/s^2 in SI units. I proceeded in likewise manner for charges and temperature noting especially that temperature is a macroscopic variable in a system of kinetic energy. In the end it turned out that all physical measurements are actually reducible to measurement of space and time as how objects interact with each other is ultimately spatiotemporal. This suggests to me that all claims of physical objects are also ultimately reducible in terms of space and time.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 06/15/09 - 09:27 AM:	#4
Timothy wrote: In this case, I had to represent a 'space' where the phenomena took place when I was not observing. Isn't this just a construct, a representation, in your mind though? You can't truly know (beyond Cartesian doubt) that the phenomenon continued to exist when you weren't looking. As far-fetched as the suggestion might be, there remains the possibility that the thing comes and goes from existence as your observation requires of it. I know people are probably tired of the BIV thing but bear with me and consider it yet again. Suppose that the mechanism generating your reality within your vat detects that you are going to go into the kitchen and open your fridge so it generates the necessary reality within the necessary elapsed time frame from when you last saw it. When you leave the room it is no longer necessary to generate it and all of its contents so it ceases to exist. In your mind the space occupied by the fridge continues to exist. It will be there when you return. It always has. Yes, we do mentally construct or imagine the space you are talking about and yes, you can label it objectively existing if you wish. The only problem is that you have no means to verify it so it remains an abstract of objective existence not any sort of proof. You are still open to "attack" by those of us who feel that attempts to discuss objective reality are futile.

Timothy
Undead Mariachi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: 04°34'N 74°00'W

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 2077

Posted 06/16/09 - 09:05 PM:	#5
@oag, While the metaphysical and/or epistemological problem of existence and certainty may keep popping up, it is the connection between spatial representation and purported objectivity what interests me. Usually, this issue is treated under some assumptions, such as realism. What Strawson and others, like Evans, find interesting to do is to imagine whether a being with experience conditions very unlike ours can have nonetheless objective experience in the same sense that we do. Other way of phrasing this is to ask whether such a being would be able to understand our objective assertions even when his experience conditions are radically different. Naturally, the issue seems to imply too much speculation, and means of testing answers to those questions are too obscure. Yet still there's some validity in the questions, or philosophical value of you may. @keda keda wrote: In the end it turned out that all physical measurements are actually reducible to measurement of space and time as how objects interact with each other is ultimately spatiotemporal. This suggests to me that all claims of physical objects are also ultimately reducible in terms of space and time. So you would agree that spatial representation is necessary for objective claims, such as claims about physical objects? Or could there be some other way of obtaining objective experience without the need of any sort of spatial representation, or even with something analogous to it? Is the connection you mentioned contingent, or reveals something inherent to objectivity, namely spatial representation? @wuliheron I'm not sure I follow at all
"Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic." P.F. Strawson

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:17 PM:	#6
Timothy wrote: Is the connection you mentioned contingent, or reveals something inherent to objectivity, namely spatial representation? ] I wouldn't say its inherent in objectivity, but rather inherent in our mode of (ojbective) experience. The only way any type of sense, be it vision, smell or electroception can relate to objects, is through spatial (and temporal) representation. The way any object relates to us, through our senses is through exerting a repulsive force, and forces are mediated by space. So spatial representation is necessary for objective sensory experience.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.