I enjoyed Quentin Meillassoux’s book (please see my prior post): it is creative and thought-provoking philosophy at its best. I can’t endorse Q.M.’s quest for a “speculative materialism”, but I found his views on the central topics of contingency and necessity (hyper-chaos!) very interesting and challenging to my own opinions.
1. Why Materialism?
I came to Q.M.’s discussion of “ancestrality” and its challenge to “correlationism” from a different perspective: I don’t agree that the right goal involves purging mind from nature, thereby elevating the scientific account as such to truth. (I’m actually not even sure why he wants to be a materialist, as I’ll explain below). I don’t think “correlationism” is completely wrong in that I think subjective points of view are indeed ineliminable aspects of our world. I note ancestrality poses no prima facie problem for Russellian monism and panexperientialism. But I thought Q.M. made excellent points in his critique of most philosophers’ failure to provide an account of the compelling nature of scientific facts, and the trap of centering reality on human consciousness and/or language. He draws a persuasive connection between these problems and philosophy’s slide into deflationism/anti-realism (and sometimes postmodernism) which has hurt its relevance.
Now, I really liked his exploration of contingency and proposal of a hyper-chaos model. Q.M. views facticity (the absence of a reason for something) as a kind of universal solvent that ultimately undermines any view of what’s necessary other than contingency itself. Interestingly he shares with his “correlationist” opponents the rejection of arguments for any necessarily existing entity or entities. And it is certainly true that many or most modern philosophers reject not only classic arguments for the existence for God – but also broadly reject the possibility of engaging in metaphysics to reach conclusions regarding the necessity of logical truths, mathematics, physical laws, morals, etc.
With regard to the “correlationist” philosophers, Q.M. uses the fact that they themselves might agree that subjectivity itself can't be demonstrated to be necessary as ammunition against them. If even this can be doubted --and note a correlationist would tend to argue this in refuting an absolute idealist, for example-- then the correlationist subject-object “circle” is not necessary either. It turns out then, that, in rejecting absolute idealism, the correlationist has endorsed the ubiquitous scope of facticity. And, ironically, this is evidence to Q.M. that facticity itself can be elevated into something absolute and necessary (“factiality”). (Note he sees this as a necessary principle, not an entity).
Now, here is where I pause to wonder why Q.M. is a self-described materialist. He believes he has derived that things-in-themselves do exist (as contingent facts), but even if he has shown they exist independent of human minds, he hasn’t ruled out that they might have aspects of both mind and matter, or that perhaps facts might be somehow neutral with respect to those categories.
2. My “well-behaved” chaos vs. Hyper-chaos
But let me get back to the issue of necessarily existing entities.
A. Has he really shown necessarily existing entities are impossible?
B. Couldn’t hyperchaos be a necessary entity?
Now, in the absence of a knock-down argument for the necessary existence of something, why would someone believe in its truth? Well, some assume rationality can reach beyond our world and conceive of what is possible, and that this can lead us to map what is metaphysically possible and what is necessary. There are two problems: first, some disagree with this rationalist premise; second, people disagree regarding what’s conceivably possible. In fact, the widespread disagreement can be taken as evidence for the faultiness of the premise.
Now, Q.M. doesn’t offer new arguments against rationalism, he just assumes that the forces of modern anti-rationalism are on firm ground, and then he turns to his project of finding (ironically) a new absolute in the fact that everything can be questioned and found lacking a reason for its being.
But I’m not ready to concede that rationalism is dead just because there exist a preponderance of modern philosophers who think so (they could be wrong). I’ve argued there is a viable modern foundation for rationalism, inspired by the discovery that indeterminism is true of our world (see recent posts here and here).
In fact, I have been entertaining a model for a necessarily existing entity which is a chaotic ground of all metaphysical possibilities (including variation in physical law) – with the creation of the actual an intrinsically chancy process. (see for instance my posts on Timothy O'Connor's book). But my chaos has been “shaped” via rationalism: I thought certain conclusions, such as the fact that logical and mathematical truths were necessary, and that actual events are always experiential events, were justified by reason. And I have been willing to entertain the possibility that other truths might be necessary, too (morals/values?).
But Meillassoux has done a good job making me question my capacity to reach such conclusions. For every necessity I propose he might assert there is no way to be sure, and thus the only sure thing is (“super-”) contingency.
And yet I note that he immediately follows his conclusion of supercontingency and hyper-chaos with a derivation of the principle of non-contradiction, which, as it is based on conceptual analysis, seems pretty rationalist. And he hopes to derive other such conclusions, involving mathematics for instance. At this point I start to wonder if his project is very different from mine (albeit more sophisticated). And by the way can’t I define hyper-chaos as the set* of all non-contradictory possibilities and refer to this as a necessarily existing entity?
I’ll stop there. There’s lots to think about, and “hyper-chaos” is definitely haunting my thoughts, thanks to Q.M.
* I assume he'd say that we can't sum the possibilities because they are "transfinite", hence untotalizable, given his arguments in Ch.4.
Showing posts with label Modal Epistemology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Modal Epistemology. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where Rationalism Meets Empiricism
To review one aspect of the model being explored here:
The concrete world is a causal network of events; each event is an actualized outcome, selected from a set of possibilities*. Some form of modal realism is true: while the unactualized possibilities aren’t themselves concrete, they are real in some sense. Their reality is implicated in everything that happens.
I speculate that since we’ve evolved in this kind of world, we are naturally acquainted with possibilities. In fact, the consideration of possibilities is central to life (of animals, too) and to our reasoning. Somehow, humans leverage this acquaintance with possibilities to spin whole scenarios of how a world could be.
Contemporary rationalism takes the form of modal metaphysics – where one claims that our faculty for conceiving possible worlds is reliable. Like older forms of rationalism, it is vulnerable to critics who claim we can’t know about anything which is not experienced concretely.
But on this account, the space of possibilities is involved in every concrete event. These “abstract” entities are real and are implicated in causality. Therefore our modal reasoning (and by extension, our contemplation of all sorts of abstract concepts) is not disconnected from the empirical realm. Our rational faculties are grounded in our direct acquaintance with something real.
* An alternative account would characterize each event as a manifestation, resulting from an intersection of probabilistic dispositions, or propensities. In quantum physics, the analogues are the measurement event and the wavefunction.
The concrete world is a causal network of events; each event is an actualized outcome, selected from a set of possibilities*. Some form of modal realism is true: while the unactualized possibilities aren’t themselves concrete, they are real in some sense. Their reality is implicated in everything that happens.
I speculate that since we’ve evolved in this kind of world, we are naturally acquainted with possibilities. In fact, the consideration of possibilities is central to life (of animals, too) and to our reasoning. Somehow, humans leverage this acquaintance with possibilities to spin whole scenarios of how a world could be.
Contemporary rationalism takes the form of modal metaphysics – where one claims that our faculty for conceiving possible worlds is reliable. Like older forms of rationalism, it is vulnerable to critics who claim we can’t know about anything which is not experienced concretely.
But on this account, the space of possibilities is involved in every concrete event. These “abstract” entities are real and are implicated in causality. Therefore our modal reasoning (and by extension, our contemplation of all sorts of abstract concepts) is not disconnected from the empirical realm. Our rational faculties are grounded in our direct acquaintance with something real.
* An alternative account would characterize each event as a manifestation, resulting from an intersection of probabilistic dispositions, or propensities. In quantum physics, the analogues are the measurement event and the wavefunction.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Justifying Metaphysics to its Critics
There has been a (to me gratifying) rebirth of metaphysics in English-speaking philosophy over the last couple of decades. Now, just as in the past, there is a backlash coming from within the profession. One locus of the opposition comes from philosophers of science. Now one of the best contemporary philosophers of science, Craig Callender, has a draft paper (“Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics”) giving his own critical assessment of metaphysics, which he presents in a judicious and thoughtful manner. (For a recent bloggy example of the tension here, see the sometimes pointed debate down in the comments to this post at It’s Only A Theory.)
Callender believes metaphysics plays an important role in science itself as well as philosophy of science. But he thinks some metaphysics goes wrong by assuming too much autonomy from science: there is a “resurgent idea that metaphysicians have a wider domain of study than scientists.” As a result:
Callender believes metaphysics plays an important role in science itself as well as philosophy of science. But he thinks some metaphysics goes wrong by assuming too much autonomy from science: there is a “resurgent idea that metaphysicians have a wider domain of study than scientists.” As a result:
Today metaphysics is again the target of deep suspicion. In fact, we are in the midst of a flare-up of historic proportions. Evidence of this comes from my bookshelf. Many recent books in philosophy of science possess entire chapters strongly condemning comtemportary analytic metaphysics.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Spinoza: Are Finite Things Contingent After All?
I’ve never studied Spinoza in any depth, so have been ignorant of the many subtleties/ambiguities in his work and the competing interpretations put forward by scholars on many points. I enjoyed reading two articles by Samuel Newlands: first, his SEP article “Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics”, and the recent preprint, “Another Kind of Spinozistic Monism.” The latter paper argues that the various forms of metaphysical dependence employed by Spinoza (causation, inherence in, following from, etc.) are each connected to a broad notion of conceptual dependence, which is the key to understanding their role. This paper, interesting in its own right, helped me understand Newlands’ work in the modal metaphysics article, which is directly about the aspect of Spinoza I’m most interested in at the moment.
Spinoza is widely seen as a necessitarian (everything which exists does so necessarily), and for good reason: he has passages which explicitly affirm this. But evidently if you dig deeper there is a subtlety with regard to the status of “finite modes”, the ontological category which would include everyday concrete things. (Please note the use of “modes” here is unrelated to the “modal” dimensions of necessity and contingency). The one substance (God) and its infinite modes are absolutely necessary, but finite modes don’t follow from God in the same way as infinite modes. On the one hand, Spinoza affirms that God created everything, but elsewhere he specifies that finite modes follow only from other finite modes. What does this mean for the modal status of finite things (and how can he affirm both of these statements?)
Spinoza is widely seen as a necessitarian (everything which exists does so necessarily), and for good reason: he has passages which explicitly affirm this. But evidently if you dig deeper there is a subtlety with regard to the status of “finite modes”, the ontological category which would include everyday concrete things. (Please note the use of “modes” here is unrelated to the “modal” dimensions of necessity and contingency). The one substance (God) and its infinite modes are absolutely necessary, but finite modes don’t follow from God in the same way as infinite modes. On the one hand, Spinoza affirms that God created everything, but elsewhere he specifies that finite modes follow only from other finite modes. What does this mean for the modal status of finite things (and how can he affirm both of these statements?)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Anathem Metaphysics
(“Metatheorics”, I should say)
Most Neal Stephenson fans probably read his book Anathem last fall, but I just finished. There are many reviews available, so I won’t add one here, but I got a big charge out of some of the philosophical ideas Stephenson put in the book.
In the course of the novel, Stephenson proposes an interesting relationship between platonic truths, the multiverse, and human rationality/consciousness, which I have enjoyed comparing to my own ideas (discussion below the fold).
The main idea is that the platonic realm is not a single transcendent world out there, but rather the source of platonic ideas is to be found in the multiverse (called the “polycosm” in the book; the overall theory is called “complex protism” where protism=Platonism and “simple protism” would be the positing of a single platonic realm).
The core of this idea is one I endorse here in the non-fictional realm, and it was very cool to see it in the novel. Modal judgments about what is possible and what is necessary play a crucial role in our reasoning. At the same time, both philosophers and theoretical physicists have proposed that our world is one member of a set of many possible worlds. If we propose that the logical possibilities we explore with our minds are identical with real possibilities present in the multiverse, then the multiverse can be seen as the source of our rationality, and of our knowledge of abstract truths. (The philosophical term for the match-up between logically possible worlds and metaphysically possible worlds is modal rationalism).
But how does a human mind access the multiverse? First, let me note that the type of multiverse being proposed in the book is inspired by the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (QM). So the solution is to have the mind exploit the quantum realm. There’s a dialogue between the characters Orolo and Erasmus (pp. 543-548) where they discuss how the presence of the same person’s brain in multiple adjoining and interfering worlds gives the brain access to possibilities. Stephenson’s characters later make the point (which I liked) that it isn’t that the human brain is the only thing which is in contact with possibilities; one should assume everything in the world experiences some contact, but it is in our own brains that we can best see the evidence manifested (pp. 690-92).
I’ve come at this in similar spirit, with one apparent difference when it comes to interpreting QM. I believe that our world is comprised of quantum measurement “collapse” events, which each embody the actualization of one of many possibilities. The fact that we humans are ultimately grounded in quantum-level events gives us a kind of direct acquaintance with possibilia in everything we do. That makes our ability to have modal knowledge intelligible, even though we don’t yet know the manner in which our brain/body system leverages this presumably micro-level contact into macro-level knowledge.
It appears Stephenson’s idea is to try to preserve the MWI (which attempts to do away with measurement events), while allowing contact between parallel worlds to be exploited by the mind. MWI would not typically be seen as allowing any contact. Also, usually in MWI, worlds branch (what we think of as a measurement is a splitting of worlds), whereas Stephenson wants to keep worlds in parallel. Of course, positing contacts between parallel worlds is very helpful for the creating the exciting parts of the novel which involve characters and spaceships moving between worlds.
The other aspect of Stephenson’s multiverse which is interesting is that the informational contact between worlds has a flow, where some worlds are upstream or downstream from one’s own world. It seems he places a single purely platonic world at the source of the information flow (whereas I would follow the usual philosophical tradition of identifying logical and mathmatically necessary truths to be those things true in all worlds). I’m not sure this makes sense or was philosophically motivated, but it was a neat twist.
There are allusions to many other philosophical and scientific ideas in the book, and Stephenson discusses many of the sources which inspired these in this acknowledgments page on his website. There’s more to follow up on there – one philosopher he discusses who I have not read is Edward N. Zalta.
[I have a number of old posts on related topics, including
Making Abstract Truths Intelligible
Modal Realism, Modal Rationalism
Multiverses -- Physical and Metaphysical]
Most Neal Stephenson fans probably read his book Anathem last fall, but I just finished. There are many reviews available, so I won’t add one here, but I got a big charge out of some of the philosophical ideas Stephenson put in the book.
In the course of the novel, Stephenson proposes an interesting relationship between platonic truths, the multiverse, and human rationality/consciousness, which I have enjoyed comparing to my own ideas (discussion below the fold).
The main idea is that the platonic realm is not a single transcendent world out there, but rather the source of platonic ideas is to be found in the multiverse (called the “polycosm” in the book; the overall theory is called “complex protism” where protism=Platonism and “simple protism” would be the positing of a single platonic realm).
The core of this idea is one I endorse here in the non-fictional realm, and it was very cool to see it in the novel. Modal judgments about what is possible and what is necessary play a crucial role in our reasoning. At the same time, both philosophers and theoretical physicists have proposed that our world is one member of a set of many possible worlds. If we propose that the logical possibilities we explore with our minds are identical with real possibilities present in the multiverse, then the multiverse can be seen as the source of our rationality, and of our knowledge of abstract truths. (The philosophical term for the match-up between logically possible worlds and metaphysically possible worlds is modal rationalism).
But how does a human mind access the multiverse? First, let me note that the type of multiverse being proposed in the book is inspired by the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (QM). So the solution is to have the mind exploit the quantum realm. There’s a dialogue between the characters Orolo and Erasmus (pp. 543-548) where they discuss how the presence of the same person’s brain in multiple adjoining and interfering worlds gives the brain access to possibilities. Stephenson’s characters later make the point (which I liked) that it isn’t that the human brain is the only thing which is in contact with possibilities; one should assume everything in the world experiences some contact, but it is in our own brains that we can best see the evidence manifested (pp. 690-92).
I’ve come at this in similar spirit, with one apparent difference when it comes to interpreting QM. I believe that our world is comprised of quantum measurement “collapse” events, which each embody the actualization of one of many possibilities. The fact that we humans are ultimately grounded in quantum-level events gives us a kind of direct acquaintance with possibilia in everything we do. That makes our ability to have modal knowledge intelligible, even though we don’t yet know the manner in which our brain/body system leverages this presumably micro-level contact into macro-level knowledge.
It appears Stephenson’s idea is to try to preserve the MWI (which attempts to do away with measurement events), while allowing contact between parallel worlds to be exploited by the mind. MWI would not typically be seen as allowing any contact. Also, usually in MWI, worlds branch (what we think of as a measurement is a splitting of worlds), whereas Stephenson wants to keep worlds in parallel. Of course, positing contacts between parallel worlds is very helpful for the creating the exciting parts of the novel which involve characters and spaceships moving between worlds.
The other aspect of Stephenson’s multiverse which is interesting is that the informational contact between worlds has a flow, where some worlds are upstream or downstream from one’s own world. It seems he places a single purely platonic world at the source of the information flow (whereas I would follow the usual philosophical tradition of identifying logical and mathmatically necessary truths to be those things true in all worlds). I’m not sure this makes sense or was philosophically motivated, but it was a neat twist.
There are allusions to many other philosophical and scientific ideas in the book, and Stephenson discusses many of the sources which inspired these in this acknowledgments page on his website. There’s more to follow up on there – one philosopher he discusses who I have not read is Edward N. Zalta.
[I have a number of old posts on related topics, including
Making Abstract Truths Intelligible
Modal Realism, Modal Rationalism
Multiverses -- Physical and Metaphysical]
Friday, June 08, 2007
Jenkins on Modal Knowledge
Dr. Carrie Jenkins (homepage; blog; also a TAR contributor) posted a thought-provoking draft paper on a topic I’m interested in – the question of how we acquire modal knowledge. My notes on this paper follow below.
In previous papers, Dr. Jenkins has presented a strategy intended to show how abstract (and seemingly a priori) truths can be real and yet our knowledge of these can grounded in a way friendly to an empiricist (arithmetical truths were used as a paradigm case). To give my massively oversimplifed take on this, Step 1 of her process involves our forming concepts which are seeded by and grounded in sensory input. These concepts take the pieces of world-data and extend them into maps of how the world hangs together. In Step 2, we examine and manipulate these concepts in order to extend our knowledge to what we normally think of as abstract truths. This step 2 seems to have some rationalist tint to it (where did we get this concept examination and extrapolation faculty?), but the whole package is meant to bring the process closer to an earthly explanation, and seems plausible.
But can this analysis be extended to truths regarding possibility and necessity? After all, as Jenkins discusses early in the paper, it certainly seems as if our sensory input is restricted to empirical truth values: the modal status of these truth values appears to have no detectable impact on this input. To put this in terms of the two steps above: when it comes to modal knowledge, Step 1 encompasses some mystery as well. What is it about our knowledge of the natural world which gives us the pieces to form a valid conceptual map of possibility and necessity?
She connects this problem with the issues surrounding the modal rationalist position that conceivability implies possibility. Of special concern for this paper is the basic question of why should we think that conceivability has anything to do with possibility to begin with. For conceivability to be a guide to modality, “our powers of conceiving would have to be attuned to modal fact.” (p.10)
She notes this wouldn’t be a problem if one is an anti-realist about modal truths, then we can just say they are mind dependent and just an artifact of our concepts. But we want to look at the situation facing realists regarding mind-independent modal truths. How can we explain our knowledge of such truths, including the idea that conceivability implies possibility, without invoking a special faculty of rational intuition?
What follows next is a careful review of the steps in her analytical program. She explains her take on what concepts are and how conceptual truths and falsehoods can be derived from an examination of concepts. She discusses how concepts can be grounded empirically, so they accurately represent aspects of the world. Her stance is that if concepts are grounded in this way, then examination of them can lead to conceptual knowledge.
Ok, now back to the key question for this paper: how can modal conceptual knowledge be derived from empirically grounded concepts. The distinguishing step seems to be her suggestion that in gaining empirical knowledge we gain not just atomic empirical facts, but information on the structure (or structural relations) of the actual world, and this structure can ground concepts that can be examined to gain modal knowledge. The easiest examples to work with to illuminate this idea are certain instances of necessary truths.
She uses the example “all vixens are female” to walk through the process by which the concepts (of vixen and female) are grounded empirically, and the relations between the concepts are also accurate reflections of the relations between the real features of the world represented by the concepts. The result being that when we examine the concepts we find that cannot conceive of “all vixens are female” as false; this directs us toward belief in the necessity of the proposition. Because the way we arrived at the belief was grounded in the right way, it is true. (Question: is possibility more difficult -- is it just that everything which isn't determined to be necessary is thus contingent?)
She notes that this epistemological story would need a full metaphysical theory to fill out the question of exactly why the accurate understanding of actual world structural relations leads to knowledge of modal truth, and this goes beyond the scope of the paper. But her epistemological strategy should be compatible with a number of theories.*
The paper continues with discussions of further implications and responses to possible objections. Then, as part of the concluding section, Jenkins returns to the problem raised in the beginning – that it certainly seems as though the empirical truth values can convey no sensory knowledge of modality. She says that despite its initial plausibility, there is no good reason to believe this statement is true, and this becomes clear when one considers the structure of the world, in addition to just atomic facts.
I liked the paper a lot. The richness and detail of discussion throughout (not captured in this summary) built a strong cumulative case for the argument; and the successful application of the previously developed framework to this question of modal truth speaks well for the robustness of Dr. Jenkins’ research program.
*In my case I had this idea that if I posit an ontology where the concrete world is constructed from events which are actualized possibilities, then our knowledge of these events gives us direct acquaintance with possibilities in everything that we learn (I further speculated in this post that modal knowledge gained in this way could actually precede and be constitutive of other abstract knowledge.)
In previous papers, Dr. Jenkins has presented a strategy intended to show how abstract (and seemingly a priori) truths can be real and yet our knowledge of these can grounded in a way friendly to an empiricist (arithmetical truths were used as a paradigm case). To give my massively oversimplifed take on this, Step 1 of her process involves our forming concepts which are seeded by and grounded in sensory input. These concepts take the pieces of world-data and extend them into maps of how the world hangs together. In Step 2, we examine and manipulate these concepts in order to extend our knowledge to what we normally think of as abstract truths. This step 2 seems to have some rationalist tint to it (where did we get this concept examination and extrapolation faculty?), but the whole package is meant to bring the process closer to an earthly explanation, and seems plausible.
But can this analysis be extended to truths regarding possibility and necessity? After all, as Jenkins discusses early in the paper, it certainly seems as if our sensory input is restricted to empirical truth values: the modal status of these truth values appears to have no detectable impact on this input. To put this in terms of the two steps above: when it comes to modal knowledge, Step 1 encompasses some mystery as well. What is it about our knowledge of the natural world which gives us the pieces to form a valid conceptual map of possibility and necessity?
She connects this problem with the issues surrounding the modal rationalist position that conceivability implies possibility. Of special concern for this paper is the basic question of why should we think that conceivability has anything to do with possibility to begin with. For conceivability to be a guide to modality, “our powers of conceiving would have to be attuned to modal fact.” (p.10)
She notes this wouldn’t be a problem if one is an anti-realist about modal truths, then we can just say they are mind dependent and just an artifact of our concepts. But we want to look at the situation facing realists regarding mind-independent modal truths. How can we explain our knowledge of such truths, including the idea that conceivability implies possibility, without invoking a special faculty of rational intuition?
What follows next is a careful review of the steps in her analytical program. She explains her take on what concepts are and how conceptual truths and falsehoods can be derived from an examination of concepts. She discusses how concepts can be grounded empirically, so they accurately represent aspects of the world. Her stance is that if concepts are grounded in this way, then examination of them can lead to conceptual knowledge.
Ok, now back to the key question for this paper: how can modal conceptual knowledge be derived from empirically grounded concepts. The distinguishing step seems to be her suggestion that in gaining empirical knowledge we gain not just atomic empirical facts, but information on the structure (or structural relations) of the actual world, and this structure can ground concepts that can be examined to gain modal knowledge. The easiest examples to work with to illuminate this idea are certain instances of necessary truths.
She uses the example “all vixens are female” to walk through the process by which the concepts (of vixen and female) are grounded empirically, and the relations between the concepts are also accurate reflections of the relations between the real features of the world represented by the concepts. The result being that when we examine the concepts we find that cannot conceive of “all vixens are female” as false; this directs us toward belief in the necessity of the proposition. Because the way we arrived at the belief was grounded in the right way, it is true. (Question: is possibility more difficult -- is it just that everything which isn't determined to be necessary is thus contingent?)
She notes that this epistemological story would need a full metaphysical theory to fill out the question of exactly why the accurate understanding of actual world structural relations leads to knowledge of modal truth, and this goes beyond the scope of the paper. But her epistemological strategy should be compatible with a number of theories.*
The paper continues with discussions of further implications and responses to possible objections. Then, as part of the concluding section, Jenkins returns to the problem raised in the beginning – that it certainly seems as though the empirical truth values can convey no sensory knowledge of modality. She says that despite its initial plausibility, there is no good reason to believe this statement is true, and this becomes clear when one considers the structure of the world, in addition to just atomic facts.
I liked the paper a lot. The richness and detail of discussion throughout (not captured in this summary) built a strong cumulative case for the argument; and the successful application of the previously developed framework to this question of modal truth speaks well for the robustness of Dr. Jenkins’ research program.
*In my case I had this idea that if I posit an ontology where the concrete world is constructed from events which are actualized possibilities, then our knowledge of these events gives us direct acquaintance with possibilities in everything that we learn (I further speculated in this post that modal knowledge gained in this way could actually precede and be constitutive of other abstract knowledge.)
Friday, May 18, 2007
Quantum Gravity and Gunk
Something is bothering me at the boundary of physics and metaphysics. It seems very likely that a successful theory of quantum gravity will entail that our actual universe is finite. This follows from two considerations. First, in the new theory, the singularities of general relativity will be banished, and the universe will be seen to be grained at the Planck scale. Second, it seems to me that the observable universe can be identified with the actual universe: in what sense should we consider a putative region of the universe beyond the reach of any possible causal contact to be actual? So, it follows that the actual universe is finite.
Now in reading metaphysical papers recently by Ross Cameron and Jonathan Schaffer, (see posts here and here), I was introduced to the argument for the conceivability of “gunk”. Gunk is stuff every part of which has proper parts -- that is, it is infinitely divisible. Now is a world made of gunk conceivable? It seems so. Now, since I have embraced the general stance that conceivability implies possibility, I would have to concede that if the actual world is finite, this is a contingent rather than necessary fact about the world.
For some reason, this just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like thinking that something as fundamental as the conclusion that our world is finite in extent is just a contingent fact. But given that we are (famously) adept at conceiving infinities, and the strength of my opinion regarding the modal rationalist link between conceivability and possibility, I’m stuck.
The only strategy which I think might work is as follows. I could assert that the conceivability of infinity is grounded by the whole space of possible worlds, and its application to a single possible world is a mistake. The gunky world would itself have to comprise all possible worlds by virtue of its infinite extent. It would itself necessarily constitute the entire modal space, so it couldn’t also be one of the constituents of modal space. Individual possible worlds themselves would be necessarily finite in this scheme.
Now in reading metaphysical papers recently by Ross Cameron and Jonathan Schaffer, (see posts here and here), I was introduced to the argument for the conceivability of “gunk”. Gunk is stuff every part of which has proper parts -- that is, it is infinitely divisible. Now is a world made of gunk conceivable? It seems so. Now, since I have embraced the general stance that conceivability implies possibility, I would have to concede that if the actual world is finite, this is a contingent rather than necessary fact about the world.
For some reason, this just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like thinking that something as fundamental as the conclusion that our world is finite in extent is just a contingent fact. But given that we are (famously) adept at conceiving infinities, and the strength of my opinion regarding the modal rationalist link between conceivability and possibility, I’m stuck.
The only strategy which I think might work is as follows. I could assert that the conceivability of infinity is grounded by the whole space of possible worlds, and its application to a single possible world is a mistake. The gunky world would itself have to comprise all possible worlds by virtue of its infinite extent. It would itself necessarily constitute the entire modal space, so it couldn’t also be one of the constituents of modal space. Individual possible worlds themselves would be necessarily finite in this scheme.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Modal Realism, Modal Rationalism
The case for modal realism can be motivated in a few ways. It often begins with contemplating the everyday modal propositions we make about the world. We seem to know that things might have been different, after all, and there are different ways the world could be in the future. Some dinosaurs might have survived the meteor catastrophe. I might have tried to avoid traffic by leaving earlier this morning. It’s possible that I might stop writing this post now, and finish it later. By virtue of what can these propositions be considered true or false? Being of realist persuasion, I think there must be something in the reality outside our minds to provide truthmakers for these propositions (my prior posts on modality and modal realism can be found here).
Modal realism also seems linked to realism about causality, when the causal connection is seen as a counterfactual dependence. I might not have checked my e-mail: if I hadn’t, I would not have seen your message.
In a deflationary metaphysics where there exists one world subject to deterministic laws, all connections are necessary. Possibility and contingency would only be illusions. They would only exist in our minds. (Likewise it seems to me that the directional flow of time and causality would have no parallel in the world; necessary connections are symmetric.)
But given a naturalistic worldview, our minds arise from the same stuff as the rest of the world. Is it plausible that a world which lacks real possibility would give rise to creatures for whom the notion is indispensable?
Of course, we know strict determinism is false, given the real indeterminism present in quantum mechanics. I have argued elsewhere for an interpretation which sees the quantum states as incorporating real (although not concrete) possibilities, while measurements are concrete actualization events.
Leaving aside for now the tough problem of describing the modal space in any detail (see note below), I am intrigued by the notion that the modal propositions and modal reasoning we employ are grounded in a modal reality.
The thesis of modal rationalism, as explored by David Chalmers in section 10 of this paper, is the idea that our notion of what is conceivable (logically possible) does indeed match what is metaphysically possible. He examines and argues against proposals that these need be distinct modal spaces.
If I couple modal rationalism with a modal realism which posits that metaphysical possibilities really exist (outside the cranium), this creates what I think is a fascinating picture. We, along with all natural phenomena, are continually actualized from a space of possibilities: our roots in this space form the basis of our evolved faculty for modal reasoning.
Note: For a great discussion of how to flesh out the space of metaphysical possibility, and related issues including modal rationalism, I recommend Richard Chappell’s recent draft paper. [UPDATE 25 January 2010: here's a link to a pdf of the final paper from Chappell's website.]
Modal realism also seems linked to realism about causality, when the causal connection is seen as a counterfactual dependence. I might not have checked my e-mail: if I hadn’t, I would not have seen your message.
In a deflationary metaphysics where there exists one world subject to deterministic laws, all connections are necessary. Possibility and contingency would only be illusions. They would only exist in our minds. (Likewise it seems to me that the directional flow of time and causality would have no parallel in the world; necessary connections are symmetric.)
But given a naturalistic worldview, our minds arise from the same stuff as the rest of the world. Is it plausible that a world which lacks real possibility would give rise to creatures for whom the notion is indispensable?
Of course, we know strict determinism is false, given the real indeterminism present in quantum mechanics. I have argued elsewhere for an interpretation which sees the quantum states as incorporating real (although not concrete) possibilities, while measurements are concrete actualization events.
Leaving aside for now the tough problem of describing the modal space in any detail (see note below), I am intrigued by the notion that the modal propositions and modal reasoning we employ are grounded in a modal reality.
The thesis of modal rationalism, as explored by David Chalmers in section 10 of this paper, is the idea that our notion of what is conceivable (logically possible) does indeed match what is metaphysically possible. He examines and argues against proposals that these need be distinct modal spaces.
If I couple modal rationalism with a modal realism which posits that metaphysical possibilities really exist (outside the cranium), this creates what I think is a fascinating picture. We, along with all natural phenomena, are continually actualized from a space of possibilities: our roots in this space form the basis of our evolved faculty for modal reasoning.
Note: For a great discussion of how to flesh out the space of metaphysical possibility, and related issues including modal rationalism, I recommend Richard Chappell’s recent draft paper. [UPDATE 25 January 2010: here's a link to a pdf of the final paper from Chappell's website.]
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Chalmers Still on the Case
David Chalmers (home page, blog) has a new paper (The Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism) which provides a definitive and comprehensive update of his work on the “conceivability argument” and related issues. Defense of this argument over the last decade has led him to broaden the turf: the bulk of the paper goes beyond the mind/body issue to a general defense of the premise that conceivability implies metaphysical possibility; in other words, an epistemic premise (about what one can conceive) can lead to a modal conclusion (about what is possible).
I won’t try to summarize the paper in this post (other than a bare-bones sketch of the original conceivability and 2-dimensional arguments below). It is very thorough and I found the cumulative impact of Chalmer’s responses to various critics to be powerful.
I also think a section tucked in late in the paper is thought provoking(Section 10 – Modal Rationalism). Here he steps back and wonders about the implications of his defense of the premise that conceivability implies possibility. He talks about the crucial role modality plays in our capacity for rational thought. We need modal concepts to analyze various phenomena rationally -- he says you might call this logical modality and make use of logically possible worlds. And given Chalmer’s analysis in the body of the paper, there is no reason to think logically possible worlds and metaphysically possible worlds are different animals. Interesting stuff. I wonder, as always, about the ontological implications of this also. By virtue of what outside of ourselves is our capacity for rational modal thought based?
Sketch of conceivability and 2-dimensional arguments:
The conceivability argument has 3 premises (my paraphrase of the basic argument – the argument is presented in iterations of increasing precision over the course of the new paper): 1. A world physically just like ours with no first-person conscious experience is conceivable. 2. If such a world is conceivable, it is metaphysically possible. 3. If it is metaphysically possible, than materialism is false, since materialism is a metaphysical thesis which says physical facts necessarily entail all other facts, including experiential ones. The paper responds to a wide variety of objections posed, but most of the attention is on the second premise.
Let me just mention that the two-dimensional argument of the title (a version of which was already included in Chalmer’s 1996 book) was constructed to respond to what was the most common sort of this objection to the second premise. It is one of this sort (exemplified by using an example of Kripke’s): we can conceive of a world where water is not H2O, but it isn’t metaphysically possible -- we know that water is H2O. Chalmers breaks down the idea that {“water is not H2O” is conceivable} into two senses: the first (primary) is that there is a possible world where there is watery stuff (doing the job of water) which is not H2O. This is clearly conceivable. The secondary sense is that the stuff in the possible world isn’t watery stuff – it really is water! – then it is not conceivable that this water is not H2O. It is the primary sense of conceivability which we utilize in Chalmer’s second premise.
I won’t try to summarize the paper in this post (other than a bare-bones sketch of the original conceivability and 2-dimensional arguments below). It is very thorough and I found the cumulative impact of Chalmer’s responses to various critics to be powerful.
I also think a section tucked in late in the paper is thought provoking(Section 10 – Modal Rationalism). Here he steps back and wonders about the implications of his defense of the premise that conceivability implies possibility. He talks about the crucial role modality plays in our capacity for rational thought. We need modal concepts to analyze various phenomena rationally -- he says you might call this logical modality and make use of logically possible worlds. And given Chalmer’s analysis in the body of the paper, there is no reason to think logically possible worlds and metaphysically possible worlds are different animals. Interesting stuff. I wonder, as always, about the ontological implications of this also. By virtue of what outside of ourselves is our capacity for rational modal thought based?
Sketch of conceivability and 2-dimensional arguments:
The conceivability argument has 3 premises (my paraphrase of the basic argument – the argument is presented in iterations of increasing precision over the course of the new paper): 1. A world physically just like ours with no first-person conscious experience is conceivable. 2. If such a world is conceivable, it is metaphysically possible. 3. If it is metaphysically possible, than materialism is false, since materialism is a metaphysical thesis which says physical facts necessarily entail all other facts, including experiential ones. The paper responds to a wide variety of objections posed, but most of the attention is on the second premise.
Let me just mention that the two-dimensional argument of the title (a version of which was already included in Chalmer’s 1996 book) was constructed to respond to what was the most common sort of this objection to the second premise. It is one of this sort (exemplified by using an example of Kripke’s): we can conceive of a world where water is not H2O, but it isn’t metaphysically possible -- we know that water is H2O. Chalmers breaks down the idea that {“water is not H2O” is conceivable} into two senses: the first (primary) is that there is a possible world where there is watery stuff (doing the job of water) which is not H2O. This is clearly conceivable. The secondary sense is that the stuff in the possible world isn’t watery stuff – it really is water! – then it is not conceivable that this water is not H2O. It is the primary sense of conceivability which we utilize in Chalmer’s second premise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
