Joynewyeary

The Concept of Objective Observations and the Role of Models

8 posts in this topic

Please either support this thesis or refute this thesis:

Thesis: neither of the following positions can be endorsed today without evading evidence.

Position #1. All objective observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the universe revolves around the Earth once each day. It is meaningless to ask whether or not the hypothesis is actually true.

Position #2. Just as infinities may be used in mathematical physics without presuming that any existent is in any respect actually infinite, the modern model of the solar system can be used without presuming that it is actually true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please either support this thesis or refute this thesis: ...

So that this does not become just an exercise, I think you should advance your own position by either supporting or refuting your "thesis."

And, while you are at it, what exactly did you mean by "the modern model of the solar system?" Did you mean "cosmological model" instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should also state what you mean by this premise:

Position #2. Just as infinities may be used in mathematical physics without presuming that any existent is in any respect actually infinite,...

Obviously mathematical infinities are "used", but what do you think that means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
------

Position #1. All objective observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the universe revolves around the Earth once each day. It is meaningless to ask whether or not the hypothesis is actually true.

--------

Strictly speaking, observations are not objective. Objectivity pertains to the relationship between one's knowledge and reality; to the process of relating observation to knowledge, concepts, and methods; to the relationship between consciousness and existence. No matter what theory of the cosmos one has, one observes the sun moving across the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So that this does not become just an exercise, I think you should advance your own position by either supporting or refuting your "thesis."

It's not my thesis. I began by wondering whether or not it is possible for there to be a non-Copernican Objectivist and I was informed by someone who is definitely an Objectivist that at this moment in history a non-Copernican would be an evader and hence not an Objectivist.

And, while you are at it, what exactly did you mean by "the modern model of the solar system?" Did you mean "cosmological model" instead?

Yes, I meant to include the so-called fixed stars. However, I'm just considering the apparent daily rotation of the so-called fixed stars around the Earth versus the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis. Such issues as the expansion of the universe, radio astronomy, etc. are beyond the scope my question. Perhaps I should have used the words "post-Ptolemaic cosmological model" rather than "modern" and "solar system."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously mathematical infinities are "used", but what do you think that means?

Some entities of models are in some respects infinite. For example, consider a point particle moving along some path. Even we consider only a finite duration of time, we are considering infinitely many values for the time variable. The function consisting of a set of ordered pairs (with the time value as the first entry in the ordered pair and a position vector as the second entry in the ordered pair) is an infinite set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So that this does not become just an exercise, I think you should advance your own position by either supporting or refuting your "thesis."

It's not my thesis. I began by wondering whether or not it is possible for there to be a non-Copernican Objectivist and I was informed by someone who is definitely an Objectivist that at this moment in history a non-Copernican would be an evader and hence not an Objectivist.

It is not helpful if you are importing a discussion from elsewhere. The meaning of a "non-Copernican" could vary wildly, depending on context. If you have a point you want to make, then make it directly and leave out your other discussion.

And, while you are at it, what exactly did you mean by "the modern model of the solar system?" Did you mean "cosmological model" instead?

Yes, I meant to include the so-called fixed stars. However, I'm just considering the apparent daily rotation of the so-called fixed stars around the Earth versus the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis. Such issues as the expansion of the universe, radio astronomy, etc. are beyond the scope my question. Perhaps I should have used the words "post-Ptolemaic cosmological model" rather than "modern" and "solar system."

I know all about the physics and the history of the things you mention, but your point eludes me. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would please just state your main point, succinctly and directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should also state what you mean by this premise:
Position #2. Just as infinities may be used in mathematical physics without presuming that any existent is in any respect actually infinite,...
Obviously mathematical infinities are "used", but what do you think that means?
Some entities of models are in some respects infinite. For example, consider a point particle moving along some path. Even we consider only a finite duration of time, we are considering infinitely many values for the time variable. The function consisting of a set of ordered pairs (with the time value as the first entry in the ordered pair and a position vector as the second entry in the ordered pair) is an infinite set.

There are many ways in which the concept of the mathematical infinite is used in physics, from the continuum to "point" masses to singularities. What does the abstract concept of the continuum have to do with what you mean by "modern models ... used without presuming that it is actually true"? I raise these questions because whenever someone speaks of physical theories as "models", more often than not it signifies deeper epistemological problems with floating abstractions, etc., especially when the "models" are said to be not "true". Whatever it is you intend to ask, these issues appear to be fundamental for explaining what you mean by your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites