tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post2898698732447902432..comments2023-01-07T21:51:48.750+01:00Comments on Parma-kenta: Tolkien Transactions LIVTroelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-79477793808248399692015-03-02T10:25:54.412+01:002015-03-02T10:25:54.412+01:00I have updated the description of the issue of Gra...I have updated the description of the issue of <i>Gramarye</i> (see <a href="http://parmarkenta.blogspot.dk/2015/02/tolkien-transactions-liv.html#comments" rel="nofollow">Commentary</a>), as Dimitra Fimi has pointed out that her review is of Tolkien's <i>The Fall of Arthur</i> rather than of his <i>Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary</i> as I had erroneously stated. Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-84396011498582365782015-02-04T13:07:04.455+01:002015-02-04T13:07:04.455+01:00Oh, I know it! (Not like _you_ do, of course; but ...Oh, I know it! (Not like _you_ do, of course; but I entered college as a physics major, and ended up with a physics minor, and have always maintained the interest.)Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-56029855347758690992015-02-04T09:32:06.189+01:002015-02-04T09:32:06.189+01:00Carl, thank you very much for that clarification. ...Carl, thank you very much for that clarification. It does indeed seem very likely that part of my objection had to do with my failing earlier to appreciate the difference between <i>significance</i> and <i>signification</i>, though I would still question whether the “receiving and interpreting mind” needs to be rational. <br /><br /><br />As for the role of the observation in quantum physics, I think the word <i>observation</i> is probably poorly chosen from the outset – it is not necessarily related to observing as such, but is rather a question of interacting with the wave function in a way that causes it to collapse (having studied physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, I am naturally educated in the Copenhagen Interpretation). <br /><br />The ‘observation’ can thus be merely a photon interacting with an electron without any of them being detected or otherwise interacting with an observing mind. <br /><br />Having tried a couple of times to write some more on the role of observation with respect to the idea of the objective and observable reality (with respect to observers who are a part of that reality), but reaching excessive length before getting half-way through :-) I had better give up for now. Instead, I will merely note that modern physics, and particularly quantum physics and relativity, is, indeed, often counter-intuitive, showing us that the natural world is far stranger than we might imagine. Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-52729099368545815112015-02-04T04:40:47.580+01:002015-02-04T04:40:47.580+01:00"I would assert the significance of the natur..."I would assert the significance of the natural world (with or without life) regardless of the presence of rational minds to perceive that significance." — I would agree, _if_ you substitute "reality" for "significance" — as would Aristotle and Aquinas. (Again, I don't think what you mean by "significance" is the same thing as _signification_ in philosophy and semiotics.)Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-15074913226890768122015-02-04T04:35:19.985+01:002015-02-04T04:35:19.985+01:00"I would say that the smoke or the sound do h..."I would say that the smoke or the sound do have significance even without the (human) observer" — Yes of course, but "significance" in this casual sense is _not_ the same thing as _signification_ in the philosophical/semiotic sense. The latter has specifically to do with conveying meaning, and thus (necessarily) involves a receiving and interpreting mind.<br /><br />"I think that a part of what irks me is the attempt to elevate the human observer – mainly because it seems to me to attempt to give the act of observing a too large role with respect to asserting the objective reality of the thing (this is the scientific objection)." — See, I have very much the same criticism of modern (especially quantum) physics, various interpretations of which hold that the act of observing in a very real sense determines reality (wave function collapse), thus in a very real sense denying that there is an objective, non-observer-dependent reality. In fact, Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is much more _realist_ (in this sense) than is (at least various and prominent interpretations of) quantum physics. Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-84681164633350596072015-02-03T11:48:17.469+01:002015-02-03T11:48:17.469+01:00Thank you, Marcel. I see that the Google cache no ...Thank you, Marcel. I see that the Google cache no longer includes Mr. Day's comments. I do have a copy saved, but I think I will abstain from publishing it. I will update the description accordingly. Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-67791416000125714982015-02-03T11:46:10.743+01:002015-02-03T11:46:10.743+01:00Thank you for that challenge, Carl :-) I am not s...Thank you for that challenge, Carl :-) I am not sure that I can explain satisfyingly, so please bear with me. <br /><br />The problem is, of course, worse with the Aristotelian view than the Stoic, but I would say that even the Stoic view does not capture the idea of an objectively observable reality that lies behind all modern science (science does not, of course, say anything about what might lie outside that scope – properly applied, science can <i>only</i> make statements about what lies within its own domain). <br /><br />I would say that the smoke or the sound do have significance even without the (human) observer, the “rational agent” that McIntosh speaks of. Even without referring to non-human (and non-rational) observers (animals fleeing because they smell the smoke), the smoke in and of itself has a significance as a link in a causal chain. <br /><br />I think that a part of what irks me is the attempt to elevate the human observer – mainly because it seems to me to attempt to give the act of observing a too large role with respect to asserting the objective reality of the thing (this is the scientific objection). There is the phenomenon itself, which has objective reality (and significance), and there is the biological process of sensory perception, and then there is the mental process of perceiving significance, but the Stoic view (at least as presented by McIntosh – I am not knowledgeable enough to generalise) appears to attempt to arrogate some of the significance (the “objective significance”, perhaps?) for the mental process, which I would assert belongs in the objective reality of the phenomenon (if the smoke is caused by a fire, then it signifies a fire regardless of whether there is any agent, rational or not, to realise that significance). <br /><br />But I also suspect that there's an element of a more personal objection at play. There is, I think, an element of self-elevation on behalf of humanity that I find unbecoming. I would assert the significance of the natural world (with or without life) regardless of the presence of rational minds to perceive that significance. <br /><br />I am afraid that this is not very clear, and I am sure it is easy to argue against it, but hopefully it can give some idea at least of the direction of my thinking. Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-39069772033303415302015-02-03T10:20:20.741+01:002015-02-03T10:20:20.741+01:00Informative as ever, Troels, thank you!
Just want...Informative as ever, Troels, thank you!<br /><br />Just wanted to let you know - the Google web cache usually doesn't hold longer than seven days so if you intend to keep certain ephemeral elements a screenshot would work better. <br /><br />However, as I stood beside Mr Day when he loudly and publicly abused CRT in the presence of Priscilla Tolkien I can imagine what he wrote in the comment on Nelson's correct statement ... Marcel R. Bülleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537495830521624652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4120372371184097111.post-26873137958358949762015-02-02T00:19:13.549+01:002015-02-02T00:19:13.549+01:00You write: "as a physicist, for instance, my ...You write: "as a physicist, for instance, my definitions of sound and smoke, obviously, make the Aristotelian and the Stoic views rather nonsensical". <br /><br />Do they? How so? Keep in mind that the discussion hinges on _signification_ and _perception_; per McIntosh's succinct summary: <br /><br />"Absent an actual act of rational inference, there is still, in the physical event of smoke, all the objective ingredients for an act of signification to take place. All that is missing is the human mind, the essential catalyst necessary to ignite those objective elements, moving them from their state of being potentially significant to being actually significant."<br /><br />What in modern physics refutes any of this?<br />Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.com