Yes Virginia, There Is a Universe. (Part Eight--My Mother the Car)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
It is easy to conceive of an automobile as an assemblage of parts associated together as one thing. One thinks in terms of an engine, frame, suspension, wheels, body, etc. It would be unwieldy and perhaps impossible to think of an automobile as an assemblage of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It would be equally impossible to reason about the universe as an assemblage of atoms, or stars.
|
"Why not? This, Virginia, is the fatal flaw in RJH's argument. It may be 'unwieldy' to think of the uiverse as a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons' but we can. And that is where the answer lies. |
There is a flaw in my above quoted argument, but it is not fatal. It is a language flaw in the phrase "think of an automobile." It should have been written as "think about an automobile" to have the same sense as "reason about the universe" in the next sentence.
Thinking of something and thinking about something are not the same thing. In the 'of' case, 'think' is a transitive verb meaning to have in mind, to hold in one's opinion, to believe, etc. In the 'about' case, 'think' is an intransitive verb meaning to bring the intellectual capacities into play, to reason, to use the mind for arriving at conclusion. |
"Endless dictionary games. We could just as easily talk of an automobile or talk about an automobile or talk to an automobile or if you are Jerry Van Dyke, talk
with an automobile."
"Don't you mean Dick Van Dyke?" Virginia asked.
"Jerry Van Dyke is Dick's brother and in 1964 he starred in a television show called
My Mother the Car. The situation was this: his late mother was reincarnated as an antique automobile that could speak to him and only to him (voice of Ann Southern). Consequently he spent a lot of time in the garage talking with her. Think
Mr. Ed with a car instead of a horse."
"How horrible!"
"Yes Virginia, television wasn't any better back then either. Don't let anyone try to fool you. But let's get back to the topic."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
I do not think that anyone can reason about an automobile if it is considered to be merely a collection of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. How could we explain that some of the automobile's protons, neutrons, and electrons produce light, that some produce sounds, and some provide traction? The properties of an automobile cannot be explained from the fact that it consists of sub-atomic particles. Automobile properties can only be understood in terms of its larger scale components such as engine, frame, transmission, tires, steering assembly, headlights, etc. One need not know that bolts and nuts hold the engine to the frame in order to understand or reason about an automobile. One only needs to know about those bolts and nuts if one wants to understand or reason about the engine mounting.
|
"Nevertheless, the engine, frame, transmission, tires, etc., have the properties they do because they are made of certain materials and their interactions, these materials have certain properties because of the atoms that they are made of and their interactions, the atoms have certain properties because of the sub-atomic particles and their interactions. It is not 'turtles all the way down' even if it is superclusters all the way up. Study galaxies, stars, atoms, nuclei, and even automobiles at whatever level you like, but always remember that underneath it all is a huge quantity of a small number of particles and their interactions. It is at that level that the way to defining the universe lies. In the next two paragraphs he almost agrees with me."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard J. Hanak
One can think of the universe in any way one wishes: as that which one cannot leave, as everywhere, as the totality of all that exists, as the whole of existence, etc. However, to think about the universe, to reason about the universe, as a particular kind of collection ignores the fact that the universe is many different kinds of collections. It is a collection of sub-nuclear particles, it is a collection of atoms, it is a collection of stars and dust, it is a collection of galaxies, it is a collection of galaxy clusters, etc. The universe, then, is also a collection of collections. That last definition of the universe is the definition of a set or class rather than the definition of a physical thing.
Reasoning about sub-nuclear particles explains the properties of atoms. Reasoning about atoms explains the properties of stars and dust. Reasoning about stars and dust explains the properties of galaxies. One explains the properties of a cosmological thing by reasoning about the largest aggregates of which it is composed. If the universe is a physical object, why, unlike atoms, stars, or galaxies, should its properties be explainable by reasoning about aggregates that are not the largest of which it is composed?
|
"At the nuclear level the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions have to be taken into account in explaining the properties of nuclei. Electromagnetic and gravitational interactions must be taken into account for the remaining levels up to stars. But once we reach the level of galaxies only gravitational interactions remain. And gravity is mostly indifferent to the properties of the things it interacts with. It doesn't matter if an automobile has cheap plastic seat covers or Corinthian leather (wish I could do a good Ricardo Montalban impression!), it will drop the same way off a cliff (allowing for aerodynamics, of course). At the largest levels, however many there are, only gravity matters, contrary to the claims of the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe followers.
"I have no need of knowledge about the largest (if any) structures in the universe to reason about it as a whole. All I need is the densities of matter and radiation (which could be zero), the signature of the curvature (+1 for closed, 0 for flat, -1 for open), and possibly the cosmological constant."
To be continued...
Note: While this dialog is fictional, there really was a TV show entitled
My Mother the Car. I am not making this up!