This is the third in a planned multi-part posting that includes portions of our email dialog.
Click for Part 1 - His 2008 Paper
Click for Part 2 - Determinism vs Probability
Click for Part 4 - Property Dualism
Click for Part 5 - Flatland and Higher Dimensions
INTRODUCTION
The following excerpts are from an email from Ira Glickstein to Howard Pattee (Oct 16, 3:28 PM) and his reply (Oct 16, 8:21 PM)
[added 9 Nov 2013] The following excerpts are from an email from Ira Glickstein to Howard Pattee (Oct 17, 12:07 AM) with my reply to Howard's reference to Jonathan Haidt and his "Five Channels of Morality".
[IG] Howard, yes, I guess
my belief in determinism has a "sacred" aspect that helps me continue
to be optimistic in the face of all the chaos of the world situation of
continual warfare, both physical and political, and of my inevitable demise as
I watch my fellow residents leave Freedom Pointe at the rate of a couple a
month, some "feet first" and others to Assisted Living or skilled
nursing. I know I am a lot closer to the end of my life than to the beginning,
and, having no real belief in traditional religion, and having sold my shotgun
and rifle ten years ago when we left NY, I apparently need something to cling
to. My committed Christian political allies have their "guns or religion
..." and I would have nothing if not for my determined determinism :^)
On the other hand, I do not think either Spinoza or Einstein were particularly conservative in their attitudes towards social, political, or traditional religious matters, yet they were both strict determinists to the ends of their lives.
But I do accept Haidt's study result that conservatives are more likely to honor the sacred than liberals. We discussed Haidt's "five channels of morality" here http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-talks-five-channels-of-morality.html and he shows that conservatives value each of the five (harm, fairness, authority, ingroup and purity) about equally, while liberals tend to rate harm and fairness way above the other three, with purity at the bottom. If we equate the sacred with what Haidt calls purity, which is reasonable, then conservatives value the sacred more highly than liberals. But, both conservatives and liberals rate harm the highest.
Meanwhile, I am encouraged by your reference to Poincaré that infinity and continuity are constructs of the human imagination that have no observable consequents. That would imply that either the Universe is neither infinite nor continuous but only seems so to our limited human minds, or, that, even if it is both infinite and continuous, that would not have the random consequences I attribute to continuity.
When I ask if "time and space [have] really been shown to be infinitely divisible? Is energy mass infinitely divisible?" You reply "Certainly not. The evidence simply disappears [in QM uncertainty] ..."
So, I remain hopeful (and you and accepted physics remain uncertain - at least in the QM sense!) Ira
On the other hand, I do not think either Spinoza or Einstein were particularly conservative in their attitudes towards social, political, or traditional religious matters, yet they were both strict determinists to the ends of their lives.
But I do accept Haidt's study result that conservatives are more likely to honor the sacred than liberals. We discussed Haidt's "five channels of morality" here http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-talks-five-channels-of-morality.html and he shows that conservatives value each of the five (harm, fairness, authority, ingroup and purity) about equally, while liberals tend to rate harm and fairness way above the other three, with purity at the bottom. If we equate the sacred with what Haidt calls purity, which is reasonable, then conservatives value the sacred more highly than liberals. But, both conservatives and liberals rate harm the highest.
Meanwhile, I am encouraged by your reference to Poincaré that infinity and continuity are constructs of the human imagination that have no observable consequents. That would imply that either the Universe is neither infinite nor continuous but only seems so to our limited human minds, or, that, even if it is both infinite and continuous, that would not have the random consequences I attribute to continuity.
When I ask if "time and space [have] really been shown to be infinitely divisible? Is energy mass infinitely divisible?" You reply "Certainly not. The evidence simply disappears [in QM uncertainty] ..."
So, I remain hopeful (and you and accepted physics remain uncertain - at least in the QM sense!) Ira
