Zoot Allures wrote:now why would i move your post? your post was more on topic than the previous four or five, before it.
yes i know what you're saying. these things you explain are physics proper, but i'm trying a metaphysical approach to the question of what power is... which might take us around or underneath physics.
I'll grant you that, but it is one thing to conceive of a new model, and it is another thing to use the current model incorrectly
have a look at this:
nietzsche wrote:The mechanistic world is imagined only as sight and touch imagine a world (as "moved") --so as to be calculable-- thus causal unities are invented, "things" (atoms) whose effect remains constant (--transference of the false concept of subject to the concept of the atom)...
If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge--
so he says the mechanistic world is 'imagined'... then he says our concept of motion is due to a sense prejudice. now this is pretty heavy man, because it smacks in the face of out very conception of the physical world and how it works. but there is some relevance in this theory because if you grant a) that our brains create our experience of motion, and b) that there are no 'subjects', classical physics is no longer enough to explain the mechanistic world. add to this the idea that there is indeed no empty space (no real vacuum in nature), and hume's theory of the induction fallacy, and the problem becomes far more complicated.
Sure, you can abolish the notion of a thing, or an atom, and imagine the universe as "quanta" and have that word be a placeholder for a mysterious and unknown constituent element, but you still need to acknowledge that there is interaction in the quanta, and thus there is a state in which there is no equilibrium, for where there is equilibrium there is no interaction, no cause and effect, only uniformity and stillness, a state in which "nothing" happens, in which there is no power.
But what does that explain, really, to remove the concept of the atom? How is the model improved by that? You still need a word for describing the phenomena that we perceive as motion from our prejudicial view, even if you call it "fluctuations of quanta"
It seems silly to me.
now we aren't going to be able to understand physicality or causality in terms of classical physics; if there is no empty space, quanta can't move anywhere... where would they move... there is no room to move!
Consider our atmosphere in which what we as humans understand as empty space, there is in fact inumerable particles of matter with varying states of density. When you walk across a room, you are not a body traveling across empty space, but a denser form of matter pushing less dense matter out of its way. You would have a much harder time walking across a wall, but the only difference between the wall and the air (which is applicable to this exercise) is density and pressure. Thus you can use physics to understand motion where there is no empty space.
and also, simply because a specific quanta exhibits a change doesn't necessarily means it was 'effected' by another quanta to do so. hume is saying we can't logically assert something else caused the change. that B followed A doesn't mean A caused B, see.
That is true. There are many phenomena which we can't explain because we don't know yet. Perhaps we will need to invent an entirely new unit of measurement and an entirely new sensor to read it in order to understand what is there, but I could just as well spend my day wandering what it would be like to be a cat.
However, wherever we can read a change, we can do our best to control all variables in order to find out why that change has occurred. If it does seem like the change was caused by nothing at all, if equilibrium became unbalance with no perceivable cause, then we'd need new physics.
so, without being able to move, or be effected, or even be a 'subject' in the first place, what does that leave but a radically different interpretation of the mechanistic world? i mean yeah, we see things move all the time... but how can we be certain this isn't just a sense prejudice?
Have I addressed this to your satisfaction?
you have to imagine a field of jam-packed quantum points of power... and they don't move... they just kinda 'breath', or pulsate, or expand and contract. and these actions don't effect those points surrounding the quantum that act this way. they're all doing the same thing. it's almost like what leibniz was describing in his monadology. weird man.
I can imagine that, using physics
We are all doing the same things, in a way, but our breath, pulse, expansion, contraction, our changes of state, our increase and decrease in pressure and density, all causes interaction, all causes transformation of energy.
In fact, physics even allows for concepts such as dark matter and dark energy to account for all things we think of as empty space.
Perhaps it would do us more good to teach physics in school as something other than spheres in an empty space. Perhaps to imagine it as an ocean would be more helpful. An ocean that is partly water, partly gelatin, partly frozen... but I digress.
the problem i'm having is with the claim that there is no motion. i can't believe that; sense prejudice or not. power cannot be expressed unless there is motion.. since that's what work is. now i have to entertain the notion that quantum don't 'have' power... don't have potential to move... because they are always moving, are always kinetic. they are power... they don't have it; there is never a state where they could produce more or less power because this would involve a causality; energy would have to be transferred, and this transference would be an instance of hume's induction fallacy. we couldn't say that quanta A was effected by quanta B when quanta B 'passed' its energy. it doesn't pass it... it just radiates it or something. man i don't fuckin' know. this is why i hate doing metaphysics.
Where is this claim that there is no motion? I think that is a misunderstanding.
i'm gonna go do something else now.
Me too.
Home
Portal
Latest images
Search
Register
Log in
