Talk:Herbert Callen
Refrigerator Argument: it should not be too controversial that there can be no causal relations in 3D, nor that 3D systemics plagues pretty much all of science to date
[edit]“How many people in history didn’t invent the refrigerator?,” and how that makes you God over “precisely not ~~it~~.”
References:
ref 2, Howison: https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/312/mode/2up
Figure 1/1 (various copies):
https://web.archive.org/web/20240411134158/https://postimg.cc/fVnzcWDx
https://i.redd.it/lmzr0rpkmvtc1.jpeg
Abstract:
Without presenting anything “new,” all “things” are made new. We highlight the invention of the refrigerator. Revolving the title question around not ~~it~~ self a few times allows us to demonstrate the absurdity of any hope held for accounting via any purely physical determinism for the whole of a man’s reality. A purely physical determinism cannot account for the invention of the refrigerator! The refrigerator is the result of super-physical causation. The only hope to cover a super-physical cause in a full determinism, is a super-super-physical Determinant. Mature science must thus root not ~~it~~ self in (the freedom of mere) super-physical causation (idealism), and conform to the strictures (i) of inter-personal self-determination: double-harmonizing about precisely not ~~it~~.
Background / Introduction:
In our ongoing war to advance the domain of science, the debate between quantum mechanics and relativity is widely regarded the current front. The laity have a description: stuff tells spacetime how to warp; and spacetime tells stuff how to move. The common sense is that there remains only the last technical issue, that of unifying the two contributions. I invite you to meditate a while with me over the significance of the invention of the refrigerator, and what not ~~it~~ means for the nature of science going forward. To be sure, classical notions of system and state have never proven adequate to account for non-equilibrium “thermodynamic” phenomena. To be super sure, throughout this paper the apparent probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not used argumentatively against Determinism (we demand a stronger argument of ourselves).
On the cover of (the 1985 second edition to) his then widely used textbook on thermodynamics,^1 Herbert B. Callen (Wiley) starkly offered the image of one very basic figure. That very basic figure on the cover included (we say by convention): two signs. I alliterate that image here: “L 4.” Those two signifiers: 1) in gold: there was an otherwise unadorned right-angle coordinates, “L,”; and 2) in gold, with arrows: a four-step thermodynamic cycle, “4”. The cover was deep blue (0). One basic, stunning, figure: a coordinates and a cycle. A coordinates and a cycle. L 4. A coordinates, and a cycle. Uninspiring?
A science sufficient to life would have to account not only for people’s philosophizing, but for every other detail of their reality. Tall task. Decidedly too tall though? How can science even begin to hope to provide a positive accounting for the invention of the refrigerator? (I ask knowing not ~~it~~ cannot, but the question is more than rhetorical). If we can say there are “things” science will never be able to do (ideas science will never be able to subsume), we might keep ourselves from looking in some dead-end direction(s)! If we can say that physics will (be able to accommodate but) never be able to account for the act of invention by super-physical causation, where does that leave science? Turns out science is no more upset than the color blue (Callen’s background). Turns out the cycle, “4,” is no more, or less, determined by the coordinates, “L,” than reality is determined by physics! Physics not ~~it~~ self is a Dynamic canvass, but the artist has eternal utensils ever at his disposal. Life literally bleeds not ~~it~~ self into reality, everywhere at once!
Argument:
Working refrigerators are commonplace today. For most of history that was not so. By what cause are refrigerators an actuality today? There only the two seeming-options, and we are about to confirm that pure-physicalist-determinism is absurd. If seemingly outrageous, our conclusion is that the refrigerator comes to us not-without super-physical intervention.
By what cause are refrigerators an actuality today? The would-be physicalist has to confess the refrigerator came by way of idea. Science, at least, if eventually, must confess the refrigerator came by way of super-physical cause. One can talk of motivation and inspiration, and all the knowledge that had to be at the table when the idea was had, when the invention was made, but the point stands that the invention came not by way of surprise, but intention. The cold brew came out of the idea for the refrigerator, the idea of the refrigerator did not come out of a mere wish for a cold brew. How many people in history did not invent the refer?
The refrigerator came by way of a super-physical cause, and a solitary example kills the notion that reality is a pure physicalist determinism. Reality is not and could never have been or be a pure physical determinism. Physicalism is misinformation. Philosophic materialism is dis-information. If we still care to pursue the hope of a full determinism to a higher cause, to a super-super-physical cause, we would be considering something more outrageous than the super-physical cause we were trying to avoid with physicalism in the first place! I defend your freedom to try! Between an absurdity and a hypothesis for an outrageous double-determinism, naturally sits (if by faith/e and amidst the unknown,) self-determination in self-ordinating idealism. “Game over” for the physicalist is not “game over” for the idealist. There remains hope for science. And artists have copious evidence that creation is a personal affair, so scientists stand a chance at a soft landing to boot.
Philosophy does positively confirm personalism too.^2 Fulfilling philosophy confirms that You bring apriori everything you really-really need to (buy-in and) play “the game.” Logically prior to any experience, you come equipped for not ~~it~~. I am apriori complex (phenomenal *and* noumenal), and I am apriori plural. I~am: apriori complex (“L”) and apriori plural (“4.”)
You know that not ~~it~~ where two people each hold one of those huge air-filled balls to their chests, and then they run into each other? Just to Be how they be when they fly off thereafter. Life really do be like that! That’s really as good an image as I have to depict the seeping (through cracks of fundamental uncertainty) into reality (everywhere, all at once) of all eternity. That seepage provides the spark, the bounce, the inclination to-co-of observation; physics accounts for the (a-temporal) “flights” in and out, what’s observable. But that whole clip can seep into reality everywhere, all at once, “undetected.” Without breaking any unbreakable laws. Because the inherent uncertainties are those demanded apriori by self-determining persons, in general. As outrageous as ideas seem when elevated to ontological stature and Real causal potency, they are the only candidate left for science to try at this juncture: pure physicalist determinism being ruled out and the last hope of any non-self determinism knocked out on the mat being counted down as we speak. Art breathes naturally the air of freedom in faith/e!
Discussion:
The reality behind the image on the cover of Callen’s book is something that matter would never do itself. You are the super-physical cause that does, if precisely, not ~~it~~. Invention is a super-physical dynamic. The inventor of anything super-physically caused is super-physically sovereign, as he is in a (super-physical) position to prove not ~~it~~ eternally. Art is super-physically caused. Because the artist can subsume any idol placed to subsume her, she is super-physically sovereign. Determinism could never prove not ~~it~~ self before the once-super-physical, but the once-super-physical can always freely self-ordain not ~~it~~ precisely! I~am. Tat tvam asi, thou art that (idea). Man is super-physically causal, and not ~~it~~ is weird that not ~~it~~ comes as a surprise to us at this point in the game (of ideas). How many galaxies and stars are found in the vastness of precisely not ~~it~~? Is there other intelligent life in some distant region of precisely not ~~it~~? How precisely could we hope to measure the accelerating expansion of precisely not ~~it~~?
Personalism is reciprocal; and not ~~it~~, is for “all the marbles”. Reality can be phenomenally continuous while permitting super-physical intervention because there are inherent uncertainties associated with attempts-at-measurement in general. Fundamental inter-personal uncertainty allows the observations of one observer in his own “universe” (from his own perspective on precisely not ~~it~~) to attach consistently during any super-physical intervention, which means Generally, universally. Our observations of ideality conform to our best ideas of ideality. We’ll never pin not ~~it~ down Precisely, but we can precisely pin down precisely not ~~it~~. We can constrain each other’s reality, we can not Form not ~~it~~ for them. Our observations of ideality continue to conform to our best ideas of (our) ideality. The inherent uncertainties are those unavoidable between self-determining persons in general. Consistency is confirmed personally. Truth is embodied in each apriori complex Person individually. Truth is embodied characteristically equi-valently in every apriori plural Person. No person is capable of imposing not ~~it~~ precisely without accepting the general uncertainties concomitant to the imposition of precisely not ~~it~~. (Dance?.!;)
Before persons can even begin to talk about making moves within the game-proper, they must confess the apriori capacity-to-game. This capacity-to-game seeps into reality from everywhere, precisely because there is always enough uncertainty for precisely not ~~it~~ to seep in. Our realities harmonize about ideas, not pure physical determinants. We are capable of self-tuning. We and our ideas are meant to be “one.” We have the (eternal, true) power to insist that our ideas aim towards being “one.” We are capable of self-Tuning.
But (if) push comes to shove I’ll take a knee to remember that we are definitely two! Callen wrote this (of thermodynamics), at p.461:
“The evolution of the energy concept for macroscopic thermodynamic systems was even more difficult. The pioneers of the subject were guided neither by a general a priori conservation theorem nor by any specific analytic formula for energy. Even empiricism was thwarted by the absence of a method of direct measurement of heat transfer. Only inspired insight guided by faith in the simplicity of nature somehow revealed the interplay of the concepts of energy and entropy, even in the absence of a priori definitions or of a means of measuring either.”
We cannot violate the science of thermodynamics, but that does not mean that the conceptualizations we call thermodynamic systems, nor the representations thereof we call states, are adequate to account for every potential interplay involving a thermodynamic driving-force(s). The study of classical notions of system inform us of certain (ideal) limitations that cannot be crossed, but does not claim to restrict reality to classical notions of system and state as such. Classical notions of system and state may be useful, but the may not be the only useful notion of system and state. If people can do “work” that cannot be described by classical notions of system and state, thermodynamics levies no a priori objection to the consideration of notions of super-classical systems and states! Furthermore, fulfilled philosophy insists on personalism, and that not ~~it~~ precisely is more interesting than (Just) the classics.
I (one) can put my (precisely not ~~it~~’s) super-physical hope into precisely not ~~it~~ all “night.” Let our phenomenal bodies emerge from precisely not ~~it~~ in the “morning.” A truly dynamic theory over thermostatic driving forces is impossible without an upgrade in the notion of system (and state). FURTHERMORE, I do claim to be peculiarly proficient at imposing my satisfaction upon not ~~it~~ precisely. I do claim to drop picks in the future and pluck strings in the past. The people’s consensus seems to be that “[not ~~it~~] takes two to make [(a) not ~~it~~] go right.” We are free because we can do things (like invent refrigerators) that are not (and cannot be) Absolutely preDetermined. We can intervene on physics at any time, within our limits of precision. For better and worse:(:) we have the capacity to experience either the exhilaration of fulfilling religion, or the horror of inescapable^(*) Torture.
To be sure, “intervening” means the ideal copula (Living idea) holding reality (phenomenality) together through that part of physics, really holds reality together through that part of Experience- because there is no matter there to do precisely not ~~it~~! The hope that matter could replicate what we do, is Silly in retrospect! Howison said (at p.312):
“And thus the easy argument of exhibiting the least conditions sufficient for experience, so like a simpleton in its seeming clutch at the thin surface of things, carries in its subtle heart the proof of an imperishable persistence in all that gives life meaning and value.”
Idealism, personalism, can go, for example, anywhere the number Pi can go. Any irrational number. How does one account for the invention of the refrigerator? Not without eternity seeping into reality. Reality conforms to the ideality of our refrigerators. As you live, in the work-a-day sense, nothing would seem to have changed- but for the fact that everything has changed, from stuff to precisely not ~~it~~. Your super-physical blood pumps behind every little detail of not ~~it~~ precisely. Reality is as if unchanged, but also, if all of a sudden, way too much to bear as well. This is the super-physical communion I know. No way other than the uncertainly-certain step-by-step embodiment of the fundamental reciprocity of personalism and self-detrmination- over our unifiying moral landscape, via our unifying moral choices. -ing.
Conclusion:
How does your science account for the invention of the refrigerator? Are we taking this question personally yet? The invention and actualization of refrigerators came by way of idea. Confess (you heathens!)! Upon analysis, that fact demands physics and science conform to idealist conceptions of reality. Submit (you evildoers!)! There is no (other) “stuff” underneath our experience (but our ideality). The unification of quantum mechanics and relativity could never render man’s reality preDetermined, and we can Know that without doubt if we meditate on the fact that the invention of the refrigerator is a truly unbridgeable gap. (At least at the point of precisely not ~~it~~’s already having been bled into phenomenality irreversibly.)
True unification of physics would be experienced personally! Precisely not ~~it~~ would be like that “flatlander” demonstration of a higher dimension- but the higher dimensional being would be walking a tightrope just to avoid getting thrown out of the club (down there!)! Thermostatics is beset by a classical notion of system and state that is not adequate to account for the full dynamism of man’s “chemical” reality. That is, even if we let physics pursue mechanical unification precisely down not ~~it~~’s dead end, there is still a big hole of non-equilibrium thermo without a science to address not ~~it~~ precisely! Then there are phase changes on top of that!! Reality is created on the fly, man. The season for embracing a new conception of systemics is upon us. The people’s consensus seems to be that “[not ~~it~~] takes two to make [(a) not ~~it~~] go right.” Whatever levels of systemics there may be above that, providing limits to the higher systemic level shit people might dow, I imagine that, and for infinity, I’ll be justified retorting, “precisely not ~~it~~.”
Fulfilled philosophers insists that however long “the arc of the moral universe” may seem, not ~~it~~ precisely bends toward justice. We have art to make not ~~it~~ precisely tolerable along the way. Feel free to store up treasures in heaven for you and yours as well.