Discovery vs Disclosure
October 28th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Discovery vs Disclosure :: [epistemology] Discovery vs Disclosure :: Discovery vs Disclosure* :: Discovery vs Disclosure*
In a message dated 10/27/2007 4:23:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
yes, it takes considerable apparatus to observe a subatomic particle;
but, the question is: does the particle disclose itself or does the
physicist discover its properties?
how can a particle disclose its dynamic properties (eg its spin) when
those properties don’t even have definite values in between
observations of that property?
did the number 3 disclose itself as a prime number; or, did some ancient
mathematician discover that three was a prime number?
Joe
Richard:
I find the above comments peculiar, if not absurd. Speaking of anything,
object or number, *disclosing* itself is assigning some kind of volitional
ability to these – clearly an absurdity on the face of it. Second, while one may
speak of particles, shoes and cats as being observable or sensed by
organisms or surrogates [microscopes, etc.] one cannot speak similarly about numbers
being observable – and certainly not discoverable. Numbers originated as the
names of aggregates, and, Roger Penroses opinions to the contrary, have no
ontic reality. To claim that the number three, as a prime number, was
discovered by some ancient mathematician is like saying the solipsism was discovered
by Aristotle, or transfinite numbers [infinities] were discovered by Cantor..
Regards,
Richard
