As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.” In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed. Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics. Leibniz’s correspondent Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.” In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.” Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation. Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922 lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”
Leibniz now mostly inhabits scientific history books, his ideas receiving scant attention in actual research. And yet, Spekkens argues, Leibniz’s principle concerning indistinguishability may be as useful as ever, especially when confronting foundational issues in physics. Consider the interpretation of quantum theory, where theorists remain separated into two opposing groups, loosely associated with the terms realism and empiricism. Although Leibniz’s principle can’t offer any way to unify the two groups, Spekkens argues, it might help them focus their attention on the most important issues dividing them, where progress might be made. For example, one particular interpretation comes in the form of so-called pilot-wave theories, in which electrons and other particles follow precise but highly non-classical trajectories under the influence of a quantum potential, which produces the wave-like nature of quantum dynamics. These theories demonstrate by explicit example that nothing in quantum physics prohibits thinking about particles moving along well-defined trajectories. But the theory does require the existence of some absolute rest frame, while also implying that this frame can never be detected. Many other aspects of such theories also remain unconstrained by empirical data. Hence, one might take Leibniz’s principle as coming down against such theories. On the other hand, Spekkens points out, Leibniz’s principle demands that distinct states be, in Leibniz’s own words, “empirically indistinguishable in principle,” and achieving such certainty is not easy. If several states appear indistinguishable now, future experiments might turn up measurable differences between them. So a proponent of the pilot-wave approach might agree with Leibniz’s principle, but still reject its application just yet. The aim of research, from this point of view, ought to be to seek out such evidence, or at least envision the conditions under which it might be obtained. And in this sense, Spekkens notes, Leibniz’s principle also offers some criticism of theorists from the empirical school, who object to pilot-wave or other realist interpretations of quantum theory for containing unmeasurable quantities. It implies, as he puts it, that the empiricists’ “set of mental tools is too impoverished.” After all, progress in physics often requires imagination, and creative exploration of possible distinguishing features that have not yet been measured, or even thought to exist. Progress requires scientists to “entertain ontological hypotheses, expressed with concepts that are not defined purely in terms of empirical phenomena.” Science thrives on the essential tension existing at the boundary between empirical observation and unconstrained imagination. Incredibly, Leibniz perceived that more than 300 years ago.
pa·ta·phys·ics /ˌpädəˈfiziks/ noun the branch of philosophy that deals with an imaginary realm additional to metaphysics. Pataphysics (French: pataphysique) is a "philosophy" of science invented by French writer Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) intended to be a parody of science. Difficult to be simply defined or pinned down, it has been described as the "science of imaginary solutions". Metaphysics deals with all that encompass the omniverse. Pataphysics deals with what is beyond omniverse, beyond totality, the unknown. If you want to simplify it further, Pataphysics can be considered "The personal science of God himself".
This was immense. Thank you Zevi. I can't imagine how much work, time and thought went into this. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This series will be a rich resource for all of us for years and generations to come. Going to go share this with all my friends.
A few weeks ago I started listening to this class because the title caught my eye. And most of it went right over my head :) I then backed up and started from the beginning of the series and voila - when I re-watched this video everything seemed to fall into place. That is indicative of a beautifully developed and cultivated series; the laying out of the groundwork principles one after another until the big picture begins to unfold. Thank you. A personal favorite of mine was your framing of the great theological irony of Aristotelian mysticism and Neo-platonic skepticism - I found it be very elegant. Hats off to you!
It's amazing that you're such an accomplished scholar, really. Thank you for all of these videos. May this message find you well, much love and thanks.
Wow, i am beginning to understand the depth of the challenge. There is still hope that we can cross the barrier before physical death. So many have come before us. Thanks for your valuable work.
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough presentation. I am preparing to read the Guide after much study and your work has been and is valuable. Looking forward to the next session.
I LOVE your studio. I would not, at all, be surprised to see a COT down one of the OTHER aisles. (and I would be THRILLED to drag MINE into another one!!)
This is a fantastic series. I am undecided whether this is an intellectual adventure or a theological one. Very few RU-vid videos send you to the library to research and read more in-depth. If you (Zeevi) have the strength to continue this, I hope. I say this because I see Maimonides presents us with a significant problem. Do we concentrate on uniting with ‘god,’ or do we view our accumulated wisdom to teach and give the benefit of our learning to our grandchildren? It would seem selfish to concentrate on improving ourselves to unite with God, or perhaps Maimonides would prefer we give of ourselves to teach and guide our children and grandchildren. This seems to be a ‘perplexing’ issue. I wonder if Maimonides can ‘guide’ us to the best path.
ITS A BOY! 🎉 Just a thought 💭… If the Active Intellect is an umbilical cord and the Kiss of Death, the Overflow then the pangs of labor must result in the cries of a joyful Union with God. 23:28
Sh'koyach. This is a legit tour de force through post Second Temple philosophy, mysticism, and their influences upon the religious infrastructures (including social sciences such as psychology and sociology, which are nothing more than atheist/secular belief systems for materialists) to which fearful intellects need cling.
If the statement that "... since god's existence is categorically other than ours ...." is accurate, then the logical consequence will be that god's existence is limited by the exclusion of what is "other." Is the theological position of Maimonides that god is unlimited or limited?
@@SeekersofUnity I was also a bit confused, although I figured that's what you meant. I'll suggest that going forward, try not to do that, as it will really confuse people. Maimonides and the Zohar readily accept the notion of multiple ways of thinking about god, and expain the various names of God as relating to those concepts. Let's not let the viewer easily confuse that with polytheism.
God is sacred and always will be , you can talk turkey all you like to the cows come home . You are not meant to break the rules and cannot be broken , Interlect is only communication in the creation between humans and the objective physical .
Mainonides' system is based on the observation that what differentiates Man from the rest of the creation is his intellect. Approaches to religion that reject the intellect, by construction, don't make sense.
This video has a great question, but it's a tease, because you spend too much time asking questions and don't really answer anything. You quote a lot of academics that like name dropping and using buzzwords, but don't really answer anything because they are basically historians, not actual philosophers. Also, the "Boxes" that you frame the question in are innapropriate. Here is the obvious answer: 1. If mysticism involves any sort of non-observable dynamic or miraculous behaviour, this is rejected by Maimonides. 2. Agnostisism, insofar as it is uncertainty is not found in Maimonides works. So he's neither. Regarding the unity with the "mind of God": 1. The "mind of God" that we can unify with is actually the "Intelligences" that form the fundamental truths of the universe. When we know those, the information in our mind is unified with those truths. 2. The actual imagined "knowlege that God has" doesn't exist. As Maimonides relates many times, God has no positive attributes except those of action. Thus, our inference that God has a mind is based on the orderly operation on the universe, but God has no actual "mind" and we could never unify with that.
@@SeekersofUnity I think you could probably re-work a lot of these "question" videos so that either a) the answer is clearly stated toward the beginning, and the in-depth explanation is framed as exaclty that. b) the video in the beginning is framed as a review of the different approaches different people have given over time to the question. Approach B is much more history-of-philosophy than actual philosophy, but that is a good approahc when there's no clear answer or the history is interesting.
