3

After all there are some indications that we shouldn't:

Who first studied "logical (ir)reversibility"?

And even the fundamental nature of symmetry is in question:

Is symmetry real?

Now we might suppose that there is a residual form of thought left over from religiously inspired expectation of, order and design. We may also think of how symmetry is merely that aspect of translation that preserves meaning.

But for all that we are still left with the question of how we came to an appreciation of the concept when the phenomenal world does not seem to provide the experience of it.

Question: How do monists (or physicalists) explain the conception of symmetry when there is no direct experience (or necessity) of its existence?

Symmetry isn't something we found in nature, we thought we did, but looking closer it wasn't there. Why then did we think it?

christo183
  • 2,347
  • 4
  • 13
  • 33
  • I don't have an expectation of symmetry, I just know that there is no equilibrium or balance without it. I'm often fond of equilibrium or balance, but not always. – Bread Jul 08 '19 at 10:20
  • But we have "direct experience of its existence" : left/right hand, etc. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 08 '19 at 14:21
  • This sounds like the Plato's question as to how we come to grasp perfect forms when sensible things are so imperfect. His answer was the myth of anamnesis. Kant replaced it with templates of pure reason. Demythologizing, we are born with some cognitive apparatus for which symmetry makes things more tractable. So it should be tried first, and kept when it works well enough. It is the same principle as "first search under the streetlight", it is reasonable regardless of whether what one is looking for is there. Better than first looking for a black cat in a dark room, even if it is there. – Conifold Jul 08 '19 at 18:58
  • @Conifold I find the concept of anamnesis strangely compelling, but unnecessary for solving the paradox of knowledge. I think an organic explanation suffices: perceptions are conjugated into phenomena, experience builds knowledge, knowledge informs perception etc. Many mistakes are made, but quickly discarded... However this process doesn't quite explain our appreciation of symmetry, or abstractions in general. Particularly symmetry should have been discarded as a non-concept several orders of measurement precision ago. - Now I wonder: is it really that useful? – christo183 Jul 09 '19 at 06:37
  • Experience is not the only thing that builds knowledge, Kant was right about that much. We have two inputs here, the phenomena and the representational apparatus, and the latter is, to a degree, hard wired, not into pure reason but into our brains. Its features can not be discarded, we are bound by them. It is because of that that our model of computation is a Turing machine, and symmetry is what makes Turing machines work better, it reduces complexity. Idealization generally is ubiquitous and attractive, not because of perfection, or experience, but because it lowers representational costs. – Conifold Jul 09 '19 at 16:53

1 Answers1

1

Why do we expect symmetry?

Because we see symmetry all around us: human faces have bilateral symmetry, as are their bodies; so are trees, and the leaves on trees show symmetry too.

Since symmetry is all around us we get to expect it. Moreover, one can argue, that there is a metaphysical necessity of such, since a world without symmetry of any kind, would be a world without patterns of any kind, and such a world is metaphysically impossible as its not founded upon a secure foundation but an insecure one, a chaotic one. And such a foundation, as metaphysicians have already pointed out, is simply not possible.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 1
  • 14
  • 88
  • 234
  • Which metaphysicians? And "not possible", or simply unpalatable? Because, as considered elsewhere, the more rigorous our epistemic undertaking, the less actual physical symmetry we find. Accordingly one would expect that more sophisticated thinking would try to contemplate a world without symmetry. Of course there is the matter of its _usefulness_, as raised by @Conifold. So essentially we thought we saw something in nature, then we found it may not be there after all, yet we keep it around for reasons... Where then, ontologically speaking, does symmetry come from? – christo183 Jul 10 '19 at 05:41
  • "And such a foundation, as metaphysicians have already pointed out, is simply not possible." Would you mind saying a bit more about this? You mentioned that there are arguments that chaotic worlds without symmetry (I'm guessing in the mathematician's/physicist's more general sense of the word?) are metaphysically impossible, but I'm hoping you can expand and give an example of such an argument. – Adam Sharpe Jul 11 '19 at 14:56
  • @Christo: Not possible and not just unpalatable. As Parmenides would have put it, is an unthought and not part of the way of truth. I was talking metaphysics not physics but perhaps you might want to have a look at high energy physics where the higher the energy the more physical symmetry is apparent. The weak force for example, becomes apparent through symmetry breaking. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 17 '19 at 03:21
  • 1
    @Adam Sharpe: Have a look at the book *Big Bang Big God* where the author affirms that the metaphysical principle underlying physics is order and not unorder, and this, as it happens was a principle imported from theology. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 17 '19 at 03:23
  • High energy physics is an interesting example. If we look at chronological progression of the physical universe, we start with a uniform (ordered?) state which coalesces _asymmetrically_... But I think I get your point: _order entails symmetry_. So if we expect order we must expect symmetry? – christo183 Jul 17 '19 at 05:30
  • @Christo183: I was using physics as an example. Try reading my answer again where Inlisted other examples. I was saying that order is metaphysically necessary and that we ought to expect symmetry as we see it all around us. That’s empiricism. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 17 '19 at 05:36
  • Anyway I find it so intriguing because the concept 'symmetry' "behaves" so much like the concept 'God'. That is many people never question the idea, but as soon as you start to pursue a deeper understanding they seem to recede. You learn all kinds of things, but that _it actually exist_ seem to fade... But then of course one wonders what other world these ideas come from. – christo183 Jul 17 '19 at 07:09
  • @Christo183: I don’t see what the notion of God has to do with symmetry at all, or even in what way it behaves like this. As I have repeated pointed out - it’s the metaphysical notion of order that is seen as the rational manifestation of Gods will that is understood in both Christian and Islamic theology. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 17 '19 at 07:17
  • If you don't see how the concepts behaves the same, we are talking past each other. But at least now we have a point on which we can agree to disagree: "...order that is seen as _the_ rational manifestation of Gods will" if you had said "..._a_ rational manifestation.." we would have had common ground. – christo183 Jul 17 '19 at 07:45
  • @Christo: I’m not looking for common ground. As I’ve pointed the notion of symmetry is not how either Islamic or Christian theology think of Allah/God. Though the former have often used it to symbolise his infinitude. – Mozibur Ullah Jul 17 '19 at 07:51