limits on the number of concepts in a simple universe

[sweetiepie]

Suppose you live in a universe in which you can distinguish only 2 binary properties: everything in the universe is light or dark, hot or cold.

For you, this universe contains 4 possible physical objects. A thing can be light and hot. Dark and hot. Light and cold. Dark and cold.

You don't necessarily conceive of all these things though. You don't even necessarily conceive of these properties.

Suppose for example, you know of two things in this universe. A light/hot thing. And a dark/cold thing. Your knowledge of the universe, containing only 2 things, has only 1 set of properties. Light-and-hot, which we can call "lot". And dark-and-cold, which we can just call "dold". You'll have one lot thing. And one dold thing. With only lot and dold to choose from, you won't be able to imagine something that is dark and hot.
You won't-- infact-- be able to imagine anything.


Only if you do come across one of the other two, say something that is dark and hot, will you be able to seperate each quality. Only then will you be able to actually use your imagination-- and imagine the 4th object-- the light and cold thing.

[RexT]

You are dealing with the principle of synthesis and analysis, which it is known that synthesis is simple and analysis can be impossible. For example, it is easy to learn that gray is the synthesis of black and white, but in a world that was entirely gray, it would never occur to anyone that gray could be analyzed into black and white. Thus, in order to analyze "lot" or "dold", we would need to see examples of their constituents in isolation, or at least if we combined lot with dold, the synthesis (dim-warm) would give us the concept that each one contained some property that the other had, merely in different quantity.

Rex

[sweetiepie]

You are dealing with the principle of synthesis and analysis, which it is known that synthesis is simple and analysis can be impossible. For example, it is easy to learn that gray is the synthesis of black and white, but in a world that was entirely gray, it would never occur to anyone that gray could be analyzed into black and white. Thus, in order to analyze "lot" or "dold", we would need to see examples of their constituents in isolation, or at least if we combined lot with dold, the synthesis (dim-warm) would give us the concept that each one contained some property that the other had, merely in different quantity.

Rex

while you're at it, in a world that was only gray, gray would also never occur to anyone.

but anyway. why should synthesis be any easier? why would we imagine gray to be a combination of black and white if we had never actually seen them combined?
my claim is that we have a significantly more limited synthesis:
if we know of black and white cats, and we come across a white sheep, then we can imagine, because of the cats, that it is black. but why should we be able to imagine gray?

[comiezapr]

Only if you do come across one of the other two, say something that is dark and hot, will you be able to seperate each quality. Only then will you be able to actually use your imagination-- and imagine the 4th object-- the light and cold thing.

I dont think you need to be aquainted with a property to concieve of it. Im not sure ive ever seen something in the world that was a material conditional but i can use them just fine. Of course, in some sense of "aquianted" i was aquianted with material conditionals.

In a universe of the variety you describe (assuming that something as complicated as a human can be present in such a universe by total anamoly) i dont see any bar to the human imagining things that it hadnt experienced. Really, we do it all the time. Phlogiston, Caloric, the Ether, all of these things we never expreinced and yet had rather detailed theories of how they worked. It actually happens that these theories didnt fit the facts so theres no reason to believe these things existed at all, in any way. Yet we still concived of them.

I dont really think expreincing is a good requirement to place on concieving.

I can outline a slightly technical, though good, argument in favor of a strong thesis against what this idea of ability to distinguish without ability to concieve of permutations of properties. Only if you want though, it will get lengthy and probably generate responses not related to your topic.

[RexT]

while you're at it, in a world that was only gray, gray would also never occur to anyone.
Yes, you are correct; I should have said a world that was gray and green.
but anyway. why should synthesis be any easier? why would we imagine gray to be a combination of black and white if we had never actually seen them combined?
I can easily synthesize two prime numbers to get 923, can you just as easily analyze 923 and tell me those two numbers? If we had never seen black and white combined, we would not imagine gray. It requires experimenting by combining different things to see what happens, mere childsplay.
my claim is that we have a significantly more limited synthesis:
if we know of black and white cats, and we come across a white sheep, then we can imagine, because of the cats, that it is black. but why should we be able to imagine gray?
Well, one day a lot of white cats runs between a lot of black cats and suddenly they looked like a pile of gray something.

Rex

[Chris Porter]

Suppose you live in a universe in which you can distinguish only 2 binary properties: everything in the universe is light or dark, hot or cold.

For you, this universe contains 4 possible physical objects. A thing can be light and hot. Dark and hot. Light and cold. Dark and cold.

You don't necessarily conceive of all these things though. You don't even necessarily conceive of these properties.

Suppose for example, you know of two things in this universe. A light/hot thing. And a dark/cold thing. Your knowledge of the universe, containing only 2 things, has only 1 set of properties. Light-and-hot, which we can call "lot". And dark-and-cold, which we can just call "dold". You'll have one lot thing. And one dold thing. With only lot and dold to choose from, you won't be able to imagine something that is dark and hot.
You won't-- infact-- be able to imagine anything.


Only if you do come across one of the other two, say something that is dark and hot, will you be able to seperate each quality. Only then will you be able to actually use your imagination-- and imagine the 4th object-- the light and cold thing.

So, if you can distinguish a lot from a dold, why doesn't this automatically indicate that there is a "between"-that which is not lot or dold? To me, this looks as if to solve this puzzle, there is a singular thing in a box with nothing else, and part of the box is lot and the other part of the box is dold. If the thing can "come accross" one or the other" then there is something wrong with the set-up, because what is between one or another of lot and dold? Space that is not lot or dold, surely. And thus, were that the case, you don't have a binary system, you have a trinary one of lot, dold, and between, which is 'not lot or dold'. In fact, I suppose there had to be the between for something to distinguish lot or dold of things.

Now, light and heat are radient. Traveling toward them or away from the modifies the amount of light or heat a body receives. This automatic fluctuation, I think could lead to the ability to distinguish amounts of light and heat--say if there was two lots in the universe, and you can travel toward and away from them, the amount of light and heat would vary between the too. One would be come objectively darker, colder, than the other. So now there are four variables, intensity, between, and lot and dold. (see why I started with a lot and dold box with the entity inside?) Further, since the entity can distinguish dold things from the universe, it's between, one might be able to hypothesize that the dold object is also radient, and has gradations dependent on distance. This then lends interest to the between stuff, which will get warmer and lighter, but not be a lot, or colder and darker, but will not be dold. The permutations multiple.

Er, and then a miracle occurs, and the thing that knows lot and dold thinks about possibilities. It has a significant amount of varying knowledge, it might be able to start imagining things that are different. Like if it approached a lot thing, but instead of getting warmer, it got colder.

I say, "a miracle occurs" because I don't see any way you can get from a thing that knows lot and dold to a thing that knows lot and dold and has an imagination.

[sweetiepie]

So, if you can distinguish a lot from a dold, why doesn't this automatically indicate that there is a "between"-that which is not lot or dold? To me, this looks as if to solve this puzzle, there is a singular thing in a box with nothing else, and part of the box is lot and the other part of the box is dold. If the thing can "come accross" one or the other" then there is something wrong with the set-up, because what is between one or another of lot and dold? Space that is not lot or dold, surely. And thus, were that the case, you don't have a binary system, you have a trinary one of lot, dold, and between, which is 'not lot or dold'. In fact, I suppose there had to be the between for something to distinguish lot or dold of things.

Now, light and heat are radient. Traveling toward them or away from the modifies the amount of light or heat a body receives. This automatic fluctuation, I think could lead to the ability to distinguish amounts of light and heat--say if there was two lots in the universe, and you can travel toward and away from them, the amount of light and heat would vary between the too. One would be come objectively darker, colder, than the other. So now there are four variables, intensity, between, and lot and dold. (see why I started with a lot and dold box with the entity inside?) Further, since the entity can distinguish dold things from the universe, it's between, one might be able to hypothesize that the dold object is also radient, and has gradations dependent on distance. This then lends interest to the between stuff, which will get warmer and lighter, but not be a lot, or colder and darker, but will not be dold. The permutations multiple.

Er, and then a miracle occurs, and the thing that knows lot and dold thinks about possibilities. It has a significant amount of varying knowledge, it might be able to start imagining things that are different. Like if it approached a lot thing, but instead of getting warmer, it got colder.

I say, "a miracle occurs" because I don't see any way you can get from a thing that knows lot and dold to a thing that knows lot and dold and has an imagination.
Now you're making things quite complicated. If you introduce space and time, then of course, we're going to have quite a few parameters by which to judge things. Nearness to lot and farness from lot. before and after dolds. Not to mention left, right, up, down, forward, backward... nah, too complicated.
although there may or may not be a necessity for space or time in such a universe, we're dealing with a person who is incapable of perceiving them. more particularly there does not have to a "between", the lot could simply meet the dold, and that could be that, like where teh sky meets the earth....

Anyway, supposing our person is able to experience a gradient between lot and dold. We are still left with your miracle problem. No cold. No hot. No light. No dark.

A person might be able to imagine approaching a lot and it getting dolder-- but not colder.
My imagination anyway is much more limited. I need 3 things: a lot, a dold, and one of the other 2-- a lold or a dot-- before I can think in terms of hot and cold-- and then use those terms to imagine the 4th concept..

I do really like your notion of needing to first form a causual link between events before being able to imagine a causual link between events.



For a somewhat rough analogue, try basic linear algebra.

[Chris Porter]

Now you're making things quite complicated. If you introduce space and time, then of course, we're going to have quite a few parameters by which to judge things. Nearness to lot and farness from lot. before and after dolds. Not to mention left, right, up, down, forward, backward... nah, too complicated.
although there may or may not be a necessity for space or time in such a universe, we're dealing with a person who is incapable of perceiving them. more particularly there does not have to a "between", the lot could simply meet the dold, and that could be that, like where teh sky meets the earth....

Anyway, supposing our person is able to experience a gradient between lot and dold. We are still left with your miracle problem. No cold. No hot. No light. No dark.

A person might be able to imagine approaching a lot and it getting dolder-- but not colder.
My imagination anyway is much more limited. I need 3 things: a lot, a dold, and one of the other 2-- a lold or a dot-- before I can think in terms of hot and cold-- and then use those terms to imagine the 4th concept..

I do really like your notion of needing to first form a causual link between events before being able to imagine a causual link between events.



For a somewhat rough analogue, try basic linear algebra.

Warm and cold and dark and light imply gradients (it's always an implied "warmer than" or "colder than" etc.). In order to have gradients, you need time, otherwise you can't figure out the difference ("I go this direction, things get loter and loter, but in the other direction, dolder and dolder", says the entity-which of course can't speak, since that implies gobs of concepts). I can't figure out how you can have the scenario without space time--even using the individual in a box universe, and having part of the universe be lot, other part dold. In order to distinguish a difference, time is necessary, either to note the difference between different sides of the individual ("One side of me feels different from the other side of me", the entity says) or to distinguish more of something than another thing.

[sweetiepie]

Warm and cold and dark and light imply gradients (it's always an implied "warmer than" or "colder than" etc.). In order to have gradients, you need time, otherwise you can't figure out the difference ("I go this direction, things get loter and loter, but in the other direction, dolder and dolder", says the entity-which of course can't speak, since that implies gobs of concepts). I can't figure out how you can have the scenario without space time--even using the individual in a box universe, and having part of the universe be lot, other part dold. In order to distinguish a difference, time is necessary, either to note the difference between different sides of the individual ("One side of me feels different from the other side of me", the entity says) or to distinguish more of something than another thing.
Well. ok. Yes-- I chose particularly fuzzy qualities, and yes, such a universe needs space time- but then it's just a big mess. I was just going to let our person be incapable of sensing space-time. But ok, your points are valid.