“To be is to be perceived” -- Bishop Berkeley
[corresponding to the Latin esse est percipi, pronounced ESS-ay est pare-KIP-ee. Percipi is the passive infinitive, a delightful category, which does not exist in any of the other languages with which I am conversant.]
[corresponding to the Latin esse est percipi, pronounced ESS-ay est pare-KIP-ee. Percipi is the passive infinitive, a delightful category, which does not exist in any of the other languages with which I am conversant.]
“We call a real dynamical variable whose eigenstates form a complete set an observable.” -- Paul Dirac
“To be is to be the value of a variable.” -- W.V.O. Quine
*
~
~ Posthumous Endorsement ~
"If I were alive today, and in the mood
for a mystery,
this is what I'd be reading: "
(I am Bishop Berkeley, and I approved this
message.)
~
~
~
Three radically different takes on being and seeing.
(Cf. "Seeing is believing" -- vs. Berkeley:
Being seen is being.)
The first and most famous of the epigrams above
applies to the ontology of basic objects, such as coffee-cups
-- about which no plain man has any doubts whatsoever. (Quine's
quip will, however, frequently detain us further; e.g. here.)
A related but different question concerns things
which, unlike a coffee-cup or its relativistic mass, you cannot directly perceive -- though someone else might.
Scott Soames, Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century (2003), vol. I, p. 17, re the views of G.E. Moore:
For
things presented in space, but not things to be met with in space, to
exist is to be perceived. That is, afterimages .. and pains can only
exist when they are perceived or experienced.
Or, classically, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
A psychological vice
ontological version of Bekeley’s epigram, is the vernacular “Out of sight, out
of mind.” (Cf. French, "Si tu te tais, ni vu ni connu.") Or, as Fielding wittily
put it in Tom Jones,
De
non apparentibus, et non existentibus,
eadem
est ratio. -- In English, ‘When a woman is not seen to blush, she doth not
blush at all.’
(Lawfolk interpret this Latin tag more prosaically: “What is not juridically presented
cannot be judicially decided.”
Spoilsports.)
~
A noted intuitionist philosopher, anent “the celebrated
[loathsome, leprotic -- ed.] thesis that mathematical statements do not relate
to an objective mathematical reality existing independently of us”,
writes that, on such a view, to be is to
be conceived:
Unlike material objects, mathematical objects are, on this thesis, creations of the human mind. They are objects of thought, not merely in the sense that they can be thought about, but in the sense that their being is to be thought of [or rather, thought into existence -- ed.]; for them, esse est concipi.
-- Michael Dummett, “ The Philosophical Basis of
Intuitionistic Logic”, in: Truth and other enigmas (1978), p. 228
* * *
~ Commercial break ~
Relief for
beleaguered Nook lovers!
We now return you to
your regularly scheduled essay.
* * *
~
The above is really just a placeholder post, reminding me to someday address the deeper problem of observables.
This may never happen. To begin with, even in the simplest
quantum-mechanical case, an observable is an operator on Hilbert space,
so you have to wrap your mind around that. With some luck and some
study, that might be doable. But just now I encountered the following
dismaying sentence:
In quantum field theory, unlike in quantum mechanics, position is not an observable.
I may well have retired to my hamster farm, before ever figuring such things out.
In the meantime, some further thoughts about ontology here.
~
Bonus quote:
How do you know you’re having fun if there’s no one watching you have it?
--Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the end of the Universe (1980).
~
Visitors to the site have enquired about the pronunciation
of the classic Latin phrase “esse est percipi”. About this (although I
used to be editor of pronunciation at Merriam-Webster, back in the day)
I have so far had nothing to say. Embarrassed, I messaged my colleague
and comrade Dr. Keith Massey (officially out of comms, but reachable in
the bush), as follows:
More than once, someone has searched the blog via
pronounce esse est percipi
-- alas in vain. In my head, I have always pronounced this pear-KIP-ee, but, given that the vowel is short, the Latin would be more like PEAR-kip-ee, no?
Or rather, the Vulgar Latin, since Latin itself, being quantitative, lacked phonemic lexical stress. Correct so far?
A second question is how philosophers in various countries pronounce it -- anglicized, frenchified, etc.
pronounce esse est percipi
-- alas in vain. In my head, I have always pronounced this pear-KIP-ee, but, given that the vowel is short, the Latin would be more like PEAR-kip-ee, no?
Or rather, the Vulgar Latin, since Latin itself, being quantitative, lacked phonemic lexical stress. Correct so far?
A second question is how philosophers in various countries pronounce it -- anglicized, frenchified, etc.
Swifter than lightning, our colleague replied:
In
classical Latin the C is always pronounced as a K. But we don't know
when the thing started to change before E and I. I suspect it was
already being realized regionally as something else in the Late Imperial
period. And speakers of Latin dialects took to pronouncing their
classical Latin as if it were their living register. And so, in France, percipi
was pronounced “persipee”. In Italy perchipee, and in Spanish pershipee
(attested still in Ladino) and later, in Iberia as perthipee, and, yet
later in the New World, as persipee.
Accent
in Latin is a hotly debated topic. I personally follow the view that
the classical accent is unknowable and therefore all we have to work
from is the living dialects and the rules of Ecclesiastical Latin. And
so, penultimate except in a few cases. Accent falls in the syllable
before -ibus. But I'd say perCIPee.
As
for Anglo-Latin, this is an exciting topic. There's some evidence that a
Romance language survived in the Isles for a several centuries after
the withdrawal of forces in 380. It apparently, from inscriptional
evidence, turned long E into a long I, fecit --> feecit. The way we
pronounce phrases like Habeas Corpus may actually be representative of
the pronounciation of Anglo-Romance, rather than a later scholastic
recasting.
Those further
interested in this topic can consult the essay by Thomas Pyles, “The
Pronunciation of Latin in English: A Lexicographical Dilemma”,
reprinted in his Selected essays on English usage (1979). Executive summary: The history is so tangled, it is now an unresolvable mess.
In his “Tempest in Teapot:
Reform in Latin Pronunciation”, reprinted in the same volume, Pyles
quotes an amusing epigram that alludes to what became of Latin in Spain,
where original v and b merged into a bilabial fricative:
~ Felix natio, ubi vivere est bibere ~
[Variant: "o felix iberia, ubi vivere est bibere"]
For further adventures in pronunciation, click here.
For further adventures in pronunciation, click here.
*
Für psychologisch
tiefgreifende Krimis,
in pikanter
amerikanischer Mundart,
und christlich gesinnt,
klicken Sie bitte
hier:
*
Distinguishing discontinuous state-reduction (which he dubs R) from linear evolution as per the
Schrödinger equation -- i.e., the “collapse of the wave-function” upon
“observation”, a mathematician remarks:
I do not mean to imply that the
experimenter deliberately sets up a ‘measurement’ to achieve this. … Nature herself is continually
enacting R-process effects, without any deliberate intentions on
the part of an experimenter or any intervention by a ‘conscious observer’.
-- Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p.
593
Thus achieving the esse
of percipi ‘naturally’ (vacuously).
.
No comments:
Post a Comment