Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Philocrat]

Science should start interpreting ( or should I say explaining) the whole of reality PURPOSIVELY! The whole approach should fundamentally shift from 'HOW' to 'WHY'! Infact, we should kiss goodbye to any hope of scientific progress PROPER, let alone the human progress, without this approach!

 

[JonahHex]

Purpose?

Why?

Purpose has religion implied. If not God's, whose purpose?

Mine, perhaps? As nearly as I can tell, the purpose of the Universe is to inconvience and annoy me.

Is that purposive enough for you?

 

[Philocrat]

Why?

Purpose has religion implied. If not God's, whose purpose?

Mine, perhaps? As nearly as I can tell, the purpose of the Universe is to inconvience and annoy me.

Is that purposive enough for you?

JonahHex, for goodness' sake, don't get upset about it! The issue that I am rasing here has nothing to do with religion. It seems that every time an issue of the HUMAN PROGRESS is raised in any discipline, our first stroke of thought seems to point an accusing finger at religion. Why must the notion of human progress always be about religion? Perhaps, it does genuinely concern religion, but that's only a tiny portion of the whole picture, as James W. Pugh's posting tends to suggest.

All that I am saying is that if science is genuinely seeking to explain how parts fit together in the sum totality of a whole, if the notion of the human progress, let alone survival, is worth anything at all, then science must do so purposively. For if you don't know why things are given temporal, spatial and causal positions in a whole, how would you know what to do next, let alone re-engineer and action them in a progressive way or manner? This is the BIG question that is being constantly played down within the science community.

Every time we start talking about this, some scientists start to talk about uncertainty principle, Blind designs, fluxes, Big bangs, infinities and all what not, as if these are the final truths. And then we are told about the 'SAVED-BY-THE-BELL RULE' as the golden rule, or should I say the governing rule, of our own human form of life. That our own form of life happens to be possible by accidentally occupying a planet on our solar system with the right distance to the sun...the so-called 'RIGHT CONDITIONS FOR LIFE'.

Even more so, some scientists seem to feel that when they ask such question as:

"WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PLANET MARS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?"

that they would be seen by their colleagues as being stupid or as asking a religious question as you have just quite rightly demonstrated by your outrage over my postulate. How can this question be stupid or religious, let alone any attempt to figure out its answer? My suggestion is that any attempt to answer a quesation of this kind is a time well spent, and it must activate progressive thoughts and actions in us. Give it a try!

 

[Philocrat]

Even more chilling is the fact that we are currently 'DANGEROUSLY CONTENTED' with the way things are...gracefully going with the flow, and comfortably settling in with 'SOFT SCIENCE'. Sadly, it seems that we are not yet ready to do 'HARD SCIENCE'. And try pointing this out to members of the diciplines concerned and they would accuse you of starting a new theory...as if though they are naturally frightened of theories!

 

[loseyourname]

But science is guilty of one fundamental charge: IT WHOLLY NEGLECTS A PURPOSIVE APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF PART-WHOLE RELATIONS! How could science coherently explain reality when it is neglecting the purposes of things in a given relation? My investigation of the scientific account of the Part-Whole Relations suggests that this inevitably leads to explanatory deficits, which is what I having been trying to point out throughtout my postings on PF and elsewhere. Sooner or later science must take a concrete stand on this!

Philo, science is not meant to deal with questions of purpose. Science is descriptive only of physical processes in terms of cause and effect. In this sense it is defective as a means of describing all of reality, but this is an intentional defect! Science is not neglecting anything; it is simply incapable of answering questions of purpose. Purpose is an entirely subjective thing. Whether or not purposive action exists in a contracausal, non-physical sense isn't even known, and I would say cannot be known through empirical means, including the scientific method. These explanatory deficits you speak of are well known and well discussed here, but how are they relevant to the efficacy of science? Science cannot explain the experience of listening to a great opera, or any subjective experience for that matter, but that does not make it deficient any more than poetics is deficient because it can't explain why some ink dries faster than others.

 

[Doctordick]

I claim that physics (or shall we say "hard science" since the current state of physics has become rather senile in many respects) can explain anything. Not only do I make that claim but I also claim I can show anyone interested in the issue exactly how the truth of that claim can be proved. The subject of this endeavor seems to be "metaphysics" and thus willfully to be avoided by any trained hard scientists. I myself have not studied the subject other than to think about the issues themselves.

The idea of metaphysics was introduced by Aristotle some 2300 years ago. His interest was in the foundations on which the science of physics should be based. Though many people have held the subject to be a very important issue, its actual study has generally been relegated to the field of philosophy. The problem is that in today's world of "hard science" philosophy is generally considered an unscientific pursuit. Certainly no graduate school of modern physics that I am aware of includes any requirement of "metaphysics" in its curriculum.

The central problem of explanation itself is, exactly how do you defend your starting position. In many respects this is the central (unresolved issue) of metaphysics clearly comes to bear directly on Aristotle's basis of physics. That this is the case is easily defended through the following observation taken directly from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

********************
In Posterior Analytics I.2, Aristotle considers two challenges to the possibility of science. One party (dubbed the "agnostics" by Jonathan Barnes) began with the following two premises:

1. Whatever is scientifically known must be demonstrated.
2. The premises of a demonstration must be scientifically known.

They then argued that demonstration is impossible with the following dilemma:

1. If the premises of a demonstration are scientifically known, then they must be demonstrated.
2. The premises from which each premise are demonstrated must be scientifically known.
3. Either this process continues forever, creating an infinite regress of premises, or it comes to a stop at some point.
4. If it continues forever, then there are no first premises from which the subsequent ones are demonstrated, and so nothing is demonstrated.
5. On the other hand, if it comes to a stop at some point, then the premises at which it comes to a stop are undemonstrated and therefore not scientifically known; consequently, neither are any of the others deduced from them.
6. Therefore, nothing can be demonstrated.

A second group accepted the agnostics' view that scientific knowledge comes only from demonstration but rejected their conclusion by rejecting the dilemma. Instead, they maintained:

Demonstration "in a circle" is possible, so that it is possible for all premises also to be conclusions and therefore demonstrated.

Aristotle does not give us much information about how circular demonstration was supposed to work, but the most plausible interpretation would be supposing that at least for some set of fundamental principles, each principle could be deduced from the others.

Aristotle rejects circular demonstration as an incoherent notion on the grounds that the premises of any demonstration must be prior (in an appropriate sense) to the conclusion, whereas a circular demonstration would make the same premises both prior and posterior to one another (and indeed every premise prior and posterior to itself). He agrees with the agnostics' analysis of the regress problem: the only plausible options are that it continues indefinitely or that it "comes to a stop" at some point. However, he thinks both the agnostics and the circular demonstrators are wrong in maintaining that scientific knowledge is only possible by demonstration from premises scientifically known: instead, he claims, there is another form of knowledge possible for the first premises, and this provides the starting points for demonstrations.

****************** Cohen, S. Marc, "Aristotle's Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/>.

Modern physics presumes that Aristotle's conundrum is of no real importance as physics is merely concerned with useful descriptions physical processes and the issues of cause and effect. However, if one considers the fundamental defense of a "Theory of Everything", the issue brought up here is the basis of science itself.

Hard science has essentially leapt, without serious thought, to Aristotle's position that there is another form of knowledge which provides the starting point. No thought or discussion is given to exactly how one becomes aware of this alternate form of knowledge. I think it requires a serious examination.

We all started life as mere fetuses, presented with exactly that problem: acquiring the knowledge necessary to provide that starting point for serious examination of the universe. And, in a matter of months, we all solved it without a conscious effort at all. If nothing else, that proves the problem is solvable.

We use the word "intuitive" to describe such solutions. The only problem with "intuitive" solutions is that they can often be erroneous (and any hard scientist will agree with that assessment). Yet all scientists take the position that each and every perception (intuitive constructs every one) is absolutely correct unless it can be proved that one is an illusion. It seems to me that the opposite position is the only one acceptable to "hard science": i.e., each and every perception is an illusion unless one can prove it is not.

It is through careful (exact) examination of the above position that I came to discover a solution to that original problem. If there is anyone interested in examining that solution who has the mental proclivities and patience to follow a complex exact development, let me know and I will do my best to guide you through my thoughts.

Have fun – Dick

P.S. I have another philosophical carrot for anyone with the attention span to follow my work. I will explain how free will comes to exist, in an exact manner.

 

[Nereid]

Good to see that you're still around Dr Dick!

You've probably not had a chance to read through this whole thread, but I'd personally be interested to see (hear?) what you think about what seems to me to be something of a consensus, many pages back ... there are really only two domains where 'physics' may not rule - 'life' and the hard problem of consciousness. There are some (myself included) who feel that the 'life' area may well yield to 'physics' in the next hundred years or three; there are others (e.g. Les) who contend that it cannot, even in principle (he presents a cogent argument to support his idea). On the 'hard problem of consciousness', hypnogogue introduced us to some very recent thinking (a book) which may hint at a possible approach to bring this into the domain of 'physics'.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If there is anyone interested in examining that solution who has the mental proclivities and patience to follow a complex exact development, let me know and I will do my best to guide you through my thoughts.

Personally I wouldn't be interested in having you guide me through any of your thoughts unless they achieve what you claim they can when you say:

I claim that physics (or shall we say "hard science" since the current state of physics has become rather senile in many respects) can explain anything. Not only do I make that claim but I also claim I can show anyone interested in the issue exactly how the truth of that claim can be proved. . . .

Since you have allied yourself with hard science, and we know there are exact standards for proof in hard science (i.e., that what's hypothesized to be true can be observed), I challenge you to prove that physics can "explain anything."

Now, if you mean by "proved" that you can demonstrate a valid logical argument, then forget my challenge. If you have facts that prove, not just indicate, consciousness is the result of physical processes, that life can come about through abiogenesis, that physical processes are the sole first cause of the universe's origin and the only influence which has made it develop the way it has . . . then that would be interesting indeed!

 

[printf("Q&A")]

Phjysics has limits.
These limits are set by the nature it-self.

One of the example is the uncertainly principle in quantum mechanics.

let say we have two slit and a particle. Physics can explain the probability of the particle exit via anyone of the two slits. But, when we do see it exit at one of the slit, we cannot explain why it doesn't go through the other one instead. That's the limit how far physics can go.



On the other hand, away from nature's limits, yes everything you can learn in a universtiy (except art and philosophy) can be reduces to pure physics

 

[Doctordick]

Still looking for indications of interest!

Good to see that you're still around Dr Dick!

Well, that's a comment I've not heard in a long while! Thank you very much.

... there are really only two domains where 'physics' may not rule - 'life' and the hard problem of consciousness.

Perhaps one might propose a new name for "the hard science study of fundamentals" since, as I said, "the current state of physics has become rather senile in many respects". I would call the field "metaphysics" except for the fact that metaphysics has already established itself as a "soft science". How about "HARD" metaphysics?

There are some (myself included) who feel that the 'life' area may well yield to 'physics' in the next hundred years or three; there are others (e.g. Les) who contend that it cannot, even in principle (he presents a cogent argument to support his idea).

I have spent today reading the entire thread (Oh, I have just perused a great number of posts). Les seems to be a rational person but I like things more exactly defined then he requires. For example:

…especially if when you use the term "explain" you mean prove.

I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. A good explanation is one where the expectations are consistent with observations (and "observations" are additions to that "known information"). Anyone, let me know if you find fault with that definition!

It seems the rarest thinker and investigator is one determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be.

I agree 100% and wish I could find one. I have never met such a person in my life; at least not one with an education. Education tends to stifle such proclivities. I also suspect Les would baulk at living up to it.

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it. (I have not examined hypnogogue's refrence!)

one would have to wonder why human consciousness should have evolved.

Before one can wonder seriously, one needs to know exactly what you are talking about: define "consciousness".

Personally I wouldn't be interested in having you guide me through any of your thoughts unless they achieve what you claim they can when you say…

And I wouldn't expect you be interested if I could not do what I say.

Since you have allied yourself with hard science, and we know there are exact standards for proof in hard science (i.e., that what's hypothesized to be true can be observed), I challenge you to prove that physics can "explain anything."

That's what I offered to do isn't it? However, the proof is not trivial and it requires some serious thought. Are you really ready?

Now, if you mean by "proved" that you can demonstrate a valid logical argument, then forget my challenge.

Well now, I certainly am confident that I can demonstrate a "valid logical argument"! If that is grounds for dismissal then your idea of hard science and mine seem to be quite far apart.

If you have facts that prove, not just indicate, consciousness is the result of physical processes, that life can come about through abiogenesis, that physical processes are the sole first cause of the universe's origin and the only influence which has made it develop the way it has . . . then that would be interesting indeed!

What you seem to be saying here is that you need your intuitive position on what's right to yield the result or you won't accept it. One would conclude that you certainly are not a person "determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence."

The requirement you state is not the one I claimed to be able to perform. I claim to have discovered a solution to a very specific problem: the problem of explanation itself. If you are willing to accept my definition of "an explanation", then I can show you how to construct an absolutely general "mechanical" model of any possible explanation of anything.

Unless there is an error in my construction procedure, there exists no explanation of anything which can not be mapped into the "mechanical" solutions of that model. The conclusion is that "hard science" is applicable to any problem, philosophical or otherwise. It is the nature of explanation itself.

I am looking for someone who, "in pursuit of the truth", "is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be".

I'll be out of town for a week so think about the issue a little before you comment. Again, I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. If you don't like my definition, please give me an example of an explanation which provides nothing regarding your expectations. Or one which provides something which cannot be interpreted as saying something about your expectations.

Have fun guys -- Dick

 

[Rothiemurchus]

DoctorDick:
The problem is that in today's world of "hard science" philosophy is generally considered an unscientific pursuit. Certainly no graduate school of modern physics that I am aware of includes any requirement of "metaphysics" in its curriculum.

Rothie M:
You're right about this DD and it's a bad thing because universities
are detatching students from the ability to use and argue with language,
to be creative and to consider other people's points of view.
Great physicists like Einstein took philosophers seriously e.g Mach.
My old university still calls its department of physics
"The Department of Natural Philosophy."
Good on them!
And it's great to have your expertise back on these forums.

 

[Rader]

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it.

I agree. Would you mind posting it when you get back, I will read it, not sure if I would use it, until I read it.

 

[loseyourname]

DoctorDick:
The problem is that in today's world of "hard science" philosophy is generally considered an unscientific pursuit. Certainly no graduate school of modern physics that I am aware of includes any requirement of "metaphysics" in its curriculum.

This is off-topic, but I really like the grad program at the University of Arizona. It allows you to major in the philosophy of mind while minoring in cognitive science. The only program I know of where you can actually get a taste of both sides.

Also, regarding the question about why human consciousness should have evolved, I think it's important to note again that a given trait does not need to provide any selective advantage. Many evolved traits simply emerged from other traits or evolved because of gene-linkage. Trying to fit every trait that a human being has into a theory of evolutionary selection is dubious at best. The vast majority can be, but not all.

 

[Bobby R]

Physics for problem solving?

By restricting yourself to pure Physics you run the risk of limiting thought in order to keep your solution in the box. Is that where you want to be?
Bob Rollins

 

[loseyourname]

I've just received confirmation from Gregg himself that his book A Place for Consciousness has just recently been released officially. It's available directly from the publisher http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Mind/?ci=0195168143&view=usa. (It's also available on Amazon, although they seem to have listed an incorrect release date.) In any case, the ISBN number is indeed 0195168143.

Just ordered a copy. Is this why you were calling yourself "Liberal Naturalist" back in the day?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. If you don't like my definition, please give me an example of an explanation which provides nothing regarding your expectations. Or one which provides something which cannot be interpreted as saying something about your expectations.

I hope you don’t mind that I mixed up the order of your comments to help me answer them more logically.

Within the context of empiricism’s own standards, a proof requires the observation of what is hypothesized to be true. A theory, no matter how brilliant, is not a proof unless we can observe all relevant aspects. It might be that the title of this thread gave you the impression that a plausible explanation would do; but I think everyone agreed early on that we were debating if physicalists could prove all existence was strictly physical since we already know there are plenty of theories (i.e., “explanations”) floating around.

Now, to me your post seems a little ambiguous about if you are ready to provide a proof. For example, when I asked you if that’s what you were going to provide you said:

That's what I offered to do isn't it? However, the proof is not trivial and it requires some serious thought. Are you really ready?

Well now, I certainly am confident that I can demonstrate a "valid logical argument"! If that is grounds for dismissal then your idea of hard science and mine seem to be quite far apart.

I was ready to retreat, thinking maybe rather than actual proof you meant merely a logical explanation. But you repeated you could “prove” physical processes can account for all aspects of reality.

Regarding logical validity, as most logic students can attest to, a valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument. An argument is valid as long as it obeys the rules of logic, and it isn’t dependent upon the premises of the argument being true. An example is: all dogs are white, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is white. That is a perfectly valid argument, but unsound since all dogs are not white.

Anyway, after confirming you would provide proof you go on to say:

I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. A good explanation is one where the expectations are consistent with observations (and "observations" are additions to that "known information"). Anyone, let me know if you find fault with that definition!

That’s a satisfactory definition of an explanation. It is most definitely not a definition of an empirical proof, which is the basis of “hard science” you said you were going to make your case from.

In addition you say:

The requirement you state is not the one I claimed to be able to perform. I claim to have discovered a solution to a very specific problem: the problem of explanation itself. If you are willing to accept my definition of "an explanation", then I can show you how to construct an absolutely general "mechanical" model of any possible explanation of anything.

Now that sounds like you are backtracking from the standards of proof. Within the context of this thread’s theme, I wouldn’t accept any “proof” that varies from empirical standards. Either you can prove it or not. I already understand the value of a good inductive argument, and I don’t doubt that you might have one. But that wasn’t what you were offering (or at least so I thought). If you simply meant that you have a compelling theory, then maybe you could start a thread to discuss it where I’d be happy to reflect on your concepts.

Unless there is an error in my construction procedure, there exists no explanation of anything which can not be mapped into the "mechanical" solutions of that model. The conclusion is that "hard science" is applicable to any problem, philosophical or otherwise. It is the nature of explanation itself.

Well, that’s what this debate is about. If you mean that life and consciousness, for example, have physical aspects to them, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But if you mean every aspect of life and consciousness can be accounted for with physical processes alone, then I do dispute that.

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it.

I think you have to understand the hard problem since it specifically addresses why physical processes currently cannot explain consciousness. Here’s a reference to a Chalmer’s paper that explains the hard problem: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

What you seem to be saying here . . .

If you have facts that prove, not just indicate, consciousness is the result of physical processes, that life can come about through abiogenesis, that physical processes are the sole first cause of the universe's origin and the only influence which has made it develop the way it has . . . then that would be interesting indeed

. . . is that you need your intuitive position on what's right to yield the result or you won't accept it. One would conclude that you certainly are not a person "determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence."

Why would you assume my position is intuitive? I have not claimed I can “prove” or personally know how life and consciousness originated. I am the skeptic here, you are the one who has offered a proof. I don’t think you or anyone else in the world can prove, through the empirical standards of hard science, that life and consciousness are purely physical. But if you can, I am open to that proof (and hey, if you need a ride to the Nobel Prize ceremonies . . . . ).

I am looking for someone who, "in pursuit of the truth", "is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be".

Are you certain you’ve open-mindedly examined every facet of existence? Or have you looked primarily at physical factors?

I have never met such a person in my life; at least not one with an education. Education tends to stifle such proclivities. I also suspect Les would baulk at living up to it.

I have a fine education, but for me there is nothing to live up to. Why should I care, or resist, what the truth is? Reality is the way it is, and no amount of wishing it fits my personal theories or prejudices will change that. I am just trying to weigh the evidence. I will stay uncommitted to “belief” until I know what the truth is, and feel just fine about it too.

I can tell you, however, that I am skeptical of any theory developed by someone who has mostly studied physics in an attempt to understand the nature of reality. To me it’s like trying to get an objective opinion about political philosophies from a committed Marxist.

Also, if I seem resistant to signing on for your explanation, it’s because I’ve had one too many lectures from physicalists telling me I need to understand physicalness better simply because I think physicalist theory currently lacks a couple of facts it needs to make sense. I thought I detected that tone in your initial post, but if I am wrong you have my apologies. I have debated these issues for a couple of years here, and for the areas where I am critical, my science understanding has proven more than adequate.

 

[Taoist]

“It seems the rarest thinker and investigator is one determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be.”

This view will ultimately birth the intuitive side of our existence. Way2go!

Déjà vu is self generated fact(s) giving a glimpse of a capability unknown in any physical explanation still a known fact to every human.

Aristotle had used intuition in interpreting arguments which had taken the eye of the observer into the process of explanation in a way leaving the objective viewpoint open to the argument. Einstein also left room for this debate knowing the incomprehensible amount of variables even now still appearing in new observations. It was this acknowledgment of variant observational attributes that makes the observer a part of the equation. This needs to bring into account the situations having been realized by the observer or the observer(s) history in its entirety.

So I pose to summarize these “illusions” that offer the path of cognizant reasoning still maintain the perspective of a longtime parable of the Upanishads, “he who states they know, knoweth not” since the interpretation has limits in today’s explanations based on limited sight of relative education or experience. Try and explain déjà vu. Two theories authored offer a logical view but quantum mechanics or either relativistic theory has not been able to acknowledge life’s complexities.

Today’s acceptance of metaphysics as a philosophical method of explanation is founded in relativistic review of the process to explain the event. Intuition seems to represent itself when the brick wall appears, not just because of lack of knowledge but comprehension. The point of humility (honest and true), offers that entry point to observe or realize the answer, although not easy to represent in calculations or drill-downs, but easy to know.

This combination of metaphysical or physical explanation and mortal being is where the next generation of our scientific interpretations will surface. Being able to apprehend a scientific interpretation will ultimately require a theological aptitude to comprehend.

Let’s take into account the fourth dimension with all its complexities intertwining all events with all explanations at a given point and you will be able to predict where that proton will appear. Not being capable, intellectually, of comprehensibly taking all into account resoundingly makes the answer the question “Can everything be reduced to pure physics?” a moot point!

"Avoid living at all costs." Why? Are you missing the jack of spades?

 

[Seafang]

well... even if we could make a fairly good representation of everything in the entire universe, it would still be subject to our translations and be an approximation... approximations leaves errors, and thus, nothing can be fully explained by physics...

a precise model would demand infinite accuracy and like Heisenberg stated, that leaves other faults... you people should know this...

so no...
but one day in the future perhaps, scientists will have made fairly good representations of everything in the universe, but they will not be 100% accurate and can thus never be used to explain every aspect without fault...

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

There are NO points, NO lines, NO spheres, or any of the other creations of mathematics. Now we made up our mathematics largely to try and explain the universe, and mathematics does exactly describe the models which we also made up to describe the universe; but it doesn't describe the real universe; merely approximates it.

Somebody already mentioned Heisenberg who pointed out that we can never know everything about even the simplest physical system; a single particle. We can't observe its present state completely, and hence we can't predict its future state either. Even as simple a dynamic problem as the general problem of three bodies in relative motion under the laws of physics. Even within the limitations of Newtonian physics no general solution exists, although special case solutions are known; in particular three bodies moving in a plane at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The 'Trojan' asteroids which group along the orbit of Jupiter, sixty degrees ahead and 60 degrees behind the planet are examples of stable three body trajectories (including the sun).

The failure of our analysis is more substantial than even Heisenberg since Kurt Godel showed that certain postulates are quite undecidable anyway. Mathematical systems which are completely consistent within their own rules evidently don't exist.

There is an even bigger issue than the accuracy of our 'physical' models of reality. In the real world we observe things and we measure things, and we can perform all manner of experiments and note the outcome. But that is too much stuff to note down in some 'compendium of all knowledge'. We simply can't do every possible experiment to find the outcome; so we create theories to relate experiments with similar ones and try to predict the likely outcome of even experiments no one has ever performed.
Our only interest in these theories is that they correctly predict the outcome of experiment yet to be performed. So as a practical matter we don't even care whether 'theories' are 'unique', or follow everyday common sense, or not. They survive based only on their ability to save space in our compendium by accurately predicting the outcome of an experiment.

So we have both particle and wave theories which describe elecromagnetic phenomena in two different ways and each useful in certain regimes.

So theories can be as arcane or as silly and unintuitive as we like so long as they correctly foretell the future result of an experiment.

So we need to get away from asking whether physical theories are real or not; it matters only if they correctly deduce the outcome of a real experiment which we can conduct, and if we have a half dozen different theories that describe the same set of experiments, they are all good theories, and maybe some better than others in usability.

So the universe is real, our models and theories of it are not real, and nor is the mathematics which governs the behavior of the models.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So we need to get away from asking whether physical theories are real or not; it matters only if they correctly deduce the outcome of a real experiment which we can conduct, and if we have a half dozen different theories that describe the same set of experiments, they are all good theories, and maybe some better than others in usability.

So the universe is real, our models and theories of it are not real, and nor is the mathematics which governs the behavior of the models.

I agree that theoretical models, mathematical or any other sort, are not the reality they represent. Since this debate has primarily become whether there's enough evidence to prove existence is the result of only physical processes/laws, it seems you are agreeing with those who say we can't yet prove everything can be "reduced to pure physics."

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Les,

No, I don't mind you mixing up the order of things at all. I am gone but I had access to the web tonight and thought I might look at the thread. Actually I was quite surprised by the activity here. I thought maybe a quick response was called for (for the next four days, I doubt I will have any access to the net at all).

A theory, no matter how brilliant, is not a proof unless we can observe all relevant aspects. It might be that the title of this thread gave you the impression that a plausible explanation would do; but I think everyone agreed early on that we were debating if physicalists could prove all existence was strictly physical since we already know there are plenty of theories (i.e., “explanations”) floating around.

I have no argument with you here. On the other hand, I do not mean merely a logical explanation. I have a very logical proof (at least no one has yet pointed out a flaw) of a subtle relation inherent in any examination of anything (insofar as that examination is to produce an explanation of something). My post seems ambiguous because removing the ambiguities is not an easy process.

The proof amounts to a demonstration that absolutely any explanation of anything in any subject can be mapped into the consequences of a "physical process". If my proof is correct, since I can explicitly show the mapping of a perfectly general explanation into physics terms, it follows directly that all explanations can be mapped into physics terms.

That’s a satisfactory definition of an explanation.

Thank you! What that does is provide me with a starting position. Now that I know exactly what an explanation is, I can present an abstract model of an explanation which is applicable to any explanation conceivable.

Well, that’s what this debate is about. If you mean that life and consciousness, for example, have physical aspects to them, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But if you mean every aspect of life and consciousness can be accounted for with physical processes alone, then I do dispute that.

I think I can prove exactly that (or rather, if they cannot, they cannot be explained by any process)! Now the arguments are subtle; but I hold that they are exact.

With regard to Chalmer's work (I believe I have read the paper you refer to), I had considerable exchange with Chalmer a number of years ago and he simply refused to look at my work under the personal conviction that what I said I could do could not be done.

Why would you assume my position is intuitive?

This is an entirely different subject and I would love to discuss the impact of intuition on ones thoughts. But, let's do that at some later date. I respect you as a careful thinker and I did not mean to be at all disrespectful.

Are you certain you’ve open-mindedly examined every facet of existence? Or have you looked primarily at physical factors?

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and the main reason I did not pursue a profession in the field is that I disagreed with the philosophical basis of the physicists beliefs. Physicists are not near the gods of rational thought they would have you think.

Why should I care, or resist, what the truth is?

Because it is hard to believe! Try explaining statistical analysis to an astrologer. Do you realize that professional astrologers still make good livings, thousands of years after it is well shown to be of no predictive value? People stick to their beliefs very strongly.

I think physicalist theory currently lacks a couple of facts it needs to make sense. I thought I detected that tone in your initial post, but if I am wrong you have my apologies.

You owe me no apologies. I have no knowledge of your education. A bit of familiarity with partial differential equations would be nice.

I will be back in five days and look forward to further discussion. I would just like to get some of the parameters of the discussion a little more refined before tripping off to the light fantastic.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

The proof amounts to a demonstration that absolutely any explanation of anything in any subject can be mapped into the consequences of a "physical process". If my proof is correct, since I can explicitly show the mapping of a perfectly general explanation into physics terms, it follows directly that all explanations can be mapped into physics terms.

I sort of feel sorry for you if you want to convince me a logical proof is really a proof. I am working on a thread idea now I probably will call "Radical Experientialism." In it I will state my own standard for proof which is only one thing . . . experience. I can not accept inference or logic, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. The only thing that convinces me to the level of proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced.

If you hadn't put the word "proof" in there, I'd be more open to hearing a new epistomological theory. But once you claim you can achieve a proof, like a bulldog I clamp down on the experience requirement and won't let go until you make your hypothesis observable, or admit you can't do it.

 

[Taoist]

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

Nice statement! Where did this come from?

Let try
phys·ics (fzks)
(Physics)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And Mathematics is the universal language that this thread is requesting an answer for the age old question. The problem is the variant minds who offer their interpretation; do they know enough language to address this question?

 

[Taoist]

Les you stated

"In it I state my own standard for proof which is one, and only one, thing . . . experience. I do not accept inference, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. I do not accept logic, no matter how brilliant, as proof. The ONLY thing I accept as proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced."

This is your limiting factor. Explain deja vu; it cannot be explained yet you and every human alive has experienced it.

This is just one of the "proofs" that has made the path of mathematical explanations fall short of completing the equation. There is no way of bringing all of the variables into a "simple equation" as Einstein or Hawkins let alone the world is looking for.

As far fetched and all encumbering as it reflects it also brings into play another fact; every particle that is has always been and every bit of energy affects every other.

These are proven facts but not very well comprehended especially knowing that we are mere specs in the scope of the known universe. So probabilities have been the norm in explanations as quantum mechanics tends to address for our limited resources. We work from probabilities in which a variant is sought versus a specific answer.

So can we explain the universe in pure mathmatics? Not with today's availability of the known variables BUT the answer can be realized with further understanding or theological diciplines.

As strange as it is that spot in between conscious thought and intuition is where the answers appear but good luck putting an equation to it. I have tried for over 25 years. Unable to do so but look at the work of Einstein and Tesla, not the published abstracts but the quotes taken. They knew the same thing I state but are not willing to stake a reputation on it.

These 2 example have given more to us than is available to the general public. In fact go into Tesla's work and you would find he was far ahead of even Einstein in using his intellect for mankind.

locate the plans on the stagmatic generator and cure the need for nuclear power ... a prime example of using intuitive understanding in practicle application and even now since it cannot be broken down it will continue to be surpressed.

 

[Taoist]

Finally look at the pole... it appears the majority agrees with me. Multi-disciplinary efforts will offer the best explanation.

I have always believed true mathematicians are the thoroughbred's of intellectual reasoning with blinders on. They just cannot allow theological views to the table.

A loss to us all!

 

[hypnagogue]

Hypnagogue

Thanks for all the stuff on Rosenberg. I think you ought to write a book explaining his. I attempted his (its downloadable as a pdf for anyone who wants to check it out) but after about a third of the way I lost track of what he was talking about and skimmed the rest. I instinctively liked his approach to causation, a topic that IMO physicists have not yet addressed properly, but in the end I didn't understand it. Is he proposing microphenominalism? It seems like it, but I'm very confused as to what he is really saying. I don't think my brain is quite up to understanding his arguments, which to me seem gratuitously complex. (I felt he had modeled it on Hofstedters GEB, which I felt also buried the key issues under the details). I wouldn't criticize it though, not without reading it again a few times.

Yes, it can get difficult at times, but I'm glad you were interested and gave it a shot. If you're still interested in exploring his ideas more thoroughly, please see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55766 and post your thoughts there.

What are the metaphysical consequences of his ideas? That is, what do they suggest for cosmogeny and the ontology of matter and consciousness?

In brief, Rosenberg suggests that something like consciousness is the fundamental kind of 'stuff' that exists in the universe. The rich network of relationships described by physical theory is nothing more than the system of relationships that this underlying 'stuff' engages in. So physicalism is essentially characterized as a kind of functionalism, describing a purely abstract network of relationships but not mentioning that which instantiates those relationships. Rosenberg motivates the case for something like consciousness being that phenomenon which actually carries out and realizes the abstract system of relationships described by physics.

With respect to cosmogeny, Rosenberg toys with the idea of using his theory of causation to construct a background-independent spacetime. That is, he sketches some ideas of how causal relationships could account for the kind of structures we see in space and time. Traditionally, we see causation as taking place in and being conditioned by spacetime, but this approach tries to turn the tables and show how spacetime is conditioned by causal relationships.

He also has a metaphysical picture which takes a realist position with respect to possibility. That is, he conceives of sets of possible states for phenomena as in some sense actually existent (as opposed to pure abstractions), and views causation merely as an operator of constraint on a given domain of possible states. So in this view, to cause something is to constrain its possible states to the extent that only one possible state/event/outcome remains. This metaphysical picture of causation and possibility winds up dovetailing very nicely with quantum physics, where we see the existence of sufficiently unconstrained systems that appear to exist in several different possible states simultaneously, until some causal mechanism winds up constraining the system to only one possible determinate state.

 

[Seafang]

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

Nice statement! Where did this come from?

Let try
phys·ics (fzks)
(Physics)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And Mathematics is the universal language that this thread is requesting an answer for the age old question. The problem is the variant minds who offer their interpretation; do they know enough language to address this question?

Well Taoist, I am not sure of the meaning of your question; "where did this come from ?"

I thought it came from a post I just typed in and which you cited; that is where it came from. Does 'stuff' need some annointed source before it can be understood?

As for mathematics being a "Universal Language", nothing could be further from the truth. As I said it is all fictional and we humans made it up in our head. There's nothing fundamental about it.

Anybody can invent their own mathematics merely by stating some axioms, which then become assertions of truth, and then based on that you can twiddle knobs and see where it all leads.

For example suppose I assert the following axioms:

1/ Two points define a line, which passes through the two points.

2/ Two lines define a point, which lies at the intersection of the two lines.

3/ There are at least four points.

Can I do anything mathematically interesting with that set of axioms.

Well yes I can. For a start axiom 2 establishes that this must be a two dimensional mathematics, since in ordinary Euclidean geometry, I could have two lines which lie in different planes and never intersect anywhere, but when confined to a plane, any two lines intersect as asserted by the second axiom.

What about parallel lines you might ask; they don't intersect. Well maybe they don't in Euclidean geometry, but in this mathematics they do; axiom two says so. Does that mean there are no parallel lines in this mathematics? No it doesn't ; parallel lines exist, and they do intersect, in fact parallel lines intersect at a point on 'the line at infinity'. Which is the definition of the line at infinity. so now I have removed the parallel line anomaly, but can I do anything or prove anything with thatset of axioms.

Well I can prove as the first theorem, that there are at least seven points. This comes very simply from drawing the four points which axiom 3 says exist, (I suggest an irregular quadrilateral shape) and then using axiom 1 to draw the lines that form the four sides of that polygon.

Two more lines can be drawn namely the diagonals of the quadrilateral, and you will see that three new points exist, making a total of seven.

Unfortunately, I cannot prove that there are any more points than seven, but there are at least seven points.

Sounds pretty useless doesn't it. But in fact every single theorem of Euclidean plane geometry can be rigorously proved within the confines of this decidedly non-Euclidean geometrry. There are some surprises. Circles and the conic sections ellipse, parabola and hyperbola exist, although cones don't, and most surprising; whereas in Euclidean geometry, a circle is a special case of an ellipse, that is not true in this geometry, a circle becomes a special case of a hyperbola. Even more strange is that all possible circles intersect each other, and they do so at two special points called the circular points at infinity (they lie on the line at infinity).

Ellipses don't touch the line at infinity, parabolas touch the line at infinity at two coincident points, and hyperbolas cut the line at infinity at two points. If those two points are the circular points at infinity, the hyperbola is also a circle.

Now try findng something elsewhere in the universe that corresponds even vaguely to this mathematics which somebody a long time ago, made up from those three simple axioms.

Mathematics is about as universal as the baseball world series.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les you stated

"In it I state my own standard for proof which is one, and only one, thing . . . experience. I do not accept inference, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. I do not accept logic, no matter how brilliant, as proof. The ONLY thing I accept as proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced."

This is your limiting factor. Explain deja vu; it cannot be explained yet you and every human alive has experienced it.

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

 

[loseyourname]

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience. For instance, we cannot see black holes or electrons, but we can observe the effects of causal relationships they have with surrounding elements in any given system in which they are postulated to exist. Do you consider this proof that black holes and electrons do indeed exist?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience. For instance, we cannot see black holes or electrons, but we can observe the effects of causal relationships they have with surrounding elements in any given system in which they are postulated to exist. Do you consider this proof that black holes and electrons do indeed exist?

No I do not. I will try to post a thread about this in the next week, but a short answer is, for practical purposes we have to proceed with what has been indicated is true. So I realize treat some things as proven even if they are not.

But to get precise about your examples, what would I say about having observed the effects of something theorized to be true, say a black hole, on its surroundings? I'd say that observations are consistant with the theory of a black hole, but that until we can actually observe a black hole, it is not proven. The more indirect evidence we have that supports a black hole, the stronger becomes, not a proof, but the reasonableness of an assumption.

Then you might ask, so what do those indirect observations prove? What is proven are that effects have been observed. That's it, nothing more. All else remains in the category of theory.

 

[Taoist]

Well Taoist, I am not sure of the meaning of your question; "where did this come from ?"

I thought it came from a post I just typed in and which you cited; that is where it came from. Does 'stuff' need some annointed source before it can be understood?

As for mathematics being a "Universal Language", nothing could be further from the truth. As I said it is all fictional and we humans made it up in our head. There's nothing fundamental about it.

Anybody can invent their own mathematics merely by stating some axioms, which then become assertions of truth, and then based on that you can twiddle knobs and see where it all leads.

Mathematics is about as universal as the baseball world series.

There are many theorems within mathematics and many may choose what works for them but when buying a plane ticket to anywhere in the world please be sure to count your money at the appropriate exchange rate. I can assure you the index will be different but a value will be required as a universal language.

 

[Taoist]

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

So let’s theorize a little; the universe cannot be simply explained within physics without the intuitive side of the mind properly conditioned notwithstanding the limitations of empirical data or specific theological views in reasoning.

Using logic as a single point of an analysis is where the blinders begin to form. Having both an “intuitive” and logical experience in mental synthesis simplifies the understanding.

Factual belief in itself as seen in black and white also can be thrown off keel if any single sense is subject to an unknown interference during the experience or experiment. So let’s suppose that statements of fact are in itself subject to its exposition but further disseminated through intuitive analysis is quicker to the actuality then reason. Or simply said, “your first impression is usually the right one.”

All humans have answers within, universal as fact, yet unrealized by most simply because the articulation of the occurrences have never been truly understood or furthered in study.

 

[Futobingoro]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)
2. Compile all mathematical equations that deal with the universe.
3. Enter them into one huge computer.

What this will do is that you could know what color shoes Billy Bob in a town on the other side of the world is wearing. One could find the composition of the rock in the road of Mile 16 of any highway. One could determine what someone will say and say it synchronous to their speech, and follow up with a synchronous "How did you know what I was going to say?"

That is very shallow though, that is only "graphing" the grand equation of the universe at one point.

One could take the equation backwards to learn every mystery of the universe.

In other words, you could take all your books and burn them, and then go into the computer and read them as they were in the past.

No history is gone forever, because if we work hard enough, we can find the missing level in the level-by-level structure of time. I believe Mendeleev was able to do a similar thing with elements...

Because fate only plays out one way, the equation would include itself, and could therefore go into the future.

Don't believe in fate? You are destined to believe so.

...I know that the ability to run such a program is beyond our imaginations, but isn't that the topic of this thread?

 

[Les Sleeth]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)

Just a question about the first step. You can represent quantities with math, but what about qualities of existence . . . like, say, creativity? That's in the universe, so you cannot not represent it.

Then regarding "position," how do you mathematically represent the connectedness that's in between the positions? There is no possible way to give coordinates for two positions, and also not have a space in between. No matter how small you go, there is still an unrepresented space.

So, I don't see how you are going to represent everything that is present in the universe with math.

 

[Nereid]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)
2. Compile all mathematical equations that deal with the universe.
3. Enter them into one huge computer.

A recent issue of Scientific American had an interesting article, (partly) on the universe as computer*.

Basically, if I followed it correctly, it starts with the idea of applying the principles of computer science to the universe as a whole ... including entropy and information.

There are the following lines in the article: "[..] the universe is computing itself. Powered by Standard Model software, the universe computes quantum fields, chemicals, bacteria, human beings, stars and galaxies. As it computes, it maps out its own spacetime geometry to the ultimate precision allowed by the laws of physics. Computation is existence."

*"Black Hole Computers", Seth Lloyd and Y Jack Ng (Scientific American, November 2004, p 52)

 

[Futobingoro]

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.
Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.
Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)
Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.
Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)
Point #6: The first dimension is a line. (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #7: The second dimension is a wireframe. (let's use a circle to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^2)
Point #8: The third dimension is a shape. (Let's use a sphere to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^3)

Intermission: The universe is expanding. To expand, the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it. It is my belief that the volume of the universe is what causes time, or to be more specific the rate of increase of the volume, which with a sphere whose volume can be defined as (4/3)pi*r^3 has a derivative of 4pi*r^2, which is the formula for surface area. So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.

Point #9: The fourth dimension is the surface area of the universe. (Curved line relation x^2)

Intermission: Relativity comes into play here. If our galaxy is moving at x velocity, and the universe is expanding at 1000x velocity, the velocities are in fact different. However, the volumes and surface areas of the "spheres" encompassed by the "radii" always have the same ratio. Therefore as long as we neither accelerate nor decelerate on our "radius", our ratio of relativity of the expansion of the universe is always the same, giving us a 1:1 time ratio.

Point #10: The fifth dimension is the rate of change of the rate of change of the volume of the universe (acceleration). (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #11: The sixth/zero dimension is the jerk of the volume of the universe. (Point or y=n line)

So what might time be then? How about the circular passage of matter/energy through all seven dimensions? ...Or the relativity ratio to the surface area of the universe?

I know that theories are just that: theories. I also know that everyone (including me) can be wrong. I posted this to see what your opinion is on this theory.