Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Taoist]

Futobingoro, it works fine on a chalk board or if you were holding the universe in your hand but you left yourself out.

First “outside our universe” must be addressed if so identified, place a value!
Second, all positions must apply, including the observation platform.
Third, existence in itself theoretically is but also becomes its ending.
Fourth, Point 3 and 4 are a big question which continues to obstruct any definition unless you use a value >0 which is arbitrary. It makes it so the observer just CREATES a value.

This quote, “So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.” Which is still unaccounted for within the “First and Second” question.

This separation as if to hold the universe in your hand looses the flavor of including the observer within the result of 1. Einstein’s suggested the same point the observer is apparent and needs to be reckoned.

Time is that fourth dimension which uniformly brings each variable together at a singular point which continues to support to the “Big Bang.” Which still offers the question where did 1 evolve from? Again a value that is still equals greater then 0.

Biblically we are still at “in the beginning,” which suggests that the starting point began at a creation! An area I still cannot fathom because this still institutes an outside observation.

Time began with both poles separating from the existence of a value >0 suggests this theological beginning, which causes a reflective return to consciousness as a value to be added to any equation of any explanation.

This consciousness has been said to be the lifeblood of the creator himself but if the creator is unto itself then we are back to the outside observer ruthlessly omitted as a value.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Physics alone is not enough. You must take into account the True Will of the True Self and its consciousness and awareness state.

When that is done anomalous events, magical occurances and mystical happenings can be accepted as real and transcending science.

juju

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

I don't know who you are asking, Nereid or myself, but Nereid is more qualified to evaluate your theory than I. I liked the points, but I can't really tell what your theory is representing. Are you saying that's how you would provide a physical explanation for everything?

The one thing you did say that I have an opinion about is, "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?" Personally I think time is the rate of entropy both in local frames of reference and for the universe overall.

 

[Pavel]

In brief, Rosenberg suggests that something like consciousness is the fundamental kind of 'stuff' that exists in the universe.

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread, so if you already addressed this elsewhere, please ignore the question or direct me to the answer.

This is not the first time I see an explananation such as the above quote. I just read Chalmers's paper on consciousness who similarly believes it's fundamental. Chalmers very carefully danced around the metaphysics of it, in fear that he might suggest something that is not accepted in the scientific community. I'm not sure about Rosenberg's friendship with the scientific paradigm, but this is what puzzles me. Physicists don't like too many fundamentals, it creates problems. In fact, even the 4 fundamental forces of nature are being attempted to be untied at very high energies. It all has to come together at the Big Bang. With all due respect, I never see consciousness being one of those fundamentals. If you believe it's all reduced to physics and particles and forces, shouldn't you say to the physicists something like "Hey guys! wait, don't forget to incorporate another fundamental into your superforce theory" Or raise the question to the string theorists: "well, you guys did a good job explaining these fundamental particles in terms of open and closed loop strings, but you forgot to explain one more fundamental - consciousness, or perhaps you should add it to your string collection..." Am I being naive and unreasonable? I mean if you don't believe in metaphysics, shouldn't you be concerned about how your fundamental plays with other physical fundamentals? Otherwise, it's nothing else but a convenient way to explain away something you can't give a choherent explanation to - let's just make it a fundamental. Don't you think?

Thanks,

Pavel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Physicists don't like too many fundamentals, it creates problems. In fact, even the 4 fundamental forces of nature are being attempted to be untied at very high energies. It all has to come together at the Big Bang. With all due respect, I never see consciousness being one of those fundamentals. If you believe it's all reduced to physics and particles and forces, shouldn't you say to the physicists something like "Hey guys! wait, don't forget to incorporate another fundamental into your superforce theory" Or raise the question to the string theorists: "well, you guys did a good job explaining these fundamental particles in terms of open and closed loop strings, but you forgot to explain one more fundamental - consciousness, or perhaps you should add it to your string collection..." Am I being naive and unreasonable? I mean if you don't believe in metaphysics, shouldn't you be concerned about how your fundamental plays with other physical fundamentals? Otherwise, it's nothing else but a convenient way to explain away something you can't give a choherent explanation to - let's just make it a fundamental. Don't you think?

The argument is, consciousness is not explained with the current fundamentals. If it were, there would be no reason to add another.

As to why physicists don't mention "consciousness being one of those fundamentals," it's because they aren't studying consciousness, they are studying physics.

Even if consciousness is actually entwined in all physicalness, there is so much to discover about the physical aspects alone that no one has been very interested in if there is another fundamental there. Maybe in a few hundred years if physics has still been unable to explain every single thing that exists in this universe, more people will begin to wonder if there is "something more."

 

[Pavel]

The argument is, consciousness is not explained with the current fundamentals. If it were, there would be no reason to add another.

I realize that, but my question is what makes you believe it's "is not explained" in a sense as there's no way to explain it, as opposed to "we don't know how". I get an impression it's the latter and making it a fundamental sounds more of an escape from having to deal with the question. If you want to prove that it's not an escape, show how your fundamental plays along with other fundamentals in the big picture, don't leave it on its own island.

As to why physicists don't mention "consciousness being one of those fundamentals," it's because they aren't studying consciousness, they are studying physics.

Well, I'm not asking physicists to study a piece of literature or compare two cultures. I'm asking them to explain a physical phenomenon - consciousness. If you don't believe there's anything beoynd physical, then you need to explain consciousness in terms of physics. I have no problem with accepting it as a fundamental as long as you explain if it's another kind of force, then how does it play with other forces, at what tempeartures, can we put it to test in the particle accelerator. If it's a matter particle, then is it a lepton, hardon ... what spin, what color, blah blah blah. If it's a third kind of fundamental, then how did it come out from the primodorial soup, when did it come into existence after the Big Bang? That would be giving an explanation for a physical phenomenon, rather than conveniently set it aside and say, well, we don't know what it is, but we're sure it's physical, let's just consider it irreducable.

Even if consciousness is actually entwined in all physicalness, there is so much to discover about the physical aspects alone that no one has been very interested in if there is another fundamental there. Maybe in a few hundred years if physics has still been unable to explain every single thing that exists in this universe, more people will begin to wonder if there is "something more."

hehe, oh I see, so now instead of expalining it away as a fundamental, we're saying we're just not interested in looking at it? we'll get to it when we have time??

Pavel.

 

[Doctordick]

Food for thought!

Well, there seems to be quite a little discussion going on here but little I would consider worth concerning one's self with. On the other hand, imbedded in the confused thinking are some pearls worth getting attention (things often said but little thought about).

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'.

I would define physics as an attempt to understand and explain "reality".

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.

Other than our ability to construct mathematical ideas. I define mathematics as the invention and study of self consistent systems.

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.

That is a very sloppy statement, poorly thought out (though I certainly agree with the basic impact of it). Can you prove there are no points, no lines, no ... or is this merely an intuitive opinion? And, have you asked yourself the question "why" mathematics is so prevalent in the "hard sciences"?

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.

You should add "and assume that our ideas about what is going on when we are not looking are correct!"

Our only interest in these theories is that they correctly predict the outcome of experiment yet to be performed.

This is exactly the first requirement of any explanation of reality.

They survive based only on their ability to save space in our compendium by accurately predicting the outcome of an experiment.

This is very well put, they are a sort of data compression mechanism. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need any explanations at all would we?

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.

And would you admit of the possibility of uncountable numbers of explanations not yet thought of by man?

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.

In my opinion, the issue of real and imagined is a very real issue (is there a joke in there?), though there is no way to prove any imagined division.

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.

My understanding of what you just said is that you will accept something as a proof only if you "intuitively" feel it has been proved. Logic seems not to be an issue worth concerning yourself with. I am sorry to hear that.

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.

You should spend a little time thinking about "direct" observation. I presume you are reading this on a screen of a monitor. Now, even by your accepted mental model of reality that image you are reading is an illusion created by your brain. The actual fact (in your mental model at least) is that photons emitted by the screen impinge on the rods and cones in your retina causing nerves to send signals to your brain. Yet I know of no one who can actually perceive those nerve impulses themselves. It follows that the nerve impulses are indirect observation: i.e., their existence is logically deduced from other observations. Now, the image of the screen itself is most certainly an illusion so that observation can not be described as "direct".

Another example of the same thing arises from amputations. Would anyone here hold that a perfectly consistent illusion is any less an illusion? I personally posses an amputated digit: the index finger on my right hand. In place of that finger, I possesses what is normally called a phantom finger. I can straighten it out, I can curl it up; I can even occasionally feel pangs of pain. I know it is a phantom because I can not see it and I can not feel physical objects with it. None the less, the illusion that it exists (when I am not looking at it) is quite overwhelming. When I try to touch something, the illusion is that the object has a hole which allows my finger to penetrate without touching anything (the edge of the hole is clearly perceived by what remains of the stump). Now my question is, was that index finger any less of an illusion when it was totally consistent with my mental image of reality? Is touching really a direct measurement or a mentally created illusion?

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.

What is proved is that what is observed is real or, if not real, a rather internally consistent illusion? Anyone who thinks there exists a mechanism to differentiate between reality and illusion just hasn't thought the issue through. The only fact that differentiates between them is that reality cannot change from one valid (by valid I mean 100% internally consistent) mental image to another. Those aspects which change from one valid mental image to another are illusions which are part and parcel of the mental image.

Using logic as a single point of an analysis is where the blinders begin to form.

No, I would say the blinders come on the moment you accept your intuitive mental model of reality to be correct.

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.

I would rather suggest that all human beings have an intuitive mental image of reality which is quite consistent with their anthropomorphic experiences. It's a very internally consistent image.

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.

Sorry Les, but you just represented it via the symbol "creativity". And, if questioned about what you mean by that symbol, I am sure you will supply me with more symbols (a discussion so to speak). Just because the process is complex does not mean it cannot occur.

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.

Now here you are complaining about internal consistentcy of your personal mental image of reality.

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

That's because you lack imagination. Just because you can't do does not qualify as a proof that it cannot be done.

Think a little about my comments!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

I realize that, but my question is what makes you believe it's "is not explained" in a sense as there's no way to explain it, as opposed to "we don't know how". I get an impression it's the latter and making it a fundamental sounds more of an escape from having to deal with the question.

I did not mean to imply there will never be a physical way to explain consciousness. I am only saying there is no way to physically account for it now.

If you want to prove that it's not an escape, show how your fundamental plays along with other fundamentals in the big picture, don't leave it on its own island.

Nope. This isn't my thread. I have been arguing that everything cannot currently be reduced to pure physics. If I want to do what you say, then I'll start my own thread. . . . maybe something like this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

. . . if it's another kind of force, then how does it play with other forces, at what tempeartures, can we put it to test in the particle accelerator. If it's a matter particle, then is it a lepton, hardon ... what spin, what color, blah blah blah. If it's a third kind of fundamental, then how did it come out from the primodorial soup, when did it come into existence after the Big Bang? That would be giving an explanation for a physical phenomenon, rather than conveniently set it aside and say, well, we don't know what it is, but we're sure it's physical, let's just consider it irreducable.

I never said it was physical, or a physical force. I just meant it was fundamental to the universe. Personally I don't think it fits the definition of physical.

hehe, oh I see, so now instead of expalining it away as a fundamental, we're saying we're just not interested in looking at it? we'll get to it when we have time??

Not me. I am saying that physical scientists are trained to look at just the physical. Some of them think everything that exists, and that includes consciousness, can be explained with physical principles. For the most part, they are not even looking at the question of consciousness. Take a look at where all the progress is being made in physics, and it has nothing to do with consciousness studies.

My point was, if those who think that everything can be explained with physical principles fail to do so, maybe one day they will look for something else to help them explain unexplained aspects of the universe.

 

[Pavel]

Nope. This isn't my thread. I have been arguing that everything cannot currently be reduced to pure physics. If I want to do what you say, then I'll start my own thread. . . . maybe something like this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

Thanks, looks like a serious paper by you Les, I'll definitely check it out.

Not me. I am saying that physical scientists are trained to look at just the physical. Some of them think everything that exists, and that includes consciousness, can be explained with physical principles. For the most part, they are not even looking at the question of consciousness. Take a look at where all the progress is being made in physics, and it has nothing to do with consciousness studies.

So, those "some" are trained to look at the physical, they believe consciousness is physical, but they're not looking at it because their focus is on something else. That all makes sense to me but I don't believe that's the case. Think about it. You're struggling hard to come up with a unified theory, trying to make QM and GR play together, unite all the forces, explain the very first moments after the Big Bang and you run into problems. So, here you have another fundamental sitting and you say "nah... I'll get to it some time later..." So, you either do not consider consciousness to be fundamental and you think it won't help you unite all the forces, or you pretend to believe it's fundamental because you can't explain it, and that's why you don't want to focus on it at this time because you know it's not going to help you. You know I have no problem with them coming out and say "we don't think it's fundamental, but we believe it's physical, we just can't explain it, but we'll get to it some time". Clear and reasonable. But I got an impression that writers, like Chalmers, claim they can explain it, but they don't want to be considered potheads by the scientists for suggesting something that can be metaphysical. So what do they do? They make consciousnes an irreducable physcial fundamental. In fact, CHalmers compared this fundamental of consciousness to an electromagnetic force, another fundamental. But we all know that scientists try to explain the EM force as united with the Weak force at certain energies, making it "electroweak force", and then, even at higher energies, make it one with the Strong force... you get the point. So, if you want to make it a fundamental in the physical world, suggest a way of incorporating it with other fundamentals. Otherwise, let's not pretend; let's call things their proper names.

Pavel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But I got an impression that writers, like Chalmers, claim they can explain it, but they don't want to be considered potheads by the scientists for suggesting something that can be metaphysical. So what do they do? They make consciousnes an irreducable physcial fundamental. In fact, CHalmers compared this fundamental of consciousness to an electromagnetic force, another fundamental. But we all know that scientists try to explain the EM force as united with the Weak force at certain energies, making it "electroweak force", and then, even at higher energies, make it one with the Strong force... you get the point. So, if you want to make it a fundamental in the physical world, suggest a way of incorporating it with other fundamentals. Otherwise, let's not pretend; let's call things their proper names.

I can't speak for Chalmers, but here's my little story.

I don't think consciousness is fundamental the same way the physical forces are. To use an analogy, let's say right now you picture a woman in your mind who is the ideal of feminine beauty for you. Let's also say, to simply this analogy, that we agree the composition of the image you create is photons. Now, if the image is photons, and if we can explain the nature of photons and the relatonships between them all, have we fully explained your image? No we haven't because we have not explained how those photons got organized into the shape of a woman.

Simiilarly, when I use the word "fundamental" I am using its general definition, which is simply to say something is basic. Now, fundamental can also mean indispensible, and so is consciousness necessary to explain creation?

What's interesting to me is how when physicalists can explain the structure or functioning of things, we think we're done. But we have huge mysteries outside our structural discoveries. What established that overall structure and functionality in the first place (i.e. like gravity, the balance of forces in the atom, the constancy of physical laws, etc.)? And then, what is all that stuff made out of (don't say energy because then I'll want you to show it to me), and where did the stuff of creation all come from?

There are more mysteries. In the case of life and consciousness (and this is more related to the "image" analogy above), what caused the quality of organization that led to living systems? So physicalists think that because after putting a few chemicals in a jar and running electricity through it amino acids formed, that's really significant evidence that chemistry and physical processes could have self-organized themselves into a living system. To that I enjoy saying "hogwash."

They have never, not once, got any chemistry to keep self organizing in such a way that it would lead to systems. To ignore the incredibly physically atypical quality of organization found in life by pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment amounts to a red herring. The chemists and the computer programmers who have such faith in their physicalist metaphysics have yet to demonstrate any self-organizing capacity in physical processes that doesn't turn repetitive when left on its own.

So to me, the idea of consciousness being fundamental isn't like a fundamental physical "force." Instead I see it more as organizing guidance, guidance that led evolution toward the development of a central nervous system, which in turn allowed that organizing guidance to emerge through the CNS to be what its nature is: consciousness.

The End.

 

[Nereid]

First, I don't know if these 11 points are a chain - break one link and the whole thing falls apart - or 11 motes floating in a sea of discussion looking for someone to examine their mtDNA and establish a relationship.

Let's take a cursory glance at each in turn.

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.

Maybe, maybe not; perhaps such volumes have no existence outside the creativity of certain philosophers and mathematicians? After all, I can conjure up a dozen wholly imaginary things; and writers through the ages - SF ones included - have surely done a far better job than I. Can you give us any reasons Futobobingoro as to why such volume may have a 'physical' existence?

Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.

Presumably I can infer from this that outside our universe 'positions' do not exist; those things we call 'positions' are 'only' constructs of beings who have a physical reality in our universe. Indeed, once you open the box called 'do not have to obey our universe's laws', how can you have a discussion? on any topic? Certainly one here in Philosophy PF would be trivially narrow - we insist upon 'logic', whose 'laws' may not exist outside 'our universe'. Or have I misunderstood?

Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)

Hmm, if 'once' has something to do with time, then if GR describes the universe (and we know it may not, in the first Planck 'second'), then time began with the Big Bang. If we broaden our 'theoretical' horizons, there are lots of theories in which the universe had no beginning, e.g. before the Big Bang, there was a Big Crunch (and there will be one again, some trillions of years in the future), and before that ...

Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.

Maybe, maybe not; how could you tell?

Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)

That sounds like a (mathematical) definition; its relevance is ... ?

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)

seems like more definitions in math; their axiomatic bases, variations on a theme, etc have been intensely explored this last century or so; as I understand it, you can put points 6, 7, and 8 into a much more rigourous framework (but still all tied together with 'logic')

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.

Well, something testable! Yes, 'the universe is expanding' is not, AFAIK, inconsistent with any good observational results. However, AFAIK, there are no cosmological models (based on GR - or a variant) that include 'the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it' (do you know of any Futobingoro? Please give us a reference, preferably a peer-reviewed paper). Going further, can you show how your belief ('that the volume of the universe is what causes time') is consistent with GR? good observational results?

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.

I'm not sure what to make of this; if you could point out for us how this relates to the concordance model in cosmology that might help (a good place to start might be Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial).

I think I'll leave it here ... IMHO, these 11 points do not make a 'theory', by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP

There are more mysteries. In the case of life and consciousness (and this is more related to the "image" analogy above), what caused the quality of organization that led to living systems? So physicalists think that because after putting a few chemicals in a jar and running electricity through it amino acids formed, that's really significant evidence that chemistry and physical processes could have self-organized themselves into a living system. To that I enjoy saying "hogwash."

They have never, not once, got any chemistry to keep self organizing in such a way that it would lead to systems. To ignore the incredibly physically atypical quality of organization found in life by pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment amounts to a red herring. The chemists and the computer programmers who have such faith in their physicalist metaphysics have yet to demonstrate any self-organizing capacity in physical processes that doesn't turn repetitive when left on its own.

As regular readers will already know (Les certainly does), some other posters here have a different view on this (loseyourname, for example, has several excellent posts on this topic ... well, I think they're excellent, I'm not sure Les would fully agree ). However, I've long thought that us 'physicalists' would take at least another century to be able to begin to meet Les' challenge (make life in a testube; OK, that's a crude simplification).

Well, it seems things have been moving along faster than I'd imagined - see the Can scientists 'create' life yet? thread over in Biology to get some idea of progress on mixing some chemicals to make a living bacterium

(For avoidance of doubt, this does NOT say anything (much) about abiogenesis - how life ACTUALLY got started here on Earth (or on Mars, or on some nameless, unknown, possibly long gone planet somewhere else in the universe (and came to Earth in an interstellar meteorite))).

 

[Les Sleeth]

As regular readers will already know (Les certainly does), some other posters here have a different view on this (loseyourname, for example, has several excellent posts on this topic ... well, I think they're excellent, I'm not sure Les would fully agree ). However, I've long thought that us 'physicalists' would take at least another century to be able to begin to meet Les' challenge (make life in a testube; OK, that's a crude simplification).

Well, it seems things have been moving along faster than I'd imagined - see the Can scientists 'create' life yet? thread over in Biology to get some idea of progress on mixing some chemicals to make a living bacterium

(For avoidance of doubt, this does NOT say anything (much) about abiogenesis - how life ACTUALLY got started here on Earth (or on Mars, or on some nameless, unknown, possibly long gone planet somewhere else in the universe (and came to Earth in an interstellar meteorite))).

Yep, I've been arguing the same, single point from day one. But before reiterating that, let me point out that the test for abiogenesis isn't to make "life in a testube," as you say. If substantial conscious intervention is required to make that life happen, it only demonstrates life can be brought about through a combination of chemistry and conscious intervention unless the intervention is of the sort that we can expect to occur naturally through chemistry somewhere.

In that thread you referenced SelfAdjoint expresses the common physicalist view: "It's just a claim of ignorance that if scientists can't yet duplicate the complicated chemistry of life that therefore life requires a divine act to generate it. If you study what is really known about that chemistry you come away with a repect for how intricate it is, and a clear understanding that it is, at bottom, just chemistry."

Very rarely does anyone actually answer my only reason for doubting abiogenesis (not that SelfAdjoint was talking to me). In another thread I pointed out that the type of argument he is using is a "compositional fallacy," or argument that assumes what is true of each part of a whole, is also true of the whole itself.

He is absolutely correct about life's composition, but that isn't all there is to life. What he nor anyone else can explain, nor does anyone seem to want to acknowledge the significance of, is the organizational quality of life which physicalists expect us to believe was achieved by chemistry itself.

Now, if you as consciousness take various parts of a cell, synthesize others, and through rather signficant conscious efforts manage to get something "living," you still haven't accounted for how chemistry got organized into the first cell. You are still missing a SELF-organization principle, which you, consciousness provided.

SelfAdjoint talks about needing something "divine," but I don't say that. I just say there is no known physical principles which can account for the organizational quality of life. How is that "a claim of ignorance"?

However, there is something that resembles the missing organizational trait, and that is consciousness. Is it just a coincidence that on top of the several billion years of evolution sits human consciousness? Might not what we call "consciousnss" be an organizating force that has been part of the development of life all along, providing that organization quality, and finally emerging through the CNS?

Since we can observe consciousness, I am not introducing a new component; and since we do not have any way to explain life's organization, we need an explanation. I am just pointing to the most obvious candidate. It's the physicalists who believe in some unknown, unseen, imaginary self-organizing potential of physicalness (but I won't label it "a claim of ignorance").

 

[RingoKid]

stunning Les...

I was thinking the same thing last night without ever having read any of this thread except your last post just now...

consciousness is a self organizing principle that wills entities into life to serve its own purpose and that is to evolve the entity to a point where it can understand consciousness in its own realm...

...and yes i was licking the chalice while thinking it

 

[Futobingoro]

Not that I want to derail this thread, but I believe I have some questions to answer.

The point of relativity for that theory would be the only stationary point: the center of the "big bang," which may or may not be the center of the universe.

As to the statement I made about "outside" the universe, it can be summarized as follows: "Volume outside the universe must not be connected to our universe by way of energy or matter. Volume outside our universe is outside our universe and is therefore outside our universe. Volume outside our universe is not obligated to follow the laws of our universe. It might be able to produce matter spontaneously, but if you ask "Why does not it do that all the time?" you are trying to add temporal sequence to what might be a completely spontaneous process.]

Attempts to explain the universe always raise more questions than they answer but:

To provide balance, doesn't every dimension need a counter-dimension? Some kind of inverse?

 

[RingoKid]

loop gravitists would have the big bang as an everse, a mirror image forced through the point of a big bang and reversing left to right as opposed to an inverse which is to say turned inside out rather than upside down...

white hole theory, where on the other side of a black hole sucking in matter in our universe is a white hole pushing out matter into another...

welcome to the baby universe factory which accounts for a multiverse scenario in LQG and conveniently eliminates the singularity until you ask for a first cause

 

[Nereid]

Yep, I've been arguing the same, single point from day one. But before reiterating that, let me point out that the test for abiogenesis isn't to make "life in a testube," as you say. If substantial conscious intervention is required to make that life happen, it only demonstrates life can be brought about through a combination of chemistry and conscious intervention unless the intervention is of the sort that we can expect to occur naturally through chemistry somewhere.

In that thread you referenced SelfAdjoint expresses the common physicalist view: "It's just a claim of ignorance that if scientists can't yet duplicate the complicated chemistry of life that therefore life requires a divine act to generate it. If you study what is really known about that chemistry you come away with a repect for how intricate it is, and a clear understanding that it is, at bottom, just chemistry."

Very rarely does anyone actually answer my only reason for doubting abiogenesis (not that SelfAdjoint was talking to me). In another thread I pointed out that the type of argument he is using is a "compositional fallacy," or argument that assumes what is true of each part of a whole, is also true of the whole itself.

He is absolutely correct about life's composition, but that isn't all there is to life. What he nor anyone else can explain, nor does anyone seem to want to acknowledge the significance of, is the organizational quality of life which physicalists expect us to believe was achieved by chemistry itself.

Now, if you as consciousness take various parts of a cell, synthesize others, and through rather signficant conscious efforts manage to get something "living," you still haven't accounted for how chemistry got organized into the first cell. You are still missing a SELF-organization principle, which you, consciousness provided.

SelfAdjoint talks about needing something "divine," but I don't say that. I just say there is no known physical principles which can account for the organizational quality of life. How is that "a claim of ignorance"?

However, there is something that resembles the missing organizational trait, and that is consciousness. Is it just a coincidence that on top of the several billion years of evolution sits human consciousness? Might not what we call "consciousnss" be an organizating force that has been part of the development of life all along, providing that organization quality, and finally emerging through the CNS?

Since we can observe consciousness, I am not introducing a new component; and since we do not have any way to explain life's organization, we need an explanation. I am just pointing to the most obvious candidate. It's the physicalists who believe in some unknown, unseen, imaginary self-organizing potential of physicalness (but I won't label it "a claim of ignorance").

Distilled clarity, just what we expect from, and love about, you Les!

At a leisurely pace - perhaps in a different thread - it might be interesting to discuss what you would accept as a convincing demonstration of abiogenesis - surely whatever Venter manages to produce, abiogenesis it will not be! I suspect that it would be far more than just a stunning demonstration that 'chemistry rules, OK?'

Maybe we could so the same thing re the third area (I'd forgotten that you also had doubts about a physicalist approach to the origin of the universe)?

At the risk of boring everyone by repetition, I don't expect two of Les' trio to be well addressed in my lifetime (abiogenesis and the hard problem of consciousness) - baring an unexpected breakthrough or three; re the origin of the universe, well, I'm more hopeful (of course, if it turns out we live in a multiverse, or some kind of cyclical universe, then resolution of 'the ultimate origin' will again recede from the physicalists' agenda - for a century or millenium or more).

 

[Nereid]

To provide balance, doesn't every dimension need a counter-dimension? Some kind of inverse?

Why? To satisfy some personal feeling? or to account for a body of good experimental or observational results?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Distilled clarity, just what we expect from, and love about, you Les!

When my wife read "distilled clarity," she said "Nereid thinks you wrote it drunk." I can't get no respect (hey, maybe that's why they won't give me the Philosophy medal . . . naaaaa, somebody up there doesn't like me ).

At a leisurely pace - perhaps in a different thread - it might be interesting to discuss what you would accept as a convincing demonstration of abiogenesis . . . Maybe we could so the same thing re the third area (I'd forgotten that you also had doubts about a physicalist approach to the origin of the universe).

That sounds like fun. In terms of the third area (how the Big Bang came about), the only thing I tend to say is that all the explanations are overly speculative and don't make sense to me. I don't have any reason to question the Big Bang itself. Probably the biggest doubt I have is due to the lack of any basic "stuff" of existence in the physicalist model. It's like, we have all this matter, we say it can all be converted to energy, and then . . . what the heck is energy? No existential qualities, it just "does things," so basically we are left with a universe that has no actual foundation.

I think it makes more sense to say there is some basic, existential "stuff" that is too subtle to detect, of which all matter and structure is made. I don't think the idea is popular because such existential stuff would have no structure, and therefore would not be something that could be empirically studied.

You know, my anti-physicalist arguments aren't from hating the idea of physicalism per se. Given certain inner experiences I've had, and others in histroy have had, and what I see in creation that at least appears to behave in a non-physical manner, I honestly don't think physicalism makes sense at this time. If there were ever enough evidence to explain both my experience and the inconsistencies, then I would accept physicalism as likely true.

 

[UltraPi1]

I'll chime in once again to say that physical reality is a misdiagnosis. All things thought to be physical, are in reality conceptual entities. That is to say that the Earth is not a physical entity, nor is any other thing that comes to mind. The universe is a purely conceptual entity completely void of physical phenomenon.

My knell is to say that this thread is a flawless example of a merry-go-round. How many times must you go round before it all looks the same? Les Sleeth knows this ride all to well. Just a suggestion - Get off the ride and explore your alternatives! Get your feet wet? Escape your time warp? Gaze in a new direction?

Please disregard this post if you are all enjoying the ride. I don't wish to spoil your fun.

 

[Seafang]

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?

Lose, you are being too restrictive in your use of the word 'see', as in "we cannot see black holes or electrons".

Well of course we can see them; at least I believe there are some astronomers or cosmologists who claim they have 'seen' black holes.

The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation for example extends from the milliHerz region to at least 10^24 Herz and one single octave of that spectrum from 375 THz to 750 THz can be 'seen' by human eyes. But the rest of that spectrum can still be 'seen' just not by human eyes.

The portion of the spectrum below that 'visible' octave can be seen by our skin, in the form of the feeling of heat.

All of it can be seen in the form of the phenomena that are the sources of that radiation. But even outside of electromagnetism, other forces manifest the existence of other things we can see.

Anything we cannot 'see' manifesting itself in some way, is not a part of the physical universe, and has no place in physics.

 

[Seafang]

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.

Well I don't agree with your first premise. (point #1)

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

The so-called 'Big Bang', if you believe in it, did not happen at some point within the universe; the center of the universe shall we say; it happened EVERYWHERE inside the universe at the same time.

As for places that hold no energy or matter; that describes most of the universe; which by and large is simply empty 'space'. Even atoms are mostly empty space.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Anything we cannot 'see' manifesting itself in some way, is not a part of the physical universe, and has no place in physics.

You may never surpass the major nonsense stated there. Are you saying that before we detected virtual particles they didn't exist? Are you arguing the existence of things are dependent on our observation of them?

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

You've surpassed yourself! Talk about nonsense! You have no knowledge of what we don't know, and you have no knowledge of what's outside or was before the universe, or even all that is inside the universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'll chime in once again to say that physical reality is a misdiagnosis. All things thought to be physical, are in reality conceptual entities. That is to say that the Earth is not a physical entity, nor is any other thing that comes to mind. The universe is a purely conceptual entity completely void of physical phenomenon.

Just saying it so doesn't make it so. Nobody can even get close to discussing that proposition seriously because your can't offer evidence, it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.

My knell is to say that this thread is a flawless example of a merry-go-round. How many times must you go round before it all looks the same? Les Sleeth knows this ride all to well. Just a suggestion - Get off the ride and explore your alternatives! Get your feet wet? Escape your time warp? Gaze in a new direction?

This is merely one direction in which to gaze. Because we discuss things on the basis of evidence and logic in a science-philosophy forum, doesn't mean people are only doing this. I might suggest you practice a little evidence plus logical reasoning yourself, because if you can't make your case to intelligent people, they aren't going to listen for long (unless you are gathering members for a cult).

 

[Futobingoro]

Well I don't agree with your first premise. (point #1)

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

The so-called 'Big Bang', if you believe in it, did not happen at some point within the universe; the center of the universe shall we say; it happened EVERYWHERE inside the universe at the same time.

As for places that hold no energy or matter; that describes most of the universe; which by and large is simply empty 'space'. Even atoms are mostly empty space.

My first point states that points that have no matter or energy in them are outside our universe. A vacuum can still be a medium for energy, so even "empty" spaces in atoms and deeps space are still in our universe. If a space has some kind of energy passing through it or has some matter, it is within our universe. In other words, if you can see a star, you are in the universe.

You must have misread my postulates. I stated that if something is physical, it is in the universe. I also stated that if something is outside our universe, then, well, it is outside our universe. Doesn't that make sense? I also defined what "physical" is: a space filled with matter and/or energy, although "physical" does not adequately describe the latter.

If the big bang theory is true, then the universe once did not exist.

If the universe once did not exist, the big bang would have needed to have taken place outside our universe.

The result, our universe, is the result. It is convenient how now all that happens in our universe can possibly be accounted for because it is in the universe.

Most of the confusion stemming from my points is that it seems nobody thinks that there are any implications resulting from a space outside our universe becoming a space within our universe. If our universe is expanding, volume outside our universe must inevitably be "consolidated."

So most people think that there is no transition fron non-Newtonian to Newtonian?

 

[UltraPi1]

Just saying it so doesn't make it so.

I can equally say this if someone says that reality is physical.

Nobody can even get close to discussing that proposition seriously because you can't offer evidence, it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.

The evidence is everywhere apparent. If all of reality is conceptual - How can you miss it?

What evidence is there for physical reality that can't also be explained by conceptual means?

 

[Nereid]

My first point states that points that have no matter or energy in them are outside our universe.

What leads you to think such points have any existence (outside your - or my - imagination)?

You must have misread my postulates. I stated that if something is physical, it is in the universe. I also stated that if something is outside our universe, then, well, it is outside our universe. Doesn't that make sense? I also defined what "physical" is: a space filled with matter and/or energy, although "physical" does not adequately describe the latter.

So how can we tell if 'something' is 'a space'? whether it is 'filled with matter and/or energy"? Surely all three terms are 'just' convenient shorthands within certain models of reality constructed by a minor carbon-based lifeform which has been living on a minor planet for a trivially short period of time?

If the big bang theory is true, then the universe once did not exist.

If the universe once did not exist, the big bang would have needed to have taken place outside our universe.

Perhaps you could take another look at the Big Bang theory? The common words in English (and no doubt other languages) - 'once', 'exist', 'take place', 'outside' - may be leading you to make statements that are somewhat at odds with the theory.

Most of the confusion stemming from my points is that it seems nobody thinks that there are any implications resulting from a space outside our universe becoming a space within our universe. If our universe is expanding, volume outside our universe must inevitably be "consolidated."

I'd rather put it that these ideas are a) not at all self-evident, b) inconsistent with GR, and c) insufficient to constitute an alternative cosmological theory (to one built from GR).

So most people think that there is no transition fron non-Newtonian to Newtonian?

What does this mean?

 

[Canute]

By Seafang: There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

Les's reply: You've surpassed yourself! Talk about nonsense! You have no knowledge of what we don't know, and you have no knowledge of what's outside or was before the universe, or even all that is inside the universe

Les - are you sure about your reply here? I see why you said what you did, but what Seafang says is what Buddhists and Taoists say, what I believe, and what I thought you believed also. Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you not agree that what is outside the world of appearances neither exists nor not-exists?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les - are you sure about your reply here? I see why you said what you did, but what Seafang says is what Buddhists and Taoists say, what I believe, and what I thought you believed also. Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you not agree that what is outside the world of appearances neither exists nor not-exists?

My objection is to stating something is true when there is no possible way to know, and to also claim that if something exists we would know it. In terms of being something outside the universe which is physical, there could be, for instance, another physical universe a zillion miles from ours. What prohibits that? And if there is, whether we observe it or not has no bearing on if it exists -- that in particular is hugely nonsensical (i.e., to insist if something exists we would know it).

Regarding the Buddhist concept of appearances, that again is an entirely different subject, in my opinion. I don't think it has anything to do with what actually exists or doesn't outside oneself. It has to do with how consciousness relates to what's outside oneself in the practices involved in working toward enlightenment.

Once I got involved in a debate with some meditators about the Indian concept of Maya. They claimed it meant the world of appearances is an illusion. I said no, the world of appearances are real; the illusion is how consciousness views the world of appearances.

Part of the concept derives from the inner understanding that the world of appearances are temporary, and in the case of social appearances, often arbitrary since they are created by humans. But a person being taught the methods of enlightenment is being directed toward what is permanent, lasting. My point to my friends was, it isn’t that external reality isn’t there, its that relating to it as though it is the most important thing that’s the illusion. It is thinking lasting happiness can be found there, and not realizing attachment to the ups and downs of appearances creates that desire which leads to suffering.

In terms of the conscious practice, it is a way of saying don’t get caught up in appearances, either believing in them or disbelieving in them. The entire issue is irrelevant to what the person learning to turn inward needs, and so can be nothing but an distraction. But that practice is entirely different from the world of appearances actually exist.

Quoting the Buddha himself, “Material shape and the other [externals] are impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering . . .” The Buddha taught followers to understand that, “This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self, so that when the material shape and so on change and become otherwise, there arise not for him grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair.” In contrast to that Buddha prescribed something which will not leave us at the mercy of change by saying, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

I’m sure you are familiar with Kabir. Something he said that I like is, “I always laugh when I think of fish in the ocean getting thirsty.” Another very old Indian allegory is that of the musk deer searching everywhere for the source of its own scent. To me that describes how we search through the clutter of creation for the contentment we carry around inside us all the time, and what the teaching about appearances mostly concerns.

 

[Philocrat]

Well, that's a comment I've not heard in a long while! Thank you very much.
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?
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:
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!
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!)
Before one can wonder seriously, one needs to know exactly what you are talking about: define "consciousness".
And I wouldn't expect you be interested if I could not do what I say.
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.
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

And consequently, when NEW information is added to the knowledge base, fundamentally, this must accumulate overtime. A good theory, therefore, that is consistent with your definitition of explanation should insist that:

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE SHOULD CONSISTENTLY ACCUMULATE OVER TIME TOWARDS EVERYTHING BEING COMPLETELY KNOWN BY THE PERCEIVER.

Well, my argument to this over the years is that whoever that final individual would be must inevitably (and perhapds irreversibly as well) be wholly structurally and functionally perfect both in substance and in scope.

On the issue of 'Hard Science', the fantasists are currently escaping it using all kinds of sly and dudgy arguments. It is one hell of issue that sooner or later all the intellectual communities must confront. I have been trying to draw everyone's attention to the problem of 'FORMS' that things take when they come into existence, including the form of our current universe. When people talk about Logic, mathematics, mechanical, mutational, causal and relational pathways in relation to the problem of explanation, I always try to redirect their attention to the problem of forms. If people say that they have problems with explanation via the devices of logic, mathematics and other forms of language, then we may have to return back to the drawing board and, as I have said it before, this may involve interfering with things structurally up to the level of forms that those things take when they come into existence. Call me a skeptic if you like, we may have to re-engineer the entire human reality if we were to make any structural and functional progress at all, let alone finally survive physical destruction that may subsequently manifest.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

you should be asking youself:

'WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PLANET MARS WERE TO BE KNOCKED OFF OR THROWN OUT OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM BY SOME COSMOLOGICAL EVENT?"

You might perhaps responded by arguing that this could never happen because there is no such known event or because such an event could not be imagined. But how could you know this? This would be a misleading response, for I would expect you to give some thoughts to this question and make an attempt to answer it, at least experimentally in a controlled lab condition. It would be intellectually insufficient to simply ingore it as irrelevant.

However, if you were to look at the question closely and at least experimentally responded to it, I argue that your response cannot just give rise to a 'HOW' answer but must also produce a 'WHY' answer too. So that if someone were to ask you the same question again you would not just give a functional account but also a purposive one as well, even where your experiment shows planet Mars to be functionally, causally and relationally redundant in the grand scale of things, in this very case in our solar system. This purposive analysis allows you to say that:

1) The Planet Mars serves a specific purpose or purposes in our solar system because when you remove it this is what would happen to our solar system

or;

2) The Planet Mars serves no known purpose in our solar system because when you remove it nothing happens...our solar systems just continues normally.

If this is the way you would approach it, then science cannot just prentend to interpret or explain things in nature in a non-purposive way. This approach allows you to think about improving things, making contingency plans, and so on. I call this a PROGRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that is, a method by which you look at how things work or are configured scientifically and equally why they are so, such that this would triger progressive thoughts and actions in you. To pretend that it is doing us any good for science to continue to look at things in an artificial way seems to me to be contrary to the norm...rather regressive instead of progressive in scope and in substance.

 

[honestrosewater]

At a leisurely pace - perhaps in a different thread - it might be interesting to discuss what you would accept as a convincing demonstration of abiogenesis . . . Maybe we could so the same thing re the third area (I'd forgotten that you also had doubts about a physicalist approach to the origin of the universe).

That sounds like fun.

Where's the party?

 

[loseyourname]

you should be asking youself:

'WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PLANET MARS WERE TO BE KNOCKED OFF OR THROWN OUT OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM BY SOME COSMOLOGICAL EVENT?"

You might perhaps responded by arguing that this could never happen because there is no such known event or because such an event could not be imagined. But how could you know this? This would be a misleading response, for I would expect you to give some thoughts to this question and make an attempt to answer it, at least experimentally in a controlled lab condition. It would be intellectually insufficient to simply ingore it as irrelevant.

Well, actually a scientist should not be asking that question unless he has a lot of free time simply because that is not likely to ever happen and so funding for the research would be very difficult to come by. Also, I'm not a scientist.

1) The Planet Mars serves a specific purpose or purposes in our solar system because when you remove it this is what would happen to our solar system

or;

2) The Planet Mars serves no known purpose in our solar system because when you remove it nothing happens...our solar systems just continues normally.

If this is the way you would approach it, then science cannot just prentend to interpret or explain things in nature in a non-purposive way. This approach allows you to think about improving things, making contingency plans, and so on. I call this a PROGRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that is, a method by which you look at how things work or are configured scientifically and equally why they are so, such that this would triger progressive thoughts and actions in you. To pretend that it is doing us any good for science to continue to look at things in an artificial way seems to me to be contrary to the norm...rather regressive instead of progressive in scope and in substance.

You know, if that's all you mean by "purpose," then you might want to look into ethology and ecology, both of which deal with this pretty well. It is well known that interconnected parts in a given system all function to keep the system working a certain way. Scientists aren't generally going to refer to this as the "purpose" of any of these given elements, but the choice of words really doesn't make a difference.

 

[Philocrat]

Well, actually a scientist should not be asking that question unless he has a lot of free time simply because that is not likely to ever happen and so funding for the research would be very difficult to come by. Also, I'm not a scientist.



You know, if that's all you mean by "purpose," then you might want to look into ethology and ecology, both of which deal with this pretty well. It is well known that interconnected parts in a given system all function to keep the system working a certain way. Scientists aren't generally going to refer to this as the "purpose" of any of these given elements, but the choice of words really doesn't make a difference.

The issue that I am raising here is beyond the careless notion of 'Availability of Fundings'. In fact, the laymembers of the the world societies (some of whom we know sit naively on tons of money) should be very glad that there are at least a few people around the planet who go out of their ways to ask these sorts of questions. If money is the reason why the intellectual communities are unwilling to answer these 'LIFE-CRITICAL' questions, they too are twice as wrong. Infact, this is one of the reasons why I distinguished between 'FUNDS-DEPENDENT SCIENTISTS' and 'REAL SCIENTISTS' in a UK hosted forums a year ago, or should I say between 'PROCEDURAL' and NON-PROCEDURAL' scientists. My investigation shows that real scientists are those who are motivated by selfless quest for the truth, who often work under the harshest conditions imaginable. They never wait for cosy labs and sophisticated machineries to be available before they are motivated to seek the best of answers to the human problems.

Regardless of this sort of distinction, somewhere along the line someone somewhere must have all the good will in the world and be prepared to find answers to these questions. These are no child's play questions. They are the sorts of questions upon which the entire human existence, let alone survival, may very well depend. So, we ought to desire and genuinely will to answer these question for the collective benefit of all mankind.

 

[Philocrat]

IS MONEY REALLY THE CONSTRAINT?

In the world we have now countless instances of where millions of pounds/dolars are being inherited by cats, dogs, ants and cocroaches. We give billions of pounds in donations to all sorts of noble courses around the planet. We waste incalculable sums annually on pointless wars against ourselves.

Admitttedly, there is nothing wrong with natural creatures inheriting money from their natural lovers. But it is the obsenity of the sums that are often involved that I am concerned. Equally, there is nothing wrong in spending the sort of money that we are now spnding on all the good courses -- it is our natural responsibilty to do so. In fact I am one of the defenders of these sorts of human positive actions.

But the key question is this:

If we can raise money for all these human deeds, why are we unable to do so for the most important human project...THE PROJECT OF ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHOLE HUMAN PROGRESS AND SURVIVAL?

Clear thinking and intelligence suggest that we should be very glad and be willing to divert all human efforts and resources (with no price tags attached) to such an important project.

The more I think of this, the more I become skeptical as to whether lack of meony is the main reason why we are unwilling to ask the right questions, let alone any attempt and will to answer them in the correct way. Perhaps there is more to this problem than money.

Whatever the problem, however, one thing is now fundamentally clear:

The time is now right for us to start asking the 'WHAT-HOW-WHY' questions and making genuine human efforts to answer them in the most appropriate ways.