Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Philocrat]

STANDARD DEFINITIONS: How Science Should Ask and Answer Questions.

The golden rule is that science must ask the correct questions and answer them in the most consistent and reliable ways.

1) THE 'WHAT' QUESTION

This investigates the notion of existence. For example, does anything exist at all, and if it does what is it? This is the process of identifying things by their forms or types and sub-classes of types.

2) THE 'HOW' QUESTION

This type of question investigates how anything identified and known, or even suspected to exist, works in relation to other things in time and space. When dealing with this question, the inevitable consequence is to do so in the context of 'PART-WHOLE RELATIONS' in terms of temporal and spatial positions, size, motion, change etc. The How question therefore must aim at underpinning the structural and causal relations of the thing or things concerned.That is, how does anything fit in and work together within the grand scale of things?

3) THE 'WHY' QUESTION

This investigates the outward purpose of a given entity in the part-whole relation or in the grand scale of things. When the what and how questions are raised and made apparent, the why question automatically becomes self-installed and rendered relevant. And the beauty of this is that when we start asking the why question we begin to tumble across such notions as 'Self-improvements', 'causal and relational error corrections', 'structural and functional re-engineering', 'structural and functional progress', 'survival' and so on. And this must happen in a cautious, systematic and all inclusive ways.


The danger in asking the how question without the what and why questions is that the resulting outcome may fail to triger progressive thoughts and actions in us. We may lose momentum and the desires to improve things that we look at in this way that are fundamental and relevant to the human progress and survival. To this end, I argue that the three questions must always be asked and answered in unison. At the moment several postings in this thread tend to suggest that science, for example, can only afford to ask the how question without the what and why ones. Well, to delude ourselves that we can ask and answer one without the other, I guess, is a fundamental intellectual error.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

 

[nickdanger]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

I like your tag lines quoting Einstein. It orients us a bit doesn't it.

 

[Doctordick]

Philocrat, I have real trouble understanding what you are trying to say!

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.

You wish to add something to my definition of an explanation? (Note a definition and a theory are not the same thing!) And, if you add such a thing, it implies an explanation which is based on an unchanging knowledge base is not an explanation! That kind of removes the general nature of the definition doesn't it?

Well, my argument to this over the years is...

Exactly what does argument 'to' something mean? Is this to be a defense of a position or a refutation?

And I do not understand what you mean by the word "forms".

For the time being, I will presume you are confused. Take a look at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

If you can understand that presentation I will be surprised!

On nickdanger's comment to loseyourname:

I like your tag lines quoting Einstein. It orients us a bit doesn't it.

That orientation is a little askew of "scientific" isn't it?

The more information you have, the more patterns you are apt to discover. A verbal explanation constitutes attaching symbols to repeated chunks of information. Then one begins to find repeated similar relationships between these named chunks (and one attaches symbols to these, names for relationships). Verbal explanations are nothing more than such constructs which define your expectations. Under that view of "language" (which includes scientific and unscientific language growth), the comment "It would be description without meaning" sort of descends into drivel doesn't it?

If anyone is interested, the above comment is almost a direct quote taken from a philosophical discussion of "explanation" which begins at:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4468.shtml

Have fun everyone -- Dick

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat, I have real trouble understanding what you are trying to say!
You wish to add something to my definition of an explanation? (Note a definition and a theory are not the same thing!) And, if you add such a thing, it implies an explanation which is based on an unchanging knowledge base is not an explanation! That kind of removes the general nature of the definition doesn't it?
Exactly what does argument 'to' something mean? Is this to be a defense of a position or a refutation?

And I do not understand what you mean by the word "forms".

For the time being, I will presume you are confused. Take a look at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

If you can understand that presentation I will be surprised!

On nickdanger's comment to loseyourname:
That orientation is a little askew of "scientific" isn't it?

The more information you have, the more patterns you are apt to discover. A verbal explanation constitutes attaching symbols to repeated chunks of information. Then one begins to find repeated similar relationships between these named chunks (and one attaches symbols to these, names for relationships). Verbal explanations are nothing more than such constructs which define your expectations. Under that view of "language" (which includes scientific and unscientific language growth), the comment "It would be description without meaning" sort of descends into drivel doesn't it?

If anyone is interested, the above comment is almost a direct quote taken from a philosophical discussion of "explanation" which begins at:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4468.shtml

Have fun everyone -- Dick

What I was doing here was not to add to your thoughts or definition of explanation. Quite the contrary. All that it was meant to do was to provide a sort of guide as to what a good theory or definition of the term must envitably encopmpass. We cannot complicate things at all nor should we ever pretend to do so. Even a child understands that all there is to explanation is to add somethning new to what is already known and what is added must be coherent and logically consistent with what is elready known, the content of which I habitually call 'THE KNOWLEDGE BASE'.

In my own school of thought there is only one knowledge base and all the things in it have logically consistent relations, and this is equivalent to a single 'UNIVERSAL SET'. This contains everything there is to be known about the world. All other deductions using set theories, including what your companion is attempting to do here (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ), must totally and invetably adher to this single Universal set or knowledge base.

A knowldege base or Universal set becomes inconsistent when you model or sample knowledge or what is explainable in a way that is fundamentally vague such that it logically disconnects what you claim to be explaining from everything else in the knowledge base. So, when you claim to have successfully explained something using all your sophisticated modelling, sampling and explanatory devices, the next questions you must ask yourself are these:


1) Does my sampled or modeled explanation results in what I have been calling in this PF 'THE EXPLANATORY DEFICITS'. You have to ask yourself this question otherwise you may very well fall prey to self-deception.

2) Does what results from my proclaimed explanation logically and consistenly connect to every other piece of information in the knowledge base? Don't forget that by explaining, or claiming to explain, you are adding something new (new piece of information) either into your own knowldege base or into the knowledge base of a bystander, both of which have a UNIVERSAL LOGICAL CONNECTION to each other. For nothing which you know, or claim to know, can by enumeration of the SUM TOTALITY OF THE HUMAN EXISTENCE be contemplated and construed in isolation from everything esle!

I claim that whatever we know through explanation ( if at all the notion of the term itself is possible in the first place), or claim to be explaining to ourselves and others, must in the end universally connect and make a final sense to what I always call 'THE FINAL PERCEIVER(S)'. And the argument that I have consistently put across in this PF and elsewhere is that, whoever this Final Perceiver or Perceivers would be must be construed as possessing a complete knowledge base or a universal set of all there is to be known.

 

[Philocrat]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

I am not in anyway denying that certain processes in nature do contain redundant states or functional elements. Even Aristotle, who can quite rightly be construed as the first true scientist, understood and wholly accpeted this. This is made very clear in Aristotle's teleology, often signatured by his famous slogan 'Nature Does Nothing in Vain". Although, his teleology is contracted to assign functional purposes to things and many people would probably discredit this as merely talking about things and their functions, the reality is that Aristotle's teleology has wider and far-reaching implications, especially when you are looking at the ordering of the world in an holistic way using 'Transitional Logic' (TL). If you take Aristotle's teleology a step further, you just cannot afford not to classify the purposes of things that are purportedly in universal relations into (1) those with ephemeral Purposes and (2) those with Permanent Purposes. Often, it appears as if Aristotle teleology is mistaken to cover only things with ephemeral purposes in nature. I hope that this is not the case, because in actual fact it does extend to cover things with permanent purposes.

This fact can be traced to Aristotle's notion of change. When he was discussing change in relation to causes and effects, surely we could not have have mistaken him to be talking about the kind of change that results in regressive consequences alone, or even the sort that derails into circularism. He must have also been thinking about the sort of change that follow a consistent logical but progressive pathway, or pathways, to structural and functional perfection of things in the world. Should this be the case, and hopefully so, ought we not to insist that the modern science must embrace and uphold methodolgies and analytical procedures that look at things in terms:

(1) WHAT they are?
(2) HOW they work and fit in with everything else?; and
(3) WHY they play the role they are currently playing?

My argument is that the kind of science that looks at the HOW question alone without the WHAT and WHY questions being contemporaneously dealt with, is intellectually insufficient. It is frankly performing a misguided role in the society and doing a great disservice to humanity.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Can everything be reduced to pure physics? Who cares.

You guys think far too much!

Ultimately, are we not considering which belief system has merit? It seems irrelevant to me whether we choose to delineate branches of science or not. What is at stake here is the scientific method versus superstition.

For me, the scientific belief system has as its basis that: physical reality is that which exists independently of thought (I told you you think too much!) and we can make discoveries about reality be carefully interpreting the data we receive through our senses, albeit as the result of interacting with reality (experimentation).

(I don't buy the collapse of the wave function crap that requires human intervention. Nor, for that matter do I accept that the Uncertainty Principle is necessarily ultimately all that accurate. The fact is that human beings have barely begun to understand reality and the theories we have so far cannot be assumed, a priori, to be anything other than rough approximations. Science has a long way to go but already it’s results transcend those all other belief systems put together and does so by an almost infinite margin, the others, by and large, not so much contributing as detracting from human progress.)

As I see it, the important issue for human beings at the moment is: do we follow a belief system predicated on fantasy, e.g. belief in a god, or do we follow a belief system that is grounded in empiricism. The latter is reliable and productive, the former is positively insane.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Can everything be reduced to pure physics? Who cares.

You guys think far too much!

Hi Jeff, welcome to PF. As far as "thinking too much," well you are in the philosophy section.

Ultimately, are we not considering which belief system has merit? It seems irrelevant to me whether we choose to delineate branches of science or not. What is at stake here is the scientific method versus superstition.

I'd say you aren't being fair with that. While some belief in a conscious creationary force may be superstition, you shouldn't assume all of it is.

However, the question isn't "which belief system has merit," the question is if physics can explain everything. Currently it cannot. Maybe one day it will, but maybe it won't. If you were to review some of things physics cannot explain (talked about extensively here in PF philosophy) you'd find consciousness at the top of the list (I also include the self-organization principle needed for abiogenesis to be a sound theory for the origin of life).

For me, the scientific belief system has as its basis that: physical reality is that which exists independently of thought (I told you you think too much!) and we can make discoveries about reality be carefully interpreting the data we receive through our senses, albeit as the result of interacting with reality (experimentation).

True. But what if there are aspects of reality which aren't availble to sense experience? If sense experience only reveals physicalness, all that proves is the limitations of sense experience. It doesn't prove there isn't "something more."

As I see it, the important issue for human beings at the moment is: do we follow a belief system predicated on fantasy, e.g. belief in a god, or do we follow a belief system that is grounded in empiricism. The latter is reliable and productive, the former is positively insane.

Hmmmm. I suspect your bias is showing. There is no reason a person can't rely on empiricism for everything it can explain (which is lots). But what about what it cannot explain? You don't have to believe in the Christian version of God to remain open to the possibility that there is "something more" going on than physical processes.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Hi Les

what if there are aspects of reality which aren't availble to sense experience?

By assertion, such reality, if it exists, impinges upon us not at all. It would, therefore, be futile to attempt to characterize it and ridiculous to theorize about it.

Hmmmm. I suspect your bias is showing. There is no reason a person can't rely on empiricism for everything it can explain (which is lots). But what about what it cannot explain? You don't have to believe in the Christian version of God to remain open to the possibility that there is "something more" going on than physical processes.

Too right, I'm biased! I'm not just biased, I'm entirely one-sided: as far as I'm concerned, objective reality is all there is, by definition! Of course there are many things that science cannot explain and I did stress this in my original post. I am certainly open to there being much more than we have yet encountered but if we cannot detect it by empirical means then it may as well not exist for us and dwelling upon such thing leads us down a path to madness.

Let's be clear, the alternatives to scientific discovery (by which I include simply causal relationships that all infants encounter as they develop) have not only provided no satisfactory explanations whatsoever but they have, in the main, led people to act upon false premises that have often been the cause of human conflict.

 

[Les Sleeth]

By assertion, such reality, if it exists, impinges upon us not at all. It would, therefore, be futile to attempt to characterize it and ridiculous to theorize about it.

How do you know there is no impingement when there are yet things to be explained by physicality alone? Let's take an example all of us have experienced. As a child grows and develops he finds all these systems in place for feeding him, clothing him, protecting him, giving him medical attention, educating him . . .

If he were able, he could study each of those systems and understand how they work. He could say that because he understands the mechanics of the systems, there is nothing more to be explained. However, what he hasn't explained is how those systems got organized so they could take care of him.

Similarly, you are ready to say you have got it all figured out because you can explain the mechanics of things. But let's see you prove that mechanics can, all on their own, organize themselves into life and consciousness. Since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate how that happens, there might just be "something more" impinging.

Too right, I'm biased! I'm not just biased, I'm entirely one-sided: as far as I'm concerned, objective reality is all there is, by definition! Of course there are many things that science cannot explain and I did stress this in my original post. I am certainly open to there being much more than we have yet encountered but if we cannot detect it by empirical means then it may as well not exist for us and dwelling upon such thing leads us down a path to madness.

When I said sense experience might not detect something that exists, I didn't mean to say that some other kind of conscious experience wasn't available. I would agree that if we can't experience anything more than what's physical, and if physicalness can be shown to account for everything, then we don't need no stinkin' "something more."

 

[loseyourname]

When I said sense experience might not detect something that exists, I didn't mean to say that some other kind of conscious experience wasn't available. I would agree that if we can't experience anything more than what's physical, and if physicalness can be shown to account for everything, then we don't need no stinkin' "something more."

I just want to quickly chime in and say that neuroscientists are beginning to realize there is a lot more to what the human brain can "sense" aside from the traditional five categories. Leaving aside the introspective ability to "sense" emotional feeling and personal belief and such, there is also a kinesthetic ability to sense equiblibria and disequilibria in the inner ear, as well as a whole host of tactile sensations of the inner body that are not anything like the sensations of the skin, despite the fact that we traditionally lump all of these sensations under the heading "touch." In fact, there is even the ability of the human mind to perceive aural and visual sensations from tactile input.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Les: first off, it occurs to me that I might not have been clear about things that are tractable to the senses. I include in the realm of human sensory observation, observations made by our instruments. Carefully constructed instrumentation, such as microscopes, act as an extension of our senses and ultimately involve some human observation, such as reading a meter.

How do you know there is no impingement when there are yet things to be explained by physicality alone?

By definition! We may not have advanced to the stage where our understanding of reality and command of the physical world enables us to detect such subtleties yet, nor may we ever do so, but, in principle, we must be able to detect something that exerts influence upon us. If we cannot then it is not worth considering. (An angel keeps blowing in my ear but I cannot feel it and it has no effect upon me that I am aware of…so, it may as well not be happening…what do I care!)

Let's take an example all of us have experienced. As a child grows and develops he finds all these systems in place for feeding him, clothing him, protecting him, giving him medical attention, educating him . . .
If he were able, he could study each of those systems and understand how they work. He could say that because he understands the mechanics of the systems, there is nothing more to be explained. However, what he hasn't explained is how those systems got organized so they could take care of him.

I fail to see that you are making any kind of progress here...

...He could say that because he understands the mechanics of the systems, there is nothing more to be explained.

It is valid to claim that there is nothing more to explain provided that the scope of explanation is precisely defined and all aspect within that realm are satisfactorily accounted for. Later, it might transpire that hitherto unknown observations are made within the system that prompt us to reconsider our explanation and possibly replace it entirely. (For example, consider how Newtonian gravity was replaced by Einsteinian gravity.)

However, what he hasn't explained is how those systems got organized so they could take care of him.

This is just negligence or inadequate observation. It doesn't mean that such systems cannot be detected and investigated.

Similarly, you are ready to say you have got it all figured out because you can explain the mechanics of things.

I didn't make any such claim, in fact, quite the opposite: I recognize that there are many things that we have not much idea about.

But let's see you prove that mechanics can, all on their own, organize themselves into life and consciousness. Since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate how that happens, there might just be "something more" impinging.

Our inability to furnish satisfactory explanations does not mean that we will never be able to do so. It is very possible that some phenomena prove too difficult for human beings ever to understand but that doesn’t justify us adopting a supernatural approach. I’d rather not know anything about such phenomena than rely upon bogus superstition. We don’t have to have an explanation for everything but what explanations we do have must accord with reality. Talking abstractly about "something more" doesn't provide understanding, per se. For such an approach to be acceptable, we would have to see results. So, go ahead, enlighten me but if you fail to do so then don't blame me for discounting you as a crank!

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Of course...

Okay, so what is the basis of your alternative approach? Please tell.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Okay, so what is the basis of your alternative approach? Please tell.

First let me say that I appreciate someone who only believes what they can experience. I sense that is where you are coming from; that is, you can see physical reality, you can work with it, you can discover it . . . so that is "real" because it really does exist. Give me a realist any day of the week over baseless believers!

I am hesitant to post my views now because my fellow PF members have seen them so many times. Let me say however that mine is not an "alternative approach." It is an additional approach. We don't need an alternative approach for studying physical reality because empiricism works awesomely well. I believe it it, I trust it, I consider it all but infallible for revealing the secrets of the physical aspects of reality.

A point I've made here a zillion times is, if you use a method that only reveals physical aspects of reality (i.e., empiricism) then what else should you expect to discover? If there is anything around besides physical aspects, it ain't going to show up through science. So I cannot conclude that because science only reveals physical facts, that is all there is to reality.

If you look in the general philosophy area, you'll see an old thread of mine that's been resurrected. If you want to understand what "additional" way there might be for experiencing reality (i.e., besides through senses), check out my opening posts. Here in metaphysics & epistomology, you'll see another recently resurrected thread of mine, and that too will give you an idea of of what I value beyond science.

Of course, you don't have to agree I know anything other than what I've perceived through my senses for us to debate if physical principles and processes can explain everything. I am content to poke holes in physicalism without having anyone believe I have a viable alternative theory.

 

[Seafang]

Les:

Our inability to furnish satisfactory explanations does not mean that we will never be able to do so. It is very possible that some phenomena prove too difficult for human beings ever to understand but that doesn’t justify us adopting a supernatural approach. I’d rather not know anything about such phenomena than rely upon bogus superstition. We don’t have to have an explanation for everything but what explanations we do have must accord with reality. Talking abstractly about "something more" doesn't provide understanding, per se. For such an approach to be acceptable, we would have to see results. So, go ahead, enlighten me but if you fail to do so then don't blame me for discounting you as a crank!

Well your first statement isn't necessarily true. Heisenberg tells us we can never exactly know the present state of even a single particle let alone the entire universe, so even if we had constructed the correct laws of physics, they would fail to predict the future properly. Besides that Godel teaches us that some questions are inherently undecideable; "no matter what" as William Shockley would put it.

But I agree with your main point; the failure to provide a rational explanation for some phenomenon or obsevation, does not justify the acceptance of a completely irrational explanation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well your first statement isn't necessarily true. Heisenberg tells us we can never exactly know the present state of even a single particle let alone the entire universe, so even if we had constructed the correct laws of physics, they would fail to predict the future properly. Besides that Godel teaches us that some questions are inherently undecideable; "no matter what" as William Shockley would put it.

But I agree with your main point; the failure to provide a rational explanation for some phenomenon or obsevation, does not justify the acceptance of a completely irrational explanation.

Your version of the uncertainty principle is misleading. We can know some of the properties of a particle to arbitrarily high degrees of confindence, at the cost of being correspondingly ignorant about other properties.

Also Goedel does not apply to geometry or things derived from it, like real analysis. The question is still out on what this exception means for physics.

 

[FulhamFan3]

The "natural" world can be explained entirely by physics. When it comes to emotion and life then that's the realm of philosophy/religion. I believe that the probablities allowed by quantum mechanics allow whatever religion to have a validity.

Science explains how fish die, it doesn't explain why it's important to conserve them.

 

[Nereid]

The "natural" world can be explained entirely by physics. When it comes to emotion and life then that's the realm of philosophy/religion. I believe that the probablities allowed by quantum mechanics allow whatever religion to have a validity.

And while I may respect your belief, I wonder why you hold it in the face of so much good science (e.g. the neurological/chemical/physical aspects of emotion - think drugs, neurotransmitters, etc). I also wonder how well you could make a case that 'the probablities allowed by quantum mechanics allow whatever religion to have a validity' - would you care to try?

Science explains how fish die, it doesn't explain why it's important to conserve them.

Leaving aside for the moment whether science 'explains' anything, there is a great deal that 'science' can tell us about why it's important to conserve fish ... assuming of course that we may wish that our children and grand-children have the opportunity to eat fish (and many other desirable things too no doubt).

 

[Go37Pi]

I think the crux of this argument lies in the question of consciousness, as a few people stated earlier. We cannot measure consciouness because only the individual feels consciousness. Therefore the only way to measure consciousness is to measure ourselves. But such a measurement would necessarily only apply to one individual and would differ from the representation of consciousness that another individual could have. Perhaps we have a bit of, "I think, therefore I am." in this debate. Can we really measure our own ability to measure? Perhaps there is a possible way, but I can't help but believe that we can never measure our consciousness, and thus never represent it mathematically.

 

[FulhamFan3]

And while I may respect your belief, I wonder why you hold it in the face of so much good science (e.g. the neurological/chemical/physical aspects of emotion - think drugs, neurotransmitters, etc).

I'm not to sure what you think I'm negating here. I do acknowledge that emotions can be affected by drugs and other factors. However what makes someone perfer a blond over a brunette? This is something that drugs don't explain. What I actual meant was a conscience is more philosophy/religion.

there is a great deal that 'science' can tell us about why it's important to conserve fish ... assuming of course that we may wish that our children and grand-children have the opportunity to eat fish

What makes it important though? Wanting children and grand-children to eat fish is a matter of conscience, not science. Science can tell you the proper consevation methods and who will die out as a result of not taking those precautions. But the reason why we would take those measures to begin with has to do with conscience.

I also wonder how well you could make a case that 'the probablities allowed by quantum mechanics allow whatever religion to have a validity' - would you care to try?

That's wrong too. What I mean is that it allows for a supreme being of sorts if you believe in one. Before you could predict everything about a system possible as long as you knew enough about a system to begin with. With QM probabilities are unavoidable and it is here where a supreme being decides the future of a particle.

I find it odd that evolution can be in complete conflict with christianity(or at least the really conservative christians) whereas it's completely compatible with buddism or shinto.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . why it's important to conserve fish ... assuming of course that we may wish that our children and grand-children have the opportunity to eat fish (and many other desirable things too no doubt).

That's cold Nereid. Preserve poor little fishes so we can EAT THEM.

 

[nightwing darknight]

there is another problem when talking about practically applying physics to the entire world

even though our laws of physics can almost predict the behavior of most of the observed phenomena "as much as the QM uncertainty would allow it anyway"

when talking about building a mathematical / physical model for something even as simple and un complex like car crash of 2 cars
you can never apply the rules to any systems more complex than a few particles
but when talking about the behavior of a macroscopic body which is consisted of billions of particles and its interaction with the surrounding its pretty tough to do so

but the question you would ask next is obviously if we can't apply the laws of physics to these systems then how do weather forecasts and the prediction of planetary orbits work

the answer is approximation and empirical equations
it so happens that the exact laws of physics are hard to apply to a large number of particles
but there also exist a number of approximate and empirical equations that can be readily applied

im saying so because i m as much an engineer as i am a physicist wannabe
so in a way i belong to both worlds
and i noticed in my work as a chemical engineer when designing reactors "chemical reactors because i know that stereotypically you guys hear reactor and you say nuclear"
lets take one aspect of reactor design
heat transfer
we have a multiple layer of laws and equations that govern heat transfer
from laws that work microscopically level and takes into consideration the movement and interaction of each particle
and although considered the most precise method when actually applying this method to something as simple as a tube inserted in hot medium with a cold fluid flowing inside
you would find that it would be a nightmare of equations
even for a computer
a computer could take years to solve such a model when applied to the entire reactor

so we turn to less precise simpler equations
and especially in hat transfer we have a very wide variety of substitute equations

some of them are derived theoretically while others are simply empirical

so when asking can everything be reduced to physics the answer is
even if we have the laws and necessary equations it could be impossible
and i remind you that even though it has been more than 90 yrs since the publication of the general relativity
there are only a considerable number of solutions to it
and by solutions i mean cases where the theory is applied and can be calculated

 

[Nereid]

I think the crux of this argument lies in the question of consciousness, as a few people stated earlier. We cannot measure consciouness because only the individual feels consciousness. Therefore the only way to measure consciousness is to measure ourselves. But such a measurement would necessarily only apply to one individual and would differ from the representation of consciousness that another individual could have. Perhaps we have a bit of, "I think, therefore I am." in this debate. Can we really measure our own ability to measure? Perhaps there is a possible way, but I can't help but believe that we can never measure our consciousness, and thus never represent it mathematically.

Welcome to Physics Forums Go37Pi!

I'm not sure if the 'crux' lies in consciousness, or if 'the hard problem of consciousness' is truly the only (likely) area that can't be 'reduced' to physics (all the while accepting Les' challenge that there are still open questions re life).

If the latter, I'm cool; if there's anything other than the hard problem of consciousness, let's put the cat on the table!

 

[Nereid]

I'm not to sure what you think I'm negating here. I do acknowledge that emotions can be affected by drugs and other factors. However what makes someone perfer a blond over a brunette? This is something that drugs don't explain. What I actual meant was a conscience is more philosophy/religion.

Are you sure? I'll be the first to say that neuroscience has a looong way to go, but other than 'the hard problem of consciousness', what appears to be an insurmountable problem for science? Goodness, there's been enough in the popular literature lately on 'the god gene', and various psychological finding on 'religious experience' to at least hint that religion and philosophy (formal systems excepted) are 'explainable'.

What makes it important though? Wanting children and grand-children to eat fish is a matter of conscience, not science. Science can tell you the proper consevation methods and who will die out as a result of not taking those precautions. But the reason why we would take those measures to begin with has to do with conscience.

On this we are in accord ...

That's wrong too. What I mean is that it allows for a supreme being of sorts if you believe in one. Before you could predict everything about a system possible as long as you knew enough about a system to begin with. With QM probabilities are unavoidable and it is here where a supreme being decides the future of a particle.

Er, no (with respect). In any real sense 'a supreme being' is practically equivalent to 'hidden variables', and there've been several experiments now that show such alternatives aren't consistent with results. Of course, if 'supreme being' = 'random fluctuations', then why create a supreme being?

I find it odd that evolution can be in complete conflict with christianity(or at least the really conservative christians) whereas it's completely compatible with buddism or shinto.

Yes, I puzzle over why some christians get so worked up about evolution, yet those with deep faith in other religions find nothing to be troubled about.

 

[Nereid]

That's cold Nereid. Preserve poor little fishes so we can EAT THEM.

You don't have to Les, nor I ... but homo sap. is a carnivore (or at least an omnivore), and denying that lots of people would like their children to be able to eat fish seems to me a little, shall we say, like an ostrich?

 

[Viper2838]

Yes, I puzzle over why some christians get so worked up about evolution, yet those with deep faith in other religions find nothing to be troubled about.

On the risk of turning this thread into a religious debate, i will try to explain this.
Many Christians are offended and become worked up over evolution because it goes aginst the foundations of the Religion. It says very clearly in Gensis ch. 2 that God made man. Jesus later references this in the New Testiment.

The idea of man evolving from organic matter that floated in some prehistoric sea seems to run slightly counter to this. The idea seems to go something like this: If man was made from sea sludge, in an apparently radnom matter of natural selection, then God didnt create man. This means that Genisis is not true, and must be disregarded, Which means God didnt create the world, and all that lives on it. If this is true, then whose to say that God is real, or omnipotent?

The argument and thought process continues and Chrsitianity as we know it ends.

Thats why some Christians are prone to getting worked up. Personally, I think evolution is no more than a therory, and has no impact on my life, so why bother?

 

[Philocrat]

IS EVOLUTION COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY?

Yes!

 

[Philocrat]

The faction or divisionism betweein evolution and chritianity is pointless!

 

[Philocrat]

Both Institutions must slow down and look CAREFULLY at the TYPE of Logic they use to conduct their arguments and derive at their current conclusions. For a different type of logic does not rule out the possibility of both. Instead, it renders both WHOLLY comaptible with each other!

 

[Philocrat]

THE FOUNDATION ARGUMENTS FOR THE LOGICAL COMPATIBILITY OF GOD WITH THE PRODUCT OF HIS/HER CREATION

THE FOUNDATION ARGUMENTS (FA)

FA1 (God is incompatible with logic)

(a) God created the world
(b) If God has finished creating the world, then God is incompatible with logic
(c) If God is still creating the world, then God is compatible with Logic.
(d) God has finished creating the world
-------------------------------------
Therefore, God is incompatible with logic
-------------------------------------

FA2 (God is compatible with logic)

(a) God created the world
(b) If God has finished creating the world, then God is incompatible with logic
(c) If God is still creating the world, then God is compatible with Logic.
(d) God is still creating the world
--------------------------------------
Therefore, God is compatible with Logic
--------------------------------------

The standard assumption is that all other arguments about God's relatons to the world can be deduced from these master arguments.

INTERMEDIATE ARGUMENTS (IA)

IA1 (Evolution is incompatible with Creationism)

(a) God created the world
(b) If God has finished creating the world, then evolution is incompatible with creationism
(c) If God is still creating the world, then evolution is compatible with creationism.
(d) God has finished creating the world
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, evolution is incompatible with creationism.
--------------------------------------------------


IA2 (Evolution is compatible with Creationism)

(a) God created the world
(b) If God has finished creating the world, then evolution is incompatible with creationism
(c) If God is still creating the world, then evolution is compatible with creationism.
(d) God is still creating the world
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, evolution is compatible with creationism.
--------------------------------------------------

The question now is which of these alternative arguments do both parties apply to derive at their conclusions. For (FA2) and (IA2) seem to be the most reliable logical pathway to ply.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You don't have to Les, nor I ... but homo sap. is a carnivore (or at least an omnivore), and denying that lots of people would like their children to be able to eat fish seems to me a little, shall we say, like an ostrich?

I was just teasing you of course, although I might point out flesh munchers are likely to eat the ostrich too.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Many Christians are offended and become worked up over evolution because it goes aginst the foundations of the Religion. It says very clearly in Gensis ch. 2 that God made man. Jesus later references this in the New Testiment.

The idea of man evolving from organic matter that floated in some prehistoric sea seems to run slightly counter to this. The idea seems to go something like this: If man was made from sea sludge, in an apparently radnom matter of natural selection, then God didnt create man. This means that Genisis is not true, and must be disregarded, Which means God didnt create the world, and all that lives on it. If this is true, then whose to say that God is real, or omnipotent?

The argument and thought process continues and Chrsitianity as we know it ends.

It doesn't necessarily have to be as you predict. There is no reason why God, say as some highly evolved form of consciousness, couldn't have brought about creation in a natural way and over time.

In my opinion it isn't due to Christian belief in God or Jesus that makes them resist evolution, it is belief in the Bible. The logic of considering the Bible infallible should seem highly suspect after one studies the history of the Bible.

Genesis for example, has two creation stories. Scholars attribute the first version to a priestly writer, usually referred to as "P", and a second older version attributed to an author usually called "J". Moses is claimed to have written all the first five books of the Bible, but how could he have written his own death, plus there are anachronisms throughout the Torah (e.g. empires were mentioned that did exist when Moses lived, the king of Philistines is portrayed hundreds of years before he lived, camels were describd in use before they'd been domesticated, etc.).

In this so-called "documentary hypotheses" (taught at all major divinity schools) besides J and P, three other authors have been recognized (E, R, and D), who are believed to have written the Torah from 1000 to 400 BC.

It's not just the Torah, but throughout the Bible we find the problem of trying to figure out who wrote the various books. It was a Hebrew custom to attribute a literary work to revered Jewish figures, and this custom continued to be a problem for New Testament writings as well. That and the fact that none of the writers are believed to have been witnesses to Jesus' activities leave us with documents we cannot be sure of.

I am sure you are familiar with "Q" and Mark's version appearing in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and with Luke's admission he'd taken his writings from written and oral traditions (Luke 1:1-4). If the gospel author Matthew was really the disciple Matthew (and therefore a witness) why did he rely on Q and Mark to write his story around (sometimes almost word for word, as in Chapter 6)? Plus the author doesn't claim to be Matthew (the title "The Gospel according to Matthew" was added long after the document's original composition).

The only documents we are certain are first hand accounts are those of Paul, who does not claim to have known Jesus. Luke, as a companion of Paul's (if he was) and Mark (as Peter's secretary) were not witnesses either. Of the four gospels, the book of John is least believed by scholars to be the disciple John. It was written by an educated person fluent in Greek at least half a century after Jesus, not by an illiterate fisherman (Mark 1:16-20) who spoke Arameic as the real disciple, John the son of Zebedee, was portrayed.

Now, I am not saying there aren't inspired and inspiring writings in the Bible. I love parts of the book myself. What I am saying it that once one learns the history of the Bible, it makes little sense to treat it as the infallible word of God. It is clearly revealed to be the word of men, sometime inspired, other times writing history or myth or speculation or (in the case of Revelation) senseless ravings from trance induced by fasting.

Evolution (and I would agree with most believers that evolution hasn't achieved what it has through chemistry and natural selection alone), doesn't contradict anything for a person of faith if that person's faith is in God. But if one's faith in God and Jesus is dependent on the perfect veracity and accuracy of the Bible, then I think one is on shakey ground.

 

[connect]

The answer will come from the realm of computer programming, computer programmers model the world, a well done model is a more accurate description of all aspects of particular subject than its mathematical counterparts. Computer programmers can't make assumptions about what they are modelling, they have to consider every variable.

I put a very simple fact to a professor at my local university, although it was quite clearly fact and she agreed with that, her reply was that we assume it doesn't make a difference.

The problem with this assumption is that if it does infact make a difference then it sort of breaks the basic principle of imperical methods, the controlled experiment.

 

[connect]

Further to my last point, a look at the framework of physics or 'physics in itself' i.e. mathematical structures, will probably provide hints towards understanding why things are like they are. I mean think about the common things in every equation you look at, think about the very fact it is an equasion, all equations are equations, mathematical structures, in someway physics is already unified.

Mathematical expressions are twofold, on one side you have the numbers that express variable quantities and on the other you have the structral operaters that express the relationship between the quantities.

Maybe its the glue itself, the relationship the binds the quantities together that will provide the real clues.

Think about the root of numbers, it might seem obvious as to what they are, but a closer look at such a simple notion provides some very interesting features, especially to physics.

When you look at the world around you, numbers arise from counting objects, you might say there are three coins on the table infront of you. You could also say there are 3 items on the table and each item is different, I mean you could have 3 different coins, but they are still coins.

If you look at those 3 coins, in this case we will say they are all the same type of coin, same size, colour, markings etc. what is it that tells you the 3 coins are different coins, that there are in fact 3 coins on the table in front of you?

The single most apparent thing is that they are in different locations, if they where all in the same location they would be the same coin. We differientiate between the coins because they are in different locations, different spatial regions.

Liebnez spotted this weakness in Netwons studies and as a programmer I recognise the point Liebnez is trying to make. When modelling a moving object in a virtual world, its location becomes an internal rather than external property.

In games programming there is a concept called 'tile based worlds' where a world is made up by the sum of its tiles, the tiles are fixed in location but transform their state over time to represent whatever object is present at that location at that time, like a tv screen where the pixels are tiles and the screen is the world.

I think this is what Liebnez is hinting at, that all entities exist 'within' space.

The concept of numbers is inspired by the world we percieve, the model in our minds.

Numbers are units, objects that are distinct from one another but whos relationship is always the same. The relationship between any number is the distance between them.

1 unit of something
2 units of something
3 units of something

That 'something' is always the same thing, a metre, a minute, a degree.

This rule breaks down when it comes to relativity i.e. variable 'somethings' or time dialation.

Maybe its time to explore Liebnez's route because Netwon's has been explored extensivily, I think branes is simply a repetition of string theory abstracted on itself.

Leibnez's theory is by simple fact 'richer' in detail than Newtons.

The tv screen example illustrates the two's thinking:

Newton would look at a TV screen and tell you each pixel is exactly the same:

Same shape
Same size
Same behaviour (can display one colour at one time from a possible range)

Liebnez would go one step further and tell you that each pixel is in fact unique by virtue of its location, i.e. no two pixels share the same location.

 

[Nereid]

So back to the religious thing (no, this is not a religious discussion!) ... is there any particular reason why deep thinking believers of other faiths don't get worked up over evolution? After all, AFAIK, most have creation myths - which include stories of how people came to be - and there's no doubt a great deal of excellent science (biology, geology, astronomy, etc) to show large parts of those myths cannot possibly be true!