Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Nereid]

DO until (Royce satisfied);
. slack := cut
END DO

 

[Royce]

Thanks, Nereid. I feel better already.
So Penrose did not prove his point or, as you say, cobbled it. Do you then think that his point is not valid?

It seems to me another way of stating Goedel's Theorem is to say that in any given formal mathematical system of sufficient complexity there is that which is unknowable and/or non-computable, to use Penrose's terms. After all if a system could be complete then everything within the system would be both knowable and computable.

This, of course, would apply only to mathematics which is abstract and may not be directly applicable to the physical universe.

The Uncertainty Principle, however, is physics and physical; " Both the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle cannot, in principle, be known at the same time." We could say; "Okay, so what, we can know one or the other just know both." However, Richard Fineman in QED stated that because of uncertainty we cannot know or predict which path an electron will take to get from point A to point B. It can and will, in any given instance, take any and all possible paths. We can only compute the probabilities of the possible paths, add them up and give the probability of the path taken, the sum of histories.

This shows that there is that in the physical universe that cannot be known and can not be computed, which of course means that everything in the universe cannot be reduced to physics. There is that which is unknown and non-computable in the universe. I will not go as far as Penrose and say that therefore the floodgates are opened, but maybe it just sprang a little leak.

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is just that a principle. Putting it very simply it says that we cannot know in principle the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle, an electron at the same time. It is not a limitation of mans ability or viewpoint but a confirmed fact, principle no matter how good or accurate our instruments become we can never know exactly both at the same time. So the universe can never be, in principle a 'PRARAPLEXED SYSTEM' which to my mind is the same as saying that it can never be, in principle determinant.

Ok, if our present Universe is not a paraplexed system, the next question is this:

Can a paraplex, let alone a system in which it's a part, be created under the present state of our universe? Or even more ambitiously, do things and events in the present universe (or the universe itself as a whole) have the potential of becoming paraplexes? Can the universe be rendered paraplexed in the strongest sense of the word?

Well, Transitional Logic (TL) suggests that this may very wel be the case. Now, consider the following TL statements:



1) A Horse is potentially a Unicorn

2) Man is Potentially perfect

2) The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex

Acccoding to TL, statements (1), (2) and (3) may be true in the presence of Change (the right kind of change for that matter). If this is true, it means that the three statements may be logically rescheduled thus to meet this criterion:


1) A Horse is potentially a Unicorn if, and only if, a Horse is changeable

2) Man is Potentially perfect if, and only if, man is changeable

2) The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex if, and only if, the Milkyway is changeable

All well and good, but we have only attached conditons to the TL staments. For we still have to say something about change both in terms of the need to recommend the RIGHT kind of change and in terms of WHY Change is necessary in the overal concept at all in the first place. Well, with regards to the former, it is necessary to decide whether FUNCTIONAL CHANGE or STRUCTURAL CHANGE that is suitable for this conceptual scheme. For the purpose of definition, Functional change(s) are such things as learning, copying, teaching, penal sanctions, and the normal workings of things as they originally were without any alteration in their original forms and structures. Whereas, Strunctural Change is something equivalent to scientific interference with, or alterations in, the underlying physical structures and forms of things. Well, if you ask me what is the problem with both, my answer would be:

A) Functional Change appears somewhat Circular. It seems as if things are just going around in circles by repetitious recycling of their imperfect parts as a rather strange means of keeping them going for as long as they last. That is, without any real change.

B) Structural Change, on the other hand, seems to be permanently avoided by many people because of their unpredictable consequences, such as the long-standing fear that Frankenstein's Monster may result. Whenever you hear people repeatedly say 'Don't mess or interfer with nature', this is precisely what they are referring to. They are simply telling you, we do not want this kind of change.

With regards to Change Type-A, as far back as to socrates, many philosophers have asked whether you can change someone from an immoral person to a moral person by teaching or penal sanction? You only have to see the current state of the world to appreciate the implication of this question. We tend to repeatedly do things that we have instructed ourselves not to do - from repeated offenders to repeated and the never-ending war mongering. Up till today we are still as barbabric and viscious as we have ever been- we are still fighting and killiing each other in ever larger scale, and no amount of education had succeeded in shaking the human intelligence off the barbaric state of war. Hence, the standard suspicion that many philosophers hold is that Functional change leads to a fruitless circularism. That is, it is not the type of change that can shift the human progress proper from point A to point B. With regards Change Type-B, scientists tend to have fundamentally retired to the position of 'PREVENT AND CURE', and given into the slogan 'Don't mess with nature!' Question: but what about if nature messes with you, who knows?, and maybe settles the scores with you in the same way that it did with the dinoseours? For there is nothing which logically rules this out!

So, as you can see both types of change are equally problematic.

On the Latter issue about change (i.e why change in the first place?), well the standard assumption in TL is that:

Anything that was originally perfect can never change

If this is true, then the three TL Conditional statements must be logically rescheduled thus:


ARGUMENT 1:


A Horse is potentially a Unicorn if, and only if, a Horse is changeable
A Horse is changeable if, and only if, a Horse is originally defective (both in structure and in function)

ARGUMENT 2:

Man is Potentially perfect if, and only if, man is changeable
Man is changeable if, and only if, man was originally defective (both in structure and in function)

ARGUMENT 3:

The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex if, and only if, the Milkyway is changeable
The milky way is changeable if, and only if, the milky way was originally defective (in structure and in function)

This Schema in TL suggests that given the right type of change and given that things under change had built in natural potentilities for change, then potentially they could eventually in the end be anything they so desire.

QUESTIION: Given the long existing controversy over the type of change that is appropriate for this TL schema, which one should it actually be? Which one would you recommend? If we succeeded in recommending the right type of change, would this lead to the construction of genuine paraplexes, let alone paraplexed systems that they may finally collect into? And, ultemately, would Heisenberg uncertainty principle still hold?

 

[Royce]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.
One could rightly say that a system such as the Milkyway is perfect for the state that it is in at this point in its evolution, at any point in its evolution. If it weren't it wouldn't or couldn't evolve or continue to exist. How could we apply the terms perfect or defective to any system when we don't completely understand its purpose, if any, or its current state as compared to its ideal or perfect state? What does a perfect galaxy look like or do? I sure don't know, nor does anyone else. We don't even know if such a thing can exist.

 

[Philocrat]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.
One could rightly say that a system such as the Milkyway is perfect for the state that it is in at this point in its evolution, at any point in its evolution. If it weren't it wouldn't or couldn't evolve or continue to exist. How could we apply the terms perfect or defective to any system when we don't completely understand its purpose, if any, or its current state as compared to its ideal or perfect state? What does a perfect galaxy look like or do? I sure don't know, nor does anyone else. We don't even know if such a thing can exist.

Well, this now raises another fundamental question:

IS EVOLUTION PROGRESSIVE, LET ALONE PERFECTIBALE?

Or is it a mindless, purposeless and non-progresives or regressive venture in spacetime? Well, some of the earlier postings in this thread tend to suggest this. Would this be what you are also suggesting?

On the issue of the 'Milkyway being perfect', I am not quite sure of this given the way that I personally define and understand the terms 'perfect' and 'Paraplex' or 'Paraplexed System'. On this, it seems that both of us have different definitions of the term 'Perfect' or 'Perfection'. Well, if you are interested in knowing my own version of the term ‘PERFECTION’, I have defined it in many places on PF, but I will take this one to be my best estimate of the term 'Perfect' ( https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=416968#post416968 ) I appreciate the fact that many people would define it in their own ways. I have come across this term in countless threads on this PF, yet none even a single soul has made any attempt to give us at least a glimpse of what they mean, let alone define it in an appropriate way

My argument is that if the Milkyway were perfect in the strongest sense of the term, then, from the configuration point of view as strictly defined by the engineering principle of 'PERFECT FIT', it would be something equivalent to a paraplex. And as you suggested earlier that the Universe is not a paraplexed system and therefore the uncertainty principle is upheld. If this were true, then the Milky way would not be part of our universe, because the principle of the perfect fit, by definition, rigorously extrocises or excludes paraplexes from non-paraplexed systems.

When I first encountered Stephen Hawking's Black Hole theory many years ago through reading his best seller books (A Brief History of Time and Stephen Hawking's Universe), I honestly thought that Black Holes were paraplexes. I was deeply troubled by this, because this would suggest the possibility of paraplexes co-existing with non-paraplexes in a non-paraplexed system. I was even more troubled and confused when Stephen suggested in his theory that no information can come out of a black hole, but when he reversed this theory last year I breathed a sigh of relief. So, as you can see the possiblility of mistaking certain things and events for paraplexes in our universe does exist, and I wouldn't blame anyone for calling them 'perfect'

 

[Philocrat]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.

Well, the only problem with this is that our mind for some strange inexplicable reasons seems to have already made a good estimate of how most existing things should work or be. Even with all the problems that we have with defining the term 'perfect', people do extrapolate and imagine things like these:

1) I wish there were no natural disasters (eathqaukes, horicanes, floods etc)

2) I wish I could live forever without ever dying

3) Why is a multi-condition form of life impossible?

4) Is a multi-condition form of life possible?

5) If the sun finally burns out and decays, what would happen to the human race?

6) Would the growth and decay of the sun (or any other cosmological catastrophies) lead to interplanetary migration of the human race?

And so on. That we are able to make these sorts of imginative estimates about how the world and the wider universe should be does suggests that we are naturally predisposed to hunger for 'SOMETHING MORE' than we currently experience. It seems as if we are always craving for purposive things and events that genuinely progress to greater things. My own view is that whatever we are always expecting is not only PURPOSIVE and PROGRESSIVE, but also PERFECTIBLE! I could be wrong, but that's my view anyway.

On the issue of what is naturally 'defective' and when things can be construed as defective, well, the fact that we are naturally predisposed to see less of what is already there and expect more from those things does appear as if though we are looking at such things as structurally and functionally inadequate, hence the need and perhaps the possiblity of changing or evolving them to structurally and functionally better states. Well, if this is true, then it is immaterial or irrelevant whether such things were manufactured or not. My argument is that if things were originally working well, the human beings (at least some of us) would not see less of those things, let alone our desire to change them to what we think better. There is more to change than things just going around in circles in what outwardly appears somewhat pointless or regressive.

 

[Seafang]

What assertions are you referring to? I don't claim to "know" anything about what you are commenting on. If I have an opinion, I'll state it as an opinion, not like I have the "truth," and I'll make an effort to support my opinion with facts.

>>Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.

(that's four assertions)

You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.

(that's three assertions)

You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.

(another five assertions)

And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

(Three more assertions)

So about fifteen assertions in all (in just that one post).

The converse of each of those is easily deduced. Can you show that you KNOW any of them. ?

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I just realized a funny thing. The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?" How ironic is it that almost the entire thread since has revolved around whether or not there are non-physical aspects to the world, and that isn't even what was asked. I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics. It's funny that not a single person has answered that question.

 

[Philocrat]

Loseyourname, that gravely worries me as well. I have had nightmares about it lately. I just gave up when people continuously dudged my questions. Even when I tried many pages back to remind people of exactly this, I just saw people like magicians cunningly took to their hills. Eventually, I just gave myself a 'holiday' and went with the flow. I share the blame, if there is one levied. Give me a few days and let me shake this 'holiday' out of my senses and I should come up with something.

Happy New Year to you and everyone!

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, that gravely worries me as well. I have had nightmares about it lately. I just gave up when people continuously dudged my questions. Even when I tried many pages back to remind people of exactly this, I just saw people like magicians cunningly took to their hills. Eventually, I just gave myself a 'holiday' and went with the flow. I share the blame, if there is one levied. Give me a few days and let me shake this 'holiday' out of my senses and I should come up with something.

Happy New Year to you and everyone!

Thanks Philo. Happy New Year to you, too.

I get the impression from these forums that a lot of the posters are going to turn every thread into the same debate between physicalist and anti-physicalist models of consciousness no matter the issue you are actually trying to bring up. If you are interested in looking for it, there was a thread in the biology forum a couple of months ago about whether or not biology had become too reductive in its recent emphasis on molecular biology. Many of the posters, myself included, agreed that it had, in that reductive techniques can tell you nothing about operational systems in context. Molecular biology is great for explaining proteins and nucleotides, but cellular biology is necessary to explain cells, physiology and anatomy are both necessary to explain tissues and organs, and many levels of medical science, evolution, and zoology are necessary to explain whole organisms. When we begin to discuss entire ecosystems in which many organism interact with each other and non-organic parts of their environment, the explanatory capacity of molecular techniques alone becomes almost non-existent. Any attempt to explain something like social behavior simply by citing neurophysiological processes is going to fall way short and miss much of the point.

A great scientist that is sympathetic to concerns like yours is Edward O. Wilson. I've always enjoyed reading him. Niles Eldredge touches on some of the same things as well - Wilson in the realms of social behavior and ecology, Eldredge mostly in behavior and specifically sexual behavior.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

 

[Philocrat]

Thanks Philo. Happy New Year to you, too.

I get the impression from these forums that a lot of the posters are going to turn every thread into the same debate between physicalist and anti-physicalist models of consciousness no matter the issue you are actually trying to bring up. If you are interested in looking for it, there was a thread in the biology forum a couple of months ago about whether or not biology had become too reductive in its recent emphasis on molecular biology. Many of the posters, myself included, agreed that it had, in that reductive techniques can tell you nothing about operational systems in context. Molecular biology is great for explaining proteins and nucleotides, but cellular biology is necessary to explain cells, physiology and anatomy are both necessary to explain tissues and organs, and many levels of medical science, evolution, and zoology are necessary to explain whole organisms. When we begin to discuss entire ecosystems in which many organism interact with each other and non-organic parts of their environment, the explanatory capacity of molecular techniques alone becomes almost non-existent. Any attempt to explain something like social behavior simply by citing neurophysiological processes is going to fall way short and miss much of the point.

A great scientist that is sympathetic to concerns like yours is Edward O. Wilson. I've always enjoyed reading him. Niles Eldredge touches on some of the same things as well - Wilson in the realms of social behavior and ecology, Eldredge mostly in behavior and specifically sexual behavior.

This sounds as if biology is about to explain itself out of business. Let's say for an argument's sake that Biology can be wholly reduced to the next level, and perhaps rendered descriptively bankrupt, in your professional knowledge and honest opinion, what level down the 'Explanatory ladder' is biology? I am asking this question because, in my own limited understanding of the whole reductionsit process, it seems to me that even if biology were to be wholy reducible to the next scale, would it not be correct to say that biology still has an explanatory role to play in the process?

Another point is this. Let's say that it is possible to structurally and functionally improve the natural world at the cosmological or QM level, would this stop things from still happening at the biological level? If things are structurally improved at the QM level, would this not also autoamtically improve things at the biological level, or even higher up the explanatory ladder? This is one amongst many of the puzzling features of the whole of this Redunctionist Scheme.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and references. I will spend some time looking them up.

--------------------------
Save Our planet...stay green! May the book of nature serve you well, and bring you all that is good!

 

[Philocrat]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

Well, Loseyourname seems to think that, reductively, things are shaky in Bioology discipline, and this is why I am asking whther all the voluminous amounts of data amassed over the centuries in that discipline all comes to nothing. All wasted? I am going to read a little bit more on this.

----------------
Save our Planet...Stay Green!. May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[loseyourname]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

I don't have any problem with molecular biology; it just seems that everyone who is studying biology these days is studying molecular biology and that's where all the money is going because of the potential returns in biotech. It's dominating the field. I think reductionism is very important, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Research needs to be conducted at all levels, though I do understand that, with funding set up the way it is, more research will always be conducted in fields that are more likely to produce a profit of some sort.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, Loseyourname seems to think that, reductively, things are shaky in Bioology discipline, and this is why I am asking whther all the voluminous amounts of data amassed over the centuries in that discipline all comes to nothing. All wasted? I am going to read a little bit more on this.

No! I don't think it's wasted. I just think that a purely reductive understanding doesn't tell you much. I'm really just trying to answer the question. If all we know is physics, even if we have a perfect understanding, I don't think we would know a whole lot about the natural world. The interactions taking place at the biological level, especially at the interorganismic level, are so incredibly complex that a physical understanding alone tells you almost nothing. Still, it tells you plenty about the natural world at the lower levels of organization and complexity. Both are integral to a complete worldview.

 

[Seafang]

You know, I just realized a funny thing. The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?" How ironic is it that almost the entire thread since has revolved around whether or not there are non-physical aspects to the world, and that isn't even what was asked. I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics. It's funny that not a single person has answered that question.

Well I am not aware of anyone claiming that the answer to the question is 'yes'.

For those who interpret the word 'everything' to mean 'every THING', they might take the position that 'THINGS' are elements of the physical universe, and then assert that the answer is yes (well in principle), but if one interprets 'everything' to include nouns that are not objects in the universe; such as 'TERROR' for example, then the answer is clearly NO.

I choose to interpret the word 'everything' to mean the latter, since if it does not, then we need another word that does mean 'everything' in that definition, so it might as well be 'everything' as any other combination of symbols.

So NO; I do not believe everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Do I believe every THING in the physical universe can be reduced to pure physics; my answer is YES (in principle) but probably not by us, and certainly not by me.

That does not mean we can know everything about the physical universe; in other words it does not contradict Heisenberg. Heisenberg's principle of "Unbestimheit" (probably with an umlaut) IS a part of pure physics after all, not an antagonist to pure physics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What assertions are you referring to? I don't claim to "know" anything about what you are commenting on. If I have an opinion, I'll state it as an opinion, not like I have the "truth," and I'll make an effort to support my opinion with facts.

>>Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.

(that's four assertions)

You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.

(that's three assertions)

You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.

(another five assertions)

And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

(Three more assertions)

So about fifteen assertions in all (in just that one post).

The converse of each of those is easily deduced. Can you show that you KNOW any of them. ?

The converse of my statements are easily deduced? You can do it, but it won't make sense. And there aren't 15 different assertions. Mostly I am asserting the standards of proof and evidence, which requires observation. Most of what you said is just your opinion, yet you stated it as fact. THAT is my objection. If you want to assert something which isn't generally agreed upon (which all my assertions are) you have to back it up with evidence and logic to show us why it's true or at least plausible. Only God gets to talk in absolutes, and none of us agree he/she/it exists.

I liked your last response to Loseyourname. To me that is a careful and conservative statement about what is known. It contrasts sharply with your first comments.

 

[loseyourname]

I choose to interpret the word 'everything' to mean the latter, since if it does not, then we need another word that does mean 'everything' in that definition, so it might as well be 'everything' as any other combination of symbols.

Okay, but did you look at the actual poll question? It only asks about physical things.

So NO; I do not believe everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Do you believe that all scientific theories can be reduced to theories of physics and that explanatory power would be retained? I'm pretty sure that is the question Philo was trying to ask.

Do I believe every THING in the physical universe can be reduced to pure physics; my answer is YES (in principle) but probably not by us, and certainly not by me.

Okay, again, you think it can be done, but do you think it will have any real explanatory power at high levels of complexity?

That does not mean we can know everything about the physical universe; in other words it does not contradict Heisenberg. Heisenberg's principle of "Unbestimheit" (probably with an umlaut) IS a part of pure physics after all, not an antagonist to pure physics.

That's fine. Neither reduction nor explanation entails knowing the precise position and momentum, or energy and time, of every particle in the universe.

 

[saviourmachine]

Explanation of the physical world

...The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?"
...
I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics...

Given: physics. Asked: explanations.

So, indeed a quarrel about the given - as physics + metaphysics - doesn't belong to the topic.

Kind of explanations
But, what kind of explanations are asked for?

1. Is asked for our description abilities of physics? The scope of natural/mathematical/physical language?
2. Is asked for the scope of physical description? Can we describe poems with physical language?
3. Is asked for a new kind of way to describe physics? Does exist beside the approach of physics by mathematicians, poets, and songwriters, another new kind of approach?
4. Is asked for the validness of an explanation of physics? Is it possible to 'explain' physics?

Personally I think that (2) is the question you pose, loseyourname. And I think the answer is clear: no. Physical statements as now posed are too narrow to describe 'most things'.

Explanation in a language - what is a language?
I'm very interested in the scope of language - if I may call it that. Sign language can be regarded as a creole, not a pidgin anymore. What makes a language a real language?

Explanation of the plurality of existing 'languages'
How did we obtain languages of different levels? Why is it easier for us to describe everything in its own, specific language, than in one uniform language? There are chemical, physical, dance notations; biological, personal names; spoken, written, gestured utterances; computer, natural, scientific languages and the list goes on.
However, even if we have a language to describe a domain, I doubt about (1): that we can explain if we had the appropriate language: "Give me a paint and I'll give you a painting." [nothing more]

 

[Seafang]

The converse of my statements are easily deduced? You can do it, but it won't make sense. And there aren't 15 different assertions. Mostly I am asserting the standards of proof and evidence, which requires observation. Most of what you said is just your opinion, yet you stated it as fact. THAT is my objection. If you want to assert something which isn't generally agreed upon (which all my assertions are) you have to back it up with evidence and logic to show us why it's true or at least plausible. Only God gets "to talk in absolutes, and none of us agree he/she/it exists.

I liked your last response to Loseyourname. To me that is a careful and conservative statement about what is known. It contrasts sharply with your first comments.

I must be getting senile; I can't recall using the word "different" when I pointed out there were 15 assertions in that one post of yours.

As to whether MY statements are just MY opinions; you can't know that. They very well could be; and usually are, statements (or opinions) from other persons who KNOW far more than I do about the subject.

For some reason, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with some individuals without citing peer reviewed academic journals for evidence of any statement one might make. That leads to unreadable posts because every few words require a new citation and an addition to the bibliography, and it conveys no more information, and merely transfers responsibility or blame for the statement to some other person or source; who then becomes the natural target of reservations of credibility.

At least one poster who pops up now and then all over the place (fortunately not here (yet)) is quite incapable of saying so much as one complete sentence in his own words, on any subject he chooses to post about. He merely cites interminable lists of links to other places where one must spend endless hours looking for believable facts.

As I have told him on more than one occasion, getting an education means one is actually supposed to LEARN and remember some of these things, so that they can be retrieved without the internet to be used when out in the boonies, or lost on a desert island. Being able to cite sources for information is of no use when those sources become inaccessible, and aren't necessarily any more credible anyway.

So I don't cite a lot of sources, unless I also know in my head what those sources are. I remember the general sources I rely on, but not the specifics that can be listed in a bibliography, and I am too long in the tooth to care one whit, whether others believe anything I say or not. If they choose not to believe what I say, that's just fine with me; I start from the presumption, they probably wouldn't believe the source I got it from either; and I am not going to lose any sleep either way.

So fact or opinion; doesn't matter to me how you choose to interpret what I write.

 

[Fliption]

As to whether MY statements are just MY opinions; you can't know that. They very well could be; and usually are, statements (or opinions) from other persons who KNOW far more than I do about the subject.

I think the point was simply that they were opinions; not just "YOUR" opinions. They are opinions nonetheless. This whole post seems a bit insincere considering the comments in question are these:

The universe absent humans has no morality or ethics or religion or philosophy or anything abstract. it simply goes about its business with the big fish eating the little fish in a perfectly amoral environment.

MAN created GOD; not the other way around !

I don't think there is a rational person alive who would agree that these statements are anything but unfalsifiable opinions. No credible source would claim otherwise even if you bothered to list them. Of course, many of these rational people may actually believe this statement. But this would be nothing but their opinion, as Les was saying.

 

[Les Sleeth]

For some reason, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with some individuals without citing peer reviewed academic journals for evidence of any statement one might make. . . . I am too long in the tooth to care one whit, whether others believe anything I say or not. If they choose not to believe what I say, that's just fine with me; I start from the presumption, they probably wouldn't believe the source I got it from either; and I am not going to lose any sleep either way.

So fact or opinion; doesn't matter to me how you choose to interpret what I write.

You've missed the point. I wouldn't expect you to cite peer-reviewed academic journals, I just expect you to make your case. Often that does require a bit of evidence, but at the very minimum it requires a poster to demonstrate there are sound reasons for a stated opinion.

Just stating "The universe absent humans has no morality or ethics or religion or philosophy or anything abstract," or "MAN created GOD; not the other way around!" is saying nothing. Why should anyone care about what you think, and even if we did, how are we supposed to answer you? All someone can say is "Oh yeah, well God created man, naaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh , so there!"

If this were an "opinion" forum, then you could just drop in, lay your egg, and that would be it. But it is a philosophy area in the midst of a science forum! Call-in radio talk shows, or the General Discussion area here at PF are the places for unsupported opinions, not in philosophy (I wouldn't try it in any of the science forums either). No, tell us why your statements must be true, what facts support them, etc., and then we have the basis for a discussion.

 

[loseyourname]

Is asked for the scope of physical description? Can we describe poems with physical language?

Personally I think that (2) is the question you pose, loseyourname. And I think the answer is clear: no. Physical statements as now posed are too narrow to describe 'most things'.

I was really asking more about reducing other sciences to physics, not the reduction of the arts and humanities. I suppose you can include social sciences. It's interesting to note that Wilson indicates a belief that the humanities and social sciences will eventually be reduced to biology, but that biology cannot be completely reduced to physics. Of course, he is a biologist. Both English professors and physicists may disagree with him.

 

[Doctordick]

And I will come in on the other side. Rational thought and exact analysis can explain anything that can be explained. I can prove that statement is correct! What everyone will miss here is that a proof that something can be done does not necessarily mean one knows how to do it. Only an idiot equates the two concepts.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

And I will come in on the other side. Rational thought and exact analysis can explain anything that can be explained. I can prove that statement is correct!

Most of us know that a rational explanation is possible for just about anything one can dream up. Most of are familiar too with physicalist theory, and we know where the evidence gaps are. Yes, those gaps can be filled in with a rational explanation, but a rational explanation doesn't mean it corresponds to reality, and correspondence is the standard for science. No matter how logical you are, your explanation is merely theory without evidence.

What everyone will miss here is that a proof that something can be done does not necessarily mean one knows how to do it. Only an idiot equates the two concepts.

Yeah, but I can't even see you are all that logical. I know for a fact you can neither "prove" (using empiricism's standard of proof) that reducing everything to physics "can be done" nor that anyone "knows how to do it." Further, if in a science discussion, you want to decide proofs on the basis of logical validity instead of proofs based on evidence and observation, then you are demonstrating your own lack of understanding of the scientific method.

 

[saviourmachine]

I was really asking more about reducing other sciences to physics, not the reduction of the arts and humanities. I suppose you can include social sciences.

Do you believe that absolutely everything can be expressed scientifically?
-Hedwig Born to Albert Einstein

Yes, it would be possible, but it would make no sense. It would be description without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.
-Einstein's reply

I'd agree with Einstein for the last part. But I'm not sure about the possibility to express everything scientifically, far less physically.

I think that e.g. the following concepts can be difficult to describe scientifically: chance, hierarchy, information.

And, can mathematics be reduced to physics? Or is it the other way around? And are there no different ways to describe something? You can choose the math/language you like: Clifford Algebra, Lambda calculus.

 

[Doctordick]

And who is logical on this forum?

And I will come in on the other side. Rational thought and exact analysis can explain anything that can be explained. I can prove that statement is correct!

Most of us know that a rational explanation is possible for just about anything one can dream up. Most of are familiar too with physicalist theory, and we know where the evidence gaps are. Yes, those gaps can be filled in with a rational explanation, but a rational explanation doesn't mean it corresponds to reality, and correspondence is the standard for science. No matter how logical you are, your explanation is merely theory without evidence.

Now just read that over once. I did not say at all what you imply I said. I said that, "Rational thought and exact analysis can explain anything that can be explained": you show me how it is to be explained (that thing which can be explained) and I will show you how to transform your explanation into a mathematical expression. (One might think in terms of a Dewy decimal system of representing explanations or do you regard the "Dewy decimal system" to be a theory? )

What everyone will miss here is that a proof that something can be done does not necessarily mean one knows how to do it. Only an idiot equates the two concepts.

Yeah, but I can't even see you are all that logical. I know for a fact you can neither "prove" (using empiricism's standard of proof) that reducing everything to physics "can be done" nor that anyone "knows how to do it." Further, if in a science discussion, you want to decide proofs on the basis of logical validity instead of proofs based on evidence and observation, then you are demonstrating your own lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Yeh, I've noticed that you have difficulty recognizing logic. And, I didn't say everything can be reduced to physics. By the way, you seem to be saying that evidence and observation supersede logic: i.e., that an explanation need not be logical so long as it yields the observations used to support it. Sounds like astrology to me!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now just read that over once. I did not say at all what you imply I said. I said that, "Rational thought and exact analysis can explain anything that can be explained": you show me how it is to be explained (that thing which can be explained) and I will show you how to transform your explanation into a mathematical expression. (One might think in terms of a Dewy decimal system of representing explanations or do you regard the "Dewy decimal system" to be a theory? )

Of course you can represent any rational explanation mathematically. But the math corresponds to the explanation, not necessarily to reality. The over-used example is syllogisms like, "all dogs are white, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is white." The logic of that statement is perfectly valid, but it is not true that all dogs are white. You can easily represent that statement with math, but the math isn't going to give an accurate picture of that aspect of reality.

Yeh, I've noticed that you have difficulty recognizing logic.

In your posts I do. However, I have recognized lots of condescension, and very little actual substance. I don't think I've seen a single post by you that doesn't imply your superiority and/or others ignorance. If you are as learned as you claim, then why don't you demonstrate it on a post by post basis?

And, I didn't say everything can be reduced to physics.

In an earlier post you did (I challenged your use of the word "prove" that time too), so I assumed you still held that conviction.

By the way, you seem to be saying that evidence and observation supersede logic: i.e., that an explanation need not be logical so long as it yields the observations used to support it.

That sort of statement right there (you've said similar before) is what makes me think you don't understand science. I've said no such thing, and if you can find me saying it, then please post it here so all the world can see I am a nitwit.

Let's say I ask you for a map of Napa California. You figure out the most logical place streets should be based on the terrain of the area, and then hand me that as a map of Napa. Does that method work to produce a document which corresponds to reality?

You act like you are an authority on science, but then don't seem to even understand its most elementary principles. What kind of Ph.D education in physics fails to instill that science demands a map be drawn in correspondence with observation? Yes, logic is used to help one understand where to search for the evidence, but alone it produces no proof about external reality. All logic and math alone can "prove" is the internal validity of their own operations.

Sounds like astrology to me!

I don't know Doctordick, I'm afraid wanting to map by logic alone makes you the astrologer here. The direction this thread took early on was away from "explanations" and toward what can be proven with evidence. So I don't know why you are still pushing for a merely logical theory. If you want to present a theory, why not start your own thread and invite others to explore that theory with you?

 

[Philocrat]

Well I am not aware of anyone claiming that the answer to the question is 'yes'.

For those who interpret the word 'everything' to mean 'every THING', they might take the position that 'THINGS' are elements of the physical universe, and then assert that the answer is yes (well in principle), but if one interprets 'everything' to include nouns that are not objects in the universe; such as 'TERROR' for example, then the answer is clearly NO.

I choose to interpret the word 'everything' to mean the latter, since if it does not, then we need another word that does mean 'everything' in that definition, so it might as well be 'everything' as any other combination of symbols.

So NO; I do not believe everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Do I believe every THING in the physical universe can be reduced to pure physics; my answer is YES (in principle) but probably not by us, and certainly not by me.

That does not mean we can know everything about the physical universe; in other words it does not contradict Heisenberg. Heisenberg's principle of "Unbestimheit" (probably with an umlaut) IS a part of pure physics after all, not an antagonist to pure physics.

The distinction is irrelevant since the abstract term 'TERROR' is logically and quantificationally (or should I say, reductively) useless without the physical action that gave rise to it. Yes, it is possible for you to make the distinction exactly as you have done, but then a hard-headed reductionist may still insist that you not only must show clearly:

(1) HOW THE ABTRACT TERM 'TERROR' IS REDUCIBLE TO A PHYSICAL ACTION THAT IT PURPORTEDLY LABELS,

but also;

(2) HOW ALL THE PHYSICAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN BRINGING ABOUT SUCH ACT OF TERROR (HUMAN BEINGS, GUNS, KNIIVES, WND'S, THUNDER, HORICANE, TSUNAMI, FLOODS, FIRE, POISON, ETC) ARE REDUCIBLE TO THINGS IN OTHER SCALES OF REFERENCE.

This very fact became clear to me when Looseyourname woke me up (and perhaps everyone else as well) from my intllectual slumber to the fact that there is more to reductionism than just endlessly and fruitlessly concentrating on consciousness-phyisical reductionism. From what I understand of this, reductionism exists in other disciplines as well, such as Biology, Psychology, philosophy, Mathematics, etc. If they do, it is now of urgent need for us to demonstrate (1) how certain notions are reducible from one to the next within each discipline, and (2) how certain notions are reducible from one discipline to the next down or up the scales of reference. This distinction is very important because, very often, they are mixed up and confused as to what is precisely being demanded. So, in this very sense, 'IN-DISCIPLINE REDUCTIONISM' is equally as important as 'INTER-DISCIPLINARY REDUCTIONISM'

In the case of your own distinction that you were trying to make between the LANGUAGE TERM "TERROR" and the actual 'PHYSICAL ACT OF TERROR', for the purpose of having a name, this is pure and simple 'LANGUAGE-TO-PHYSICAL WORLD REDFUCTIONISM'. Well, this is one of the biggest problems that philisophers have been battling from time immerrial to resolve. This problem shows up in many areas of philosophy, including Philosophy of Langauge, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics etc. That is, how are propositions in our natural Langauge reducible to the very physical things and actions that they purportedly describle? Why should we trust propositions as correctly converying the truths about the world that they describe? Why should we take facts about the world conveyed in this manner as morally consistent or reliable? And when such propositions are turned into 'ACTIONABLE BELIEFS', the problems that philosophers face escalate twofold. The question now becomes: how do you prevent false propositions held in us in form of actionable beliefs from being externalised or actioned in the physical world? These are the key reductionist problems that all these different departments of philosophy are attempting to answer.

NOTE: How do I define the term 'SOMETHING'? Well, I define it as anything that has a connection (or connections) with anything else, regardless of its current 'Epistemological Status'. And my long-standing argument is that, if such connections exist, then such things are reducible from one to another up or down the scales reference. However, there is one type of connection or relationship that I personally find very difficult to comprehend, let alone accept, and that is the claim that there is a connection between 'SOMETHING' and 'NOTHING'. On this PF, I have gone down on record for vehemently denying the possibility of such connection. As far as I am concerned: 'SOMETHING' IS IRREDUCIBLE 'NOTHINGNESS' NOR 'NOTHINGNESS' TO 'SOMETHING'.

 

[Canute]

How are you defining 'nothing' here? Do you mean really, really nothing, or just what appears to be nothing to a materialist?

 

[Doctordick]

Of course you can represent any rational explanation mathematically. But the math corresponds to the explanation, not necessarily to reality.

You don't think I know that? I am afraid I am just not as dumb as you seem to think I am. Now I do not know about you; you say "of course" to what I said and then you diligently avoid taking a closer look by instead adding a stupid non sequitur.

I have recognized lots of condescension, and very little actual substance.

And you blame me for appearing a little arrogant? I keep reducing the amount of new information in my posts in an attempt to avoid exceeding your attention span and even the little bit of substance you happened to have picked up on appears to be too much.

If you are as learned as you claim, then why don't you demonstrate it on a post by post basis?

Because there appears to be no one here who manages to pick up on the difference in what I say and the outlandish distortions they presume I am implying. Just as you added in that phrase "but the math corresponds to the explanation, not necessarily to reality". What was that all about if it wasn't a straw man you were setting up to justify not thinking about what I said?

And, I didn't say everything can be reduced to physics.

In an earlier post you did (I challenged your use of the word "prove" that time too), so I assumed you still held that conviction.

I suspect you are here referring to:

I claim that physics (or shall we say "hard science" since the current state of physics has become rather senile in many respects) can explain anything.

You seem to omit that "hard science" comment! Did you think I just put that in because I liked to type? It didn't seem to stimulate any thought on your part. Just why did you think I pushed the point to "hard science" anyway; from my perspective you don't seem to be able to manage anything but emotional reactions to my comments.

Also, I never made the claim that you said an explanation need not be logical so long as it yields the observations used to support it; what I said was that you seemed to be saying that. The point I was trying to get across was that the first step in any approach to answering any scientific question is logic! If your ideas have no logical defense, you have to be an complete idiot to waste your time looking for experimental support. Without a logical basis, you don't even have the information necessary to suggest definitive experiments.

And I didn't say you said that for the very simple reason that I don't think you are a nitwit. I am trying very hard to get you to think about some simple things which are critical and everyone, including you, simply take for granted without a second thought.

Yeah, but I can't even see you are all that logical. I know for a fact you can neither "prove" (using empiricism's standard of proof) that reducing everything to [hard science] "can be done" nor that anyone "knows how to do it."

Now just how did you come to know that when you refuse to even discuss a logical attack? I know; God told you I couldn't didn't he?

Further, if in a science discussion, you want to decide proofs on the basis of logical validity instead of proofs based on evidence and observation, then you are demonstrating your own lack of understanding of the scientific method.

When I studied physics (of course that was a long long time ago and maybe standards have changed since then, but) we didn't use the word proof! Proof is a term people studying math and logic use. Physicists only use the ideas of proof when they are talking about extensions of their ideas into realms not yet examined: i.e., if they assume a specific theory is valid, they can prove some specific fact must be true. They then use that fact to check the original theory; it tells them what experiments to perform. Now, seriously, is that anything I should have to point out to you?

Yes, logic is used to help one understand where to search for the evidence, but alone it produces no proof about external reality. All logic and math alone can "prove" is the internal validity of their own operations.

See, you are aware of the need for logic; however, I would raise it up quite a way from "used to help one understand". Lack of logic is the single most prevalent error in most crackpot propositions. I would rather say that, in a hard science, it is an absolutely necessary starting point. Again, I am trying very hard to get you to think about some things which are critical to the questions you ask and which utterly refused to think about.

I'm afraid wanting to map by logic alone makes you the astrologer here.

Again, the same fabrication of straw men you like so well. I never said that I want to use logic alone; that idea comes totally out of your mind. You have decided that you know what I am trying to do and have no interest in learning any different. And again with this "theory" thing! I have never said anything about presenting a theory. I talk about proving something and theories can not be "proved"; the best one can do with a theory is demonstrate that it is consistent with reality!

The question on this thread is "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" and, of course, the answer depends on the definition as to what is and what is not physics. If one is going to treat physics as if it is no more than a specific field like dentistry (which seems to be where it is going) then the answer is clearly no. However, if by "physics" one means "hard analytical science" then the answer is yes and, as a matter of fact I can prove it. If "hard analytical science" cannot explain it, then it can not be explained! (Let me amend that to avoid misdirection by the simple minded and constrain the explanation to being a "valid" explanation by which I mean the conclusions of the explanation are consistent with reality; i.e., all the predictions logically implied by the explanation are consistent with the collection of experiments implied by that logical analysis,) Anything else is simply out and out BS.

Did you manage to follow any part of that? -- Dick

 

[Canute]

The question on this thread is "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" and, of course, the answer depends on the definition as to what is and what is not physics. If one is going to treat physics as if it is no more than a specific field like dentistry (which seems to be where it is going) then the answer is clearly no. However, if by "physics" one means "hard analytical science" then the answer is yes and, as a matter of fact I can prove it.

I'd very much like to see this proof. I've always thought that "hard analytical science" (and in fact even 'hard analytical philosophy') gave rise to undecidable metaphysical questions.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The question on this thread is "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" . . . if by "physics" one means "hard analytical science" then the answer is yes and, as a matter of fact I can prove it. If "hard analytical science" cannot explain it, then it can not be explained! (Let me amend that to avoid misdirection by the simple minded and constrain the explanation to being a "valid" explanation by which I mean the conclusions of the explanation are consistent with reality; i.e., all the predictions logically implied by the explanation are consistent with the collection of experiments implied by that logical analysis,) Anything else is simply out and out BS.

Did you manage to follow any part of that? -- Dick

I followed all of it and heard the same thing I've heard before. The rantings of someone who thinks he understands everything better than everyone else. As I said earlier, I've yet to see a post of yours where you don't slip that in somehow. It's really a turn off, no matter how brilliant you are. With that attitude I wouldn't let you instruct me on how to swat flies.

However, I also hear another of your repeated claims, which is that you can prove with hard science analysis that everything can be reduced to physics. That word "prove" is significant. If someone comes here and argues none of the predictions of GR have panned out, there are plenty of people around who can prove him wrong because because it's been demonstrated.

But no once can prove a physical basis of consciousness, that it's caused by neuronal complexity, for instance. No one can prove physical abiogenesis. You can prove there are physics involved in those circumstances, but you cannot reduce consciousness and abiogenesis to a physcial explanation AND also prove the explanation is true (not yet anyway). That "and" there is what I am debating with you about, and it seems to me you keep reaffirming your claim that you alone in this world do have that proof. If you did then you would be first to prove it, so why waste your time on me? Go tell it to the scientific community and collect your Nobel prize!

No. Since at least consciousness and life are part of "everything," and since they cannot yet be proven to be caused physicalness alone (either by way of "hard analysis" or by observation), your claim of having proof is clearly overconfidence. Like I suggested before too, why not start your own thread and show us this "proof" (and don't forget to account for the subjectivity of consciousness ). I would read it, and enjoy ripping it to shreads if you continue to call it a proof rather than, at best, a reasonable explanation.

 

[Doctordick]

Do you understand "pearls before swine"?

With that attitude I wouldn't let you instruct me on how to swat flies.

And considering your attitude, I wouldn't want to!

I'd very much like to see this proof. I've always thought that "hard analytical science" (and in fact even 'hard analytical philosophy') gave rise to undecidable metaphysical questions.

Some "hard analytical explanations" yield the existence of undecidable questions; i.e., the existence of undecidable questions does not violate my proof at all. Essentially what I said was, if hard analytical science cannot explain it, then no valid explanation exists. Now the proof is not trivial and it requires a patient and exacting mind to follow it. If you really are interested, I suggest you take a look at the "What is Evidence" thread starting with my post at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=441146#post441146

If you can follow my comments there and understand why I made them, there is a good chance you could follow the proof. If I can keep a decent interest there, I will lay out the proof. But I have no compunction to throw pearls before the thoughtless.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Canute]

And considering your attitude, I wouldn't want to!
Some "hard analytical explanations" yield the existence of undecidable questions; i.e., the existence of undecidable questions does not violate my proof at all. Essentially what I said was, if hard analytical science cannot explain it, then no valid explanation exists.

Actually all strictly consistent explanations give rise to undecidable metaphysical questions, not just some. You are therefore arguing that the universe has no consistent explanation. I agree. However that does not mean that it does not have an explanation, nor that the explanation cannot be known. All it means is that a strictly consistent formal explanation cannot be given. Buddhists and many others would agree.

Now the proof is not trivial and it requires a patient and exacting mind to follow it. If you really are interested, I suggest you take a look at the "What is Evidence" thread starting with my post at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=441146#post441146

If you can follow my comments there and understand why I made them, there is a good chance you could follow the proof. If I can keep a decent interest there, I will lay out the proof. But I have no compunction to throw pearls before the thoughtless.

Have fun -- Dick

Ok. I've browsed your posts. Now it's time to cast your pearls.