Self Reference and Physics

**stevefaulkner** · Nov11-09, 08:37 PM

Is there self reference in Nature?

Foundations of The Quantum Logic

**FoxCommander** · Y, 05:47 PM

are you refering to how particles, in the quantum mechanics realm, will always face the in the direction that you look at them? like the spin and such? because that only happens at those extremely small levels, and even those properties are unexplained even at the quantum level

**stevefaulkner** · T, 08:46 AM

Self reference is a phrase used in logic. If I write a statement like: "The Universe includes the Physical Laws" and then write another: "The Physical Laws control the Universe", The two statements together imply that the Physical Laws control the Physical Laws. Which is self referent.

**A.T.** · T, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by stevefaulkner

Self reference is a phrase used in logic. If I write a statement like: "The Universe includes the Physical Laws" and then write another: "The Physical Laws control the Universe", The two statements together imply that the Physical Laws control the Physical Laws. Which is self referent.

You can make arguments like this about anything:

A robot is controlled by a computer & The computer is part of the robot. -> The computer controls the computer.

Physical laws are not controlling anything but only describing a part of the universe. The physical laws themselves are not included in that part.

**FoxCommander** · T, 09:21 AM

ha ha, i was way off. And yes that makes sense but i dont think that physical laws control the universe. Its not like they have a mind of their own and can change when they want. They simply describe the actions of the universe.

**stevefaulkner** · T, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by A.T.

The physical laws themselves are not included in that part.

If the Physical Laws are not part of the Universe, where are they? If science is concerned with understanding the Physical Laws; is it not inconsistent, to accept without understanding, Agencies causing the Physical Laws?

**stevefaulkner** · T, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by A.T.

The computer controls the computer.

Yes you can make arguments like this about many things. Your own statement about computers is a good example of self reference. Do you know of a computer/robot, that is genuinely turned off, with no power to it, that can switch itself on?

My question is whether a universe needs an outside agency to initiate it or can it do this by some self referent means. Although the question I am asking seems like some clever logical trick, that does not mean it should be disregarded. It is a proposition that can be addressed or alternatively ignored, but it cannot be dismissed on the grounds of not having a simple answer.

**A.T.** · T, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by stevefaulkner

If the Physical Laws are not part of the Universe, ...

I didn't say that. I said physical laws are not included in the part of the universe, which is described by physical laws.

Originally Posted by stevefaulkner

If science is concerned with understanding the Physical Laws; is it not inconsistent, to accept without understanding, Agencies causing the Physical Laws?

Physical laws are human made quantitative descriptions of the observed nature. As long as no "agencies causing them" are observed in a quantitative manner, these "agencies" are not part of physics.

Originally Posted by stevefaulkner

Although the question I am asking seems like some clever logical trick, that does not mean it should be disregarded.

I think your 'logical trick' is called "naive set theory" and was shown self-contradictory long ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox