The World As I See It


by LogicalAtheist
Tags: world
LogicalAtheist
#19
May24-03, 08:09 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by FZ+
But didn't we all accept that "life" does not objectively exist as a concept?
Biology has nothing to do with life![;)] It has to do with the study of systems which the studier considers as living. Someone could conclude all chemical processes are life-like processes.

Subjectivist fallacy. Tut tut tut.

FZ - I guess you don't know what the subjectivist fallacy is.

And no one with a sense would condlude that.

The definition of Biology is the study of life. SImple as that, humans invented this study, so we define it.

Learn.
sage
sage is offline
#20
May25-03, 07:42 AM
P: 130
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Here is the world of truth as I have come to understand it.

1. Logic - The essence of rules of THIS existance. So raw and hardwired, there's almost nothing to say of logic in itself.

2. Math - When one chooses to use units to describe THIS existance, we get math. In and of itself it is the backbone of science. To explain something in science using math is an honor, as 2 + 2 always equals 4. There is no room for question

3. Physics - When applying math to the mass (and none mass) of the universe, we get physics. It is considered the HARDEST science.

4. Chemistry - If one takes physics (and the math that comes with it) and applies it particularly to atoms in terms of joining atoms to form elements, we get chemistry.

5. Biology - When one upgrades the parts of chemistry to the level of molecules that are involved in life, we get Biology. The third of the hard sciences.

Beyond this point is a bit open for ideas

Thanks for listening!
i absolutely agree!my own conceptions begin with physics however.i am a little "wooly" about how we get the laws of maths (2+2=4 etc.)are derived in the first place,the formal language of logic as well as what exactly does mathematics aims to do(apart from serving as the backbone of other sciences).some illumination is welcome.the definition you give for chemistry is a bit unconvincing made up as it is of such ill-defined terms as "joining"-anyway chemistry is not finished with the formations of elements is it?we have compounds,complex organic compounds which is the gateway of of biology.anyway can you unambiguously define life?my own hierarchy goes a bit like this:
1)logic with mathematics as a subset.i shall not try to define it as i am not fully conversant with their basics(which does not begin with memorising the rules 2+2=4 as many no doubt think)these comprise of the set of methods by which one obtains, analyses and interprets incoming information to understand whatever one wishes to know.if information is adequate then the application of logic>maths will give us the same conclusion no matter who applies it or how many times it is applied.
then comes the field of conclusions(read laws)we derive by applying 1.now since available info is about the universe we live in all laws derived by logical analysis concern entities residing in this universe.i shall compartmentalise the laws by ground first approach.suppose A is the set of laws which are followed by all entities in the universe.THIS IS PHYSICS.now a subset of these entities are elements and compounds.the set of laws followed by elements and compounds only, when they interact with each other is CHEMISTRY.interaction between elements form molecules which again interact with each other to form new molecules etc.all this is chemistry.now a system of mutually interacting molecules which tends to consistently decrease the entropy within itself is a subset of the entities over which chemistry works.the laws that are followed by this subset and not anything else constitutes BIOLOGY.thus we see,PHYSICS>CHEMISTRY>BIOLOGY.none is independant of each other.but the hierarchy exists nonetheless.
jman and you were quibbling needlessly.what you mean by removal j man means by collapse.
yes Qcarl if there were no intelligence in the universe there would be nobody to "discover" these laws and hence nobody to state whether there exists a universe even.but universe is simply there irrespective of any entity within it which can say 'yes it's there all right"!but that's the domain of philosophy.not relevant in this thread.
LogicalAtheist
#21
May25-03, 08:42 AM
P: n/a
Sounds good to me!

I actually consider logic to be a subset of math. Because most of logic can be expressed mathematically. Also, there is a bit of logic that can't such as fallacies etc... however to me these are just guidelines for writing "logical" arguments etc...

The concept of claims and premises works well in science. But I would just consider this a writing guide, nothing unique.

So actually logic might just be within math, because logic is the parameters of the universe but math can certainly describe these easily.


Originally posted by sage
i absolutely agree!my own conceptions begin with physics however.i am a little "wooly" about how we get the laws of maths (2+2=4 etc.)are derived in the first place,the formal language of logic as well as what exactly does mathematics aims to do(apart from serving as the backbone of other sciences).some illumination is welcome.the definition you give for chemistry is a bit unconvincing made up as it is of such ill-defined terms as "joining"-anyway chemistry is not finished with the formations of elements is it?we have compounds,complex organic compounds which is the gateway of of biology.anyway can you unambiguously define life?my own hierarchy goes a bit like this:
1)logic with mathematics as a subset.i shall not try to define it as i am not fully conversant with their basics(which does not begin with memorising the rules 2+2=4 as many no doubt think)these comprise of the set of methods by which one obtains, analyses and interprets incoming information to understand whatever one wishes to know.if information is adequate then the application of logic>maths will give us the same conclusion no matter who applies it or how many times it is applied.
then comes the field of conclusions(read laws)we derive by applying 1.now since available info is about the universe we live in all laws derived by logical analysis concern entities residing in this universe.i shall compartmentalise the laws by ground first approach.suppose A is the set of laws which are followed by all entities in the universe.THIS IS PHYSICS.now a subset of these entities are elements and compounds.the set of laws followed by elements and compounds only, when they interact with each other is CHEMISTRY.interaction between elements form molecules which again interact with each other to form new molecules etc.all this is chemistry.now a system of mutually interacting molecules which tends to consistently decrease the entropy within itself is a subset of the entities over which chemistry works.the laws that are followed by this subset and not anything else constitutes BIOLOGY.thus we see,PHYSICS>CHEMISTRY>BIOLOGY.none is independant of each other.but the hierarchy exists nonetheless.
jman and you were quibbling needlessly.what you mean by removal j man means by collapse.
yes Qcarl if there were no intelligence in the universe there would be nobody to "discover" these laws and hence nobody to state whether there exists a universe even.but universe is simply there irrespective of any entity within it which can say 'yes it's there all right"!but that's the domain of philosophy.not relevant in this thread.
FZ+
FZ+ is offline
#22
May25-03, 04:48 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
FZ - I guess you don't know what the subjectivist fallacy is.

And no one with a sense would condlude that.

The definition of Biology is the study of life. SImple as that, humans invented this study, so we define it.

Learn.
I get the feeling that ironically, your definition of the subjectivist fallacy is in itself a subjectivist fallacy - an imposition of personal subjective definitions as expressions of objective reality.

You see, IMHO, this view of the world can only extend to you, and your definitions of life etc that imply the above hierachy. Since you have defined life etc to be derivatives of physics, and physics to be derivatives of mathematics etc, it is of course logical that this hierachy develops. However, you cannot then say that this hierachy is objective "fact" as you suggest. It is however particular to your personal view of these things. Hell, I agree with your system in most part. But... it is not universal. That's the point.
gnome
gnome is offline
#23
May26-03, 11:48 AM
P: 1,047
quantumcarl:

Your statement that "thusly... moreover... futhermore... these systems and their place in any ficticious heirarchy remains relative to whether or not they are observed" is extremely anthropocentric. It is equivalent to claiming that a tree can't fall if nobody is there to observe it. The study of physics and chemistry would not exist without sentient beings, but the phenomena surely would (and did) exist without us.

LogicalAthiest:

I would not consider logic to be a subset of math, but the other way around. Math is a subset of logic. Logic provides the framework that is necessary to develop and justify mathematical principles.

So your hierarchy was fine as you originally enumerated it, but all it says is that one field of study provides the foundation for the next, and so on...

That does not justify your conclusion that this hierarchy somehow proves that the universe is completely deterministic.
We could go further, and describe the entire physics of every interaction which causes these organisms to do a particular relation. This would take an enourmous amount of information, but could be done.
Absolutely not! Physics does not tell us what every electron, every atom, even every molecule, will do. It only tells us the relative probabilities of the various things they might do. So when you get up to the level of complexity of the interaction of two biological organisms, you could never predict the exact outcome of the interaction even if it were possible to isolate your subjects from all outside influences (which in itself is impossible).

(By the way, what is the Superimposition Error?)
quantumcarl
quantumcarl is offline
#24
May29-03, 11:18 AM
P: 903
Originally posted by gnome
quantumcarl:

Your statement that "thusly... moreover... futhermore... these systems and their place in any ficticious heirarchy remains relative to whether or not they are observed" is extremely anthropocentric. It is equivalent to claiming that a tree can't fall if nobody is there to observe it. The study of physics and chemistry would not exist without sentient beings, but the phenomena surely would (and did) exist without us.
Firstly, I'll admit that I am of the camp which believes there is a noise in the forest when a tree falls... even if I don't hear it.

However... my conclusion, in this case of "if a tree falls...", is, as FZ+ calls it, a "subjective fallacy". I have no way to prove to you that a tree has fallen if I don't (have a biological system to) go and gather the data that supports my assumption.

This also applys to what you have written above... you say:

"the phenomena (of physics and chemistry) surely would (and did) exist without us."....... and I say......... you can not prove it without the use of a biological system... also known as "life". There's no way.

And, for now, it is my considered opinion...

now that we have come this far on such a mundane subject (which belongs in the Philosophy Area, by my calculations)

that Biological Systems are the actual foundation of any perceived heirarchy amoung the sciences... because it is by way of biological processes that these sciences were perceived, conceived, were observed and were recorded.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is the interlockings of the material world to the spiritual world. General Discussion 9
The end of the world? General Discussion 15
how do you think the world will end General Discussion 36
the world is looking up General Astronomy 4