Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

~~Doctordick~~ · Jan27-05, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

Originally Posted by 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!

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?

)

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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** · Jan27-05, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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** · Jan28-05, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Seafang

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** · Jan29-05, 10:12 AM

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

~~Doctordick~~ · Jan29-05, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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.

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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.

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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?

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

Originally Posted by DoctorDick

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:

Originally Posted by DoctorDick

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.

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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?

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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?

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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.

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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** · Jan30-05, 07:46 AM

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** · Jan30-05, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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~~ · Jan31-05, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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

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

Originally Posted by Canute

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:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...146#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** · Jan31-05, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...146#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.

**Les Sleeth** · Jan31-05, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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

What attitude is that, the failure to kiss your condenscending rear?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

. . . I have no compunction to throw pearls before the thoughtless.

The onlyl pearls you've been throwing are pearls of self-aggrandizement.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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.

Do you really think everyone around here is going to agree ". . . if hard analytical science cannot explain it, then no valid explanation exists"? If you start off with that a priori assumption, you are going to have a fight on your hands every step of the way from some of us.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you really are interested, I suggest you take a look at the "What is Evidence" thread starting with my post at:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...146#post441146 . . . "This is a finite mechanical problem which we all know is solvable (we have all solved it via intuition); so why is no one interested in solving it via logic? Most tell me that's because it can't be solved and I am a crackpot for thinking it can be."

Maybe you should listen. It can't be done and still be called "scientific." It might be called philosophy, but who knows since all we've seen from you are attempts to get readers to commit to buying your approach wholesale, and calling them idiots for refusing of course, before you even have put out one substantial idea.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Some "hard analytical explanations" yield the existence of undecidable questions; i.e., the existence of undecidable questions does not violate my proof at all.

That is not the standard even for a good scientific theory, much less a proof.

The material below is a taken from a link provided by Tom (another supermentor...btw, Nereid is a woman) to a theorist hopeful. It's notes taken from a lecture (which explains the choppy writing) on Popper's falsification concept that is now accepted as the standard for a scientific theory. Nothing I've read of yours (or what you claim you want to do) approximates it:

What makes a theory scientific? Or, what distinguishes science from non-science? (The demarcation problem.) Initial proposals:

(1) Science offers explanations.
(2) Science is objective.
(3) Science is descriptive.
(4) Science makes predictions.
(5) Science proceeds from observation.

The trouble with the initial proposals: they don’t do any distinguishing.

Popper

The following is the wrong answer to the demarcation problem: science is inductive; it proceeds by observation and experiment. Why is that the wrong answer? Non-scientific theories can be based on observation and experiment, e.g., "…astrology with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation—on horoscopes and biographies.”

Popper’s 4 candidate theories:
(1) Einstein’s theory of relativity.
(2) Marx’s theory of history
(3) Freud’s psychoanalysis
(4) Adler’s individual psychology

Popper’s intuition: (1) is scientific, (2)-(4) not. Truth is not the issue. At the time, Popper didn’t believe that Einstein’s theory was true. Exactness also was not the issue. The appeal of (2)-(4): Their apparent explanatory power. Exposure brought about an “intellectual conversion” and confirming instances of the theory were seen everywhere. Indeed, nothing seemed to count as disconfirmation, as evidence against the theory. Every observation could be interpreted in light of the theory.

The difference with respect to (1)— Einstein’s theory: The theory makes risky predictions, predictions which, if false, sink the theory. Einstein’s theory has the result that light, like material bodies, is attracted by heavy bodies such as the sun. This led to the prediction that the light from certain stars—those which appear in the night sky as close to the sun—would appear, if observed in daylight, as slightly shifted away from their normal position, slightly further away from the sun.

This prediction can’t be tested in ordinary circumstances because of the sun’s brightness. But during an eclipse one can take a photograph of a star’s apparent position in the daytime sky. And then photos of the star taken in the day and in the night can be compared and its apparent distance from the sun can be measured. This is just what Eddington did. And the prediction of Einstein’s theory was shown to be correct. The significance of this, acc. to Popper: Einstein’s theory, unlike (3)-(4), is incompatible with certain possible results of observation.

In other words, Einstein’s theory is refutable or falsifiable (the term that has stuck). It is possibly false. If our observations had been different, it would have been shown to be false (though they weren’t and it wasn’t). This, then, is Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem: A theory is scientific just in case it is falsifiable.

Truth is not the issue for Popper. Accordingly, his solution to the demarcation problem doesn’t make being true a criterion for being science. Theories that are true may be falsifiable. But, equally, theories that are false may be falsifiable as well. Some consequences and corollaries of Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem:

Theories not falsifiable by any conceivable event are not scientific. (Thus, the naïve view that science strives for irrefutability gets things exactly the wrong way around.) Every good scientific theory is a prohibition--it denies that certain things may happen. A test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. “Confirming evidence” is too easy to come by and should only count towards the acceptability of a theory if it is the result of an attempt at falsification.

Some genuinely falsifiable theories, when falsified, are maintained by their admirers either by re-casting the theory or adding auxilliary assumptions. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory only by destroying or reducing the theory’s claim to scientific status. (Popper calls such rescue operations conventionalist twists.)

Who passes the falsification test?
(1)—Einstein’s theory of relativity—passes. It makes risky predictions (re: the apparent positions of stars, e.g.) Astrology fails. Vagueness of its predictions makes it unfalsifiable.
(2)—the Marxist theory of history—fails. It once passed, but it was given various conventionalist twists.
(3) and (4)—the psychoanalytic theories—fail. No conceivable bit of human behavior could refute them. Non-science but not unimportant. Analogy with primitive myths. These myths often shape later science (the ancient Greek examples).

**saviourmachine** · Feb1-05, 08:32 AM

Only explanations by hard analytical science count

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Essentially what I said was, if hard analytical science cannot explain it, then no valid explanation exists.

What is valid, what is valuable? Everything hard analytical science can explain nowadays? Everything hard analytical science can explain somewhere in the future? How do you know what will be explainable sometime?

I read through your linked post. What did catch my attention was:

"A correct analysis should include all possible answers." If that is possible. That's a belief in mental (or even linguistic) reductionism (the physical plane can be mapped to the mental plane).
"Work out logical consequences." with which logic system? S5?
"When we find a difference [in a theory], all we have to do is look at reality and see which consequence actually occurs." If there is sufficient and obtainable data.
"Existence of meaningless questions." If it is possible to decide what is meaningfull and what not. If the subjective viewpoint of mankind (or the individual) doesn't influence what is meaningfull.
The frequent use of 'possible'. That falls in the realm of potentiality, not of reality.

And I've a few questions.

Do you think that the ambiguity in language doesn't have a function?
Do you think that it's impossible to have ambiguity in physics itself? That never different valid answers can be found in nature?

What is valid?

**Seafang** · Feb1-05, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth

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.

And here I thought the question was;- "Can everything be reduced to pure physics?". I don't see any mention of philosophy there.

At what point does an OPINION become a FACT? Is it when every sentient being in the universe; known or unknown, accepts it as his opinion, that makes it into a fact, or is just a plurality, or a majority, or some other quorum of opinion holders who turn opinions into facts.

The history of science is replete with examples of facts that turned out to be not facts; well in most people's opinion. I think they call it concensus or something like that. Is it a fact if the National Academy of Sciences says it is a fact, or is that just the opinions of a private club of individuals who self select their membership; which tends to be exclusive of dissenting opinions as to what the facts really are.

But to get back to one statement I made, which yes is my opinion; that MAN created GOD, there is plenty of historical evidence for that. The histories of social groups and cultures dating back to the dawn of history contain evidence of ordinary individuals essentially enslaving their fellow folks, and subjugating them to a life of fear and obeyance based on ignorance and fear of the unknown.

The manipulation of other people through fear is as old as history, and the number of 'gods' created in these endeavors, is as numerous as the different cultures of history and geography. One thing entirely missing from the concept of these 'gods' is any notion of universality. Even today, some presumably intelligent cultures have numerous gods all of which they created. And they all seem to have the purpose of enforcing compliance with preferred behavior.

Now all of that is simply my opinion based on my observations of people's behavior and my readings of their history and the behavior of their ancestors. None of that makes it a fact, because there will always be those who disagree, and disagreeing with someone else's opinion is a necessary and sufficient condition for an opinion not being a fact.

So perhaps there are NO facts, merely a concensus of opinion.

~~Doctordick~~ · Feb1-05, 03:37 PM

Well "saviourmachine", my first impression on reading your post was that it was "Harv" (a pseudo intellectual from Chicago I am familiar with). When I discovered that you had only made 57 posts, I read them all (as I have no interest in responding to Harv). Actually, you sound like a very rational person and, barring my disillusionment, I think we could have an interesting conversation. My first comment is to point out that "only explanations by hard analytical science count" is not what I said though the position does receive a lot of support from my proof.

My second step is to first discuss your ending questions.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

Do you think that the ambiguity in language doesn't have a function?

Yes, in the interactions of human beings, it has a very significant function. It allows them a great range of ambiguity in their dealings with one another. Without it many institutions essential to civilization might not even exist. Now, we could spend our entire lives discussing the "good" and "bad" aspects of that. Some people enjoy the freedom to quibble (it seems to me it drives most of the posts on this forum). In fact, that's why I thought you might be Harv. One very significant aspect of that ambiguity is that it prevents communication.

One of the excellent consequences of preventing communication is the fact that it is impossible to communicate beliefs from one generation to another. Misunderstandings will invariably occur and, in an attempt to make sense of what they think the previous generation is saying, new unique perspectives will arise. Without that ambiguity I suspect intellectual advancement would soon cease.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

Do you think that it's impossible to have ambiguity in physics itself? That never different valid answers can be found in nature?

If you think what I said implies that, I have entirely failed to communicate my thoughts to you. In fact, my position is entirely opposite to that position. I am of the opinion that the entire scientific community has failed to take into account alternate interpretations of the "facts" they are trying to explain.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

What is valid, what is valuable? Everything hard analytical science can explain nowadays? Everything hard analytical science can explain somewhere in the future? How do you know what will be explainable sometime?

Aren't these exactly the questions the scientists should be asking themselves? Shouldn't they do their best to take these issues into account in their perspective of the problem they are trying to solve? That is my position; I became a pariah in the physics community because I felt these issues were more important than "current research".

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

"A correct analysis should include all possible answers." If that is possible. That's a belief in mental (or even linguistic) reductionism (the physical plane can be mapped to the mental plane).

I think you are taking advantage of the ambiguity of language to misrepresent my position. How did "reductionism" get into my position that no possibilities should be omitted? Is it really your position that, in order to avoid being "reductionist" one must omit some possible answers? If so, would you clarify what answers you want to omit?

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

"Work out logical consequences." with which logic system? S5?

Aren't you referring the need for reducing ambiguity here? Or is this rather an attempt to use ambiguity to avoid thinking? I would suggest that, if you have an issue you want to explain to me, you come up with the logic system you would like to express yourself in and then explain it to me. Hopefully we can reduce the ambiguity to a level where I can understand you. If not, well, that's life; some things are very hard to communicate.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

"When we find a difference [in a theory], all we have to do is look at reality and see which consequence actually occurs." If there is sufficient and obtainable data.

Isn't the existence of "sufficient and obtainable data" part of reality? Or are you using ambiguity to muddy the waters? Apparently the only complaint you have concerning looking at reality arises from the same source.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

"Existence of meaningless questions." If it is possible to decide what is meaningfull and what not. If the subjective viewpoint of mankind (or the individual) doesn't influence what is meaningfull.

Even if it does my position is still valid! What is meaningful and what is not is very sensitive to what you know and what you don't. If the information necessary to answer a question cannot possibly exist in your view of reality, I think the question can easily be labeled "meaningless". It is little more than definition of the term. Almost all your complaints rest entirely on the existence of ambiguity. And I have no argument with that issue at all. It is a problem we have to deal with and I think I know how to deal with it. However, it still stands as a major barrier in trying to communicate my ideas: i.e., English is very ambiguous mode of communication; particularly with people whose interest is not in understanding.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

The frequent use of 'possible'. That falls in the realm of potentiality, not of reality.

So, if you don't want to consider all possibilities in a hard scientific attack, explain to me how you, in your great authority, decide which possibilities should be ignored. Again, I really get the feeling you are using the ambiguity in communications to avoid thinking.

Originally Posted by saviourmachine

What is valid?

Which this question simply verifies! If you were really trying to be clear, you would realize that it is exactly your definition of "valid" which provides you with the mechanism to defend omitting those unrealistic possibilities you are accusing me of improperly including. Again we are talking about the ambiguity of the English language; there are many definitions in English which are not at all clear. But, as I said earlier, life is tough. At the moment we have little else to use in our communications.

You said you read the post I referenced. Again ambiguity raises its ugly head. What I said was:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you really are interested, I suggest you take a look at the "What is Evidence" thread starting with my post at:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showth...1146#post441146

If you can follow my comments there and understand why I made them, there is a good chance you could follow the proof.

What I meant was for you to read the thread (or at least my posts), not just that single post. Of course, if that is too much for you I will accept it.

Have fun -- Dick

**Fliption** · Feb2-05, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Seafang

But to get back to one statement I made, which yes is my opinion; that MAN created GOD, there is plenty of historical evidence for that. The histories of social groups and cultures dating back to the dawn of history contain evidence of ordinary individuals essentially enslaving their fellow folks, and subjugating them to a life of fear and obeyance based on ignorance and fear of the unknown.

I don't think this is necessarily untrue Seafang. But the fact that man has created gods doesn't say anything about whether god exists separate from the efforts of man. Your initial comments seemed to bridge the two. We obviously cannot prove or disprove the latter.

**saviourmachine** · Feb3-05, 08:25 AM

Hi Doctor,

"Ambiguity prevents communication", so you say, and "without ambiguity [from one generation to another] intellectual advancement would cease". That has more nuances than I could find in the thread you linked, sorry that I couldn't find that at first sight.

I agree with you with posing many answers to a question, trying to falsify them and so on. If there is ambiguity in physics itself, and science would find a way to handle that, it would be fine. I hope science will continue to pose (non-)standard answers.

That is something I hope for, not where I believe in. I am afraid that the current scientific way to look at things is too immature, that I've been born too early. For example, I am looking at the moment to definitions as: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexicon, prosody, syllable, that all are defined (in different ways

) in linguistics, but without taking in consideration sign languages or iconic* languages.

IMHO ambiguity has to be reduced generally, but not at all costs. And probably it will turn out, not to be possible either. Therefore we do have different logical systems, different physical theories, different opinions about self-arising systems and so on.
If I "use ambiguity to avoid thinking"? Maybe... I point to the plurality of opinions, theories, systems in advance, but when I've time, I try to go into depth.

* see thread on EvC forum (link), actually, I am looking for a linguistic forum

~~quantumcarl~~ · Feb4-05, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Philocrat

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

The only way to describe our physical universe is by way of our experience of the physical universe which is often termed physics.

Even biology, psychology and other disciplines rely soley on physics for their very existence. Without the intracate mechanisms that arise from a physical existence no other science or study could exist.

I will even further suggest that ethics is governed by physics. I've seen the equasions and they make sense. If I must I will dig them up for you. But there are parallels in physics with ethical philosophy that leave little room for anything other than a strong suggestion of a governance of physics.

To site the numerous conjectures that claim higher powers have created and control existence in the physical universe is easy until you try to prove the contention.

The fact is that even if there are non-physical entities doing their dambedest to run the physical we cannot study them for the simple fact that we are physical and our physical nature would pollute our study results of the non-physical.

In conclusion I believe the zen approach is the best way to try to get a full understanding of whatever the universe throws at us... including spirit or non-physical realities. That approach entails studying, with great discipline, that which we have in front of us. Studying that which we can observe. Studying it until we know it like we know our own breath. Then, there will come a moment when we may have a glimpse of understanding with regard to other matters............ or non-matters!