Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

selfAdjoint

It's spelled with a German umlaut (o with two dots over it). Pronunciattion varies but both Girdle and Gaydle are heard. When I learned German years ago, using oe to represent that in English was acceptible. Nowadays people conjure up the umlaut with keyboard tricks, but I can never retain those from one need to type Goedel to the next.

Next, both Goedel's theorem and Tarski's theorem (and the modern work by Smale and company) are theorems (duh). As such they are valid where their premises hold and are invalid where their premises don't hold. It isn't about compexity, it's about a particular kind of mathematical structure. And Goedel, in spite of tons of invocation by new agers, is strictly a mathematical thing. If you want to show it holds, you have to exhibit some branch of mathematics and prove it holds there.

Royce

Roger Penrose is a new ager? Who knew! Oh well, it was just a thought. I thought it might be a new approach to an old subject. I guess, now is where Rosanne Rosanna Danna would say; "Never mind!"

Philocrat

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is incompatible with a 'PARAPLEXED UNIVERSE'. Ofcourse, I am not suggesting that our present universe is composed of 'PARAPLEXES' (perfect parts). The Engineering Principle of the 'PERFECT FIT' forces paraplexed systems to completely expel 'CAUSAL AND RELATIONAL DEFICITS' from their structures. This implies that no paraplex (perfect part) can form part of a non-paraplexed system.

The fundamental engineering argument is this:

If our present universe is paraplexed (all parts of it are paraplexes), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is false.

It would mean that any part of the universe that appears uncertain or to function in an uncertain way is due to the human visual or obervational limitations. It would have no basis on the actual truth of the exact nature of our universe. Hence, the question that the Uncertainty principle advocates must now answer is whether our unverse (from the engineering point of view) is a 'PRARAPLEXED SYSTEM'. Is it?

Royce

selfAdjoint, while I know that Goedel's Theorem was and is a purely mathematical theorem I do think that it is really a universal Truth that applies to all of reality and the universe. This is just my opinion and I of course can't prove it.
To me it simply says that we cannot ever know everything. There will always be more to learn and know and that some things in this universe and reality are unknowable to us at this time. Knowledge is not and can never be complete. It can not all be set down in a formal bunch of rules forever ending human inquiry and reduce us to data processors blindly following the complete book of rules.

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.

selfAdjoint

This is the HUmpty-Dumpty school of discourse. "When I use a word it means just what I want it to mean... It's just a question of who is to be master." (Probably misremembered from Carrol's, Through the Looking Glass).


Making up your own meaning for well established terms, inverting logical categories, using woulda-coulda arguments, and refusing to accept any new information at all; Royce you are a true defender of mysticism!

Royce

My last post was meant only as a side comment of my personal opinion. From what I have just been reading Goedel was leaning a bit toward the mystical side himself.

I do not deserve your last post and it was beneath you, smiley face not with standing. Maybe its time you crawled out or your moldy textbook cave and watched the sun rise. There is a new age dawning whether you and other like you like it or not.

selfAdjoint

I apologize for the asperity. However I still don't think you are entitled to hijack Goedel's name for your own idea.

loseyourname

He's right, Royce. When you take a mathematically proven theorem and hijack the name to apply to your own pet intuition, you give the false impression that your intuition is equally proven. Whether or not you intend it, this is intellectually dishonest and misleading.

Royce

One of the wonderful things about pure mathematics and pure research is that it often applies or can be applied to the real world. As you both know I have been reading Shadows of the mind by Roger Penrose where he used Goedel's theorem to show that there are aspects of consciousness that are non-computational and thus according to him there is more to consciousness than can be duplicated by algorithms.
Reading this book, the thought came to me that this same approach might be applied to physics which is largely modeled, at least, by math and many if not most of the theories are given in mathematical forms. Thus physics is a form of a formal system that is largely mathematical and possibly Goedel's Theorem might be applicable to show that everything in the universe cannot be reduced by physics.

It was a thought that I thought was at least worth throwing out into the ring and see how well it stood up. It is not a pet theory of mine and I meant it in more of a dualist mode rather than spiritual or mystical mode which I no longer attempt to argue or discuss here. I had no intention of highjacking and thus soiling the name and work of a brilliant mathematician and sully pure mathematics by attempting to apply it to the mundane world of physics and philosophy.

If I have stepped on anyones toes, hurt their feelings or committed heresy in any way I apologize sincerely, profoundly and profusely.

(But, as I said earlier, according to Penrose, Goedel was at least dualistic and leaned toward mysticism himself. I really don't think that he would have been offended or would have minded one little bit.)

selfAdjoint

The noncomputational proofs of Chaitin also depend on digital systems. Pensrose has never really treated the analog possibilities, because his chosen opponent, traditional AI, even the neural net kind, has always been resolutely digital.

loseyourname

I still think you misunderstand the concept of theoretical reduction. Reduction does not mean that a complete proof of a formal system can be provided. If everything can be reduced to pure physics (as the title of thread suggests), that only means that all theories can be restated as theories of physics. Whether or not physics itself can be proven is not of consequence.

Royce

Then, if that is case, yes, everything can be reduced to to a physical theory.
Will they be sound valid theories legitimately within the realm of physics?
I don't think so. There are studies which are not a legitimate study of physics such as art, philosophy, metaphysics, psychology to name a few. Just as Einstein's quote in your signature a physical theory of art would be meaningless and useless.

Nereid

An interesting idea, but with respect to Penrose and yourself, Roger most definitely did not show this! All he did, IMHO, was cobble together a bunch of ideas in a highly idiosyncratic way, and hope that not too many readers would realise how 'unclothed' the cobbling was. In particular, since we have barely scratched the surface on the neuro-chemistry, physiology, (etc) of consciousness, to assert that there are aspects which are non-computational is bold (shall we say).Well, yes all this might be so. However, since (AFAIK) no one has attempted to do this - even superficially - we'll all have to wait for at least some 50k' details ... otherwise it's just pure speculation, n'est pas?

Oh, and given the provisional nature of all science, even if - in the 23rd century - your idea received a firm foundation in terms of the best physics of the day, no physicists (or Royce IV) could have any confidence that the new physics of the 24th century demolished the whole marvellous structure.

Royce

Yes, of course, it is pure speculation. I meant in no other way. Nor am I trying to demolish any structure. Did the advent of QM and Relitivity demolish classical physics?
May have dented it a little in extreme applications, but it didn't demolish it.

selfAdjoint

The advent of QM and relativity reduced classical physics to a subtheory, valid only under special conditions and up to a defined level of accuracy. And they introduced counter intuitive concepts like superposition and relative simultaneity, which directly contradict assumptions of classical physics and have attained very persuasive experimental support.

I think your posts would be stronger if you didn't bring in modern physics. The devil is in the details there, and this is not the thread to discuss them.

Seafang

Well to take YOUR assertions a bit further, YOU don't KNOW, any of the converses either.

So just what does KNOW mean to you; more importantly, what does KNOW mean in a universe devoid of Humans?

Inability to supply a rational explanation of something, does not justify blind acceptance of a completely irrational explanation.

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.


Those are two different issues. I know for myself when I've experienced something; I generally accept as "known" if I can confirm others have experienced something. That's it for me in terms of knowing.

But a universe devoid of humans doesn't mean the universe is devoid of some sort of consciousness, or devoid of beneficent purpose in some form or another. No one knows.


Why don't you show me some of my "irrational explanations." Or any instance of my "blind acceptance." Your knee-jerk skepticism is just "blind" as mindless acceptance.

You are the one who made statements as though you know the TRUTH. You said, "Well if you remove humans and ALL evidence of their existence from the universe, and leave all else untouched you will discover that you have also eliminated god. 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!"

You don't know any of that, it's just your unsupported opinion. Either gives us facts to prove it is true, or state it as an opinion (rather than fact), and then give us evidence to show why your opinion is justified. Opinionated or pontificating posts say nothing of value philosophically.