Are Some Physics Questions Just Impossible to Answer With Our Current Brains?

[rewebster]

zomgwtf---isn't your 'opinion' also called your philosophy? I read your opinions on the areas we're discussing.

What conclusions? I read what was stated as part of the hypothesis. did you come in with preconceived ideas (conclusions)?

math isn't often part of a philosophic discussion---but it is up in the physics sub-forums (sometimes)

Z mentioned "the practical application of such a thing." Not all discussions lead to a "practical application"--

 

[zomgwtf]

zomgwtf---isn't your 'opinion' also called your philosophy? I read your opinions on the areas we're discussing.

What conclusions? I read what was stated as part of the hypothesis. did you come it with preconceived ideas (conclusions)?

math isn't often part of a philosophic discussion---but it is up in the physics sub-forums (sometimes)

Z mentioned "the practical application of such a thing." Not all discussions lead to a "practical application"--

Yet another post with the mere intent of getting responded to yet taking in nothing from what was originally posted.

I never said my opinion wasn't based on philosophy. It's YOU who is claiming something about my opinion being 'science based' or 'philosophy' based... whatever the heck that means. All I'm doing is laying out what words mean and how they are applied.

I never said you made conclusions. Re-read my post.

Math isn't often part of philosophic discussion... ok great. What's your point again? (I swear I could post this after every post you've made.)

I'm not even going to correct your misconception of Zappers position I'll just tell you to read the entire thread again, maybe take some notes if it helps straighten out everything in your mind. --I don't even understand how you decided to encorporate this in a response to what I said... I don't see anything to do with this as part of what I was stating about the discussion.

 

[Nebula815]

Teleport yourself back to the early 1900's, and I bet you'll be one of those who will make the same complaint against the SR and QM. But besides the basic knowledge aspect of it, which we have seen throughout history to eventually find direct practical applications later on, there's also a completely lack-of-information here on all the http://www.iop.org/News/file_34737.pdf" - everything from synchrotron light centers to the x-ray machines in your doctor's office.

That is my point. What can seem like a useless question at one point can actually prove very fruitful later on, once answered.

Here's an apple. Can you tell me WHAT an apple is? Now look at your answer and all you have is a series of characteristics and properties of an apple. If you think you "know" what an apple is, I can tell you that you don't know it as well as what physics knows about electromagnetic force.

Sure; at heart, physics can't tell ultimately what an apple is made of, because no one knows the smallest particle (if there even is one). Physics is also limited in this sense regarding the EM force.

Your response here have rather strengthened my original assertion that you have no interest in discovering if your original premise was even valid.

I would have to say your original assertion is incorrect.

Even in philosophy/logic, it is well known that a faulty premise can give you all kinds of ridiculous outcomes. This is going along in that direction as expected.

Not really. Again, there is absolutely no way to know precisely "WHAT" it is that causes attraction between negatively charged and positively charged particles. All there is, is mathematics.

Which is fine for practicality and knowing it exists, but there has to be more to it than that. My premise is simply will we ever be able to understand that "what" to things like the EM force.

It is also strange that you question about the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, and yet this thread is edging on towards a "philosophical" discussion without you questioning the practical application of such a thing.

Zz.

I do not question the practical application and usefulness of basic knowledge, my point was that many say asking certain questions is pointless and impractical. Yet asking questions that may have seemed pointless one-hundred years ago has led to much more advanced technology being created.

 

[Nebula815]

So Nebula go ahead and show the understanding of the principles behind your conclusion.

Tell me precisely what the EM force is that causes a proton to attract to an electron? You can't. You can give a lot of math to describe it, perhaps, but otherwise, the brain can't conceptualize it.

As well the comment you made about The Black Hole War, what exactly are you saying? That this book shows that Hawking and Susskind disagree on what happens to information when it enters a black hole? I thought the disagreement came from what happens to the information once the black hole has evaporated... (hawking says it's gone forever susskind says it's still there)

Maybe that is it, but either way, my overall point is there is no way they can experiment with something like that to find out who is right. Hawking says the information is gone forever, Susskind says that means the work of many great physicists is ultimately wrong and he disagrees with Hawking thus. But neither one can find out. It is all speculation. Just theory.

So is that science? Or philosophy? That was my question.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is the "causality paradox" I was referring to. This same paradox can be applied to regression of levels of complexity. I think what people were getting frustrated by was that you choose a level of complexity for which there does exist a simpler descriptive causative level. By saying that lacking an understanding of a phenomenon at all possible levels of causation is the same as having no understanding, you have eliminated all possible knowledge due to the nature of this paradox. So I understand what you are trying to say, but your point is a bit muddled, since saying we can't undertand the electromagnetic force because there is some level of causation at which are understanding cannot reduce is like saying we don't understand Newtonian mechanics, or anything else for that matter, because the same argument applies.

Patiently and articulately stated.

The trouble with the question of the thread title, Nebula, and most of the others you ask, is that it is the result of unnecessarily positioning yourself relative to the issue(s) such that you merely generate more questions. In other words, regardless of what an amazing amount of information humans have gathered about any given phenomenon, you're going to be the guy who defines physics as too hard and our current brains too limited simply because there's yet another question that can be posed.

 

[Nebula815]

Patiently and articulately stated.

The trouble with the question of the thread title, Nebula, and most of the others you ask, is that it is the result of unnecessarily positioning yourself relative to the issue(s) such that you merely generate more questions. In other words, regardless of what an amazing amount of information humans have gathered about any given phenomenon, you're going to be the guy who defines physics as too hard and our current brains too limited simply because there's yet another question that can be posed.

From what I have gathered here thus far, the questions I am asking are not regarded as physics. People say they are "philosophy," because physics can't answer them in the way I want. But then does this make them unanswerable? Do we humans need more powerful brains to do so? That is what I mean.

 

[JDStupi]

I'm sorry Nebula, but at this point I believe everybody is starting to get frustrated with the way you are conducting your argument/thread and it is probably going to die shortly. Anyway, may I ask why you made this thread? You ask if our brains can coneptualize answers to questions and then people give you answers and you deny them, say they're wrong and continue saying we don't know what's going on. Now, if you re-state the question to what it seems like your really asking "Can we humans ever give a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force?" then, NO we cannot. We think and communicate through language, language is limited to perception and experience and concepts formed from those two, it is limited to the three dimensional, macroscopic world as viewed by humans, so NO we cannot get a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, so yes your right, we can't know it, if that's the only criterion for true knowledge, how about I ask if we can ever "really" get a "precise" knowledge of love using mathematics, we don't really know love and affection because I cannot describe it with mathematical relations, that is a flawed questionfrom the start, nobody would set out to describe Love and everyday emotions etc in terms of Mathematical/quantitative frameworks, likewise nobody will describe the electromagnetic force precisely with everyday language.

 

[zomgwtf]

From what I have gathered here thus far, the questions I am asking are not regarded as physics. People say they are "philosophy," because physics can't answer them in the way I want. But then does this make them unanswerable? Do we humans need more powerful brains to do so? That is what I mean.

The questions you have asked would be philosophical because it is a has already been stated a PARADOX. You ignore the math framework set up to describe the phenomena (in this case a force) and then claim that we 'can not know using our brains what the phenomena is'.

Since you dismiss mathematics as giving a good enough answer the only other way to solve this problem is through philosophy (metaphysics)... because you're going to run into where did that come what created that, how does that work, why does it exist, does it have purpose? Etc. etc. ad infinitum everytime you get an answer.

Instead I posed that YOU give what you ALREADY know about theories behind the forces (mathematical/philosophical/scientific) and why you think that they are not 'enough'. Instead of doing that you tell ME to give YOU a description... what's the point of THAT? So you can just tell me 'well what IS that'?

The problem isn't with the questions you ask, it's with the position you have taken.

@your comment on the book, it's mathematics and science... how is that so hard to understand? There ARE experiments that can be done to make observations on theories... like the effects it would have what would be produced etc. etc. even though we can not test the actually theory. The rest would be a mathematical framework.

 

[rewebster]

JDStupi--I believe your assumption/conclusion ("IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN") is invalid though. 200, or even, 100 years ago, do you think people could have realized the technology, or things that they are doing and have found out, like condensates, and are able to "give a precise qualitative description" of them as they are writing them out today?

 

[Nebula815]

I'm sorry Nebula, but at this point I believe everybody is starting to get frustrated with the way you are conducting your argument/thread and it is probably going to die shortly. Anyway, may I ask why you made this thread? You ask if our brains can coneptualize answers to questions and then people give you answers and you deny them,

People did not give answers to the questions. I was told the questions are not physics, are not important, can be explained mathematically purely, etc...

say they're wrong and continue saying we don't know what's going on.

I never said anybody is "wrong" I said no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point.

Now, if you re-state the question to what it seems like your really asking "Can we humans ever give a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force?" then, NO we cannot. We think and communicate through language, language is limited to perception and experience and concepts formed from those two, it is limited to the three dimensional, macroscopic world as viewed by humans, so NO we cannot get a precise qualitative description of the electromagnetic force, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, so yes your right, we can't know it, if that's the only criterion for true knowledge,

And that leads to my main point for all the questions: Is this due to our brains simply being too limited to conceptualize a qualitative answer or if we evolve more so over the next million years, do you think we will be able to? In other words, the concept can be understood through more than just mathematics, but our brains lack the ability to do so at the moment.

how about I ask if we can ever "really" get a "precise" knowledge of love using mathematics, we don't really know love and affection because I cannot describe it with mathematical relations, that is a flawed questionfrom the start, nobody would set out to describe Love and everyday emotions etc in terms of Mathematical/quantitative frameworks, likewise nobody will describe the electromagnetic force precisely with everyday language.

On love, this is interesting, because artificial intelligence computer scientists who are strict atheists might have a bone to pick with you!

 

[JDStupi]

Rewebster, I can see what your saying, and I suppose I shouldn't have said "It will never happen", but at the same time it still seems highly unlikely that a precise defintion of exactly what the nature of electromagnetic force and charges etc are will be acquired apart from with qualitative descriptions of the understanding gained from the quantitative framework. And I suppose I said that referring to "precise qualitative description" similar to the one he is insisting upon.

I do not think we will "know" qualitiatively what the electromagnetic force is exactly because no matter the evolutions we go through we will still only be experiencing it how it comes to us through sensation, I don't think it is neccessarily a problem of intellect. But I don't know exactly what type of qualitative description apart from the one we have you are asking for, I suppose it is all so speculative

"no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point" - True, nobody can.

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

 

[Nebula815]

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

I mean, for example, can a computer ever be programmed to love? Is intelligence something from a higher power or realm, something humans cannot create, or can a computer that is powerful enough, with proper software, also become self-aware, self-conscious, and have emotions and be able to fall in love? And thus the emotions are mathematical in that sense?

Are emotions from a soul or just solely due to the chemical processes occurring in the brain? In this sense, maybe love can be created via an ultra-sophisticated computer program or algorithm?

Or maybe only intelligence could be created with a powerful enough computer and algorithm, but emotions themselves, being chemical-related in humans and animals, would require that computer to have chemical stimulation...?

For example, a pure "brain" without a body never could become "horny" for a member of the opposite sex because it's just a brain lacking a body. So for the computer brain to love, would it too need stimulation from chemicals or something?

I'm not expecting anyone to answer these, I am just speculating here.

 

[rewebster]

Rewebster, I can see what your saying, and I suppose I shouldn't have said "It will never happen", but at the same time it still seems highly unlikely that a precise defintion of exactly what the nature of electromagnetic force and charges etc are will be acquired apart from with qualitative descriptions of the understanding gained from the quantitative framework. And I suppose I said that referring to "precise qualitative description" similar to the one he is insisting upon.

I do not think we will "know" qualitiatively what the electromagnetic force is exactly because no matter the evolutions we go through we will still only be experiencing it how it comes to us through sensation, I don't think it is neccessarily a problem of intellect. But I don't know exactly what type of qualitative description apart from the one we have you are asking for, I suppose it is all so speculative

"no one can really answer the questions in the way I am asking, that is my point" - True, nobody can.

The subjective experience of love is being described mathematically?

I think I give the impression that it is (very, very) possible --and not too far off in the future either.

As far as Nebula815, I really can't tell if he's pessimistic or 'just wondering'

 

[Nebula815]

I tend to lean more pessimistic with regard to us current humans, although I am not going to say it is outright impossible, however with a more evolved human, I am much more positive.