Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Rothiemurchus]

DoctorDick:
The problem is that in today's world of "hard science" philosophy is generally considered an unscientific pursuit. Certainly no graduate school of modern physics that I am aware of includes any requirement of "metaphysics" in its curriculum.

Rothie M:
You're right about this DD and it's a bad thing because universities
are detatching students from the ability to use and argue with language,
to be creative and to consider other people's points of view.
Great physicists like Einstein took philosophers seriously e.g Mach.
My old university still calls its department of physics
"The Department of Natural Philosophy."
Good on them!
And it's great to have your expertise back on these forums.

 

[Rader]

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it.

I agree. Would you mind posting it when you get back, I will read it, not sure if I would use it, until I read it.

 

[loseyourname]

DoctorDick:
The problem is that in today's world of "hard science" philosophy is generally considered an unscientific pursuit. Certainly no graduate school of modern physics that I am aware of includes any requirement of "metaphysics" in its curriculum.

This is off-topic, but I really like the grad program at the University of Arizona. It allows you to major in the philosophy of mind while minoring in cognitive science. The only program I know of where you can actually get a taste of both sides.

Also, regarding the question about why human consciousness should have evolved, I think it's important to note again that a given trait does not need to provide any selective advantage. Many evolved traits simply emerged from other traits or evolved because of gene-linkage. Trying to fit every trait that a human being has into a theory of evolutionary selection is dubious at best. The vast majority can be, but not all.

 

[Bobby R]

Physics for problem solving?

By restricting yourself to pure Physics you run the risk of limiting thought in order to keep your solution in the box. Is that where you want to be?
Bob Rollins

 

[loseyourname]

I've just received confirmation from Gregg himself that his book A Place for Consciousness has just recently been released officially. It's available directly from the publisher http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Mind/?ci=0195168143&view=usa. (It's also available on Amazon, although they seem to have listed an incorrect release date.) In any case, the ISBN number is indeed 0195168143.

Just ordered a copy. Is this why you were calling yourself "Liberal Naturalist" back in the day?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. If you don't like my definition, please give me an example of an explanation which provides nothing regarding your expectations. Or one which provides something which cannot be interpreted as saying something about your expectations.

I hope you don’t mind that I mixed up the order of your comments to help me answer them more logically.

Within the context of empiricism’s own standards, a proof requires the observation of what is hypothesized to be true. A theory, no matter how brilliant, is not a proof unless we can observe all relevant aspects. It might be that the title of this thread gave you the impression that a plausible explanation would do; but I think everyone agreed early on that we were debating if physicalists could prove all existence was strictly physical since we already know there are plenty of theories (i.e., “explanations”) floating around.

Now, to me your post seems a little ambiguous about if you are ready to provide a proof. For example, when I asked you if that’s what you were going to provide you said:

That's what I offered to do isn't it? However, the proof is not trivial and it requires some serious thought. Are you really ready?

Well now, I certainly am confident that I can demonstrate a "valid logical argument"! If that is grounds for dismissal then your idea of hard science and mine seem to be quite far apart.

I was ready to retreat, thinking maybe rather than actual proof you meant merely a logical explanation. But you repeated you could “prove” physical processes can account for all aspects of reality.

Regarding logical validity, as most logic students can attest to, a valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument. An argument is valid as long as it obeys the rules of logic, and it isn’t dependent upon the premises of the argument being true. An example is: all dogs are white, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover is white. That is a perfectly valid argument, but unsound since all dogs are not white.

Anyway, after confirming you would provide proof you go on to say:

I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. A good explanation is one where the expectations are consistent with observations (and "observations" are additions to that "known information"). Anyone, let me know if you find fault with that definition!

That’s a satisfactory definition of an explanation. It is most definitely not a definition of an empirical proof, which is the basis of “hard science” you said you were going to make your case from.

In addition you say:

The requirement you state is not the one I claimed to be able to perform. I claim to have discovered a solution to a very specific problem: the problem of explanation itself. If you are willing to accept my definition of "an explanation", then I can show you how to construct an absolutely general "mechanical" model of any possible explanation of anything.

Now that sounds like you are backtracking from the standards of proof. Within the context of this thread’s theme, I wouldn’t accept any “proof” that varies from empirical standards. Either you can prove it or not. I already understand the value of a good inductive argument, and I don’t doubt that you might have one. But that wasn’t what you were offering (or at least so I thought). If you simply meant that you have a compelling theory, then maybe you could start a thread to discuss it where I’d be happy to reflect on your concepts.

Unless there is an error in my construction procedure, there exists no explanation of anything which can not be mapped into the "mechanical" solutions of that model. The conclusion is that "hard science" is applicable to any problem, philosophical or otherwise. It is the nature of explanation itself.

Well, that’s what this debate is about. If you mean that life and consciousness, for example, have physical aspects to them, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But if you mean every aspect of life and consciousness can be accounted for with physical processes alone, then I do dispute that.

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it.

I think you have to understand the hard problem since it specifically addresses why physical processes currently cannot explain consciousness. Here’s a reference to a Chalmer’s paper that explains the hard problem: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

What you seem to be saying here . . .

If you have facts that prove, not just indicate, consciousness is the result of physical processes, that life can come about through abiogenesis, that physical processes are the sole first cause of the universe's origin and the only influence which has made it develop the way it has . . . then that would be interesting indeed

. . . is that you need your intuitive position on what's right to yield the result or you won't accept it. One would conclude that you certainly are not a person "determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence."

Why would you assume my position is intuitive? I have not claimed I can “prove” or personally know how life and consciousness originated. I am the skeptic here, you are the one who has offered a proof. I don’t think you or anyone else in the world can prove, through the empirical standards of hard science, that life and consciousness are purely physical. But if you can, I am open to that proof (and hey, if you need a ride to the Nobel Prize ceremonies . . . . ).

I am looking for someone who, "in pursuit of the truth", "is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be".

Are you certain you’ve open-mindedly examined every facet of existence? Or have you looked primarily at physical factors?

I have never met such a person in my life; at least not one with an education. Education tends to stifle such proclivities. I also suspect Les would baulk at living up to it.

I have a fine education, but for me there is nothing to live up to. Why should I care, or resist, what the truth is? Reality is the way it is, and no amount of wishing it fits my personal theories or prejudices will change that. I am just trying to weigh the evidence. I will stay uncommitted to “belief” until I know what the truth is, and feel just fine about it too.

I can tell you, however, that I am skeptical of any theory developed by someone who has mostly studied physics in an attempt to understand the nature of reality. To me it’s like trying to get an objective opinion about political philosophies from a committed Marxist.

Also, if I seem resistant to signing on for your explanation, it’s because I’ve had one too many lectures from physicalists telling me I need to understand physicalness better simply because I think physicalist theory currently lacks a couple of facts it needs to make sense. I thought I detected that tone in your initial post, but if I am wrong you have my apologies. I have debated these issues for a couple of years here, and for the areas where I am critical, my science understanding has proven more than adequate.

 

[Taoist]

“It seems the rarest thinker and investigator is one determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence, again, no matter what it may be.”

This view will ultimately birth the intuitive side of our existence. Way2go!

Déjà vu is self generated fact(s) giving a glimpse of a capability unknown in any physical explanation still a known fact to every human.

Aristotle had used intuition in interpreting arguments which had taken the eye of the observer into the process of explanation in a way leaving the objective viewpoint open to the argument. Einstein also left room for this debate knowing the incomprehensible amount of variables even now still appearing in new observations. It was this acknowledgment of variant observational attributes that makes the observer a part of the equation. This needs to bring into account the situations having been realized by the observer or the observer(s) history in its entirety.

So I pose to summarize these “illusions” that offer the path of cognizant reasoning still maintain the perspective of a longtime parable of the Upanishads, “he who states they know, knoweth not” since the interpretation has limits in today’s explanations based on limited sight of relative education or experience. Try and explain déjà vu. Two theories authored offer a logical view but quantum mechanics or either relativistic theory has not been able to acknowledge life’s complexities.

Today’s acceptance of metaphysics as a philosophical method of explanation is founded in relativistic review of the process to explain the event. Intuition seems to represent itself when the brick wall appears, not just because of lack of knowledge but comprehension. The point of humility (honest and true), offers that entry point to observe or realize the answer, although not easy to represent in calculations or drill-downs, but easy to know.

This combination of metaphysical or physical explanation and mortal being is where the next generation of our scientific interpretations will surface. Being able to apprehend a scientific interpretation will ultimately require a theological aptitude to comprehend.

Let’s take into account the fourth dimension with all its complexities intertwining all events with all explanations at a given point and you will be able to predict where that proton will appear. Not being capable, intellectually, of comprehensibly taking all into account resoundingly makes the answer the question “Can everything be reduced to pure physics?” a moot point!

"Avoid living at all costs." Why? Are you missing the jack of spades?

 

[Seafang]

well... even if we could make a fairly good representation of everything in the entire universe, it would still be subject to our translations and be an approximation... approximations leaves errors, and thus, nothing can be fully explained by physics...

a precise model would demand infinite accuracy and like Heisenberg stated, that leaves other faults... you people should know this...

so no...
but one day in the future perhaps, scientists will have made fairly good representations of everything in the universe, but they will not be 100% accurate and can thus never be used to explain every aspect without fault...

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

There are NO points, NO lines, NO spheres, or any of the other creations of mathematics. Now we made up our mathematics largely to try and explain the universe, and mathematics does exactly describe the models which we also made up to describe the universe; but it doesn't describe the real universe; merely approximates it.

Somebody already mentioned Heisenberg who pointed out that we can never know everything about even the simplest physical system; a single particle. We can't observe its present state completely, and hence we can't predict its future state either. Even as simple a dynamic problem as the general problem of three bodies in relative motion under the laws of physics. Even within the limitations of Newtonian physics no general solution exists, although special case solutions are known; in particular three bodies moving in a plane at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The 'Trojan' asteroids which group along the orbit of Jupiter, sixty degrees ahead and 60 degrees behind the planet are examples of stable three body trajectories (including the sun).

The failure of our analysis is more substantial than even Heisenberg since Kurt Godel showed that certain postulates are quite undecidable anyway. Mathematical systems which are completely consistent within their own rules evidently don't exist.

There is an even bigger issue than the accuracy of our 'physical' models of reality. In the real world we observe things and we measure things, and we can perform all manner of experiments and note the outcome. But that is too much stuff to note down in some 'compendium of all knowledge'. We simply can't do every possible experiment to find the outcome; so we create theories to relate experiments with similar ones and try to predict the likely outcome of even experiments no one has ever performed.
Our only interest in these theories is that they correctly predict the outcome of experiment yet to be performed. So as a practical matter we don't even care whether 'theories' are 'unique', or follow everyday common sense, or not. They survive based only on their ability to save space in our compendium by accurately predicting the outcome of an experiment.

So we have both particle and wave theories which describe elecromagnetic phenomena in two different ways and each useful in certain regimes.

So theories can be as arcane or as silly and unintuitive as we like so long as they correctly foretell the future result of an experiment.

So we need to get away from asking whether physical theories are real or not; it matters only if they correctly deduce the outcome of a real experiment which we can conduct, and if we have a half dozen different theories that describe the same set of experiments, they are all good theories, and maybe some better than others in usability.

So the universe is real, our models and theories of it are not real, and nor is the mathematics which governs the behavior of the models.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So we need to get away from asking whether physical theories are real or not; it matters only if they correctly deduce the outcome of a real experiment which we can conduct, and if we have a half dozen different theories that describe the same set of experiments, they are all good theories, and maybe some better than others in usability.

So the universe is real, our models and theories of it are not real, and nor is the mathematics which governs the behavior of the models.

I agree that theoretical models, mathematical or any other sort, are not the reality they represent. Since this debate has primarily become whether there's enough evidence to prove existence is the result of only physical processes/laws, it seems you are agreeing with those who say we can't yet prove everything can be "reduced to pure physics."

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Les,

No, I don't mind you mixing up the order of things at all. I am gone but I had access to the web tonight and thought I might look at the thread. Actually I was quite surprised by the activity here. I thought maybe a quick response was called for (for the next four days, I doubt I will have any access to the net at all).

A theory, no matter how brilliant, is not a proof unless we can observe all relevant aspects. It might be that the title of this thread gave you the impression that a plausible explanation would do; but I think everyone agreed early on that we were debating if physicalists could prove all existence was strictly physical since we already know there are plenty of theories (i.e., “explanations”) floating around.

I have no argument with you here. On the other hand, I do not mean merely a logical explanation. I have a very logical proof (at least no one has yet pointed out a flaw) of a subtle relation inherent in any examination of anything (insofar as that examination is to produce an explanation of something). My post seems ambiguous because removing the ambiguities is not an easy process.

The proof amounts to a demonstration that absolutely any explanation of anything in any subject can be mapped into the consequences of a "physical process". If my proof is correct, since I can explicitly show the mapping of a perfectly general explanation into physics terms, it follows directly that all explanations can be mapped into physics terms.

That’s a satisfactory definition of an explanation.

Thank you! What that does is provide me with a starting position. Now that I know exactly what an explanation is, I can present an abstract model of an explanation which is applicable to any explanation conceivable.

Well, that’s what this debate is about. If you mean that life and consciousness, for example, have physical aspects to them, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But if you mean every aspect of life and consciousness can be accounted for with physical processes alone, then I do dispute that.

I think I can prove exactly that (or rather, if they cannot, they cannot be explained by any process)! Now the arguments are subtle; but I hold that they are exact.

With regard to Chalmer's work (I believe I have read the paper you refer to), I had considerable exchange with Chalmer a number of years ago and he simply refused to look at my work under the personal conviction that what I said I could do could not be done.

Why would you assume my position is intuitive?

This is an entirely different subject and I would love to discuss the impact of intuition on ones thoughts. But, let's do that at some later date. I respect you as a careful thinker and I did not mean to be at all disrespectful.

Are you certain you’ve open-mindedly examined every facet of existence? Or have you looked primarily at physical factors?

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and the main reason I did not pursue a profession in the field is that I disagreed with the philosophical basis of the physicists beliefs. Physicists are not near the gods of rational thought they would have you think.

Why should I care, or resist, what the truth is?

Because it is hard to believe! Try explaining statistical analysis to an astrologer. Do you realize that professional astrologers still make good livings, thousands of years after it is well shown to be of no predictive value? People stick to their beliefs very strongly.

I think physicalist theory currently lacks a couple of facts it needs to make sense. I thought I detected that tone in your initial post, but if I am wrong you have my apologies.

You owe me no apologies. I have no knowledge of your education. A bit of familiarity with partial differential equations would be nice.

I will be back in five days and look forward to further discussion. I would just like to get some of the parameters of the discussion a little more refined before tripping off to the light fantastic.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

The proof amounts to a demonstration that absolutely any explanation of anything in any subject can be mapped into the consequences of a "physical process". If my proof is correct, since I can explicitly show the mapping of a perfectly general explanation into physics terms, it follows directly that all explanations can be mapped into physics terms.

I sort of feel sorry for you if you want to convince me a logical proof is really a proof. I am working on a thread idea now I probably will call "Radical Experientialism." In it I will state my own standard for proof which is only one thing . . . experience. I can not accept inference or logic, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. The only thing that convinces me to the level of proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced.

If you hadn't put the word "proof" in there, I'd be more open to hearing a new epistomological theory. But once you claim you can achieve a proof, like a bulldog I clamp down on the experience requirement and won't let go until you make your hypothesis observable, or admit you can't do it.

 

[Taoist]

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

Nice statement! Where did this come from?

Let try
phys·ics (fzks)
(Physics)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And Mathematics is the universal language that this thread is requesting an answer for the age old question. The problem is the variant minds who offer their interpretation; do they know enough language to address this question?

 

[Taoist]

Les you stated

"In it I state my own standard for proof which is one, and only one, thing . . . experience. I do not accept inference, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. I do not accept logic, no matter how brilliant, as proof. The ONLY thing I accept as proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced."

This is your limiting factor. Explain deja vu; it cannot be explained yet you and every human alive has experienced it.

This is just one of the "proofs" that has made the path of mathematical explanations fall short of completing the equation. There is no way of bringing all of the variables into a "simple equation" as Einstein or Hawkins let alone the world is looking for.

As far fetched and all encumbering as it reflects it also brings into play another fact; every particle that is has always been and every bit of energy affects every other.

These are proven facts but not very well comprehended especially knowing that we are mere specs in the scope of the known universe. So probabilities have been the norm in explanations as quantum mechanics tends to address for our limited resources. We work from probabilities in which a variant is sought versus a specific answer.

So can we explain the universe in pure mathmatics? Not with today's availability of the known variables BUT the answer can be realized with further understanding or theological diciplines.

As strange as it is that spot in between conscious thought and intuition is where the answers appear but good luck putting an equation to it. I have tried for over 25 years. Unable to do so but look at the work of Einstein and Tesla, not the published abstracts but the quotes taken. They knew the same thing I state but are not willing to stake a reputation on it.

These 2 example have given more to us than is available to the general public. In fact go into Tesla's work and you would find he was far ahead of even Einstein in using his intellect for mankind.

locate the plans on the stagmatic generator and cure the need for nuclear power ... a prime example of using intuitive understanding in practicle application and even now since it cannot be broken down it will continue to be surpressed.

 

[Taoist]

Finally look at the pole... it appears the majority agrees with me. Multi-disciplinary efforts will offer the best explanation.

I have always believed true mathematicians are the thoroughbred's of intellectual reasoning with blinders on. They just cannot allow theological views to the table.

A loss to us all!

 

[hypnagogue]

Hypnagogue

Thanks for all the stuff on Rosenberg. I think you ought to write a book explaining his. I attempted his (its downloadable as a pdf for anyone who wants to check it out) but after about a third of the way I lost track of what he was talking about and skimmed the rest. I instinctively liked his approach to causation, a topic that IMO physicists have not yet addressed properly, but in the end I didn't understand it. Is he proposing microphenominalism? It seems like it, but I'm very confused as to what he is really saying. I don't think my brain is quite up to understanding his arguments, which to me seem gratuitously complex. (I felt he had modeled it on Hofstedters GEB, which I felt also buried the key issues under the details). I wouldn't criticize it though, not without reading it again a few times.

Yes, it can get difficult at times, but I'm glad you were interested and gave it a shot. If you're still interested in exploring his ideas more thoroughly, please see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55766 and post your thoughts there.

What are the metaphysical consequences of his ideas? That is, what do they suggest for cosmogeny and the ontology of matter and consciousness?

In brief, Rosenberg suggests that something like consciousness is the fundamental kind of 'stuff' that exists in the universe. The rich network of relationships described by physical theory is nothing more than the system of relationships that this underlying 'stuff' engages in. So physicalism is essentially characterized as a kind of functionalism, describing a purely abstract network of relationships but not mentioning that which instantiates those relationships. Rosenberg motivates the case for something like consciousness being that phenomenon which actually carries out and realizes the abstract system of relationships described by physics.

With respect to cosmogeny, Rosenberg toys with the idea of using his theory of causation to construct a background-independent spacetime. That is, he sketches some ideas of how causal relationships could account for the kind of structures we see in space and time. Traditionally, we see causation as taking place in and being conditioned by spacetime, but this approach tries to turn the tables and show how spacetime is conditioned by causal relationships.

He also has a metaphysical picture which takes a realist position with respect to possibility. That is, he conceives of sets of possible states for phenomena as in some sense actually existent (as opposed to pure abstractions), and views causation merely as an operator of constraint on a given domain of possible states. So in this view, to cause something is to constrain its possible states to the extent that only one possible state/event/outcome remains. This metaphysical picture of causation and possibility winds up dovetailing very nicely with quantum physics, where we see the existence of sufficiently unconstrained systems that appear to exist in several different possible states simultaneously, until some causal mechanism winds up constraining the system to only one possible determinate state.

 

[Seafang]

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

Nice statement! Where did this come from?

Let try
phys·ics (fzks)
(Physics)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And Mathematics is the universal language that this thread is requesting an answer for the age old question. The problem is the variant minds who offer their interpretation; do they know enough language to address this question?

Well Taoist, I am not sure of the meaning of your question; "where did this come from ?"

I thought it came from a post I just typed in and which you cited; that is where it came from. Does 'stuff' need some annointed source before it can be understood?

As for mathematics being a "Universal Language", nothing could be further from the truth. As I said it is all fictional and we humans made it up in our head. There's nothing fundamental about it.

Anybody can invent their own mathematics merely by stating some axioms, which then become assertions of truth, and then based on that you can twiddle knobs and see where it all leads.

For example suppose I assert the following axioms:

1/ Two points define a line, which passes through the two points.

2/ Two lines define a point, which lies at the intersection of the two lines.

3/ There are at least four points.

Can I do anything mathematically interesting with that set of axioms.

Well yes I can. For a start axiom 2 establishes that this must be a two dimensional mathematics, since in ordinary Euclidean geometry, I could have two lines which lie in different planes and never intersect anywhere, but when confined to a plane, any two lines intersect as asserted by the second axiom.

What about parallel lines you might ask; they don't intersect. Well maybe they don't in Euclidean geometry, but in this mathematics they do; axiom two says so. Does that mean there are no parallel lines in this mathematics? No it doesn't ; parallel lines exist, and they do intersect, in fact parallel lines intersect at a point on 'the line at infinity'. Which is the definition of the line at infinity. so now I have removed the parallel line anomaly, but can I do anything or prove anything with thatset of axioms.

Well I can prove as the first theorem, that there are at least seven points. This comes very simply from drawing the four points which axiom 3 says exist, (I suggest an irregular quadrilateral shape) and then using axiom 1 to draw the lines that form the four sides of that polygon.

Two more lines can be drawn namely the diagonals of the quadrilateral, and you will see that three new points exist, making a total of seven.

Unfortunately, I cannot prove that there are any more points than seven, but there are at least seven points.

Sounds pretty useless doesn't it. But in fact every single theorem of Euclidean plane geometry can be rigorously proved within the confines of this decidedly non-Euclidean geometrry. There are some surprises. Circles and the conic sections ellipse, parabola and hyperbola exist, although cones don't, and most surprising; whereas in Euclidean geometry, a circle is a special case of an ellipse, that is not true in this geometry, a circle becomes a special case of a hyperbola. Even more strange is that all possible circles intersect each other, and they do so at two special points called the circular points at infinity (they lie on the line at infinity).

Ellipses don't touch the line at infinity, parabolas touch the line at infinity at two coincident points, and hyperbolas cut the line at infinity at two points. If those two points are the circular points at infinity, the hyperbola is also a circle.

Now try findng something elsewhere in the universe that corresponds even vaguely to this mathematics which somebody a long time ago, made up from those three simple axioms.

Mathematics is about as universal as the baseball world series.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les you stated

"In it I state my own standard for proof which is one, and only one, thing . . . experience. I do not accept inference, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. I do not accept logic, no matter how brilliant, as proof. The ONLY thing I accept as proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced."

This is your limiting factor. Explain deja vu; it cannot be explained yet you and every human alive has experienced it.

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

 

[loseyourname]

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience. For instance, we cannot see black holes or electrons, but we can observe the effects of causal relationships they have with surrounding elements in any given system in which they are postulated to exist. Do you consider this proof that black holes and electrons do indeed exist?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience. For instance, we cannot see black holes or electrons, but we can observe the effects of causal relationships they have with surrounding elements in any given system in which they are postulated to exist. Do you consider this proof that black holes and electrons do indeed exist?

No I do not. I will try to post a thread about this in the next week, but a short answer is, for practical purposes we have to proceed with what has been indicated is true. So I realize treat some things as proven even if they are not.

But to get precise about your examples, what would I say about having observed the effects of something theorized to be true, say a black hole, on its surroundings? I'd say that observations are consistant with the theory of a black hole, but that until we can actually observe a black hole, it is not proven. The more indirect evidence we have that supports a black hole, the stronger becomes, not a proof, but the reasonableness of an assumption.

Then you might ask, so what do those indirect observations prove? What is proven are that effects have been observed. That's it, nothing more. All else remains in the category of theory.

 

[Taoist]

Well Taoist, I am not sure of the meaning of your question; "where did this come from ?"

I thought it came from a post I just typed in and which you cited; that is where it came from. Does 'stuff' need some annointed source before it can be understood?

As for mathematics being a "Universal Language", nothing could be further from the truth. As I said it is all fictional and we humans made it up in our head. There's nothing fundamental about it.

Anybody can invent their own mathematics merely by stating some axioms, which then become assertions of truth, and then based on that you can twiddle knobs and see where it all leads.

Mathematics is about as universal as the baseball world series.

There are many theorems within mathematics and many may choose what works for them but when buying a plane ticket to anywhere in the world please be sure to count your money at the appropriate exchange rate. I can assure you the index will be different but a value will be required as a universal language.

 

[Taoist]

I haven't put any limitations on the kind of experience I will accept as real. If you told me you were going to prove deja vu or the value of intuition, then I would consider it proof if I could experience them (which I have). I am simply saying that I don't accept logic alone as proof. If you reasoned to me how deju vu makes sense, but I can't experience it myself or observe anyone else experiencing it, then I'd say deju vu might make sense as a theory but it hasn't been proven it exists.

So let’s theorize a little; the universe cannot be simply explained within physics without the intuitive side of the mind properly conditioned notwithstanding the limitations of empirical data or specific theological views in reasoning.

Using logic as a single point of an analysis is where the blinders begin to form. Having both an “intuitive” and logical experience in mental synthesis simplifies the understanding.

Factual belief in itself as seen in black and white also can be thrown off keel if any single sense is subject to an unknown interference during the experience or experiment. So let’s suppose that statements of fact are in itself subject to its exposition but further disseminated through intuitive analysis is quicker to the actuality then reason. Or simply said, “your first impression is usually the right one.”

All humans have answers within, universal as fact, yet unrealized by most simply because the articulation of the occurrences have never been truly understood or furthered in study.

 

[Futobingoro]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)
2. Compile all mathematical equations that deal with the universe.
3. Enter them into one huge computer.

What this will do is that you could know what color shoes Billy Bob in a town on the other side of the world is wearing. One could find the composition of the rock in the road of Mile 16 of any highway. One could determine what someone will say and say it synchronous to their speech, and follow up with a synchronous "How did you know what I was going to say?"

That is very shallow though, that is only "graphing" the grand equation of the universe at one point.

One could take the equation backwards to learn every mystery of the universe.

In other words, you could take all your books and burn them, and then go into the computer and read them as they were in the past.

No history is gone forever, because if we work hard enough, we can find the missing level in the level-by-level structure of time. I believe Mendeleev was able to do a similar thing with elements...

Because fate only plays out one way, the equation would include itself, and could therefore go into the future.

Don't believe in fate? You are destined to believe so.

...I know that the ability to run such a program is beyond our imaginations, but isn't that the topic of this thread?

 

[Les Sleeth]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)

Just a question about the first step. You can represent quantities with math, but what about qualities of existence . . . like, say, creativity? That's in the universe, so you cannot not represent it.

Then regarding "position," how do you mathematically represent the connectedness that's in between the positions? There is no possible way to give coordinates for two positions, and also not have a space in between. No matter how small you go, there is still an unrepresented space.

So, I don't see how you are going to represent everything that is present in the universe with math.

 

[Nereid]

It is the ability to describe every mathematical concept which would comprise a God.

3 Steps to Build God:
1. Count up all matter/energy and its position. (bear with me here)
2. Compile all mathematical equations that deal with the universe.
3. Enter them into one huge computer.

A recent issue of Scientific American had an interesting article, (partly) on the universe as computer*.

Basically, if I followed it correctly, it starts with the idea of applying the principles of computer science to the universe as a whole ... including entropy and information.

There are the following lines in the article: "[..] the universe is computing itself. Powered by Standard Model software, the universe computes quantum fields, chemicals, bacteria, human beings, stars and galaxies. As it computes, it maps out its own spacetime geometry to the ultimate precision allowed by the laws of physics. Computation is existence.[/color]"

*"Black Hole Computers", Seth Lloyd and Y Jack Ng (Scientific American, November 2004, p 52)

 

[Futobingoro]

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.
Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.
Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)
Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.
Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)
Point #6: The first dimension is a line. (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #7: The second dimension is a wireframe. (let's use a circle to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^2)
Point #8: The third dimension is a shape. (Let's use a sphere to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^3)

Intermission: The universe is expanding. To expand, the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it. It is my belief that the volume of the universe is what causes time, or to be more specific the rate of increase of the volume, which with a sphere whose volume can be defined as (4/3)pi*r^3 has a derivative of 4pi*r^2, which is the formula for surface area. So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.

Point #9: The fourth dimension is the surface area of the universe. (Curved line relation x^2)

Intermission: Relativity comes into play here. If our galaxy is moving at x velocity, and the universe is expanding at 1000x velocity, the velocities are in fact different. However, the volumes and surface areas of the "spheres" encompassed by the "radii" always have the same ratio. Therefore as long as we neither accelerate nor decelerate on our "radius", our ratio of relativity of the expansion of the universe is always the same, giving us a 1:1 time ratio.

Point #10: The fifth dimension is the rate of change of the rate of change of the volume of the universe (acceleration). (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #11: The sixth/zero dimension is the jerk of the volume of the universe. (Point or y=n line)

So what might time be then? How about the circular passage of matter/energy through all seven dimensions? ...Or the relativity ratio to the surface area of the universe?

I know that theories are just that: theories. I also know that everyone (including me) can be wrong. I posted this to see what your opinion is on this theory.

 

[Taoist]

Futobingoro, it works fine on a chalk board or if you were holding the universe in your hand but you left yourself out.

First “outside our universe” must be addressed if so identified, place a value!
Second, all positions must apply, including the observation platform.
Third, existence in itself theoretically is but also becomes its ending.
Fourth, Point 3 and 4 are a big question which continues to obstruct any definition unless you use a value >0 which is arbitrary. It makes it so the observer just CREATES a value.

This quote, “So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.” Which is still unaccounted for within the “First and Second” question.

This separation as if to hold the universe in your hand looses the flavor of including the observer within the result of 1. Einstein’s suggested the same point the observer is apparent and needs to be reckoned.

Time is that fourth dimension which uniformly brings each variable together at a singular point which continues to support to the “Big Bang.” Which still offers the question where did 1 evolve from? Again a value that is still equals greater then 0.

Biblically we are still at “in the beginning,” which suggests that the starting point began at a creation! An area I still cannot fathom because this still institutes an outside observation.

Time began with both poles separating from the existence of a value >0 suggests this theological beginning, which causes a reflective return to consciousness as a value to be added to any equation of any explanation.

This consciousness has been said to be the lifeblood of the creator himself but if the creator is unto itself then we are back to the outside observer ruthlessly omitted as a value.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Physics alone is not enough. You must take into account the True Will of the True Self and its consciousness and awareness state.

When that is done anomalous events, magical occurances and mystical happenings can be accepted as real and transcending science.

juju

 

[Les Sleeth]

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.
Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.
Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)
Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.
Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)
Point #6: The first dimension is a line. (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #7: The second dimension is a wireframe. (let's use a circle to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^2)
Point #8: The third dimension is a shape. (Let's use a sphere to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^3)

Intermission: The universe is expanding. To expand, the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it. It is my belief that the volume of the universe is what causes time, or to be more specific the rate of increase of the volume, which with a sphere whose volume can be defined as (4/3)pi*r^3 has a derivative of 4pi*r^2, which is the formula for surface area. So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.

Point #9: The fourth dimension is the surface area of the universe. (Curved line relation x^2)

Intermission: Relativity comes into play here. If our galaxy is moving at x velocity, and the universe is expanding at 1000x velocity, the velocities are in fact different. However, the volumes and surface areas of the "spheres" encompassed by the "radii" always have the same ratio. Therefore as long as we neither accelerate nor decelerate on our "radius", our ratio of relativity of the expansion of the universe is always the same, giving us a 1:1 time ratio.

Point #10: The fifth dimension is the rate of change of the rate of change of the volume of the universe (acceleration). (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #11: The sixth/zero dimension is the jerk of the volume of the universe. (Point or y=n line)

So what might time be then? How about the circular passage of matter/energy through all seven dimensions? ...Or the relativity ratio to the surface area of the universe?

I know that theories are just that: theories. I also know that everyone (including me) can be wrong. I posted this to see what your opinion is on this theory.

I don't know who you are asking, Nereid or myself, but Nereid is more qualified to evaluate your theory than I. I liked the points, but I can't really tell what your theory is representing. Are you saying that's how you would provide a physical explanation for everything?

The one thing you did say that I have an opinion about is, "So what might time be then? How about the circular passage of matter/energy through all seven dimensions? ...Or the relativity ratio to the surface area of the universe?" Personally I think time is the rate of entropy both in local frames of reference and for the universe overall.

 

[Pavel]

In brief, Rosenberg suggests that something like consciousness is the fundamental kind of 'stuff' that exists in the universe.

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread, so if you already addressed this elsewhere, please ignore the question or direct me to the answer.

This is not the first time I see an explananation such as the above quote. I just read Chalmers's paper on consciousness who similarly believes it's fundamental. Chalmers very carefully danced around the metaphysics of it, in fear that he might suggest something that is not accepted in the scientific community. I'm not sure about Rosenberg's friendship with the scientific paradigm, but this is what puzzles me. Physicists don't like too many fundamentals, it creates problems. In fact, even the 4 fundamental forces of nature are being attempted to be untied at very high energies. It all has to come together at the Big Bang. With all due respect, I never see consciousness being one of those fundamentals. If you believe it's all reduced to physics and particles and forces, shouldn't you say to the physicists something like "Hey guys! wait, don't forget to incorporate another fundamental into your superforce theory" Or raise the question to the string theorists: "well, you guys did a good job explaining these fundamental particles in terms of open and closed loop strings, but you forgot to explain one more fundamental - consciousness, or perhaps you should add it to your string collection..." Am I being naive and unreasonable? I mean if you don't believe in metaphysics, shouldn't you be concerned about how your fundamental plays with other physical fundamentals? Otherwise, it's nothing else but a convenient way to explain away something you can't give a choherent explanation to - let's just make it a fundamental. Don't you think?

Thanks,

Pavel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Physicists don't like too many fundamentals, it creates problems. In fact, even the 4 fundamental forces of nature are being attempted to be untied at very high energies. It all has to come together at the Big Bang. With all due respect, I never see consciousness being one of those fundamentals. If you believe it's all reduced to physics and particles and forces, shouldn't you say to the physicists something like "Hey guys! wait, don't forget to incorporate another fundamental into your superforce theory" Or raise the question to the string theorists: "well, you guys did a good job explaining these fundamental particles in terms of open and closed loop strings, but you forgot to explain one more fundamental - consciousness, or perhaps you should add it to your string collection..." Am I being naive and unreasonable? I mean if you don't believe in metaphysics, shouldn't you be concerned about how your fundamental plays with other physical fundamentals? Otherwise, it's nothing else but a convenient way to explain away something you can't give a choherent explanation to - let's just make it a fundamental. Don't you think?

The argument is, consciousness is not explained with the current fundamentals. If it were, there would be no reason to add another.

As to why physicists don't mention "consciousness being one of those fundamentals," it's because they aren't studying consciousness, they are studying physics.

Even if consciousness is actually entwined in all physicalness, there is so much to discover about the physical aspects alone that no one has been very interested in if there is another fundamental there. Maybe in a few hundred years if physics has still been unable to explain every single thing that exists in this universe, more people will begin to wonder if there is "something more."

 

[Pavel]

The argument is, consciousness is not explained with the current fundamentals. If it were, there would be no reason to add another.

I realize that, but my question is what makes you believe it's "is not explained" in a sense as there's no way to explain it, as opposed to "we don't know how". I get an impression it's the latter and making it a fundamental sounds more of an escape from having to deal with the question. If you want to prove that it's not an escape, show how your fundamental plays along with other fundamentals in the big picture, don't leave it on its own island.

As to why physicists don't mention "consciousness being one of those fundamentals," it's because they aren't studying consciousness, they are studying physics.

Well, I'm not asking physicists to study a piece of literature or compare two cultures. I'm asking them to explain a physical phenomenon - consciousness. If you don't believe there's anything beoynd physical, then you need to explain consciousness in terms of physics. I have no problem with accepting it as a fundamental as long as you explain if it's another kind of force, then how does it play with other forces, at what tempeartures, can we put it to test in the particle accelerator. If it's a matter particle, then is it a lepton, hardon ... what spin, what color, blah blah blah. If it's a third kind of fundamental, then how did it come out from the primodorial soup, when did it come into existence after the Big Bang? That would be giving an explanation for a physical phenomenon, rather than conveniently set it aside and say, well, we don't know what it is, but we're sure it's physical, let's just consider it irreducable.

Even if consciousness is actually entwined in all physicalness, there is so much to discover about the physical aspects alone that no one has been very interested in if there is another fundamental there. Maybe in a few hundred years if physics has still been unable to explain every single thing that exists in this universe, more people will begin to wonder if there is "something more."

hehe, oh I see, so now instead of expalining it away as a fundamental, we're saying we're just not interested in looking at it? we'll get to it when we have time??

Pavel.

 

[Doctordick]

Food for thought!

Well, there seems to be quite a little discussion going on here but little I would consider worth concerning one's self with. On the other hand, imbedded in the confused thinking are some pearls worth getting attention (things often said but little thought about).

Well I think it is necessary to distinguish between Physics and Mathematics.
Physics is presumably the study of observable phenomena; things we can actually 'see' and 'measure'.

I would define physics as an attempt to understand and explain "reality".

Mathematics on the other hand is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads. There is absolutely nothing in mathematics which exists in the real universe.

Other than our ability to construct mathematical ideas. I define mathematics as the invention and study of self consistent systems.

There are NO points, NO lines, NO spheres, or any of the other creations of mathematics. Now we made up our mathematics largely to try and explain the universe, and mathematics does exactly describe the models which we also made up to describe the universe; but it doesn't describe the real universe; merely approximates it.

That is a very sloppy statement, poorly thought out (though I certainly agree with the basic impact of it). Can you prove there are no points, no lines, no ... or is this merely an intuitive opinion? And, have you asked yourself the question "why" mathematics is so prevalent in the "hard sciences"?

We simply can't do every possible experiment to find the outcome; so we create theories to relate experiments with similar ones and try to predict the likely outcome of even experiments no one has ever performed.

You should add "and assume that our ideas about what is going on when we are not looking are correct!"

Our only interest in these theories is that they correctly predict the outcome of experiment yet to be performed.

This is exactly the first requirement of any explanation of reality.

They survive based only on their ability to save space in our compendium by accurately predicting the outcome of an experiment.

This is very well put, they are a sort of data compression mechanism. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need any explanations at all would we?

So we need to get away from asking whether physical theories are real or not; it matters only if they correctly deduce the outcome of a real experiment which we can conduct, and if we have a half dozen different theories that describe the same set of experiments, they are all good theories, and maybe some better than others in usability.

And would you admit of the possibility of uncountable numbers of explanations not yet thought of by man?

So the universe is real, our models and theories of it are not real, and nor is the mathematics which governs the behavior of the models.

In my opinion, the issue of real and imagined is a very real issue (is there a joke in there?), though there is no way to prove any imagined division.

I sort of feel sorry for you if you want to convince me a logical proof is really a proof. I am working on a thread idea now I probably will call "Radical Experientialism." In it I will state my own standard for proof which is only one thing . . . experience. I can not accept inference or logic, no matter how well supported by evidence, as proof. The only thing that convinces me to the level of proof is if something claimed to be true can be personally experienced.

My understanding of what you just said is that you will accept something as a proof only if you "intuitively" feel it has been proved. Logic seems not to be an issue worth concerning yourself with. I am sorry to hear that.

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience.

You should spend a little time thinking about "direct" observation. I presume you are reading this on a screen of a monitor. Now, even by your accepted mental model of reality that image you are reading is an illusion created by your brain. The actual fact (in your mental model at least) is that photons emitted by the screen impinge on the rods and cones in your retina causing nerves to send signals to your brain. Yet I know of no one who can actually perceive those nerve impulses themselves. It follows that the nerve impulses are indirect observation: i.e., their existence is logically deduced from other observations. Now, the image of the screen itself is most certainly an illusion so that observation can not be described as "direct".

Another example of the same thing arises from amputations. Would anyone here hold that a perfectly consistent illusion is any less an illusion? I personally posses an amputated digit: the index finger on my right hand. In place of that finger, I possesses what is normally called a phantom finger. I can straighten it out, I can curl it up; I can even occasionally feel pangs of pain. I know it is a phantom because I can not see it and I can not feel physical objects with it. None the less, the illusion that it exists (when I am not looking at it) is quite overwhelming. When I try to touch something, the illusion is that the object has a hole which allows my finger to penetrate without touching anything (the edge of the hole is clearly perceived by what remains of the stump). Now my question is, was that index finger any less of an illusion when it was totally consistent with my mental image of reality? Is touching really a direct measurement or a mentally created illusion?

Then you might ask, so what do those indirect observations prove? What is proven are that effects have been observed. That's it, nothing more. All else remains in the category of theory.

What is proved is that what is observed is real or, if not real, a rather internally consistent illusion? Anyone who thinks there exists a mechanism to differentiate between reality and illusion just hasn't thought the issue through. The only fact that differentiates between them is that reality cannot change from one valid (by valid I mean 100% internally consistent) mental image to another. Those aspects which change from one valid mental image to another are illusions which are part and parcel of the mental image.

Using logic as a single point of an analysis is where the blinders begin to form.

No, I would say the blinders come on the moment you accept your intuitive mental model of reality to be correct.

All humans have answers within, universal as fact, yet unrealized by most simply because the articulation of the occurrences have never been truly understood or furthered in study.

I would rather suggest that all human beings have an intuitive mental image of reality which is quite consistent with their anthropomorphic experiences. It's a very internally consistent image.

Just a question about the first step. You can represent quantities with math, but what about qualities of existence . . . like, say, creativity? That's in the universe, so you cannot not represent it.

Sorry Les, but you just represented it via the symbol "creativity". And, if questioned about what you mean by that symbol, I am sure you will supply me with more symbols (a discussion so to speak). Just because the process is complex does not mean it cannot occur.

Then regarding "position," how do you mathematically represent the connectedness that's in between the positions? There is no possible way to give coordinates for two positions, and also not have a space in between. No matter how small you go, there is still an unrepresented space.

Now here you are complaining about internal consistentcy of your personal mental image of reality.

So, I don't see how you are going to represent everything that is present in the universe with math.

That's because you lack imagination. Just because you can't do does not qualify as a proof that it cannot be done.

Think a little about my comments!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

I realize that, but my question is what makes you believe it's "is not explained" in a sense as there's no way to explain it, as opposed to "we don't know how". I get an impression it's the latter and making it a fundamental sounds more of an escape from having to deal with the question.

I did not mean to imply there will never be a physical way to explain consciousness. I am only saying there is no way to physically account for it now.

If you want to prove that it's not an escape, show how your fundamental plays along with other fundamentals in the big picture, don't leave it on its own island.

Nope. This isn't my thread. I have been arguing that everything cannot currently be reduced to pure physics. If I want to do what you say, then I'll start my own thread. . . . maybe something like this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

. . . if it's another kind of force, then how does it play with other forces, at what tempeartures, can we put it to test in the particle accelerator. If it's a matter particle, then is it a lepton, hardon ... what spin, what color, blah blah blah. If it's a third kind of fundamental, then how did it come out from the primodorial soup, when did it come into existence after the Big Bang? That would be giving an explanation for a physical phenomenon, rather than conveniently set it aside and say, well, we don't know what it is, but we're sure it's physical, let's just consider it irreducable.

I never said it was physical, or a physical force. I just meant it was fundamental to the universe. Personally I don't think it fits the definition of physical.

hehe, oh I see, so now instead of expalining it away as a fundamental, we're saying we're just not interested in looking at it? we'll get to it when we have time??

Not me. I am saying that physical scientists are trained to look at just the physical. Some of them think everything that exists, and that includes consciousness, can be explained with physical principles. For the most part, they are not even looking at the question of consciousness. Take a look at where all the progress is being made in physics, and it has nothing to do with consciousness studies.

My point was, if those who think that everything can be explained with physical principles fail to do so, maybe one day they will look for something else to help them explain unexplained aspects of the universe.

 

[Pavel]

Nope. This isn't my thread. I have been arguing that everything cannot currently be reduced to pure physics. If I want to do what you say, then I'll start my own thread. . . . maybe something like this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

Thanks, looks like a serious paper by you Les, I'll definitely check it out.

Not me. I am saying that physical scientists are trained to look at just the physical. Some of them think everything that exists, and that includes consciousness, can be explained with physical principles. For the most part, they are not even looking at the question of consciousness. Take a look at where all the progress is being made in physics, and it has nothing to do with consciousness studies.

So, those "some" are trained to look at the physical, they believe consciousness is physical, but they're not looking at it because their focus is on something else. That all makes sense to me but I don't believe that's the case. Think about it. You're struggling hard to come up with a unified theory, trying to make QM and GR play together, unite all the forces, explain the very first moments after the Big Bang and you run into problems. So, here you have another fundamental sitting and you say "nah... I'll get to it some time later..." So, you either do not consider consciousness to be fundamental and you think it won't help you unite all the forces, or you pretend to believe it's fundamental because you can't explain it, and that's why you don't want to focus on it at this time because you know it's not going to help you. You know I have no problem with them coming out and say "we don't think it's fundamental, but we believe it's physical, we just can't explain it, but we'll get to it some time". Clear and reasonable. But I got an impression that writers, like Chalmers, claim they can explain it, but they don't want to be considered potheads by the scientists for suggesting something that can be metaphysical. So what do they do? They make consciousnes an irreducable physcial fundamental. In fact, CHalmers compared this fundamental of consciousness to an electromagnetic force, another fundamental. But we all know that scientists try to explain the EM force as united with the Weak force at certain energies, making it "electroweak force", and then, even at higher energies, make it one with the Strong force... you get the point. So, if you want to make it a fundamental in the physical world, suggest a way of incorporating it with other fundamentals. Otherwise, let's not pretend; let's call things their proper names.

Pavel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But I got an impression that writers, like Chalmers, claim they can explain it, but they don't want to be considered potheads by the scientists for suggesting something that can be metaphysical. So what do they do? They make consciousnes an irreducable physcial fundamental. In fact, CHalmers compared this fundamental of consciousness to an electromagnetic force, another fundamental. But we all know that scientists try to explain the EM force as united with the Weak force at certain energies, making it "electroweak force", and then, even at higher energies, make it one with the Strong force... you get the point. So, if you want to make it a fundamental in the physical world, suggest a way of incorporating it with other fundamentals. Otherwise, let's not pretend; let's call things their proper names.

I can't speak for Chalmers, but here's my little story.

I don't think consciousness is fundamental the same way the physical forces are. To use an analogy, let's say right now you picture a woman in your mind who is the ideal of feminine beauty for you. Let's also say, to simply this analogy, that we agree the composition of the image you create is photons. Now, if the image is photons, and if we can explain the nature of photons and the relatonships between them all, have we fully explained your image? No we haven't because we have not explained how those photons got organized into the shape of a woman.

Simiilarly, when I use the word "fundamental" I am using its general definition, which is simply to say something is basic. Now, fundamental can also mean indispensible, and so is consciousness necessary to explain creation?

What's interesting to me is how when physicalists can explain the structure or functioning of things, we think we're done. But we have huge mysteries outside our structural discoveries. What established that overall structure and functionality in the first place (i.e. like gravity, the balance of forces in the atom, the constancy of physical laws, etc.)? And then, what is all that stuff made out of (don't say energy because then I'll want you to show it to me), and where did the stuff of creation all come from?

There are more mysteries. In the case of life and consciousness (and this is more related to the "image" analogy above), what caused the quality of organization that led to living systems? So physicalists think that because after putting a few chemicals in a jar and running electricity through it amino acids formed, that's really significant evidence that chemistry and physical processes could have self-organized themselves into a living system. To that I enjoy saying "hogwash."

They have never, not once, got any chemistry to keep self organizing in such a way that it would lead to systems. To ignore the incredibly physically atypical quality of organization found in life by pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment amounts to a red herring. The chemists and the computer programmers who have such faith in their physicalist metaphysics have yet to demonstrate any self-organizing capacity in physical processes that doesn't turn repetitive when left on its own.

So to me, the idea of consciousness being fundamental isn't like a fundamental physical "force." Instead I see it more as organizing guidance, guidance that led evolution toward the development of a central nervous system, which in turn allowed that organizing guidance to emerge through the CNS to be what its nature is: consciousness.

The End.

 

[Nereid]

First, I don't know if these 11 points are a chain - break one link and the whole thing falls apart - or 11 motes floating in a sea of discussion looking for someone to examine their mtDNA and establish a relationship.

Let's take a cursory glance at each in turn.

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.

Maybe, maybe not; perhaps such volumes have no existence outside the creativity of certain philosophers and mathematicians? After all, I can conjure up a dozen wholly imaginary things; and writers through the ages - SF ones included - have surely done a far better job than I. Can you give us any reasons Futobobingoro as to why such volume may have a 'physical' existence?

Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.

Presumably I can infer from this that outside our universe 'positions' do not exist; those things we call 'positions' are 'only' constructs of beings who have a physical reality in our universe. Indeed, once you open the box called 'do not have to obey our universe's laws', how can you have a discussion? on any topic? Certainly one here in Philosophy PF would be trivially narrow - we insist upon 'logic', whose 'laws' may not exist outside 'our universe'. Or have I misunderstood?

Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)

Hmm, if 'once' has something to do with time, then if GR describes the universe (and we know it may not, in the first Planck 'second'), then time began with the Big Bang. If we broaden our 'theoretical' horizons, there are lots of theories in which the universe had no beginning, e.g. before the Big Bang, there was a Big Crunch (and there will be one again, some trillions of years in the future), and before that ...

Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.

Maybe, maybe not; how could you tell?

Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)

That sounds like a (mathematical) definition; its relevance is ... ?

Point #6: The first dimension is a line. (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #7: The second dimension is a wireframe. (let's use a circle to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^2)
Point #8: The third dimension is a shape. (Let's use a sphere to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^3)

seems like more definitions in math; their axiomatic bases, variations on a theme, etc have been intensely explored this last century or so; as I understand it, you can put points 6, 7, and 8 into a much more rigourous framework (but still all tied together with 'logic')

Intermission: The universe is expanding. To expand, the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it. It is my belief that the volume of the universe is what causes time, or to be more specific the rate of increase of the volume, which with a sphere whose volume can be defined as (4/3)pi*r^3 has a derivative of 4pi*r^2, which is the formula for surface area. So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.

Well, something testable! Yes, 'the universe is expanding' is not, AFAIK, inconsistent with any good observational results. However, AFAIK, there are no cosmological models (based on GR - or a variant) that include 'the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it' (do you know of any Futobingoro? Please give us a reference, preferably a peer-reviewed paper). Going further, can you show how your belief ('that the volume of the universe is what causes time') is consistent with GR? good observational results?

Point #9: The fourth dimension is the surface area of the universe. (Curved line relation x^2)

Intermission: Relativity comes into play here. If our galaxy is moving at x velocity, and the universe is expanding at 1000x velocity, the velocities are in fact different. However, the volumes and surface areas of the "spheres" encompassed by the "radii" always have the same ratio. Therefore as long as we neither accelerate nor decelerate on our "radius", our ratio of relativity of the expansion of the universe is always the same, giving us a 1:1 time ratio.

I'm not sure what to make of this; if you could point out for us how this relates to the concordance model in cosmology that might help (a good place to start might be Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial).

I think I'll leave it here ... IMHO, these 11 points do not make a 'theory', by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP

There are more mysteries. In the case of life and consciousness (and this is more related to the "image" analogy above), what caused the quality of organization that led to living systems? So physicalists think that because after putting a few chemicals in a jar and running electricity through it amino acids formed, that's really significant evidence that chemistry and physical processes could have self-organized themselves into a living system. To that I enjoy saying "hogwash."

They have never, not once, got any chemistry to keep self organizing in such a way that it would lead to systems. To ignore the incredibly physically atypical quality of organization found in life by pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment amounts to a red herring. The chemists and the computer programmers who have such faith in their physicalist metaphysics have yet to demonstrate any self-organizing capacity in physical processes that doesn't turn repetitive when left on its own.

As regular readers will already know (Les certainly does), some other posters here have a different view on this (loseyourname, for example, has several excellent posts on this topic ... well, I think they're excellent, I'm not sure Les would fully agree ). However, I've long thought that us 'physicalists' would take at least another century to be able to begin to meet Les' challenge (make life in a testube; OK, that's a crude simplification).

Well, it seems things have been moving along faster than I'd imagined - see the Can scientists 'create' life yet? thread over in Biology to get some idea of progress on mixing some chemicals to make a living bacterium

(For avoidance of doubt, this does NOT say anything (much) about abiogenesis - how life ACTUALLY got started here on Earth (or on Mars, or on some nameless, unknown, possibly long gone planet somewhere else in the universe (and came to Earth in an interstellar meteorite))).

 

[Les Sleeth]

As regular readers will already know (Les certainly does), some other posters here have a different view on this (loseyourname, for example, has several excellent posts on this topic ... well, I think they're excellent, I'm not sure Les would fully agree ). However, I've long thought that us 'physicalists' would take at least another century to be able to begin to meet Les' challenge (make life in a testube; OK, that's a crude simplification).

Well, it seems things have been moving along faster than I'd imagined - see the Can scientists 'create' life yet? thread over in Biology to get some idea of progress on mixing some chemicals to make a living bacterium

(For avoidance of doubt, this does NOT say anything (much) about abiogenesis - how life ACTUALLY got started here on Earth (or on Mars, or on some nameless, unknown, possibly long gone planet somewhere else in the universe (and came to Earth in an interstellar meteorite))).

Yep, I've been arguing the same, single point from day one. But before reiterating that, let me point out that the test for abiogenesis isn't to make "life in a testube," as you say. If substantial conscious intervention is required to make that life happen, it only demonstrates life can be brought about through a combination of chemistry and conscious intervention unless the intervention is of the sort that we can expect to occur naturally through chemistry somewhere.

In that thread you referenced SelfAdjoint expresses the common physicalist view: "It's just a claim of ignorance that if scientists can't yet duplicate the complicated chemistry of life that therefore life requires a divine act to generate it. If you study what is really known about that chemistry you come away with a repect for how intricate it is, and a clear understanding that it is, at bottom, just chemistry."

Very rarely does anyone actually answer my only reason for doubting abiogenesis (not that SelfAdjoint was talking to me). In another thread I pointed out that the type of argument he is using is a "compositional fallacy," or argument that assumes what is true of each part of a whole, is also true of the whole itself.

He is absolutely correct about life's composition, but that isn't all there is to life. What he nor anyone else can explain, nor does anyone seem to want to acknowledge the significance of, is the organizational quality of life which physicalists expect us to believe was achieved by chemistry itself.

Now, if you as consciousness take various parts of a cell, synthesize others, and through rather signficant conscious efforts manage to get something "living," you still haven't accounted for how chemistry got organized into the first cell. You are still missing a SELF-organization principle, which you, consciousness provided.

SelfAdjoint talks about needing something "divine," but I don't say that. I just say there is no known physical principles which can account for the organizational quality of life. How is that "a claim of ignorance"?

However, there is something that resembles the missing organizational trait, and that is consciousness. Is it just a coincidence that on top of the several billion years of evolution sits human consciousness? Might not what we call "consciousnss" be an organizating force that has been part of the development of life all along, providing that organization quality, and finally emerging through the CNS?

Since we can observe consciousness, I am not introducing a new component; and since we do not have any way to explain life's organization, we need an explanation. I am just pointing to the most obvious candidate. It's the physicalists who believe in some unknown, unseen, imaginary self-organizing potential of physicalness (but I won't label it "a claim of ignorance").

 

[RingoKid]

stunning Les...

I was thinking the same thing last night without ever having read any of this thread except your last post just now...

consciousness is a self organizing principle that wills entities into life to serve its own purpose and that is to evolve the entity to a point where it can understand consciousness in its own realm...

...and yes i was licking the chalice while thinking it

 

[Futobingoro]

Not that I want to derail this thread, but I believe I have some questions to answer.

The point of relativity for that theory would be the only stationary point: the center of the "big bang," which may or may not be the center of the universe.

As to the statement I made about "outside" the universe, it can be summarized as follows: "Volume outside the universe must not be connected to our universe by way of energy or matter. Volume outside our universe is outside our universe and is therefore outside our universe. Volume outside our universe is not obligated to follow the laws of our universe. It might be able to produce matter spontaneously, but if you ask "Why does not it do that all the time?" you are trying to add temporal sequence to what might be a completely spontaneous process.]

Attempts to explain the universe always raise more questions than they answer but:

To provide balance, doesn't every dimension need a counter-dimension? Some kind of inverse?

 

[RingoKid]

loop gravitists would have the big bang as an everse, a mirror image forced through the point of a big bang and reversing left to right as opposed to an inverse which is to say turned inside out rather than upside down...

white hole theory, where on the other side of a black hole sucking in matter in our universe is a white hole pushing out matter into another...

welcome to the baby universe factory which accounts for a multiverse scenario in LQG and conveniently eliminates the singularity until you ask for a first cause

 

[Nereid]

Yep, I've been arguing the same, single point from day one. But before reiterating that, let me point out that the test for abiogenesis isn't to make "life in a testube," as you say. If substantial conscious intervention is required to make that life happen, it only demonstrates life can be brought about through a combination of chemistry and conscious intervention unless the intervention is of the sort that we can expect to occur naturally through chemistry somewhere.

In that thread you referenced SelfAdjoint expresses the common physicalist view: "It's just a claim of ignorance that if scientists can't yet duplicate the complicated chemistry of life that therefore life requires a divine act to generate it. If you study what is really known about that chemistry you come away with a repect for how intricate it is, and a clear understanding that it is, at bottom, just chemistry."

Very rarely does anyone actually answer my only reason for doubting abiogenesis (not that SelfAdjoint was talking to me). In another thread I pointed out that the type of argument he is using is a "compositional fallacy," or argument that assumes what is true of each part of a whole, is also true of the whole itself.

He is absolutely correct about life's composition, but that isn't all there is to life. What he nor anyone else can explain, nor does anyone seem to want to acknowledge the significance of, is the organizational quality of life which physicalists expect us to believe was achieved by chemistry itself.

Now, if you as consciousness take various parts of a cell, synthesize others, and through rather signficant conscious efforts manage to get something "living," you still haven't accounted for how chemistry got organized into the first cell. You are still missing a SELF-organization principle, which you, consciousness provided.

SelfAdjoint talks about needing something "divine," but I don't say that. I just say there is no known physical principles which can account for the organizational quality of life. How is that "a claim of ignorance"?

However, there is something that resembles the missing organizational trait, and that is consciousness. Is it just a coincidence that on top of the several billion years of evolution sits human consciousness? Might not what we call "consciousnss" be an organizating force that has been part of the development of life all along, providing that organization quality, and finally emerging through the CNS?

Since we can observe consciousness, I am not introducing a new component; and since we do not have any way to explain life's organization, we need an explanation. I am just pointing to the most obvious candidate. It's the physicalists who believe in some unknown, unseen, imaginary self-organizing potential of physicalness (but I won't label it "a claim of ignorance").

Distilled clarity, just what we expect from, and love about, you Les!

At a leisurely pace - perhaps in a different thread - it might be interesting to discuss what you would accept as a convincing demonstration of abiogenesis - surely whatever Venter manages to produce, abiogenesis it will not be! I suspect that it would be far more than just a stunning demonstration that 'chemistry rules, OK?'

Maybe we could so the same thing re the third area (I'd forgotten that you also had doubts about a physicalist approach to the origin of the universe)?

At the risk of boring everyone by repetition, I don't expect two of Les' trio to be well addressed in my lifetime (abiogenesis and the hard problem of consciousness) - baring an unexpected breakthrough or three; re the origin of the universe, well, I'm more hopeful (of course, if it turns out we live in a multiverse, or some kind of cyclical universe, then resolution of 'the ultimate origin' will again recede from the physicalists' agenda - for a century or millenium or more).

 

[Nereid]

To provide balance, doesn't every dimension need a counter-dimension? Some kind of inverse?

Why? To satisfy some personal feeling? or to account for a body of good experimental or observational results?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Distilled clarity, just what we expect from, and love about, you Les!

When my wife read "distilled clarity," she said "Nereid thinks you wrote it drunk." I can't get no respect (hey, maybe that's why they won't give me the Philosophy medal . . . naaaaa, somebody up there doesn't like me ).

At a leisurely pace - perhaps in a different thread - it might be interesting to discuss what you would accept as a convincing demonstration of abiogenesis . . . Maybe we could so the same thing re the third area (I'd forgotten that you also had doubts about a physicalist approach to the origin of the universe).

That sounds like fun. In terms of the third area (how the Big Bang came about), the only thing I tend to say is that all the explanations are overly speculative and don't make sense to me. I don't have any reason to question the Big Bang itself. Probably the biggest doubt I have is due to the lack of any basic "stuff" of existence in the physicalist model. It's like, we have all this matter, we say it can all be converted to energy, and then . . . what the heck is energy? No existential qualities, it just "does things," so basically we are left with a universe that has no actual foundation.

I think it makes more sense to say there is some basic, existential "stuff" that is too subtle to detect, of which all matter and structure is made. I don't think the idea is popular because such existential stuff would have no structure, and therefore would not be something that could be empirically studied.

You know, my anti-physicalist arguments aren't from hating the idea of physicalism per se. Given certain inner experiences I've had, and others in histroy have had, and what I see in creation that at least appears to behave in a non-physical manner, I honestly don't think physicalism makes sense at this time. If there were ever enough evidence to explain both my experience and the inconsistencies, then I would accept physicalism as likely true.

 

[UltraPi1]

I'll chime in once again to say that physical reality is a misdiagnosis. All things thought to be physical, are in reality conceptual entities. That is to say that the Earth is not a physical entity, nor is any other thing that comes to mind. The universe is a purely conceptual entity completely void of physical phenomenon.

My knell is to say that this thread is a flawless example of a merry-go-round. How many times must you go round before it all looks the same? Les Sleeth knows this ride all to well. Just a suggestion - Get off the ride and explore your alternatives! Get your feet wet? Escape your time warp? Gaze in a new direction?

Please disregard this post if you are all enjoying the ride. I don't wish to spoil your fun.

 

[Seafang]

I am curious as to whether or not you consider indirect observation to be as epistemologically sound with respect to establishing reality-correspondence as direct experience. For instance, we cannot see black holes or electrons, but we can observe the effects of causal relationships they have with surrounding elements in any given system in which they are postulated to exist. Do you consider this proof that black holes and electrons do indeed exist?

Lose, you are being too restrictive in your use of the word 'see', as in "we cannot see black holes or electrons".

Well of course we can see them; at least I believe there are some astronomers or cosmologists who claim they have 'seen' black holes.

The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation for example extends from the milliHerz region to at least 10^24 Herz and one single octave of that spectrum from 375 THz to 750 THz can be 'seen' by human eyes. But the rest of that spectrum can still be 'seen' just not by human eyes.

The portion of the spectrum below that 'visible' octave can be seen by our skin, in the form of the feeling of heat.

All of it can be seen in the form of the phenomena that are the sources of that radiation. But even outside of electromagnetism, other forces manifest the existence of other things we can see.

Anything we cannot 'see' manifesting itself in some way, is not a part of the physical universe, and has no place in physics.

 

[Seafang]

Point #1: Volume that has no energy or matter present in it is outside our universe.
Point #2: Positions outside our universe do not have to obey our universe's laws.
Point #3: Our universe once did not exist. (theoretically)
Point #4: Matter was sponaneously created outside our "universe", creating our universe.
Point #5: The zero dimension is a point. (Point or y=n line)
Point #6: The first dimension is a line. (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #7: The second dimension is a wireframe. (let's use a circle to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^2)
Point #8: The third dimension is a shape. (Let's use a sphere to represent a view of the universe) (Curved line relation x^3)

Intermission: The universe is expanding. To expand, the universe has to convert volume that is outside our universe and consolidate it by adding either energy or matter to it. It is my belief that the volume of the universe is what causes time, or to be more specific the rate of increase of the volume, which with a sphere whose volume can be defined as (4/3)pi*r^3 has a derivative of 4pi*r^2, which is the formula for surface area. So the formula for surface area of the universe is what defines the fourth dimension, according to my current theory.

Point #9: The fourth dimension is the surface area of the universe. (Curved line relation x^2)

Intermission: Relativity comes into play here. If our galaxy is moving at x velocity, and the universe is expanding at 1000x velocity, the velocities are in fact different. However, the volumes and surface areas of the "spheres" encompassed by the "radii" always have the same ratio. Therefore as long as we neither accelerate nor decelerate on our "radius", our ratio of relativity of the expansion of the universe is always the same, giving us a 1:1 time ratio.

Point #10: The fifth dimension is the rate of change of the rate of change of the volume of the universe (acceleration). (Straight line relation x^1)
Point #11: The sixth/zero dimension is the jerk of the volume of the universe. (Point or y=n line)

So what might time be then? How about the circular passage of matter/energy through all seven dimensions? ...Or the relativity ratio to the surface area of the universe?

I know that theories are just that: theories. I also know that everyone (including me) can be wrong. I posted this to see what your opinion is on this theory.

Well I don't agree with your first premise. (point #1)

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

The so-called 'Big Bang', if you believe in it, did not happen at some point within the universe; the center of the universe shall we say; it happened EVERYWHERE inside the universe at the same time.

As for places that hold no energy or matter; that describes most of the universe; which by and large is simply empty 'space'. Even atoms are mostly empty space.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Anything we cannot 'see' manifesting itself in some way, is not a part of the physical universe, and has no place in physics.

You may never surpass the major nonsense stated there. Are you saying that before we detected virtual particles they didn't exist? Are you arguing the existence of things are dependent on our observation of them?

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

You've surpassed yourself! Talk about nonsense! You have no knowledge of what we don't know, and you have no knowledge of what's outside or was before the universe, or even all that is inside the universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'll chime in once again to say that physical reality is a misdiagnosis. All things thought to be physical, are in reality conceptual entities. That is to say that the Earth is not a physical entity, nor is any other thing that comes to mind. The universe is a purely conceptual entity completely void of physical phenomenon.

Just saying it so doesn't make it so. Nobody can even get close to discussing that proposition seriously because your can't offer evidence, it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.

My knell is to say that this thread is a flawless example of a merry-go-round. How many times must you go round before it all looks the same? Les Sleeth knows this ride all to well. Just a suggestion - Get off the ride and explore your alternatives! Get your feet wet? Escape your time warp? Gaze in a new direction?

This is merely one direction in which to gaze. Because we discuss things on the basis of evidence and logic in a science-philosophy forum, doesn't mean people are only doing this. I might suggest you practice a little evidence plus logical reasoning yourself, because if you can't make your case to intelligent people, they aren't going to listen for long (unless you are gathering members for a cult).

 

[Futobingoro]

Well I don't agree with your first premise. (point #1)

There is nothing (physical) outside the universe; never has been; never will be. If 'something' (physical) existed outside the universe we would know about it, otherwise it would not exist; and if we know about it it is a part of the universe; contradicting the postulate that it was outside the universe.

The so-called 'Big Bang', if you believe in it, did not happen at some point within the universe; the center of the universe shall we say; it happened EVERYWHERE inside the universe at the same time.

As for places that hold no energy or matter; that describes most of the universe; which by and large is simply empty 'space'. Even atoms are mostly empty space.

My first point states that points that have no matter or energy in them are outside our universe. A vacuum can still be a medium for energy, so even "empty" spaces in atoms and deeps space are still in our universe. If a space has some kind of energy passing through it or has some matter, it is within our universe. In other words, if you can see a star, you are in the universe.

You must have misread my postulates. I stated that if something is physical, it is in the universe. I also stated that if something is outside our universe, then, well, it is outside our universe. Doesn't that make sense? I also defined what "physical" is: a space filled with matter and/or energy, although "physical" does not adequately describe the latter.

If the big bang theory is true, then the universe once did not exist.

If the universe once did not exist, the big bang would have needed to have taken place outside our universe.

The result, our universe, is the result. It is convenient how now all that happens in our universe can possibly be accounted for because it is in the universe.

Most of the confusion stemming from my points is that it seems nobody thinks that there are any implications resulting from a space outside our universe becoming a space within our universe. If our universe is expanding, volume outside our universe must inevitably be "consolidated."

So most people think that there is no transition fron non-Newtonian to Newtonian?