Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Fliption]

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Equally, with all the degrading things we have said about matter

Matter is degraded by the rules we use to study it. It will never be anything more than what it is unless we choose to look at it differently. That's what these discussions are attempting to suggest.

 

[Seafang]

Your version of the uncertainty principle is misleading. We can know some of the properties of a particle to arbitrarily high degrees of confindence, at the cost of being correspondingly ignorant about other properties.

Also Goedel does not apply to geometry or things derived from it, like real analysis. The question is still out on what this exception means for physics.

My 'version' of the principle of 'Unbestimheit' as Heisenberg put it is not at all misleading. In order to be able to apply ALL the laws of physics, to some physical system to predict its future state, it is necessary to know the complete set of present physical parameters; not just some of them.

Every single problem in physics I was ever given on an exam paper to solve, gave me all the starting parameters necessary to solve the problem. Heisenberg merely says that in practice we can never know that information we were given on the exam paper about any real system. Nothing at all misleading about that.

Knowing ALL about a particle's position, and nothing about its momentum, gives us no way to determine where it will be at any future time; (except in a statistical sense).

As for Godel not being useful for physics; perhaps it IS useful for a discussion of whether 'physics can explain everything', which I understand was the premise at the start of this thread.

 

[Philocrat]

Matter is degraded by the rules we use to study it. It will never be anything more than what it is unless we choose to look at it differently. That's what these discussions are attempting to suggest.

What are you suggesting? Should the 'EXPLANATORY RULES' of it be changed? WHO IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO CAST THE FIRST STONE? How are you going to convince the show runners? What happens to all the books in physics and in other science disciplines that have been wrriten about matter? All the equations, formulations and tables of constants and variables that were formulated and deduced from the original definition of matter?

What about in religion? Are you suggesting that scriptures that reduced matter to a state of worthlessness should all be re-written? Well, even if you succeeded in convincing any of these institutions about anything, that in itself would be a marathon task of indescribable scale.

My main interest in raising this point is to get these institutions to slow down a little bit and think...and the main point of my argument is that it is just too early to rush to conclusions about the exact nature of matter until we come into possession of enough information to do so.

 

[Fliption]

What are you suggesting? Should the 'EXPLANATORY RULES' of it be changed? WHO IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO CAST THE FIRST STONE? How are you going to convince the show runners? What happens to all the books in physics and in other science disciplines that have been wrriten about matter? All the equations, formulations and tables of constants and variables that were formulated and deduced from the original definition of matter?

What about in religion? Are you suggesting that scriptures that reduced matter to a state of worthlessness should all be re-written? Well, even if you succeeded in convincing any of these institutions about anything, that in itself would be a marathon task of indescribable scale.

I don't look at reality as a collection of semantic distinctions. Unlike many here, I don't like to think of reality as divided into categories like "physical" and "non-physical". Whatever reality is, it is surely a single paradigmatic operation. The distinctions are man-made and don't really have any meaning to me, except when communicating with others.

So when we talk about the nature of matter, I see it as simply a part of the grand scheme. The discussions in this forum about consciousness are generally suggesting that the current rules that we think of relating to matter cannot describe certain aspects of reality. So we now have a choice to make. Either reality is a collection of inconsistent distinctions all co-existing with one another, or the way we think of matter needs an overhaul.

My main interest in raising this point is to get these institutions to slow down a little bit and think...and the main point of my argument is that it is just too early to rush to conclusions about the exact nature of matter until we come into possession of enough information to do so.

I would argue that this is exactly what these threads are doing. Asking people who think of things a certain way to slow down and think. The argument is that they are moving 100MPH in the wrong direction.

All of the changes that you have described as almost impossible have all happened before when science has made a paradigm shifting discovery. Think Relativity and Quantum physics. As for religion, theologians are constantly interpreting their scriptures as not inconsistent with science. Scriptures are simply a collection of words as they are understood at the time of writing in order to communcate. The word "matter" as described in sciptures can hardly be compared to a current scientific description. So the message of scriptures about matter may be perfectly consistent with reality. The only thing that isn't consistent is the semantic use of the word "matter".

 

[Seafang]

It doesn't necessarily have to be as you predict. There is no reason why God, say as some highly evolved form of consciousness, couldn't have brought about creation in a natural way and over time.

In my opinion it isn't due to Christian belief in God or Jesus that makes them resist evolution, it is belief in the Bible. The logic of considering the Bible infallible should seem highly suspect after one studies the history of the Bible.

Genesis for example, has two creation stories. Scholars attribute the first version to a priestly writer, usually referred to as "P", and a second older version attributed to an author usually called "J". Moses is claimed to have written all the first five books of the Bible, but how could he have written his own death, plus there are anachronisms throughout the Torah (e.g. empires were mentioned that did exist when Moses lived, the king of Philistines is portrayed hundreds of years before he lived, camels were describd in use before they'd been domesticated, etc.).

In this so-called "documentary hypotheses" (taught at all major divinity schools) besides J and P, three other authors have been recognized (E, R, and D), who are believed to have written the Torah from 1000 to 400 BC.

It's not just the Torah, but throughout the Bible we find the problem of trying to figure out who wrote the various books. It was a Hebrew custom to attribute a literary work to revered Jewish figures, and this custom continued to be a problem for New Testament writings as well. That and the fact that none of the writers are believed to have been witnesses to Jesus' activities leave us with documents we cannot be sure of.

I am sure you are familiar with "Q" and Mark's version appearing in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and with Luke's admission he'd taken his writings from written and oral traditions (Luke 1:1-4). If the gospel author Matthew was really the disciple Matthew (and therefore a witness) why did he rely on Q and Mark to write his story around (sometimes almost word for word, as in Chapter 6)? Plus the author doesn't claim to be Matthew (the title "The Gospel according to Matthew" was added long after the document's original composition).

The only documents we are certain are first hand accounts are those of Paul, who does not claim to have known Jesus. Luke, as a companion of Paul's (if he was) and Mark (as Peter's secretary) were not witnesses either. Of the four gospels, the book of John is least believed by scholars to be the disciple John. It was written by an educated person fluent in Greek at least half a century after Jesus, not by an illiterate fisherman (Mark 1:16-20) who spoke Arameic as the real disciple, John the son of Zebedee, was portrayed.

Now, I am not saying there aren't inspired and inspiring writings in the Bible. I love parts of the book myself. What I am saying it that once one learns the history of the Bible, it makes little sense to treat it as the infallible word of God. It is clearly revealed to be the word of men, sometime inspired, other times writing history or myth or speculation or (in the case of Revelation) senseless ravings from trance induced by fasting.

Evolution (and I would agree with most believers that evolution hasn't achieved what it has through chemistry and natural selection alone), doesn't contradict anything for a person of faith if that person's faith is in God. But if one's faith in God and Jesus is dependent on the perfect veracity and accuracy of the Bible, then I think one is on shakey ground.

Well if you remove humans and ALL evidence of their existence from the universe, and leave all else untouched you will discover that you have also eliminated god.

The universe absent humans has no morality or ethics or religion or philosophy or anything abstract. it simply goes about its business with the big fish eating the little fish in a perfectly amoral environment.

MAN created GOD; not the other way around !

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well if you remove humans and ALL evidence of their existence from the universe, and leave all else untouched you will discover that you have also eliminated god.

You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.

The universe absent humans has no morality or ethics or religion or philosophy or anything abstract.

You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.

[the universe] . . . simply goes about its business with the big fish eating the little fish in a perfectly amoral environment.

You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.

MAN created GOD; not the other way around !.

And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

 

[Royce]

It has been some time since I last visited this thread. I did a search for what I am about to post and it came up empty so if this is repetitive I apologize in advance.

If we apply Godel's Theorem to Physics, or any human study, as well as Mathematics then it can be shown that no subject such as "everything in the whole universe" can be completely reduced to any formal system such as Physics.

To rephrase the Theorem: "Rules can be a partial substitute for understanding (and insight) but can never replace it completely" from Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose. (contents of parens added by me.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Contra Penrose, geometry and measure theory are decidable. So if brain processes are continuous ("analog") rather than discrete ("digital" or "arithmetic") then they are not restricted by Goedel's Theorem.

 

[Royce]

Contra Penrose, geometry and measure theory are decidable. So if brain processes are continuous ("analog") rather than discrete ("digital" or "arithmetic") then they are not restricted by Goedel's Theorem.

I don't know why they wouldn't be. Goedel's Theorem applies to geometry and measure theory also. I also think that the Uncertainty Principle is proof positive that the theorem applies to Physics. Also synapses fire or don't fire.
I don't know that there is any analog degree, big, medium, little or continuous scales to their firing or not, nor if the neuron can choose to fire some but not other synapses. At best I would say that the brain's a combination of analog and digital but it doesn't matter as it is computational processing or non-computational consciousness that we are talking about; but that's another thread. I just thought of this thread as I was reading the book and made this connection.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't know why they wouldn't be. Goedel's Theorem applies to geometry and measure theory also. I also think that the Uncertainty Principle is proof positive that the theorem applies to Physics.

Uncertainty doesn't have a whole lot in common with incompleteness. Incompleteness has to do with the undecidability of entire formal systems; uncertainty only deals with four measurable quantities.

Also synapses fire or don't fire.
I don't know that there is any analog degree, big, medium, little or continuous scales to their firing or not, nor if the neuron can choose to fire some but not other synapses.

Brain activity is definitely analog. Action potentials are generated by continuous additive processes and can be stronger or weaker in varying degrees in both the positive and negative direction depending upon the computation performed. There are far more states a neuron can be in other than "on" and "off."

I think it should be noted that there doesn't seem to be much understanding of what "reducability" means. If all theories are reducable to theories of physics, then the answer to this question is "yes," even if the physical theories are themselves undecidable within any formal system and not all physical quantities can be measured with 100% accuracy. This doesn't necessarily mean that physics will explain everything, only that all theories of nature can ultimately be derived from physics. There can still be aspects to reality that are unexplainable through physics; they will just be unexplainable in any other manner as well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know why they wouldn't be. Goedel's Theorem applies to geometry and measure theory also. I also think that the Uncertainty Principle is proof positive that the theorem applies to Physics.

The proof of Goedel's theorem uses the set quantifiers "For All" and "For Every" and the technique of mathematical induction. Without them, no Goedel. Tarski proved in the 1940s that any set-theoretic version of a geometric proof could have those quantifiers removed and still remain a proof of the same thing. In other words geometry, unlike arithmetic, can be developed from first order propositional logic, rather than second order which falls under the Goedel bane. And geometry just doesn't use mathematical induction.

In recent decades the work has been extended to measure theory over a complete algebra (like the real or complex numbers).

And as loseyourname said, their is no simple connection between undecidability and uncertainty, except they both have "un" in their names.

 

[Royce]

All right both of you, loseyourname and selfAdjoint, it is a bit of a stretch I agree but I still maintain that in principle they are both formal systems with formal rules and physics is surely sufficiently complex enough to fall within Godel's theorem in that it cannot be complete. Whether you accept uncertainty as proof or not, physics has areas that are certainly incomplete, undecidable, unprovable and non-computational at this time.
As far a geometry is concerned it is a minor point and there is certainly more than one type of geometry, If geometry can be excluded from Godels theorem then perhaps that geometry is not of sufficient complexity. I don't know. I am certainly no expert in the subject.
Again analog or digital or both the processes of a machine are by definition computational. There are aspects of human mentality that are non- computational whether solely the operation of the physical brain or of something more.
The point of my post was that since there is at least one aspect of the universe that is non-computational then everything in the universe cannot be reduced to the laws or rules of physics and that this viewpoint could, just possibly, be supported by applying Godel's Theorem.

btw, is it spelled Goedel or Godel? I've seen both.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[Philocrat]

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

The fundamental engineering argument is this:

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

Philocrat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is just that a principle. Putting it very simply it says that we cannot know in principle the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle, an electron at the same time. It is not a limitation of mans ability or viewpoint but a confirmed fact, principle no matter how good or accurate our instruments become we can never know exactly both at the same time. So the universe can never be, in principle a 'PRARAPLEXED SYSTEM' which to my mind is the same as saying that it can never be, in principle determinant.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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


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

 

[Royce]

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[loseyourname]

Reading this book, the thought came to me that this same approach might be applied to physics which is largely modeled, at least, by math and many if not most of the theories are given in mathematical forms. Thus physics is a form of a formal system that is largely mathematical and possibly Goedel's Theorem might be applicable to show that everything in the universe cannot be reduced by physics.

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[Nereid]

One of the wonderful things about pure mathematics and pure research is that it often applies or can be applied to the real world. As you both know I have been reading Shadows of the mind by Roger Penrose where he used Goedel's theorem to show that there are aspects of consciousness that are non-computational and thus according to him there is more to consciousness than can be duplicated by algorithms.

An interesting idea, but with respect to Penrose and yourself, Roger most definitely did not show this! All he did, IMHO, was cobble together a bunch of ideas in a highly idiosyncratic way, and hope that not too many readers would realize how 'unclothed' the cobbling was. In particular, since we have barely scratched the surface on the neuro-chemistry, physiology, (etc) of consciousness, to assert that there are aspects which are non-computational is bold (shall we say).

Reading this book, the thought came to me that this same approach might be applied to physics which is largely modeled, at least, by math and many if not most of the theories are given in mathematical forms. Thus physics is a form of a formal system that is largely mathematical and possibly Goedel's Theorem might be applicable to show that everything in the universe cannot be reduced by physics.

Well, yes all this might be so. However, since (AFAIK) no one has attempted to do this - even superficially - we'll all have to wait for at least some 50k' details ... otherwise it's just pure speculation, n'est pas?

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

 

[Seafang]

You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.




You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.




You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.




And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

What assertions are you referring to? I don't claim to "know" anything about what you are commenting on. If I have an opinion, I'll state it as an opinion, not like I have the "truth," and I'll make an effort to support my opinion with facts.

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

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

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

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

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

You are the one who made statements as though you know the TRUTH. You said, "Well if you remove humans and ALL evidence of their existence from the universe, and leave all else untouched you will discover that you have also eliminated god. The universe absent humans has no morality or ethics or religion or philosophy or anything abstract. it simply goes about its business with the big fish eating the little fish in a perfectly amoral environment. MAN created GOD; not the other way around!"

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

 

[Royce]

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

The last time I posted something to that effect I was figurative tarred and feathered and rode out of town on rail. I guess it depends on who is posting it.

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

It was just a comment in reply to Nereid's post, not germane to the subject of this thread at all. Cut me some slack, will you. Everything I post is not intended as gospel nor up for contention. It is simply conversational remarks.

 

[Nereid]

DO until (Royce satisfied);
. slack := cut
END DO

 

[Royce]

Thanks, Nereid. I feel better already.
So Penrose did not prove his point or, as you say, cobbled it. Do you then think that his point is not valid?

It seems to me another way of stating Goedel's Theorem is to say that in any given formal mathematical system of sufficient complexity there is that which is unknowable and/or non-computable, to use Penrose's terms. After all if a system could be complete then everything within the system would be both knowable and computable.

This, of course, would apply only to mathematics which is abstract and may not be directly applicable to the physical universe.

The Uncertainty Principle, however, is physics and physical; " Both the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle cannot, in principle, be known at the same time." We could say; "Okay, so what, we can know one or the other just know both." However, Richard Fineman in QED stated that because of uncertainty we cannot know or predict which path an electron will take to get from point A to point B. It can and will, in any given instance, take any and all possible paths. We can only compute the probabilities of the possible paths, add them up and give the probability of the path taken, the sum of histories.

This shows that there is that in the physical universe that cannot be known and can not be computed, which of course means that everything in the universe cannot be reduced to physics. There is that which is unknown and non-computable in the universe. I will not go as far as Penrose and say that therefore the floodgates are opened, but maybe it just sprang a little leak.

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is just that a principle. Putting it very simply it says that we cannot know in principle the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle, an electron at the same time. It is not a limitation of mans ability or viewpoint but a confirmed fact, principle no matter how good or accurate our instruments become we can never know exactly both at the same time. So the universe can never be, in principle a 'PRARAPLEXED SYSTEM' which to my mind is the same as saying that it can never be, in principle determinant.

Ok, if our present Universe is not a paraplexed system, the next question is this:

Can a paraplex, let alone a system in which it's a part, be created under the present state of our universe? Or even more ambitiously, do things and events in the present universe (or the universe itself as a whole) have the potential of becoming paraplexes? Can the universe be rendered paraplexed in the strongest sense of the word?

Well, Transitional Logic (TL) suggests that this may very wel be the case. Now, consider the following TL statements:



1) A Horse is potentially a Unicorn

2) Man is Potentially perfect

2) The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex

Acccoding to TL, statements (1), (2) and (3) may be true in the presence of Change (the right kind of change for that matter). If this is true, it means that the three statements may be logically rescheduled thus to meet this criterion:


1) A Horse is potentially a Unicorn if, and only if, a Horse is changeable

2) Man is Potentially perfect if, and only if, man is changeable

2) The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex if, and only if, the Milkyway is changeable

All well and good, but we have only attached conditons to the TL staments. For we still have to say something about change both in terms of the need to recommend the RIGHT kind of change and in terms of WHY Change is necessary in the overal concept at all in the first place. Well, with regards to the former, it is necessary to decide whether FUNCTIONAL CHANGE or STRUCTURAL CHANGE that is suitable for this conceptual scheme. For the purpose of definition, Functional change(s) are such things as learning, copying, teaching, penal sanctions, and the normal workings of things as they originally were without any alteration in their original forms and structures. Whereas, Strunctural Change is something equivalent to scientific interference with, or alterations in, the underlying physical structures and forms of things. Well, if you ask me what is the problem with both, my answer would be:

A) Functional Change appears somewhat Circular. It seems as if things are just going around in circles by repetitious recycling of their imperfect parts as a rather strange means of keeping them going for as long as they last. That is, without any real change.

B) Structural Change, on the other hand, seems to be permanently avoided by many people because of their unpredictable consequences, such as the long-standing fear that Frankenstein's Monster may result. Whenever you hear people repeatedly say 'Don't mess or interfer with nature', this is precisely what they are referring to. They are simply telling you, we do not want this kind of change.

With regards to Change Type-A, as far back as to socrates, many philosophers have asked whether you can change someone from an immoral person to a moral person by teaching or penal sanction? You only have to see the current state of the world to appreciate the implication of this question. We tend to repeatedly do things that we have instructed ourselves not to do - from repeated offenders to repeated and the never-ending war mongering. Up till today we are still as barbabric and viscious as we have ever been- we are still fighting and killiing each other in ever larger scale, and no amount of education had succeeded in shaking the human intelligence off the barbaric state of war. Hence, the standard suspicion that many philosophers hold is that Functional change leads to a fruitless circularism. That is, it is not the type of change that can shift the human progress proper from point A to point B. With regards Change Type-B, scientists tend to have fundamentally retired to the position of 'PREVENT AND CURE', and given into the slogan 'Don't mess with nature!' Question: but what about if nature messes with you, who knows?, and maybe settles the scores with you in the same way that it did with the dinoseours? For there is nothing which logically rules this out!

So, as you can see both types of change are equally problematic.

On the Latter issue about change (i.e why change in the first place?), well the standard assumption in TL is that:

Anything that was originally perfect can never change

If this is true, then the three TL Conditional statements must be logically rescheduled thus:


ARGUMENT 1:


A Horse is potentially a Unicorn if, and only if, a Horse is changeable
A Horse is changeable if, and only if, a Horse is originally defective (both in structure and in function)

ARGUMENT 2:

Man is Potentially perfect if, and only if, man is changeable
Man is changeable if, and only if, man was originally defective (both in structure and in function)

ARGUMENT 3:

The Milky Way is potentially a Paraplex if, and only if, the Milkyway is changeable
The milky way is changeable if, and only if, the milky way was originally defective (in structure and in function)

This Schema in TL suggests that given the right type of change and given that things under change had built in natural potentilities for change, then potentially they could eventually in the end be anything they so desire.

QUESTIION: Given the long existing controversy over the type of change that is appropriate for this TL schema, which one should it actually be? Which one would you recommend? If we succeeded in recommending the right type of change, would this lead to the construction of genuine paraplexes, let alone paraplexed systems that they may finally collect into? And, ultemately, would Heisenberg uncertainty principle still hold?

 

[Royce]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.
One could rightly say that a system such as the Milkyway is perfect for the state that it is in at this point in its evolution, at any point in its evolution. If it weren't it wouldn't or couldn't evolve or continue to exist. How could we apply the terms perfect or defective to any system when we don't completely understand its purpose, if any, or its current state as compared to its ideal or perfect state? What does a perfect galaxy look like or do? I sure don't know, nor does anyone else. We don't even know if such a thing can exist.

 

[Philocrat]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.
One could rightly say that a system such as the Milkyway is perfect for the state that it is in at this point in its evolution, at any point in its evolution. If it weren't it wouldn't or couldn't evolve or continue to exist. How could we apply the terms perfect or defective to any system when we don't completely understand its purpose, if any, or its current state as compared to its ideal or perfect state? What does a perfect galaxy look like or do? I sure don't know, nor does anyone else. We don't even know if such a thing can exist.

Well, this now raises another fundamental question:

IS EVOLUTION PROGRESSIVE, LET ALONE PERFECTIBALE?

Or is it a mindless, purposeless and non-progresives or regressive venture in spacetime? Well, some of the earlier postings in this thread tend to suggest this. Would this be what you are also suggesting?

On the issue of the 'Milkyway being perfect', I am not quite sure of this given the way that I personally define and understand the terms 'perfect' and 'Paraplex' or 'Paraplexed System'. On this, it seems that both of us have different definitions of the term 'Perfect' or 'Perfection'. Well, if you are interested in knowing my own version of the term ‘PERFECTION’, I have defined it in many places on PF, but I will take this one to be my best estimate of the term 'Perfect' ( https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=416968#post416968 ) I appreciate the fact that many people would define it in their own ways. I have come across this term in countless threads on this PF, yet none even a single soul has made any attempt to give us at least a glimpse of what they mean, let alone define it in an appropriate way

My argument is that if the Milkyway were perfect in the strongest sense of the term, then, from the configuration point of view as strictly defined by the engineering principle of 'PERFECT FIT', it would be something equivalent to a paraplex. And as you suggested earlier that the Universe is not a paraplexed system and therefore the uncertainty principle is upheld. If this were true, then the Milky way would not be part of our universe, because the principle of the perfect fit, by definition, rigorously extrocises or excludes paraplexes from non-paraplexed systems.

When I first encountered Stephen Hawking's Black Hole theory many years ago through reading his best seller books (A Brief History of Time and Stephen Hawking's Universe), I honestly thought that Black Holes were paraplexes. I was deeply troubled by this, because this would suggest the possibility of paraplexes co-existing with non-paraplexes in a non-paraplexed system. I was even more troubled and confused when Stephen suggested in his theory that no information can come out of a black hole, but when he reversed this theory last year I breathed a sigh of relief. So, as you can see the possiblility of mistaking certain things and events for paraplexes in our universe does exist, and I wouldn't blame anyone for calling them 'perfect'

 

[Philocrat]

I don't really think the term "defective can be legitimately applied to an evolving non- manufactured system.

Well, the only problem with this is that our mind for some strange inexplicable reasons seems to have already made a good estimate of how most existing things should work or be. Even with all the problems that we have with defining the term 'perfect', people do extrapolate and imagine things like these:

1) I wish there were no natural disasters (eathqaukes, horicanes, floods etc)

2) I wish I could live forever without ever dying

3) Why is a multi-condition form of life impossible?

4) Is a multi-condition form of life possible?

5) If the sun finally burns out and decays, what would happen to the human race?

6) Would the growth and decay of the sun (or any other cosmological catastrophies) lead to interplanetary migration of the human race?

And so on. That we are able to make these sorts of imginative estimates about how the world and the wider universe should be does suggests that we are naturally predisposed to hunger for 'SOMETHING MORE' than we currently experience. It seems as if we are always craving for purposive things and events that genuinely progress to greater things. My own view is that whatever we are always expecting is not only PURPOSIVE and PROGRESSIVE, but also PERFECTIBLE! I could be wrong, but that's my view anyway.

On the issue of what is naturally 'defective' and when things can be construed as defective, well, the fact that we are naturally predisposed to see less of what is already there and expect more from those things does appear as if though we are looking at such things as structurally and functionally inadequate, hence the need and perhaps the possiblity of changing or evolving them to structurally and functionally better states. Well, if this is true, then it is immaterial or irrelevant whether such things were manufactured or not. My argument is that if things were originally working well, the human beings (at least some of us) would not see less of those things, let alone our desire to change them to what we think better. There is more to change than things just going around in circles in what outwardly appears somewhat pointless or regressive.

 

[Seafang]

What assertions are you referring to? I don't claim to "know" anything about what you are commenting on. If I have an opinion, I'll state it as an opinion, not like I have the "truth," and I'll make an effort to support my opinion with facts.

>>Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.

(that's four assertions)

You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.

(that's three assertions)

You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.

(another five assertions)

And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

(Three more assertions)

So about fifteen assertions in all (in just that one post).

The converse of each of those is easily deduced. Can you show that you KNOW any of them. ?

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I just realized a funny thing. The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?" How ironic is it that almost the entire thread since has revolved around whether or not there are non-physical aspects to the world, and that isn't even what was asked. I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics. It's funny that not a single person has answered that question.

 

[Philocrat]

Loseyourname, that gravely worries me as well. I have had nightmares about it lately. I just gave up when people continuously dudged my questions. Even when I tried many pages back to remind people of exactly this, I just saw people like magicians cunningly took to their hills. Eventually, I just gave myself a 'holiday' and went with the flow. I share the blame, if there is one levied. Give me a few days and let me shake this 'holiday' out of my senses and I should come up with something.

Happy New Year to you and everyone!

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, that gravely worries me as well. I have had nightmares about it lately. I just gave up when people continuously dudged my questions. Even when I tried many pages back to remind people of exactly this, I just saw people like magicians cunningly took to their hills. Eventually, I just gave myself a 'holiday' and went with the flow. I share the blame, if there is one levied. Give me a few days and let me shake this 'holiday' out of my senses and I should come up with something.

Happy New Year to you and everyone!

Thanks Philo. Happy New Year to you, too.

I get the impression from these forums that a lot of the posters are going to turn every thread into the same debate between physicalist and anti-physicalist models of consciousness no matter the issue you are actually trying to bring up. If you are interested in looking for it, there was a thread in the biology forum a couple of months ago about whether or not biology had become too reductive in its recent emphasis on molecular biology. Many of the posters, myself included, agreed that it had, in that reductive techniques can tell you nothing about operational systems in context. Molecular biology is great for explaining proteins and nucleotides, but cellular biology is necessary to explain cells, physiology and anatomy are both necessary to explain tissues and organs, and many levels of medical science, evolution, and zoology are necessary to explain whole organisms. When we begin to discuss entire ecosystems in which many organism interact with each other and non-organic parts of their environment, the explanatory capacity of molecular techniques alone becomes almost non-existent. Any attempt to explain something like social behavior simply by citing neurophysiological processes is going to fall way short and miss much of the point.

A great scientist that is sympathetic to concerns like yours is Edward O. Wilson. I've always enjoyed reading him. Niles Eldredge touches on some of the same things as well - Wilson in the realms of social behavior and ecology, Eldredge mostly in behavior and specifically sexual behavior.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

 

[Philocrat]

Thanks Philo. Happy New Year to you, too.

I get the impression from these forums that a lot of the posters are going to turn every thread into the same debate between physicalist and anti-physicalist models of consciousness no matter the issue you are actually trying to bring up. If you are interested in looking for it, there was a thread in the biology forum a couple of months ago about whether or not biology had become too reductive in its recent emphasis on molecular biology. Many of the posters, myself included, agreed that it had, in that reductive techniques can tell you nothing about operational systems in context. Molecular biology is great for explaining proteins and nucleotides, but cellular biology is necessary to explain cells, physiology and anatomy are both necessary to explain tissues and organs, and many levels of medical science, evolution, and zoology are necessary to explain whole organisms. When we begin to discuss entire ecosystems in which many organism interact with each other and non-organic parts of their environment, the explanatory capacity of molecular techniques alone becomes almost non-existent. Any attempt to explain something like social behavior simply by citing neurophysiological processes is going to fall way short and miss much of the point.

A great scientist that is sympathetic to concerns like yours is Edward O. Wilson. I've always enjoyed reading him. Niles Eldredge touches on some of the same things as well - Wilson in the realms of social behavior and ecology, Eldredge mostly in behavior and specifically sexual behavior.

This sounds as if biology is about to explain itself out of business. Let's say for an argument's sake that Biology can be wholly reduced to the next level, and perhaps rendered descriptively bankrupt, in your professional knowledge and honest opinion, what level down the 'Explanatory ladder' is biology? I am asking this question because, in my own limited understanding of the whole reductionsit process, it seems to me that even if biology were to be wholy reducible to the next scale, would it not be correct to say that biology still has an explanatory role to play in the process?

Another point is this. Let's say that it is possible to structurally and functionally improve the natural world at the cosmological or QM level, would this stop things from still happening at the biological level? If things are structurally improved at the QM level, would this not also autoamtically improve things at the biological level, or even higher up the explanatory ladder? This is one amongst many of the puzzling features of the whole of this Redunctionist Scheme.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and references. I will spend some time looking them up.

--------------------------
Save Our planet...stay green! May the book of nature serve you well, and bring you all that is good!

 

[Philocrat]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

Well, Loseyourname seems to think that, reductively, things are shaky in Bioology discipline, and this is why I am asking whther all the voluminous amounts of data amassed over the centuries in that discipline all comes to nothing. All wasted? I am going to read a little bit more on this.

----------------
Save our Planet...Stay Green!. May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[loseyourname]

I think that rather than say biology has become too reductive, we should encourage study of branches other than molecular biology alongside molecular biology. The knowledge that MB is returning is splendid, and we mustn't rest until we truly do understand protein dynamics, chemical pathways in the body, and all the rest. But behavior of animals, macroscopic physiology and the rest need to still be studied; they will return great knowledge too.

The whole reductionism versus higher level study looks like a pernicious blind alley to me.

I don't have any problem with molecular biology; it just seems that everyone who is studying biology these days is studying molecular biology and that's where all the money is going because of the potential returns in biotech. It's dominating the field. I think reductionism is very important, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Research needs to be conducted at all levels, though I do understand that, with funding set up the way it is, more research will always be conducted in fields that are more likely to produce a profit of some sort.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, Loseyourname seems to think that, reductively, things are shaky in Bioology discipline, and this is why I am asking whther all the voluminous amounts of data amassed over the centuries in that discipline all comes to nothing. All wasted? I am going to read a little bit more on this.

No! I don't think it's wasted. I just think that a purely reductive understanding doesn't tell you much. I'm really just trying to answer the question. If all we know is physics, even if we have a perfect understanding, I don't think we would know a whole lot about the natural world. The interactions taking place at the biological level, especially at the interorganismic level, are so incredibly complex that a physical understanding alone tells you almost nothing. Still, it tells you plenty about the natural world at the lower levels of organization and complexity. Both are integral to a complete worldview.

 

[Seafang]

You know, I just realized a funny thing. The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?" How ironic is it that almost the entire thread since has revolved around whether or not there are non-physical aspects to the world, and that isn't even what was asked. I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics. It's funny that not a single person has answered that question.

Well I am not aware of anyone claiming that the answer to the question is 'yes'.

For those who interpret the word 'everything' to mean 'every THING', they might take the position that 'THINGS' are elements of the physical universe, and then assert that the answer is yes (well in principle), but if one interprets 'everything' to include nouns that are not objects in the universe; such as 'TERROR' for example, then the answer is clearly NO.

I choose to interpret the word 'everything' to mean the latter, since if it does not, then we need another word that does mean 'everything' in that definition, so it might as well be 'everything' as any other combination of symbols.

So NO; I do not believe everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Do I believe every THING in the physical universe can be reduced to pure physics; my answer is YES (in principle) but probably not by us, and certainly not by me.

That does not mean we can know everything about the physical universe; in other words it does not contradict Heisenberg. Heisenberg's principle of "Unbestimheit" (probably with an umlaut) IS a part of pure physics after all, not an antagonist to pure physics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What assertions are you referring to? I don't claim to "know" anything about what you are commenting on. If I have an opinion, I'll state it as an opinion, not like I have the "truth," and I'll make an effort to support my opinion with facts.

>>Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
You don't know that. It's never been done, no one has ever witnessed it. No one knows.

(that's four assertions)

You don't know that. Absent of humans means no one has ever observed those conditions. No one knows.

(that's three assertions)

You don't know that either. That is true of aspects of nature here on Earth, but not necessarily all consciousness or the entire universe. No one knows.

(another five assertions)

And you certainly don't know that. All you know is what at you DO know. You can't possibly be certain about what you DON'T know.

(Three more assertions)

So about fifteen assertions in all (in just that one post).

The converse of each of those is easily deduced. Can you show that you KNOW any of them. ?

The converse of my statements are easily deduced? You can do it, but it won't make sense. And there aren't 15 different assertions. Mostly I am asserting the standards of proof and evidence, which requires observation. Most of what you said is just your opinion, yet you stated it as fact. THAT is my objection. If you want to assert something which isn't generally agreed upon (which all my assertions are) you have to back it up with evidence and logic to show us why it's true or at least plausible. Only God gets to talk in absolutes, and none of us agree he/she/it exists.

I liked your last response to Loseyourname. To me that is a careful and conservative statement about what is known. It contrasts sharply with your first comments.

 

[loseyourname]

I choose to interpret the word 'everything' to mean the latter, since if it does not, then we need another word that does mean 'everything' in that definition, so it might as well be 'everything' as any other combination of symbols.

Okay, but did you look at the actual poll question? It only asks about physical things.

So NO; I do not believe everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Do you believe that all scientific theories can be reduced to theories of physics and that explanatory power would be retained? I'm pretty sure that is the question Philo was trying to ask.

Do I believe every THING in the physical universe can be reduced to pure physics; my answer is YES (in principle) but probably not by us, and certainly not by me.

Okay, again, you think it can be done, but do you think it will have any real explanatory power at high levels of complexity?

That does not mean we can know everything about the physical universe; in other words it does not contradict Heisenberg. Heisenberg's principle of "Unbestimheit" (probably with an umlaut) IS a part of pure physics after all, not an antagonist to pure physics.

That's fine. Neither reduction nor explanation entails knowing the precise position and momentum, or energy and time, of every particle in the universe.

 

[saviourmachine]

Explanation of the physical world

...The question in this poll asks "In what other ways can the physical world be explained?"
...
I think the author really meant to ask if certain physical phenomena can be better explained through disciplines like biology, ethology, and perhaps even psychology that have not traditionally been reductive, rather than reducing all scientific theories to theories of physics...

Given: physics. Asked: explanations.

So, indeed a quarrel about the given - as physics + metaphysics - doesn't belong to the topic.

Kind of explanations
But, what kind of explanations are asked for?

1. Is asked for our description abilities of physics? The scope of natural/mathematical/physical language?
2. Is asked for the scope of physical description? Can we describe poems with physical language?
3. Is asked for a new kind of way to describe physics? Does exist beside the approach of physics by mathematicians, poets, and songwriters, another new kind of approach?
4. Is asked for the validness of an explanation of physics? Is it possible to 'explain' physics?

Personally I think that (2) is the question you pose, loseyourname. And I think the answer is clear: no. Physical statements as now posed are too narrow to describe 'most things'.

Explanation in a language - what is a language?
I'm very interested in the scope of language - if I may call it that. Sign language can be regarded as a creole, not a pidgin anymore. What makes a language a real language?

Explanation of the plurality of existing 'languages'
How did we obtain languages of different levels? Why is it easier for us to describe everything in its own, specific language, than in one uniform language? There are chemical, physical, dance notations; biological, personal names; spoken, written, gestured utterances; computer, natural, scientific languages and the list goes on.
However, even if we have a language to describe a domain, I doubt about (1): that we can explain if we had the appropriate language: "Give me a paint and I'll give you a painting." [nothing more]

 

[Seafang]

The converse of my statements are easily deduced? You can do it, but it won't make sense. And there aren't 15 different assertions. Mostly I am asserting the standards of proof and evidence, which requires observation. Most of what you said is just your opinion, yet you stated it as fact. THAT is my objection. If you want to assert something which isn't generally agreed upon (which all my assertions are) you have to back it up with evidence and logic to show us why it's true or at least plausible. Only God gets "to talk in absolutes, and none of us agree he/she/it exists.

I liked your last response to Loseyourname. To me that is a careful and conservative statement about what is known. It contrasts sharply with your first comments.

I must be getting senile; I can't recall using the word "different" when I pointed out there were 15 assertions in that one post of yours.

As to whether MY statements are just MY opinions; you can't know that. They very well could be; and usually are, statements (or opinions) from other persons who KNOW far more than I do about the subject.

For some reason, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with some individuals without citing peer reviewed academic journals for evidence of any statement one might make. That leads to unreadable posts because every few words require a new citation and an addition to the bibliography, and it conveys no more information, and merely transfers responsibility or blame for the statement to some other person or source; who then becomes the natural target of reservations of credibility.

At least one poster who pops up now and then all over the place (fortunately not here (yet)) is quite incapable of saying so much as one complete sentence in his own words, on any subject he chooses to post about. He merely cites interminable lists of links to other places where one must spend endless hours looking for believable facts.

As I have told him on more than one occasion, getting an education means one is actually supposed to LEARN and remember some of these things, so that they can be retrieved without the internet to be used when out in the boonies, or lost on a desert island. Being able to cite sources for information is of no use when those sources become inaccessible, and aren't necessarily any more credible anyway.

So I don't cite a lot of sources, unless I also know in my head what those sources are. I remember the general sources I rely on, but not the specifics that can be listed in a bibliography, and I am too long in the tooth to care one whit, whether others believe anything I say or not. If they choose not to believe what I say, that's just fine with me; I start from the presumption, they probably wouldn't believe the source I got it from either; and I am not going to lose any sleep either way.

So fact or opinion; doesn't matter to me how you choose to interpret what I write.