Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[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?