Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[RingoKid]

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

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

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[UltraPi1]

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

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

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

 

[Seafang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Seafang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

 

[Futobingoro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[UltraPi1]

Just saying it so doesn't make it so.

I can equally say this if someone says that reality is physical.

Nobody can even get close to discussing that proposition seriously because you can't offer evidence, it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.

The evidence is everywhere apparent. If all of reality is conceptual - How can you miss it?

What evidence is there for physical reality that can't also be explained by conceptual means?

 

[Nereid]

My first point states that points that have no matter or energy in them are outside our universe.

What leads you to think such points have any existence (outside your - or my - imagination)?

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

So how can we tell if 'something' is 'a space'? whether it is 'filled with matter and/or energy"? Surely all three terms are 'just' convenient shorthands within certain models of reality constructed by a minor carbon-based lifeform which has been living on a minor planet for a trivially short period of time?

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

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

Perhaps you could take another look at the Big Bang theory? The common words in English (and no doubt other languages) - 'once', 'exist', 'take place', 'outside' - may be leading you to make statements that are somewhat at odds with the theory.

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

I'd rather put it that these ideas are a) not at all self-evident, b) inconsistent with GR, and c) insufficient to constitute an alternative cosmological theory (to one built from GR).

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

What does this mean?

 

[Canute]

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

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

Les - are you sure about your reply here? I see why you said what you did, but what Seafang says is what Buddhists and Taoists say, what I believe, and what I thought you believed also. Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you not agree that what is outside the world of appearances neither exists nor not-exists?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les - are you sure about your reply here? I see why you said what you did, but what Seafang says is what Buddhists and Taoists say, what I believe, and what I thought you believed also. Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Do you not agree that what is outside the world of appearances neither exists nor not-exists?

My objection is to stating something is true when there is no possible way to know, and to also claim that if something exists we would know it. In terms of being something outside the universe which is physical, there could be, for instance, another physical universe a zillion miles from ours. What prohibits that? And if there is, whether we observe it or not has no bearing on if it exists -- that in particular is hugely nonsensical (i.e., to insist if something exists we would know it).

Regarding the Buddhist concept of appearances, that again is an entirely different subject, in my opinion. I don't think it has anything to do with what actually exists or doesn't outside oneself. It has to do with how consciousness relates to what's outside oneself in the practices involved in working toward enlightenment.

Once I got involved in a debate with some meditators about the Indian concept of Maya. They claimed it meant the world of appearances is an illusion. I said no, the world of appearances are real; the illusion is how consciousness views the world of appearances.

Part of the concept derives from the inner understanding that the world of appearances are temporary, and in the case of social appearances, often arbitrary since they are created by humans. But a person being taught the methods of enlightenment is being directed toward what is permanent, lasting. My point to my friends was, it isn’t that external reality isn’t there, its that relating to it as though it is the most important thing that’s the illusion. It is thinking lasting happiness can be found there, and not realizing attachment to the ups and downs of appearances creates that desire which leads to suffering.

In terms of the conscious practice, it is a way of saying don’t get caught up in appearances, either believing in them or disbelieving in them. The entire issue is irrelevant to what the person learning to turn inward needs, and so can be nothing but an distraction. But that practice is entirely different from the world of appearances actually exist.

Quoting the Buddha himself, “Material shape and the other [externals] are impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering . . .” The Buddha taught followers to understand that, “This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self, so that when the material shape and so on change and become otherwise, there arise not for him grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair.” In contrast to that Buddha prescribed something which will not leave us at the mercy of change by saying, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

I’m sure you are familiar with Kabir. Something he said that I like is, “I always laugh when I think of fish in the ocean getting thirsty.” Another very old Indian allegory is that of the musk deer searching everywhere for the source of its own scent. To me that describes how we search through the clutter of creation for the contentment we carry around inside us all the time, and what the teaching about appearances mostly concerns.

 

[Philocrat]

Well, that's a comment I've not heard in a long while! Thank you very much.
Perhaps one might propose a new name for "the hard science study of fundamentals" since, as I said, "the current state of physics has become rather senile in many respects". I would call the field "metaphysics" except for the fact that metaphysics has already established itself as a "soft science". How about "HARD" metaphysics?
I have spent today reading the entire thread (Oh, I have just perused a great number of posts). Les seems to be a rational person but I like things more exactly defined then he requires. For example:
I define an explanation to be a description of the procedure for obtaining expectations of unknown information from given known information. A good explanation is one where the expectations are consistent with observations (and "observations" are additions to that "known information"). Anyone, let me know if you find fault with that definition!
I agree 100% and wish I could find one. I have never met such a person in my life; at least not one with an education. Education tends to stifle such proclivities. I also suspect Les would baulk at living up to it.

On the "hard problem of consciousness", I think we need an exact definition of what one means by "consciousness". I have my idea but I suspect most here would baulk at using it. (I have not examined hypnogogue's refrence!)
Before one can wonder seriously, one needs to know exactly what you are talking about: define "consciousness".
And I wouldn't expect you be interested if I could not do what I say.
That's what I offered to do isn't it? However, the proof is not trivial and it requires some serious thought. Are you really ready?
Well now, I certainly am confident that I can demonstrate a "valid logical argument"! If that is grounds for dismissal then your idea of hard science and mine seem to be quite far apart.
What you seem to be saying here is that you need your intuitive position on what's right to yield the result or you won't accept it. One would conclude that you certainly are not a person "determined to find and accept the truth no matter what it may be, and who in pursuit of the truth is willing to investigate every facet of existence."

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

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

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

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

Have fun guys -- Dick

And consequently, when NEW information is added to the knowledge base, fundamentally, this must accumulate overtime. A good theory, therefore, that is consistent with your definitition of explanation should insist that:

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE SHOULD CONSISTENTLY ACCUMULATE OVER TIME TOWARDS EVERYTHING BEING COMPLETELY KNOWN BY THE PERCEIVER.

Well, my argument to this over the years is that whoever that final individual would be must inevitably (and perhapds irreversibly as well) be wholly structurally and functionally perfect both in substance and in scope.

On the issue of 'Hard Science', the fantasists are currently escaping it using all kinds of sly and dudgy arguments. It is one hell of issue that sooner or later all the intellectual communities must confront. I have been trying to draw everyone's attention to the problem of 'FORMS' that things take when they come into existence, including the form of our current universe. When people talk about Logic, mathematics, mechanical, mutational, causal and relational pathways in relation to the problem of explanation, I always try to redirect their attention to the problem of forms. If people say that they have problems with explanation via the devices of logic, mathematics and other forms of language, then we may have to return back to the drawing board and, as I have said it before, this may involve interfering with things structurally up to the level of forms that those things take when they come into existence. Call me a skeptic if you like, we may have to re-engineer the entire human reality if we were to make any structural and functional progress at all, let alone finally survive physical destruction that may subsequently manifest.

 

[Philocrat]

Philo, science is not meant to deal with questions of purpose. Science is descriptive only of physical processes in terms of cause and effect. In this sense it is defective as a means of describing all of reality, but this is an intentional defect! Science is not neglecting anything; it is simply incapable of answering questions of purpose. Purpose is an entirely subjective thing. Whether or not purposive action exists in a contracausal, non-physical sense isn't even known, and I would say cannot be known through empirical means, including the scientific method. These explanatory deficits you speak of are well known and well discussed here, but how are they relevant to the efficacy of science? Science cannot explain the experience of listening to a great opera, or any subjective experience for that matter, but that does not make it deficient any more than poetics is deficient because it can't explain why some ink dries faster than others.

you should be asking youself:

'WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PLANET MARS WERE TO BE KNOCKED OFF OR THROWN OUT OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM BY SOME COSMOLOGICAL EVENT?"

You might perhaps responded by arguing that this could never happen because there is no such known event or because such an event could not be imagined. But how could you know this? This would be a misleading response, for I would expect you to give some thoughts to this question and make an attempt to answer it, at least experimentally in a controlled lab condition. It would be intellectually insufficient to simply ingore it as irrelevant.

However, if you were to look at the question closely and at least experimentally responded to it, I argue that your response cannot just give rise to a 'HOW' answer but must also produce a 'WHY' answer too. So that if someone were to ask you the same question again you would not just give a functional account but also a purposive one as well, even where your experiment shows planet Mars to be functionally, causally and relationally redundant in the grand scale of things, in this very case in our solar system. This purposive analysis allows you to say that:

1) The Planet Mars serves a specific purpose or purposes in our solar system because when you remove it this is what would happen to our solar system

or;

2) The Planet Mars serves no known purpose in our solar system because when you remove it nothing happens...our solar systems just continues normally.

If this is the way you would approach it, then science cannot just prentend to interpret or explain things in nature in a non-purposive way. This approach allows you to think about improving things, making contingency plans, and so on. I call this a PROGRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that is, a method by which you look at how things work or are configured scientifically and equally why they are so, such that this would triger progressive thoughts and actions in you. To pretend that it is doing us any good for science to continue to look at things in an artificial way seems to me to be contrary to the norm...rather regressive instead of progressive in scope and in substance.

 

[honestrosewater]

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

That sounds like fun.

Where's the party?

 

[loseyourname]

you should be asking youself:

'WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PLANET MARS WERE TO BE KNOCKED OFF OR THROWN OUT OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM BY SOME COSMOLOGICAL EVENT?"

You might perhaps responded by arguing that this could never happen because there is no such known event or because such an event could not be imagined. But how could you know this? This would be a misleading response, for I would expect you to give some thoughts to this question and make an attempt to answer it, at least experimentally in a controlled lab condition. It would be intellectually insufficient to simply ingore it as irrelevant.

Well, actually a scientist should not be asking that question unless he has a lot of free time simply because that is not likely to ever happen and so funding for the research would be very difficult to come by. Also, I'm not a scientist.

1) The Planet Mars serves a specific purpose or purposes in our solar system because when you remove it this is what would happen to our solar system

or;

2) The Planet Mars serves no known purpose in our solar system because when you remove it nothing happens...our solar systems just continues normally.

If this is the way you would approach it, then science cannot just prentend to interpret or explain things in nature in a non-purposive way. This approach allows you to think about improving things, making contingency plans, and so on. I call this a PROGRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that is, a method by which you look at how things work or are configured scientifically and equally why they are so, such that this would triger progressive thoughts and actions in you. To pretend that it is doing us any good for science to continue to look at things in an artificial way seems to me to be contrary to the norm...rather regressive instead of progressive in scope and in substance.

You know, if that's all you mean by "purpose," then you might want to look into ethology and ecology, both of which deal with this pretty well. It is well known that interconnected parts in a given system all function to keep the system working a certain way. Scientists aren't generally going to refer to this as the "purpose" of any of these given elements, but the choice of words really doesn't make a difference.

 

[Philocrat]

Well, actually a scientist should not be asking that question unless he has a lot of free time simply because that is not likely to ever happen and so funding for the research would be very difficult to come by. Also, I'm not a scientist.



You know, if that's all you mean by "purpose," then you might want to look into ethology and ecology, both of which deal with this pretty well. It is well known that interconnected parts in a given system all function to keep the system working a certain way. Scientists aren't generally going to refer to this as the "purpose" of any of these given elements, but the choice of words really doesn't make a difference.

The issue that I am raising here is beyond the careless notion of 'Availability of Fundings'. In fact, the laymembers of the the world societies (some of whom we know sit naively on tons of money) should be very glad that there are at least a few people around the planet who go out of their ways to ask these sorts of questions. If money is the reason why the intellectual communities are unwilling to answer these 'LIFE-CRITICAL' questions, they too are twice as wrong. Infact, this is one of the reasons why I distinguished between 'FUNDS-DEPENDENT SCIENTISTS' and 'REAL SCIENTISTS' in a UK hosted forums a year ago, or should I say between 'PROCEDURAL' and NON-PROCEDURAL' scientists. My investigation shows that real scientists are those who are motivated by selfless quest for the truth, who often work under the harshest conditions imaginable. They never wait for cosy labs and sophisticated machineries to be available before they are motivated to seek the best of answers to the human problems.

Regardless of this sort of distinction, somewhere along the line someone somewhere must have all the good will in the world and be prepared to find answers to these questions. These are no child's play questions. They are the sorts of questions upon which the entire human existence, let alone survival, may very well depend. So, we ought to desire and genuinely will to answer these question for the collective benefit of all mankind.

 

[Philocrat]

IS MONEY REALLY THE CONSTRAINT?

In the world we have now countless instances of where millions of pounds/dolars are being inherited by cats, dogs, ants and cocroaches. We give billions of pounds in donations to all sorts of noble courses around the planet. We waste incalculable sums annually on pointless wars against ourselves.

Admitttedly, there is nothing wrong with natural creatures inheriting money from their natural lovers. But it is the obsenity of the sums that are often involved that I am concerned. Equally, there is nothing wrong in spending the sort of money that we are now spnding on all the good courses -- it is our natural responsibilty to do so. In fact I am one of the defenders of these sorts of human positive actions.

But the key question is this:

If we can raise money for all these human deeds, why are we unable to do so for the most important human project...THE PROJECT OF ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHOLE HUMAN PROGRESS AND SURVIVAL?

Clear thinking and intelligence suggest that we should be very glad and be willing to divert all human efforts and resources (with no price tags attached) to such an important project.

The more I think of this, the more I become skeptical as to whether lack of meony is the main reason why we are unwilling to ask the right questions, let alone any attempt and will to answer them in the correct way. Perhaps there is more to this problem than money.

Whatever the problem, however, one thing is now fundamentally clear:

The time is now right for us to start asking the 'WHAT-HOW-WHY' questions and making genuine human efforts to answer them in the most appropriate ways.

 

[Philocrat]

STANDARD DEFINITIONS: How Science Should Ask and Answer Questions.

The golden rule is that science must ask the correct questions and answer them in the most consistent and reliable ways.

1) THE 'WHAT' QUESTION

This investigates the notion of existence. For example, does anything exist at all, and if it does what is it? This is the process of identifying things by their forms or types and sub-classes of types.

2) THE 'HOW' QUESTION

This type of question investigates how anything identified and known, or even suspected to exist, works in relation to other things in time and space. When dealing with this question, the inevitable consequence is to do so in the context of 'PART-WHOLE RELATIONS' in terms of temporal and spatial positions, size, motion, change etc. The How question therefore must aim at underpinning the structural and causal relations of the thing or things concerned.That is, how does anything fit in and work together within the grand scale of things?

3) THE 'WHY' QUESTION

This investigates the outward purpose of a given entity in the part-whole relation or in the grand scale of things. When the what and how questions are raised and made apparent, the why question automatically becomes self-installed and rendered relevant. And the beauty of this is that when we start asking the why question we begin to tumble across such notions as 'Self-improvements', 'causal and relational error corrections', 'structural and functional re-engineering', 'structural and functional progress', 'survival' and so on. And this must happen in a cautious, systematic and all inclusive ways.


The danger in asking the how question without the what and why questions is that the resulting outcome may fail to triger progressive thoughts and actions in us. We may lose momentum and the desires to improve things that we look at in this way that are fundamental and relevant to the human progress and survival. To this end, I argue that the three questions must always be asked and answered in unison. At the moment several postings in this thread tend to suggest that science, for example, can only afford to ask the how question without the what and why ones. Well, to delude ourselves that we can ask and answer one without the other, I guess, is a fundamental intellectual error.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

 

[nickdanger]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

I like your tag lines quoting Einstein. It orients us a bit doesn't it.

 

[Doctordick]

Philocrat, I have real trouble understanding what you are trying to say!

A good theory, therefore, that is consistent with your definitition of explanation should insist that:

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE SHOULD CONSISTENTLY ACCUMULATE OVER TIME TOWARDS EVERYTHING BEING COMPLETELY KNOWN BY THE PERCEIVER.

You wish to add something to my definition of an explanation? (Note a definition and a theory are not the same thing!) And, if you add such a thing, it implies an explanation which is based on an unchanging knowledge base is not an explanation! That kind of removes the general nature of the definition doesn't it?

Well, my argument to this over the years is...

Exactly what does argument 'to' something mean? Is this to be a defense of a position or a refutation?

And I do not understand what you mean by the word "forms".

For the time being, I will presume you are confused. Take a look at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

If you can understand that presentation I will be surprised!

On nickdanger's comment to loseyourname:

I like your tag lines quoting Einstein. It orients us a bit doesn't it.

That orientation is a little askew of "scientific" isn't it?

The more information you have, the more patterns you are apt to discover. A verbal explanation constitutes attaching symbols to repeated chunks of information. Then one begins to find repeated similar relationships between these named chunks (and one attaches symbols to these, names for relationships). Verbal explanations are nothing more than such constructs which define your expectations. Under that view of "language" (which includes scientific and unscientific language growth), the comment "It would be description without meaning" sort of descends into drivel doesn't it?

If anyone is interested, the above comment is almost a direct quote taken from a philosophical discussion of "explanation" which begins at:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4468.shtml

Have fun everyone -- Dick

 

[Philocrat]

Philocrat, I have real trouble understanding what you are trying to say!
You wish to add something to my definition of an explanation? (Note a definition and a theory are not the same thing!) And, if you add such a thing, it implies an explanation which is based on an unchanging knowledge base is not an explanation! That kind of removes the general nature of the definition doesn't it?
Exactly what does argument 'to' something mean? Is this to be a defense of a position or a refutation?

And I do not understand what you mean by the word "forms".

For the time being, I will presume you are confused. Take a look at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

If you can understand that presentation I will be surprised!

On nickdanger's comment to loseyourname:
That orientation is a little askew of "scientific" isn't it?

The more information you have, the more patterns you are apt to discover. A verbal explanation constitutes attaching symbols to repeated chunks of information. Then one begins to find repeated similar relationships between these named chunks (and one attaches symbols to these, names for relationships). Verbal explanations are nothing more than such constructs which define your expectations. Under that view of "language" (which includes scientific and unscientific language growth), the comment "It would be description without meaning" sort of descends into drivel doesn't it?

If anyone is interested, the above comment is almost a direct quote taken from a philosophical discussion of "explanation" which begins at:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4468.shtml

Have fun everyone -- Dick

What I was doing here was not to add to your thoughts or definition of explanation. Quite the contrary. All that it was meant to do was to provide a sort of guide as to what a good theory or definition of the term must envitably encopmpass. We cannot complicate things at all nor should we ever pretend to do so. Even a child understands that all there is to explanation is to add somethning new to what is already known and what is added must be coherent and logically consistent with what is elready known, the content of which I habitually call 'THE KNOWLEDGE BASE'.

In my own school of thought there is only one knowledge base and all the things in it have logically consistent relations, and this is equivalent to a single 'UNIVERSAL SET'. This contains everything there is to be known about the world. All other deductions using set theories, including what your companion is attempting to do here (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ), must totally and invetably adher to this single Universal set or knowledge base.

A knowldege base or Universal set becomes inconsistent when you model or sample knowledge or what is explainable in a way that is fundamentally vague such that it logically disconnects what you claim to be explaining from everything else in the knowledge base. So, when you claim to have successfully explained something using all your sophisticated modelling, sampling and explanatory devices, the next questions you must ask yourself are these:


1) Does my sampled or modeled explanation results in what I have been calling in this PF 'THE EXPLANATORY DEFICITS'. You have to ask yourself this question otherwise you may very well fall prey to self-deception.

2) Does what results from my proclaimed explanation logically and consistenly connect to every other piece of information in the knowledge base? Don't forget that by explaining, or claiming to explain, you are adding something new (new piece of information) either into your own knowldege base or into the knowledge base of a bystander, both of which have a UNIVERSAL LOGICAL CONNECTION to each other. For nothing which you know, or claim to know, can by enumeration of the SUM TOTALITY OF THE HUMAN EXISTENCE be contemplated and construed in isolation from everything esle!

I claim that whatever we know through explanation ( if at all the notion of the term itself is possible in the first place), or claim to be explaining to ourselves and others, must in the end universally connect and make a final sense to what I always call 'THE FINAL PERCEIVER(S)'. And the argument that I have consistently put across in this PF and elsewhere is that, whoever this Final Perceiver or Perceivers would be must be construed as possessing a complete knowledge base or a universal set of all there is to be known.

 

[Philocrat]

I'm still not sure what you want. Do you want to see more emphasis on ecology and integrated sciences as opposed to reductionist subspecialties? It would be nice if you could formulate your theses using existing, well-defined terminology. For instance, when you say purpose, are you referring to teleology, or simply to function within a context?

I am not in anyway denying that certain processes in nature do contain redundant states or functional elements. Even Aristotle, who can quite rightly be construed as the first true scientist, understood and wholly accpeted this. This is made very clear in Aristotle's teleology, often signatured by his famous slogan 'Nature Does Nothing in Vain". Although, his teleology is contracted to assign functional purposes to things and many people would probably discredit this as merely talking about things and their functions, the reality is that Aristotle's teleology has wider and far-reaching implications, especially when you are looking at the ordering of the world in an holistic way using 'Transitional Logic' (TL). If you take Aristotle's teleology a step further, you just cannot afford not to classify the purposes of things that are purportedly in universal relations into (1) those with ephemeral Purposes and (2) those with Permanent Purposes. Often, it appears as if Aristotle teleology is mistaken to cover only things with ephemeral purposes in nature. I hope that this is not the case, because in actual fact it does extend to cover things with permanent purposes.

This fact can be traced to Aristotle's notion of change. When he was discussing change in relation to causes and effects, surely we could not have have mistaken him to be talking about the kind of change that results in regressive consequences alone, or even the sort that derails into circularism. He must have also been thinking about the sort of change that follow a consistent logical but progressive pathway, or pathways, to structural and functional perfection of things in the world. Should this be the case, and hopefully so, ought we not to insist that the modern science must embrace and uphold methodolgies and analytical procedures that look at things in terms:

(1) WHAT they are?
(2) HOW they work and fit in with everything else?; and
(3) WHY they play the role they are currently playing?

My argument is that the kind of science that looks at the HOW question alone without the WHAT and WHY questions being contemporaneously dealt with, is intellectually insufficient. It is frankly performing a misguided role in the society and doing a great disservice to humanity.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Can everything be reduced to pure physics? Who cares.

You guys think far too much!

Ultimately, are we not considering which belief system has merit? It seems irrelevant to me whether we choose to delineate branches of science or not. What is at stake here is the scientific method versus superstition.

For me, the scientific belief system has as its basis that: physical reality is that which exists independently of thought (I told you you think too much!) and we can make discoveries about reality be carefully interpreting the data we receive through our senses, albeit as the result of interacting with reality (experimentation).

(I don't buy the collapse of the wave function crap that requires human intervention. Nor, for that matter do I accept that the Uncertainty Principle is necessarily ultimately all that accurate. The fact is that human beings have barely begun to understand reality and the theories we have so far cannot be assumed, a priori, to be anything other than rough approximations. Science has a long way to go but already it’s results transcend those all other belief systems put together and does so by an almost infinite margin, the others, by and large, not so much contributing as detracting from human progress.)

As I see it, the important issue for human beings at the moment is: do we follow a belief system predicated on fantasy, e.g. belief in a god, or do we follow a belief system that is grounded in empiricism. The latter is reliable and productive, the former is positively insane.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Can everything be reduced to pure physics? Who cares.

You guys think far too much!

Hi Jeff, welcome to PF. As far as "thinking too much," well you are in the philosophy section.

Ultimately, are we not considering which belief system has merit? It seems irrelevant to me whether we choose to delineate branches of science or not. What is at stake here is the scientific method versus superstition.

I'd say you aren't being fair with that. While some belief in a conscious creationary force may be superstition, you shouldn't assume all of it is.

However, the question isn't "which belief system has merit," the question is if physics can explain everything. Currently it cannot. Maybe one day it will, but maybe it won't. If you were to review some of things physics cannot explain (talked about extensively here in PF philosophy) you'd find consciousness at the top of the list (I also include the self-organization principle needed for abiogenesis to be a sound theory for the origin of life).

For me, the scientific belief system has as its basis that: physical reality is that which exists independently of thought (I told you you think too much!) and we can make discoveries about reality be carefully interpreting the data we receive through our senses, albeit as the result of interacting with reality (experimentation).

True. But what if there are aspects of reality which aren't availble to sense experience? If sense experience only reveals physicalness, all that proves is the limitations of sense experience. It doesn't prove there isn't "something more."

As I see it, the important issue for human beings at the moment is: do we follow a belief system predicated on fantasy, e.g. belief in a god, or do we follow a belief system that is grounded in empiricism. The latter is reliable and productive, the former is positively insane.

Hmmmm. I suspect your bias is showing. There is no reason a person can't rely on empiricism for everything it can explain (which is lots). But what about what it cannot explain? You don't have to believe in the Christian version of God to remain open to the possibility that there is "something more" going on than physical processes.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

Hi Les

what if there are aspects of reality which aren't availble to sense experience?

By assertion, such reality, if it exists, impinges upon us not at all. It would, therefore, be futile to attempt to characterize it and ridiculous to theorize about it.

Hmmmm. I suspect your bias is showing. There is no reason a person can't rely on empiricism for everything it can explain (which is lots). But what about what it cannot explain? You don't have to believe in the Christian version of God to remain open to the possibility that there is "something more" going on than physical processes.

Too right, I'm biased! I'm not just biased, I'm entirely one-sided: as far as I'm concerned, objective reality is all there is, by definition! Of course there are many things that science cannot explain and I did stress this in my original post. I am certainly open to there being much more than we have yet encountered but if we cannot detect it by empirical means then it may as well not exist for us and dwelling upon such thing leads us down a path to madness.

Let's be clear, the alternatives to scientific discovery (by which I include simply causal relationships that all infants encounter as they develop) have not only provided no satisfactory explanations whatsoever but they have, in the main, led people to act upon false premises that have often been the cause of human conflict.

 

[Les Sleeth]

By assertion, such reality, if it exists, impinges upon us not at all. It would, therefore, be futile to attempt to characterize it and ridiculous to theorize about it.

How do you know there is no impingement when there are yet things to be explained by physicality alone? Let's take an example all of us have experienced. As a child grows and develops he finds all these systems in place for feeding him, clothing him, protecting him, giving him medical attention, educating him . . .

If he were able, he could study each of those systems and understand how they work. He could say that because he understands the mechanics of the systems, there is nothing more to be explained. However, what he hasn't explained is how those systems got organized so they could take care of him.

Similarly, you are ready to say you have got it all figured out because you can explain the mechanics of things. But let's see you prove that mechanics can, all on their own, organize themselves into life and consciousness. Since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate how that happens, there might just be "something more" impinging.

Too right, I'm biased! I'm not just biased, I'm entirely one-sided: as far as I'm concerned, objective reality is all there is, by definition! Of course there are many things that science cannot explain and I did stress this in my original post. I am certainly open to there being much more than we have yet encountered but if we cannot detect it by empirical means then it may as well not exist for us and dwelling upon such thing leads us down a path to madness.

When I said sense experience might not detect something that exists, I didn't mean to say that some other kind of conscious experience wasn't available. I would agree that if we can't experience anything more than what's physical, and if physicalness can be shown to account for everything, then we don't need no stinkin' "something more."