Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[quantumcarl]

Best game in town as far as I can see

Of course that does not mean it will necessarily always be the best game in town, but as Goethe said :



Physics currently represents the rational stand within the limits of the intelligible.

Best Regards

MF

Your quote from Goethe fits perfectly with what I am asking in the Quantum Physics forum. If its ok I am going to borrow it.

I am asking "what is energy made of and where does it come from".

Its like asking..."what are the origins of nature"...when, so far, the only answer is "nature is the origin of nature".

I'm going to use your quote because it will contribute a 'calm' to what I'm asking. Thank you.

 

[moving finger]

Your quote from Goethe fits perfectly with what I am asking in the Quantum Physics forum. If its ok I am going to borrow it.

I am asking "what is energy made of and where does it come from".

Its like asking..."what are the origins of nature"...when, so far, the only answer is "nature is the origin of nature".

I'm going to use your quote because it will contribute a 'calm' to what I'm asking. Thank you.

I am happy I could be of help.

The answer to your question "what is energy made of..." is maybe one of those things which is outside the limits of the intelligible.

Best Regards

MF

 

[Paul Martin]

The answer to your question "what is energy made of..." is maybe one of those things which is outside the limits of the intelligible.

Maybe ... but then again, maybe not. I have given the question a little thought lately and I think some sense might be made of it.

I have begun to sketch out my ideas in an as-yet-unfinished essay which you can find at http://paulandellen.com/essays/essay146.htm .

I apologize for its unfinished state, but if you have the time and the inclination to read it, I would love to discuss it. It would also give me the impetus to finish it.

In short, it is a proposal to enhance Shannon's definition of 'information' and to extend the laws of Thermodynamics. The extension and enhancement would include consciousness as a part of the theory in addition to matter and energy.

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[moving finger]

I apologize for its unfinished state, but if you have the time and the inclination to read it, I would love to discuss it. It would also give me the impetus to finish it.

I'll take a look.

But I've already revised my answer to the above question.

The question is meaningless. Energy is not a physical "thing", it is a property of the physical world. To ask "what is energy made of?" is like asking "what is length made of?". It's a simple example of a category error.

Best Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

Hi Paul

I have begun to sketch out my ideas in an as-yet-unfinished essay which you can find at http://paulandellen.com/essays/essay146.htm .

I'm afraid the ideas developed in here are in a completely different direction to my own thoughts, so much so that I cannot really connect with them.

imho information is purely subjective. It has no meaning in absence of a "perspective" (an observer). Whether a perfectly ordered deck of cards carries more information than any other "apparently random" ordering of the cards depends on the subjective perspective of the agent making the judgement. One particular ordering of cards may contain relevant information (it may spell out a person's birthdate for example) to one person, whilst appearing random to another.

Subjectivity is also something inherent to conscious experience. There is simply no way that we can use our objective scientific method to "deconstruct" the subjective experience of one person and re-represent it in a form understandable by another person. Subjective conscious experience is a private "world" which is not simply connected with the objective world.

I guess that doesn't help much!

Best Regards

MF

 

[Lars Laborious]

Subjective conscious experience is a private "world" which is not simply connected with the objective world.

Do you believe in such a “world”? If so, what kind of world is it?

 

[octelcogopod]

Hi Paul
imho information is purely subjective. It has no meaning in absence of a "perspective" (an observer). Whether a perfectly ordered deck of cards carries more information than any other "apparently random" ordering of the cards depends on the subjective perspective of the agent making the judgement. One particular ordering of cards may contain relevant information (it may spell out a person's birthdate for example) to one person, whilst appearing random to another.

Best Regards

MF

So, let's say we have a date written on a piece of paper, and that this date is the birthday of a person somewhere on the globe.
Without any observers, this would be just a random object with no meaning.
However, if a consciousness were to arise, and read these numbers on the paper, and then be told that they are the birthday of someone else, then the numbers would be connected to the paper, and the person reading it connected to both the person who had the birthday AND the paper.

These connections exist inside the conscious sphere of the person, they do not exist physically (other than memories / brain activity.)
Furthermore, it seems like everything is connected quite densely, as we all live in each others conscious spheres, and objects in the world are shared.
It's like one big consciousness really.

Furthermore, it seems like the values these objects have, is agreed upon by several if not all observers.
For example a car engine.
A car engine has a specific function, it is physically built that way.
The car engines function is a direct emergent property of physics.
Physics alone, can give arise to emergent systems that must work in a logical and fundamental way.
What if conscious experience and qualia, is actually just an emergent property of the physicality of things?

Humans create a duality by default, they separate themselves from the physical world.
The "self" is not the "world."
What if this is some sort of defense mechanism for the organism to evolve a conscious experience?
What if conscious experience is simply the brains ability to separate itself from the world itself. (Coupled with the eyes, body and 5 senses + memories)
One could also argue that the brain was an "accident", and that the universe just "stumbled upon" consciousness when the physical particles bound into a dense mesh of matter and energy.

 

[moving finger]

Subjective conscious experience is a private "world" which is not simply connected with the objective world.

Do you believe in such a “world”? If so, what kind of world is it?

Imho conscious experience is a “world” which is created by a particular kind of information processing (a kind that we commonly call consciousness), and which is inhabited by virtual entities (the ‘self’ and “qualia”). There is no “simple connection” between these virtual entities and the external objective physical world, in pretty much the same way as there is no simple connection between the external objective physical world and the virtual objects which are constructed within computer games. The “buildings”, the “cars”, the “inhabitants” in SIM city (for example) have no physical existence as the actual objects represented, they are pure information, entirely virtual, created within an information processing system. Though the information processing is a very real physical phenomenon, the “world” that is "inhabited" by these virtual objects is a virtual world, created by and within the system.

Best Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

let's say we have a date written on a piece of paper, and that this date is the birthday of a person somewhere on the globe.
Without any observers, this would be just a random object with no meaning.

Agreed. To transform data into useful information, in other words to give meaning to that data, requires interpretation. Interpretation requires an agent to do the interpretation.

However, if a consciousness were to arise, and read these numbers on the paper, and then be told that they are the birthday of someone else, then the numbers would be connected to the paper, and the person reading it connected to both the person who had the birthday AND the paper.

Agreed. This is consistent with what I have said above. But I would qualify this by saying that only an interpretive agent (ie an agent capable of interpreting) is required to turn data into information (consciousness is not strictly necessary).

These connections exist inside the conscious sphere of the person, they do not exist physically (other than memories / brain activity.)

The connections exist as information within the interpretive agent. To be effectual in the physical world, all information, including the information within the interpretive agent, must be encoded as patterns on some physical substrate.

Furthermore, it seems like everything is connected quite densely, as we all live in each others conscious spheres, and objects in the world are shared.
It's like one big consciousness really.

This does not follow. All of our empirical evidence suggests that individual conscious experiences are actually very private and isolated. What evidence or reason do you have for thinking “it’s one big consciousness”?

Furthermore, it seems like the values these objects have, is agreed upon by several if not all observers.
For example a car engine.
A car engine has a specific function, it is physically built that way.
The car engines function is a direct emergent property of physics.

I disagree. The “function of a car engine” (to my way of thinking) is the way it is designed, and that design takes into account both the purpose of the designer and the properties of the physical world.

Physics alone, can give arise to emergent systems that must work in a logical and fundamental way.
What if conscious experience and qualia, is actually just an emergent property of the physicality of things?

I think they indeed are. Consciousness is simply a particular form of information processing, and qualia are virtual entities created within that information processing. To be effectual in the physical world, information processing requires a physical substrate (abstract information processing in absence of a physical substrate has no effect on the physical world). Thus both consciousness and qualia are indeed emergent phenomena. But there is nothing magical about this. Imho all emergent phenomena have reductive explanations (ie the source of the emergence), its just that these explanations may not be very simple or straightforward.

Humans create a duality by default, they separate themselves from the physical world.
The "self" is not the "world."

Agreed – I think this dualism is created through the illusion that the conscious self is a real entity (as opposed to a virtual entity). Accept that both “self’ and “qualia” are virtual, crearted by information processing, and the dualism disappears.

What if this is some sort of defense mechanism for the organism to evolve a conscious experience?

There is no doubt in my mind that consciousness has evolved in some agents because it provided competitive advantage. It is easy to see why – it is very difficult for a non-conscious biological agent to make detailed, complex and long-term plans to achieve goals. In short, it is very difficult for evolution to evolve intelligence without evolving consciousness first – I believe intelligence emerges out of consciousness. BUT I also believe that non-conscious agents can be intelligent (it’s just that it’s an extremely unlikely chain of events that would lead to a biological evolutionary path whereby very intelligent but non-conscious agents would evolve).

What if conscious experience is simply the brains ability to separate itself from the world itself. (Coupled with the eyes, body and 5 senses + memories)

It is (imho). Consciousness “creates” the virtual self, and in so doing it creates within the agent the illusion that the agent is somehow acting as a “free agent” within but at the same time somehow detached from the world. It is this illusion which baffles many people and leads them to notions of dualism.

One could also argue that the brain was an "accident", and that the universe just "stumbled upon" consciousness when the physical particles bound into a dense mesh of matter and energy.

Precisely. This is my philosophy. Everything is “an accident”, in the sense of there is no teleological purpose. We are not “here for a reason”, we are simply the products of blind evolution.

Many people find this idea abhorrent, and therefore they create imagined purposes for existence (the most common being god). I have no need for such an hypothesis.

Best Regards

MF

 

[octelcogopod]

Very insightful post.
I must say things are starting to get very clear for me now.

This does not follow. All of our empirical evidence suggests that individual conscious experiences are actually very private and isolated. What evidence or reason do you have for thinking “it’s one big consciousness”?

I actually very much like the idea that subjective conscious experience is private and isolated.
But what I originally meant was that we do not exist solely as our bodies + consciousness, when someone else thinks of us, or we interact with other people, then we "exist" in their minds as well.

It was a moot point I realize now though, but I just like the idea of not being /completely/ alone.

 

[moving finger]

But what I originally meant was that we do not exist solely as our bodies + consciousness, when someone else thinks of us, or we interact with other people, then we "exist" in their minds as well.

Ah yes I see. We "exist" as representations within their minds.

But as Kant observed, we never know the "ding an sich" (thing in itself). All we can ever know is some kind of representation of that thing.

Best Regards

MF

 

[gptejms]

I avoid such discussions,but can't resist myself saying thisut a man in a cannon and fire,the man will follow a parabolic trajectory!Beyond this,I don't think physics can say anything about a man's(or even an ant's) behaviour.So,can everything be reduced to pure physics--my answer is first start predicting based on pure physics a bacteria's behaviour,start manufacturing life in laboratories from pure chemicals--until then you don't even have a right to comment.

 

[Ernies]

Like gptejems, bitter experience usually makes me avoid such threads.
The various tracks are confused and confusing, largely, I think by concentration in abstraction The last message rightly calls it back to materiality. There are many, actually an infinity, of ways of accounting for an array of 'facts'.
But let us take two. The lamp-post outside my house can be desribed as
a: a concrete post 20ft.high with a sodium vapour...
b. a device for providing light during the night.
The first might be called descriptive only, and the second in a crude way 'explanatory'. The word 'for' implies a 'purpose' , thus bringing in something other than the lamp.
The question is then 'can physics ever use the word 'for'?' If ever, can it always?
I agree with gpjtems. Perhaps he'll let me know whether--annus mirabilis-- he agrees with me.

ernies

 

[gptejms]

Agree with you on this
Can't think of exceptions i.e. the use of word 'for' in physics right away--may be there are none.

 

[moving finger]

I don't think physics can say anything about a man's(or even an ant's) behaviour.So,can everything be reduced to pure physics--my answer is first start predicting based on pure physics a bacteria's behaviour,start manufacturing life in laboratories from pure chemicals--until then you don't even have a right to comment.

Explanation does not entail Predictability.

Just because we cannot predict everything it does not follow that we cannot come up with a rational and coherent explanation for everything.

To claim that "you don't have a right to comment" simply because we can never know anything with certainty is an intellectual dead-end.

Best Regards

 

[Ernies]

Explanation does not entail Predictability.

Just because we cannot predict everything it does not follow that we cannot come up with a rational and coherent explanation for everything.

To claim that "you don't have a right to comment" simply because we can never know anything with certainty is an intellectual dead-end.

Best Regards

You seem to have missed the point in my note (or perhaps you had not read it). 'Explanation' is different from mere 'description'. I do not recall anyone saying 'simply because we can never know anything with certainty'. We can never describe anything with perfect accuracy on current theories, but that seems irrelevant.
I am not at all clear what you mean by 'explanation'-- or 'rational'. Co-herent I take to mean 'with no overt self-contradiction'.

Ernies

 

[gptejms]

Explanation does not entail Predictability.

Just because we cannot predict everything it does not follow that we cannot come up with a rational and coherent explanation for everything.

Apart from the fact that an explanation is different from description,I have this to say:-How do you lend credibilty to a theory or hypotheseis--by its ability to predict(or describe)to a reasonable accuracy the evolution of a system.Even if one is dealing with a quantum system,one at least predicts an interference pattern(though not exactly where a particle is going to hit).

I understand real systems are much more complex and it's difficult to describe them,but if you make a statement claiming that everything can be reduced to pure physics then the onus is on you to prove it.Otherwise it's just a matter of belief that it can be.

To claim that "you don't have a right to comment" simply because we can never know anything with certainty is an intellectual dead-end.

Not being able to prove something and believing in it is also a dead end.

 

[moving finger]

Apart from the fact that an explanation is different from description,

I have never claimed that an explanation is the same as a description.
But fundamentally, all explanations are based on descriptions.
An explanation is simply an interpretation or description of one set of ideas or concepts in terms of another set of ideas or concepts. All explanations are based on models, and all models are based on descriptions.
We “explain” the atom by saying it is composed of electrons, protons, neutrons; and we “explain” some of these particles in terms of other particles, and maybe one day we will be able to “explain” all of these particles in terms of strings. But all we are doing is replacing one “description” of X in terms of Y by another “description” of X in terms of Y in terms of Z.

How do you lend credibilty to a theory or hypotheseis--by its ability to predict(or describe)to a reasonable accuracy the evolution of a system.Even if one is dealing with a quantum system,one at least predicts an interference pattern(though not exactly where a particle is going to hit).

I did not say that explanations never make predictions; I said explanation does not entail predictability.
The quantum world seems to be inherently uncertain, in most cases all we can do is to provide a certain probability that a given quantum event will happen in a certain timeframe, but in most cases we cannot provide a firm “yes/no” type prediction. This is the limit of our predictive ability.

if you make a statement claiming that everything can be reduced to pure physics then the onus is on you to prove it.Otherwise it's just a matter of belief that it can be.

I never made such a statement, thus with respect there’s no “onus on me” to prove any such thing.
I could however counter your argument by saying "the hypothesis that everything can be reduced to pure physics seems to fit the facts". The "onus" is then on anyone who thinks that such an hypothesis is incorrect to actually come up with evidence to show that it is incorrect. That is the scientific method.

To claim that "you don't have a right to comment" simply because we can never know anything with certainty is an intellectual dead-end.

Not being able to prove something and believing in it is also a dead end.

All we can ever have is explanations which seem to fit observations. But that is never “proof” that such explanations are correct.
Or are you perhaps claiming that we can know anything with certainty?
Would you like to give an example?

Best Regards

 

[gptejms]

I never made such a statement, thus with respect there’s no “onus on me” to prove any such thing.
I could however counter your argument by saying "the hypothesis that everything can be reduced to pure physics seems to fit the facts". The "onus" is then on anyone who thinks that such an hypothesis is incorrect to actually come up with evidence to show that it is incorrect. That is the scientific method.

If you never made a statement of the sort 'everything can be reduced to pure physics' then you need to make your position clear--otherwise I don't know what we are discussing.

I knew that the transfer of onus was going to happen!I do not believe that the hypothesis is incorrect,but limited to whatever it's able to describe--which doesen't include all the facts.Until it's able to do that, one can only say 'I don't know'.But 'I tend to believe' that everything can not be reduced to pure physics just as you believe(?) that it can be.

 

[Ernies]

Moving finger said, on the one hand
"I have never claimed that an explanation is the same as a description..." and on the other "An explanation is simply an interpretation or description ...".
He contradicts himself in one breath.
Then he says "we explain the atom...".
Indeed I, a theoretical physicist, most emphatically do not. I describe it in ways which have developed over the last 50-odd years of my career.

All of this stems from confusing the uses of the words "Why", "Explain", "describe" and "reason". The question "Why is the window broken?" has two anwers: first that a stone impacted on it, and second that I threw the stone because I disliked the person behind it. These are fundamentally different in kind, yet the discussion has often flipped from one meaning of "Why" to the other apparently without reason or even notice by the disputants.


Ernies

 

[gptejms]

Then he says "we explain the atom...".
Indeed I, a theoretical physicist, most emphatically do not. I describe it in ways which have developed over the last 50-odd years of my career.

I don't know what 'explain an atom' really means.One can only describe an atom.

All of this stems from confusing the uses of the words "Why", "Explain", "describe" and "reason". The question "Why is the window broken?" has two anwers: first that a stone impacted on it, and second that I threw the stone because I disliked the person behind it. These are fundamentally different in kind, yet the discussion has often flipped from one meaning of "Why" to the other apparently without reason or even notice by the disputants.

I agree that the two why's are completely different(the latter has a 'for' i.e. purpose attached with it) yet it's easy to get lost between the two why's.Just as a comment on this case:-the dislike(i.e. the 'for' in this case) may be looked upon as some physico chemical activity in the brain.The subjective understanding/feeling of that dislike,however, is something only you would know.

 

[Ernies]

<Quote>Just as a comment on this case:-the dislike(i.e. the 'for' in this case) may be looked upon as some physico chemical activity in the brain.The subjective understanding/feeling of that dislike,however, is something only you would know.<end>
In some cases it may be caused by (e.g. the smell of isocyanides) and well may always be accompanied by (or result in, depending on which way you are looking) such activity but in my view does not 'explain' it.

Ernies

 

[moving finger]

I knew that the transfer of onus was going to happen!

Of course you did - as I said, that is correct scientific method. Propose an hypothesis, then attempt to show that the hypothesis is incorrect. The onus is clearly on anyone who disagrees with an hypothesis to show why they disagree

I do not believe that the hypothesis is incorrect,but limited to whatever it's able to describe--which doesen't include all the facts.

Which “facts” do you believe it is unable to describe?

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

He contradicts himself in one breath.

No contradiction at all.

If I say that “A is a subset of B”, does it follow from this that all Bs are As? No, it doesn’t

In the same way, all explanations can be forms of descriptions, but it does not follow from this that all descriptions are explanations, hence an explanation is not the same as a description.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

I don't know what 'explain an atom' really means.One can only describe an atom."

I agree completely - that is why in my original post I put "explain" in quotation marks, which Ernies chose to delete. An "explanation" is nothing more nor less than a particular form of description.

Best Regards

 

[gptejms]

In some cases it may be caused by (e.g. the smell of isocyanides) and well may always be accompanied by (or result in, depending on which way you are looking) such activity but in my view does not 'explain' it.

Ernies

Note that the 'explain' here has no 'for' attached with it.

Anyway--
(I agree with you) but one may ask what more is left to be explained--it (the dislike) is a response of the body to a certain stimulus.I think it's only the subjective experience of the individual i.e. the 'feeling' of dislike that can not be explained.

 

[gptejms]

moving finger,

I give a reply here to all of your three posts above.Explanation as defined by Ernies is not a subset of description--at best they can be two intersecting sets.

The onus is on the one who propounds a hypothesis not on others.

Putting explain in quotation marks in no way makes it equal to describe!

 

[gptejms]

Which “facts” do you believe it is unable to describe?

Best Regards

Missed answering this in my last post.Before I make a list,understand this:-whatever you describe does not explain(irrespective of whether the laws are deterministic or probabilistic,&. irrespective of your computing power i.e. your ability to predict)--at best you run partially into the 'set' of explanation.

I don't know if Ernies would give you even that much latitude i.e. the use of the word partial(ly) in the last sentence!

 

[moving finger]

The onus is on the one who propounds a hypothesis not on others.

The onus to do what?
Which hypothesis are you talking about here?

Putting explain in quotation marks in no way makes it equal to describe!

I never said that it did. I quite clearly said above that “explanation” is NOT equal to “description”.

Which “facts” do you believe it is unable to describe?

Missed answering this in my last post.Before I make a list,understand this:-whatever you describe does not explain(irrespective of whether the laws are deterministic or probabilistic,&. irrespective of your computing power i.e. your ability to predict)--at best you run partially into the 'set' of explanation.

Is this supposed to be an answer to the question :

Which “facts” do you believe it is unable to describe?

Best Regards

 

[Ernies]

No contradiction at all.

If I say that “A is a subset of B”, does it follow from this that all Bs are As? No, it doesn’t

In the same way, all explanations can be forms of descriptions, but it does not follow from this that all descriptions are explanations, hence an explanation is not the same as a description.

But in an earlier post he said
"I have never claimed that an explanation is the same as a description..." and on the other "An explanation is simply an interpretation or description ...".

Now surely these two sentences cannot be put together in a way consistent with the later post which in effect claims that explanations can be a subset of descriptions. The use of the word "can" merely confuses the issue. Is moving finger claiming that they 'are' or simply suggesting a possibility? If the latter I do not see its relevance. If the first, then there is a contradiction.

 

[Doctordick]

The correct answer is that everything can be reduced to physics. The issue is clearly expressed in my post to "A Dualist Phoenix"

Have fun -- Dick

 

[octelcogopod]

The correct answer is that everything can be reduced to physics. The issue is clearly expressed in my post to "A Dualist Phoenix"

Have fun -- Dick

Heh, well that's quite a bold thing to say.

 

[octelcogopod]

Btw, here's just a wild theory I'm throwing out for the fun of it.

Take for instance art, a painting.
Physically a painting is just paint on a canvas arranged in certain forms, but to the observer it is much more.

Like Lars said in another thread, everything we sense is qualia, and qualia is basically our own perceived version of the universe/world.
So what I'm wondering is how do we scientifically measure and predict this qualia/perceived world?

If we follow moving-fingers theory that these are virtual entities, then the problem is that this doesn't stop the virtual entities for being "real" to the observers.
Thus, any virtual element can not be perceived directly in nature, you need an actual observer to perceive them.

How does all this tie in with how everything is physical?

 

[Doctordick]

Heh, well that's quite a bold thing to say.

Yes it is and it mostly generates ridicule (particularly from authorities); however, it is true none the less.

How does all this tie in with how everything is physical?

I did not say everything is physical; what I said was that any internally self consistent explanation[/color] of anything must be built of fundamental entities which can be interpreted as obeying what we call the laws of physics. This means that whatever you are talking about is either fundamental and has a behavior normally referred to as the "laws of physics" or it is not fundamental and is based on the behavior of complex collections of fundamental entities: i.e., it is what is normally referred to as an "emergent phenomena", a consequence of coherent behavior of complex structures.

The best approach to the phenomena you refer to seems to me is being currently broached by http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/symposia/metzinger/precis.pdf. There has been some discussion of him on this forum.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[octelcogopod]

Oh.

Well, does that really help?
Sure it may be true that we can reduce everything to physics, however, when one can't explain the beauty of a sunrise with it, how does it help us?

There exists, literally, trillions, of human moments, thoughts and emotions, fleeting ones, that nobody, not even the "creator" knows about.
They are just.. Entities, that, when absorbed and understood, gets a life.

I think this clouds the issue somewhat, because, the whole subjective/qualia side of things is what people focus on.
And they have to, because there's nothing else for them to experience or talk about.

So I ask you, how can you prove that reality exists?
If solipsism is indeed unfalsifiable, how can I tell my peers in a coherent way that everything can be reduced to physics?

Also, while you may have an argument there, it seems to me that it is based on the assumption that the physical world actually exists.

Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

By the way; the problem is I haven't read your plethora of posts, because they are somewhat confusing.
I'm asking this simple question because I'm trying to understand what it is you have discovered, in the simplest terms.
If you can explain it in layman terms I'd be happy.

edit: also, if you feel you have discovered and can prove something as fundamental as this, why not release a paper to the professional science scene?

 

[Doctordick]

I think I might be able to clear things up a bit. First you might read a post I just made this morning on the thread "Causality in the subjective world". It might clear up that issue of "how does it help us?" Fundamentally it doesn't; however, it does explain some very interesting things about the universe.

There exists, literally, trillions, of human moments, thoughts and emotions, fleeting ones, that nobody, not even the "creator" knows about.

Too many to logically explain as the number of steps to the logic is beyond comprehension; however, mathematics (which Feynman called the distilled essence of logic) does provide us with a subtle respite to that constraint. For example, the number of terms in my fundamental equation (see my paper, http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ) fully includes all the trillions upon trillions of human moments you speak of. Oh, the solutions are still too complex to express in detail; however, mathematics does allow us to pull down some subtle facts about those solutions. But you need to have a decent understanding of partial differential equations in order to follow those deductions. The field of Physics is one of them.

I think this clouds the issue somewhat, because, the whole subjective/qualia side of things is what people focus on. And they have to, because there's nothing else for them to experience or talk about.

And why do they need to talk about things? For the same reason dogs bark and birds sing; it gives them pleasure. It is very short sighted to think any real result will be achieved.

So I ask you, how can you prove that reality exists?

Well, I thought that the word "reality" was a label for "what exists". Are you telling me that it's not?

If solipsism is indeed unfalsifiable, how can I tell my peers in a coherent way that everything can be reduced to physics?

Oh that ones easy. Physics is merely a description of some of the experiences you should expect based on the experiences you have already had. It has nothing to do with what those experiences are based on; Solipsism is the idea that they are based on nothing. You have no way of determining what is and what is not a figment of your imagination. In fact, the central issue of my work is, if you want your explanation to be internally self consistent, what can you say about the behavior of the fundamental elements of that explanation. It turns out that any explanation of anything, if it is to be internally self consistent, must be based on fundamental elements which obey the laws of physics.

Also, while you may have an argument there, it seems to me that it is based on the assumption that the physical world actually exists.

No, it's based on the assumption that your explanation is internally consistent.

By the way; the problem is I haven't read your plethora of posts, because they are somewhat confusing. I'm asking this simple question because I'm trying to understand what it is you have discovered, in the simplest terms. If you can explain it in layman terms I'd be happy.

The difficulty I have is that arises because what I have found is so original that it is essentially beyond the conception of most everyone (for varying reasons). I have made a great many posts but most of them have been a learning experience concerning what people incorrectly read into what I say. From a philosophical perspective, there is a great problem in understanding the universe expressed by philosophers with their division between ontological and epistemological issues. Ontological refers to "what really exists" and "epistemological" refers to the behavior or rules governing what exists.

What I do is eliminate the issue of ontology by simply examining the range of possibilities which exist if the ontological issues are intentionally left totally open and undefined. The ontology of my arguments are entirely expressed in the undefined sets A, B(t), C and D. Even the ontological issue time is undefined by using t to merely denote an arbitrary order in the elements of C. (If you haven't, you need to read my paper on explanations carefully.) I then work out a specific epistemology which will provide an explanation of absolutely any set C; you might think of it as a Dewey decimal system for specifying what expectations would be consistent with what is known (B(t)) no matter what that might be. That is what I call my fundamental equation.

The astonishing fact (which one can only understand if they can follow my development of solutions to that equation) is that I can find no law of physics which I cannot show to be a solution to that equation. This has far flung philosophical implications. Which are of course meaningless if you cannot understand the equation.

edit: also, if you feel you have discovered and can prove something as fundamental as this, why not release a paper to the professional science scene?

Oh, I tried to get it published twenty five years ago but received nothing but ridicule. If you want to see a typical professional reaction to it, take a look at http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=282543#post282543 . Severian is, or at least claims to be, a professor of graduate physics at some prominent university. He may very well hold such a position as his response is, in fact, quite consistent with other responses I have received from professional authorities.

At the expense of being thought abusive I will give you my opinion of professional authorities. Our educational system has no way of checking how well people are able to think but it is quite simple to check how much information they have learned. There are people out in the world who find memorizing information relatively easy but find using that knowledge very difficult. In the extreme, such people are called "idiot savants". I know that idiot savants posse an advantage when the information to be learned becomes complex and I suspect that a great number of the people high up in our learned academies are in fact idiot savants. Why else would it be that almost every major break through in the scientific fields has made by young new initiates, and not by their teachers who certainly "knew" a lot more about the subject than their students. It seems to me that the authorities have very little ability to think about what they know.

At any rate, I find myself between a rock and a hard place. Either the people I am talking to are insufficiently educated to follow the math or they are too educated to comprehend something new. I think that has been true throughout history and it will be true long after I am dead. As you said, "what good is it?" The honest answer is, well it certainly won't get you in bed with a babe tonight now will it.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[MeJennifer]

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

Science, of which physics is a member, can only make models of and predictions of nature it cannot explain anything.

Feel free to explain what you mean by reducing something to physics.

 

[octelcogopod]

To DoctorDick;

While i understand on some level what you are saying, I obviously do not comprehend it the way I should.
I'm not even a student of anything, I just come here for the fun of it.

I hate to dissapoint people, like you, but I'm afraid I have no other choice in the matter.
Maybe some day I will sit in my university chambers, reading over your material, and then suddenly understand it, but until then..

I wish you the best of luck though, I have a hard time believing only you are capable of understanding this, there must be someone else out there in the right position, that can fully understand it.

I don't know what to say, I feel like I'm supposed to be all excited and amazed that we finally solved this age long debate, but somehow my enthusiasm is lackluster.

But combined with moving-fingers posts, it's all starting to fall into the right places.

 

[Philocrat]

Science, of which physics is a member, can only make models of and predictions of nature it cannot explain anything.

Feel free to explain what you mean by reducing something to physics.

Yes, undisputedly, science in which physics is a part does make very interesting and useful deductions about the notion of physical reality. The deduced estimates, predictions and paradigms do hold because we do follow the arguments in the respective disciplines.

But when we turn our attention to the issue of reduction, we immediately encounter hair-splitting paradigms. Here is the problem: with regards to the human life form, as far is this thread is concerned, the issue concerns the need to reduce the non-material aspect of it to pure matter (soul to matter, mental to physical, immaterial to material, etc.). So, the question is can physics, and physics alone, do this? If you have had the time to read through the whole thread, you should have noticed several arguments and counter-arguments for and against. One of the key problems that emerged from all this is the counter-argument in many of the postings which claims that "there is something over and above the material", and that this aspect of the human self is non-material or immaterial and irreducible to material or matter. In fact, this is where there is a sort of stalemate on this thread, if one wishes to look at it that way. This thread has not been able to move on due to this one unresolved issue.

Now, the other problem fundamental to this is the issue of 'INTERDISCIPLINARY REDUCTIONISM', for example, from Biology, to Chemistry and to Physics. It is not clear whether physics accepts this as a possibility, because if it does, then the claim that only physics can explain everything returns the whole argument back to square one. So, the question now is: do we accept interdisciplinary reductionism as a possibility? If we do, a paradox of the most notorious kind ensues or manifests. The problem splits two ways...and head in opposite endless directions: (1) the reduction of things from one microscopic scale to next ad infinitumm, and (2) the reduction of things from one macroscopic scale to the next ad infinituum. Hence, INTER-SCALE REDUCTIONISM is bi-directional and both unfortunately lead to what is known in philosophy as 'INFINTE REGRESS': that is, reducing to ever smaller scales tends to go on forever and the same is true when reducing things into ever larger cosmological objects.

If such two-headed reductionism is possible, things just get complicated and intellectually irresolvable when it turns out that other disciplines should directly or indirectly contribute to it.

Hence, some people are arguing both on this thread and elsewhere in the forum that, interdisciplinary reductionism is problematic because whichever direction you choose to start reducing things from one scale to the next, you never finish doing so. That it is an endless reductive effort.

Anyway, I hope I have done enough to update you on the key underlying problems of this thread.

Many thanks.