Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Fliption]

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

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

 

[Seafang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Philocrat]

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

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

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

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

 

[Fliption]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Seafang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAN created GOD; not the other way around !

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAN created GOD; not the other way around !.

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[Philocrat]

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

The fundamental engineering argument is this:

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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


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

 

[Royce]

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[loseyourname]

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[Nereid]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

 

[Seafang]

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




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




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




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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Royce]

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

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

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

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