Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[saviourmachine]

Behaviour

I presume, from your response to selfAdjoint, that you understand what I mean when I say identification is equivalent to specification of behavior in a given context. What I would like to add to that is the fact that "behavior" of that identified (and/or labeled) entity is also equivalent to to specification of acceptable context. Behavior is a statement of the expected path of that space-time-line given the space-time-paths of other relevant entities. The entire collection of information about the circumstance is embodied in the collection of space-time-points presumed relevant.

What will be seen as acceptable context, how we choose a subset (how important are e.g. the different coordinates [x,y,z,ict]?), is assumptive.

Rules

This brings me to the issue of rules. Exactly what do we mean when we think about "rules"? It seems to me that what we mean is that all possible distributions of "space-time-points" are not possible!

Okay.

Thus it is that I come to the conclusion that "the rules of the universe" consist of a mechanism which will answer the question (regarding any specific distribution of space-time-points), "Is that particular distribution possible?" Or better yet, given what I "know" about reality, what is the probability that the specific distribution of space-time-points is a possible distribution? (I really can't presume the answer has to be either yes or no, since I have to include the possibility that I could be wrong )

Okay, so its "pattern matching" regarding all kinds of simular sets.

Since the information (a specific distribution of space-time-points) is a set of numbers and the answer to the question is a probability (another number), it should be clear that it makes no difference what the rules are, they can be expressed by a mathematical function: i.e., you plug in the numbers which specify the distribution and the function yields the probability the distribution is a possibility. Note that I haven't made the claim that the function is easily represented by standard mathematics (it could be no more than a table of correct answers; that is, I could be God and simply "all-knowing" ).

Doesn't that assume that:

1. existence really is an on/off matter (existence is a boolean value that can be assigned to a 4D coordinate system)
2. there exists no randomness in the sets (what would have as consequence that each pattern does have the same probability ).
3. every used resolution of the coordinate system does show the same patterns (no way to say when it is the real causal system)

Non-physicalist view

Think a little about what I have said here and let me know if any part of it seems unreasonable. At this point, I admit it seems rather physicalist in outlook but, if you admit that their perspective covers a lot of valuable ground, I will show you how to expand it beyond the physicalist view.

I hope you can clearify these things, or expand you model a bit. I'm looking forward to your explanation of how this all doesn't entail a physicalist view.

 

[Doctordick]

What will be seen as acceptable context, how we choose a subset (how important are e.g. the different coordinates [x,y,z,ict]?), is assumptive.

Of course it is assumptive; but it reflects an assumption made in the analyzer's mind, not an assumption in my picture of the phenomena. You should be able to understand that "what is relevant" exists in the act of identity labeling itself, not in my representation of it.

The real problem here is that actual realization of what is relevant is quite vague under normal circumstances (people presume a lot). Educating a student is a process of delineating, through examples, exactly what phenomena are relevant. Think about explaining exactly what an electron is to a new student. The subtleties of this process go on all the way to graduate school. Learning anything is a process of refining the relevant information.

Doesn't that assume that:

1. existence really is an on/off matter (existence is a boolean value that can be assigned to a 4D coordinate system)

Yes it does. However, your mistake is assigning that assumption to my analysis of the problem instead of assigning it to its rightful place: the decision process of the scientist deciding on the validity or invalidity of a rule. Though there may be some steps in his thought process which admit of alternate possibilities, in the final analysis, the foundation of the decision can usually be traced down to specific examples of distributions of space-time-points he holds as valid representations of reality (the physicalist's description of the facts behind his case). That is why I started with the physicalist viewpoint; essentially, the physicalist believes that nothing exists beyond what can be represented by these collections of four dimensional space-time-points and there exists a large volume of relevant discussion on the applicability of their perspective.

2. there exists no randomness in the sets (what would have as consequence that each pattern does have the same probability ).

The past (the information the scientist bases his theories on) is fixed (at least as far as it is understood by most rational scientists). Randomness is an oxymoron if one specifies the past in terms of a collection four dimensional space-time-points. "What was" is "what was"; the rest is no more than how you see it. Randomness arises only when one begins to label the specific examples of the phenomena one wants to discuss. The specification of relevance establishes the nature of that associated randomness. Without identity labeling, all specific events in the history of the universe are different events and occur but once.

3. every used resolution of the coordinate system does show the same patterns (no way to say when it is the real causal system)

You will have to make yourself a little clearer here as I do not understand what you are trying to say.

On the non-physicalist view, it's coming down the pike but there are still a few issues I have to get across before we can seriously discuss that issue. For the moment, the physicalist perspective makes it much easier to get the central nature of those subtle issues across.

I am not really sure you understood what I was saying about the relationship between the rules and what exists. Now, my statement that the two concepts are orthogonal is a different matter. That I will defend in detail further down the road. But meanwhile I want to make the relationships between the two as clear as I can. It isn't really a deep issue at all though I think it is a very very important one.

A simple example is the invention of the neutrino. The existence of the neutrino was originally based on the failure of observed reactions to conserve energy. So it is thus the rule that energy must be conserved which gave rise to the idea that the "neutrino" had to exist. Now, after its existence was proposed, other consequences of that existence were carefully thought out (under the assumption that the rules of physics were correct). And, by this means, its existence was further verified: that is to say, if the rules were valid, then the existence of neutrinos was verified.

Now, the issue I am bringing up here is not the logical decision that "neutrinos existed" but rather the fact that the conclusion was a consequence of acceptance of the rule that energy must be conserved (and then later by the acceptance of the general rules of physics as understood at the time). The issue here is the validity of the process itself, not the relationships put forth. If one is to maintain their objectivity, these relationships must be kept in mind. Fundamentally, the scientific community invents entities with the properties needed to explain the results of their experiments. If, by the rules they believe to be valid, the results of all experiments are consistent with the existence of those entities, then the entities are deemed to exist. On occasion, they will also alter the rules in some way if that process yields better agreement, but this act is usually rarer than invention of entities. (I think new rules are harder for them to think up than new entities. You have to understand and believe the rules, but you only have to believe in the entities and their actual definition and/or behavior is easier to keep vague! )

Thus it is that the central issue of explaining reality is the inventing of entities which obey the rules presumed to be valid. In fact, it should be clear to everyone that, if the outcome of every experiment which can be performed is consistent with the deduced consequences of existence of an entity, then that fact is taken as prima facia evidence that the entity exists. My problem is that there is a fundamental presumption embedded in that statement: it is the assumption that there exists no alternate explanation which will satisfy that same constraint. If we are to be rational, we must keep that fact in mind. If we don't, we are once again pretending to know something which we cannot "know".

In the interest of maintaining recognition of that fact, please allow me to divide the body of "things that exist" into two quite different categories: things that "really" exist and things that don't "really" exist but are actually just figments of our imagination which happen to be wholly in alignment with the rules we believe are true. Now, let me make this perfectly clear, the difference between these two categories allows no mechanism to perform a separation one from the other and there can exist no way to know which is which, but that was not the purpose for which I made the division. I made the division in order to simplify my thinking as the two categories need to be thought about quite differently.

Things that "really" exist are not dreamed up, they are reality itself and cannot be altered by our explanations. On the other hand, things that are figments of our imagination can be altered any way we choose so long as their existence is totally consistent with the rules being promulgated and all deduced consequences of those rules. It is thus possible, under this perspective, to see the universe as existing exactly as proposed by the current scientific community (nothing they have discovered is a figment of our imagination) or, equally easily as totally solipsistic (nothing "really" exists). The issue as to which of these perspectives is correct has, in the perspective I have just laid out, been made totally beside the point and need have no bearing on our analysis. What I am pointing out is that not knowing the answer to the question "what is really real" is no problem so long as we have a mental mechanism to allow exact analysis independent of the answer. And the division I propose gives us exactly that mechanism. It is subtly quite different from ignoring our ignorance, which is the standard attack on this difficulty, but has almost the same consequences (but not quite).

Another way to put it is to say that what really exists is what we need to explain. Whatever else we decide must exist must be part of the explanation. The single most important issue here is that, no matter what the rules are, both components must obey exactly the same rules. Think about it and let me know what part of what I have laid out you find unreasonable.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[saviourmachine]

Assumptions

Of course it is assumptive; but it reflects an assumption made in the analyzer's mind, not an assumption in my picture of the phenomena. You should be able to understand that "what is relevant" exists in the act of identity labeling itself, not in my representation of it.

Yes, I know. Actually, that time I was searching for a word without an additional flavour. I thought 'assumption' was a better word than 'presumption'. I speak English as a second language. We have to assume some things, or we can't identify. I agree with that.

Yes it does. However, your mistake is assigning that assumption to my analysis of the problem instead of assigning it to its rightful place: the decision process of the scientist deciding on the validity or invalidity of a rule.

Sorry for that.

Without identity labeling, all specific events in the history of the universe are different events and occur but once.

Yes, that was what I wanted to say. In that way only different objects exist. And no law does exist that works at a global scale.

You will have to make yourself a little clearer here as I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I was just listing some things that such a - physicalist - coordinate system presumes. And besides the two things of above, it assumes IMHO that [x,y,z,ict] is continuous or discrete.
If it is continuous no worldline is identical (with arising circularity in identifying - like you said), if it is discrete some kind of stepsize has to be taken (and after that we can observe patterns that maybe would alter if we had token - or had access to - a smaller stepsize). Continuity or a certain stepsize has to be assumed. It's our horizon.
If there is "causality" through time or space we can observe it, except if it falls out of our horizon (e.g. Brownian motion).

Hypothetical rules and particles

Thus it is that the central issue of explaining reality is the inventing of entities which obey the rules presumed to be valid. In fact, it should be clear to everyone that, if the outcome of every experiment which can be performed is consistent with the deduced consequences of existence of an entity, then that fact is taken as prima facia evidence that the entity exists. My problem is that there is a fundamental presumption embedded in that statement: it is the assumption that there exists no alternate explanation which will satisfy that same constraint. If we are to be rational, we must keep that fact in mind. If we don't, we are once again pretending to know something which we cannot "know".

Yes I agree. I heard more often about a 'hypothetical particle' (tachyon, magnetic monopole, gluon, graviton) than a 'hypothetical law'. I also would say with Epictetus: "This also is a hypothetical law that we must accept what follows from the hypothesis."
I think that sometimes physicists propose a 'theoretical particle' in stead of a 'hypothetical particle' (e.g. a 'hole' as opposed to an 'electron'). Do you think that scientists often fail to notice this difference?

In the interest of maintaining recognition of that fact, please allow me to divide the body of "things that exist" into two quite different categories: things that "really" exist and things that don't "really" exist but are actually just figments of our imagination which happen to be wholly in alignment with the rules we believe are true.

Do you have ideas about when we should call something 'real' and when 'theoretical' (like 'hole' vs 'electron' mentioned above)?

You lost me

What I am pointing out is that not knowing the answer to the question "what is really real" is no problem so long as we have a mental mechanism to allow exact analysis independent of the answer. And the division I propose gives us exactly that mechanism. It is subtly quite different from ignoring our ignorance, which is the standard attack on this difficulty, but has almost the same consequences (but not quite).

I'm not sure to which mechanism you're referring here. Sorry, I can't follow your reasoning in the last two paragraphs.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Savior,

Sorry about being slow in my response. I wanted to think about your comments and answer them in a manner which would make my thoughts as clear as possible.

At least you have a second language; as far as I can tell, you are doing a fine job. To get my Ph.D. I had to pass a "proficiency" exam in German and Russian. All I had to do was translate some scientific articles which talked about things I already knew; personally, I wouldn't exactly label my ability as "proficient". They even let me use German/Russian to English dictionaries while I performed the translation. I am afraid I don't speak anything but "American English" and I am not very proud of that.

I think you understand the lack of assumptions (other than that physicalist thing) in my approach.

And no law does exist that works at a global scale.

Sorry about that, but I have one for you (down the road when you can better understand the relationship between "what exists" and "what the rules are").

I was just listing some things that such a - physicalist - coordinate system presumes. And besides the two things of above, it assumes IMHO that [x,y,z,ict] is continuous or discrete.

I won't argue with you on those issues (what the physicalist assumes); however, I do not make exactly those assumptions. In particular, I agree with Zeno's argument against continuity. I would however argue with you on the statement that one must either accept continuity or a certain step size. I have a third option for you.

If there is "causality" through time or space we can observe it, except if it falls out of our horizon (e.g. Brownian motion).

I think you have to admit that "causality" can not be observed if every space-time-point is thought of as a unique occurrence."

I could be wrong, but you appear to skip over my comment:

My problem is that there is a fundamental presumption embedded in that statement: it is the assumption that there exists no alternate explanation which will satisfy that same constraint.

I am not sure you understood what I meant.

I think that sometimes physicists propose a 'theoretical particle' in stead of a 'hypothetical particle' (e.g. a 'hole' as opposed to an 'electron'). Do you think that scientists often fail to notice this difference?

In my head, there is no difference between a "hypothetical particle" and a "theoretical particle". People don't always put the same connotations on a word and assuming others comprehend what one means when one uses a word is a very dangerous step. In my opinion, the only way to support the contention that one understands something or is being understood by another is when the exchange of communication symbols become consistent with one's expectations (not a lot of surprises). When you understand someone, their reaction to your comments should be expected. Likewise, when you understand the universe, its reaction to your behavior should be expected.

Lack of surprise is the central sign of understanding and understanding is achieved through exchange of information. In that sense, understanding reality is completely equivalent to establishing coherent communications; that is why I responded to the issue of communications earlier in this thread.

Do you have ideas about when we should call something 'real' and when 'theoretical' (like 'hole' vs 'electron' mentioned above)?

No, and I wouldn't try. You seem to have missed the central issue of my complaint expressed immediately above. I suspect that is probably where I lost you.

There was a Roman philosopher, sometime shortly after the time of Christ, (an official pagan, and not Christian) who said, "belief in the gods does not require that the gods exist". What he was talking about was, in a certain sense, exactly what I am talking about here. (He went on to clarify his position by pointing out that the central purpose of "belief" is to provide proper and successful rules of behavior.) I tried to find the quote I had seen but couldn't; it's somewhere in Thomas Hodgkin's "The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman Empire" (a little long to peruse in a few moments). Religion seems to have played a significant role in the collapse of the Roman Empire; at least all the historians I have read credit religious arguments as being the major force behind a lot of important events.

The point here is that we want to understand reality and, while actually proving something is real is quite impossible (see any defense of Solipsism), no one actually believes all of reality is just a figment of their imagination. What is very important here is that belief in your answers does not require that they be true. What belief requires (to be an acceptable belief) is that it provides proper and successful rules of behavior for the universe you believe in. Gets rid of those surprises that screw up our plans.

Now I know that statement sounds awfully circular (I could have omitted "you believe in" and perhaps slipped the issue past you); however, embedded in that circle are two very different components. Any rational person knows full well that there are things he believes in which will probably turn out to be fictitious; on the other hand, the idea that "everything is fictitious" simply removes the usefulness of the concept "real" and we have nothing to "understand". Contrast this with advances in our understanding of reality over the last hundred thousand years. Apparently, to paraphrase the Roman philosopher mentioned above, understanding reality does not require knowing what is real. Now, don't quote me on that! At least not until you have heard me out.

First, the fact that a particular entity is a fictitious creation of our minds is revealed only when experiments demonstrate that its existence is inconsistent with reality. Until that specific and very real event occurs, we are working with a collection of entities (some real and some fictitious) which are perfectly consistent with everything we know about the universe. One can cavil that what I just said presumes that consistency has been correctly thought out. That cavil turns out to be wrong and brings up some very interesting consequences which we can discuss only after you understand what I am presenting. So, for the time being, lay that cavil off with the physicalist perspective: i.e., something I will get back to later. (Is this fun or not? )

So, what we know about the universe consists of two very different things: that which is "really real" and that which we "only think is real". The only thing which changes as advances in our understanding occur is the things we "only think are real". Those things which are "really real" can never change! It should be clear to you that, no matter what intellectual advance is made, before it can explain the future it must first explain the past. It must explain the historical record; that means that something didn't change. If we want to be exact in our examination of reality, we must maintain the fact of that important duality in what we think we know.

It follows from the above that our understanding of reality is based on information which consists of data of two very different natures, Personally, I like to label these two different kinds of information and I have two labels I find intellectually convenient: "knowable" and unknowable. That which is really real is knowable in the sense that, if it is not "knowable" (in the common sense), how can we possibly "know" about it? If we can't "know" about it, what possible difference can it make? And secondly, every explanation which can ever be promulgated as valid must be consistent with the existence of this information as the explainer cannot claim that it "cannot be known", not if it is "really real" as it defines reality itself. And that part which we only think is real is "unknowable" in the sense that it is possible that it might be proved to be inconsistent with reality: i.e., we only think we know it and there cannot exist any proof that it is "really real"; you can't really know it is true.

Philosophers can't resist going off on silly "if you can't tell me how perform the classification, the classes are meaningless" cavil. The difference between these two kinds of information clearly is not anything which can be used to label any specific piece of information; however, as I said earlier, "understanding reality does not require knowing what is real". Understanding reality has to do with being able to explain what we know. What is important about the division I made is that what must be explained is the "knowable" data; the "unknowable" data is part of the explanation. When we think about the problem we are trying to solve, I will show that this division becomes a critical factor in establishing the range of possibilities for behavior. As I said, "It is subtly quite different from ignoring our ignorance, which is the standard attack on this difficulty, but has almost the same consequences (but not quite). "

So the mechanism I am referring to here is the process of arriving at the "best" explanation of reality. If we are going to look for the "best" possible explanation, it behooves us to make sure we leave out no possibilities. It is the development of that analysis which makes use of the knowable/unknowable aspects of the supposed information available to the assembly of possible explanations.

But, before I show you how to assemble a representation of the collection of all possible explanations, I need to tell you exactly what I mean by "an explanation". I will begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information. It follows from that perspective that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. If we are to lay down an abstract representation of "an explanation" in general, we must first establish exactly what it is that an explanation does to (or for) information.

Let us presume we have some body of information we are interested in explaining. It seems quite clear to me that, if all of that information is known, any question about that information can be answered. That circumstance could, in fact, be regarded as defining what is meant by knowing[/color]. On the other hand, if the information is understood[/color], then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the actual underlying information: i.e., one only needs to know limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known; the explanation of the information (that which yields the understanding) constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. Just as an aside, notice that there is nothing in that definition which says anything about the qualities of the explanation. It defines what I mean by "an explanation" and it can be wrong, incorrect, useless or perhaps even true. It even includes nameta9's infinite-infinite universe. (And even qualia!)

Did I completely lose you there or do my machinations make a little sense to you? If it makes sense, I will shift out of the physicalist viewpoint in my next post; but I want to be as sure as possible that you are not confused by what I have said so far.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Telos]

Well, all I can say is, if everything can be reduced to pure physics alone, I'd sure want to know physics. :)

However, I don't presently see how physics can explain why my lucid dreams (non-random) can appear more real than reality - and how I make valid scientific observations within dreams as though they are reality, only to awaken and find that they were not "valid."

 

[Doctordick]

However, I don't presently see how physics can explain why my lucid dreams (non-random) can appear more real than reality - and how I make valid scientific observations within dreams as though they are reality, only to awaken and find that they were not "valid."

The problem is very simple. You are presuming I am saying something I am not saying. You need to define exactly what you mean by "an explanation". Without a definition of what you are talking about, discussion of the subject is little more than emotional ramblings signifying nothing.

I have taken the trouble to define what I mean by "an explanation"

Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

Given that definition, I can show that all "explanations" can be examined in an exact manner. Thus it is that I can "prove" that exact analysis can explain anything which can be explained. Follow what I post here and you will understand that proof.

There are only three possibilities here. First, you might not like my definition. In that case, you should show me an explanation which does not conform to that definition or show me something which conforms to that definition which can not be thought of as an explanation. Second, you might find an error in my proof. In that case, you should take the trouble to point out the error. Or third, you will come understand why anything which can be explained can be explained in an exact manner fully compatible with the accepted constraints set forth as delimiting the field of physics.

Of course the above presumes you are intellectually capable of thinking things out in an exact manner.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Telos]

Wow, Dick. Thank you for exposing my intellectual sloth!

From my experience, and my known information, lucid dreams can summarily be explained as "experience driven by expectation." But what is expectation within the context of a dream, where one's memory potentially has been altered to accept the dream memory as primary and waking memory as periphery? When known information is altered, expectations are altered, and, thus, the experience is altered. It is quite a curious event, begging the question, "where does this 'new' information come from?"

In dreams there is probably no effective separation with the perceived phenomena and one's self, since the experience appears to be purely subjective and occurring entirely within one's imagination. But how do we explain phenomena within a lucid dreams that have no meaningful reference to waking phenomena? Stephen LaBerge forwarded the concept of schema, but we do not know how many schema's exist nor is it apparent that schemas have any necessary specificity. For example, LaBerge believes there is a "story schema" within the psyche that comes into play, making a dream appear as though it follows a narrative. However, one does not know how incredibly imprecise the notion of a story schema is until putting it into practice within a lucid dream. I have the feeling LaBerge held back on saying what he truly felt so as to not be completely ridiculed by the scientific community.

Yes, Dick, I am capable of thinking of things in an exact manner, which is precisely why I made the post that I did. Dreams tend to circumvent exact explanation.

Expectation regarding dreams is not exactly subject or object, but much closer to predicate. And there are new categories of phenomena that can be experienced after such a realization (e.g., the feeling of flying without the aid of device, the feeling of speaking without language, etc.)

I'd like to bring lucid dreams out of the status of protoscience. They truly are wonderful and useful experiences and we can know more about them if we apply the scientific method. However, I am incredulous about our ability to frame dreams into a model of causal exactitude. The causal reality of it is much simpler (nonlocal, if you will), where our explanations tend to define the experience instead the experience defining our explanation. (e.g., mystical or religious dreams tend to support the dreamer's individual religion).

Sorry if I offended you! If you want to experience what I'm talking about for yourself, please don't be afraid to apply the scientific method and write a diligent dream journal for about 2 weeks. You will undoubtedly lose some sleep, but if you can't handle it, I understand.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Telos,

I think you take my comments a little too personally. Just think of me as a cranky old man who says what he thinks and is pretty harmless otherwise. I have my own opinions on dreams but they wouldn't be understood without first understanding my perspective on reality so it's really a waste of time for me to talk about the subject. Personally, I love dreams and always have. Even as a child I enjoyed them all, even what one could call nightmares because it was so wonderful to discover the experience wasn't real. But that was when I was a child and didn't understand reality.

It is quite a curious event, begging the question, "where does this 'new' information come from?"

Then you don't believe it could come from "reality"! I think one has to understand reality before that decision should be made.

I have the feeling LaBerge held back on saying what he truly felt so as to not be completely ridiculed by the scientific community.

I can believe that!

Yes, Dick, I am capable of thinking of things in an exact manner, which is precisely why I made the post that I did. Dreams tend to circumvent exact explanation.

I am afraid nothing can circumvent exact explanation. As far as I know, no one save myself has ever even considered examining the nature of "exact explanation". Not an "exact examination" anyway.

Sorry if I offended you!

Don't worry about it. I am quite difficult to offend. And I see no need of keeping a dream journal as I have made a major effort to remember my dreams since I was very young and remember almost as much of them as I do of my "real" life.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Telos]

Then you don't believe it could come from "reality"! I think one has to understand reality before that decision should be made.

Whoa, Doc. I never said that. It's an open ended question.

Wherever it comes from, I am skeptical that we will be able to explain its origin - whether you define it as "reality" or something else. (in my mind, there is no such thing as non-reality, only reality that hasn't been observed or created yet, so please don't drag me into those meandering qualia discussions lol).

I am quite literally talking about the origin of creation (driving personal creative ability) and you are certainly an exuberant old man to attempt to explain something such as that. Good luck. Hopefully you will have a better track record than theologians, philosophers, and shamans. And myself. ;) Just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean I've closed my mind to it. I am trying to learn the math of modern physics, after all.

And I see no need of keeping a dream journal as I have made a major effort to remember my dreams since I was very young and remember almost as much of them as I do of my "real" life

Ah! You are not uncommon. Everyone thinks they already know about their dreams - just because they can "remember" them.

Do you take an active role in them? Have you consciously mastered them to serve you? No - of course you haven't. Otherwise you'd be able to explain them.

Your memory and perception of the experience changes when you put it on paper. The information literally travels from one side of your brain to the other. The language and reasoning centers of the brain are rarely ever active while the dream is occurring, so your memory of them is clouded by lack of explicitness. When you add language to them, you begin a process of association that widens your perspective. It gives you greater field of vision and influence. Each word is like brick over a path, giving you a platform to probe deeper.

Don't mistake the forrest for the trees, Doc!

Personally, I think you're just either scared or lazy.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I don't believe how there are 5 people that voted that religion can explain everything, if religion can't even explain religious topics... not even the people that live for religion believe that religion explains everything.

I voted multi-disciplinary, physics would be the biggest supporter, but there is biology, filosiphy...

 

[Doctordick]

Then you don't believe it could come from "reality"! I think one has to understand reality before that decision should be made.

Whoa, Doc. I never said that. It's an open ended question.

Oh is it now? It seems to me that you are very much presuming some answers without considering the lack of support for those answers.

I am quite literally talking about the origin of creation (driving personal creative ability) and you are certainly an exuberant old man to attempt to explain something such as that.

I don't know about that. Again, you seem to be confidently asserting something without any supporting argument beyond your own belief.

Otherwise you'd be able to explain them.

I have a very strong opinion as to what they are; however, as I said earlier, comprehending my opinion will be beyond you so long as my perspective on reality is beyond you. :zzz:

The information literally travels from one side of your brain to the other.

I don't believe you even begin to comprehend the volume of presumptions behind that statement alone. As I say, you are asserting answers without understanding the question.

Don't mistake the forrest for the trees, Doc!

I don't think you have managed to get past the bark. You should read my essay on thought here. And consider the vocabulary suggested in this thread. You are speaking of the power of "squat"! Or should that be "sqought"? Honestrosewater has never answered me on that issue.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Telos]

It seems to me that you are very much presuming some answers without considering the lack of support for those answers.

This is ridiculous. I have presented only skepticism, not answers.

The question is "can everything be reduced to pure physics" and I have not settled on a yes or no. But I doubt that it can. My goodness, what's so difficult to understand?

Maybe I haven't done a very good job of presenting it. Feel free to quote the previous sentence and supply a pithy retort and a smilie.

And statements like "The information literally travels from one side of your brain to the other," are not intended to be definitive but simplifications for a very real phenomena. I have psychological literature with which to back up that statement, but I am not interested in writing a thesis for you.

I don't know about that. Again, you seem to be confidently asserting something without any supporting argument beyond your own belief.

Your ignorance of my skepticism about the origin of creativity notwithstanding, where/what do you think creativity comes from? It is becoming apparent to me that you do not have much experience with creative thought, and therefore the question is beyond your ken. I have challenged you to perform your own experiments and experience creativity more intimately, but you have categorically dismissed it as "squat." Fittingly, it is an unoriginal way to remain to ignorant.

I am not content with saying "creativity comes from dreams." If that's the way you read it, I apologize. I know even less about where dreams themselves come from. However, I am content with considering that dreams and creativity are related psychological phenomena, and I have my life experience to back it up. If you are interested, I wrote about it in the thread concerning the origin of creativity.

What's wrong with skepticism? How can you say I'm not thinking critically if I am thinking within the framework of skepticism?

I have a very strong opinion as to what they are; however, as I said earlier, comprehending my opinion will be beyond you so long as my perspective on reality is beyond you.

Small words from a mind of small curiosity and small vision, but from a big mouth.

I repeatedly suggested that you apply diligent critical thought to your dreams and you have ignorantly suggested that you don't need to. You do not seem interested in anything other than horseplay.

I can't say I blame you. If I was a retired theoretical physicist, finishing a long life of "thinking," that might be all I'd be interested in too. I have spoken at length with another retired theoretical physicist online, and he is much like you. But he has settled into a highly spiritual interpretation of quantum mechanics and has claimed his conclusions are "hard-nosed." I disagree with him mightily, not on his conclusions of spiritualism, but that they are "hard-nosed." Similarly, you are not hard-nosed either. Maybe it has something to do with an increasingly desperate desire for certainty as one, who has dedicated his life to searching for answers, careens downwards to an unknowable but necessarily answerable death! The telos of life isn't to be blissfully ignorant, is it?

I don't think you have managed to get past the bark.

Doc, I am so deep in the woods, there's no turning back for me.

 

[saviourmachine]

I could be wrong, but you appear to skip over my comment:

...My problem is that there is a fundamental presumption embedded in that statement: it is the assumption that there exists no alternate explanation which will satisfy that same constraint.

I was merely stating that there are at least two different ways to think (as a physician); I called one 'hypothetical' and I called one 'theoretical'. My connotation with these terms is as follows: a 'hypothesis' has to do with testing - as if it is possible to know reality*; and a 'theory' with embedding in a knowledge system**.

Now I know that statement sounds awfully circular (I could have omitted "you believe in" and perhaps slipped the issue past you); however, embedded in that circle are two very different components. Any rational person knows full well that there are things he believes in which will probably turn out to be fictitious; on the other hand, the idea that "everything is fictitious" simply removes the usefulness of the concept "real" and we have nothing to "understand". Contrast this with advances in our understanding of reality over the last hundred thousand years. Apparently, to paraphrase the Roman philosopher mentioned above, understanding reality does not require knowing what is real. Now, don't quote me on that! At least not until you have heard me out.

I'll quote you. Understanding has to do with seeing (the different) possibilities, isn't it?

One can cavil that what I just said presumes that consistency has been correctly thought out.

You said it yourself.

And that part which we only think is real is "unknowable" in the sense that it is possible that it might be proved to be inconsistent with reality: i.e., we only think we know it and there cannot exist any proof that it is "really real"; you can't really know it is true.

The 'really real' is 'knowable' (if we can't know something, why should we call it real?) and that what we 'only think is real' is 'unknowable' (no proof, no solution, not decidable). Summarized: There are things that:

• are knowable and real
• are unknowable and real [real becomes useless here: the unknowable can not be called real]
• are knowable and thought of as real [likewise]
• are unknowable and thought of as real

And so we derive these propositions: There are things that:

• are knowable and real
• are unknowable and thought of as real

if all of that information is known, any question about that information can be answered. That circumstance could, in fact, be regarded as defining what is meant by knowing[/color]. On the other hand, if the information is understood[/color], then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the actual underlying information: i.e., one only needs to know limited subsets of the information.
...
Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

Okay. Go on.

* not believing that "all of reality is just a figment of their imagination"
** "working with a collection of entities (some real and some fictitious) which are perfectly consistent with everything we know about the universe"

 

[Doctordick]

This is ridiculous. I have presented only skepticism, not answers.

That is what you think; however, you are making a serious error. You are, in fact, making some very serious undefended assumptions. From your response, I can only conclude that you did not even bother to read my reference from my previous post.

The question is "can everything be reduced to pure physics" and I have not settled on a yes or no. But I doubt that it can. My goodness, what's so difficult to understand?

No problem understanding that, it's a pretty common perception. The problem is your complete failure to even consider the idea that you might be wrong.

Your ignorance of my skepticism about the origin of creativity notwithstanding, where/what do you think creativity comes from? It is becoming apparent to me that you do not have much experience with creative thought, and therefore the question is beyond your ken.

Creative thought is great, but, in the absence of logical thought it is little more than entertainment. If you have no competence in analytical thought, creativity is perhaps a decent ego substitute for understanding but it is insufficient to unravel the mysteries of life. The probability of being wrong is far greater than is generally assumed. Very few people manage to "guess" correct solutions to complex problems.

...but you have categorically dismissed it as "squat." Fittingly, it is an unoriginal way to remain to ignorant.

I gave you the source of my usage of that word but you apparently prefer the common interpretation. That's why I used it: it has connotations which upset people who don't listen, making them easy to identify. You've just missed the ball by a mile. I'll just call it "strike one".

You do not seem interested in anything other than horseplay.

Another swing and a miss! Nothing I have said has penetrated has it? What I have been looking for is someone with enough brains to understand what I am talking about and a long enough attention span to get to the meat of the issue.

Doc, I am so deep in the woods, there's no turning back for me.

I guess you got that one right

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Telos]

Dick, have you been forgetting your medication?

But, seriously, how does it feel to be on my ignore list?

Those gears must be turning in your head! That's right, you can't tell me. Don't worry about it, though. I've already determined your answer's approximate uselessness with the help of inductive and deductive theoretical reasoning! Yes, I included your pleonastic reference, which I read long before you mentioned it.

Thanks for nothing. But thank you for, ironically, being an anachronism. You are exactly what you hate most. And that is somewhat amusing, albeit kind of disgusting.

Ta-Ta!

 

[Seafang]

I don't believe how there are 5 people that voted that religion can explain everything, if religion can't even explain religious topics... not even the people that live for religion believe that religion explains everything.

I voted multi-disciplinary, physics would be the biggest supporter, but there is biology, filosiphy...

Well I think this thread has long outlived its usefulness, since it has descended into the realm of philosophy, and is now unconcerned with physics at all.

I'm quite satisfied that between Heisenberg and Godel we can be sure that physics cannot explain everything, and moreover there will always be things which can never be explained by any means.

So pull the feeding tube on this brain dead thread.

 

[saviourmachine]

Hi DoctorDick! If this thread got closed I hope we can get space - open a new thread - to continue this discussion. Although others think it's a dead thread, I enjoyed many things, e.g. your explorations of the relation between:

• language & role of mathematics
• squirrel though & logical thought
• symmetry & conserved quantities
• symmetry & ignorance
• definitions & presumptions
• to identify & to relate with
• events & space time points
• rules & pattern matching
• reality & knowability

I hope we are allowed to continue.

¡Hasta luego!

 

[Doctordick]

If this thread got closed I hope we can get space - open a new thread - to continue this discussion.

Yeah, I think we can pull that off. For the time being I have stayed here because the number of views continues to rise; which means people are still reading it. In spite of the people who don't want to think about what I am saying, it seems some are still interested. I suspect a lot of people here suffer from attention deficit syndrome. Again, I am usually slow to respond to your posts because I want to be careful.

I was merely stating that there are at least two different ways to think (as a physician); I called one 'hypothetical' and I called one 'theoretical'. My connotation with these terms is as follows: a 'hypothesis' has to do with testing - as if it is possible to know reality*; and a 'theory' with embedding in a knowledge system**.

Communication is not nearly as easy as is generally presumed. When I spoke of "two modes of thinking", I was thinking of the difference between logical analysis and intuitive perception. Both modes provide serious answers to complex problems and history is full of people contending that one or the other is the "correct" attack. In fact, the history of human belief systems can almost be seen as a pendulum swinging from support for one to support for the other. My position is that objective rational thought must encompass both at once.

I'll quote you. Understanding has to do with seeing (the different) possibilities, isn't it?

Not quite. Later on in my post, I define what I mean by "understanding". If you "understand" something, it means that you have a mental mechanism which will provide you with answers to questions outside the actual data available to you.

To put it another way, knowing is having facts available to you (the facts come from the past, not the future) and understanding allows discrimination between good and bad answers (facts you might expect to become available to you in the future). Now the human race has become quite good at this discrimination since all we living things first crawled out of the sea. We are the undoubted leaders in the realm of "understanding" the world around us. And yet no one has come up with a good argument to dismiss the Solipsist position. The fact that we have come so far without being able to prove what is and what is not real should make it clear to you that understanding reality can not possibly require knowing what is real. This is why every serious scientist (I except myself of course[/color]) has vociferously argued against any rational consideration of the question. Their position is: if we don't know what's real, how can we possibly dream of understanding reality. They hold that we must assume we know what's real. You can see that position promulgated all over this forum! Why do you think they label me a crackpot?

Other than that, I get the distinct feeling that you understand what I have said so far. :!)

When I started this line of discourse, I stated that language, though it is our only mechanism of communication, is inherently vague. Langauge can be seen as a collection of symbols to which we have attached meaning. As such, the problem of understanding a language contains exactly the same difficulty brought up above. There exists no way one can be absolutely sure they understand exactly what another person means when they use a particular word. If you are rational, you have to admit that the meanings you attach to these symbols may not be the meanings intended by the writer/speaker you are trying to understand (it is always possible they are using a code unknown to you). So the problem of understanding an explanation is completely equivalent to that of understanding the universe.

If you are trying to understand a person, you have the option of (interacting with them) asking about the things they have said which don't make sense to you. If you are trying to understand the universe, you have the option of interacting with it in a way which will provide clarification of things you don't understand (those things which don't make sense to you). If the two procedures are equivalent, let us examine how one might logically attack the first while maintaining complete openness to all the possibilities. (Please follow this carefully as the effect is considerably outside the physicalist outlook.)

We are trying to "understand" something thus we are looking for "an explanation", a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. The first thing we need is a totally general way to represent anybody of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the primitive definition that A is a set! I want to leave the exact nature of A totally open and, from my knowledge of sets, A can pretty well represent anything. If anyone here can point out something which cannot be represented by the abstract concept of a set, please do so.

Now, the most serious problem confronting us is the fact that we do not know everything: i.e., A as defined is definitely not available to us. We must always presume there are aspects of A not yet available. We need another symbol for that portion of A which is available to us. Since what is available can change, we need a way of representing a change in that portion. For this reason, I begin construction of the portion of A available to us by defining the set B to be a finite unordered collection of elements taken from A. (This B will represent a change in our knowledge of A.) This allows me to define the set C to be a finite collection of sets B. It follows that any possible collection of information which can be used to construct our explanation can be represented by the set C: that is, the current state of our knowledge can be seen as a finite collections of changes since knowledge began to be acquired (whenever that was). It is the very definition of infinity which guarantees that the number of elements in both B and C are finite. Likewise, the same definition requires that we must consider the number of elements in A to be infinite. (I will explain that to anyone who does not understand.)

Since the number of sets B in C is finite, they may be counted and ordered and I may refer to the elements of C via the notation B_j. Since B was defined to be a finite collection of elements of A, I can refer to the elements of B as x_i. It should be clear that, looked at as a communication, B_j, representing a change in our knowledge, can be seen as fundamentally representing a "message", where x_i represents a label for a specific significant element of A and C represents the sum total of messages our understanding of the communication is to be based upon. (It is best here to look at the messages as being in a secret code as to do otherwise is to presume you already understand the meanings of the elements x_i while, in fact, all that information must be a part of C.)

Thus it is that we can view the changes in information available to us, B_j, as a list of reference labels (x_i). Likewise, all the messages available to us can be seen as the complete collection of all the lists we have received. If we are to understand and explain A based on nothing but C, we need to develop a procedure through which we may determine the acceptability of any specific set B_k which can be obtained from A. That procedure must be consistent with the distribution of B_j in C; as an absolute minimum, any explanation of A must be consistent with what is already known: i.e., C.

It is important to maintain a very important aspect of the problem not expressly stated in the previous paragraph. One must remember the fact that B was defined to be an unordered set of elements taken from A (if order between any two x's, is important they should be in different B_j's): i.e., clearly, if one occurs before the other, a change in information occurs between the two elements.)

A second important fact to take note of is the fact that our explanation explains C, not A. It is a presumption that an explanation of C (what we know of A) explains A. Since that is absolutely the best we can do, the assumption is not really unreasonable so long as we remember the fact of our assumption.

In effect, I have laid out a universal representation of the problem confronting us. It is quite abstract, but anyone who has any facility with mathematics at all should be able to comprehend the representation. If you find any difficulties, let me know and I will do my best to clarify the circumstance. If I think you are with me, I will lay out an exact analytical solution to the problem; that is, I will lay out a universal procedure for designing a constraint which will constrain the sets B_j to exactly the collection in C. Note that, as the number of elements in the sets B_j and C are finite, the procedure I will describe will be an exact finite procedure; however, if you actually attempt to implement it in something other than an extremely trivial case, you will find it complex beyond reasonable calculation. It turns out not to be the end of the problem (as it actually results in an infinite set of possibilities) but it does provide an insight which will yield a fundamental universal relationship which is quite valuable.

Let me know if anything I have said bothers you. And, anyone else is invited to make any comments that occur to them.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[hypnagogue]

Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? There is never any excuse to descend to the level of ad hominem insults.

 

[Canute]

DoctorDick

The fact that we have come so far without being able to prove what is and what is not real should make it clear to you that understanding reality can not possibly require knowing what is real.

Is this your position? If so it's a very odd one imho. In what sense can one be said to understand something if one does not know whether it is real or not?

 

[Doctordick]

To Canute on the notion of "understanding" reality. Yes, I would agree that my position is quite odd as I am aware of no one else who holds that position; however, IMHO this is strong evidence that they have not thought the issue through.

As I said in an earlier essay, intuition (or squirrel thought) is always your best bet on any serious issue. As such it must be taken as a serious contender for the basis of any argument; however, we have a power not supposed to be possessed by the squirrels. We can use conscious logical analysis. That is, so long as the problem to which are efforts are to be applied can be reduced to a small enough number of concepts that we can handle them on a conscious level.

It has come to be that we have all sqought (squat??) up these related concepts "real", "understanding" and "explaining". Clearly, as almost everyone sees these terms as very meaningful, they can be held up as very probably useful. It behooves us to make a serious effort to cleanse these concepts of implied relationships which can not be proved. Once we have done that, they become reasonable foundations for logical deduction. Now you are complaining about my statement that understanding reality does not require knowing what is and what is not real and you are quite right, the solution of the conundrum lies in the definition of understanding.

First of all, if you peruse the historic record, you will find a number of explanations based on the assumption something was real which is no longer held as real, phlogiston being my favorite example. The existence or reality of phlogiston was not what was being explained; what was being explained was the release of heat in circumstances which we now recognize as chemical reactions. It should be clear to you that thinking something is real is not equivalent to it being real. And secondly an explanation explains what one thinks they know not necessarily what is actually true.

Ever notice how the idea of "truth" is avoided? Truth bears the same relationship with knowing as reality bears to your world view. One can no more prove they know the truth than they can prove their ontology is correct. But to conclude that requires there be no truth or no reality (the solipsist position) is also a rather undefendable position. The only defendable position is that we do not know anything for sure. If you make "knowing what is real" a prerequisite to explaining reality you will never be able to explain any aspect of reality.

So I define an explanation as a defined method of yielding expectations of events not yet experienced based on information presently available to us. Notice that the definition does not require the information be correct nor does it say those expectations are valid. This is entirely consistent with the common use of the terms explain and understand. How do you come to the conclusion that you understand something? Does that decision not arise when the thing no longer surprises you?

Take my writings for example, the great majority of the "authorities" on this forum have reached the conclusion that I am a crackpot. That is their explanation of my writings and, possessing that explanation, they feel that they understand me. They feel confident in their position because nothing I say surprises them (that is, from their perspective, what I say has no bearing on the issue other than the fact that it is something they would not say). So they find their expectations consistent with their experiences.

On the other hand, if you are explaining something to someone else, how do you determine that they understand your explanation? Is that result not achieved by asking questions? When their answers are in alignment with the answers you would give to the same questions, do you not come to the conclusion that they understand what you are talking about? I think all of this is very strong evidence that the best definition of an explanation is that it is a mechanism for producing expectations. And understanding is achieved when surprise no longer occurs. We can talk about "good" explanations once we agree as to what qualifies as an explanation.

If you disagree, give me a better definition of explanation and/or understanding.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Is this your position? If so it's a very odd one imho. In what sense can one be said to understand something if one does not know whether it is real or not?

And I responded with what I thought was a rational response which I ended with the comment,

If you disagree, give me a better definition of explanation and/or understanding.

I can only presume that either you do not disagree, cannot think of a better definition or have decided to accept the "crackpot opinion" and concluded nothing I say is worth listening to. It would be nice to know your position. Even if you have decided I am a crackpot, one would think you would have the civility to at least let me know.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Daminc]

I started reading this thread this morning because I've thought about this subject for a long time. At about page five figured that I'd just skip to the end so I appologise if anything I write has been covered to death.

A long time ago my friends and I used to discuss anything and everything and I put on the table the words "Reality is what we perceive it to be, and hence reality is subject to ones own perception". What resulted from that discussion is that it is very unlikely that we can ever explain our Universe by physics alone.

One of the reasons I came to that conclusion was based on the premise that everything is connected or relates with everything else. Therefore, to know something is absolutely True we would have to know everything that relates to it...which is Everything. Since this is not practically feasible then we cannot ever know anything is an absolute fact. We can only surmise based on current observation evidence (i.e. Best guess senario).

When I read about 'dark energy', 'dark matter' and the 'speed of light' I can think of viable alternatives to current speculations and theories that could fit observational evidence, but I have no way of varifing them, so I just play with the ideas in mental experiments.

Similarly, our current ideas with regards to Physics is just a 'best guess senario'. We do have only limited observational data, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever gather enough data to surpass that.

I won't put my ideas down about how this would relate to a 'God' as I found my views tend to upset those people who actually believe God exists in the form of an Metaphysical superbeing type entity.

if you have decided I am a crackpot

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

 

[Daminc]

I defined infinity as:

'limits of perceivable quantities'

My person take on infinity is 'Beyond the limits of perceivable quanties'.

I hate the word when it is used to describe something in Physics:

e.g.
Infinite Universe
Infinite Density
etc

It's a cope out. Take the 'Big Bang' theory which supposedly starts of with a point of Infinite Mass of Infinite Density blah, blah.

1) If there was 'Infinite Density' then the gravitation forces would be so great that there never would be a 'Big Bang' and if there was 'Infinite Mass' and it did expand somehow then there would be no space anywhere because the 'mass' would fill everything.

Similarly, with 'Zero'. It is also a mathmatical concept not found in the Physical universe. Something is either there of not. If it is there, then it's value would be different than Zero.

I think the definition of Zero is the amount of elements in a 'Null Set' but I'm not quite sure.

 

[Pensador]

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

The only difference between a madman and a sane person who "thinks differently" is that mad people believe in themselves.

Feel free to explore the universe of ideas, but make sure you do all your businesses back home

 

[Daminc]

but make sure you do all your businesses back home

And I'll sure I that I have enough toilet paper

 

[Pensador]

And I'll sure I that I have enough toilet paper

This reminds me of a funny but also wise joke. The head of the physics department in a university was complaining that they didn't have enough money to buy all equipment necessary for their research. The president of the school asked him then, "why don't you do like the guys in the math deparment? They only need pens, paper, and waste baskets".

After thinking for a while he said, "even better, why don't you do like the guys in the philosophy department? They only need pens and paper!"

 

[Philocrat]

I started reading this thread this morning because I've thought about this subject for a long time. At about page five figured that I'd just skip to the end so I appologise if anything I write has been covered to death.

A long time ago my friends and I used to discuss anything and everything and I put on the table the words "Reality is what we perceive it to be, and hence reality is subject to ones own perception". What resulted from that discussion is that it is very unlikely that we can ever explain our Universe by physics alone.

One of the reasons I came to that conclusion was based on the premise that everything is connected or relates with everything else. Therefore, to know something is absolutely True we would have to know everything that relates to it...which is Everything. Since this is not practically feasible then we cannot ever know anything is an absolute fact. We can only surmise based on current observation evidence (i.e. Best guess senario).

When I read about 'dark energy', 'dark matter' and the 'speed of light' I can think of viable alternatives to current speculations and theories that could fit observational evidence, but I have no way of varifing them, so I just play with the ideas in mental experiments.

Similarly, our current ideas with regards to Physics is just a 'best guess senario'. We do have only limited observational data, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever gather enough data to surpass that.

Well, the standard cosmology model says that the universe consists of:

(a) 70% of Dark Energy
(b) 25% of Dark Matter
(b) 5% of Normal Matter

where Baryons = Normal Matter
Baryons = (Hydrogen, Helium, Heavy Elements)
= (stars, planets, galaxies and gas)

Puzzle: What happens to 40 - 45% of the missing normal matter?

Source: NATURE vol 433, Feb. 2005, Pages 465 - 466

When physics claims to have explained the universe, the fundamanetal epistemological question is : How Much of the Universe has it successfully explained, let alone everything? Give it a concrete number: 10%? 25%?...100%?. To say that you can explain everything, is it not right that physics should advise the world on how much it has succesfully explained to date?

I won't put my ideas down about how this would relate to a 'God' as I found my views tend to upset those people who actually believe God exists in the form of an Metaphysical superbeing type entity.

God is logically not ruled out in the grand scale of things. It depends on which versions of Logic and Mathematics you are versed in. The current logic and mathematics account only for 'STAGNATION' and 'CIRCULARISM'...they awfully fail to account for PROGRESS in the strictest sense of the word. CIRCULAR CONTINUITY is another name that I habitually call it and the logic and the mathematics that account for it create at the metaphysical level a 'FALSELY CONSTITUTED SENSE OF CONTINUITY, which in turn metaphysically and epistemologically enforces in our minds a 'FASELY CONSTITUTED SENSE OF NORMALITY.

The only Logic and matheamtics that can adequatly and materially describe the universe are the ones that take account of progress and not the ones that predict an 'ENDLESS SERIES OF BIG BANGS in a non-progressive way. As far as I am concerned the 'BIG BANG - BIG CRUNCH' model of the universe circularly continues and is metaphysically and epistemologically devoid of PROGRESS in the strictest sense of the word. This resembles fiction! Logic and mathaematics should not be fictionally attempting to explain a world that has been created, finished and in circularly continuous state, instead it should account for a world that is still being created and in progressively continuous state. They must account for progress. This is what the PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUING CAUSATION that I defined at the beginning of this thread is all about. Any logic and mathematics that cannot account for Progress proper is metaphysically and epistemologically useless.

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

You are not a crack pot ...there is nothing wrong with you ...at worse your are 'parafused' ...and at worst you are 'paraceptic'!

---------------------------
Think Nature ...Stay Green! And above all, think of how your action may affect the rest of Nature. May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!

 

[Philocrat]

My person take on infinity is 'Beyond the limits of perceivable quanties'.

I hate the word when it is used to describe something in Physics:

e.g.
Infinite Universe
Infinite Density
etc

It's a cope out. Take the 'Big Bang' theory which supposedly starts of with a point of Infinite Mass of Infinite Density blah, blah.

1) If there was 'Infinite Density' then the gravitation forces would be so great that there never would be a 'Big Bang' and if there was 'Infinite Mass' and it did expand somehow then there would be no space anywhere because the 'mass' would fill everything.

Similarly, with 'Zero'. It is also a mathmatical concept not found in the Physical universe. Something is either there of not. If it is there, then it's value would be different than Zero.

I think the definition of Zero is the amount of elements in a 'Null Set' but I'm not quite sure.

The Job of Metaphysics is to categorise things into fundamental types for every intellectual discipline so that they can be easily explained. But unfortunately, this process is currently not working well, partly because people do not even understand what metaphysics is, let alone know what the fundamental metaphysical categories are. Even physicists themselves do not even know that Metaphysics is also a tool for them too. Every time someone mentions it, the first thing that they cast their minds to is religion or philosophy. This problem dates back to Galileo in the 17th Century who, for example, dumped the so-called 'Secondary Qualities' for the scientifically convenient 'Primary Qaulities'. Since that time philosophy has been trying tirelessly to account for them and metaphysically reconcile them. Now, categorising the world into easily accountable or explainable fundamental categories is an issue that physics can no longer escape.

The point is that you cannot pick and choose fundamental metaphysical catories of the world. Well, they may be metaphysically vexing and epistemologically hitting us in the face, yet this is no license for us to escape them. We need to find a way of accommodating all of them in our explanatory projects. This is the very problem that physics is facing with the explantions of such categories as 'Nothing', 'Infinity', 'Finiteness', 'Something', etc. The problem is that some of these categories, even though we are aware of them, are difficult to explain because we do not want to be flexible about them in our categorisation process, let alone be prepared to take account of the natural limititions in the perceiver's frame of reference. This idea that we are physically fully equiped to sense and perceive everything accurately is fictitious. Yes, we can see and explain a wide range of things in the world, but we must equally be prepared to admit our physical limitations as well.

We therefore have to categorise things at the metaphysical level into those that can be known to the limit of our physical limitations and those that can be known if we change or scientifically eliminate our physical limitations. What I really meant by 'limits of perceivable quantities' is that infinity is knowable if we eliminate perceptual limitations in humans, which as you may have noticed neally every scientist believes that we do not have such limitations. This has been my battle ground to correct this misconception.

 

[Doctordick]

The Job of Metaphysics is to categorise things into fundamental types for every intellectual discipline so that they can be easily explained.

How can you expect to categorize things before you know their behavior? How can you know their behavior before you examine what you know? How can you know what you know you are able to categorize what you know? My impression is that I am the only person who has ever even seriously considered that problem objectively. Certainly those who have "developed" the field of metaphysics have made no effort to think seriously about it. No one will ever solve a problem they are unwilling to examine.

The point is that you cannot pick and choose fundamental metaphysical catories of the world.

Now I would certainly deny that assertion. That's about the only option we have. That act is the basis of language itself and without the establishment of categories we cannot even think on a conscious level. (You should at least make a careful read of my post on thought.)

We need to find a way of accommodating all of them in our explanatory projects.

I couldn't agree more and you should read the second post on the "knowledge..." thread. You are most obviously failing to recognize that the use of language itself is the first violation of your presumed objective approach.

What I really meant by 'limits of perceivable quantities' is that infinity is knowable if we eliminate perceptual limitations in humans, which as you may have noticed neally every scientist believes that we do not have such limitations.

And, apparently, you suffer from exactly the same belief. I am the only person on Earth I know of who has proposed a scheme around that very difficulty.

Have fun -- Dick