Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

In summary: I think that this claim is realistic. It is based on the assumption that we have a complete understanding of physical reality, and that all things can be explained in terms of physical processes. I think that this assumption is reasonable, based on our current understanding of physical reality. Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?I don't really know. I think that there could be more to physical reality than a mere ability to mathematically describe things. It is possible that there is more to physical reality than just a description in terms of physical processes. In summary,

In which other ways can the Physical world be explained?

  • By Physics alone?

    Votes: 144 48.0%
  • By Religion alone?

    Votes: 8 2.7%
  • By any other discipline?

    Votes: 12 4.0%
  • By Multi-disciplinary efforts?

    Votes: 136 45.3%

  • Total voters
    300
  • #911
Dr.Yes said:
All disciplines are disciplines rooted in physics and the physical universe. They study the phenomena created by a physcial universe. The most amorphic topic can be traced to having roots in physics and the physical world. If the topic is truly detached from the physical world then the act of observing the subject is a physical act and firmly rooted in a physicallity.

All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics.

Yes, Dr. Yes, you'r substantially right, if not wholly so! And many people on this PF would equally agree with you, despite the current controversy over the 'UNEXPLAINABLE REMAINDER' heavily contested and implied on this very thread.

But philosophy has started to ask some very serious metaphysical and epistemological questions about this. Now, here are the problems:

1) NON-ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following staments suggest 'Non-eliminative realism':

(a) Water is H2O
(b) Man is matter

As argued by some philosophers, these reductive statements or propositions are non-elimnative in scope and in substance. This has the logical structure 'A is B'. That is, B does not pre-suppose the elimination of A, even after A has been reduced to B in the propostion.

2) ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following statements or propositions seem to suggest 'Eliminative Realism:

(b) Evil Demons are Viruses or Diseases
(b) Mind is Matter

On the other side of the argument it is argued that these reductive statements are eliminative in scope and in substance. Logically and quantitativelly, 'As are Bs' implies we can reductively do away with 'As', leaving in our reality only Bs. The same is true of 'A is B'. The question now is, why did we epistemologically venture into the notion of 'As' or 'A', when all there is to the human reality is the notion of 'Bs' or 'B'? Are we being metaphysically deceived into this epistemological pitfall? How did we get ourselves into this position in the first place?

NOTE: Note also that the problem with (1) is that it also pushes a prospective truth-tracker into the bottomless pit of Inter-scale or Inter-layer Reductionism that I mentioned in my previous posting above. If as you said 'All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics', if follows that a prospective truth-tracker must somehow track all the truths of a given term of reality across all layers or scales of reference or explanation. Up or down the pathway, he or she must grasp the language and logic of explanation in each layer or scale as he/she moves from one layer or scale to the next? Should everyone therefore learn physics (or the language of physics) as the last layer of explanation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #912
Castlegate said:
If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

What about the notion of 'Essential Propperty or Substance' of a given term or entity of reality?
 
  • #913
Castlegate said:
If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

One has to remember that an illusion can only happen if you have a brain. This denotes a binding dependence on the physical as a frame of reference for your illusions. This definition of illusion uses biophysics, physics and common sense in its explanation.

Using pure physics to explain an illusion could very well produce quite a beautiful equasion, as far as equations go.
 
Last edited:
  • #914
Philocrat said:
Yes, Dr. Yes, you'r substantially right, if not wholly so! And many people on this PF would equally agree with you, despite the current controversy over the 'UNEXPLAINABLE REMAINDER' heavily contested and implied on this very thread.

But philosophy has started to ask some very serious metaphysical and epistemological questions about this. Now, here are the problems:

1) NON-ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following staments suggest 'Non-eliminative realism':

(a) Water is H2O
(b) Man is matter

As argued by some philosophers, these reductive statements or propositions are non-elimnative in scope and in substance. This has the logical structure 'A is B'. That is, B does not pre-suppose the elimination of A, even after A has been reduced to B in the propostion.

2) ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following statements or propositions seem to suggest 'Eliminative Realism:

(b) Evil Demons are Viruses or Diseases
(b) Mind is Matter

On the other side of the argument it is argued that these reductive statements are eliminative in scope and in substance. Logically and quantitativelly, 'As are Bs' implies we can reductively do away with 'As', leaving in our reality only Bs. The same is true of 'A is B'. The question now is, why did we epistemologically venture into the notion of 'As' or 'A', when all there is to the human reality is the notion of 'Bs' or 'B'? Are we being metaphysically deceived into this epistemological pitfall? How did we get ourselves into this position in the first place?

NOTE: Note also that the problem with (1) is that it also pushes a prospective truth-tracker into the bottomless pit of Inter-scale or Inter-layer Reductionism that I mentioned in my previous posting above. If as you said 'All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics', if follows that a prospective truth-tracker must somehow track all the truths of a given term of reality across all layers or scales of reference or explanation. Up or down the pathway, he or she must grasp the language and logic of explanation in each layer or scale as he/she moves from one layer or scale to the next? Should everyone therefore learn physics (or the language of physics) as the last layer of explanation?

The reason I think using physics as a base explanation and reductive definition of all things is because I've seen and heard so many people explain subjects with the "fear of god" or "karma" or "lordy lordy" and other explanations that reek of the hormones of fear and exhaltation etc... the influence of their physiology has clouded their response to the wonders of this universe.

Without physics to use as a reference point, everything really is an illusion and can become whatever one decides it is with whatever reserves of adrenilin or endomorphines, acetecholine, seritonin or dopamines they have that haven't already transformed and left their body through entropy etc...

Physics is simply one aspect from which to view the way things are. "Pure physics" is but one degree on an infinite compass of vantage points from which to study this universe.

When we say Man = Matter... we can also separate this equasion, as is promoted in Fractal Physics and we can look at the components and find an infinite variety of potentials in each of these. Matter has the potential to become "Man" and Man has the potential to fly like a bird and operate a linear accelerator... among many other options.

Anyone stupid enough to consider discarding either of the subjects in an equation suchas "A is B" deserves the loss of the component so that they can appreciate it in its absence.

When its said that "Mind = Matter" its preferable to remember the old addage of "Mind over Matter" because it seems to have happened that the mind can go beyond the perception of matter toward the construct and concept of the amorphic fields.

Whether or not the amorphic fields etc... are just an illusion or not, remains something that may be provable through physics... or perhaps already has been proven... but... let's remember the opposite of reductionist theory when we read these simple words...

..."sum of the parts". Can physics wholey explain this concept? Probably with a very long equasion.

But, most humans can't read really long equations so, will it be a valid explanation if the physicists explain "the sum of the parts" with one... or even two unimaginably long formuli?
 
Last edited:
  • #915
If we find the root definition of "explanation" or "explain" we run into problems with the question put forth by this thread.

An adequate explanation requires that the people communicating ideas and explanations are able to understand them. If everything were explained by pure physics I believe that would encompass about .0005 percent of the population of the globe that would "get" the explanation.
 
  • #916
Daminc said:
Why would you think this?

Is it just your gut feeling? A twist of percerption based on a personal philosophy? Or something else?
I no longer consider this a gut feeling, although I can't prove that which can't be proven. It can only be accepted through logical procedure.

In the process of inquiry of what the universe is, one takes on as many possibilities as one can conceive, and the possibility that all of reality is conceptually oriented was given its chance to rise or fall on it's own merits. So far I haven't regretted taking this avenue of approach, nor the ride that ensued. I'm still on that path with no major accidents as of yet.

The consideration here is that the universe begins from nothing. and nothing is a concept only. I.E. No physical representation whatsoever. There really is only one road available, that of conceptual reality through geometric representation.
 
  • #917
Philocrat said:
What about the notion of 'Essential Propperty or Substance' of a given term or entity of reality?
In a conceptual universe no substance is required, a geometric form will do nicely without the need to have something to sink your teeth in.
 
  • #918
Castlegate said:
The consideration here is that the universe begins from nothing. and nothing is a concept only. I.E. No physical representation whatsoever. There really is only one road available, that of conceptual reality through geometric representation.

Geometry thrives on the construct of "nothing". Without "nothing" the "illusion" of the universe would be too crowded to make out any specific geometry. A "cat's cradle" would be impossible to achieve without the concept, construct and existence of "nothing".

Simple parallel lines could not exist without "nothing" contrasting and identifying where a line is and where there is "no line"...ie "no-thing".
 
  • #919
The physical world can be explained by physics in terms of how is it here?, when was/is/will it be here? and where can we find it?.

Why is the physical world here? is a question that physics - pure, semi-pure, slightly dirty or down right corrupt, can not answer except to say that:

the physical world is here to support physicists and their claims all over the world... and, no doubt, elsewhere.

(Eyes roll-up) Physicists are in the process of building a physical universe for all of humanity. They're not using hammers and nails but they employ illusionary techniques by spouting equations and ideas about distance and physical property.

Every time a physicist uses their perceptive powers a new law of physics is projected by their drive to out-do Newton and Einstein in halucenogenic, illusionary prowess. They're not observing anything, really, they're projecting biogenetically programed and excreted holograms and they're fooling everyone on the planet. See that hot, round, white thing in the sky? See it move from horizon to horizon? That's really just Akenaten Moses' left-over illusion still stimulating your collective unconsciousness and making you believe there is a sun.

etc...
 
Last edited:
  • #920
Dr.Yes said:
Geometry thrives on the construct of "nothing". Without "nothing" the "illusion" of the universe would be too crowded to make out any specific geometry. A "cat's cradle" would be impossible to achieve without the concept, construct and existence of "nothing".

Simple parallel lines could not exist without "nothing" contrasting and identifying where a line is and where there is "no line"...ie "no-thing".
I think you,re missing what I'm trying to get across. Simple lines can exist without the physicality. It is the very nature of a conceptual geometric construct, and it can never get to crowded if the geometries are shared., that's how you can take a trillion galaxies and put them into something the size of a pinhead. There is no upperbound limit on shared geometry in a non-physical conceptual reality.
 
  • #921
Castlegate said:
I think you,re missing what I'm trying to get across. Simple lines can exist without the physicality. It is the very nature of a conceptual geometric construct, and it can never get to crowded if the geometries are shared., that's how you can take a trillion galaxies and put them into something the size of a pinhead. There is no upperbound limit on shared geometry in a non-physical conceptual reality.

That's an interesting view of geometry. I always go off when I see the word "nothing". I'm still arriving at a definitive definition of that word. Don't mind me.

I agree that geometry is a conceptual construct (which [as far as I know] requires an actual physical brain to be aware of it). Geometry is a process or invention that has come into being in a manner similar to how any language might do so. Geometry is used to describe what we think we see or what we have derived from life while being alive, with a brain. Much like any language.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that all explanations of all things can be reduced to pure language(s). Because every discipline concerning the study of every phenomenon has a unique language of its own. Each of these languages is used to convey specific information about what it has discovered from its vantage point in the universe.

The languages of each of all the disciplines at first seem very different from each other. But, each discipline slowly begins to borrow data from the next and the languages progressively begin to meld. Soon you get these explanations of certain phenomena that sound like Creole or Pidgeon because they have a smattering of medical physics, kineticphysics, psyhoanylitics and neurolinguistic terminology. Chheers.
 
  • #922
I agree that geometry is a conceptual construct (which [as far as I know] requires an actual physical brain to be aware of it).
My contention would be that our brains are not physical, nor anything else that exist. We see signs of this in the quantum arena. If we break down a human to fundamental constituents and I do consider that fundamental units do exist, what could possibly be known about them other than conceptual understanding? They will not show signs of any physical existence ... they can't. The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.
 
  • #923
Castlegate said:
The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.
And,...taking the next step, aren't we forced to accept that there must exist some sort of fundamental mind or consciousness in which these concepts are (were) conceived? After all I don't think concepts can exist apart from their conception, can they?

Paul
 
  • #924
Paul Martin said:
And,...taking the next step, aren't we forced to accept that there must exist some sort of fundamental mind or consciousness in which these concepts are (were) conceived? After all I don't think concepts can exist apart from their conception, can they?

Paul
I would say that the use of the word mind is a bit misleading, as if to say something on the order of contemplation takes place. I would argue that there is a first geometric concept by which it is different from all others in that there are no other concepts by which it can interact. The first concept essentially interacts with itself, and this is the cause by which all other concepts are conceived.
 
  • #925
Castlegate said:
My contention would be that our brains are not physical, nor anything else that exist. We see signs of this in the quantum arena. If we break down a human to fundamental constituents and I do consider that fundamental units do exist, what could possibly be known about them other than conceptual understanding? They will not show signs of any physical existence ... they can't. The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.

The illusion is an illusion.

In your illusionary world is there anything to compare it to such as "no illusion" or "illusion free zones"?

If the illusion is all there is in that world, with nothing other than illusion to be compared to... the grand illusion singularity... then the illusion must be real or what is often termed "reality".

Furthermore, in this equasion, if/when the illusion is real then it must be true that the many sights and sounds we see and hear every day are real sights and sounds. The sensations from the 5 or six senses we have are real and feelings of hunger and puking are real... if everything is an illusion and its the only game you got going it might as well be real because there's no other option.
 
Last edited:
  • #926
Castlegate said:
I would say that the use of the word mind is a bit misleading,
I agree. And I would say that all other words we use are also a bit misleading, 'mind' being no moreso.
Castlegate said:
as if to say something on the order of contemplation takes place.
I would say that something on the order of contemplation definitely takes place any time a concept is conceived or pondered. If you consider a concept is still a concept after it has been reduced to language and written, say, on paper, then in those cases concepts might exist apart from contemplation. But to be conceived in the first place, or to be thought about, some kind of contemplative capability is necessary.
Castlegate said:
I would argue that there is a first geometric concept by which it is different from all others in that there are no other concepts by which it can interact.
I think that's a good guess. I would suggest that another possibility for the first concept might be audible rather than visual or tactile like geometric concepts. That way, the very beginning, as I think Pythagoras suggested, might have been music, starting with basic clicks, and progressing to tones, rhythms, melodies, harmonies, etc. In any case, I agree with you that whatever it was, the beginning of physical reality was nothing but concepts.
Castlegate said:
The first concept essentially interacts with itself, and this is the cause by which all other concepts are conceived.
I think there are only two ways in which concepts can interact. One is within that contemplative mind we talked about, in which the thinker (i.e. the owner/operator of the mind) imagines the concepts to interact. The other is if the concepts are rendered into something permanent like a physical structure (the paper I mentioned earlier) and the phsical embodiments of the concepts interact physically, e.g. balls rolling down a plane in a gravitational field.

What I am trying to say is that I don't see how the first concept can interact with itself. I think it requires a mind to do the interaction or it requires some kind of implementation which in turn requres a mind to pull off.

Those are just my humble opinions.

Paul
 
  • #927
Dr.Yes said:
In your illusionary world is there anything to compare it to such as "no illusion" or "illusion free zones"?
I would say that most people, and not necessarily the scientific community would use something like a rock up against air, or matter to space as a means by which we percieve or indentify that which exist. In a purely conceptual universe I would describe a fundamental conceptual unit like this - Consider a balloon and for the sake of discussion consider that there is nothing within the balloon and nothing outside it. The material of the balloon isn't a material at all, and has no thickness. It is the concept (thought). For comparison sake the balloon is the same as (one) up against (nothing), and this is the means by which identity is understood for all things big and small that exist. What makes anyone thing different from any other thing is the form of the concept.

If the illusion is all there is in that world, with nothing other than illusion to be compared to... the grand illusion singularity... then the illusion must be real or what is often termed "reality".
The only reality in this world is the Reality of Non-Existence (Remember this world of mine comes from nothing). The balloon (concept) or otherwise known as a conceptual geometric amounts to in some other words (A thought of (one) nothing). These geometries (thoughts) are in effect conscious to the extent of what they are, and act in accordance with universal laws.

Furthermore, in this equasion, if/when the illusion is real then it must be true that the many sights and sounds we see and hear every day are real sights and sounds. The sensations from the 5 or six senses we have are real and feelings of hunger and puking are real... if everything is an illusion and its the only game you got going it might as well be real because there's no other option.
Your senses are quite real and in my opinion conceptually real. I just can't buy the hammering of the nail analogy to reality anymore. Rather than things banging into each other ... I prefer to think of things acting on one another to whatever effect.
 
Last edited:
  • #928
Castlegate said:
I would say that most people, and not necessarily the scientific community would use something like a rock up against air, or matter to space as a means by which we percieve or indentify that which exist. In a purely conceptual universe I would describe a fundamental conceptual unit like this - Consider a balloon and for the sake of discussion consider that there is nothing within the balloon and nothing outside it. The material of the balloon isn't a material at all, and has no thickness. It is the concept (thought). For comparison sake the balloon is the same as (one) up against (nothing), and this is the means by which identity is understood for all things big and small that exist. What makes anyone thing different from any other thing is the form of the concept.

Using the words "concept" and "thought" like they were a universally occurring phenomena is confusing to me (there are places where thoughts do not exist). One requires the "illusion" of a brain to generate them. I believe your reasoning is in reverse where you have to use physical examples to explain the "illusion" of your reality.

I'll agree that... as the universe evolves, expands, slows in its expansion or whatever, our brain must make adjustments to the changes in its environment... in order to maintain a brief survival.

Castlegate said:
The only reality in this world is the Reality of Non-Existence (Remember this world of mine comes from nothing). The balloon (concept) or otherwise known as a conceptual geometric amounts to in some other words (A thought of (one) nothing). These geometries (thoughts) are in effect conscious to the extent of what they are, and act in accordance with universal laws.

First the illusion of everything is a reality... now the illusion of nothing is a reality. Through all of this illusion, thoughts happen by themselves, with no physical brain generating them.

I beg to differ. Our brain adapts to the congruencies and consistencies it derives from the surrounding, very real, physical environment. Adaptation is a result of the interaction between a physical brain and its physical environment... no "banging of heads". "Geometry" is simply another language (like physics, math, Hungarian and carpentry etc...) by which our brain describes its environment to itself and others. Our many languages are simply our derived explanation of observed interactions and juxtoppositions. We are rarely correct in our observations because everything keeps changing. (ie: change = universal law)

Castlegate said:
Your senses are quite real and in my opinion conceptually real. I just can't buy the hammering of the nail analogy to reality anymore. Rather than things banging into each other ... I prefer to think of things acting on one another to whatever effect.

The way things influence one another bespeaks of the nature of physcial reality... that there is separation that there are separate elements.

Quantum reality, as simultaneious as it may be, acts similarily where there is influence from various regions but, the influences are simultanieous and are non-local. By region I mean within each element exists all other elements and they are all influencing one another... at the same time. Otherwise, the universe would pop in an explosion of disunity and disonance! Its like having dual carbs on a motor. If they're not properly scoped and in sync, the motor becomes disfunctional and quits, quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • #929
Definitions of illusion (need I say more?):

* an erroneous mental representation
* something many people believe that is false; "they have the illusion that I am very wealthy"
* delusion: the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
* magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* An illusion is a distortion of a sensory perception. Each of the human senses can be deceived by illusions, but visual illusions are the most well known. Some illusions are subjective; different people may experience an illusion differently, or not at all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
* An illusion is something that tricks your eyes. impact crater Impact craters are the remains of collisions between an asteroid or meteorite and the Earth. imp An imp is a mischievous child. impala The impala is a high-jumping, lightly-built antelope from southern Africa. in The bird is in the cage.
www.enchantedlearning.com/Iisfor.shtml
* Fibre: Silk. Weave: Gauze or made on bobbinet machine or knotted. Characteristics: A very fine, all-silk tulle which originated in France. It has a cobweb appearance. Hexagonal open mesh. Made in 52 inch and 72 inch widths. Uses: Veilings, particularly for weddings, trimmings. Back To Top
www.ntgi.net/ICCF&D/silk.htm[/URL]
* In Occultism everything finite (such as the Universe and all in it) is called Illusion or Maya.
[url]www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glo2.htm[/url]
* A perception, as of visual stimuli, that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality. Elizabeth has the illusion that Zeely is a Watutsi queen. See the excerpts from Hamilton's article on "Illusion and Reality."
theliterarylink.com/definitions.html
* A gown with a yoke of sheer net and an often ornately decorated satin band, fitting snugly on the neck creating a choker effect.
[PLAIN]www.weddingchannel.com/ui/buildArticle.action[/URL]
* The deceit of the bodily eye by false or unreal appearances, or the mental eye by false prospects, statements; something that deceives or deludes by producing a false impression; an inaccurate perception, misinterpretation of sensory impressions; in memory, a subjective falsification by addition, omission or substitution in recall of a past experience; a fixed illusion is a delusion; the misrepresentation of reality by individuals or personalities.
miriams-well.org/Glossary/
* presentation of a false or misleading idea, as in: The magician gave the illusion of sawing the woman in half.
[url]www.business-words.com/dictionary/E.html[/url]
* the experience resulting from negative polarity imbalance. A fragmented experience of reality which is based on duality and separation.
[PLAIN]www.synchronicity.org/Glossaryp.html[/URL]
* a misinterpreted perception that is caused by mistaking something present for something it is not. Illusions commonly occur with information that is seen or heard. For example, a common illusion is misinterpreting the noise made by wind for a voice. By contrast, a hallucination is a strong sensory perception that one has of an object or event while awake, when no such object or event exists. Whereas illusions involve misperceptions, hallucinations do not. Thus, an example of a hallucination would be hearing voices that are not really there and are not misinterpretation of the wind or any other noises.
[PLAIN]www.dbs-stn.org/glossary2.asp[/URL]
* A Very Fine Sheer Fabric Usually Of Nylon Or Silk.
[url]www.justsaywhen.com/Vintage-101-Glossary.htm[/url]
* A misperception or misinterpretation of a real external stimulus, such as hearing the rustling of leaves as the sound of voices. See also hallucination.
suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/mhglossary2.html
* modified or wrong interpretation of the outer world, which the individual accepts as reality; it may affect one or more senses
library.thinkquest.org/C0115926/glosary.htm
* An (intentional or unintentional) element of an entity only present as a perception by an observer.
ceh.kitoba.com/glossary.html
* Everything finite (like the Universe and all in it) is called Illusion or Maya. All that which is subject to change through decay and death, and which therefore has a beginning and an end, is regarded as illusion. That alone which is Changeless and Eternal is called "Reality". Illusion is primarily the characteristic of a distorted attitude of mind.
[PLAIN]www.revelation37.freeserve.co.uk/contents/glossary.htm[/URL]
* A false interpretation of an external sensory stimulus, usually seen or heard, such as a mirage in the desert or voices on the wind.
yourmedicalsource.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_glossary.html
* 1.)A semi-sheer net-type fabric, Illusion is often used for skirts and in some veils. It may also be called Net or Tulle. 2.) Any style neckline which is covered with chiffon or netting.
www1.bridesave.com/glossary.cfm
* A distorted perception, such as interpreting shadows to be an intruder; common in delirium.
[PLAIN]www.ohiohealth.com/healthreference/reference/DF34B32F-6F85-45E0-8FE85ECACDD48CC0.htm[/URL]
* is a distorted perception of reality.
[url]www.a2zpsychology.com/psychology_guide/mental_illness_terminology.htm[/url]
* something false taken to be true. Usually applied to the difference between being materially identified and spiritually directed. The impermanent or material is considered illusive as it is doomed to change while the management of the form, the spirit resulting from alignment with the soul, and the soul itself is considered eternal as it refers to the invariance of selfawareness and the reality of change, time itself.
[url]www.theorderoftime.com/ned/spiritueel/terms.html[/url]
* An unreal image; A deceptive appearance HOME This site was created by Lisa Marini. Last Modified: May 15, 1997. If there are any problems with this site, or if you have any comments, please send them to: [email]lmarin1@tiger.towson.edu[/email]
[url]www.towson.edu/~sallen/COURSES/SURREAL/STUDENTS/MARINI/Glossary.html[/url]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #930
the beginning of physical reality was nothing but concepts.
If I can't get you to understand that there is no physical reality ... I can't get you to believe that there is no chance for everything to be explained through physics. The idea that I'm trying to get acrosss is that the fundamental building blocks that make the universe what it is, are nothing more than conceptual geometric forms. These fundamental units are more than capable of the universe we see today. The premise here is to make a universe from nothing, without some form of magic act. A universe made of something other than nothing constitutes a magic act from my perspective. The only concievable way to make a universe from nothing that I can tell of, is by conceptual means. Fundamental conceptual geometric forms of nothing are more than adequate to serve as building blocks for anything within this universe. We can come to understanding of this grist mill through observation of the interactions.
I think there are only two ways in which concepts can interact.
I'd be more interested in what you think a thought is.

I consider this postulate in regards to anything that exist.

{All that exist must have form}

Since I cannot deny the existence of thought ... I (must) assume it has form. Can you tell me your idea of what form thought takes?
 
  • #931
I believe your reasoning is in reverse where you have to use physical examples to explain the "illusion" of your reality.
The use of a balloon to explain a fundamental conceptual unit was only to coax you to the form of it. You can note that the balloon is removed, whereby only the form is left. This is a Non-physical entity I'm trying to explain, hence it can't be interacted with by physical means. Interaction between two fundamental conceptual units must occur by conceptual means, such as yes verses no, or positive verses negative. If for instance a fundamental geometrical unit is positive within the form, and negative exterior of it, we can come to an understanding of possible interactions.

First the illusion of everything is a reality... now the illusion of nothing is a reality.
My first post I believe stated that the illusion was that the world was physical. Nothing is not an illusion to me, it comes to you in forms, otherwise known as The Reality Of Non-Existence. It has nothing to hide (a play on words).
 
  • #932
Castlegate said:
If I can't get you to understand that there is no physical reality ... I can't get you to believe that there is no chance for everything to be explained through physics. The idea that I'm trying to get acrosss is that the fundamental building blocks that make the universe what it is, are nothing more than conceptual geometric forms. These fundamental units are more than capable of the universe we see today. The premise here is to make a universe from nothing, without some form of magic act. A universe made of something other than nothing constitutes a magic act from my perspective. The only concievable way to make a universe from nothing that I can tell of, is by conceptual means.

You've not solved anything yet. A thought doesn't get a free ride when it comes to requiring "something" to compose it. What is the composition of a thought? The geometry imagined, as the theme of a concept, may escape having substance, but the concept itself requires something essential to be.

Castlegate said:
I consider this postulate in regards to anything that exist.

{All that exist must have form}

Not so. In fact, the very essence of existence could be some type of formless "stuff" that was never created, cannot NOT exist, and is the ground state condition of all we see. For more ideas on this (neutral substance monism), check out this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76897


Castlegate said:
Since I cannot deny the existence of thought ... I (must) assume it has form. Can you tell me your idea of what form thought takes?

Thoughts are not all conscious is, and form is not all that existence is. Since I am a relatively successful meditator, I can state uncategorically that if you can stop thinking, you are still fully conscious (I would say in fact more conscious than when you can't stop thinking). If all is thought, then shouldn't I cease to exist when my thoughts cease?

When I listen to beautiful music, there are two things going on (consciousness -wise). There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless. My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless. My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.
 
  • #933
Les Sleeth said:
There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless.

My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless.

My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.



Love/Appreciation/Understanding is/are the sum of the parts that are involved in adrenal, testosterone, estrogen and other hormonal release plus neurotransmitters being released because of stimulus that is either memory (chemical and genetic configurations representing stored information about external stimulus) induced or because of external stimulus in real time. It also involves the evolution of a species and the maturation of an individual among many other "parts".

Love/Appreciation and Understanding are each composed of a lot of physical parts. I'm not sure if because they are a result of so many physical conditions... it makes these "feelings" or "conditions" physical... or if they are "above" physical in that they are "the sum of the parts".
 
  • #934
Dr.Yes said:
Love/Appreciation/Understanding is/are the sum of the parts that are involved in adrenal, testosterone, estrogen and other hormonal release plus neurotransmitters being released because of stimulus that is either memory (chemical and genetic configurations representing stored information about external stimulus) induced or because of external stimulus in real time. It also involves the evolution of a species and the maturation of an individual among many other "parts".

Love/Appreciation and Understanding are each composed of a lot of physical parts. I'm not sure if because they are a result of so many physical conditions... it makes these "feelings" or "conditions" physical... or if they are "above" physical in that they are "the sum of the parts".

Well, that's your physicalist theory. I couldn't disagree more. I experience love, understanding, and appreciation as something singular. It is not part-dependent even if what leads to the experience has been preceded by numerous steps. But you are certainly free to think of yourself as the result of chemicals and brain physiology.

I dropped out of this thread a long time ago because the physicalists think one day they will fully account for human consciousness with the brain, and I (among others) are quite certain we experience something inside which is brain-independent. The physicalists can't prove their theory, and the subjective certainty of the introspectionist can't be made available for objective evaluation by others. So really it seems the discussion is destined to go nowhere.

I stepped in for my last post just to challenge Castegate's notion that a universe which is only thoughts somehow gets around the something-from-nothing dilemma.
 
Last edited:
  • #935
Les Sleeth said:
Well, that's your physicalist theory. I couldn't disagree more. I experience love, understanding, and appreciation as something singular. It is not part-dependent even if what leads to the experience has been preceded by numerous steps. But you are certainly free to think of yourself as the result of chemicals and brain physiology.

I dropped out of this thread a long time ago because the physicalists think one day they will fully account for human consciousness with the brain, and I (among others) are quite certain we experience something inside which is brain-independent. The physicalists can't prove their theory, and the subjective certainty of the introspectionist can't be made available for objective evaluation by others. So really it seems the discussion is destined to go nowhere.

I stepped in for my last post just to challenge Castegate's notion that a universe which is only thoughts somehow gets around the something-from-nothing dilemma.

Well, that's your introspectionistic theory for you. It is an illusion (as in ill-conceived notion... as in ignorant of all the facts) to imagine love, whatever and whatever as singular and separate from the chemicals from which they are spawned.

But, for a collection of rocks that can talk, you're not doing too badly with your (deluded) powers of reasoning.
 
Last edited:
  • #936
You've not solved anything yet. A thought doesn't get a free ride when it comes to requiring "something" to compose it. What is the composition of a thought?
A thought or thoughts would be composed of a form of nothing.
The geometry imagined, as the theme of a concept, may escape having substance, but the concept itself requires something essential to be.
I fail to see why from my perspective. Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

As far as essentials go, all that is necessary is nothing and the concept of it. In fact - From the link you posted, I coulndn't help thinking your requirements for Esse fit nothing to a T.

When I listen to beautiful music, there are two things going on (consciousness -wise). There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless. My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless. My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.
__________________
I disagree with this completely. Pain, pleasure, love, hate, you name it will be recognized in some form or another, just as a hat, dog, red, and Pez dispensers come to you in a form. Form is the fundamental base to all things that exist. Perhaps you can explain how it is you feel, without of course some sort of mystical explanatory expression.
 
  • #937
Castlegate said:
Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

Not something physical, just something.


Castlegate said:
As far as essentials go, all that is necessary is nothing and the concept of it. In fact - From the link you posted, I coulndn't help thinking your requirements for Esse fit nothing to a T.

I don't see how. Let's say all that exists is water. When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing, but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition?

If nothing else, the formless condition is absolute potentiality, and that's hardly "nothing." Forms have to be composed of "something."


Castlegate said:
I disagree with this completely. Pain, pleasure, love, hate, you name it will be recognized in some form or another, just as a hat, dog, red, and Pez dispensers come to you in a form. Form is the fundamental base to all things that exist. Perhaps you can explain how it is you feel, without of course some sort of mystical explanatory expression.

From what you said, I don't see how we disagree yet. I didn't say the feelings you list come unattached to form, I said there is 1) the form, and there is 2) the feeling that comes with the form . . . that feeling is formless. It's like the musical note C can be mentally identified by its place on a structured scale, but the experience of C is something different, it's structureless.
 
  • #938
Dr.Yes said:
Well, that's your introspectionistic theory for you. It is an illusion (as in ill-conceived notion... as in ignorant of all the facts) to imagine love, whatever and whatever as singular and separate from the chemicals from which they are spawned.

But, for a collection of rocks that can talk, you're not doing too badly with your (deluded) powers of reasoning.

I was resisting your abrupt way of saying "this is how it is," rather than explaining it as merely your opinion.

What determines our opinions? If you had lived in a desert all your life and didn't know there was any other sort of landscape, then your opinion of what planet Earth is like will reflect the extent of your experience. I can accept that, based the life experience you've had, it seems reasonable to assume you are chemistry and brain physiology.

I also have all my life experiences under my belt, and mine have given me a different view of what I, as consciousness, am at the core. I am not "ignorant of the facts" of my life in a physical body. I simply have had experiences which have convinced me I am not my body, but rather am entwined in it.

I don't ask you to accept my view as the truth . . . only to be aware that people might have experiences you don't and therefore different opinions than you.
 
  • #939
Les Sleeth said:
I was resisting your abrupt way of saying "this is how it is," rather than explaining it as merely your opinion.

What determines our opinions? If you had lived in a desert all your life and didn't know there was any other sort of landscape, then your opinion of what planet Earth is like will reflect the extent of your experience. I can accept that, based the life experience you've had, it seems reasonable to assume you are chemistry and brain physiology.

I also have all my life experiences under my belt, and mine have given me a different view of what I, as consciousness, am at the core. I am not "ignorant of the facts" of my life in a physical body. I simply have had experiences which have convinced me I am not my body, but rather am entwined in it.

I don't ask you to accept my view as the truth . . . only to be aware that people might have experiences you don't and therefore different opinions than you.

I don't mean for you to take what I've said as an abrupt statement. That sort of interpretation is left up to the audience. I expect people to read what I say as my opinion and as a repository of my experience rather than as a megalomaniacle decree of the land. What else could what I say be other than my opinion?

Now you're entwined in your body.

Your body isn't you and you aren't your body... but you two are entwined. How about someone else's body? Would that figure in the entwinement? How about the freeway outside the window... is that intertwining along with the body and the you?

If by entwined you mean that these states, "you" and "body" etc... are influencing one another I certainly agree. However, only one component of the two is fully dependent on the other. The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

This brings me to my opinion, as it were, that "source" is a large part of explaining all things (in keeping with the thread and topic). When researching the cause of an emotion or a motive or a word or anything we examine its source.This is a form of reductive reasoning that often ends up in the realm of physics.

However, I don't believe everything can be reduced to pure physics because it would be completely useless to do so. Eg.

Someone asks why apples always fall down. You tell them its because the apples have become heavier as they ripen and their stem eventually let's them fall. You can tell them the fallen fruit also helps nourish the apple tree through the winter. You can tell them the fruit carries the seed of the tree so it can be reproduced, elsewhere.


If someone asks why an apple just flew out of that tree and you give them Newton's modified idea of gravity ie: F = G- m1 m2 over r2 no one is wiser but you feel as though you've explained everything there is to be explained about an apple falling out of a tree.

What's missing in Newton's or anyone's mathematical approach to explaining a function is the research into how the function every came into being in the first place. Researching the sources and resources involved in the creation of "the you" or the falling apple demands that we stray from the fundimental physics of a subject, and look closer at the conditions that have given rise to the subject and related functions, etc..
 
Last edited:
  • #940
I don't see how. Let's say all that exists is water. When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing, but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition?

If nothing else, the formless condition is absolute potentiality, and that's hardly "nothing." Forms have to be composed of "something."

Now let me cover this ground from my perspective, within my conceptual model. First off you don't say {Let's say all that exists is water.} and follow with {When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing} and then this comes about {but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition? }

The problem here is that you are stuck on your model trying to explain your understanding of mine with yours. It would seem you are trying to use a context that you figure I would use (and you got that wrong), and also in actuality you slip in some of your own. Let me fill in the blanks for greater understanding.

So when you say {Let's say all that exists is water.} I assume this is what you figure is my start gun. Let me replace that by pulling the trigger with this {Non-Existence}. Not only are we not on the same page, but far from the same book. I can't expect you to follow the reason of my logic if your eye isn't on the bullet.

At any rate I am bone tired. Thats because I've been up and down ladders all day, and I ain't no spring chicken no mo. My head is screwed on with stripped threads at the moment, because it's been gettin screwed since 2am. So I'll pick this up at a later time. I feelin a little grumpy. Can you tell?
 
  • #941
Castlegate said:
Now let me cover this ground from my perspective, within my conceptual model. First off you don't say {Let's say all that exists is water.} and follow with {When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing} and then this comes about {but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition? }

The problem here is that you are stuck on your model trying to explain your understanding of mine with yours. It would seem you are trying to use a context that you figure I would use (and you got that wrong), and also in actuality you slip in some of your own. Let me fill in the blanks for greater understanding.

So when you say {Let's say all that exists is water.} I assume this is what you figure is my start gun. Let me replace that by pulling the trigger with this {Non-Existence}. Not only are we not on the same page, but far from the same book. I can't expect you to follow the reason of my logic if your eye isn't on the bullet.

At any rate I am bone tired. Thats because I've been up and down ladders all day, and I ain't no spring chicken no mo. My head is screwed on with stripped threads at the moment, because it's been gettin screwed since 2am. So I'll pick this up at a later time. I feelin a little grumpy. Can you tell?

All I can say is . . .
:rofl: :biggrin: :smile: :!) o:) :cool: :tongue: :tongue2:

Great post even though it didn't make a lick of sense to me. Have a beer, eat some pizza, love your wife (or signficant other). Welcome to PF!
 
  • #942
Dr.Yes said:
I don't mean for you to take what I've said as an abrupt statement. That sort of interpretation is left up to the audience. I expect people to read what I say as my opinion and as a repository of my experience rather than as a megalomaniacle decree of the land. What else could what I say be other than my opinion?

I like your answer lots, but I, like Castlegate, am too tired to answer with any competence. Tomorrow then!
 
  • #943
Dr.Yes said:
The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.
I happen to doubt both of these assertions. Can you give me any support for either one of them which you think is compelling? Before you do, though, I would like you to tell me your definition of 'you'. We also need to understand the definition of 'body' but I think this is less of a problem. I suspect we both agree on what 'body' means.
 
  • #944
I've watched this forum. Would someone first define Physics. I thought mathematics was one of many working tools but not necessarily on par with physics.
We’re mixing apples and oranges again. One example of representing ‘A’ as H2O and ‘B’ as Man omits content of each. And even if you look at composition can you explain away thought as a function of physics.
Explain why an elm tree does not possesses a single leaf of average size and shape to its other leaves. We like to put square pegs in square holes which is good, but sometimes it is not necessary to explain everything with physics.
Abstract comes from thought and often lends itself to explaining the unknown. For example, why stop at our Universe? What about our galaxy? There are millions of galaxies out there which I suspect are not alike. A good analogy would be to pour a bucket of pain in a big bowl and drop a bowling ball in it. Freeze the result at maximum expansion and do it again a million or so times and you will have a pretty good representation of outer-space with all the galaxies. I’d like to know what our galaxy is rotating around. Is it rotating around something? Mathematic Reasoning and physics suggests it should.
Bobby R Sends
 
  • #945
You're all entitled to your wonderful opinions, however... I'm right.

Now I won't continue to bore you all because I've been up late with two twisted twin sisters who raised their own brother who has to deal with FAS and ADS and who can't seem to make it on his own.

Whoop whoop whoop whoop, as Dr. Zoiberg would say.
 
<h2>1. Can everything in the universe be explained by pure physics?</h2><p>The answer to this question is still a topic of debate among scientists. Some believe that everything in the universe can be reduced to pure physics, while others argue that there are aspects of reality that cannot be explained solely by physics. It is important to note that physics is constantly evolving and advancing, so our understanding of the universe may change in the future.</p><h2>2. What exactly is pure physics?</h2><p>Pure physics, also known as fundamental physics, is the study of the most basic and fundamental laws and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy in the universe. It includes fields such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. These laws are considered to be the building blocks of our understanding of the universe.</p><h2>3. Are there any limitations to pure physics?</h2><p>While pure physics has made significant strides in explaining the natural world, there are still limitations to its scope. For example, pure physics cannot explain certain phenomena such as consciousness, emotions, and human behavior. It also cannot fully explain the origins of the universe or the existence of dark matter and energy.</p><h2>4. How does pure physics relate to other scientific disciplines?</h2><p>Pure physics is often considered the foundation of other scientific disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and astronomy. Many principles and laws in these fields can be traced back to fundamental physics. However, each discipline also has its own unique principles and laws that cannot be fully explained by pure physics.</p><h2>5. Is it important to reduce everything to pure physics?</h2><p>Reducing everything to pure physics is not necessarily the ultimate goal of science. While it is important to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, it is also important to recognize and appreciate the complexity and diversity of the natural world. Additionally, there are aspects of human experience that cannot be fully explained by pure physics, highlighting the need for a multidisciplinary approach in science.</p>

1. Can everything in the universe be explained by pure physics?

The answer to this question is still a topic of debate among scientists. Some believe that everything in the universe can be reduced to pure physics, while others argue that there are aspects of reality that cannot be explained solely by physics. It is important to note that physics is constantly evolving and advancing, so our understanding of the universe may change in the future.

2. What exactly is pure physics?

Pure physics, also known as fundamental physics, is the study of the most basic and fundamental laws and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy in the universe. It includes fields such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. These laws are considered to be the building blocks of our understanding of the universe.

3. Are there any limitations to pure physics?

While pure physics has made significant strides in explaining the natural world, there are still limitations to its scope. For example, pure physics cannot explain certain phenomena such as consciousness, emotions, and human behavior. It also cannot fully explain the origins of the universe or the existence of dark matter and energy.

4. How does pure physics relate to other scientific disciplines?

Pure physics is often considered the foundation of other scientific disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and astronomy. Many principles and laws in these fields can be traced back to fundamental physics. However, each discipline also has its own unique principles and laws that cannot be fully explained by pure physics.

5. Is it important to reduce everything to pure physics?

Reducing everything to pure physics is not necessarily the ultimate goal of science. While it is important to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, it is also important to recognize and appreciate the complexity and diversity of the natural world. Additionally, there are aspects of human experience that cannot be fully explained by pure physics, highlighting the need for a multidisciplinary approach in science.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
4
Replies
136
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
718
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
826
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
903
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
612
Back
Top