Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[quantumcarl]

Whoop whoop whoop whoop, as Dr. Zoiberg would say.

I've always wanted to quote myself... you see, PF wants me to be quantumcarl for some reason... so, I am reverting to my very old name from god knows when it started...something like 2000, pre-reichstat housen berning.

Now, since Carl Sagan has become a quantum entity, like he always has been... and saturated my Dr. Yes potential with his self directed way of explaining the universe... I'd better get on to plasma physics and simplified calculus etc... however, philosophy always seems to have enough gravity to drag me back here... thank you...

 

[quantumcarl]

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..

I totally agree.

 

[moving finger]

Now you're entwined in your body.

This already implies a dualistic perspective. May be incorrect.

Your body isn't you and you aren't your body...

Why not?

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?

Irrelevant, since I do not accept your first statement.

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.

Disagree. The body creates (is one with) the you. The body (in its entirety) can no more exist without you than you can exist without the body.

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.

The latter two are not "reasons why" the apple falls down (unless one believes in teleology).

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.

"no one is wiser"? - I disagree. What is it that you expect from an explanation? It seems that you are seeking "reasons" and not simple a functional explanation (ie you demand to know "why does an apple obey Newton's laws?")

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..

There is something to be answered here.

"What is it that breathes fire into the equations?"

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

This already implies a dualistic perspective. May be incorrect.
Why not?
Irrelevant, since I do not accept your first statement.
Disagree. The body creates (is one with) the you. The body (in its entirety) can no more exist without you than you can exist without the body.
The latter two are not "reasons why" the apple falls down (unless one believes in teleology).
"no one is wiser"? - I disagree. What is it that you expect from an explanation? It seems that you are seeking "reasons" and not simple a functional explanation (ie you demand to know "why does an apple obey Newton's laws?")
There is something to be answered here.
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations?"
MF

There is context missing in the quote I took from myself, in that the quote is in answer to another post and it questions the premise in the post that a body and "you" can be entwined etc...

I'm sort of out of this discussion as it is.

In answer to someone who asked for a definition of a "you" I'd say a "you" is that composite of neuronal response and stimulus set off by the experiences associated with the internal environment of a body as well as its external environment.

 

[moving finger]

In answer to someone who asked for a definition of a "you" I'd say a "you" is that composite of neuronal response and stimulus set off by the experiences associated with the internal environment of a body as well as its external environment.

yes, I would tend to agree with this, but also would suggest that the definition of "you" is context-dependent. An example is Searle's infamous Chinese Room, in the version where Searle "internalises" all of the room's rulebooks etc. In this case, the entity "Searle" can process Chinese questions and respond with rational Chinese answers (and hence it can be argued there is a part of Searle which understands Chinese) but at the same time the conscious entity that calls itself "Searle" is not conscious of any understanding of Chinese. It is important in this context to distinguish between the conscious agent which calls itself Searle and the rest of the physical embodiment of the agent which is Searle.
MF

 

[Philocrat]

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

yes, in this sense physics does serve unique purpose...of determining a reference point. But it seems that this only accounts for or deals with the epistemological content of one single layer down the explanatory pathway or scale - that of physics. It corresponds to what most people are saying that not only does physics fix the reference point of things for epistemological purpose, but also the reference point which epistemologically signals to a prospective truth-tracker of the end of a given explanation. But what about other disciplines in other explanatory layers? For example the notion of a man for a physicist, as your equation shows, is different from the notion of a man for a biologist or psycholgist or a bishop or a guru? What if a biologist for example comes up with its own equation and say, for example, ' Man = Physiology', or a Psychologist with 'Man = Ego' etc.? Some of these disciplines would in hind sight wish that their equations are 'Non-eliminative' in scope as defined above. They are presumably non-eliminative if they so believe. The question is whether all these disciplines with their specific equations or reductions should merely be construed as a window of explanation that epistomologically services and satisfies each of those disciplines? Should the significance or importance of 'Inter-scale explanation' as previously defined be abandoned altogether?
.

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.

So physics tells us. Reasonably so, at least to give it a benefit of doubt. Non-eliminative realism says we should retain both sides of the eqaution regardless. Well, some people might naively think that this is of our own making. Not quite ... for it seems to be of Nature's (or Creator's ) making. For the purpose of epistemology we are naturally predisposed or forcibly inclined to retain the epistemological contents of both sides of the equation. As I always ask, can we scientifically intervene to eliminate these predispositions? That is, if you start talking about a man in the language of physics, such as 'Man is a field of atomic particles', but ouside physics you still find this entity ("that you can sink your teeth into", to borrow someone's phrase) standing in front of you. Of course as a physicist you may be fully licensed to ingnore this metaphysical and epistemological fact ( however wrong you may later turn out to be), but the immdiate presence of this 'Man' cannot be ignored at least by a biologist, a bishop, or a lay-native speaker of NL (natural language). This in my opinion is what makes both sides of the equation non-eliminative within the explanatory scale.

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.

But recent philosophy arguments are attempting to do away with one part of this equation - 'Mind'. This makes reduction in the equation eliminative. If the proponents of this theory succeed, this would mean a reduction of matter to a purely mechanical entity. So, 'Mind is Matter' would be metaphysically and epistemologically equivalent to 'Matter is Matter'. Or would it not?

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?

The propblem of the 'Sum of the parts', as I have indicated above and elsewhere is metaphysically and epistemologically problematic. The problem of infinite regress is not only when you are reducing from a whole to its underlying parts, but also when you are reducing from whole to whole and to different combinant relations. Things get even more problematic when a given whole is reduced to a part of another whole. Metaphysically, this looks as if every whole is two-natured. That is, every whole has two natures - that of being a whole and equally that of possessing the natural potential at any given time of becoming a part. You may not be necessarily wrong if you hypothesise that 'Everything is both a whole and a part!'

 

[moving finger]

'Everything is both a whole and a part!'

Very deep, and very illuminating.

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

AKA Dr.Yes (Bond theme song plays...)

The question is whether all these disciplines with their specific equations or reductions should merely be construed as a window of explanation that epistomologically services and satisfies each of those disciplines? Should the significance or importance of 'Inter-scale explanation' as previously defined be abandoned altogether?

Emphatic no. Each point of view (and this includes each and every discipline) serves to further all disciplines in their studies and in how they use language to create efficiency, progress and communication. New methods, concepts and ideas are the beneficial result of a diversity of points of views.
.

'Mind is Matter' would be metaphysically and epistemologically equivalent to 'Matter is Matter'. Or would it not?

No. As I've said, I believe and it has been demonstrated throughout history that a diverse vocabulary and the ideas that were instrumental in spawning such a diverse vocabulary will always offer new ideas that will help guide progress toward the efficiency of any project. It somewhat resembles how nature nourishes a diversity of species and elements to support a healthy, natural selection.

 

[Philocrat]

Very deep, and very illuminating.
MF

Moving Finger, welcome to the debate! Yes, very deep it is, especially now that we are entering that part of the debate where we begin to discuss inter-scale or inter-layer or inter-discipline Explanation. In case people are still wondering what all this means, 'INTER-SCALE EXPLANATION' simply means the total and complete explanation of a given object of perception across multiple scales or frames of reference.

Funny enough, our NL (natural language) is so rich and flexible that it allows us to attempt to do this by uniting one explanatory scale with another, which is equivalent to implying 'linking one or more disciplines with another' in NL constructs such as:

Man is matter
Man is physiology
Man is a field of atomic particles
Man is ego
Man is mind

and so on. However, fundamental questions of metaphysical and epistomlogical natures still remain as to:

A) Why do this in the first place - what is the point of it all?

B) If we have any point at all for inter-scale explanation, how much are we really succeeding in doing so.

C) What in future awaits the consequences of such an epic explanatory project, if any?

Finally, it seems to me that it is not really clear why things are the way they are and what we are attempting to achieve in the process, at least from the human point of view, or is there?

 

[Philocrat]

Emphatic no. Each point of view (and this includes each and every discipline) serves to further all disciplines in their studies and in how they use language to create efficiency, progress and communication. New methods, concepts and ideas are the beneficial result of a diversity of points of views.

Yes, substantially so and no one is denying the fact that each discipline must explain things as they appear to them or as they appear to function in that very discipline. The question is whether there is any need for any reduction of one thing in each discipline to another. If as the content of this thread suggest, physics can explain everything, at least metaphysically (if not epistemologically so), it does appear as if we have to do away with the declaratory and explanatory contents of all other disciplines, or is it not? This in fact is the reason why a raised the issue of the Eliminative and Non-eliminative natures of the entire process (espcially when we use NL (natural language) to construct interdiscipline equations such as those I mentioned earlier).

Ok, let me put the question again in the clearest and simplest terms:

Is the claim that physics can explain everything eliminative in the the process? Or if physics can explain everything, does this make all the explanations of a given term of reality in all other disciplines metaphysically and epistemologically redundant?

These are the questions that need some hard-headed answers that are inter-disciplinarily satisfactory.

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, let me put the question again in the clearest and simplest terms:
Is the claim that physics can explain everything eliminative in the the process? Or if physics can explain everything, does this make all the explanations of a given term of reality in all other disciplines metaphysically and epistemologically redundant?
These are the questions that need some hard-headed answers that are inter-disciplinarily satisfactory.

Everything can be explained by everything... and that would include the discipline of physics and its language.

Everthing can be explained by squirrels and the way they hide the acorns.

Everything can be explained by the beer in the fridge.

Physics has an expert way of explaining everything physical. But... physics can't explain gravity and a number of other things.

In fact the number of things anyone can explain... physicist, baker or builder all put together... amounts to a dent in a thimble's worth of understanding with regard to the nature of existence.

How am I doing so far!?

 

[Philocrat]

Everything can be explained by everything... and that would include the discipline of physics and its language.
Everthing can be explained by squirrels and the way they hide the acorns.
Everything can be explained by the beer in the fridge.
Physics has an expert way of explaining everything physical. But... physics can't explain gravity and a number of other things.
In fact the number of things anyone can explain... physicist, baker or builder all put together... amounts to a dent in a thimble's worth of understanding with regard to the nature of existence.
How am I doing so far!?

Well, if that is true, it follows that Physics is a mere scale of reference, one amongst many down the explanatory pathway. It also follows that physics does not have the last say about anything, or would this not be the case? Anyway, let me explain what I mean by physics being a mere scale of reference, just in case people start to wonder.

It is my belief that, when it comes to the whole notion of explanation of a given term or object of reality, every discipline stands as a mere reference point up or down the explanatory pathway of multiple scales of reference. Of course, as you suggested in your earlier posting, each scale of reference or discipline would have something that is epistemologically valuable and unique to it. But metaphysically, things get problematic when we attempt inter-scale or cross-discipline reductionimism or explanation. You encounter not only potential redundancy of information but also the notoriously metaphysically vexing infinite regress that extends both ways up and down the explanatory pathway. And as I said earlier, if your hypothesis is right that physics has outstanding issues to explain, it makes physics a mere member of the unfinished show.

The claim that physics can explain everything is a paradigm of epic scale. It is a very serious claim that both scientists and philosophers are not going to take very lightly for a very long time to come.

 

[Doctordick]

The claim that physics can explain everything is a paradigm of epic scale. It is a very serious claim that both scientists and philosophers are not going to take very lightly for a very long time to come.

This depends entirely on what one means by the term "physics". If one means the field commonly taught under that title in colleges and universities, the answer is of course NO! :rofl: However, if one is speaking of the idea that physics is "natural philosophy", the attempt to explain things from fundamental supportable axioms, then the answer has nothing to do with what physics can currently explain. We are speaking instead of deducing the rules which are required in order to explain the universe. As such (under that interpretation of "physics") it is the fundamental science behind all sciences and anything "physics" cannot explain, can not be explained. :grumpy: The answer to the question is nothing more than opinion concerning what one is talking about when one talks about physics: i.e., is "physics" the distilled result of "exact science" or is it just another field?
Have fun -- Dick
Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The claim that everything is explainable by "physics", is really the claim that naturalism is true. That is, there is no need to invoke a 5th element in addition to space, matter, energy, and time (e.g., mind, souls, God, consciousness, karma, spirit, etc.). This does not deny that emergent properties are real. The ingredients of a bomb are by themselves relatively harmless--it is only when they are combined in a certain way do they become dangerous. Even additive systems have non-linear effects: you pile straw on top of a camel one at a time until BAM!, the camel's back breaks.

 

[Philocrat]

This depends entirely on what one means by the term "physics". If one means the field commonly taught under that title in colleges and universities, the answer is of course NO! :rofl: However, if one is speaking of the idea that physics is "natural philosophy", the attempt to explain things from fundamental supportable axioms, then the answer has nothing to do with what physics can currently explain. We are speaking instead of deducing the rules which are required in order to explain the universe. As such (under that interpretation of "physics") it is the fundamental science behind all sciences and anything "physics" cannot explain, can not be explained. :grumpy: The answer to the question is nothing more than opinion concerning what one is talking about when one talks about physics: i.e., is "physics" the distilled result of "exact science" or is it just another field?
Have fun -- Dick
Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

Yes, 'Natural Philosophy' it used to be termed and known. But People like http://consc.net/chalmers/" who came into philosophy from physics should be the authority on this issue. They should clarify whether this distiction that you are now making should hold. Unfortunately, this distinction that you are making is buried under a notoriously vague topic: 'Philosophy of Science'. Some of your stuff could pass for 'Natural Philosophy' if the distinction that you are making holds or ever comes to be accepted.

Question:

Should 'Theoretical Physics' be given a well-deserved home in Philosophy?

This would well be worth it as it will clearly distinguish 'Goods-Producing Physics' from what I prefer to call 'Analytical Physics' which comprises of Mathematical Physics, Theoretical Physics and Natural Philosophy terminologies).

 

[Philocrat]

The claim that everything is explainable by "physics", is really the claim that naturalism is true. That is, there is no need to invoke a 5th element in addition to space, matter, energy, and time (e.g., mind, souls, God, consciousness, karma, spirit, etc.). This does not deny that emergent properties are real. The ingredients of a bomb are by themselves relatively harmless--it is only when they are combined in a certain way do they become dangerous. Even additive systems have non-linear effects: you pile straw on top of a camel one at a time until BAM!, the camel's back breaks.

Yes, if the 5th element will/should disappear into matter...and my prophesy of 'Multiply Self-categorising Matter' will come to pass! And so will Naturalism itself become a permanent and indubitable norm or fact of the human reality. But unfortunately, this 5th element is the centrepiece of this thread as it has been ruthlessly contested and in effect resulted into this metaphysically vexing notion of 'the unexplainable remainder'.

If a remainder exists as it is being suggested and argued everywhere on this forum, then Matter has a partner causally and relationally explainable, and naturalism has a hole in it. If there is no such remainder, then matter is nothing more than a mysterious but multiply self-categorising entity. Such mystry and this multipartite nature of matter should not undermine naturalism and many other physicalist notions on record.

Question: How much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the overall analysis of reality?

I have asked this question on several places above on this thread and elsewhere. People tend to have systematically avoided answering it. What do you think of the information content of the perceiver in any project of explaining reality? Should it be included or rulled out as it's often the case in many explanations of the relevant disciplines?

 

[Doctordick]

Question: How much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the overall analysis of reality?
I have asked this question on several places above on this thread and elsewhere. People tend to have systematically avoided answering it. What do you think of the information content of the perceiver in any project of explaining reality? Should it be included or rulled out as it's often the case in many explanations of the relevant disciplines?

I think, by your statement of the question, that you misunderstand the problem. The first question I would have is, what is your definition of reality? My definition would be "my memories of the past" but I am afraid the subtle consequences of that definition might very well elude you. "My memories of the past" constitutes a succinct statement of exactly the entirety of what I know of the universe, the "universe" being "everything. You specifically mention "relevant disciplines" which implies your analysis consists of two parts: one, outside the "relevant discipline", which you must be presuming to be either understood or immaterial to the relevant discipline. Either presumption is a unsupportable constraint on your analysis.
The problem here (of explaining anything) is one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process (you must begin without answers). The scientific community regards that problem as obviously insolvable and, from their perspective, no one but a complete idiot (me?) would look there. :rofl: :rofl:
What bugs me is that this position is held by everyone in spite of the fact that, in their own model of the universe, the problem is solved daily by millions of children (they begin as eggs with no mental concepts at all and, within a few short years they have developed complex ideas and theories beyond reckoning). No one really thinks about it. Actually, I can show that it is "the freedom to define the data transcription" which allows a solution to the problem. If you don't understand that, I will explain it to you.
Have fun -- Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous -- (He wrote a lot of stuff.)

 

[quantumcarl]

Question:
How much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the overall analysis of reality?

What do you think of the information content of the perceiver in any project of explaining reality? Should it be included or rulled out as it's often the case in many explanations of the relevant disciplines?

The only information content of a perceiver that has any bearing on reality is the information the perceiver holds individually and apart from other perceivers.

You ask "how much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the over all analysis of reality".
In the first place there is no way that there can be an overall consensis regarding reality. Unless we are able to cram every consciousness of every conscious being into one brain, we are completely unable to arrive at a universal... shall we say... quantum... definition of reality.

Just because my initials, QC, could be construed to mean "quantum constant" doesn't mean I hold the quantum constant with regard to reality.

Reality (much like "time") is a concept that was constructed to pacify our rampant acknowlegement of our physicallity in a universe that is comprised of much much more than the physical plateau we all know and love so much.

 

[Doctordick]

The only information content of a perceiver that has any bearing on reality is the information the perceiver holds individually and apart from other perceivers.

Essentially I believe you are saying that we each live in a universe of our own creation constructed from "information the perceiver holds individually". I agree with that statement one hundred percent; what the others (and I hope that does not include you) fail to realize is that communication from "other perceivers" is just more "information the perceiver holds individually". In the final analysis, we are all alone inside our own heads.

You ask "how much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the over all analysis of reality".
In the first place there is no way that there can be an overall consensis regarding reality. Unless we are able to cram every consciousness of every conscious being into one brain, we are completely unable to arrive at a universal... shall we say... quantum... definition of reality.

Without cramming every consciousness of every conscious being into one brain, what is wrong with defining "reality" to be that part of our mental image which we would be right about if we thought it was reality? Think about it for a moment. That sentence defines "reality" without requiring anyone to know what is right. Instead, it gives us something to reach for as our mental image changes. Looking at the history of thought, the only thing which really proves "what we thought was right was actually wrong" is a discovered inconsistency in "what we thought". So internal consistency seems to be a basic property of "reality".

Reality (much like "time") is a concept that was constructed to pacify our rampant acknowlegement of our physicallity in a universe that is comprised of much much more than the physical plateau we all know and love so much.

I don't know, I would tend to just call them both "worthwhile concepts" expressing valuable ideas essential to explaining what we, as individuals, perceive. :tongue2:
Have fun – Dick
Yes, I do still occasionally read this forum and still have a fond hope up waking up some interest in thinking about things.

 

[quantumcarl]

Essentially I believe you are saying that we each live in a universe of our own creation constructed from "information the perceiver holds individually". I agree with that statement one hundred percent; what the others (and I hope that does not include you) fail to realize is that communication from "other perceivers" is just more "information the perceiver holds individually". In the final analysis, we are all alone inside our own heads.
Without cramming every consciousness of every conscious being into one brain, what is wrong with defining "reality" to be that part of our mental image which we would be right about if we thought it was reality? Think about it for a moment. That sentence defines "reality" without requiring anyone to know what is right. Instead, it gives us something to reach for as our mental image changes. Looking at the history of thought, the only thing which really proves "what we thought was right was actually wrong" is a discovered inconsistency in "what we thought". So internal consistency seems to be a basic property of "reality".
I don't know, I would tend to just call them both "worthwhile concepts" expressing valuable ideas essential to explaining what we, as individuals, perceive. :tongue2:
Have fun – Dick
Yes, I do still occasionally read this forum and still have a fond hope up waking up some interest in thinking about things.

I am in agreement with most of your replys to my post here.

Looking at the history of thought, the only thing which really proves "what we thought was right was actually wrong" is a discovered inconsistency in "what we thought". So internal consistency seems to be a basic property of "reality".

This statement makes me think that, during our history, as we find more and more out about the environment in which we find ourselves, our perception of what is real has changed drastically from year to year, century to century ad on infinitum.

Its really difficult to know if it is our able awareness that shapes our reality or... if it is our reality shaping our awareness and concept of a consistent reality.

Apparently reality doesn't change as much as our perception does.. in fact, one would imagine it to be very consistent over time. It may be that it is our progressive ability to percieve our environment... aka nature... that allows us a glimpse of what is truly real or... reality. Thank you for the very groovy thoughts on the matter (no pun here).

 

[Doctordick]

I haven't been over here on physicsforums for quite a while and was somewhat surprised to receive an e-mail about your post. It would be nice to know how much mathematics you understand as knowing what you will understand is quite difficult when your background is an open question. Comprehending complex logic is not a trivial issue. With regard to my post and what I was trying to point out as compared to your response, it is pretty clear to me that you overlooked a subtle issue which it seems everyone here has failed to comprehend.

... what the others (and I hope that does not include you) fail to realize is that communication from "other perceivers" is just more "information the perceiver holds individually". In the final analysis, we are all alone inside our own heads.

The point being that absolutely everything we know constitutes our understanding of what we have experienced in our own lifetime and in our own heads so to speak.

This statement makes me think that, during our history, as we find more and more out about the environment in which we find ourselves, our perception of what is real has changed drastically from year to year, century to century ad on infinitum.

Unless you are a lot older than me, the change in your perception of what is real has not spanned centuries.

Its really difficult to know if it is our able awareness that shapes our reality or... if it is our reality shaping our awareness and concept of a consistent reality.

In my life I have heard the comment, "all I know for sure is that I know absolutely nothing for sure", so many times that I could not estimate the number. And that comment is usually followed by a long treatise on what they know. Absolutely no one has ever even suggested that we are working with unknowns here. In fact it seems to be a common flaw of philosophers that they can not comprehend working with something without knowing what it is they are working with: i.e., it seems that the concept of unknowns is totally outside their comprehension. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering their total aversion to mathematics.

Apparently reality doesn't change as much as our perception does.. in fact, one would imagine it to be very consistent over time. It may be that it is our progressive ability to percieve our environment... aka nature... that allows us a glimpse of what is truly real or... reality. Thank you for the very groovy thoughts on the matter (no pun here).

Clearly, "reality is an unknown: nobody "knows" what it is. However, that does not mean we cannot think about it. Back in the 1700's Imanual Kant defined what he called analytic truth. One current definition of analytic proposition is that it is one the negation of which is self-contradictory: essentially, "if you deny a true analytic proposition, you always get a self-contradictory proposition". We can make a few statements about "reality" which can be seen as analytic truths. One of these "analytic truths" is "reality is" what "reality is": i.e., its nature does not ever change; any "real" change is part and parcel of "reality" itself. Your "glimpse of what is truly real or... reality" is nothing more or less than your current explanation of what reality is and inconsistency is the only flaw in that explanation which will force a change in your perception.

Looking at the history of thought, the only thing which really proves "what we thought was right was actually wrong" is a discovered inconsistency in "what we thought". So internal consistency seems to be a basic property of "reality".

Another analytical truth! I have posted a paper on the web which elucidates a very straight forward consequence (an analytic truth) which can be deduced from the definition of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm . So far no one seems to comprehend either the logic contained therein or the consequences of the truth of the conclusion. You might try to read it. I am full well ready to answer any questions concerning what I have presented there if you have any interest in understanding it.

The final equation, which I call the fundamental equation of the universe is valid as an analytical truth. Essentially, the fundamental elements of any explanation of anything must obey that equation. Examination of the solutions of that equation reveals that all of physics is essentially solutions to that equation. Three very fundamental conclusions may be drawn directly from that fact. First, physics works so well because it has to (if it doesn't it isn't consistent); second, that equation is a TOE (or would be if it were a theory and not an "analytical truth") and finally, physics (if physics is deemed to be the collection of solutions to that equation) can explain absolutely anything which can be explained. Which was of course explicitly answers the original question posed in this thread. :tongue:

Actually, the fact that no one cares to argue with me seems to indicate rather little interest in answering any of the questions posed in Philosophy. Most people on this forum remind me of the cartoon character Charlie Brown. Note a recent statement concerning his interest in precise thought: "I'm at my best in something where the answers are mostly a matter of opinion!" :rofl: :rofl:

Have fun -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

 

[toasty]

Following this thread for a long time, I can't help but wonder how far into Philosophy people go before they realize or know what they are about.

Next the enormous wealth of learning and talent of the posters amazes one such as I, indeed much of what passes as common knowledge here is way over my head.

Nonetheless I feel compelled to ask what is the point of involking the Arguement From Ignorance in a Scientific debate? Surely the possibility of other so far unknown entities, e.g. G_d, begs the question and is no help at all. Next, and to me an obstinate Einstein critic, absudity piled miles high in such silly traps as personal sensual relativity. In that case nobody shares anything at all with the rest of sentient society, since there is no test to establish we are seeing the same color let alone the same substance of a material object, and here ther is simply no room at all for action/s.

In the worst of all scenarios we inhabit different universes and only by the
grace of G_d can we communicate at all. But isn't this exactly what the likes of Bishop Berkeley proposed?

Ok, we do live in a sensory world but it's the SAME sensory world, i.e. what you see is as late as what I see, C is constant or so we are told.

And the particulate nature of reality as far as we know is just electrons, neutrons, protons; furthermore, byond that level of seeing into nature, we continue to share the SAME late minute world. To then inquire if there is some so far unseen 'black magic' is futile since there is no way to proceed further.

Or am I mistaking the intent of the discussion?

To me it seems as if asking any other question is a waste of time IF we want to learn something usefull, but not to turn away from other things such as those interesting, Aliens, G_d, the real size of the Universe, when it all began etc etc.

 

[quantumcarl]

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

Simple truth. That's what physics is trying to discover. The science goes well beyond the outward appearances of everyday occurances and quarries into the very foundations of these events, studying their motions and their constitutions... and, tirelessly, physicists then examine the motions and constitutions of those motions and constitutions with the same determination... etc...

But then, we could say that all the numbers and wieghts, measurements and algebraic geometry that go into physics are simply another method of arriving at the same conclusions as any other discipline. For instance, Piccasso doubtlessly, and perhaps unawares, employed all of the above to arrive at equations that we commoner-lay-people percieve as simple symbols that describe the human condition.

Similar analogy could be used in the case of great authors. Their product and contribution is a physics equation of letters and words, punctuation and storylines. These elements work for the author to descibe everything and anything... as can also be demonstrated with the language and sciences of physics.

Therefore, without further tedious metaphores and analogies, my opinion remains the same in that... because physics seeks to describe everything, it appears that everything can be reduced to pure physics.

Yet, when Van Gogh did his best to describe everything, it appeared (to him) that everything could be reduced to pure colour.
To diffuse this opposition we need only remember "its all relative". Which on the surface sounds like I'm reducing everything to pure physics... mind you, I'm told that the pedestrian meaning of "relative" has little to do with Einstein's use of the word.

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi quantumcarl,

IMHO you are too charitable to Picasso and Van Gogh. I am more inclined to agree with Socrates' assessment of artists. I think they produce random mumbo-jumbo and somehow convince people that there is deep embedded meaning, or even "truth". The people who believe that search for the meaning, and through their own efforts, find some hints, or allegories, or patterns, which they then interpret as being profound. People who don't do that are deemed to be imperceptive hicks. People who do, contribute to the fortune of the "artists" who in turn stroke them with praise for their perception and insight. I think it's all a sham.

By contrast, physics arrives at close enough approximations to truth as to allow for the enormously impressive technology which we now take for granted. The "Arts" have produced nothing close to this achievement.

Just my opinion, but as you say, everything is relative.

Paul

 

[quantumcarl]

Hi quantumcarl,

IMHO you are too charitable to Picasso and Van Gogh. I am more inclined to agree with Socrates' assessment of artists. I think they produce random mumbo-jumbo and somehow convince people that there is deep embedded meaning, or even "truth". The people who believe that search for the meaning, and through their own efforts, find some hints, or allegories, or patterns, which they then interpret as being profound. People who don't do that are deemed to be imperceptive hicks. People who do, contribute to the fortune of the "artists" who in turn stroke them with praise for their perception and insight. I think it's all a sham.

By contrast, physics arrives at close enough approximations to truth as to allow for the enormously impressive technology which we now take for granted. The "Arts" have produced nothing close to this achievement.

Just my opinion, but as you say, everything is relative.

Paul

Sure. But, as we say, everything is quantum... (sorry Zapper... I mean that in a pedestrian context)... and the Piccassos and the Braches and the Gertrude Steins and Cezzans all managed to arrive at the idea of a quantum state when they invented Cubism... the idea of simultanious event horizons.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sure. But, as we say, everything is quantum... (sorry Zapper... I mean that in a pedestrian context)... and the Piccassos and the Braches and the Gertrude Steins and Cezzans all managed to arrive at the idea of a quantum state when they invented Cubism... the idea of simultanious event horizons.

In what way is the analytical cubism of Picasso and Braque, decomposition and reconstruction of common images like pipes, guitars and newspaper pages, in any way representative of what a physicist would understand by the term "quantum state"?

For that matter, how does Cezanne's painting relate to analytical cubism, except for being "modern" or "post-impressionist"?

 

[quantumcarl]

In what way is the analytical cubism of Picasso and Braque, decomposition and reconstruction of common images like pipes, guitars and newspaper pages, in any way representative of what a physicist would understand by the term "quantum state"?

For that matter, how does Cezanne's painting relate to analytical cubism, except for being "modern" or "post-impressionist"?

Cezanne is credited with his unaware invention of Cubism. His method of painting Mt. Victoria in France was to pick up his canvas and brushes and move 20 feet every hour or so. The differing points of view combined to produce the foundation of Cubist representation.

Cubism is a technique in Fine Art that proports to be able to illustrate every surface and event taking place on an object or in an event, from mulitple angles and from every perspective, emotionally, physically and so forth... all on a 2 dimensional surface.

Gertrude Stein's contribution is what tipped off Braque and others... right up to Marcel DuChampes to the extraordinary idea of Cubism. The general public didn't get the inside story and descriptions such as the"exploding shingle factory" were often the only reviews for these works of art, at the time of production. All these artists portrayed the universe as a collection of simultaneious events, all happening without sequence. Their 2 dimensional attempts at describing the non-location or super-positions of objects and ideas is what I would classify as an interpretation of aspects of quantum studies... without the math.

This is why I am proposing that, as far back as the late 1800s, super-position and non-location were being studied under a name other than quantum phyics... and perhaps these artistic studies inspired the initial studies into such concepts.

Gertrude steins poem "A rose is a rose" seems to have kicked off the movement. In her poem she describes a rose simply by repeating how "a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose"... etc... and this description denotes the fact that there are many ways and many angles and more aspects to a rose than the one Point of View often seen in 2 dimensional depictions of the flower.

It is generally thought that Stein and Braque etc... began to work on the idea of simultanious events and points of view because of the advent of the telegraph and the telephone. They found emense fascination in the fact that while they were composing a sentence in the morning in Paris their voice or their text was, for all practical purposes, being read or heard in New York, where it was the preceeding evening.

Here are the top google choices the search "the philosophy of cubism".

Cubistro
Applied cubism does not embrace these phenomena as any sort of active philosophy. Applied cubism is neither optimism, nor cassandrism. Rather it uses cubism ...
www.cubistro.com/appCubism.html

Pioneering Cubism
... explaining that the progression towards subjectivity which culminated in Cubism corresponds with the course of Occidental philosophy. ...
www.jasonkaufman.com/articles/picasso_and_braque.htm[/URL]

Cubism. Cubists
Cubism. Cubist artists. A web directory. ... Music, News, Painting, Periods in art, Philosophy, Photography, Printing, Sculpture, Theatre, Women's Art ...
[url]www.zeroland.co.nz/cubism_art.html[/url]

 

[Paul Martin]

Cezanne is credited with his unaware invention of Cubism.

Let's see... "unaware invention" sounds like a euphemism for 'dumb luck'. And, do those who stumble upon a discovery by dumb luck deserve credit? Well they certainly deserve, or at least get, commercial credit. A lot of money has been made by selling things purported to be art, just as a lot of money is being made by selling tap water in clear plastic bottles for prices higher than that of gasoline.

But in my opinion, it is still a sham, and all the talk of how wonderful the art or the water is, it only serves to convince people to keep paying the high prices and has nothing to do with intrinsic value or truth.

Paul

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think that "multiple viewpoints" adequately connects to quantum superposition. Superposition is different from multiplicity; the point is not A and B nor A or B; It is a new reality in which A and B are partial aspects.

An analogy that works for some people is a musical chord. Music theory is rightly taught with counterpoint separated from harmony. It is entirely possible in counterpoint that the notes C, G, and E might sound together as different melodic lines cross. But strike the same three notes together on the piano and you get a different phenomenon; the major triad, which is perceived as a unity, not as the three notes. Actually the sound wave for the triad is the true superposition of the pure sound waves for the three notes, and this acoustic superposition was studied in the nineteenth century long before Shroedinger applied existing wave theory to quantum mechanics.

The thinker who anticipated all this best was Hegel; you can express pure state A, pure state B, and their superposition, mixed state AB, in his categories: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I haven’t read the whole of this, the last few posts caught my attention, so please disregard this if I’m hijacking.

I really appreciate the lesson in QM with musical and Hegelian analogies, thankyou. I don’t understand however, how analytical (c1907-1912) and especially synthetic (c.1912-1920) cubism doesn’t adequately connect with these concepts of synthesis. Wouldn’t an emphasis placed on harmoniously unifying such counterpoints as an object’s inner and outer features, combining positive and negative space to create positive/ negative space eg (I know its not cubist or Picasso, but a good isolated example of this) http://www.rubylane.com/shops/portable-assets/item/451 , combining spatial dimensions simultaneously, various planes, flat space/pictorial space, combining real and painted phenomena,… these sorts of things, be such a synthesis? Or was it because Quantumcarl didn’t mention this feature of cubism?

Also, I might take the opportunity while the analogy is still here to ask another question- which would be a more adequate connection in a relative state interpretation – synthesis or multiplicity?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't have an answer on cubism as superposition. I have studied cubism and am aware of all those issues, but none of them says superposition to me. Perhaps because my (and I think the cubist's) relation to "image" is already too complex and subtle to evoke in me the straighforward purity of the concept.

As to your last question, vanesch would be a better person to ask, but my thought is that the relational view of QM involves both synthesis and multiplicity. Superposition, which I have compared to synthesis, is present in the wavefunction, which in the RI is regarded as physical, and multiplicity in the separate "worlds" in which the eigenvalues of the observation are actualized.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Your knowledge amazes me, thankyou for sharing more of it. If you were saying its not possible for an image to achieve the purity that music or the concept of superposition can, that is an understandable opinion, but I’d like to disagree. I take your point that cubist paintings themselves don’t express the purity you speak of. And, yes its my understanding the cubists found the complexity of their earlier work was in fact actually defeating their purposes of analysing perception, necessarily prompting alternative measures!
And luckily, paintings need not be entirely theoretically consistent to be good – that offers me some hope at least!

 

[Philocrat]

The only information content of a perceiver that has any bearing on reality is the information the perceiver holds individually and apart from other perceivers.

You ask "how much information regarding the perceiver do we include in the over all analysis of reality".
In the first place there is no way that there can be an overall consensis regarding reality. Unless we are able to cram every consciousness of every conscious being into one brain, we are completely unable to arrive at a universal... shall we say... quantum... definition of reality.

Just because my initials, QC, could be construed to mean "quantum constant" doesn't mean I hold the quantum constant with regard to reality.

Reality (much like "time") is a concept that was constructed to pacify our rampant acknowlegement of our physicallity in a universe that is comprised of much much more than the physical plateau we all know and love so much.

If Physicalism is anyway near to being true, then the "Information Content" of one perceiver ought to be (both in Logic and in Quantity) relative to the "Information content" of another perceiver within the 'same' space and time locality, and ultemately we ought to be able to construct a fairly sensible reality from the resulting relative information. Or ought we not?

From my resposnses to date you may have deduced from now that I do not subscribe to "every entity to its world" principle, which in a way seems to rule out the 'Principle of Relative Construction of Reality' in a presumably populated spacetime. It would be twice as spooky to even think about " I am everything or everyone" Realism.

If I am everything or everyone, then I am 'multiply self-categorising' in an incomprehensibly spooky way. I would be multiply structured, functioned and referenced in the most hair-splitting manner. Would you subscribe to such a spooky explanation or construct of reality?

 

[Philocrat]

RELATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY requires the fundamental notion of 'Multiplicity of Reference' (at least from the perspective of the actor-observer relations). But serious metaphysical and epistemological questions arise where one claims to be 'everything' or 'everyone', or simply where the notion of 'everyone to its world' is invoked in one's explanation of reality. This is where I need some education from the best informed!

 

[Paul Martin]

Would you subscribe to such a spooky explanation or construct of reality?

Haven't people throughout history been forced to accept spooky explanations for reality? From the primitive spooky explanations for the sun's transit, to Newton's spooky action at a distance, to quantum entanglement and non-locality, we don't seem to be able to avoid spookiness when we get down to fundamental questions. So, I suggest that we not rule out any possible explanation just because it might seem spooky.

If I am everything or everyone...

I applaud you on your boldness in considering this premise. As anyone who has read my posts will know, I suspect that by starting with this premise and drawing inferences from it, we may be able to find more fruitful explanations for the role of consciousness in reality than if we deny the premise.

If I am everything or everyone, then I am 'multiply self-categorising' in an incomprehensibly spooky way.

Yes, incomprehensible and spooky at the moment only because no one has yet worked out an explanation based on this premise that makes it comprehensible. That is not without precedent and shouldn't bother us or hold us back at all. Think of how incomprehensible and spooky Relativity and QM were at the outset. Now the principles are taught in High School.

I am 'multiply self-categorising' in an incomprehensibly spooky way. I would be multiply structured, functioned and referenced in the most hair-splitting manner.

Here again I applaud you for making a first step in deducing an implication of that "all is one" premise. I agree with your deduction.

In order to keep focused on our premise that "I am everything or everyone" instead of using a pronoun like 'I' or 'you' let's use the term 'one' as a synonym for 'I', 'you', 'we', 'everything', and 'everyone'. One frequently finds this usage in literature anyway, so one shouldn't find it unacceptable or strange. (I will continue to use the term 'I' where one means the physical body sitting at this keyboard composing this post.)

In an attempt to make sense of a multiply self-categorizing and multiply structured, functioning, and referenced "one", one would think it would be useful to think of familiar analogies, even though one realizes that is bad science. Here is a three-part analogy which might help.

First, if one posits that the essential nature of the "everything" that one is is pure consciousness, then one can do an exercise which (at least seems to) involve nothing but pure consciousness (forgetting for the moment the biological mechanism which most people would say is the cause of this exercise). The exercise is to imagine a tic-tac-toe diagram and then imagine several games of tic-tac-toe progressing from start to finish. This takes some concentration but it can be done. Of course most scientists today would be quick to say that the game configurations were all represented in physical brain states, but let's not jump to that conclusion so quickly. Instead let's just stick with the premise and accept nothing more than the experience one has in doing the exercise as part of the explanation. It seems that one can conclude from this first part is that consciousness (whatever it is) might possibly be necessary and sufficient for the playing out of algorithms. If it were, it doesn't seem so terribly incomprehensible or spooky. After all, one can experience it happening in that exercise.

Second, given that there is a method of imagining and then playing out algorithms by the one, it might be possible that this method might be instantiated in some way which does not require the conscious attention of the one. The familiar analogy for this is the programming of computers. Here, the algorithms are definitely originated in one's imagination, but they are soon represented by marks on paper or a pattern of closing of switches on keyboards. Purely physical (algorithmic) processes then transfer translations of these representations into computer memories, and from there, the computer is able to play out the algorithms completely unattended by the one who came up with the program. Now, if one were to have explained this to Newton, it would no doubt have sounded unacceptably spooky to him. But from a modern vantage point, one finds nothing spooky or incomprehensible about this second analogy at all.

Third, given one's ability to imagine algorithms, and some sort of capability for one to implement those algorithms in such a way that the algorithms can be played out unattended by the one, it might be possible to imagine and implement an algorithm that would be "multiply self-categorising, ... multiply structured, [multiply] function[al] and [multiply] referenced in the most hair-splitting manner." One such analogy would be this Internet complex we have which seems to fit that description exactly. And, again, to someone in Newton's time, it would seem incomprehensible and spooky.

So I, for one, see no reason to be timid in exploring the consequences of the premise of the existence of only a single consciousness. Let's open our minds and have a look.

Paul

Edit: Ooops! One meant, "let's open our mind".