Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Paul Martin]

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!

I don't think I can help educate you, but you can help me. I'd like to know what those "serious metaphysical and epistemological questions" are. Would you please list the top five or six of them? Maybe we can talk about them and make some sense of them.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

If Physicalism is anyway near to being true

In this premise, you seem to be open to a rather loose interpretation of "being true". If so, you might be open to accepting the notion that the objects and environments within a VR game are "true". After all, they "really" do exist in some sense, in particular in the senses of the players of the VR game. So let me assume that you accept the "true physical reality" of the virtual world in the VR game.

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

Using the VR analogy (I apologize for my analogies, but being the lay person that I am, I use them as crutches), the information content of the virtual world is indeed relative to the various perceivers, which are, of course, the players of the game. Better yet, one could imagine a single player acting as each of several players taking turns or multiplexing among them in some manner. In this case, there would only be the one perceiver but still there would be many perspectives with different views of the virtual world.

Space and time would need to be clarified. There is the space and time of the virtual world, which corresponds to Physical Reality in the analogy, but there is also the space and time in which the player(s) are interacting with the game, and in which the mechanism for the playing out of the game's algorithms exists. Those are obviously not the same and they could be very different.

ultemately we ought to be able to construct a fairly sensible reality from the resulting relative information. Or ought we not?

Yes, I think so. I think the analogy I have just given shows that a completely sensible explanation is possible.

Paul

 

[Philocrat]

Paul, thank you for your surgical analysis of my text and your analogies used to illuminate my thoughts in it.

Similar analogies exist in philosophy. Depending on how far back in history you are prepared to travel, you we'll pick up along the way different versions of it. Whatever version you encounter along the way, they equivalently argue likewise. From the Cartesian evil demon argument, to the updated brain in the vat version and to the latest one contained in your 'virtual reality' analogy; all tend to show that our external world reality could be very easily undermined in all these ways.

One of the fundamental epistemological arguments is that these deceptive or simulated states of reality are epistemologically indistinguishable from the external world reality that we are all used to. As a result we are left without a sufficient (let alone a guaranteed) knowledge of our real existence. That what we see and think to be real at first instance may not be real after all.

The metaphysical problem is that concerning the configuration or structure of things in existence. From this point of view, your analogy does not quite answer the question as to why one thing is capable of being everything. Self-categorising in a metaphysical sense is:

1) The ability to self-manifest or self-procreate without the interference of any external creative agencies.
2) The ability to self-categorise into logically and quantitatively identifiable parts (be all things while being one thing).
3) Ability to self-actualise and self-refer with all the spatio-temporal components or dimensions fully intact.

Yes, I am not denying that many thinkers, logicians and mathematicians, have got a few tricks up their sleeves to show how some or all of these are logically and quantitatively possible. But from the point of epistemology within the context of lay native speaker of our NL (Natural language), reality as we ordinarily know it begins to break down. Such notions as time, space, dimensions, communications etc., begin to take on new meanings while logic and maths laugh endlessly in boundless continuum!

 

[Philocrat]

PART-WHOLE RELATION

This on its own is the biggest headache and the centre piece of this thread. It concerns the notion of REDUCTIONISM - that is, the reduction of a whole to clearly accountable parts and vice versa. The problem with this is that from the point of view of the ONLOOKER or OBJECT-OBERSERVER relations, the process of reduction can very immediately run into infinite regress, either from a whole to parts or otherwise.

But here is the sweetest bit:

If something is fully self-categorising in the metaphysical sense, then such a thing ought to possesses a complete blue print of its entire being, and regardless of the number of things it is metaphysically categorised into, must it not be necessary that it knows in full all there is to be known about itself?

Question: If I am self-categorising in the correct metaphysical sense, how much do I know about myself (my whole self, let alone my enumerable reducible parts)?

The information content of myself in the full analysis of my world and my reality should by all accounts be complete. But I am now confessing to you all that as I write this very line, I only see and comprehend 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of my being!

 

[Paul Martin]

Dear Philocrat,

Thank you for your most excellent response. You have an obvious advantage over me in your knowledge of and familiarity with this subject. But I view that advantage as accruing to me since it puts me in a good position to learn from you. Please be patient with me as I try to work through the ideas you have presented.

Similar analogies exist in philosophy. Depending on how far back in history you are prepared to travel, you we'll pick up along the way different versions of it.

Yes, I agree. But it seems there are some lessons we might learn from this fact. One, which I tried to illustrate in my previous posts, is that the more modern analogies are richer in possibilities for the deception and offer explanations that would be inconceivable (and seem spooky) to earlier thinkers. This would suggest that we should think in terms of the most modern analogies available and that we should be open to the possibility that reality might be incomprehensibly more complex even beyond what those modern analogies might be able to explain.

all tend to show that our external world reality could be very easily undermined in all these ways.

I am hesitant to agree with you here. It doesn't seem to me that unless "our external world reality" is clearly expressed, it can't really be undermined. And, in spite of the sophisticated and accurate theories of science, they really do not say much about reality. External reality is not clearly expressed in these theories. They only tell us how to predict certain phenomena by use of certain algorithms. Since there is no necessary real foundation for the physical theories, I don't see how it could be undermined. You can't attack or remove something that isn't there in the first place.

One of the fundamental epistemological arguments is that these deceptive or simulated states of reality are epistemologically indistinguishable from the external world reality that we are all used to.

Hold on; you're going too fast. Let me take this slowly.

First, you refer to "we" when you say "the external world reality that we are all used to." I'm sure by 'we' you mean we human beings who communicate among ourselves here on earth. That is probably consistent with the use of the term 'epistemology' which I suppose has to do with human knowledge. That's fine, because that is an appropriate and interesting arena, but it does ignore, if not preclude, the possibility of other seats of knowledge besides human beings. It also drags with it the implicit assumption that human beings (meaning their bodies including brains) are indeed a seat of knowledge. I know that these possibilities cannot even be entertained by scientists without running afoul of their established doctrines, but nonetheless, it seems to me that we should be open to considering all possibilities, especially looking back through history and seeing how often the paradigms of science have shifted, almost always toward a more complex and previously mystifying scenario.

Second, your wording suggests that the reality we are all used to is not deceptive or simulated. If reality really were deceptive and/or simulated, then there would not be any problem with the fact that it is indistinguishable from a deceptive or simulated state. So on what basis can we have any confidence that reality is not ultimately deceptive and/or simulated?

Third, considering deception and/or simulation as processes by themselves, doesn't there necessarily need to be some perceiver who is deceived or who is aware of the simulation results for there to even be such a thing as deception or simulation? And if so, who or what could that perceiver be? Of course we human beings are one obvious candidate, if indeed we have the ability to perceive. But if we are open to all possibilities, it could be that perception occurs somewhere outside the brain. This would, for example, seem to be necessary if the premise "I am everyone" is true.

So, to summarize my view of this point, I don't think there is any problem with the fact that deception and/or simulation may be going on between whatever is ontologically fundamental and whoever, or whatever actually ends up doing the perceiving. In fact, just looking at the biological system of our human bodies, we see that happening in all sensory perception, e.g. our vision system presents (what we think is) a three-dimensional world as a two-dimensional image which is then perceived as three-dimensional.

As a result we are left without a sufficient (let alone a guaranteed) knowledge of our real existence.

I agree that we are left without sufficient knowledge, but not as a result of any deception and/or simulation. I think our knowledge is lacking simply because we lack sufficient information, and that may even be temporary. (I am the ultimate optimist.)

That what we see and think to be real at first instance may not be real after all.

I think this is simply a semantic problem in that we cannot define the word 'real' without knowing what is going on. And as we have just discussed, we simply don't know what is going on.

The metaphysical problem is that concerning the configuration or structure of things in existence. From this point of view, your analogy does not quite answer the question as to why one thing is capable of being everything.

Well, to tell the truth, I have to agree with you. I recognize that there is a piece still missing in my explanation, and you may have spotted this same missing piece. If you are thinking of something different, please let me know.

In my three-part analogy I think I took care of everything required to explain the configuration and structure of everything in existence except for one thing. That one missing thing is some method of storing information which does not require the attention of the one single consciousness. The one single consciousness, as you may recall, is the posited starting point of my explanation, and in my explanation, it is the only thing that really exists. It is the "one", which you claim is inconsistent with multiple identifiable parts. Roughly, my way around this problem is that there is only one knower, but the information that is known (i.e. knowledge) is multiply separable and identifiable.

Back to the problem of storing information which needn't be attended to. (I am sitting here at my keyboard in a quandary as to whether to go into detail about my thoughts on this problem. I have decided not to. I would be happy to discuss it if you are interested, but I'll let you ask.) Suffice it to say that we humans have devised many ways of implementing algorithms using physical systems that run unattended. (Think of ignition systems on cars, or computers executing programs.) Any of these could provide analogies that might explain what might be going on in the bigger picture.

So, except for this problem, I think my three-part analogy explains why one thing is capable of being everything. The one thing is "the ability to know", or "the conscious ability to think". If, as Berkeley proposed, everything else is nothing but subsets of thoughts, or knowledge, of that one thing, then in that sense, that one thing is everything. I think it is splitting semantic hairs to debate whether a consciousness with n thoughts is one thing, n things, or n+1 things. However you count it, it is everything.

Self-categorising in a metaphysical sense is:

1) The ability to self-manifest or self-procreate without the interference of any external creative agencies.

In my scheme, the one consciousness can self-manifest simply by imagining new information. Self-procreation is a bit more difficult in my scheme. It is done by first constructing a physical world strictly by imagining and choosing a set of information, including algorithms (laws of physics) and letting it play. Then within that world, constructing (by whatever means) configurations of what we would call material vehicles or devices which could collect, store, and transform information from that physical (really virtual) environment, and present the results in some fashion for the one consciousness to perceive. From the perspective of the physical world, this device or vehicle would exhibit characteristics which would make it appear that the device itself was conscious. Again from this point of view, it would appear as if the one consciousness had self-procreated. But in reality, the self-procreation is only an illusion (as mystics have long held). N.B. this illusion occurs only to the one consciousness, since that one is the only thing that exists, and in particular, the only thing able to perceive, conceive, or be decieved.

2) The ability to self-categorise into logically and quantitatively identifiable parts (be all things while being one thing).

I dealt with this two quotes back. The idea is that the multiplicity comes only in the thoughts or bits of knowledge while the knower remains one.

3) Ability to self-actualise and self-refer with all the spatio-temporal components or dimensions fully intact.

I'm not exactly sure what you are concerned about here. But, as I said in an earlier post, the space-time of the physical (virtual) reality are completely separate and distinct from any space-time in which the one consciousness acts. This may be going into more detail than I should here, but I see ultimate reality as a series of levels, each consisting of a triad of Penrose's three worlds: the mental, the physical, and the ideal. These levels are arranged in a logical helix where the ultimate starting point, or bottom of the helix, is the purely mental world of the one consciousness. From that starting point, an ideal world of information and algorithms is constructed simply from the imagination and thoughts of that one. Some of the information and algorithms are used to construct a physical world (exactly what the substrate for that very first one is the problem I mentioned earlier). Within the physical world, vehicles of the type I described can appear to create, or at least present the illusion of, a mental world existing in that physical world. From that mental world (it is really the one vicariously operating in that "VR game"), physical structures can be configured to store information and algorithms, and also to play out the algorithms without attention. (The problem I mentioned occurs only at the very first turn of the helix. From there on, the previous physical worlds provide adequate information storage and algorithmic instantiation capabilities.)

Now, I am not sure what you mean by keeping "all the spatio-temporal components or dimensions fully intact", but I think it is clear that in my scheme, all such components could reasonably be kept intact as long as we don't mix up and confuse which components belong in which "world".

Yes, I am not denying that many thinkers, logicians and mathematicians, have got a few tricks up their sleeves to show how some or all of these are logically and quantitatively possible. But from the point of epistemology within the context of lay native speaker of our NL (Natural language), reality as we ordinarily know it begins to break down.

Yes, I agree. But I maintain that the breakdown only occurs because of inadequate analogical examples. After all, NL is nothing but analogies. Definitions of words are nothing more than analogies pointing out how the concept represented by a particular word is something like a more familiar concept. To fix the problem, or at least to push the boundaries out further, we only need a richer set of analogies.

Such notions as time, space, dimensions, communications etc., begin to take on new meanings

Exactly. That is exactly what I meant by pushing out the boundaries. And that is good. It increases our knowledge and understanding.

while logic and maths laugh endlessly in boundless continuum!

If so, I think the laughter rings hollow. I have a strong personal opinion that there is no boundless continuum in reality. And, I believe that the acceptance of a boundless continuum in mathematics and logic has led to nothing but trouble and confusion. I would be delighted to elaborate on this position if anyone is interested in discussing it.

My sincere thanks to any who have read this far. I am not sure my opinions are worth all this space I am taking up, but I am unable to express them any more concisely.

It's been fun talking with you again, Philocrat.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

PART-WHOLE RELATION

This on its own is the biggest headache and the centre piece of this thread. It concerns the notion of REDUCTIONISM - that is, the reduction of a whole to clearly accountable parts and vice versa. The problem with this is that from the point of view of the ONLOOKER or OBJECT-OBERSERVER relations, the process of reduction can very immediately run into infinite regress, either from a whole to parts or otherwise.

Let me offer this aspirin for your headache. If, as I am convinced, nothing in reality is infinite, then infinite regress is impossible for anything real. If you examine a set of Russian dolls for the first time, you might be surprised at how deeply they are nested. But, in reality, there must be an end to the sequence. I think anything physical which seems to lead to infinite regress will be finite just as the Russian dolls must be.

In logic and mathematics, I am of the firm opinion that in the controversy between Cantor/Hilbert and Kronecker/Brouwer over the issue of infinities in mathematics, Kronecker should have had the day even though historically he lost the decision. As a result, mathematicians have adopted and accepted Cantor's definitions of infinite sets, in spite of the immediate inconsistencies which resulted. Rather than use these inconsistencies as reasons to reject the notion of infinity, mathematicians dodged the issue by declaring certain types of sets to be off limits so that the bothersome paradoxes wouldn't show up. IMHO, Goedel's theorem should have been seen as the coup de grace to completely discredit the acceptance of infinities, in particular an infinite set of natural numbers. But, now that Kronecker has been dead for over a hundred years his views don't seem to be taken seriously any more.

So let me ask you to give a single example of a situation in which you think infinite regress appears, and let's discuss it.

If something is fully self-categorising in the metaphysical sense, then such a thing ought to possesses a complete blue print of its entire being...

How so? Ought? By whose rules or what logic? Is it because you included the adverb 'fully'? If so, why are you compelled to demand that the self-categorising be complete? My point is that we have no basis for insisting that anything be complete or perfect, in spite of philosophers' and theologians' long history of doing so. It is conceivable to me, in the scheme I have described earlier here, that the one consciousness could have started out with extremely rudimentary and limited knowledge and then gradually increased that knowledge thus "causing" the existence of an increasingly complex reality, without ever being in a state of having complete or perfect knowledge of all of reality. I am sure that you can't find an airplane or a building that has a complete and true blueprint, nor does the DNA of an organism contain a complete blueprint of its entire being. I'd venture to say that everything real is imperfect and incomplete to some extent and that your condition for self-categorising is too strong.

...and regardless of the number of things it is metaphysically categorised into, must it not be necessary that it knows in full all there is to be known about itself?

I see no reason why this must be the case.

Question: If I am self-categorising in the correct metaphysical sense, how much do I know about myself (my whole self, let alone my enumerable reducible parts)?

Of course this depends on what you mean by "correct". Who is making the rules? If we let the metaphysicians of antiquity establish the rules, with their notions of perfection and infinity, then we have a problem. But I claim that self-categorization, the way it really is, is limited and imperfect. My answer to your question is that you know some, but not nearly all, about yourself and your parts.

The information content of myself in the full analysis of my world and my reality should by all accounts be complete.

Not by all accounts. Only by those who insist on a "full" analysis, which IMHO does not exist.

But I am now confessing to you all that as I write this very line, I only see and comprehend 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of my being!

I'd say that's in the ballpark of anyone's knowledge of anything at all.

Paul

 

[quantumcarl]

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.

I think Fi has pointed out the similarities between music, visual art and physics. Harmonies, counterpoint and all other aspects of music are all simply human expressions of the mulitvarious and simultaneous positions and events found in nature.

Since we're all expressing our opinions and perceptions on the matter... mine is that there is really no difference between a math formula and physics experiment, a musical score and performance or a synthesis of line, colour and planes when it comes to humanity expressing their understanding and comprehension of nature.

To paraphrase Dr. Bohr, a famous physicist... science music and visual art are only what we can say about nature, not what the actual reality of nature is.

As far as my opinion goes, "everything" (as in: nature) can be (and is) reduced (by humans) to pure expression... in whatever form it may occur.

 

[Dichter]

From the Cartesian evil demon argument, to the updated brain in the vat version and to the latest one contained in your 'virtual reality' analogy; all tend to show that our external world reality could be very easily undermined in all these ways.

Interesting debate. From my perspective, the history of metaphysics is mostly a history of mistakes. The mistakes keep reappearing in different guises because the concepts we think about change, but the misconceptions do not.

In this particular case, it's clear to me that "external world reality" is a misconceived notion. Such a thing cannot possibly exist. In an analogy with language, the notion is akin to "external meaning of words", as if words could have meaning apart from what individual speakers think they mean.

That is not to say we imagine the world. The trouble, however, is that we do imagine a world existing beyond our perceptions. In a funny twist, "external reality" is thought of as something we only know about through our imagination. How did something like that ended up being called "external"?

One of the fundamental epistemological arguments is that these deceptive or simulated states of reality are epistemologically indistinguishable from the external world reality that we are all used to.

If two words have exactly the same meaning and can be interchanged in any sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence, would anyone say the words represent two different things? Of course not!

If "different states of reality" produce no difference in perception, not even in principle, then they are the same thing called by different names. No need to get confused over pseudo-problems.

As a result we are left without a sufficient (let alone a guaranteed) knowledge of our real existence. That what we see and think to be real at first instance may not be real after all.

I think we have to be careful with this problem. Surely we experience illusions, but it can be demonstrated that one needs to be in possession of a lot of truths before one can experience an illusion. That is, our conception of reality may, and probably is, slightly wrong, but as a matter of logic it cannot possibly be completely wrong.

Again the analogy with language holds. It is possible that we don't fully know the meaning of some words in our vocabulary, but it is not possible that we ignore the correct meaning of every single word. If we did, we would not be able to understand anything expressed in language. The equivalent to our perception is that, if everything we see were an illusion, we would not be able to see at all.

The metaphysical problem is that concerning the configuration or structure of things in existence. From this point of view, your analogy does not quite answer the question as to why one thing is capable of being everything.

Even though I'm not sure what's being debated here, I'd like to point out that all things have something in common: they are all "things"! So at least on some level all things are the same; not "the same thing" but "the same" - subtle but important difference.

The thing is (no pun intended), on what level is everything "the same"? And the answer is clear: on a level in which categorization stops (or has not started). In other words, in a pre- or post-linguistic level.

Isn't that why so many mystics claim reality cannot be described in words?

 

[octelcogopod]

It ended up being called external because that's the way we are born to see it.
Naturally, the categorization that our minds are separate from reality, exists in our heads only.
We have not fully realized yet that we are completely bound to the universe.
I think we would all agree that we are not the apple we eat, or the car we drive, or the house we live in.
We are separate from those things.
But on a tiny quantum level, we are exactly the same "stuff" as our car or our apple.
The differentiation and categorization of these levels exists arguably only in our heads.

But therein lies the problem, because how can we separate what we perceive and think, from what the universe actually is?
And even more so how can we do that when all we have is our mind and our senses?

The problem is that even if there were no perceivers in the universe, a tree would still be a tree, I mean mathematically the proportions of a tree would be comparable to those of a planet, as such there exists some absolute truths in nature.
One could argue that physical reality is one absolute truth in itself(even without perceivers.)

But quite frankly, I believe all this is just made up in our heads, the real problem lies with the hard problem of consciousness, how does physical reality spawn consciousness, does physical nature control the mind? How do we puzzle this together from a scientific point of view?

 

[Dichter]

It ended up being called external because that's the way we are born to see it.

That's not really what I was talking about. I was referring to what people call "ultimate reality", that which is supposed to exist behind the world of our perceptions.

The objects of our perceptions are certainly external in any sense of the word.

The problem is that even if there were no perceivers in the universe, a tree would still be a tree

If observers did not exist many things would still exist, but they could not be called "trees" or "universe". Those are human categorizations.

there exists some absolute truths in nature.

How can you have truths if you don't have a language? Without humans around nothing can be true.

Notice that the concept of "truth" only applies to linguistic statements. The only things that can be true are relationships that we establish between concepts. For instance, "the moon exists" can be true (or false) because it establishes a relationship between "the moon" and "the set of things that exist"; such relationship can be verified. "The moon" itself, or "the set of all things that exist", those cannot be "true".

One could argue that physical reality is one absolute truth in itself(even without perceivers.)

If you say that, then you must be ready to accept that language has an absolute reality, that it existed even before the first human uttered the first word.

(by the way, I think the bible says something along those lines)

 

[nrqed]

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.

To a physicist, this sounds closer in spirit to the idea of a hologram...so should we conclude that holography (the concept) was first discovered by artists?

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.

To me, this is in no way different than reading the quatrains of Nostradamus and making them fit with events after the fact ("postdictions"). Actually, the principle of superposition is already present in any wave phenomenon (and not just at a qualitative level...the mathematical formalism used to describe the vibrations of a string instrument or of the surface of a drum are the same equations used to described some quantum systems but with some terms having different meaning). So we could say that quantum physics was "discovered" by the first humans who blew into air pipes to produce music! We could even push it further and say that they already had essentially uncovered the fundamental concepts of quantum field theory and all of particle physics since wave superposition is at the core of these theories!

This is not different than saying that eastern philosophers had already perceived the quantum nature of the universe centuries ago.


If you let enough people enough time to develop philosophical/religious/artistic concepts and you look hard enough after the facts, you can always "find" connections that have no factual basis. It is really not unlike the "postdictions" of the fans of Nostradamus or Percival Lowell who was convinced that he had seen canals on Mars.

 

[Doctordick]

If you let enough people enough time to develop philosophical/religious/artistic concepts and you look hard enough after the facts, you can always "find" connections that have no factual basis.

Personally, I think this a very deep and profound statement with consequences far beyond what is ordinarily comprehended. I would add science to that list: i.e., philosophical/religious/artistic => scientific/philosophical/religious/artistic. I am afraid scientists are not near as immune to the phenomena as they would like to believe. Think about phlogiston and canals on Mars.

You seem to be a rational person with a more than average interest in fundamental issues. How about taking a look at my paper, http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm , and see if we can establish communications on the subject.

Thanks -- Dick

 

[nrqed]

Personally, I think this a very deep and profound statement with consequences far beyond what is ordinarily comprehended. I would add science to that list: i.e., philosophical/religious/artistic => scientific/philosophical/religious/artistic. I am afraid scientists are not near as immune to the phenomena as they would like to believe. Think about phlogiston and canals on Mars.

The *big* difference I see is the following: yes, in science there may be some ''phenomena'' discovered which are then revealed to be misinterpretations/wishful thinking/judgement errors, etc. *BUT* these ''mistakes'' are always fairly rapidly discredited. Because they *can* discredited. On the other hand, the idea that eastern philosophers had ''pedicted'' the quantum nature of the universe is probably decades old and will probably still be discussed seriously by some in one hundred years, as will the ''predictions'' of Nostradamus. Those ideas are not falsifiable and because of that are not of any more value as a subject of debate than, say, whether a pattern on a certain potato is really the portrait of the Christ.

You seem to be a rational person with a more than average interest in fundamental issues. How about taking a look at my paper, http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm , and see if we can establish communications on the subject.

Thanks -- Dick

I cerrtainly will as soon as classes end. I have also bookmarked your site on your ideas of time (btw, you end with the statement that your ideas would lead to predictions different than GR in some cases. I have to admit that I am a bit skeptical, but I just want to point out that if this true, then whether this is a more fundamental depiction of what time is is clearly not longer a philosphical issue (as you seem to have said yourself) but a scientific issue).

Regards

Patrick

 

[quantumcarl]

To a physicist, this sounds closer in spirit to the idea of a hologram...so should we conclude that holography (the concept) was first discovered by artists?


To me, this is in no way different than reading the quatrains of Nostradamus and making them fit with events after the fact ("postdictions"). Actually, the principle of superposition is already present in any wave phenomenon (and not just at a qualitative level...the mathematical formalism used to describe the vibrations of a string instrument or of the surface of a drum are the same equations used to described some quantum systems but with some terms having different meaning). So we could say that quantum physics was "discovered" by the first humans who blew into air pipes to produce music! We could even push it further and say that they already had essentially uncovered the fundamental concepts of quantum field theory and all of particle physics since wave superposition is at the core of these theories!

This is not different than saying that eastern philosophers had already perceived the quantum nature of the universe centuries ago.


If you let enough people enough time to develop philosophical/religious/artistic concepts and you look hard enough after the facts, you can always "find" connections that have no factual basis. It is really not unlike the "postdictions" of the fans of Nostradamus or Percival Lowell who was convinced that he had seen canals on Mars.

Most of what you have pointed out about my post supports my proposed answer to the question "Can everything be reduced to pure physics?".

My proposal includes the idea that all forms of expression, including the study of physics, can be used to explain "everything". Not just one science... such as physics.

I agree, mind you, with your ascertation that under, ideal conditions, science is quick to catch its own errors and widely publish these findings while correcting them. In reality, science is as wrapped up in bureaucracy and high finance as any other reporting agency and what is reported is often slanted in the direction of the bureaucracy or the money. Artists and philosophers may not be as quick to report errors in their work. And they are as suseptable to corruption as anyone.

But, its not the reports or the results we're talking about, its the act of exploring nature, by whatever means. And that's why the answer to the question about pure physics and does it explain everything is yes and no. Physics is not the only "pure" study that everything can be reduced to.

I'm not saying anyone predicted super-position or non-location. I'm saying that discoveries happen in unsuspected and non-pre-concieved moments.

The idea to observe mars, closely, with a telescope (seeing canals or whatever) was the act and the expession of interest that spurred countless of other observations... and more recently turned Mars into a parking lot for some rovers. The idea of the canals and the conclusions based on early use of a telescope seem obsurd and useless today. However it was the acts of the first person to make the observations and the preparations to do so that can be credited with inspiring many people and many subsequent discoveries.
This is how I view some of the inovations that have been, perhaps, inspirational to the way of thinking that arrives at formulas and ideas of super-position and non-location.

 

[quantumcarl]

I'd also like to ask any physicists to reduce literature to pure physics.

Literature has been reduced to pure movies, action figures, music and visual art, dance, war and a number of other "pure" studies.

If there were a physics equation for literature, and all its implications, I'd like to see it.

 

[moving finger]

I'd also like to ask any physicists to reduce literature to pure physics.
...
If there were a physics equation for literature, and all its implications, I'd like to see it.

A piece of literature (a book for example), taken literally in complete isolation from all of our concepts of the world, has no meaning whatsoever. The meaning (if any) is generated entirely by combining that piece of literature with a multitude of other concepts with which we associate the otherwise meaningless "squiggles" in the book.

Thus to ask that a piece of literature, and all its implications, be reduced to a physical equation is asking for all of our worldly concepts to be included also in the equation. Not impossible, but formidable.

MF

If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)

 

[quantumcarl]

A piece of literature (a book for example), taken literally in complete isolation from all of our concepts of the world, has no meaning whatsoever. The meaning (if any) is generated entirely by combining that piece of literature with a multitude of other concepts with which we associate the otherwise meaningless "squiggles" in the book.

I am not asking for the meaning of squiggles in a book. I'm asking for a physics equation that illustrates everything that takes place between and including the motivation to write literature to the end results created by that piece of literature. Its that simple.

I'm asking for a study of energy transformation. This would fall into the realm of CHAOS theory... maybe. The equation would map and track energy transforming from the microscopic field of a "concept" to the macroscopic "mega" "reducing" of these literary efforts to results such as those of war, dance, film, music, social order, politics, etc... and, perhaps even...physics.

Thus to ask that a piece of literature, and all its implications, be reduced to a physical equation is asking for all of our worldly concepts to be included also in the equation. Not impossible, but formidable.

Thank you for your reply. My point is that, all though everything can be reduced to physics, "everything" can also be reduced to other forms of "expression".

 

[moving finger]

I'm asking for a physics equation that illustrates everything that takes place between and including the motivation to write literature to the end results created by that piece of literature. Its that simple.

That's the whole point - it is not that simple. The question may be simple, but the subject and the answer are exceedingly complex. John Searle managed to fool a lot of people into believing that an algorithmic machine could not "understand" by means of a "simple" thought experiment called the Chinese Room - but his argument plays on the fact that most people intuitively underestimate the complexity involved in understanding.

The "equation" (or better said algorithm) which describes everything you want is very easy to ask for, but in practice it would be an unimaginably complex algorithm. So unimaginable, in fact, that most people refuse to grasp the possibility and simply deny it.

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

 

[quantumcarl]

That's the whole point - it is not that simple. The question may be simple, but the subject and the answer are exceedingly complex. John Searle managed to fool a lot of people into believing that an algorithmic machine could not "understand" by means of a "simple" thought experiment called the Chinese Room - but his argument plays on the fact that most people intuitively underestimate the complexity involved in understanding.

The "equation" (or better said algorithm) which describes everything you want is very easy to ask for, but in practice it would be an unimaginably complex algorithm. So unimaginable, in fact, that most people refuse to grasp the possibility and simply deny it.

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

By the time the algorithm I'm asking for was written there might be no universe.

In the long run, the equation/algorithm is evident in the form of many historic moments, present day situations and future potentials.

This illustrates my point about "reducing everything to pure physics". Physics represents another person's way of expressing their view of nature, like a billion other methods, and it works very well, according to the reports and observations... so far!

 

[moving finger]

Physics represents another person's way of expressing their view of nature, like a billion other methods, and it works very well, according to the reports and observations... so far!

Best game in town as far as I can see

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

Man is not born to solve the problems of the universe, but to find out where the problems begin, and then to take his stand within the limits of the intelligible

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

Best game in town as far as I can see

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



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

Best Regards

MF

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

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

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

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

 

[moving finger]

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

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

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

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

I am happy I could be of help.

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[Paul Martin]

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[moving finger]

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

I'll take a look.

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

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

Hi Paul

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

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

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

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

I guess that doesn't help much!

Best Regards

MF

 

[Lars Laborious]

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

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

 

[octelcogopod]

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

Best Regards

MF

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

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

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

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

 

[moving finger]

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

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

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[octelcogopod]

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

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

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

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

 

[moving finger]

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

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

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

Best Regards

MF

 

[gptejms]

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

 

[Ernies]

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

ernies

 

[gptejms]

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

 

[moving finger]

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

Explanation does not entail Predictability.

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

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

Best Regards