Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Castlegate]

I believe your reasoning is in reverse where you have to use physical examples to explain the "illusion" of your reality.

The use of a balloon to explain a fundamental conceptual unit was only to coax you to the form of it. You can note that the balloon is removed, whereby only the form is left. This is a Non-physical entity I'm trying to explain, hence it can't be interacted with by physical means. Interaction between two fundamental conceptual units must occur by conceptual means, such as yes verses no, or positive verses negative. If for instance a fundamental geometrical unit is positive within the form, and negative exterior of it, we can come to an understanding of possible interactions.

First the illusion of everything is a reality... now the illusion of nothing is a reality.

My first post I believe stated that the illusion was that the world was physical. Nothing is not an illusion to me, it comes to you in forms, otherwise known as The Reality Of Non-Existence. It has nothing to hide (a play on words).

 

[Les Sleeth]

If I can't get you to understand that there is no physical reality ... I can't get you to believe that there is no chance for everything to be explained through physics. The idea that I'm trying to get acrosss is that the fundamental building blocks that make the universe what it is, are nothing more than conceptual geometric forms. These fundamental units are more than capable of the universe we see today. The premise here is to make a universe from nothing, without some form of magic act. A universe made of something other than nothing constitutes a magic act from my perspective. The only concievable way to make a universe from nothing that I can tell of, is by conceptual means.

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

I consider this postulate in regards to anything that exist.

{All that exist must have form}

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr.Yes]

There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless.

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr.Yes]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Castlegate]

You've not solved anything yet. A thought doesn't get a free ride when it comes to requiring "something" to compose it. What is the composition of a thought?

A thought or thoughts would be composed of a form of nothing.

The geometry imagined, as the theme of a concept, may escape having substance, but the concept itself requires something essential to be.

I fail to see why from my perspective. Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

Not something physical, just something.

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

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

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

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

From what you said, I don't see how we disagree yet. I didn't say the feelings you list come unattached to form, I said there is 1) the form, and there is 2) the feeling that comes with the form . . . that feeling is formless. It's like the musical note C can be mentally identified by its place on a structured scale, but the experience of C is something different, it's structureless.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr.Yes]

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

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

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

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

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

Now you're entwined in your body.

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

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

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

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

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


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

What's missing in Newton's or anyone's mathematical approach to explaining a function is the research into how the function every came into being in the first place. Researching the sources and resources involved in the creation of "the you" or the falling apple demands that we stray from the fundimental physics of a subject, and look closer at the conditions that have given rise to the subject and related functions, etc..

 

[Castlegate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

All I can say is . . .
:!)

Great post even though it didn't make a lick of sense to me. Have a beer, eat some pizza, love your wife (or signficant other). Welcome to PF!

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

I like your answer lots, but I, like Castlegate, am too tired to answer with any competence. Tomorrow then!

 

[Paul Martin]

The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

I happen to doubt both of these assertions. Can you give me any support for either one of them which you think is compelling? Before you do, though, I would like you to tell me your definition of 'you'. We also need to understand the definition of 'body' but I think this is less of a problem. I suspect we both agree on what 'body' means.

 

[Bobby R]

I've watched this forum. Would someone first define Physics. I thought mathematics was one of many working tools but not necessarily on par with physics.
We’re mixing apples and oranges again. One example of representing ‘A’ as H2O and ‘B’ as Man omits content of each. And even if you look at composition can you explain away thought as a function of physics.
Explain why an elm tree does not possesses a single leaf of average size and shape to its other leaves. We like to put square pegs in square holes which is good, but sometimes it is not necessary to explain everything with physics.
Abstract comes from thought and often lends itself to explaining the unknown. For example, why stop at our Universe? What about our galaxy? There are millions of galaxies out there which I suspect are not alike. A good analogy would be to pour a bucket of pain in a big bowl and drop a bowling ball in it. Freeze the result at maximum expansion and do it again a million or so times and you will have a pretty good representation of outer-space with all the galaxies. I’d like to know what our galaxy is rotating around. Is it rotating around something? Mathematic Reasoning and physics suggests it should.
Bobby R Sends

 

[Dr.Yes]

You're all entitled to your wonderful opinions, however... I'm right.

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

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

 

[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! 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[/color] 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. 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! 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[/color] 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. 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).