Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[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

 

[Ernies]

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

You seem to have missed the point in my note (or perhaps you had not read it). 'Explanation' is different from mere 'description'. I do not recall anyone saying 'simply because we can never know anything with certainty'. We can never describe anything with perfect accuracy on current theories, but that seems irrelevant.
I am not at all clear what you mean by 'explanation'-- or 'rational'. Co-herent I take to mean 'with no overt self-contradiction'.

Ernies

 

[gptejms]

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.

Apart from the fact that an explanation is different from description,I have this to say:-How do you lend credibilty to a theory or hypotheseis--by its ability to predict(or describe)to a reasonable accuracy the evolution of a system.Even if one is dealing with a quantum system,one at least predicts an interference pattern(though not exactly where a particle is going to hit).

I understand real systems are much more complex and it's difficult to describe them,but if you make a statement claiming that everything can be reduced to pure physics then the onus is on you to prove it.Otherwise it's just a matter of belief that it can be.

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.

Not being able to prove something and believing in it is also a dead end.

 

[moving finger]

Apart from the fact that an explanation is different from description,

I have never claimed that an explanation is the same as a description.
But fundamentally, all explanations are based on descriptions.
An explanation is simply an interpretation or description of one set of ideas or concepts in terms of another set of ideas or concepts. All explanations are based on models, and all models are based on descriptions.
We “explain” the atom by saying it is composed of electrons, protons, neutrons; and we “explain” some of these particles in terms of other particles, and maybe one day we will be able to “explain” all of these particles in terms of strings. But all we are doing is replacing one “description” of X in terms of Y by another “description” of X in terms of Y in terms of Z.

How do you lend credibilty to a theory or hypotheseis--by its ability to predict(or describe)to a reasonable accuracy the evolution of a system.Even if one is dealing with a quantum system,one at least predicts an interference pattern(though not exactly where a particle is going to hit).

I did not say that explanations never make predictions; I said explanation does not entail predictability.
The quantum world seems to be inherently uncertain, in most cases all we can do is to provide a certain probability that a given quantum event will happen in a certain timeframe, but in most cases we cannot provide a firm “yes/no” type prediction. This is the limit of our predictive ability.

if you make a statement claiming that everything can be reduced to pure physics then the onus is on you to prove it.Otherwise it's just a matter of belief that it can be.

I never made such a statement, thus with respect there’s no “onus on me” to prove any such thing.
I could however counter your argument by saying "the hypothesis that everything can be reduced to pure physics seems to fit the facts". The "onus" is then on anyone who thinks that such an hypothesis is incorrect to actually come up with evidence to show that it is incorrect. That is the scientific method.

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.

Not being able to prove something and believing in it is also a dead end.

All we can ever have is explanations which seem to fit observations. But that is never “proof” that such explanations are correct.
Or are you perhaps claiming that we can know anything with certainty?
Would you like to give an example?

Best Regards

 

[gptejms]

I never made such a statement, thus with respect there’s no “onus on me” to prove any such thing.
I could however counter your argument by saying "the hypothesis that everything can be reduced to pure physics seems to fit the facts". The "onus" is then on anyone who thinks that such an hypothesis is incorrect to actually come up with evidence to show that it is incorrect. That is the scientific method.

If you never made a statement of the sort 'everything can be reduced to pure physics' then you need to make your position clear--otherwise I don't know what we are discussing.

I knew that the transfer of onus was going to happen!I do not believe that the hypothesis is incorrect,but limited to whatever it's able to describe--which doesen't include all the facts.Until it's able to do that, one can only say 'I don't know'.But 'I tend to believe' that everything can not be reduced to pure physics just as you believe(?) that it can be.

 

[Ernies]

Moving finger said, on the one hand
"I have never claimed that an explanation is the same as a description..." and on the other "An explanation is simply an interpretation or description ...".
He contradicts himself in one breath.
Then he says "we explain the atom...".
Indeed I, a theoretical physicist, most emphatically do not. I describe it in ways which have developed over the last 50-odd years of my career.

All of this stems from confusing the uses of the words "Why", "Explain", "describe" and "reason". The question "Why is the window broken?" has two anwers: first that a stone impacted on it, and second that I threw the stone because I disliked the person behind it. These are fundamentally different in kind, yet the discussion has often flipped from one meaning of "Why" to the other apparently without reason or even notice by the disputants.


Ernies