- #1
stevefaulkner
- 25
- 0
Is there self reference in Nature?
Foundations of The Quantum Logic
Foundations of The Quantum Logic
You can make arguments like this about anything:stevefaulkner said:Self reference is a phrase used in logic. If I write a statement like: "The Universe includes the Physical Laws" and then write another: "The Physical Laws control the Universe", The two statements together imply that the Physical Laws control the Physical Laws. Which is self referent.
A.T. said:The physical laws themselves are not included in that part.
A.T. said:The computer controls the computer.
I didn't say that. I said physical laws are not included in the part of the universe, which is described by physical laws.stevefaulkner said:If the Physical Laws are not part of the Universe, ...
Physical laws are human made quantitative descriptions of the observed nature. As long as no "agencies causing them" are observed in a quantitative manner, these "agencies" are not part of physics.stevefaulkner said:If science is concerned with understanding the Physical Laws; is it not inconsistent, to accept without understanding, Agencies causing the Physical Laws?
I think your 'logical trick' is called "naive set theory" and was shown self-contradictory long ago:stevefaulkner said:Although the question I am asking seems like some clever logical trick, that does not mean it should be disregarded.
A.T. said:I think your 'logical trick' is called "naive set theory" and was shown self-contradictory long ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
I'm not brushing it off. It shows that playing logical games with self referencing sets leads to contradiction. So why bother with it?stevefaulkner said:Russel's Paradox is not something to be brushed off lightly.
Fortunately physics can live quite well with incompleteness. It is a problem of math, logic and philosophy.stevefaulkner said:Since that time Karl Svozil showed that physics is incomplete in this sense.
stevefaulkner said:Is there self reference in Nature?
No. The answers in physics come from experiments. Physics uses some concepts of math and logic, but not everything. The obsession with completeness for example is useless to physics, and didn't even work out for math itself.stevefaulkner said:On the grounds of scientific open-mindedness should we not look at logic for answers in physics?
A.T. said:The obsession with completeness for example is useless to physics, and didn't even work out for math itself.
A.T. said:No. The answers in physics come from experiments.
stevefaulkner said:Is there self reference in Nature?
apeiron said:We are witnessing this again with quantum gravity
stevefaulkner said:If the Physical Laws are not part of the Universe, where are they?
tauon said:the main inquiry of the OP- are there self-referential systems? well, if we rephrase that to "are there systems capable of self-referential processes?" then the answer is an obvious yes: human beings and any self-aware animal.
tauon said:in our heads.
there are no physical laws "out there"... they're just descriptive models we devised so that we may easily understand the universe and the physical processes.
stevefaulkner said:I guess you already saw this:
http://steviefaulkner.wordpress.com...-of-a-big-black-hole-can-self-reference-help/
Self-reference in physics refers to the concept of a system being able to observe and interact with itself. This can occur in various ways, such as through feedback loops or self-organizing systems.
Self-reference challenges traditional notions of objectivity in science, as it suggests that the observer and the observed are intertwined. It also raises questions about the limits of our knowledge and the role of consciousness in shaping reality.
Yes, self-reference can be observed in various physical phenomena, such as fractals, chaos theory, and emergent properties in complex systems. These phenomena exhibit self-similarity and self-organization, which are key aspects of self-reference.
The observer effect in quantum mechanics suggests that the act of observing a system can influence its behavior. This is closely linked to self-reference, as the observer is inherently part of the system being observed, and their observation may impact the system.
Self-reference challenges traditional reductionist approaches in physics and opens up new avenues for understanding complex systems. It also raises philosophical and ethical considerations, such as the role of the observer in scientific inquiry and the potential for conscious manipulation of reality. Further research in this area may lead to significant advancements in our understanding of the universe.