Let me try an impossible task: to motivate you to take seriously "it from bit" idea, but of course without taking bits themselves seriously.
Why is it that all objects/processes in Nature fall into the structurally similar classes (of stars, galaxies, stones, trees, etc)? Of course, classes evolve as are all objects. Why has the Universe been organized that way, via classes, from the very beginning?
Kimmo Rouvari replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
I did participate this year's contest. Interesting topic indeed. To me, particle physics has gone all wrong. Few fatal mistakes has created an enormous smoke screen between physics knowledge/understanding and the real truth of nature.
Maybe the biggest mistake is the outcome conclusion of synchrotron radiation. More on that in my essay ;) You can check it out already from my site (http://toebi.com/documents/FQXi_contest.pdf).
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 04:20 GMT
Lev
One answer is, it hasn't, this is our conceptualisation. Or another answer is, in any given existence (whatever that 'really' is) there are bound to be similarities of occurrence. Another answer is, taking your question as written, we can never know. But the most useful response is for somebody to explain the underlying processes involved which have resulted in this physical state.
What I am not following, is how this consideration facilitates a differentiation of 'it' from 'bit'.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 04:55 GMT
Paul,
First of all, the probability that all processes are neatly clustered into classes *by chance* is negligible: their structural similarity requires some informational guidance.
I have been working in Pattern Recognition since the middle of 1970s, and can tell you that classes are a miracle: there must be some generative informational mechanism (class representation) to guide the production of class elements (in a manner not unsimilar to the biological organisms). By the way, I'm planning to submit an essay on this topic.
To understand the issue better you have to see the new formal language (ETS). This is, I believe, the first 'informational' language. After it was developed, it took me several years to understand why it is indeed an informational formalism (since we haven't seen any).
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
I think the considerable power of Lev's research program often gets overlooked for lack of understanding of what constitutes a formal language, i.e., a computable schema.
The object class of things that are structurally similar, in fact, leads Lev and me to the same conclusion, that time is identical to information -- and information theory is where the "it & bit" premise originates. So if the varieties of bitmaps changing in time, i.e., crossing domain and energy boundaries, are self similar between domains, global self organization results in recognition between members of that class. (Lev does with his fundamental unit 'struct' what I have doing with the self organization of elements of the complex plane that are infinitely self similar.)
Recognition algorithms are not yet as sophisticated as they probably will be in the near future. However, they are hardly unknown to the mathematics and computer science community. A decade ago, before Perelman's proof felled the last domino in proving the Poincare Conjecture for S^3, at least two promising proof strategies (Dunwoody's and Rubinstein's, independently) employed recognition algorithms for the problem. Even today, I think a successful proof using those methods would be a welcome advance -- as well as pointing to a more general and intuitive -- maybe even simpler -- explanation of what topologists mean by "simply connected."
Really looking forward to reading Lev's essay, which is bound to address the true technical issues of getting it from bit.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
This is not directed at anyone. Not looking for already obvious responses anyway. This is just in case there are readers that wonder about 'purpose':
The purpose of purpose is to produce order yeilding meaningful results. However, it appears to be unscientific to propose purpose. Order without purpose, seems to me to be an interesting scientific position. Order for free. Order without cause. Order for no purpose. I know now what real science is: Self-ordering order. It is good that magic should give us real science. Maybe mentioning magic' is too up-front. I see the good scientific position to be that science doesn't answer what first cause is. Science answers for what we can know about what we have. Yet, there is that nagging nuisance of predjudicial attitude that jumps forward in scientific conversations that: The first cause cannot be purpose.
The first cause must be purposeless: Proof for this is not needed. It must be so because the universe is mechanical. Yeh sure! Not looking for answers here. I have heard from the top notch scientists that the universe is mechanical. There are fundamental forces. There is energy. There are hidden resources sometimes as extra dimensions and sometimes as emergent properties. Seems strange that 'hidden' resources are the answer to why there cannot be purpose. Maybe the scientific position is actually that: Purpose needs to be hidden. It is unscientific to see purpose! Yeh sure.
I think I will write an essay establishing purpose in the unvierse. It is good that such unscientific essays have a chance to be accepted here. FQXi.org is serving a higher purpose.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
James,
I recall a scene from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr's *Breakfast of Champions* where the protagonist is in a bar contemplating the alcohol in his drink -- made by yeasts consuming sugar and excreting alcohol as waste, until they drowned in their own excrement. The yeasts had a purpose. He was wondering if they were aware of it. If our purpose as human beings were to pollute the planet by consuming until we drown in our own waste, would you be okay with that?
It makes no sense to me, for the universe to have any other purpose than to simply be. Better yet, as
Joy Christian suggests: to become.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
Tom,
I have heard that. I understand that the scientific position of reasonable rational, intelligent, earth grounded people is that: The purpose of being is to have no purpose. Yeh sure. Thats why purpose is so good for screening out unfits. Tom, you think that I don't know how hard life is? Don't pull that on me. Do you have some scientific basis that shows that horror cannot coexist in a universe with purpose? Perhaps you are thinking about religion. Is that maybe the case?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 05:54 GMT
James
I think it is the word purpose which is the problem, since this implies some knowledge/consciousness, something which is controlling, or any other such phrase.
Now obviously, and I do not think (or indeed hope) this is your intent. We cannot know anything which is extrinsic to existence as is knowable to us. We can believe in whatever we can conceive of. So we cannot know why, or indeed what, existence 'really' is. Which might include some form of purpose in the ordinary meaning of the word.
In respect of the physical existence we are considering, the substance thereof certainly does not exhibit capabilities which could support purpose in the ordinary meaning of the word. However, there are, especially if the complexity, etc, of what is demonstrably manifest is reduced to generic types, a limited number of existent substances and existent processes. Which does not have to be imbued with some magical overtone. Any form of existence will have such. The point being that, superficially, ie in the way we conceive of it, this could look like purpose, especially over time. In other words, given the ‘basics’ the elements, galaxies, heat, light, animate entities, etc, etc, were all bound to occur, but this is not purpose. Put the other way around, existence, of itself, precludes indefiniteness, anarchy, etc because there must be something and there must be a cause, but this is not purpose.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 10:43 GMT
"I understand that the scientific position of reasonable rational, intelligent, earth grounded people is that: The purpose of being is to have no purpose."
Exactly the opposite, James!! A rational universe assigns free will to all its elements, to create their own purpose. Jacob Bronowski, one of the deepest thinking humanists I know -- the one who wrote the aphorism I quote often, "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" -- lectured extensively on the intersection of science with human behavior and values. I think the awesome repsonsibility of our choice of purpose is reflected in many of his quotable quotes, including:
"Every animal leaves traces of what it was; man alone leaves traces of what he created."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Tom,
Your purpose and your free will come out of nothing. You take it for free and celebrate it as if you have accounted for its existence. Now back to my point. Did purpose exist for the origin of the universe? And in response to your point: What is the cause of free will?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 13:13 GMT
Perhaps it is necessary to stress that 'hidden' is not an answer. 'Hidden' is a magician's trick. I have no interest in 'magical' answers to scientific questions.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
James,
You wrote, "Perhaps it is necessary to stress that 'hidden' is not an answer. 'Hidden' is a magician's trick. I have no interest in 'magical' answers to scientific questions."
What nonsense. Most every fact of nature that we know is hidden from our everyday view.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
(Reposted in correct thread)
James,
You wrote, "Your purpose and your free will come out of nothing. You take it for free and celebrate it as if you have accounted for its existence."
Yes, I most certainly do! Would you rather I see my free will as something I must suffer and pay for? Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
"Now back to my point. Did purpose exist for the origin of the universe?"
It couldn't have, if all its elements are endowed with free will. The purpose of the universe is equal to the purpose of its creation. I agree with Wheeler in principle that ours is a participatory world.
"And in response to your point: What is the cause of free will?"
Free will *is itself* the cause of all that exists. There is no reason to believe that any particle lacks consciousness; we certainly could not say otherwise, merely by observing particle behavior. (See Kakatos and Nadeau, *The Conscious Universe* and Gell-Mann, *The Quark and the Jaguar* as well as Wheeler's research in "it from bit".)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 13:41 GMT
James putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Tom,
you quoting me: "you wrote, "Perhaps it is necessary to stress that 'hidden' is not an answer. 'Hidden' is a magician's trick. I have no interest in 'magical' answers to scientific questions."
You: "What nonsense. Most every fact of nature that we know is hidden from our everyday view."
Nonsense huh? Yes cause is hidden from us. Effects are observed. No one knows what cause is. My questions were specific to you. Each time that you put forward an answer that does not go to the source, you have explained nothing. Your 'hidden' answers are a facade for pretending that the source has been identified though we can't see it. The closest you have come to lifting yourself up above the mechanical level is in your above message: "There is no reason to believe that any particle lacks consciousness; we certainly could not say otherwise, merely by observing particle behavior." but, you failed miserably with free will: "Free will *is itself* the cause of all that exists.". Where did you get your free will? Free will is a cause? Is this free will like electric charge or something or is it intelligent? I am assuming that you weren't thinking that it was a 'given'?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 14:06 GMT
Tom,
You quoting me: You wrote, "Your purpose and your free will come out of nothing. You take it for free and celebrate it as if you have accounted for its existence."
You: "Yes, I most certainly do! Would you rather I see my free will as something I must suffer and pay for? Sorry, that makes no sense to me."
This answer doesn't appear to have any relevance. What is with the "suffer and pay for"? Is that a theory?
You quoting me: "Now back to my point. Did purpose exist for the origin of the universe?"
You: It couldn't have, if all its elements are endowed with free will. The purpose of the universe is equal to the purpose of its creation. I agree with Wheeler in principle that ours is a participatory world."
Me: What is free will for all its elements?
You quoting me: "And in response to your point: What is the cause of free will?"
You: Free will *is itself* the cause of all that exists. There is no reason to believe that any particle lacks consciousness; we certainly could not say otherwise, merely by observing particle behavior. (See Kakatos and Nadeau, *The Conscious Universe* and Gell-Mann, *The Quark and the Jaguar* as well as Wheeler's research in "it from bit".)
Me: What consciousness does a particle have? Is it a given or are there properties in theoretical physics that form it?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
James,
I wrote: "Would you rather I see my free will as something I must suffer and pay for? Sorry, that makes no sense to me."
You replied: This answer doesn't appear to have any relevance. What is with the 'suffer and pay for'? Is that a theory?"
Huh? You don't think not-free is not the opposite of free? Or that what is not free requires payment, and therefore suffering in some sense? You really don't understand why your statement makes no sense to me?
You wrote: "What is free will for all its (nature's) elements?"
It means that all the elements are self organized on multiple scales.
You ask, "What consciousness does a particle have? Is it a given or are there properties in theoretical physics that form it?"
It lies on a continuum from least conscious to most.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
"Yes cause is hidden from us. Effects are observed. No one knows what cause is."
Free will as the ultimate cause suits me just fine.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 14:39 GMT
Tom,
You: I wrote: "Would you rather I see my free will as something I must suffer and pay for? Sorry, that makes no sense to me."
You quoting me: "You replied: This answer doesn't appear to have any relevance. What is with the 'suffer and pay for'? Is that a theory?""
You: "Huh? You don't think not-free is not the opposite of free? Or that what is not free requires payment, and therefore suffering in some sense? You really don't understand why your statement makes no sense to me?"
I don't where this is going but it is clear it has nothing to do with explaining free will.
You quoting me: "You wrote: "What is free will for all its (nature's) elements?"
You: "It means that all the elements are self organized on multiple scales.'
Me: I see. Back to getting things for free. Of course matter organizes. The question is why does it organize? Where did that ability come from? Did the particles create their abilities or are those abilities to organize "givens'? If they are 'givens' what kind of givens are they? Are they the forces of theoretical physics?
You quoting me: You ask, "What consciousness does a particle have? Is it a given or are there properties in theoretical physics that form it?"
You: "It lies on a continuum from least conscious to most."
Me: And this is an answer? What is at the beginning of your continuum?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 14:42 GMT
Tom,
"Free will as the ultimate cause suits me just fine."
So its a belief?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
"So it's (free will) a belief?"
If it is, James, it's a belief that fits the facts.
If I assume no free will, I trap myself in an infinte regress of who-created-what-and then-what-created that ...
With the assumption of free will (though I better like the way Gell-Mann envisioned it, as a continuum of consciousness) I have suffcient degrees of freedom operating on multiple scales to explain an apparently self-organized universe of self-similar objects and self-limiting dynamics. (This ties into Lev Goldfarb's ETS formalism.)
I will always concede to you that my assumption may be wrong -- that we may be robots with the illusion of free will. Like the yeasts consuming sugar until they drown in alcohol.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
"What is at the beginning of your continuum?"
Where does a line become a circle?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
Tom,
You have no beginning. Your circle is theory. We do have free will. The challenge is to explain how? The answer is not in theoretical physics. The answer is part of understanding the role of intelligence in the universe.
I saw the flag go up for a pollution alert. Is this thread polution?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 05:09 GMT
Tom
“If I assume no free will, I trap myself in an infinte regress of who-created-what-and then-what-created that ...With the assumption of free will (though I better like the way Gell-Mann envisioned it, as a continuum of consciousness)…”
It is not ‘free will’. It is that physical existence (which includes you) is independent of the mechanisms whereby those entities which possess those can be aware of it. The issue being that the input those mechanisms rely on delineates what form of existence is knowable, there might be alternatives but we can never know. Proper hypothesis, ie not belief, adheres to the same rules, so it cannot discern alternatives. This is the existential trap. We are in a closed system, determined by a physical process. So what we can potential know is therefore definitive, but independent.
The processing of physical input received is irrelevant, because that process is not a physical process. Therefore, ironically, you are correct with “we may be robots with the illusion of free will”. Indeed, more than that, all sentient organisms are a nuisance, because they invoke an unwanted influence on physical existence, in that they convert a physically existent entity into a perception thereof. In other words, any role that sentient organisms play needs to be eradicated first, obviously on the basis of an understanding as to how this subsequent processing works both individually and generically, before the physical circumstance can be, initially, revealed.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 08:20 GMT
James,
You wrote: "We do have free will. The challenge is to explain how?"
Not at all. You asked me if I thought free will is a belief. I said, it's an assumption that fits the facts. In your case, it *is* a personal belief -- if you feel a necessity to explain how free will gets to be free will, you deny the "free" part, which militates against the definition.
"The answer is not in theoretical physics. The answer is part of understanding the role of intelligence in the universe."
Intelligence is neither fundamental nor unitary. There are as many varieties of intelligence as there are creatures adapting to their changing environments.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
"...if you feel a necessity to explain how free will gets to be free will, you deny the "free" part, which militates against the definition."
"Intelligence is neither fundamental nor unitary. There are as many varieties of intelligence as there are creatures adapting to their changing environments."
I assume you mean that the effects of intelligence are neither fundamental nor unitary.
The explanation for how is it that we have free-will does not involve denying the free part. It embraces and explains the free-part. Intelligence certainly is fundamental. The existence of the variety of the effects of intelligence doesn't negate intelligence being fundamental. Your repeated attempts to put the word 'self' forward as if it explains anything is futile. The ability to organize either exists in its entirety at the beginning of the universe or you are pugging in 'miracles' after the the universe begins. Either all effects that will ever occur in the universe were prescribed for at the beginning of the universe or 'miracles' are real.
Science should not tolerate the sneaking in of later miracles as part of explaining the nature of the universe. There cannot be high intelligence as an effect unless the cause, at its full potential, of high intelligence has always existed. The evolution of life and the varieties of life were prescribed from the beginning or they would not exist. The universe is orderly. The question is: How does free-will exist in an orderly universe? The answer lies in understanding how the universe uses intelligence. In order to understand how the universe uses intelligence, it is necessary to answer questions such as: How do we discern meaning in the 'photon storm'?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
"I assume you mean that the effects of intelligence are neither fundamental nor unitary."
No, James, I meant what I said. The whole idea of intelligence is neither fundamental nor unitary.
"The explanation for how is it that we have free-will does not involve denying the free part. It embraces and explains the free-part."
Not when you have to pay for it with an explanation. "Free" rather justifies itself.
"Your repeated attempts to put the word 'self' forward as if it explains anything is futile. The ability to organize either exists in its entirety at the beginning of the universe or you are pugging in 'miracles' after the the universe begins."
Since self organization is an empirical phenomenon, once again you contradict your professed love for empirical facts.
"Either all effects that will ever occur in the universe were prescribed for at the beginning of the universe or 'miracles' are real."
Free will may be a miracle, I'll concede. I'm okay with that. I'm with Einstein: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
I don't comprehend anything you're saying, beyond this point.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Tom,
""Your repeated attempts to put the word 'self' forward as if it explains anything is futile. The ability to organize either exists in its entirety at the beginning of the universe or you are pugging in 'miracles' after the the universe begins.""
"Since self organization is an empirical phenomenon, once again you contradict your professed love for empirical facts."
I don't contradict myself. The limitation is not mine, it is yours. You are theoretical. Of course organization is an empirical phenomenon. Of course there are effects. Putting effects forward as if they prove your discovery of a 'demon-at-work' is not convincing. Yes I do adhere to emprical facts. I reject scientists' attempts to fantasize the universe. My empirical approach removes theoretical fantasies. Theory is invention to substitute for our lack of understanding of what cause is. Cause is not "self'. Effects are not cause. The removal of theoretical inventions is the freeing move. The removal of these inventions from physics equations restores physics to its natural state.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
James,
You do contradict yourself, fully and consistently.
You want one assumption, from which all observed physical effects follow. Well, free will meets that requirement. I can't help it that you don't like to be free.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Tom,
You have bought into theory. Physics theory requires masterly talents making use of complex abstract properties. You are very good at it. I do not retract my statement that I think you are ahead of the theorists. However, theory is invention. Theory is restricting. Physics should not be forced to model human ideas. You believe in theory. I don't.
The question of the existence of free-will is an important very interesting one. The universe is orderly. The mechanical view of theoretical physics is limited to usefulness in solving mechanical problems. The universe is not limited by the existence of theoretical physics. However, it is orderly to its fullest extent. The question of free-will is one of: How is free-will a part of a prescribed-for, orderly unverse?
There is no loss of freedom in this statement. It is a recognition of the existence of freedom. It is a question of the means by which freedom, in the form of free-will, is provided for by the universe. It doesn't occur out of mechanical uncertainty. We know that for human free-will because it is a decision process. It involves meaningful choices. All of this results from our intelligent processing of meaning discerned from the photon storm. Understanding how we discern meaning from the photon storm is the key to understanding information, intelligence, and free-will.
We are not going to end this, obviously, so you can have the last word. I will do as I said and write an essay about what is information and how it is used. I look forward to reading your essay. I expect that you can give a revised treatment of of this subject with superior theoretical quality. I think the expert evaluators might be sympathetic to your views if you are careful to present them with extra effort at clarity. Even experts may not be as adept as you are at seeing what you see. You may need to explain some of it along with saying it. Well anyway, good luck with it.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
James,
I have to say that you've opened my mind, through these exchanges, to a new way to characterize theory.
By your continually insisting that we don't get knowledge "for free" I see that theorizing is truly the price we pay for objective knowledge. A rationalist accepts the price, and strives for correspondence of the created work -- the theory -- with physical results, to gain knowledge. The price equals the gain.
And your paradoxically insisting that there is one cause for all observed effects, while rejecting free will as a cause -- reveals the irrational foundation of your quest. Think of it this way: Do you consciously control the automatic functions that sustain the life of your body? All those organs, cells and the chemistry that go on doing what keeps you alive are cooperating in their own interests, to produce what we truly are: a corporation of cooperating cells.
This view accentuates the richness of George Ellis' top-down causality, in which top down events influence bottom up functions. One can easily speculate that without that mutual feedback, the bottom elements are randomly free. Lev Goldfarb's formalization of this language of nature strikes me with the same power of recognition, that self similar classes are organized from randomly free agents.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT
James,
Our posts crossed. I didn't compose the above in four minutes. :-)
You write, "Understanding how we discern meaning from the photon storm is the key to understanding information, intelligence, and free-will."
If free will is the cause, then meaning is freely created. The question for science is whether it's a rational meaning, because science is a rationalist enterprise.
That doesn't mean, however, that scientific (objective, rational) knowledge is all there is. I compare it to Godel incompleteness -- there exist true statements independent of those that can be proved in a formal axiomatic system.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 17:13 GMT
Tom,
"that self similar classes are organized from randomly free agents."
Keep in mind those cooperating cells divide from an original cell.
What is free will? Is will devoid of influence truly will? If you are not influenced by your context, can you have influence over your context?
We don't make distinctions in order to decide, the function of decision is a consequence of those distinctions. When we come to the fork in the road and weigh the options, we don't then throw out that process and make the decision. Either we are in a situation where the multiplicity of options present the need to employ our functions of analysis and we are conscious of that process, or the decisions are so basic, it is in the category of routine. In either case, we don't follow the negative or closed circuit path, but the positive, open circuit path. To the extent the mind is a computer, life is the open circuit. This is not deterministic, even if the laws governing it are absolute, because the input into this process cannot be fully known before hand, as the signals would have to proceed themselves.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 17:49 GMT
"Keep in mind those cooperating cells divide from an original cell."
Which makes my point, John. The bottom up process that drives replication does not obviate the top down process that drives cooperation. How undifferentiated dividing cells in a mammalian fetus, e.g., "know" to become a skin cell, a blood cell, a liver cell, etc. is still not entirely understood.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 18:19 GMT
Tom, James,
Fascinating conversation. I congratulate you Tom in allowing your mind to open - at least to a new way to categorize theory, and also James for the cause of the effect I'd failed to achieve! There may be hope for us all yet.
Most impressive Tom was you; "A rationalist accepts the price, and strives for correspondence of the created work -- the theory -- with physical results, to gain knowledge. The price equals the gain."
Buy now you know what I'm going to mention. It's not just you Tom but universal; When a theory comes along which does just that, and clears the "comforting" fog, but something entirely unfamiliar appears!!! What happens?
Science is, (as Popper) built more on a foundation of beliefs than 'facts'. Neural networks are constructed, getting more 'set' as we age. When something new comes along which doesn't fit, it's just 'bounced off' and rejected as there's nothing to hang it to. What price rationalism then? I suggest if only more people could see and accept this then science may progress a little better. Did you do any homework on my evidence samples to support your case?
I actually interdicted as I'd just used that Gödel quote in a paper on Gödel Fuzzy Logic and Bayesian probability distributions. It lifts some fog on measurement and the EPR paradox. I hope to cover the strong IT analogies in my essay.
If I haven't yet asked, could you and James (and John, et al) falsify something for me please, ref the 'excluded middle'?;>;
I propose that no two identical entities above particle scale exist at any one space time point, so any physical ('real') meaning of the proposition A = A, (leading to the paradox of all logical systems and the infinities of mathematics), is falsified. Views?
Thanks, and best of luck in the contest.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 19:03 GMT
Peter,
Why above particle scale? A point i've argued with Tom is that in reality, when we add things together, we get one of something larger, think Bose Einstein condensate, which is just a larger single particle. The problem for math is that as reductionism, it starts to overlook its own assumptions, such as that when we are adding, we are adding the sets and getting a larger set, rather than actually adding the contents of the set. Say, if we add 4 apples and 5 apples to get 9 apples, what we have done is to add the sets to get another set. If we actually added the apples together, we would get a jar of applesauce.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 19:06 GMT
Tom,
Which also goes to cells adding up to one larger entity.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Tom,
I guess I have to respond to this:
"And your paradoxically insisting that there is one cause for all observed effects, while rejecting free will as a cause -- reveals the irrational foundation of your quest. Think of it this way: Do you consciously control the automatic functions that sustain the life of your body? All those organs, cells and the chemistry that go on doing what...
view entire post
Tom,
I guess I have to respond to this:
"And your paradoxically insisting that there is one cause for all observed effects, while rejecting free will as a cause -- reveals the irrational foundation of your quest. Think of it this way: Do you consciously control the automatic functions that sustain the life of your body? All those organs, cells and the chemistry that go on doing what keeps you alive are cooperating in their own interests, to produce what we truly are: a corporation of cooperating cells.
This view accentuates the richness of George Ellis' top-down causality, in which top down events influence bottom up functions. One can easily speculate that without that mutual feedback, the bottom elements are randomly free. Lev Goldfarb's formalization of this language of nature strikes me with the same power of recognition, that self similar classes are organized from randomly free agents."
There is one cause for all effects. That limits the miracles to one. That ensures orderliness. The idea that there could be two or more causes that produce orderliness is false. Coordination between perceived individual causes is evidence of a common cause not yet understood. Theorists take advantange of such lack of knowledge to fill the artificial void with artificial stuffings.
The nature of the one cause can be discerned from its effects. Its effects are all effects. We don't know all effects, but, we know a great many effects. Among those effects are intelligent life and human free-will. They are observed to exist because they are effects. We only see effects.
Your example describing the role of cells in producing the human being is shallow. Those cells are doing what they must do according to the instructions in the genetic code. The genetic code contains the design for the complete organism. Flexibility is part of the design. That is obvious from the fact that no two like organisms are identical. It is obvious from the origin of species. There is no reason to assume that the design for life would be static.
There is no reason to claim that following a dictated design negates the possibility of the arrival of human free-will. Human free-will is not explained by speculating that individual cells pursue their own interests. Individual cells participate in fullfilling prescribed roles. Those roles come from one code in one cell.
I do not understand how you fail to recognize the concept of design involves top-down dictates fullfilled by bottom-up assembly. Top-down dicates are what exist in the single first cell. The bottom-up assembly is prescribed for including allowing for limited flexibility. Feed-back loops, cooperation between groups of cells, also, relative isolation between functions of groups of cells is easily recognized and understood as part of a complete design. Your quotes of Bar-Yam about these occurrances somehow being revealed today in groundbreaking complexity theory appears to me to be well overblown for significance.
You say we are a corporation of cooperating cells as if that says anything beyond observing that the assembling of design for life was followed. What we are is the fullfilment of a purpose. The purpose was for the universe to reach a level of evolution to where it become capable of becoming aware of itself. To be aware is an effect. The universe began in a state of potential. It has since been converting its potential, partly, into effects. This effect we call awareness was prescribed for as much as any other effect that has ever occurred. That is unless we allow after-the-fact miracles which I do not. We are a product of the particles of the universe. We are what they were always capable of achieving and reachieving.
They carried along the potential for awareness until human free-will was achieved. It wasn't achieved by particles pursuing their own interests. It was achieved by particles doing everything that they were supposed to be doing. No self-creating-this and self-creating-that to serve as stimulus for imagining unseen, unacknowledged angels or demons or whatever it is that supposedly adds un-prescribed for effects to the universe.
I guess you can have the last word on this also. I have written about this at leangth. I am not going to do it again now in message form. So if it is unsatisfactory, let it be so.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 05:17 GMT
Tom
“One can easily speculate that without that mutual feedback…”
Er, how can an event which is physically existent subsequently, physically affect an event which was physically existent previously, ie the two are in the wrong sequence order. And then, how can a physically existent event physically influence the ‘future’, because by definition, the future is not physically existent. All it can be, if certain physical conditions pertain, is be a cause of the subsequent event.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Paul,
Our knowledge of reality is inherently subjective and we are constantly seeing past events from different perspectives. The objective reality is a mindless sea of energy and order, whether it is gases coalescing into a star, or information being absorbed by our brains, is in constant flux. Any knowledge you have of an event is specific to the input into your senses. That is reality and that reality is not static. There is no blocktime dimension, where all events exist inshrined in the four dimensional geometry. So subsequent events do affect any evidence of prior events.
This is not the answer QM might give, but reality is not so much probabilistic, as subjective.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Peter
Some areas of science might currently be “more on a foundation of beliefs than 'facts'”, but this is not a necessary condition. The process known as science can be objective, because what is being examined is independent and limited.
“I propose that no two identical entities above particle scale exist at any one space time point, so any physical ('real') meaning of the...
view entire post
Peter
Some areas of science might currently be “more on a foundation of beliefs than 'facts'”, but this is not a necessary condition. The process known as science can be objective, because what is being examined is independent and limited.
“I propose that no two identical entities above particle scale exist at any one space time point, so any physical ('real') meaning of the proposition A = A, (leading to the paradox of all logical systems and the infinities of mathematics), is falsified. Views?”
As John then said, why this condition of “above particle scale”, though I understand what you probably meant. And incidentally, please note that two cannot be identical, because there is two, ie they are different! Forget what the actual scale is, the important point is that there is some form of ‘bottom line’ (it may be manifest in different types, but again that is detail). Now, the point is that physical existence occurs at that level, and only at that level. And only in one physically existent state, of whatever it is, at that level. This is the key misconception.
We think of physical existence as ‘things’, with a nod to the concept that there is ultimately a ‘bottom line’. But this is not correct. The cat and dog that Tom referred me to a few posts back, do not exist physically. This is a conceptualisation of existence at a higher level. That is, certain superficial physical characteristics are deemed to define it. Indeed, even at that level of conceptualisation there is contradiction, because we continue to refer to the ‘thing’ as the same ‘thing’ even though it has changed, ie it has got fatter, greyer, lost a leg in an accident, etc. By definition, if there is alteration, then it is not the same, it is something else. But the point is that the essential superficial attributes pertain, so we continue to deem it as a ’thing’ which is persisting in existence.
In other words, Tom’s cat, dog, whatever, is, physically, a sequence of physically existent states, where at a higher level of perception, not existence, certain superficial features persist.
So going back to your point. It is not particle or whatever it is, per se, but physically existent state thereof, and that is different at any given time. This is how physical existence must occur. There can only be one definitive physically existent state of whatever constitutes physical existence in existence at any given time. Which is what I have been saying for the past two years. How that manifests ‘in practice’, since this is just a generic statement, is another matter.
So yes, A does nor equal A. But as I said at the start, it cannot because there cannot be two A’s, that is a function of classification, not existence. You said there are two of them, ie there is a difference. So from the outset you needed to label them A & B. Even two or more physically existent states which are identical in their state are not identical, because they are different states.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
John
“Our knowledge of reality is inherently subjective”
Not so, as I have explained to you many times. Indeed, I am surprised more people do not jump on this aspertion on their endeavours.
At any given time, knowledge can only be, at best-which everyone strives for-, the best approximation available at this time. We all know this, but for obvious reasons do not append that caveat to every statement made. However, ultimately, since what we are investigating is independent and limited, we can reach the point where we can state that this knowledge is the equivalent of what exists. Obviously we cannot say it is definitely what exists, but then science is not involved in that pointless endeavour. Because we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know.
“So subsequent events do affect any evidence of prior events”
In terms of thinking/perception, but I am talking about existence, and thinking/perception cannot affect that.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Paul,
And existence is exactly what, since you are the objective expert?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
"There is one cause for all effects. That limits the miracles to one."
Fine, James. Free will -- whether it's a miracle or an assumption -- meets that requirement. You spend a lot of time arguing that free isn't really free unless something is controlling it.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 11:34 GMT
Peter,
You write, "Science is, (as Popper) built more on a foundation of beliefs than 'facts'."
In Popper's terms, a fact is measured correspondence between the abstract theory and the physical result. Scientific facts are potentially perishable (falsifiable); I don't think there is disagreement, however, on what makes a fact a fact. Belief is not entailed.
"Neural networks...
view entire post
Peter,
You write, "Science is, (as Popper) built more on a foundation of beliefs than 'facts'."
In Popper's terms, a fact is measured correspondence between the abstract theory and the physical result. Scientific facts are potentially perishable (falsifiable); I don't think there is disagreement, however, on what makes a fact a fact. Belief is not entailed.
"Neural networks are constructed, getting more 'set' as we age. When something new comes along which doesn't fit, it's just 'bounced off' and rejected as there's nothing to hang it to."
That's true in some sense. Disconnected data have to be incorporated into theories -- guesses -- and then validated by accurately predicted results. The data of themselves just don't mean anything. Has nothing to do with how old one is.
"What price rationalism then? I suggest if only more people could see and accept this then science may progress a little better."
It's actually anti-rationalist to assign meaning to data in absence of a theory that incorporates it.
"Did you do any homework on my evidence samples to support your case?"
No, I can only do so much.
"I actually interdicted as I'd just used that Gödel quote in a paper on Gödel Fuzzy Logic and Bayesian probability distributions. It lifts some fog on measurement and the EPR paradox. I hope to cover the strong IT analogies in my essay."
I'm no fan of Bayesian statistics (which requires a measure of personal belief). I'll look forward to reading your essay, though.
"If I haven't yet asked, could you and James (and John, et al) falsify something for me please, ref the 'excluded middle'?;>;
I propose that no two identical entities above particle scale exist at any one space time point, so any physical ('real') meaning of the proposition A = A, (leading to the paradox of all logical systems and the infinities of mathematics), is falsified. Views?"
I'm not sure what you mean, but that A = A assumes a finite world in the first place.
"Thanks, and best of luck in the contest."
Thanks, you too.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
Tom,
"You spend a lot of time arguing that free isn't really free unless something is controlling it."
Looks like something other than what I say. What I argue is that the universe is controlled. That is obvious. Any disorder would quickly destroy order. The universe is orderly. Out of this order comes human free-will. It is free choice. It is not controlled or contained by an individual's past experiences. The challenge that you avoid with your free-will 'given' is: How does this orderly unverse give rise to human free-will. I answer that question. I don't take the most important property of the universe and claim it as first cause for free. Human free-will is the subject that I have been addressing. It appeared very late in the evolution of life. What free-will are you talking about?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 13:21 GMT
"It's actually anti-rationalist to assign meaning to data in absence of a theory that incorporates it."
This is clearly wrong. Its a theorist's self-assurance of belief in theory.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 13:58 GMT
John,
Scale is important as we lose 'observability'. But I erred in including 'space', just one instant in TIME is enough. This is fundamental: if no two identical entities can exist, as in the (DFM) theory I've failed to falsify, then the whole foundation of arithmetic, calculus and logic; 'Aristotle = Aristotle' is false in physically REAL terms. The 'Law of the Excluded Middle' is also then false, and I've derived a replacement that seems to work consistently, based on A~A. Indeed I agree you're on the right track with the apples. But;
If 3 dice have the same number of combinations which produce the totals 9,10,11 and 12, is there an equal probability of each total turning up?
I've explored the implications and they open some revealing doors. Including support for Joy's thesis, but not precisely in the way Joy thinks. (Joy doubts I've falsified Bells theorem). In a way Joy is correct, but the doors lead to something far more valuable.
If you can't find any dice inequality I'll explain.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
"This is clearly wrong."
Do you have a reference for that, James, besides your personal opinion? If I had to go to the trouble (I don't) to show that it is clearly right, I could.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
"The challenge that you avoid with your free-will 'given' is: How does this orderly unverse give rise to human free-will."
Nonsense. I have clearly said and implied that human free will is equal to the free will of every other particle of the universe, on every scale.
"I answer that question. I don't take the most important property of the universe and claim it as first cause for free."
Then you don't believe free will exists, do you?
"Human free-will is the subject that I have been addressing. It appeared very late in the evolution of life. What free-will are you talking about?"
You asked for a first cause. I gave it to you -- it meets absolutely *every* requirement for an empirically based description of how the world works. *Independent* of the assumption that human free will is anything special.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Tom,
Popper better identified foundational 'beliefs'; "Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It's like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it's not because we've reached firm ground. We...
view entire post
Tom,
Popper better identified foundational 'beliefs'; "Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It's like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or 'given' base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it's not because we've reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being."
I have presented a 'theory' very consistent with self and observation, with full ontological construction. The problem is that it's not familiar. So most wandering out of the fog into the light refuse to look and run back in. But it is what it is. I can only hope that some may stop and examine the rationale.
James has a point re 'data' that you, as so many, have missed; In your view we must have a theory so we can check the data for consistency. But what then happens is that if we can make it fit we add it as support, if not it's often ignored or called into question. That is why we can't now walk across the carpet. It's turned into a mountain. The list I gave you was just the tip.
In my view we have a wide range of possible theories and models. After we've carefully study what the data really IS,and it's error bars, we can then only CONSTRAIN each possibility. This 'matrix' approach is how I use data sets. I've eliminated over 100 theories to reach a best fit model which I can now find no robust data to falsify. That is how science should be done I suggest.
Unfortunately it isn't. I present my findings, and the few who look at it subconsciously say, "no that can't be right as it's not what I believe". i.e. their neural network just 'bounces it off' as a 'bad fit' to THE NETWORK, not to the data! It's human nature. What we think we do is not what we do.
Paul, that answers your point to. But thank you both for agreeing that A=A is only 'metaphysical', consequently the 'Excluded Middle' for physical bodies and events is false. There is a 'fuzzy' non zero probability between the propositions; 'A or B'. As you say Tom, and axiomised for an infinite universe; 'Everything that can happen will happen'.
James, I cant entirely agree about order. Stochastic randomness rules at particle level. Even the 'causal' collision between 2 protons in the LHC is not causal at all! They're trying to collide 3 quarks against 3 quarks, and have not a clue if it's a 'full ball', 'glance' or any of infinite interaction possibilities in between, and there are also countless protons in each bunch and multiple 'contacts'!
Perhaps if anything we may be an 'experiment' with one original 'cause', to find out what ultimately happens. I don't believe we're a predetermined programme to that scale. As information theory says, to accurately model the evolution of the universe mathematically would need a computer the size and complexity of the universe (that's in my essay draft!). Is that not fair?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Tom,
"Do you have a reference for that, James, besides your personal opinion? If I had to go to the trouble (I don't) to show that it is clearly right, I could."
Rationalism n. the belief that all knowledge and truth consistin what is ascertainable by rational processes of thought and that there is no supernatural revelation. || (philos.) the doctrine tha true and absolute knowledge is found only in reason.
Rational adj. of or relating to reason.
Rationality n. The condition of being rational; clear thinking.
I am a reationalist by these definitions. The anti-rationalist tag is defaming. You do not self-appoint yourself as clear thinking or relating to reason just because you believe in theory. Theory is invention. I say clear thinking applied to empirical evidence does not require or even tolerate invention. There is a difference of opinion. My opinion relates to reason and clear thinking. You are welcome to you opinion, you are not welcome to employ name-calling for the purpose of selling your own opinion as the rational one.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Tom,
""The challenge that you avoid with your free-will 'given' is: How does this orderly unverse give rise to human free-will."
Nonsense. I have clearly said and implied that human free will is equal to the free will of every other particle of the universe, on every scale.""
It is not nonsense. Is the universe completely orderly or not? What free-will do particles have? Connect your particle 'free-will' to human free-will.
""I answer that question. I don't take the most important property of the universe and claim it as first cause for free."
Then you don't believe free will exists, do you?"
Human free-will is not the first property of the universe. I have stated clearly that human free-will exists.
""Human free-will is the subject that I have been addressing. It appeared very late in the evolution of life. What free-will are you talking about?"
You asked for a first cause. I gave it to you -- it meets absolutely *every* requirement for an empirically based description of how the world works. *Independent* of the assumption that human free will is anything special."
No it doesn't. What free choices based on reason do particles make? Human free-will is the most special effect in the universe.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 16:07 GMT
John
“And existence is exactly what, since you are the objective expert?”
That which exists and in so doing creates physically existent representations thereof (eg light, noise, vibration, etc) which we can receive. This includes what we can properly hypothesise would have been receivable, ie what we determine, on the basis of how the physical processes operate, could have been received had that not been prevented by some identifiable factor.
In other words, physical existence, for us, can be characterised as a physically existent sequence and a physically existent representation thereof. The nature of that representation (or information) being a function of the physical characteristics of both and hence how they interact in any given circumstance.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Peter
“if no two identical entities can exist, as in the (DFM) theory I've failed to falsify”
As I said above, you do not need DFM theory (and probably this does not prove it anyway), just common sense. The notion of “two identical entities” is a contradiction, ie if there are two then they cannot be identical.
Your correction to only time rather than space and time is noted, but irrelevant. Because at any given time there can only be a singular spatial disposition. This is how physical existence occurs, it is purely spatial.
And it is not that the representational devices (maths, etc) are inherently wrong, but that they are depicting what is actually a sequence of physical existences, ie different physically existent states, as if they are the same.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
James,
You: "It is not nonsense. Is the universe completely orderly or not?"
Not.
"What free-will do particles have? Connect your particle 'free-will' to human free-will."
Multi scale variety. There is no way in principle to determine that the elements of a self-organized (i.e., self similar and self limiting) system on any scale are not acting as cooperative free agents.
You: "I answer that question. I don't take the most important property of the universe and claim it as first cause for free."
Me: Then you don't believe free will exists, do you?"
You: Human free-will is not the first property of the universe. I have stated clearly that human free-will exists."
I contend that human free will is indistinguishable from any other freely acting agent of a system domain.
""Human free-will is the subject that I have been addressing. It appeared very late in the evolution of life. What free-will are you talking about?"
You asked for a first cause. I gave it to you -- it meets absolutely *every* requirement for an empirically based description of how the world works. *Independent* of the assumption that human free will is anything special."
You: No it doesn't. What free choices based on reason do particles make? Human free-will is the most special effect in the universe."
You may believe so. The facts do not support your belief.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
James,
" ... you are not welcome to employ name-calling for the purpose of selling your own opinion as the rational one."
Your philosophical definition of rationalism is way too broad to apply to scientific method. I didn't say you were irrational: I said that the assigning of meaning to data, without a theoretical model to incorporate it, isn anti-rationalist. It is.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Tom,
Me: "It is not nonsense. Is the universe completely orderly or not?"
You: Not.
Me: Where is disorder found?
You: You asked for a first cause. I gave it to you -- it meets absolutely *every* requirement for an empirically based description of how the world works. *Independent* of the assumption that human free will is anything special."
Me: No it doesn't....
view entire post
Tom,
Me: "It is not nonsense. Is the universe completely orderly or not?"
You: Not.
Me: Where is disorder found?
You: You asked for a first cause. I gave it to you -- it meets absolutely *every* requirement for an empirically based description of how the world works. *Independent* of the assumption that human free will is anything special."
Me: No it doesn't. What free choices based on reason do particles make? Human free-will is the most special effect in the universe."
You: You may believe so. The facts do not support your belief.
Me: The definition of human free-will Does not fit with your theory. You appear to be trying to misrepresent human free-will as something that may be describable by physics theory. Is that the case? You think that mechanical, theoretical degrees of freedom for particles explain the existence of human free-will? You can't establish that kind of connection with facts. Human free-will is: The power and exercise of unhampered choice. Theoretical physics has nothing available to explain that.
Me: Are you claiming human free-will is due to a mechanical, in the sense of theoretical physics, action that even particles experience? This looks like the kind of claims made loosely by theorists when they can't see that they do not, by virtue of their profession and talents, always have the high ground on intelligent answers. They are on theoretical ground, a tenuous position to be in. Human free-will is the greatest achievement of the universe. The facts support this conclusion.
Me: The fact is that we make free decisions for reasons that almost always go far beyond anything that theoretical physics claims to have explained. And, that is allowing that theoretical physics is correct in what it professes within its purview. The guesses and empirically unsupportable inventions that thrive in theoretical physics restrict any claim to explaining something as far out of their reach as human free-will. This stuff gets stuffed.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 17:33 GMT
Tom,
You mean my dictionary definition. I think you have joined a group that has taken on a misleading, self-serving, self-endulgent name. Theorists are theorists. That is it.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
"You appear to be trying to misrepresent human free-will as something that may be describable by physics theory."
That's not a misrepresentation, James.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 19:25 GMT
James,
Lest you think I'm just making this up, try
George Musser's article on for size.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 13, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
James,
Be sure to read
't Hooft's article that Musser links, which reads in part:
"Surprisingly, perhaps, we claim now that free will is everywhere, but it is not the notionthat was assumed as an 'axiom' by today's quantum scientists. We see the situation as follows. In Nature, the Laws determining its evolution are complex. This means that, in the vast majority of cases, one will have no way to foresee exactly what will happen. Only after meticulously painstaking calculations, from beginning to end, one might be able to look forward a bit,but very soon, one will be forced to make crude approximations. The true values of Nature's degrees of freedom will not be known for sure -- one will have to make 'educated guesses'. Conversely, if we wish to understand why and how a certain situation in this Universe has arisen, we have to make numerous guesses concerning the past, and eventually select the one that fits best with everything we know. In our model, we will only be able to perform such tasks if we possess some notion of the complete class of all possible configurations of our variables. For every member of this class, our model should produce reasonable predictions. Even if, in the real world, only very limited subsets of all possibilities will ever be realized anywhere at any time, our model must be able to describe all eventualities.
If we would have been deprived of the possibility to freely choose our initial states, we would never be able to rely on our model; we would not know whether our model makes sense at all. In short, we must demand that our model gives credible scenarios for a universe for any choice of the initial conditions!"
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
Tom,
In other words, knowledge is inherently subjective and the model has to be completely generic.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 04:14 GMT
Peter
“What we think we do is not what we do. Paul, that answers your point to”
No it does not, because what we think is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, never mind what we think we think.
“There is a 'fuzzy' non zero probability between the propositions; 'A or B'”
I am not sure what this means, but there is no ‘fuzziness’ in the events (whatever ) labelled A & B. The issue is whether we can discern them.
“and axiomised for an infinite universe; 'Everything that can happen will happen'”
But we are not in a infinite universe, we are in a limited one.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
John,
I never use the word knowledge to refer to anything but objective knowledge. There is no theory of objective knowledge, however, and neither could there be, by rationalist criteria.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Tom,
" There is no theory of objective knowledge, "
Isn't what you consider "objective" essentially reductionistically generic? Say 1+1=2.
In other words it is a form of focused extraction of pattern from the larger context. Thus while it is "objective" because it is true, it is not "objective" in the sense of being a contextually complete knowledge of reality. It is a truth inductively extracted from observation, to be deductively applied to further examination.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Hi Peter,
"James, I cant entirely agree about order. Stochastic randomness rules at particle level. Even the 'causal' collision between 2 protons in the LHC is not causal at all! They're trying to collide 3 quarks against 3 quarks, and have not a clue if it's a 'full ball', 'glance' or any of infinite interaction possibilities in between, and there are also countless protons in each bunch...
view entire post
Hi Peter,
"James, I cant entirely agree about order. Stochastic randomness rules at particle level. Even the 'causal' collision between 2 protons in the LHC is not causal at all! They're trying to collide 3 quarks against 3 quarks, and have not a clue if it's a 'full ball', 'glance' or any of infinite interaction possibilities in between, and there are also countless protons in each bunch and multiple 'contacts'!"
This is not a description of randomness. There are properties responsible for causing the events to occur as well as the effects that follow. In randomness there are no properties of control. Randomness allows for no order.
"Perhaps if anything we may be an 'experiment' with one original 'cause', to find out what ultimately happens. I don't believe we're a predetermined programme to that scale. As information theory says, to accurately model the evolution of the universe mathematically would need a computer the size and complexity of the universe (that's in my essay draft!). Is that not fair?"
The universe is orderly. It can't have disorder, randomness would be disorder. I think that references to randomness in the universe are wrong. I see it as a misuse of the word random. I find many examples of loose uses of words in theoretical physics. Any disorder would destroy all order. All effects had to have been provided for right from the beginning. This follows from the existence of order.
Chance is not randomness and chance does exist. The universe has a purpose and a goal, but there is no one path being followed toward achieving that goal. There is a great deal of complexity with innumerable arrangments. But, that complexity does not rule out order on any scale nor does it hide newly added causes for effects that were not prescribed for at the beginning of the universe.
I think the 'computer' reference is accurate. The universe is as complex as it is. The idea that all the effects that will ever occur in the universe are prescribed for right from the beginning, does not involve anything supernatural. Supernatural is something to be applied to any unprescribed for effects thrown into the mix after the beginning. Theorists engage in imagining and relying upon such supernatural inventions. They have to do this because their fundamentals are inadequate to account for the operation of the universe.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
"Isn't what you consider 'objective' essentially reductionistically generic? Say 1+1=2."
No, John. I don't think you've ever understood anything I've said. The reason that 1 + 1 = 2 is axiomatic. Not only have I denied the axiomability of scientific (objective) knowledge, I have explicitly identified objective knowledge as the correspondence between those abstract models (such as 1 + 1 = 2) and physically measured results.
I didn't make it up. It comes directly from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth, translated into the terms of scientific objectivity by Popper.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT
Peter,
You write, "James has a point re 'data' that you, as so many, have missed; In your view we must have a theory so we can check the data for consistency. But what then happens is that if we can make it fit we add it as support, if not it's often ignored or called into question."
Data is never made to 'fit into' a theory. Theory is always primary to the interpretation of data.
There are theories -- such as the special and general theory of relativity -- that come to us "mathematically complete," meaning that the theory makes novel predictions. This is a more convincing kind of scientific theory, because if the predictions are validated by experiment, we've learned something new by reason alone.
Mathematically incomplete theories -- such as quantum mechanics -- are constructed after the fact to explain data. All quantum theory turns on explaining Young's two-slit experiment. The mathematics needed are not sophisticated; they've been around for a hundred years or more. Attempts to make quantum theory complete have failed so far; many (including yours truly) reject the notion that it can be made complete without an entirely new mathematical framework, preferably one that accommodates the continuous functions of relativity. Quantum field theory (and its extensions including string theory) attempt to do this; so do topological models such as Joy Christian's, which are fully analytical.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Tom,
"Be sure to read 't Hooft's article that Musser links, which reads in part: ..."
For each physical action there are physical effects. The physical action may or may not include an intelligent decision beforehand. If the physical action does not include an intelligent decision, as in particles meeting up somewhere in the universe, there are effects. When a decision is made there are no effects. After the decision is made there are no effects. When physical action is taken to implement the decision, then, there are effects. Theoretical physics consists of imagined mechanical causes for mechanical effects. There is no free-will in theoretical physics. We do exist in this universe. We do cause effects in this universe. But we are not the subject of theoretical physics.
Quoting Gerard 't Hooft: "Just imagine that we would be living in a completely deterministic world. Would the notion of 'free-will' that is usually employed be correct? My answer is: of course not!
This is not the way I would make the point. I would instead state it as: In an orderly universe, would the notion of 'free-will', as understood in the sense of human free-will, be correct? The answer is of course it would be. We know that is the case so certainly it can be the case.
The article appears to me to be assuming the existence of human free-will without accounting for its existence. It is not part of the mechanical theories mentioned. It is not part of the experiment. The action taken after free-will is exercised is part of the experiment. Free-will is not the act, it is a decision. If it is not followed by an act, then there are no effects. My use of the words act and effects pertain to the experiment. I know that the brain undergoes changes.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
"James has a point re 'data' ..."
James' point is that theory is fitted to the patterns in the data. Often different theories can be fitted to the same patterns in the data. It is the patterns that do the work of making predictions. The theory is a display of the imagination of the theorist. Theory is a artificial restraint forced onto physics equations. The meanings of the equations are forced to be subservient to the theory. The original meanings of the equations contained the maximum amount of knowledge about that which empirical evidence is telling us. The restrained theoretical equations give us a strange constrained mix of empirical information and theoretical interpretation
James Putnam
.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
Tom,
Subjective doesn't mean something isn't true. If you and I look at a statue from different angles, we both have truthful, but subjective impressions of it
Yes, axiomatic equivalencies are not necessarily physically true. Your apple might be large and ripe, while mine might be small and green, so one apple is not necessarily equivalent to another, even if 1=1.
My point is that knowledge is necessarily fragmentary. Whether it is subjective, as in one view of the statue, or generic, as in 1=1. We can't have a whole understanding of anything, because knowledge is very much a function of organizing these pieces of information and the big problem with that is that different bits of information don't always fit together. The uncertainty principle. You can't combine different views of the same statue, or they would cancel out the distinctions, very much like taking two pictures with the same negative, or eventually taking multiple pictures will only create a white negative, like multiple frequencies create "white" noise.
Just as a generic model has to distill to the most common attributes of multiple circumstances and so not be able to explain the more complex or unique aspects of the particular. As Wolfram was quoted above, it would take a computer the size of the universe to compute the universe.
So that while there might be, presumably, an "objective" reality, we can only sense it very subjectively. The confusion of my point is that I'm treating those distilled, generic models as another form of subjectivity, being a particular view of a larger reality.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 17:08 GMT
Tom
I admire the fact that you keep going!
(John) “Subjective doesn't mean something isn't true. If you and I look at a statue from different angles, we both have truthful, but subjective impressions of it”
Incorrect. Leaving aside the potential points about individual perception, etc, in that circumstance there are two objectively correct pieces of knowledge in respect...
view entire post
Tom
I admire the fact that you keep going!
(John) “Subjective doesn't mean something isn't true. If you and I look at a statue from different angles, we both have truthful, but subjective impressions of it”
Incorrect. Leaving aside the potential points about individual perception, etc, in that circumstance there are two objectively correct pieces of knowledge in respect of different angles of the statue. Subjectivity is knowledge which does not correspond with reality, ie it is not true. It is only rational (ie ‘true’) in a context/on the basis of a presumption/etc, that has no proven correspondence with the reality knowable to us.
(James) “Theory is a artificial restraint forced onto physics equations”
Incorrect. Theory, in the proper meaning of the word, ie as opposed to hypothesis, guesswork, or what is actually belief, is generic knowledge based on specific proven correspondence with reality. And therefore it enables predictions about what will occur in certain circumstances. By definition, as everybody knows, but does not bother to attach the caveat, it is (or should be, but people are allowed to make genuine mistakes) the ‘best representation available of reality given all the proven information available at that time’. Subsequently, it could prove to be wrong, but that is how knowledge is developed. Eventually, when no new knowledge becomes available, we can then deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of reality.
In both cases what you are failing to understand is that there is only knowledge of/information about, there is no ‘directly accessible’ reality, even though there is a definitive reality available to us to know (ie what must be presumed to be potentially only one form of existence, but as we cannot know any other, that is irrelevant). This being determined by a physical process, not philosophical ramblings. We are not considering any alternative to that, because we cannot know them, ie there is no reference available to judge their validity, either way.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Tom,
You mentioned string theory in an earlier message. I don't see that message so I can't quote. I will say what I think about string theory. It is probably more than any other theory a real stretch of imagination. What I understand its reason for being is: Singularities appeared to be an insurmountable problem. Theorists got rid of that problem. They smudged the singularities away. They incorporated those smudges into a new invented world. Around those smudges they built string theory. I don't read much about string theory. I find it difficult to listen to or read works by physicsts who speak to the public about string theory as if it is real. It seems to be an unsupportable strong belief for them.
So, what I think is that string theory is designed to fit the patterns in empirical evidence. Losing the singularities might have been a good move. However, imagining that the smudges consist of twists of space-time is empirically unjustified. It is just more artificial restraint forced onto physics equatons. With regard to the details of string theory: You can beat me up on this one. I consider it folly and don't spend my time on it.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 14, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
John
OED
Objective: belonging not to the consciousness or the perceiving or thinking subject, but to what is presented to this, external to the mind, real
Subjective: belonging to, of, due to, the consciousness or thinking or perceiving subject or ego as opposed to real or external things; due to one’s own feelings or capacities rather than being actually existent
Now, before you make the next false move, the output of the sensory/brain processing, and the process itself, are not part of the physical circumstance. This involves converting a received physical input into a perception thereof. The process does not involve the alteration of physically existent form.
From these perceptions, individualistic and generic influences must be eradicated in order to discern what was received, ie knowledge thereof. And then from that, on the basis of understanding the physical properties involved, the reality can be extrapolated, ie knowledge thereof. At any given time, until significant time has passed, this procedure is not going to be perfect, but that is not the same as your constantly repeated mantra that knowledge is inherently subjective or James’ view of theory.
The real question here, rather than all this energy being spent on a simple question as to the difference between objective/subjective, is what constitutes what we are striving to be objective about, ie what, generically, is reality, and how can it occur, within the bounds of what is knowable to us.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 10:27 GMT
Paul,
So...If we just stare at the world long enough and nothing changes, then it's no longer our perception of reality, but becomes reality itself?
Stare at this for a long time:
"belonging not to the consciousness or the perceiving or thinking subject"
Maybe it will change.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 11:48 GMT
James, you are probably thinking of this reply I made to S K Kauffmann:
"I'm not as critical of string theory -- as an extension of quantum field theory, it has after all shown us new rigorous paths toward reconciling a continuous field theory with discrete measurement functions that may not be possible to realize without extra dimensions."
You write "I find it difficult to listen to or read works by physicsts who speak to the public about string theory as if it is real. It seems to be an unsupportable strong belief for them."
No theory is real. It is the correspondence of theoretical elements to physically measured results that make a theory physical. Mathematical theories stand alone, whether they refer to physics or not.
"So, what I think is that string theory is designed to fit the patterns in empirical evidence."
Quite right. And it does. The converse also applies: patterns in nature fit string theory. (Though they are not designed.)
"Losing the singularities might have been a good move. However, imagining that the smudges consist of twists of space-time is empirically unjustified."
It's a bit more complicated than that. Space and time are entirely sufficient and necessary, however.
"It is just more artificial restraint forced onto physics equatons."
Since equations are themselves artificial constraints, your argument is self defeating.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Paul,
If you start from a 'limited universe' you must explain what those limits are and what lies beyond them, spatially and temporally.
It seem it may surprise you that I'm very well aware it's the "standard belief" that; "there is no ‘fuzziness’ in the events (whatever ) labelled A & B."
That is the; 'Law of the Excluded Middle". It's always been problematic in logic, but is essential to maths.
That is why what I suggest is so new. It is entirely equivalent to Godel fuzzy logic, which emerged from his incompleteness theorem (simplistically; maths is not 'complete' and has infinities). Your 'solution' seems to be to deny the infinities. That is no solution and not consistent anyway with Godel's theorem, which is quite irrefutable.
I point out that degrees of similarity may be assigned. Aristotle MAY INDEED be more like Paul than like a chariot. We then have to look at the compound superposed characteristics making them up and, subject to criteria, will always fins a Bayesian amplitude distribution. Only when we 'assign' and integer or use a 'derivative' do we enter 'metaphysics' and leave physical reality behind.
It is a complex proposition with much evidence, so you may need to read the essay to judge it fairly. (not pre-judge against assumptions normally subconciously, - which is, right or wrong, my very point about how we ACTUALLY behave!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 12:30 GMT
Tom,
I found it in my forum:
"Though I appreciate that you want to do science in a different way, James -- you have to build the foundation for it from the ground up. It won't make sense to scientists trained in a specific method to try and fit your results to well established theories and models. I also appreciate that you have a theory that you say recapitulates the results of relativty -- do you know that string theory also recapitulates all the results of not only relativity but particle physics as well, via relativistic quantum field theory? Why do you think string theorists are dismayed that many if not most physicists don't accept that those results are good enough for a bona fide physical theory?"
I did build it from the ground up. That is why I point to f=ma so often. It contains the first error, the choice to make mass an indefinable property, of theoretical physics. I build up from there with many results. It is true it is not established, but, theorists are not likely to warm up to removing theory. That brings me to string theory. It is compounded-theory like compounded-interest on money. The effort to force theoretical speculation onto physics equations is more pronounced there than for relativity theory.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 12:32 GMT
James,
Now your argument is semantic and relies on your own definition of 'order' which precludes any meaning for the word 'random' at all.
I quite agree your conclusion if using that definition. But the definition is then meaningless. If there is not room for a meaning of 'random' then there is no order, except with infinite recursion to smaller scales, so 'superdeterminism'
Consider this: If condensed matter is 'condensed' from the dark energy continuum that must exist to explain any credible cosmological data, let's say just by 'stirring it up' by passing bodies through it. (which matches all the data just fine). Can we than 'count' or 'calculate' such a process, to render it super-causal and 'ordered' rather than 'random'.
If you are just saying it's 'tidy', as the continuum is 'flat' and isotropic, than that may have limited validity, but if something can't be predicted it must be random as a fundamental definition of the word, i.e. not breaching causality. Then I point you to the peculiar anisotropies and inhomogeneity of the CMBR!, not to mention the 'gradients' of gravity.
So I'm poinint out we can all use the work 'order' if we massage it's meaning to encompass other meanings, but the value surely must remain, as always, in 'constraining' it's meaning, so we get a BETTER understanding of what's going on, not just 're-labelling' things.
Perhaps give your specific definition of random that stops us being a tape that re-runs precisely the same lives ad infinitum.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Peter,
"Now your argument is semantic and relies on your own definition of 'order' which precludes any meaning for the word 'random' at all."
Random; in an unplanned way, without any predetermined direction, purpose or method. If any property, other than randomness, exists in an example, then the example is not about randmness. it may be about unpredictability due to complexity or it...
view entire post
Peter,
"Now your argument is semantic and relies on your own definition of 'order' which precludes any meaning for the word 'random' at all."
Random; in an unplanned way, without any predetermined direction, purpose or method. If any property, other than randomness, exists in an example, then the example is not about randmness. it may be about unpredictability due to complexity or it may involve unpredictability due to chance, but it is no long er random. If properties with direction or meaning or purpose are included, then tandomness is not. An electron cannot behave randomly.
"I quite agree your conclusion if using that definition. But the definition is then meaningless. If there is not room for a meaning of 'random' then there is no order, except with infinite recursion to smaller scales, so 'superdeterminism'"
The definiton is not meaningless. It makes clear that the uiverse does not operate randomly at any scale.
"Consider this: If condensed matter is 'condensed' from the dark energy continuum that must exist to explain any credible cosmological data, let's say just by 'stirring it up' by passing bodies through it. (which matches all the data just fine). Can we than 'count' or 'calculate' such a process, to render it super-causal and 'ordered' rather than 'random'."
I don't agree that "...the dark energy continuum that must exist to explain any credible cosmological data...". However, even if it does exist the example you are citing is not about randomness. It is about orderliness. Whether or not we can count or calculate it is not related to randomness. You used the word 'process'. That eliminates randomness.
"If you are just saying it's 'tidy', as the continuum is 'flat' and isotropic, than that may have limited validity, but if something can't be predicted it must be random as a fundamental definition of the word, i.e. not breaching causality. Then I point you to the peculiar anisotropies and inhomogeneity of the CMBR!, not to mention the 'gradients' of gravity."
Lack of predictability is not a fudamental definition of 'random' unless it is intended that lack means, in principle, that there is absolutely no possibility of predicting.
"So I'm poinint out we can all use the work 'order' if we massage it's meaning to encompass other meanings, but the value surely must remain, as always, in 'constraining' it's meaning, so we get a BETTER understanding of what's going on, not just 're-labelling' things".
The word order is not massaged. It means that there is direction and purpopse. The evidence of direction is comprehensible effects.
"Perhaps give your specific definition of random that stops us being a tape that re-runs precisely the same lives ad infinitum."
Are you suggesting that randomness is the means by which the universe evolves?
This the point I would make. The tendency in theoetical physics to loosen the meanings of words, sometimes losing the important meaning such as the use of the word 'free-will' by physicists is, I think, a very poor substitute for lack of real answers. The universe evolved in a comprehensible way, it could not have included randomness, disorder, or purposelessness in anyway at any time. Randomness, disrder, or purposelessness would have destroyed any order or purpose that existed. There is no path from meaninglessness to meaning.
I don't think that my argument is one of semantics. I am sure that we disagree in other ways also, but, it is interesting and helpful to read your thoughts.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Tom,
You suggest; "Data is never made to 'fit into' a theory. Theory is always primary to the interpretation of data."
I hadn't realised you were such an idealist Tom. Of course I agree that's how it should be done, but I suggest the evidence clearly shows it's quite delusional to imagine that's how it really IS always done! if not 'massaged' it's often just ignored.
In...
view entire post
Tom,
You suggest; "Data is never made to 'fit into' a theory. Theory is always primary to the interpretation of data."
I hadn't realised you were such an idealist Tom. Of course I agree that's how it should be done, but I suggest the evidence clearly shows it's quite delusional to imagine that's how it really IS always done! if not 'massaged' it's often just ignored.
In astronomy we have patch over patch over patch ad infinitum. I'm currently finding more than one a week! Some data set is analysed using some set of assumptions and massaged and re-interpreted to force it to fit with minimum change to the original theory. It's become so bad with the concordance model we can hardly track back to what the original basis was! Luckily data sets like Planck's eventually come along and show there clearly is "something fundamentally wrong..." with it, as many have been saying for years.
But even Planck's data being made to fit into the personal beliefs (theories) of some of the scientists. For instance the bulk flow data have been 'massaged' down to below the arbitrary 90% 'confidence' level so the interpretation in the paper now conflicts with COBE, WMAP and past Nobel work. You may already be aware this caused much controversy in the team and a most respected authority refused to have his name included! The private arguments are war! But the decent first visible contradiction is this;
Atrio-Barandela, F., On the Statistical Significance of the Bulk Flow Measured by the PLANCK Satellite. A&A, sub. 3.2013.Again I could give you scores of examples, and more from optics, bounced back by 'theorists' (Have you heard of Kinetic Reverse Refraction, or Fraunhofer Radiation?). Joy's is different but exposes the same attitudes. If only what you suggest is what really happened I'd be very happy. But to continue pretending it doesn't exist is only to encourage it. I believe we should expose and decry that attitude.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
James,
Then if you allow no physical definition for 'random' the word is indeed redundant, and our understanding hasn't been helped, you've just explained your belief, which is of the well known 'super-determinist' case, where there is then no point al all to life!
I suggest the solution may be more subtle. We can have well ordered 'pre-set' systems and interactions but with absolutely no knowledge of what final state they might result in - which then usefully constrains the definitions of 'ordered' and 'random'.
Let me ask; What was the purpose of the first computer? Was it as we mainly use them for now, to play games? Of course not. It was because we did not KNOW what answer may emerge (to resolve the enigmna code) that we carefully ordered so many valves and cogs.
If there was a greater intelligence even he would have wanted greater intelligence still. Why ever not?
So perhaps we can rescue a meaning for the word 'random' as meaning the old QM based measure of our lack of possible knowledge, as no possible intelligence knows what will result from the perfectly ordered but infinitely complex system?
Otherwise perhaps we should just go to church and beg to be released from this entirely pointless mindless cycle!!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
Peter,
"Then if you allow no physical definition for 'random' the word is indeed redundant, and our understanding hasn't been helped, you've just explained your belief, which is of the well known 'super-determinist' case, where there is then no point al all to life!"
No that is not accurate. There was a point to everything. There was purpose as evidenced by orderliness. Life was...
view entire post
Peter,
"Then if you allow no physical definition for 'random' the word is indeed redundant, and our understanding hasn't been helped, you've just explained your belief, which is of the well known 'super-determinist' case, where there is then no point al all to life!"
No that is not accurate. There was a point to everything. There was purpose as evidenced by orderliness. Life was prescribed for as a possible effect right from the beginning. No miracles are permitted after the origin of the universe. That the universe is orderly is not my belief. It is obviously orderly.
Deterministic is deterministic. There is no level of super-deterministic unless one believes that they can mix determinism and randomness together without loosing determinism completely.
"I suggest the solution may be more subtle. We can have well ordered 'pre-set' systems and interactions but with absolutely no knowledge of what final state they might result in - which then usefully constrains the definitions of 'ordered' and 'random'."
Knowledge of a final state is not what I argue for. I say what empirical evidence without extra miracles tells us. All effects that have ever and will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for right from the beginning of the universe. No foggy coverups can substitute for latter miracles. If we do not use the word 'knowledge' because oit might be suggestive of prejudicial beliefs, but rather just say that: "Ordered, there is no need to say well ordered, 'pre-set' systems and interactions contain all properties required to result in whatever effects are observed to occur. Nothing is added after-the-fact.
The practice of trusting that new unpredictable properties appear out of a fog or out of lack of understanding their orgin is not good scientific practice. It is the door which theorists have walked through back when they made mass an indefinable property. After that move, they became free to keep pushing their imaginings onto physics equations.
"Let me ask; What was the purpose of the first computer? Was it as we mainly use them for now, to play games? Of course not. It was because we did not KNOW what answer may emerge (to resolve the enigmna code) that we carefully ordered so many valves and cogs."
Computers tell us back that which we told them. There is no exception to this. It doesn't matter if you were not aware of all the implications of your directions beforehand. You still put everything into the computer that you get out of it.
"If there was a greater intelligence even he would have wanted greater intelligence still. Why ever not?"
There is no he. There is no 'would have wanted'. This is about understanding that intelligence cannot arise from dumbness. This is about admitting that we cannot explain the origin of intelligence. It is about admitting that observing effects that inform of of the evolution of observable intelligence is not evidence of intelligence being added to the universe after its origin. The observed intelligence consists of observed effects. All effects that have ever or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for at the very beinning ofthe universe. No extra miracles are permitted. Being prescribed for is not the same as insisting that the universe had one path to follow in its evolution. It had innumerable paths; however, none of those paths contain effects that were not prescribed for.
"So perhaps we can rescue a meaning for the word 'random' as meaning the old QM based measure of our lack of possible knowledge, as no possible intelligence knows what will result from the perfectly ordered but infinitely complex system?"
I think the real issue here is not how different persons may veiw the meaning of the word random. My own view is clear. if it has to do with uncertainty, te the word is uncertainty not random. If you choose to mean uncertainty or chance, etc. when you speak of randomness, then so long as that is clear we know we are not speaking of the same state of existence. I choose to retain a word, random. to mean lack of control, direction or purpose.
"Otherwise perhaps we should just go to church and beg to be released from this entirely pointless mindless cycle!!"
Church has nothing to do with anything that I have said. i have been careful to not allow myself o be led by prejudice either for or against religion. This is not about studying religion. It is about studying the universe. If we avoid religion in the form of allowing extra miracles then we have a condition that cannot be avoided. That condition is that all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for since the very beginning of the universe. Potential for realized effects to occur existed then and many of those realized effects have occurred since.
When I speak of the universe having purpose it is because the universe evolved. It is not about whether the reader believes in God or not. Referrences to religion are evidence of prejudicial beliefs. Do you have knowledge of effects that were not prescribed for? Do you know of effects that could not have been provided for at the beginning? Do you know of a cause, for any effects, that could not have been connected to the properties at the beginning of the unvierse.
Do you know of any cause or causes that were added wholey after the beginning of the universe. Finally, are you motivated to see the universe in a manner that fits with an anti-religious belief? This question is meant to be fair, if it were someone else it might have been correct for me to ask, are you motiviated to see the universe in a manner that fits with your religious belief?
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 18:52 GMT
Tom,
"You want one assumption, from which all observed physical effects follow. Well, free will meets that requirement. I can't help it that you don't like to be free."
This isn't a matter of wanting. It is a matter of recognizing that even if one proposes to have idetified two or more causes, it cannot be that those causes are unique and unconnected if the effects, of all accounted for causes, are comprehensible. The evidence of being comprehensible is evidence that the multiple causes have themselves a common origin. Otherwise, they could not work together, there would not exist comprehensible effects.
This impression of free-will fitting with mechanical theory as a cause is not tenable. Free-will is not a cause. It is an effect. It is a decision. What follows after the decision process is another matter. If one implements their free-will decision in a mechanical manner producing mechanical effects, the cause is not free-will. The cause is the act conducted after the exercise of free-will.
I see it is a practice of theoretical physics to borrow words with meanings that go beyond mechanics and usurp them for the purpose of giving the impression that mechanics involves non-mechanical activities. The observation that there are non-mechanical activities is evidence that the mechanical interpretation of the universe is insufficient. It is the lowest level of interpretation of the nature of the universe. Since its adoption by theoretical physics, there has been an orchestrated, continuous effort, including usurping inappropriate words into discussions of theoretical physics, giving the impression that theoretical physics can account for the effects that those words were originally intended to represent. Free-will is one of those words.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
"Free-will is not a cause. It is an effect. It is a decision."
A decision is a cause. James.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Tom,
"A decision is a cause."
We are talking about theoretical physics. Free-will is a decision. It is a decision that cannot be predicted or explained by theoretical physics. One might act on that decision, but the act is not the decision. The followup physical act is probably applicable to theoretical physics. Calling a decision a cause is not applicable to theoretical physics. Do you have a mathematical equation with the property of free-will in it as a term? I am not asking for an equation about the followup act.
Human free-will is the greatest achievement of the universe. It follows the evolution of the universe. It doesn't lead it. It wasn't the first cause. The representation of the universe by theoretical physics cannot predict nor explain the existence of human free-will. Moving a free-will decision to the front of the evolution of the universe and calling it a cause that is part theoretical physics is akin to a slight-of-hand trick. There is no free-will that is part of theoretical physics. There is no conscious choice that is part of theoretical physics. When I say part of theoretical physics, I am referring to terms in equations.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 22:12 GMT
James,
As I write this, I am watching the grim news coverage of the Boston Marathon attack.
The bombs caused the casualties, in conspiracy with the evildoer(s) who decided to set them off.
That free will decision is most certainly the cause of the deaths and injuries.
My thoughts go with the victims.
You write, ". . . the act is not the decision."
Yes it is.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Tom,
I had put the news on right after posting that message. I think that I've posted enough for today. Its a time for me to think about the victims and listen to reports.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 02:17 GMT
Energy flows where order is weakest, like grass pushing through the concrete.
Consciousness is like energy, trying to move order. Either out of its way, or to a higher level.
April 15th, 2013 has been an ominous day.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 03:34 GMT
John
“So...If we just stare at the world long enough and nothing changes, then it's no longer our perception of reality, but becomes reality itself?”
Do you read what I write?
It has nothing to do with “nothing changes”, but no new knowledge arises. Neither does a “perception of reality”, or more precisely proven knowledge, ever “become reality itself”. In the event of no new knowledge arising then we can eventually deem the knowledge we have as being the equivalent of reality. We never have some form off ‘direct access’ to reality, just knowledge of/information about. All of which I said.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Peter
“If you start from a 'limited universe' you must explain what those limits are and what lies beyond them, spatially and temporally”
Er, I would dread to think how many times I have explained, albeit generically, what the limits are. In respect of the other part of your sentence, if there are limits, then you cannot go beyond them, by definition.
However. We exist. ...
view entire post
Peter
“If you start from a 'limited universe' you must explain what those limits are and what lies beyond them, spatially and temporally”
Er, I would dread to think how many times I have explained, albeit generically, what the limits are. In respect of the other part of your sentence, if there are limits, then you cannot go beyond them, by definition.
However. We exist. So we cannot externalise ourselves from it. We are aware of existence via a range of evolved sensory systems which, upon receipt of physical input, can process that and enable awareness thereof in the possessor of the systems. That subsequent processing is irrelevant to the physical circumstance. That received input is the determinant of the existentially closed system we are trapped in. That is, the form of existence we can potentially know.
It may be what ‘really’ exists, it may not, but we can never know, so the possibility of alternatives is irrelevant. Science, as opposed to belief, must only consider existence in terms of the potentially knowable. This does not mean just what is proven to be directly experienceable, but what, given such information, and knowledge as to how the processes work, what is proven to be potentially experienceable. That is, what is proven that we could have experienced but some identifiable factor prevented it.
To illustrate this, in the same way that we are not ‘looking in’ to existence, ie we can be somehow independent of it, this is not the sole preserve of human sentient organisms. Any form of sensing is included. Indeed, a sentient organism from another planet could land here and via some form of ‘conversion system’ enable us access to a sensory system which has not developed on this planet, and hence a whole new range of knowledge about existence. The whole point is, whether it is extending direct experience to include what can be properly hypothesised as having been potentially experienceable, or incorporating non-earth based experience systems, we are in an existentially closed system.
Put another way:
Every statement has the same logical form, ie a comparison to establish difference, which necessitates a reference. But, an absolute extrinsic reference is never available, because that can only ever be the possibility of an alternative. That is, given A (where A is ‘is’), there is always the logical possibility of not-A, however, this cannot be defined from within A, as a reference from within not-A is required for that. So all that can be defined is A, from within A, and that that is not not-A. But not what not-A is.
The corollary of this is that ‘is’ (ie A) must be definitive in itself (ie a closed system), and therefore possible to define, albeit only from within. That is so because there is an absolute reference, which is ‘of ’, or ‘not of’, A, ie the only absolute reference there can be is the factor which determines inclusivity. In the context of existence the absolute reference could be characterised as detectability (either actual or properly hypothesised), because we can only be aware of existence in this form.
So that is the physical basis underpinning knowledge and hence what constitutes physical existence, for us. Albeit generically, the difficult part is establishing how that is manifest, but it helps, first, to understand the nature of what is being investigated. Indeed, following on from that, based on input received, we can identify that the form of physical existence we can know has two fundamental characteristics:
-what occurs, does so, independently of the processes which detect it
-it involves difference, ie comparison of inputs reveals difference, and therefore that there is alteration.
This means that the physical existence we can know is existential sequence. The entirety of whatever comprises it can only exist within that sequence in one definitive physically existent state at a time, as the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist. To be physically existent, by definition, entails no form of change or indefiniteness in whatever is existent at any given time. Physical existence is a spatial phenomenon. The alteration, which involves a different physical existence occurs over time.
So, there are two key facts to understand:
- what constitutes physical existence is limited
- it only occurs in one definitive physically existent state at a time
The point is not the assigning of an integer. The point is that physical existence does not occur in the way we conceptualise it. There is no Paul. That is when we ‘enter metaphysics’. There is only a physically existent state of something, which, from a more superficial perspective has the characteristics of Paul. Then there is another, and another, and another. Each is different. It is not a case of there is something which persists but has changes to it. All that is happening is that whatever alteration occurs is not unduly affecting the superficial physical attributes by which we deem an existent state to be Paul. In other words, we “leave physical reality behind” right at the outset.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
Paul,
" Neither does a “perception of reality”, or more precisely proven knowledge, ever “become reality itself”. In the event of no new knowledge arising then we can eventually deem the knowledge we have as being the equivalent of reality."
As I interpret this, "reality itself" is the objective, while our "perception of reality" is subjective. The question is whether they do actually meet. QM and GR are descriptions of reality which are not entirely compatible. So, so far as the people who study these things see it, there seems to be a lack of correspondence between reality and our knowledge of it. The assumption is we just haven't studied it enough, but this is a linear assumption. Might it be that knowledge is inherently subjective and essentially breaks down when we are trying to comprehend all sides of everything at once?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Maybe I should say knowledge is contextual, even if that context seems fundamental.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
James, et al.
A wonderful example of the disparity of organisms is the disparity of our beliefs.
I can't believe we're like a pre-set 'tape'. You're wrong about computers, the output is certainly not the input. The meaning of 'rubbish in rubbish out' does not mean it's the same rubbish! Turing only broke the enigma code because the computer, a very ordered system, gave him the...
view entire post
James, et al.
A wonderful example of the disparity of organisms is the disparity of our beliefs.
I can't believe we're like a pre-set 'tape'. You're wrong about computers, the output is certainly not the input. The meaning of 'rubbish in rubbish out' does not mean it's the same rubbish! Turing only broke the enigma code because the computer, a very ordered system, gave him the entirely new knowledge he wanted.
I did note you'd carefully avoided religion, but your proposition none the less implies intelligent design. No, I'm agnostic and have absolutely no religious motivation.
You complain about "The tendency in theoetical physics to loosen the meanings of words, sometimes losing the important meaning" ...but then yourself redefine things as you wish. i.e. you remove all randomness, so the word is redundant.
'Superdeterminism' also has a very well defined and established meaning. Perhaps you weren't aware. It is defined as the inevitable conclusion of the road you're venturing down. Don't think philosophy hasn't worn ruts in all alternatives! For order and such complete determinism in outcomes as well as decisions there must be a greater intelligence. To believe you can avoid that conclusion has long been accepted as unavoidable. I agree order in causality, but if each action was predetermined we'd have to have a pre-set 'programme' the precise scale of the universe to 'run the universe', which is self defeating. Perhaps we ARE that programme and are being recorded ready to play back, but why then bother?
I think it more plausible to have an ordered physical system but with the 'free will' to change our minds at the last moment to gain a different, still causal, outcome.
"Are you suggesting that randomness is the means by which the universe evolves?"
No. I'm suggesting that randomness has a valid definition as the unknowable outcome of what may indeed be considered a causal universe. That means if I look up at a complex cloud pattern I may know precisely the ordered rules by which it is formed, but the countless gadzillion billion particle interactions/ cu mm that create are not simply a precise recreation of something previously specified. If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution, the result of EACH throw each time has not been pre-ordained.
In fact I think that is a key measure of the success of mankind that we all disagree. In a way it's a shame only 1 of us is correct. I should say I wonder which of us it is - but the true probability is it's none of us!
Best wishes
Peter
PS. Paul, I haven't seen a credible explanation of what's beyond your limits. My best guess is that the limits are only in and of our minds.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Peter,
I can't believe we're like a pre-set 'tape'. You're wrong about computers, the output is certainly not the input. The meaning of 'rubbish in rubbish out' does not mean it's the same rubbish! Turing only broke the enigma code because the computer, a very ordered system, gave him the entirely new knowledge he wanted."
We are not like a pre-set tape. I did not say we were. i said...
view entire post
Peter,
I can't believe we're like a pre-set 'tape'. You're wrong about computers, the output is certainly not the input. The meaning of 'rubbish in rubbish out' does not mean it's the same rubbish! Turing only broke the enigma code because the computer, a very ordered system, gave him the entirely new knowledge he wanted."
We are not like a pre-set tape. I did not say we were. i said enough that that should have been clear.
I am correct about computers. They do exactly what you tell them to do.
The computer does not give new answers to precise questions. It gives unknown answers. The answers are uknown because the human did not bother to follow their own instructions and do the calculation themselves. Computers add and compare. They know nothing. They follow precise instructions. The intructions contain everything needed to produce the answers. The computer tells you back that which you told it. What do you mean by rubbish in rubbish out? I know what is generally meant. I ask because the way in which you put it forward here doesn't appear to me to be applicable for the point you are making. I want to know what you think it means?
"I did note you'd carefully avoided religion, but your proposition none the less implies intelligent design. No, I'm agnostic and have absolutely no religious motivation."
Note that what I am saying is based upon following empirical evidence without prejudice. I didn't have to avoid religion. i don't concern myself with religion. Religion is your concern. You mentioned church. Mine is to follow the evidence. Perhaps you are not aware of my photon storm question which I have repeated many times.
"You complain about "The tendency in theoetical physics to loosen the meanings of words, sometimes losing the important meaning" ...but then yourself redefine things as you wish. i.e. you remove all randomness, so the word is redundant."
I didn't redefine random. I gave you the dictionary definition. You have ascribed a meaning to it that does not fit with the dictionary definition. There are other words that pertain to the situations that you describe as being 'random'. I think that you have chosen a definiton. I am aware that theoretical physicsts regularly misuse the word also similar to how they misuse the word free-will.
"Superdeterminism' also has a very well defined and established meaning. Perhaps you weren't aware. It is defined as the inevitable conclusion of the road you're venturing down. Don't think philosophy hasn't worn ruts in all alternatives! For order and such complete determinism in outcomes as well as decisions there must be a greater intelligence. To believe you can avoid that conclusion has long been accepted as unavoidable. I agree order in causality, but if each action was predetermined we'd have to have a pre-set 'programme' the precise scale of the universe to 'run the universe', which is self defeating. Perhaps we ARE that programme and are being recorded ready to play back, but why then bother?"
I didn't say that we were recordd ready to play back. That does not fit with the determinism that is represented by a universe that only allows one miracle. The prefix 'super' has no useful function. Whatever you think it is supposed to add to meaning, it definitely is not needed. What I said was that all effects that have occurred and will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for at the beginning of the universe. Is it your position that there are properties that do not owe their existence to those that existed at the beginning of the universe? What properties might those be? Regarding your concern about 'a greater intelligence', it is not my practice to use stigma nor to be affected by it. What is the origin of intelligence to you? Do you think that intelligence was added to the universe after the universe's beginning?
Providing for all effects does not lead to your conclusion of a pre-set 'programme'. I said enough to make that clear.
"I think it more plausible to have an ordered physical system but with the 'free will' to change our minds at the last moment to gain a different, still causal, outcome."
We do have free-will. Free-will is free of predetermination. How do you think we have free-will? We have it, but, how do you think we come into possession of free-will.
You quoting me: "Are you suggesting that randomness is the means by which the universe evolves?"
"No. I'm suggesting that randomness has a valid definition as the unknowable outcome of what may indeed be considered a causal universe. That means if I look up at a complex cloud pattern I may know precisely the ordered rules by which it is formed, but the countless gadzillion billion particle interactions/ cu mm that create are not simply a precise recreation of something previously specified. If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution, the result of EACH throw each time has not been pre-ordained."
This is not a description of randomness. For example, the existence of a probability amplitud distribution makes clear that you are not talking about randomness.
"In fact I think that is a key measure of the success of mankind that we all disagree. In a way it's a shame only 1 of us is correct. I should say I wonder which of us it is - but the true probability is it's none of us!"
It appears to me to be the case that your position is that the universe begins determinate, but that complexity beyond our comprehension, removes it, yielding us a universe that is not determinate from its beginning? In other words, is it your position that such a reversal exists but, the means by which the transformation occurs is hidden from us? Is it your position that new properties, that are not prescribed for from the beginning, are generated and hidden somewhere in the fog of complexity? Is it your position that complexity that is beyond our ability to know, is the correct meaning of randomness?
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
John
“As I interpret this, "reality itself" is the objective, while our "perception of reality" is subjective”
No, where does it say this in anything I have written? Again you are interpreting what I am saying into your own terms, and then going on to make a point in that context. As per the dictionary definitions which I quoted after you told me to get one, objective is:...
view entire post
John
“As I interpret this, "reality itself" is the objective, while our "perception of reality" is subjective”
No, where does it say this in anything I have written? Again you are interpreting what I am saying into your own terms, and then going on to make a point in that context. As per the dictionary definitions which I quoted after you told me to get one, objective is: corresponds with reality, subjective is: does not. The reference, ie what is being deemed as objective or subjective, is the knowledge/perception, not the actuality. Somewhat obviously, because that is objective. The point is we cannot ‘access’ reality directly (and that refers to the form of existence we can know, not any possible alternative which we cannot know), we only have knowledge/information /perception/and any other such word you want to use. Ultimately, because we are trapped in an existentially closed system, ie the physical existence we are considering is limited, we can arrive at a point when we can deem any given knowledge to be the equivalent of that existence. We can never know that it is. Only be default, in so far as no new knowledge comes to light. And, of course, we can never know that that is what ‘really’ exists, because we are trapped in an existentially closed system.
So the answer to this question, “Might it be that knowledge is inherently subjective and essentially breaks down when we are trying to comprehend all sides of everything at once?” is: No. See last two sentences above in particular. Your concept of “sides” is incorrect, as I pointed out to you in respect of your statue example.
The point about: “QM and GR are descriptions of reality which are not entirely compatible” is whether they are valid depictions of reality, not whether they are compatible. If they were valid, then by definition, they would be compatible. An objective view from the south of your statue is compatible with an objective view from the east. QM involves presumptions as embodied in the Copenhagen interpretation which are incorrect, they are contradictory to how we are aware of physical existence and how it occurs. However, it might be that in content, these presumptions do not impinge and much of what is discerned is valid. In respect of GR, I cannot comment on the actual theory as such. What is incorrect is the concept of relativity.
“Maybe I should say knowledge is contextual”
Obviously it is. Everything is. It must be. If something exists (whatever that means) then by definition, there is a context. The point here being that the particular type of perception we refer to as knowledge is supposed to be a true depiction of existence, within the context of what we can know. Which is, for us, existence. Whether it ‘really’ is, we can never know, so that concern is irrelevant.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT
Peter
“A wonderful example of the disparity of organisms is the disparity of our beliefs”
So what? All sentient organisms are utterly irrelevant to the physical circumstance. Other than they are a component thereof, which is not the point here. How they process received physical input has no effect on physical existence, it has an effect on the perception thereof. In respect...
view entire post
Peter
“A wonderful example of the disparity of organisms is the disparity of our beliefs”
So what? All sentient organisms are utterly irrelevant to the physical circumstance. Other than they are a component thereof, which is not the point here. How they process received physical input has no effect on physical existence, it has an effect on the perception thereof. In respect of understanding physical existence, sentient organisms are, in effect, a nuisance, because they have a tendency to misrepresent what was received (this may be a function of sheer lack of capability or ‘thinking’). So, whilst it would be best if sentient organisms were just highly accurate/capable ‘robotic’ processing machines, they are not. But without them, there would be no awareness of physical existence. But that is all.
This whole exchange has been incorrectly predicated on the concept of ‘free will’. This has nothing to do with it. Physical existence exists independently of the mechanisms which detect it. It is this independence, and the nature of those mechanisms, which is the point. Once there is n ‘things’ and ‘interactions’ there is every reason that there will exist what superficially appears to be an ‘order’ and implied ‘purpose’. But there is none, inanimate entities do not have ‘purpose’. [As you indicate]. This is like the notion that there is some ‘magic’ in the fact that given an infinite string of numbers your telephone number will eventually occur. Or give a bunch of chimps typewriters and they will eventually produce something lucid.
In respect of your PS: “PS. Paul, I haven't seen a credible explanation of what's beyond your limits. My best guess is that the limits are only in and of our minds”
See above and the post to John. It has nothing to do with minds. We receive physical input via sensory systems. That is what is limiting. Any attempt to override that must, if it is to be valid, work within the ‘sensory system rules’. In other words, it is a prediction on what could have been received had it been possible, ie not belief. Again, I do not understand your contradictory phrase. By definition, you cannot have a “credible explanation of what’s beyond your limits”, because you can never know. You can only know what potentially is knowable (which is the equivalent of existence for us), not what you can never know.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 09:27 GMT
James,
"If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution,"
Your response; "This is not a description of randomness."
It is the embodyment of the Uncertainty principle James, and a PAD is certainly 'A' description of randomness, the only one possible, being a post event 'statistical' not causal analysis. I note you still haven't...
view entire post
James,
"If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution,"
Your response; "This is not a description of randomness."
It is the embodyment of the Uncertainty principle James, and a PAD is certainly 'A' description of randomness, the only one possible, being a post event 'statistical' not causal analysis. I note you still haven't given your own definition, but suspect you've picked out the term "without purposes or order" included in some dictionaries, which I DON'T agree except where they include the word 'apparent'.
PAD's are also fully in line with the common 'stochastic' view, which produces them just as well, leading to the EPR paradox. We may well call the cosine curve an ordered 'pattern' but we must remember there are infinitely many Bayesian curve profiles possible between propositions A and B (see Godel Fuzzy Logic).
The most common definition of stochastic is something like;
"Situations or models containing a random element, hence unpredictable and without a stable pattern or order. All natural events are stochastic phenomenon."
In which case you are also disagreeing with the definition of 'stochastic' I'll warrant. I have no problem with that. I'd prefer; "...hence without a predicable stable pattern or order. I also agree your point that others are slack with definitions, but if you do the same you must precisely define your alternative, which you haven't done for 'random'.
Perhaps you should look at the deep machinations of someone brilliant on the subject like perhaps Saul Kripke. It's partly to do with accepting consequences, so becomes clear that the moment you invoke something like 'an original miracle' you should define it's terms or if some greater intelligence 'caused' it. Using the term "prescribed for us" can't be justified unless you define how or by whom.
You misdescribe my position, which is evidence based and of a (re-)cyclic universe where old matter is re-ionized and mixed in with freshly condensed stuff each time around. If we look at each galaxy and quasar we can see that although the each undergo the same process there are no two anything like identical. Call that reversal if you wish, but it's a limited view. Nothing is 'hidden from us' except by our limited intellect.
Finally yes, I agree randomness is simply well beyond our prior ability to 'know' with certainty. I also can't envisage any purpose for free will if it's not also beyond the ability to know of who/what ever it was that 'prescribed (the conditions) for us'.
Peter
PS Paul. I see us as more central to us. If mankind were faced with a seemingly impossible bar to survival, perhaps throwing 1,000 disparate minds at it might find the answer. Do you believe throwing 1,000 identical minds at it would do as well? I suggest that is of fundamental importance.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
Peter,
You: "If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution,"
You: "Your response; "This is not a description of randomness.""
Me: My response was: "This is not a description of randomness. For example, the existence of a probability amplitud distribution makes clear that you are not talking about randomness."
You: "It...
view entire post
Peter,
You: "If I throw 7 'ordered' dice 10,000 times I'll only ever find a probability amplitude distribution,"
You: "Your response; "This is not a description of randomness.""
Me: My response was: "This is not a description of randomness. For example, the existence of a probability amplitud distribution makes clear that you are not talking about randomness."
You: "It is the embodyment of the Uncertainty principle James, and a PAD is certainly 'A' description of randomness, the only one possible, being a post event 'statistical' not causal analysis. I note you still haven't given your own definition, but suspect you've picked out the term "without purposes or order" included in some dictionaries, which I DON'T agree except where they include the word 'apparent'."
Me: It is not the embodyment of the Uncertainty principle. Statistical analysis is not an example of the existence of randomness. Rondomness cannot be analyzed. I gave a definition that was clear. You don't have to suspect anything. I gave the dictionary dfinition. It relied upon: "...lack of control, direction or purpose.". That is clear and precise. No fog there. Each example you bring has evidence of control, direction and purpose.
You: "PAD's are also fully in line with the common 'stochastic' view, which produces them just as well, leading to the EPR paradox. We may well call the cosine curve an ordered 'pattern' but we must remember there are infinitely many Bayesian curve profiles possible between propositions A and B (see Godel Fuzzy Logic)."
Me: what is to be remembered is that cosine curves invlude control, direction and purpose. Your retreat into '...infinitely amany..." is a retreat into the fog of complexity.
You: "The most common definition of stochastic is something like;
"Situations or models containing a random element, hence unpredictable and without a stable pattern or order. All natural events are stochastic phenomenon."
In which case you are also disagreeing with the definition of 'stochastic' I'll warrant. I have no problem with that. I'd prefer; "...hence without a predicable stable pattern or order. I also agree your point that others are slack with definitions, but if you do the same you must precisely define your alternative, which you haven't done for 'random'."
Me: I gave a precise definition of random. There is no randomness in the universe. There is always "...control, direction, and purpose..." The universe cannot tolerate lack of control. There can be no analysis of the existence of lack of control. If your analysis shows direction and purose then you were working with control.
You: "Perhaps you should look at the deep machinations of someone brilliant on the subject like perhaps Saul Kripke. It's partly to do with accepting consequences, so becomes clear that the moment you invoke something like 'an original miracle' you should define it's terms or if some greater intelligence 'caused' it. Using the term "prescribed for us" can't be justified unless you define how or by whom."
Me: No I don't have to. The origin of the universe is completely unexplained. You can't explain it and I don't have to. There is no responsibility to define how or whom. Whom has nothing to do with it. My point is that all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescibed forright from the beginning of the universe. My point is that I can't and you can't involke extra miracles after te beginning of the universe. If your answers include claims of something coming into existence that was not prescribed for from the beginning, then you are involking extra miracles. The for can't hide that practice for what it is.
You: "You misdescribe my position, which is evidence based and of a (re-)cyclic universe where old matter is re-ionized and mixed in with freshly condensed stuff each time around. If we look at each galaxy and quasar we can see that although the each undergo the same process there are no two anything like identical. Call that reversal if you wish, but it's a limited view. Nothing is 'hidden from us' except by our limited intellect."
Me: I think I understand your position very well. You can't account for existence, but, you are certain that it couldn't be due to anything existing before it. So, you strive to find ways of imagining that existence generated itself.
You: "Finally yes, I agree randomness is simply well beyond our prior ability to 'know' with certainty. I also can't envisage any purpose for free will if it's not also beyond the ability to know of who/what ever it was that 'prescribed (the conditions) for us'."
Me: Randomness is not "...simply well beyond our prior ability to 'know' with certainty." Randomness is the inability to know anything at all. Free-will is an effect of the universe. I asked: "Is it your position that new properties, that are not prescribed for from the beginning, are generated and hidden somewhere in the fog of complexity?"
Me: Computers tell us back that which we have told them. Computers add and compare. They know nothing.
Me: Peter, I am not mired down in beliefs that prevent me from thinking clearly. I just do not agree with your beliefs as stated in these messages. I think that your beliefs are not sustainable for analyses of the nature of the universe. I think you put too much reliance on lack of knowledge to cover for lack of answers. I think that miracles, hidden or otherwise, are not acceptable anwswers.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
James,
You assign continuing miracles to me but I haven't and don't claim any role for them. If you wish to assign original creation as a miracle I also have no issue within any broad definition of the word and haven't denied any original event. The recycling implied by the evidence here CMB Asymmetry Analysis paper does not preclude any beginning.
Your definition of randomness then...
view entire post
James,
You assign continuing miracles to me but I haven't and don't claim any role for them. If you wish to assign original creation as a miracle I also have no issue within any broad definition of the word and haven't denied any original event. The recycling implied by the evidence here
CMB Asymmetry Analysis paper does not preclude any beginning.
Your definition of randomness then only employs part of the dictionary definition; "...control, direction, and purpose..." so you throw the rest of the meaning out too by saying; "There is no randomness in the universe." as "The universe cannot tolerate lack of control.
Any proposition can be made, wild or not. The only value comes from analysis and falsification of the consequences. You're not accepting there ARE any consequences! Yes of course you CAN say; "prescribed in advance" and not accept any consequences, as long as you accept that the term then has no value above an opinion.
You misdescribe my own scientific methods because you seem to judge it in terms of your own methodology. I don't use beliefs or assumptions as my methodology is to hunt those down and expose them. I don't just 'dream up' unfalsifiable 'ideas'. I use the findings, the data (not reliant on the pre-set 'theories' Tom describes) because many different theories may be supported by observations. In fact I've rejected the foundations of maths and logic to falsify A = A, and am still testing it's replacement A ~ A, but as yet I, and nobody else has been able to falsify it. A final consistent theory will only then emerge.
But I'm entirely honest about the implications James. I deny none of them. Only you can decide if you do the same. I also have no problem with lack of answers because I find they emerge on their own when I apply that methodology with complex logical analysis. I frankly can't see them emerging by any other method. But each to his own method, and I agree each may ultimately have value. I look forward to seeing some in your essay.
best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 17:23 GMT
James,
"Me: what is to be remembered is that cosine curves invlude control, direction and purpose. Your retreat into '...infinitely amany..." is a retreat into the fog of complexity. "
The infinite "fog of complexity" is a useful analogy for randomness. It is not as though reality is completely, predictably ordered, or absolutely random. The laws governing behavior can be absolute, but if the input into those algorithms is unknown, then so will the outcome be unknown and unless the information can travel faster than the signal carrying it, total input cannot be known.
What is most interesting is that complex interface between order and chaos. To use Rumsfield's description, there are the "known knowns," which are ordered. The "known unknowns," which are predictable. And the "unknown unknowns," which are well out in the unpredictable category.
This relationship between structure and randomness is itself both structured and random. As I keep pointing out, information is not cost-free. It requires energy to be manifest. So as you get lots of structure and thus information, you need lots of energy and energy can be quite disruptive to structure. The real world examples of this are too numerous to mention. In institutional structures, they are called legacy costs. In cosmological terms, when mass starts to accumulate, it attracts ever more mass, until the quantity ignites into a star, thus breaking down the structure, releasing energy to go out to be input into other systems. So this relationship between order and chaos is itself a form of predicable cycle, but one that can only be predicted, not fully known, since the input is not known before the event.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
Peter,
"Your definition of randomness then only employs part of the dictionary definition; "...control, direction, and purpose..." so you throw the rest of the meaning out too by saying; "There is no randomness in the universe." as "The universe cannot tolerate lack of control."
I gave the full number one meaning. The second meaning about selecting individuals from a group is not the same thing. There is control, direction and purpose in the second definition. It is an example of common misapplication of the word random as meaning chance. 'The chances are equal' is sufficient to describe the situation. Random and chance are not the same thing. If you choose to 'throw out' the number one meaning and use the second meaning as the important scientific meaning, then we disagree.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
Hi John,
"The infinite "fog of complexity" is a useful analogy for randomness."
I see them as not being analogous.
"It is not as though reality is completely, predictably ordered, or absolutely random."
So you hold that there are degrees of order and degrees of randomness. I would answer that: There either is order or there isn't order. There either is rndomness or...
view entire post
Hi John,
"The infinite "fog of complexity" is a useful analogy for randomness."
I see them as not being analogous.
"It is not as though reality is completely, predictably ordered, or absolutely random."
So you hold that there are degrees of order and degrees of randomness. I would answer that: There either is order or there isn't order. There either is rndomness or there isn't randomness.
"The laws governing behavior can be absolute, but if the input into those algorithms is unknown, then so will the outcome be unknown and unless the information can travel faster than the signal carrying it, total input cannot be known."
Yes this is true.
"What is most interesting is that complex interface between order and chaos. To use Rumsfield's description, there are the "known knowns," which are ordered. The "known unknowns," which are predictable. And the "unknown unknowns," which are well out in the unpredictable category."
If chaos is intended to mean randomness, then there is no interfact between them. If chaos is intended to refer to chaos theory, then ok.
"This relationship between structure and randomness is itself both structured and random. "
It seems clear to me from this statement that we are not using the same definitions of random.
"As I keep pointing out, information is not cost-free. It requires energy to be manifest. So as you get lots of structure and thus information, you need lots of energy and energy can be quite disruptive to structure. The real world examples of this are too numerous to mention. In institutional structures, they are called legacy costs."
"In cosmological terms, when mass starts to accumulate, it attracts ever more mass, until the quantity ignites into a star, thus breaking down the structure, releasing energy to go out to be input into other systems." So this relationship between order and chaos is itself a form of predicable cycle, but one that can only be predicted, not fully known, since the input is not known before the event."
You are using the word chaos. For the purpose of making my own point, I will assume that the word chaos is a substitute for the word random. In this case there is no relationship between order and chaos. There is no cycle between order and chaos. predictability versus unpredictability due to lack of knowledge does not change these previous sentences. If chaos does not mean random where random means 'no order, direction or purpose' then, I think that what you say fits with what you mean.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Paul,
" The point is we cannot ‘access’ reality directly"
Therefore our knowledge is subjective. It doesn't matter how much it approximates reality, it is still our particular perception of reality.
James,
I do have problem with the various definitions. Random, as in 'no order, direction or purpose' is a peripheral concept. Anything which exists necessarily has some form, so the issue has more to do which how it can be perceived, measured, predicted. As I said, the laws might be absolute, but input and thus prediction is indeterministic. Information is corrosive to information. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 22:37 GMT
John,
"As I said, the laws might be absolute, but input and thus prediction is indeterministic"
Ok, I see that you disagree. This statement is not clear to me as to its intent. I will assume that you mean that absolute laws can endure randomness as disorder, lack of control, and the absence of direction. I say no that is not and cannot be the case. If you meant something different then it doesn't matter with regard to what I am saying. Thanks for your opinion.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Me:"I will assume that you mean that absolute laws can endure randomness as disorder, lack of control, and the absence of direction.
I am rewording this to be consistent with the dictionary's wording.
I will assume tha laws can endure randomness as lack of control, direction and purpose.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 01:49 GMT
James,
Keep in mind all those terms imply some external reference. Control by what, relative to what? Direction relative to what frame? Purpose?
A rock floating in space might have control in terms of inertia, it would be moving at different speeds and varying directions relative to other objects in their own motion. Purpose? It might have basic mass structure, but it seems hard to describe its existence as much more than utterly random.
Much like a star map only makes sense from a particular position, there is much about reality that only makes sense from a particular frame.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 02:29 GMT
John,
"Keep in mind all those terms imply some external reference. Control by what, relative to what? Direction relative to what frame? Purpose?"
I have straight thoughts about this. We do not know what cause is. We don't know right now at at any time in the past what cause is whether we believe there to be internal multiple causes or one original cause. No one knows the origin of...
view entire post
John,
"Keep in mind all those terms imply some external reference. Control by what, relative to what? Direction relative to what frame? Purpose?"
I have straight thoughts about this. We do not know what cause is. We don't know right now at at any time in the past what cause is whether we believe there to be internal multiple causes or one original cause. No one knows the origin of control. Of course there is purpose. We don't have to know what cause is to recognize that order requires purpose. I gave a purpose in an earlier message.
"A rock floating in space might have control in terms of inertia, it would be moving at different speeds and varying directions relative to other objects in their own motion. Purpose? It might have basic mass structure, but it seems hard to describe its existence as much more than utterly random."
This is not an example of the definition of random that I have given here. That rock is controlled. Its motions are due to common theoretical causes whose effects are witnessed continuously. What are you looking for in purpose? Does the rock have to say something to prove that serves purpose. Of course not. It just has to move orderly according to the laws of physics. The laws have purpose.
"Much like a star map only makes sense from a particular position, there is much about reality that only makes sense from a particular frame."
And there is much about reality that doesn't change between frames. Gravity remains gravity. The universe operates without interruption no matter what frame you have your view from.
Whatever the cause of the origin of the universe is is not known by scientific methods. My arguments have nothing to do with attempting to describe a character for that cause. My arguments have to do with keeping scientific inquiry free of unscientific bias. The highest achievement of the evolution of the universe is the birth of human free-will. There is nothing in the mechanical interpretation of the universe that could predict or explain the existence of human free-will. The most important questions still have not been answered. Yet, they are the questions that face the greatest resistance from belief systems.
James Putnam
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
James,
If virtually nothing existed, would there still be order, control, direction, purpose?
Or would these concepts effectively be multiples of zero, in that if nothing exists, then there are no principles either, as there is no manifestation of them?
So if you are willing to think in this bottom up view, then as soon as something exists, it must manifest some form, ie. some shape, order, control, direction, purpose?
If so then this order only emerges with the specific realities it defines.
So if different realities emerge and they follow the same patterns, does that mean there must therefore be some pre-existing set of laws, or does it mean these patterns are necessarily emerging from the same neutral state and repeating similar processes of division and interaction?
In a sense, bootstrapping up the ladder of complexity?
The absolute, the universal state, is equilibrium. As reality emerges from this state, the initial action is fluctuation, multiples of which are expansion and contraction. Are they both purpose, or purpose and anti-purpose? Linear action balanced by the non-linear reaction? In order to have anything, we need its opposite, so wouldn't a necessity of control be anti-control?
Starting to think out loud here.... randomly
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 03:37 GMT
John,
"If virtually nothing existed, would there still be order, control, direction, purpose?"
Is this a physics question or a belief question? Didn't I already make clear that we do not know what cause is. Without effects we know nothing.
"Or would these concepts effectively be multiples of zero, in that if nothing exists, then there are no principles either, as there is no...
view entire post
John,
"If virtually nothing existed, would there still be order, control, direction, purpose?"
Is this a physics question or a belief question? Didn't I already make clear that we do not know what cause is. Without effects we know nothing.
"Or would these concepts effectively be multiples of zero, in that if nothing exists, then there are no principles either, as there is no manifestation of them?"
There are no multiples of zero in theoretical physics.
"So if you are willing to think in this bottom up view, then as soon as something exists, it must manifest some form, ie. some shape, order, control, direction, purpose?"
What bottom up view? Is your question really a statement that you believe that existence comes into being by its own power and is self creating, generating, sustaining?
"If so then this order only emerges with the specific realities it defines."
What is the meaning of emerges? If you are telling me what reality must be, then please make that clear. The point being that those answers that I say we are still lacking are answers that you have. Is that what you think?
"So if different realities emerge and they follow the same patterns, does that mean there must therefore be some pre-existing set of laws, or does it mean these patterns are necessarily emerging from the same neutral state and repeating similar processes of division and interaction? "
Nothing new occurs without meaning having been provided for. Pre-existing states do not lead to following states unless those pre-existing states contained all that the following states would become. No added-on miracles. Real answers. I assume you have an connective answer to offer for how a lower level of intelligence can bring into being a higher level of intelligence?
"In a sense, bootstrapping up the ladder of complexity?"
Ok John! This is a statement of belief without sicentific support.
"The absolute, the universal state, is equilibrium. As reality emerges from this state, the initial action is fluctuation, multiples of which are expansion and contraction. Are they both purpose, or purpose and anti-purpose? Linear action balanced by the non-linear reaction? In order to have anything, we need its opposite, so wouldn't a necessity of control be anti-control?"
Alright I understand you have a viewpoint based upon your reasoning powers. My own interest is in following empirical evidence.
"Starting to think out loud here.... randomly "
In order for you to be right 'we needs its opposite', meaning, you must also be wrong?
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 04:26 GMT
Peter
“PS Paul. I see us as more central to us. If mankind were faced with a seemingly impossible bar to survival, perhaps throwing 1,000 disparate minds at it might find the answer. Do you believe throwing 1,000 identical minds at it would do as well?”
We, or indeed any sentient organism since physical existence is not the preserve of the human, are not ‘central’ to anything. All that really means is that we have to be aware in order to know. Applying 1000 similar approaches to an issue is the equivalent of using one, so 1,000 different ones are more likely to identify a solution, assuming they can then agree! But this has nothing to do with physical existence, it is concerned with creating accurate depictions thereof.
I agree with the essence of what you are saying. But it is not randomness. Nothing is random. It is the function of causes. That is, if they were known the outcome could have been predicted. Nothing is ever uncertain, either in terms of what occurred, or what will occur next. The core factor is independence. Physical existence exists independently of the mechanisms which detect it (the point above), it also only exists in one state at a time (we tend to conceive it as existing in several). And as this physical existence can only be what we can know, ie there could be alternatives, then a ‘start’ has to be invoked. And we must leave it at that.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
John
“" The point is we cannot ‘access’ reality directly". Therefore our knowledge is subjective. It doesn't matter how much it approximates reality, it is still our particular perception of reality”
No. Because you cannot know something which you cannot know. We are trapped in an existentially closed system. So from the perspective of what is ‘really’ happening, ie extrinsic to that closed system, then obviously, and by definition, it could be an alternative to what can be established from within the system. But that is meaningless perspective. Our knowledge may or may not be a perception of reality, as in what is ‘really’ happening, but we can never know, so it is irrelevant. We can only establish knowledge on the potential knowledge that is available to us, and ensure correspondence between them.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
James,
"There are no multiples of zero in theoretical physics."
There is in math. It is zero. I'm not claiming anything, just following the logic where it leads and that seems to be bottom up emergence, yet as soon as anything does emerge, there is corresponding top down feedback.
Paul,
That sounds explicitly subjective to me. That you chose to punctuate it as being objective by default is your choice. I see the open endness as unavoidable.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 13:09 GMT
John,
Me: "There are no multiples of zero in theoretical physics."
You: "There is in math. It is zero. I'm not claiming anything, just following the logic where it leads and that seems to be bottom up emergence, yet as soon as anything does emerge, there is corresponding top down feedback."
Not 'the' logic, your logic.
You are claiming something. You appear to be 'claiming' everything.
What is zero in math?
Yes the evolution of the universe includes some things that give the appearance of beginning simple and increasing in complexity. Yes there is feedback. There is coordination. This is no surprise.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
About getting rid of belief obstacles: When I say that every effect that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for at the beginning of the universe, I am saying anything about means by which the universe came into existenc. May Zeus or a relative did it. Maybe it just popped into existence. Maybe there is a super-intelligence that may or may not have any characteristics of humans. Maybe, maybe, maybe...! It doesn't matter because we do not know by scientific means how or why it happened.
What we can know is that it is prudent to make certain that scientists limit their miracles in their descriptions of the nature of the universe to that one single miracle. If that position is not insisted upon, then theorists are free to pop, pop, pop things into existence at least in their theories. With so much concern about making certain that there is no chance for a God to be allowed into consideration, it is really odd to see that theorists do pop things into existence in their theories. So miracles are not rejected unless they are put forward by theologians. If they are put forward by theorists, they become part of theoretical physics.
My position is to reject miracles after the origin of the universe whether proposed by theologians or theorists. In the case of theorists, it is not an admitted practice. It is vehemently denied. Yet, things still pop into existence for reasons that either go unexplained or are said to be out of our view or are too complex to be understood.
I think it should be the practice that all effects are either shown to be traceable back to the origin of the universe or they are looked at at arms length due to the high risk that they are inventions of the theorist or may be required conditions of ideologies. Keeping these kinds of obstructionist tendencies out of science should be normal practice, but, instead they are oftentimes accepted and even embraced.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
James,
What if the universe having an origin is a belief?
I think a more interesting question is, what is zero in physics? Is it a singularity, as seems to be the accepted view, or is it a void?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
John,
"What if the universe having an origin is a belief?"
Then half of infinity is still infinity. One increment of infinity is still inifinity. We see that the universe has evolved and infinity gives us no solace in our quest to understand. Tracing it back to the beginning of its evolution is the best we can do. There will be a given or givens at that point because we cannot go to 'zero'. If we have reached the point where the next step is the creation of the universe, then we are out of work.
"I think a more interesting question is, what is zero in physics? Is it a singularity, as seems to be the accepted view, or is it a void?"
My understanding is that you are questioning the use of zero beyond using it as a marker for a placeholder. If that is the case then there is no role played by zero in physics.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
James,
In math, -1 is on the other side of the placeholder from 1.
So in physics, if zero is a singularity, it would seem that the opposite of this reality would be on the opposite side of the singularity, but if zero is the void, ie. empty space, both positive and negative are opposite forces in one reality.
Remember for every action, there is that equal and opposite reaction, so in order for the Big Bang to occur, some opposite effect would have had to occur, but if reality is just a fluctuating vacuum/void, then every fluctuation simply needs an opposite fluctuation to occur.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 18:20 GMT
John,
"In math, -1 is on the other side of the placeholder from 1."
In math zero is a placeholder just as valid as is 1 or -1. The placeholders could be tic marks. It is more convenient to use the symbols called numbers. In that case we only have to count the markers once. The number reminds us what the count was.
"So in physics, if zero is a singularity, it would seem that the opposite of this reality would be on the opposite side of the singularity, but if zero is the void, ie. empty space, both positive and negative are opposite forces in one reality."
Zero has no place in physics.
"Remember for every action, there is that equal and opposite reaction, so in order for the Big Bang to occur, some opposite effect would have had to occur, but if reality is just a fluctuating vacuum/void, then every fluctuation simply needs an opposite fluctuation to occur."
If you are arguing that there was something existing before the big bang, fine. What that says is that you have not yet gotten to the origin of the universe. The origin will not leave you with anything to talk about existing before. If you accept your equal and opposite fluctuations argument, while we only know of one fluctuation, then, I think your position is analogous to others such a mutiworlds.If you open that door, anyone can push their empirically undemonstrated idea through it also. Theory thrives on speculation. Is it that you believe in theory? I think you would prefer to call it 'following logic'. So would every other theorist.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 18, 2013 @ 23:53 GMT
Anybody see an IT or a BIT around here? Maybe this blog has traded places with your personal email accounts.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
James,
Originally zero didn't have any place in math either.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 01:31 GMT
John,
Yes. It makes a difference whether one is talking about numbers on a ruler or if zero means nothing. The conversations I have been involved in recent days including with you has helped some to clarify my thoughts with regard to my essay entry. I look forward to reading your entry. I am guessing that you are 'bit from it'?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 04:18 GMT
John
“That sounds explicitly subjective to me. That you chose to punctuate it as being objective by default is your choice. I see the open endness as unavoidable”
Which is why you keep making incorrect assertions. How can what we can potentially know be “open-ended”? It may be vast and complicated. It may involve lots of hypothesising. We may never infer all of it. But the simple fact is that we can only know courtesy of a physical process, and supplement that by working out what we else we could have known directly, had it been possible, ie within the ‘rules’ of detection. As I said in a previous post, if an alien endowed us with a conversion system so that we could access another form of sensory system not developed on this planet, then all we have done is expanded the limit. What may or may not be beyond the limit, we can never know.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 04:44 GMT
James
“When I say that every effect that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for at the beginning of the universe, I am saying…”
Yes, obviously, and I am sure everybody else would agree with you, if you said it clearly. There has to be a start point for this physical existence which we are aware of. Before that start point we can...
view entire post
James
“When I say that every effect that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe had to have been prescribed for at the beginning of the universe, I am saying…”
Yes, obviously, and I am sure everybody else would agree with you, if you said it clearly. There has to be a start point for this physical existence which we are aware of. Before that start point we can never know what occurred. After that start point everything that has occurred is a function of cause and effect, ie it is determined by the start point.
“it is prudent to make certain that scientists limit their miracles in their descriptions of the nature of the universe to that one single miracle”
Yes, again obviously, and everyone would agree with you, especially if you stopped using the word “miracle”. The two things we can never know is 1) what was before it started/why it started, 2) anything that is a possible alternative to what we can know (the first point being a specific example of this point).
The real point is that scientists will continue to make incorrect presumptions and generate flawed assertions, so long as they do not understand the nature of the physical existence which we can know. Or put another way, what are the underlying ‘rules’ of knowledge.
Where your argument collapses is in your depiction of theory and theorising. In effect, what you are presuming is that there is some ‘direct access’ to reality, ie there is something which can be set up as an incontrovertible reference to judge validity. This is not what happens. We can only have knowledge of the physical existence which we can potentially know. Leaving aside deliberate intrusion of assertion or genuine mistakes, we can only attain that by a compilation process, ie comparing knowledge and building on ‘best fit’. Ultimately, if we access all the knowledge available on any given aspect then what we know can be deemed to have changed from ‘best fit’ to ‘the equivalent of’. So theory is not inherently flawed, if based on the correct presumptions and following due process.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
James,
Thanks. Sort of batting ideas around as to what to write. My personal situation has been chaotic lately and hopefully I'll have time to come up with something in May. June looks to be busy as well. Part of the problem is that in many ways, this topic has much in common with the digital vs, analog contest and it's not a particular area of thought I've come up with much new thinking since then. Yes, I do probably see it as bit from it, but as a dichotomy, in that both are fundamentally necessary. The problem is they are conceptually opposed, so there is the tendency to think of the "it." the continuity as something of a linear function, when it seems more of a non-linear field situation. So much of our thought process is inherently linear, cause and effect, narrative. The non-linear field situation isn't so direct and we end up with all these non-local concepts, because we really can't isolate all the feedback, etc.
Paul,
"What may or may not be beyond the limit, we can never know."
Therefore open-ended.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
John
“"What may or may not be beyond the limit, we can never know." Therefore open-ended”.
For heaven’s sake John. No. By definition, if A, there is always the possibility of not-A. It is only a possibility. But we cannot know not-A anyway, ie what is, possibly, an alternative existence not knowable to us. What we can know is not open ended, and it is determined by a physical process.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
John,
I think I have changed my mind for my subject for the essay contest. I may go to the roots of physics' information theory using entropy as the vehicle. Entropy was the pathway used historically to move from mechanical physics to statistical physics. I have original work on this. I can explain both thermodynamic entropy and Boltzmann's entropy. The next step is statistical entropy including microstates. There already exists simplified examples that might help me fit this into a short essay: Maxwell's Demon and Szilard's solution. Perhaps I can present these from a new prospective. One of the suggested subjects is: What is information. I think I may take a shot at answering that question for physics.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 22:46 GMT
Paul,
What we can know is finite. What does it prove to insist this is the totality of reality? Should we not press on into the unknown?
James,
It is a good approach, relating information to the properties of the actual physical energy manifesting it. I have to adimt to a certain amount of discouragement, given the extent to which the field of physics is intent on this modern version of counting angels on the head of a pin. A good example is further down this thread, in the subthread starting at Apr. 10, 2013 @ 21:19, where Tom cannot seem to disprove my point that assuming a constant speed of light in relation to an expanding universe is a contradiction, yet this doesn't seem to bother him. Like much of the current field, problems that can't be glossed over are ignored. The energy of insitutional momentum overwhelms any logical refutation. The irony here is they physically manifest the same properties they intellectually ignore. Energy manifests information, as information defines energy. As they say, you can't fight city hall.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 06:12 GMT
John
“What we can know is finite. What does it prove to insist this is the totality of reality? Should we not press on into the unknown?”
You have contradicted yourself. And another response is: how can we know something that is impossible for us to know??? There is a finite potentiality of knowledge available, this is the equivalent of existence, for us. The “unknown” is just that which we have not established yet, not what is for ever unknowable. And I might add there, because language reflects a certain way of conceptualising existence, this does not imply that ‘unknowable’ exists. It is the possibility of an alternative to knowable. If A, there is always the possibility of not-A.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Paul,
"If A, there is always the possibility of not-A."
Yes.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 16:32 GMT
John,
Everyone participating believes they are contributing important new thoughts that, when explained, should easily attract serious attention including that of professionals. It appears to me that even the professionals feel that way. yet each year many essays by professionals rate scores of average or even less. I am repeatedly amazed by this. Late in the contests, I have tested the...
view entire post
John,
Everyone participating believes they are contributing important new thoughts that, when explained, should easily attract serious attention including that of professionals. It appears to me that even the professionals feel that way. yet each year many essays by professionals rate scores of average or even less. I am repeatedly amazed by this. Late in the contests, I have tested the rating system by reviewing PHD essays near the bottom of the community ratings. I make comments about what I feel that I recognize are important insights. Then I give them a rating of 10. The test is to see how far up in the community ratings they rise. They move maybe ten places, perhaps fifteen. I assume that means they have already been rated seriously low by other participants many of whom are amatuers. I hope that they return because it is the participation of PHDs that makes these contests worth particpating in. If they do not return, I understand why. My opinion is that both amatuers and professionals must keep repeating themselves in fresh ways. Both groups are up against those who have such strong name recognition, that whatever novel thought they share is received well. I don't mean this to be disrespectful to those with easy name recognition. They do know much more about the subject such that they supoport their cases with quality theoretical physics. The fact that I do not share the same level of appreciation for what constitutes theoretical physics doesn't detract from their contributions at all. I even give them high ratings out of appreciation for them sharing their ideas here.
So I hope you submit an essay. I would think that you could write a novel essay about the nature of information. One reason or saying this is your view about a relationship between energy and information. Also about gravity, meaning space flowing toward matter and information energy slowing outward. and energy, thus perhaps suggesting a relationship between gravity and information. I have wondered about something other than that perspective. You write about time being a representation, perhpas an emergent property, of activity. You also analogize time and temperature. Here is what I wonder about what you might say. Information, delievered by photons, is information about the acceleration of charged particles. Acceleration is change of velocity. Velocity is change of distance with respect to time. Direction is also included in both velocity and change of velocity. What might your perspective be about change of velocity with repect to time considering your definition and perspective on what constitutes time. What might you put into the denominator in place of 'time'? It seems to me that it should be possible, even with relatively simple math, to suggest alternative forms of expression for photon carried information.
You know my view is different from yours, but, I would find it interesting to see what you could do toward explaining the nature of information. Or perhaps, at least suggesting new perspectives.
I am not going to attempt corrections or improvements to this message. Recently, I find that my messages, when being altered, lose letters and even words.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT
James,
In prior discussions we had debates about the nature of knowledge and my position is that it develops upward and eventually decays. Alot of this is from personal experience, both of my own thoughts and of the abilities and development of those around me. Given this view, I try to stay within my current abilities and they have been seriously beaten on, physically, emotionally,...
view entire post
James,
In prior discussions we had debates about the nature of knowledge and my position is that it develops upward and eventually decays. Alot of this is from personal experience, both of my own thoughts and of the abilities and development of those around me. Given this view, I try to stay within my current abilities and they have been seriously beaten on, physically, emotionally, neurologically etc. Not bringing up old debates, but to put my situation in context. I try to stay within my own limits , as they are now, since that enables me to be as insightful as I can, as opposed to going back to someplace I may have been in the past. I am working on, in my head, an essay. The parts seem to be coming into focus, but not how they will fit together. These things come in their own good time.
" Acceleration is change of velocity. Velocity is change of distance with respect to time. Direction is also included in both velocity and change of velocity. What might your perspective be about change of velocity with repect to time considering your definition and perspective on what constitutes time."
Just look at this in terms of how you describe it, as changes in motion. The effect is that such factors might speed up or slow a process, much as headwinds will slow a boat or plane, relative to more fixed positions. Time is the variable, not fixed. It emerges from the action. That's why I keep emphasizing the events, points of measure and resulting intervals, going future to past. It is all about what is happening, the present. The problem is our mind is very much a function of recording the events. Physicists like to say physics is non-intuitive, yet what is most intuitive is the sequence of events. So the real physics is the underlaying processes creating these events, not the vector that emerges from our perception of them.
This doesn't mean we can replace time as a form of measure, any more than there is a conceptual alternative for the concept of temperature. We are not looking to replace the denominator, so much as understand its relation to the numerator. Consider the ancient viewpoint of the sun moving across the sky. In that equation, the earth was the denominator and the sun the numerator. We saw the sun as the variable, when in fact it was the earth, because we are one with the earth. Similarly the current view of time, as sequence of events, treats the events as the denominator and the present as the numerator, so the present gets broken into myriad events, but if we make the present the denominator, then the events are a entirely function of the present.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
John,
I will leave it alone. My intent had to do with my wondering how your view might effect physical information having a simple mathematical form. That is why I referred to photons. I definitely do not want to put myself in a position of appearing to be explaining your view. It is your explanation of your view that is of interest. That is what you responded with. I look forward to your essay.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
James,
You are welcome and thank you.
It is always helpful in clarifying one's own views to have to explain them to someone else, especially someone who may not agree, but is willing to listen, as they are most able to find the errors.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 05:47 GMT
John
“Paul, "If A, there is always the possibility of not-A." Yes”.
Sorry, what was the point of that comment? Though I can guess. You think that this proves your statement that knowledge is inherently subjective. Which it does not. It is only a possibility, and we cannot know it anyway. Nobody is pretending that knowledge encompasses that which we cannot know! The issue is to what extent the knowledge we do have at any time is an accurate representation of what potentially we can know.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 15:07 GMT
Paul,
And why is subjectiveness not a fairly effective understanding of reality. Would you agree that 1=1?
Yet if in reality we are talking apples, with one large ripe apple and one small green apple, one does not equal the other.
Presumably the objective view is that 1=1, while the subjective view is these apples are not equal.
Objectivity amounts to a reductionistic, generic modeling, that we use to deductively explain a complex reality, that may not always fit our assumptions.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 04:27 GMT
John
"And why is subjectiveness not a fairly effective understanding of reality"
Because it is not objective.
Your next example is incorrect. So concept of 1 relates to the number thereof, not what they are.
"Objectivity amounts to a reductionistic, generic modeling"
Not so. Within the inescapable confines of our existentially closed sytem, it is the equivalent of what exists.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
hide replies