Where do the laws of physics come from?
Here are two views.
1) Laws then universe
If laws of physics exist, they are prescriptive; that is, they proscribe what will occur. For example, when I drop a brick from a height of 5 feet, it will fall with a specific accelerating velocity until it hits the ground.
If laws exist, then a lawgiver must exist, too. Therefore, God.
If the laws of physics come from God, how are laws implemented? The brick itself isn’t smart enough to know the right way to fall, i.e., it’s not smart enough to know what God’s law is and then follow it. So, does God regulate and control the speed of a falling brick? And everything else?
Is God the ultimate puppet-master, constantly pulling strings so that the universe functions in accordance to his laws?
2) Universe then habits (not laws)
If the “laws” of physics are in reality habits of physics, then they are descriptive; that is, they simply describe what has occurred in the past every time we looked. So, we notice what a brick habitually did in the past, and we assume the brick will behave in the same way in the future.
Once a brick (or a universe) exists, it has certain properties by its very nature, by virtue of its existence. The “laws” are built in. Bricks merely do what they do, and we observe and notice a pattern. We codify as law the patterns we observe. But inductive reasoning can never give a law, merely a habit.
Under this view, no external lawgiver is needed. So, the “laws” of physics are built in. Once the universe exists, the “laws” exist.
True, we don’t understand how the universe came to exist. But once it exists, then by its very nature, it does what it does. Once created, it contains habits which we mistakenly call laws.
So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.”
And now for a bit of humor. A couple in New Jersey are conducting an experiment to solve an age-old question. The husband ordered a chicken from Amazon and his wife ordered an egg.
1) Laws then universe
If laws of physics exist, they are prescriptive; that is, they proscribe what will occur. For example, when I drop a brick from a height of 5 feet, it will fall with a specific accelerating velocity until it hits the ground.
If laws exist, then a lawgiver must exist, too. Therefore, God.
If the laws of physics come from God, how are laws implemented? The brick itself isn’t smart enough to know the right way to fall, i.e., it’s not smart enough to know what God’s law is and then follow it. So, does God regulate and control the speed of a falling brick? And everything else?
Is God the ultimate puppet-master, constantly pulling strings so that the universe functions in accordance to his laws?
2) Universe then habits (not laws)
If the “laws” of physics are in reality habits of physics, then they are descriptive; that is, they simply describe what has occurred in the past every time we looked. So, we notice what a brick habitually did in the past, and we assume the brick will behave in the same way in the future.
Once a brick (or a universe) exists, it has certain properties by its very nature, by virtue of its existence. The “laws” are built in. Bricks merely do what they do, and we observe and notice a pattern. We codify as law the patterns we observe. But inductive reasoning can never give a law, merely a habit.
Under this view, no external lawgiver is needed. So, the “laws” of physics are built in. Once the universe exists, the “laws” exist.
True, we don’t understand how the universe came to exist. But once it exists, then by its very nature, it does what it does. Once created, it contains habits which we mistakenly call laws.
So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.”
And now for a bit of humor. A couple in New Jersey are conducting an experiment to solve an age-old question. The husband ordered a chicken from Amazon and his wife ordered an egg.
Comments (153)
Agreed. Sorry, I can't think of anything to add to what you've written.
Quoting Art48
Welcome to the forum. [joke] A warning, only Hanover and I are allowed to try to be funny here on the forum. Check the Site Guidelines on the first page.[/joke]
You are conflating legal "laws" with physical "laws".
Then where does the physical law come from?
Who can say. But it is fallacious to argue they must come from a lawmaker, because they are laws.
Didn't we make the "physical law"?
Where can we find them than? I can see the laws of quantum field theory or general relativity written anywhere but in the law books of physics.
No 1 is a superstitious non philosophical worldview.
Now the laws of physics are Not "Build in". they emerge from physical systems based on really simple properties displayed by the parts.
We find them in the physical world. Physics books try to articulate them.
I have looked hard but nowhere have found Newton's law! Only in a book. And it's not even true. Like QFT nor GR are true.
Not because they are "laws" but because physical laws exist.
physical laws could not have caused them self to start existing.
It doesn't make sense physical laws are self-caused out of no physical laws.
What ever must have caused physical laws to start existing, that is, to manifest them self, to be observable.
Physical laws are just behaviors within boundaries.
You consider them holey books? Anyhow, if they try to tell the story of what happens in the world you can better read a newspaper.
Then what's the story? Objects following imaginary mathematical patterns, no where to be seen in the real world? Apart from highly artificial, unnatural experimental circumstances? The Books deceive...
About 2145.
Science offers descriptive frameworks. This means that science observes and describes the emerging empirical regularities in interactions between different physical entities and processes. Those rules are emergent by really simple basic properties of matter.
Your claim sounds like a fallacy from Personal Incredulity.(look it up).
Correct. Unfortunately many people get confused with human language. As agents we tend to see agency behind nature....even in our attempt to describe regularities in physical phenomena.
This is known as Magical Language and Thinking. Aeon has a great essay on this phenomenon.
There is agency behind physical phenomena. Particles possess charge, the agencies that couple to virtual fields by means of which they interact. That agencies evolved into the agencies of life.
No, science offers more than abstract descriptive frameworks. Science offers mental simulations of reality. It depends on the region or domain investigated how this mental simulation looks like.
You need to objectively demonstrate it...not just assumed it.
Agency behind nature was the single reason why our epistemology stagnated for more than 2000 until science with its Naturalistic principles allow our knowledge to advance for more than 400 years.
You keep making claim after claim but you neglect your obligation to provide evidence....
-"Particles possess charge, the agencies that couple to virtual fields by means of which they interact. That agencies evolved into the agencies of life."
-CHarge is not agency...stop promoting equivocation fallacies.
-"No, science offers more than abstract descriptive frameworks. Science offers mental simulations of reality....."
-lol...yes whatever.... Science describes...its doesn't simulates (it run simulations to test models but that has nothing to do with you claimed).
Yes, there are agencies behind physical phenomena, but not the sort of agencies normally discussed in philosophy in which something resembling consciousness exists. Regarding "action" as defined in physics, e.g. Oxford Lang. :
Agency in Physics
I can see only a white page in the link. Which is understandable as the concept of charge in physics is poorly understood. Personally I litterally see it as a filling up of a three dimensional structure existing in six dimensional space. If three of six spatial dimensions are curled up to circles (S1xS1xS1) a three dimensional structure is formed and charge can be put in it. Like that, the particles are not pointlike, a solution for a Lorenz invariant Planck scale is offered, renormalization is superfluous, and black holes can't collapse to a singularity. Consider the basic particles massless, and the speed of light finite, and the equivalence between mass and pure kinetic energy is explained, as well as space and time being extended.
Don't feel sad Nickolas! Life is wonderful! Litterally!
On the contrary! Im far ahead of my time. Already at 35! The world isnt ready yet. But my writings will soon be read in the whole world, Nobel prizes for physics and literature and maybe for peace will come my way. You gotta have a goal in life!
life might be wonderful....having to deal with superstitions in 2022 isn't that great.
Don't worry! But yes, I guess you have to deal with... But you could also just accept the gods as a given...
Agency in Physics
Carlo Rovelli
-Well no. Your way of thinking is typical of the period before enlightenment when our superstitious beliefs projected agency in everything.
lol I can assure you...no prizes will come with that train of thought and level of standards...
-That would be gullibility....
Quoting jgill
lol....that is not what Hillary means by the term agency....
Quoting Hillary
???
Ah! Rovelli! Conosco questo fisico! I'm not a fan though, as I'm not a fan of any. Well, only one! Harari from Israel. He's the only one who gave me a friendly reply. The others don't bother or ask money (you gotta pay one dollar to only ask a question, without a guaranteed reply). Look at his response, which arrived yesterday:
Dear Deschele,
Thank you for your kind and friendly mail.
If I have to guess, Rishons should be massless, but since the dynamics combining them into quarks and leptons is far from clear, it is truly an open question, even if the model is right.
I still believe, 43 years after 1979, that some version of this model must be right, and hope to live long enough to see it.
Fortunately, the decision is in the hands of mother nature and not in the hands of a public opinion poll.
Best wishes
Haim Harari
:cheer:
You gotta admit though that Rovelli is quite an agency...
I sleep wonderful!
:yawn:
Rovelli, like Sean Carroll, says a lot of weird things, far removed from reality. Charge is the agency that causes other particles to change. Charge is an "agens".
Charge is agent...not a thinking agent...not a god.
No, of course not. The universal stuff is not the stuff of heaven. But it's still divine stuff, as they created it to let the heavenly realm evolve inside the material universe. So there has to be a magical agens behind or better, inside of matter. Not gods themselves but something they, in their great wisdom, created. Maybe they can influence it. The laws of quantum mechanics offer a means. The math that's used in the description of nature has no real existence but the stuff it describes certainly has. Tell me, what is charge?
-"The universal stuff is not the stuff of heaven."
-No heaven has ever been verified...so its irrational to introduce it in an argument as a premise.(Logic 101).
-"But it's still divine stuff, as they created it to let the heavenly realm evolve inside the material universe."
-Again no divine stuff has ever be demonstrated, so it is irrational to include it as a premise in your argument. You are promoting Unsound Arguments.
-"So there has to be a magical agens behind or better, inside of matter.
-Only if you prove the above unfalsifiable claims you can conclude to magical agents...which you will also need to provide evidence on why they are magical and not just a produce of matter.
-"Not gods themselves but something they, in their great wisdom, created."
-An other unfounded assumption... You are officially guilty for "practicing" the Philosophy of Absuridism.
-"Maybe they can influence it. The laws of quantum mechanics offer a means."
-No they dont' the laws of QM just describe the "behavior" of particles. They say nothing about magical entities. all those are irrational claims boothstrapt on QM without objective justification.
You keep telling us what you believe but you fail to demonstrate good reasons on why you do.
When I ask you...you point to an arguments from ignorance fallacy.
Quoting Hillary
-Why are you attacking a strawman? Math is just a tool we have to describe relations, differences, analogies and equations between properties and systems in nature. Why would you ever assume that math have a "real existence" lol.
-". Tell me, what is charge? "
-Not part of this conversation.
The question is: why does heaven need verification in the first place? For me it doesn't.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's the stuff around you and the stuff you're made of.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, there is no need to proof, verify, or give evidence. Only in the scientific investigation of the material world this is of importance.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Absurdism is a great philosophy, absurdly as that may sound. If I'm guilty of practising it, then that only is in my advantage.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
The reasons are obvious. To give a reason for existence. How rational can one get?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I don't assume that, but scientists like Tegmark or Hawking do. Hawking even thinks God is a mathematician. Which some of them are, and it can be argued that some of them, being members of the human god species, played a wicked role in creation.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It is, as we talk about agency, and charge is an agent.
- There is this thing call logic......
Fallacies are nothing more than labels we put on arguments containing unverified premises.
Do you even know the value of logic in Philosophy????
Why did you demanded from me to verify my claim "women are inferior to men''?
So your personal thoughts on what needs verification or not is irrelevant. I can make the same claim and say that your argument about heaven is not just irrational, but wrong since for me the claim "heaven doesn't exist" doesn't need justification.
It can go both ways...and this is not how we reason or should reason. This is not philosophy
What else, if the gaps are closed, is there to logically conclude that the universe, or better, the stuff it's made of, was created by gods?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I didn't demand verification of your value assignment. If you (hypothetically, of course) think women are inferior to men, that's up to you. I only said that this thread shows it might actually be the other way round.
No the stuff around me and the stuff I am made of...is stuff.
The qualifier "divine" implies things that you will have to demonstrate before placing it there.
Quoting Hillary
-Of course it is...if you want to do philosophy, to produce Wise claims you will need Valid and Sound arguments..not unwarranted assumptions.
I can also say that I can dismiss all your claims because you are an inferior woman and deny to provide any objective justification for that. Can you see the problem in your eagerness to keep your assumptions unchallenged?
Quoting Hillary
-No it isn't...and since you are an "inferior woman" my opinion is the correct one (again see how your reasoning works?).
Quoting Hillary
-You assume that existence has a reason...you need to demonstrate that not just assume it. If not then you are proposing an irrational assumption.
Quoting Hillary
Tegmark is a mathematician....what did you expect? Hawking was a "poet, its not fair to accuse him for that.
Quoting Hillary
-Not interested in what you believe...only in what you can demonstrate as sound...
Quoting Hillary
No it isn't. We are talking about non natural agents and how you can demonstrate believing in them to be a reasonable act.
Indeed, you can! I'm not saying I know the truth for you. There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given.
No you don't....I do! You can't know the truth because you are an inferior human being! How can that is possible?
Now joke aside. Truth is an evaluation terms we use on claims that are in agreement with facts.
You admit it yourself you can not provide proof for your claims. So you can not claim that you know the truth.
YOu accept claims as true to ease your existential and epistemic anxieties...that's all.
-"There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given. "
-those are "Subjective" and they are not truths but claims....Try using the correct words.
This is what you do with your syllogisms...you remove all obstacles that would prove how bad your claims are.....but you need to understand that you can not hide your fallacies.
I partially agree. Its indeed an evaluation term we use on claims that are in agreement with facts. But there are more facts than the ones about the material world we live in and even when we limit ourselves to the material world, there are conflicting views on how reality truly looks like. One might see point particles where others see structures.
The point is, I would love to play tennis with you. I have my own racket and balls though. A magic racket and magic balls. You would be tired and ask for mercy... Or blame the arbiter. "The ball was OUT!!!"
That is irrelevant...You can only make those evaluations based on the available facts not on facts you don't have or might not exist....lol
The time to assume different versions of realities is after you have the facts to support them...not a second sooner...well you can but your philosophy would sound like yours(irrational pseudo philosophy)
-"One might see point particles where others see structures. "
-this is why in science we don't just "see" things we do complete observations and produce objective descriptions....
The problem is that your racket and ball only share the same label and nothing else, plus you keep denying the use of the net and lines.....
It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played.
Concerning the theological play, there are many different rackets to play with just the same. But you play with no racket at all. Which is admirable, but I won't challenge you in that case, as thats unfair.
:fire:
Excellent point! No offense Hillary.
Argumentum ad novitatem?
-"It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played."
- You are missing the point. Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove
Quoting Hillary
-The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate.
-identifying logical fallacies is not your strong point...right?
Why is that independent on the nature of the universe? It depends on the rackets we use, the balls used, the (presence of an) arbiter, the nature of the field (grass, concrete, gravel, etc.), on our ideas, on the weather, etc. If we investigate nature the stuff we investigate directs us, while we direct the stuff. Its a two-way street. You present it like a dead-end street.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
There is a big collection of rackets to play the game of science, philosophy, or theology. We could play the double game, you holding the logic racket, me holding the science racket, and the opponent double the philosophical racket and theological racket. I would point them out though that they play with my racket.
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic.
You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics".
NO it isn't metaphysics, its pseudo philosophy useless to everybody except those who seek comfort in made up answers.
You offer nothing wise or meaningful to the table if your assumptions are all over the place.
Screaming, dear Nckolas, won't help your case. The thing that is to be understood is not that things in the investigation of the universe don't need proof or confirmation or falsification. They need. Claims about gods or God don't need prove.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Again, there is no justifaction needed. At least, not the justification you have in mind. Gods are reasonable in the sense that they provide reason and cause of the universe.
Again! You claim that you are doing Philosophy but you don't know what philosophy is.
Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises.
If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology.
Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it.
Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe. It's not that I'm throwing in all kinds of arbitrary fantasies. The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's you preaching atheology. The assumptions are fully justifiable. Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, which you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It's very easy for me. The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation.
Wikipedia can explain it better than me.
[quote=Davillar]I'd rather [sic] selling my car before getting to such roundabout.[/quote]
-lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up.
Quoting Hillary
No. theology has no room in philosophical inquiries. Philosophy has a goal to arrive to wise conclusions through sound arguments while theological conclusions are not the product of/ or interested in sound arguments.
IF they were you would be able to present the facts that verify these theological premises, but you can't.
-" The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe."
-The existence of the universe can only demonstrate as true the claim : "the universe exists".
You will need additional observations for your gods in order to convince their existence or their role in it.
Quoting Hillary
-Only Unsound arguments and their conclusions are restricted from being used in additional philosophical arguments.
So you didn't answer if you understand soundness and how it is connected to logic and knowledge.
Quoting Hillary
Theology and atheology are irrelevant to philosophy. Logic took care of that issue. Wisdom need knowledge and logic needs sounds argument.
Quoting Hillary
NO they are not...they are assumptions that can't be verified...thus unjustified to be used as auxiliary assumptions in a new argument.
Quoting Hillary
There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy.
Quoting Hillary
-Do you know what circular reasoning is?????Rhetorical question, the answer is available above!
Quoting Hillary
-According to the Soundness an argument must have in order for its conclusion to be used in a philosophical framework...not according to me lol
Quoting Hillary
Again the existence of something can only be evidence...for its existence, not your assumed entities.
You will need additional evidence for those. What is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without any.
Quoting Hillary
-That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions.
Quoting Hillary
-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim.
I'm not into rollercoasters! Arigato for those kind words.
What gaps are there then? I'm not aware of them.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Kindergarten creatures are still free from philosophical and scientific indoctrination. I have a scientific model of the universe, without gaps, and can only logically conclude that gods created the universal ingredients. As I should have participated in for sure, were I one of them.
On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about!
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more.
I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! Only some can share my cosmological secrets. You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo.
I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the word soundness...
-"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness.
You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol:
_Why i feel like a dodged a bullet?
Quoting Hillary
-that's even better try a new age or a theological forum!
-" Only some can share my cosmological secrets"
-Pls find them...outside from the Philosophical circle.! After all secrets and knowledge do get along well!
-"You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo."
-We don't want any one to steal our Nobel Prize! right!!
-guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't!
I'm as sound as I can be. You talk and write about sound without having anything to be sound about. Show me one of your sound knowledge claims.
I don't use the phrase because I do know. The only thing I don't know is where the gods come from and how they created universal matter.
Well, I've told it many times already. On physics forums which stick to the status quo or the convention, and here, where little help is offered, except by @universeness and some others, who try to understand at least, instead of throw it away without even inspecting it (as is done on most physics forums). So this seems a good place for it. The philosophy forums are generally more perceptive. Physicists are afraid their standards are attacked.
Are you a troll?
Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe? You do understand that ‘the laws of physics’ are not absolute but rather a ‘striving towards’ the idea that there are definitive laws/rules? Either way, they allow us to navigate in some manner.
It might help more if you look up the term Ontology and perhaps question the validity of asking about ‘beginnings’ or ‘lawgivers’.
To reframe the OP I take your meaning more like this perhaps? :
1) There are a set of rigid principles the universe operates under.
2) There are a set of principles from which the universe has changed over several stages that are fluid rather than rigidly set.
Either way, there is not really a definitive answer to this and either as a definitive answer would only open up more questions.
Laws are prescriptive; habits are descriptive.
When I taught in college, students would generally take more or less the same seat every class. Some students would sit in the exact same seat throughout the semester. That was their habit. But there was no law that said where they had to sit.
Additionally, law suggests a law giver, perhaps a God outside the universe that constructed the universe to act in certain ways.
Habit suggests that the universe merely does what it does, without any external law giver.
:up:
Misled by metaphor!
Quoting Art48
From the human mind.
No law whatsoever --legal, scientific or other-- exist by itself. As rules do not exist by themselves. As theories, systems, axioms, principles, ... do not exist by themselves. They are all created by humans.
Scientific laws, in particular, "describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true". (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-law-basics-of-the-scientific-method)
"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)
(Highlighting in bold characters is mine.)
My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.
The goal (Final Cause) of systematic regulation is to minimize negative, and to maximize positive, actions & changes --- to keep the system on track toward a desirable future state, or away from undesirable states. But who evaluates those states : the king or the populace, or both? Some "habits" are good (brushing twice a day) and some are bad (inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But both are focused on specific goals -- either short-term pleasure or long-term health. Are natural laws & constants random & arbitrary, or systematic & intentional, and for long or short-term benefits? Is the universe characterized by random noise, or by systematic processes? Science places its bets on the latter.
However, pragmatic Science is usually focused on short-term benefits from understanding Nature. Under the reductive microscope, both good & bad actions are observed. Some organisms consume (good) and others are consumed (bad). And those oppositions tend to cancel-out to a neutral, neither-good-nor-bad, system -- it simply works. But from a telescopic perspective, evolution is known to have begun in an un-promising explosion (expansion) from nothing to something. Yet, the world we now observe has produced finely-tuned (regulated) eco-systems that consistently stave-off dead-end Entropy, by harnessing & regulating the flow of life-enhancing Energy. From the simplicity of a stem-cell Singularity, the universe has matured into a complex organism, that promises to continue extracting order from Entropy into the far-off future.
Therefore, our universe is obviously a self-organizing organism, and evolution is a creative program -- generating animated Life & inquisitive Mind from inert Matter & random Energy. What, then, is the essence of organization : Self-regulation or Serendipity ; Law & Order or Lawless Disorder ; Innovation or Stagnation? Yet, it's also obvious today, that the world is not self-existent. So, both the physical substance and the abstract rules of regulation must have pre-existed. In that case, the philosophical question arises : was that Creative Act Intentional or Accidental? Your answer may reveal your positive or negative attitude toward the social- or eco-system you find yourself inextricably entangled with. :nerd:
PS___It's not a question of either Matter or Laws, but of Both-And. In isolation, Matter is inert, but in conjunction with Rules of behavior, simple substance evolves in a positive direction towards physical Complexity and meta-physical Self-awareness.
A system like mathematics is incredibly versatile. It's a system that can be made to basically describe any regularly behaving system. Any regularly behaving thing can have variables assigned to parts of it, and so long as the interactions between these parts are consistent, we can apply some mathematical rules to it. The same could be said for many systems of logic. If we assign variables to the fundamental components of a system, and they interact in a consistent way, then logic can be made to describe it.
The point is that mathematical rules are a thing that humans project onto the world and the universe does have fundamental parts that interact with one another in consistent ways. Hence why it seems to be so weirdly mathematical. It is no coincidence that we can apply rules to the universe that seem to be so heavily mathematical and logical in nature.
So maybe the universe doesn't have a platonic realm of rules dictating the material. If it did, then surely it would be immaterial itself.
But why do the parts of the universe exist in the way that they do? If there is indeed an explanation for that, say reason A, what is the reason for A to be the case? We get this infinite chain of causality unless at some point we accept that not everything has to be the way it is for a reason. Some things simply are.
If we accept this premise, then the answer of "where do the laws of the universe come from?", could simply be nowhere. The universe exists in the way it does just because.
For evolutionary reasons, our monkey brains always feel the need to see every effect as having a cause. But the universe wasn't built to satisfy us.
There's a philosopher of science called Nancy Cartwright - not to be confused with the actor of that name - who has a paper called No God, No Laws, for anyone interested.
[quote=Nancy Cartwright]My thesis is summarized in my title, ‘No God, No Laws’: the concept of a law of Nature cannot be made sense of without God. It is not as dramatic a thesis as it might look, however. I do not mean to argue that the enterprise of modern science cannot be made sense of without God. Rather, if you want to make sense of it you had better not think of science as discovering laws of Nature, for there cannot be any of these without God.[/quote]
No, it is an interpretation of an historical evolution of ideas.
What do you envision, a chaotic random stew being suddenly jolted into order?
Note this translation is more accurate and does not indicate creatio ex nihilo.
My answer would be that uni means one, which describes a single thing existing as it always has, whether that has a starting point or has been eternal.
Dividing creation/ultimate origins into stages is problematic.
Alexander Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe - referring to the scientific revolution.
How could one come first?
Assuming laws are discoverd, not invented....
IIRC, natural regularities are observed (i.e. "discovered") and then mathematically described-encoded (i.e. "invented") as invariant features of physical models for specified aspects of nature.
That's how a cat can jump out a three story window without injury, and they are said to have nine lives, they are above the laws of physics.
(did land on turf, though.)
I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.
Random accidents reveal no logical connection between Cause & Effect. But human Reason is attuned to such meaningful relationships, because linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. Perception of such causal links allows organisms to choose the Good and to eschew Evil. But, as far as we know, only human reason has analyzed the complex inter-relationships of causal networks down to abstract mathematical ratios. Hence, Mathematics is essentially the Logic of Nature. And "Reasoning" is the ability to infer personal meaning from those impersonal numerical values.
Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. They only mimic those general regulations for specific goals, by inventing artificial mechanisms that "reflect" those of Nature. For pragmatic purposes of Science, we can simply take that universal Logic for granted. But for the curious motives of Philosophy, we can try to trace its real-world effects back to the Source : the "LOGOS", as Plato called it. :nerd:
[quote=Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality;https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/ ]The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.
The issue brought up in the Hoffman quote is the same as the true vs. useful issue. It is the fundamental problem of empiricism. So long as scientific hypotheses are judged according to a principle of usefulness, such as predictive capacity, those hypotheses will never give us truth. Evolution is guided by usefulness, not truthfulness.
Anyway, apropos, sometimes it appears to me that many people interested in philosophy have rather a sketchy, quite basic idea of natural science. I would say that the best thing humankind has to show for us is our literature and art but that theoretical physics (et al) gives it a real run for the money. I guess Friedrich maybe could be given some grudging honorable mention - or Hume or Kant).
On the flip side, how many old grannies can you help with their shopping bags? 50 tops?!
:snicker:
Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!).
Is there anything life-like about the laws of physics? I mean do these laws possess any qualities/characteristics that indicate sentience & intelligence? We can answer this question by assuming the role of the law-giver. What kinda physical laws would we frame and why? Do our laws resemble in any way the laws of physics in our world? Intriguing, wouldn't you say?
I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.
Even so, homo sapiens in-general are still not very a good at Math, especially Statistical relationships. Yet, we are good enough to create machines that are much faster & more accurate (to serve as our fangs & fleetness), but still depend on emotional humans to interpret the value & meaning of those abstract relationships. :joke:
PS__Reasoning sees & interprets geometric physical relationships by reference to some relative-but-reliable perspective -- usually the Self, or other authority. As a whole, and in general, the mathematical structure of the world is sometimes called "Sacred Geometry", because it seems to be designed by an omniscient Mathematician. But humans only see it "through a glass darkly".
Sacred Geometry :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2FYSLC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
First of all, sorry about the long delay of my response. I was not near my PC for the last two days ...
Quoting Gnomon
I agree.
Quoting Gnomon
Good point. I never thought about that. Most probably because Physics is not my cup of tea ...
For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. :up:
Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.
The usual (non-biblical) assumption is that self-organization is just an inherent creative property of Nature. But scientists have also concluded that dis-organizing Entropy is dismantling organisms almost as fast as they emerge from the contingencies of competitive Evolution. Yet, the very existence of a pocket of organic order in one corner of a minor galaxy, indicates that destructive Entropy is counter-balanced by some constructive "force" or "law".
I call that positive power EnFormAction (the ability to give form to the formless). Both "Form" and "Information" convey "intelligible" meaning to perceptive minds. Part of that meaning is what we could call objective Geometric Organization (shape) and part is the subjective Relevance of that object to rational observers. Formal application of that self-relevance is what we call "Morality" : how the social & natural environment impacts the well-being of sentient creatures.
So, Science & Religion interpret the origin & meaning of natural laws from different perspectives. Genesis implies that the laws were supposed to favor sentient creatures, especially rational beings. But, Science observes that Nature seems to be impartial or uncaring. Even the biblical Ecclesiastes sheds shade on the idea of favorable divine justice : "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
My conclusion then, is that Nature is indeed indiscriminate, in the sense that its effects on both sentient & insentient creatures are fair, and delicately balanced on a knife-edge of homeostasis between Good & Evil. So, if humans have an unfair advantage in evolutionary competition, it's in their moral sense : the ability to discern potential Good from Evil (i.e. to predict the future course of Nature & Culture, and its impact on the discerner). Yet, all predictions -- especially about the future -- are constrained by the limits on our information & understanding about both now and then. Which is why human societies have developed human-oriented moral rules, to supplement the impartial physical laws of Nature. To tip the balance in favor of moral agents. :cool:
Cosmos : implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wiki
Form : A form, according to Plato, is an abstract intelligible pattern that has various concrete sensible objects as specific instantiations. ___Quora
Chance : Fate ; probability ; happenstance ; un-intentional
The balance of Nature : The controversial Gaia hypothesis was developed in the 1970s by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis; it asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature
Homeostasis : tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
It's intriguing that the laws of physics are not broken by evil but there seems to be at the very least what could be termed as resistance to evil chemically/biologically (homeostasis, pain & death are actively avoided by animals). I guess this could be taken as a sign that evil violates a biological law/drive (horror mortem - life abhors death & horror dolor - life abhors pain).
The laws of physics are unbreachable; the laws of biology can be breached but you'll face stiff resistance when doing so. :chin:
My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.
Since the ab origine causal input that created our complex universe, from a formless spec of nothingness (Singularity), is necessarily external to the knowable world --- imagine a pool shooter who stands apart from the pool table, but causes intentional effects on the table --- the only way to know the absent First Cause is to look at its real-world Effects. We can 'know' the long-gone artist by looking at his art-work. So if, as Information theorists have come to believe, everything in the world is some form of Generic Information (e.g. Energy), we can describe the Cosmic Cause as "Enformer" (form-giver), and as "extrinsic" (beyond the limits of space-time).
Understandably, most people are not content just to infer the "where" of the Source : the fount of Form. Instead, they want to know "who" created this organized world, along with its self-defining "laws". Yet, without a direct revelation from the Creator, we can only infer some logically necessary characteristics, and only guess at specifics. Which is why history is full of wild guesses about Gods, Prime Movers, First Causes, LOGOS, Creators, and now Enformers. But, your guess, about the time-before-time, is as authoritative as mine.
So, where-and-from-whom do you think the logical rules for Cosmic Self-Organization originated? Was it Random Chance or Happen-stance or Magic? If you are uncomfortable with ascribing personality to an unknowable absentee otherworldly 'Father' of Form, then we can use improper-names & impersonal-metaphors, such as Enformer or Programmer to describe the logical function of Law-Maker. :nerd:
*1. Matter-Energy and Information :
[i]In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms
as explained in special relativity. . . . . Can information be reduced to matter-energy, and return us to only that single element?[/i]
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf
*2. Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos Theory :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/
You're describing a Humean view, which is somewhat outdated. "Law realists", such as Armstrong, Sosa, and Tooley, believe there are actual laws of nature that represent a necessitation, not merely a (Humean) regularity. The law realists are physicalists - they do not believe the laws are platonic entities (like equations existing in the mind of God, or a platonic "third realm"), but rather - they represents relations between universals.
Any set of properties can be considered a universal. Examples: electrons and protons have sets of properties that are held by every individual electron and proton. Because a proton has a -1 charge and an electron has a -1 charge, it is a "law of nature" that they will attract. The law is a consequence of their intrinsic properties. The behavior (attraction) follows necessarily from their respective properties.
The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course.
[quote="Gnomon;708928]some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos[/quote]
This is logical but not necessary. We don't have enough information about that chaos, and if indeed there was a chaos. Maybe this "apparent" or "initial" chaos contained a kind of order in itself, a state of being settled down, etc. For example, when you throw a dice, there is a chaos in its movement and at some point it stops moving, becoming inert. The cause for that inertia is gravitation. (I guess, I'm not good in Physics.) Likewise, the chaos produced by the Bing Bang containd gravitational forces in itself or has produced then iself. I can't say, of course if this could ba a possibility or not.
This is one viewpoint. Another is that Big Bang is only a theory, which indeed has been prevalent for a lot of years over any other. However, we know that today, it is disputed (Re: https://www.inverse.com/article/62192-scientist-disputes-big-bang-theory. (Re: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/astronomer-who-rejected-theory-of-big-bang-1.324257, etc. I got 6.5m results in Google about < Big Bang disputed >.)
The same, more or less, goes about Singularuiy.
***
Again, I find your whole description quite interesting. But ssince my knowledge of Physics is very limited to be able to get involved more. I can only discuss what is logically possible and facts.
Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.
Like most features of Quantum Theory, understanding the relationship between Energy, Matter & Mind can be complex & technical & counter-intuitive. Unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with "Quantum Weirdness", you'll just have to accept that some physicists have come to believe that Information (logical order ; meaning) is at the root of everything, both material and mental. Just as astronomers traced the light (energy) from stars back to a sudden emergence of something from nothing (who-knows-what), that Point of Beginning was also the origin of everything in the world today --- including Mind & Matter.*2
Likewise, the Enformationism Thesis*3 traces the evolution of Generic Information (in all its forms) back to the Big Bang. So, like Plato, I infer that the source of all rational order in the world (including Meaning) was what you could call "a mental force", which he labeled LOGOS (word, thought, principle, or speech). And all of those features of reality are associated, not with Matter, but with Mind. So, I infer that some kind of Mind "spoke" the world into existence. However, since I am skeptical of most pre-scientific speculation on the genesis of the world, I try to avoid the baggage-laden terms associated with Theism.
In view of the essential role of Information (the power to enform) in the world, I use such non-traditional terms as "Enformer" and "Programmer" to describe the abstract principle that Plato gave the mundane moniker "LOGOS". Generic Information*4 is not yet a settled scientific theory, but the causal role of Information is accepted by many Physicists & Philosophers. Most of them are also hesitant to use the "G" word, but a "rose by any other name" would smell like Deus.
So, you are correct that a world-creating Mind is necessarily prior to the Big Bang (space-time). Which means that we have no way of knowing the source of our enformed world. But, just as Cosmologists speculate (without evidence) on alien Multiverses & Many Worlds, Philosophers are free to ask questions about the Time-before-Time. Like most philosophical conjectures though, there is no final answer to such ultimate mysteries about "God, the Universe, and Everything". (Douglas Adams). :cool:
*1. Causal Information :
"information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature"
Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird
Note -- This is a book about why Quantum Theory is non-classical. He says "it's a theory about information"
*2. Big History – The Unfolding of “Information :
The Big Bang – and then there was “1”
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/2254/2099
*3. Enformationism :
A worldview grounded on the axiom that Information (the power to enform, to create), rather than matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. As a paradigm, it is intended to be a successor to 17th century Materialism, and to ancient Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
*4. Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". Yet, I would be really surprised if that could be proved and become part of our reality. Because there are too many things that don't make sense in it, which I mention below.
In the PDF (From http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf), Max Tegmark is quoted to say “I believe that consciousness is, essentially, the way information feels when being processed.”
I found this included in Tegmark's Book/paper "What Are You Optimistic About?"
Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?"
Anyway, both authors should at least define "information" before using it in such an "exotic" theory. Well, I know, this is a very common unfortunate phenomenon among writers and speakers, namely, that they assume their readers/audience know and share the same meaning with them of the (key) terms they use! Moreover, most often they don't use standard/common definitions but rather their own, which makes the situation much worse! And, BTW, this is exactly why knowledge --starting to be built at an early age in life-- is so imperfect an so much confusion and misundestanding occurs in what we read and hear and then store as "knowlege".
In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." (Oxford LEXIKO) If you check other dictionaries, you will find this term in common: facts, i.e., things that are known or proved to be true. The word "known" is critical. A fact, and hence information, cannot exist by its own. It has to be processed by the mind --its nature identified, undestood, classified, etc.-- and become knowledge. Only then can information have a meaning. A computer contains millions of data, stored in its chips. Yet, they are useless and have no meaning unless they are retrieved, undestdood and used, in whatever way, by either a program in the computer itself or a person.
Another point I can mention in the PDF is that the autor maintains "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", 1) He is the only one that has expressed this position, after I checked in the Web and 2) Wheter otr not Dualism has a faoundation or not, rejecting it in this way shows that one is ttally immerged in the physical world and cannot see anything outside it. Well, how can one judge or undestand anything about dualism if one tries to "process it" --analyze it, undestand it, etc.-- using exclusevely information from the physical world? How can I undestand anything about human logic, emotion, feelings, etc. by just looking in and examining the cells of the human body?
Then, "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ..."
I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception (in contrast with that of the "Cartesion dualism" that the author brought up!)
***
In short, this is one of the most unfortunate articles related to matter, energy and/or information I have ever read. Sorry about that.
Therefore, I cannot digest or process further this "exotic" subject in the current circumstances.
Yes. From my Enformationism perspective, I interpret Plato's "Chaos" and "Form" as a wellspring of Potential from which Actual things emerge. The hypothetical Vacuum Energy is one example of Actual from Potential. The empty vacuum of space is said to possess Zero Point Energy. Its normal state is neutral, because the positive & negative energies cancel out. Yet physicists imagine the Energy Field as a simmering sauce bubbling with peaks & valleys of energy (quantum foam), where the "negative" values are Potential (unmeasurable), and the "positive" values are Actual (measurable). Likewise, I picture Chaos as a bubbling cauldron of EnFormAction (the power to enform; to cause change). In its neutral state, Chaos is random & disorderly. But in its positive state, it is organized (ordered into knowable forms). That's how I equate "order with information". See my philosophical (thesis) definition of "information" below. :nerd:
Chaos :
By “chaos” Plato does not mean the complete absence of order, but a kind of order, perhaps even a mechanical order, opposed to Reason.
https://iep.utm.edu/platoorg/
Order within Chaos :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/
Information is :
[i]* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
BothAnd Blog
QUANTUM FOAM of bubbling energy
Apparently, you missed their point. Like Energy, abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", to experience a sensation. Viewed that way, the author's assertions are not "absurd", but insightful. When energy (e.g light) is organized into meaningful patterns (color; heat; Morse-code; contrast) the human brain interprets that "code" into sensations that we call "feelings" (redness; warmth). Meaningful Patterns are Information. Such encoded (organized) patterns enform (give meaning to) the mind of a rational being.
As to "what kind of information" : Shannon defined it in terms of Syntax (abstract organization), but Tegmark was referring to Semantics (personal meaning). If you don't speak the language, its Syntax may seem "absurd". But if you know the vocabulary, its Semantics will seem sensible. :smile:
My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. For example, the pre-shannon definition of "information" focused on its meaning to a human mind (knowledge). But Shannon abstracted away the Semantic human aspect, in order to convert "information" into empty vessels (1 or 0) that can mean anything to anyone. So, computers "encode", but humans "inform". :smile:
To Inform : inform implies the imparting of knowledge
Wow! This is the most "exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all.
Besides that, I will say once again that all this looks quite interesting, but it is totally outside my sphere of knowledge and interests.
I thought of that too, but it was not so evident. So, it has to do with the use of language then ...
Yes, I think this is evident. I can accept it. No problem. :smile:
I wouldn't worry about that assertion in the context of physical laws. The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile:
The “Argument from Illusion” and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas :
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RMM_042_0217--the-argument-from-illusion-and-the-carte.htm
People like Schrodinger said science only describes ranges of behaviors of physical particles or events.
Cybernetics is about purposeful control and self-regulation. But it works by directing Causality (energy) into specific directions (channels) to produce useful behaviors. IT typically follows Shannon's technical definition of "information", which omits Meaning & Purpose from its equations, in favor of abstract numerical values. The result is impersonal robotic technology. But AI is now trying to put pupose & personality back into cybernetic systems. :smile:
Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with regulatory and purposive systems. The core concept of cybernetics is circular causality or feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind. :nerd:
Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview
*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
This compendium, co-authored by 35 Santa Fe scientists, among others, and co-edited by Physicist Paul Davies, is a collaboration of scientists from around the world with at least one thing in common : a primary role for Information in their research on Physics, Microbiology, Mathematics, Computation, Cosmology, Evolution, Information Theory, Neuroscience, Game Theory, etc. . . . So, you can imagine that they come-up with lots of "exotic" ideas, and innovative definitions to describe the alien territory they are exploring.
"If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers". ___the Editors
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-matter-to-life/4DA89C33D0FF29E749E6B415739F8E5A
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)?
Actually it reminds me, there’s a Curiosity Stream feature on The Big Cats, one episode of which concerned the Himalayan Snow Leopard. It was amazing footage to begin with, considering how scarce those creatures are. But one sequence has a snow leopard charging an ibex on the edge of a mountain and then both tumbling about 70 metres through the air before landing - admittedly on a slight slope with snow covering, which cushioned the fall. The cat then finishes the ibex with the killer bite to the throat and stashes the cadaver in a crevice and saunters off. And the amazing thing is, they play the footage of the fall in slo-mo, and the cat actually changes its grip on the ibex while falling. Actually the most sensational wildlife footage I think I’ve ever seen, Attenborough included.
Amazing creatures, cats.
Nicely put!
Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? Esp. when he meets more stuff like this in the thesis in question, as I mentioned. It shows ignorance or big mistakes and this reflects on the source and/or his thesis.
Still, I could ignore all this and would not reject a thesis or theory, if I had found important elements in it that make it interesting or plausible. But I haven't. Well, this concerns only me. :smile:
Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. These sci-fi movies and novels are responsible for all the crap that exists in people's mind regarding AI. (I have discussed this issue in length in some other medium,)
I can see this, and it's fine with me, "exotic" or not. But I was talkng about common terms, like "information".
Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea :grin:, it's out of my range of knowledge and interests.
Astonishing.
I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.
But Quantum Theory forced scientists to address the active role of the observer for interpreting the signals we get from the environment. Donald Hoffman looked at the same question from the perspective of a Cognitive scientist. He came to the same conclusion as Kant's "occult ontology". He says that we perceive Reality in the same way we "interface" with a computer, via symbols (icons). Do you find that hard to believe? Can you take human limitations seriously? :smile:
PS___This is the same old Subjective versus Objective (Ideality vs Reality) question, that philosophers & scientists have been grappling with for millennia.
The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes :
Can we trust our senses to tell us the truth? Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_Against_Reality_Why_Evolution_H/JgJ1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Occult Ontology :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. . . . . For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Illusions or Approximations :
Envisioning two levels of reality, the apparent and the ultimate. IMHO, Kant didn’t mean that the appearances of our senses are deceptive illusions, but merely that they are useful approximations of objects that are otherwise incomprehensible to our senses, which evolved for human scale objects and energies.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?
Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. Don't you suspect that some AI programmers (privately) envision a day when sci-fi robots interact with humans as civil persons and moral agents, instead of as slaves & expendable gadgets? Do you think, as employees of the Military-Industrial Complex, AI designers shouldn't explore those impractical possibilities? :nerd:
Artificial Purpose :
In summary, the goal of AI is to provide software that can reason on input and explain on output. AI will provide human-like interactions with software and offer decision support for specific tasks, but it's not a replacement for humans – and won't be anytime soon.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analytics/what-is-artificial-intelligence.html
Artificial general intelligence is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. ___Wikipedia
That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism. :joke:
No, not at all. My "such things" refer to statements like "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ...", etc. I thought I was clear on this.
As for "Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly", I agree, but it has nothing to do with all that I was talking about.
BTW, I don't think that Kant or any other important philosopher would ever come up with such a blooper as "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion"!
Quoting Gnomon
He doesn't have to know how his brain processes incoming sensations to know and undestand symbolic imagery. Fortunately so! :smile: A person doesn't have to know how emotions work, to feel happy, sad, angry, etc. and to be able to identify and undestand these states.
Quoting Gnomon
Of course, what else can he do? He must however, realize and acknowldge that his reality is subjective, which BTW is the only reality that exists. (Note that by "reality" I don't mean the physical universe or the external world, as a lot of people do.)
Well, maybe some. But they are mainly created --as already said- for entertainment. They are commercial products. I don't think that the average person, or even most people, who read/watch sci-fi care much about philosophical implications. They can only excite their imagination. As I said, I am a programmer and have been amd still am involved a lot in AI, so I know exctly what it is about and what are its possibilities as well as its limitations. Non-programmers don't. They have no idea. They can only digest --and not always-- the commercial product they are been sold.
On the other hand, there have been quite a few sci-fi novels/movies that indeed led to "scientific innovations", which you mentioned. One of the first that I can remember was Kubrick's "A Space Odyssey". After a few years since the film was projected to the cinema screens, we saw actual space stations. But this was pure material, machanical technology. No AI robots with consciousness, morality and such nonsence.
Quoting Gnomon
Right. However, not only robots but also simple computers can operate "independently", at least appearing to do so. They contain appropriate programs based on which they act and "decide". But they don't and will never have free will and decide by themselves, as much as they can be evolved --sometimes to a large degree-- to do really amazing things.
Now, as you say, all this happens "currently", it refers to the currenst state of affairs and also to what we can imagine as real possibilities, i.e. thinking pragmatically. And we can't know if some new, revolutionary technology can be created in this or other planet with humans in the future, most probably coming from some alien civilization ...
Until then, I believe it is more useful and productive to think pragmatically and talk about pragmatic things! :smile:
:up:
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
:fire:
These are good challenges to enformationism. Does 'materialism' pass A & B? or physicalism?
However, as far as I can tell, the "enformationism" (i.e. post-kantian idealism? (or) neo-Aristotlean/Thomistic essentialism?)^^ espoused by @Gnomon is a speculative kluge-solution in search of an even more spectulative problem; his "thesis" is some flavor of metaphysics (he calls it "Meta-Physics")^^ with theoretical pretenses which, IMO, amounts to "New Age" (e.g. Fritjof, Zukav, Sheldrake, et al) pseudo-philosophy / sophistry.
I am not sure what immaterial or 'immaterial' data would be.
Moving from there, though, it seems to me that people don't exclude non-physical things when making models. I don't see that as part of the process, for a couple of reasons. 1) whatever the results of the research is, the objects and processes are considered physical. There's no moment when they go through research results see something X, consider it non-physical, and exclude it. They are building models off of research and every noun will be considered physical in advance and not labelled such. 2) Because anything considered real is considered physical, regardless of its qualities. Those things now considered physical have different qualities or lack qualities once consider part of being physical. We have fields, massless particles, 'things' in superposition. The concept of the physical is expanding and anything scientists find, they will consider real. I can't see a way to falsify what you consider a methodological criterion or physicalism itself.
Then this last part about their being effective criteria. I don't think this is the case. Scientists do their research and what they find is considered real. I don't see a useful step where someone would decide in advance that something is immaterial so they won't investigate it. They may do this sometimes, but it would mean that whatever this phenomenon they won't study is, gets its substance determined most likely by non-scientists. Oh, they say it is non-physical, so I will rule that out and not study it because it fails on the criteria. What if it is real, but physical in a way that we do not understand yet. What we can measure and observe changes yearly. Why give the ontological determination power to an outsider. Now this certainly happens. People do this, but generally I think they choose not to investigate because they do not think the phenomenon is real. Not, oh, ghosts are immaterial, so there is no need to investigate. That's not a good reason to not investigate. Because of course why should laypeople get to have the power to determine ontology. If there did seem to be some evidence something is going on that is not an already accepted phenomenon, then it would be problematic to argue that there is no need to investigate, it's non-material. If it's real, it doesn't matter what it's substance is. The people who have experienced or 'experienced' the phenomenon should not get to make the determination. It might be physical, whatever this means, in ways we have not yet experienced or subtly in ways we have.
I understand why other criteria tend to keep most scientists away from researching some things, but I think that would be a poor reason.
Let me give a kind of example. Native africans thought that elephants communicated over long distances. This was not believed by Westerners until a Western scientist thought this was the case. The idea did not fit known science and perhaps technology, so it was considered magical thinking or that some kind of ESP was being proposed.
If the scientist in question had decided on ontological grounds to not investigate, this would not, ultimately, be a rational choice. An understandible one, but not a good one.
Using models of course does create a base from which to look at what could be investigated next. Current models are used this way. The current models of early periods have been used this way. But there really is no reason to use the criterion physical at any step in the process. If the models are considered good maps of the real, due to research data and ongoing effectiveness of those model predictively, etc, there is no reason to take a stand on the substance, especially if that substance is an expanding set of possible qualities.
So, I suppose I have two points. I actually don't think physicalism is used as a methodological criterion when choosing research topics or in interpreting data or any other stage. Then also that I don't think it should be. And if it is, if that is the criterion that is used to rule out data, a research topic or results, then it may very well slow things down, be part of the problem/resistance during changes in paradigm, for example.
).
especially the part i bolded above has mainly referring to science. And to me methods if they are effective, then they are being used. I don't know how we judge the effectiveness of philosophers ruling out the non-material. I also had a few things to say not just about practice but also cogency, and even meaningfulness.
I have repeatedly responded to 180's demands for empirical evidence to support the Enformationism thesis by pointing out the obvious : it's not a scientific thesis, and I am not a scientist. In 180's own words : it is not "an attempt to solve scientific problems". It's also not a vetted academic thesis. Enformationism is instead a personal philosophical thesis. Others are free to take it for what it's worth to them.
But 180 rejects & repudiates the thesis, apparently because it clashes with his own personal worldview. I'm not sure what to call his anti-idealism ideology, but it seems to be opposed to Metaphysics-in-general (non-physical aspects of reality), and to the metaphysical-New-Age-mindset (spiritual aspects of the world) in particular. In contrast to his Idealistic/Spiritualistic interpretation, the Enformationism thesis was based on the novel-but-pragmatic 20th century sciences of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. It was not in any way inspired by Eastern religions or New Age doctrines. Any similarity to NA though, may be due to the emphasis on Holistic philosophical methods instead of Reductive scientific methods.
Ironically, the introduction to Enformationism proposes a new paradigm to update the ancient belief-systems of both scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism. This new/old way of looking at the world has no inherent religious implications, but it can be interpreted to support a variety of Mind-over-Matter notions, although empirical evidence is lacking. As a scientific paradigm though, it has already found a key role in Quantum Theory, Complexity, and Cybernetics, among other disciplines. So, you are correct to note that Materialism/Physicalism are philosophies of Metaphysical Naturalism, that ironically exclude the generalizing (holistic) methods of Metaphysics. :cool:
Vulgar materialism is the kind represented by the British writer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) kicking a stone to prove its existence. Some forms emphasize the physical and biological basis of human social being. Materialism rejects Cartesian dualism and disembodied existence.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20111020111930156
Spiritualism :
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
___Oxford dictionary
Enformationism :
A new post-post-modern philosophical paradigm, proposed to supersede the obsolete modernist worldview of Materialism / Determinism. It proposes that matter and energy are essentially special forms of Generic Information.
Enformationism Glossary
David Bohm developed a quantum theory in which mind and matter are brought together. He writes: “A similar mind-like quality of matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum level, . . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914914/
Active information can be viewed as the underlying reality, both physical and mental, from which both mind and matter emerge.
http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/david-bohm/mind-matter-active-information/
Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
Holism :
Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, had a tendency to have a holistic perspective. We can find it both in Plato and Aristotle.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism
This is false.
More barking at a strawman's shadow. Another falsehood. I've proposed to you my own unorthodox understanding of metaphysics (with several links to further elaborating posts) here .
Apparently, Gnomon, you are incapable of answering my actual questions about your "thesis"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/709894
in a clear, succinct manner (or show that my questions are mistaken). :brow: