|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 01, 2013 06:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:13, 01 May 2013.
|
Quote:
How can something be primary that is only an effect?
To many philosophers, 'materialism' is synonymous with 'physicalism'. However, materialists have historically held that everything is made of matter, but physics has shown that gravity, for example, is not made of matter in the traditional sense of "'an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist'… So it is tempting to use 'physicalism' to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences.
The alternative of idealism is something immaterial not as in energy, gravitational force, magnetic field etc etc. This is clearly stated in "to idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary." Which is not the case in here. Quantum physics does not indicate that.
The relationship between math and science (knowledge to be more general) has already been talked about. So I'll skip that.
Quote:
It's probably useless to even try, because you seem to concentrate on personal attacks
Not at all. The only thing personal in my post is politely reminding you not to act arrogant. That is not an attack. If you look at your own posts on page 4, you may realize why I needed to do that.I agree that we both made our points on this and the rest will be running in circles though.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 06:15 PM |
|
|
I think there's too much focus on the actual word "matter" as opposed to the concept of materialism. The "matter" - as far as I know - is not something completely defined in scientific sense because (all of) its possible manifestations and properties are not fully examined. Therefore it seem rather silly to discuss where matter begins and where it ends if we don't know what exactly is matter.
From a philosophical perspective though, the materialism is pretty clear - the possible "incarnations" of the matter are irrelevant, no matter if they are finite or infinite, predictable or unpredictable. What's important is that the matter is in motion and defines itself through that motion. As nothing is set in stone, there's even no need to involve the determinism in the process as it is perfectly fine to have an infinite number of "conditions" and ultimately an unpredictability as long as there NO external "force" (this is not the best word but here's where I hit the language barrier) which is ALSO totally independant from the matter and which serves as the source of the motion. Proving that such a "force" exists will amount to proving God's existence in a metaphysical sense (but not in a Texas sense, unfortunately). Even if this gets proven, it is still not "intelligent" or an "idea" in itself. It will however quite certainly dispose of the philosophy as we know it and with both the materialism and idealism.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 06:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:53, 01 May 2013.
|
Quote:
As nothing is set in stone, there's even no need to involve the determinism in the process as it is perfectly fine to have an infinite number of "conditions" and ultimately an unpredictability as long as there NO external "force" (this is not the best word but here's where I hit the language barrier) which is ALSO totally independant from the matter and which serves as the source of the motion.
I know this is totally speculative, just food for thought. Let us assume that we do live in a multiverse and there are other universes with fundamentally different laws of motion, physics, matter/energy transformations etc etc. And let us assume an intelligent species with enough brain capacity evolved in one of those universes. Theoretically, could their -not will their, could their- math be the same as ours?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only thing personal in my post is politely reminding you not to act arrogant. That is not an attack. If you look at your own posts on page 4, you may realize why I needed to do that.
I just love the "I needed to do something" card. It's usually drawn after a desaster. And politely reminding me not to be arrogant:
Quote:
It's typical of you to pretend to choose not to say anything else when in fact you don't have anything else to say.
Sure.
Physicalism isn't helping your position, because it all depends on the definition of what "physical properties" are. The big picture here is, that it makes no sense to define "physical properties", so that it would include the position of idealism.
Which is exactly the aim of the position the way you see it.
Physicalism means for example, that it is the physycal, material BRAIN that does the thinking and produces the ideas, not the more spiritul MIND - something MORE than just the brain, usually associated with things like spirit or soul or even personality, things that physicalism would explain with strictly physical stuff like upbringing, genetics, experience and so on.
If you could prove that the "physical properties" explain why it produces "ideas", physicalism would gobble up idealism.
This would mean, though, that it should be possible to REPRODUCE the brain to develop a real KI producing ideas - but there is no working physics of the brain currently and consequently no real KI, which would seem rather strange, considering what is actually possible nowadays.
Another problem is, sorry, yet again, mathematics. That something like quantum mechanics is PROBABILITY BASED, isn't a PHYSICAL property, because PROBABILITY has no physical properties, but only MATHEMATICAL (and mathematics have no physical properties either).
MATHEMATICAL properties - and a phenomenon described with probability theory has mathematical properties - are no physical properties.
(I know - I'm obsessed with mathematics, the one real achievement humanity can be proud of.)
Gravitation is a different example, where physicalism works (which makes sense, since gravitation seems to be an EFFECT of matter, making it extremely "physical"), although it cannot fully be explained at this time.
The bottom line is this: If we can produce a working KI, then we live in a materialist physicalist world. If not, then not.
Which makes sense, because if we CAN produce a working KI, then we are "GOD", so-to-speak, creating sentient consciousness. On another note - if we could procuce something like Galouye describes in his book Simulacron 3, we would be God as well, since we had created a universe (and there might be an infinite numer of them).
But that's just a big IF: WE CAN'T - in fact we have no idea, which makes it rather daring to ASSUME, we could.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 08:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The only thing personal in my post is politely reminding you not to act arrogant. That is not an attack. If you look at your own posts on page 4, you may realize why I needed to do that.
I just love the "I needed to do something" card. It's usually drawn after a desaster. And politely reminding me not to be arrogant:
Quote:
It's typical of you to pretend to choose not to say anything else when in fact you don't have anything else to say.
Sure.
JJ, you state an opinion about the absolute (suggesting that if I disagree I shouldn't even bother to start a thread on these matters). I give you a valid answer, you start talking about dropping out of the non-sense and what you quote is my reply to that. Don't act like a saint and please, let's not turn this into some pissing contest. If you felt offended I apologize.
The rest seems interesting and I'll look at it later, I'm in the middle of something right now.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 10:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:38, 01 May 2013.
|
Probabilities are not entities, they are occurrences. These occurrences can be "calculated" to a level as of now but that is not the point. Whether they can be calculated with perfect accuracy or not isn't a question of idealism versus materialism, whether they happen in an idealisticly understandable or materialisticly understandable universe is. You can have 30 Sherlock Holmeses in 30 universes trying to find the killer calculating the probabilities with a different a priori and yet all of them can say "there was no magic." If you have a philosophical "theory of everything" that combines the idealistic approach with the materialistic one, you can say the dualism no longer stands and it's archaic, I don't. I kind of think Max Planck would agree with me since he said:
"To believe' means 'to recognize as a truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."
Now, I'm very well aware that you are not Elodin and the idealism you mention is not exactly the kind he suggests or Planck criticises here. You are talking about something else and on that I come up to you with the hypothetical question of an alternative universe with an alternative (or not) math that I already asked to Zenofex. Because if your answer to that question is yes, then you are an idealist, if your answer is no, you are a materialist. My answer is no.
(And I assume KI stands for Knowledge Integration, if I'm right we have a very different way of looking at that because I evaluate it as something that evolves in degrees. No KI in bacteria, some KI in a dog or a dolphin, high KI in humans. What makes us unique is we can record achieved KI and pass it to future generations and build on it so it multiplies but that's slightly off topic. My point is KI can evolve by itself in a material world all by itself.)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
Sorry, I actually meant AI or Artificial Intelligence - I just put the German abbrevation in for it.
For mathematics and your multiverse - your question shows that you have a prpoblem with math, because the answer is not only yes, you would even EXPECT that.
That's because mathematics has nothing to do with the physics of the other universe.
It doesn't matter which pysics was valid there, mathematics would be able to describe it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 01, 2013 11:21 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:44, 02 May 2013.
|
So if I get you right, you say that it would be not only possible but also probable that their math would evolve as OUR math. Both maths would be identical?
Edit: I want to be clearer on this,
Quote:
It doesn't matter which pysics was valid there, mathematics would be able to describe it.
I am not suggesting theirs would be a mathematically indescribable world. I am suggesting their actual universe would produce its own math (and calculations). Could our math describe it later on? That is a relevant but not exactly "in the bullseye" relevant question, I can describe a German mountain in Turkish.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 12:49 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:50, 02 May 2013.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 01:48 AM |
|
|
Probabilities aren't occurrences, they're predictions of occurrences. If you flip a fair coin, you believe that there is a 50/50 chance of it landing on heads or tails, but that doesn't mean anything in the world outside your mind - there's not a 50/50 chance "out there", because the coin will either land on heads or on tails. The probabilities you assign are based on your prior beliefs (and presumably previous observation of the coin), because you don't know how it will land.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Probabilities aren't occurrences, they're predictions of occurrences. If you flip a fair coin, you believe that there is a 50/50 chance of it landing on heads or tails, but that doesn't mean anything in the world outside your mind - there's not a 50/50 chance "out there", because the coin will either land on heads or on tails. The probabilities you assign are based on your prior beliefs (and presumably previous observation of the coin), because you don't know how it will land.
Fair point, I should have said probabilities are not dealt with as entities, they are dealt with as occurrences.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 05:36 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:46, 02 May 2013.
|
@JJ
Quote:
What about the supposed quantum processes in the brain? They would kill determinism for human behaviour/thinking.
Also, aren't there other probability effects? Radioactive decay, for example.
Is this directed at me?
Regarding the second point: yes. Like all molecular or atomic processes, radioactive decay is probabilistic. Which is to say that if I managed to put 1 atom of radioactive radon (say) in a tube, you would not be able to say with certainty when it would decay. It could be in a second. It could be in ten years. Unlikely in either case (the half-life of 222-Radon is just south of 4 days) but there is no way to predict, based on a specific prior event, when it will happen. In this way, the decay of a single radon atom is not deterministic.
However when you have 6.02 x 10^23 radon atoms (what we chemists call a mole, although the exact number here isn't important), you can predict with very near perfect precision exactly how many of them will still be hanging around after any given amount of time. This is because we can know - from first principles approaches, in many cases, as well as empirical observation - what the probability is, per unit time, that any given radon atom will decay*. And when you're dealing with large numbers (like 6.02 x 10^23), what you're effectively observing is the time-average of all those probabilities. (It's kind of like rolling a die: you can't know, in a truly random roll, what face will show up in a specific circumstance, but you can predict with absolute certainty what the average value will be after an infinite number of rolls - based on pure mathematical reasoning - and the larger the number of actual rolls, the closer is the likelihood of approaching this theoretical value.)
Insofar as all macroscale observations are effectively based off an obscenely large number of replicate measurements, macroscale events become easily predictable based on a set of prior-known conditions. In that way, the deterministic "macroscale" may just be an illusion brought about by large numbers, though there are plenty of physicists who believe the continuum between the quantum scale and macro-scale is more complicated. If you are really interested in this I would suggest looking into wave function collapse and quantum decoherence, but being perfectly honest these topics - especially their modern incarnations - are beyond my area of technical expertise (they are unimportant for quantum chemistry applications) and so my philosophical musings on them are casual at best.
By the way, lest you think that this probabilistic nature of the quantum world is a mathematical abstraction - it can be observed directly. When fluorescent molecules were first studied one emitter at a time (this is actually possible; using sufficiently strong microscopes we can resolve single molecules and view their fluorescence - I have built such a microscope myself, and even so I have to say I still find the concept truly amazing), researchers were surprised to find that these emitters actually rapidly turn on and off. Called blinking, or known by its technical name, fluorescence intermittency, the individual short-duration patterns of rapidly turning on and off are inherently unpredictable but when the patterns are analyzed over long periods of time they strictly obey power-law statistics. Last I checked it's still not known exactly why this is - I've drifted gradually away from that aspect of the field - but it's a nice example of real data which shows the probabilistic nature of the quantum world. If you time-average this blinking, you can also make comparisons to what you'd expect from macroscopic experiments. The probabilistic nature of the quantum world can be observed in other ways (spectroscopic line-widths and so forth), but I think the blinking phenomenon is so much more... direct.
As to your prior point about quantum-scale processes in the brain - that's an interesting topic, for sure. I'll refrain from offering an opinion at the moment.
I do have to put on my mod hat a moment and congratulate artu on the thread though. It's nice to see a philosophy thread that isn't bogged down in religion.
* Not being a nuclear physicist, I'm actually not sure about the extent to which nuclear half-lives can be predicted from first principles. However being pretty knowledgeable in molecular physics I can tell you that many molecular scale processes, which are similarly probabilistic, CAN be predicted very well from first-principles approaches. Therefore "experience" or "observation" doesn't really have anything to do with it. You can predict the probability of molecular light absorption without ever having seen a molecule absorb light.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 09:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So if I get you right, you say that it would be not only possible but also probable that their math would evolve as OUR math. Both maths would be identical?
Edit: I want to be clearer on this,
Quote:
It doesn't matter which pysics was valid there, mathematics would be able to describe it.
I am not suggesting theirs would be a mathematically indescribable world. I am suggesting their actual universe would produce its own math (and calculations). Could our math describe it later on? That is a relevant but not exactly "in the bullseye" relevant question, I can describe a German mountain in Turkish.
Mathematics work fundamentally different than others. I suppose you know what an axiom is: basically an assumption or claim that cannot be proven, but is considered a given. While physics are axiomatic as well (Newton's 3 laws of motions are physical axioms, for example), they CAN be falsified or expanded (in this example that happened when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity).
While all mathematics is based on axioms, it's not possible to reduce mathematics to a few. It is true, that for example the natural numbers are based on a few axioms and therefor all mathematics that make use of those, implicitely are based on those axioms as well, but fundamentally spoken, when you start something "new", you start with new axioms as well.
Sometimes it pays to simply drop an axiom to get something new (Euler's hyperbolic geometry is a case like that) - but meanwhile the "body" of mathematics is so unbelievably BIG and there are many axioms.
I will answer your question with a simple example: Let's take Euklid's fifth postulate: If you have a given line l and a point A not on that line, there is exactly ONE line m through A that is parallel to l - the parallel axiom.
It was shown later that there is no way to prove this - so it was considered an axiom. At that point, though, there is the possibility to change the axiom, and you can do that in two ways:
a) To any given line l and point A not on that line there is NO line m through A that is parallel to l (because two lines l and m will ALWAYS intersect). This leads to ELLIPTICAL geometry.
b) To any given line l and point A not on that line there are at least TWO parallel lines . This leads to HYPERBOLICAL geometry.
Now, the MATH has been developed for all 3 of those.
Back to physics. An actual problem of cosmology is the question whether space IN ALL (not locally, here we have relativistic curvature) is Euclidic, Elliptical or Hyperbolical.
No matter WHAT it is or may be - the math is there for any of those.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This means what I'm saying the whole time. Math is completely independent from the universe we live in (which doesn't mean, though, that you couldn't develop any math specifically for physics or certain problems of it - that's why a hypothetical math of a race living in a different universe with different laws of physics will have the same KIND of math. They may have a different numerical system and a different symbology, there may be differences in axioms, that is, in the actual size of the body of mathematics, but the math as such would follow along the same lines. If there were physically different fields and field theories because of the difference in nature, that specific math would differ (but only in the formulas, not in principle, because you can assume all kinds of differences anyway, change the axioms accordingly and so on (as shown above).
Now I would like to ask YOU a question: it's about your idea of physicalism. Ask yourself this: the way you understand it, wouldn't physical evidence for reality being idealistic paradoxically mean for you, that it was also materialistic (physicalistic), because it was physical science that delivered the evidence?
If you answer this with YES, your terminology and definitions make no sense, because it's not free of contradiction.
If you answer this with NO - what is physicalism for you?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 11:10 AM |
|
|
@ Corr
The questions were directed at you (and more or less rhetorical). Thanks for the long answer anyway.
The main point, when we talk about the mathematical concept of probabilities and probability mathematics is, that, as far as I know, a lot of things in the quantum world are UNDECIDED until AN OBSERVATION or OBSERVATOR forces a decision.
For me that means, that there is no OBJECTIVE reality ON THAT LEVEL in the materialistic/physicalistic meaning.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 11:56 AM |
|
|
I caution against interpreting quantum physics if you are not yourself a quantum physicist. Every scientist I know is annoyed by many laymen's attempts to interpret their field without really understanding it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 12:59 PM |
|
|
Caution would be misplaced here.
Quantum Theory Interpretations
If you take a look at the table down below in that article, you will see, that there are quite a few interpretations with quite conflicting views concerning a couple of key elements.
However, that's complete interpretations - advanced theories.
Here, we are just taking a look at some well-known aspects and try to ascertain whether they are meaningful for the issue of this thread.
GENERALLY, in my opinion you'd have to affirm that, since the nature of the elements this reality consists of, seem to be relevant for the question.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 02:45 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 14:46, 02 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Caution would be misplaced here.
I agree. What annoys scientists is not when laymen make interpretations of their field, but when laymen repeatedly use bad information to make bad conclusions, even after they've repeatedly been told by experts that their information is bad. In point of fact, every scientist I know - and I know a lot of them - is more than happy to discuss their field with laymen. Not just teach, but discuss. In fact this is a vital part of the profession.
Anybody is entitled to their philosophical opinion about anything, and I, for one, would never tell anyone they shouldn't explore a field they're not experts at. Laymen have a lot to offer in the way of fresh perspectives and new ideas that experts simply don't see because they aren't often focused on the bigger picture. We can learn from laymen just as easily as they can learn from us. Moreover, I can't speak for all scientists, but I am more willing to talk about any topic that falls under the umbrella of my expertise, in the hope that more laymen can make their own philosophical (or practical) interpretations of the field from a point of good information. Even if our respective interpretations of that information are ultimately different, I consider it a victory if I have helped increase the number of people walking around using facts instead of erroneous suppositions.
I think the only thing scientists would ask from laymen is to be afforded the same degree of respect laymen give experts in any profession. A layman wouldn't presume to tell a cardiac surgeon how to operate on a heart - why do they argue with an evolutionary biologist over whether evolution is a random process? This is what drives us bonkers.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 04:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A layman wouldn't presume to tell a cardiac surgeon how to operate on a heart - why do they argue with an evolutionary biologist over whether evolution is a random process?
Religion,ignorance or the human tendency to assume something and claiming its true because they believe in it or because they always have to be right.
As for your assertion "why dont they tell a surgeon what they should do", you certainly have not seen such people, I have.
And as for laymen, this is a laymen discussion, unless some of you taken the discussion to a higher level and start basing your claims on real "peer" reviewed scientific papers or that of your own.
And even if you did so, you must know that there is a barrier between physics and philosophy and that in philosophy, you can argue everything whereas in physics, once something proven, the discussion is over.
Trying to talk about materialism or idealism and basing the reasoning on maths or quantum physics will lead to nowhere because materialism and idealism are not physical concepts. They have nothing got do with logic or math.
One can play devil's advocate and say that both of the concepts are true or false.
Keep discussing though, its certainly amusing to read what some of you have to say.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 02, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
because materialism and idealism are not physical concepts. They have nothing got do with logic or math.
It's amusing to actually see materialist to write down that materialism have nothing to do with logic!
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
