I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God? — Rich

Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically, like scientific theories generally are, rather than epistemically like Copenhagen theory.

Some notable achievements of thinking of QM in this way are: the Schrödinger equation, discovery of superposition, discovery of entanglement, discovery of decoherence, and the discovery of the quantum computer. Let's not forget, the discovery of the multiverse.

MW is also the only theory that attempts to explain what is going on in reality.

If you think that Copenhagen allows you to escape from determinism, you are quite wrong. Copenhagen is fully compatible with Superdeterminism.

Is the MWI, infinitary? — Posty McPostface

No, it's Unitary - always.

No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to? — Rich

E pur si muove

If you could construct a coherent criticism, rather than a visceral reaction to the scale of reality revealed to us by our best theories, then that would be interesting. Why bother being so scathing about something you don't understand?

You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation? — Rich

The old argument from personal incredulity. Or perhaps more accurately, the argument from ignorance?

Anyway, the earth is not flat and it's not turtles all the way down.

Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid. — Posty McPostface

Only outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics are permissible. Also, if an outcome is the result of rational deliberation, it is not clear that more than one outcome occurs..

Do you agree with the following? — Mitchell

There must be a deeper metaphysical problem, because we know what you are already, we just haven't worked out how to implement you.

it is quantum theory that posits the possibility of creatio ex nihilo. — Cavacava

I'm not so sure about that. It seems that for inflation to begin, there has to already exist a scalar field with certain properties in a preexisting space-time. The Universe may be the ultimate free lunch, but it didn't come from nothing.

Also, it is claimed that our universe is unbounded - it is infinite. What physical process can take nothing and make it infinite in finite time?

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

I'd put the first appearnce of an eternal realm separate from the physical world in Plato. Although he called the Forms "divine", they weren't in any sense "gods".

The appearance of (a) God separate from the world seems to me to be, in the West, to occur in Genesis 1. God existed separate from the world and created the world. To say that God is separate from the world does not rule out his interacting with the world. What it does rule out is both Pantheism and totally immanent deities. — Mitchell

Oops, I forgot about Plato.

Anyway, I think we are so used to the idea of a separate supernatural realm, that we impose it on religious texts. I'm not convinced that it is necessary to take that view in reading Genesis.

When moses asked God his name, he replied "I shall be whom I shall be". Those seem to me to be the words of someone who is in physical reality rather than separate from it.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all. — Mitchell

I'd be interested in when this "supernatural" dimension first appeared in the philosophy of religion. It seems that Aquinas, following Maimonides, and ultimately Aristotle, regarded the Soul as Form of activity of the body - the soul is non-material, but it is certainly physical, and is subject to the laws of physics.

Perhaps the first occurrence of "supernatural" is the Gnostic heresy?

Do you happen to know when the error of separating God from Reality firs occurred?

I find 4 of Feser's arguments unconvincing because they rely so heavily on Thomistic metaphysics, which I find also unconvincing. His fifth argument, the Argument from PSR, holds most promise, but his dismissal of the Objection from Brute Facts seems to me to beg the question. — Mitchell

Shame that the PSR is falsified in the Free Will Theorems of Kochen and Conway.

My understanding is that the incompleteness theorems that Godel postulated can be seen as emergent phenomena from underlying axioms, although unprovable from those very axioms, which would seem like a contradiction of face value. I might be of course wrong about this. — Posty McPostface

Well, Godel's theorems are deductions from a set of axioms. With a different set of axioms, you are likely to get a different set of deductions. Nothing has emerged or epiphenomenalised.

If you are looking for an emergent phenomenon, then why not Life?

I don't think the notions of either determinism or randomness amounts to anything meaningful when describing 'nature in itself', because the 'necessary' truths of any physical theory are only the logical truths that defined as being true according to linguistic convention, with the convention being arbitrarily chosen and perpetually subject to revision. — sime

Our best theories are deterministic. They work equally well forwards in time as backwards.

But, as I understand it, that is not the same as the materialism/physicalism of a naturalist worldview. It is not the same thing from which determinism and similar ideas are derived. It's just a practical starting point for investigating the world, not a statement about existence, experience, reality vs. perception, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Sure, science can start from anywhere. Its method tends to lead, through a series of tentative decisions towards better explanations, though there are no guarantees.

You cannot escape, however, the fact that our best theories are fully deterministic.

By the way, velocity is a vector, and so direction of motion is part of what a velocity specifies. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, but some people confuse velocity with speed. — Michael Ossipoff

I would never commit such a crime, that is why you are given magnitude and direction.

Maybe a single particle in motion isn't the most feasible system for successive measurements of the energy of an effectively-isolated system. — Michael Ossipoff

It is literally the simplest system though. You are free to make perfect measurements if you wish, under whatever laws of motion you choose. And you HAVE to choose.

There are ample effectively-isolated systems whose energy can be measured at successive times. — Michael Ossipoff

Choose one of these systems, and describe how measurements of the total energy might be made. Or concede the argument and admit you have been enlightened.

You think? :D — Michael Ossipoff

I know!

Why do some people here feel a psychological need to expound on physics? — Michael Ossipoff

We get triggered by B.S'ers

Maybe it would be better for you to leave physics to physicists. — Michael Ossipoff

My PhD was in Computational Quantum Mechanics. Most of my friends are physicists (I know what they think, and why. We received the same education and training). My wife if a highly successful physicist. I am surrounded by them. I can't get away from them!

Didn't Wittgenstein say something about remaining silent on things that you're clueless about? — Michael Ossipoff

I think he was referring to you.

The materialism in the scientific method is just an axiom or something like that assumed for the purpose of investigating the physical world. It is not, as I understand it, the same as the materialism/physicalism of philosophical/intellectual movements that deny the existence of free will, say that consciousness is nothing more than neurological activity in the physical brain, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think that Realism underlies the scientific method. The idea that whatever is amenable to empirical testing is actually there and exists. Also that the solutions that science proposes to the problems it encounters are couched in terms of this reality.

There is, of course, a risk of descending into circularity, but I think it safe to say that now (not so during the time of Newton) science has in fact honed in on the idea of the physical, and has adopted that metaphysics.

the simplest answer I have found is quantum mechanics and the physical world. — Pollywalls

In what way is quantum mechanics simpler than the alternatives?

I don't understand how computer programs are related to entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suppose the issue is understanding how emergent properties can emerge from basic systems. — Posty McPostface

Your claim that computation is an epiphenomenon struck me as rather strange because I had thought that such effects were strictly non-causal, and it seems that the computation itself must be causal. But, perhaps it isn't, perhaps we just line up all the marbles in the right way, and let them roll down the hill.

Maybe tigers are just an epiphenomenon as well, but if computation is an epiphenomenon, then entropy creation certainly is. Entropy and computation are related by information theory, and you can't do a computation without the production of entropy. It seems strange that we have a physical law about an epiphenomenon.

I've not come across a convincing account of emergence. However, as I've understood it, we know it has happened when explanations must take account of the emergent entity. So, our best theory of biodiversity is couched in terms of replicators, selection, variation. None of these emergent properties is even necessarily biological.

I would like to clear up the issue of whether computation is emergent or epiphenominal.

See above. — Michael Ossipoff

At least we have established that you are neither a physicist nor know one.

Let's break it down to the simplest possible system. Consider a particle of mass m moving with a velocity v in the positive x direction.

Now your job is to devise a test for the Principle of Conservation of Energy on that system. If you use any subsidiary theory, you have lost the argument, whether you realise it or not.

We are probably getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but you might find it helpful to also read sections 31 and 35 of your copy of "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper.

This article, by the famous philosopher and physicist who invented the quantum computer might help clear things up for you:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-constructor-theory

A computer program occupies the logical space created by the hardware of a computer. So, it exists as an epiphenomenon if that makes any sense. — Posty McPostface

So, entropy is an epiphenomenon? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an epiphenomenal law?

So I don't see it as a contravention of the LEM to say that the self is neither physical nor non-physical; it is just to say that the self cannot be coherently thought in either of those ill-formed categories. — Janus

Is a computer program physical or non-physical?

Yes, I agree the self is neither physical nor non-physical. — Janus

Bang goes the law of the excluded middle! Why do philosophers waste their time on these things?

Ah, but I existed before I joined this group, so your mind did not create me. — Mitchell

There are no empirical consequences of Solipsism that makes it distinguishable from realism. It is logically consistent. It is therefore impossible to apply the method of science, test, or falsify it. It is a philosophical question.

Is this so hard for people to grasp?

Actually, infants have already solved this problem when they acquire Object Permanence. — Harry Hindu

I don't think infants have a clue about quantum mechanics let alone prefer epistemic or realist interpretations.

If 1. is true, then you are saying that you only exist as words on a screen, as that is how you appear to me. Is that what you are saying? If 1. is true, I assure you that your mind doesn't exist and only mine does as I never experience another mind, only words on a screen. You, however would argue the opposite, so it seems that 1. defeats itself. Realism doesn't seem to have that problem. — Harry Hindu

I thought you were going to provide a test so we can falsify solipsism.

Measuring for change in the energy of an isolated system tests Conservation of Energy. — Michael Ossipoff

So, how are you going to do that, using the Conservation of Energy alone. Go ahead, give it a try!

Your two abovequoted statements, together, say that Conservation of Energy can't be tested. — Michael Ossipoff

None of the principles of physics can be directly tested, only their subsidiary theories can.

Conservation of energy can be tested by observing whether an isolated system is ever observed to experience a change in its energy. — Michael Ossipoff

How?

Physicists call Conservation of Energy a law. — Michael Ossipoff

And I'm certain that many physicists think it can be tested, because they haven't thought about it. Once they appreciate it can't, which they will discover very quickly, they will better appreciate the distinction between the Principles and Laws of physics.

Anyway, you were going to provide a method of testing CofE, weren't you.

Get thought and belief right, in terms of it's necessary and sufficient conditions in addition to it's elemental constituency, and it becomes quite clear that solipsism is existentially contingent upon meaning. Meaning... that which becomes sign/symbol and that which becomes signified/symbolized and an agent to draw correlations between the two that result in signification/symbolism(the attribution of meaning). — creativesoul

Thanks for clearing that up.

I admit that with current techniques and levels of technology this is impossible but if we were able to observe more then one's own mind to exist, then Solipsism would be false. — SnowyChainsaw

I repeat, how might Solipsism be falsified in principle?

Perhaps we might do this by digitizing a person's mind and either copying or transferring it into an artificial body. Perhaps the answer lies in the mysteries of higher dimensions. I can only speculate but it is an undeniable possibility and an very likely scenario. — SnowyChainsaw

Higher dimension, mysteries? Probably

So, you throw rocks at yourself, unbeknownst to yourself?

Nice. — creativesoul

Unless you are stupid, you would know that you threw rocks at yourself. As for others, well, they are figments of your imagination.

Currently unfalsifiable. New techniques or technologies may allow us to directly observe a mind and it will be through the scientific method that we will make an analysis. — SnowyChainsaw

Nope. It is logically coherent, and unfalsifiable in principle. Perhaps you might indicate how Solipsism is in principle falsifiable?

Nor need it. The rock one throws at your head, when you're looking the other way, really hurts when it strikes you. If that isn't enough evidence that that rock is/was independent of your mind, then nothing could be. — creativesoul

No, it's not evidence of anything. My mind creates all phenomena.

Actually it can, we just don't know how to apply it yet. (Edit: how to make the necessary observations) — SnowyChainsaw

Actually, that is false. That "only my mind exists" is logically coherent and unfalsifiable, in principle.

You can argue that will have the capabilities to discover everything that there is eventually, but there isn't a strong basis to make that argument on. — JustSomeGuy

Really? How about the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (please don't confuse it with the Church-Turing Thesis) which is proved to apply under known physics.

The CDT Principle guarantees we can know everything we want to know.

Of course, but if you want to determine which claims are more useful than others, and therefore more accurate, then they need to be testable and falsifiable, or else every claim has just as much validity as every other claim, which includes contradictory claims. When two claims contradict each other, how do you go about getting at which one is more accurate? — Harry Hindu

OK, so let's examine two claims, which are actually competing theories, which utilise identical equations:

1. Underlying reality does not exist. The equations are purely epistemic.

2. Underlying reality does exist. The equations correspond to elements of reality.

Here we have a genuine situation where your criterion of accuracy is both philosophically and scientifically useless.

And of course we have the age-old ideas:

1. Only my mind exists.

2. There exists a Reality independent of my mind.

Science can't help you with that one.

No, it is not possible for non-falsifiable objects or phenomena to exist. Falsifiability applies only to theories: explanations that account for objects and phenomena.

There are many explanations to what is and what is not and science is the best method we have so far come up with to find them regardless of whether the subject is physical, not physical, natural or super natural. This is because science is merely a method of analysis and can be applied to anything. — SnowyChainsaw

No. Science is defined by the Principle of Demarcation. Not everything we are interested in is falsifiable or testable.

As far as what philosophy actually is, I have to say that the Bertrand Russell quote posted by Inter Alia is probably the best explanation I've seen recently. — JustSomeGuy

Except that science tells us that we can know anything we want to know about reality. There can be no epistemological barrier to our understanding.

???! :D — Michael Ossipoff

How does the Principle of Conservation of Energy help you in measuring the energy of an isolated system?


I misread your post, because one does not expect such nonsense.

You said that Conservation of Energy is a principle, not a law.

But there are ways to directly test Conservation of Energy.

Hint: Determine whether the energy of an (effectively) isolated system can be observed to change.. — Michael Ossipoff

Hint: That's WHY conservation of energy is a Principle.

Ontological materialism is the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist. For the ontological materialist anything immaterial must be the product of the material. In principle all immaterial phenomena must be reducible to (explicable by) natural laws. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What is an immaterial phenomenon, given that only mater and energy exist?

Simple. The intent lies within the cause of the equation themselves - Schrödinger. Why else would you call it the Schrödinger equation if not for the intent of Schrödinger himself when coming up with the equation. Wherever you find a statement, or law, you will find intent, for as far as I know, only people write statements and laws. Did Schrödinger design the universe to behave a certain way, or did he just write some equation that represents the way the universe behaves in a certain way? — Harry Hindu

I see, you pretend that somehow Schrödinger's desire to express quantum mechanics in differential equation form, has somehow infected the mathematical expression of the physical law discovered by Heisenberg.

You really are jumping the shark. The Schrödinger equation expresses the exact same law of physics as the Heisenberg equation, the exact same law as Dirac's equation (the interaction picture) and the exact same law as Feynman's path integral formulation.

But just so you know, the Schrödinger equation can be DERIVED from the most powerful formulation of classical mechanics - namely the Hamilton-Jacobi equation - by applying the extra constraint that the H-J equation must be globally deterministic.

Okay, so you mean something else with the second use of the term, "law", than you mean with the first use. Like I said, I dislike the use of the term, "law" when referring to the way things are. There is no underlying code, or rules for the way things are. There is simply the way things are and our representation of the way things are with language and math (laws). — Harry Hindu

No I don't. Principles are laws about laws. There is no direct way to use or test a principle.