Hi Wayfarer

Dualism arose from the simple notion that if we can establish characteristics which break the mould of a single type of stuff, why not have both?
— Gary Enfield

Actually It arose from the observation of the duality of matter and form. — Wayfarer

It's nice to have a brief non-aggressive conversation about origins ! The original counter to Materialism was Idealism which offered examples from thought that broke the materialist/ determinist principle of causality. I personally wouldn't say that was 'matter and form'.

we can try to narrow in on the factors that Matter/Energy or anything else would have to overcome in order to produce (say) a mechanism based on codes.
— Gary Enfield

I think the advent of the 'information paradigm' as Olivier5 says, does that to a large extent. That is why biosemiotics is an important discipline. But notice that the source I quoted believes that the literal origin point of life can never be known in principle, that it's 'formally undecideable'. And also defends the point of view that the emergence of life really is the emergence of a completely novel kind of order in the Universe that can't be fully explained in terms of physics and chemistry alone. — Wayfarer

Why do you feel it is necessary to say that 'somebody else' feels it is important. Why can't any of us just say what we believe and give the evidence/examples to support that view? We are all perfectly capable of having our own opinions. What this debate needs is more evidence and examples - not bouncing theories about without any substantive corroboration.

Facts/evidence can say why one theory doesn't work, because the examples break the principles of a suggested solution. If no argument has any evidence, then it is sufficient to state the idea and wait for evidence one way or the other.... although philosophy generally requires the characteristics that would resolve the issue.

In the case of codes - there either has to be a chemical reason why a code should emerge, or some other factor must be driving its emergence.

No chemical factor has been offered for such a thing, (and we can all speculate as much as we want on this - because the properties of chemicals are well described and limited by scientific research). So the fact that there is no current chemical explanation must lead us onto a consideration of what generic factors could drive the establishment of an intricate system of inter-connected codes. We don't need to be scientific specialists in order to do this. But Philosophy has to be practical too.

One bit of speculation is that at some crude level, there might be some degree of awareness and purpose. That is certainly the only way in which we have seen codes used in any other circumstance. And while this is truly a bizarre concept - we do have the evidence referred-to elsewhere in these posts about molecules seemingly adapting their activities for the purpose of an objective. Maybe, in time, this could be tested?

That was a simple example which we might all speculate about. But I was hoping to stimulate people's thoughts on this - to delve deeper.

If you, or anyone else here, can start to apply their minds about what fundamental factors might be necessary (even in abstract) we might begin to hone in on the things that scientists have to search for.

Hi OliverS

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry
— Gary Enfield

Okay so you are retracting your earlier wild claim that "these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy." Macromolecules do not break any principles that I know of. — Olivier5

My comments are perfectly clear and consistent if you read the second part of the statement I made, rather than just quote the first part in isolation. Chemists can describe chemistry, but if what they describe doesn't answer the point then the issue remains valid.

As in the examples which I did quote, these molecules which, (according to the Laws of Physics and Chemistry), should just do one thing in an inevitable way, are clearly shown to do more than one thing, and even seem to be working out puzzles. They break the rules.

These are single molecules without any other perceived interaction that could cause a different outcome

Hi Isaac

If many processes in life - and particularly within a cell - are shown not to be arbitrary or by chance
— Gary Enfield

How would you show that? — Isaac

It has been shown many times through the action of (say) the enzymes which repair DNA. The same enzymes do different things in response to different circumstances, but always in order to re-create the original strand of DNA exactly, (seemingly a purpose or objective) - despite bits being knocked out and missing from the DNA sequence which they effectively have to re-create. They do this by trying to find other templates to copy, matching them up, and then exactly filling-in the gaps.

That is not arbitrary by any standard. To the observation of even the scientists who discovered it, and who have been desperately seeking an answer to how it is done for decades now, they are exercising purposeful control... even awareness, because the small number of enzymes that do this have to recognise each unique circumstance before being able to fix it.

We have to be given a process that can inevitably lead to every outcome - because that is how the laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated - using traditional mathematics with just one outcome for every scenario.
— Gary Enfield

In theory, yes. But a model which gives us six out of every ten is better than one which gives only five. Materialism only need show it's a better model than alternatives. — Isaac

It doesn't give 6 out of 10 - it is barely able to give odds of 1 in a billion. In the case of forming a single protein (as stated in the OP) it is odds of 1 vs the number of atoms in the Universe (10 to the power 260). We can see that the processes of replication which operate in our cells today have been set up to operate with near certainty, per the laws of physics and chemistry, but when you look at what that set-up represents it pushes us back onto what could possibly establish the base position before life existed and indeed before any known method of evolution. That is the issue I was raising in the OP.

And by the way - you do not do yourself any favours by ridiculing the Laws of Physics and Chemistry - which are, in their practical application very real and the very basis of materialist thinking... (providing one inevitable outcome).... but with limited application.,,, ie. only as far as they claim to apply.

When anyone is able to suggest any credible way...
— Gary Enfield

Here's your issue. Like Wayfarer, you're confusing what you personally find satisfying with something that should count as evidence for others. Why would I revise any of my beliefs based on what you find credible. It's only what I find credible that matters. — Isaac

What rubbish! The explanations offered do not satisfy because they have not answered the question being asked. That is plain for anyone to see, (if they care to look), and it is why scientists researching the issue are still looking themselves.

There are too many examples which break materialist notions.
— Gary Enfield

There are none. You've simply not understood mainstream materialist claims. — Isaac

I haven't misunderstood, but your ill informed comment suggests that you haven't looked and are content to go with a myth before validating your comments. From the loophole free Bell Test experiments, to the accelerating expansion of the universe, to the dilemmas around the origin of the universe, the origin of life, navigation within cells, DNA repair, and every example of the use of probabilities within QM - the whole range of science is riddled with examples that seem to break the materialist mould.

Hi Tom Storm

When I said no consciousness without a brain I was not referring to simple celled creatures which may or may not have awareness or brains. Given I believe in evolution, there would no doubt have been a point when nascent 'not quite' consciousness went with nascent 'not quite' brains. Not really a useful distinction in my mind. Maybe I should have said where is consciousness without a material host? — Tom Storm

As I understood it, you were trying to argue that no form of living response based on awareness and analysis could be undertaken without a brain - and by implication pre-life chemicals or any isolated cell... such as a single celled creature.

I referred to examples which were uncovered by scientific research, and which are not denied. There is an apparent response by things without a brain that seems to apply at least some level of adaptive logic without even the hint of a chemical mechanism to do so.

Either there is such a capability that can be deployed by a bunch of chemicals without a brain - or there isn't. If you say there isn't then what is your alternate mechanism?

If it is possible - then to what extent might it apply in more generalised situations?

Materialism needs to acknowledge the things that appear to contradict it.

Hi Isaac

The whole purpose of a materialist/chemical process is to show that the Laws of Physics and Chemistry apply when explaining a situation.

If many processes in life - and particularly within a cell - are shown not to be arbitrary or by chance, then an answer based on chance is not addressing the issue and is certainly not a solution. We have to be given a process that can inevitably lead to every outcome - because that is how the laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated - using traditional mathematics with just one outcome for every scenario.

Even in concept, can you suggest any mechanism by which these molecules adapt their behaviour to different circumstances to produce the perfect, predictable, end outcome - such as a fully repaired section of DNA with a double break and pieces missing?

When anyone is able to suggest any credible way in which this, (and the other undeniable examples) could be achieved, (even before it is proven), then materialists can claim that their philopsohy is valid in these circumstances.

But they can't - and that is equally true of the steps necessary to form the first living cell. They are not even close - especially on matters of principle.

And there are many such examples across the full scope of scientific research, (although the field of biochemistry has a greater concentration than most), so materialism cannot say that its principles apply everywhere. There are too many examples which break materialist notions.

Hi Wayfarer

But materialism is a form of monism. To admit that there’s something real other than matter-energy us to reject materialism and open the door to all manner of speculations. — Wayfarer

I agree - monism is very different to Dualism. For the benefit of others, we can also say that there are also very different forms of monism from materialism to idealism and beyond.

The underlying question for each of these perspectives is - what do the different concepts of 'underlying stuff' represent, and is there anything in the evidence which conflicts with any of those notions - which would either render that concept inaccurate, or at least, not the complete story.

Dualism arose from the simple notion that if we can establish characteristics which break the mould of a single type of stuff, why not have both? We then have to ask what each type of stuff might bring to the party - it doesn't have to be God or even Thought - it could simply be randomness, or something even more down to earth. What Dualism can potentially offer determinists is a way to maintain their principle of strict cause and effect when no other such factor can be found in Matter/Energy.... but that other stuff certainly doesn't have to be God.

If Dualism isn't accepted, the other monist or even Pluralistic beliefs have to provide an explanation for the factors/evidence which challenged their understanding.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.... — Richard Lewontin

And this single-mindedness is because scientific materialism is a direct descendant of the belief in the 'jealous God'. — Wayfarer

Again - it is a lot simpler if we confine science to the facts that it establishes. The interpretations of scientists are philosophy - even if they tend to prefer materialist views and not consider others.

Is it against common sense to talk of multiple parallel universes? It is not illogical, but it is 'unbalanced' and unfair if this type of speculation is allowed to stand, but not Dualism, which is a lot simpler.

Materialism is a belief or faith because it cannot prove its case in those areas where its principles are demonstrated, at face value, to be broken.

Again - if materialism is to gain the upper ground, it needs to acknowledge the evidence that challenges it and not just sweep it aside in the hope that something will deal with those examples later.

Nobody here is going to solve this problem, but we can discuss the philosophical implications, which is what we're doing. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry but I disagree. The whole purpose of philosophy is to speculate about possible solutions, while framing them in some logical parameters. We are all capable of valid speculation when we know the criteria that we have to work within.

We are also reasonably familiar with what the capabilities of Matter/Energy are. So we can try to narrow in on the factors that Matter/Energy or anything else would have to overcome in order to produce (say) a mechanism based on codes.

Hi Adughep

I agree that water does have special properties in relation to the development of life and as NASA will tell you, the search for water is the first step in the search for life as we know it.

The question is whether the contribution made by water is mechanical, or something more - akin to the essence of life which was a key feature of Vitalism.

Finipolscie provided a very good and comprehensive list of these positive contributions by water in his 2nd book, but none represented any sort of life force or even any ability to carry and transfer information.

Until further evidence arises to the contrary I am therefore inclined to believe that water's contribution is largely as a chemical/mechanical enabler.

Hi Oliver 5

Nothing in biochemistry breaks the laws of physics, not even DNA repair enzymes. Those critters are not self-aware, they are just very sophisticated molecular machines. — Olivier5

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry -but those descriptions don't explain how things do what they do - which was the purpose of the exercise.

Until those chemical mechanisms do explain what is observed, you cannot claim that your statements are correct.

Enzymes, proteins, RNA, DNA and the rest, are all just single molecules - all be it complex ones.

The energy analysis of the chemistry has only shown that these things are able to fold naturally in a shape that acts like a key, (for one other component that it will be able to react with). It does nothing to explain the behaviour that is witnessed by researchers over and over again.

The variable series of activities which these things deploy to achieve a predictable complex outcome, (eg. DNA repair) rather than an arbitrary outcome has yet to be explained, and until materialism can do this - it cannot claim to have proven its case by any means.

Hi Amity / T Clark

I had hardly abandoned the discussion when the original post had been just 5 days earlier!

I don’t mind people pursuing their interests, and couldn't stop them doing so anyway, but it is still permitted for me to say when things are off topic – when I believe they are – having set the OP.

In terms of my standing back – you have clearly been posing questions to each other rather than me. Looking back on the posts there have been some disagreements with what I said – responses which were made as statements rather than questions, and which were responded to by others.

Looking back - nobody has directly addressed any question to me - other than as a means of posing a question which they seemed to want to answer themselves. Almost all were concerned with method rather than ideas to resolve.

This is a discussion group - so let's discuss.
Do you have any comments on the evidential subject matter?

and all other contributors

I have watched with interest and awe at the passionate exchanges which you have conducted on theoretical and principled grounds, but I feel that you have largely strayed from the original topic.

There have been comments about commentators, and the appropriate use of different philosophies and methodologies. You have strayed into trying to distinguish life from no life, and huge diversions into the nature of consciousness, along with some attempts to smear the debate by trying to say that there are hidden agendas to justify God and creationism if we dare to stray beyond the boundaries of materialism.

On that last point I feel obliged to point out that there are several other potentially valid philosophical options across the range of thinking. You may have a preference from within the range, (materialism included), but if the evidence does not disprove a workable option, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

I should also correct one point that seems to recur – Dualism does not advocate God or spirit, it only says that there is a second type of stuff underpinning our existence (beyond matter/energy). What characteristics that other stuff may have is open to secondary debate, but inevitably those characteristics must seek to plug apparent gaps in the principles that restrict Matter/Energy as we know it.

Your debates were intriguing to watch but they were also the reason why I stayed out of the fray until now. To me it all seemed to miss the purpose of the debate. However I sense that we are beginning to return to some practical issues and real evidence. So here are some further contributions from me.

Enrique, (if I understood him correctly), initially offered the suggestion that some of the early developments in the mechanisms of life might have emerged as a result of superpositions within the sterile chemical environment that could ‘consider’ a myriad of permutations simultaneously, allowing some more advanced molecules to emerge in rapid timeframes.

Even if that was correct, it is the distinguishing factors between 'one outcome that was ignored' and 'another that was progressed', that intrigues me, but which has not been explored by any of you – ie. what is the basis of such non-conscious factors…. before any life existed.

Your references in the previous post to the operations of the brain and quantum fluxing etc. are again beyond the point of this topic because the brain is based on a myriad of living cells, when the emergence of life did not have the luxury of any previously existing cell - just sterile chemicals.

Again - even if the original superposition mechanism did apply, it would still need to provide several examples of the same molecules for nature to experiment with them, and see if different proteins or RNA could work together.

Of course we know that some of them would ultimately produce such pairings, but even the simplest processes of life would require many such pairings to form a chain of chemical activity - all working together to achieve something bigger, whether intentionally or not.

The significance of this is that something has to bring the whole lot together because it is only as a whole, that life has viability - and therefore some mechanism/process needs to bring all the separate elements together in one place. But what could drive that circumstance other than chance?
We need to have suggestions if the materialist notion is to become viable. On such a glaring matter – assumptions that one will appear in favour of materialism, are far from guaranteed.

I asked for some brain-storming about what such influences might be in the absence of a ‘survival instinct’, but I can only see one vague referral to a possibility that it might somehow relate to chemical and energy equilibrium and stability. But is that enough?

The concept behind the basic evolutionary mechanism we know of, means that we do need to show how one random mutation could be preferred over another. Could energy stability really do this?

As you will all know from my previous postings, I base a lot of my comments on proven evidence, but I also feel that it is valid to interpret such evidence. As I have said in other posts, (which reflects my basic training and understanding)...

... the role of philosophy is to put a framework around the unknown: thereby establishing the range of possible explanations, and the criteria that can prove or disprove any set of beliefs. In contrast, the role of science is simply to provide relevant facts to narrow the range of options.

When scientists apply an interpretation to their findings, they are applying a philosophical judgement, and until their case is proven, there will always be alternate explanations from across the range of possibility. Yet 'Facts' remain unchanged, for ever, and therefore every philosophical interpretation must accommodate every relevant fact if it is to be held as potentially valid.

So can we please try to find solutions based on what the evidence and research tell us, and apply that principle in a consistent manner?

I think Tom Storm said that there was no possibility of applying logic without a brain because there was no example of a mind without a physical brain. Therefore logic and awareness could not apply at the level of the sterile chemical environment, pre-life.

Yet if we leave aside the nuance that a Mind is a very complex thing, and boil his basic principle down to more simple factors that might be present in reality without a brain, then I'm afraid there are many proven examples that go against his suggestion.

As a start, there are a number of single celled creatures which do show crude awareness and possibly even a small degree of intelligence without a brain. The single celled amoeba – Didinium swims around and preys on other cells – paralysing them with darts that it fires before it eats them… implying intent, targeting, and recognition.

As mentioned in other posts, it is also clearly demonstrated that some of the activities of enzyme molecules undertaking DNA repair, do seem to display the characteristics of awareness without any known chemical or computational mechanism, even in theory, to explain it.

That doesn’t mean that a materialist solution won’t be found, but as things stand after decades of research, the evidence shows that these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy.

The evidence that counters materialism should be recognised as much as the examples which might support it.

More significantly, when it is undeniable that DNA represents a template, and the cellular mechanism for reproduction involves 3 sets of coded interactions and translations – what chemical factor could possibly result in a need to preserve and maintain a template, while linking it to complex multi-layer codes being applied as a standard. Nobody seems to have commented on this.

That is not a factor to be ignored, and again the potential implications should be recognised and not swept under the carpet by materialists hoping for a solution that may not come. We should be debating potential solutions openly and then seeking evidence to test out the different options.

Philosophy allows us to explore potential avenues of exploration by structured speculation which can be tested.

So can we please speculate about solutions that have practical application in the circumstances of the examples, rather than endless debates about methods?

Thanks.

Physics itself doesn't give a damn. — antor

Yes - but physicists certainly do!

If light's fundamentally invariance, invariant speed, is not just a property of our universe but a property of any other super set we could conceive of as harbouring our universe, that is to say, in any way that could be described epistemologically as a super set from our human contextual frame of reference, then time itself and the concept of tense that goes with it, ultimately have no meaning from a the frame of reference of these invariant phenomena. There is no cause or effect from that perspective — Paul S

I try to boil things down to basics, so we might understand them.
Time is essentially the consequence of movement which in itself provides us with a sequence. What we regard as Time is the rate of change in the sequence.
Unless you deny that there is movement and sequence, then surely there has to be some form of Time?

Hi Enrique

It may be better to continue this chat on a different thread as it seems to be at odds with the original topic. However, let me just say that none of the tests you mentioned has even conceptually addressed the requirements of a living cell.

To do that, you first need to accommodate the formation of the RNA / DNA mechanism from chemical building blocks, and neither the hydrothermal vents nor muddy pools seem able to do this.

Gregory

I don't think it is helpful to designate valid queries about the limits of Darwin's theories as being religious creationism.

Valid questions are valid questions, regardless of who they come from. (That said, I haven't seen many sensible arguments coming from the creationist camp - though I give one example below).

However the point about the origin of the first cell is valid. It was originally ridiculed by so-called scientists in the 1950s- 1980s, but then the scientific community realised that this was a valid point and that while an evolutionary approach seems to be necessary to form something as complex as the fist living cell, there was no alternate mechanism to do this.

This is what sparked the whole field of Abiogenesis - which over the course of decades has spectacularly failed to produce an alternate evolutionary mechanism even in the lab.

The best 'creationist' comment that I have been made aware of came from a scientist in the mid-west USA who also had religious leanings. When asked by Richard Dawkins, (on camera - BBC I think), how a man of science could possibly argue against the case for evolution, the man said simply... The Ribosome.

Look it up and you'll see why.

I am again surprised by some of the misconceptions in this debate.

Humanity has only identified one mechanism for Evolution in the entire universe - the living cell.
It does this (evolves) by deploying three key sub-mechanisms:

1 - it maintains a template, (DNA), whose sequence can be broken on one or both strands up to 10,000 times a day. The repair of the DNA sequence by a handful of enzyme molecules normally produces a perfect re-construction, but occasionally leads to a mistake in one among 1million genes in the DNA sequence. This is known as a mutation.

An incorrect (mutated) gene may lead to a cancer in a developed being, but its true effect will only be realised if the mistake occurs in, or is incorporated into, the DNA of an egg or sperm prior to fertilisation.

As Darwin and Dawkins explain, if the changed genetic sequence still produces a viable embryo, that entity will develop into a full living being that is either helped or hindered by the change. Such genetic changes will not be transmitted as frequently if the individual resulting from them has a disadvantage, while those beings who gain advantage by such a change will survive longer and therefore spread that gene more prolifically - enabling it to become established in the population.

The reason why different species cannot normally reproduce is that too many of their genetic sequences are incompatible. However science has shown that where there is compatibility then successful mating is possible. Horse & Donkey produce Mules, but Mules will not be able to reproduce until such time as the necessary compatible genes might arise in them. One day they might at which time a new species will come into existence. Ditto Tigons, etc. To prove the point, scientists have transferred fluorescent and other genes into species that wouldn't normally have them - because those genes do not affect the reproductive abilities of the new creatures.

Genetic mixing by living beings with different genetic characteristics does not represent a new mutation, but a spreading of one that has already been shown to be viable within a living being.

2 - living cells replicate their genetic sequences in order to reproduce both proteins/rna and indeed entire new living cells.

3 - they metabolise in order to maintain a source of energy and component supplies for them to perform the earlier tasks (1 & 2 above).



The mystery, therefore, is how is how the complexity of the first living cell could be achieved before the only mechanisms that is able to manufacture it - another living cell.

As Finipolscie says - Evolution is a process of change; it is not a process of start.

Hi Photios

IMO, an infinite value for any physical quantity should raise some red flags. As for black holes, the infinities we get are surely just a sign that our physics is breaking down at such high energies. — Photios

I agree, because there are very few real life circumstances where infinities might occur.

It may be possible for Finite things to exist within the context of an Infinity - but not the other way round.
Any suggestion that it might be that way should be challenged.

Hi PaulS
Here is the link to the other debate
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10091/do-probabilities-avoid-both-cause-and-explanation

The above may assist you in understanding my following comments on this quote

Probably, but to be fair, it is difficult to get anything practical done without using determinism. Even if the universe is indeterministic, determinism is a wonderful tool.

Indeterminacy is a key part of quantum mechanics. But, the Physicists who work on it, are working at the level of a particles' apparent indeterminacy, such as electron spin. It boils down to a probability distribution on a set of outcomes of a measurement on some observable like an electrons spin. — Paul S

I think that your point about determinism being a necessary factor in our analysis, is an excellent one to make. However in my opinion, it should be used as a yardstick, and where we find that deviances from that 'strict line' are unexplainable within established principles, scientists should be honest about that, and recognise that it may be evidence for non-deterministic behaviour.

As you will see from the other topic, probabiliities are at the centre of many false claims by scientists pretending that their 'inconvenient' experimental results show determinism, when logically the very use of probabilities denies any known cause.

Thanks

Hi PaulS

Not really. That is just abstraction we all picked up from Math diagrams. Just because I say, "yeah that line can just go on forever" doesn't mean it actually can. — Paul S

That's true, but equally those who only believe in the finite must provide a reason why a line like this would have to stop.... and they don't. That's why they said that the dimension lines must contain a subtle curve - allowing them to go on forever, but always bending round on themselves to form a circle.

Yet the 9 year results of the WMAP survey has largely ended that notion.... until contrary evidence arises.

I've seen so many theories that use duct tape fudges to avoid indeterminism, that I can't help but feel the universe may very well be indeterministic.

The only "fudge" that seems to so hard to avoid that many Physicists have embraced it is indeterminism itself. Maybe it's not fudge. — Paul S

I agree... yet to be precise, I have not met/encountered any physicist who espouses true 'randomness and spontaneity' - say in QM results etc. who is prepared to stray outside the realms of mathematics - which is essentially deterministic. This is a real dilemma for them... yet the heirarchy of their discipline is so heavily geared towards a belief in determinism that they would find their careers limited by any serious argument in the favour of non-determinism.

This was the core of my recent topic about the use of Probabilities. Did you see it?

Because most people learn at school to throw the infinity symbol around with such impunity, but if you ask them what comes after infinity, they can just say, nothing comes after infinity, it's infinite.

But that doesn't really deal with the profound implications of the infinite, and all the paradoxical baggage that comes with it. It's just not feasible to continue arguing for the infinite when the tools we use really only bolt the idea of infinity to the end. — Paul S

To ask what comes after infinity suggests that there is somehow an end to infinity - when there can't be. However I am persuaded by the argument that potential infinities can be limited, either by having a start point and then continuing to infinity after that; or the reverse - the ending of an infinity for some reason.

It is because the accelerating expansion of the universe was deemed to have ended the previously eternal sequence of the Bang:Crunch cycle that this could be argued as proof of the existence of non-determinist factors.... because the only way to change an eternal cycle is to introduce a spontaneous or truly random factor...... thank you Mr.Finipolscie for that one.

Hi PaulS

I am surprised by your examples as they do not really seem to test the idea of infinity.
The fact that a mathematical equation can be fed into itself to produce spiraling, (fractal-like), outcomes, doesn't say that there is a finite limit to such spiraling.

I should also point out that even nature has straight lines, and the conceptual ones marking the 3 dimensions could potentially run to infinity.

There are various purely conceptual infinities such as the never ending set of numbers. But in practical terms there are only two infinities that might potentially be real. One is the size of the universe; the other, as you point out, is Time.

One scientific suggestion is the traditional Big Bang: Big Crunch theory, (which was based on observation, but was also put forward to preserve the mathematical basis for our understanding of the physical universe). This suggested that the Universe was no bigger than the expanding ball of matter which emerged from a point in space, and has been growing outwards ever since (but this still limits the concept of the universe to a finite size - even if it is increasing at a supposed rate). This also had the effect of giving time a start point, till it was pointed out that this would break determinist principles. So the
Bang: Crunch: Bang cycle
was introduced to restore the possibility of an eternity of existence, and avoid the need for God as creator. Only Steven Hawking, as far as I'm aware, has seriously suggested a spontaneous start to existence, (incurring the wrath of the determinists), and even then he used the conceptual trick of balancing matter and antimatter to preserve the balance of mathematical equations.

The Big Bang idea was that the maximum size of the universe would be reached when gravity started pulling material back into the centre as a Big Crunch. Yet the objectors put forward the following argument....
if you were on the edge of the universe and could see the empty space beyond it, wouldn't that location be real and therefore wouldn't space be infinite even if physical matter hadn't yet reached it? In addition, why shouldn't there be other material beyond the ball of our universe, that occupies other parts of infinity?

'No' said the purists.... the totality of existence must be contained within the space occupied by physical matter, and it must be impossible to have existence beyond it, otherwise the maths of the Big Bang won't work, and something would potentially be required to put the 'infinite framework for space' in place - and nothing physical could achieve that.

So the idea of curved space came about... yet the 9 year results of the WMAP experiment showed that
"... the Universe is flat with a 0.4% margin of error, and that Euclidean geometry probably applies".... which effectively said that the universe was infinite.

There was also the evidence of the calculated size of the universe, (at over 96 billion light years - which was far bigger than could be achieved by expansion at the speed of light); plus the discovery that expansion of the universe seemed to be accelerating, (which not only seemed break the Bang:Crunch model, but also potentially proved that spontaneous (non-deterministic events) must be real.

Since then, there have been ways to preserve the determinist model, by either providing an entirely different mechanism for universe creation, (of which there is zero evidence), or the argument that the increasing redshift might simply be evidence that the universe has entered the crunch cycle.

While the latter is the only one to argue for a finite universe which is supported by evidence, it is surprising that so much alternate evidence continues to arise to reinforce the argument for infinities.

With that amount of knowledge, I believe that it is a correct statement that all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are functionally equal. By that, I mean that changing the interpretation doesn't change the outcome of an observation or experiment. If I am mistaken about this, I would appreciate it if someone would correct me.

If all interpretations are in fact functionally equivalent, then a discussion of which is the correct or appropriate interpretation, appears to have taken place almost entirely within the scientific community, but not, so far as I can tell within the philosophy of science community. Isn't that misplaced? Now to be clear, I do understand that philosophers are weighing in on the subject, which I think is appropriate, but what I don't see (maybe I am just ignorant of it) is interpretations proposed by philosophers. Isn't that what philosophy of science should be doing? — Reformed Nihilist

I am surprised at how much of the dialogue on this topic has missed some of the basic points about the relationship between philosophy and science.

The role of philosophy is to put a framework around the unknown: thereby establishing the range of possible explanations, and the criteria that can prove or disprove any set of beliefs. In contrast, the role of science is simply to provide relevant facts to narrow the range of options.

When scientists apply an interpretation to their findings, they are applying a philosophical judgement, and until their case is proven, there will always be alternate explanations from across the range of possibility. Yet 'Facts' remain unchanged, for ever, and therefore every philosophical interpretation must accommodate every relevant fact if it is to be held as potentially valid.

It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that any philosophy can change an observed and confirmed fact.

The difficulty with QM is that it cannot directly observe what it is investigating and therefore its facts are loose at best, because we can never be sure that we have established all of the variables at play in any scenario. That must be fundamentally true if the outcomes which are observed do not comply with known principles, and produce a range of outcomes for any single start point, without any known causes. In itself, (as demonstrated by the mathematical use of probabilities in virtually all QM equations), this 'randomness' would strongly suggest that determinist principles have been broken, because strict causality requires just one outcome for any single and precise circumstance/event .

For these reasons, I do not understand the early points made which suggested that there are definitive philosophers in their field. Dennet was used as an example, but he was/is one extreme voice out of many, and he along with other strict determinists were/are appalled by the seeming randomness of QM results - which continue to fundamentally break their principles.

Erwin Schrodinger and his philosophical principle involving a cat, marked one position in the range of thinking about QM results. Yet he put a very different marker in the philosophical landscape when he tried to define Life as ..."that which avoids the decay into equilibrium".

There are also many philosophical pronouncements within QM. For instance, each of the different interpretations of by scientists concerning the results of various Double Slit experiments, is a different philosophical viewpoint. Whether you prefer Copenhagen to Tegmark's Many World's theory, or Finipolscie's suggestion of another type of stuff underpinning the Universe, there are many philosophers with viable ideas because they all potentially explain the facts, with the level of knowledge that we have.

But we don't know which is true because we lack the equipment/techniques to provide better facts.

Hi Wayfarer
We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, despite you quoting me....

Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict.
— Gary Enfield

But that is a contested point. It is called the 'epistemic intepretation', as I understand it. There are other interpretations which claim that that there really is no existent particle designated as an electron until the measurement is made. That is what all the bafflement about the 'collapse of the probability wave'. — Wayfarer

While there may be doubt about whether the underlying nature of things is entirely deterministic, or only partially so, there is no dispute about what I said - the Uncertainty Principle is only about measurement and our ability to precisely predict in certain circumstances.

There will be questions over the presence of determinism or non-determinism in any event, but they lie at a different level to the Uncertainty Principle. That is all I was saying.

When you said...

The laws of physics are held to be the fundamental laws of the whole Universe by physicalism, with everything else being derived from, or supervening, on them. And physicalism is a very influential attitude. — Wayfarer

I do not deny that materialism is a very powerful voice in the world of science, but it is not the only voice. It is defended by those who want it to be true... and I have no problem with the truth, if it is proven to be so. But in this case the belief hasn't been proven. So such views remain a faith/opinion like all others.

As Finipolscie pointed out, it is a big ask for materialists to ask everyone to deny all the experiences of their lives (and everyone else's throughout history) in order to justify a materialist belief/faith when everyone's day to day experiences are of non-inevitable acts by living beings.

On such a major point we have the right to demand that materialists prove their case before we abandon our entire life's experiences and accept the consequences of an existence where we are supposedly acting out an inevitable script in everything we think and do.

Hi Pop

QM, as with the rest of physics, respects the light speed limit. It follows from time dilation, which is fact rather then theory. What we are seeing here is a new phenomenon rather then communication. — Pop

To be precise, this will not be a new phenomenon as we do not have the ability to alter nature. All we have revealed, at best, is a capability that had not been witnessed before, and which does seem to break our previously assumed limits. Assumptions can be wrong.

Equally, if the method of such experiments is to affect one of the paired particles in order to prompt a near instant and opposite effect in the other paired particle, I do not see how this can avoid being labelled as a communication.

If Gisin's faster than light experiment is evidence of other capabilities beyond Matter/Energy, (as we know & currently define it), then it falls into the 2nd category of possibilities that I stated in my OP - to bring potentially non-deterministic factors back within the deterministic fold using an external influence. But equally, these experiments do not disprove spontaneity or randomness.

All that any of us can do is to be honest and acknowledge the possibilities either way, because in the many key examples that exist, there is no deterministic explanation.

I return to the principle I quoted earlier.... that if an unexplained effect can be repeated with either a single predicted outcome or a very limited set of potential outcomes, we are more likely to find a deterministic cause at some stage - even if it/they lie outside Matter/Energy.

But those circumstances/experiments which produce a broad and very varied set of potential outcomes, are where we are more likely to find evidence of something non-deterministic.

Hi Waferer

Sadly, I cannot see how your replies clarify what your point is. Perhaps you could say it more clearly or directly? In saying this...

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.
— Gary Enfield

Of course it does. — Wayfarer

... you seem to begin by admitting that the Uncertainty Principle has no impact on assessing the issue of whether determinism or non-determinism applies in any circumstance, because it is an entirely separate issue. Yet later you said...

But the ‘uncertainty principle’ applies to just those purportedly fundamental constituents of reality - those very ‘items’ which LaPlace assumes nature is ‘composed’ from. It completely torpedoes that notion of determinism, holes it beneath the water line. — Wayfarer

No it doesn't - for the clear reasons that I stated before:-
Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict.

When commenting on LaPlace you said....

I think that is as succinct a statement of determinism as you’re likely to find. — Wayfarer

Let me tell you that Thomas Acquinas said it a lot more succinctly in his Cosmological Argument centuries earlier, and he used it to try to prove the existence of God, by making God the only thing able to spontaneously start existence.... the breaking of determinism through spontaneity.

You also said

The whole point about physical determinism, is that the rules which govern the motions of atoms govern all else. — Wayfarer

That is a simple statement of a belief without evidence... because it implies that determinism applies to everything everywhere - whereas the Laws of Physics only seem to apply determinism in certain specific circumstances.... which exclude those which apply probabilities.

Dear Wayfarer

I'm really not sure of the point you are trying to make?

At face value, your comment is misplaced as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not comment on the presence or absence of determinism/materialism. It merely states that there is a measurement problem in one particular circumstance - where it is necessary to determine the precise speed, location and mass of a single sub-atomic particle at any point in time. It says that you can do some measurements accurately but not all, as the act of measurement would change one or more of the parameters.

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.

From a determinist/materialist viewpoint, there can still only be one outcome from any single event, but if that example requires accuracy in all 3 measurements of a single particle, you won't be able to verify all of those aspects. However most, and probably all of the examples I have quoted do not refer to this circumstance. So the Uncertainty Principle would not apply.

If you take the non-determinist viewpoint, Heisenberg's Principle would make evidence of spontaneity or randomness less reliable if the circumstances were founded on all 3 measurements of a single particle -
but again, the examples are not based on this.

If your only point is that the Uncertainty Principle can very occasionally introduce a requirement to use probabilities - then fine, but it will only reflect one factor at play - a hidden variable. It does not argue for or against the determinism or non-determinist effects that may underpin any scenario.

Hi Pop

Thanks for the pointer to these authors.
Because I have a lot on my plate at the moment I won't be able to follow through with them in the short term, but I will at some point!

For this reason I can only comment on what you said.

A current advocate is Fritjof Capra, his pearl of wisdom is ; "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — Pop

Perhaps it's just the way that you phrased it, but while cognition may occur as a reaction to a disturbance, that doesn't mean that we have an explanation of what cognition is, (any more than we know how self-organisation is achieved).

If something stands out as unusual we first acknowledge that it does occur, and then have to specify why it seem to represent something different, at its most basic functional level. One way to identify difference is through an apparent breach of either deterministic principles or scientific Laws. Another way is to see at what level of existence the effect seems to apply to.

Gisin's experiments across Lake Geneva to demonstrate that entanglement was real, and that the seemingly impossible connections between particles communicated at over 10,000 times the speed of light, is a case in point, by seemingly breaking several Laws and Principles. Science cannot now deny the reality of these events and it has simply accepted that this is now a reality without explanation - but any explanation is now likely to include some unknown additional factor because in a scientific world dominated by matter/energy these is no conceivable way for this to happen, (and the communication does produce real-world effects). In this case, the maths can only work by assuming a missing hidden factor to produce the effect in some unknown way.

Perhaps a simpler example would be the invention of 'Dark Energy' to plug a logical gap in observed stellar activity. However, once again, we have a hidden invented variable to make the maths work.

For your example, you returned to the theme of consciousness and awareness, and we are all familiar with the power of our brains, which employ trillions of cells. There can be speculation that computer-like processing might occur at a lower/smaller level of existence if multiple connections can be formed in the alternate circumstances, but where we can show that complex activity is happening at the most miniscule scale, below where it should be possible, then that is another way to demonstrate a new/different capability.

I think we can all acknowledge that perfect circumstances with almost impossible odds might arise once purely by chance - but those conditions then have to be exploited by something that can take advantage of them - whether that is our planet in the Goldilocks zone, or the formation of the first living cell. The difficulties to this type of thinking arise where the impossible odds have to occur more than once in the same place for a supposed miracle to emerge by this means alone.... another way to demonstrate an unusual capability.

My point is that we should try to be more specific about the capability we are puzzled by, before we can say whether it is produced 'from within', or is a consequences of influences around any particular phenomenon.

When trying to identify such a factor(s) we can only follow a logical chain of known capability and see where it breaks down - but it will generally be where we see the use of probabilities.

Hi TMF (sorry I find it uncomfortable to use your web name)

Determinism can be true only if everything has a cause but the belief that everything has a cause is based on inductive reasoning but inductive reasoning falls short of the the level of certainty required to keep determinism afloat. — TheMadFool

I understand what you say, but I think that it's entirely possible for objects that are deterministic to exist in a broader environment that is chaotic, (and possibly vice-versa).

The broader question is what non-determinism represents (as per the 3 options in the op).

Hi litewave

In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. — litewave

I'm not sure that's correct, because if it were, we would be able to have laws that precisely define what happens in each circumstance, and I don't believe that we do.

As far as I'm aware, there are many aspects of QM, (and indeed, some within the level of reality that we occupy), where no known cause can account for the outcome. We need look no further than the Double Slit experiments to know that.

Some people choose to believe that determinism applies everywhere, which is fine, but it doesn't mean they the rest have to accept it until they can prove their case.

Hi Litewave

Looking back in time, and assuming that known laws of physics are constant in space and time, the current state of our universe can only have a single cause (or single set of causes): — litewave

That is effectively the logic on which the philosophy of Determinism was founded - a total belief in the Laws of Physics & Chemistry which apply traditional mathematics without probabilities.

However there is now a century of detailed experimentation which shows that those Laws cannot (yet) be applied to all circumstances to achieve a single outcome. And this is not a factor confined to one narrow aspect of research. It is across the board from Cosmology to Biochemistry.

That is why Quantum Mechanics uses probabilities - because the old Laws were fine for their task, but they don't cover all circumstances. If Determinism doesn't cover all circumstances, then you cannot claim that the Universe has a single set of causes within Matter/Energy alone.

Logic also suggests that without proof to the contrary, it might be that true Randomness and Spontaneity are possible, (as defined above), in which case there could easily be something more than Matter/Energy at work.

All

Can I ask that from now on, we please confine this topic from now on, to the subjects of
- the use of probabilities, or
- Dualism vs Monism, or
- factors which seem to break the principles of strict cause and effect, that lead to us all acting-out an inevitable script.

Thank you

Hi Tres Bien

Does chaos imply that there are forces in the Universe that are independent and are unaffected by other forces in the Universe? — Tres Bien

This is an interesting point, which returns us to the theme of this topic - thank you.

The mathematics involved in the Laws of Physics and Chemistry are clearly deterministic and say that everything that occurs should be inevitable. The use of probabilities (before the introduction of Quantum Mechanics), was largely confined to the issue of applied physics in the real world, where the contributing influences to any outcome were assumed to conform to the Laws, and the necessity for probabilities reflected the fact that the activities in the real world were not being scrutinized or controlled sufficiently to explain each outcome precisely.

The step change was when multiple outcomes were regularly observed from a precise start point, for no apparent reason. This rocked the scientific community because for once, in controlled circumstances, the outcomes could not be explained by known factors, and no other factors were perceived to be possible, after extensive research. This launched a new and very different use of probabilities, which we should all be mindful of.

However, your point extends this question even further.

At one level, Chaos Theory simply tries to explain away our inability to predict outcomes beyond a small number of consequential reactions further down the line. This of course may mask a hidden cause/variable.

But more importantly I see that you did not specifically target Chaos Theory, but the idea of chaos itself.

If you believe that before order there was chaos, without any structure, then the implication is that the rules of existence must have been applied after any creation event, or before order was achieved.

I have also wondered about this, and and if we recognise the mathematical element, and the Deterministic view that this must intrinsically come from the 'chemistry' that it represents, then there is a fundamental question about how chaos, without order and therefore without chemistry, was able to do this?

A very good point. Thanks again.

Pop / Counterpunch

I have been distracted from the site for a few days, but on returning I have been fascinated by your conversation, and I think we are pursuing 2 lines of debate, which may be worth splitting - so I will establish a new thread to do that,
However to address a few things mentioned in your dialogue....

I didn't give an opinion on Homolgous Recombination. I did say my instinct suggests chemical valances and electron transport are at work - rather than consciousness, but that was in the context of admitting I don't know - and suggesting that the idea of molecules with consciousness seems wackadoodle. It does. It's a surprising idea. It's not your run of the mill causal explanation. — counterpunch

Yes - I think we all agree with that, but as Pop indicated, there are some fundamentals about what we observe which break the principles of chemical, and even Quantum Mechanical operation. We begin by acknowledging the nature of the issue being observed. Then, when you stop and consider what's involved in some of these activities, there's a clear step-change in capability because of the apparent decision-making that is going on, every time these actions are observed.

Neither Pop, nor myself, are commenting on one-off co-incidences. This analytical capability is apparent every time the process is observed.

Individual molecules should not be capable of any analysis. They are generally only capable of preserving the integrity of one chemical reaction - that's it. There is no computer, and there is no deviating from one outcome.

But in the example of Homologous Recombination, and the route planning of Motor Proteins, that is clearly not the case, because there are different ways to achieve one outcome from a multitude of start points.

When you have even a vague theory of how that might be achieved by single molecules then we will all be extremely interested, but clever deterministic minds have been dwelling on this for ages without success. It may be possible that something new will emerge in future, on the philosophical principle of hidden causes/variables - but the reason why this seems unlikely to me is because the things we observe break deterministic principles and would not just require one hidden variable, but many.

We have absolutely no way of knowing what junk DNA Finopsicle is inserting into the script to prop up his thesis. That's the point I'm making regarding Finopsicle as a reference. He writes science books for people with an amateur interest - under a pseudonym. He won't stand by his own work. He completely bypasses any sort of peer review — counterpunch

It is precisely in forums like this that we do exercise peer review. Just 'not liking' the implications of what he says is not a critique. Besides - his argument is simple - here's the evidence, (referenced and undisputed); what does it remind you of; and if we can't explain it in normal ways, could it be pointing us to something new?
I really don't see what's needs a scientific peer review here. At the time of writing to you now, it remains true that no computational model can in any way come close to re-creating the implicit logic of Motor Proteins of Homologous Recombination enzymes, based on a few molecules.

As I said before, I was once of the same opinion as you, and through researching the topic as widely as possible, I have changed my mind. It is not something one can decide upon on the basis of one or two opinions, It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism. — Pop

I think that's bang on Pop - and the Dualism/Monism aspect helps to re-focus this topic on the original OP.

Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, and major funding. His thesis is consciousness is fundamental - it is contained in everything. Koch, Tononi, and many others are also of the same opinion. — Pop

I didn't know that .

Hi Counterpunch

I raised the issue of awareness in molecules because it was mentioned in one of his books, along with the scientifically proven evidence that posed the question. The references are there to follow to validate that evidence. If you dispute the evidence then you dispute it from impeachable scientific sources.

If you accept the evidence, then it has to be explained, and Finipolscie's question is quite obvious to anyone who knows the evidence because there is no credible theory to explain it.

I acknowledge that it is bizarre to think about that possibility, and that was my immediate reaction when I read it.... but I wanted to see if I was misssing something, which is why I wanted to see reactions on this site... and in truth, apart from re-stating that it is bizarre nobody has come up with a better suggestion.
(However if you wish to follow through with this part of our discussion, please do so under that topic).

The reason why I defend that here is because the same principles apply to this debate. If the evidence is valid then it is open to logical interpretation and criticism by anyone. If it is logically wrong then fine - point it out. But if the logic is right and there is no evidence to dispute that notion, then it is as valid as any other unproven notion... regardless who raised it.

This is a philosophy forum and therefore we should be exploring the logical validity of any ideas that can provide a firm foundation for any onward analysis, and I feel the mathematical implications of probabiities is one such thing

Hi Counterpunch

I don't have any problem with Finipolscie using a pseudonym. He clearly shows where his facts originate, and either his ideas are logical and viable like anyone else's or they are not. They seem logical possibilities to me.

Everyone's ideas are speculative because nobody can prove their case. Finipolscie at least shows us the full range of thinking and doesn't promote any single explanation.

From Goodreads, I gather that the use of a pseudonym was because he wanted people to focus on the evidence and the logic surrounding the issues, rather than the personalities. If he has a career to protect in science, that wouldn't be surprising.

Hi Solarwind

Is there an article you can point me to, to explain this... hopefully in a way that non-specialists can understand?

The only things I have seen to date are findings which suggest that the Bell Test results can be brought back within expected norms if we take entanglement into account - but there is no explanation for entanglement either.

Hi Counterpunch

Like you, I think we are all hypothesising because there are no proven answers.

Objects either have to carry an intrinsic set of characteristics that make them what they are and how they operate, or that profile is imposed on them by some sort of 'Framework of Existence' as Finipolscie terms it. The forces of nature may be part of this, but I read somewhere that there are 6 key parameters which also set the strength and other characteristics of the existence we occupy.

Changes to the settings on any of those 6, (which from memory extends to the number of dimensions, etc), would radically change how nature is perceived and operates. Conceptually it is hard to see how any of those settings could emerge from physical characteristics. The logic I have seen is that it must work the other way round - ie. the settings must either come first and be imposed; or simply be a balance of other factors in some unknown way.

I can't point you to any research that has tested your theory, but because the general idea has been around for a while then I just wondered why someone wouldn't have explored it before... and if they did, is that why it hasn't taken off? I don't know.

Chaos Theory, as I understand it, is still deterministic, and applies the same Laws of Science, but is really just covering-off the issue of predictability as opposed to the underlying reality.

All of the awkward experimental results must ultimately be explained, and then reconciled with perceptions of origin and life. Did you see Finipolscie's explanation of the Dual Slit experiment that I tried to outline earlier, to Kenosha Kid? It avoids all of the major problems in terms of particles becoming waves, and then recombining; as well as the timing issues brought about by the Quantum Eraser experiments. We would only have to look for the other stuff implied by the theory - which could be 'Dark Energy' - as identified as a theoretical additional substance by scientists in the field of cosmology.

Who knows?

But at the core of all this speculation we keep coming back to the fundamentals of strict causality because that is one of the few solid observations about nature that can act as a reliable yardstick with which to assess experimental findings. That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important.

Hi Sophisticat

My comment was about the principles of science which have achieved the status of Laws.

In reality there are plenty of probabilistic relationships and equations in physics, chemistry and other sciences. — SophistiCat

I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring.

The assumptions which those men have made are that there will ultimately be shown to be hidden variables within Matter/Energy that will ultimately explain the results. But that is a belief not a fact. Equally, belief in true randomness and spontaneity (as I defined earlier) is a belief not a fact. We can only look for evidence and then honestly recognise how far that evidence can take us.

In terms of the quip about age, Heisenberg and Bohr weren't that old when they made their suggestions, even if they would have reached very old age by now had they still been alive! They certainly came into conflict with the older EPR trio!

Hi Litewave

As I mentioned to Kenosha Kid, in relation to your quote below, while it may be possible to guess some ways in which a result has been achieved, you could rarely be certain.

Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. — litewave

If you cannot be sure of all the active factors at play before any outcome, you can only guess as to the true combination of causes that may have produced a particular result. As a simple example:-

Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct.

Hi Counterpunch

Thanks for the tutorial on how to use some of the features. I'm still experimenting!

Re: your comments, you have an interesting viewpoint in relation to how the effects of forces may impart characteristics on objects passing through them. I can see the general idea which has existed for some time, (though effected in different ways), but I wonder if this has already been investigated and found to be unpersuasive?

Causality pertains universally, but quantum objects are so small - they are only partially effected. — counterpunch

Even if the generality were correct, I don't see how you could partially affect causality, even at the sub-atomic level.

Hi Kenosha Kid

As you acknowledge, I do not object to the use of probabilities, because they are the best tool that we have, but I think we both now recognise that there are limits to how far they can be used.

In his books, Finipolscie makes one point that I did not refer to, but which you have… that we might derive some deterministic rules from the range of probabilities observed. Thinking about it, it’s a good point…. if only having limited use. (So let’s add it to the list).

The way that he put it is that : if the pattern of outcomes from experimentation gives us a very limited range of possibilities, then the very fact that there is such a limited set of options suggests that some underlying rule is probably in operation. Conversely, if the range of outcomes is very wide, then it is much less likely that a discernible pattern or rule will emerge, and therefore it may be more likely to be evidence of true randomness or spontaneity.

The point that we have to recognise in relation to Quantum Mechanics is that nobody can directly see what is happening, or be sure of all the influences at play. We only have the technology to detect after effects of experiments, and not directly observe in real time - because of the Heisenberg principle.

So the difficulty in your ‘backwards deterministic’ argument is that it is very easy to draw the wrong conclusion by looking backwards in time, for a cause – because you may not be aware of all the factors at play in any scenario. If you are a true materialist, then you must suppose that there are hidden variables/unknown factors that account for the differences in outcome.

Yet, as mentioned already in my 3 original options – we can look for causes that lie outside the parameters of our model, (ie. outside Matter/Energy), but only if there is evidence to suggest that such factors are necessary.

I am personally not persuaded that anything can mess with Time, and if it were truly possible to change the sequence of causal events in that way, the rest of existence would be in deep trouble. We should also be able to see lots more evidence of this ‘lack of causality’ at the level of existence we occupy…. but we don’t.

There are much more simple explanations which don’t require us to change our general perception of reality that much.

To tackle your other main suggestion, Max Tegmark came up with his Multiverse Theory because he was unable to resolve some of the fundamentals of the creation debate in any other mathematical way. But his Multiverse theory, (possibly achieved through hidden dimensions), essentially gives us hidden influences outside the realm of our Matter/Energy…. one of my original 3 options.

As further evidence for that option, we might consider the findings of various Double Slit experiments. The lingering point here is less about the light and dark pattern, but, as Finipolscie points out, the remarkable width of the pattern.

Due to the results from the single photon or electron experiments, (including the Quantum Eraser experiments), we have two basic potential scenarios. Either
- the photons/electrons stay as a single particle all the way through the slit – in which case we have to determine how they might interact to form the pattern; or
- people have argued that each particle turns into a wave as it senses the approach of one or two slits, then interfering with itself, before re-combining on the other side screen to form a single dot particle again, (known as wave particle duality – and requiring these particles to have sufficient knowledge of what is about to happen, to adjust its state of being).

As you may be aware from my other posts, I feel that the concept of wave particle duality contradicts every other thing that we know about Matter/Energy behaviour, and has no real evidence to justify it, other than there being very few other theoretical ways to explain what is happening.

But there ARE other simpler conceptual ways to do so.

Finipolscie’s suggestion was that the width of the pattern is the key to this. It is always many times wider than the double slits in the screen. He then points out that in every other scenario in nature, waves are generated when an object (like a ship in water, or a train through air) passes through a pool of some other stuff.

If we run with that scenario, we can see that if a photon or electron were to cause a wave as it passed through another type of stuff, (say the elusive ‘Dark Energy’ that must be everywhere, if it exists at all), then the particle could stay as a particle, riding the troughs of the wave and still get deposited in a light/dark pattern, (because of those waves), onto the wall/detector beyond. In this scenario it would be the hidden pool of stuff that causes the pattern and the distribution of the particles, and this would preserve all of the other known characteristics of Matter/Energy that we come to expect. It is the simplest explanation that I have come across, and has no other challenge than identifying the ‘hidden pool’... not a small one I admit, but far less demanding than a Multiverse in my opinion.

This is just one of the range of scenarios that Finipolscie lays out, leaving people to make up their own mind.

I personally reject certain options if my experience and knowledge says that those would cause more problems than they solve. I am also inclined to the belief that the simplest and most straightforward options are generally the most likely to be correct. However, the argument is not settled yet.

Hi Counterpunch

Like you, I believe that strict causality underpins the vast majority of the physical environment – at least at the level we occupy.

My question is whether it can cover everything? If it does cover everything then the Determinist viewpoint is correct, and nothing can ever change the inevitable sequence of events that will unfold… and that gives me pause to consider, because instinctively I do not feel that we are all acting out an inevitable script.

If life, or indeed anything else, has any opportunity to change the course of the future, it must break strict causality – even if It is to a very limited degree (to avoid chaos).

Die hard Determinists say that we really are acting-out an inevitable script, and that the illusion of free will, (ie. our ability to not follow an inevitable path), is just because people confuse their flawed ability to predict the future with the underlying inevitability of physical matter,( ie.we cannot always know everything at play in any given scenario).

I personally believe that the universe does have a limited ability to change course, and not just follow an inevitable script. If this is correct – and I am still wanting to explore the possibilities one way or the other – then some ability to break the mould must exist, even if the touch points between the inevitability of Matter/Energy and this other capability, are quite small, (thereby limiting the opportunity for chaos).

When you say:-

“Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.”

I’m not sure what that means. What do you regard as ‘the causal focus’?

I can understand the suggestion that if the universe of Matter/Energy has either formed certain rules, or just abides by those rules as imposed from somewhere, then anything which emerges within the universe that doesn’t have a full structure may somehow be made to conform to ‘our norm’, if it is to survive in our realm. But is that what you meant?

In terms of strict science, I think it is incorrect to say that sub-atomic particles have velocity but no location. Heisenberg said that we can measure one or the other but not both at the same time, because our only ability to measure these things will inevitably pump more energy into them – thereby changing them. He did not say that those factors didn’t exist.

Equally, you are presuming what is happening in the dual slit experiments. There are many theories. None are proven, and many directly challenge the evidence of how things operate everywhere else in reality, (eg. wave/particle duality), which makes people suspicious of them.

I do not challenge the use of probabilities. I endorse it. But I do ask that we see probabilities for what they, are and resist the temptation to draw conclusions from a false premise – that they explain something, when they don’t.

Probabilities give us a description, and rarely if ever, give us an explanation, (see my response to Kenosha Kid below).

In our ordinary lives we see deterministic explanations for events that have multiple outcomes because we see additional factors that will perfectly explain each result using specific individual scientific laws. That is not true at the quantum level, or in scenarios of prime origin, or life, etc.