Questions regarding possibility, necessity, laws of nature and Scientific reductionism

Swimmingwithfishes

Greetings everyone. I'm an 19 y/o High school graduate and a layman in philosophy who has had a strict materialist / physicalism view however recently I've been having a "crisis of confidence" in my view after reading some philosophy of science discussions and articles , I had the view that everything in theory is reducible to physics and that everything is matter and energy. Recently I came across emergentism and holism and complexity theory. Which is making me confused. The statement that the sum of parts can't explain the whole and that higher order phenomenon even in principle can't be reduced to physics is quite disturbing to me. Moreover what confuses me the most is the distinction between laws of nature and scientific laws.My questions regarding this are :

1 why can't laws of nature and other fields be reduced to physics alone ?

2 can fields other than physics or physical sciences like biology , neuroscience and chemistry and other social sciences also have their own distinct immutable laws / exceptionless regularities , what is the purpose of laws in those fields ? are they ultimately describing physical limits in a biological context ?

3 what is a better field to know what is possible In our world ? Physics or philosophy ? If other fields like chemistry and biology etc have their own laws and / or can't be reducible to physics then aren't statements like (human aging immortality isn't physically impossible) or (uncooking a cooked egg isn't physically impossible) redundant ? Since physical possibility doesn't matter.

Furthermore does the fundamental possibility of something (supposing we know something isn't fundamentally impossible in that there's nothing stopping it from being possible.) Imply it can be practically possible as well , would there be any other limitations and could those unlike immutable laws be overcome or would they also have a law-like behaviour ?

As for the laws of nature themselves

What exactly is the difference between the necessitarian and regularist account , correct me if I'm wrong. necessitarian account states that laws are necessary to exist but regularism poses that laws aren't necessary to exist and they just are by chance and why do regularists. Another difference is that necessitarians hold that there are only a finite set of laws meanwhile regularists state that there are multiple and maybe infinite laws and regularists treat special science laws as fundamental too. Is this the main difference ?
And do regularists and necceditarians both view laws of nature as immutable absolutes ?
And is it possible to know what is achievable or not if the world is this complex and confusing ?

Count Timothy von Icarus

I'll get back to you later, but in terms of your second question, I found the this course to be a really great primer on the "hard problem of conciousness."

You can get it for free using an Audible trial. Just cancel after you download.

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Body-Philosophy-audiobook/dp/B01N0RBT5H

Yes, it's hard to be a strict positivist once you look deeper. Plato is probably the place to start on contrary opinions.

MondoR

I1) can't answer your first question, until you decide the laws of nature in scientific terms, mathematical terms.

2) Again you refer to them laws of nature. I am not familiar with any such less in science.

It seems all of your questions and concerns revolve around the laws of nature. As far as I know, science does not use such a term because it is too ambiguous. A concrete definition of this term will allow the discussion to proceed.

T Clark

I had the view that everything in theory is reducible to physics and that everything is matter and energy. Recently I came across emergentism and holism and complexity theory. Which is making me confused. The statement that the sum of parts can't explain the whole and that higher order phenomenon even in principle can't be reduced to physics is quite disturbing to me. — Swimmingwithfishes

I also came from materialism. It seemed so simple. But alas, it's not. It's actually a lot more interesting than that. There is a place to feel at home, welcome here in our universe without heading off for mysticism or spiritualism. We are meant to be here.

Here's a link to a famous article written in 1972 - "More is Different."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393

You'll find it referenced in just about every article you read on the hierarchies of science and emergence. If you read on beyond this article, you'll find that things may be a bit more complex than Anderson writes, but he lays a great foundation and he writes well and clearly.

Laws of nature and science are a really different matter. It may make sense to ask those questions in a separate discussion.

unenlightened

1 why can't laws of nature and other fields be reduced to physics alone ? — Swimmingwithfishes

Here is a very simple outline argument.

P1. The laws of nature and other fields can be reduced to physics alone.
P2. Humans are part of nature.
P3. Humans can believe or disbelieve P1.
P4. Their belief affects their behaviour.
Therefore, the laws of physics are affected by human belief. :scream:

Swimmingwithfishes

↪MondoR

I mean in scientific terms

Swimmingwithfishes

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

What exactly would the purpose of immutable laws be in those fields though , wouldn't they just be describing physics limits in those fields

I.e supply and demand in economics is a representative of the scarcity in our universe

180 Proof

↪Swimmingwithfishes

Welcome. It's about 5am here, so I'll reply in about 6-8 hours once I've slept.

1. "The laws of nature" are observed regularities mathematically encoded into our models; they do not "exist out there in nature". To reduce a complex model to a less complex model results in a model more complex than the first because all of the possible/probable regularities of the first model would have to be translated as – in terms of – possible/probable regularities of the second, which amounts to a third model with additional transformational rules, etc. Even if tractable, why bother?

2. Yes. Enabling constraints. Structure. Biological limits in a physical context.

3. Both. Not necessarily. That depends on the complexity of the model used and not whether or not one model is reducible to another.

*

In my view, any physical transformation which is not inconsistent with physical conditions, regularities or structures, or is not formally contradictory, is possible – whether or not we have the technical knowledge to produce it.

*

Apparently, by this scheme, my views above are regularist. 'Necessity' pertains, I think, only to our physical models – because they are formal – and not to the universe itself.

*

Yes. Since we are physical agents 'complex and confusing' enough to be (often) intelligently self-aware, being embedded in 'physical complexity and confusion' enables-constrains our various adaptations to this 'physical complexity and confusion' encompassing us. Human cognitive history, no?

:yawn:

Swimmingwithfishes

↪180 Proof

Edited

180 Proof

↪Swimmingwithfishes

Your reply doesn't track with mine. 3rd paragraph from the bottom I refer to knowing what's physically possible or not even when we don't know whether or not it's technically possible.

Swimmingwithfishes

↪180 Proof

yes I edited it to another question

In the response to the third question , you said "yes" , which line were you replying to ?

180 Proof

↪Swimmingwithfishes

Edited. I meant 'both philosophy & physics' ...

Swimmingwithfishes

↪T Clark

Well the only reason it's disturbing for me is that , that way we can't know that treating or curing certain diseases are possible and/or have a model for engineering attempts at our biology

Swimmingwithfishes

↪180 Proof

I see , but what exactly did you mean in response to my second question "biological limits in physical context"

hume

I am a materialist/phycalist myself and believe that everything reduces to material reality (atoms, sub-particles)—going even deeper takes us to quantum fields which is the best we ca do at this point.

Laws of nature that govern over reality (planets, solar system) are completely understood and for anything to exist within our reality it must be able interact with standard model particles and known forces (electromegnatism, weak force, gravity etc).

The emergent phenomenon, while has its own properties, still borns out of these basic blocks of our reality. Some of the emergent properties are not physical but rather a device or illusion of our brain to operate at that emergent lev (eg consciousness) since our brain does not have the resources or the capacity to operate at very atomic and precise level. It approximates and categorizes to make do.

Questions regarding possibility, necessity, laws of nature and Scientific reductionism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions