If the "detail" you're looking for is empirical evidence, it's probably not forthcoming. Mathematics is a language for science, not an object to be studied under a microscope. Likewise, Energy is an intangible invisible force that is observed only in its physical effects, not as a ding an sich. Both Math & Energy are now regarded, by scientists & philosophers, as forms of Generic Information. Basically most of the referenced links in my posts are philosophical/theoretical generalizations & opinions, not empirical evidence. So, the bottom line is : do you trust these theoretical scientists to know what they are talking about?↪Gnomon
Thank you for the references. I think if you read/listen to them critically, they omit just exactly the detail needed. For example, on the assumption that information is an efficient cause, then how can that work? — tim wood
Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? The missing element is Meaning, which is significant only to evolved creatures capable of knowing, and knowing that they know, hence possessing a Self Concept, and the concept of Other Minds.My view is that the world knows nothing of information, knows nothing of anything. It exists as the stuff in it that constitutes it. These things interact in certain ways and not in others. And thus the world goes from this moment to the next. No information, no patterns, just immediate continuous evolution. — tim wood
Another term for that "cottage industry" you mentioned is Philosophy. And yes, Philosophers & Scientists do indeed "define information in peculiar ways". One of those ways is to create imaginary "models" of reality, that are not in themselves real, but ideal*3. Another term for a mental model of reality is Theory. Do you know the real world directly, or only by means of models & theories (a la Kant)?*4a whole cottage industry arises that replies to the world and insists that it must work on models we create, on the basis of information, even to the extent of saying that the world itself just is information!
And the only way that makes any sense is by defining "information" in very peculiar ways, such that "information" and information no longer share meaning. — tim wood
My two bits worth :Do laws govern the universe? Of course not; how could they, the universe primordial to any law? — tim wood
I wouldn't characterize it. I have a memory of something read that I think came from Wittgenstein, that all theories are templates placed over the world, and not to be mistaken for the world itself or how it works. And buying that, I have no urge to resort to templates - except of course when my human business requires me to.Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? — Gnomon
And here we ought to travel carefully. The proposition appears to be that if the universe is without meaning, then it cannot have beings in it - part of the universe - for which meaning is an issue. But it does have such beings, or so the beings themselves believe, and so therefore the universe must itself have meaning and be meaningful. And this would be an example of the fallacy of amphiboly, when the grammar of an argument allows for different meanings for the same term.A world that "knows nothing of information" is a world without Ideas, a world without Meaning, just Things doing whatever Energy forces them to do. If that is the case, what is the purpose of Philosophy? — Gnomon
No. not lawless and completely random, but evolving within whatever degrees of freedom it has to evolve, which you and I might call laws. And yes, it appears that life may be pretty common in the universe, and that thus sophisticated forms might well arise. It's observed that chimps and humans differ by only a slight percentage of DNA, so it is not far-fetched to imagine that a different life form from another planet somewhere might be stunningly different from us.I assume you meant that the universe is lawless, and completely random.... Do you view the universe as a Big Accident that just happened to haphazardly produce highly-organized creatures who ask question about the origins of Order? — Gnomon
A book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe, offers the idea that our universe swims in a sea of universes that come and go, and that depending on the values of certain - six - variables, the universes are short-lived or enduring, support life or don't, and so forth — tim wood
Hmm! If you know what "mathematical causality" is, please (you) offer here a brief summary. Of course I am looking for how that which is called mathematics can be an efficient cause - buying all the while that mathematics is the descriptor par excellence.mathematical causality — flannel jesus
What does it really mean for the universe to be mathematical though? — Apustimelogist
So, when Tegmark speaks of the mathematical universe - a creation whose structure is somehow mathematics - how can that be? Doesn't structure require a framework of sorts? And one would think physical. — jgill
Is there math without symbols? Well, yes, if one has the patience to express mathematical ideas through common language. What of the visual aspect of the subject? Well, there have been blind mathematicians who have been quite accomplished. I knew one: Larry Baggett, at the University of Colorado. So one could replace symbols with ordinary language, which seems to imply math is a substrata we contemplate by one or the other. — jgill
I have the opposite intuition - doesn't a physical structure require a framework of sorts? And one would think mathematical (or computational/algorithmic). — flannel jesus
Are you using Wittgenstein as an authority to justify an evasive non-position on a philosophical question? Does that side-step imply that you have no philosophical worldview, or just that you don't want to expose your subjective personal "template" to objective critical analysis? I too, am wary of being dismissively labeled, but it's a risk I'm willing to take, in the interest of refining my beliefs in the give & take of philosophy. Perhaps you would be willing to deny the labels that don't apply to you?Would you characterize the world model described above as "Materialism", or "Physicalism", or merely "Atheism"? No information, no patterns, no interrelationships, just atoms whirling in the void? — Gnomon
I wouldn't characterize it. I have a memory of something read that I think came from Wittgenstein, that all theories are templates placed over the world, and not to be mistaken for the world itself or how it works. And buying that, I have no urge to resort to templates - except of course when my human business requires me to. — tim wood
Interesting - I had not given it much thought. Nor will I. To my way of thinking, philosophy is what you do when you cannot do any better. Thus a philosophical question replacing any question of more substance I consider at best a dismissible question, or even nonsense.Are you using Wittgenstein as an authority to justify an evasive non-position on a philosophical question? — Gnomon
My view is that the world knows nothing of information, knows nothing of anything. It exists as the stuff in it that constitutes it. These things interact in certain ways and not in others. And thus the world goes from this moment to the next. No information, no patterns, just immediate continuous evolution. Information, then, being merely the convenient case-labels and fictions attached, in our case, by people for people. And no doubt on a distant planet some or all of the information is radically different. — tim wood
My point was just to see if you were arguing from a well-thought-out personal worldview, or just parroting a party line (or template). For example, for all practical purposes (e.g. science & technology) I could be placed under the heading of "Materialist". But, for theoretical purposes (e.g. philosophy & ethics) I might fit better into the category of "Idealist". That's because the non-human material aspects of the world have no Ideas (words, concepts) for us to argue about : either it is, or it ain't.And that seems to me pretty clear in itself - is there something about it you did not understand that I could clarify? Why would you need a superfluous label, or template, to consider it? Or more simply, what's your point? — tim wood
For the purposes of this forum, Ideas are the non-things (non-stuff) that we argue about in threads such as this. And for the most part, Ideas are limited to a tiny clique in the universe, consisting mostly of the upright animals we label as homo sapiens ; implying that other animals are not wise enough to debate about the meaning of ideas. Hence, in the Real world, no questioning humans, no ideas, no philosophy ; just atoms whirling in the void. What makes ideas moot is their immaterial "substance". Material objects are seldom the topic of TPF threads. :smile:I do not know what an idea is, but I account them as existing and in a sense real. — tim wood
It's also the lack of material evidence for thingness, that limits Ideas to the central focus of philosophical forums, and only peripherally for scientific forums. The latter are supposedly reserved for those who "shut-up and calculate". And feckless philosophers are not welcome to blab on & on about Qualia which cannot be Quantified. :wink:Or the challenge: to exhibit as "stuff" any idea that requires a mind to have it - no mind, no idea. Or for anything, to exhibit conclusive evidence as to its existence as a thing. — tim wood
Gladly! The term "quantum" was introduced into the vocabulary of science to represent the aspects of reality that were assumed, by Classical Physics, to be continuous, but in sub-atomic experiments returned dis-continuous results. The quantum pioneers didn't describe those results in terms of Magic, but of "Nature exposed to our methods of questioning" (Heisenberg). In order to deal with both the continuous and the discrete nature of sub-atomic Nature, the pioneers re-introduced philosophical methods into empirical numerical science. That qualitative method of interpretation*1 had been banished centuries ago as too entangled with Religion & Magic. Quantum physics is unavoidably statistical, returning not absolute either/or answers but relative BothAnd percentages, :cool:Your use of "quantum" I could use some clarification on. That is, I think things happen, and of things that happen, they happen either for a reason (as caused in some way) or for no reason or because of magic. — tim wood
Feynman "did not know" what quantum duality meant, because he was looking for absolute Either/Or answers, not Einsteinian BothAnd relative approximations. His attitude of "shut-up and calculate" --- while avoiding the philosophical problem --- is what has allowed modern science to produce the 21st century technology, such as atomic bombs, cell phones, and Twitter gossip, that we enjoy today --- but would have seemed magical in the 17th century.That is, imho, the correct response to quantum weirdness is not to super-impose great edifices of additional weirdness as account, but rather instead to say, as with Feynman, it works but we don't know how. — tim wood
and Quantum (mind/observer/subjective). Since the topic of this thread is a Quantum physics question, my comments will be primarily focused on the mental interpretation. — Gnomon
Is it? I've never seen, tasted, or touched an electron. All I know about those invisible entities is the published interpretations of quantum physicists*1. 17th century physicists had no concept of an electron, but they imagined fundamental particles of matter, that everyone had agreed on since the 5th century BC*2. Besides, its properties depend on how you look at it*3. Is that a "literary" interpretation? Unlike the simple atoms of Classical Physics, quantum-scale particles are subject to various interpretations*4. Is that still "hard" Science, or is it "literary" Philosophy, or both? :smile:But I assume that no one would object to the "is," that everyone would agree that an electron is, at least, a something. Yes? No? — tim wood
We're in tough shape if we cannot decide if something is. And certainly it is absurd to opine about what something is, and even more so its special features, if it isn't. It's said that astronomers study telescopes and cosmologists the minds of astronomers. Does that say anything about QM? You above seem to be clear that QM concerns the minds of physicists. I on the other hand am persuaded there is more to the world than what someone thinks it is, and that there is a difference between the saying, and what is spoken of.Is it? — Gnomon
See this:according to the special theory of relativity, mass of the object is said to vary according to the frame of reference. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.