Perhaps it's the expectation of a "true essence" that is problematic. — Banno

What is the ground for your claim that it is problematic?

Yes, although I would reject the concept of "self determination" as meaningless.

IMO, "determination" is only meaningful when used in the sense of the verb "to determine" as a practical relational concept referring to the control of one process by another process when they are treated as autonomous entities, as embodied by the concept of multiplayer games.

By that norm, J R Tolkien can be said to have "determined" the universe of Middle Earth, a fact that can only be understood by those of us who exist outside of the universe of Middle Earth. But from the perspective of the characters within Middle Earth mythologized as a closed system, their lives can neither be said to be determined nor undetermined.

I'm not sure I follow. What about making change (process), as opposed to stability (substance), essential makes explanations intentional? It seems to help with moving from an "is to an ought," because of the possibility of strong emergence, but it doesn't seem to necessitate it.

And is this a problem? Ought explanations do seem essential to a subset of phenomena, so how the ought is to be accounted for seems essential.

If the mind isn't made of some sort of unique "mental substance," it seems to me like it has to be a process. This, as opposed to a discrete object, because of how dead bodies don't produce conciousness and most environments produce dead bodies instead of live ones .

Well, put simply, we seem to be able to talk about the universe with some considerable understanding, and yet, for you, it's not clear what it's "true essence" might be. One might conclude that we do not need to understand the "true essence" of a thing in order to understand it and talk about it.

There's a philosophical conceit that knowing about something involves a capacity to articulate its essence - the thing that makes it what it is. But on reflection we commonly work with words and things despite not being able to explicate their essence. Various analytic philosophers - Quine, Wittgenstein, Kripke, to name three - have levelled criticisms at the hegemony of essentialism.

You wonder if "the human mind can ever grasp the true essence of the universe"; but it seems we might not need to do so in order to get on with some pretty damn amazing cosmology.

Nothing to do with the choice between process and substance - I don't think physics has made much use of "substance" for a few hundred years.

Nor is physics deterministic; We can see this not only from quantum unpredictability, but from consideration of complex and chaotic systems.

No, I'm suggesting the broader point that attempting to treat of human freedom in physical terms at all is problematic. Physics simply doesn't provide the resources to decide if you will put sugar in your coffee, or not. For that sort of thing we need a different conversation, one about what what you want and want you believe.

Sure. But isn't one of the methods of Philosophy to ask and analyse meanings and definitions of terms in the sentence trying to find out if the concepts are meaningful and understandable?

Philosophers wouldn't be interested in how the gravity works, how to calculate the sunspot numbers in the Sun, observe the locational changes happening in one of the galaxies, attempting to find the stars with possible life on them, or trying to count how many blackholes are existing in the Milky Way etc. Those would be the friggin 'physicists or astronomers' concerns.

I am not sure if Quine, Wittgenstein and Kripke had been ever involved in discussions on the universe and cosmology.  They were logicians and linguists who were interested in the simple meanings, namings, objects, references and semantics in language and logic.

If they were to discuss cosmology topics with the universe being the main theme, I am sure they would have wanted to clarify the concepts to begin with.  Maybe they would have had refused in discussing such topics first place, because it is not their forte or interest I am not sure :)

The problem is that you could go with the definition of the universe in Wiki, and I could go with my definition of the universe which is my town and the surrounding areas I reside and walk about on sunny weekends, because that is the only area I accept as the real world for me.  If we engage in a debate on the universe and its free will, where would we end up? :D

Sure. But isn't one of the methods of Philosophy to ask and analyse meanings and definitions of terms in the sentence trying to find out if the concepts are meaningful and understandable? — Corvus

Well, yes - that's what these posts are about. I'm pointing out that we do not do so by specifying an essence; that the way we use language will often suffice. So it will quickly become obvious that your use of "universe" differed in scale from that of other folk.

If we engage in a debate on the universe and its free will, where would we end up? — Corvus

You will end up asking, "What do you mean by that term?," at which point a definition will emerge from below the surface, where it was always waiting. We use words when we know what they mean, when we know their definitions. When we come across a strange word or usage, we inquire into the definition. If we have a new concept or reality for which no word exists, we coin one.

I was wondering if human mind can ever grasp the true essence of the universe. If we cannot conceive the true reality of the universe, how could we conceptualise it? — Corvus

I would say in a partial, patchwork manner. We stitch together the various different things we know about it.

Well, yes - that's what these posts are about. I'm pointing out that we do not do so by specifying an essence; that the way we use language will often suffice. So it will quickly become obvious that your use of "universe" differed in scale from that of other folk. — Banno

I have not given out my definition of the universe, or mentioned anything about in which sense I am using the word yet. I think your comment was based on your rich imagination. :)

I just pointed out that the term universe is one of the abstract concepts, which we might benefit from clarification. That's all. But obviously you somehow seem to think I am using the word universe in a different sense to the other people.

You will end up asking, "What do you mean by that term?," — Leontiskos

Not necessarily. It is not all about the terms and breaking it down in semantics. My main interest was actually, whether the universe should include God, or should God be regarded as the creator of the universe. Or because we are not the physicists or astronomers, whether the universe should be just the concept of world, in which we live in ... etc.

I was suggesting to have / agree on boundaries of the concept of the universe, which might include coming up with the agreed definitions of the universe of course, but not necessarily if the boundary of the concept of the universe could be set.

- :up:

Physics simply doesn't provide the resources to decide if you will put sugar in your coffee, or not. — Banno

It is possible to make physics do that, though.

Everytime a cognitive scientist says things to the effect "there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain" they are using physics that way.

I still remember how a learner's driving manual talked about "when the neocortex receives an impulse". It was really careful to avoid saying that it is people hitting the accelerator pedal and often doing so recklessly.

No, I'm suggesting the broader point that attempting to treat of human freedom in physical terms at all is problematic. — Banno

But doing so does away with so many problems!
It's a kind of fatalism without being blatantly fatalistic.

Robert Rosen wrote about causally open and closed systems in Life Itself. The theme ends up being Kantian.

Schopenhauer is the ultimate dude for cause and effect, but I think he might drive you nuts because he's a hard determinist. You're pinging his view when you say the universe is self-determining, though.

I have not given out my definition of the universe, — Corvus

I could go with my definition of the universe which is my town and the surrounding areas I reside and walk about on sunny weekends — Corvus

Hmm. A lost joke, it seems.

It is possible to make physics do that, though. — baker

Is it? Or is that an act of faith on your part? You put your trust in it being possible without the case being demonstrated.

Elsewhere, I just wrote this:

Odd, isn't it, that when some folk discover that the chair they are sitting on is composed of atoms, and is overwhelmingly space, they sometimes decide that therefore it's no longer really a chair. — Banno

The same happens when a Chemist claims that

"there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain" — baker

As if love vanished after such explanations.

No, I'm suggesting the broader point that attempting to treat of human freedom in physical terms at all is problematic. Physics simply doesn't provide the resources to decide if you will put sugar in your coffee, or not. For that sort of thing we need a different conversation, one about what what you want and want you believe.

But surely physics has something to say about freedom, no? It clearly defines many things we aren't able to do. At the same time, a better understanding of physics has greatly expanded our ability to do things. One was not free to cross continents in a day until airliners were invented, etc.

Deterministic vs stochastic maybe doesn't make a huge difference. The point is that behaviors produce outcomes that are "predictable enough," that our desires can be reliably met through taking or avoiding specific actions.

But I agree with what I think you're saying. That's why I say "self-determination," isn't identical with freedom. Freedom is a quite complex idea, and I think human freedom lends itself to a fairly complex typology (negative freedom, reflexive/positive freedom, authenticity, social freedom, and moral freedom).

So, what I should have specified better in the OP is that I was thinking about plausible ways of understanding freedom "within the context of major paradigms in the philosophy of physics," as opposed to freedom overall.

One point I was thinking of was that, because the boundaries of systems are hazy and arbitrary, individuals' identification with larger entities of which they are a part can, in some ways, empower individuals.

Complexity studies is an interesting tie in because it shows how relatively small "sub-systems," can sit astride "leverage points," in larger systems and do a lot to dictate their behavior. The absolute monarch with strong authority and loyalty from their court is a good personal example of this, but we could also consider the freedom members of central bank board members have to shape their economies.

This is of course a huge topic. Yes, physics does provide us with ways to do things we could not otherwise do, and it is important to note that physics is not deterministic in the Newtonian clockwork universe sense, and there is much conceptual clarification to do with self-determination and freedom, and scale will influence what it is we are dealing with and we are all strange loops...


But, and still, physics does not provide the resources to determine if you will put sugar in your coffee.


That is, there is a difference here not so much of magnitude as of kind. What physics does is not the sort of thing one does in deciding on one's sugar.

Hmm. A lost joke, it seems. — Banno

I felt my joke was lost somewhere in the desert of Australia when I gave the example "one's acceptance of his town and the surrounding area as the only universe" :D, but din't get a response, but you seem to confirming it. Fair enough.

But it wasn't a 100% joke. I am surprised why you think it is. In real seriousness, when I am in sceptic mood, I only accept things I can sense. They are only the real. All things which I am not sensing are in my imagination. memory or intuition, and they might not be real, or real. I have no certainty on their existence.

For example, I have never been to Australia in my life. All I know about the place is from the books and Youtube. Why should I believe that it exists? For the same ground why should I believe the galaxies exist? I have never been in there, neither have you I know for sure.

But I think you'll run into trouble with your conception of space. If the room you're in is the limit of the universe, are you saying there is no space on the other side of the wall? Brian Greene uses this thought experiment, so don't poo poo it. :razz:

But I think you'll run into trouble with your conception of space. If the room you're in is the limit of the universe, are you saying there is no space on the other side of the wall? Brian Greene uses this thought experiment, so don't poo poo it. :razz: — frank

I am in my study room now. I cannot see anything outside of the room. In my visual sense, all I see is the walls, a lamp, a desk, a bookshelf with the books in it, and there is a computer on the desk.  This is my true reality for my perception.  I can open a book, and it opens.  I can read what is printed in the book no problem, therefore it must be a true existence.  I can move my hands and wave in the air, and it moves fine, which proves there is space in the room too.  Motion is only possible in space.

But outside of my room. I am not sure.  There was space along the corridor from my memory, but it is not visible to me now.  I can only believe that it would still be there.  Yes, my belief is very strong, there is space outside the door of my room stretching along the corridor, because I can remember it with strong vivacity.   But I cannot remember or intuit or perceive anything about Australia where Banno lives.

I can only believe it is somewhere in the Southern hemisphere below Indonesia, and it will be getting very hot because by this time it would be, I read, the start of the summer in the place. I saw some wildlife videos made in Australia from youtube, and the massive wildness fields in the countryside too from my memory. That is all, so that is the ground of my belief on the existence of Australia.  But it is not my perception or memory.

With no experience of my being in the place, my perception and memory is totally empty from the idea of Australia.  But still I can make some imagination on the place with the images I have seen in the youtube videos.  It is a very faint imagination, and not realistic.  I feel that my imagination is futile and unreal straight away.

A concept of the universe is made partially from knowledge, but mostly from the beliefs.  There is no absolute agreement that such and such is the universally accepted concept for the universe. 

Do I have to accept the place or an entity that I have no direct experience of, as a part of the universe?  Yes, I must, because it would be insane to deny the existence of Australia just because I have never been there.  But at the same time, I have no epistemic, metaphysical or logical ground for accepting the place as a part of the universe, because I have no experience of being in the place.

When you say the universe, for me, it is the world that I have been, and am plus my belief in the rest of the place that I have never been, but heard, told, read and saw on the media.  And I am sure some religious people who believe in God, and heaven and hell would include them in the concept too.

We have been talking about the universe all along, but it is very likely the universe we have been thinking and talking were all different types with different nature and meanings.

So the concept of the world, and universe are seems arbitrary.  Therefore we must draw a boundary between the areas that divides the universe and non-universe, and agree on which objects the concept of the universe must include.

That all sounds reasonable to me. Science always starts from assumptions. There's a practical aspect to that. I was just saying there's a contradiction in questioning the existence of space beyond what you can see. You can't imagine that space just stops at a certain point, so you'll end up considering the truth of a proposition that can't be meaningful to you. Obscure point, I know.

Any thread with "The universe" tends to be huge just like the universe, obscure and fascinating just like the universe. :)

Is it? Or is that an act of faith on your part? You put your trust in it being possible without the case being demonstrated. — Banno

When a scientist tells me that "it's all just chemicals/atoms" and apparently expects me to believe it, what are my options?

Elsewhere, I just wrote this:
Odd, isn't it, that when some folk discover that the chair they are sitting on is composed of atoms, and is overwhelmingly space, they sometimes decide that therefore it's no longer really a chair.
— Banno
The same happens when a Chemist claims that
"there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain"
— baker
As if love vanished after such explanations.

I dare you to tell that to a scientist! I double dare you!

When a scientist tells me that "it's all just chemicals/atoms" and apparently expects me to believe it, what are my options? — baker

Well, you can still either put sugar in your coffee, or not.

Understanding the physics does not remove this choice.

I would see physics coming in for defining the boundaries of an agent. We tend to think that agents are "embedded," in spacetime. That being the case, how do we delineate them?

Or we might ask: "from the perspective of physics, how do we describe how choices result in changes in the world?" Something like: "how does my choice to turn left occur within space-time and then affect local events such that my car actually turns left?"

A naive answer to this question where people are simply their bodies doesn't seem to explain the amazing context dependence of our causal powers, and our causal powers seem directly tied to choice and freedom.

If I am scared by turbulence on a flight, my freedom to land the flight early at a nearby airport is determined by whether or not I am in the pilot's seat for example, the interactions therein. If the plane is remote piloted, then I can't effect this change regardless of where I sit. But a plane being remote piloted or not is a physical difference in the system.

Self-determination seems to vary in physical systems over time and between systems. A rock is going to do very little to determine its internal states of external environment, no matter how we define them. Homeostasis, niche creation, animal behavior, all represent radically different ways in which a system determines its internal states.

So, physics can't answer many questions about freedom, but it does seem like it can help to define some aspects of how we think of it. And my general inclination is that it doesn't work to talk about "static objects" or "bodies" possessing freedom in this context. It would be better to think of leverage points and the degrees to which a sub-system determines what is within and without in response to discernible differences in inputs.

Physics can't be totally excluded from an explanation without assuming some sort of hard epistemic or ontological line between segments of reality IMHO.

BTW, I totally agree that an understanding of physics can't rob us of choice. If anything, it opens up more choices because knowledge and techne enhance our understanding and causal powers.

Physics might also be related to the metaphysics of freedom in terms of fundemental theories. Retrocausality seems to be having a moment now, as it increasingly seems like one needs to either abandon realism (there is one world and states of affairs don't depend on who is looking) and locality, abandon time symmetrical QM, or embrace retrocausality.

Retrocausality says some interesting things about freedom in a broad sense because it tell us we live in a world of "real" potentials that get crystalized into "actual histories," based on physical interactions. This doesn't directly connect to human behavior in any straightforward way, except in that we generally think of freedom in terms of our "actions" also selecting between potentials based on our internal states, so there is an intuitive overlap (which is maybe more dangerous than helpful, but interesting nonetheless).