So, the type of mechanism Newton disproved isn't exactly what we think about today. It was a view very much based on billiard balls crashing into each other, etc., which turned out to have issues. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't see what big outcome in philosophy hinges on a deterministic universe. — Manuel
There is, however, a neat poll of modern philosophers, and physicalism/materialism is pretty dang popular there. Perhaps they didn't get the memo? — flannel jesus
Quantum physics is probabilistic, yes, but the function that determines those probabilities is deterministic (the Schrödinger equation). — flannel jesus
What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? — Restitutor
Computer information processing is simply a mechanical procedure --- one thing after another --- as envisioned by Shannon. And some people still expect those assembly-line mechanisms to soon become Conscious, emulating human Sentience, as the data through-put increases. — Gnomon
Really? FWIW, my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. Philosophers of physics, in contrast to philosophically sophisticated physicists, wantonly and unparsimoniously (mis/over)interpret this mathematical artifact which is, as is often pointed out, of little to no significance to theoretical physicists. Like every other theory in science, QFT is only a simulation of the world and not 'the world itself'; thus, "the nature of the wavefunction" is nothing more than an extension of "the nature" of QFT (i.e. simulation). Re: model-dependent realism.Nevertheless it is indisputable that 'the nature of the wave function' is among the great unresolved issues in philosophy of physics. — Wayfarer
But it's not. There are machine-like elements, to be sure, but at the basis, humans (and all other creatures) are organic and not mechanical. They don't operate solely according to the abstractions of physics, in addition there is a much more sophisticated level of activity that occurs even on the level of cell division and growth. The machine metaphor is just that - a metaphor - and you could argue that it's a metaphor that's gone rogue, that is, escaped from its enclosure and wrought havoc in culture at large — Wayfarer
Yes, modern physics, is a useful abstraction, but it is a useful abstraction that represents fundamental reality well enough to make incredibly accurate, specific and counterintuitive predictions so don’t just dismiss it. — Restitutor
I am saying the body is machine in the sense that every aspect of what is does is mechanistic and things that are purely mechanistic can be called machines without abusing the term machine. If your definition of a machine is something made of mettle and is designed by a human we are not machines but that isn’t the definition of a machine — Restitutor
Please understand, you do not have enough of a scientific background to understand how mechanistic science has shown the human body and all “life” to be — Restitutor
Yes, modern physics, is a useful abstraction, but it is a useful abstraction that represents fundamental reality well enough to make incredibly accurate, specific and counterintuitive predictions so don’t just dismiss it. It is more than just abstract. — Restitutor
All I can do is show you something like ATP synthase and say we have the same kind of information on masses amount of other systems and they are all just as mechanistic. — Restitutor
where the idea of the universe as 'machine like' originated. — Wayfarer
No, it make it a model for scientific analysis of the nature of being, which is better. — Restitutor
Democritus was before Descartes. — Restitutor
'Metal'. Machines are manufactured artifacts, whilst humans and other animals are organisms. Organisms and machines have many fundamental differences, organic processes and mechanical processes have many fundamental differences. Organisms have the ability to grow, heal, mutate, learn and evolve, which machines do not have. — Wayfarer
Not relevant to the issue though. The mechanistic model of nature comes from early modern science not Greek philosophy as such — Wayfarer
The fact that from a genetic test you can say that a one nucleotide change will or won't cause cystic fibrosis is the problem. — Restitutor
Oxford dirtionary “an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.” — Restitutor
1. : something having many related parts that function together as a whole. 2. : an individual living thing that carries on the activities of life by means of organs which have separate functions but are dependent on each other : a living person, plant, or animal.
my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. — 180 Proof
Not at all, sir: what is simulated – the natural world, 'subject-invariant' reality – is approximately known with respect to the scope precision and fidelity of the simulation (à la mapping territory which necessarily exceeds mapping). Dispense with the outdated Kantianism, sir, epistemology as well as science has developed two and have centuries past his (anti-Copernican) transcendental anthropocentricity and occult ding-an-sich.The whole point is that'what it simulates' is an unknown. — Wayfarer
if you believe the findings of quantum physics are not subject-invariant (i.e. objective) — 180 Proof
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.