But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. — Dusty of Sky
↪Dusty of Sky I'm asking for an explanation of just how the physical property of liquidity arise from a liquids purported constituent particles. I can't see that you have given anything like that so far. — Janus
Aren't you relying on science to tell you all that? I can't tell whether you are accepting or rejecting physical explanations of the experience of wetness. — Janus
D.M. Armstrong developed a physicalist metaphysics that is consistent with these abstract principles. In a nutshell:And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism. Thoughts? — Dusty of Sky
I think my reply to TogetherTurtle basically covers your argument. If the laws of physics are just descriptions of the way things happen to be organized, then they are not laws. And if the laws of physics aren't actually laws, then why does the universe obey them. It can't be random. What are the odds that every physical object, in the absence of laws, would always act as if it were governed by laws? Statistically infinitesimal, I would say. — Dusty of Sky
Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world. But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism. Thoughts? — Dusty of Sky
the laws of physics are just descriptions of the way things happen to be organized, then they are not laws. And if the laws of physics aren't actually laws, then why does the universe obey them. It can't be random. What are the odds that every physical object, in the absence of laws, would always act as if it were governed by laws? Statistically infinitesimal, I would say. — Dusty of Sky
Everything that exists is a state of affairs (SOA). An SOA is composed of 3 types of constituents:
a particular, its properties, and its relations to other SOAs.
The gravitational force between 2 objects is a relation between those objects (states of affairs) that is describable as a function of the internal properties of their respective masses and of the distance between them. — D M Armstrong
Also, with no laws, there is no such thing as statistical liklihood either, so you can't even say it is unlikely. — Isaac
In a totally unordered universe, how could there be any specific thing? I mean, science presumes natural order, surely. — Wayfarer
the meaning, agency and whereabouts of the law itself mysteriously lie elsewhere. — sime
What is it about realism that you think commits it to believing these "mysteriously lie elsewhere"? — Isaac
The realist is the person who thinks "The elastic deformation of this spring is governed by Hooke's Law" — sime
That there are certain patterns to the interaction of matter and that these patterns can be described mathematically doesn't undermine physicalism.
Physicalism basically claims all is matter. It doesn't deny that there are patterns/laws in the way matter behaves. — TheMadFool
But patterns are not physical things. — Metaphysician Undercover
But patterns are not physical things. Doesn't physicalism dictate that all things are physical? How can one be a physicalist and accept the existence of such patterns? — Metaphysician Undercover
If these abstract principles don't exist in the "material" world, then how did they make their way into your post for me to see and read? Is an internet forum with people's ideas that you access via your computer an abstract principle? How did you come to know of abstract principles if not by the world itself, which you call "material" and "physical"?Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world. But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. — Dusty of Sky
The relation between (or among) states of affairs can often be described mathematically. The point is that the equation is an abstraction, and doesn't exist independently of the states of affairs.I wonder where/how maths fits in this ensemble? — Wayfarer
So it appears you are asserting a Euthyphro-style dilemma. Either the universe obeys a law external to it or else there can be no law (in which case we should expect a disorderly universe). Would that be a fair description? — Andrew M
The terms arise because people want to answer questions such as "just what are minds, anyway?" Some people think the answer to that is that minds are just brains in particular states. Some people don't at all agree with that. They believe that minds are a very different sort of thing. — Terrapin Station
Physicalism is the idea that nothing exists except for concrete objects in the material world — Dusty of Sky
But physics is the study of the mathematic principles which determine the behavior of these material objects. And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism — Dusty of Sky
Oh look, Janus has reversed the roles, asking Dusty to defend physicalism. Janus, why are you asking Dusty to defend physicalist principles? if you recognize that liquidity cannot be explained by physical principles, then why not just accept the principles which Dusty is putting forward, and follow the conclusion which is made concerning physicalism? — Metaphysician Undercover
You'd have to explain that if you mean it literally. If you're saying that physical laws per se aren't physical things, that would be more understandable. Surely you're not claiming that, say, a pattern on a checkered shirt isn't physical? — Terrapin Station
Anyway, I don't think we can use the existence of abstraction as an argument against physicalism because abstractions are functions of the physical brain isn't it? — TheMadFool
I understand that thoughts aren't physical but the interesting thing to note is that arguments that are based on it seem to be argumentum ad ignorantiams: ''Look. We can't explain mind in physical terms. Ergo, it must be non-physical.'' — TheMadFool
Many thinkers, who will still call themselves physicalists consider emergent physical properties to be irreducible; which means that mechanistic explanations will be impossible in principle. — Janus
The interaction problem only exists for those who think of mind and matter as completely different substances. Positing a third intermediary which is a composite of both does not really help, since we have no good reason to consider mind and matter to be completely different substances in the first place. The whole of nature would be better considered to be composite like the intermediary in the tripartite model, that would be much more parsimonious. — Janus
D.M. Armstrong developed a physicalist metaphysics that is consistent with these abstract principles. In a nutshell: — Relativist
The problem with arguments like this is because they assume some type of dualism - where two or more kinds of substances exist and are so different that they are incompatible, or unable to interact. — Harry Hindu
If there are truly no laws at all, then one of the things that can be the case is that all particles simply behave the way they do for no reason at all. — Isaac
a universe without logic and statistics would be utterly absurd and inconceivable. A universe without gravity, on the other hand, is easy to imagine. — Dusty of Sky
A universe where all objects always obeyed an intricate set of laws for no reason would absolutely violate statistics, and perhaps even logic. — Dusty of Sky
A random process can occasionally yield non-random results just by random chance. But if a random process exclusively yields non-random results, the chances of that draw closer to zero with each passing second. — Dusty of Sky
It is contradictory to say that something which is emergent is irreducible. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is very good reason to consider two completely different forms of actuality, and therefore two completely different substances — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, let's say that an abstraction is what a physical thing (a brain) does. How can you construe what a physical thing does, as something which is itself physical? The brain is physical, but how is what the brain does something physical? For example, a person walks to the store. The person is something physical, the store is something physical, and the ground is physical. But how is walking something physical? Despite the fact that "physics" is involved in understanding the relations between physical objects, this does not mean that these relations are physical — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see the problem. When it becomes evident that mind cannot be described in physical terms, we assume that it is not physical. How is that a problem? When it becomes evident that colours are not smells we assume that colours are not smells. Where's the problem? Colours are not smells, nor is mind physical. There is no problem unless you want to believe that everything is physical, then there's a problem — Metaphysician Undercover
There is the checkered shirt, that is a physical thing. Then there is the pattern which the colours are said to be in, — Metaphysician Undercover
So it appears you are asserting a Euthyphro-style dilemma. Either the universe obeys a law external to it or else there can be no law (in which case we should expect a disorderly universe). Would that be a fair description?
— Andrew M
I will tentatively accept your summary as a fair description, although I'm slightly worried that you have an argument in store that will make me regret doing so. — Dusty of Sky
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.