But that has lead many people to assume that science somehow can explain those very same regularities, when really why there are such regularities is beyond physics - i.e. meta-physical. — Wayfarer
It describes in a generic fashion what must have been the case before to get what is observably the case after. Or indeed, what we could hope to observe again if we got matter in an accelerator and heated it up enough to reverse the breakings. — apokrisis
So in just 500 years, science has managed to explain the stuff out of which everything observable has been made in terms of Platonically-necessary and maximally-simple mathematical principles. — apokrisis
We are at a critical juncture in particle physics. Perhaps after it restarts the LHC in 2015, it will uncover new particles, naturalness will survive and particle physicists will stay in business. There are reasons to be optimistic. After all, we know that there must be something new that explains dark matter, and there remains a good chance that the LHC will find it.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the LHC will find nothing. The Higgs boson could be particle physics’ swansong, the last particle of the accelerator age. Though a worrying possibility for experimentalists, such a result could lead to a profound shift in our understanding of the universe, and our place in it.
You said that computation doesn't produce a steady-state system, and typically it doesn't. But does the mind produce a steady-state? I would say yes and no given the presumption that connected groups of neurons have persistence in some aspects of their structural networks (the neurons and connections approximating "cat" has somewhat coherent or permanent internal structure AFAIK), but parts of neuronal networks also exhibit growth and change overtime to such a degree that the dynamics of the entire system also change. — VagabondSpectre
We could train a single artificial neural network to recognize "cats" (by sound or image or something else), and I'm not suggesting that this artificial neural network would therefore be alive or conscious, but I am suggesting that this is the particular kind of state of affairs which forms the base unit of a greater intelligence which is not only able to identify cats, but associate meaning along with it. — VagabondSpectre
I still don't understand why life and mind needs to be built on fundamental material instability or it ain't life/mind. — VagabondSpectre
I know why biological life needs extreme material instability, but do minds need it? — VagabondSpectre
But some initial responses are: why is maths considered to be the order that arises as a consequence? — Wayfarer
I would have thought the source of the 'unreasonable efficacy of mathematics' is due to the fact that it is prior to the 'phenomenal domain' rather than a consequence of it it - nearer to the source. — Wayfarer
Now I think the reason that this seems backwards is because nowadays it is naturally assumed that intelligence is a result of evolution. It's not something that appears until the last second, in cosmic terms, so intelligence itself is understood as a consequence. Whereas in traditional cosmology the origin of multiplicity is the unborn or unconditioned which is symbolised in various (and often highly divergent) ways in different philosophical traditions but which, suffice to say, is depicted as in some sense being mind-like. Of course that is deprecated nowadays because it sounds religious. — Wayfarer
In fact, our mathematical models are generally terribly reductionist - bottom up constructions with numbers as their atoms. So Scientism rules in maths too. — apokrisis
or - your favourite - consider matter as deadened mind. — apokrisis
To me, intelligence means formal and final cause - the having of a purpose and then the organisation that results to achieve it. — apokrisis
There would be a unity or symmetry. That is implied by the fact something could separate or break to become the "mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive" two.
But the further wrinkle is that the initial singular state is not really any kind of concrete state but instead a vagueness - an absence of any substantial thing in both the material and formal sense.
This radical state of indeterminism is difficult to imagine.
I am with you in regards of the physical material, space, time and three dimensions etc, which is well described by science.The Big Bang is thus more of a big collapse from infinite or unbounded directionality to the least number of dimensions that could become an eternal unwinding down towards a heat death.
Agreed, but the reason I asked the question about a unity is that it brings us to a set of conditions for which science and maths, even perhaps logic is blind and mute. There must be something going on in there which we are far from understanding. However, I don't think we necessarily should try to go there to solve any questions about our origins. As I said, it might simply be a means of forging dense physical material, the origin might be found elsewhere in which such extreme conditions are not required.The details of this argument could be wrong of course. But it illustrates a way of thinking about origins that by-passes the usual causal problem of getting something out of nothing. If you start with vague everythingness (as what prevents everything being possible?) then you only need good arguments why constraints would emerge to limit this unbounded potential to some concrete thermalising arrangement - like our Big Bang/Heat Death universe.
Matter follows a set of physical laws which govern it's behavior is another way of saying "there is consistency in the way matter behaves". — VagabondSpectre
So when you say "existent material can interpret some fundamental laws", that's a more or less accurate way of saying that matter behaves with some consistency. — VagabondSpectre
The problem is more that you are anthropomorphizing matter, in imagining that it would have to be able to "interpret' a law in order to be able to act in accordance with it. Even humans are capable of acting in accordance with laws without being able to interpret them; or even necessarily knowing they are acting in accordance with some law. — John
With this clarification, it seems there is not much in common between human laws and laws of physics. The two types of "laws" have completely difference essences. — Samuel Lacrampe
My position on the laws of physics is that - to avoid any mystery - laws are "material history". Laws are simply the constraints that accumulate as a system (even a whole Universe) develops its organisation. — apokrisis
This again is a big advantage of turning the usual notion of material existence on its head. — apokrisis
But a Peircean semiotic metaphysics - one where existence develops as a habit - says instead everything is possible and then actuality arises by most of that possibility getting suppressed. So the universal laws are universal states of constraint - the historical removal of a whole bunch of possibility. The objects left at the end of the process are heavily restricted in their actions - and by the same token, they then enjoy the equally definite freedoms that thus remain. — apokrisis
But a constraints-based holistic metaphysics says instead that laws are simply historically embedded material conditions. History fixes the world in general ways that then everywhere impinge as constraints on what can happen. But in doing that, those same constraints also underpin the freedoms that local objects can then call their own. — apokrisis
That's an unsupported materialist assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
For matter to act in accordance with a physical law is one thing. For a human being to act in accordance with a governing law is a completely different thing. That they are different is evident from the fact that if matter is seen to behave other than in the way that the physical law describes, it is evidence that the law needs to be altered, but if a human being acts in a way other than the governing law prescribes, this is evidence that the human being needs to be altered. To equivocate between these two very distinct uses of "laws" is a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover
You were equivocating in saying that matter had to be able to interpret a law in order to "follow" it, as we might say of a human that follows a law — John
I'm desperately trying to understand your argument... — VagabondSpectre
You are creating a figure of straw, if you assert that when it is commonly said that matter follows laws, the implication is that matter is somehow interpreting laws. To say that matter follows laws is to say nothing more than that it acts in accordance with them. — John
Welcome. I agree that things made of cells are living things. But why is that the case? What makes a cell a living thing, and anything simpler than a cell a non-living thing (I assume you agree with the latter phrase too)?generally, it is the condition extending from cell division to death — Galuchat
This may answer my previous question. But would that not make a fire a living thing much like a cell? Note, this seems to be the position of some people in this discussion. I am on the edge on that one; and yet I cannot seem to find a clear difference between a cell and a fire.characterised by the ability to metabolise nutrients, respond to stimuli, mature, reproduce, and adapt to the environment through semiosis. — Galuchat
characterised by the ability to metabolise nutrients, respond to stimuli, mature, reproduce, and adapt to the environment through semiosis. — Galuchat
Fire seems not to meet the last one. I don't particularly agree with the list, since I can think of exceptions to the other four items, but semiosis alone seems not enough. I have bailed on attempting to define an essence, and leave it a call to be made on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly we will not always recognize life when encountered, and will classify some things as life that really shouldn't be.This may answer my previous question. But would that not make a fire a living thing much like a cell? Note, this seems to be the position of some people in this discussion. I am on the edge on that one; and yet I cannot seem to find a clear difference between a cell and a fire. — Samuel Lacrampe
So again, life and mind constantly shed information, which is why they are inherently efficient. But computation, being always dependent on simulation, needs to represent all the physics as information and can't erase any. So the data load just grows without end. And indeed, if it tries to represent actual dynamical criticality, infinite data is needed to represent the first step. — apokrisis
Welcome. I agree that things made of cells are living things. But why is that the case? What makes a cell a living thing, and anything simpler than a cell a non-living thing (I assume you agree with the latter phrase too)? — Samuel Lacrampe
This may answer my previous question. But would that not make a fire a living thing much like a cell? Note, this seems to be the position of some people in this discussion. I am on the edge on that one; and yet I cannot seem to find a clear difference between a cell and a fire. — Samuel Lacrampe
Brief, but I like it. The author of the article (identified only as 'magazine staff') seems not to entirely understand the subject, giving this statement:This:
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html
Especially the first question to Dr. Cleland. — Banno
In which she criticizes the term 'definition' of life, as opposed to 'scientific theory' of life. Asking for a definition is not to ask what the thing is, but merely how the word is used in one particular language....In which she criticuzes the limitations of mere language as inadequate to the tasks of biologists. — Wayfarer
By the definition of the term itself: the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. With this definition, if we were to ever find simpler organisms than our currently known cells, then these would also be called cells I think.Why do you think that a cell is the simplest possible living thing? — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah I agree. As such, metabolism should be excluded from the essence of living things because it presupposes it. We can replace it instead with "interaction with environment, either input or output".Why would you think that a fire metabolizes? Metabolism is clearly defined as what living things do. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah I admit I don't understand what the term "semiosis" means (process that involves signs?).Fire seems not to meet the last one. — noAxioms
This may be the end result. But at least I think I can prove that the essence of life exists:I have bailed on attempting to define an essence, and leave it a call to be made on a case-by-case basis. — noAxioms
But clearly human beings create the laws, — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore my claim is that to say "matter follows laws" is not the same a saying matter acts in accordance with laws. In fact, I assert that to say "matter follows laws" is not just an ambiguous way of speaking, it is misleading, deceptive, and false. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.