It is simply not possible to decompress and reconstruct the totality of all the information about reality out of an axiomatic system that describes it (if this axiomatic system is capable of arithmetic). — Tarskian

But then again, it also does not mean that the information forgotten in the compression is "accidental" or "random". — Tarskian

Randomness is not a necessary requirement for unpredictability. Incompleteness alone is already sufficient. A completely deterministic system can still be mostly unpredictable. — Tarskian

From your sequence of quotes here, I understand that, just as you say "Incompleteness alone is already sufficient." [to cause unpredictability].

Can we generalize to the following claim: our material creation, as we currently understand it, supports: the determinism of axiomatic systems, the incompleteness of irreversible complexity and the uncertainty of evolving dynamical systems, and, moreover, this triad of attributes is fundamental, not conditional?

You have not given me any reason to read someone else's thoughts on the matter. Make your philosoophical case, ucarr, and I will respond. — 180 Proof

...is there a logically sound argument claiming there is a causal relationship between entropy and incompleteness? — ucarr

No. — 180 Proof

The issue I want you to focus upon is this: for any system that does work, as it goes forward in the systematic process of doing work, the work builds up complexity of detail. This building up of complexity can be observed in two modes: phenomenal (entropy) and epistemic (logic).

Gödel and Chaitin have shown in the epistemic mode that the full scope of the evolving complexity can not be formally tied to the ground from which it emerges. This leads to the conclusion that axiomatic systems are a form of compression of complexity and that the increase of complexity is an irreversible process.

If the forward direction of a phenomenon incorporates information that cannot be decompressed from its theory, then it will also be impossible to decompress the information needed to reverse it, rendering the phenomenon irreversible. — Tarskian

Here's a critical question: Is it true that the extrapolation from an axiomatic system to complexity irreversible to the axiomatic system cannot be certified, and thus axiomatic systems are both incomplete and uncertain?

If you think the answer to this question is "no," can you succinctly demonstrate your refutation?

If you're refusing to read Tarskian's posts linking to:

"Entropy, heat, and Gödel incompleteness", 2014, by Karl-Georg Schlesinger, — Tarskian

it's not obvious to me why you see no reason to refute Schlesinger. The title of his paper makes it clear he's worked on the question of a causal link connecting entropy and Gödel incompleteness, the very focus of my question to you.

...is there a logically sound argument claiming there is a causal relationship between entropy and incompleteness? — ucarr

No. — 180 Proof

...succinctly express your disagreement with something I have written that you wish for me to further elaborate on... — 180 Proof

How does this differ from what I've asked of you?

Regarding what exactly? — 180 Proof

Please use the links below to Tarskian's posts. After re-reading the posts, refute the citations referenced by Tarskian by: providing known facts pertinent; corroborating evidence supporting known facts pertinent; logical analysis; valid conclusions drawn from your logical analysis.

Tarskian_Schlesinger 1

Tarskian_Schlesinger 2

If a thing is not computable, thus causing attempted measurements to terminate in undecidability, is it sound reasoning to characterize this undecidability as uncertainty — ucarr

For me uncertainty refers to a situation where you don't have all the information.. — ssu

This situation - soft uncertainty - doesn't preclude uncertainty from also being applied to:

You can have all the information, yet there's no way out of this. — ssu

which is hard uncertainty.

There is a lot of text which you won't ever write, but anything you write will automatically be something you do write (and hence not in the category of all the texts you will never write). So is this a limitation on what you can write? Of course not. — ssu

I attempt to refute your above denial (underlined) with:

Is this a logical statement: ¬x ≠ x? If so, then why is it not a logically preemptive limitation on what I can write? — ucarr

Let me attempt to clarity: I'm attempting say I can't enact the negation of what I'm doing. $\rightarrow$ Anything I write will not be something I do not write.

The implicit but really strong assumption in Schlesinger's paper is that there exists exactly one lossy compression algorithm, i.e. axiom system A, for the information contained in the physical universe.

Schlesinger actually admits this problem:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.7433

So, we would need a slightly stronger form of Gödel incompleteness which would make the dynamics non-predictable for any choice of axiom system A. — Tarskian

I'm glad to see I've joined some estimable thinkers who have preceded me. My gratitude to Tarskian for the citations.

According to Schlesinger, a physical phenomenon becomes irreversible and entropy will grow, if reversing the phenomenon would require using more information than allowed by Godel's incompleteness. — Tarskian

If all these alternative compression algorithms always lead to the same output in terms of predicting entropy, then for all practical purposes, they are one and the same, aren't they? — Tarskian

:up:

Are you proceeding from the premise causal relationships are not fundamental in nature? — ucarr

Nope. — 180 Proof

...is there a logically sound argument claiming there is a causal relationship between entropy and incompleteness? — ucarr

No. — 180 Proof

Please supply: known facts pertinent; corroborating evidence supporting known facts pertinent; logical analysis; valid conclusions drawn from your logical analysis.

I am starting to believe that what you are really getting at behind the curtains here is that science and art share common features. — I like sushi

..the beating heart of physics is entropy — I like sushi

This is important generally, and here more specifically. If what you say immediately above is true, then the 2$^{nd}$ law of thermo-dynamics, if, as I herein theorize, is directly and deeply tied to the always incomplete systematic utilization of heat energy for work, then there seems to me to be good reason to think incompleteness -- not the existential measurement uncertainty of the Fourier transforms applied to elementary particles, but instead the garden variety of incompleteness: not all of the potential has been utilized -- exhibits a pattern in possession of an underlying logic. If we can learn to read that underlying logic, I conjecture it will tell us a foundational story about the passage of time and events into the future.

Science: The What - the 2$^{nd}$ law of thermo-dynamics; Humanities: The How - clinical depression of the human psyche resembles the conjectured heat death of a material system wherein all is at a lifeless equilibrium, the cosmic tendency of matter energy systems. In human terms of the "how is it experienced": the no-affect grayscale of a flatlined inner emotional life.

Entropy_uncertainty_incompleteness keep our material environment alive. Life will not be understood in the terms of wholeness, completion and closure. Since vitality tends towards these things, it's natural to seek after them. I don't think we'll find them, and that's a good thing because life, the supremely good thing, depends on us not finding them.

We don't live within a universe; instead, we live within a vital approach to a universe strategically forestalled by entropy_uncertainty_incompleteness. Science and Humanities are the two great modes of experiencing the uncontainable vitality.

J could easily respond by restricting his sphere of discourse to the logical frame and asking something like, "But do they add anything as far as the logic is concerned?" But this raises the fraught question of where the logical ends and the metalogical begins, or else where the metalogical ends and the ontological begins, in any given system. — Leontiskos

Yeah. Theoreticians are still scratching their heads over the question of an inflection point linking metalogical with ontological.

Are you proceeding from the premise causal relationships are not fundamental in nature? — ucarr

Nope. — 180 Proof

So if, for example, the 2$^{nd}$ law of thermo-dynamics establishes that systematic utilization of heat is always incomplete, and that this unconstrained thermal energy always travels to a cooler state toward equilibrium in randomization, is there a logically sound argument claiming there is a causal relationship between entropy and incompleteness?

I can say “It is true that there are a hundred thalers on the table” but this adds nothing to the proposition ‛There are a hundred thalers on the table’. — J

Basically, yes. — Leontiskos

I can say “A hundred thalers exist” but this adds nothing to the concept ‛a hundred thalers’; — J

This is a bit different, as the latter possesses a conceptual existence which the former surpasses by asserting a super-conceptual existence, at least according to common language. As far as I can see things can only be true or false in one way, whereas things can exist in multiple ways. The domain of the former is propositions whereas the domain of the latter is ontological realities, and ontological realities are more variegated and complicated. — Leontiskos

Maybe QM can tell us something pertinent herein: When that tree falls in the forest without a witness, does it make a sound? No. It makes a potential sound, and in so doing, it takes its place among all of sound in its potentiality.

“Truth is not a predication.” That is, neither existence nor truth add anything, conceptually, to what they appear to be predicating ‛existence’ and ‛truth’ of. — J

I suppose Frege was the first to have pointed out the “emptiness” of the “It is true that . . .” prefix, but did he also make the parallel with “Existence is not a predicate”? — J

Aristotle's claim in the Metaphysics that to speak truth is to say of what is that it is or of what is not that it is not is very close to the truth predication question. — Leontiskos

Truth/existence predication adds something conceptually entangled: the existential_cognitive entanglement of superposition resolved, or, to put it another way: decidedness.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment concerning quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This experiment viewed this way is described as a paradox. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935[1] in a discussion with Albert Einstein[2] to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.

Schrödinger's Cat

A thing is potential and undecided until it is witnessed by a sentient. Therefore, when a sentient says: It is true of what is that it is or, it is existential of what exists that it exists, s/he adds the decidedness of witnessing the superposition of the cognitively decided thing.

The undecidability results simply show that not all is computable (or in the case of Gödel's theorems, provable), even if there is a correct model for the true mathematical object (namely itself). — ssu

If a thing is not computable, thus causing attempted measurements to terminate in undecidability, is it sound reasoning to characterize this undecidability as uncertainty (about a conjectured definitive measurement)?

There is a lot of text which you won't ever write, but anything you write will automatically be something you do write (and hence not in the category of all the texts you will never write). So is this a limitation on what you can write? Of course not. You can still write anything you want. It's a bit similar with the undecidability results. — ssu

Is this a logical statement: $\neg x$ ≠ $x$? If so, then why is it not a logically preemptive limitation on what I can write?

This is not an example of a "fundamental relationship of uncertainty, incompleteness & entropy". Not even close. — 180 Proof

Are you proceeding from the premise causal relationships are not fundamental in nature?

The $2^{nd}$ law of thermo-dynamics tells us that no isolated system can convert all of its internal energy into work. Why is this statement - among its other related implications - not an implication systematic utilization of available energy is always incomplete?

If it is one of its implications, how is it the case the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics is essential to nature, but one of its implications isn’t?

"Uncertainty" is epistemic, "incompleteness" is mathematical and "entropy" is physical. I don't think they are related at a deeper – "foundational" – level unless Max Tegmark's MUH is the case. :chin: — 180 Proof

Consider a chain of causation: a) live music is performed in a radio station studio for a live broadcast; b) the live music in the studio as rendered to radio listeners is incomplete because of noise in the transmission; c) the listeners - because of the noisy transmission - are uncertain whether three successive brass instrument solos are a flugelhorn, a trumpet and a cornet, successively, or some other configuration according to the possibilities.

Even though the parallel breaks down at b) incompleteness because, in the example, it's due to the entropy of electromagnetic transduction (albeit mathematically describable), nonetheless the physics of entropy causes the incompleteness and, in turn, the incompleteness causes the uncertainty.

Our triad, in spite of variations, remains intact.

No need for proof in physical reality to perceive its facts. — Tarskian

Why is the Copernicus_Galileo debate with the Catholic Church (re: the earth orbiting the sun) not a counter-narrative to this claim?

Is there any literature that examines questions about the relationship between Heisenberg Uncertainty and Gödel Incompleteness?

The Fourier transforms won't allow us to accurately measure both position and momentum of an elementary particle; it's one measurement at a time being accurate, with the other measurement being far less accurate. — Tarskian

Is this an example of uncertainty rooted within incompleteness?

Unlike in physical reality, in arithmetical reality we typically know that a theorem is true because we can prove it... That is why arithmetical reality appears so orderly to us, while in reality, it is highly chaotic, just like physical reality. We just cannot see the chaos. — Tarskian

Here's the really big question: Is there a foundational relationship between uncertainty, incompleteness and entropy?

Consider: The second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal empirical observation concerning heat and energy interconversions. A simple statement of the law is that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter (or 'downhill' in terms of the temperature gradient). Another statement is: "Not all heat can be converted into work in a cyclic process."[1][2][3]

So, heat (unfocused energy) without constraints, always spontaneously flows out of an energetic system, such that necessarily only a fraction of the contained energy of a thermo-dynamical system can be converted (brought into focus) into work.

The second law of thermodynamics establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system. It predicts whether processes are forbidden despite obeying the requirement of conservation of energy as expressed in the first law of thermodynamics and provides necessary criteria for spontaneous processes. For example, the first law allows the process of a cup falling off a table and breaking on the floor, as well as allowing the reverse process of the cup fragments coming back together and 'jumping' back onto the table, while the second law allows the former and denies the latter.

So, the entropy of a thermo-dynamic system is uni-directional; it always increases; it never decreases.

The second law may be formulated by the observation that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease, as they always tend toward a state of thermodynamic equilibrium where the entropy is highest at the given internal energy.[4] An increase in the combined entropy of system and surroundings accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, often referred to in the concept of the arrow of time.[5][6]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

That uncertainty might be rooted in incompleteness suggests a relationship between the two phenomena.

Now we want to see if we can connect uni-directional entropy as the arrow of time to this duad in order to make a very meaningful triad: uncertainty_incompleteness_arrow of time.

Does our triad tell us that entropy insures the material existence is always moving forward into a future that is never a simple cyclic repetition of past phenomena, such as an oscillation of the universe between big bang and big crunch?

Does our triad likewise tell us that our movement towards the future is more than a statistically probable permutation of conserved laws?

Does the discovery of QM tell us that our future is truly unknown and unknowable, albeit partially predictable?

Is entropy the engine driving uncertainty_incompleteness_arrow of time?

Is entropy the mortal enemy of the T.O.E.?

"Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life"

Links to renderings:

Mozart Group

Eric Idle

North Korean Version

Art Garfunkel

Life of Brian

"Be fair" is an expression I use - perhaps it is not as widely used as I thought - to signal that there is a brighter side to what seems so depressing. It's not an accusation or criticism. — Ludwig V

It's all cleared up. I like Art Garfunkel's rendering of "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life (Monty Python)." Have you heard it?

QM tells us the observer perturbs what s/he observes. — ucarr

Isn't that old news in a new bottle? — Ludwig V

the new bottle perturbs the old news into something interesting: — ucarr

I'm suggesting that it has been over-hyped and is rather less interesting than one would have thought, given all the fuss. — Ludwig V

There's always the hope of being understood. — ucarr

Here I'm proceeding from the notion of QM entanglement connecting observer with observed. Effect: nothing is truly unseen. In the grapevine mesh of existing things, for each thing, there's always one observer who sees that thing as it is in truth. Is this not a charming article of faith warding off depression?

Be fair. Sometimes we are understood, and sometimes we manage to sort out misunderstandings. — Ludwig V

I need your help in understanding how I'm being unfair.

How do you characterize ontically and empirically the physicist and its experimental_inferential connection to planck-scale phenomena? — ucarr

My layman's best guess: only the interaction of the measuring-apparatus and "planck-scale phenomena" is manifestly ontic – quanta (e.g. photons) "perturbing" quanta – and the physicist's readings of her measurements (thereby making inferences) are empirical. — 180 Proof

Sounds right to me too. So we have a translation from ontic to empirical. Must we always suppose there's something lost in the translation?

QM tells us the observer perturbs what s/he observes. — ucarr

Isn't that old news in a new bottle. — Ludwig V

I like to think that when I zoom out to include my premise from another one of my conversations: strategic incompleteness, the new bottle perturbs the old news into something interesting: the semi- universe, by design - I'm not making a supernatural claim here but, instead, a thermo-dynamical claim - won't let us arrive at closure for either the "what" or the "how."

Oftentimes we don't know (or appreciate) it, but we're fortunate not to arrive at a final closure for things. As a matter of fact, our happiness depends upon the continual forestalling of final closure.

Well, as I've been saying, no one reads a given text exactly as another reads it. This because each individual perturbs what s/he observes individually. — ucarr

You are looking at only one side of the coin. We learn to read from each other (and we learn the language that we read and communicate in) and we learn all the skills of knowledge. Sharing and correcting — Ludwig V

Yes, our experience is rooted within interrelationships. There seems not to be any existing thing utterly isolated and alone. There's always the hope of being understood.

I suppose it means that in a given time period for a foundational theory, no one can discover a form more basic. — ucarr

So "simple" means "more basic"? — Ludwig V

"Basic" as the criterion for "simple" expresses an ideal of efficiency and clarity and certainty.

...since classical-scale systems (e.g. brains-sensoriums) cannot directly interact with planck-scale systems. — 180 Proof

How do you characterize ontically and empirically the physicist and its experimental_inferential connection to planck-scale phenomena?

Yes, as e.g. Spinoza points out, human knowledge of unbounded (infinite) reality is necessarily perspectival and therefore bounded (finite). Basic epistemic mereology (re: maps < terrain), no? — 180 Proof

Yes. :up:

I think your "strategic incompleteness" overstates the case and incoherently conflates teleology with formalism with empiricism. — 180 Proof

Okay. Your helpful analysis empowers me to see that: teleology | formalism | empiricism are a triad of modes of cognition incorrectly (logically) articulated in my premise in its present state. Also, the scope of the territory claimed by my premise is too large_inclusive.

Okay. Proceeding from the observer as an always local person, if we bind the thinking of an always local person to that always local person, then it too, is always local, and the abstraction of abstract thinking starts dissolving. — ucarr

I don't know what you mean by "bind". If a local person indulges in abstract thinking, and shares that thinking with other local and non-local thinkers, how does the abstraction of abstract thinking dissolve? — Ludwig V

QM tells us the observer perturbs what s/he observes. So, the cognition of a sentient keeps everything local to itself in the act of observing. Thus, seemingly far-ranging observations via mental gymnastics, what we call "knowing by reasoning alone," are mostly forestalled in their abstraction from the local_empirical to the cognitive_general.

So science, no less than politics, is local. By extension from this, then, my experience of relativistic effects cannot be identical to yours as each perturbs by observation in its own way. For this reason, we imbibe artistic works in search of a particularly unique voice, although it's understood each voice is singular.

I didn't understand a lot of the intervening ideas. — Ludwig V

All of my ideas are simple, even if oftentimes communicated opaquely. This is a signal shortcoming of the high-speed, low-resolution feedback looping native to the intuitive learning_reasoning process that drives the content of my writing here (and elsewhere).

I have a lot of difficulty with the idea of something true but unprovable. How could we know that such things exist, and if we do, how do know what they are? But this is a bit more specific and so it helps. I still haven't seen an example of such a truth and would love to do so. — Ludwig V

It might help to look at some examples of a false premise leading to a true conclusion. @Tarskian can probably help you with this. (With such examples, you have a true conclusion not proven by the false premise that leads to it.)

There may not be any elegant simplicity axiomatic to everything. — ucarr

But isn't that just a methodological principle that applies when there are competing theories in play? — Ludwig V

If the competing theories are incommensurable, each with strengths and weaknesses, standard practice entails looking for the elegant simplicity.

By the way, what is the criterion for simplicity? — Ludwig V

I suppose it means that in a given time period for a foundational theory, no one can discover a form more basic.

However, it occurred to me that, as a definition, "Statements about statements" captures far too much... — Ludwig V

Berkeley's Dialogues for example can be read as a philosophical text, but also as a historical or religious text. The difference is not in the text, but in the approach to the text. — Ludwig V

Here you give us a good example of statements about statements. In other words, through what lens of interpretation do you approach a given text? Well, as I've been saying, no one reads a given text exactly as another reads it. This because each individual perturbs what s/he observes individually. Thus, we have evidence cognition spins out narratives of narratives. Now we see that when we insert cognition into the "what," it becomes the "how."

True physics would be the set of all facts in the physical universe, i .e. physical reality.

Any proposed set of physical axioms does not need to be a lossless compression of physical reality either.

The compression is actually allowed to lose a lot -- or even most -- of the information contained in physical reality.

The compression merely needs to be sound. — Tarskian

If the compression deems a fact to be true, then it must indeed be verifiably true in the uncompressed reality. — Tarskian

Since "deem" is a synonym for "judge," we see that compression herein is a process of translation. Humans frequently talk about something being lost in translation.

The foundational crisis in mathematics does indeed have a distinct metaphysical sonority to it. It describes issues in arithmetic reality but it may actually also apply to physical reality, if both realities happen to be structurally sufficiently similar. — Tarskian

Representation, though essential to cognition, imposes limitations. I think Gödel, Chaitin and Zisselman are examining these limitations logically. The translation from an axiomatic system to its power set necessarily entails loss, so there is no perfect alignment all the way to identity linking a term with its translation.

If these logical limitations translate to physics, then perhaps we're looking at thermo-dynamical systems that upwardly evolve to morpho-dynamics and, from there, to teleo-dynamics with translation losses occurring throughout the process.

Now we come to the need to look at the issue of the resolution of a rendering from one form to its correspondent via translation. I'm guessing that as the level of resolution rises, it approaches intersection with an infinite value, and thus there is no axiomatic system that completely represents reality.

Now we have a concept of reality as an infinite value. This leads me to see that knowing reality is always necessarily incomplete. This reasoning is my argument for seeing how the scope of incompleteness encompasses logic, math, science, philosophy and empirical cognition. The arts, in a symmetrical configuration, are limited by the items of the previous list.

We have examination of the "what," limited by the lossy representationality of cognition on the one side; on the other side we have empirical examination of "what it's like" to be a self-conscious sentient, the "how" (they are experienced) of the predications of the other side, limited by the lossy existentiality_noumenonality of being on the other side.

Wittegenstein has already confronted much of this. However, because reverential silence in the face of the creation is no fun for philosophy, here we are, confronting it again with our own words.

And now, talking out of the other side of my mouth, let me make the following speculation: if the gap between knowing and being is strategic, then we might rejoice at the unsolvable mystery of the future.

There's always another narrative awaiting expression and, it's not a case of endless cycling through repeating patterns across a fixed totality, better known as that charming misconception: universe.

No. Instead, because of strategic incompletion, a thermo-dynamic wisdom, future is empowered to be distinct in its uniqueness, existing beyond mere permutation of the fixed axioms and conserved laws of a unified system. There is distinct locality. There is no unity.

The observer cannot be abstracted from the experiment. — ucarr

Yes. But the observer, in my book, is not an abstraction - a point of view. (At most, a point of view is a location for a possible observer.) An observer is a person. — Ludwig V

Okay. Proceeding from the observer as an always local person, if we bind the thinking of an always local person to that always local person, then it too, is always local, and the abstraction of abstract thinking starts dissolving.

If there's no omnipresent, eternal, neutral spacetime within which dynamical material things and material systems animate themselves, then we have a wide-ranging field of local events attached to the evolving relationships linking animate things.

There is no vastness of creation because material relationships pose resistance to generalization.

The simple binary of concrete/abstract hasn’t dissolved away to nothing, but it has become faint.

What would be the criterion of success? THAT would be the definition. — Ludwig V

Might it be an ability to see how cognitive objects such as language, and cognition itself, per Gödel, will generate valid statements unprovable within the boundaries of supposedly axiomatic systems?

There may not be any elegant simplicity axiomatic to everything.

I have many problems with this - and with self-reference. Not the least of which is that I'm inclined to think that if a language cannot talk about itself, then there is something it cannot talk about, so it is incomplete. Nor is there anything wrong with self-reference. Some specific uses of it are problematic, but since I'm not committed to avoiding all logically problematic uses of language by ruling them out of court in advance, I'm not much bothered by them. — Ludwig V

This calls attention to something essential in human nature: acts of communication work with logic in application. You can't communicate if you're not being logical in a public sense, which is to say logical in a way that the common people can understand.

Every academic discipline has to keep checking (and updating) its logic as it goes forward, making additions to its database. At the end of the nineteenth century, science_physics underwent a revolution with the transition from Newton to Einstein_QM. Deep ramifications about how to view the material reality are still being distilled.

Revolutionary turns in the picture of reality are best times for philosophy and philosophers.

I don't think they give rise to any major problems of philosophy. — Ludwig V

If self-reference(s) is the antecedent to "they," then I might start thinking of you as being a radical QM materialist, as I am. For what I've seen so far (not exhaustive), scientists and logicians still maintain a white knuckle grip on the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Here at TPF, many debaters think they've scored a slam dunk whenever they discover a contradiction from the opposition.

Logicians and mathematicians have adopted the project of constructing a language with a grammar that rules such statements out. That's their choice. But it seems clear that a language that include those possibilities is perfectly workable. — Ludwig V

More evidence of your radical inclination.

Yes, Tarskian's claim is particularly interesting in terms of its generality:

A statement is philosophical, if it is a statement about another statement. For example:

It is irrelevant that it is raining today. — Tarskian

It dovetails with Gödel and, with a marvelous concision, translates his premise into verbal language. Now it's easy to see that all axiomatic systems, first order, generate statements not strictly proven within the scope of the axiomatic system from which they arise. This is a powerful generalization of the premise of incompletion, both axiomatic and existential.

When we apply essential incompletion to philosophy itself, so that now we're evaluating philosophy's evaluation of something else, we find ourselves at the second higher-order: evaluation of evaluation of a proposition.

What we're seeing now is the process of how ground rules keep giving rise to more ground rules. Ha, ha, ha! We must now laugh at ourselves in our quest to compile everything into one system elegant in its simplicity.

Another nemesis of the would-be wise, standing alongside of contradiction, is the infinite series.

I'm afraid I'm completely stuck in my opinion that the example is not a philosophical statement, unless you mean that it being used as a philosophical example makes it a philosophical statement. Which I think would be unduly stretching the scope of philosophy. — Ludwig V

You can apply critical thinking to any predication. In some instances that might render you as a pedant, but you can do it.

I am wondering, however, whether self-reference may not be part of the distinction between science and the humanities. — Ludwig V

Indeed, it is. It's the heart of the difference. It's the heart of the challenge to the Newtonian physicist to change the vision to QM. The observer cannot be abstracted from the experiment. From this we understand there is no abstraction. Instead, there are relationships. Loop quantum gravity tells us there are atoms of discontinuous space. Seemingly continuous space is an effect of the limits of human eyes.

Now we see that incompletion generalized dovetails with the fall of abstraction, landing us in a world that demands a future created from... what?

...can there be science of science. I doubt if it could follow some version of scientific method, including the experimental method, so would such a discipline be scientific? — Ludwig V

Philosophers, as we've been seeing in my post, are cognitive grammarians. Thinking about thinking amounts to examination of the ground rules for any predication.

Ground rules are the foundation supporting methodology. Therefore, any discipline that generates methodology also generates ground rules. In this way, philosophy is more inclusive than science. The methodology for the scientific method might not be scientific, but it is philosophical.

History, literature, and some approaches to language are about actual human beings, not abstract concepts — Ludwig V

Is philosophy included here? Depends on what you mean by philosophy. Much philosophy presupposes an abstract observer, but Wittgenstein, of course, challenged that. — Ludwig V

This question directs some light onto what makes Tarskian's definition of philosophy interesting:

A statement about a fact is not philosophical. For example:

It is raining today.

A statement is philosophical, if it is a statement about another statement. For example:

It is irrelevant that it is raining today.

This explains in simple words what the true meaning is of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

A theory is incomplete if it can express statements about its own statements. In other words, a theory is incomplete if it is capable of philosophy.

Self-referential statements are just a special case of the general case, which is the philosophical statement. If a statement can talk about other statements, then it can also talk about itself. — Tarskian

Tarskian helps illuminate some possible essentials of consciousness via his application of Gödel to his definition of philosophy. We're looking at a spectrum of incompleteness: a) axiomatic: Russell, Gödel; b) existential: Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg; c) cognitive: Tarskian.

If philosophy is an essential part of human nature, then human nature joins the list of incompleteness detailed above.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. — ucarr

...I don't really understand what you mean. — Ludwig V

To me, adverbial modification means walking purposefully, or ambling or wandering or limping. But you might mean that interpretation is... — Ludwig V

You express in your own words what I'm trying to communicate with my fancy language: the adverb reveals how an action is performed by an individual person with his/her unique Point Of View being the adverbial force that determines the "how" of the doing of an action: "the arrogant boy strutted boldly down the lane, scowling fiercely at anyone making eye contact. The shy maiden, seeing the lad's effrontery, blushed profusely."

The "how" of the boy's actions (strutting boldly, scowling fiercely) convey how he sees himself, i.e., his POV of himself; the "how" of the maiden's action (blushing profusely) conveys how she feels emotion in response to his personality, i.e., her POV of his character.

It's the personal POV that communicates what it's like experiencing the fact of the existence of the things of this world in an individualized way unique to one POV with one personal history that distinguishes humanities from sciences. Sure, scientists have personal experiences of discovering the fact of existing things, but it's unusual for science to be about the personal experience of those existing things. The personal account of experiencing existing things is what humanities does.

How we esteem the great scientist: for seeing the fact of what we never imagined.

How we esteem the great artist: for experiencing illumination from the conventional

It is possible that the prediction of the behaviour of organic molecules using hard physics is not computable, just like the behaviour of a human stomach can't be predicted using hard physics, even if we accept that we live in a purely physicalistic universe that regularly obeys the fundamental laws of physics at every level. — Lionino

:up:

Even more challenging to the test designer, Jenkins adds, is to remember that taking a test is itself a behavior. This means that tests need to try to take into account the attitudes of test takers while they are taking the test.

This means some people may answer questions based on how they want to be perceived, rather than how they truly are.

One of the most difficult hurdles for researchers observing human behavior is how to deal with the reality that human test subjects are always aware they are being studied and can modify their behavior—purposely or unconsciously—in response. — "Tarskian

Dr. Paul Jenkins

Dr. Jenkins' distinction here shines light on the distinction between science discovery and humanities discovery that I'm trying to distill and generalize.

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.

Can Human Behavior Be Studied Scientifically? As claimed above, it's hard to study human behavior because, according to my premise, the researcher has to negotiate a path between the dominant modes of two distinct disciplines of discovery. However, the distinction is not a simple binary, b&w polarization, and so the two modes can sometimes be made to work side-by-side.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags [personal] consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery.[/quote]

It think it's beneficial for both disciplines to make use of the scientific approach: public, measurable, repeatable. I think it's beneficial for both disciplines to make use of the humanities approach: What's it like to travel through (and be changed by) the natural world on a journey with a beginning, middle and end?

Here's an earlier dialogue that speaks to the mesh of science/humanities:

There are fields that are an tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. A good number of architectural rules have been experimentally tested for safety. Still, subjective aesthetics have always been a major consideration in the construction of new buildings. The same can be said about the design of cars or any consumer product. — Tarskian

That's right.

For millennia, humans have understood that buildings should be practical, beautiful, and sustainable, because if any of these qualities are omitted or prioritized the buildings become practical but not beautiful, or beautiful but unsustainable, or sustainable but regardless of how. — jkop

There's no causal relation between the aesthetics and the sustainability and the practical reason for solar panels.
— jkop

Does such a causal relation exist? — ucarr

Yes, in the sense that architecture causally emerges from the building's practical, aesthetical, and sustainable qualities. — jkop

So, one possible summit of a science-art mesh would be a building that's useful, ecological and beautiful. — ucarr

Yeah, those three (or closely related varieties of each) are the essential components of all successful structural designs. Also known as the Vitruvian Triad.

When the sciences divorced the humanities, many intellectuals (e.g. Schopenhauer) became reluctant to see architecture as an art. It just seemed too pragmatic, concerned with functions etc. — jkop

Maybe a lesson here is that reductionism can be a good tactical maneuver while the researcher is in the thick of the hunt for discovery -- simplicity in theory and practice can be conditionally good -- but as a value, it should be approached with much skepticism $\Rightarrow$ necessary and sufficient.

1 – Merriam-Webster is garbage;
2 – that is a metaphorical meaning;
12 – Merriam-Webster would have noted that were it not a terrible dictionary.

Even if it is somehow a valid definition, it is worthless for the argument being put forth. I won't invest my energies into explaining it. You can think about it if you want. — Lionino

You say Merriam-Webster is garbage. Can you cite a public and authoritative etymology for "miracle" that logically precludes this metaphorical sense of the word? I think it examples hyperbole which implies extreme improbability.

You say this metaphorical sense of the word is worthless for the following argument:

Even if the universe turns out to have a theory, this theory will almost surely be incomplete and therefore be able to predict just a small fraction of its facts. So, there is indeed ample scope for mysteries and miracles. — Tarskian

1) Metaphorical parallelism, even if not literal, nonetheless is logical; 2) Since our knowledge of the universe is incomplete, even the high school student knows the existence of a deity hasn't been been proven logically impossible. Especially pertinent to this incompleteness is the possibility of a higher-order of reality beyond what humanity knows as the natural world. At this higher reality, we might discover hyper-logical causes for phenomena perceived by humans as miraculous.

The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is — Ludwig V

In practice, that is not true. Competence in the field is not required, just common sense. A physics textbook by a professor from Utretch, used in physics courses internationally, is authoritative, a researcher's blogspot is not.

I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino

1) Can you show categorically how textbooks are authoritative but blogspots are not?

2) Can you show how your disdain for no-name researchers is something more than snobbery acting on behalf of laziness? Also, bear in mind, big-name researchers were originally no-name researchers.

3)

I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates — Lionino

It's obvious that your "moment of force" exam is an entrance exam of sorts aimed at vetting the competence of candidates worthy of dialoging with you on topics from physics. Let's consider what you've written:

1) "Competence in the field is not required, just common sense."

2) "I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates."

Why are these statements not an example of your: a) hypocrisy; b) self-contradiction?

Here's an elaboration of the central premise of my OP:

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags [personal] consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery.[/quote]

Please show how your "moment of force" exam is pertinent to my central premise.

If it's not pertinent to my central premise, then perhaps you should post your exam within your personal profile. Henceforth, when someone tries to dialog with you, you can refer them to your profile, explaining that you must first deem them worthy of engagement by means of examination.

...HPU is not about either "existence" or "observation", these two mean nothing in physics. — Lionino

...observation is not relevant in physics, it is interference that is relevant, and interference happens through measurement, which is how we observe things (observation in itself is irrelevant). — Lionino

What are the two types of interference?

In physics, interference is a phenomenon in which two coherent waves are combined by adding their intensities or displacements with due consideration for their phase difference. The resultant wave may have greater intensity or lower amplitude if the two waves are in phase or out of phase, respectively.

--- Wikipedia

Though both types of interference occur when two waves meet, they produce different results. Constructive interference occurs when two waves collide and combine, but destructive interference happens when two waves collide and cancel out.

-- Britannica.com

You seem to be referring to a third type of interference, i.e., measurement interference. I'm unsure about what that is. Bear in mind, however, that the HUP is not about observer interference. No, it's an existential limitation on the availability of information via the Fourier transformations linking position and momentum measurements.

P.S. Don’t bother trashing Wikipedia and Britannic.com without providing arguments showing their incorrectness.

miracle
noun
mir·​a·​cle ˈmir-i-kəl
Synonyms of miracle - curiosity, sensation, spectacle
1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
the healing miracles described in the Gospels
2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
The bridge is a miracle of engineering.
3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Merriam-Webster

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither. — 01Lionino

No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. — 02Lionino

Why are 01Lionino and 02 Lionino not a contradiction?

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither. — 01Lionino

The fundamental thing really is the mathematical object (the amplitude distribution) not the particle itself. Position and Momentum are inexorably tied together because we're talking about evolutions of states over time…

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can't have this kind of information. He derived it from the mathematics as a fundamental inequality…

Tyler Kresch

If you can reconcile your “Neither” with the two above quotes, please do so.

This post intentionally left blank.

They call it common sense for a reason. It relies for its validity on normative conventions, which are a mixed blessing. They allow for social cohesion at the expensive of the intelligibility of novel insights, especially in less conventionally oriented fields like philosophy. Sometimes what is needed is uncommon sense. As Heidegger wrote “ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises.” — Joshs

:up: Your quote exhales an aroma resembling wisdom.

Your commentary is very helpful. May it keep coming.

:smile: :up:

Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability? — ucarr

That is the fine-tuning problem and most secular philosophers don't think it is a miracle (I am taking "miracle" here to mean intelligent design or sheer chance (~40%)). — Lionino

Let me clarify; in this context, by "miracle" I mean a highly improbable or unlikely development.

Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality? — ucarr

No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. — Lionino

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation?

This is at the heart of the difference between Quantum Mechanics and "Big Stuff Physics"(Newtonian). The fundamental thing really is the mathematical object (the amplitude distribution) not the particle itself.

...position and position over time are related in quantum mechanics. So it turns out that when your position distribution is concentrated in a single area, when you [Fourier] transform it to get the momentum, that momentum distribution is more spread out (less determinable). Similarly, if the momentum distribution is concentrated, then the position distribution is more spread out (less determinable). The reason for this, mathematically, is that the momentum distribution and the position distribution of particles in Quantum Configuration Space are the Fourier Transforms of one-another.

Tyler Kresch

With your emphatic statement above, you're claiming to know with confidence what Bohr, Shrödinger and Feynman didn't claim to know with confidence: the inflection point merging physics as material thing with physics as math model.

As of yet, I am still unsure what you are saying and starting to think that you do not really have a clear idea of what you mean due to misapplication of terms and heuristic bias. — I like sushi

If we want to know what something is, objectively, we turn to science.

If we want to know what it's like, subjectively, to walk a mile in another person's shoes, we turn to art.

These are two profoundly different states: the "what" versus the "how." — ucarr

These are clear statements of: my subject: How science and art differ; and of my premise: science and art, modally speaking ("What" vs "How"), differ profoundly.

Where's the connection between I like sushi's criticism and what I've written?

I have a feeling you are confusing yourself by interchanging Why, How and What without appreciating that they are ALL What questions. This then lead to you holding to How for one line of questioning where it suits you whilst holding to Why for another (even though - to repeat - they are BOTH What questions). — I like sushi

I acknowledged this overlap long ago. Now, it's your turn to argue the point that overlap obliterates difference.

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery. — ucarr

In my conversation with I like sushi, I have failed in my attempts to do a logical mapping from his critical comments -- as with the two samples of his comments quoted above -- to evidence in my writing that validates the comments.[/quote]

When he challenges me to make a definitive statement of my subject and premise, I present them. He doesn't respond to what I presented.

When he charges me with conflating "What" and "How," I make statements clarifying their difference. Also, I ask him to support his implication that two things that overlap partially cannot also have differences. He doesn't present what I ask for.

Now he avoids his responsibilities as a critic by abandoning the conversation.

...the idea that consciousness is subjective, but science is objective, and therefore we can't have a science about consciousness, conflates two different senses of 'subjective'.

Consciousness is ontologically subjective as it exists only for the one who has it, but that doesn't mean epistemically subjective. We can be conscious of science, and we can have science about the conscious states of individual organisms. — jkop

Can we have science about the conscious states of individual organisms that's epistemically subjective? This question is meant to ask if we can somehow somersault out of objective examination of a thing outside of us (consciousness not our own) into a subjective understanding of it? Sounds like science fiction along the lines of Star Trek's Vulcan mind meld.

And moreover, can we then somehow rationalize subjectivity as objective narration?

Now we see with these questions the profound difference between what science does and what art does. The actor and the writer, through the illusion of omniscient performance/narration, enters the mind of the character and lives that character's life subjectively.

If we want to know what something is, objectively, we turn to science.

If we want to know what it's like, subjectively, to walk a mile in another person's shoes, we turn to art.

These are two profoundly different states: the "what" versus the "how."

This is helpful. If I'm understanding correctly, abductive reasoning is used to determine which of a number of rival theories is the most simple and direct.

"Miracle" here is used casually and sophistically, but the above fact does not leave ample scope for miracles in a Humean sense either. — Lionino

Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability?

I can't work with Quora quotations. — Lionino

Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality?

$pq − qp = h/(2πi)$

Why shouldn't you take Quora quotations individually? It's not a cop-out to assume everyone posting there incompetent? Why are you tethered to the credentials fuss?

I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD

Science is a method for ascertaining facts about hte world. Facts about science are plainly different things? — AmadeusD

Okay. On the one hand, a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, is different from a science face, say, the scientific method. On the other hand, would you say electrolysis is an artistic fact? We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not?

I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD

So, the science is all in the process of discovering, but the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? This seems to cut off the meaning of the process of discovery from the process itself. This, in turn, seems to artificially separate process from goal. How can you have a logical process for going forward if you have no idea where you're going?

This is a non sequitur that does not relate to the discussion. — AmadeusD

How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion?

Picking up the award is not acting a play out. Presenting your findings at a conference is not carrying out experiments under controlled conditions. — AmadeusD

How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance. How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to?

Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values. — AmadeusD

I don't recognize anything in the above in my account. I think you've jumped some massive guns here and landed somewhere entirely alien to both what I've said, and what I intended to convey. — AmadeusD

Let's see if your words on screen can mean something very different from the intentions within your mind:

• Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content, i.e., it makes no value judgments about behaviors of its characters. Or, the effect of art on its patrons cannot be judged morally. Each patron is entitled to his/her emotional response.

• Science...has right/wrong values... Science is only about declarations, and declarations are either true or false. If something is true, it stands apart from moral judgments about its effects on sentient beings.

Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr

No, not at all. I don't actually see how what you've said is at all illustrative of this point, ignoring that I think the point is extremely weak and bordering on nonsensical. — AmadeusD

Things are $\Rightarrow$ facts, or truth.

How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. This is the key to the difference between "What" and "How."

Read my post directly above yours for the heart of what I have to say thus far. If it has any merit, we can all thank jkop for his smart and provoking input.

Also, there's plenty of detail that you, in fairness to me, should respond to in like detail.

As for the essay question, it's implied: given the prompt, what do you think?