I said that metaphyicses aren't defined in terms of physical law. — Michael Ossipoff

"metaphyicses" is almost a Google-Whack. Well done!

I searched Google for Principle of Demarcation.

I didn't find it. — Michael Ossipoff

Funny, I get lots of results.

And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law. — Michael Ossipoff

You are not a serious person. Thanks for clearing that up.

And, as i said, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws. — Michael Ossipoff

Metaphysics is defined by the Principle of Demarcation, so yes Metaphysics is defined precisely by physical law.

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields. — Michael Ossipoff

You are kidding me, right?

What has "forces and fields" got to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Not much worse than their critics, or, especially, the target of their ridicule. I just wish they would stick to arguments and not reduce the discussion to name-calling. — Mitchell

Isn't that what you just did?

Anyway, I find their denial of certain consequences of evolution, such as the existence of races and racial differences hilarious. Also people like Hitchens and his supporters are blood-thirsty warmongers. Ask yourself why that is?

"So much better than the "arrogance" espoused by the "New Atheists." " Ah, the sweet sound of sarcasm fills the air. — Mitchell

They're a pretty shallow and toxic bunch though, don't you think?

So everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics? — Michael Ossipoff

I think that is basically repeating what I typed, but replacing a full-stop with a question-mark, so yes!

Sure, if "existent" is taken as synonymous with "physical" — Michael Ossipoff

You could transpose that statement into something like "nothing that is not subject to the laws of physics may exist" if you like.

Obviously, we are teetering on the edge of circularity, but I vaguely recall drawing a line-in-the-sand in a previous post to prevent this: The Principles of physics are obeyed by everything that can exist.

There is no hint that thought or feeling are not subject to the laws or principles of physics. In fact there exists a physical principle that states they are. It's called the "Church-Turing Principle" by its discoverer, but the "Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle" by the rest of us. Please do not confuse it with the Church-Turing Conjecture.

Materialism, in other words. — Michael Ossipoff

I have some recollection of explaining on this or another thread that Materialism refers to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and physicalism refers to the 1st and 2nd law. So no, it's physicalism.

By definition, morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Each of us has different core beliefs concerning right and wrong, and therefore morality is subjective. — Philosopherstoned

Morality, or perhaps better Moral Philosophy, leaves physical traces of the moral (and aesthetic) reasoning that determined what sort of problems the moral agent wished to solve, and which problems it did solve.

Absent certain values such as commitment to the truth, or openness to criticism, enterprises such as science become impossible.

The moral knowledge we gain that permits science is no less objective than the scientific knowledge we discover.

I dont know any relativist philosophers who believer that all opinions are equal. — Joshs

Presumably they think relativism is objectively better than the alternatives.

Of course it does. Look it up in a dictionary. Laws are statements about things and statements are intentional. — Harry Hindu

OK, what or where is the intent in the Schrödinger equation, the law of motion for all particles?

This is circular and therefore meaningless. You're basically saying, "The Principles of physics are a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions about a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions — Harry Hindu

No idea what you are on about. The Principles of Physics are laws about laws, or if you prefer Meta-Laws. There is absolutely nothing circular in that.

Personally, I don't like the term, "law", applied to how things are. It implies that there is some intent in the way things are, which would then require an explanation I don't think we can get to without contradicting current "laws". — Harry Hindu

Meh. The word "law" implies no such thing.

I tend to think that the way things are are simply the way things are, and then there are our very accurate explanations (laws) which are used in predicting the way things will turn out. Scientific laws are really rules for making predictions, not the fundamental nature of reality, so I take issue with your "laws about laws" statement — Harry Hindu

The Principles of physics are laws about laws. The Principle of the conservation of energy, for example, tells us that all laws of physics must respect that principle. CofE doesn't tell us what will happen, or even how to measure energy! That laws of motion such as Schrödinger equation or the classical Hamiltonian for a system of particles obeys the CofE is not immediately obvious, but we know that if they don't, they are wrong. The laws of physics, as we express them, are constrained to respect CofE!

Most of the Principles of physics are to do with symmetry. One particular symmetry is time reversal. That the laws must work just as well forwards in time as backwards in time is an extremely surprising and profound statement about Reality and an extreme constraint on the form the laws can take.

The Principles cannot be used alone to predict anything, and are not in themselves even testable for that reason. They can only be tested indirectly via the Laws that respect the Principles.

If you think science is just rules for predictions, you are quite simply ignoring the history of scientific progress, its success, and the aspirations and motivation of scientists.

Interesting point in the light of physics and math. Imagine a particle that moves according to the rule f(t) = 0. At every instant of time, it's at position 0. It never moves. Yet time exists as the independent variable. — fishfry

Not sure it does. You could replace time with literally anything, or any number of things and get the same result. If f is a constant, it is not a function of time, or anything else for that matter.

What does this mean in real life? You park your car in the evening and note its position. The next morning, unless you are unlucky, your car is in the same position. — fishfry

While you were absent, your car traveled an interval in spacetime approximately equal to -(ct)^2.

Brains are not objects as such. The human brain only operates in the context of being an embodied organ in the human nervous system, in the environment. — Wayfarer

You forgot the cosmos! I think you are jumping the shark here. You claimed the brain is not a device, now it's not an object! How about an organ? If you accept that it's an organ, then it is also by definition an object, and a device.

You continually confuse metaphors with real things. The mind is not software, brains are not computers, humans are not devices. Done arguing. — Wayfarer

You don't understand computational universality or its implications. These are not metaphors.

But it’s neither a computer nor a device. — Wayfarer

If an object is computationally universal, in what sense is it not a computer?

As they have been programmed to do by humans. — Wayfarer

And human brains are programmed by natural selection and culture.

The laws of physics are mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of phenomena. As such, they are created on the basis of abstractions. The whole terminology of ‘laws’ and ‘obedience’ was after all a product of the belief that the ‘laws’ were the expression of the ‘divine will’. But whatever their ontological status is, they’re not actually physical, as the act of prediction and measurement which validates the so-called ‘laws’ are entirely intellectual in nature. — Wayfarer

The laws of physics operate in Reality. The fact that we can discover mathematical expressions of them (or at least approximations to them) is proof that our brains are computationally universal.

Does a universal computer exist? Is it something found in nature? When you say it ‘evolved through natural selection’, are you saying it’s an organism? If it’s not an organism, then what does it mean to say that it evolved? — Wayfarer

The human brain is a computationally universal device.

The laws of physics are not themselves physical. — Wayfarer

If the laws of physics are not physical, then why are you obeying them?

So to counter that, I gave the example of the difference between the semantic and physical aspects of language - language is represented physically, but the semantic content requires interpretation of the meaning and relationships of words. So I am arguing that the semantic cannot be reduced to the physical as it comprises a different type of order to the physical. It is suggestive of at least some form of dualism, (although I certainly didn't introduce the idea of 'the soul') — Wayfarer

A language without semantics is not a language. There are robots that can interpret human language already. One is even a citizen of Saudi Arabia, though strangely she is not required to wear a burqa.

Computers and robots are perfectly capable of semantics.

They’re the instrument of minds. Were there no mind, there would be no computers. — Wayfarer

That is simply false. The universal computer first evolved through natural selection.

Which, I am saying, cannot be accounted for with reference to only physical laws. — Wayfarer

That's a Straw Man. That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, does not mean they alone are required to account for everything.

Then I read read about Hamiltonian dynamics, a chapter that presumably didn't have any prerequisites other than the chapter on Lagrangian dynamics. I couldn't understand Hamiltonian dynamics.

Hamilton worked it out around 1830 or so. Picture him getting out of a horse-drawn carriage, with his papers rolled up and tied with ribbon. But in 1980, I couldn't understand it, even when I (presumably) had studied what is prerequisite to it.

Even in those days, it sometimes seems unbelievable how advanced and clever some people were.

I had no idea what he was talking about. And it was just classical mechanics. — Michael Ossipoff

"Just classical mechanics"? Hamilton was within a whisker of discovering quantum mechanics, if he had only taken his equations seriously.

The mind deals with meaning and symbolic logic, which is not inherently physical; this is reflected in the distinction between semantic content and physical representation. — Wayfarer

If you think that is what the mind does, then computers are capable of that now, and in many tasks easily defeat minds.

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and other physical phenomena, are devoid of inherent meaning (as physicalists never tire of telling us). By themselves they are simply patterns of electrochemical activity. — Wayfarer

You CLAIM that physical processes are devoid of meaning, yet we have biodiversity and libraries.

I granted you the fact that higher CO2 levels may be positive - at least short-term - for plants, simply because it's a fundamental part of photosynthesis. — inquisitive

OK, so you refuse to answer my questions about the optimum temperature and CO2 levels.

At least we have established that you are wrong in describing me as "alone" in suggesting there are benefits to higher CO2. Certainly farmers across the world experience this in higher yields and in less need for irrigation. It is estimated that in temperate latitudes an increase of 10% is achieved, freeing more land for wildlife.

When you say, "laws of physics", do you mean the explanations science currently provides, which even science admits could be wrong, or do you mean the way things are? — Harry Hindu

I think a line in the sand has to be drawn. Physicalists can't constantly retreat into yet to be discovered physics. Of course, new physics has to be admitted, but the line says that all new things will adhere to the fundamental principles of physics.

We have a set of principles, which are laws about laws. A physicalist seems compelled to draw the line there. There may be new principles, but the old ones must survive.

So, according to physicalism, mental activity obeys the laws of thermodynamics; it requires energy and increases entropy.

Hi. I'm not sure what you're alluding to. Are you implying that recent climate developments may in fact not be negative? I think you would be quite alone in that assumption. We can show that changes in climate are harmful to species, especially if they are as rapid as human made climate change of the past two centuries. I don't think there's an "optimum" CO2 level as such either, though I would propose that the optimum 'range' for CO2 is lower than the current levels. Yes it may be good for trees technically, but the planet as a whole, as a system, does not benefit from such high levels. — inquisitive

What is your reason for proposing that the optimum CO2 "range" is lower than it is today?

Plants disagree:

https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

Sure, I'm quite alone if you don't count scientists.

Your "unwillingness" to explain is evidence for my case - that you can't explain the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical". To hold back information that you are unequivocally correct, would be like holding back information of your innocence and the guilt of another just to spite the prosecutor who you think doesn't deserve to be "educated". Give me a break. You don't explain, not because you won't, but because you can't. — Harry Hindu

Physical things are those things that obey the laws of physics.

Which laws? Certainly the conservation laws and principles.

I think we should discuss Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False,” That sets out the terms of the dualist-embodied debate nicely. — Joshs

I think that's a very good idea. Unfortunately it would require someone to read some philosophy. Not going to happen I suspect.

Recently I have been thinking more and more about climate change. It is becoming very clear that, despite all the deniers, it will be a serious problem for the planet and its species – including humans, which is tragically ironic. — inquisitive

What is the best temperature for the earth? What is the optimum level of CO2 for life?

But, you see, DNA is not actually 'software', but is a metaphorical description. So not being able to distinguish the metaphorical from the actual is rather a basic error, don't you think? — Wayfarer

My Haskell metaphorical description seems to run though.

And one relevant text on the metaphor of 'mind as computer' is Hacker and Bennett's The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. — Wayfarer

It's not metaphor. Computationally universal machines can emulate each other.

You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you. — Galuchat

Have you ever visited a university library? You would need many tonnes of haulage to carry the evidence.

I'm still waiting for a citation.

It's relevant to the OP to determine whether this particular claim is based on empirical evidence or not (i.e., whether or not it is based on pseudoscience). So, I would be keen to review the research you think establishes this claim as fact. — Galuchat

There are literally libraries worth of evidence, research, clinical findings. Go to one!

But that doesn't answer the question. Actual software is made by an agency - the fact that 'DNA is software' is actually one of the main arguments of ID advocates, on the that very basis. — Wayfarer

Actual software is not made by an actual agency according to actual Darwinism.

What's your opinion of the Ellis and Silk paper, Defend the Integrity of Physics? — Wayfarer

I started a thread where I pointed out that everyone seems to accept the Cosmological Multiverse despite the total absence of evidence for it, whereas people are violently opposed to the Quantum Multiverse despite the overwhelming evidence. This is a very strange psychological phenomenon that I would like to understand.

Nevertheless, it took quite a bit of work to deduce testable predictions of our current best theories. In particular it took 100yrs before gravitational waves could be detected, and 50yrs for the Higgs, entanglement. If String theory and Inflation are scientific theories, they will make testable prediction eventually. They are certainly well worth trying.

In the end, the criticism that String theory and Inflationary cosmology are pathologically flexible may prevail. We just don't know, and we can't know without more effort.

It is interesting to note that the quantum computer was a result of trying to find a test to distinguish Many Worlds from Copenhagen.

All known software is the product of human intelligence. Who is the architect in this case? — Wayfarer

The code in DNA is software.

Do you always write pure rubbish, or can you cite scientific research which establishes this fact? How were you made aware that the hard problem had been solved? — Galuchat

There is a vast body of scientific research that establishes the fact that consciousness is a feature of the functioning brain. It is even possible to instantiate, through injury or surgery, more than one consciousness on a single brain, with different personalities, preferences and goals.

As for the hard problem, it has been solved in principle for about 30 years. Consciousness is a software feature.

I don't get this argument at all. What do we have against randomness? All phenomena in the universe are based on randomness. Is the problem you've identified just a problem for evolutionary biology or does it cause trouble for other observational sciences, e.g. geology, paleontology, archeology? — T Clark

Quantum mechanics is a globally deterministic theory - it is completely unitary. General relativity is also deterministic. Combining the two has produced theories that are not only deterministic, but static.

So, how do you get metaphysical randomness from a globally deterministic theory? You have to impose it!

Any finite sequence will fail some test of randomness, and since finite sequences are all we ever have, is this randomness actually testable?

If all phenomena in the universe are based on randomness as you claim, how is accurate replication possible?

Strongly disagree. First of all, let's be precise. There is evolution - which is a phenomenon. A proposed phenomenon if you must. Then there is the theory of evolution by natural selection - which is a proposed explanation for that phenomenon. — T Clark

I've encountered ID fanatics who have said the same. The difference is that they adhere to known physics, and do not need to invoke "randomness" as a source of variation. You might call their theory metaphysical if you were in a good mood, but you certainly wouldn't call it scientific.

Evolutionary theory (I mean Darwinian not ID) is a branch of epistemology, and as such is metaphysics.

On the whole this is the problem with Popper's project -- it is prescriptive, and when one looks at the work actual scientists do they simply do not follow the prescriptions. So it leaves one wondering what good are these prescriptions if the actual practices of scientists, which do, in fact, continue, aren't even close to what they prescribe. — Moliere

There are many eminent scientists who attribute their success to applying Popper's method when they really needed to think deeply to solve a problem.

Sir Peter Medawar - Nobel Prize winner for medicine said in 1972, "I think Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of science there has ever been."

Nobel Prize winner Jaques Monod publicly acknowledged his influence.

Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles wrote "...my scientific life owes so much to my conversion in 1945, if I may call it so, to Popper's teachings on the conduct of scientific investigations...I have endeavoured to follow Popper in the formulation and the investigation of the fundamental problems of neurobiology."

Sir Herman Bondi opined "there is no more to science than its method, and no more to its method than what Popper has said."

And of course the preeminent Popperian right now attributes the discovery of the quantum computer to following Popper.

One thing is for certain however, if you think Popper is prescriptive, you have never read "Logic of Scientific Discovery".

How both physical and phenomenal properties interact without violating the law of thermodynamics is pretty complex because of the autonomy of phenomenal experiences; do mental states have energy? Gosh, what a juicy topic! — TimeLine

Energy and entropy - remember the 1st and 2nd Laws!

I think I like where this is heading, but I could use some clarification. How about an example of a claim which is unfalsifiable, but the idea that the belief in its truth provides value is falsifiable. — T Clark

Ironically, I think the theory of Evolution might just provide an example of this. I don't mention it often, because the fits of emotional apoplexy it reaps, but I think the theory of Evolution is in large part a metaphysical theory which is unfalsifiable.

Evolution is also the only "scientific" theory that I have ever heard scientist claim is actually true, which is another hint at its metaphysical status.

So, I think we have an unfalsifiable theory, that people actually believe is true, and that this belief adds value. You can test this by comparing societies that believe or deny Evolution on an objective scale of progress in medicine etc.

Consciousness does not contain physical properties and as such cannot be defined in physical terms, because consciousness is a feature of the brain and thus property dualism can be compatible to science. — TimeLine

It occurs to me that the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics are also evidence that science can cope with property dualism.

Off the top of my head. Not sure about all of these:

There is an objective reality
There is a relationship between a statement and objective reality called "truth."
To know something the following statements must be true 1) I believe the subject of knowledge exists 2) The subject of knowledge is true and 3) I am justified in believing the subject of knowledge is true.
Objective reality can be known by the procedures included in the scientific method. — T Clark

It would seem that every single statement there is questionable if not downright false:

A great deal of progress was made in the early 20C by scientists who denied the objective reality of what they were studying. Famously Einstein disagreed with them, but they were making the progress, not him!

Science does not claim truth for any of its theories or statements, or that true statements or theories are possible.

Justified true belief???? Nay, Nay, and thrice Nay!

Another big one is the belief that because natural laws have been true in the past, that they will continue to be true in the future — MonfortS26

Admittedly it would be more difficult to make progress in science if that were not the case, but the scientific method, as expounded by Popper, makes no such assumption.

In fact, it is central to the scientific method that no such assumptions are made.

On what merit? That they get things done? I agree. But that's a pragmatic foundation, a vague foundation, an 'irrational' or inexplicit foundation. — ff0

Scientific theories require no justification nor foundation, as if any such thing were possible. They are the last idea standing after they have withstood all the criticism we are capable of subjecting them to.

Their merit lies in that they have survived as our best explanations as to what constitutes reality, how reality behaves, and why it does so.

But I also don't pretend that various prediction and control technologies are 'highest' things. — ff0

Not sure what that means, but I have a vague inkling that no one really does that.

I don't think 'science' even tries to answer the most profound questions. Moreover, I don't see how science can provide its own foundation. Engineering and medicine earn our trust more or less by giving us what we want. But the idea of eternal, universal truth sounds pretty theological to me. In short, its foundation looks to be largely pragmatic or 'irrational.' We keep doing what scratches the itch. By putting philosopher in quotes, you are (as I see it) linking the heroic 'payload' of the words science and philosophy in an ideological way --as if the 'deepest' kind of talk humans are capable of is the defense/worship of science. — ff0

That is a very strange "think" given that science can take us back to before the big-bang and answers the question "why"?

Science does not provide its own foundation, because it has no need of a foundation. Scientific theories survive on their own merit.