On 03 Sep 2010, at 15:55, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their
theories fits enough a reality. The theories and the reasoning
can be presented informally or formally. Rigor has nothing to do
with formalization, but a lot to do with clarity. It is also
better that the theory/assumption are shared by many, because ...
it is more fun.
How would you define what a physical law is?
Empirically: physical laws are the laws which can relate what I can observe and share with others.

How to distinguish then a law and a correlation?

By doing the correct statistics, we can *infer* laws from observation. But this needs always some theory in the background.

Assuming digital mechanism, after the UDA reasoning,  the physical
laws are no more primitive laws, inferable from observation, but they
emerge from the coupling consciousness/reality itself emerging from
the additive/multiplicative structure of numbers. The laws of physics
are no more fundamental. The emergence is enough constrained as to
make the mechanist assumption testable. If we are in a 'matrix', we
can verify it. (mechanism entails we are in a matrix, actually in an
infinities of matrix, existing platonistically in the structure of numbers+addition+multiplication. Note that this makes the ultimate physical laws much more solid: such laws are shown to have a reason.

Let me continue with my question. So we have observations and then we make some model.

Before mechanism, I insist. Mechanism says that physical laws have to deduced from number theory/computer science. In principle we need no more observation than the "trivial" assessment of our own consciousness, and then some introspective work. This is not practical, but the goal is to solve conceptually the mind body problem, not to predict physical phenomena. The conceptual advantage of mechanism is that it gives directly the correct physics (correct with respect to mechanism!). With observation we can never be sure that the laws are only local, if not based on lucky correlations, or hallucinated.

It could be of empirical nature or we say that this model is a law. How do we know when a model becomes a law?

Never. But in science we never know. We may believe in a theory, for a time. Or we may derive a laws from another theory, on which we already *bet*. It is always a sort of bet. Science search truth, but never know when it finds it. Of course the more you derive from simple hypotheses, the more you can be confident for the theory, but it is confidence, never certainty. Actually, this is a theorem of "machine psychology" : assertable certainty is *only* a symptom of madness.

The reason I am asking is that recently I have read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green about the superstring theory. For some
reasons physicists insist that they can find Equation of
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug, and they usually confuse everything with
everything-physical. This has been a fertile methodological
simplification, but it breaks in front of the 'hard consciousness
problem', or the mind-body problem.

Could you please recommend some modern books in this respect?

Say I have just listened to audio book

Best of the Brain from Scientific American: Mind, Matter, and Tomorrow’s Brain

and they have found an effective way to treat depression: plant an electrode to some brain area (area 25) and put a voltage. Could it be also a way in the future to solve the mind-body problem? A couple of electrodes, some voltage pattern, and that's it?

Not at all. If we accept mechanism, we have to abandon the Aristotelian idea that there is a primitive universe, and that physics is the fundamental science. We have to backtrack on Pythagorus, Plato and Plotinus. The relation between consciousness and brain is far more subtle than the materialists believe. In a sense the brain does not create consciousness. The brain makes it possible for consciousness to be manifested relatively to some computational histories. We may find correlation between brain activity and some problem like depression, but this is just the art of the physician, or the shaman (plants are still better than electrode today). It does not address the fundamental issues.

For books, you could take a look for books here:

Have a good day,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to