On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:51 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote: >> >> Brent, >> >> You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about >> something I'm interested in finding out more about. >> >> On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it. >>>>> Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make >>>>> sense, >>>>> >>>>> It's not a causal relationship, it's an explanatory "->". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I should have said "explains" although I thought it was obvious >>>> I was using causal in an explanatory sense, not a physical one. Anyway, >>>> please continue the explanation. >>>> >>>> You don't understand what is meant by "physics -> biology" or >>>> "biology -> evolution -> mathematics" or "mathematics -> physics"? >>>> >>>> Yes I do. >>> >>> And there you stopped. I'm still waiting for you to continue the >> explanation. >> >> To refresh your memory, you said: >> >> OK, except I think the chain is: >>> arithmetic -> information -> matter -> consciousness -> arithmetic >> >> >> To which I objected that I couldn't see how this makes sense globally, >> even if each local step makes sense. You appear to be claiming that there >> is no such thing as a fundamental explanatory level. Since this flies in >> the face of 3+ centuries of scientific progress (based on reductionism, >> which assumes there *is* a fundamental explanatory level) >> >> It's just that I noted that fundamental physics has become almost >> entirely abstract and mathematical, so that people like Tegmark and Wheeler >> started to speculate that the mathematics *is* the physics. Lists like >> this that subscribe to everythingism Bruno's "comp" and Tegmark's MUH >> completely erase the boundary between math and physics. The 3+ centuries >> of reductionist physics are also 3+ centuries of explaining things through >> synthesis of simpler (and presumably better understood) things. At the >> same time I think mathematics is a human invention, a certain way of >> looking at the world made precise in language. Humans and their inventions >> are explicable by evolution, biology, physics,...and mathematics. So maybe >> the circle closes. The usual objection of a circular explanation is it >> leaves stuff out, especially if it leaves out all the stuff you understand >> and just explains mystery X in terms of enigma Y. But if the circle is big >> enough, if it encompasses everything, then either there's some part you >> understand and that allows you to reach all the rest; or you don't >> understand anything and there's no hope for you. >> > > OK, thanks, I get all that, and I can see where you're coming from, up to > the point where "maybe the circle closes". However at that point you appear > to have veered off into fantasy (or at least you want to "have you cake and > eat it too"). > > It may well be that the MUH and comp will turn out to be castles in the > air, or whatever is the appropriate metaphor. But I don't think a good way > to show this is using something that appears at least equally > ridiculous (to me at least, but I suspect others will have the same > reaction). It's quite possible that physics is too abstract, but it's > certainly less abstract than an explanatory circle in which *nothing* is > considered axiomatic. That is equivalent to postmodernist arguments that > since everything is part of a linguistic web, we can't actually know or > even surmise *anything* about reality. I rejected that viewpoint a few > decades ago (I was briefly an ardent postmodernist, at least until I > managed to engage my brain) and before I embrace it again I will need some > VERY convincing evidence. >
Then you might like this: http://xkcd.com/451/ That being said, I tend to become a postmodernist when the word "explanation" shows up. I see science as pure description. I find it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing "explanation" where none is given. People say to kids: the moon orbits the earth because the earth has more mass and generates a stronger attractive force. But if we look at the equations, this is not what they say. They contain no "because". They just describe. The "why?" is a human construct. Possibly a language construct. I don't find it so unthinkable that it throws us into an ontological loop like Brent describes. I don't agree with postmodernist epistemology. I bet that truth can be approximated by the scientific method. But still, I cannot do more than bet on this. The problem is that I'm not convinced that explanations or causations are part of The Truth. I see them more as tricks that the human mind uses to navigate reality, not so different from the ad hoc conventions we use to communicate. Cheers Telmo. > > This gives me, at least, the same problem I would have with a time travel > story in which a time traveller takes something back in time to the person > who was supposed to have originated it and lets them crib it. Hence no one > created whatever it is ("Doctor Who" did this with Shakespeare, with the > Doctor quoting odd Shakespearisms and Will saying "Mind if I use that?" > It's fine as a humorous device in fantasy, but less so when proposed as a > serious basis for everything we know, or can know). > >> , not to mention what most people would regard as logic (or at least >> common sense), this looks like a fairly radical revision of our theories of >> knowledge. >> >> So I'd be interested to know more, if you're prepared to continue >> explaining. >> >> As I said, I don't have my own TOE. >> > > I didn't suggest you did. That isn't what I'm asking for. > > >> I just put forward the virtuous circle of explanation based on a >> suggestion of Bruno (which he's disavowed) as a counter example to the idea >> that reductionism must either bottom out or be like infinite Russian dolls. >> > > Sorry, as yet I don't see how it can work. It isn't a virtuous circle > (which is generally taken to mean something like compound interest working > on something which was generated, originally, by some other process) - it's > a vicious circle, i.e. one that pretends to explain something but in fact > doesn't have any foundation. And it is, in fact, like infinite Russian > dolls, in that the explanatory chain doesn't begin or end anywhere. > > Unfortunately if you're serious about this, (or unless you can explain it > sensibly, sans handwaving and hyperbole) then for me at least it threatens > to undermine everything else you've said, some of which I thought at the > time was quite sensible. I guess I will just have to learn to abstract out > this part, and keep the good bits. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
