Dear Gary,
I see.
What I meant was "theories", of course. I presume that there is some
reality out there, to which we have only indirect access and we are
trying to describe it best we can.
It is just a difference in the use of terminology that I have to get
used to. We could discuss at length whether your or mine use of the term
"law" is more correct and more in the spirit of modern physics (and
probably you would win at the end), but it would not matter much. What
is important is that we understand each other.
So, this makes me "realistic", if that's the right term.
Danko
On 29/03/15 14:31, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Danko, you “consider physical laws to be a product of our minds.” A
more Peircean view would be that physical /theories/ are products of
our minds, or rather of our inquiries. Theories of course are /signs/;
and the /objects/ of those signs, insofar as the theories are testable
and fallible, are the real physical laws which actually govern what
happens in the physical universe whether anyone knows it or not. If
you are saying that there are no physical laws operating independently
of our minds, i.e. no /real/ and general physical laws, then your
metaphysics is nominalistic. Peirce’s on the other hand was realistic.
gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: Danko Nikolic [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 29-Mar-15 6:54 AM
To: Evgenii Rudnyi; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] abduction in the brain
Dear Evgenii,
My replies bellow:
On 29/03/15 11:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Thank you. I have one more question about physical. We talk after all
> about processes in time and the question would be on how it happens
> according to your view. To this end, let me quote from Tim Maudlin's
> "The Metaphysics Within Physics"
>
> “I believe there is a fundamental physical state of the world.”
>
No.
> “In addition to the physical state of the universe, I believe in
> fundamental physical laws.”
>
No.
> “Once the total physical state of the universe and the laws of physics
> are fixed, every other fact, such as may be, supervenes.”
>
Not in reality. However, this may be a damn good approximation, maybe
the best that we can come up with. So, for all practical purposes,
perhaps yes. But in reality, not really.
> Would you agree with such a description of physical processes? Or do
> you consider a physical process differently?
>
I consider it differently.
I consider physical laws to be a product of our minds. They are not
really fundamental. Our physics is just a practical way of organizing
knowledge. These laws are fundamental only for our way of thinking
about it. If we had different minds i.e., if the evolution took some
other direction to make us intelligent enough to develop technology,
we would have different "physics" too. We would consider some other
descriptive rules as fundamental.
It would be more fair to say that minds came first and that these
minds then invented physical laws (and mathematics and so on).
However, having said that, I also have to make a qualifier. I disagree
that science (i.e., physics-based science) will never explained qualia
or mind.
I believe that with our physics-based model of the universe we will be
able to explain qualia -- despite physics not being fundamental. (This
is what practopoiesis is about, anyway.)
It may not be the simplest or most practical explanation but,
importantly, we can do it.
Once we have done it, we can look back more accurately to reconsider
what we want to adopt as fundamental. What should be the most elegant
model of "everything"? In which way can we make most accurate
descriptions and predictions of as many phenomena with as parsimonious
model possible?
Maybe at that time it will become apparent to the mainstream science
that physics needs to be replaced with something else.
Perhaps we should establish the rules of the mind, use them as
fundamental and consider physics "supervening" on these rules. In
fact, I would argue that this is exactly what we can do already today,
using results from mainstream science of the mind and add to it even
the mainstream physiology and anatomy of the brain. We can find the
rules that "govern our universe" already in the functional anatomy of
the cerebrum and in the ways how we think in general and make
decisions, categorizations, inferences.
Maybe Peirce has already hinted on that mind-based approach. Or has he
already elaborated it to a substantial degree?
I wouldn't know. Please tell me.
Danko
--
Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić
Web:
http://www.danko-nikolic.com
Mail address 1:
Department of Neurophysiology
Max Planck Institut for Brain Research
Deutschordenstr. 46
60528 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Mail address 2:
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
Wolfgang Goethe University
Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
60433 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
----------------------------
Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
[email protected]
----------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
