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
Evgenii
Am 28.03.2015 um 21:00 schrieb Danko Nikolic:
I subscribe to this.
(I am also aware that this is not an absolute truth, but a convenient
way of describing the world in scientific terms.)
Danko On 28 Mar 2015 14:46, "Evgenii Rudnyi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear Danko,
Before discussing Peirce, I would like to know your understanding
of physical.
Let me quote the definition of physicalism from Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the
universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition,
the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny
that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't
seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral,
or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of
the day such items are either physical or supervene on the
physical."
Do you subscribe to this, or your vision of physical is different?
Evgenii
Am 27.03.2015 um 20:50 schrieb Danko Nikolic:
Dear Evgenii,
This is the first time I hear of that definition of matter. It
is interesting. I don't know the implications as I am new to
Peirce.
Yes, of course, I would agree that being biological implies that
the mind is a physical phenomenon.
Danko
On 27/03/15 19:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This implies that "The mind is a physical phenomenon." Along
this line I would appreciate if you make your statement on what
is for you physical and how it is related to inevitable
physical laws.
Peirce's quote in this respect:
“Matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habit to
the point where the breaking up of this habits is very
difficult.”
Evgenii
----------------------------- 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 .
--
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]
----------------------------
