The more we learn about it, the more we simply and inevitably learn about ourselves. We don't have to be able to see within if we simply identify with that which is taking place externally. Thus, we have effectively defeated the barrier of layers or so I would think.(Tim, if this were true, then how would you explain the knowledge of intelligence we already know we possess, of self-innate manipulation of concepts, and contents, disjunctions and conjunctions of such concepts__or any other innate inference mechanics' manipulations, by our actionable-intelligenced free-wills...? You seem to leave far too many unanswered questions, by such blanket statements__No...?) :-)
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/tutorials/free_will/ (Flash exhibit__NEW...)
Hi Tim__I appreciate the depth of your reasoning in your posts, but I must still point out, as per the above title__There are still massive quantum differences between our geo-systems and bio-systems… I do not think this systems’ gap can be bridged by the simple laws of physics__This gap also requires the ‘laws of thought’, especially as to ‘the conservation of time’ in relation to ‘the conservation of energy/mass and matter/mass’ pertaining to our most fundamental states of thinking and logic’s massive demarcation differences__especially as to meanings and facts__and life's 'entropy-law-breaking' realities… Imo Tim, ‘we do have to be able to see within’, at least as concerns ‘the objective laws of thought’ which govern the very logic and math we conduct all our measurement sciences with…(this would be objective epistemology) Since the geo-system lacks all bio-complexity, when viewed as the two discrete systems they certainly are, or can be interpreted as__since if being the same, the geo-system would possess the same living functions as the bio-system, which we clearly know__it certainly does not. Imo, no matter how many general composite compactifications and levels of mechanics you pack into the geo-systems, those existing measurement systems have not the resolution power to explain the very necessary ‘laws of thought’, that even begin to explain the mechanics of thinking, required to begin to explain the hard sciences involved__ya know what I mean…?(and Tim, the skeptics demand this level of facts and understandings, or they blow your ideas out of the water. You see, you have a lotta’ hope, it’s the way you are describing it, but you offer little facts of such wishes, if ya know what I mean…) :-)
Tim, I just don’t think you are being fully reasonable here, when you try to force all reality into some completed scientific theory, when we both know such completed scientific theory does not exist__when and where you really keep insisting the scientific explains the philosophical__but, it does not. The reason the philosophical was invented in the first place, was because science and folk psychology could not explain the sciences and feelings involved__and nothing has changed Tim. When one is honest, we are still having as much trouble today, as did the early Greeks, at coming to agreement, or logical and scientific measurement truth, as to exactly what the truths of science and feelings actually are. Imo, not much has changed, except to make the word systems much more massive and complicated as to meanings__but fundamentally, the same exact measurement and meaning problems exist, thus requiring philosophical interpretations__which are really no more than higher rational intellectual level scientific thoughts, about the very exact lower level hypothetical theoretical thoughts of science, feelings and such. Scientifically, metaphysics is just the simple scientific rationality about physics, we can’t scientifically yet explain__We know it’s there, so the most performative language just happens to be metaphysics__The mental science of physics. It’s just so many people all through the centuries have mis-represented and mis-interpreted these old ideas so often, such confusions and non-meanings have reached our era__many are now convinced metaphysics has no value__when in fact, it’s our historic archetype of theoretical scientific understanding__that is when the original meanings are respected__as is required of all scientific meanings’ interpretations. Metaphysics does not mean anything supernatural__but simply an abstract method of epistemologically(science of the internal states) and transcendentally(abstractly intellectually staying above the fray) representing the scientific incomplete, below itself, with a common universal language of understanding__many can relate to, to build new and possible systems, hypotheses, and models of reality__but, always fully scientifically based on the truth-making real objective world… Remember Tim, other human beings, actually being psychological, religious and maybe even just plain ignorant, yet they are still real emotional and rational state human beings__that our internal scientific reasoning and other normative mechanics must deal with__and herein is why a clear metaphysics of scientific understanding is oh so necessary… We can’t reach the world, unless we as the more scientific thinking, are willing to speak a more universal language, that also appeals to the very core of their feelings, while slightly tickling their intellects__That is if you are truly interested in a philosophical explanation of science, as well as a scientific explication of the same material__Both are required, though I’m no better than anyone else at it, as I’ve also so long been involved in the purely logical, mathematical and scientific__a major drawback, unless the psychological feelings of readers are also taken into consideration… Tim, it actually helps us make sense of the science, by keeping us honest to our moral cores__with our science…
The present model of science excludes the above__when it’s actually absolutely necessary, to have any model we devise, make universal sense__to all the different creatures that inhabit this diverse planet. Unless everyone realizes a universal language is necessary for successful communication with the general public__then what good is all the hard science in the world, if it’s making the same mistake as religion__of only speaking a private language, all its own, to itself, that does not pertain to the real world of folk-language and concepts__simply put, the common man…? Tim, you simply can not use your private language to exclude all the alternative languages to science, and have the system you advocate, have any real meaning of being the system that correctly interprets the world__when in fact, it does not__by its own default position of ‘extreme exclusionism’ to all but itself. Human beings are naturally far more intelligent than science alone, which is really just one small language system, of explaining the world__and a very limited one, at that__and should never exclude the culture it needs to support it__the living beings of honest thought and feelings. Tim, take a look at all these different positions, to your position, and see if you can refute them all__logically and scientifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_model_of_free_will
You see Tim, imo, it’ll do no good to develop a proof of science__unless you also develop a proof of the language system of science, used to describe the proof of that very science__and this requires logical and mathematical proofs__which just happens to be the domain of philosophy, or the philosophy and science of philosophy and science__otherwise known as metaphysics__because there’s actually millions more against your ideas, than there are for em... There’s no way to avoid formal logic and math Tim, and have your ideas accepted in the firestorms of their necessary peer reviews__which all ideas must pass__and this means being true to the millions of scientific minds working in the fields of philosophical proofs of these philosophical and scientific systems__of which there are many__Here’s a taxonomy list of em, just to give you an idea of the complexity, of just philosophy, and believe me physics or any other science is no less complex__just type science into Google, and see the number of hits__It’s a billion more hits than philosophy:
http://consc.net/taxonomy.html
Just trying to let you know how involved these projects are Tim, and also that years ago I also thought a simple language of science may solve for all our questions and answers__I no longer think that way, as I’ve realized the difficulty of communication between any involved parties__and how near impossible that really is. The scientists can’t even talk to each other…!__How can they possibly make sense to the entire world, unless some historical universal language is adhered to…?__and that simply leaves every language out, except philosophy, as it’s the only study to have fully developed a formal universal scientific language__and no other science has__not even physics…
Addendum...
THE DECLINE OF DETERMINISM
In the nineteenth century, according to historians of science and philosopher Ian Hacking, there was a “rise in statistical thinking” and an “erosion of determinism.” The strict physical determinism implied by Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics was giving way to the statistical mechanics of physicists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, who assumed that gases were composed of atoms and molecules moving at random and following statistical laws.
In the United States, William James’s colleague Charles Sanders Peirce followed these
developments. Peirce was a superb logician and mathematician who mastered probability and statistics. He gave us the name “normal distribution” for the law of errors in scientific measurements. He knew that the inevitable errors in physical measurements meant that the deterministic laws of nature could never be proved logically necessary. Peirce developed the idea of randomness as a key element of his philosophy. He called it “Tychism” (after tyche, the Greek word for chance).
George Boole...
George Boole's The Laws of Thought (on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities) was an enormously influential work. Writing in the heyday of Quetelet and Buckle, Boole concluded that
the consideration of human free-agency would seem at first sight to preclude the idea that the movements of the social system should ever manifest that character of orderly evolution which we are prepared to expect under the reign of a physical necessity. Yet already do the researches of the statist reveal to us facts at variance with such an anticipation. (p.20)
If we regard the intellect as free, and this is apparently the view most in accordance with the general spirit of these speculations, its freedom must be viewed as opposed to the dominion of necessity, not to the existence of a certain just supremacy of truth. (p.408)
I would especially direct attention to that view of the constitution of the intellect which represents it as subject to laws determinate in their character, but not operating by the power of necessity; which exhibits it as redeemed from the dominion of fate, without being abandoned to the lawlessness of chance. (p.420)
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boole/
Frank Ramsey...
THE CONTENT OF LOGIC
(1) Preliminary philosophico-psychological investigation into nature of thought, truth and reasonableness.
(2) Formulae for formal inference = mathematics.
(3) Hints for avoiding confusion (belongs to medical psychology).
(4) Outline of most general propositions known or used as habits of inference from an abstract point of view; either crudely inductive, as 'Mathematical method has solved all these other problems, therefore...' or else systematic, when it is called metaphysics. All this might anyhow be called metaphysics; but it is regarded as logic when adduced as bearing on an unsolved problem, not simply as information interesting for its own sake.
The only one of these which is a distinct science is evidently (2).
THE UTILITY OF LOGIC
That of (1) above and of (3) are evident: the interesting ones are (2) and (4). (2) = mathematics is indispensable for manipulating and systematizing our knowledge. Besides this (2) and (4) help us in some way in coming to conclusions in judgment.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/ramsey/
Frank Ramsey was the brilliant and precocious son of a Cambridge don. In his short but productive life, he made significant corrections to the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead and he was a principal translator of the works of Wittgenstein.
Ramsey was a pragmatic thinker who frequently made references to Charles Sanders Peirce.
Paul Dirac...
Paul ( P. A. M.) Dirac formulated the most elegant version of the mathematical principles of quantum mechanics after hearing a lecture by Werner Heisenberg on his new ideas of "matrix mechanics." Shortly after matrix mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger developed his "wave mechanics" and showed it was equivalent to the Heisenberg picture.
Dirac combined both of these using a method from classical mechanics called Poisson brackets.
In his 1930 textbook The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Paul Dirac introduced the concepts of superposition and indeterminacy using examples with polarized photons.
The examples suggest a very simple and inexpensive experiment that we call the Dirac 3-polarizers experiment to demonstrate the notions of quantum states, the preparation of quantum systems in states with known properties, the superposition of states, the measurement of various properties, the projection or representation of a state vector in another basis set of vectors, and the infamous "collapse" or "reduction" of the wave function and the resulting indeterminacy.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/dirac/
Albert Einstein...
Physical concepts and the laws of nature are "free creations of the human mind."
Werner Heisenberg...
In 1925 Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, and Pascual Jordan, formulated their matrix mechanics version of quantum mechanics as a superior formulation of Neils Bohr's old quantum theory. The matrix mechanics confirmed discrete states and "quantum jumps" of electrons between the energy levels, with emission or absorption of photons.
In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger developed wave mechanics as an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger disliked the abrupt jumps. His wave mechanics was a continuous theory, but it predicted the same energy levels and was otherwise identical in its predictions to the discrete theory.
Within months of the new wave mechanics, Max Born showed that while Schrödinger's wave function evolved over time deterministically, it only predicted the positions and velocities of atomic particles probabilistically.
Heisenberg used Schrödinger's wave functions to calculate the "transition probabilities" for electrons to jump from one energy level to another. Schrödinger's wave mechanics was easier to visualize and much easier to calculate than Heisenberg's own matrix mechanics.
In early 1927, Heisenberg announced his indeterminacy principle limiting our knowledge of the simultaneous position and velocity of atomic particles, and declared that the new quantum theory disproved causality. "We cannot - and here is where the causal law breaks down - explain why a particular atom will decay at one moment and not the next, or what causes it to emit an electron in this direction rather than that."
More popularly known as the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, it states that the exact position and momentum of an atomic particle can only be known within certain (sic) limits. The product of the position error and the momentum error is greater than or equal to Planck's constant h/2π.
ΔpΔx ≥ h/2π (1) (i.e. Tim, position and momentum measurements are greater than, and smaller than, the smallest Planck state measurements__thus indescernibly indeterminate, and herein is the mathematical and logical death of hard determinism. Also, Heisenberg's last two paragraphs below, have to be read very carefully, to see the full implications of this formula__which is the coffin of hard determinacy, as tis impossible to ever even have nature function absolutely determinately, at this complex a level of extremely large populations of particle motions' indeterminacies__as they draw measurement positions and momentums from what is absolutely impossible to absolutely accurately measure__by any means of truly accurate probability and statistical mathematics(a best fit guess system)__just as Peirce had already proved, clear back in the 1800's__with his “normal distribution” for the law of errors in scientific measurements...)
Indeterminacy (Unbestimmtheit) was Heisenberg's original name for his principle. It is a better name than the more popular uncertainty, which connotes lack of knowledge. The Heisenberg principle is an ontological as well as epistemic lack of information.
Causality...
Heisenberg was convinced that quantum mechanics had put an end to classical ideas of causality and strict determinism.
In his classic paper introducing the principle of indeterminacy, he concluded with remarks about causailty.
If one assumes that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is already correct in its essential points, it may be permissible to outline briefly its consequences of principle. We have not assumed that quantum theory — in opposition to classical theory — is an essentially statistical theory in the sense that only statistical conclusions can be drawn from precise initial data. The well-known experiments of Geiger and Bothe, for example, speak directly against such an assumption. Rather, in all cases in which relations exist in classical theory between quantities which are really all exactly measurable, the corresponding exact relations also hold in quantum theory (laws of conservation of momentum and energy).
But what is wrong in the sharp formulation of the law of causality, "When we know the present precisely, we can predict the future," is not the conclusion but the assumption. Even in principle we cannot know the present in all detail. For that reason everything observed is a selection from a plenitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future. As the statistical character of quantum theory is so closely linked to the inexactness of all perceptions, one might be led to the presumption that behind the perceived statistical world there still hides a "real" world in which causality holds. But such speculations seem to us, to say it explicitly, fruitless and senseless. Physics ought to describe only the correlation of observations. One can express the true state of affairs better in this way : Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, and therefore to equation (1), it follows that quantum mechanics establishes the final failure of causality.
Btw Tim, David never did understand these facts of 'Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle'__The original principle, as interpreted by a German into English, the only way of proper interpretation from language to language, this is, by a German... David lacked the mathematics knowledge, especially as to the history of mathematics__Quantum and other...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...