@Gnomon

With information we can start from scratch and build any damn world/thing we fancy (the sky's the limit); that is to say, if you're a monist, information is the best foundation (arche).

↪Gnomon
Well said! — Agent Smith

180boo asks politely why Gnomon doesn't ever "answer any of my polite, direct, simple questions of your "unorthodoxy & jargon"?

You can tell him for me : I fell for that smooth sibilant serpentine wooing before -- in the interest of philosophical dialogue -- only to find that his "arguments" are anything but "polite, direct & simple", consisting mostly of "ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age)". There are plenty of other posters on this forum that will take these novel ideas seriously, and challenge them in a respectful manner. So, I'll go back to my policy of avoiding baited traps, and ignoring ideological ambushes . :cool:

There are plenty of other posters on this forum that will take these novel ideas seriously, and challenge them in a respectful manner. — Gnomon

I would also say that I’ve tried to query your approach often enough in the past to find it is just a simplistic conflationist argument. Information and consciousness sound like they must be two faces of the same coin. So that’s what they are.

That shows in your support of Tonioni for example.

Nothing but fear. :rofl:

Well, what can you expect when, being the creatures that we are, we begin to scrape the very fundamental issues of the world? After all, we are dealing with extremely small portions of matter, which we are ill-suited to understand very well. There doesn't seem to be much advantage in terms of selection in having the capacity to do advanced physics.

It's been about 100 years of the quantum revolution, and the main problem, uniting it with relativity remains a hard nut to crack. If someone wants to call this "metaphysics", fine, it's not a wrong use for the word. On the other hand, one can easily imagine another intelligent creature having intuitive ease with quantum mechanics, but struggling with aspect of biology, for instance.

Some of the guesses we have, be it many worlds or loop quantum gravity may be right. Or they may all be wrong. It could be that a non-specialist somehow cracks the problem, but it makes sense to put higher credence on professionals, while always keeping in mind that they could be wrong. As could we, in whatever we choose to do and or study.

It could be that a non-specialist somehow cracks the problem — Manuel

Reminds me of the movie Good Will Hunting in which a janitor solves a ridiculously difficult mathematics problem while erasing a blackboard each day. Possible, I suppose, but extremely unlikely since prodigies are so rare. A pretty good film nevertheless. :smile:

That shows in your support of Tonioni for example — apokrisis

Probably you mean Giulio Tononi. His Phi function is untenable.

Probably you mean Giulio Tononi. His Phi function is untenable. — jgill

I agree. He's trying to use scientific (physical) methods to study a philosophical (abstract, metaphysical) topic. But, I applaud his ingenuity for devising a mathematical analysis to study a mental phenomenon. It may even lead to methods for using AI to determine if a person in a coma is subliminally conscious.

However, IIT is indeed untenable as a conventional secular Scientific project, because it ultimately requires a universal potential for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate. Consequently, neuroscientist Christof Koch even entertains the taboo idea of Panpsychism (universal consciousness). But my personal worldview is based on mundane universal Information (power to enform ; energy). So there's no need to grapple with the absurd notion of chatty conscious atoms exchanging gossip.

The bottom line is that I do not "support Tononi" in the sense that Krisis implies. For me, IIT is just one more bit of information for a Philosophical (Epistemological & Ontological) project. :smile:


Ubiquitous Information vs Universal Consciousness :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? The WIRED interviewer complains, “ I still can’t shake the feeling that consciousness arising through integrated information is — arbitrary, somehow. Like an assertion of faith. “ But Koch responds with “ But why should quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It seems arbitrary! “ Anyway, Koch is just one of several mainstream non-religious scientists who find the notion of Panpsychism to be a reasonable theory by which to answer some of the world's oldest Ontological head-scratchers.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html

at this point I’m just lurking, sorry for barging in, but your statement “We are "bags of chemistry and much more due to the complexity of that chemistry” is the most simple and cogent summary I’ve come across on this particular forum. Kudos.

I sense so much worry on this forum that science is “demoting” humans, or destroying metaphysics. I think there’s a false premise or two - and some out of date thinking - involved. The two disciplines cover two different aspects of existence. Science is no more under the thumb of authority than philosophy is within academia. IMO

Yes, indeed, a classic.

Wasn't Einstein a patent clerk when he discovered the first steps in General Relativity, or was he already taking courses? I don't remember.

But also, people like Ramanujan, who lacked formal training in math, made important contributions, so I've heard.

These are big exceptions, of course.

Einstein had taught himself differential and integral calculus by age 15, and had a teaching diploma in math and physics before the patent office job. His PhD may have been awarded while he still held that job (1905).

Ramanujan had studied mathematics for some time, both on his own reading and in school, before he interested Hardy in his original results.

In both cases these geniuses had backgrounds in mathematical thought before they became celebrated.

In the movie, however, the janitor had no previous math experiences - except a reference to being self-taught - and simply picked up an advanced topic (requiring a background) by simply looking at notes left on a blackboard. One of my relatives asked me my opinion about this, and I told him "possible but unlikely".

The two disciplines cover two different aspects of existence. Science is no more under the thumb of authority than philosophy is within academia. IMO — GLEN willows

I think Massimo Pigliucci would agree with you about the Non-overlapping Magisteria of Science and Philosophy. That's a nice way to avoid antagonism (stepping on toes) between the disciplines. But, in order to work, both sides have to buy-in to the dual domain premise. In practice though, some scientists feel free to engage in unverifiable philosophical speculations, as long as they can present their abstruse abstract mathematical models as true representations of reality.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book, Lost in Math, to chide her fellow physicists for straying into philosophical territory. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except for the pretense that their hypothetical models (e.g. cosmic inflation) are real science. Instead of empirical evidence though, they judge their mathematical models in terms of aesthetics, and even doggedly defend them, as-if it was a matter of Faith. Ironically, her second book, Existential Physics, presents her own opinions, as a scientist, on several philosophical questions. To her credit, she labels her own conjectures, and those of other scientists, as "Ascientific" (i.e. philosophical).

This thread was started in order to discuss how & why some philosophers, and TPF posters, disparage their own profession or hobby, and place themselves "under the thumb of higher authority" (in this case : Empirical Science). Pigliucci's response was simply to point-out that there is no authoritative consensus position on the Foundational Questions of Physics. Which lie on the swampy borderland between the magisteria of Empirical Science and of Theoretical Philosophy. Their authoritative Bible of Science exists only in the imagination of believers. So, they cannot be proven wrong . . . or right. :smile:

Lost in Math : How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252

Philosophers want to know why physicists believe theories they can’t prove :
how physicists can come to believe in certain theories without necessarily having the empirical evidence that proves them.
https://qz.com/590406/philosophers-want-to-know-why-physicists-believe-theories-they-cant-prove/

:up:

"observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria"

"Philosophers want to know why physicists believe theories they can’t prove. How physicists can come to believe in certain theories without necessarily having the empirical evidence that proves them"

I see what you're saying, but the scientific method is to observe nature, create a theory (i.e. guess) THEN try to prove it. If there are theoretical physicists who believe in (for example) string theory and just end the inquiry there, then you're right, that's inexcusable. But what I see is these physicists doing experiments to prove said theory.

The Theory of Special Relativity was an unproven theory that Einstein believed in, and that many (most?) Newtonian-based scientists didn't. At that point he was a physicist with a "mind-boggling theory" he couldn't prove. Then experiments were done and it was.

Not sure your portrayal of physics is what is really happening out there. If I'm wrong, straighten me out SVP

:up:

Fyi – On the contrary, scientists build models from which they derive predictions in order to test (falsify) their models. When a model has survived a gauntlet of the most rigorous experimental tests which other scientists can throw at it, usually by abduction at least a plurality, if not majority, of the community of scientists will eventually consider the model provisionally useful enough – a working theory – which they can rely on to guide further research and build different (or better) models. The point is: scientists do not "prove" anything because science is a critical, experimental, explanatory activity and not a "belief system". Modern natural science is the only social institution I'm aware of that manifestly is based on, however imperfectly, criticizing and correcting its own productive work.

I see what you're saying, but the scientific method is to observe nature, create a theory (i.e. guess) THEN try to prove it. If there are theoretical physicists who believe in (for example) string theory and just end the inquiry there, then you're right, that's inexcusable. But what I see is these physicists doing experiments to prove said theory. — GLEN willows

In general, that's true. Hossenfelder was not condemning scientists for creating theories to explain physical mysteries. What she warned against is falling-in-love with a pet theory, that no physical evidence can prove or disprove. She seems to think they are unaware of crossing the invisible line of demarcation between the Science & Philosophy magisteria.

She gives several examples of such transgressions of Empiricism (the scientific method), and labels their unfalsifiable theories as "Ascientific". In that case, they are doing Philosophy, not Science. As for doing experiments, many of those beautiful mathematical models are not subject to experimental verification -- at this time -- yet some persist on faith, that future technologies will open new windows into the abstract mathematical realms of such counterintuitive notions as String Theory. :smile:

PS__FWIW, Hossenfelder doesn't make this connection, but I place Mathematics under the heading of Metaphysics (abstract ideas), not Physics (concrete matter). You could say that Matter is embodied Mathematics : the logical, non-physical (relational) structure of an object.

Mathematical Metaphysics :
"Kant argues that mathematical reasoning cannot be employed outside the domain of mathematics proper for such reasoning, as he understands it, is necessarily directed at objects that are “determinately given in pure intuition a priori and without any empirical data”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/

"Math is only a Metaphysical subject insofar as it is an example of a system of consistent relational structure."
https://www.quora.com/Is-math-a-metaphysical-subject

Yes I see what you (and Hossenfelder) are saying. I'm just not sure what the problem with an unprovable theory would be, in practical terms.

Physics, I feel, needs to make existential claims when hypothesizing, the stock-in-trade of the subject, and by doing so strays into philosophical territory, metaphysics (ontology) to be precise.

The same can be said about causation, another science topic which interests metaphysicians.

Nowadays identity vis-à-vis change, a metaphysical concern has also been scienticized e.g. water = H₂O.

Scientific hypotheses are possibilities which along with necessities is another domain of metaphysics.

Space & time are crucial to scientific understanding e.g. Minkowski spacetime; both are alive & kicking in metaphysics as well.

↪Gnomon
Yes I see what you (and Hossenfelder) are saying. I'm just not sure what the problem with an unprovable theory would be, in practical terms. — GLEN willows

Hossenfelder is not saying that bold conjectures (beyond current testability) by scientists should be censored. She's just noting that, until a theory becomes verifiable or falsifiable, it's not empirical Science, but theoretical Philosophy*1, which she labels "Ascientific". Philosophers are free to create imaginary or mathematical models as analogies & metaphors for conceptualizing difficult problems. But those models shouldn't be treated as hard science, until they have been tested against hard reality.

One example of a scientist creating an idealized model, was Neils Bohr's picture of an atom as a miniature solar system. That image was popular among scientists & laymen for several years, because it made sense in classical terms. But, eventually, quantum physicists had to concede that the model was not realistic, and led to untenable expectations. It served well as a philosophical model for further theorizing, but eventually had to be abandoned because it failed to explain the results of experiments.

You could say that Bohr's unprovable theory was useful ("practical") to illustrate where it failed to match empirical evidence. When challenged by Heisenberg, Bohr later revised his classical model to cover the paradoxes & uncertainties of the "strange kind of reality" that underlies our conventional classical models of reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the result of that compromise between intuitive classical concepts and counter-intuitive quantum weirdness. :smile:


*1, "The Copenhagen response is to insist that asking such a [objective] question is essentially asking for a classical account of the quantum world, which by definition can't be done". That's why Heisenberg proposed a more subjective philosophical account. "That he would do this at all sets Heisenberg apart from most modern physicists, who generally disdain or simply ignore philosophical thinking about their subject". That disdainful attitude, even among philosophers, is the topic of this thread.. ___ Werner Heisenberg, Intro to Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science (1958.

exactly. If a scientist has an untenable theory, other scientists will point it out, and this critique can - as it does in this case - lead to positive results. It’s a self-correcting methodology. As is philosophy. No harm, no foul.

:cheer: :heart:

agreed! Yes, I should have said “verified” instead of “proved,” but we’re on the same page re: science.

↪Gnomon
exactly. If a scientist has an untenable theory, other scientists will point it out, and this critique can - as it does in this case - lead to positive results. It’s a self-correcting methodology. As is philosophy. No harm, no foul. — GLEN willows

In the Heisenberg book quoted before, he refers to quantum physicists' impractical "thought experiments" as "ideal experiments". Thus implying a link to Plato's Idealism. However, he noted that "new ideal experiments were invented to trace any possible inconsistency of the theory . . ." Unlike most British & American physicists though, Heisenberg was schooled in Germany, which at the time considered Philosophy to be essential to a well-rounded education.

The book's introduction says "Heisenbrerg puts great emphasis on the distinction Descartes made between mind and matter, which is at the core of the classical belief in an objective reality. . . . Aristotle, for example, conceived of tangible matter as the imposition of form on a 'potentia', a sort of universal essence comprising possibility rather than actuality". Later quantum physicists, who may not have been familiar with ancient philosophical notions of a dualism between Potential & Actual or Ideal & Real, used the term "Virtual", in place of "Potential" or "Essential", to describe statistical particles that are not-yet-real. They then treat those non-dimensional mathematical points of probability as-if they are real. Even though the word "virtual" literally means Essential, which is a taboo term in classical Physics.

Some modern philosophers dismiss Descartes' Duality, and Aristotle's Potential, as un-real, hence unworthy of rational consideration, even in thought experiments and "ideal experiments". But, as noted above, sometimes those un-real models are useful to virtually test the interpretations of paradoxical quantum experiments. :smile: