Henry Stapp (click link below) gives us a talk explaining the causal force of consciousness upon physics via the asking of a question. When a sentient forms a question based upon a need, that expression of meaning from information determines the state changes of physical system towards an end state.

There is no simple situation of a Deist omnipresence who creates an initial state and then withdraws to eternal silence, with a materialist nature-as-system proceeding through state changes that populate physics.

The Schrödinger equation addresses the involvement of the observer with-a-question within the causal structure of physics. Cognition shaking hands with physics produces the events of experience.

If the equation linking cognition to existential is an imperfect symmetry, then the interweave of matter, force and thought is an entropic system with information-heat-loss that maintains fundamental incompleteness. Cognition and existential approach each other, but we don’t know completely any systemization of this linkage.

The undecidability of the systemization of the cognition_existential interweave keeps us alive and going forward.

Consciousness>Question_Outcome

QM launched a revolution when is made science shake hands with humanities by insisting that cognition is integral to the causal process that determines the final state of a system operating through changes.

Who_What poses the question that activates QM towards a measurable probability of a particular final state outcome of a system?

The questioner who does an experiment to get an answer poses the question that activates QM processes towards a final state of the system i.e., an answer.

How does the questioner make a decision about what question to ask? The questioner exercises his/her will.

Use the link below to listen to Henry Stapp.

What Poses the Question?

When the sentient human looks into the imperfect mirror of nature, as rendered by the senses, s/he sees an imperfect likeness of what we can assume to be the source of the likeness, originality, which is to say TIS.

Thoughts, ideas and feelings are necessary because the decidability of what the originality of TIS examples materially must be chosen. A decision about what exists materially must be made.

It is the uncontainableness of TIS i.e., unlimited possibilities, that demands the decision.

This is Aristotle’s Agent Intellect meets Intelligibility.

Life and sentience require unlimited possibilities incompletely contained strategically so that intrinsic entropy can be overcome in successive stages such that no complete systemization can endstop the future.

When sentient human looks into the imperfect mirror of nature, as rendered by the senses, it’s a case of unlimited consciousness strategically incomplete facing unlimited possibilities strategically incomplete.

Strategic incompletion forestalls complete systemization, a phenomenon, if allowed to occur, that would foreclose on originality and would thus trap existence within bounds, thereby preventing an unlimited way forward.

Strategic Incompletness wisely keeps human individuals from knowing themselves finally.

In this way, the individual can always go forward into the future armed with the panoply of unlimited possibilities.

Strategic Incompleteness (SI) keeps human out of the reach of the calculus. You can’t sum human to a limit because of thoughts, ideas and feelings,

The mass of consciousness is sagaciously hidden from the calculation with strategic absence, so there’s always something that remains beyond the reach of measurement.

This is part of the end game of entropy and thermodynamic resistance to completeness of measurement, which is to say completeness of system.

The impossibility of complete measurement of consciousness goes heads up with the scourge of infinity as the diplomat who sticks his head into the lion’s mouth.

By seeming to be massless, NI uses escape from complete system to also sidestep the ultimate unwieldy mess of infinity.

Incompleteness resembles undecidableness, but the former is creatively future looking, whereas the latter is simply stuck.

Henry Stapp QM Demands non-Physical Consciousness

Strategic Incompletness wisely keeps human individuals from knowing themselves finally. — ucarr

Well, Roger Penrose said in his Emperor's New Mind that the mind was not reducible to algorithms, although I must say, I bought that book and the maths was beyond me. I don't see the point of speculating about entropy and thermodynamic resistance, if it's not an attempt to make the conversation seem as if it's scientifically informed. But as far as the incomprehesibility of your true nature is concerned, and putting aside the rather idiosyncratic jargon, I think the basic intuition is the right one :up: .

// see only don't know//

QM launched a revolution when is made science shake hands with humanities by insisting that cognition is integral to the causal process that determines the final state of a system operating through changes. — ucarr

I see where you're going with all of this, and even agree. You have a rather idiosyncratic way of expressing your ideas, but I do detect a convergence with some of the source materials I've been studying.

So, I would paraphrase the above by expressing it like this: Quantum physics introduced the necessity of accounting for 'the observer,' a factor previously excluded or bracketed out in classical science. This led to the well-known 'observer problem' in physics, which challenges the assumption that the objects of analysis exist independently of the observer. Although the wave equation predicts how a system evolves, it does not explain why a specific outcome crystallizes upon measurement. This explanatory gap highlighted the need to incorporate the observer into the framework. Whereas prior to the quantum revolution the idealised models of physics were taken to reveal a view of nature as it is in itself, with this development, the role of the observer had to be taken into account as well. This was one of the main causes of disagreement between Einstein's scientific realism and the anti-realist tendencies he found in the so-called Copenhagen school.

Freud once remarked that ‘the self-love of mankind has been three times wounded by science’, referring to the Copernican revolution, Darwin’s discovery of evolution, and Nietszche’s declaration of the death of God. In a roundabout way, perhaps the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics has given back to humanity what th Enlightenment had taken away, by placing the mind in a constitutive role in the observation of the fundamental constituents of nature.

Although the wave equation predicts how a system evolves, it does not explain why a specific outcome crystallizes upon measurement. This explanatory gap highlighted the need to incorporate the observer into the framework, marking a significant shift in how science interacts with the humanities. — Wayfarer

But isn’t making making a measurement simply taking a snapshot or picture of how things are at that moment in time ? Where does the observer come into it apart from the interpretation of the result.

The questioner who does an experiment to get an answer poses the question that activates QM processes towards a final state of the system i.e., an answer. — ucarr

Does the focus or attention of the conscious aware questioner lead to the answer because its/the placement/timing of the question? How much does the answer come from the "knowings" of this questioner, does the answer exist for the questioner to "answer" or is the answer attainable because the placement of the question that activated the QM process come/came from a place or state of interest, attention, or necessity/force?

It is a force to focus attention when pure interest is not present but the will is present in the way one goes about posing the question in an experiment to determine an answer. Is this assuming the answer is attainable? How is the confidence of the questioner observed and relevant [as i think worth considerations] objectively in the time that exists to attain knowledge.

Does wisdom come from the/a experience in time, or how time was experienced ( a moment of time or a clip of time ) and does a moment of time add to the clip of time, meaning an event that occurs in the whole of ones existence, life and death of a person being observed, learned based on what knowledge? The questions that come about a past life cycle include the death of the questioner to be considered? What knowings are used to ask the right questions or wrong ones? Of the self, perhaps. Either way, an answer is either the goal or an answer is not needed meaning reality of circumstances is accepted and justified based on the "knowings" of the subject in mind here detectable in the will present in these moments, events, or states that got "them" to that place...

In this way, the individual can always go forward into the future armed with the panoply of unlimited possibilities.

Strategic Incompleteness (SI) keeps human out of the reach of the calculus. You can’t sum human to a limit because of thoughts, ideas and feelings,

The mass of consciousness is sagaciously hidden from the calculation with strategic absence, so there’s always something that remains beyond the reach of measurement.

This is part of the end game of entropy and thermodynamic resistance to completeness of measurement, which is to say completeness of system.

The impossibility of complete measurement of consciousness goes heads up with the scourge of infinity as the diplomat who sticks his head into the lion’s mouth.

By seeming to be massless, NI uses escape from complete system to also sidestep the ultimate unwieldy mess of infinity.

Incompleteness resembles undecidableness, but the former is creatively future looking, whereas the latter is simply stuck. — ucarr

Hmm....so you say above, Incomplete~>stuck AND undecidableness~> future looking, resemble each other but according to what standards or template? It seems to me, that when those whom experience "future looking" and/or "simply stuck" states they is/are judged or determined by an observer and/or is this or that in the choice or in the event determined internally [making the decision to [blank]? Who determines this outcome, and is that outcome "knowable" or "unknowable" either way?

In the two things happening in the psychological mind (internally) and physical (externally), of particular interest is the timing where the outcome, with chances or possibilities that are no longer take back-able, meaning can't fix or improve upon as the internal is playing out thoughts that don't actually come into existence the way it was thought out, but the intention is traceable in the attention, focus, and the will present in the questions asked where an answer is the goal but the drive was in the question or interest. The chance is taken from/in/when the wrong decision is made but the outcome is seen externally alone while the internal process attached to that either was off to begin with (doesn't add up) or stands correct alongside in the confidence from experience attained in life at current moment.

When not considering the feelings, values, beliefs, and reasons that go along with events in experience, the chance is now transformed into a consequence or burden onto another, some times. Is this escape valid or perhaps it is not free from the bounds it started from, built upon, and left as unanswered. The answer is not for the seeking questioner unless the goal or purpose of the person is observed in the will, or process to exercise the will that is stemming from what? That drive, the questioner asking the questions started the motion and the energy is taken on by another (close to that person) in the form of remembrance of that existence from start to end when not fulfilled or escaped in time of death. The incompleteness is stuck but future looking undecidedability is not always correct in the approach.

What if someone is creatively future looking but stuck in the "thinking thoughts" that make certain decisions appealing or necessary but those that are made are of/from that with little thought in the first place, lack of will or effort or interest in this knowledge? Accepting that the knowledge is unattainable, and that death is not to be feared, to trust in the mystery of the universe still can cause a stuck-ness but not from undecided minds but the unwillingness or willingness to decide lies in their faith for certain outcomes to pan out as they ought to or as they THOUGHT ought to. The decision was made up already in lack of conscious awareness or thought to reflect upon the self and grow with time and experienced events learned from.

The decision was made, unknowingly when occurred, [because the questioner was not experimenting in the question to lead to answers, merely surviving day to day without knowing of the self to build a stance from, no place in the world, no reference, no help], so the undecidedableness is in that ability to do so rationally maybe? Instead of asking the wrong question, one might not ask the questions at all. WHY though? Do they not trust their ability to judge their own actions before they see the light of day outside of the mind? Is that awareness enough to bring the questions to the table that ought to be asked but the chance to ask them is taken in some freak accident or occurrence involving timing, place.

With surety or confidence in choice regardless of the answer is faith or hope detectable or is intuition taking over. No one seems to chose to be stuck or remain stuck, but what if no other options exist and awareness of that fact is upon that subject in questioning. Awareness causes righteous decisions, but of what exactly is the "knowings" that built this awareness to the point of surety. What is opposite of surety? Doubt...self doubt, is incompleteness but undecidedableness is leaving that up for debate or up to chance to learn self knowledge, or is that future looking the faith that backs the answer while the stuckness backs the doubt. Both will be observed to gain intel on the character of that choice, and when is it judged for how much the incompleteness or undeciedableness effects the person and how much they can handle in themselves...? After the fact?

Do the acts show how willing to keep the incompleteness, that without questioning or effort or interest/purpose that focuses attention towards the future is because of the conditions that awareness can stem from, the conditions that cause awareness levels and confidence or hope/faith in self's own decisions are observable...No question, no answer but what if the very question is co-creating an answer in the mind...observed twice, once the possibilities are actualized in reality and once the intention for that outcome was being thought, conceived? Like one outcome exists but it remains incomplete because death is not experienced in a shareable, verifiable way? Even if thought was close to the actual way it played out, it is not confirmed to what level the awareness or knowings were attained or why it matters at an objective level from this subjective experience or event.

But isn’t making making a measurement simply taking a snapshot or picture of how things are at that moment in time ? — kindred

No it's not (with the caveat that threads about quantum physics nearly always end up in the long grass.)

The revolutionary point about Heisenberg's discovery of the uncertainty principle was there was no definite way that things are, prior to the act of measurement. It isn't as if there's a particle somewhere, with the position only awaiting discovery by the observer. It's that the act of observation actually has a role in determining the objects status as a particle (because, remember, it can also appear as a wave, which is the famous wave-particle duality).

This of course is a huge mystery and the source of an enormous amount of literature and argument, but the approach that makes to the sense to my layman's understanding of it, is the 'Copenhagen interpretation', which you can read about here.

Well, Roger Penrose said in his Emperor's New Mind that the mind was not reducible to algorithms — Wayfarer

This may be true but I do not agree with Penrose's core argument:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

Due to human ability to see the truth of formal system's Gödel sentences, it is argued that the human mind cannot be computed on a Turing machine that works on Peano arithmetic because the latter cannot see the truth value of its Gödel sentence, while human minds can.

How do humans know that a mathematical sentence is true? There is only one way: by proving it. Otherwise, it will be deemed a hypothesis and not a (true) theorem. But then again, we are still able to correctly detect some Gödel sentences, i.e. sentences that are true but not provable, but that requires a rather special situation, such as for example, in the case of the Goodstein's theorem.

The language in which Goodstein's theorem is phrased, is Peano Arithmetic theory (PA). However, the language in which its proof is phrased, is Zermelo-Fränckel set theory (ZF). Its proof uses infinite ordinals, which are defined in ZF but not in PA. Hence, Goodstein's theorem belongs to PA but its proof does not belong to PA. Its proof belongs to ZF. That is why we know that Goodstein's theorem is true in ZF and therefore also in PA. Hence, from the standpoint of PA, Goodstein's theorem is indeed true but not provable, i.e. a Gödel sentence.

A Turing machine could also use ZF to prove an otherwise unprovable theorem in PA. Therefore, it is not something that only human minds can do. What if there is no alternative theory available to prove the Gödel sentence from? In that case, both humans and the machine will not be able to know that the Gödel sentence is true. They will both consider it to be just a hypothesis.

Conclusion. The ability to see the truth of Gödel sentences is not different between human minds and Turing machines. In the general case, they will both fail to do it. That is where I fundamentally disagree with Penrose. The human mind may still be superior to Turing machines but not for its ability to see the truth of Gödelian sentences.

That is where I fundamentally disagree with Penrose. — Tarskian

Well, that's cool. I don't understand either you or him.

A Turing machine could also use ZF to prove an otherwise unprovable theorem in PA. Therefore, it is not something that only human minds can do. — Tarskian

However, isn’t ‘the Turing machine’ something that only exists in the minds of humans? An actual Turing machine would require infinite memory, so it is not something that could ever exist.

However, isn’t ‘the Turing machine’ something that only exists in the minds of humans? An actual Turing machine would require infinite memory, so it is not something that could ever exist. — Wayfarer

In all practical terms, the term "Turing machine" just means "computer". For the problem of proving a PA theorem in ZF, there is no need for infinite memory.

However, isn’t ‘the Turing machine’ something that only exists in the minds of humans? — Wayfarer

The thing is that computer science started almost a decade before the first computer was built.

So, in 1936, Alan Turing dreamt up a machine that could compute, studied its properties extensively, but never received a budget from the cash-strapped British government to actually build it

They could have built one later but that never happened because John Von Neumann helped designing another machine -- eventually built in 1949 -- that was much more straightforward to program, the EDVAC, sporting the first CPU. It was funded by the US Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Modern computers still use this architecture. Turing's architecture was never really built.

Theoretical computer science literature has kept referring to Turing machines, though.

You ask about the relationship between the questioner and the material world as seen through the lens of QM.

QM presents a menu of possibilities that can be calculated, with nothing definite about time, place and state of physical systems that give material things their attributes and behaviors.

The questioner wanting something, makes a decision and then takes action to achieve the goal determined by the decision. QM uncertainty resolves into a definite event under the power of a sentient human who has made a decision. Decision making is an act of will.

It is the act of will that throws the power switch to the “on” position that resolves QM uncertainty into material fact.

The nature of the questioner determines the nature of the question, and the nature of the question determines the nature of the answer.

If the future doesn’t exist, then the will bends the symmetry of spacetime into a disequilibrium that moves toward an answer.

All “answers” are rooted in the disequilibrium that converts QM uncertainty into material fact.

As the Buddhists declare, material facts are neither universal nor eternal because of the disequilibrium that causes their emergence.

Incompleteness is the stage upon which creative action plays. Creative action and the stage of incompleteness occur simultaneously because creative revelation, by definition, is not foreseen, and thus the revelations of creativity cannot be known according to space and time and location until revealed creatively.

Creative revelation is radiation penetrating convention and thus amounts to highest adventure.

Creative revelation foments naked mind that returns the witness to first birthing into the world totally unknown.

We have to continue our rebirthing with naked mind bathed in creativity in our bid to fend off death.

Human looking at the world is rooted in the semi-symmetry of the disequilibrium making a unique individual possible. There will always be a chase between what exists and what can be known by the individuality that perturbs what it seeks to know with its inviduality.

The duty of each human individual is to tell narratives that entertain other individuals.

Entertainment is that simultaneous, dual motion out of the self/into the self.

When we connect with the world, our life is enriched by becoming what it has been not, and it enriches the world by giving of itself to the world that which it has been not.

Entertainment is what we do to forestall living in solitude. When you entertain someone with a narrative, you make your greatest gift, your attention to the world.

The communion of human individuals through entertainment is a banquet of the highest food, the gift of your serious attention to another sentient. This is such as we do here at TPF.

Your individuality is best kept undecidable to the degree you can manage undecidability of identity within a pragmatic world constantly demanding logical decisions.

Every individual struggles with his/her natural state of disequilibrium, an essential property of individuality. Tell as much truth about your individuality as you can withstand. In most cases, your disequilibrium with the world will be judged benign. In the minority of cases only, does the state imprison or execute individuals whose disequilibrium of individuality is judged malignant.

The sentient human looks out at the world with resolution, having made a decision to follow along a chosen path.

As the journey progresses, the world gives feedback regarding the soundness of the path chosen. Some of the feedback encourages the journey forward; some of the feedback discourages the journey backwards.

Incompleteness is a strategy for keeping the journey alive in the face of good/indifferent/ bad.

Incompleteness is the guardian of a creative future because it’s the guardian of unlimited possibilities. Remember, when the human makes a decision, it compels QM to resolve possibilities into material facts. Well, incompleteness eschews material facts, so an open palette of possibilities is preserved.

Since there are statements true but unprovable, there seems to be a disconnection between truth and proof.

Has the meaning of this disconnection been examined?

For example, if there is non-symmetry between a true conclusion and its logical derivation, can we ask whether this suggests semi-validity is a reality thereof?

The measurement of you is not separate from what you measure, and the measurement of what you measure is not separate from the measurement of you.

Consciousness is rooted in non-local measurement.

Adding to this perplexing complexity is the strategic incompletion of consciousness:

It counter-balances what I say above to the effect that the non-locality of consciousness protects against the very measurement it seeks to achieve.

Measurement is containment, and consciousness must include a portion of measurement as containment in order to be intelligible and therefore meaningful, but it also must strive against the final closure of complete containment (Russell’s Paradox).

The intentional elusiveness of consciousness is why it’s so hard to define. It can be itself only by avoiding being contained conclusively. That’s why you can imagine yourself as a Grizzly bear roaming through the woods. In so doing, you’re amusing yourself via shape-shifting. What you can imagine you are is limited only by your imagination, which deftly employs strategic incompletion against the final closure of complete systemization.

The laws of QM don’t say anything about what the question shall be.

The human must willfully choose the question to be answered by experiment.

If material facts are governed by materialist science, and if the QM laws resolve probabilities into material facts, then the absence of what the question should be until the questioner willfully determines upon a question, by Penrose’s argument, shows that asking a question to be answered by experiment, i.e., consciousness, must lie outside of both materialist science and the QM laws shaping material facts. In conclusion, therefore, consciousness is immaterial.

All of this elaborates why taking a measurement involves more than making a snapshot.

ucarr, I appreciate the insights as you have couldn't of put it any simpler while at the same time keeping the field of thinking open to those willing to do that while remaining highly intrigued-- I am especially with the direction and body of your thinking as you communicate them.I just wanted to say as a person who engages selectively, I have been reading along since I have joined the forum. Although, it is our first time interacting I am no stranger to your contributions. I think you have many interesting Discussions and offer fun engagement within the thread, consistently acknowledging those that do you. I see and hear you.

Instead of jumping into the replies, I want to say that I was pleased to see you refer to Henry Stapp as I have been reading his work a lot lately as I found it an easy (for me [learning style of importance?]) to get a clearer vision or visualize what was being said and/or going on; as it was introduction or hard open to QM theories/ideas and I am still doing so intentionally to gain deeper knowledge. I found Stapp easy for me to actually begin picking up what was being put down, but not to my surprise I struggle putting the pieces together to see a whole picture where QM and philosophy have a space like Humanities should be in Science. I mentioned him [stapp] twice in the "Perception" thread and referred a few papers of his, here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/926957

I am going to reply to each of your comments individually in order to how they were received but I just want to mention that you have helped me in a major way today organize some of my old notes into one coherent piece that makes more sense now combined. THANKS! Anyways, when I reply and usually comment, I am to be read as if I am talking. Meaning, I type or express words in my typing just like I talk. How should you know this? Well I just told you. If its easier to understand my style, some compare it to "thinking aloud" or "stream of consciousness" but that's always interesting to learn. Are they telling me what I am? Ha....and yet not a peep on anything deeper from the words, just recognizing a style that is...unintelligible, incoherent, or ill posed perhaps in a certain light. To those I say: Whatever, ignore this/it as you ought to. This is going to help me [ I can tell and you couldn't at this point in my mind its realized and i am typing as if nothing even occurred--in motion, fuel provided, interest, driving towards??? ]

The will I have is evident and that ensures me to continue even when the goal is not entirely clear YET with words...its being built in the mind, with effort and passion too. Power.

Again with this thread, as I followed along I found myself reading the words off the screen in a voice in my mind as I sit silently on the couch. I hear it and follow pretty easily. Does it always stick? No, no. But IN that moment, I like to think I understand where and what you are up/onto with your attention towards certain topics. I can hear the words and build the ideas in my mind, with more than will ...pure interest.

Yes, imagination is important and so it requires effort that deserves perhaps some more credit at times. I think the will in the way you mention it is interesting and to bring it up in the lens of QM consciousness. If the will is not aligned with the MIND and body (+/- (what else along with mind, body should be aligned along with will*1 when regarding it as [what? (insert blank?)] using the mind, (work?) to create something. Ideas birthed, nurtured, and adaptable. SO the potentially becomes something real...as in something real I mean, of non-material ideas in imagination efforts in mind bring those ideas, visions into something actually tangible/material. How? Perhaps it is true, an interactive process between the mind, brain, and conscious awareness that uses past experiences and knowledge attained to aid those new ones that become intelligent by our own design. Brain activity and body input/output relevant? I am not there yet, point is this is my intro to you and I have a lot to say. See me another time on that if interested (design vs designer notes) and I am open to get into it at another time.

BUT if I were to veer towards another aspect of QM, I rather jump to the relevance you are seeing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics here in respect to the place you find it within QM and why/how can it correlate with the works of Henry Stapp. I am interested in these correlations and am following to see where it goes, if not with others in my personal research and ongoing self taught/learning journey. So I will eventually get to that, as I have notes from when I was reading Sadi Carnot's "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat" and thoughts on entropy, design, etc. I am seeing links NOW that I couldn't of known then, but did that stop me from thinking with intention and efforts in a reckless passion that brought me to put them together today? Sure as hell did not.

So as you can see in this explanation of my process that indeed NOT a soul asked for, I value doing so because of the parallels you and I have regarding interests in or relevance in Henry Stapp and 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact that those two things caught my attention and was mentioned by you in this thread as it's still unfolding is what originally pulled me to engage here with you directly in this thread. After reading your responses today, it lead me to look into my past notes and I was able to organize and tie together two notes that came to me in different times over the last few years.

It's helpful and valued by me as you reminded me that my procrastination was not a waste of time or energy. That I may be able to be connected for deeper, clearer explanations for me first and then others, is big as that brings of course new perspectives from understanding complexities that QM takes on in explaining the consciousness and mind-body problem but at a relatable, objective level that is not popularly adapted yet by those not familiar with the maths. It is intimidating and that is limiting minds that might offer insights now...
Thanks! [9/20 452pm]


1*
- See here, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/921737 the exchange and if so, DO note the footnotes as it is where the will is considered deeper [by me and my inquiring mind] in thread "Perception" (pg 3/49) This discussion is the same thread I linked earlier but it was at an earlier time, a different phase of thinking for me but where ideas correlate here now with you and others possibly. That exchange with jkop and I early on is one contribution where I mention imagination, consciousness, and the will. If I go backwards from here I can trace back to that contribution and this is interesting to me because it was before I considered or thought QM might be able to be used to refine a scope of complex understandings of consciousness and the mind-body interactions making a way in the world...for my own self and not sake

(hence, its clear that since Henry Stapp is an influence I leaned towards with interest to learn something new here. And the knowledge brought to my attention aided me in my developing thoughts using the "QM lens and relations to the world" you speak finely of also, with that help I was/am able to credibly speak on what I can bring using an untainted, green and naive pov voice in philosophy. Does that offer anything to academia of philosophical logic, math, and science? Its still being observed nonetheless...

As the Buddhists declare, material facts are neither universal nor eternal because of the disequilibrium that causes their emergence. — ucarr

Or in more traditional Buddhist parlance, 'all compound things are subject to decay' (reputedly the last words of the Buddha.)

Or in more traditional Buddhist parlance, 'all compound things are subject to decay' (reputedly the last words of the Buddha.) — Wayfarer

That's atomist parlance as well. :wink:

Some early schools of Buddhists were said to be atomist, but on closer reading, their version of atoms were 'dhammas' which are actually momentary experiences, arising and passing away in such quick succession that they create an illusion of duration. The abhidhamma texts give an actual precise duration of these dhammas, which is infinitesmally small.

Since there are statements true but unprovable, there seems to be a disconnection between truth and proof. — ucarr

Proof is what mathematics uses as justification. There is always a disconnection between truth and justification.

Concerning physical truth, it is perfectly possible to observe an event or a state without being able to justify it. The absence of justification does not make the observation any less true.

However, pure reason, such as mathematics, is blind, and observation is impossible.

A mathematical fact can only be confirmed to be true because there exists a justification under the form of proof. Otherwise, it remains just a hypothesis.

For the overwhelmingly vast majority of mathematical facts, however, proof cannot even exist. There are various reasons for that (Yanofsky).

Only in exceptional corner cases, it is still possible to confirm the truth of Godelian facts, i.e. mathematical facts that are known to be true but not provable.

For example, Goodstein's theorem is unprovable in arithmetic (PA). The theorem is provable, however, in set theory (ZF). Therefore, we can confirm the theorem to be true, in both arithmetic and set theory. Hence, Goodstein's theorem has the rare Godelian status in arithmetic of being true but not provable.

Goodstein's theorem is a rare and exceptional corner case. Normally, it is not possible to do that.

For example, the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is not provable in set theory (ZF). There is also no alternative theory available in which it is provable. Therefore, we simply cannot confirm the truth of CH.

This is an important difference between physical truth and mathematical truth.

We know physical truth because we can observe it. This is not the case for mathematical truth, because mathematics is blind. Observation is simply not possible in mathematics. Therefore, we can confirm mathematical truth only because we can prove it.

On the other hand, there is also never proof for physical truth. There is no mathematical theory of the physical universe available to prove from. Therefore, physical truth can only be confirmed by means of observation and never by means of proof.

There is always a disconnection between truth and justification. — Tarskian

In the court of law, truth is certified by proof: corroborated facts, pertinent evidence, conclusions based upon valid arguments.

Since, as you say, truth and justification are always disconnected, in the court of law, the place where justice (and therefore justification) is handed down, should we understand the burden of proof for the truth of a defendant’s innocence is a standard too stringent? If we know a defendant is innocent, but we can’t prove it, should the defendant be declared innocent nonetheless?

the burden of proof for the truth of a defendant’s innocence is a standard too stringent? — ucarr

In classical law, the burden of evidence is on the prosecutor:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor for criminal cases, and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to prove their case, the claim will be dismissed.

However, for offences newly defined in modern times, this is usually not the case.

For example, for the modern offense of money laundering, the burden of evidence is placed on the defendant to argue that the money does not originate from crime.

In classical law, the offense of money laundering did not exist, and could not exist, exactly because it reverses the burden of evidence.

Most criminal offenses that were newly and recently defined in modern times require the defendant to prove that he is innocent.

Reversing the burden of evidence is in fact exactly what allowed to define these new modern offenses.

So, if it is about a criminal offense that was defined already in classical law, the defendant can count on the presumption of innocence. If it is about a modern offense, however, there is generally a presumption of guilt.

It is indeed unreasonable to expect the defendant to prove his innocence.

So, if an offense did not exist in 1800 but it exists today, then there is almost surely something wrong with it. Newly-defined modern western law is known to be unreasonable and to be in violation of classical legal traditions.