Their answer, in essence, is that science doesn't know what natural laws are. — Wayfarer
Yes. Physicists just take Laws & Constants for granted, without further explanation. For pragmatic purposes, it's not necessary to delve into metaphysics, because they don't need to know "why" in order to know "how". Yet, philosophers, and some Cosmologists, don't limit their focus to practical problems. Instead, they feel free to speculate on impractical imaginary adventures in the Great Beyond : beyond the limits of physics, that is. Hence, such unverifiable conjectures as Many Worlds & Eternal Inflation. And Paul Davies impractical venture : The Goldilocks Enigma : Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?
Ironically, the physicist's pragmatic ("just the facts ma'am") attitude is similar to the Buddha's reluctance to ask or answer indeterminate questions. It's not that the scientists don't care about the answers to meta-physical questions (e.g. why?), but perhaps because they fear that they won't like the answers. Both Buddha & Physicists were disgusted with the traditional mis-directed answers of popular religions : "invisible spirits/gods did it". So, they tried to avoid any hints of supernatural (meta-physical) forces at play.
The unanswered questions :
The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. . . . .
The Buddha said that the seeking the answers to these types of questions will not help one on the spiritual path.
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki ... _questions
So the conviction that the realm of contingency is the only real realm is the basis of the fundamental confusion (dare we say ignorance) of technocratic culture. — Wayfarer
Before the expanding-cosmos evidence convinced scientists that our universe is not eternal, as presumed --- but contingent upon some mysterious pre-bang law-making & energy-creating force --- it was easy to just assume that Reality is an eternal cycle, with inherent (defacto) unquestionable absolute laws & forces & substances. A story without beginning or end.
Now, they are not so sure, but still resistant to any suggestion that a spooky outside force was involved. That's why I view the Enformationism thesis as a bridge between physics & meta-physics, twixt nature & super-nature. The essential "substance" of material reality is also the essence of mental ideality : merely various forms of the same fundamental malleable stuff. Perhaps, in the age of Information technology, the notion of a pre-BB "enformer" is not quite so spooky.
(I suppose this can easily be construed as theist apologetics, but it doesn't have to be. I'm agnostic about the reality of a Biblical God. But there's a broader metaphysical conception that subsumes many different, specific cultural forms.) — Wayfarer
I too am agnostic about anything outside of the Actual contingent realm we know & love. But, as an amateur philosopher, I enjoy speculating in the realm of Potential meta-physical Ideality. It allows me to ask the questions that the Buddha avoided, without falling back into the traditional doctrinal webs of theism and polytheism. I prefer to fall forward into the unknown realm of Possibilities : what might be.
TPF : Logical Necessity
Re: TPF : Logical Necessity
"Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration" — Gnomon
Not at all. The later Kant was completely dismissive of speculative metaphysics. I won't try and explain what is meant by the philosophical term noumenon but it's not a catch-all term for spooky woo-woo. — Wayfarer
Ha! The joke's on him. Kant is now classified as a German Idealist, who trafficked in transcendental notions & a priori concepts. I assume the "metaphysics" he rejected was the same Catholic Scholastic doctrines, that the Logical Positive Realists on this forum ridicule as "spooky woo-woo". His own forays into theoretical reasoning tried to have it both ways : practical Reason and impractical theorizing. But hay! That's what philosophy is all about. So, the alternative to speculative Metaphysics is empirical Physics. But you have to get your hands dirty doing physical experiments.
Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Thus, Kant’s criticism of metaphysics simultaneously involves denying the pure use of theoretical reason as an instrument for knowledge of transcendent objects, and defending reason’s ideas as projections or goals that have some significant role to play in the overall project of knowledge acquisition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/
The Leibnizian metaphysics, the object of Kant's attack, is criticized for assuming that the human mind can arrive by pure thought at truths about entities ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Im ... -Critiques
Not at all. The later Kant was completely dismissive of speculative metaphysics. I won't try and explain what is meant by the philosophical term noumenon but it's not a catch-all term for spooky woo-woo. — Wayfarer
Ha! The joke's on him. Kant is now classified as a German Idealist, who trafficked in transcendental notions & a priori concepts. I assume the "metaphysics" he rejected was the same Catholic Scholastic doctrines, that the Logical Positive Realists on this forum ridicule as "spooky woo-woo". His own forays into theoretical reasoning tried to have it both ways : practical Reason and impractical theorizing. But hay! That's what philosophy is all about. So, the alternative to speculative Metaphysics is empirical Physics. But you have to get your hands dirty doing physical experiments.
Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Thus, Kant’s criticism of metaphysics simultaneously involves denying the pure use of theoretical reason as an instrument for knowledge of transcendent objects, and defending reason’s ideas as projections or goals that have some significant role to play in the overall project of knowledge acquisition.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/
The Leibnizian metaphysics, the object of Kant's attack, is criticized for assuming that the human mind can arrive by pure thought at truths about entities ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Im ... -Critiques
Re: TPF : Logical Necessity
It hasn't always been like this. Newton for example indicated that the reality, or truth of his first law of motion, what we call inertia, is dependent on the Will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
Good point. Until the Greek Revival / Enlightenment gave scientists the courage to abandon the age-old all-purpose explanation --- that the omniscient-omnipotent-god-concept explains all philosophical mysteries --- most sages & scientists were forced by their ignorance of ultimate causes to postulate a hypothetical First Cause, as a catch-all non-explanation.
However, as bits of physical evidence became woven into understandable theories of local causal systems, such as Evolution & Electro-Magnetism & Thermodynamics, the perceived dependence-on & necessity-for an ultimate Final Cause faded away. And Natural Laws were treated as mere consistent "constants" & "regularities" (necessities??), to be taken for granted, and not explained-away with Metaphysical metaphors.
Ironically, the presumptive triumph of reductive science, Quantum Theory, began to reveal new gaps in our understanding of fundamental reality. The search for a foundational Atom, seems to have found no physical bottom to ground our theories on. Instead, "quantum weirdness" appears to be pointing at ethereal "Mind Stuff" as the essential element of reality.
As a result, some secular non-religious scientists are beginning to take seriously such antique notions as Panpsychism, and futuristic sci-fi theories like a Mathematical Universe. But the implication of a Universal Mind to generate & contain the Mind-Stuff (information) is reminiscent of the ancient postulations of Logos and Deus.
Quantum weirdness goes deeper: It implies that the logical foundations of classical science are violated in the quantum realm; and it opens up a glimpse of an unfamiliar and perhaps older aspect of nature that some call the implicate universe.
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Writi ... Ferris.htm
Note -- "Implicate" means implicit or inferred intentional meaning
Mind-Stuff :
(Originally) supposed particles of mental substance in combinations which are perceived as matter; (in later use also) any rudimentary abstract substance from which ideas, images, etc., can be formed.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/mind-stuff
Note -- that "abstract substance" is what I call Generic Information and EnFormAction.
Natural Laws are not explanations :
"Even William Paley, 17th century author of Natural Theology, “the gospel according to anthropomorphic design”, quibbled over some of the current terminology. “The idea that postulating ‘laws’ of Nature gave explanations of design, he thought to be a form of mysticism, ‘a mere substitution of words for reason, names for causes’ “ Thus, he nailed the weakness of reductive cosmology : it assumes that a random mechanism without Reason or Purpose could magically evolve creatures that are characterized by both. "
BothAnd Blog, post 116
The Problem with Panpsychism :
In his Scientific American magazine article, science writer John Horgan questions an “ambitious” new theory [Integrated information] to explain how human Consciousness evolved from dumb matter, like atoms, to smart stuff, like brains. Or as he put it, “how does stuff become conscious?” His first introduction to the theory made him skeptical. And part of his doubt was due to the implicit Panpsychism (all is mind) of the theory. That sounds more like a religious or mystical notion than a scientific hypothesis. Ironically, as scientists delve deeper into the post-Shannon Information phenomenon, the more they tend to resort to ancient philosophical concepts to explain the ubiquity and power of the non-stuff that used to be imagined as the content of Minds & Souls. Horgan jumped to the conclusion that “This ancient doctrine holds that consciousness is a property not just of brains but of all matter, like my table and coffee mug”. He probably imagined little atoms chatting among themselves about the latest gossip.
BothAnd Blog, post 115
Good point. Until the Greek Revival / Enlightenment gave scientists the courage to abandon the age-old all-purpose explanation --- that the omniscient-omnipotent-god-concept explains all philosophical mysteries --- most sages & scientists were forced by their ignorance of ultimate causes to postulate a hypothetical First Cause, as a catch-all non-explanation.
However, as bits of physical evidence became woven into understandable theories of local causal systems, such as Evolution & Electro-Magnetism & Thermodynamics, the perceived dependence-on & necessity-for an ultimate Final Cause faded away. And Natural Laws were treated as mere consistent "constants" & "regularities" (necessities??), to be taken for granted, and not explained-away with Metaphysical metaphors.
Ironically, the presumptive triumph of reductive science, Quantum Theory, began to reveal new gaps in our understanding of fundamental reality. The search for a foundational Atom, seems to have found no physical bottom to ground our theories on. Instead, "quantum weirdness" appears to be pointing at ethereal "Mind Stuff" as the essential element of reality.
As a result, some secular non-religious scientists are beginning to take seriously such antique notions as Panpsychism, and futuristic sci-fi theories like a Mathematical Universe. But the implication of a Universal Mind to generate & contain the Mind-Stuff (information) is reminiscent of the ancient postulations of Logos and Deus.
Quantum weirdness goes deeper: It implies that the logical foundations of classical science are violated in the quantum realm; and it opens up a glimpse of an unfamiliar and perhaps older aspect of nature that some call the implicate universe.
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Writi ... Ferris.htm
Note -- "Implicate" means implicit or inferred intentional meaning
Mind-Stuff :
(Originally) supposed particles of mental substance in combinations which are perceived as matter; (in later use also) any rudimentary abstract substance from which ideas, images, etc., can be formed.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/mind-stuff
Note -- that "abstract substance" is what I call Generic Information and EnFormAction.
Natural Laws are not explanations :
"Even William Paley, 17th century author of Natural Theology, “the gospel according to anthropomorphic design”, quibbled over some of the current terminology. “The idea that postulating ‘laws’ of Nature gave explanations of design, he thought to be a form of mysticism, ‘a mere substitution of words for reason, names for causes’ “ Thus, he nailed the weakness of reductive cosmology : it assumes that a random mechanism without Reason or Purpose could magically evolve creatures that are characterized by both. "
BothAnd Blog, post 116
The Problem with Panpsychism :
In his Scientific American magazine article, science writer John Horgan questions an “ambitious” new theory [Integrated information] to explain how human Consciousness evolved from dumb matter, like atoms, to smart stuff, like brains. Or as he put it, “how does stuff become conscious?” His first introduction to the theory made him skeptical. And part of his doubt was due to the implicit Panpsychism (all is mind) of the theory. That sounds more like a religious or mystical notion than a scientific hypothesis. Ironically, as scientists delve deeper into the post-Shannon Information phenomenon, the more they tend to resort to ancient philosophical concepts to explain the ubiquity and power of the non-stuff that used to be imagined as the content of Minds & Souls. Horgan jumped to the conclusion that “This ancient doctrine holds that consciousness is a property not just of brains but of all matter, like my table and coffee mug”. He probably imagined little atoms chatting among themselves about the latest gossip.
BothAnd Blog, post 115
Re: TPF : Logical Necessity
but there's a difference between discussing the philosophical implications of physics, and the kinds of debates going on inside physics, which are pretty well by definition only intelligible to those trained in it. — Wayfarer
Unfortunately, I get the impression that some aggressive posters raise such arcane technical questions in an effort to intimidate those outside the esoteric cabal of priests of Physics. Like you, I sometimes ask them to take-it-outside, as irrelevant (immaterial) to the "philosophical implications" of the topic under discussion. Typically though, they chalk-up that evasion as a triumph of enlightened Science over superstitious Philosophy. I for one, am inclined to allow them this little conceit, if it allows them to declare victory and beat a hasty retreat.
Sophistry :
A sophist was a teacher in ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Sophists specialized in one or more subject areas, such as philosophy, rhetoric, music, athletics, and mathematics. ___Wiki
Note -- perhaps Philosophy Trolls now specialize in esoteric Physics.
Unfortunately, I get the impression that some aggressive posters raise such arcane technical questions in an effort to intimidate those outside the esoteric cabal of priests of Physics. Like you, I sometimes ask them to take-it-outside, as irrelevant (immaterial) to the "philosophical implications" of the topic under discussion. Typically though, they chalk-up that evasion as a triumph of enlightened Science over superstitious Philosophy. I for one, am inclined to allow them this little conceit, if it allows them to declare victory and beat a hasty retreat.
Sophistry :
A sophist was a teacher in ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. Sophists specialized in one or more subject areas, such as philosophy, rhetoric, music, athletics, and mathematics. ___Wiki
Note -- perhaps Philosophy Trolls now specialize in esoteric Physics.
Re: TPF : Logical Necessity
Richard Dawkins will often say that life exhibits 'apparent design'. He obviously does this to defray the age-old cliche of the 'grand designer'. But design in nature is easy to discern and to represent graphically: — Wayfarer
FWIW, I think of Evolution as bottom-up design, by contrast with the Genesis story of top-down design. From that pragmatic perspective, the world is designing itself (self-organizing), just as a computer program begins with a general definition of the desired answer, and then proceeds to calculate & construct a more specific answer. But a bottom-up question must be open-ended, as in "what would happen if . . ." So, it seems as-if the material world is following inherent laws (operating system) to calculate the best possible answer to some ultimate question (unknown to us). Hence, each form produced gives the appearance of being intentionally designed to fit its niche in the ecology.
In evolutionary computation, the computer creates a population of potential solutions to a problem. These are often random solutions, so they are unlikely to solve the problem being tackled or even come close. But some will be slightly better than others. The computer can discard the worst solutions, retain the better ones and use them to “breed” more potential solutions. Parts of different solutions will be combined (this is often called “crossover”) to create a new generation of solutions that can then be tested and the process begins again.
https://theconversation.com/evolutionar ... they-91872
" So simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Darwin
FWIW, I think of Evolution as bottom-up design, by contrast with the Genesis story of top-down design. From that pragmatic perspective, the world is designing itself (self-organizing), just as a computer program begins with a general definition of the desired answer, and then proceeds to calculate & construct a more specific answer. But a bottom-up question must be open-ended, as in "what would happen if . . ." So, it seems as-if the material world is following inherent laws (operating system) to calculate the best possible answer to some ultimate question (unknown to us). Hence, each form produced gives the appearance of being intentionally designed to fit its niche in the ecology.
In evolutionary computation, the computer creates a population of potential solutions to a problem. These are often random solutions, so they are unlikely to solve the problem being tackled or even come close. But some will be slightly better than others. The computer can discard the worst solutions, retain the better ones and use them to “breed” more potential solutions. Parts of different solutions will be combined (this is often called “crossover”) to create a new generation of solutions that can then be tested and the process begins again.
https://theconversation.com/evolutionar ... they-91872
" So simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Darwin
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests