Dear Jose,
I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Jose, thanks. Now i have a clearer picture of the usage of your terms. Choice is then everything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics, but choice is not identical (synonymous) with freewill, notwithstanding that 'freewill' itself is - if one believes in it - not forbidden by the laws of physics.
Still I struggle with determinism in your framework. Do you adopt the quantum mechanical interpretation of the multiverse to make 'freewill' coherent with 'choice'? I think this must be the case, but I am really not sure, please pardon me. I only can precisely determine how you use your terms and what they mean to you by knowing what's the 'real' difference between 'choice' and 'freewill', since a river and parts of its environment may have 'decided' to take one specific path out of a certain range of other possible ones.
Dear Aditya,
What I propose is theoretical model-building based on 'fundamentals' and laws of mathematics. The fundamentals are either arbitrary or self-explanatory. That means these cannot be explained within the model built up from the fundamentals. As such we can say the model is incomplete in itself because it contains statements that cannot be proved from the model.
The model-building is intended for acquiring knowledge. The model thus obtained is a system that follows laws. Here the terms fundamentals, knowledge, system, laws and completeness are well defined. Fundamentals are the primary-causes, knowledge is understanding the causal factors and laws, laws are mathematical statements, and a system is something that is finite, dynamic, deterministic and made up of quantized entities. The model is complete if the formation of the system (starting from from the fundamentals) can be explained using relevant laws of mathematics. Our knowledge in that field is complete if we can identify the primary causes, all emergent causal factors, and the mathematical laws applicable at all levels.
So what we have is a 'defined completeness'. Complete knowledge does not mean complete predictability; we need not know all paths leading from 'the fundamentals' to 'the system', we need know just the main route. We need not know from where the fundamentals came or why they came. These are either 'not much relevant' or 'just impossible'.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Stefan,
There are no separate laws for physics, economics, politics, etc. The laws applicable in any domain are laws of mathematics. Each domain has certain properties which may be fundamental or emergent; it is these properties that act as causal factors. Free will arises from the properties of matter. So in my opinion, the most appropriate statement should be 'freewill is not forbidden by the system (universe).
When there are multiple possibilities, one of the possibilities happen. We can say that a choice has occurred. But prima-facia, we cannot say whether there has been any freewill action behind that choice. Only on continued observation can we come to an inference. If something contrary to the natural choice (which has the highest probability) happens in a statistically-relevant number of times, we can infer that freewill lies behind the choice. That is, freewill is also a choice, but an unnatural choice.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Jose, thanks for your more precise description of your lines of reasoning.
I have some more questions and annotations to make for fully understanding whether or not nature exhibits unnatural choices.
I consider a Boing 747. In our world, it is very unlikely that the natural path is such that the probability that nature facilitates this Boing 747 must be considered very low.
According to some quantum mechanical 'fluctuations', it nonetheless isn't forbidden by nature that a Boing 747 is facilitated without the help of any human being. Of course, this 'unnatural' possibility is just of theortical interest, because the assigned probabilities are too low to ever witness such an event.
If I define 'freewill' in the sense that human beings have the limited freedom to choose between two - or more - alternatives by some causa finalis which stands outside any formal system, does your framework then say that nature indeed exhibits 'unnatural' choices? Since human beings can built a Boing 747 by making some choices, I am forced to conclude that the finished Boing 747 is a totally unnatural event.
Surely, due to your lines of reasoning, there is no way to empirically decide whether or not some true freewill was engaged in the building of that Boing 747, since we have not a multitude of identical earths at hand with the same initial conditions that would lead - or not lead - to the same Boing 747 at the exact same time in all histories for all earths.
But now I read in a comment from you to Heinrich Luediger that
"based on it, I will argue that there exists a finite number of finite universes in infinite space."
If I take the existence of a finite number of finite universes in infinite space for guaranteed, does this premise allow you to - logically - decide whether or not nature (whatever it is in its completeness) does exclusively only follow the first three causes Aristotle once defined, or whether it also allows freewill in the sense that not only some choices aren't predetermined in nature, but follow a teleological reason, a causa finalis that cannot be captured by any formal system only?
I think this is an important question regarding the search for some 'fundamentals', albeit the answer to these questions regularily do not make any practical difference for the life of the person who answers them.
Dear Jose,
thank you for your essay, that's interesting for sure and I will rate it well.
I've not fully understood something about your "Fundamentalism" proposal. You write that it implies cause-effect, but in a certain sense it seems to presume it in its very definition (Any field of knowledge has some fundamentals, based on which everything in that field can be logically explained, and so by identifying the fundamentals, we can arrive at the truth). Moreover, how your approach manage the Hume's argument against causation?
bests,
Francesco
Dear Jose;
Reading your essay was like swimming in a pool. It is full of statements without logical or factual explanations to sustain them. Your whole discourse indicates that you have what I consider a naïve conception of causality. Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena.
The most valuable idea you expressed in your essay (which you really explained logically), is that if there were only one fundamental (there should be either one fundamental entity having more than one property or more than one fundamental entity having different properties) there will be nothing to be explained.
In the end you left me disappointed, I was expecting that you would establish the basis for determining what's fundamental from your postulates.
Truly yours;
Diogenes
Dear Diogenes,
Thank you for your comments. I disagree with the statement, 'Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena'. It is argued, it is claimed, but not shown.
Causality is a very simple concept. Why make it appear to be something very complex. However, simple causal factors lead to complex situations; that does not make the concept of causality complex.
The basis for determining the fundamentals is to identify the causal factors, and finally arriving at the primary causes, which we can call fundamentals. Identifying the causal factors is not theoretical, it depends on observations.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Joe Fisher,
FQXi has not asked us to identify the Natural fundamental. We are asked to explain what fundamental is, whether there is any need for something fundamental. None of us knows what is fundamental to science or mathematics. We can only try to do so.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Fransesco,
I do not agree with Humes regarding causation. Hume, I think, consider that the regularity or pattern that is observed in nature is just our belief, and so causation is just our belief. Our technology works just because this regularity or pattern is factual and dependable, and not a mere belief. The belief may deceive us, but facts do not deceive. The technologies are developed based on causality. Then how can we deny causality.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Stefan,
I agree with you that a finished Boeing 747 is a totally unnatural event. This unnaturalness comes from the fact that some free will action has taken place. I will take this as a proof for the existence of free will.
Because of this unnaturalness, the event need not be repeated in any other Earth in our universe or other universes. However, if it repeats anywhere, the conditions would be identical to that of Earth (In my model of the universes, structures having freewill emerges during the middle period of expansion, and so any Boeing will emerge more or less at the same period of history of that universe.)
So in my opinion, the emergence of humans or human like structures having free will is predetermined in any universe (assuming that all universes are identical and made up of the same fundamental entities). But, our creations like the Boeing are not predetermined. It is a teleological event caused by our purposeful action. Nature allows such actions; we can say that such possibilities exist in nature.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Jose,
You are right, casuality works very well, but since it depends on its repetition over time, how can we consider it fundamental? it's not logically impossible that casuality stops working even tomorrow, since the only thing that we can say about it, is that it always works - till now. How about a casuality without time? Is then time more fundamental?
Bests, thank you for answering!
Francesco
Dear Fransesco,
As far as knowledge is considered, causality is fundamental. The only way available for us to understand nature is to search for the causal effects behind events. As far as nature is considered, the fundamental causal factors, not just causality, are the fundamentals. These include both time and space factors.
Jose P Koshy
Jose,
This is a nice essay. You are really simply arguing for logic. Your ideas should mesh very well with the Scientific Method. Your thinking reminds me a lot of the methodology used for proofs in mathematics and geometry.
I only have one minor disagreement with your thinking. When you describe dynamic/static, you argue that if something is not changing then it is impossible to determine if there are any governing laws. In engineering, we deal with this all the time. It is called "steady-state". It simply means that there are equal and opposing factors. So, if water is being added and withdrawn from a bathtub at equal rates, the water level in the tub will be constant but conservation of mass is the governing concept.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Dear Gary,
I would prefer to use the terms 'systems' and 'subsystems' for 'independent systems' and 'parts of systems' respectively. In my opinion, a system should be dynamic (in addition to other attributes given in the essay), but subsystems can be in steady-states (as in the example given by you). This steady-state exists as a consequence of the dynamic nature of the system to which the subsystem belongs. So I would say there is no disagreement between us in this case.
Regarding 'scientific method', there can be different shades of opinion. Can you just clarify your view?
Jose P Koshy
Jose,
Regarding the Scientific Method ... I was thinking that your methodology could be applied to the underlying hypothesis. Is the hypothesis a single entity that must be taken as a whole or can the hypothesis be broken into parts? For example, with Darwinism, are variation, environment, and competition part of the same entity or are they separate things?
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Dear Gary,
The view that there are some fundamentals is a reductionist approach to explain the whole. However the reduction need go only to the level that is required. The choice is arbitrary; the only criterion is that the fundamentals should be capable of explaining the whole completely.
If 'existence of life' is our field of study, and we all agree that Darwinism is the right approach, then Darwinism is fundamental; the disagreement is only on the application of Darwinism in each context. However, if we disagree with Darwinism itself, then we have to go further downwards, and identify fundamentals that may include factors other than variation, environment and competition.
When we come to the study of nature, we have to go to the very fundamentals that cannot be further divided. In other fields, we need not go to the very bottom level; the fundamentals in that field may be divisible further.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Jose P Koshy
Your statement "Why laws are mathematical". Newton's first law of motion is conceptual. No equation is involved. The second and third laws are mathematical.
Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf
Kamal Rajpal
Dear Rajpal,
The first law of motion is actually a mathematical statement regarding motion. It can be expressed as,
v 0 = v; and 0 0 = 0, that is, without any interference the speed 'v' and speed '0' does not change.
However, straight-line motion is the simplest form of motion, and so the law contains a 'conceptual part' regarding motion. Mathematically motion is a change in a variable; uniform increase or uniform decrease in the value of that variable is identical to uniform motion.
Generally, the first law is regarded as a 'concept' regarding bodies, rather than a concept regarding motion. So it follows that a body left to itself will either remain at rest or move along a straight line.
In my view, a real body made up of matter can neither remain at rest nor move along a straight-line, even if it is outside all external interference. Motion and gravity are fundamental properties of bodies, and its own gravity prevents the body from moving along a straight-line.
I will go through your essay within a few days.
Jose P Koshy
Dear Jose,
Here we are again all together.
I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.
«Any system is dynamic, quantized, finite and deterministic, is governed by mathematical laws, and always have some fundamentals based on which the system can be explained». This is my motto as well.
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
