The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Hi Lorraine,

yes, i agree with what you wrote.

Some people believe in a strict determinism, some people believe that all of reality must completely be describable mathematically, some people believe in Panpsychism, some people believe in God.

What is common to all these beliefs is that there are no constructive methods to prove or disprove these beliefs, no methods that - if executed - could convince everybody from the truth / falsity of the above mentioned beliefs. When i say "there are no constructive methods" i do not merely mean that there could be methods, but these methods are practically impossible to execute. No, what i mean is that these "methods" do not exist in our universe, not even theoretically.

So we are talking about things that are undecidable in principle (at least in our known universe). Moreover we are talking about things about we do not know for sure whether or not they are counterfactuals: we only believe that we know whether or not they are counterfactuals. There may be good or less good reasons for believing in one thing and not in the other. In all cases nonetheless we can communicate what our reasons are.

My reasons for believing in some intelligence that created the universe are that there are things in the universe, distinct from death matter, that are able to confabulate about a lot of things (inclusively theology of course), especially about what death matter should be and whether or not death things are able to come alive if they are specifically orchestrated with the help of another death "thing" called mathematics.

Many of us ascribe some "intelligence" to mathematics since it "always knows the right answers" - independent of whether or not we humans also know these answers. If it where true that mathematics always knows the right answers, then it should also be able to answer the question whether or not the above mentioned beliefs are true or false.

I do not know in which sense mathematics could ever "know" the right answers to the question which of the above mentioned beliefs are true and which are false. Even by assuming an infinite landscape of mathematics, "knowing" something should need a consciousness that knows AND UNDERSTANDS all of the infinitely many mathematical interconnections that could determine whether the above mentioned beliefs are true or not. So, here we again are talking about something that does not exist, not even theoretically, namely that mathematics "knows" something.

For all these reasons i would consider it as intelligent to assume the existence of some higher intelligence that created our universe. A subset of such an intelligence could well be what we today call "the landscape of mathematics". But if you will, you can also consider the whole potential of that intelligence as equal with an infinite mathematical landscape. If such a conscious landscape would be infinitely complex, it reasonably wouldn't be anymore possible to reduce it to an infinite collection of its ingredients - since where should one even start and where should one end trying to do this? Therefore, decomposing an infinite landscape of mathematics is another fundamental impossibility and what we today call "mathematics" eventually is just a tiny lap of a much higher intelligence.

How long before the penny drops for physics, mathematics and philosophy, that you need to symbolically represent the information situation for entities (from particles to atoms to molecules to living things) as something like "Variable1=Number1 AND Variable2=Number2 AND ... AND VariableN=NumberN IS TRUE"? I.e., you need to use the AND symbol and the TRUE symbol, as well as the symbols representing variables and numbers, in order to represent a basic information situation.

Instead, these people religiously cling to their equations, and try to represent information via equations and similar symbols. These people religiously hold onto the lunatic idea that a brainless mathematical system at the foundations of the universe is doing all the things that only a human mathematician or physicist can do.

These people religiously hold onto lunatic ideas because the idea that you need to use AND and TRUE symbols and other Boolean and algorithmic symbols, to represent the world, means that the world is a very different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in.

These people claim that we live in the type of world where people were not responsible for flying planes into the twin towers: these people claim that it was the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.

Hi Stefan,

I just want to say that I think that believing in a God is not illogical. But believing in a God that interferes in the world, and keeps tabs on people, and rewards "good" people with eternal life is the bit that is illogical: that particular version of God was clearly created by people, because it is difficult to face our own mortality and the terrible things that happen in the world, and because we love and empathise with the world.

People and other living things have genuine abilities, and they have a genuine impact on the world. But the world is not mathematical in the exact sense of the word. Instead, clever people in the past created mathematical symbols, and other symbols like words and sentences, to represent and describe the nature of the world. Using mathematical symbols, and using word and sentence symbols, is a human activity, where the symbols should not be confused with the actual parts of the world that the symbols are supposed to represent. I contend that the knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world, i.e. the aspect of the world that discerns difference, can only be symbolically represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols, NOT equations.

Lorraine, my posts were deleted when the entire thread was dumped. My comments were directed to the inappropriate things you posted, FQXi agreed. Same thing happened to Georgina with her interactions with you.

You make my case on my characterization of your posts with your last here. I have never thought, nor written anywhere that physics should, let alone could explain choices people make. Not the role nor goal of mathematical physics. I have made it abundantly clear that free will is disjoint from physics. Indeed, you have even commented about it in a response post. Yet you comment here with certainty and condemnation that I believe but can't prove your false assumption. Strawman argument Lorraine?

Hi Lorraine,

thanks for your reply. I do not want to convert anybody here to certain theological positions. My example with the infinite landscape of mathematics was intended for the purpose to open up the reader's mind to the possibility of a higher intelligence than we little humans have, an intelligence that is conscious (in a way that cannot be compared to human consciousness) and that can create things for a certain purpose, not because it is forced by some meta-law to create it.

Therefore I want to say something more about my example with the infinite landscape of mathematics. Max Tegmark once said

"My guess is that the subjective experience that we call consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways, and I feel I'm kind of forced into guessing this from the starting point that I think it's all physics."

Apart from the dichotomy whether it's all physics or all mathematics, if we believe in Tegmark's infinite mathematical landscape and consciousness approach, then that landscape is able to discriminate between it's parts such that some parts cannot be physical, and other parts can. Moreover, some subset of the latter can become conscious, other subsets can't.

But that would be not all to it. Furthermore these conscious subsets are able to believe that they are such subsets (without being able to know this for sure!). Moreover, they also are able to not believe what Tegmark believes. They are even able to tell lies about each and everything they like to lie. They have emotions of love, passion, hate, fear, happiness and so on and they have different high held values that lead them to define various specific goals during their lifes.

Now notice that Tegmark believes that subjective experience is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways. Thus, he thinks that this infinite mathematical landscape is somewhat informative about a certain fact. About what "fact"?

The answer is about

"consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways"

and one can say with confidence that what Tegmark here calls "information" isn't information in the usual mathematical sense, since that would mean that Tegmark would KNOW with certainty that

"consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways"

But Tegmark only believes this (guesses it) and no Turing test can ever confirm that complex information processing does indeed lead to what we call consciousness. No Turing test can ever confirm that an AI machine made some conscious decicions based on some subjective values followed by some subjective goals and actions.

If "complex information processing" leads to consciousness, then this processing informs itself about the fact that "complex information processing leads to consciousness" - merely by the very fact that consciousness exists! But wait a minute, does it really inform us of what Tegmark has stated above? If it where so, Tegmark hadn't to guess it, but he would know it - and all the other people too: hence, there is nothing within human conscious experience that makes a true statement that says about this conscious experience that it is "complex information processing".

So what "complex information processing" obviously isn't capable of doing in-principle is to logically inform us that it truly leads to consciousness. The whole issue of

"consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways"

only comes about when one couples an infinite mathematical landscape (an unknown!) in one's subjective mind with the very fact that consciousness exists (a known thing!). The fact that "i think and therefore i am" is indeed a kind of information, but it really does not contain nor imply what Tegmark searches for, namely that "complex information processing leads to consciousness".

It is true that at the very moment, i am thinking about these things and this could be termed as a kind of information processing. It is also true that at the very moment i am conscious. But my thinking evolves around unknowns, about believes, and therefore does not process information, but unknowns. Moreover i am also conscious when i am NOT thinking about something (logically or illogically) and when i am not processing some "information" but merely enjoy some nice moments, for example lying in a deck chair and enjoying the sun.

If some mathematical patterns are able to produce consciousness, then nowhere within that pattern we could find something that would alone be responsible for such a production. Only the entire "pattern" could inform us - if at all - of such a responsibility, since only the entire pattern would be different from what we usually think about an unconscious mathematical pattern. Every piece of that pattern would be needed to make up consciousness.

The same would be true for an infinite mathematical landscape that provisionally could be partly equated with what we call "God". Only the whole landscape would be able to reveal the deeper truth about this landscape. Since we can never grasp an infinite mathematical landscape, we are not in the position to know what this landscape really is (and is capable of). If parts of it are capable of producing consciousness, the whole landscape may be capable of many more surprises. Maybe the whole infinite landscape can be subsumed by that God to merely one single huge statement about the potential of that God (God as the word), similar to the possibility that the unknown mathematical pattern Tegmark assumes to be existent then would simply state "i think and therefore i am conscious".

I am not advocating for a God that can purely be equated with mathematics (whatever the latter may be), even not with some infinite mathematics. But i think the mathematics of infinity can nicely illustrate some things that are impossible by humans, but not by God. That's the whole point i wanted to make with my lengthy post. I rather believe that God transcends infinite mathematics and all kinds of available logics like boolean, paraconsistent, modal logic and even non-consistent logics and harmonizes them in ways we cannot grasp with only human logic at hand. And i think that it is not at all unreasonable since from time to time i ask myself who are we to believe that we can know everything in that vast cosmos? And who am i to decide whether or not we can some day? I can only believe some things, not know all things.

If someone is such eager to know all the answers to all these meta-physical questions, i think there is no other way than believing in some God and an afterlife where there could be a fair chance to obtain all desired truths. Due to the in-principle impossibilities i mentioned in my earlier post i really do not believe that all these interesting questions can be answered within the system we live in. It would necessitate a view from outside the system to do this and the only possibility that this could be feasible is when our world isn't a causally closed system, but also equipped with some causa finalis that reflects that this world has been created according to some purpose. Self-evidently this would then raise some theological questions that should not be discussed here. The main point is merely that if you want to have a chance to know all the answers, you really need to believe in an afterlife and also think about the purpose of life ("theological questions") and why we have the palette of emotions we have (instead of simply being emotionless conscious computers).

Rick,

Re: "I asked you here to provide a real world example of some physics problem that is not adequately addressed by mathematical equations, that needs if...then logic. Instead of doing so, you just repeat the same gibberish over, and over, and over, and..... A concrete example would go a long way towards communicating what you are getting at. Your present efforts are not getting it done.":

Physics says that we live in a type of world where:

(1) The laws of nature, and sometimes "quantum randomness", are responsible for changing all the numbers for all the variables for matter; and (2) This is somehow a type of perpetual movement machine.

But I'm saying that we live in a type of world where:

(1) Matter assigns new numbers to some of its own variables, whereby other numbers are passively changed due to the laws of nature; "passively" changed because both the laws of nature and numbers are mere relationships; numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; and (2) Matter actively assigning a few numbers is the only movement in the whole system.

In other words, physics says that the laws of nature were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers, but I am saying that:

(1) People were genuinely responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers; and

(2) Matter/ living things assigning new numbers to variables in response to situations can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Rick,

I've got a copy of seemingly almost every post that was removed. I never posted inappropriate comments as such. At various times, I merely strongly criticised what is clearly a male view of the world, held by male physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers; and my criticism is based on the proportion and numbers of male persons that hold certain TYPES of views about the world. And re Georgina: I'm guessing that she is so mixed up about physics and mathematics because she never studied physics or mathematics; however, she has apparently written a book on the subject of time. English is her native language, so I must admit that I got a bit upset about her lack of attention to the detail of spelling and grammar.

I never mentioned "free will" or "choices". I only mentioned "free will" as a way of replying to you and Stefan.

I have replied to your other issues below.

Stefan,

I think that we are not really in a position to speculate about a "God". This is not to deny the possibility that something that could potentially be described as a God exists. But I don't think that there is a higher meaning to things, higher than the meaning (or lack of meaning) that living things already experience in their lives; there is just the reality of the world; the tragedy and the beauty of life is unavoidable; we, and other living things, individually experience it. The important thing is to try to stop being so self-centred, so worried about self, and so human-centred: its unbalanced.

But religion is one of the problems: there is the very worrying view that people should be attempting to religiously follow words written by people, seemingly living in dirt huts, that lived hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Sorry, but I think we will not be in a position to seriously speculate about a "God" until we sort out fact from fiction when it comes to the physics of the world.

(continued)

Re the physics of the world:

As you mention, the ability to "discriminate between it's parts" is an issue. You can't symbolically represent "discriminat[ion] between it's parts" with equations, you can only use equations to represent relationships.

This "discriminat[ion] between it's parts" aspect is the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information aspect of the world that is experienced by agents: it can't be represented by equations.

Re "But my thinking evolves around unknowns, about believes, and therefore does not process information, but unknowns.":

Clearly, "unknowns" are the result of a more advanced form of information processing, undertaken by agents that have the appropriate structures (brains). But the physical aspect of the brain (representable by equations, variables and numbers) is clearly not the same as the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information/ creative aspect (representable by Boolean and algorithmic symbols, variables and numbers). It's clearly not the same because you need to use different types of symbols to represent it. But you will notice that physics tries to claim that equations, variables and numbers are sufficient to represent everything.

What happened to the edit? NOT stereotypical.

Hi Lorraine,

thanks for your reply. Indeed, it is important trying to sort out facts from fiction. I totally agree.

But I would like to apply that also to what you call "physics". All we have in physics are patterns. Mathematical patterns and patterns of behaviour. And we have explanations that use terms (symbols) which point to things that we not really understand, for example "particle", "energy", "time", "space", "information", "number". In this sense we permanently handle partial unknowns - and thanks to the fact that these terms relate to the external world via patterns that everybody can see and prove to be existent - we are in the situation to calculate with them and get reliable results, although we are calculating with partial unknowns.

This calculating with partial unknowns surely can and does also happen when the brain processes internal information, means when it examines beliefs, hence unknowns, to find out their truth values. It is surely true that these "unknowns" are not the same as "nothing", they are not placeholders but surely can be understood as codifications, as high level symbols. It is also true that in my example with Galileo Galilei, for coming to his result he had to use some physical terms (symbols) like for example force and weight that had not been internal confabulations of his brain, but did come to him from the external world. But force and weight are mainly quantitative measures of something he at his time couldn't further specify, and in this sense they had been unknowns for him. Nonetheless he arrived at the correct result.

Leaving aside scriptures about God, we can surely think about what the possible consequences could be if such a God did exist. We can do this in the same way as for example thinking about what the consequences would be if the universe would be infinitely old (as some people believe).

If we for example scribble a time-line on a paper with a point somewhere on it that symbolizes our present (here and now), then for a universe that is infinitely old (always existed) this time-line is infinite in the left direction (in the past direction). We now can ask if such a belief in an infinite linear time does make sense or not. If we would like to trace this line from our present back to the left, we logically couldn't come to any starting point of that time-line since it continues infinitely long to the left.

If we now additionally think that this universe and everything in it evolves according to strictly deterministic laws and causes, then - as a matter of fact - at the point on our scribble (our present) parts of the matter in that universe deterministically formed our known patterns (humans, planets, suns). But how can that be, since a strictly deterministic chain of events necessarily had to have needed an infinite amount of time to arrive at our present moment - and therefore we and our world logically could never exist? The only answer I know to this is that in such an infinite universe there would be surely no single distinguished point where our present had to happen on that infinite time line, but there had to be infinitely many such points: in other words there had to have happened infinitely many exact copies or our known universe in such an infinite past. Including the exact copies of you and me with the exact same conversations.

One now can believe that this is the scenario that really describes the course of events in our universe - or one can decide to drop one of its assumptions, either that strict determinism is all there is to explain all events or that time is something that did exist always in the past. Surely, when doing such a line of reasoning, I have to operate also with "knowns" and not only with unknowns. For example I must assume that what mathematics says about infinities is true, complete and reliable. And I must interpret the term "time" such that causes are always prior to their effects.

IF I now would additionally bring in what your main point is - on which I agree with you -

namely that

"This "discriminat[ion] between it's parts" aspect is the consciousness/ knowledge/ logical/ information aspect of the world that is experienced by agents: it can't be represented by equations."

THEN I would conclude that I at least had to drop the assumption that strict determinism is all there is to explain all events in the world.

But there will be people that do not agree with you for several reasons. Let's only focus on those people that do not agree because they believe in the above mentioned strict determinism. For me it is logical that they then had to drop the assumption that time is something that did exist always in the past - IF they do not agree that a universe that is infinite in time has already produced infinitely many copies of our universe and will proceed to do so (no escape here for people that believe in a "Big Freeze" of our universe in the future, since in an infinitely old deterministic universe that already must have happened and that would be in contradiction with our present facts).

There are quite a lot of IF...THENs in my considerations. So here is another one:

IF human thinking and consciousness is exclusively only the result of deterministic physical processes, THEN only some complex "information" processing (brains) can use IF....THEN logics to determine the consequences of some unknowns. But wait a minute, according to that strict determinism, already all mechanical parts of what you have called the "perpetual movement machine" act according to that IF...THEN logics, since they are thought of as permanently determining the consequences of some unknowns. The unknowns are the "numbers", or likewise the positions and momenta etc. Neither these mechanical parts know these values, nor do humans know these values. Hence, what these mechanical parts do does not depend on any knowledge. But nonetheless, IF position and momentum of X is such and position and momentum of Y is such, THEN A and B happens if both meet.

Now the strict determinist would say, wait another moment: for all the mechanical parts there isn't really such an IF...THEN in our world, since whatever these mechanical parts have done in the past and will do in the future, all this is completely determined - and consequently also all my lines of reasoning and the accompanying emotions I have.

I say IF that would be so, THEN the assumption that

"only some complex "information" processing (brains) can use IF....THEN logics to determine the consequences of some unknowns"

must be false since there wouldn't be any "IF....THEN logics" anywhere, not even in the human brain. The contradiction here is that one can come to that conclusion by directly using that "IF... THEN logics.

Notice that the reason for that contradiction is that we can handle counterfactuals as if they where facts. Galileo did this and we can too. Now, a counterfactual in my brain is not only a counterfactual, but also a fact - since it is in my brain. So we can simulate something as if it where real, whereby the simulation is indeed real. So a strictly deterministic world then is able to simulate some things AS IF they would be parts of that world - but aren't. In fact, that's what brains do strikingly often.

The crucial point now is in my opinion that this behaviour of brains obviously is goal oriented - by using counterfactual simulations brains try to determine some facts, they try to sort fictions from facts. Therefore the big question is why a strictly deterministic world at some point in time aims to know what are facts about itself and what are fictions. If one assumes a strict determinism to be true, then brains are part of that. Why should these brains trying to sort out fictions from facts, something that must be considered as goal-oriented? All this happens in an assumed-to-be deterministic world where it is believed that there cannot exist any goals at all in it.

Dear strict determinists, please do not confuse natural selection (survival etc.) with your strictly deterministic world to explain why brains try to sort out facts from fictions, since within the framework of strict determinism, natural selection (survival etc.) with all its effects that have happened in the past was strictly determined: it can only be furthermore interpreted as a selection process if one would bring in some (goal-oriented) conspiratorial elements that aimed to make that selection process happening at the very beginning - and hence would necessitate such a beginning (initial conditions etc.). Or one is forced to believe in the above mentioned universe that is infinite in time and therefore has enough time to assemble anything that is physically possible in principle - infinitely often.

So the next questions are: is there any evidence for or against such an infinite deterministic time-line? If the world is strictly deterministic, then neither particles nor human beings need any knowledge to be what they are and to act like they do.

Why is there nonetheless some knowledge existent and what does it mean that it nonetheless exists? If it's existence only means that it exists, then also the existence of a strict determinism only means that it exists, what amounts to the conclusion that everything really means nothing - what would be another astonishing piece of knowledge possible in our universe.

If everything means nothing then there are no reasons to stick to any kind of world view. Nonetheless people don't stop to stick to world views, not even strict determinists. So obviously these world views mean something to them such that they can't skip them: they stick to counterfactual meanings and at the same time affirm that counterfactuals have no place in the world!

(continued)

I am in the mood to make a tiny continuation of my previous post.

For everybody who has read that previous post an thinks that the people who believe in a strict determinism and find that world view meaningful - albeit at the same time affirming that the term "meaning" has no fundamental place in a deterministic world (only a relative one, if at all) - are simply forced by the deterministic courses of events to think so, I would reply the following:

Wouldn't your objection MEAN that your deterministic world view is a consistently closed system? Wouldn't your objection MEAN that this consistently closed system is somewhat self-explanatory?

I would answer both questions with YES.

BUT I nonetheless would object the world view of a strict determinism for the following reasons:

Firstly, we know that there can be constructed many systems that are logically consistent, but this does not mean that each and every such system must be non-counterfactual. Not every consistent system can be automatically considered as being able to describe all of reality.

Secondly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that a strict deterministic world, populated with some conscious computers (humans), plays out its deterministic movie AS IF there would indeed be some deeper meaning behind that movie? Isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that every detail of that movie is logically ordered such that there are different levels of description that are switched from time to time when the movie for example shows natural selection at work, or chemical reactions, or encodings of symbols and complex data processing?

Thirdly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that some conscious computers (humans) within that movie begin to think about that movie and like to understand what they see?

Fourthly, isn't it somewhat MEANINGFUL that points 1-4 are POSSIBLE at all? Even a universe that is infinite in time is not forced by anything to make points 1-4 POSSIBLE, so the hard-core deterministic story goes.

So, if a multiverse, or a single infinite universe is nonetheless forced to make points 1-4 possible, what could these forces then be? And if it is not forced to make points 1-4 possible, how then can one explain points 1-4 being FACTS?

A strict determinism can only answer that these FACTS cannot be explained, since there are no reasons at all existent for that to happen. Strict determinism only can shrug it's shoulders to that question or declare it as being meaningless.

Effectively that declaration amounts in declaring everything as being meaningless: consequently everything means NOTHING. But nothing can only come from nothing, whereas something can only come from something.

So where did our world came from - and does that world exist at all? Of course it exists and it didn't came from nothing. But strict determinism nonetheless argues AS IF it came from nothing, in the same sense that a strict determinist believes he came from nothing and will end up in nothing. If true, his world view also means NOTHING. Because in the absence of any consciousness, although there may be everything (except consciousness), no one would know this and hence there also could be absolutely nothing.

BUT: there is not nothing and there is not everything, there is "only" something. I consider that as a mystery.

Like followers drawn into a cult, little do those young people who love physics know that they are buying into a view of the world in which it was the laws of nature that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers, NOT people that were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.

As Rick Lockyer has made clear, an arrogant male dominated physics proclaims to the world that it was the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature, that flew the planes into the twin towers.

Oh yes, the physics PR b**llsh**t is that people did it.

But the actual physics, that these arrogant men religiously believe in, says that the laws of nature are responsible for every number outcome for every variable.

Rick,

I didn't make clear in the above post [1], but I have repeatedly said ad nauseam, that in the real world there are relationships, categories and numbers which we symbolically represent by equations, variables and number symbols. But I often just say equations, variables and numbers as a shorthand, because otherwise the whole thing just gets a bit unwieldy.

I'm saying that:

(1) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the world that discerns difference in the equations, variables and numbers; and

(2) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the world that assigns new numbers to variables in response to situations that are discerned (e.g. a higher-level situation might be that a tiger is approaching, and there are trees and cars nearby),

can only be symbolically represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

.....................

1. Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 11, 2021 @ 21:17 GMT

Stefan,

Sorry, but I don't think that there is any greater meaning than the meaning (i.e. subjective experience, and philosophy of life) that individual living things experience. I mean that there is no greater purpose to the world, there are no greater lessons for people to learn than what they are already learning. I give credence to the lives of people, and other living things, in that they experience genuine tragedy, and beauty, in their lives. Nothing, no afterlife, no God, can compensate for tragedy and wrongdoing. I give credence to the lives of individual people and individual living things: if you will excuse me for saying so, we are not pawns in the game of a higher being. Instead, if there is a God, then we (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) are all a part of this thing.

But I'm agreeing with you that there are aspects of the world that physics can't represent with equations, variables and numbers.

I'm saying that these aspects of the world are 100% necessary in order for the world to function as a system; and that these aspects of the world can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Obviously, this type of world is a VERY, VERY different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in.

P.S.

But I agree that: "there is not nothing and there is not everything, there is "only" something. I consider that as a mystery.". However, I would say that we (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) are all a PART of this mysterious thing: we are not a PRODUCT of this mysterious thing.

Hi Lorraine,

thanks for your reply.

I am happy that you agree with me on that mystery that I mentioned.

In my opinion it is worth to examine this mystery a little bit more, what I will do here.

As I already mentioned, a strictly deterministic view of the world can be considered as being "self-explanatory". Everything in such a world follows necessarily from something other.

But such a strictly deterministic world cannot explain why it exists at all. Its mere existence does not (at least not obviously!) follow necessarily from something other. Therefore it cannot explain why itself is at all possible to exist.

So, although some consistent systems like strict determinism are "self-explanatory" by virtue of their internal consistency, their explanatory power must break down at a certain limit (just like General Relativity).

Consequently, no self-consistent system, defined as strictly deterministic, can determine the answer to the question why such a system is possible in the first place. Notice that strictly deterministic systems can only handle necessities, but not possibilities. Logics is at the border of being able to somewhat handle both.

Consequently, if we do NOT assume something to be existent that is responsible for the existence of such a deterministic world, then asking what's the reason for the existence of this world is surely an illogical question.

But the assumption that our world exists for no reason at all is equal to assuming that this world either came out of literally nothing - or factually existed eternally in the past.

However, it must be noticed that both assumptions are somewhat illogical: Whenever something can come from nothing, then everything can come from nothing, even the contrary. And whenever something existed forever for no reason, then it cannot be excluded by some logical arguments that it is impossible for it to vanish into literally nothing in a blink of an eye for no reason at all.

Thus, the intermediate result so far is that logics breaks down when we do not consider logic as something that is superior to all the existing rest, but consider it as being just a mysterious part of all the rest. Now let's proceed.

Let's assume that logics IS NOT superior to all the rest but simply a part of our world and nothing more - a contingency amongst other contingencies.

Then consequently the "self-explanatory" system of strict determinism wasn't determined to exist by anything at all. This in turn amounts to saying that literally its existence was determined by NOTHING. So it can also vanish into literally NOTHING at every point in time.

The logical problem here is that with denying any reasons for a self-consistent system to be existent, one introduces a severe logical inconsistency, because logics as we know it is such a system.

Furthermore, since in a world that is not logical, everything as well as nothing can come from literally nothing and also can vanish into literally nothing, this is EQUAL to an inconsistency. Since we know that from inconsistencies everything can follow, there is no real reason to believe that everything should follow from some logical deductions necessarily all the time without exceptions (means, it could then also only possibly follow from such deductions, but must not do so).

The next intermediate result therefore is, that if we do not consider logics as superior to the mantra of "deterministic information processing", then we can put a lot of our "knowledge" about the world into question - because inconsistent systems can disprove a lot of what we at this point in time derived by virtue of science with the help of "logics".

This tells me that denying any existent reason for why there is "something" instead of literally nothing OR why there is "something" instead of literally everything (everything one can imagine for example) is simply illogical.

Now, I arrived at these conclusions via logics. The conclusion is that the question about the reason for the existence of our world can be defined as being illogical. Because logics simply breaks down at this limit. But it is assumed to hold when we do not touch this limit, means within the boundaries of known science.

Sentence 1): So, logics within the boundary of science is logical for no reason, whereas logics beyond the boundary of science is illogical for no reasons.

Wow - could this be the whole story? Unfortunately, I don't think so. Because assuming what I wrote in sentence 1) is just an AD HOC ASSUMPTION, not a proven fact.

What are the consequences of all of that?

Either existence is illogical and senseless at its very foundations (means it has NO "foundations"), or it is logical at its very foundations (means it has some logical foundations).

Sentence 2): Obviously, something can either be (considered as) logical or (considered as) be illogical depending on what one assumes!

But wait a minute! Has sentence 2) been drawn by the power of logic or by the power of illogics? Or is the answer to that question simply "that depends on you only!"? I would say yes to that question, as illogical as it sounds at first glance. For me it could indicate that humans obviously have a degree of "free will" that enables them to even define logics as illogical and vice versa.

With that we are approaching the limits of human logics. At least we can say that human logics is possibly not what it seems to be. It possibly can transcend the deterministic system of ordinary logics and touch a realm about I would say that it cannot any more be precisely determined within a deterministic system, but only outside of it.

I further would say that our best physical theory today, quantum mechanics with its somewhat weird consequences may not be such weird when having touched the limits of logics as I did so far.

Please notice Lorraine, that the main point you always wanted to make, namely that there is a striking inconsistency between a physical description of a reality of deterministically evolving "numbers" and the dichotomy of a certain degree of "free will" in conscious agents only proves your conclusion (according to the standards of human logics) that

"this type of world is a VERY, VERY different type of world to the type of world that physics, mathematics and philosophy claim we live in"

to be LOGICAL - WHEN you ASSUME that logics is logically reliable independent of being applied within the boundaries of science or beyond the boundaries of science.

IF you do not assume that logics is somewhat superior to the existence of all the rest, THEN it is NOT logically guaranteed that the point you want to make tells us some TRUTH about the world. Because when logics isn't universally reliable, then it may well be that humans use IF....THEN logics all the time - BUT for no LOGICALLY explainable reason at all and therefore your arguments do not prove anything!

In other words, you can only deduce with logical certainty what you want to deduce if you accept that some kind of deeper logics is superior to all the physical equations, all the maths and all the IF....THEN conditionality. But this can not be guaranteed by only the AD HOC assumption that logics is reliable within the boundaries of science whereas it does not need to be reliable beyond the boundaries of science.

Surely, nonetheless this could be the case. But in my opinion it would be an AD HOC argument, equivalent to the ad hoc argument that asking for a deeper explanation of existence is illogical.

Hence, you can only deduce with logical certainty what you want to deduce if you accept something that has been termed as LOGOS - even if we humans cannot understand this logos completely.

It is known that when a system reaches its limits of applicability, the results become somewhat ambiguous at first glance, since these results cannot be captured by the old framework unambiguously. I would say that quantum theory is such an application at the limit of a strictly deterministic framework and it points to something beyond it that at first glance may seem equally fuzzy than a precise distinction between logics and illogics. Both ambiguities in my opinion point to something not yet fully known and understood.

Of course, it may also point to an abyss whose borders say that beyond these borders, there is no more knowledge existent, because beyond these borders there isn't any more anything existent. NOTHING. But as I tried to explain, the consequences would be that there would be no logos, no guarantees that our "deductions" really can and do deduce some truth.

What I further tried to do with this in turn lengthy post is to examine what consequences an illogical world would have, compared to a logical one. Here we have to stick and to work with what we have, namely human logics, even if stressed to its limits.

(continued)

I like to make one point from my previous post clearer.

When I say that there are no guarantees that your deduction really can and does deduce what you believe it deduces - and when I say that

"it may well be that humans use IF....THEN logics all the time - BUT for no LOGICALLY explainable reason at all and therefore your arguments do not prove anything!"

it has to be understood as follows:

Your correct observation that there is IF....THEN procedures existent, that these procedures can nowhere be found in our scientific theories - although these theories claim to be complete and consistent - only leads to the deduction that these theories aren't really complete and consistent when you stick to all necessary logical steps to be able to obtain that result.

If you do not stick to all these steps, your result will be non-conclusive.

Non-conclusiveness - for example by having used a false assumption - in your case means the following:

The equations of our current theories do not use IF....THEN procedures, whereas such procedures are nonetheless part of the real world (human thinking and behaviour, "free will"). This indicates that the real world is in opposition to what physics and its equations say about the real world - therefore there is something wrong with what physics says about the real world.

So far so good. But if you assume that the logics you used to come to your result must be considered as something that exists - for no reason at all, in the same sense that the existence of our universe, its beauty, our emotions and imaginations would have no reason at all - then there may be nothing wrong with what physics says about the world and there may be nothing wrong with what you say about "free will".

The only thing that is then wrong - for the case that logics isn't universally applicable due to the (assumed!) lack of a deeper meaning of its existence - is that it cannot be any more excluded that two mutually exclusive things can simply be possible to exist in such an illogical world: namely that what you say (we have "free will") and what physics says (we have no "free will") are both TRUE.

I hope I made it clearer with that post where I see the weakness in your arguments and where I would see the power in your arguments.