The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Hi Stefan,

The equations and variables, that represent the laws of nature, can only represent mathematical relationships. What one can represent with Boolean and algorithmic symbols, that one CAN'T represent with equations is: 1) the logical organisation and global interconnection of information in a living thing; and 2) the free assignment of new numbers to variables in response to situations (if these new numbers have been assigned, then other numbers for other variables are changed due to passive law of nature relationships).

What this means is that there exists necessary, logical, interconnecting, free aspects of the world that we can only represent via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols. No matter what mathematicians do, it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature.

P.S.

No matter what mathematicians do (and no matter what complexity theorists do, with their ideas of "emergence"), it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature: this aspect was there all along, it is a foundational aspect of the world.

Unfortunately there is not much participation here on this site.

So it would be interesting (at least to me) to see an essay contest about the quest what the term "intelligence" does imply and what it doesn't imply.

Moreover, I asked myself (in my posts above) whether or not it is "intelligent" to take a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed where every thought and every inference a living thing makes (for example a human or an animal) is predetermined. If we take such a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed, then, whatever the "logical" reasons for this belief (or true "insight"?) may be, consistently and consequently these beliefs or insights then came about deterministically and unavoidably in such a (super-) deterministic world.

This then leads to a picture of living and thinking entities which are merely conscious "Zombies".

I assume that I am not such a Zombie and assume that I arrived at the conclusions and inferences mentioned above by intelligently using some Boolean Logics. Surely, if (super-) determinism is correct, then the assumption that I am not such a Zombie is merely an unavoidable result of determinism. Many followers of such a (super-) determinism would then say that thinking "I am not a Zombie" is proof enough that (super-) determinism is correct.

But for the case that it is correct, what about the statement "using Boolean Logics"? In a strictly deterministic world, no entity is able to use something to accomplish a certain goal - since every result is predetermined.

On the other hand human beings do sciences successfully in many cases. Their goals for doing sciences may be merely some gain in knowledge or even some inventions that make life better. Some scientist even may believe that there is a theory of everything existent that can - and WILL be discovered - by human beings at some point in time. How does this belief relate to the belief that everything (without exception) is predetermined? What one at least can answer to this question is that if the belief about determinism AND the belief of a theory of everything that will be discovered by the human mind at some point in time are both correct - then ultimate reality is doomed to become conscious about itself at some point in time.

By taking both above mentioned beliefs as realities, have we therefore foreshadowed the answer to the question where consciousness does come from and what it is? I think the answer is no, since we merely would have found a strong correlation between consciousness and the fundamental level of a deterministic world. Even more surprising in that case is that a deterministic world is destined to at some point in time deterministically producing some profound thoughts in the minds of the scientists that will be realized as the "theory of everything" (instead of writing "realized" we should better write "thought of as" since these thoughts of "realizing" something are also predetermined to be thought for these minds).

So do the terms "intelligence", "goals" and "consciousness" make at all sense in a deterministic world? If we take it for guaranteed that a deterministic world is doomed to become conscious about itself without any goal-oriented intelligence behind it that is much bigger than human intelligence, then it seems to me that the hypothetical scenario of a deterministic world that enforces the conscious "realization" of its deterministic character at some point in time without no reason other than taking it for guaranteed does not prove the existence of any intelligence but merely the lack of it.

Surely these thoughts of mine are predetermined in a deterministic world and therefore have no informative value. The main question therefore is what should count at all as some informative value in such a deterministic world - other than this world has to be considered deterministic? And how do we then discriminate the informative from the non-informative? If that discrimination is at all possible in such a deterministic world - does this discrimination necessarily needing some intelligence? But how can such a discrimination be possible at all when in such a deterministic world every thought is predetermined - independently of whether or not that thought contains some truth or not?

The determinists may answer that these truths are intricately correlated with each other (maybe via mathematics) such that their consistent and full formation in ones mind is unavoidable at some point in time. Hence we have another term, namely "truth", which enters the deterministic equation. But when asked "truth about what?" it becomes clear that "truth" must - deterministically - be considered as everything that supports that kind of deterministic world view and "falseness" must deterministically be everything that does not support this deterministic world view. From a logical point of view then the premise of a deterministic world does prove the result to be true and the result does prove the premise to be true. So the next question would be to ask if internal consistency of a scientific theory is enough to really inform us about the nature of ultimate reality and about how "intelligence" should be defined (and can it at all be defined in a deterministic world)?

Stefan,

First, one has to try to define the essential features of "intelligence". Otherwise, how would anyone know, or agree with, what one was talking about?

If one is claiming to describe the real world, then one needs to describe intelligence in terms of the symbolic language of physics and mathematics and, I would claim, in terms of the symbolic language and steps of computing (i.e. Boolean and algorithmic symbols). So Stefan, what terms are you going to use to describe "intelligence"? You need to use terms that connect "intelligence" to the real world.

I would claim that the essential features of intelligence are the ability to discern difference in the world, and the ability to analyse these differences, leading to "higher-level" information about the world. I.e. any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things; but, a basic level of intelligence is necessary and inherent in the world.

If one wants to claim that a significant level of "higher-level" information about the world existed at the beginning of the world, then that is a much more difficult thing to do; that is an impossible claim to make.

Hi Lorraine,

thanks for your reply.

You are correct, that's what I was after - what the term "intelligence" means, what intelligence is.

Assuming that there is a certain degree of "free will" in the real world, I am forced to conclude that one essential feature of intelligence is that whoever uses this intelligence, she/he has goals that it wishes to realize. Your goal was to answer me and tell me your point of view and where I may be wrong with my question and my conclusions.

I do not think that any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things. Living things do not use their intelligence all the time, and when not using it, they are still conscious ( for example laying in a deck chair and enjoying the sun). Moreover, an essential ingredient of intelligence is that there is some logic (Boolean logic!) in the world that hasn't been created by the human mind, but obviously is independent of it.

I indeed believe that a significant level of higher-level information about the world existed at the beginning of the world. Your surely are correct to deny this when one assumes that the world is governed by some eternally valid physical laws. That assumption is the reason why so many people feel forced to subscribe to materialism, because mathematical laws imply complete determinism and the lack of goals. The lack of goals then is aimed to be explained away by some "compatibilism" and other highly confusing terms.

My take on the whole issue of a complete determinism is that it only SEEMS that the "laws of physics" are "laws" that have the power to enforce some physical behaviour. This enforcement in my opinion is just a man-made invention of causes and effects, a man-made correlation.

One can solve the puzzle of correlations by assuming the existence of a more intelligent entity than humans are and say that not only this entity has created the regularities we see in nature, but this entity does sustain or interrupt these regularities simply by its will to realize a certain goal. This also implies that violations of these "laws of physics" are not impossible. One can imagine all this by thinking of that superior intelligence as permanently pressing a button (what then means "physical laws in region X behave according to our known equations"). It does not matter how such a "magical" commandment of this superior intelligence then factually translates into the material matter obeying such a command - since obviously it doesn't also matter how an abstract mathematical law should translate into the material matter obeying it. And if this does not matter, it also does not matter how the stopping of that button-pressing is then translated into the material matter (it may well be a "restart" of some chunks of matter according to some goal-orientation of that superior intelligence I spoke of to enable some new initial conditions for that chunk of matter).

I assume that you don't like the idea of a Christian"God". But anyway I think that this idea could solve some logical problems (meta-) physics has to deal with, especially the problem of determinism, intelligence, freedom of thought and the fact that living things are goal-oriented (at least most of the time). Last but not least, it also could answer the quest about the existence of consciousness within a sea of inanimate, "deterministically" behaving matter (or alternatively spoken within a sea of inanimate mathematical equations and symbols).

Believing in God (especially in the Christian God) is surely considered by many people not only as old-fashioned, but also as stupid - and highly unattractive. There are two components which people do not like about that belief:

Firstly, for believing in something, one needs some good reasons. I would agree. The barrier for these people in my opinion is nonetheless that they do not search for such good reasons since they think these aren't existent. They only search for good reasons against such beliefs. But there are plenty of resources out there that sum up the main prophecies in the bible and their fulfilment during the course of history. The best resource I know is from Roger Liebi who studied not only all the ancient languages, the archaeological findings and their impact on all the familiar arguments against what is described in the bible, but also uses all non-Christian, Jewish-Hebrew-writings (Talmud and others) to put the propositions of the bible into the historical context. So anyone who wants to get a deeper insight into these issues can read his books.

Secondly, believing in a Christian God surely necessitates that one has to review one's self-conception. I think that is the hardest part, since only few people are willing to honestly do that.

But that's it for now since I know that this website is not for discussing the contents, details and subtleties of Christianity. I just wanted to mention that it needs reasons to believe in Christianity the same way it needs reasons to believe in any other package of assumptions. And for understanding a package of assumptions, one needs to examine the whole thing.

Stefan,

I would say that we individual human beings, and the rest of the (temporary) individuals in the living and non-living world, are the intelligence, the consciousness, of the world. And also, we (temporary) individuals are what moves the world.

If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow. What exists is the world; you can only love what exists; you can only love the world. But what is love? Despite what some might say, we don't yet have the intellectual infrastructure to understand such a thing. As opposed to a religion, I think that panpsychism is a more reasonable view of the world.

Dear Lorraine,

"If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow."

Yes, I agree. No Christian is a sin-free person, no Christian stops to commit sins in his/her life just because he/she believes in what Christianity says. I would also agree that the existence of love and the meaning of its existence is not fully graspable by our intellectual infrastructure. Nonetheless it exists. What is piteous and heart-rending in my opinion is that the same is true for evil.

Moreover, it seems to me that panpsychism on the one hand suggests an evolutive component of intelligence and consciousness (and perhaps a deeper understanding of "love"), but on the other hand I see a downtrend of intelligence and consciousness at work since the two world wars. Today, we have to deal with economical warfare, ideological warfare, religious warfare, political warfare, warfare in families and so on. I think the apostle Paul described it correctly with his words in 2 Timotheus 3,1 - 3,6.

If you read 3,1 you will read "in the last days". That is always the term for end time. It began 1882 when the first Jews returned from Russia to their land from their worldwide dispersion. That time of return was always defined in the bible with the end time. It was a guy named Hitler with its evil plans that enabled these Jews to now have their land again, just as promised in the bible. You may want to think about that coincidence.

Today is election day in Germany. For what party should I vote? And will it have an impact on climate change? I don't know since before and after an election are two different stories. I try to vote wisely.

We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy, and their woolly-headed followers, are almost completely systems-illiterate.

1. Let's recap what a systems-illiterate physics gets so very wrong about the nature of the world:

Physics says that no matter what you do, whether you rape, pillage and murder, or you fly planes into the twin towers, no matter what you do, you couldn't have done otherwise because the laws of nature are causing your outcomes, you are not causing your outcomes.

No matter what the law courts might say, physics says that you couldn't have done otherwise. Physics says that you can't try to do something different, because that too would only be what the laws of nature cause you to do.

Physics says that it's the laws of nature that change every number for every variable; it's the laws of nature that have an effect on the world. Physics says that you personally have no effect on the world because physics says that you yourself can't assign the numbers for your own variables.

2. A systems-illiterate physics gets the nature of the world so very wrong because they've only got their equations. But there are ABSOLUTELY NO EQUATIONS that can, in any way, account for top-down causation by people or other living things.

Genuine top-down causation is the assignment of numbers to variables by people and other living things in response to situations. But you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to symbolically represent this type of system.

Hi Stefan,

I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is elected. The world lurches from crisis to crisis, but I don't think that there is any such thing as "last days". What is more the worry is that we "destroy the goose that laid the golden egg", i.e. we destroy the environment that sustains us.

Science and physics is about finding logical connections, via deductions and experiment.

For example, if our the initial assumptions about something are true and we choose the proper logical connections, the logical deductions that follow should be unambiguous and true. It is a bit like what Sherlock Holmes did so successfully. In this respect, a logical deduction of a truth leaves no room for alternatives, since (ultimate) reality - whatever it is - is true under all circumstances.

In other words, (ultimate) reality - whatever it is - cannot be true and false at the same time. If we accept this logical necessity, then all logical deductions that lead to some insights about (ultimate) reality are predetermined by the truth of that reality. In this respect, finding a certain truth about reality seems to be just like mathematics where 1+1 unambiguously equals 2.

At first sight, this seems to be good news for people that believe in a strict determinism of all of reality. However, we often do not know whether or not our initial assumptions are true nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality does allow the brains / minds of human beings figure out all "secrets" about ultimate reality Nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality allows some feasible experiments to decide certain questions. So we have at least three unknowns.

But if we assume that ultimate reality allows human beings to figure out what it is (and how it "works") we are left with the problem of how reliable our initial assumptions are that we used to start our deductions (and experiments) in the first place. If we additionally accept that all true deductions about ultimate reality are predetermined, we may be tempted to conclude that they all are "out there" and are within one's grasp. Some people that believe in a strict determinism then even may be tempted to think that they themselves are predetermined to find out some fundamental truths about ultimate reality, equalizing themselves with a deterministic process that is doomed to "calculate" these fundamental truths.

But if that strict determinism is indeed true, then all of our emotions, thoughts, deductions and conclusions are also strictly predetermined. Whether we nourish some stupid thoughts and conclusions about that reality or whether we nourish some highly intelligent thoughts doesn't matter in the framework of strict determinism, since every thought is predetermined. In this framework we then must state that the only difference between a stupid thought and an intelligent thought is that the latter has deterministically captured a truth about reality whereas the former hasn't.

But the crucial point here is that all these thoughts are not under our control, we have no power over them. A fortiori it is at the utmost remarkable to me that human beings can at all have logical thoughts within that deterministic framework. For example, according to a strict determinism, Alva Edison's conceptualisation of the carbon filament light bulb as well as the subsequent installations of all the electrical energy supplies around the world were simply predetermined by mindless physically deterministic acting processes.

The logical ambiguity that I identify with that strict determinism is that the latter is so suited for not only deterministically bringing about the countless huge scientific successes we see everywhere. Moreover, this strict determinism also let's us falsely conclude that we humans decided to start the adventure of science in the first place!

Within the framework of a strict determinism there is no entity to which one could ascribe a certain intelligence (because all thoughts, intelligent or stupid are predetermined). But IF we want to maintain that the world is logical - THEN we are forced to ascribe a certain intelligence to these mindless processes that brought about our huge scientific successes in the first place, since according to strict determinism these successes are at least partial truths about ultimate reality. MOREOVER, these mindless processes then (if the initial assumption of mindless deterministic processes is correct!) have enabled that we found out that they are mindless in the first place!

So are these strictly deterministic processes mindless or intelligent?

I hope that the ambiguity of taking that strict determinism for a fact now becomes clearer: a mindless ultimate reality at some point in time realizes with the help of logics and some human mind that it has to be considered as mindless - despite or even due to the huge "successes" of science ("successes" in quotation marks since that term has no meaning in a deterministic world where there are no goals to choose from)!

The ultimate last step of such a mindless process then may be that some scientists at some point in time may also conclude that what we call "consciousness" isn't really existent, but is just an illusion a mindless ultimate reality has about itself. Unfortunately for these scientist it can be predicted in my opinion that such a "logical" conclusion is incoherent - since illusions necessarily need some conscious subject to maintain them.

So my suspicion is that it could be really intelligent to accept that intelligence has some real power over the course of events in this world - as stupidity surely also has. Moreover, it seems to me that there must be an objective difference between intelligence and stupidity out there in the world - and not just in our minds like a strict determinism suggests! Remember, ultimate reality (whatever it is) cannot be considered to be true and false at the same time.

So my conclusion is that whatever ultimate reality is - it cannot be considered to be mindless at its very bottom, since otherwise we loose the distinction between intelligence (whatever it is) and stupidity (whatever it is) and the whole assumption of a strict determinism then looses its logical foundation right from the start.

"Statistics does not lie, but liars use statistics". We all know the adage. We should not conflate science with scientists. Science is the set of honest, singular truths of the reality we share with all living things. It has no agenda, it does not equivocate. To wit, you are not a science denier if you do not buy in to what even a group of "scientists" claim. Like the liar insisting correlation is causation after knowingly leaving out significant statistical dependencies that would weaken the desired conclusion, some pseudo scientists are more than simply over enamored with their simplistic models of complicated phenomenon, they want a particular conclusion more than the truth.

Antropocene or Chumpocene? Are we approaching critical mass on the number of people trained in universities to think emotionally instead of with intellectually honest critical rational thought? Why is this outcome so prevalent? No coincidence here. Emotional people are easily manipulated, rational people are more likely to push back when promoted ideas do not fully pass scrutiny. If there is a new epoch, will it be marked by the death of the scientific method?

Rick,

Isn't there something very wrong with the idea that a brainless mathematical system at the foundations of the universe can do all the things that only a human mathematician can do?

The fact is that people/ mathematicians are the MAIN COMPONENT of mathematics: people use special symbols; people differentiate (discern difference in) the special symbols; people manipulate the special symbols.

Clearly, if you want to have a STANDALONE system at the foundations of the universe, that can be represented by the symbols of mathematics and physics, then from the start, you also need symbols representing the system differentiating itself (discerning difference in its own equations, variables and numbers), and you also need symbols representing the system moving itself (assigning new numbers to the variables). The additional symbols are necessary if you want to extricate human beings from the system.

But it's not just the symbols, it's the recognition that there are additional, separate, but necessary, aspects of ANY system: 1) the aspect that differentiates (discerns difference); and 2) the aspect that moves the system.

We need additional symbols (Boolean and algorithmic symbols) in order to faithfully represent the world.

Hi Rick, you want to understand the human psychology you lol? good luck. We cannot generalise in fact simply, the emotions or feelings or thoughts are personal. The humans are complex and our sad common global past is a reality and so the adaptation is correlated like the education. Furthermore the vanity and the ego are also realities , all persuaded the humans about their philosophies, ideologies or others, and even they are persuaded to be the center of the universe and when you contredict them , they are for the majority angry and want to show their smart minds like a conpetition instead of a cooperation and give a lesson to satisfy this said ego. You understand this you ? me frankly I have difficulties , all wwe foollow a system general not universal, all we try to find our place and some have more chance than the others and this and that. Now it is the clothes and the wallet wich are prefered instead of this universal altruistic intelligence and consciousness. Andf the majority prefer to be followed instead to follow, have we a problem in the DNA, maybe and probably due to these interactions with our environments since many years of adaptations, so the encodings are correlated. Can we change, yes , is it difficult to change ? yes , can we imply choatical exponentials if we don t change? yes , can we harmonise all this and be more universal ? yes. The scientific method is on the road of death ? no . Regards

You seem to conflate reality and mathematics. The "system" is reality. The methodology by which we try to better understand this system is prescribed by mathematics and physics. The latter are secondary, not primary. There are no puppet masters "assigning new numbers" to the variables. From the physics we find that we can prescribe mathematical expressions that model dynamic situations, where we can predict progress say, over time, by continuously varying the variable representing time. I presume you took at least one mechanics class in the education you repetitively bring up, so this should not be foreign to you. Now I imagine you could find some people that self identify as physicists that would say math/physics is primary. Their view does not define physics, but they are welcome to their beliefs.

Rather than stating your opinion on the need for Boolean and algorithmic symbols repetitively, you could bring it home by describing one specific physical situation that can't be covered without them.

Steve, I think I have a good handle on the variability of human psychology through many years of observation. The dumbing down of our (at least, or perhaps most notable in the U.S.) young in the university systems is demonstrably real. The goal was once to teach kids how to reason, to think critically, to prepare them for solving difficult problems they will face later in life. By in large today, they are taught to put emotions first, and whatever logical/rational skills they brought with them are actively repressed and left to atrophy. They are conditioned to think they have been victimized if what they want does not come to them with minimal effort instead of instilling the need for personal responsibility and continuous personal improvement required to holistically improve the human condition. This is not limited to liberal arts majors, it is put forth in classes required for all students.

All of this is counter to the scientific method, so yes, it's future is in doubt. Nowhere is it more evident than in climate "science" and the touted "anthropocene".

E.g. "the anthropocene"

Rick,

In order to represent the physics of the world, people created and use special symbols (like equations, variables and number symbols); people differentiate (discern difference in) the special symbols; and people manipulate the special symbols.

In other words, PEOPLE are a major part of the system that attempts to symbolically represent the physics of the world. Despite physics experiments, the symbols used are only successful in representing the physics of the world because people discern difference in the symbols and people move the symbols.

I.e. these special symbols (e.g. the equations, variables and number symbols) do not represent a standalone system that is independent of people. If you want to represent a STANDALONE system, then you need to attempt to disentangle people from the system of representation. You can only do this by symbolically representing people's contribution to the system of representation.

So, in addition to the equations, variables and number symbols, you also need symbols representing the system differentiating itself (discerning difference in its own equations, variables and numbers), and you also need symbols representing the system moving itself (e.g. assigning new numbers to the variables).

We live in an age of computing. Computer programs have highlighted the need to use additional types of symbols (Boolean and algorithmic symbols) in order to symbolically represent a standalone system that discerns difference in itself and moves itself.

Rick,

Re "All of this is counter to the scientific method, so yes, it's future is in doubt. Nowhere is it more evident than in climate "science" and the touted "anthropocene"" [1]:

So are you saying that, despite the platitudes and PR of some equivocating physicists, what the hard-line ideas and equations of physics actually say is: that there is no Anthropocene; and that human beings have no influence on the climate, because the laws of nature are the cause of all outcomes?

Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I'm saying that there is SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE PHYSICS; there is nothing wrong with the people who say that there is an Anthropocene [2], and that humans are increasingly influencing the climate [3]. I'm saying that the world is such that human beings have literally changed the numbers for the variables, as opposed to the laws of nature changing all the numbers for all the variables.

1. Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 2, 2021 @ 15:46 GMT

2. "The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth's history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems." https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/anthropocene/

3."Humans are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth's temperature by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock. This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming." https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en