The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

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

Lorraine, you put forward a false binary choice. If one does not buy into the "anthropocene", it does not mean they subscribe to the position physics and mathematics says everything is deterministic through their application, that free will does not exist. My personal opinion is that every sentient being has the ability to make spot good or bad choices, and free will has no place in a physics discussion.

As for the "anthropocene", first some personal background. I spent nearly 20 years of my engineering career designing microprocessor based meteorological monitoring systems and sensors. Serious stuff, not hobbyist. Our customers were U.S. and international government agencies. I have visited the NOAA/NWS Test and Evaluation Center in Sterling VA more times than I can remember, proving my designs met their requirements and talking to everyone from climate scientists to field technicians in my capacity of VP of Engineering. During this time period from the 1980's through the turn of the century, I developed a very good understanding of the metrology of meteorological monitoring, and relevant history since I lived it and was part of it. This time period coincides with the knee and sharp increase of the hockey stick response in what is called "global air temperature" used to scare people with impending doom.

Prior to the 1980's, governments paid human observers to make synoptic (hourly on the hour) measurements of various meteorological phenomena. This was becoming a budget issue. The 1970's brought on the microprocessor, and in the early 1980's this technology advanced to the point where it became possible to replace the costly human observations with data collection by automated microprocessor based systems. Unlike the human who would not dare leave his thermometer outside in the elements, for cost reasons the automated systems were located full time out in the open so they could measure wind speed and direction without adverse impact from nearby structures. This means all sensors were subject to the worst conditions Mother Nature could dish out, a non-trivial design challenge I will let you know from experience. For air temperature sensors, there was a daily issue of solar radiation heating of the sensor body. This was thought about early on, and to mitigate it, sensing elements were well insulated from the warm up of the structure, and air was drawn in to the element with a fan, a so called "aspirated" sensor. The rub with this is the lack of reliability of the fan over time and weather extremes, leading to high maintenance costs from replacement, and lack of potentially critical data when the sensor was flagged as "missing" since accuracy could not be assured when the fan was inoperable. So once again for budgetary reasons, weather services transitioned to a no moving parts air temperature sensor. I wanted a piece of that action badly, but was told by NWS insiders they wanted a larger company that could logistically handle the field replacement requirements of the solicitation. From reliable inside information I can tell you the skew in the measurements as compared to the "golden" aspirated standard sensor for the vendor fly off was very comparable to the scare "global air temperature" increase to the point we cannot reverse so called human-caused climate change. Now these measurements were from colocated sensors making readings at exactly the same time. Let that sink in if you will before I give you my feelings about the concept of a "global air temperature". Also understand the solar radiation measurement bias is one sided, to the higher temperature side.

There are not enough ground based meteorological monitoring systems providing "ground truth" to come up with any more than a qualitative wet finger in the air approximation of something you could call "global air temperature". Satellites have coverage but measure radiation that has escaped the atmosphere, thus not the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. You might be able to wave your hands and back into some "space truth" (inside joke) indirect "global air temperature" and ignore the fact that indirect measurements dilute accuracy and are endangered by the correlation is not causation dilemma due to missing/ignored/unappreciated facts. Through hubris and arrogance, climate scientists could anoint something as some doable algorithm with available data today, and say that is what they will go with to measure human influence, but how could they possibly put real error bands on the estimate? And what of them talking out of the other side of their mouth with exaggerated certainty about "global air temperature" prior to the better data being available, or any data for that matter going back further in time? Error analysis is important if your goal is the truth, and is inconvenient if the goal is influencing behavior you believe, but can't scientifically prove, is more than perhaps sub-optimal but is actually harmful.

I do not think there has been a scientific endeavor more politicized than climate science. Global climate is a very complex problem, and is addressed currently with relatively simplistic models with conclusions that lack rigor. The "ends justify the means" lack of candor, honesty if you will, overstating the certainty about conclusions put forth to scare the emotional and uninformed into change is shameful and distant from the doctrines of the scientific method.

Hi Lorraine and rick,

Dear Rick, I understand what you tell about the educational system and others, regards.

Numbers are the exact issue that physics refuses to face:

1. What is a real-world number? Physics can't tell you, though an awful lot of physicists seem to believe in abstract Platonic entities. Yes, that's correct: hard-line, hard-nosed physicists believe in abstract Platonic entities, NOT real-world explanations for numbers.

2. Why do the real-world numbers change? Physics can't tell you what a system is; physics can't tell you why a system moves; physics can't tell you who or what is assigning new numbers to the variables/ "jumping" the numbers.

All physics has got is a set of fixed relationships between categories, known as the laws of nature, but physics is pretty hazy about the details of how the laws are supposed to work. Nevertheless, physics is adamant that it's NOT people or other living things changing any of the numbers for the variables; i.e. physics is adamant that people don't have any genuine effect on the world; physics is adamant that people don't have genuine agency.

Rick,

"Free will has no place in a physics discussion" ONLY IF free will has no effect on the world.

You are seemingly saying that people and other living things can have no genuine effect on the world.

In other words, you are seemingly saying that:

-- The physics of the world is such that people could have no influence on the climate, because people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature;

-- The laws of nature are the only entities that have any effect on the world.

It seems that, even BEFORE you get to discussing the details of climate change and the Anthropocene, you have totally dismissed the possibility that people could have any genuine influence on the climate.

Lorraine, you should read other's posts with a more open mind. You would do less mischaracterizations. Your conclusions about what I think have no basis in anything I have written. Free will has no innate connection to physics or mathematics, it would be (wrongly) inserted by hand as a matter of opinion. Free will can certainly impact the world. If someone shoots you dead, it will clearly change the world as your living self was part of the world.

I asked myself a couple of additional questions, anwers are welcome:

1. The issue of counterfactuals

If we take it at face value that ultimate reality operates strictly deterministic, then the whole machinery leaves no room for errors. Literally everything plays out just as the laws of physics demand it - without any exceptions. If we imagine that world to be free of any living and thinking entities, everything happens just the way it should, without errors.

But if we now include human thinking and deduction into that reality, the picture suddenly changes, since people make errors, they can take counterfactuals as facts and vice versa. This means that the human mind - deterministically produced by the laws of physics - often produces ontologies that are nowhere to be found in a strictly deterministic world: the human mind can produce all sorts of things for those we can say that they do not exist.

Consequently, if that strictly deterministic world view is true, parts of the deterministic machinery (the brains) are able to produce false statements about the whole machinery (or about parts of it). This seems to be no wonder, since these parts are not the whole and therefore these parts lack some information to produce the correct statements that reflect the whole reality correctly instead of filling the gaps with some imagination. Nonetheless we have to state that a strictly deterministic world obviously is able to produce counterfactual, non-existent things by acts of imagination and thoughts. What is non-existent are not the thoughts themselves, but their thought-to-be-ontological contents.

So, physical laws in a strictly deterministic world obviously can and do produce thoughts that often are in contradiction with these laws themselves. This can be easily seen when evaluating the huge amount of scientific papers on the "market" whose conclusions contradict each other. From a logical point of view, they cannot all state the truth about (ultimate) reality.

So, the strictly deterministic world that has been defined by us as working error-free is nonetheless able to produce errors. It does not produce these errors on the fundamental level (particles, trajectories, interactions etc.), but on a more complex level (brains). The term "errors" surely is a human term, relative to the human desire to know and value truth more than falsity. Nonetheless we can ask whether it is possible to minimize these errors down to zero in the future?

If the reason for these errors is that parts of ultimate reality (brains) cannot represent the whole thing (due to lack of the whole information, the whole truth), then only the whole thing may be error-free - as is expected within the framework of strict determinism. Now, the whole thing is considered to be inanimate and does not know everything about itself (but only what human brains know about it). The more astonishing it would be if parts of that whole thing (brains) nonetheless at some point in time should be able to know everything about that whole thing (theory of everything). Notice that without animate matter (consciousness), the whole ultimate reality wouldn't know anything, not even that it exists! But with brains, so the story goes, ultimate reality will sooner or later know everything about itself (at least everything foundational, what would be a lot!).

Therefore let's look closer at what inanimate matter doesn't know - but human brains know (in the sense that these brains know what they [still] do not know): if there was a big bang, are the initial conditions that led to the present world have been a necessary consequence of some other deterministic processes - or have they merely been a realized possibility amongst other possibilities? How can one ever solve the problem of a "beginning" other than to assume that there was no beginning, but ultimate reality literally did exist forever (maybe in a timeless realm, maybe only in a realm where time was, is and will be "present" forever)?

If we can't trace infinitely back into the past, how substantiated is the assumption of a strict determinism? Moreover, if we assume ultimate reality with a certain set of physical laws to be eternal (without a Big Bang), how would that leap of imagination be different from assuming a Creator for our present world? The fact that the laws of physics were what they were (and not other) and are what they are then is equally mysterious than believing in a Creator.

2. Quantum fluctuations

Are Quantum fluctuations real? And if yes, do they act deterministically or do they counteract the course of events dictated by the known laws of physics?

3. Non-measurable parts of ultimate reality

Are there in-principle non-measurable, non-deterministic influences in ultimate reality that we never can detect in a repeatable fashion? Are there even aspects of ultimate reality that never can fully be imagined by human brains?

4. What place has "intelligence" within the world view of a strict determinism? How can - and should - "intelligence" be defined within this world view?

Rick,

There's no need to take umbrage.

Forget about climate change and the Anthropocene for a minute. The real question is: can people EVER have ANY effect on the world, i.e. can people ever change the world?

The alternative scenario is that people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that ever have any effect on the world; i.e. the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that change every number for every variable.

The concept of people having an effect on the world can be reframed as the concept of people assigning at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables.

I'm saying that physics is very mistaken about the nature of the world. I'm saying that the world is such that people and other living things assign at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables (whereby other numbers for other variables are changed, due to law of nature relationships).

E.g., people continually assign new numbers to some of their own position variables for their own hands, feet and vocal cords. This is the means by which people have a genuine effect on the world; this is the means by which people literally change the world.

Rick,

Re Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 19:14 GMT and Rick Lockyer replied on Oct. 3, 2021 @ 22:56 GMT:

Forget about climate change and the Anthropocene for a minute. The real question is: can people EVER have ANY effect on the world, i.e. can people ever change the world?

The alternative scenario is that people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that ever have any effect on the world; i.e. the bottom-up laws of nature are the only things that change every number for every variable.

The concept of people having an effect on the world can be reframed as the concept of people assigning at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables.

I'm saying that physics is very mistaken about the nature of the world. I'm saying that the world is such that people and other living things assign at least some new numbers to at least some of their own variables (whereby other numbers for other variables are changed, due to law of nature relationships).

E.g., people continually assign new numbers to some of their own position variables for their own hands, feet and vocal cords. This is the means by which people have a genuine effect on the world; this is the means by which people literally change the world.

Rick,

No honest physicist believes what climate and other scientists say about people having an impact on the planet's climate and ecosystems.

But physics has a different reason for not believing what these scientists say. Physics says that people can have no effect on the climate, and people can have no effect on the planet, because it's the laws of nature (not people) that change every number for every variable.

YOU agree that people have no effect on the climate, or that such a thing hasn't been or can't be proved. But you seem to be ambivalent about whether or not people could ever have any genuine effect on the world.

But, if people have any genuine effect on the world, then this must necessarily be modelled as people changing at least some of the numbers for their own variables.

I agree with the climate scientists and the other scientists, and I disagree with the physicists: I say that people DO have a genuine effect on the world, i.e. people are changing at least some of the numbers for their own variables.

You seem to be ambivalent about whether or not people could ever have any genuine effect on the world. But how would YOU model people having a GENUINE effect on the world?

Re Rick Lockyer's assertions that "free will has no place in a physics discussion" and that "free will has no innate connection to physics or mathematics":

Physics says that the law of nature relationships are the explanation for all physical outcomes. But if "free will" were a SEPARATE AND DISTINCT cause of physical outcomes, then "free will" would necessarily be of interest to physics.

But physics doesn't see "free will" as a separate and distinct cause of physical outcomes: physics' "free will" is merely a rebranding or re-naming of particular aspects of what the laws of nature are already doing. In other words, physics' (and philosophy's) concept of "free will" is just a bit of PR spin.

So, can people and other living things have an effect on the world that is SEPARATE AND DISTINCT to the effect that the law of nature relationships have on the world? I.e. can people have an influence on the climate that is separate and distinct to the effect that the law of nature relationships have on the climate?

According to physics, the answer is: No. According to physics, people and their actions are mere epiphenomena, i.e. by-products of the laws of nature; and these laws of nature are the only things that have any effect on the world, the only things that have any effect on the climate.

(continued)

In other words, physics says "que sera sera", "what will be, will be": physics has a fatalistic view that events are completely outside of the control of people, because there is nothing anyone can do about the laws of nature, and people have NO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ABILITY to effect events.

In other words, despite their PR, 99% of physicists are anthropogenic climate change deniers because of their beliefs about the nature of the world.

Oops. The above "effect" should be "affect"!

(continued)

But, unlike 99% of physicists, I'm not a fatalist. I'm saying that people DO have an ability to affect the world, an ability that is separate and distinct from the laws of nature.

This is why people's ability to have an effect on the world can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Similarly, the ability to differentiate/discern difference (i.e. consciousness) is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT aspect of the world to the law of nature aspect of the world. This fundamentally different and distinct aspect of the world can't be derived from the law of nature relationships: it too can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

The concept of a strictly deterministic working world can be reframed as the concept of a computer simulation.

Ultimate reality as a computer simulation obviously can - and does - some sub-simulations, brought by us via our modern computers. Even human brains could be termed as such "sub-simulators".

However, within the concept of a strictly deterministic world, no such sub-simulation is independent from the simulation ultimate reality does as a whole. Because the existence of such sub-simulations correlate to a 100 % with what ultimate reality simulated at other places and other times (even in the future). That's why some physicists speak of a space-time block universe that is independent of time.

Although that concept of a block-universe has no conscious goal what to simulate, the simulation itself and its results are nonetheless predetermined if we believe in the concept of a strict determinism.

The substrate on which this gigantic simulation is performed is considered by some to be of secondary interest, since all what counts are the fundamental concepts of computation. In a certain sense, that gigantic simulation can be thought of as being simulated on itself - namely on the fundamental concepts of computation. And how could it be other, since a strictly deterministic world cannot have been come into existence by some non-deterministic events. Even if there was a big bang, if we want to hang on to the world view of strict determinism, then that big bang had to be caused by some deterministic causes - and they themselves also - and so on infinitely.

Thus, a strictly deterministic world must be thought of as as an eternal simulation. It has and will simulate everything that is possible to simulate, infinitely often. Of course, such a strictly deterministic world is thought to also being able to simulate consciousness (otherwise consciousness wouldn't be existent, so the argument goes). Consequently that eternal simulation also does simulate you and me infinitely often during its infinite, eternal course of events.

What we call "particles" and their behaviour then are merely computational steps in that giant simulation. Our best physical theories have already figured out to what computational steps these "particles" belong to. Of course, this seems to imply that parts of this gigantic simulation (human brains) are able to figure out what smaller parts of that simulation do - so that this gigantic simulation at least knows a little bit about due to what principles it comes about in the first place.

Although this may be true (if we assume strict determinism to be true), the above mentioned human knowledge about the principles behind that simulation is predetermined by the whole simulation. Here the question arises whether or not it is (logically) possible for a mindless simulation to not only become aware of itself as being a simulation, but moreover to also figure out the principles on which the whole simulation is based on. Many scientist would say that both questions can be answered with "yes":

every simulation at some point becomes partly aware of itself as a simulation. It then figures out a little bit about due to what principles the whole simulation comes about - and the result is that these principles must be considered as fundamental, since they are eternal. To now "solve" the riddle of how some abstract, eternal and timeless principles (like mathematics) are able to produce a time-dependent computation on just the substrate science has found in our world, it is tempting to say that an eternal simulation does not need any substrate to run itself.

Why? Because the world we observe must - according to an eternal simulation - be a repeated version of an infinite series of identical computational histories in the past. And the fundamental principles of simulation (computation) are logically not changeable whereas the substrate could logically be replaced by some other substrate. One now could argue that the latter is not a logical conclusion and the whole universal simulation we speak of here can exclusively only run on a substrate we call "matter". The point here is that we have no chance to answer this question - since we have no chance to answer the question why there does exist such an eternal simulation at all.

That would be the end-point - if there wouldn't be a subtle detail in the whole chain of reasoning: If we even have no chance to answer the two questions about why only a substrate we call "matter" can do such a simulation and why there should at all exist such an eternal simulation, we could reframe these two questions into the one question whether or not an eternal deterministic world is at all a reasonable concept.

It seems that I have reached the end of reasoning here. My intention was to examine the reasonability of a deterministic world view. Without doubt, there is some determinism in this world. And whether or not the world is exclusively deterministic or not, in either case there is an unambiguous answer out there, there is an unambiguous truth out there that already has answered this question - independent of me asking.

I can only say that it seems to me that truth somehow must be a fundamental and universal measure for all of that. And if true - then it is astonishing for me that this benchmark also realized itself in the endeavour of all scientific reasoning. Moreover, that endeavour is characterized by the ever same goal, finding out what is true and what is false. This is goal-oriented behaviour and I conclude from its existence that for answering all the questions that couldn't be answered here in this post, goal-oriented behaviour must somehow come into the equation. In this sense I agree with Lorraine about her arguments concerning human will and goals.