A need is seen to extend physics beyond its previous realm of knowledge and to remove the limitations imposed by metaphysics to do so. In order to make the knowledge potential, which metaphysics claims but has never redeemed, usable for physics, it is discussed to explain also dimensionless phenomena of reality physically besides the established considerations in the space-time structure. As examples a physical evolution model and a physical concept of information are mentioned.
The Expansion of Physics by Deconstruction of Metaphysics
- Edited
<<Laws of nature describe not only what is, but just as what is not and what cannot be!>>
But what is the nature of the "laws of nature"? - Here is an important question for physicists and metaphysicians, taking into account the modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical/ontological basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology), which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science" , Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty", D. Zaitsev "True, following and modern logic"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style") , "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin. "The Trouble with Physics : The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next"), when fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, information, consciousness.
<< But the physicist can and should determine the truth of these ideas without any metaphysical category by simply observing reality.>>
Disagree here. The metaphysical category (metacategory) is needed to build a single ontological basis for the "sciences of nature" and "sciences of the spirit".
<<The mathematical logic of evolution should lead to a law of nature that can explain how the world evolves as a whole and in every detail and thus should be a scale-invariant, very
elementary physical principles..>>
But logic itself "lost its certainty", like mathematics (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty", D. Zaitsev "True, following and modern logic")... What logic should be, taking into account the problems with the justification of mathematics (ontological basification)? I believe that this is a dialectical onto-logic.
<<To what extent evolution and information can actually be the central nodes in a new physical model or whether in the end other concepts offer themselves for explanation remains open. In any case, they would be attractive entry points for approaching questions that metaphysics has not been able to solve so far and probably will not be able to solve for methodological reasons, but whose clarification could provide important contributions to a better understanding of reality>>
It is metaphysics, and specifically, constructive metaphysics, that is not only able to present a "new physical model" (more precisely, a "physical (metaphysical) first- beginning"), but also to give a specific methodology - this is a dialectical-ontological construction of a physical/metaphysical/ontological "first-beginning" of the existence of the Universe as an holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures. That is, a model, and then "a super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." (mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov, "The Self-Aware Universe", 1996). In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set forth in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning".
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.S.Vladimirov, editor-in-chief of the scientific journal "METAPHYSICS" notes in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (No. 1, 2017, p 10):
"At present, the main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world based on a single generalized category. At this point in time, it is "seen" (interpreted) differently from the standpoint of the three named paradigms: a single vacuum in the field theory approach, a single geometry in the geometric worldview, or a single system of relations (structure) in the relational worldview. In our opinion, these are different names for the same desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning."
So what is this “SINGLE GENERALIZED CATEGORY”, which will unite all three “paradigms” and “approaches” (according to Yu. Vladimirov) and, as a result, will make it possible to draw “the desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning” and build a “holistic physical / metaphysical picture of the world "?
This is the meta-category LOGOS. which is the key to all science and is understood in the Heraclitean sense as METALAW, that governs the Cosmos/Universe.
I believe that what is needed is not a "deconstruction of metaphysics", but a constructive metaphysics/ontology.
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for your detailed and instructive comment on my thoughts. I would like to take up your last sentence:
»I believe that what is needed is not a "deconstruction of metaphysics", but a constructive metaphysics/ontology.«
I believe that both approaches have justification, can easily be pursued in parallel, and will cross-fertilize in exchange. If an "either/or" is to be read out of my text, I have expressed myself badly. That is by no means my intention. I do not want to dispute the philosophical position of metaphysics or to question it. I am only arguing within physics:
<< But the physicist can and should determine the truth of these ideas without any metaphysical category by simply observing reality.>>
Your comment:
»Disagree here. The metaphysical category (metacategory) is needed to build a single ontological basis for the "sciences of nature" and "sciences of the spirit“.«
is correct from the point of view of the metaphysician. It is the undisputed task of the metaphysician to strive for the ontological basis, especially for these questions. But it is not the task of the physicist to do metaphysics. The physicist should use the tools of physics to advance his work of knowledge. And he should, if he does not get ahead, question his physical approach and not make it so easy for himself to pass the problem on to others, for example to the metaphysicians.
To illustrate it by your first sentence »But what is the nature of the "laws of nature"? …« :
For a physicist, a law of nature should be only what he observes: A 100% correct prediction of effects in reality in a considered set of states, independent of place, time and observer (my own suboptimal formulation). This is no more than an ultimately arbitrary definition agreed upon. This definition draws its justification only from the fact that it works.
For a metaphysician natural laws are certainly differently founded and embedded in a context of meaning.
If now a " "crisis of understanding" " is recognized as a problem, as you explain very comprehensibly, the physicist should reconsider his definitions, methods and results, and as I suggest in my essay, his horizon of observation, in order to find possible solutions. The metaphysician, on the other hand, will research by means of his methods how the crisis could be approached.
In doing so, one can certainly learn from each other, and certainly also criticize each other, because then one often learns especially much.
- Edited
Insightful essay!!
A comprehensive analysis of how the human reality model has evolved, that provides impetus and direction for going on.
I adamantly agree that "metaphysical" needs to be abolished, but to eliminate other than physical from one's reality model, one must first define physical... i e. to make a distinction between physical and other than physical requires a reality model in which physical can be objectified.
One can say a physical entity is one that occupies space... but what is "space"?.
How is "entity" differentiated from "space"?.... i.e. can one make a distinction between occupied and unoccupied space??
A unit of entity occupancy would depend on the minimum/indivisible spatial quantization unit (QE) of the model, which currently can only be conceptualized theoretically... i e. is not measurable.
An occupant of an imperceptible minimum /indivisible unit of space (QE) is not outside the definition of physical... i.e. the distribution dynamisc of minimum/indivisible entity units (QE), within a fixed geometrically quantized spatial structure... and could facilitate more subtle physical laws of nature than yet perceived, which could be applied to an investigation of phenomena that have been previously accredited to "metaphysical".
To anticipate causal "pragmatics"... i.e. evolution... within such a model, requires QE dynamics.
The initial construct required for emergence of the causal process. is the root... i.e. "bottom line... of the "fundamental" hierarchy.
and that construct must specify a:
... pulsed momentum mechanism
... minimum/indivisible entity of potential momentum (QE), to be distributed within the model
... a uniform structural unit as the minimum/indivisible spatial quantization unit (QI) that facilitates addressing, and dictates containment geometry available for occupation by minimum/indivisible entities of potential momentum (QE).
If the uniform spatial quantization geometry emerges as an infinite non-perturbative environment... i.e. from a single point... pulsed momentum mechanism driven distribution dynamics of the minimum/indivisible entity of potential momentum (QE), within the static structural quantization yields information... i e. a networked intelligence.
In a reality model as outlined above, the laws of nature at QE scale can facilitate access by the human individual to the cosmic network, and by expanding physical thinking, give physical credibility to observations previously perceived as "metaphysical".
A digital geometry representation of the structure and momentum mechanism driven dynamics... i e a CAD SIM... can explain complex structure and process that occur in a model more precisely than mathematical semantics... i e. equations.
Would rate this essay a 10, but FQXi rejected my 2023 Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) as being an ""alternative "theory of everything," not an essay about how science could be different.".
Thank you for your knowledgeable contribution of momentum to implement a structural change in human consciousnesses.
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www uqsmatrixmechanix.com
Admin Comment: Please stay on topic, Your comment about rating an essay lower due to your own being rejected comes across as bitter and spiteful, and not in good spirit of the competition.
Dear S. Lingo,
thank you for taking the time to look at the text.
You write:
"one must first define the physical...i.e., in order to make a distinction between the physical and the non-physical, one needs a model of reality in which the physical can be objectified."
I can agree with this statement, in fact, one should agree on a common understanding of reality if one has previously realized that reality is the reference point of all cognition. However, in doing so, one must be careful that an idea does not once again become the standard of reality (which is a hallmark of metaphysics), but that reality remains the standard against which ideas - better, hypotheses - are measured.
In your comment you take the example of space, without question a real phenomenon.
You then state:
"A unit of occupancy for an entity would depend on the minimal/indivisible spatial quantization unit (QE) of the model, which at present can only be conceived theoretically...i.e., is not measurable."
A unit that is ... not measurable?
Isn't that a bit metaphysical? Isn't measurement, i.e., comparison with reality, the important feature of physics? I think most physicists are bad metaphysicians (e.g. Einstein "God does not play dice" or Schrödinger "What is life"). And they should not therefore, when the going gets tough, resort to metaphysics. In my text I did not offer a solution for these real difficulties, - this is indeed probably not the right place here -, but I advocated to include the topics, which are blocked or occupied to some extent by metaphysics, into the physical, not metaphysical consideration.
I argue that reality should not be tied to individual observational dimensions such as space or energy, but to methodological requirements along the lines of: measurable states given boundary conditions independent of location, time, and observer with a reasonable error interval. And there hypotheses must deliver correct predictions.
5 days later
Sue Lingo
Hi alias BronzeLamprey...
sl Thank you for your thoughtful response and probing questions.
You write:
"one must first define the physical...i.e. in order to make a distinction between the physical and the non-physical, one needs a model of reality in which the physical can be objectified.
sl More accurately stated:
The "model" as a logic construct... i.e the source code installed on the physical mechanisms of cognition... with which one perceives one's environment, and "reality" is what one calls one's perception of one"s environment.
I can agree with this statement, in fact, one should agree on a common understanding of reality if one has previously realized that reality is the reference point of all cognition.
sl Is "reality" as one's perception of one's environment, a valid reference point for an understanding common to all observers?
sl If "model" is a logic lens through which cognitive processes establish one's perception of one's environment... i.e "reality"... then depending on the logic lens installed, the same environment can yield different realities,
sl Makes me wonder whether the Neanderthal thought Homo Sapiens were aliens?
However, in doing so, one must be careful that an idea does not once again become the standard of reality (which is a hallmark of metaphysics), but that reality remains the standard against which ideas - better, hypotheses - are measured.
sl "Idea" as synonymous with "model"?... or "idea" as a "perception " ??
sl As a "perception", the "idea" that physical and metaphysical can be unified, presents no threat of the "idea" becoming a "hallmark of metaphysics, but if one's source code does not facilitate the "idea" of physical and metaphysical unification the source code needs to be tweaked.
In your comment you take the example of space, without question a real phenomenon.
sl "Real" as the set of all agreed "perceptions" of environment?
~ sl "Phenomenon" as a categorical "perception" of environment.. i.e. an event as a consequence of substance dynamics within a structure, rather than structure or substance?
~ sl Events are "perceived" as having a spatial location, but what constitutes "space"?
Ref. "Physical Space and Physical Time:What are they?"- D. Oriti
sl The conundrums of language have dictated my preference for graphic illustration -CAD Simulation for process analysis.
You then state:
"A unit of occupancy for an entity would depend on the minimal/indivisible spatial quantization unit (QE) of the model, which at present can only be conceived theoretically ...i.e. is not measurable."
sl More accurately stated:
If the "model" defines a unified minimum/indivisible unit... i e. quantum... of space (QI), then all unit campsites are measurable in such units, but to convert QI to minimum units of an observer's perception of physical differentiation, requires enhanced conceptual tools -specifically a non-peturbative analysis environment.
A unit that is ... not measurable?
Isn't that a bit metaphysical?
sl Planck's length as a theoretical minimum unit of physical measurement... i.e. spatial differentiation... was derived by mathematical analysis of sequenced measurements of a physical phenomenon... i.e. temperature... and is only conceptually measurable.
sl The QI is also a minimum unit of physical measurement, which is only conceptually measurable, but was derived from a structural geometry analysis of Space-Time Energy emergence.
sl The difference being that Planck's derivation utilized a perturbation logic lens which gives credence to an "other than physical" domain, and the logic lens I am investigating as a source code upgrade... i.e. structural change in human consciousness... is non-perturbative, and eliminates the necessity for an "other than physical" domain.
Isn't measurement, i.e., comparison with reality, the important feature of physics?
sl Comparison with a "reality" perceived through a logic lens in which one's "idea" of minimum physical unit is constrained by current human capacity to perceive physical differentiation?
I think most physicists are bad meta physicians (e.g. Einstein "God does not play dice" or Schrödinger "What is life"). And they should not therefore, when the going gets tough, resort to metaphysics.
sl. The god of Spinoza... i.e. Einstein's god... was fundamental process... i.e. not an entity... and I admit it would be tough for me to deny that I have observed phenomena that exhibited process without measurable substance and structure.
In my text I did not offer a solution for these real difficulties, - this is indeed probably not the right place here -, but I advocated to include the topics, which are blocked or occupied to some extent by metaphysics, into the physical, not metaphysical consideration.
sl "How can Science be different?
In that one's "reality"... i.e. perception of one's environment... is dependent on the logic "model" installed to process perception, my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) proposes a graphically illustrated, non-perturbative logic framework, in which scientist of all disciplines could seamlessly mesh their measurements as perceptions of environment, and therein establish a "theory of everything".
I argue that reality should not be tied to individual observational dimensions such as space or energy, but to methodological requirements along the lines of: measurable states given boundary conditions independent of location, time, and observer with a reasonable error interval. And there hypotheses must deliver correct predictions.
sl To facilitate relative measurements, space as structure is required, and to facilitate states of energy substance is required.
sl To derive intelligence from the dynamics of substance within structure, one's observations must be processed by a valid "model"... i.e. source code that facilitates an unbroken kinematic logic chain from substance emergence within the structure, to event observation.
S. Lingo
Sue Lingo
Dear Sue Lingo,
thank you for your very detailed and in-depth analysis, from which I could learn a lot. Unfortunately, I have not yet had the time to understand the full scope of the concept you are pursuing. So I can only try to question details. For example you write
»The "model" as a logic construct.... i.e the source code installed on the physical mechanisms of cognition...«.
Is this "source code" part of reality, i.e. can it be measured and quantified, or is it a construct, i.e. in my primitive and certainly fuzzy choice of words part of metaphysics.
Perhaps a little more detailed:
Is the source code a physical hypothesis, which contains a measurement and proof possibility, which now physicists use, in order to be able to convince themselves of the existence and nature of the source code? Or is the source code an assumption, which offers no verification possibilities at the reality, but serves as basis for further assumptions and theories. Which terms like models, constructs, ideas etc. one uses for what is ultimately only a question of definition. If one sets assumption on assumption, without in each case providing a proof of the comparison with reality, one is in my view in the area of metaphysics. One can then prove the logic of the assumptions and pretend to have a true metaphysics. But physically this is worth nothing, because the assumptions are not confirmed by reality.
Which brings us back to the message I use in my essay to answer the question, How can science be different: deconstructing metaphysics and focusing on pure physics.
Whereby the comparison with reality is not a logical automatism, but an iterative and partly also erratic process, which goes wrong sometimes better and sometimes worse and can also end in the wrong.
Arved Huebler
sl And thank you for your insightful response to my posted comments to your essay.
Unfortunately, I have not yet had the time to understand the full scope of the concept you are pursuing. So I can only try to question details.
sl Thank you, I consider probing questions essential to conveyance of concept.
sl Link correction to my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay: (http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php))
For example, you write
»The "model" as a logic construct.... i.e the source code installed on the physical mechanisms of cognition...«.
Is this "source code" part of reality, i.e. can it be measured and quantified, or is it a construct, i.e. in my primitive and certainly fuzzy choice of words part of metaphysics.
sl In that "reality" is a model processed "perception" of one's environment, the source code is the physical configuration of logic components in the same sense that conventional digital logic components...i.e. transistors, switches, etc. are configured as the CPU digital processing framework... i.e. process intelligence.
Perhaps a little more detailed:
Is the source code a physical hypothesis, which contains a measurement and proof possibility, which now physicists use, in order to be able to convince themselves of the existence and nature of the source code?
sl In that the model pursued eliminates a distinction between physical and non-physical, the logic components as entities occupying space... i.e. physical ... can within the model be measured in Q-units of space (QI) and spatially defined energy (QI).
Ref: (http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXi-1.jpg)
sl "Proof of possibility" lies in application of the model to effect one' s perception of one's environment... i e. "reality".
Or is the source code an assumption, which offers no verification possibilities at the reality, but serves as basis for further assumptions and theories. Which terms like models, constructs, ideas etc. one uses for what is ultimately only a question of definition.
sl To remove any question of definition, the terms used to discuss the model are kinematically derivable from objectified elements of the graphical geometry representation of the model.
Ref: My rejected 2023FQXi Essay (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)
If one sets assumption on assumption, without in each case providing a proof of the comparison with reality, one is in my view in the area of metaphysics.
sl In that "object" was defined , in undefined terms, by lexicographer Noah Webster over 300 hundred years ago, and those terms are still undefined, your view of metaphysical encompasses most of semantically conveyed human knowledge.
Object
- a thing that can be seen or touched; material thing that occupies space
What is "space"?
Ref. "Physical Space and Physical Time:What are they?"- D. Oriti
(
- Anything that can be known or perceived by the mind
What is "mind"?
Objective
Of or having to do with a known or perceived object, as distinguished from something only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.
Being or regarded as being Independent of the mind; real; actual
sl Perhaps we should "wipe the slate clean".
Ref: 2023 FQXi Essay"Science in Search of Neutral Ground"
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/essay_id_2251.pdf)
One can then prove the logic of the assumptions and pretend to have a true metaphysics.
sl Precisely why the model must facilitate an unbroken kinematic chain from visual model objectified entities, to derived concept.
But physically this is worth nothing, because the assumptions are not confirmed by reality.
sl In that "reality" is a logic model processed perception of one's environment, confirmation of a concept kinematically derivable from objectified elements of the model... i.e. as opposed to an assumption as derived from perturbative analysis... lies in application of the model derived concept to effect one' s perception of one's environment ... i e. "reality".
Which brings us back to the message I use in my essay to answer the question, How can science be different: deconstructing metaphysics and focusing on pure physics.
sl A "deconstruction of metaphysics" in reference to metaphysical entities as non-physical... i.e. un-messureable occupants of space... is achieved by installing the pursued model on the mental desktop, and should eliminate necessity to reject observations of processes that cannot be measured in other than Q-units... i.e. deny existence of phenomena which may previously been deemed "metaphysical".
Whereby the comparison with reality is not a logical automatism, but an iterative and partly also erratic process, which goes wrong sometimes better and sometimes worse and can also end in the wrong.
sl The QE/QI configuration manifestations, as a consequence of emergence, are not automated, nor are they random... i e. QE/QI distribution throughout the entire universe must be solved by model specific emergent logic, on every Q-tick of the momentum mechanism... and the observer is an essential feedback element in the resolve process.
sl Thanks for the opportunity to learn from the mental gymnastics as required to respond to your request for a "more detailed" explanation.
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
(http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com)
Dear BronzeLamprey,
Your essay is well written. I share your thoughts on metaphysics:
“But the physicist can and must determine the truth of these ideas without any metaphysical category by pure observation at the reality”. For this “it is discussed to explain also dimensionless phenomena of reality physically” that helps to separate metaphysical representations from the actual reality.
However, the proposal to remove the elements of metaphysics from science cannot be implemented, because, in our opinion, the generally accepted 'reality' is distorted by metaphysical ideas in such a way that it is more of a pseudo-reality. Therefore, the task of realistic interpretation of experiments and observations comes to the fore. Our essay is devoted to this topic in figures and facts.
I wish you success!
quote
Thank you very much for your detailed and instructive comment on my thoughts. I would like to take up your last sentence:
»I believe that what is needed is not a "deconstruction of metaphysics", but a constructive metaphysics/ontology.«
I believe that both approaches have justification, can easily be pursued in parallel, and will cross-fertilize in exchange. If an "either/or" is to be read out of my text, I have expressed myself badly. That is by no means my intention. I do not want to dispute the philosophical position of metaphysics or to question it. I am only arguing within physics:
end of quote
I have a simpler take on this one. Metaphysics arises in part due to the difficulty in specifying all the dotting the is and crossing the Ts as to mathematical formulation. Going back to Kurt Godel
quote
What does Gödel's incompleteness theorem say?
Can you solve it? Gödel's incompleteness theorem ...
In 1931, the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel published his incompleteness theorem, a result widely considered one of the greatest intellectual achievements of modern times. The theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved.]
end of quote'
Metaphysics arises due to the deer in the headlights startle reaction of physicists as to trying to give as complete an explanation as to the choice in certain models. I.e. I am reading Schrodinger's "Statistical Thermodynamics " and am reading on page 24 about single Fermi oscillators and their tie in with the issue of how dispersions in certain limits, e.g. N going to infinity, as to a magnificent faux pax created by the single Fermi oscillator not obeying a law that at an extreme limit of N going to infinity that the idea that dispersion goes to zero. In which then, the metaphysical question is why BOTHER with the existence of either dispersions going to zero due to N going to infinity, and the the single Fermi oscillator, which is a violation of this "rule" given in page 23 of Schrodinger's " Statistical thermodynamics". In this case, metaphysics definitely DID play a role as to the examples of Page 23 and Page 24 of Schrodinger's book. And to a certain degree we are stuck with this due to the Godel "incompleteness theorem" so referenced. I.e. we can cut down on the limited repertoire of models so assumed, but we also have to realize that we cannot get rid either of the supposed super structure of metaphysics either. We lack sufficient information to do so
Vladimir Fedorov
Dear CeruleanJackal,
thank you for your effort to read my text. I am glad that you see things similarly. Regarding your objection:
»However, the proposal to remove the elements of metaphysics from science is not feasible because, in our opinion, the generally accepted "reality" is so distorted by metaphysical ideas that it is more like a pseudo-reality.«
I have the following thought:
Any measurement or representation of reality, even if present in reality itself, is "distorted". Think of the shadow, which is an image of the object and certainly carries real information about the object, but is always distorted depending on the constellation. So distortion is an integral part of reality and information. The essence of physics is to filter out the regularities of reality through reductionist methods to minimize the distortion. And metaphysics is not helpful in this.
To that extent, then, I again agree completely with your concluding sentence: The interpretation of experiments and observations bound to reality is important.
It is very kind of you to come back to my reply. Your advice is very helpful, you write:
"I have a simpler view of the matter. The metaphysics arises in part from the difficulty of fixing all the dots and crosses in the mathematical formulation."
I think there is a crucial point here. Mathematics, as I see it, is simply a language in which one can formulate anything that is logically correct. (Serious) metaphysics formulates all sorts of things with it and then marvels at the results. Physics, however, should proceed the other way around: It looks at what is there in reality, and only that is a point and a cross in the mathematical formulation. What everything would be mathematically possible, but is not in reality, is just metaphysics. Of course, it is good and useful to deal with this metaphysics as well. For example, one then comes up with ideas where one should search again in order to perhaps find something that was not there before. But one should strictly avoid to mix or to equate what is mathematically possible with what is physical.
In so far I find my view actually also not complicated.
How far Gödel's contribution to the definition of physical reality goes, I do not dare to evaluate. I have not understood Gödel's "incompleteness" deeply enough for that. However, I can well imagine that Gödel is productive for metaphysics.
Given your formulation of Gödel's quintessence that »the theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved,« perhaps that would be a good distinction between physics and metaphysics: true statements that cannot be proved (for whatever reason) are metaphysics. Physics are statements that are proven in reality, in the sense of being measured.
However, in my understanding physics should only be based on statements that are proven in reality and leave the metaphysical statements about possibilities for themselves.
Sue Lingo
Thank you for your explanations, which were again very helpful. If I understood you correctly, you declare reality to be a model (your sentence »In the sense that "reality" is a model-processed perception" of one's environment«). Thus they abolish the difference of physics and metaphysics, of reality and the image of reality (your sentence »By abolishing a distinction between physical and non-physical the pursued model«). Isn't this a step backwards? Was the distinction between the object and shadow of the object, between the cause and the effect, between the entity and the naming of the entity an important insight of science. Isn't this a basis of logical reasoning, which otherwise, if there is no difference between object and its representation, does not get beyond tautologies? I am a little bit confused.
quote
About 16,400,000 results (0.61 seconds)
4 colour theorem: an elegant proof?
The proof was refined in 1996 by a team of four mathematicians: Robertson, Sanders, Seymour, and Thomas, but they still relied on computer code to complete their proof. In 2010, Steinberger offered another variation. However, there is still no completely satisfying answer as to why the 4-colour theorem is true.Nov 24, 2022
end of quote
OOPS, i.e. you get computer PROOFS and LOGIC proofs, and everything in between. And is a computer "proof" a solution ?
Andrew Beckwith
Where does the quote on the four-color theorem come from and how is it connected to the discussion of metaphysics and physics here?
It is from Wikipedia.
The issue is this. Metaphysics comes about when people try to ascertain a certain way of
thinking via traditional methods and fail
The four color theorem is only partly solved by computer programming, as an asset
It is an incomplete proof
15 days later
Arved Huebler
Thanks for your request for clarification.
Given "model" of a quantum logic processor, as being the configuration of quantum scale logic processor resources, by which perception is processed, "model-processed perception" is intended to imply perception as the output of a quantum logic processor's resources... i.e. physical logic components, CPU, firmware, binary machine code, compiler, assembler, OS, source code, programmer, etc..
A distinction must also be made between "model" as the system model... i.e. substance and structure of Space-Time Energy as a cosmic networked intelligence derived from a fundamental Fact... and the system embedded "I Am" logic processor's model of the "system model", which is represented as source code embedded/held as firmware in the "I Am" mind.
If one's quantum model resolves "metaphysical" as "physical", one's perception is absolved of the necessity to make a distinction between the two.
Distinction between "object and representation" is indeed a basis of logical reasoning, but the emergence of all logic from a fundamental Fact, mandates an additional element... i.e. a logic processor as a configuration of physical logic components... to process object into representation.
The distinction between object, representation, and processor is more readily understood if visually objectifiable icons....e.g. graphic objects in a CAD environment... augment the terms.
"Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words"" - Leibniz."
Ref: A. Zen kin["SCIENTIFIC](https://) COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS"
(http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm)
As a logician investigating Space-Time Energy emergence, one is by necessity a structural geometrist, and I rely heavily on CAD illustration to convey complex concepts, mitigate confusion, and eliminate tautologies.
Have you read the illustrations in my paper?
Ref: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness"
(http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
(http:www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com)