Models versus Reality...

[The Inglorious One]

Don't presume to instruct me in the meaning of words you sanctimonious half-wit and answer the fucking question. Do you or do you not accept that we live in a deterministic universe where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion?

This is the most important metaphysical question to be addressed in the entire philosophy of physics and if you can't or don't wish to offer an answer to it then please piss off out a conversation which is clearly above your pay grade.

I most certainly agree that this is one of the most important metaphysical questions, but why must it be one or the other? Why not both? Why not lawfulness and chaos operating like two wings of a single bird?

In the British video I linked to, every physicist but one assumed knowable initial conditions, and the one that didn't assumed preexisting laws to order. All, as per your complaint against physics today, are linear thinkers. I gather from what you say that everything happens "just because." In my eyes, you and the physicists represent opposite ends of the same stick having no desire to meet somewhere in the middle.

I think the reason is clear. "Lawful unpredictability" or "patterned but unpredictable behavior" sounds too much like a "divine agent" or personality. You have so much time and energy invested in doing away with such notions that you cannot bear your respective models being challenged. Why else would anyone resort to vulgarity in order to make a point? It's childish and sounds like an act of desperation.

[cladking]

I most certainly agree that this is one of the most important metaphysical questions, but why must it be one or the other? Why not both? Why not lawfulness and chaos operating like two wings of a single bird?

Reality is composed of harmonic and chaotic forces. But the issue is our understanding of reality through various means. Those who construct models based on experiment or faith are equally wrong. The results are dissimilar since science gives rise to technology but technology is not a product of understanding but rather a product experimental knowledge. We mistake science, technology, and knowledge as understanding and mistake reality as being a product of laws which is shaped like our models based on these laws. We mistake our profound ignorance as omniscience.

This is why we're stuck. We don't even know what we don't know because we're blinded by what we do. As Obvious Leo says the root of the problem is metaphysics. I basically agree but I don't agree on solutions. I believe ultimately we'll need two or three sciences running concurrently to get us beyond a fundamental nature of reality to hide its secrets to those using the current metaphysics. Ancient people abandonded their metaphysics when it hit a similar snag.

I gather from what you say that everything happens "just because." In my eyes, you and the physicists represent opposite ends of the same stick having no desire to meet somewhere in the middle.

I don't believe this is an apt characterization. Once you accept that all things have a cause then everything flows from this. Of course I believe a few other axioms like that reality exists would be necessary to create an entire science. Once you invent this science which Obvious Leo obviously has then it's rather obvious physicists are doing it wrong. They've even abandoned their own metaphysics (observation > experiment) to deal almost strictly in math. Math contains natural logic but this doesn't mean it can replace existing rules (of science) nor that it can be used to learn new "laws". We now know what happens if you change horses in midstream. You don't wind up on the other bank but rather in a world containing an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. The chicken crossed the road to get to a better world.

[cladking]

We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible."

This is the thing that most bothers me. It's OK to invent words and concepts but
It is imperative people understand the words and concepts are all constructs just
as much as the number "1" is a construct and doesn't exist in reality. There can be
"1 apple" but once you name it this you tend to forget no two apples are identical.
Once you name it this and start writing about the nature of "apples" (which also don't
exist for the same reason) you start thinking you know everything. You know which
railroad to use to get 3,000 tons of apples to the high tech apple sauce plant and ne-
ver consider that you can't really measure or know anything.

Ancient people didn't make statements like 1 + 1 = 2 because it broke rules of grammar
and math. It was more similar to the concept that "two rabbits are composed of the
first rabbit and the second rabbit". But, of course, there wasn't even a referent for
"rabbit". Rather the real thing recognized as a "rabbit" was "named". Everything
known about rabbits became a name for rabbit; "that which bears live young", "that
which lives in burrows", etc, etc. The line in the Bible that reads "Adam named the
animals" is simply a confusion of this concept. Ancient people learned the nature of
animals and everything around them so they could name them and then the word was
these names. Now words are mere place holders that are determined by the reader
rather than the speaker.

The language itself was metaphysical so it was impossible to mistake the model for
the reality.

[The Inglorious One]

I do not disagree with either of your posts, Cladking. I agree that "once you accept that all things have a cause then everything flows from this." That's kinda my point. But unless we dismiss science altogether, an element of indeterminacy is also there.

Western philosophy and science is fixated on either/or: either classical or quantum physics are the true state of affairs but not both. That's where Eastern both/and philosophy, or if you prefer, Hegelian philosophy comes in. We have to understand the True as both substance and subject, with ourselves and other subjects already implicated in in the whole. As at least one noted physicist puts it, we live in a "participatory universe." Being (substance) gives itself to us as particulars having knowledge of particulars and able to act upon that knowledge, with the universal being the field in which those relations manifest as a material universe. Tat Tvam Asi

In principle, what I'm saying is no different than the prevalent explanation among neuroscientists for consciousness, it being the epiphenomenon of a feedback loop within the brain.

[Obvious Leo]

Why not lawfulness and chaos operating like two wings of a single bird?

Chaos gets a lot of bad press because of its unfortunate name but Chaos is entirely deterministic. You commit the same logical fallacy as does physics by conflating chaos with randomness. You speak of "lawful" determinism and this is the same sort of linear determinism which physics assumes in its modelling but in natural systems such determinism is a myth. Only mind-directed systems are linearly determined in this way so physics is a creationist paradigm. Chaotic determinism is non-linear and in naturally occurring systems ALL determinism is chaotic. All this means is that effects are preceded by causes but it does NOT mean that there is some underlying plan or "law" which determines the outcome of these causes. The outcome of the causes is determined by the overall causal complexity of the entire system. In the real world shit just happens.

The bit you seem to be missing is the main point that the so-called "science" of physics is also missing. Non-linear dynamic systems which are predicated on chaotic determinism in this way have a unique property which the linearly determined Newtonian world does not. Natural systems EVOLVE from the simple to the complex, which means that over time they develop increasingly more sophisticated sub-structures within themselves. This is a fundamental and universal metaphysical truth from which the term "complexity from chaos" derives. Non-linear dynamic systems become more complex simply because they cannot do otherwise and the only "law" necessary to bring this about is the meta-law of cause and effect.

This is the universe we're living in and we have 13.8 billion years of evidence to support it but this REAL universe cannot be modelled by Newtonian physics because it contradicts its most fundamental "law", namely the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law the entropy of the universe should be increasing but it is quite self-evidently decreasing. How is this possible? This is possible only because there's no such thing as the "laws of physics", only the laws of physicists. The universe is a self-determining and thus self-organising system which generates embedded hierarchies of informational complexity according to no pre-defined law. IT JUST DOES. It is these patterns of self-organisation which our models of physics are modelling and the way physics does this is entirely arbitrary. We imagine that reality is being made according to the "laws of physics" but this is putting the cart before the horse. Reality is simply making itself according to the meta-law of cause and effect and the self-generating patterns thus derived are what we as observers interpret as the "laws of physics".

The reason why this is the most important question to be resolved in 21st century physics is because this is the Theory of Everything.

[The Inglorious One]

Chaos gets a lot of bad press because of its unfortunate name but Chaos is entirely deterministic.

Chaos theory is entirely deterministic; chaos itself is not. I blame the confusion on whoever gave the theory its name.

The reason why this is the most important question to be resolved in 21st century physics is because this is the Theory of Everything.

There is no scientific ToE, nor will there ever be one.

[Obvious Leo]

Chaos theory is entirely deterministic; chaos itself is not. I blame the confusion on whoever gave the theory its name.

"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent"...Ludwig Wittgenstein.

You've revealed often enough that you don't understand the most basic principles of non-linear dynamic systems theory so you're simply making a fool of yourself.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. This is a simple multiple choice question with only two possible answers. Do you believe that the universe was brought into being by a causal agent which exists external to it? Yes or No.

[The Inglorious One]

Inglorious. This is a simple multiple choice question with only two possible answers. Do you believe that the universe was brought into being by a causal agent which exists external to it? Yes or No.

Do you still beat your wife and kids? Yes or no,

[Obvious Leo]

The question is entirely pertinent to the subject being discussed. You could not be expected to understand a self-determining reality if you adopt the opposite assumption a priori. Am I free to conclude that you are declining to answer the question which I've asked?

By the way my kids are bigger than me and if I were to lay a violent hand on my wife I wouldn't see the day out.

[The Inglorious One]

Am I free to conclude that you are declining to answer the question which I've asked?

Yes, for the same reason you decline to answer mine.

Being fixated on yes/no answers (dualism), you cannot be expected to understand the significance of tat tvam asi.

[Obvious Leo]

Am I free to conclude that you are declining to answer the question which I've asked?

Yes, for the same reason you decline to answer mine.

Being fixated on yes/no answers (dualism), you cannot be expected to understand the significance of tat tvam asi.

Dualism has a specific meaning in philosophy and misusing commonly understood terms is a signature feature of a person out of his depth. The question I asked of you has only two possible answers and I was making an effort to keep it simple for your exclusive benefit.

I am actually even older than Sanskrit and thus know that your quoted Mahavakya has no applicability to this question.

[The Inglorious One]

Am I free to conclude that you are declining to answer the question which I've asked?

Yes, for the same reason you decline to answer mine.

Being fixated on yes/no answers (dualism), you cannot be expected to understand the significance of tat tvam asi.

Dualism has a specific meaning in philosophy and misusing commonly understood terms is a signature feature of a person out of his depth. The question I asked of you has only two possible answers and I was making an effort to keep it simple for your exclusive benefit.

I am actually even older than Sanskrit and thus know that your quoted Mahavakya has no applicability to this question.

Being fixated on yes/no answers (dualism), you cannot be expected to understand the significance of tat tvam asi.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know how you don't see any use of language as a form of modeling our reality??? We denote objects and beg the first learners of words by association in the presence of the objects or actions. These then become models when we use these words later on. Models cannot be avoided.

Mathematics models natural logic.

Ancient language modeled natural logic as well.

Modern language, at best, only models our perception. It is very very poor at this job and it does an even poorer job at communicating ideas. Most people most of the time will make misstatements about nature. Fully 95% of statements made about nature are wrong or irrelevant to the phenomenon under discussion but people don't notice. This isn't to say scientists make mostly misstatements and many of their misstatements are mere colloquialisms; eg- the sun came up this morning. Scientific language is used to communicate models and scientific language is less prone to deconstruction so scientists are much better at communicating current understandings. To a very limited extent scientific language is actually a modeling of reality as well. However, for the main part, every scientist misunderstands both the model and the reality and they each still have unique understanding caused by language. Where the language is mathematical the understanding becomes much more understood the same by each person.

Modern language is the culprit in almost every failure of communication and understanding. If you think in modern language you can understand something but you can't communicate it and know the listener has the same understanding. The simpler the concept the more easily shared understanding can be established and estimated. There are countless reasons for this which I've mentioned many times but one of the largest is that every word derives its meaning from context and we each have our own estimation of defining and connotative meanings. But additionally modern language is not tied to reality by any means at all. We can talk about geiger counters all day even though one or both doesn't understand each aspect of the way they work, the principles involved, the way older models worked, or even the nature of what they measure. We still will both think we know these things or believe the other does and "learn" from him. After such a discussion both parties will be astounded to hear me say that no two beta particles are identical and the numbers we use to count them are mere constructs that can't be properly applied. Sometimes I've interrupted such "discussions" to inform the parties they are talking about two different things! One thinks the subject is geiger counters and one thinks the subject is mother boards or toasters. Normally we just don't notice we're talking about two different things because the things we're talking about are similar; God willing, extremely similar.

Modern language pretty much requires we make statements. These statements might be something like "I believe Russian hats are made of wool". But generally we speak in declarative statements. It doesn't matter that everything is so complex that no human can understand it because we run around making statements like we do. "Geiger counters detect background radiation". Nobody has a problem with such statements even though the terms aren't defined. Silver nitrate film is a sort of geiger counter but for no practical purpose does it detect low radiation unless exposed to it and for a protracted period. Of course geiger counters can't detect any radiation on Alphe Centarii because no such device exists there. To "detect" something we must be able to access the output. "Background radiation" is very much different on a star than the earth. Need I even point out that we don't understand the nature of "radiation" and only model it. No matter what you say and how you say it it is always wrong and always misunderstood. Nature is not condusive to statements. Reality doesn't bend to language and language is tied in no way to reality.

Modern language is distinct from reality and there is little overlap even in scientific modeling and descriptions. People don't notice because the perspective provided by thinking in modern language hides all these faults. We blithely proceed about our lives thinking we understand reality and the human race knows everything. We think we always understand one another. How can we be wrong about everything when we can even count the number of tiny particles zipping about?

You sound like you're prepping to sell us a future book, perhaps titled, "The Ancient Supremacy of Wisdom through their Language" by Cladking.

You confuse the literal means to which language is communicated to its semantic meaning. Models are the symbols that act as pointers to reality and distinct from the actual symbols. We are stuck to using symbols to communicate anything whether real OR fiction. This just means that some of our symbols map to reality while some map to fiction. Thus reality is still understood to us through symbols unless you actually could be at (or even made of) the very objects/acts of nature we speak of. In other words, you'd have to be able to at least always be in the presence of anything you speak of (or should actually BE that thing) in order to actually 100% communicate what objective reality is. We are stuck with defaulting to symbols [or models, or formulas] to actually interpret reality through them. Thus we have to accept this and interpret all our reality as indistinguishable from ideas.

You also seem to be thinking that my own defense of this implies that there is such thing as being able to magically use words, like "abracadabra", to make nature obey our whims. This is NOT what I argue here. But if Nature itself could 'speak', this would apply. We call them "laws" of science. And while we humans may or may not be able to actually know them correctly, nature still commands reality akin to what we understand as these 'ideas' or 'forms'. Reality is just the manifestation of these in a one-to-one relationship.

I believe that to understand reality requires finding the actual words or 'language' of reality in such a way that it connects in an equivalent way to its manifestation as we witness (observe) it. We do this by using empirical science to hint at what is real while also attempting to show how the logic of nature can be rationally argued from the most minimum premises. To me, that minimum premise is to assume Nothingness as an origin and show how this leads to all that exists through the motivator of its own "contradiction".

[Obvious Leo]

To me, that minimum premise is to assume Nothingness as an origin and show how this leads to all that exists through the motivator of its own "contradiction"

This statement makes my blood run cold so I can only hope I've misunderstood you. You're surely not suggesting that the universe has an origin and this origin is Nothing. Larry Krauss is a charming enough bloke but perhaps not the first mentor who should spring to mind when it comes to matters of metaphysical ratiocination.