Questions we'll never solve

[Obvious Leo]

I think it should be pointed out that Doris Day stood on the shoulders of her mother.

Don't we all, mate. We all stand on the shoulders of our mothers in the pursuit of our human goals, as well as the shoulders of anybody else if they happen to be conveniently placed. Sometimes we even need to kick a few heads out of the way if they seem to be obscuring our view but c'est la vie, baby, it's a dog eat dog world and sacred cows were bred to be slain.

It's good to see you back, cladking, and welcome to the conversation. As you can see the story remains the story but the story moves along.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well I suppose you have to believe in something.
I prefer not to.

Naturally your conceptual preferences are your own affair but I can assure you that my philosophy is not a treatise of belief. It is a legitimate work of scholarship which has occupied most of my life, a statement whose truth value you will obviously be incapable of evaluating if you don't take the trouble to read it. However I respect you as a diligent scholar, Hobbes, despite your unfortunate manner, and if you have an argument to put in refutation of any of the points I've made I'd be very interested in hearing it. This is the sole reason why I participate in forums such as this because it often forces me to think my way through concepts somewhat differently and therefore express them in a more precise form of language. If you simply wish to refute what I say by saying what I refute then it seems I may have overestimated your level of commitment to the philosophical discourse. However I trust that this will not be an impediment to civility in any future discussions we might have on other topics which are more in tune with your conceptual taste because generally I find your commentary both valuable and stimulating.
.

Now, now. Play nice. I've enjoyed our chats, but I don't want to put you in the bin with Gustav. Although my comments might be brief and terse, they are not intended to be insulting. Your reaction is an unfortunate reaction to an attack on your belief. "Belief" is a thing I place no value at all upon, when it relates to epistemic realities; I reserve belief for moral aspirations alone.

What I have learned from my study of the history of science is that without fail each new paradigm is gradually, sometimes iruptively (as Foucault would have said), changed, and old cosmologies scrapped. I have every reason to suppose that your one, amongst many others is deserving of the same attention: that is- held in interest and compared with others to see is it does or does not continue to hold water. However I do not see why you think it is worthy of longevity. I doubt that our current and established cosmologies will also go the way of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's, and think it highly unlikely for your own to survive as long as Isaac Newton's did.

But with each scientific epoch there are always one or two cosmologies that stand out against all data and stand firm against all current knowledge. One such cosmology is that of Isaac Newton. And so your comment "Isaac was a p**** of a bloke, and a metaphysical dunderhead, but he was a mathematical whizz-kid of lofty genius who lobbed into the world in the right place at the right time, as is often the case with those who launch great scientific breakthroughs." Is not only insulting but self contradictory.
It it a cheap dig, and does nothing to further my respect for you - quite the opposite. The prefacing comment;"The problem of physics dates back to its founder, Isaac Newton.". Is a valuable observation, for, as we know, all paradigms (and his was a fucking monumental one) tend to impress themselves into the consciousness, and inform a network of academic interest groups, each with those invested with academic and career reputation, making the paradigm resistant to change.
The point here is that however well your scheme saves the appearance and answers some questions, I have no doubt that you yourself would by your own assessment also be seen as "... a p**** of a bloke, and a metaphysical dunderhead" but perhaps not a;" a mathematical whizz-kid ", as you share with me a deep skepticism about the nature of maths.
I N's contribution even if 90% was wrong, makes a significant, even unparalleled contribution to knowledge. And I would also say that, although true that from a modern perspective I N seems a hopeless mystic, he was a man of his times; but being described as a misanthrope which he undoubtedly was does not change the findings of his Opitcks nor the brilliance of his other early work such as Prinkipia. Descending into childish as homs is not relevant to an assessment of his cosmological thinking.

So much for reading page one.
[img]Like%20Steven%20Jay%20Gould%20I%20had%20assumed%20that%20god%20and%20science%20belonged%20in%20different%20conceptual%20magisteria,%20but%20I%20was%20now%20becoming%20convinced%20that%20this%20was%20not%20necessarily%20so.%20This%20was%20the%20way%20that%20Newton%20saw%20his%20world%20and%20we%20see%20the%20world%20the%20way%20we%20want%20to%20see%20it,%20or%20more%20precisely,%20we%20see%20the%20world%20the%20way%20we%20expect%20to%20see%20it.%20This%20was%20to%20become%20a%20recurring%20theme%20as%20I%20delved%20ever%20deeper%20into%20the%20problem%20of%20physics.[/img]

I don't think this holds water.Maybe you want to discuss what you mean here?

PS. Sorry about the"%20" in the copy paste. I can't account for it.

PPS. There's a interesting point made by Krause which suggests that we have built a cosmology whose reality could only have been observed in this unique period in the history of the universe. He makes the point around 45mins if you don't have the time to see the whole thing. Were we born earlier or later in the universe our cosmological investigations could never have led to these conclusions.
The skeptic in my just thinks that this is not just a co-incidence, but that things are probably a lot more complex in reality and out cosmology is nothing more than the tail waging the dog. Or the anthrope waging the -ology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Obvious Leo]

"Belief" is a thing I place no value at all upon,

Neither do I. Therefore you should be able to sympathise with my tetchiness when accused of proselytising a belief system. Mine is a legitimate philosophy and at all times I ensure that I back up my claims with reasoned argument. I don't assert that these arguments are in all cases foolproof, and I welcome the close attention of anybody who wants to try and pick a hole in any of them, but a unilateral dismissal of them as statements of belief is something I don't propose to put up with without a fight.

What I have learned from my study of the history of science is that without fail each new paradigm is gradually, sometimes iruptively (as Foucault would have said), changed, and old cosmologies scrapped. I have every reason to suppose that your one, amongst many others is deserving of the same attention: that is- held in interest and compared with others to see is it does or does not continue to hold water. However I do not see why you think it is worthy of longevity. I doubt that our current and established cosmologies will also go the way of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's, and think it highly unlikely for your own to survive as long as Isaac Newton's did.

I can't find much fault with this observation and I'm delighted that you understand that what I'm talking about is a change in the paradigm of physics and that all I'm trying to do is offer a more coherent explanatory narrative for the current epistemic models. It was never my intention to chuck the baby out with the bathwater but I'm sure I hardly need point out to you, of all people, that these models are incoherent and make not the slightest lick of sense. To any philosopher the notion of making sense should not be regarded as a trivial side-issue.

This is the statement you seem to have been trying to paste.

Like Steven Jay Gould I had assumed that god and science belonged in different conceptual magisteria, but I was now becoming convinced that this was not necessarily so. This was the way that Newton saw his world and we see the world the way we want to see it, or more precisely, we see the world the way we expect to see it. This was to become a recurring theme as I delved ever deeper into the problem of physics.

This is a statement which could certainly do with some more detailed elaboration but it is the nature of a synopsis that important stuff can often be left out leaving the remnant unclear. We can often assume that the meaning is implicit purely because we know what we're talking about and it can often need a second pair of eyes to point out that this is far from being the case. I reckon I flesh out the intent of it more fully further along in the text but I acknowledge your critique as a valid one and that the meaning of this passage is less than self-evident. The point was not that I disagreed with Gould but rather that scientists like anybody else are creatures of the zeitgeist of their times and that to Newton the idea of separating god from his science was conceptually inconceivable. It may seem bizarre to a 21st century philosopher but Newton quite literally regarded his mission as modelling the mind of god and he quite literally defined the universe in his own thoughts as an artefact of the mind of god. He even defined the three dimensions of the Cartesian space as god's senses and in the modern language of information theory such a universe would be defined as a simulation, or a virtual reality, and this interpretation ties in very closely with my own definition of spacetime physics as being a model of a hologram rather than a model of a physically real world. I trust this clarifies the matter.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is the statement you seem to have been trying to paste.
Like Steven Jay Gould I had assumed that god and science belonged in different conceptual magisteria, but I was now becoming convinced that this was not necessarily so. This was the way that Newton saw his world and we see the world the way we want to see it, or more precisely, we see the world the way we expect to see it. This was to become a recurring theme as I delved ever deeper into the problem of physics.

This is a statement which could certainly do with some more detailed elaboration but it is the nature of a synopsis that important stuff can often be left out leaving the remnant unclear. We can often assume that the meaning is implicit purely because we know what we're talking about and it can often need a second pair of eyes to point out that this is far from being the case. I reckon I flesh out the intent of it more fully further along in the text but I acknowledge your critique as a valid one and that the meaning of this passage is less than self-evident. The point was not that I disagreed with Gould but rather that scientists like anybody else are creatures of the zeitgeist of their times and that to Newton the idea of separating god from his science was conceptually inconceivable. It may seem bizarre to a 21st century philosopher but Newton quite literally regarded his mission as modelling the mind of god and he quite literally defined the universe in his own thoughts as an artefact of the mind of god. He even defined the three dimensions of the Cartesian space as god's senses and in the modern language of information theory such a universe would be defined as a simulation, or a virtual reality, and this interpretation ties in very closely with my own definition of spacetime physics as being a model of a hologram rather than a model of a physically real world. I trust this clarifies the matter.

Right here's where the meaning breaks down. This is an objection about editing, not your view, perhaps.
Sentence two begins "This". And that this could mean to imply the main clause in sentence one, rather than, as you have it the sub-clause.
Thus when you say I N saw the universe this way you seem to imply an agreement between Gould and I N. Nothing could be more wrong as you have now asserted. The only place where I N departs or gives separation between god and his science is to allow god to hold to his chest his own mysterious and hermetic reasons. For N I it would be impious to suggest why god does this or that. N I saw his job as describing in detail god's design, not offering hypotheses, as we have discussed before. In doing so he is understanding the world and god not just from the Book of God, but also the Book of Nature. To what degree he maintains this claim is another matter. He was long lived and said far to many things for his writings not to be shot through with error and contradiction.

Gould's practice is very similar in that he completely separates God from his science. He too is offering a description, but a description so enmeshed in the mechanism that this description becomes explanatory without god. However his aims in separating God are very different indeed. God has no part in any sense at all.

[Obvious Leo]

Gould's practice is very similar in that he completely separates God from his science. He too is offering a description, but a description so enmeshed in the mechanism that this description becomes explanatory without god. However his aims in separating God are very different indeed. God has no part in any sense at all.

This was my intended meaning which I failed to convey. I completely agree with Gould in the sense in which he intended his comment. Science can have nothing to say about god any more than god can have anything to say about science. Clearly we both agree that Newton took a different view but I continue to maintain that the view which Newton took became an integral component of physics because the physicality of the Cartesian space is intrinsic to the model and it was this physicality which he attributed to god. Leibniz never bought it for a nanosecond although Leibniz was himself a believer.

Although I can't see how Newton could have foreshadowed this, his Thomist philosophy of the infinitesimals also led directly to the conclusion originally drawn from GR that the universe had a beginning, an assumption which Newton had simply made a priori. The GR assumption was simply the result of extending the implications of the calculus beyond its domain of applicability, which has now been almost universally acknowledged by the community of physics.

I've occasionally referred to my eternal and cyclical universe paradigm as a god-killer but I do so somewhat tongue in cheek. I know perfectly well that disproving the existence of god is every bit as impossible as proving it, even given this paradigm, but obviously a universe without a beginning dispenses with the notion of god as a "necessary being", an argument beloved of the theists. I have no doubt they'll think of something else.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Gould's practice is very similar in that he completely separates God from his science. He too is offering a description, but a description so enmeshed in the mechanism that this description becomes explanatory without god. However his aims in separating God are very different indeed. God has no part in any sense at all.

This was my intended meaning which I failed to convey. I completely agree with Gould in the sense in which he intended his comment. Science can have nothing to say about god any more than god can have anything to say about science. Clearly we both agree that Newton took a different view but I continue to maintain that the view which Newton took became an integral component of physics because the physicality of the Cartesian space is intrinsic to the model and it was this physicality which he attributed to god. Leibniz never bought it for a nanosecond although Leibniz was himself a believer.

Although I can't see how Newton could have foreshadowed this, his Thomist philosophy of the infinitesimals also led directly to the conclusion originally drawn from GR that the universe had a beginning, an assumption which Newton had simply made a priori. The GR assumption was simply the result of extending the implications of the calculus beyond its domain of applicability, which has now been almost universally acknowledged by the community of physics.

I've occasionally referred to my eternal and cyclical universe paradigm as a god-killer but I do so somewhat tongue in cheek. I know perfectly well that disproving the existence of god is every bit as impossible as proving it, even given this paradigm, but obviously a universe without a beginning dispenses with the notion of god as a "necessary being", an argument beloved of the theists. I have no doubt they'll think of something else.

Great so the text needs tweaking. Tweak away.

Next problem.
[img]If%20we%20rule%20out%20the%20possibility%20of%20a%20universe%20with%20a%20creator%20we%20are%20left%20with%20only%20a%20single%20alternative.%20Binary%20options%20are%20manna%20from%20heaven%20to%20a%20philosopher%20of%20the%20obvious,%20to%20whom%20Boolean%20logic%20is%20the%20under-structure%20of%20all%20other%20logics.%20The%20only%20available%20alternative%20to%20a%20created%20universe%20is%20one%20which%20has%20always%20existed,%20since%20existence%20cannot%20spring%20from%20non-existence.[/img]

I tend to agree that it is likley that there was something into which the BB occurred - a something for which there could never be any evidence because of the BB .... But I reject you 'logic'. This is not a logical question in any sense, but an epistemological one.
You cannot base a logical statement on an unfounded premise. Well you can, but the logic is only as good as the premise, which premise can only be asserted , not verified.
The beginning of the known universe has no corrollary. With the difficulties with inductive fallacy, even if you could establish the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit, with the evolution of the Universe we have every reason to assume an evolution of the very laws of nature.
And as the beginning of the universe is an apparently unique event we cannot even demonstrate any inductive inference from its beginning.
So whilst we can continue to observe that ex nihilo nihil fit seems to be the case, this is never fully established, relying as it does on negative induction. There are also those in the QM brigade that would like to say that it is demonstrably false.
Next: we have the possibility that things are not what they used to be, and what we can observe and talk about concerning laws of nature relies on another inductive premise, namely uniformitarianism.
Why are you then rejecting the possibility that our current laws of nature even apply to the BB at all?

I told you I was a skeptic.

PS again sorry about the %20. I do not normally get this problem. What editor have you used for your text? Maybe its a mac/pc problem?
My editor has a find, but not a find and replace so I can't change the error, expect manually.

[cladking]

"it is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein.

I am in no doubt that a computational model based on non-linear dynamic systems theory can deliver the goods for the particle physicists, even though I personally wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about it. I have some vague intuitions about knot theory which I rather fancy but this is probably a reflection of a bias of my own because this is an important theory currently being pursued on the cutting edge of cellular biology in understanding the processes of protein folding in cellular metabolism, but living systems are non-linear dynamic system of such staggering complexity that something much simpler might be more appropriate for a simple process like an atom. I mention this only in passing and as little more than a wild guess because such considerations are questions way above my pay grade.

I had a calculus prof who once got carried away while trying to explain how an asymptote approaches an axis or line; forever closer. He drew the asymptote on the chalkboard and continued drawing when he ran out of board. Even running out of classroom proved no impediment as he continued drawing down the hallway. But it strikes me that his "infinity" isn't nearly as great as the actual complexity of nature. Even at his furthest point (it took him nearly a minute to sheepishly return to the room), he was barely more than a couple orders of magnitude beyond the board (would he be "beyond the pale" if it had been a whiteboard). But consider that a book is far simpler than even tiny parts of reality and it would require 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000 monkeys to write War and Peace!!! This number is far greater than infinity for ALL practical purposes yet it doesn't begin to reflect the complexity of nature.

I still believe that we can't know where we are without knowing how we got here. We're in a phonebooth with an elephant which no one can experience and this elephant is the complexity of reality. We model a few simple experiments and believe the complexity doesn't exist because we have our models which we believe explain just about everything and still we can't predict our way out of a paper bag.

I guess this round about way of making my point philosophically is failing so I'll have to start my own thread. We must, in this specific instance, know how we got here to understand why we can't model so many things. We must understand how we got here to know why the theory is the determinant of the observation.

[Obvious Leo]

Great so the text needs tweaking. Tweak away.

It's more likely to end up being chucked away than tweaked because it was never intended as more than an experimental exercise in locating a "voice" and attempting a summary of the seminal points. I've always regarded myself as more of a diarist and essayist than a book-writer and I still reckon this story is one probably better told in a series of discrete essays if it's ever to be told by me.

Once again I'll transpose your quoted excerpt for the sake of clarity.

If we rule out the possibility of a universe with a creator we are left with only a single alternative. Binary options are manna from heaven to a philosopher of the obvious, to whom Boolean logic is the under-structure of all other logics. The only available alternative to a created universe is one which has always existed, since existence cannot spring from non-existence.

This is not a logical question in any sense, but an epistemological one.
You cannot base a logical statement on an unfounded premise. Well you can, but the logic is only as good as the premise, which premise can only be asserted , not verified.

I agree with this and if I haven't made this clear enough in my synopsis I have certainly done so in a number of posts within this forum. My approach to this impasse is a very simple one and it is this. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. There being no third option I chose the simpler of the two since it requires no speculation about the nature of an external causal agent. It was merely a question of Occam economy since either assumption lies beyond the reach of either scientific or philosophical enquiry. In other words when it comes to the universe as a whole we have to start with one of these two alternatives and then go where the evidence takes us. The eternal universe option is one for which I've been able to propose both a mechanism based on non-linear dynamics systems theory as well as a theoretical paradigm based on the Universal Turing Machine. The universe with a beginning inevitably leads to the "heat death" scenario mandated by the second law of thermodynamics and a conclusion of either god or a monstrous cosmic accident for its existence. I reject this alternative because it contradicts the evidence and I won't deny that it also offends me on aesthetic grounds.

even if you could establish the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit, with the evolution of the Universe we have every reason to assume an evolution of the very laws of nature.

You'll have to keep reading because my philosophy acknowledges no such thing as the "laws of nature". A self-casual universe has no need of such laws because it is chaotically determined and these so-called "laws" are merely observer-derived heuristics which are invented by science to model the self-organising patterns which spontaneously emerge in such systems. There is no valid reason to suggest that one way of modelling this behaviour should be preferable to any other, so the "Why these laws and constants question?" becomes moot. There is no reason whatsoever why we have chosen to model the universe in this way other than the fact that it has epistemic utility. For the same reason there is no ontological reason whatsoever to prefer the Copernican heliocentric model over the Ptolemaic geocentric one. We do this for good epistemic reasons but it's basically only because it makes the sums easier. In fact this is the mythical multiverse. Who needs a gazillion universes when we've potentially got a gazillion different ways of modelling the one we're in? The laws and constants are a property of the theory and not a property of reality, a point which should become clearer as you read on.

PS again sorry about the %20. I do not normally get this problem. What editor have you used for your text? Maybe its a mac/pc problem?

I simply use MS Word because it's the only programme I know how to use. I suspect the problem may lie in the wordpress formatting but I freely confess that I'm a techno-moron and know nothing of these things. Now that my kids have grown up and pissed off I stumble in the darkness with this technology. I don't mind if you continue to cut and paste in this way because I can simply locate the text in my own file and transpose it to make it more easily readable. However I suggest that you read through to the end of the text before you do so because I feel sure that the answers to all of your above questions are contained in it.

Having said that, however, let me say that I warmly welcome your questions and will always endeavour to answer them because this statement redounds to your credit:

I told you I was a skeptic.

If you wish to call yourself a philosopher then so you fucking well should be. This philosophy is one to be UNDERSTOOD and not in any sense one to be believed. For sure it presents two metaphysical first principles which are not further reducible but there are only two such principles from which the entire story unfolds. I need them for the simple reason that everybody's got to start somewhere or nothing ever gets done. I'll restate these first principles here and do so for a good reason.

1. The universe is everything that exists

2. All effects must be preceded by a cause.

I concede that these are unverifiable assumptions although I claim to make a good case for them. My philosophy must be read with these assumptions accepted but I don't require anybody to believe them. However understanding what I'm banging on about does require the reader to suspend such disbelief and follow the argument AS IF the assumptions were true. I'm buggered if I can see how a cosmological paradigm could be arrived at any other way but I do NOT claim to be the custodian of an ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

[Obvious Leo]

we can't predict our way out of a paper bag.

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"...Yogi Berra

The most obvious metaphysical absurdity implied by the current models of physics is that they make no metaphysical distinction between past present and future. This means that in principle the so-called "laws of nature" should be able to predict what you'll have for breakfast on your birthday five years from now. This is an uncomfortable fact which physics is unable to deny, which is why when you mention the word metaphysics to a physicist he'll quickly decamp over to the far side of the room because you're the bloke who just farted. Newton wouldn't bat an eyelid at such a statement because that's the way he saw the timeless mind of god.

[cladking]

we can't predict our way out of a paper bag.

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"...Yogi Berra

The most obvious metaphysical absurdity implied by the current models of physics is that they make no metaphysical distinction between past present and future. This means that in principle the so-called "laws of nature" should be able to predict what you'll have for breakfast on your birthday five years from now. This is an uncomfortable fact which physics is unable to deny, which is why when you mention the word metaphysics to a physicist he'll quickly decamp over to the far side of the room because you're the bloke who just farted. Newton wouldn't bat an eyelid at such a statement because that's the way he saw the timeless mind of god.

Maybe that's why no matter how carefully I use the term "metaphysics" in context that most scientists will take a different meaning. Indeed, they tend to take the meaning of the word to be something akin to "magic" or "mysticism".

I maintain that the problem is that modern metaphysics is so simple at its heart that people forget what it is. People simply don't or can't understand the nature of scientific knowledge. They mistake their models for the reality and metaphysicians for mystics. Meanwhile many scientists are so far removed from understanding the nature of theory that they sound like mystics. This is especially common in the so-called "soft sciences" which are sometimes not at all science.

[Obvious Leo]

we can't predict our way out of a paper bag.

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"...Yogi Berra

The most obvious metaphysical absurdity implied by the current models of physics is that they make no metaphysical distinction between past present and future. This means that in principle the so-called "laws of nature" should be able to predict what you'll have for breakfast on your birthday five years from now. This is an uncomfortable fact which physics is unable to deny, which is why when you mention the word metaphysics to a physicist he'll quickly decamp over to the far side of the room because you're the bloke who just farted. Newton wouldn't bat an eyelid at such a statement because that's the way he saw the timeless mind of god.

Maybe that's why no matter how carefully I use the term "metaphysics" in context that most scientists will take a different meaning. Indeed, they tend to take the meaning of the word to be something akin to "magic" or "mysticism".

I maintain that the problem is that modern metaphysics is so simple at its heart that people forget what it is. People simply don't or can't understand the nature of scientific knowledge. They mistake their models for the reality and metaphysicians for mystics. Meanwhile many scientists are so far removed from understanding the nature of theory that they sound like mystics. This is especially common in the so-called "soft sciences" which are sometimes not at all science.

We are kindred spirits on this point, cladking, because much of science simply hasn't a clue what metaphysics is. Physics is easily the worst culprit but mistaking the map for the territory is a problem which is endemic to all of science, to a greater or lesser extent.

If physics comes up with a suite of equations which can show us that the passage of time in the universe is not a real physical phenomenon then this is a metaphysical statement whether they like it or not and it is in this light that such a statement must be scrutinised. Likewise when they say that events at the sub-atomic level of reality are events without a cause then this statement must also be examined as a metaphysical one. A metaphysician is perfectly entitled to conclude that the equations of the physicists are not describing the real universe and as far as I'm concerned that's all there is to it. The Platonist proposition that the universe comes with a suite of laws of unknown origin as well as a vast array of mathematical constants of unknown origin is also an assumption which demands an explanation because this defines a universe insufficient to its own existence and thus a causal agent external to itself. Trying to explain this mystery away by positing an infinite number of universes which this one is not is a laughable proposition which should make any philosopher reach for his hemlock without delay. This is an exercise in the Ptolemaic myth that a theory can always be salvaged simply by grafting more bullshit onto it. It's a neat mathematical trick but we kid ourselves when we call this science.

[cladking]

We are kindred spirits on this point, cladking, because much of science simply hasn't a clue what metaphysics is. Physics is easily the worst culprit but mistaking the map for the territory is a problem which is endemic to all of science, to a greater or lesser extent.

If physics comes up with a suite of equations which can show us that the passage of time in the universe is not a real physical phenomenon then this is a metaphysical statement whether they like it or not and it is in this light that such a statement must be scrutinised. Likewise when they say that events at the sub-atomic level of reality are events without a cause then this statement must also be examined as a metaphysical one. A metaphysician is perfectly entitled to conclude that the equations of the physicists are not describing the real universe and as far as I'm concerned that's all there is to it. The Platonist proposition that the universe comes with a suite of laws of unknown origin as well as a vast array of mathematical constants of unknown origin is also an assumption which demands an explanation because this defines a universe insufficient to its own existence and thus a causal agent external to itself. Trying to explain this mystery away by positing an infinite number of universes which this one is not is a laughable proposition which should make any philosopher reach for his hemlock without delay. This is an exercise in the Ptolemaic myth that a theory can always be salvaged simply by grafting more bullshit onto it. It's a neat mathematical trick but we kid ourselves when we call this science.

At the risk of taking the thread off-topic I still can't decide how to attack the issue which brought me to the site. I believe I've discovered an ancient science that had a complex metaphysics. The science was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment as modern science is. The logic was based on the ancient language which was metaphysical because it was always being adapted to nature as new theory arose. The language was simply an animal language that suddenly became complex when a mutation made humans capable of complex language. I've attacked this issue from nearly every conceivable angle and it seems to matter little because people resist it. The implications are quite far reaching and much of it seems fantastic to the average man and impossible to scientists. The one thing I've not tried yet is keeping the idea separate from the means by which I discovered it. This might not be possible to accomplish though since they are closely intertwined. It may not be possible because everything I say will be deconstructed just like all statements in modern language. Rather than considering the possible reality of what I'm suggesting people hear something else and see what they expect.

Many of the questions which seem impossible to answer are either axiomatic or apparent from the perspective of the ancient science. I have little doubt that some of the questions facing modern physics would be soluble from such a perspective. It will take someone a lot smarter than me though. It's terribly ironic that if you're right (you no doubt are) that it's a belief in the "Creator" standing in the way of progress in physics that it is principally caused by a confusion of ancient science that was lost when the language became overly complex giving rise to the many modern languages. From the perspective of most modern language users there is "obviously" a God because something had to give rise to the first occurance. People simply don't see that these concepts are an artefact of modern language and are not really related to ancient science or modern science in the ideal.

I suppose the thread must concentrate on the metaphysics but have a perspective of modern language users. Somehow it seems this windmill will refuse to be tilted.

[PoeticUniverse]

The direction forward, as having been utilized herein, is to note that there can’t be a meta- to the physical, nor any extra-, super-, intangible, immaterial that makes the physical or at least interacts with it, for then it speaks the language of the physical, to exchange energy with it, and so it self-destructs itself in its possibility of being transcendent, but if one really want it then it’s apart from the physical, having nothing ever to do with it, and so not a factor in what goes on for us, but just some inert excess sitting around doing zilch.

[Lacewing]

In response to the topic title... here are a few questions: If everything is energy, how can there be any impenetrable boundaries/separations between anything and anything else? Although humans may see forms as solid and separate, there is a level on which everything is pure energy, right? And wouldn't such a vast/infinite field of energy be capable of processing and exchanging and evolving and manifesting on levels and at speeds far beyond and outside of the physical/material limits and boundaries imagined by humans? So if humans could grasp the implications of such vast connectivity that they are a part of... and stop being so convinced of their own limited definitions of forms (and life)... might they be able to process and evolve more energetically and efficiently as much of nature does? Just wondering.

(Uh-oh... am I off topic?)

[Obvious Leo]

(Uh-oh... am I off topic?)

Not really. Newton demonstrated the causal interconnectedness between every physical entity in the universe with his theory of gravity and Einstein demonstrated the equivalence of matter and energy with his famous equation E=mc^(2), although nowadays the word information is often preferred to mass/energy.

And wouldn't such a vast/infinite field of energy be capable of processing and exchanging and evolving and manifesting on levels and at speeds far beyond and outside of the physical/material limits and boundaries imagined by humans?

No. At the fundamental level of reality is only energy, as you suggest, but we know perfectly well how fast energy is capable of transforming itself into a new form at this fundamental scale. This is the speed of light and it is a finite speed. You must think of the speed of light as the speed at which the universe is continuously remaking itself anew.

I love getting questions from people with bugger-all physics, Lacewing, because the problem is not that the universe is too complicated to understand. The problem is that it's too bloody simple to understand and the geeks are always looking for complications where no complications exist. Don't let the bastards bluff you. The universe is something which a child could understand, as indeed they intuitively do. The universe is that which IS HAPPENING all around you and all you need to do is understand the tense of the verb.