Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:53 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:03 am

Okay, but a formula that's a property of each bit of matter, right?

Matter behaves according to a set of formulas, so-called the laws of physics.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 10:00 pm --where each bit of matter would have a non-identical formula to other bits of matter?

Matter just behaves deterministically. It does not have any formula. What do you mean by non-identical formula?

You seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:

"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"

And you answered "true."

But now it seems like you're backing away from that.

By existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:53 am
Matter behaves according to a set of formulas, so-called the laws of physics.


Matter just behaves deterministically. It does not have any formula. What do you mean by non-identical formula?

You seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:

"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"

And you answered "true."

But now it seems like you're backing away from that.

By existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pmBy existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

It's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:44 am

You seem to be losing your thread of thought already. Above, in trying to clarify (for both of us it seems) just what your ontological view is about this stuff, I asked:

"So do you see the laws as existing uniquely in each bit of matter?"

And you answered "true."

But now it seems like you're backing away from that.

By existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?

The laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pmBy existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

It's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.

The laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pm
By existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?

The laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.

So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right? For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 2:02 am Something like consciousness is irrelevant in materialism. How does possibly matter process leads to consciousness which corresponds to reality to such fantastic precision.

You have not shown that consciousness is irrelevant to materialism. Materialism is an ontology. Ontology cares about the existence of things and their properties. Materialist ontology acknowledges the existence of beings with brains that perform conscious processes.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 2:02 am Can you name a property of water where it is not reducible to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen?

Sure: a physical property of water is that it is a liquid that at standard atmospheric pressure reaches a solid state at 0 degrees Celsius and gaseous state at 100 degrees Celsius. Now your turn: show me how hydrogen and oxygen display the same physical property.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:27 pm
So if the laws are not literally in (as properties, for example) each bit of matter and they're not simply a way that we think about the behavior or matter, what do you see them as--real abstracts of some sort?

The laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.

There are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?

No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?

What do you mean?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:57 pmBy existing when it comes to the laws of physics I mean matter behaves in a very specific way.

It's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.

The laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.

It does seem that "matter behaves in a very specific way". That behaviour can be described by different mathematical models and attributed to different philosophical models, any or all of which can be called laws, theories, hypotheses, batshit crazy by intelligent agents. Ah well; 2500 years and counting.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:00 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:03 pm
The laws of physics only exist abstractly in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.

There are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?

No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?

What do you mean?

So, for example, three and a half billion years ago, there could very well have been no creatures with minds. On your view, that means that three and a half billion years ago, there were also no physical laws, right? Do you think that the Earth existed three and a half billion years ago even though physical laws did not? And based on your other comments, if you answer "yes" here, do you think that matter behaved arbitrarily at that time?

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 2:02 am Something like consciousness is irrelevant in materialism. How does possibly matter process leads to consciousness which corresponds to reality to such fantastic precision.

You have not shown that consciousness is irrelevant to materialism. Materialism is an ontology. Ontology cares about the existence of things and their properties. Materialist ontology acknowledges the existence of beings with brains that perform conscious processes.

I already discussed that. You cannot control the electrons in your brain. Therefore, your consciousness cannot affect reality. Therefore, consciousness is irrelevant.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 2:02 am Can you name a property of water where it is not reducible to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen?

Sure: a physical property of water is that it is a liquid that at standard atmospheric pressure reaches a solid state at 0 degrees Celsius and gaseous state at 100 degrees Celsius. Now your turn: show me how hydrogen and oxygen display the same physical property.

Physical properties at the macroscopic level are not anything more than a function of microscopic properties. For example, the temperature is the average energy of atoms, pressure is the average force exerted to a surface, the same for solidity which is nothing more than shear tension.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:30 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:00 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm
Right. So we're back to that then. We were there earlier and you wound up not liking where it led.

There are two things when we talk about the laws of nature, the first is the way that matter behaves, and the second as it exists as a thought in the mind of an intelligent agent.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm So there is no world if there aren't beings with minds in your view, right?

No, I think that there are two substances involved in reality, the first one being minds and the second being the subject of experience. You could have a reality with minds only.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:26 pm For example, there was no temporal point where anything existed without a being with a mind existing?

What do you mean?

So, for example, three and a half billion years ago, there could very well have been no creatures with minds. On your view, that means that three and a half billion years ago, there were also no physical laws, right? Do you think that the Earth existed three and a half billion years ago even though physical laws did not? And based on your other comments, if you answer "yes" here, do you think that matter behaved arbitrarily at that time?

You are mixing things. There are two things: Thoughts in the minds of conscious agents and how matter behaves. Matter behaves according to the laws of physics regardless of whether there is an intelligent agent exists or not. Once there is an intelligent agent then the laws of physics could exist as thoughts in the mind of the agent.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:53 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:15 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:33 pmIt's semantic flim-flammery and it catches many people out. Matter does what it does. We observe matter doing its thing, and if we can attach an equation which fits what we observe passably well, we might call it a 'law of nature/physics'. Once you give something a name, the temptation is to think it has some sort of autonomy - that a 'law of nature' could exist without nature, for example. It either can or it can't, and if you can give a definitive answer, you will have solved a 2500 year old conundrum.

The laws of physics can only exist abstractly. By abstractly I mean that it is the subject of the experience of an intelligent agent, the so-called mind. It is therefore exists as a substance in the mind of an intelligent agent. Thoughts have different forms.

It does seem that "matter behaves in a very specific way". That behaviour can be described by different mathematical models and attributed to different philosophical models, any or all of which can be called laws, theories, hypotheses, batshit crazy by intelligent agents. Ah well; 2500 years and counting.

Yes, matter behaves according to the laws of nature. The consciousness is irrelevant in materialism, therefore, since it cannot interfere and change the laws of nature.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:06 pm Yes, matter behaves according to the laws of nature.

Can you give an example of what you mean by a law of nature?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:06 pm Yes, matter behaves according to the laws of nature.

Can you give an example of what you mean by a law of nature?

The second law of Newton for example.