Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: When you say "self causal" you are imputing a self which does not exist. Making your statement a contradiction.

Only if you conflate determinism with pre-determinism. Self-causality does not pre-define a specific outcome other than that the entire system becomes more informationally complex. That's all that evolution means.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Even were we to say 'automatic', this might imply a 'self'. I think the philosophical meaning of necessary would be better here.

In a way I agree with you but the word "necessary" is also fraught with creationist implications. "Necessary" could as equally be applied to Newton's fiction of a reality predicated on a suite of divine laws of supernatural origin, whereas "self-causal" could not. A self-causal universe is beholden to no laws whatsoever beyond the single meta-law that all effects must be preceded by a cause. Since this single meta-law is completely sufficient to account for all the diverse complexity in our universe, including the existence of life and mind, it must be preferred to the Newtonian alternative on the grounds of Occam economy. The Newtonian narrative simply cannot accommodate the theory of evolution.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Such is the legacy of the evolution of a language that until the last couple of centuries at most, has been used to describe "God's creation"

The problem of physics in a nutshell. Newton's a priori assumption of a created universe is inextricably embedded within the language of Newtonian mathematics and this is the language of physics. Unsurprisingly physics is the only science which models itself using these classical mathematical tools and equally unsurprisingly it is the only science which makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Chaotic determinism and Newtonian pre-determinism are mutually exclusive and until physics recognises this self-evident FACT it will remain at the bottom of its conceptual mineshaft. Paradoxically it was Newton himself who disproved his own a priori assumption without realising it. His model for gravity remains an action-at-a-distance non-mechanical model which spacetime physics has failed to correct but it does provide us with an unassailable FACT. The motion of every single physical entity in the universe causally affects the motion of every other, a simple statement of the bloody obvious but nevertheless a piquant definition of self-causality which Werner Heisenberg later managed to pass off as an utterance of profound wisdom which had them all bluffed. It turned out that the mythical "divine laws" hypothesis can't work within the atom so they went for the uncaused event instead.

The pre-Socratics would have sold the whole fucking lot of them into slavery.

Scott Mayers wrote: So logic is more 'true' than any amount of science, even presuming science is insufficient to determining 'truth'.

I completely agree with this but go further to suggest that logical deduction from metaphysical first principles must also be compatible with our inductive inferences from observation. For instance if we can infer from our models that effects can physically precede their causes then we can be certain that we have incorporated a flawed a priori assumption into our epistemic narrative. Our mathematical tools can model our theories of nature but they can't specify for them because this would be to ontologise our toolkit, a point masterfully made by Immanuel Kant and also by this bloke.

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

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: So logic is more 'true' than any amount of science, even presuming science is insufficient to determining 'truth'.

I completely agree with this but go further to suggest that logical deduction from metaphysical first principles must also be compatible with our inductive inferences from observation. For instance if we can infer from our models that effects can physically precede their causes then we can be certain that we have incorporated a flawed a priori assumption into our epistemic narrative. Our mathematical tools can model our theories of nature but they can't specify for them because this would be to ontologise our toolkit, a point masterfully made by Immanuel Kant and also by this bloke.

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

I meant that "inductive inferences from observation" includes logic as well. But of course, you are correct in that what is contingently 'true' of our universe regarding nature distinct from logic itself is observations with exception to logic.

I didn't hear of this quote before of Einstein's but at least feel confirmed that he too understood the significance of what both you and I agree on with regards to theory as a product of philosophy by implication. But modern scientists no longer take the same route to science that our past ones did through philosophy first any longer. It's frustrating to convey this to many now.

Ironically, it was also this,

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein

that contributed to the effort to extinguish philosophy as a part of serious inquiry for science too, though. I don't know if this was his intentional meaning or not, but is why many dismiss it now.

Scott Mayers wrote:I meant that "inductive inferences from observation" includes logic as well.

Indeed it does but the logic is constrained by the narrative of the inference. For example the sun rises in the east, traverses the sky and sets in the west on a 24 hour period. Therefore the sun orbits the earth daily. The logic is flawless but the narrative of the logic is wrong. If one were to devise a set of equations in accordance with this logic it wouldn't make the statement any more true because mathematics can only model a specified theory about nature and cannot make any statement about the truth value of the theory it's modelling. Ptolemy had them all bluffed for 1400 years and spacetime physics has had them all bluffed for over a century and this is not because there's anything wrong with the mathematics. The problem is that the narrative of the theory being modelled is bullshit. Time is quite transparently NOT a spatial dimension and all efforts to put lipstick on this pig have only led to more and more paradoxes and counter-intuitive absurdities. Logical positivism is an insidious doctrine which denies the validity of human reason in the conduct of human affairs and as such it is no better than any other religion, in my opinion.

Scott Mayers wrote: Ironically, it was also this,

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein


that contributed to the effort to extinguish philosophy as a part of serious inquiry for science too, though. I don't know if this was his intentional meaning or not, but is why many dismiss it now.

It was absolutely his intended meaning because Einstein never wavered for a single moment in his conviction that his own theory was bollocks. He knew perfectly well that the dice-playing god and the spooky action at a distance were his own bloody fault because they are irrefutable conclusions derived from SR. However what he never managed to fully realise was that his own GR model actually falsifies SR.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: Ironically, it was also this,

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein


that contributed to the effort to extinguish philosophy as a part of serious inquiry for science too, though. I don't know if this was his intentional meaning or not, but is why many dismiss it now.

It was absolutely his intended meaning because Einstein never wavered for a single moment in his conviction that his own theory was bollocks. He knew perfectly well that the dice-playing god and the spooky action at a distance were his own bloody fault because they are irrefutable conclusions derived from SR. However what he never managed to fully realise was that his own GR model actually falsifies SR.

I interpret GR as including SR with complete closure. It only extends inertial frames to accelerating ones and adds the interpretation of space-time to describe it. (I thought you were against 'space-time' as this is modeled as a fourth dimension to make space and time equivalent to explain gravity as a 'warping' of it?)

Scott Mayers wrote:I interpret GR as including SR with complete closure.

I'm afraid not. Although I loathe using the non-physical form of language which physicists use what spacetime physics actually claims is that SR is a special case of GR in a "flat space". A "flat space" is a space without gravity in it and no such space actually exists in the physical universe so SR is a mathematical abstraction which takes the theory of relativity outside of its domain of applicability into a mathematical no-mans-land. Since QM is entirely predicated on SR and ignores GR completely it is likewise stranded in this abstract kingdom where gravity doesn't exist. How the fuck they ever imagined that they could pluck a theory of quantum gravity out of a model which denies its very existence is a question which the science historians of the future will be hard pressed to answer.

Scott Mayers wrote:(I thought you were against 'space-time' as this is modeled as a fourth dimension to make space and time equivalent to explain gravity as a 'warping' of it?)

I wouldn't have too much trouble with spacetime if they only showed a bit more humility and conceded that it was merely a mathematical model of the universe rather than a physical model. The "warping" of space is nothing more than a mathematical expression of the variability in the speed at which time passes, which is entirely determined by gravity. Gravitational lensing is no more mysterious than the bent stick in the water from our high school science classes. It's a bloody observer effect caused by the fact that the speed of light is not a constant.

Obvious Leo wrote:
I'm afraid not. Although I loathe using the non-physical form of language which physicists use what spacetime physics actually claims is that SR is a special case of GR in a "flat space". A "flat space" is a space without gravity in it and no such space actually exists in the physical universe so SR is a mathematical abstraction which takes the theory of relativity outside of its domain of applicability into a mathematical no-mans-land. Since QM is entirely predicated on SR and ignores GR completely it is likewise stranded in this abstract kingdom where gravity doesn't exist. How the fuck they ever imagined that they could pluck a theory of quantum gravity out of a model which denies its very existence is a question which the science historians of the future will be hard pressed to answer.

While the 'quantum' may have originated with Einstein, this was a distinct and separate issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with his SR nor GR theory. Later, as other scientists dealt with the atomic sizes, they completely overtook Einstein's own role other than his history of it to become a statistical science and why it raised questions about uncertainty (= indeterminism). This is where Einstein differs significantly, but QM uses GR as it is the general inclusive theory which implies SR anyways.

Scott Mayers wrote:(I thought you were against 'space-time' as this is modeled as a fourth dimension to make space and time equivalent to explain gravity as a 'warping' of it?)

I wouldn't have too much trouble with spacetime if they only showed a bit more humility and conceded that it was merely a mathematical model of the universe rather than a physical model. The "warping" of space is nothing more than a mathematical expression of the variability in the speed at which time passes, which is entirely determined by gravity. Gravitational lensing is no more mysterious than the bent stick in the water from our high school science classes. It's a bloody observer effect caused by the fact that the speed of light is not a constant.

Spacetime is the 'warping' model and precisely what you are referring to as well. SR is only relating to constant inertial states. In reality, all experiments dealing with this though requires respecting GM due to the fact that we have to alter one frame to another by accelerating to achieve these different relative 'states' of movement only.

Scott Mayers wrote:While the 'quantum' may have originated with Einstein, this was a distinct and separate issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with his SR nor GR theory. Later, as other scientists dealt with the atomic sizes, they completely overtook Einstein's own role other than his history of it to become a statistical science and why it raised questions about uncertainty (= indeterminism). This is where Einstein differs significantly, but QM uses GR as it is the general inclusive theory which implies SR anyways.

This is completely wrong, Scott, and any physicist will confirm this. QM completely ignores gravity because it is entirely predicated on SR and NOT on GR. The Standard Model which was developed on the back of the QM paradigm does exactly the same thing. It completely ignores gravity and yet even Newton knew that gravity was a fundamental property of the universe which affects the relativistic motion of every physical entity in existence. Ignoring this incontrovertible FACT for the relativistic motions of particles within the atom could hardly be dismissed as a trivial oversight and for as long as the geeks continue to do this they'll have more chance of flying to Mars by flapping their arms than coming up with a model for gravity more persuasive than spooky action at a distance. In case you've missed the point of all the existential angst in physics this is exactly what it is. QM and GR are mutually exclusive models and trying to jam a square peg into a round hole has never met with much success.

Scott Mayers wrote:SR is only relating to constant inertial states.

Constant relative to what?

Obvious Leo wrote: Constant relative to what?

I'll answer my own question since it was intended as a rhetorical one.

SR refers to constant inertial states relative to the fixed and immutable Newtonian space.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:While the 'quantum' may have originated with Einstein, this was a distinct and separate issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with his SR nor GR theory. Later, as other scientists dealt with the atomic sizes, they completely overtook Einstein's own role other than his history of it to become a statistical science and why it raised questions about uncertainty (= indeterminism). This is where Einstein differs significantly, but QM uses GR as it is the general inclusive theory which implies SR anyways.

This is completely wrong, Scott, and any physicist will confirm this. QM completely ignores gravity because it is entirely predicated on SR and NOT on GR. The Standard Model which was developed on the back of the QM paradigm does exactly the same thing. It completely ignores gravity and yet even Newton knew that gravity was a fundamental property of the universe which affects the relativistic motion of every physical entity in existence. Ignoring this incontrovertible FACT for the relativistic motions of particles within the atom could hardly be dismissed as a trivial oversight and for as long as the geeks continue to do this they'll have more chance of flying to Mars by flapping their arms than coming up with a model for gravity more persuasive than spooky action at a distance. In case you've missed the point of all the existential angst in physics this is exactly what it is. QM and GR are mutually exclusive models and trying to jam a square peg into a round hole has never met with much success.

Scott Mayers wrote:SR is only relating to constant inertial states.

Constant relative to what?

Okay, to take an example of how to use SR appropriately, if given a car that is not moving with respect to a position on the Earth, it's inert (unchanging) condition is 0 km/h (any direction). A second comparative state is a car moving at say, 50 km/h relative to you in any other direction. Yet, for this second state, we know that it requires that that car must have had to accelerate to at least get up to 50 km/h in real life. This is unimportant at this point to concern oneself of the period of acceleration if one is comparing the two inertial states. Thus you ignore acceleration to try to interpret what is the differences in those frames.

Also, you would ignore gravity (as an acceleration) as both such cars experience the same normal (downwards) acceleration equally and its direction is different for the particular things we are trying to understand. Then SR refers to this comparison with respect to different observers in each frame. This is still "general relativity" but simplified for inertial states only and why it is called "special relativity". General relatitivity still encapsulates the special cases within it and are still a part of the same system. So you cannot deny SR because GR also implies it completely. That is, you would be more rational to accept SR but NOT GR; You cannot accept GR but deny SR, however.

For example, if I give a 'special' argument as: (1) "Some specific (special) people are nice."

I might further claim a 'general' argument as: (2) "All people are nice."

As you can see, (1) can be accepted as the special case but (2) can be denied. However, you cannot believe in the general case (2) but still deny (1) because (2) implies (1) necessarily. This is why you cannot accept GR but deny SR logically and why you could at least believe in SR but deny GR with reason.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I see what you mean. But I feel that causality has to be temporally directional. I can't bang the nail in until I have made the hammer.

I saw a good explanation of this by I believe Brian Greene in a documentary explaining a secondary use of the law of thermodynamics. He demonstrated a glass being dropped to the floor and broken into flying pieces everywhere to which he asked if the reverse is possible? He answered yes by showing the arrows of each fragment in the forward direction in time, then simply reversed each arrow (through CG effects). He explained that while it would be highly unusual, the reality is that if all the forces were reversed precisely, the glass would exactly form as a whole again. It is only about the odds of this that limit the likelihood only. So to him, he too agrees that time is invariably bidirectional.

This is obviously BS. The Universe is tending towards chaos. No cause could direct the masses of energy to re-form the bond on the glass molecules to re-organise that which has tended to chaos. The heat and the sound of the breaking glass is disorganised energy.

The other Greene (from England?) takes the same view as you and Leo on this though. So differences of opinion is variable by many physicists alike too. The 'reversal' of a hammer hitting a nail is the idea that the energy of the dispersion of the nail could technically cause the nail to inversely cause a hammer that is on its head to fly backwards in the exact opposing way of the initial hammer.

No serious scientist can possibly pretend that time can travel backwards to reconstruct a smashed vase. Is this what you are really trying to suggest?

Also, in experiments on consciousness, they also demonstrated that our interpretation of the sense is 'backwards' in that we only consciously recognize our thought after our predetermination to act. I argued this rationale independently in a different way but like the fact that there is support for this. My own explanation is that we are 'conscious' simultaneously upon all active neurons feeling it, even in different places in the brain, but only 'confirm' this where the energy of these meet in some common link. Thus we 'feel' instantly yet somewhat 'forget' any non-linked energy exchanges between neurons. This is a proof of the idea of another 'effect' that interprets the 'cause' akin to evolution.

Nope. There is evidence to suggest that decisions are made before we are consciously aware of them. But this does not further your claim. It furthers my claim.

I am confused by your interpreted uses of these. I used "bidirectional" when you say that "reality is diachronic" in apparent contradiction to how I interpret the word I use as the same as yours. You seem to be saying (in my interpretation) that time is unidirectional (synchronic? or at least non-diachronic) but then affirm it being diachronic anyways. Just asking for more clarification or definitions only.

Synchronic is the view of a problem as a static case, with no reference to change in time. For example we might talk about the election results for the Labour Leadership as a fait-acompli. In such a view we would only be concerned with the numbers of votes cast and the disposition of the candidates and the results.
A diachronic look would be interested in the change in support won or lost by the candidates throughout the election campaign. Such a view might want to posit the trends and events that caused those changes along the way.

When it comes to time: there is no 'bi-directional'. Time is unidirectional. As it is the means by which we measure and acknowledge change. Cakes follow ingredients; not the other way round.
The terms are from anthropology and archaeology, but apply equally well to maths or science.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I see what you mean. But I feel that causality has to be temporally directional. I can't bang the nail in until I have made the hammer.

I saw a good explanation of this by I believe Brian Greene in a documentary explaining a secondary use of the law of thermodynamics. He demonstrated a glass being dropped to the floor and broken into flying pieces everywhere to which he asked if the reverse is possible? He answered yes by showing the arrows of each fragment in the forward direction in time, then simply reversed each arrow (through CG effects). He explained that while it would be highly unusual, the reality is that if all the forces were reversed precisely, the glass would exactly form as a whole again. It is only about the odds of this that limit the likelihood only. So to him, he too agrees that time is invariably bidirectional.

This is obviously BS. The Universe is tending towards chaos. No cause could direct the masses of energy to re-form the bond on the glass molecules to re-organise that which has tended to chaos. The heat and the sound of the breaking glass is disorganised energy.

Please watch this first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

The other Greene (from England?) takes the same view as you and Leo on this though. So differences of opinion is variable by many physicists alike too. The 'reversal' of a hammer hitting a nail is the idea that the energy of the dispersion of the nail could technically cause the nail to inversely cause a hammer that is on its head to fly backwards in the exact opposing way of the initial hammer.

No serious scientist can possibly pretend that time can travel backwards to reconstruct a smashed vase. Is this what you are really trying to suggest?

See above.

Also, in experiments on consciousness, they also demonstrated that our interpretation of the sense is 'backwards' in that we only consciously recognize our thought after our predetermination to act. I argued this rationale independently in a different way but like the fact that there is support for this. My own explanation is that we are 'conscious' simultaneously upon all active neurons feeling it, even in different places in the brain, but only 'confirm' this where the energy of these meet in some common link. Thus we 'feel' instantly yet somewhat 'forget' any non-linked energy exchanges between neurons. This is a proof of the idea of another 'effect' that interprets the 'cause' akin to evolution.

Nope. There is evidence to suggest that decisions are made before we are consciously aware of them. But this does not further your claim. It furthers my claim.

Since your decisions are made 'before' we are aware of them, it is because at the point where the energy is expended and meet through the connections, this future time determines our conscious motive to decide earlier. In fact, all that is required to dislodge the 'decision' is to cut the links between them. That is, even where a 'decision' could be potentially true, it is the future that actually determines whether this 'decision' was realized (confirmed).

I am confused by your interpreted uses of these. I used "bidirectional" when you say that "reality is diachronic" in apparent contradiction to how I interpret the word I use as the same as yours. You seem to be saying (in my interpretation) that time is unidirectional (synchronic? or at least non-diachronic) but then affirm it being diachronic anyways. Just asking for more clarification or definitions only.

Synchronic is the view of a problem as a static case, with no reference to change in time. For example we might talk about the election results for the Labour Leadership as a fait-acompli. In such a view we would only be concerned with the numbers of votes cast and the disposition of the candidates and the results.
A diachronic look would be interested in the change in support won or lost by the candidates throughout the election campaign. Such a view might want to posit the trends and events that caused those changes along the way.

When it comes to time: there is no 'bi-directional'. Time is unidirectional. As it is the means by which we measure and acknowledge change. Cakes follow ingredients; not the other way round.
The terms are from anthropology and archaeology, but apply equally well to maths or science.

I already know the root intentions of the words but you didn't use them appropriate. Maybe it would be best to describe a one directional arrow of time, "unidirectional", and a two directional arrow of time, "bi-directional" for our uses so as not to confuse these. For a perfect moment with multiple states or events occurring, "synchronous" may be used just as we might describe a "harmonic" as a simultaneous set of distinct notes occurring together.

Quite so, Hobbes. The arrow of time is self-evidently uni-directional because it it weren't then our universe could have no order. This has been a central plank of applied metaphysics throughout the entire history of philosophy and merely pointing to a sequence of equations which might suggest otherwise does not represent a counter-argument.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"...Albert Einstein.

It is this time invariance alone of spacetime physics which completely disqualifies it as an ontologically valid model of physical reality but the fact that it implies three further models which all mutually contradict each other and define a universe which makes no sense should comprehensively make the case against it. A century of futile effort trying to redefine what "making sense" means in order that making sense can be made to conform with this ontology of the equations is nothing more than an exercise in spectacular hubris. The science historians of the future will have much to say about this astonishing perversion of human knowledge.

Obvious Leo wrote:Quite so, Hobbes. The arrow of time is self-evidently uni-directional because it it weren't then our universe could have no order. This has been a central plank of applied metaphysics throughout the entire history of philosophy and merely pointing to a sequence of equations which might suggest otherwise does not represent a counter-argument.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"...Albert Einstein.

It is this time invariance alone of spacetime physics which completely disqualifies it as an ontologically valid model of physical reality but the fact that it implies three further models which all mutually contradict each other and define a universe which makes no sense should comprehensively make the case against it. A century of futile effort trying to redefine what "making sense" means in order that making sense can be made to conform with this ontology of the equations is nothing more than an exercise in spectacular hubris. The science historians of the future will have much to say about this astonishing perversion of human knowledge.

The "arrow of time" is defined as unidirectional just as an arrow has a head and tail end as unique ideas. Watch the linked video as you'll see this goes through most variable ways of explaining this. I think Brian Greene is the best host I've ever discovered to cover most basis. It doesn't mean I agree on everything but take care to his literal words as he remains very consistent to explain the distinctions. Note, for instance, how he describes a distinction between actual physical laws and our own perception of them.

To me, the problem is solved where we can remain perfectly consistent with all the details without an accident of altering terms AND to maintain symmetry respecting all possibilities.

Don't get me wrong, Scott, I have a lot of respect for Brian Greene. However he's a physicist and not qualified to speak beyond his own domain of expertise. Applied metaphysics is a different ball game which proceeds according to a totally different set of rules. It is physics that must fall into line with metaphysics and not the other way around, and you'd reckon that after a century of pissing around with bullshit models that contradict each other and make no sense that somebody might eventually wake up to this fact. Greene has at least woken up to the fact that the so-called "laws of physics" are nothing of the kind but merely effective laws invented by physicists. I congratulate him on his daring venture into applied logic because a couple of decades ago they would have strung him up by the balls.