On 13 July 2014 07:17, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/12/2014 1:23 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> You left me hanging a week or so ago, and never got back to me about
> something I'm interested in finding out more about.
>
> On 2 July 2014 23:14, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2014 17:06, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2014 9:42 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 July 2014 15:46, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, so how does that work? Like I said, I don't understand it.
>>>> Intuitively, saying that A causes B and B causes A doesn't appear to make
>>>> sense,
>>>>
>>>> It's not a causal relationship, it's an explanatory "->".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I should have said "explains" although I thought it was obvious
>>> I was using causal in an explanatory sense, not a physical one. Anyway,
>>> please continue the explanation.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what is meant by "physics -> biology" or "biology
>>> -> evolution -> mathematics" or "mathematics -> physics"?
>>>
>>> Yes I do.
>>
>> And there you stopped. I'm still waiting for you to continue the
> explanation.
>
> To refresh your memory, you said:
>
> OK, except I think the chain is:
>> arithmetic -> information -> matter -> consciousness -> arithmetic
>
>
> To which I objected that I couldn't see how this makes sense globally,
> even if each local step makes sense. You appear to be claiming that there
> is no such thing as a fundamental explanatory level. Since this flies in
> the face of 3+ centuries of scientific progress (based on reductionism,
> which assumes there *is* a fundamental explanatory level)
>
> It's just that I noted that fundamental physics has become almost entirely
> abstract and mathematical, so that people like Tegmark and Wheeler started
> to speculate that the mathematics *is* the physics. Lists like this that
> subscribe to everythingism Bruno's "comp" and Tegmark's MUH completely
> erase the boundary between math and physics. The 3+ centuries of
> reductionist physics are also 3+ centuries of explaining things through
> synthesis of simpler (and presumably better understood) things. At the
> same time I think mathematics is a human invention, a certain way of
> looking at the world made precise in language. Humans and their inventions
> are explicable by evolution, biology, physics,...and mathematics. So maybe
> the circle closes. The usual objection of a circular explanation is it
> leaves stuff out, especially if it leaves out all the stuff you understand
> and just explains mystery X in terms of enigma Y. But if the circle is big
> enough, if it encompasses everything, then either there's some part you
> understand and that allows you to reach all the rest; or you don't
> understand anything and there's no hope for you.
>
OK, thanks, I get all that, and I can see where you're coming from, up to
the point where "maybe the circle closes". However at that point you appear
to have veered off into fantasy (or at least you want to "have you cake and
eat it too").
It may well be that the MUH and comp will turn out to be castles in the
air, or whatever is the appropriate metaphor. But I don't think a good way
to show this is using something that appears at least equally
ridiculous (to me at least, but I suspect others will have the same
reaction). It's quite possible that physics is too abstract, but it's
certainly less abstract than an explanatory circle in which *nothing* is
considered axiomatic. That is equivalent to postmodernist arguments that
since everything is part of a linguistic web, we can't actually know or
even surmise *anything* about reality. I rejected that viewpoint a few
decades ago (I was briefly an ardent postmodernist, at least until I
managed to engage my brain) and before I embrace it again I will need some
VERY convincing evidence.
This gives me, at least, the same problem I would have with a time travel
story in which a time traveller takes something back in time to the person
who was supposed to have originated it and lets them crib it. Hence no one
created whatever it is ("Doctor Who" did this with Shakespeare, with the
Doctor quoting odd Shakespearisms and Will saying "Mind if I use that?"
It's fine as a humorous device in fantasy, but less so when proposed as a
serious basis for everything we know, or can know).
> , not to mention what most people would regard as logic (or at least
> common sense), this looks like a fairly radical revision of our theories of
> knowledge.
>
> So I'd be interested to know more, if you're prepared to continue
> explaining.
>
> As I said, I don't have my own TOE.
>
I didn't suggest you did. That isn't what I'm asking for.
> I just put forward the virtuous circle of explanation based on a
> suggestion of Bruno (which he's disavowed) as a counter example to the idea
> that reductionism must either bottom out or be like infinite Russian dolls.
>
Sorry, as yet I don't see how it can work. It isn't a virtuous circle
(which is generally taken to mean something like compound interest working
on something which was generated, originally, by some other process) - it's
a vicious circle, i.e. one that pretends to explain something but in fact
doesn't have any foundation. And it is, in fact, like infinite Russian
dolls, in that the explanatory chain doesn't begin or end anywhere.
Unfortunately if you're serious about this, (or unless you can explain it
sensibly, sans handwaving and hyperbole) then for me at least it threatens
to undermine everything else you've said, some of which I thought at the
time was quite sensible. I guess I will just have to learn to abstract out
this part, and keep the good bits.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
