The problem of Self-Referential systems

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Write4U, Jun 30, 2021.

  1. Sherlock Holmes Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    Hmm, yes this is all rather undisputed, but tell me what could possibly have caused causality to exist?

    One shouldn't rule things out because one is an atheist, one should be an atheist because they've ruled things out.

    Equations are laws relating material quantities, equations always refer to things that already exist, you cannot have an equation in physics that does not refer to something that already exists.

    If you can provide an example that show me to be wrong then do so and we can discuss it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    Of course there are mathematical (logic) equations that do not refer to something that already exists. Pi refers to something that does not physically exist in nature.

    Use pi to make sense of life without doing any math
    https://qz.com/931891/pi-3-14159-is...-the-nature-of-the-universe-no-math-required/

    IOW, it is simply true regardless of any physical expression in reality. There are certain timeless logical truths, which are usually expressed in nature, but they existed before they became expressed and measurable in physical form.
    I already did.

    Causality
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,638
    Nor is peanut butter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    Now that’s racist.
     
  8. Sherlock Holmes Registered Member

    Messages:
    50
    I think your conflating pure and applied mathematics here, my comments are in the context of physics and equations that represent physics.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,638
    And you're being olfactory.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    My comments are in the context of timeless logical abstractions, independent of physics and applied mathematics.

    I have heard speculation that in a multiverse natural laws may vary and may result in the failure of that reality.
    IMO, that is a flawed argument. The timeless logical abstractions are indeed timeless and would apply to every possible universe. It would be a lack of sufficient resources that would be causal to the failure of persistence, as is stated in the law of "necessity and sufficiency". If our universe did not contain a Higgs field, nothing would have mass.

    And apparently, that law will be the eventual failure of this Universe, via "entropy" and "heat death".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss

    An example of a very inefficient energy conversion method, because once upon a time gas was cheap and plentiful.
     
  11. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    If it smells like a joke it probably is
     
  12. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    Consciousness is the most likely origin of causality.

    if we consider every action an act of consciousness…. Two stems are apparent. (The universe is conscious or becoming more self aware )and( it is not conscious which would not inhibit it’s ability to become conscious since consciousness exists in reality.)
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    No, that's circular reasoning and creates a paradox. Plus there is no evidence of consciousness, except on earth and that is a result of evolutionary processes of gradual refinement and complexity of sensory awareness. This can be traced back to purely chemical processes starting 4.5 billion years ago (some 9 billion years after the BB).
    Consciousness is not required for causality or action. Dynamical conditions are sufficient for causality and action.

    However, self-ordering from relational electrochemical "interaction" leads to the evolutionary formation of complex self-referential systems acquiring sensory awareness and eventual emergent self-aware consciousness.

    Again, this can be traced back to very early non-conscious electrochemical interactions starting with the self-organizing patterns forming from the chaotic universal plasma.

    Consciousness is not a necessary causal agency for stochastic electrochemical relational interactions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  14. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    Ah you have seen the error in my logic. Congratulations I failed to fully explain this dynamic.

    it probably all started with god or consciousness trying to understand itself after causality. This is the way we live. But my statements still reign true to any atheist.

    I knew it would be you to recognize this.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    Therefore, according to Occam's Razor, the least complex valid explanation should be the preferred perspective.

    Moreover, the entire concept of "irreducible complexity" has been scientifically debunked.
    In the "beginning" we have 4+ elementary values and 4 elementary forces, from which all matter was and is formed.
     
  16. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    589
    Write4U;

    DE are descriptions of physical relations expressed in the human language of math.

    The speculation of the formation of the universe via 'big bang' (the current mindset in vogue) will only generate an endless series of answers with new questions, an effort in futility.

    You associate 'time" and 'evolution' in the traditional Darwin style.
    The appeal to long periods of 'time' was never verified or supported by fact.

    What evidence would support 'a timeless condition of nothing'?
    Why something rather than nothing, which requires no energy?
    If there is no intelligent life form, why would there be time?

    What is the origin of these abstractions?
     
  17. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    589
    Write4U;

    DE are descriptions of physical relations expressed in the human language of math.

    The speculation of the formation of the universe via 'big bang' (the current mindset in vogue) will only generate an endless series of answers with new questions, an effort in futility.

    You associate 'time" and 'evolution' in the traditional Darwin style.
    The appeal to long periods of 'time' was never verified or supported by fact.

    What evidence would support 'a timeless condition of nothing'?
    Why something rather than nothing, which requires no energy?
    If there is no intelligent life form, why would there be time?

    What is the origin of these abstractions?
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    Yes, humans describe pre-existing natural functions and processes.
    Humans do not invent them.
    And you can offer a more logical axiomatic "beginning"?
    Seems to me that the origin of the universe is well researched and "described" in human mathematical language.
    Then you have misunderstood me.
    My claim is that time does not exist as an independent dimension at all. IMO, time is a by-product, a measurable result of duration of change or existence. When I speak of long periods of time, I mean long periods of measurable duration of some function or process.
    Clearly you have not understood my posts. Perhaps the fault of clarity is mine.

    A "timeless condition of nothing" does not describe a thing or object. With "condition" I mean a (non-physical) circumstance, requiring no energy and therefore produces no measurable time duration.
    Logic

    Abstract model theory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_model_theory

    Axiomatic system
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system

    Axiomatic method
    Axiomatization
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system#Axiomatization
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  19. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    No the most complex values put into the simplest terms have always been the preferred perspective.

    complexity is the reigning champion to all of science since hypothesis does not always perfectly match the experiment.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    I disagree with that in context of fundamental values. Complex values are limited in application, whereas simple values have much greater generic versatility in the self-formation of complex patterns. You cannot start with irreducible complexity. That hypothesis has been debunked, at least in context of Abiogenesis (evolutionary biological processes) which probably produced the most complex patterns in existence.
    Of course, the greater the complexity, the greater the scientific task of dissembling the parts and identification of what came first in the evolutionary chain. We now know that the simple egg (single-celled organism) came before the complex chicken.

    When all is said and done, all physical objects in nature have in common 2 (x 6) fundamental values (quarks and leptons), interacting via 4 fundamental forces. That is where everything starts and all complexity is a result of the self-organizing evolutionary processes by way of stochastic natural selection.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2021
  21. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    Yet those simple values came from complex experimentation and now are accepted flatly.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,374
    Yes, I totally agree with that. I am not saying that simple is better than complex. I am saying that simple is more fundamental than complex.
     
  23. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    Thanks
     

Share This Page