What qualifies as science?

[Write4U]

A sort of "Although I don't think I do obey the laws of physics which gives a passable imitation of purposeful actions"

But I don't deny that I obey the laws of physics, I believe in determinism.
The question remains, how do those laws of physics behave which give a passable imitation of purposeful actions, and which makes it possible for us to symbolize them by mathematics and even program them into forms of AI, which can give passable imitations of purposeful actions?

 

[Michael 345]

But I don't deny that I obey the laws of physics, I believe in determinism.
The question remains, how do those laws of physics behave which give a passable imitation of purposeful actions, and which makes it possible for us to symbolize them by mathematics and even program them into forms of AI, which can give passable imitations of purposeful actions?

Hope I can explain this clearly because your excellent question put Huey Dewey and Louie in a spin and they came up with this

Think of the Universe as a 3D jigsaw puzzle. However it is not a static model

It is constantly changing with parts disappearing, new parts being formed and sometimes the overall look of the landscape looking completely different

However no matter how chaotic the changes become physics is predictable. Lava under pressure will explode through the weakest area and if that happens to be the top of the volcano will explode upwards

(I think volcano came into mind because the volcano on Bali is rumbling and I go holiday there soon IF it does not explode)

Lava flowing over the rim edge will flow down the sides. Neither will exchange their actions

It will happen that way. It has no choice. So while the bits of the jigsaw change shape everything in close proximity changes to accommodate so it always fits together at the small scale while looking completely different at larger scales

Hope I did Huey Dewey and Louie justice because I think I can do better

....how do those laws of physics behave I don't think is really a question and certainly the laws of physics do not behave in the sense they have a choice. They would be the ultimate deterministic laws. IT GOES LIKE THIS

No other option is available. Any interpretation is anthropomorphism

Afternoon coffee time with sponge cake today

 

[NotEinstein]

An abstract equation or axiom,

If there something as a non-abstract equation?

This axiom becomes expressed in the physical world as the principle of obtaining the lowest potential energy state

(Note that you haven't given this axiom; right now, you have only described its "effect".)

It all seems to possess a form of intelligence, this is why we have an intentional god religions.

I'm quite sure that religious gods don't purely come from this axiom, but this effect may play a (big?) part, yes.

But IMO, a state or field where things must behave by a form of mathematics would also seem to possess a form of intelligence, but that might be called a non intentional pseudo-intelligenc.

Please look-up the definition of the word intelligence, because in mainstream science it means something quite different from how you are using it.​

I believe this is what Tegmark is proposing . The apparent consistencies of universal functions are not the work of a great programmer, but are inherent potentials of the thing or field itself.

So no "intelligent design". Good.

I see that you have partially dodged the explanation of your usage of the word "satisfaction"; in fact, you've complicated your situation by ascribing a form of intelligence to fields and states(!). Can you at least explain your usage of the word "satisfaction"?

 

[Write4U]

....how do those laws of physics behave I don't think is really a question and certainly the laws of physics do not behave in the sense they have a choice. They would be the ultimate deterministic laws. IT GOES LIKE THIS

No other option is available. Any interpretation is anthropomorphism

I would rather use the term automorphism to my interpretation.

 

[Write4U]

I see that you have partially dodged the explanation of your usage of the word "satisfaction"; in fact, you've complicated your situation by ascribing a form of intelligence to fields and states(!). Can you at least explain your usage of the word "satisfaction"?

IMO, it is contained in the axiom of "necessity and sufficiency"

For one, this axiom becomes expressed in the physical world as the principle of obtaining the lowest potential energy state, which would be the natural state of greatest physical satisfaction

 

[Michael 345]

I would rather use the term automorphism to my interpretation.

I looked your term up and don't follow the reasoning but hey that's me. I'll stick with anthropomorphism

 

[exchemist]

But I don't deny that I obey the laws of physics, I believe in determinism.
The question remains, how do those laws of physics behave which give a passable imitation of purposeful actions, and which makes it possible for us to symbolize them by mathematics and even program them into forms of AI, which can give passable imitations of purposeful actions?

Don't forget the so-called "laws" of physics are just human ways of representing the order we perceive in nature. Most "laws" are named after people and turn not not to be always obeyed exactly. There can even be (very tiny and short-term) deviations from the 1st law of thermodynamics at the sub-atomic scale. So much for "laws", then.

I do not myself see any sense in which the order we discern in nature appears "purposeful". This is introducing unnecessary teleology (again), isn't it? But perhaps, again, you don't mean purposeful as the rest of us would understand it.

 

[Write4U]

Don't forget the so-called "laws" of physics are just human ways of representing the order we perceive in nature. Most "laws" are named after people and turn not not to be always obeyed exactly. There can even be (very tiny and short-term) deviations from the 1st law of thermodynamics at the sub-atomic scale. So much for "laws", then.

I agree, and it seems there are few real invariable constants to begin with.
Which is one of the reasons why I am a little confused by the rejection of Bohmian mechanics, because of his postulation of "hidden variables", which actually would resolve all conflicts between QM and GR (as I understand it).

I do not myself see any sense in which the order we discern in nature appears "purposeful". This is introducing unnecessary teleology (again), isn't it? But perhaps, again, you don't mean purposeful as the rest of us would understand it.

No, I meant it in context of teleology or even theology, where there exists a sentient intelligent programmer or mover. You and I may not see this now, but there was a time when all natural phenomena were attributed to gods, even by the most learned priests. There still are some who speak of a natural disaster as the "wrath of god" and mean it as being an intentional act of punishment, or a "praise the Lord" for a good crop this year.

But note that I qualified it as "giving a passable imitation of purposeful action", much as a robot might give a passable imitation of purposeful action if presented with a problem for which it has been programmed. But that would not be a spontaneous intelligent action, but a hardwired (organic/physical) pseudo-intelligence of a brainless slime-mold, or possibly a programmed (self-evolving) pseudo-intelligent computer.

I really liked Anil Seth's observation that, "you don't need to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive".

I admit, it is really difficult to explain an abstraction, but I do believe that the fundamental properties of spacetime such as its geometry, a mathematical construct, plus the fundamental properties of the physical elements, combine to form variable sets of natural mathematical like laws and behaviors, which (in part) we can translate and use for our own purposes.

 

[exchemist]

I agree, and it seems there are few real invariable constants to begin with.
Which is one of the reasons why I am a little confused by the rejection of Bohmian mechanics, because of his postulation of "hidden variables", which actually would resolve all conflicts between QM and GR (as I understand it).
No, I meant it in context of teleology or even theology, where there exists a sentient intelligent programmer or mover. You and I may not see this now, but there was a time when all natural phenomena were attributed to gods, even by the most learned priests. There still are some who speak of a natural disaster as the "wrath of god" and mean it as being an intentional act of punishment, or a "praise the Lord" for a good crop this year.

But note that I qualified it as "giving a passable imitation of purposeful action", much as a robot might give a passable imitation of purposeful action if presented with a problem for which it has been programmed. But that would not be a spontaneous intelligent action, but a hardwired (organic/physical) pseudo-intelligence of a brainless slime-mold, or possibly a programmed (self-evolving) pseudo-intelligent computer.

I really liked Anil Seth's observation that, "you don't need to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive".

I admit, it is really difficult to explain an abstraction, but I do believe that the fundamental properties of spacetime such as its geometry, a mathematical construct, plus the fundamental properties of the physical elements, combine to form variable sets of natural mathematical like laws and behaviors, which (in part) we can translate and use for our own purposes.

Hidden Variable theories do not seem to have been scientifically successful, metaphysically attractive though they are to scientists of a determinist persuasion. By not being scientifically successful, I mean they have not so far led to either simplifications or satisfactory resolutions of paradoxes or to make any testable predictions. But they may, one day, I suppose. You strike me as a person primarily interested in metaphysics, but most scientifically trained people tend not to be, cf. "Shut up and calculate!".

I don't think I follow your point about seeming purpose, unless perhaps you are referring to the order in nature and treating all signs of order as seemingly purposeful. I don't think the scientist sees it like that. I think the scientist proceeds from a conviction that order is just intrinsic to nature and that every unsolved natural problem will one day yield, if we can only work out the pattern of the order that underlies whatever phenomenon we are interested in.

 

[NotEinstein]

IMO, it is contained in the axiom of "necessity and sufficiency"

What is 'the axiom of "necessity and sufficiency"'?

For one, this axiom becomes expressed in the physical world as the principle of obtaining the lowest potential energy state, which would be the natural state of greatest physical satisfaction

(Note that the statement that "this axiom becomes expressed in the physical world" already presupposes that abstract objects have physical presence.)

Ah, so you’re using "satisfaction" in a non-standard way. Perhaps "fulfillment" would fit better?

I also note that you have ignored all other comments and issues I raised in post #603. For example, you ascribing a mental process to quantum states is deserving of further explanation.

 

[Write4U]

What is 'the axiom of "necessity and sufficiency"'?

The definition reads

Necessity and sufficiency
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are implicational relationships between statements. The assertion that one statement is a necessary and sufficient condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true. That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.

(Note that the statement that "this axiom becomes expressed in the physical world" already presupposes that abstract objects have physical presence.)

Could it be that the absence of a thing creates a demand to be filled?

Ah, so you’re using "satisfaction" in a non-standard way. Perhaps "fulfillment" would fit better?

I would not argue that term.
.
But the definition of "movement on in the direction of greatest satisfaction" may be related but perhaps not quite the same as "necessity and sufficiency". For one, "movement" is a physical action, not an axiom.

I also note that you have ignored all other comments and issues I raised in post #603. For example, you ascribing a mental process to quantum states is deserving of further explanation.

I don't believe I did. At best I mentioned a pseudo-intelligence, which does not necessarily require a "mental" process, but does require awareness of its environment.
A slime mold has no brain but it is capable of amazing physical and mathematical feats because it is aware of its environment.

Slime molds,
If you want to find life forms that truly seem otherworldly, your local forest is a much better place than your local cineplex. It is home to creatures that are immensely old, fundamentally bizarre and capable of startlingly sophisticated behavior. They are the slime molds.
Slime molds are a remarkable lineage of amoebas that live in soil. While they spend part of their life as ordinary single-celled creatures, they sometimes grow into truly alien forms. Some species gather by the thousands to form multicellular bodies that can crawl. Others develop into gigantic, pulsating networks of protoplasm.
While naturalists have known of slime molds for centuries, only now are scientists really starting to understand them. Lab experiments are revealing the complex choreography of signals in some species that allows 20,000 individuals to form a single sluglike body.
The pulsating networks that some slime molds form are giving other scientists clues to solving difficult mathematical problems. In 2000, Japanese researchers placed Physarum polycephalum — the name means “many-headed slime mold” — in a maze, along with two blocks of food. It extended its tendrils down the corridors of the maze, bending around curves, reaching dead ends and then backing out of them. After four hours, the slime mold was feasting on both blocks of food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04slime.html

This proves that a brainless organism or perhaps even an inanimate object (which require energy for their existence), does not necessarily require a purpose in order to be able to execute forms of mathematical functions.

In the case of the slime mold it would be the need for organic food. In the case of a hypochlorite, it only requires the need of an oxygen atom, in order to be able to release a chlorine atom. Think about that.
Humans need oxygen to procreate, so does a chlorine atom.

This is why, earlier, I posited the chronology of the continual destruction of ozone molecules by (human introduction of) chlorofluorocarbons , as an example of such a pseudo intelligent mathematical/physical function. The chlorofluorocarbon is a "predatory" molecule. A wolf in sheep's clothes.

This may sound odd and farfetched, but Robert Hazen suggested that Darwinian evolution and natural selection may well begin at the molecular level

 

[iceaura]

The guy plucking two apples from two different trees knows how many apples he has in his basket. He is counting apples, not seeds or molecules or atoms.

The tree is not the guy. We all agree that humans do human arithmetic, and apply it everywhere in the universe where the requisite simplifying abstractions make sense.

....how do those laws of physics behave I don't think is really a question and certainly the laws of physics do not behave in the sense they have a choice. They would be the ultimate deterministic laws.

If the laws include probabilities, as the current ones do, the sense in which they are "deterministic" is up for debate.

This proves that a brainless organism or perhaps even an inanimate object (which require energy for their existence), does not necessarily require a purpose in order to be able to execute forms of mathematical functions.

We have no evidence that these things are "executing" forms of mathematical functions. Note that in no case does the behavior of any macroscopic physical system correspond exactly to the behavior of any mathematical function that does not involve probabilities.

Which is one of the reasons why I am a little confused by the rejection of Bohmian mechanics, because of his postulation of "hidden variables", which actually would resolve all conflicts between QM and GR (as I understand it)

Bohmian explanation resolves those conflicts by discarding basic features of GR. And QM, for that matter. Either that, or ordinary bi-valued logic (meaningful declarative statements are True or False, never Both). People are reluctant to do that, in the absence of replacement theory and/or logic.

This may sound odd and farfetched, but Robert Hazen suggested that Darwinian evolution and natural selection may well begin at the molecular level

That's the standard approach - the default hypothesis for the origin of life.

 

[river]

The thing is , is that theories , any theory limits our understanding , especially theories that are held in so much regard that they can not be questioned .

What science is about is , being open minded .

Without an open mind , we can not further our knowledge of the unknown.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The thing is , is that theories , any theory limits our understanding

Rubbish.
Theories explain what we understand. Theories arise because of what we understand.

especially theories that are held in so much regard that they can not be questioned

There are no such theories (in science anyway).

 

[river]

Rubbish.
Theories explain what we understand. Theories arise because of what we understand.


There are no such theories (in science anyway).

True , to your first statement

To your last statement .

There are no theories in science that can not be questioned ?

Relativity is questioned all the time .

 

[Michael 345]

If the laws include probabilities, as the current ones do, the sense in which they are "deterministic" is up for debate.

Watching any event and guessing the outcome, a simple example would be at the local funfare putting the balls in the clowns mouth, you can factor in all the physics and pick a slot

If the ball does not fall into the slot I would agree you would not have factored in probabilities. Because probabilities are unknown and unknowable to you

However physics knows all about probabilities and follows them slavishly

 

[Dywyddyr]

To your last statement .
There are no theories in science that can not be questioned ?
Relativity is questioned all the time .

And, since relativity IS questioned, what's your point?
You made a comment about "theories that are held in so much regard that they can not be questioned" - given that relativity IS held in high regard but STILL questioned then I fail to see what you're getting at.

 

[river]

And, since relativity IS questioned, what's your point?
You made a comment about "theories that are held in so much regard that they can not be questioned" - given that relativity IS held in high regard but STILL questioned then I fail to see what you're getting at.

Science is about questioning , no theory is above being questioned .

Yet any program that is on TV , is all about the big bang theory . No questions are asked about the theory .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science is about questioning , no theory is above being questioned

That's what I said - you implied the opposite.

Yet any program that is on TV , is all about the big bang theory . No questions are asked about the theory .

TV is not science.

 

[river]

That's what I said - you implied the opposite.

How so ?

TV is not science.

It is to the public .

TV manipulates the public into thinking that bb theory is the correct theory .

There is no program on TV that explains any , and I mean , any , alternative theory(s) to bb.