Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Exactly. That is why I suggested a couple hundred pages ago that it should be moved to the philosophy forum since it had little to nothing to do with science. Although models are constantly questioned and tested in science, they are questioned from the scientific perspective not the philosophical perspective as some of those in this thread have done.

There is more than a little sophistry in this thread (mostly from one individual).

I don't think anyone is purposely arguing with sophistry. This is a very complicated and controversial debate.

Philosophy is interesting, but it drives the scientist in all of us, that wants answers, crazy.

 

[Kharakov]

Seem to claim, but don't. Some models correspond to portions of reality with a precision that indicates something about reality itself. Some levels of reality follow very basic patterns: the inverse square laws.

Okay, so is it just some amazing coincidence that the inverse square laws keep holding true?

Yes. It is entirely coincidental.

Seriously though-  inverse square laws work because of the ratio between spheres of different sizes surface areas from the source of the force. Surface area of a sphere:  Sphere#Area.

The inverse square laws work because the simplest possible relationships are the mathematical relationships that they describe, so the simplest actions are mathematical ones. It's explaining these relationships with words that requires genius. Simple concepts like "love one another, do not harm another" came about 1000s of years ago. Using more than one force really increases the complexity of the situation a bit.

 

[Kharakov]

They exist as part of some human models. Some of which predicts the behaviour of reality very well.

I know that many people find such reasoninig silly but if you look at how we know stuff it is obvious that we dont have access to reality, only our personal model of it. That stuff "exist" is part of that model.

So do you think that a piece of dust that is on your windowsill is just a model then? It certainly seems that if you don't think things have certain specific properties, then we might as well mix random chemicals together and believe that they will form whatever we believe they will.

In other words- stuff exists and it has properties (Protons included- when we break down stuff, they are one of the foundational beings we end up with). I'm pretty sure you may be caught in a thought bubble in which you believe ridiculous things about reality because you've become focused upon your thoughts about models of reality so much that you see them instead of reality.

The existence of the universal behaviors that the axioms describe preexists the formalization of the axioms by humans.

No. The axioms just show us how the projection works.

No, the behaviors they describe (2 protons, 3 protons, 1 gram, 2 grams, 3 grams, inverse square laws) are fundamental to the simplest behaviors in reality.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is it just some amazing coincidence that the inverse square laws keep holding true?

Yes. It is entirely coincidental.

Seriously though-  inverse square laws work because of the ratio between spheres of different sizes surface areas from the source of the force. Surface area of a sphere:  Sphere#Area.

The inverse square laws work because the simplest possible relationships are the mathematical relationships that they describe, so the simplest actions are mathematical ones. It's explaining these relationships with words that requires genius. Simple concepts like "love one another, do not harm another" came about 1000s of years ago. Using more than one force really increases the complexity of the situation a bit.

You are not getting my point. The point is that these are not necessarily absolute truths about reality. Science makes no claims that these laws will hold tomorrow; it assumes that the laws will hold tomorrow. And we still don't have any good reason for how we know this. I am trying to provide one.

 

[Kharakov]

Science makes no claims that these laws will hold tomorrow; it assumes that the laws will hold tomorrow.

It's called inference. You don't know I exist. You don't know I ever existed as anything other than a figment of your imagination. You can infer my existence by my actions.

 

[Juma]

So do you think that a piece of dust that is on your windowsill is just a model then?

"piece of dust" is obviously a model. So is "windowsill".

It certainly seems that if you don't think things have certain specific properties, then we might as well mix random chemicals together and believe that they will form whatever we believe they will.

If that where true, how come our models works so well? I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. There are certainly something out there that are the source of our input.

 

[untermensche]

Why can't the model actually be an aspect of reality? What if what is out there actually is our incomplete models; after all, a scientific stance is that we are the stuff that is out there.

The models incorporate aspects of reality.

But they do it with equations.

But reality does not work by continually performing equations. Reality has no need for equations.

We need equations.

 

[ryan]

Why can't the model actually be an aspect of reality? What if what is out there actually is our incomplete models; after all, a scientific stance is that we are the stuff that is out there.

The models incorporate aspects of reality.

But they do it with equations.

But reality does not work by continually performing equations. Reality has no need for equations.

We need equations.

How do you know that what is out there is not just equations?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The logical necessity is pretty simple: something has always existed.

"Something has always existed" is not a logical necessity.

It is a logical necessity, unless you're equivocating the statement to mean something other than what I meant by it (which should be fairly clear after the last 30 or so posts).

Is this one of your many pranks? No one cares what you could personally choose to mean by “logical necessity”.
There’s just one kind of logical necessity. This is a conversation, so either you use words in the usual way or you make sure to convince the other person that your personal meaning is somehow better.

The standard meaning is that a proposition is logically necessary if it is not logically possible for it to be false. The proposition "Something has always existed" is not such that it would not be logically possible for it to be false. In other words, it is conceivable that it is false. In other word, its opposite, "It is not true that something has always existed" is logically possible. In other words, it can be true, there’s no contradiction in it.
And I don’t see how "Something has always existed" would be a logical necessity except in a sense so trivial only untermensche could possibly want to insist on.

Just as there are very many logical possibilities, propositions which we know are logical necessities are rather thin on the ground. Even mathematical deductions (theorems) are not logical necessities since their necessity is dependent all the basic premises (axioms) which themselves may or may not be true. Logic offers a few: A → A, A and B → A, as well as any instantiation of these like: “Cheese is good” → “Cheese is good” etc.

If at some point in time absolutely nothing exists, this condition will continue forever. This is a logical necessity

Time is something, so at any moment in time there is something, time itself, so it is not the case that there is some moment in time when there is nothing at all. So, your premise is false because it is self-contradictory, i.e. it is not possible that at some point in time there’s nothing at all.

This is a logical necessity: nothing doesn't do anything, it doesn't change, it doesn't have properties that will give arise ot other properties, etc.

I agree.

In fact, the only way for nothing to have an effect is for the imaginary concept of nothing to affect something (which it does in this conversation).

Beside the point. Please keep to the topic.

Argument from oblivious ignorance doesn't work- ohh, I can't picture how something can appear out of nothing, but this doesn't mean it can't.

Beside the point. Please keep to the topic.

The idea of something from nothing is complete lunacy....

I agree. So?

Things don't appear out of nothing: nothing is the absence of everything, including causal structures, and what not. From absolute nothingness, nothing can appear. Nothing isn't a negative amount of something- it isn't even that.

A finite past does not entail that the world that exists now was somehow created out of nothing.

Yes it does: it entails that something has always existed

Why?

A finite past does not entail that the world that exists now was somehow created out of nothing.

Yes it does: it entails that something has always existed, which implies eternal existence (eternal existence before now, which is a decidedly non-finite past, a past with infinite duration).

So according to you a finite past entails a non-finite past?
Can you explain how “A → not A” could possibly be true?

Have a good night.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The models incorporate aspects of reality.

But they do it with equations.

But reality does not work by continually performing equations. Reality has no need for equations.

We need equations.

How do you know that what is out there is not just equations?

You can't prove negatives, but what evidence is there that anything in the world is making calculations and following equations?

To make a calculation requires something capable of making calculations, like a human brain.

If I throw a ball what part of the ball is making calculations, and how is it doing it?

 

[ryan]

How do you know that what is out there is not just equations?

You can't prove negatives, but what evidence is there that anything in the world is making calculations and following equations?

We make equations and calculate, and we are in the world.

To make a calculation requires something capable of making calculations, like a human brain.

If I throw a ball what part of the ball is making calculations, and how is it doing it?

I have no idea what is out there. But the only hint that I have of what is out there is what continues to make sense, and that is mathematical descriptions.

 

[untermensche]

You can't prove negatives, but what evidence is there that anything in the world is making calculations and following equations?

We make equations and calculate, and we are in the world.

Therefore what? Everything behaves as we do with our evolved brains?

A thrown ball doesn't need to make equations. It moves according to set "laws" or existing conditions.

Only something wanting to predict the behavior of the ball needs to come up with equations.

To make a calculation requires something capable of making calculations, like a human brain.

If I throw a ball what part of the ball is making calculations, and how is it doing it?

I have no idea what is out there. But the only hint that I have of what is out there is what continues to make sense, and that is mathematical descriptions.

Many people have sought very hard to make the world somewhat understandable with equations. At least predictions can be made.

But you are looking at the hard work of many people when you look at the equations. You are not looking at the real thing. The real thing has no equations. None are necessary for the moon to move around the earth.

 

[ryan]

We make equations and calculate, and we are in the world.

Therefore what? Everything behaves as we do with our evolved brains?

You asked what evidence there is, and I told you.

I do have some ideas about what this implies though.

A thrown ball doesn't need to make equations. It moves according to set "laws" or existing conditions.

Only something wanting to predict the behavior of the ball needs to come up with equations.

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

To make a calculation requires something capable of making calculations, like a human brain.

If I throw a ball what part of the ball is making calculations, and how is it doing it?

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

I have no idea what is out there. But the only hint that I have of what is out there is what continues to make sense, and that is mathematical descriptions.

Many people have sought very hard to make the world somewhat understandable with equations. At least predictions can be made.

But you are looking at the hard work of many people when you look at the equations. You are not looking at the real thing. The real thing has no equations. None are necessary for the moon to move around the earth.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The universe may be an equilibrium, and the elementary components of it may also ultimately be symmetrical, much like equations.

 

[Kharakov]

"piece of dust" is obviously a model. So is "windowsill".

It certainly seems that if you don't think things have certain specific properties, then we might as well mix random chemicals together and believe that they will form whatever we believe they will.

If that where true, how come our models works so well? I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. There are certainly something out there that are the source of our input.

Sorry Juma, sometimes I forget that English is not the primary tongue of some of the members here. What you said before made it appear as if you thought that there were no sub-atomic particles.

 

[untermensche]

Therefore what? Everything behaves as we do with our evolved brains?

You asked what evidence there is, and I told you.

I do have some ideas about what this implies though.

It isn't evidence the world uses equations. It is only evidence humans use them.

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

The ball has mass and what we call energy is applied to it, but the ball is not making calculations.

At least we don't have the slightest evidence it is, or could.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The real thing looks nothing like an equation. A moving ball looks nothing like an equation.

 

[ryan]

You asked what evidence there is, and I told you.

I do have some ideas about what this implies though.

It isn't evidence the world uses equations. It is only evidence humans use them.

Are humans not of this world?

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

The ball has mass and what we call energy is applied to it, but the ball is not making calculations.

At least we don't have the slightest evidence it is, or could.

The whole system is an equation.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The real thing looks nothing like an equation. A moving ball looks nothing like an equation.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

 

[Juma]

It isn't evidence the world uses equations. It is only evidence humans use them.

Are humans not of this world?

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

The ball has mass and what we call energy is applied to it, but the ball is not making calculations.

At least we don't have the slightest evidence it is, or could.

The whole system is an equation.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The real thing looks nothing like an equation. A moving ball looks nothing like an equation.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

Hmm. This must be some joke.

 

[ryan]

Are humans not of this world?

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

The ball has mass and what we call energy is applied to it, but the ball is not making calculations.

At least we don't have the slightest evidence it is, or could.

The whole system is an equation.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The real thing looks nothing like an equation. A moving ball looks nothing like an equation.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

Hmm. This must be some joke.

Well then, I am somehow playing a joke on myself.

 

[Kharakov]

The logical necessity is pretty simple: something has always existed.

"Something has always existed" is not a logical necessity.

It is a logical necessity, unless you're equivocating the statement to mean something other than what I meant by it (which should be fairly clear after the last 30 or so posts).

Is this one of your many pranks? No one cares what you could personally choose to mean by “logical necessity”.

Pretty much the standard definition: Something that cannot be false.
There are 2 options:

1) nothing existed, then something existed.
2) something always existed.

Option 1 is false for any number of reasons. This makes option 2 true. There is no way for nothing to become something.

If at some point in time absolutely nothing exists, this condition will continue forever.

Time is something, so at any moment in time there is something, time itself, so it is not the case that there is some moment in time when there is nothing at all. So, your premise is false because it is self-contradictory, i.e. it is not possible that at some point in time there’s nothing at all.

True. The existence of nothing is impossible.

Things don't appear out of nothing: nothing is the absence of everything, including causal structures, and what not. From absolute nothingness, nothing can appear. Nothing isn't a negative amount of something- it isn't even that.

A finite past does not entail that the world that exists now was somehow created out of nothing.

Yes it does: it entails that something has always existed, which implies eternal existence (eternal existence before now, which is a decidedly non-finite past, a past with infinite duration).

Why?

Your statement is correct. I was thinking of one of your statements equivocations, and then went right into attacking one side of the equivocation, and defending the other side. A bit of lunacy, I know.

Anyway, the strawman that I attacked is this: A finite past (for existence!) indicates that before a certain point in time, nothing existed.

However, a finite past could simply be something along the lines of "The world has only existed for upwards of 4.5 billion years" or "I have only existed for a little less than 40 years". This doesn't mean that what formed the world did not exist before this point in time.

This simply means that certain objects, beings, etc. have finite pasts, while something must have existed to cause the objects to exist.

 

[Juma]

Are humans not of this world?

And if enough information can explain the behaviour of the ball, then what is the difference between the information and the ball?

Can I throw the information across the yard and have my dog bring it back to me?

yes

Mass of ball before it is thrown = mass of ball after it is thrown, potential energy of ball (before) + kinetic energy (after) of ball = 0, etc.

The ball has mass and what we call energy is applied to it, but the ball is not making calculations.

At least we don't have the slightest evidence it is, or could.

The whole system is an equation.

The real thing seems a lot like equations but with different symbols (mental images).

The real thing looks nothing like an equation. A moving ball looks nothing like an equation.

What if we used symbols that looked like the objects instead of numbers? Then replace "=" with "from before to after" Should it matter what the symbols look like?

Hmm. This must be some joke.

Well then, I am somehow playing a joke on myself.

Yes. That may be more true than you realize.