Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

[bilby]

A good analogy is provided by computers. Computer programmes can be very effective, including now driving trains, aircrafts, cars and all sorts of machines. Yet, they don't have anything inside them that would resemble our perceptions or indeed the world around them. All the knowledge they have available to them to select the next of their actions that will be nearly always effective are symbolic codes. These codes are arbitrary and vary in effect from one type of computer to the next, and they have been so written because the programmer believed they would result in the computer doing the expecting things, not because the codes would somehow be true of the world, or represent the world. In fact, what we call a code, is not even anything like a code. Look into a computer and you won't see anything like a programme written anywhere. What we call a code is itself a convenient fiction. All a computer could be said to contain are electronic elements in various magnetic states interacting with each other. And then even that is just another, more elaborate fiction. Still, it works and that's all that we need.

"they don't have anything inside them that would resemble our perceptions or indeed the world around them" How do you know this? I suspect that it might not be true - or rather, I suspect that it might be exactly equally true of human and other biological brains; I rather like the hypothesis that any sufficiently complex set of computations can give rise to consciousness - indeed, I cannot see how it could be otherwise, given that the human brain contains no 'magic' extra consciousness stuff.

Compare:

A good analogy is provided by humans. Human brains can be very effective, including now driving trains, aircrafts, cars and all sorts of machines. Yet, they don't have anything inside them that would resemble our perceptions or indeed the world around them. All the knowledge they have available to them to select the next of their actions that will be nearly always effective are symbolic codes. These codes are arbitrary and might vary in effect from one type of brain to the next, and they have been so evolved because the environment was such that they resulted in the organism doing the successful things, not because the codes would somehow be true of the world, or represent the world. In fact, what we call a code, is not even anything like a code. Look into a brain and you won't see anything like a programme written anywhere. What we call a code is itself a convenient fiction. All a brain could be said to contain are cells in various states interacting with each other. And then even that is just another, more elaborate fiction. Still, it works and that's all that we need.

I can see no good reason to assume that a sufficiently complex computer and a human brain would be fundamentally different; If we built a massively parallel computer that could simulate the physical operation of a living brain, then that simulation would presumably be conscious. The question about whether simpler computers (such as those we actually have today) are also conscious is analogous to the question about simpler brains - are insects conscious, for example? Of course, we don't know whether insects are conscious, but we might assume that they are not, because their brains are too simple. And we might assume that the same holds for even our most advanced computers today - but in principle, I see no reason why a more advanced computer, with a neural or quasi-neural architecture, should be incapable of being conscious.

Equally, we cannot be certain that other humans are conscious; I just assume that they are, because their brains are as complex as the one that gives rise to my consciousness. I would extend the same courtesy to a similarly complex computer, should one be built - particularly if it told me that it was experiencing the world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If something happens it has to happen due to a cause.

Things existing without being caused is something happening without cause. That's just if things existing without cause is possible in reality.

If reality exists it exists without cause.

I guess it's conceivable there could be an infinite regress of causes but this would imply there's no definite reality, which is probably something too godawful to contemplate.
EB

 

[abaddon]

You guys arguing that laws are "there" and make things happen are taking a top-down approach that resembles some Christians treating laws as rules imposed upon matter. As if it'd just sit there being stupid if something, like the law of motion, didn't step in and impose itself upon matter and make it move. As if a so-called law were it's own mysterious "thing" apart from matter, guiding it or causing it do what it does.

Isn't it rather bottom-up, where a universe self-organizes according to the innate properties of what it is made of?

It is stars and planets that cause a warp in space-time. Matter does it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"they don't have anything inside them that would resemble our perceptions or indeed the world around them" How do you know this? I suspect that it might not be true - or rather, I suspect that it might be exactly equally true of human and other biological brains; I rather like the hypothesis that any sufficiently complex set of computations can give rise to consciousness - indeed, I cannot see how it could be otherwise, given that the human brain contains no 'magic' extra consciousness stuff.

Compare:

A good analogy is provided by humans. Human brains can be very effective, including now driving trains, aircrafts, cars and all sorts of machines. Yet, they don't have anything inside them that would resemble our perceptions or indeed the world around them. All the knowledge they have available to them to select the next of their actions that will be nearly always effective are symbolic codes. These codes are arbitrary and might vary in effect from one type of brain to the next, and they have been so evolved because the environment was such that they resulted in the organism doing the successful things, not because the codes would somehow be true of the world, or represent the world. In fact, what we call a code, is not even anything like a code. Look into a brain and you won't see anything like a programme written anywhere. What we call a code is itself a convenient fiction. All a brain could be said to contain are cells in various states interacting with each other. And then even that is just another, more elaborate fiction. Still, it works and that's all that we need.

I can see no good reason to assume that a sufficiently complex computer and a human brain would be fundamentally different; If we built a massively parallel computer that could simulate the physical operation of a living brain, then that simulation would presumably be conscious. The question about whether simpler computers (such as those we actually have today) are also conscious is analogous to the question about simpler brains - are insects conscious, for example? Of course, we don't know whether insects are conscious, but we might assume that they are not, because their brains are too simple. And we might assume that the same holds for even our most advanced computers today - but in principle, I see no reason why a more advanced computer, with a neural or quasi-neural architecture, should be incapable of being conscious.

Equally, we cannot be certain that other humans are conscious; I just assume that they are, because their brains are as complex as the one that gives rise to my consciousness. I would extend the same courtesy to a similarly complex computer, should one be built - particularly if it told me that it was experiencing the world.

I'm pretty sure our brain does not contain anything like an operationally effective code. Codes are best thought of, I think, as languages we use to communicate. They are not operationally effective. Instead, our brain, or computers, operates on them. So codes, like languages, are only on display in our verbal and written communications.

I said it wrong in my previous post. All computers do feature bits of code, even reams of code. However, this code is never operationally effective. And they only show up on the screen. The computer will use it to communicate with us humans.



I could only agree with your point about consciousness if it is understood as objective consciousness, i.e. whatever we take to be the objective manifestation signaling consciousness, including linguistic abilities, memory, logical capabilities, representational capabilities (all art forms), ability to show empathy, ability to display emotions, etc. And then of course your point becomes trivially true so I guess that's not what you meant.

So for subjective consciousness, if that was indeed your point, I still don't see how objective consciousness could give rise to, or ipso facto include, subjective consciousness. If you can provide a compelling explanation of how it would work I will try to look into it. Short of that, it seems we can pretty much ignore the issue. I don't see how the issue of subjective consciousness could have any rational import to issues related to objective consciousness as long as we ignore how the two relate to each other.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You guys arguing that laws are "there" and make things happen are taking a top-down approach that resembles some Christians treating laws as rules imposed upon matter. As if it'd just sit there being stupid if something, like the law of motion, didn't step in and impose itself upon matter and make it move. As if a so-called law were it's own mysterious "thing" apart from matter, guiding it or causing it do what it does.

Isn't it rather bottom-up, where a universe self-organizes according to the innate properties of what it is made of?

It is stars and planets that cause a warp in space-time. Matter does it.

I can broadly agree with that.

I'm not sure how we would go about actually proving this one hundred per cent, though.

I guess it is logically possible that the universe is somehow subject to operationally effective laws of nature. So, I also doubt very much that people like fast will ever give up on this sliver of possibility.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think that descriptions are caused, and perhaps cause things to happen in some sense, so they are causal in that sense (being part of the causal chain).

All descriptions I know of need to be interpreted. This is true of human language descriptions, mathematics, sciences, and also computer codes.

Obviously, the material support of a description is part of the causal chain but it seems redundant to take a description as anything more than a convenient fiction, unless if by "description" you meant the physical support of the description, which seems a logically defective use to me.
EB

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess it's conceivable there could be an infinite regress of causes but this would imply there's no definite reality

I don't think it would imply that at all. Rather, it would be pretty much explicit that the universe is not bound by our understanding of cause and effect. That our understanding of reality is limited to our experience and our ability to experience it.

 

[fast]

I think it's abundantly clear that when most people talk about the laws of nature, they are speaking about the fundamentals of nature. We sometimes speak in ways that make us wonder, and I suppose that's behind the confusion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I guess it's conceivable there could be an infinite regress of causes but this would imply there's no definite reality

I don't think it would imply that at all. Rather, it would be pretty much explicit that the universe is not bound by our understanding of cause and effect. That our understanding of reality is limited to our experience and our ability to experience it.

Interesting distinction.

What I meant was that although we can conceive of an infinite regress of causes I don't think anyone could imagine such a reality. Reality would be indefinite in that sense. It's an epistemological indefiniteness, not an ontological one. But I might be wrong about other people's ability to imagine. Here too I'm bound by my own ability to experience.

As to the limitation of our ability to experience reality, this is true anyway whether there is or there isn't an infinite regress of causes. Obviously, without such an infinite regress, we could in theory get to know all actual causes. Yet, in practice we are very unlikely to get to know all of them and I would say I don't see how we could ever claim to know any one of them unless it turns out we are in a special case.

So, the debate is essentially about our representation of reality rather than about any actual reality.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's abundantly clear that when most people talk about the laws of nature, they are speaking about the fundamentals of nature. We sometimes speak in ways that make us wonder, and I suppose that's behind the confusion.

I knew you wouldn't let go.
EB

 

[Malintent]

I fail to see your distinction.

We see an apple fall to the earth and we conclude it fell because of "laws".

We conclude the "laws" are there based on the behavior of things we can observe.

We cannot observe any laws.

Agreed.

You are both looking at it in simplistic (as in, easy to communicate) terms.

There is a chair sitting in the corner of the room... wait, the chair is "sitting".. so it can "stand up" if it wanted to? It has a butt to sit on? Is the chair tired, so it is sitting?

why does a ball always want to roll downhill and not uphill? Wait, the ball has wants? It desires, and pleads for "downess"? how crazy is that talk?

"laws" are an extinct term of the past, in science.. it is too imprecise... too easy to misunderstand the intended meaning (as I believe you are). What was meant by "law" way back then was "a theory that has so much evidence for, and not a shred of evidence against, that it would be inconceivable in any foreseeable future for the theory to be upended or abandoned by additional understanding". The hubris of "ancient science" is over. We don't say things are laws anymore. Otherwise, it would be called the "Law of Evolution" by now.. .but we don't use those absolute terms anymore.

You haven't made any comment on the statements.

I put "law" in quotes to show we have no idea what they are, just that the effect of them being there can be observed.

Einstein talks about a bend in space, but that is an effect. The cause of the bend is the "law".

But if there are effects there must be causes for the effects. Even if we can't understand the causes.

That is simply not correct. It is a misunderstanding of what the old "laws" are. Laws describe the bend. the cause of the bend is Gravity. The cause of Gravity is an as of yet poorly understood effect of quantum mechanics and the interaction of matter in space-time.

 

[Malintent]

You guys arguing that laws are "there" and make things happen are taking a top-down approach that resembles some Christians treating laws as rules imposed upon matter. As if it'd just sit there being stupid if something, like the law of motion, didn't step in and impose itself upon matter and make it move. As if a so-called law were it's own mysterious "thing" apart from matter, guiding it or causing it do what it does.

Isn't it rather bottom-up, where a universe self-organizes according to the innate properties of what it is made of?

It is stars and planets that cause a warp in space-time. Matter does it.

yes, exactly.

 

[Malintent]

You guys arguing that laws are "there" and make things happen are taking a top-down approach that resembles some Christians treating laws as rules imposed upon matter. As if it'd just sit there being stupid if something, like the law of motion, didn't step in and impose itself upon matter and make it move. As if a so-called law were it's own mysterious "thing" apart from matter, guiding it or causing it do what it does.

Isn't it rather bottom-up, where a universe self-organizes according to the innate properties of what it is made of?

It is stars and planets that cause a warp in space-time. Matter does it.

I can broadly agree with that.

I'm not sure how we would go about actually proving this one hundred per cent, though.

I guess it is logically possible that the universe is somehow subject to operationally effective laws of nature. So, I also doubt very much that people like fast will ever give up on this sliver of possibility.
EB

One way to prove the inverse would be to go "out there" and grab a piece of "law", bring it back, and examine it. We can create a "Law Zoo" with all the laws in cages so we can visit them and ask them questions, like, "Hiya Entropy! you are soooo cute! Why do you spread out like that so much?" Or, "here gravity, here gravity... my, have you gained some weight!"

 

[fast]

What is it that you think I'm not letting go of? Do you think that I am implying ownership when I refer to my girlfriend as my girlfriend? If you refer to your wife as your wife, I do not allow etymology to sway my thinking. Laws that govern nature can be interpreted quite neutrally without invoking the silly idea that where there is a law governing there must be an entity with a mind governing. Trust me, I don't have to let go of the notion there is a being in my motor dictating the moves of the govenor limiting the power output of my motor. Physics lies at the heart of the laws of nature. The question of how those truths ever come to be isn't a subject I have broached.

 

[untermensche]

If something happens it has to happen due to a cause.

Things existing without being caused is something happening without cause. That's just if things existing without cause is possible in reality.

When you start talking about things starting to exist you are talking about our furthest and thinnest understanding of things.

You cannot demonstrate that anything ever existed without a cause.

 

[untermensche]

Things existing without being caused is something happening without cause. That's just if things existing without cause is possible in reality.

If reality exists it exists without cause.

I guess it's conceivable there could be an infinite regress of causes but this would imply there's no definite reality, which is probably something too godawful to contemplate.
EB

IF?

Contained within the concept of "reality" is existence.

If something is thought to exist we say it is "real".

You would not call something "real" you did not think exists.

There is existence. That is the given.

How is there existence?

Nobody has the slightest clue.

Most likely something beyond human capacities to explain from our vantage point.

 

[Malintent]

Things existing without being caused is something happening without cause. That's just if things existing without cause is possible in reality.

When you start talking about things starting to exist you are talking about our furthest and thinnest understanding of things.

You cannot demonstrate that anything ever existed without a cause.

I was going to say something similar... that "things" can have causes that themselves are not "things".

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is it that you think I'm not letting go of? Do you think that I am implying ownership when I refer to my girlfriend as my girlfriend? If you refer to your wife as your wife, I do not allow etymology to sway my thinking. Laws that govern nature can be interpreted quite neutrally without invoking the silly idea that where there is a law governing there must be an entity with a mind governing. Trust me, I don't have to let go of the notion there is a being in my motor dictating the moves of the govenor limiting the power output of my motor. Physics lies at the heart of the laws of nature. The question of how those truths ever come to be isn't a subject I have broached.

Right, so your position seems to be that by 'laws of nature' people ordinarily mean that the laws are in some way relative to nature, which we all agree I think, and that they exist independently of the human mind, something I believe most scientists would disagree about. And then you seem to think that although they exist, these laws are not beings as such and that it would be naïve and futile to think we could find them in nature.

Right.

Sorry, I must have missed something but the above is what I understand of what you are saying and yet it doesn't make sense to me.

It would be nice to clarify.
EB

 

[untermensche]

When you start talking about things starting to exist you are talking about our furthest and thinnest understanding of things.

You cannot demonstrate that anything ever existed without a cause.

I was going to say something similar... that "things" can have causes that themselves are not "things".

But if we talk about the "cause" of things existing we are talking about something we know the least about.

 

[fast]

Do you think E=Mc^2 is an invention or discovery?

Hint, it's the referent to the equation and not the equation itself that I ask about.

The moon is a discovery. That sucker would be there even if no one in all of history (or prehistoric times) looked up to notice it. The word, "moon," well, that's something altogether different.

An equation is to a word as the facts of the world is to the referent of the word. Don't think for a minute that the moon is literally on a piece of paper just because someone writes the word moon on paper, and don't think for a moment that a law of nature is really what's written because a notational representation is written.

It's so easy to think of a law as written when we speak in terms of there being a saying "letter of the law" when speaking about the law being as it's written, yet the fact of the matter is, the law doesn't go up in flames when the law as notated in written form goes up in flames housed in a law book.

The laws of nature are most assuredly independent of man. The physics behind natural occurances are just what they are, and they would of been the way they are whether man ever came upon the scene of life or not. The fact that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is a fact of the world that was discovered by man, just as the existence of that orbiting body we all call the moon is a factual current state of affairs.

And people think statements are the laws. That's right up there with confusing the word with what is referenced by it. Right up there with confusing an equation with what it's about. Confusing a statement (the dang statement itself) with what the statement is all about. Confusion everywhere.

Pictures of unicorns aren't unicorns. Picture of daddy ain't daddy. Laws of nature are not statements.

 

[untermensche]

Do you think E=Mc^2 is an invention or discovery?

Hint, it's the referent to the equation and not the equation itself that I ask about.

The equivalence is a discovery.

But it is logically strange.

What would it mean to multiply mass by something?

You can break particles apart in a collider.

But how do you multiply them by something?