Physicalism

[ryan]

Propagation is limited by c. This doesn't mean a field doesn't influence all of the particles within it at once. Especially if the particles can sense the field as a whole- which is an interesting concept.

How does the field influence all of the particles in it at once?

 

[ryan]

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.

Now if perception itself is a process, then how would we know that wholes exist? How would we even know what "whole" means?

 

[Juma]

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.

Now if perception itself is a process, then how would we know that wholes exist? How would we even know what "whole" means?

Internally concistency. "Whole" only mean something from within the process.

 

[ryan]

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.

Now if perception itself is a process, then how would we know that wholes exist? How would we even know what "whole" means?

Internally concistency. "Whole" only mean something from within the process.

But the only wholes of the process would be particles because each particle is separated causally by space-time.

 

[Juma]

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.

Now if perception itself is a process, then how would we know that wholes exist? How would we even know what "whole" means?

Internally concistency. "Whole" only mean something from within the process.

But the only wholes of the process would be particles because each particle is separated causally by space-time.

No they arent: the particles are connected by the four forces. (Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity)

 

[ryan]

2) the illusion of "whole" is similar to the illusion of a instant "now". It is true that we can represent complex things with a "single" concept but that doesnt meant that single particles represent them. Just that the process that makes up your thoughts behaves that way: everything you think, every line of thought, takes time to form. It may be milliseconds or even less but still, it isnt instantanious.

Now if perception itself is a process, then how would we know that wholes exist? How would we even know what "whole" means?

Internally concistency. "Whole" only mean something from within the process.

But the only wholes of the process would be particles because each particle is separated causally by space-time.

No they arent: the particles are connected by the four forces. (Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity)

The forces are also particles/bosons (with gravity/graviton being questionable). So I know that they eventually affect each other, but strictly speaking, you can't say that they are connected. Quantum entanglement, now that's a connection.

Now with all of this separation, what can know about a whole? How can something even question a whole's existence?

 

[Kharakov]

Propagation is limited by c. This doesn't mean a field doesn't influence all of the particles within it at once. Especially if the particles can sense the field as a whole- which is an interesting concept.

How does the field influence all of the particles in it at once?

It already propagated. It's not like there is a gap in the field- it's not like a particle just started generating fields with other particles.

 

[Juma]

The forces are also particles/bosons (with gravity/graviton being questionable). So I know that they eventually affect each other, but strictly speaking, you can't say that they are connected.

They interact, that is enough.

 

[ryan]

Propagation is limited by c. This doesn't mean a field doesn't influence all of the particles within it at once. Especially if the particles can sense the field as a whole- which is an interesting concept.

How does the field influence all of the particles in it at once?

It already propagated. It's not like there is a gap in the field- it's not like a particle just started generating fields with other particles.

Yes, but if something is separated by time, is it really a whole? So maybe it depends on whether or not time is continuous. In other words, if I throw a rock, does our universe treat the parabola as perfectly continuous or discretely.

Also, according to Wikipedia (pretty good looking reference [1]) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field (just below the table of contents) the structure of the electromagnetic field can be successfully described as a discrete structure.

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, but if something is separated by time, is it really a whole? So maybe it depends on whether or not time is continuous. In other words, if I throw a rock, does our universe treat the parabola as perfectly continuous or discretely.

Not speaking as the universe, but I've created 4+ dimensional mathematical objects which are single mathematical objects. You can zoom into them at any point in time, and they are connected to themselves "smoothly". You can input discrete time variables (like t=.002314142314 or something) and look at the object at that point in time. You can do whatever step size you want for the time, but the object itself evolves smoothly through time (it is a continuous object), even though we have to use discrete variables to generate it.

Note that even sqrt(2) is a discrete variable on a computer, because we don't actually use the decimal expansion of sr2 in computation, just a portion of it.

Also, according to Wikipedia (pretty good looking reference [1]) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field (just below the table of contents) the structure of the electromagnetic field can be successfully described as a discrete structure.

Or continuous.

 

[ryan]

Not speaking as the universe, but I've created 4+ dimensional mathematical objects which are single mathematical objects. You can zoom into them at any point in time, and they are connected to themselves "smoothly". You can input discrete time variables (like t=.002314142314 or something) and look at the object at that point in time. You can do whatever step size you want for the time, but the object itself evolves smoothly through time (it is a continuous object), even though we have to use discrete variables to generate it.

Note that even sqrt(2) is a discrete variable on a computer, because we don't actually use the decimal expansion of sr2 in computation, just a portion of it.

Also, according to Wikipedia (pretty good looking reference [1]) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field (just below the table of contents) the structure of the electromagnetic field can be successfully described as a discrete structure.

Or continuous.

So if we can assume that there are complex wholes, then unfortunately for reductionism, it would seem to really contradict it which ultimately contradicts reductive physicalism.

So this would seem to mean that these objects must have inherent properties and not just properties that humans assign to them. One has to ask what the nature of these properties are. In other words, if these properties are not physical objects on their own, then what are they? Are they nonphysical components of what we call physical?

 

[Kharakov]

So if we can assume that there are complex wholes, then unfortunately for reductionism, it would seem to really contradict it which ultimately contradicts reductive physicalism.

Wow... a bit tangential, but trying to find something on bridge laws, I ran across this, which.. well, I really like how the pages flip at archive.org.

So this would seem to mean that these objects must have inherent properties and not just properties that humans assign to them. One has to ask what the nature of these properties are. In other words, if these properties are not physical objects on their own, then what are they? Are they nonphysical components of what we call physical?

Umm, depends on if you're someone who defines everything as physical or not. Dualist, or monist, pluralist?

 

[ryan]

Wow... a bit tangential, but trying to find something on bridge laws, I ran across this, which.. well, I really like how the pages flip at archive.org.

Thanks, I have always wanted a thorough explanation of Godel's theorems for the layman.

So this would seem to mean that these objects must have inherent properties and not just properties that humans assign to them. One has to ask what the nature of these properties are. In other words, if these properties are not physical objects on their own, then what are they? Are they nonphysical components of what we call physical?

Umm, depends on if you're someone who defines everything as physical or not. Dualist, or monist, pluralist?

Normally, just questioning physicalism causes a stir. Are you one of many that is not totally sold on physicalism?!

 

[ryan]

Umm, depends on if you're someone who defines everything as physical or not. Dualist, or monist, pluralist?

Normally, just questioning physicalism causes a stir. Are you one of many that is not totally sold on physicalism?!

Oops, I meant to put "few" not "many" in the last sentence.

 

[Kharakov]

Umm, depends on if you're someone who defines everything as physical or not. Dualist, or monist, pluralist?

Normally, just questioning physicalism causes a stir. Are you one of many that is not totally sold on physicalism?!

Oops, I meant to put "few" not "many" in the last sentence.

Why did you say sold instead of solid? Do you view the economy as completely physical? Monopopluralistic? Monopolar pluralism gets around.. it really gets around.

 

[ryan]

Umm, depends on if you're someone who defines everything as physical or not. Dualist, or monist, pluralist?

Normally, just questioning physicalism causes a stir. Are you one of many that is not totally sold on physicalism?!

Oops, I meant to put "few" not "many" in the last sentence.

Why did you say sold instead of solid? Do you view the economy as completely physical? Monopopluralistic? Monopolar pluralism gets around.. it really gets around.

It's a tough argument for us "non-physicalists" to win, at least for some here in TFT. The physicalists have some good arguments - even though I think it's the easier argument.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm pretty sure defining everything as physical isn't the same as presenting an argument that everything is physical. Not sure what type of argument one could follow up an assumed premise like "everything is physical". Maybe, "everything is physical, therefore everything is physical"?

 

[ryan]

I'm pretty sure defining everything as physical isn't the same as presenting an argument that everything is physical.

What is the difference between defining everything as physical and arguing that everything is physical; doesn't each one imply the other?

 

[Togo]

The problem with this particular issue is that people just tend to define things as physical or non-physical.

My disagreement with physicalism is simply that supporting involves defining what is 'physical' so widely that it ceases to have any useful implications. If we have a process that we see as mental, experience as mental, and can only explain in terms of mental models, then the belief that there must be a physical set of actions underlying it somehow is charming, but doesn't really rule out anything. Any result or conclusion you wish can be defined as physical simply by hypothesising an unknown and mysterious physical process to underlie it. It ends up being a bit like arguing whether Superman could beat up Santa.

If we restrict ourselves to known and fully and entirely understood processes, then the results are already in. There are thing we model mentally that we can't fully explain physically. But that's not a result that's particularly interesting to anyone, since it just reflects what we know and understand now, which is likely to change over time.

So the only really fertile area to explore, in my opinion, is what consequences it has to us to say that everything is physical, or that everything can not be reduced to the physical.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm pretty sure defining everything as physical isn't the same as presenting an argument that everything is physical.

What is the difference between defining everything as physical and arguing that everything is physical; doesn't each one imply the other?

Well, if someone is arguing that everything is physical, they must be arguing against some perspective that everything is not physical, right?

Physical properties imply a plurality of perspectives upon the same physical reality.

I suppose the only delineation that people really have a problem with is whether or not to consider the imaginary components of reality as physical. And shockingly enough, here comes a tangent that we'll have to tie back to the conversation farther down the line-

You know, QM wave particle duality is like picking out ice cream after you've decided you're going to get some. You've got all these options, but you're more likely to pick from certain flavors that you like than you are to pick from the flavors that don't really correspond to your favorite types. So, while every one in a while you grab something off the wall, there is a distribution of flavor selections.

So the imaginary development of the wave function of your decision making process doesn't become real until the imaginary process of selection collapses and you pick an actual flavor. Does this mean the wave function that exists in your mind is any less real that the ice cream you selected?

So really, wave particle duality may be the whole "physical/mental" dichotomy. They are really one, but the mental is sort of "lots of different options, a little fuzzy at times) and the physical is the form that the mental wave function ultimately selects. So is the divide along the lines of "selection" and "existence", or does it move all over the place according to our current perspective, but as we get wiser, the line becomes more clear, and we become more relaxed about dancing around it.