That is because you have indicated you work from a public computer in a coffee shop and somehow have no access to links which are provided. Sorry, I can't do anything about that.
I think Magical Realists' post 559 is a good example of an abstract Implication (it looks like it is going to rain) being causal to an Explicate action (bringing an umbrella). Can this happen without a sentient actor or designer . IMO, yes, the mathematical function itself needs not be sentient to *function*. All it needs is a dynamic permittive condition. A slime mold has no brain or neural system, but uses an abstract form of mathematics to find food or form a fractal *infrastructure* which is responsive to its environment and can "learn". A slime mold cannot think, but it can learn. It has a form of sentience which does not require a brain or neural network. They seem to be latent abilities of the organism itself. Truly remarkable, IMO. I realize the importance and implications of the question. Can something non-physical become physical? Can a set of latent potentials form an implication strong enough to be causal to physical expression? If I understand Bohm, he proposes this concept in his *Wholeness and the Implicate Order*. The process of an unfolding reality from the infinitely subtle into gross physical expression, through a hierarchical order of becoming.
I think abstractions are always interacting with physical reality in a thousand different ways. Ideas, beliefs, facts, theories, inferences, doubts, goals, fears, possibilities, properties, states, algorithms, laws of nature, etc. All these abstractions impinge on our physical reality, shaping it and influencing its course of development. It is impossible to conceive of causation itself, which in reality is yet another abstraction of our minds, without this assumption of the continuity between the abstract and the physical. What would it even mean for one event to cause another without the abstract formulation of some force or property that passes between them? The thought of me being in my living room blends seamlessly with my living room as it is now physically existing. We don't know where abstraction ends and the physical world begins. Such is the synthetic nature of our reality.
Tegmark proposes that this *abstract formulation* is a mathematical function, which sounds logical to me.
I disagree that the abstract actually causes anything. Using MR's example, I would argue that it is not the thought that gives rise to the action but rather that the action and the thought are both arrived at due to the very real interactions within the brain/body. It is our consciousness that then creates the illusion that the thought is causal... somehow giving us the notion of freewill, that we "chose" to take the umbrella. The causes are the observations of the environment, the computing and machinations within the brain/body of those observations, and those very real observations give rise to the action of taking the umbrella, and part of that computation manifests within our conscious as a thought, part of the computation manifests as a "choice". But the cause and effect are all very real, all part of the physical realm. Which is why I have some issue with you claiming that mathematics, which you describe as just such an abstraction, somehow is causal. I see mathematics, therefore, as an inherent part of the physical reality, not separate from it. Matter can not manifest without somehow obeying underlying laws, and those laws are within and part of that matter - in how it interacts with itself and with everything else. But mathematics being causal rather than merely descriptive (of the relationship of cause and effect)? I don't see it.
Of course you can. You can spell it out in your own words. It's a simple enough question: How would you test Tegmark's "hypothesis"? Saying that the world would be in chaos if it wasn't true is not a test. What would you do to test it? What experiment would you set up? What observations would potentially confirm it? What observations would potentially falsify it? Have you actually thought about testing at all? Has Tegmark?
My native language is Dutch. Can you understand Dutch? Why don't you ask him yourself. This is not the work of an obscure crank who lurks in the shadows hoping someone will buy his book for his next bottle of wine. His work has been published and been open to peer review for years. He seems quite accessible to me. IMO, Youtube has many of his formal lectures on video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
I agree. I agree. I see no reason to say it is impossible. Isee no real difference between the relationship of *space and time* and the relationship of *function and mathematics*. I agree, is that not the definition of *potential* (mathematical probability, the implicate) I agree with the question. It seems counter intuitive to me also. But if every causal relationship we have ever observed and tested have proven to be mathematically logical, we can safely say that universal relationships are mathematical and consequently every dynamic causal relationship must also be mathematical in essence.. Is there a specific need for this hypothesis to be false? If every scientist marvels at the *discoveries* that *everywhere* we look we see mathematical relationships and functions. And by my logic . if you see mathematics whereever you look, your environment has to be mathematical and functions mathematically. This is actually a very neutral non-discriminatory statement. My question is if potential mathematical relationships and functions can be self-causal? This is why I am interested in Tegmarks' work.
To be exact, we do not see mathematical relationships; we define and assign them. We determine that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse that obeys a certain formula. The universe has been happy to exist long before the formulae came along to describe it. More to the point, we do not know that our mathematics always has, does or always will describe something accurately. Our mathematics that an orbit follows an elliptical path could be falisfied tomorrow, with some more measurements. And we'll examine our models, re-do our math, and put forth a new, improved model. But it's still a model. A human model, of arbitrary accuracy.
I agree, a Human model, obviously restrcited by human observatioasl powers. The Universe needs no human model, it just functions by some form of mathematical values and equations, which we have leaned to approximate. We are discovering these values and equations at larger and smaller levels and in every scientific discipline we find need for probability theory and that requires mathematics. Thus, while models are mere approximations of reality, the ability to create a predictive model using mathematics shows the nature of predictable mathematical functions in probability theory. Because of our limited resources man needs to calculate the values and equations in order to make predictive models. The Universe does not. It just does....... and then we cheer, "I told you so!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would say the that human symbolic representation of values and equations exist as abstract symbolic representations., but values and equations do exist in reality . Our entire civilization, indeed the evolution of the universe itself is build on (a form) of mathematics. We have identified several *universal constants*. If you can zoom in close enough you begin to see countable compnents (specific values and functions) of what we perceive as reality.. In the end there are only values and functions, and the way we experience them when and how they interact, we call *reality..* This may be of interest (note the mathematic notations) : http://scaleofuniverse.com/
I have already watched this in its entirety, which is why I don't need to go through it again. He's obviously a very good talker. What makes you think he is a theist? I think it is a covert attack on ID by misrepresenting what Behe meant by Irreducible Complexity. I think what Behe means is that the flagellum system is IC, meaning that all the parts are necessary for it to work, not that other systems could be fashioned from an incomplete flagellum (my limited understanding). Here is a video with Miller grilling Behe. 1:29:29 for the whole dialouge or 1:42:10 where it begins to summerize. Not really. jan.
If space and time are part and parcel of the same, as in spacetime, then I would agree as to the similarity of the relationship. But that is still a far cry from calling that relationship, or either party to that relationship, causal. The similarity i see is that they are two aspects of the same thing, but if neither of those has any actual existence separate from matter then I can not see how they can be deemed causal, but rather merely contingent. The definition of potential might be "mathematical probability" (or some such) but the probability is a mathematical reference to something, not to mathematics itself. The probability is a function of whatever exists, whatever laws a in place. If the universe was self-caused, it is not the mathematics that did this, it is not the mathematics that would be the cause, even if you are able to assign a probability to the self-causation and thus label it as "potential". What caused the universe would in that scenario be the universe. Not mathematics. Further this requires a "something from nothing" rather than "something from something". If there has always been something, albeit in a state and timelessness we might fail to comprehend, then your entire premise falls, and with it the subsequent arguments. Sure, this stems from there being underlying laws necessary for a stable existence in which we find ourselves. But this does not mean that mathematics is the cause. It merely means that mathematics can describe the relationships of everything. Mathematics is still just a contingent property of the relationships of that which exists. If you wish to claim that mathematics itself can be causal, this is quite a claim and would need to be a falsifiable hypothesis to be taken seriously. That everyone can see mathematical relationships is explainable without the need to claim that mathematics is causal. If mathematics is merely a property of existence within a stable universe, for example. Can this be falsified? Yes - just find something that has no mathematical properties. Functioning mathematically is not the same as the maths being causal. I agree with your position in most regards up to the point you jump to it being causal. If mathematics is a contingent property of something that exists - how can it exist prior to that which it is contingent upon?
You don't think I know that the brain is plastic, can change its structure (to a degree) through its use? Your efforts to sound superior are laughable. Given the comments were aimed ad ID, I'm wondering why you are so quick to drag everything back to your beloved Langan and his CTMU? Or is that the only thing you are capable of talking about? Be that as it may, we're talking ID here, not the CTMU which you can keep to your own personal "Reality is..." thread.
I agree, but timeless space is the same as functionless energy, i.e *zero-state) OTOH, in the absence of all physical things on that order, physical laws don't apply and allowing for the FTL expansion of the universe (inflationary epoch). When things cooled, a new order evolved, particles, and so on each mathematical state a more defined order, until expressed to us in *part* as reality. But if you have a geometric relationship even in the abstract the scenario (implication) of a an unfolding universe which does not violate either GR or QM (it consideres then aspects of the mathematical function). Does it make a difference if we can directly observe certain mathematical functions? Or of becoming existencent as a result of combined mathenatical functions. Tell me which part of H2O being able so exist in 3 differencestates from gas to liquid to solid is not a mathematical function depending on external environment and conditions. The few known *self-caused causalities* can be found in the chaotic inflation epoch and in say, hyper-novae I admit, I have trouble coming up with a direct causality for a single event, but what if the single event contains the energy of the entire universe with all the potentials ascribed to energy in one form or another becoming free energy, just like a balloon popping. Who says mathematics is a contingent property of someting that exists, why can it not be the very essence of the fabric space-time geometry, which apparently exists.
Can you even have timeless space as anything other than a conception? The physical universe did exist during that phase, from the moment of the Big Bang onward. The physical laws did also apply but they were applied to states and forms of matter that may not be applicable to the current state of affairs. How else do you think we can model the earliest moments of the universe, or even devise theories such as the inflationary epoch. You're losing me with this. Yes, the universe is more ordered, but what does that have to do with what has been said before. Sorry, you'll have to be a bit clearer... this sentence doesn't seem complete, and I'm not understanding you. We can't directly observe them... we can only observe physical matter obeying those functions. As said, the maths seems, to me, to be merely a contingent property of existence that obeys rules. Such as? Can you explain how it is even possible? At the moment it seems wishful thinking, and certainly doesn't seem to adhere to Occam's razor. How is H2O existing in 3 different states evidence of mathematics being a cause? Yes, the different states can probably be explained mathematically, as everyone here would agree, but you're going a step further with maths being causal rather than descriptive. Does the breadth of a brick cause it to do something? Or is the breadth just a property, and it is the actual matter within the brick that causes? In what way is a hypernova self-caused? What is there in the inflationary epoch that is in any way self-caused? Only at the rather gross macro-level can one cause easily be discerned for an event (if only one cause exists). The more detailed level you look, the more likely it is to be a vastly complex set of interactions. "What if"? What caused the balloon to pop? What caused the potential to accumulate? Where does the potential reside? Is potential equal to mathematics? Or is the mathematics merely a des Do you think that our mathematics would be the same in an entirely different universe, with entirely different conditions, laws, rules etc? Can a universe exist where one plus one equals three? Even if that existence is fleeting before it collapses in a pool of chaos? Or do you think that our maths is as it is because it relies on (is contingent upon) the existence of the universe that it describes? That said, it might be just as you describe, but you'll have to offer more than just confidence and wishful thinking. Perhaps a falsifiable test?
I can read what you've been posting on this topic. Make your case in the same language. You're the one who brought it here. You ought to be able to understand it yourself before you advocate it here. So tell us what you understand.
Those who believe in God are clearly delusional in my opinion. Scientific evidence and especially evidence coming from physics has clearly shown that the existence of any God is extremely unlikely. The laws of physics are universal and mathematical and they seem to just contradict religion. People who believe in God just don't understand biology, chemistry and especially physics.
I'm not here to defend a belief in god, but your argument paints with too broad a brush. There are plenty of people who believe in a clockwork universe set up by god that runs according to natural laws that he created. It doesn't eliminate god-behind-the-curtain, but it does push him closer to irrelevance.
