Monday, March 13, 2023

1055: Philosophical left-overs....

 If there is one clear lesson from the history of physics, it might be this: take nothing for granted. At this point in time physics lacks a unified theory of reality, but suppose it found one, would it then be in a position to answer the ontological question?
Physics would have an answer, but it could only claim to be the answer if the theory were shown to be, in some important sense, the FINAL theory.
This is because the history of science is a story of one conception of the world holding sway until another theory, superior in some way or other, takes its place.
This process is well described by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962). Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity
where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.
The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.
Unless a point is reached in the future when science can argue convincingly that it has found the Theory of Everything,
any answer science gives to the ontological question will be provisional in our, present conception of reality, or according to our best theories so far, so and so exists.
However, all is not lost. If it has been necessary to lay to rest the theory, qua ontological theory of what exists, as we just concluded, the implied negative claim of the theory, about what doesn’t exist, survives.
What theoretical physics has not brought into the picture is anything answering to the description of the spiritual or the divine.
What always has fascinated me and many other philosophers is the question "Why is reality mathematical?"
Maybe Pythagoras comes to mind here. The question of why reality appears to be mathematical is a complex and debated topic.
Some scientists and philosophers argue that mathematics is a human invention that we use to describe and model the natural world, while others suggest that mathematics is a fundamental aspect of the universe itself.

One reason why mathematics is so effective at describing the natural world is that it provides a precise and abstract language that can be used to describe complex phenomena.
For example, in physics, mathematical equations can describe the behavior of particles, waves, and fields with remarkable accuracy.
Mathematics also provides a way to predict and understand patterns and relationships in the natural world, from the movement of planets to the growth of cells.

Another possible explanation for why reality appears to be mathematical is the idea of mathematical realism.
This view suggests that mathematical objects and concepts exist independently of human thought and language and that they are discovered rather than invented.
In this sense, mathematics is seen as a fundamental aspect of the universe that we are able to uncover through our exploration and study of the natural world.

Ultimately, the question of why reality appears to be mathematical is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in fields such as philosophy, mathematics, and physics.
While there are no clear answers, the success of mathematical models in describing and predicting the natural world suggests that there is a deep connection between mathematics and the universe we live in.
The Ancient Greek philosophers began analyzing what really exists and came up with all kinds of ontological descriptions, but it has become clear that ontology, discovering what exists, is a matter for science, rather than philosophers.
Most philosophical work in the materialist tradition since the rise of the new physics has focused on the nature of psychological phenomena, these being the greatest challenge for materialism.
So, we'll leave the ontology of the material world to the physicists and have a look at what is left over for philosophers and that is the mind itself in relation to this material world.
Thank you for your attention again.....

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion 

[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:23] herman Bergson: Maybe not an easy lecture today.....
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I can indeed agree that math is the language of nature because EVERYTHING can be described with math, sound color shape ect
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....and it is as such a big mystery
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and this is what also makes computer simulations possible, all a computer does whatever it is is based on math, hence the name computer = calculator
[13:24] herman Bergson: a fascinating one
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like for example this bloody game engine i use Unreal 5, it can accurately simulate, gravity, fluid motion, even chaos
[13:25] herman Bergson: It can all be calculated
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and i can throw my own math in there and create my own simulations if i want
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i have tried
[13:25] herman Bergson: Like we experience in SL every day
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): works prefect for that, not just for game creation, actually the proper name now for these programs are not game engines but realtime engines
[13:26] Al Michigan: I do not agree with the idea, because a tesla is driving in a theoretical concept, made by mathematical logarithms,  predicting probabilities, but now and then a tesla run into a very strong stationary object, or kills a bicyclist, assuming it/he does not exist , or better, the changes are theoretically too low to take serious for the car so he decides ,...mathmatically the road is empty. this is also  a danger with AI
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:26] Al Michigan: or AI-chat
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sl also
[13:26] herman Bergson: You forgot the house rules Al
[13:26] CONNIE Eichel is online.
[13:26] Al Michigan: ah geez
[13:26] Al Michigan: sorry
[13:27] Al Michigan: but AI cannot see a difference between a logaritm and reality!
[13:27] Al Michigan: neither can chatAI!
[13:27] herman Bergson: AI has no understanding
[13:27] Al Michigan: indeed!
[13:27] Al Michigan: so it is not intelligent at all
[13:28] herman Bergson: That is why it is called artificial :-)
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly, a machine cant experience anything, its just billions of tiny switches
[13:28] herman Bergson: fake intelligence
[13:28] Al Michigan: but should it not have another name then?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Nevertheless it can give clever answers
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we can program it to do things and simulate intelligence, one of the very first programming languages LISP was created with AI in mind
[13:29] Al Michigan: but mr  Bergson, these  '' smart''; answers are by accident!!!
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one thing is for sure however, a thing i heard " everything u want the computer to do for you you should also program it to do"
[13:30] herman Bergson: Tehy are not accidental but calculated and generated by rules
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it only does what u tell it
[13:30] Al Michigan: yeah!!
[13:31] herman Bergson: Anyway....modern materialism leaves the explanation of what exists to the physicists....
[13:31] Al Michigan: but  I cannot understand that!
[13:31] herman Bergson: that is our most important observation of today
[13:32] herman Bergson: The Ancient Greek philosophers thought in terms of elements, water , earth fire and air....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes the four elements
[13:33] herman Bergson: Good for a smile today, if you look at the complex composition of matter
[13:33] herman Bergson: It is depicted here on the wall to my right
[13:34] herman Bergson: higgs particles, muons...just name it....
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:34] herman Bergson: So, for a materialist philosopher not that interesting anymore
[13:35] herman Bergson: Like mathematics in relation to matter is a huge mystery, so is the mind in relation to matter
[13:35] herman Bergson: Philosophy has retreated to that area now
[13:36] herman Bergson: in cooperation with neuroscience
[13:36] herman Bergson: We already did a project on the philosophy of mind
[13:37] herman Bergson: So, we'll see where this all will lead to
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess so
[13:38] herman Bergson: Any questions left for today? :-)
[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): lot's to think about
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm
[13:38] herman Bergson: as always Beertje ^_^
[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes as always:))
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well powering tests begin t LHC tomorrow so soon they can continue take the physics part of the question
[[13:39] Al Michigan: will a gluon bomb be even more powerful as a atomic bomb>?
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): gluon bomb? if its an antimatter bomb it will be for sure
[13:39] herman Bergson: I am working on that Al :-)))
[13:39] Al Michigan: wow mr Bergson!@
[13:40] herman Bergson: right ^_^
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): 100 % of all matter is converted to energy here, in a nuclear bomb its not even 1 % i think
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well.  before the whole thing explodes here......
[13:40] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....:-))
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so a such bob would obliterate the entire planet with ease, just like we saiyans do in Dragonball Z, blowing up planets with our bare hands, or the drath ray in star wars
[13:41] Al Michigan: who-o-o-ow
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a true doomsday weapon the antimatter bomb
[13:41] herman Bergson: Thank you all again :-)