25 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know the answer for that and I think that I can very safely say that no one knows the answer to that.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
Which notion? Because I do think that way (I'm no physicist, so one point for you!), my only critique is when that is taken to imply a hierarchy of sorts in different sciences. Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?
Edit - Ok, I see your point. I was imprecise when I say "explain eve ils down to physics at the quantum level. Could gravity be an example that proves me wrong?
But here are some comments on what you said:
"Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?"
I would very certainly answer yes to that question. But there is one point to be made. That doesn't mean anything. Because you don't know how to take into account the interactions between those Quantum micro-systems (micro is really a bad word since Quantum Mechanics also have macro behavior and manifestations ). It's kind like the theory of differential equations. If they are linear all you have to do is break them up, find the solution to every part and add them up to have the full general solution. But if they are non-linear you can still break them up and find the individual solutions. The trouble is that the full general solution isn't just the sum of those particular ones.
Yes QM is a linear theory but is only so if you don't take the interactions between two (or more) systems into account.
One other thing is the concepts of complexity and emergence are undermining that simple determinism and reductionism. We now know that some properties that some systems exibit can never be explained if we break things apart and some the various solutions.
Last but not least: I don't believe this is the final version of QM.
Ps: Take my words with large doses of salt, since my views on science in general and physics in particular are highly deviant.
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd hope that almost anything on love to be metaphysics. If not I'd be very disappointed. But what I hope has no bearing on the world as it is so take my opinion as you like.
Is there anything metaphysical about love?
But if you do truly feel that everything can be represent mathematically, surely you think one day love will be represented mathematically (whatever that expression might mean).
I don't think that way, but of course this is just an opinion based on the fact that I'm kind of a dualist (I know no better term to express my take on this).
If you are a platonist/idealist (which I know you aren't) I think you could make the case: "Yes there is a mathematical representation of love in the eternal world of ideas of concepts, regardless if we dumb humans get to find it or not", but if you are a formalist/positivist (which I know you somewhat are) there is no sense in talking about a mathematical representation of love until you provide one.
So what do you make of my take on this?
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by adam warlockExactly, but that's the same argument I'm using for denying that implies a hierarchy.
I don't know the answer for that and I think that I can very safely say that no one knows the answer to that.
But here are some comments on what you said:
"Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?"
I would very certainly answer yes to that question. But there is one point to be made. That doesn't mean anything. Because ...[text shortened]... alt, since my views on science in general and physics in particular are highly deviant.
One other thing is the concepts of complexity and emergence are undermining that simple determinism and reductionism. We now know that some properties that some systems exibit can never be explained if break things apart and some the various solutions.
Never? Or with our current knowledge? Never is a strong statement.
25 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockHa! Nice one.
If you are a platonist/idealist (which I know you aren't) I think you could make the case: "Yes there is a mathematical representation of love in the eternal world of ideas of concepts, regardless if we dumb humans get to find it or not", but if you are a formalist/positivist (which I know you somewhat are) there is no sense in talking about a mathematical representation of love until you provide one.
To answer that I would argue that the mathematical representation doesn't need to feature an object called "love", but that love can be represented by a collection of inputs (electrical impulses, chemicals,etc.) into some type of dynamic neural network representation. But, yes, that's under the assumption that there is nothing metaphysical about love.
25 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaA hierarchy on what? On what is science and what is not science?
Exactly, but that's the same argument I'm using for denying that implies a hierarchy.
[b]One other thing is the concepts of complexity and emergence are undermining that simple determinism and reductionism. We now know that some properties that some systems exibit can never be explained if break things apart and some the various solutions.
Never? Or with our current knowledge? Never is a strong statement.[/b]
you got me there. Never indeed is a very strong word and scientifically speaking I have no basis (other than current knowledge) to use it. But I'm an idealist/platonist so you'll have to forgive me.
Let me say this instead. Our knowledge in physics would have to change in a very serious, and radical way for emergence and complexity to be obsolete concepts (if this were politics I'd use the word reactionary since what we would have would be a form of returning to the old order).
There are real word systems that are explained using the concepts of emergence and complexity and can't be explained in the old reductionist ways. And can't be explained doesn't mean that we can't solve the equations, it means that we solve the equations and the solutions don't match up with reality. So either we would have a very severe breakthrough (mathematically and/or conceptually) in the old reductionist way or the old reductionist way isn't to be trusted on some cases. To me it is "obvious" that the second option is the "right" one.
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by PalynkaToo sketchy of an answer to my liking. But of course this is only so because we are talking about very hard topics that aren't scientific and nevertheless are what life is about.
Ha! Nice one.
To answer that I would argue that the mathematical representation doesn't need to feature an object called "love", but that love can be represented by a collection of inputs (electrical impulses, chemicals,etc.) into some type of dynamic neural network representation. But, yes, that's under the assumption that there is nothing metaphysical about love.
Let me just quote Gauss and Feynman.
Gauss: "There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for example touching ethics, or our relation to God, or concerning our destiny and our future; but their solution lies wholly beyond us and completely outside the province of science."
Feynman: "Tell your son to stop trying to fill your head with science — for to fill your heart with love is enough."
I completely and totally agree with both those notions.
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by adam warlockOn which sciences are more scientific than others. Don't ask me to defend that, though, I'm attacking it!
A hierchy on what? On what is science and what is not science?
Can you give examples of such emergence and complexity in the current state of knowledge?
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by adam warlockMeh. That I don't think love is metaphysical doesn't really change the way I feel about those I love. I'm also not a science fundamentalist, at all. After all, we even need philosophy to justify the scientific method!
Too sketchy of an answer to my liking. But of course this is only so because we are talking about very hard topics that aren't scientific and nevertheless are what life is about.
Let me just quote Gauss and Feynman.
Gauss: "There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for exampl ...[text shortened]... your heart with love is enough."
I completely and totally agree with both those notions.
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by PalynkaTo tell you the truth the whole notion of Science is rather bogus to me. There are different fields of human endeavor and some ar more certain than others. Physics is one field were the level of certainty is very big. But one should always remember the enormously stringent conditions to which we can apply physics too.
On which sciences are more scientific than others. Don't ask me to defend that, though, I'm attacking it!
Can you give examples of such emergence and complexity in the current state of knowledge?
Examples of emergent and complex phenomena (with some turbulence into the mix). tiger spots, milk and coffe mixing, market fluctuations 😉 , the stock market 😉 , ecosystems, chaos theory, etc...
25 Feb 10
Originally posted by PalynkaMeh! I'm just a romantic fool!
Meh. That I don't think love is metaphysical doesn't really change the way I feel about those I love. I'm also not a science fundamentalist, at all. After all, we even need philosophy to justify the scientific method!
After all, we even need philosophy to justify the scientific method!
What scientific method? And in what way does philosophy justofy the scientific method? 😛
25 Feb 10
The demarcation problem started with the conflicts between the teachings of religion and then science. So the question about drawing the lines around science was at the time the mirror image of the question about which matters does religion have authority. Popper quite aptly noted that there is more to the non-metaphysical than science (e.g. philosophy) and so the demarcation problem is not necessarily a dichotomy between religion and science or the physical/metaphysical.
So what role is then there for science? Science is then simply a preferred method to advance our knowledge of the physical.