From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.093533.28236@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
>In <1992Oct28.221512.24872@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.111538.26598@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi  
>>writes:
>>> In <1992Oct28.221512.24872@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu writes:
>
>>	You are correct!  Physics is not conscious.  But if physics  
>> gives rise to consciousness, then consciousness must follow the laws of  
>> physics. Another way of saying it is that consciousness is physics  
>> operating under a particular set of conditions.

While this is true, it is not relevant. Physics is a science that deals
with simple systems. Its laws are stated in such a way that they are 
useful for explaining and predicting the behavior of such systems. They 
are not practically useful for description of complex systems (try to
understand a computer entirely through electron motion) and they are 
probably useless for highly complex systems like living organisms and
conciousness.

>
>      True. The problem we seem to have here is, is free will also
>physics? Do these conditions under which our neurons operate allow us to
>construct any kind of thought, regardless of whether it has anything to
>do with the "real" world - such as, "two plus two makes five"? I think
>so, because I can't see physical laws as conscious enough to weed out
>some thoughts and not others.

I find your definition of 'free will' (if this example is supposed to
illustrate it) very unusual.

>
>>	The same physical laws that allow the addition of apples must  
>> also allow thought.  (If the two are really separate, perhaps we  
>> should not be using thought to come up with mathematical ideas.)  So  
>> let's say I am an abstract observer from the pi'th dimension ( or  
>> square-root-of-two'th dimension, if you prefer), and I observe that  

I don't understand AT ALL what you are talking about. (And I don't think
it is because I am ignorant, I am a physicist.)

>> two humans have contradictory thoughts.  Obviously, the physical  
>> circumstances between the two are not the same,

For one thing, they do not share the same spatial coordinates. And so on.
What you say is trivially obvious.

> or physics would have  
>> given rise to the same thought in both.  Probably some protein is  
>> screwed up in one of their brains due to genetic mutation, and has  
>> caused this untrue thought that 2+2= 5, or that God exists, or  
>> whatever.
>
>      Yet again, our brains are physical entities operating under
>physical laws (to some extent Quantum Mechanics and its Uncertainty, but
>never mind that for a while);

It is doubtful if uncertainty has any significance in the thought process.
The basic objects might be on a scale large enough that U. effect is
negligible. (Just to add a little healthy scepticism.)

> but why should these laws restrict us to
>constructing only logically correct thoughts? How are the laws of
>physics to see the difference?
>

I agree with you - logic doesn't seem to be a consequence of any laws of
physics (even when this sentence is modified to be meaningful :-).

>>	I know which thought is true, and therefore whose brain is  
>> messed up.  However, they don't!
>
>      Well, *I* know what 2+2 *really* makes.

I'd say you abused the words 'know' and 'really'. "2+2=4" is a theorem 
based on a few axioms. Nothing particularly 'real' until connected with
real world in our mind.

> Doesn't stop me from
>*thinking* otherwise, if that pleases me, though.
>
>
>>	Here's a question for you, Sherlock! :-) :-)  Is it  
>> ABSOLUTELY true that there is NO absolute truth?  

This is something everybody should learn in high school. Your puzzle is
linguistic, not logical. The first "true" refers to one statement being
true, as opposed to false. The second - if this is to have any connection
with the context - refers to some general 'truth', described by a more-or-
less complex system of statements, and is pretty ill-defined. Therefore,
you must first define what you mean by the second 'truth' and only then
this can be a meaningful question.


>>> Don't forget relativity here, my good Watson! One statement may be
>>> better at describing the phenomenon we are observing than is the  
>>> other statement; but in and of themselves, they are both merely  
>>> statements.

I don't see what this has to do with relativity.

>>	I'm sorry, I lost you here.  Science assumes that one  
>> statement will be closer to the (yes, absolute) truth than the other,  
>> if they are not both completely wrong.

This particular interpretation of science is plagued with consistency
problems. I prefer (for the reason that they work better) those interpreta-
tions that avoid dealing with 'absolute truth' altogether.

>  I'm not sure what you mean by  
>> "they are both merely statements."  Do you mean they are ultimately  
>> valueless?
>
>      What I was trying to do was to separate the truth from the
>statement, so to speak. As you've noticed, I'm going down the premise
>that I can make any statement I wish to make, regardless of its
>correctness - a rather easily provable premise, so I find it good.

Depends on how you define "any statement". I'd say your tacit definition
is "any combination of terms from a given set". But a more difficult
question (to which I have no answer) is "Can you invent any term you wish?"

>Therefore, a statement on its own is worthless, and doesn't necessarily
>say anything about the external world whatsoever. 
>      They CAN be of value, though - in some situations, if they have
>some correlation to the "real" world. One can hold that "E=mc2" is
>fairly "true" without being too far off the mark - but you can thank
>Einstein for that amount of "truth", not the statement itself.

I assume what you want to say is that a statement is true (or not) only
within a certain system of statements.

>
>>>> One premise of science
>>>> invalidates the other.

This cannot be true at a given one time.

>  And if science is self-contradictory at  
>>>> its core, who can you trust?
>>>       Everybody, I would say -- up to some point or other. 
>
>>	I would agree.  I have yet to see any belief system so far  
>> out that it does not contain at least one truth.

How about this: "I am God, and I created everything else at my will", and
every other statement in the system has to be consistent with this. Or 
another one: "I exist, but you don't" etc.

	Sven