Is science at odds with philosophy?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

posted in error...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But it wouldn’t be an argument from incredulity unless evolution gives an explanation and he just fails to grasp it. He’s saying that evolution doesn’t give an explanation of consciousness at all, that it just tacks it on as nothing more than some mysterious byproduct that just shows up at some point. Whereas the development of physical structures and the mechanisms to get there that take place with evolution are described very well. So the consciousness part is inexplicable, and if something in a theory is inexplicable it can’t be called an argument from incredulity to not understand it because the theory didn’t even explain it.

Consciousness fits very well with evolutionary theory. If you want a specific explanation of how it works, that's a job for neuroscience, but the increasing capacities and capabilities associated with consciousness in vertebrate lineages show a good correlation with increasing complexity and flexibility of lifestyle, particularly social interaction. It's not hard to see why those capacities and capabilities, including a unified sense of self and awareness, might have a selective advantage consistent with the lifestyles & environments they're found in.

By analogy, we didn't know until fairly recently how the iridescent colours on bird feathers and butterfly wings were created, and we didn't know how birds and bees navigated their way around the world, but the selective advantages, in evolutionary terms, were clear.

It's an argument from incredulity to say that because we don't understand how it is produced, it couldn't have been produced by evolution.

Wait how are these two paragraphs different? Isn’t suggesting an inherent tendency towards complexity the same thing as laws favoring the development of complexity?

Not quite. You could say that, for example, that gravity favours the production of increasingly large clumps of matter because of the inherent tendency of one mass to attract another; that is teleological in an Aristotelian sense - it is the nature of matter to gravitate. But the emergence of complexity and order is only thermodynamically favourable under specific conditions, it's not some universal tendency or characteristic of the universe - if any of the conditions are not suitable there's a far stronger tendency to destroy complexity and order (increasing entropy), and in the production of complexity and order, far more disorder (entropy) is exported to the wider universe.

So the inherent tendency of the universe is towards increasing disorder, but in the right circumstances, this can result in pockets of order & complexity, as long as it increases disorder even more elsewhere. Ironically, complex systems are very efficient dissipators of energy and the most efficient way of increasing disorder in the wider universe.

Possibly, if Nagel had understood this, he might have come to a different conclusion, I don't know...

BTW, The problem we have with global warming is that in maintaining and increasing our complexity and order, we very efficiently convert low entropy high-frequency photons from the sun into high entropy low-frequency photons of heat, radiating ~20 infrared photons for every incoming visible or UV photon we use. Unfortunately, the high entropy heat photons are not being radiated away as quickly as we produce them - partly because we use them to produce greenhouse gases...

 

[Vap841]

It's an argument from incredulity to say that because we don't understand how it is produced, it couldn't have been produced by evolution.

I get the impression that Nagel is actually trying to turn the accusation around and claim that holding onto a belief in materialism is an argument from incredulity, by denying that there are enough hints to sink materialism. However he isn’t too overconfident about it because he does always admit that he has no positive theory to replace it with.

Not quite. You could say that, for example, that gravity favours the production of increasingly large clumps of matter because of the inherent tendency of one mass to attract another; that is teleological in an Aristotelian sense - it is the nature of matter to gravitate. But the emergence of complexity and order is only thermodynamically favourable under specific conditions, it's not some universal tendency or characteristic of the universe - if any of the conditions are not suitable there's a far stronger tendency to destroy complexity and order (increasing entropy), and in the production of complexity and order, far more disorder (entropy) is exported to the wider universe.

So the inherent tendency of the universe is towards increasing disorder, but in the right circumstances, this can result in pockets of order & complexity, as long as it increases disorder even more elsewhere. Ironically, complex systems are very efficient dissipators of energy and the most efficient way of increasing disorder in the wider universe.

Are you of the opinion that life is extremely rare in the universe then?

Possibly, if Nagel had understood this, he might have come to a different conclusion, I don't know...

Hey I gotta give you props btw, you nailed not only the author but the exact book that shocked me lol! I really enjoy his writing style, I have another book from him I still have to get to so I’m excited that it sounds like he doesn’t just repeat himself in every book (A View From Nowhere). Yeah I don’t really get into the fine tuning arguments, but I do find it beyond random chance that principles of self assembly start to occur at various levels. There’s of course biology, but there is also said to be an inconsistency in the law of thermodynamics, inside of a closed system you get non-uniform pockets where abundant growth bursts forth that greatly outperforms other areas of that closed system.

BTW, The problem we have with global warming is that in maintaining and increasing our complexity and order, we very efficiently convert low entropy high-frequency photons from the sun into high entropy low-frequency photons of heat, radiating ~20 infrared photons for every incoming visible or UV photon we use. Unfortunately, the high entropy heat photons are not being radiated away as quickly as we produce them - partly because we use them to produce greenhouse gases...

It’s so crazy, it’s not looking good. I think about Einstein’s quote that World War 4 will be fought with sticks & stones. I actually can’t even believe that homo sapians even made it through several ice ages that’s so crazy, if not it would be back to square one. WHEN we destroy ourselves this time I wonder what the chances are for the super elite with their underground bunkers and their elaborate setups? If the atmosphere becomes toxic for long enough even they are done.

 

[SelfSim]

.. However he isn’t too overconfident about it because he does always admit that he has no positive theory to replace it with.

That's not surprising for a philosopher. They're always trying to discover the meanings of the words they use, such as 'exists', as opposed to actually doing the hard work of generating the data needed for assigning the meaning of such words.

Its as though all they ever do is look at dictionaries and think those are the true source of all knowledge. Dictionary meanings for words are always generalised to the point of ambiguity. One has to examine closely the context of particular words and then compare that with the context of where meaning is sought. Science categorises physical contexts by testing. Science thus undertakes the hard work, which produces the meaning of words like 'exists' .. but philosophers never do.

 

[stevevw]

It has been recently proven (in a published study) that when the assumptions, (which constrain the probabilities, such that Wigner's friend, in the Wigner's friend experiment), strictly 'obey' quantum mechanical laws, all of them cannot be satisfied throughout the thought experiment.

This then raises important questions about the notion of so-called 'persistent reality', (namely of the friend's perceptions). The proof, (a theorem .. here), demonstrates that it is impossible to consider the friend's perceptions, to be co-existent at different points in time.

This then, makes it questionable whether a quantum observer, in general, can consider their own past or future experiences, to be as 'real' as their present ones.

At least one of three key assumptions of quantum mechanics must be violated in this proof.
Which one is violated, then entirely depends on one's preferred interpretation of QM (as you appear to allow for, in your above response?)

What 'reality really is' however, is then subject to a specific, preferred, QM interpretation .. (which is clearly a philosophical choice).
I think that recent theorem above, argues that case quite nicely .. Ie: that what many scientist/philosophers merely assume as being a something which exists 'out there' .. and science is measuring, is just another philosophically held belief.

Yes I agree and you explained this far better than I could.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes I agree and you explained this far better than I could.

Whilst I appreciate your feedback there, I'm not so sure the latest update on Wigner's friend takes you as far as you may wish to go(?)

 

[SelfSim]

That's not surprising for a philosopher. They're always trying to discover the meanings of the words they use, such as 'exists', as opposed to actually doing the hard work of generating the data needed for assigning the meaning of such words.

Its as though all they ever do is look at dictionaries and think those are the true source of all knowledge. Dictionary meanings for words are always generalised to the point of ambiguity. One has to examine closely the context of particular words and then compare that with the context of where meaning is sought. Science categorises physical contexts by testing. Science thus undertakes the hard work, which produces the meaning of words like 'exists' .. but philosophers never do.

Instead of looking up dictionary definitions and holding those up as the be-all-end-all of some discussion on the nuance of words like: "reality" and "existence", folk should consider actually do the hard work of deciding what they mean when they use those words, and watch for internal inconsistencies .. they always abound. They might also consider watching for circularities there as well.

Examples include, when one looks for definitions of "reality", one find things like "reality is everything that exists", so one then looks up "exist" and gets "have objective reality" and so forth.
The fact is, definitions can never tell you what things are, and they can also never tell you what you mean when you use a word. They only tell you what many people tend to mean in various situations, but there is a real danger of creating a kind of illusion of understanding when real understanding requires a whole lot more work than looking up a definition.

What's more, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of either explicitly stating, or implying "things we are sure exist independently of us" as being objective (or "physical reality"). Who is sure, one might ask, how do we tell we are sure, and how is that independent of us? I, personally, often have to wonder if people even look at what they are saying sometimes. The common, typically very poor definitions we find involving "reality", including the much revered philosopher's ones, are ripe with such clear inconsistencies. I'm generally of the view that there is a complete lack of useful introspection on that topic and that includes Philosophers' published, studied and widely believed-in analyses.

 

[durangodawood]

Instead of looking up dictionary definitions and holding those up as the be-all-end-all of some discussion on the nuance of words like: "reality" and "existence", folk should consider actually do the hard work of deciding what they mean when they use those words, and watch for internal inconsistencies .. they always abound. They might also consider watching for circularities there as well.....

Re dictionary abuse, this should be posted at the top of every thread like a tobacco health warning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you of the opinion that life is extremely rare in the universe then?

It depends what you mean by 'rare'. Life as we know it is constrained by requiring conditions roughly similar to those of Earth's history. There are a vast number of planets out there, but only a small fraction of them are likely to fit that description. OTOH even a tiny fraction of a vast number can be large; there are estimated to be (very roughly) 21.6 sextillion (21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the observable universe, which evidence suggests is only a small part of the whole universe.

But if we restrict it to the observable universe, and conservatively say that one planet in a million has roughly Earthlike conditions, and of those, life has arisen on one in a million, that leaves a mere 21.6 trillion planets with life... But the incidence of suitable planets is probably higher, and the incidence of life on suitable planets is conservative guesswork - on Earth, life seems to have arisen very soon after conditions became suitable, suggesting a relatively high probability.

Those guesstimates say nothing about the evolution of multicellular or intelligent life.

Hey I gotta give you props btw, you nailed not only the author but the exact book that shocked me lol!

I read it as part of a philosophy course on 'Mechanism and Purpose' - comparing the mechanistic view with the teleological view.

I really enjoy his writing style, I have another book from him I still have to get to so I’m excited that it sounds like he doesn’t just repeat himself in every book (A View From Nowhere).

Yes, he's a good writer and he usually makes good arguments. He's probably best known for his paper, "What is it like to be a bat?" about consciousness. If you read him (or, indeed, any philosopher), it's always worth looking for critical comments on what you're reading. That tends to give you some perspective.

...I do find it beyond random chance that principles of self assembly start to occur at various levels. There’s of course biology, but there is also said to be an inconsistency in the law of thermodynamics, inside of a closed system you get non-uniform pockets where abundant growth bursts forth that greatly outperforms other areas of that closed system.

It's not an inconsistency, it's just how it works - there's a tendency towards maximizing entropy (disorder) and complex systems do that best at all scales when the amount of free energy is just right.

There are a couple of examples that might help - consider a river flowing away from a waterfall; at the the waterfall, there is so much free energy that the flow is turbulent, just chaotic complexity without order. As the river slows down and much of the energy dissipates, its flow becomes laminar, smooth and even. This is the regime where complex order can arise. Any slight obstruction to the flow will cause eddies and vortices to form - ordered systems dissipating energy - and you'll notice that even as they're carried along, some of their water is moving counter to the main flow. These ordered systems will occur until the flow of the river is too slow to support them, there's not enough free energy. You can see the same sequence in the universe itself - chaotic complexity at the big bang, then when things have calmed down, the formation of ordered complex systems: stars, galaxies, planets, life; then as the energy runs out, a slow decline to thermal equilibrium, 'heat death'.

The other popular example is when you have a cup of coffee with cream floating on the top - a very ordered, low entropy configuration. Any random perturbation will decrease its order, increase its entropy (because there are so many more ways to be disordered than to be ordered). When you introduce a spoon and start stirring, you're introducing free energy into the system, and the coffee and cream start to mix. It's during the mixing stage that you see complexity emerging, as whorls and streamers of cream infiltrate the coffee and vice-versa. You can easily describe the distribution of coffee and cream in the original state, but in this mixing phase it's far too complex. But as the cream and coffee become thoroughly mixed, the complexity fades and the mixture becomes uniformly disordered, high entropy, and uninteresting (except to drink).

The moral is that when there's surplus energy flow in a relatively calm regime, it can drive the emergence of order and complexity; and while they're fed with energy, complex systems will tend to persist, like tornadoes. They have the effect of waterwheels, dissipating the flow of energy faster than it would otherwise dissipate, and increasing the entropy of their surroundings faster than would otherwise happen.

It’s so crazy, it’s not looking good. I think about Einstein’s quote that World War 4 will be fought with sticks & stones. I actually can’t even believe that homo sapians even made it through several ice ages that’s so crazy, if not it would be back to square one. WHEN we destroy ourselves this time I wonder what the chances are for the super elite with their underground bunkers and their elaborate setups? If the atmosphere becomes toxic for long enough even they are done.

Agreed - but would you even want to be around to see how they cope?

 

[SelfSim]

... but only a small fraction of them are likely to fit that description.
...
one planet in a million has roughly Earthlike conditions, and of those, life has arisen on one in a million,
...
But the incidence of suitable planets is probably higher,

Pity the only thing that thought experiment there does, is justify the original (and unstated) base assumption which is, life as we know it, probably exists elsewhere. Its a circular argument, which follows the assumed truth of its original posit. (Which is the only conclusion sound, philosophically based logic is capable of drawing in that scenario without external inputs from science).

The fact is though, we don't have any objectively meaningful data samples to go on.
One could argue that the Moon, maybe a couple of asteroids and Mars, represent three, non-random sample attempts. From those sample attempts, we have found no well constrained data specifically pertaining to life elsewhere, so the only objectively meaningful conclusion we can draw there, is there is no basis one way or another for saying anything about the existence, or not, of life elsewhere. All we have is people's preferred beliefs, the existence of Earth-life, the laws of physics and chemistry, and untested but testable hypotheses.

This might sound like stating the obvious, but this thread queries apparent tensions between philosophy and science, so distinguishing the boundaries between the different approaches, is the aim of this post.

 

[stevevw]

Yes I agree and you explained this far better than I could.

Primarily I agree that the outcome of quantum experiments does bring up philosophical questions of how to interpret the findings regarding what constitutes reality. This supports what I was saying that scientists are measuring just one of those interpretations. I am also pointing out that many scientists assume that their interpretation is the correct one and all other interpretations are wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

Primarily I agree that the outcome of quantum experiments does bring up philosophical questions of how to interpret the findings regarding what constitutes reality. This supports what I was saying that scientists are measuring just one of those interpretations. I am also pointing out that many scientists assume that their interpretation is the correct one and all other interpretations are wrong.

They should precede their comments with an: "As we understand it" because that's the role of the various interpretations - that is; to achieve understanding.
I'm not sure one can directly measure "an understanding" there either, eh?

How to maintain the integrity of the complete set of underlying QM assumptions however, eludes our understanding.

 

[stevevw]

He does think that science can provide a moral framework, i.e. get ought from is; I haven't read 'The Moral Landscape' yet, but I suspect an intrinsic goal, an implicit 'ought'.

From what I understand he uses human wellbeing and flourishing as the basis for measuring morality. He assumes human wellbeing as the basis and science is the measuring stick to establish moral right and wrong. So he doesn’t allow for any morality beyond the physical causes which is an assumed philosophical position.

Observer effect (physics). Basically, the fact that observing or measuring a system disturbs it.

But some interpret disturbing the quantum state as the observer determining what we percieve as reality.

I wouldn't say classical physics is 'at odds' with quantum mechanics, it's more an emergent or limit approximation. I don't see how that 'brings philosophy into being something', unless you're suggesting that deciding on an interpretation of the quantum formalism is a philosophical exercise - are you? Otherwise, please explain what you had in mind.

Yes that’s what I am saying that more so than most other scientific findings the results of quantum experiments brings in philosophy more than ever because there is more than one way to interpret reality and for some this means that reality may not be as the classical interpretation claims.

Not to my knowledge; can you be more specific?

Well because some say the observer is a person so this has led to a number of ideas to explain what is happeniong that involve the mind and consciousness as creating reality. This has also led to other ideas like hologram worlds and the multiverse depending on which interpretation you take. But primarily these are based on reality being determined by the observer and not being a set state as classical science has said.

Philosophers have questioned the nature of reality for thousands of years.

Yes but not like they are now with the way quantum physics works. The number of ideas and hypothesis that seem to step beyond the classical measurements of physics that have been generated by quantum physics has increased 10 fold.

The first is near enough to pass, the second is cart-before-horse; if something has an influence on the natural (physical) world, it is considered to part of nature (physical). Scientists can't say anything about what has no influence on the physical world (unless it is a consequence of a physical theory), because there is nothing to talk about. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent".

I'm meaning that the scientists assume everything has a naturalistic cause so even if a finding did fall outside the natural world i.e. miracles and had an effect on the natural world then I think scientists would try to come up with some naturalistic explanation. That is the default position of most scientists that there cannot be a supernatural cause and yet that is still a philosophical position to take.

There's a lot of misunderstanding of the observer effect and a lot of quantum woo out there.

That you call it Woo suggests that you know that it is definitely something that cannot happen. But isn't that an assumption that everything must fall within the naturalistic view of measurements. If the science cannot measure ideas are regarded as Woo then it cannot really make claims that it really is Woo.

There's no evidence that consciousness is 'something beyond naturalism', and a great deal of evidence that it isn't. Uncritical reading can lead you astray.

I'm not sure about that. Don't they call consciousness the Hard Problem for a reason. I havn't heard of any definitive findings about consciousness either way. In fact from what I have read it would be near impossible for science to determine ideas like experiences and perception of the world into bits of matter to even test this.

Although we are literally made of the same stuff as stars, that stuff has organised itself so complexly that things such as consciousness have emerged that cannot be fully understood only by examining the bedrock of bosons and fermions. Until they can prove consciousness is explained by the physical brain physicists should refrain from making any claims that the only real questions are scientific questions and the rest is noise.
Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?

Referring back to the point that ideas that fall outside the criteria of natural phenomenon have increased 10 fold in recent years. Well at least ideas that can be verified scientifically. It seems that the findings of the quantum world point to explanations based on a material reality as inadequate and therefore we should be open to expanding the possible ideas to explain what we see.

It seems to me that quantum physics changes nothing in the relationship between science and philosophy - but if you care to argue your case, I'll be happy to listen and agree or disagree as appropriate.

I'm only going off what I have read where there seems to be a number of articles that claim the findings of quantum physics does point to fundemental changes in how we see reality and therefore this makes philosophy more relevant because it introduces questions and ideas beyond scientific materialist view.

Whether and how you observe your own experiment really does change the outcome, and the double-slit experiment is the perfect way to show how. It is extremely tempting, in light of all of this information, to ask what thousands upon thousands of scientists and physics students have asked upon learning it: what does it all mean about the nature of reality?
Observing The Universe Really Does Change The Outcome, And This Experiment Shows How

Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.
Some physicists see these new developments as bolstering interpretations that allow more than one outcome to occur for an observation, for example the existence of parallel universes in which each outcome happens. Others see it as compelling evidence for intrinsically observer-dependent theories such as Quantum Bayesianism, in which an agent's actions and experiences are central concerns of the theory. But yet others take this as a strong pointer that perhaps quantum mechanics will break down above certain complexity scales.

Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

 

[Gottservant]

Such as?

What's it like to be in Heaven?

Do animals go to Heaven after they die?

Etc.

Simple questions, that have Evolutionistic consequences - will I find a mate in Heaven? is my adaptation going to last when I'm in Heaven? - but which are not strictly part of the Evolutionary canon.

 

[stevevw]

They should precede their comments with an: "As we understand it" because that's the role of the various interpretations - that is; to achieve understanding.
I'm not sure one can directly measure "an understanding" there either, eh?

How to maintain the integrity of the complete set of underlying QM assumptions however, eludes our understanding.

Therefore as far as the scientific materialist position philosophy is at odds because there is no other interpretations.

 

[SelfSim]

Therefore as far as the scientific materialist position philosophy is at odds because there is no other interpretations.

Well if I knew that, then I'd have the understanding, no?
I don't think anyone can rule anything out there yet(?) More work needed!

 

[Gottservant]

What I don't understand is that science proves multiple opinions can carry the same weight, even if they are initially diverse.

It doesn't matter where a sphere starts on a baristochrone curve, other spheres at different distances (along the curve) will arrive at the same time.

Evolutionists are basically trying to hog the finish, when faith arrives at the same time any other opinion does.

 

[SelfSim]

What I don't understand is that science proves multiple opinions can carry the same weight, even if they are initially diverse.

??
In the Wigner's friend QM thought experiment, scientific thinking is pushing the boundaries of human understanding in Physics.

Evolutionists are basically trying to hog the finish, when faith arrives at the same time any other opinion does.

The major thing is that science aims at being usefully practical. Religious faith only aims at reinforcing beliefs.

 

[Gottservant]

The major thing is that science aims at being usefully practical. Religious faith only aims at reinforcing beliefs.

Yes but if you are going to discover something: you need faith to believe it.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes but if you are going to discover something: you need faith to believe it.

So just don't believe it.
No faith is required then.