I don’t have a concise answer for that question.

As fair an answer as any other, thanks.

 

Would that be because the conversation might deviate into religion? (and no, I have no intention of ever discussing religion in this place, I'm just curious)

I can't speak for Ya`akov, but frequently it is the case. This is the theme too, of Berlinsky's thesis. Often, challenging the prevailing doctrine, dogma, carries the risk of one being accused of being or advocating "religion" and once that happens it no longer matters what one's argument is. The label "religion", like say "racist" or "misogynist" is sufficient to mischaracterize one's argument and then dismiss it and discredit the individual, the facts, the reasoning no longer matter.

This is EXACTLY what Berlinsky discusses too, the use of dogma as a way to discredit dissent. It no longer matters what one's reasoning is, just call them "religious" and be done with it. The fact that dogma is the underlying problem is avoided.

Questioning philosophical materialism, scientism, is precisely what any open minded seeker of truth should be doing, that IS the foundation of the scientific revolution. The modern religion of "atheism" seeks to quell dissent, seeks to scare the open mind into conformity, into obedience, logic, honesty, reason no longer matter.

 

I can't speak for Ya`akov, but frequently it is the case. This is the theme too, of Berlinsky's thesis. Often, challenging the prevailing doctrine, dogma, carries the risk of one being accused of being or advocating "religion" and once that happens it no longer matters what one's argument is. The label "religion", like say "racist" or "misogynist" is sufficient to mischaracterize one's argument and then dismiss it and discredit the individual, the facts, the reasoning no longer matter.

This is EXACTLY what Berlinsky discusses too, the use of dogma as a way to discredit dissent. It no longer matters what one's reasoning is, just call them "religious" and be done with it. The fact that dogma is the underlying problem is avoided.

Questioning philosophical materialism, scientism, is precisely what any open minded seeker of truth should be doing, that IS the foundation of the scientific revolution. The modern religion of "atheism" seeks to quell dissent, seeks to scare the open mind into conformity, into obedience, logic, honesty, reason no longer matter.

And yet, axioms are needed to comprehend both our minds and the physical world.

And in my opinion, axioms are nothing more than the equivalent of modern dogma.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem comes to mind... we will never be able to have a thorough grasp of reality due to existence's own limitations.

 

And yet, axioms are needed to comprehend both our minds and the physical world.

And in my opinion, axioms are nothing more than the equivalent of modern dogma.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem comes to mind... we will never be able to have a thorough grasp of reality due to existence's own limitations.

I don't disagree. The harsh reality (that scientism advocates deny) is that axioms are chosen, they are beliefs no more to be trusted than other beliefs.

 

I don't disagree. The harsh reality (that scientism advocates deny) is that axioms are chosen, they are beliefs no more to be trusted than other beliefs.

And yet, they must be accepted in order to actually get somewhere in any discussion. Otherwise arguments become like dogs chasing their own tails.

Not to say that axioms should not be continually questioned and tested. They should, but then again one has to accept them in order to grow and live one's life without going insane.

As a side note, Gödel died of malnutrition caused by paranoia stemmed from his own tragic, bottomless logic.

 

And yet, they must be accepted in order to actually get somewhere in any discussion. Otherwise arguments become like dogs chasing their own tails.

Not to say that axioms should not be continually questioned and tested. They should, but then again one has to accept them in order to grow and live one's life without going insane.

As a side note, Gödel died of malnutrition caused by paranoia stemmed from his own tragic, bottomless logic.

Again, I do not disagree. Choosing one's axioms is necessary to develop any line of reasoning but when reasoning claims to be absolute truth, when questioning another's axioms is regarded as illegitimate simply because it undermines someone else's dogma, then we are no better than the ideological fanatics who imprisoned Galileo, that is the entire subject of Berlinski's fascinating lecture.

 

is that axioms are chosen, they are beliefs no more to be trusted than other beliefs.

They are “chosen” because they work. Do you have a better way to arrive at the truth?

 

They are “chosen” because they work. Do you have a better way to arrive at the truth?

That's a fallacious line of argument Bob and by the way, science has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

Of course axioms in physics are reasonable, they are not arbitrarily chosen but they are chosen, they are unprovable. Newton's law of universal gravitation worked for centuries, if a person had pointed out that his theory is based on assumptions that might be wrong then they'd would have been absolutely right to do that. Just because we believe nature adheres to our models of it, that doesn't ever mean that it actually does.

As you well know he was wrong, his axioms were wrong and experimentally proven to be wrong, so the claim that some axioms "work" has no relevance and this applies to every scientific hypothesis.

As for "Do you have a better way to arrive at the truth?" that is irrelevant. Science has utility I do not dispute that and never have, but the value of that utility does not serve to prove that these axioms are anything more than choices.

 

That's a fallacious line of argument Bob and by the way, science has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

Of course axioms in physics are reasonable, they are not arbitrarily chosen but they are chosen, they are unprovable. Newton's law of universal gravitation worked for centuries, if a person had pointed out that his theory is based on assumptions that might be wrong then they'd would have been absolutely right to do that. Just because we believe nature adheres to our models of it, that doesn't ever mean that it actually does.

As you well know he was wrong, his axioms were wrong and experimentally proven to be wrong, so the claim that some axioms "work" has no relevance and this applies to every scientific hypothesis.

As for "Do you have a better way to arrive at the truth?" that is irrelevant. Science has utility I do not dispute that and never have, but the value of that utility does not serve to prove that these axioms are anything more than choices.

Mathematics is based on axioms, physics is not. I have a degree in physics, and never heard the word axiom used in regard to physics, except in the context of the math underlying it. Physical laws are based empirical evidence, they are not “chosen”. If the proposed law does not describe the real world it is discarded. If it does, it is kept.

To equate this method to the dictates of an “authority”, as religion is, is utter nonsense.

 

Mathematics is based on axioms, physics is not. I have a degree in physics, and never heard the word axiom used in regard to physics, except in the context of the math underlying it.

Technically that's true, but a physical theory attributes physical meaning to the mathematics and the mathematical axioms so in that sense physics is axiomatic.

Physical laws are based empirical evidence, they are not “chosen”. If the proposed law does not describe the real world it is discarded. If it does, it is kept.

But calling anything a "law" is what makes these axioms, the term "law" means believed to always be true, that belief is what allows us to call laws axioms in physics. So the observations are not chosen, but the declaration that we can assume that in every case a certain thing is true, based on just a small number of cases, is what you are overlooking.

This is inductive reasoning, that fact that I seem to be able to predict an outcome when I test it, does not prove that I will always get that outcome, that's an assumption and you either choose to make it or you don't. I do not dispute the merits of science or induction, I just refuse to characterize them as anything more than what they are.

To equate this method to the dictates of an “authority”, as religion is, is utter nonsense.

You'll have to quote exactly what I said, if a statement I made seems nonsense, then please quote me and explain why you disagree, paraphrasing isn't helpful.

 

You'll have to quote exactly what I said, if a statement I made seems nonsense, then please quote me and explain why you disagree, paraphrasing isn't helpful.

This:

But calling anything a "law" is what makes these axioms, the term "law" means believed to always be true,

No one doing physics believes that "laws" are true forever. They are simply the best description of reality that we have at the time and all are subject to revision, as you demonstrate with the example of Newton's gravitational law. It was not "wrong", it was merely one approximation which, at the time, described gravity as we could observed it.

There is no such thing as proof in physics. There is only evidence.

Even mathematical axioms are not laws in the sense you believe. There are simply the stated definitions that allow us to do formal deduction. One is free to set up a formal deduction systems with any other axioms one wants to, as long as they do not prove a contradiction. Whether or not they are useful in describing / predicting anything is another story. The ones we have stand because they have proved to be useful.

Non-Euclidian geometry and alternative set theories are two examples of mathematics where theories were developed using different axioms that the already accepted ones.

 

Hello again,


I think there is a proof that free will actually MUST exist, due to the nature of the universe and the vast distances between all objects. That is of course if we want to follow the laws of physics as they stand today.

Two people standing in snow talking back and forth trying to decide who shovels the driveway, or do they both shovel. No doubt there is communication between them and what they decide can be seen as non free will because they are interacting with each other and the ultimate decision will come from that, and that may not be probabilistic because when they resolve the problem, they were just following other reasonings such as "I did it yesterday, you do it today". That's deterministic because the other person has to do it now as a result of their conversation and that one example 'rule' of the day.

Now say that second person was on a distance star, maybe the most distance star. There is no way that they can communicate, and nothing they do can affect the other. That means they exist in two independent systems, and that means there can be no determinism.
To me this means that in order to have determinism every object in the system must be able to affect every other object in the system, even if it is through an intermediator. For example, one pool ball strikes another and that second one goes into the pocket. They are part of a system and close enough that they can communicate energy between them. I talk about energy here because energy is a prime mover and allows communication of some type between bodies.
In fact, if determinism exists then it seems that even elementary particles must be dependent on each other no matter how far away from each other they are. That means every particle in the universe if we go as far as to say there is no free will.

Can we say that person A on earth will affect person B on a distant planet at some point in time, even if it takes centuries? Well, if person A points a flashlight at person B (assuming he can) will any of that light get to person B.
Since the light spreads out there are less and less photons per unit perpendicular area as it travels farther and farther away. All it takes is one planet to get in the way of that one photon that may have made it all the way and that's that, nothing reaches person B. Since it does strike the planet in the way, that planet will be affected in a very small way, but here we want to reconcile every tiny bit of energy to see if it could affect B in even the slightest way. If the planet moves a tiny amount, it's orbit will readjust. That could influence the star, so the star might move. Since the star of that interfering planet moves, it's gravitational field may affect other stars and/or planets even distant from itself. This is also going to take some time, probably a long time for the wave to travel (recall it's at the speed of light also). Then, that hits another star, then another star, etc. All these interactions are taking a LONG time to occur though. The key here I think is if it takes longer than the age of the universe, then there can be no determinism. It would be physically impossible due to the enormous distances and the transmission of tiny interactions.
I guess I would call this the "Interaction of All Bodies or No Determinism" argument against determinism. That's means if we find even just two systems anywhere that are completely independent, there can be no real determinism because determinism has to be universal.

That seems like a reasonable argument against determinism, but I am open to opposing views as long as they are meant to contradict that argument. In fact, I encourage the posit of opposing views, as counter arguments though not entirely new arguments.

Could we fall back on a local determinism? Maybe, but then we have to admit that we would have to prove each and every local space exhibits determinism or the lack of it.

 

If you want to discuss this further we can always go to the Free Will thread.

This is also not the Free Will thread.

 

No one doing physics believes that "laws" are true forever.

That statement is itself a belief though Bob, isn't it?

They are simply the best description of reality that we have at the time and all are subject to revision, as you demonstrate with the example of Newton's gravitational law. It was not "wrong", it was merely one approximation which, at the time, described gravity as we could observed it.

Well it (Newton gravity) was not an approximation Bob. It was a model, a very well defined and carefully crafted model. There was zero observational reason to doubt the model, it was regarded as true, absolute the clockwork of God's creation is how it was regarded. I don't think Newton made simplifying assumptions just to make headway, he did not say "lets ignore X and Y for now and pretend their zero, then we can approximate...". The things he did assume were - to him - laws, they were universal truths.

The view seems to be though that successive models get ever more encompassing, asymptotic as they gradually approach some absolute model.

There is no such thing as proof in physics. There is only evidence.

Of course I agree, but I'd also add there's interpretation of evidence.

Even mathematical axioms are not laws in the sense you believe. There are simply the stated definitions that allow us to do formal deduction. One is free to set up a formal deduction systems with any other axioms one wants to, as long as they do not prove a contradiction. Whether or not they are useful in describing / predicting anything is another story. The ones we have stand because they have proved to be useful.

Non-Euclidian geometry and alternative set theories are two examples of mathematics where theories were developed using different axioms that the already accepted ones.

Yes I don't argue you with on this point. What I mean by axioms in physics, is that we must assume something in order to reason at all. In that sense the presumed laws play a similar role to axioms in math. They are asserted and serve as the starting point for mathematical models.

Like conservation laws, once we say "energy is conserved" that allows us to write equations, we can make mathematical statements in our models because if X then Y. Look at non-Euclidean geometry in fact as used in relativity - it is an axiom that matter always moves along a geodesic in the 4D spacetime, once we assert that we can infer, predict some observations because the axioms have implications.

In metaphysics we find that the belief that nature is predictable, governed by mathematics, is a core assumption in the sciences, people take it for granted that everything we observe is because the universe is mechanistic, deterministic or as Dr. John Lennox puts it "the universe is rationally intelligible" - just why it should be so is not a scientific question though.

 

Hello again,


I think there is a proof that free will actually MUST exist, due to the nature of the universe and the vast distances between all objects. That is of course if we want to follow the laws of physics as they stand today.

Two people standing in snow talking back and forth trying to decide who shovels the driveway, or do they both shovel. No doubt there is communication between them and what they decide can be seen as non free will because they are interacting with each other and the ultimate decision will come from that, and that may not be probabilistic because when they resolve the problem, they were just following other reasonings such as "I did it yesterday, you do it today". That's deterministic because the other person has to do it now as a result of their conversation and that one example 'rule' of the day.

Now say that second person was on a distance star, maybe the most distance star. There is no way that they can communicate, and nothing they do can affect the other. That means they exist in two independent systems, and that means there can be no determinism.
To me this means that in order to have determinism every object in the system must be able to affect every other object in the system, even if it is through an intermediator. For example, one pool ball strikes another and that second one goes into the pocket. They are part of a system and close enough that they can communicate energy between them. I talk about energy here because energy is a prime mover and allows communication of some type between bodies.
In fact, if determinism exists then it seems that even elementary particles must be dependent on each other no matter how far away from each other they are. That means every particle in the universe if we go as far as to say there is no free will.

Can we say that person A on earth will affect person B on a distant planet at some point in time, even if it takes centuries? Well, if person A points a flashlight at person B (assuming he can) will any of that light get to person B.
Since the light spreads out there are less and less photons per unit perpendicular area as it travels farther and farther away. All it takes is one planet to get in the way of that one photon that may have made it all the way and that's that, nothing reaches person B. Since it does strike the planet in the way, that planet will be affected in a very small way, but here we want to reconcile every tiny bit of energy to see if it could affect B in even the slightest way. If the planet moves a tiny amount, it's orbit will readjust. That could influence the star, so the star might move. Since the star of that interfering planet moves, it's gravitational field may affect other stars and/or planets even distant from itself. This is also going to take some time, probably a long time for the wave to travel (recall it's at the speed of light also). Then, that hits another star, then another star, etc. All these interactions are taking a LONG time to occur though. The key here I think is if it takes longer than the age of the universe, then there can be no determinism. It would be physically impossible due to the enormous distances and the transmission of tiny interactions.
I guess I would call this the "Interaction of All Bodies or No Determinism" argument against determinism. That's means if we find even just two systems anywhere that are completely independent, there can be no real determinism because determinism has to be universal.

That seems like a reasonable argument against determinism, but I am open to opposing views as long as they are meant to contradict that argument. In fact, I encourage the posit of opposing views, as counter arguments though not entirely new arguments.

Could we fall back on a local determinism? Maybe, but then we have to admit that we would have to prove each and every local space exhibits determinism or the lack of it.

Well I'm not very skilled at quantum mechanics, but causality across the vastness of space and time is regarded as an observable reality in modern physics, they call it entanglement and I wish I knew more about this than I do ! An event could take place here and completely determine some state a billion light years away and instantly too.

 

I've got my own misgivings regarding certain well accepted Theories of the Universe. I've got a big issue with all of the mass of a black whole being contained within a point-like singularity: there will never have been enough time elapsed for any material that was outside the event horizon to ever approach the singularity.

But I'm just some non-PhD'd idiot who hangs out on geeky websites causing trouble. What do I know?

Black holes do have a finite diameter and the article (link) quotes diameters from under 10 miles to over 17 times that of the sun. Their masses boggle my mind.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-much-space-does-a-black-hole-take-up/

 

Black holes do have a finite diameter and the article (link) quotes diameters from under 10 miles to over 17 times that of the sun. Their masses boggle my mind.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/how-much-space-does-a-black-hole-take-up/

Re-read my post and get back to me.

 

Well I'm not very skilled at quantum mechanics, but causality across the vastness of space and time is regarded as an observable reality in modern physics, they call it entanglement and I wish I knew more about this than I do ! An event could take place here and completely determine some state a billion light years away and instantly too.

You seem to have little basic understanding of quantum mechanics with that statement. Your idea about entanglement and causality is total pseudoscience from popsci articles. Objects can be correlated over large distances but that information must be transported over that large distance classically at the speed of causality (light speed). The fact that measurements over vast distances are correlated does not imply that information is transmitted between the particles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chador...ter-than-light-communication/?sh=6d061db73a1e

 

You seem to have little basic understanding of quantum mechanics with that statement. Your idea about entanglement and causality is total pseudoscience from popsci articles. Objects can be correlated over large distances but that information must be transported over that large distance classically at the speed of causality (light speed). The fact that measurements over vast distances are correlated does not imply that information is transmitted between the particles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chador...ter-than-light-communication/?sh=6d061db73a1e

You really have some nerve. I think you fail to realize a large chunk of your assertions on this website are untested and I can't say I've ever seen you provide an extensive mathematical proof of your own hand. Sorry but pasting a link doesn't count. The simple fact that you constantly degrade people with little evidence tells me you are an egomaniac with little practical knowledge yourself on these topics.

 

You really have some nerve. I think you fail to realize a large chunk of your assertions on this website are untested and I can't say I've ever seen you provide an extensive mathematical proof of your own hand. Sorry but pasting a link doesn't count. The simple fact that you constantly degrade people with little evidence tells me you are an egomaniac with little practical knowledge yourself on these topics.

Sure I have some nerve not to waste time, but am I wrong? Prove I'm wrong with a an extensive mathematical proof. When the poster asserts things that don't require a extensive mathematical proof (FTL causality), why waste time with such a nonsensical misunderstanding of what something like entanglement really shows. I don't degrade all people, only the ones that IMO deserve it.