Philosophy Discussion Forums

Is marriage is ultimately governed by physics?

When a couple say: I do, it is their decision. Really? Behind their decision, is it governed by physics? It is a serious philosophical question.

growthhormone wrote: ↑January 7th, 2018, 1:12 am Is marriage is ultimately governed by physics?

When a couple say: I do, it is their decision. Really? Behind their decision, is it governed by physics? It is a serious philosophical question.

My apology, it should be like this: is marriage ultimately governed by the laws of physics?

growthhormone wrote: ↑January 7th, 2018, 1:12 am Is marriage is ultimately governed by physics?

When a couple say: I do, it is their decision. Really? Behind their decision, is it governed by physics? It is a serious philosophical question.

No, they didn't decide to say those words, they were pre-determined 13.77 billion years ago.

Or, if you are a compatibilist, you could say "yes, they decide to say 'I do', by instigating various decision processes." But those processes are still physical.

*

growthhormone wrote:Is marriage ultimately governed by physics?

Are you asking whether all human activity is governed by the laws of physics, or are you just interested in marriage?

Do you believe that the laws of physics are discovered by human beings or created by human beings?

Do you think that there might be any contradiction in the idea that a brain operating according to the laws of phyaics discovers/creates those laws?

Gotta be, since all actions are physical on some scale or level, and if there are physics, physics obey some kind of laws.

Maldon007 wrote:Gotta be, since all actions are physical on some scale or level, and if there are physics, physics obey some kind of laws.

So if my brain is governed by the laws of physics and if I were a physicist who had discovered those laws, then the discovery of the laws of physics is itself merely the action of those laws of physics.

Yes?

Sounds right.

How could I imagine I was real if I could not imagine I was real?

Maldon007 wrote: ↑January 9th, 2018, 10:38 am Gotta be, since all actions are physical on some scale or level, and if there are physics, physics obey some kind of laws.

There is a difference between obeying a law of physics and not contradicting laws of physics. This also seems to implicitly assume Causal Closure of the Physical which is not exactly supported by orthodox quantum theory.

My two cents is that the speech acts associated with the creation of a marriage are not obeying the laws of physics. They are free speech acts which are only describable by Intentional causality.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 8th, 2018, 3:58 am No, they didn't decide to say those words, they were pre-determined 13.77 billion years ago.

May I ask which interpretation of quantum theory you prefer?

Maybe there are many worlds. There could be one in which they say "I do", one in which someone at the back objects and there's an uproar, one in which the ceremony is interrupted by the outbreak of war, one in which they simply decide that they don't after all, ... etc.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 21st, 2018, 5:51 am Maybe there are many worlds. There could be one in which they say "I do", one in which someone at the back objects and there's an uproar, one in which the ceremony is interrupted by the outbreak of war, one in which they simply decide that they don't after all, ... etc.

It seems difficult to take the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory seriously anymore, though. It has the basis vector/discreteness problem(1), it failed to be axiomatized, it cannot account for the virtual particles of quantum electrodynamics, it cannot account for the relativistic Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations, it cannot account for teleportation, nor the Afshar experiment(2). Additionally, it is probably the worst violation of Occam's Razor that has ever existed


(1) Stapp, Henry P. (2002) "The basis problem in many-worlds theories." The Canadian Journal of Physics, arXiv:quant-ph/0110148v2
(2) Afshar, S. S. (2005) “Violation of the principle of complimentarity, and its implications.” Proc. SPIE 5866, 229-244, arXiv: 070127

Lol I like the Occam's razor example. In a way it makes all possible assumptions. That is a lot of assumptions

This looks like a free will question in drag :)

Logically, if the universe is large enough (let's not say "infinite" for now) then "many worlds" is a probabilistic inevitability. The size to achieve this, though, would be beyond mind shredding!