Bohm2 wrote:Mgrinder wrote:Yes there is. You can use physics and predict that many water molecules will produce liquid properties when many of them are put together (at the right temperature, solid at other temperatures). So you can call that "proto-liquidity". You can even show that many Sodium and Chlorine atoms will produce a solid at room temperature when bound ionically, not a liquid ("proto-solidity" of a sort). "proto" is admittedly a terrible way to put it, but the idea of "proto-whatever" works in a fashion.
However, you can't use physics to predict and derive that someone or something will be conscious or not. It won't happen. So I am sure you are quite wrong here Bohm2.
Plus it will never happen. As Sean Carrol says (he ought to know) we've discovered all the physics that exists in our neck of the woods (energy levels from near absolute zero up to and beyond the temperatures that occur in stars). Carrol rightly calls it a stunning achievement, we know all the physics relevent to human beings. The only physics that's missing is that for extreme energy regimes like black holes and the birth of the universe. However, when this is found, it won't contradict any of the physics that we know to work in our energy realm, it will just be physics we can derive our current physics from, with no contradiction. The idea of particles, atoms and molecules will still be fruitful ideas, just a Newtonian physics is still a great bunch of ideas for the energy realm it applies to. If we can't derive it from current physics (which will always be valid for this energy regime) we'll never derive it from future physics (unless maybe you incorporate my ideas
.
I agree that the liquidity example is not a good example but it's an easy one that everyone would be familiar with. But I don't think many would deny the existence of weak emergence. A highly cited paper on emergence, that is often discussed in reviews on emergence/reductionism is the paper written by the Nobel laureate physicist P.W. Anderson:
More is Different
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jay ... ferent.pdf
It's the existence of strong emergence that is questioned:
In search of ontological emergence
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2660261?se ... b_contents
Are systems in entangled states emergent?
http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/ ... rgence.pdf
Ontology, Matter and Emergence1
http://michel.bitbol.pagesperso-orange. ... enceMB.pdf
Strong emergence is wrong. That fact that it's hard to derive complex phenomena from fundamental doesn't make it absolutely impossible in principle. It also ignores the consistencies between all the more fundamental physics and the more complicated stuff. It's hard to model quarks to make a nucleus, and hard to model protons and electrons together to make an atom, but we can still get results from the basic ideas that are all consistent and work. No you can't get all the phase transitions of water (right now) from theory, but you can still derive that it will be a liquid.
The short is that even if we can't or never will completely derive things about complex phenomena, we still know that it's all based on the fundamental principles we know about. IF we can't figure out how to derive something about water (or whatever) we can still point out
how we could do it. If we could solve this or that, we say, then we could derive this more successfully. This is exactly what happens. We have recent success in a number of fields with statistical breakthroughs and computing power that is now solving problems in condensed matter that we couldn't 50 years ago. 50 years ago they knew which problems to solve, and had a general idea of how it could be done.
But we can't do that for consciousness. Nobody can point to anything and say "once we solve these mathematical problems, we can see how we'll be able to derive consciousness.." It's not happening, it never will.
Bohm2 wrote:
With respect to Carrol's view that there isn't much more to be discovered in physics, history is not on his side.
Yes it is. Newtonian physics is still valid in it's domain of applicibility, which is basically his point. Yes we found more fundamental physics, but we can derive Newtonian physics from this new stuff. It's still valid for the energy regime it works at. Yes we will find more fundamental physics, but quantum field theory will still work from absolute zero to temperatures hotter than stars, we know that. IF we can't see how to derive consciousness from the physics of today (show a pathway of discovery as you can do for condensed matter, even in a state of great ignorance, as scienctists were 50 years ago), we never will.
Bohm2 wrote:
One can look back to the history of physics where similar pronouncements were made only to be crushed down later on by the new physics.
No, no no,that's not what he's saying. Physics of those days was not really found to be wrong, it was just inadequate for the new energy levels they were starting to explore. Given all you read, Bohm2, your interpretation of physics history ought to be better. If you get a degree in physics, this is well understood, your profs show you how to derive newtonian physcs from relativity, but I guess if you don't it's hard to understand the subtlties.
Bohm2 wrote:
We can't even account for ~ 85% of the matter in our universe.
And when we do, the results and usefulness of Quantum field theory will not disappear, neither will the success of General Relativity. If Dark matter requires overturning General Relativity, that will not mean that GR was not validated time and time again, and is a useful approximation to deeper physics.
However, it's also a very good bet that overturning GR of QFT is not needed to explain dark matter.
Bohm2 wrote:
And with respect to the QM (i.e. wave function) we don't even know what it represents. You use "particles" throughout your essay as do most physicists but can a particle picture account for the double slit results and other similar phenomena?
Whatever new physics holds, QFT will still be useful and valid for it's energy regime, just like classical electrodynamics.
Bohm2 wrote:
And I'm not saying that this has any impact on your essay arguments. I'm only saying that although we have exceptional predictive models (particularly with simple systems), it's not clear what the mathematical entities represent. Carrol on the one hand claims that physics has largely been completed for all intensive purposes but in another blog goes on to discusses the embarrassing interpretational difficulties that plague QM:
Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.
And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).
The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... n-physics/
Interpretational problems are just that. QM is weird. Oh you might like reading
this that I wrote. The issue is : can we show a pathway of discovery to problems like deriving how to put quarks together to get a better undesrstanding of how the nucleus works? Yes, and the results so far already show an OK understanding and little calculations you can do demonstrate consistency. We're far from many things on the nucleus, but we know
how it can be done.
Can anyone even conceive of
how to do this for consciousness? No. Hence it's different.
Why? Because it's the source of physical laws, it doesn't follow them. Hence physics, as done today, will never discover consciousness.