The Theory of Everything

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm

Claiming an eternal conscious awareness violates one of the most fundamental requirements of a functional scientific Theory of Everything - the fallacy of Infinite Regress.. A functional ToE cannot be based on a proven logical fallacy.

Yes, the "Quantum of Now" is the only existent moment, but that only pertains to Time and the progression of material reality [The Realm of Change]. The quantum of change is only one of two existential quantums that work in default symbiosis to bring physical reality into stable and survivable actuality. And both dutifully serve a foundational requirement [a "meta-law" - Prof. Lee Smolin] that all emergent systems serve as well.

This forum is Philosophy of Science. I would imagine the purpose of unearthing a functional and successful ToE would be to advance the pursuit of scientific inquiry with a broader, more comprehensive paradigm to serve. A flat assertion of mind/consciousness as being the whole of physical reality doesn't advance the pursuit of scientific inquiry. In fact, it fails immediately to explain the existence of mind [why, how, what's being served through its existence] and certainly has no answer for the initial emergence of mind.

I've spent many hours over many years fruitlessly debating the veracity of this "mind/consciousness as existential substratum" claim - it's not new or uncommon - and I have no attraction to returning to this specific debate. The human mind is certainly capable of experiencing itself as foundational to the whole of reality, but experiencing something is nothing more than perception interpretation, and that's not any basis upon which to build toward a more factual understanding of what's actual.

As far as quoting Feynman and Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, neither are solid platforms upon which to base any assertions concerning the factual nature of physical reality, with Copenhagen being not much more than a failed attempt to come to any authentic understanding of the frustrating contradictions of QM that necessitated a curious statement that could have been much better stated as "we have no idea how to predict the ramification structure of such contextually pristine systems, and can only narrow our guesses down to an unacceptable range of possibilities".

I read your responses in that thread "What's the Purpose of the Bible" - as you suggested - and I believe that we're focused on two very different aspects of reality. The mind does exist, and it is integral to the whole of reality, but placing the mind at the substructure of reality itself is the epitome of having your horse push your carriage down the street. The mind/consciousness emerges within reality. It doesn't manufacture reality. My focus is much more primitive than yours. I'm concerned that you'd find my confidence in the accuracy of my focus to be infuriating.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 7th, 2018, 7:03 pm

Luin wrote:
April 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm
Claiming an eternal conscious awareness violates one of the most fundamental requirements of a functional scientific Theory of Everything - the fallacy of Infinite Regress.. A functional ToE cannot be based on a proven logical fallacy.
Nonsense!
No 'time', no 'motion' = no 'regress' = no 'fallacy'!
Try again.
Yes, the "Quantum of Now" is the only existent moment, but that only pertains to Time and the progression of material reality [The Realm of Change].

No such 'realm'.
(T)Here is One, UNCHANGING, ALL inclusive Universe/Reality/Truth!
The illusions of duality, 'time', 'change' (an apparent 'artifact' of differing unique Perspectives (and One Consciousness) every moment), being fundamental to a theory will, eventually, fail. Built on illusion.
The quantum of change
Sounds like a bad James Bond movie...
'Change' is logically and scientifically and philosophically not possible.
Pop goes any theory based on it.
I read your responses in that thread "What's the Purpose of the Bible" - as you suggested - and I believe that we're focused on two very different aspects of reality. The mind does exist, and it is integral to the whole of reality, but placing the mind at the substructure of reality itself is the epitome of having your horse push your carriage down the street.

Yes, it appears like that while you are lost in the dualistic dream.
Mind and Reality are not different! They are One! No thing pushing, no thing pulling, no thing changing, no thing other than One Omni- Truth/Reality! Here! Now!
The mind/consciousness emerges within reality.

Nonsense! And there is no evidence/logic to support such obsolete materialistic notions! Never was!
It doesn't manufacture reality. My focus is much more primitive than yours.

When I grow up, maybe I'll see things like you do, if I'm lucky, huh?!?
No, you just keep telling yourself that, though, and never become lucid in the dream!
I'm concerned that you'd find my confidence in the accuracy of my focus to be infuriating.
Not at all!
I don't find the blithering of the ego to be offensive!
I have the biggest ego on the block!
So I know ego/thought!
The higher the 'confidence in your 'accuracy', the closer to mental illness you reach!

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-certainty-bias

Some interesting reading, if your beliefs will allow;

Predictive Metaphysics: A Quantum Consciousness Model of the Physical Universe
http://home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/Predict.pdf

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 7th, 2018, 7:06 pm

An ALL inclusive Reality contains, as features, all of your 'fallacies', ALL INCLUSIVE!
Reality cannot be contained in one of your tiny local notions of 'logic', yet that tiny notion is contained as a feature of Reality/Consciousness.
(All of Aristotle's 'laws' of logic have been refuted by QM, anyway.)

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 8th, 2018, 10:35 am

I appreciate your responses, and your honesty about how you understand reality to be structured. It's not my wish to change your way of seeing things. It's more my focus to engage with others who believe that Time exists, that we exist within a physical reality that is based on relative juxtaposition [not that "symmetry" dualism notion, just to state that there is a difference between the two], that infinite regress is not at all possible, and that the human mind is an important [but not universally determinant] constituent within a much larger and much older relationship matrix that consists of ongoing change and the persisting ramifications of all change that's occurred. I'm just not interested in engaging in discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm interested in achieving on this board.

I'm definitely not looking to mix it up with anyone that enjoys thrashing those who will never agree with him/her with semantics convolutions and subtle [and not so subtle] insults. I'm a bit too old for that kind of useless drama.

Enjoy your day.

Tamminen
Posts: 512
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Tamminen » April 8th, 2018, 10:52 am

It is clear that the basic components and basic laws of physics must be such that it is possible for me to be here and think about my existence. But this does not mean that subjectivity arises from the material world which physics describes and explains. Matter cannot become conscious of itself. There is no such thing as the world in itself. The world is always my world, or better: a world for me, whoever I happen to be. Subjectivity manifests itself as individual subjects, but without subjectivity there cannot be anything at all, which is self-contradictory. Without an experiencing subject which is conscious of the world the world would cancel its existence. So the subject and the world are both original, fundamental components of the basic structure of reality: the subject-object relation. The world has an instrumental role in the being of the subject: it makes my concrete existence possible or realizes it. So we can say that matter is the physical basis of the being of the subject but not its ontological basis.

Therefore we can never scientifically explain the being of the subject. Why there is subjectivity can only be understood within subjectivity. Subjectivity is like matter: they are both fundamental. In this way we come to a seemingly dualistic world view: there is subjectivity and the material universe, none of which can be without the other but none of which can be explained by the other. And it is true, to repeat, that subjectivity cannot be explained by matter, but there is still the philosophically interesting question of the relation between subjectivity and matter. My suggestion as to where to start developing a theory of everything is this: we must try to understand subjectivity, our own being, within subjectivity itself, and in doing this we can hopefully also understand why the being of the material universe is necessary for the being of subjectivity, for my existence.

To start, we can ask ourselves: What do I really want? Do I want to live for ever? Where will I be in the year 2500? What is nothingness like? What if I had never been born? Why was I born? What is the universe? And also the famous: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Answers to these kinds of questions cannot be found by science, they can only be found by thinking about existence itself, by reflection, meditation, phenomenological intuition, within the realm of subjectivity. And I believe that we can make some progress also in these studies which are usually seen as metaphysical speculation. In my opinion this is the only road to a theory of everything, because there cannot be a scientific theory of everything that includes subjectivity within its field of study.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 280
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 8th, 2018, 10:59 am

Luin wrote:
April 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm
Claiming an eternal conscious awareness violates one of the most fundamental requirements of a functional scientific Theory of Everything - the fallacy of Infinite Regress.. A functional ToE cannot be based on a proven logical fallacy.
Fallacies arise in arguments, not in statements.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 280
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 8th, 2018, 11:00 am

iow, that something is claimed to last forever - not an alien suggestion to science either by the way - is not an argument based on infinite regress.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 8th, 2018, 2:48 pm

Luin wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:35 am
I appreciate your responses, and your honesty about how you understand reality to be structured. It's not my wish to change your way of seeing things. It's more my focus to engage with others who believe that Time exists, that we exist within a physical reality that is based on relative juxtaposition [not that "symmetry" dualism notion, just to state that there is a difference between the two], that infinite regress is not at all possible, and that the human mind is an important [but not universally determinant] constituent within a much larger and much older relationship matrix that consists of ongoing change and the persisting ramifications of all change that's occurred. I'm just not interested in engaging in discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm interested in achieving on this board.

I'm definitely not looking to mix it up with anyone that enjoys thrashing those who will never agree with him/her with semantics convolutions and subtle [and not so subtle] insults. I'm a bit too old for that kind of useless drama.

Enjoy your day.
I get it, you are not interested in any Perspectives other than your own.
And if your own offering is erroneous and faulty, you are not interested in hearing about it.


I offered no 'insult', but your feelings are your feelings and logical and scientific opposition to your 'beliefs' might seem 'insulting'.

Say what? You are too old to honestly discuss differing Perspectives?
Or you simply have no response to my offering but to run away?
Why are you here, then, to teach us all?
Enjoy a nice (philosophical discussion free) day.

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 10th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:59 am
Luin wrote:
April 7th, 2018, 1:15 pm
Claiming an eternal conscious awareness violates one of the most fundamental requirements of a functional scientific Theory of Everything - the fallacy of Infinite Regress.. A functional ToE cannot be based on a proven logical fallacy.
Fallacies arise in arguments, not in statements.
I would suggest that the fact that I refuse to argue the existence of an eternally present [infinite] manifestation of conscious, determinant awareness [mind] doesn't make the claim of the physical existence of that eternally present manifestation of conscious, determinant awareness [mind] as the theoretical basis of a description of reality any less of a violation of the simple logic structure that bases all of what's been proven to be true and reliable about physical reality. If you have an issue with the specific term that I used for that violation of that fundamental logic structure, then perhaps you can offer the correct term.

My point is that insisting on a "turtles all the way down" existential structure is definitely a theoretical failure, regardless of the term you wish to use when pointing it out during an exchange about the fundamental nature of reality.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » April 10th, 2018, 6:43 pm

Luin wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 5:53 pm
My point is that insisting on a "turtles all the way down" existential structure is definitely a theoretical failure, regardless of the term you wish to use when pointing it out during an exchange about the fundamental nature of reality.
A 'theoretical failure' that you seem incapable of refuting other than in simple jargonistic gainsaying.
I say that you cannot refute, logically or scientifically, you just don't seem to 'like' it.
That is not philosophy or science.
If you can refute (you would be the first), bring it on, put up or shut up!

Or just continue with your 'safe' evasion... *__-

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 280
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 10th, 2018, 11:15 pm

Luin wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 5:53 pm
I would suggest that the fact that I refuse to argue the existence of an eternally present [infinite] manifestation of conscious, determinant awareness [mind] doesn't make the claim of the physical existence of that eternally present manifestation of conscious, determinant awareness [mind] as the theoretical basis of a description of reality any less of a violation of the simple logic structure that bases all of what's been proven to be true and reliable about physical reality. If you have an issue with the specific term that I used for that violation of that fundamental logic structure, then perhaps you can offer the correct term.

My point is that insisting on a "turtles all the way down" existential structure is definitely a theoretical failure, regardless of the term you wish to use when pointing it out during an exchange about the fundamental nature of reality.
You are basically ruling out the possibility of something lasting forever by saying referring to a kind of logical fallacy. Logical fallacies and the one you mentioned included, are not weighing in on ontology. They are aimed at specific sequences in arguments.

If you want to make the ontological claim that nothing can exist forever, this is not accomplished by referring to the fallacy. You can use the fallacy to challenge a theist's argument for the eternal existence of God, if that argument is based on that kind of fallacious argument. But you can't use the fallacy to disprove God or the eternal existence of something. That would be news to physicists also. No need to try to find proof the universe has always existed, we can work that out on paper.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 280
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 10th, 2018, 11:17 pm

I should have said proof the universe has always existed or not.

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 14th, 2018, 10:56 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 11:15 pm
If you want to make the ontological claim that nothing can exist forever, this is not accomplished by referring to the fallacy. You can use the fallacy to challenge a theist's argument for the eternal existence of God, if that argument is based on that kind of fallacious argument. But you can't use the fallacy to disprove God or the eternal existence of something. That would be news to physicists also. No need to try to find proof the universe has always existed, we can work that out on paper.
I have no issue with permanent existence, but only after something has physically emerged. In fact, the physical nature of residual information [my own effort to place a label on the default emergence that responds to the fact of each quantum of change; spatial or simple event progression] possesses no half-life rate of decay, so - seems obvious - these "fact sets" are permanent. But there's an emergence process that results in the physical existence of each "fact set", and when examining the reciprocal nature of physical reality, there's a place for these permanently existent "fact sets", and the macro-system [reality] is clearly served by the permanence of these default ramification items.

What I object to is an infinitely existent physical item, since the being state of such an item is incompatible with the being state of everything that we can prove to be physically existent [yes, even the "observer" is ensconced within the relative being state, since it exists relative to what it is observing]. The infinite and always existent "universal mind" is just a redefining of the divine first-cause agent [God, The All, Great Spirit, The One, etc,] and tossing out quoted references to the stumblings of early 20th century quantum theorists as they muddled their way through the contradictions of QM has been - in recent decades - just another way to slip theology and mysticism under the door when the factual nature of everything is being publicly contemplated.

Like I said, use whichever labels you feel most comfortable with using, but the always and forever existent [and pre-existent] "mind" is not physically possible. The human mind, and its breakthrough capacity for abstraction, planning, esotericism, and placement of self within a time-line, was a revolution in material structure survival, and while the human mind [as the emergent system that it is] does survive the death of its authoring brain, it cannot exist without having been authored by a material brain [of course, material structure doesn't have to be limited to only carbon-based organic material]. As a form of "information" [still struggling to find a better term] that initiates change, as opposed to serving as a residual fact that change occurred, the burst sets of the human mind are physically indestructible [as is the case with all forms of "information"]. That the human mind can insist on itself as the author of all physical reality isn't much of a surprise, since its capacity to observe itself [abstraction] is its primary advantage over all other [lesser] versions of sentience. Still, claiming that a "universal mind" authored the whole of reality is a form of solipsism, and I don't think that theoretical approach has fared very successfully and for many reasons that others have argued much more effectively than I could.

Like I said, I've spent many years vetting ToE notions on many other Internet forums, and I'm just through with battling over semantics, quotes taken out of context, and 'just so' stories with people who find argument [not debate] entertaining. This is a serious pursuit for me. I'm actually working to find a way to thoroughly vet some fairly controversial notions, and not looking for a hyper-charged competitive dust-up with someone not actually interested in a new way of thinking about the factual nature of what's real.

User avatar
Luin
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 1st, 2018, 1:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Luin » April 14th, 2018, 11:17 am

Tamminen wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:52 am
Therefore we can never scientifically explain the being of the subject. Why there is subjectivity can only be understood within subjectivity. Subjectivity is like matter: they are both fundamental. In this way we come to a seemingly dualistic world view: there is subjectivity and the material universe, none of which can be without the other but none of which can be explained by the other. And it is true, to repeat, that subjectivity cannot be explained by matter, but there is still the philosophically interesting question of the relation between subjectivity and matter. My suggestion as to where to start developing a theory of everything is this: we must try to understand subjectivity, our own being, within subjectivity itself, and in doing this we can hopefully also understand why the being of the material universe is necessary for the being of subjectivity, for my existence.

Answers to these kinds of questions cannot be found by science, they can only be found by thinking about existence itself, by reflection, meditation, phenomenological intuition, within the realm of subjectivity. And I believe that we can make some progress also in these studies which are usually seen as metaphysical speculation. In my opinion this is the only road to a theory of everything, because there cannot be a scientific theory of everything that includes subjectivity within its field of study.
I agree that the employment of intellectual abstraction is the only plausible means of approaching the factual nature of reality. That said, it's a journey that is innately fraught with points of rational departure that require extreme discipline and a very strict adherence to deductive reasoning. Subjectivity emerged along with the first brain-generated mind, and while it does give the human being a definite leg-up on the rest of the animals running around this planet, it also comes with its own unique challenges. Even the Scientific Method is hobbled by the mind's subjective lens, depending on the intent and intellectual predisposition of the scientist for indication interpretation. That, and the fact that science is practiced in conceptual silos, mean that [as you correctly stated] "Answers to these kinds of questions cannot be found by science, they can only be found by thinking about existence itself, by reflection, meditation, phenomenological intuition, within the realm of subjectivity."

That's why I'm tossing these notions around on a Philosophy of Science forum. Straight-up philosophy is much too broad a pursuit, and there's no scientific discipline [physics, cosmology, biology, origins anthropology] that can be adjusted to serve this specific focus. Natural Philosophy is what they used to call it. Even ontology is only a percentage of what this pursuit entails.

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1661
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Thinking critical » April 14th, 2018, 12:03 pm

Tamminen wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:52 am
Matter cannot become conscious of itself.
And yet here we are, self aware beings composed of matter?
To say cannot assumes certainty, surely in the absence of knowledge of such things the best we can say is we don't know?
There is no such thing as the world in itself. The world is always my world, or better: a world for me, whoever I happen to be. Subjectivity manifests itself as individual subjects, but without subjectivity there cannot be anything at all, which is self-contradictory. Without an experiencing subject which is conscious of the world the world would cancel its existence.

I disagree, this position suggests that awareness is a property of existence and that the two are intrinsically entangled with one another. Awareness is a property of consciousness, consciousness is a state which is required in order for us to experience things that exist. We each experience things differently, thus being the nature of subjectivity.
So we can say that matter is the physical basis of the being of the subject but not it"s ontological basis
I agree, however this position does not or cannot offer any reason to suggest that subjectivity is a pre requisite for the existence of worlds. The ontology of a thing emerges as a collection of concepts, it is a property of bio chemistry and neurology, which in the big scheme of things appears to be relativity recent phenomenon. So to state that: they are codependent on each other seems some what fallacious.
Therefore we can never scientifically explain the being of the subject.
This position rejects the possibilty of obtaining new information, argument from ignorance.

Hence why I do not agree with the proposed theory of everything, as it also assumes that we will reach a point where no new knowledge is available.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Post Reply