Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:42:22 pm »
We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...

Probably depends on how they/we solve the problem of heuristics.  That is, how those "beings" don't end up suffering the same problem of imagining the part as a whole.  If that is even possible. If facts are even close to infinite, how do we/they know which to "safely" ignore?  And if values come from heuristics, broadly, do we imagine these future beings would even care about such metaphysical problems?

Hmmm...not sure I understand fully but yeah they might not care about science as a pursuit. Yet if there are variations of regularities in the Universe then those entities which can travel at least across large swaths of our galaxy would [possibly] have to deal with, say, different universal constants.

Of course we could also just figure out if reality is Dappled by finding specific exceptions. We wouldn't really know until we built [more] tech based off quantum mechanics right?
12
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by H on November 16, 2018, 09:38:26 pm »
We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...

Probably depends on how they/we solve the problem of heuristics.  That is, how those "beings" don't end up suffering the same problem of imagining the part as a whole.  If that is even possible. If facts are even close to infinite, how do we/they know which to "safely" ignore?  And if values come from heuristics, broadly, do we imagine these future beings would even care about such metaphysical problems?
13
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:35:37 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...
Why synthetic? And what if they don't have any clue about laws at all, but simply just do ala Blindsight.

I'm just doubtful biological life could travel through space and reach a level of advancement to do the kind of large scale studies we'd need to be confident about the science conducted.

I never read Blindsight, but couldn't such entities - p-zombies right? - at least do the experiments and see what laws work where?
14
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by TLEILAXU on November 16, 2018, 09:32:31 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...
Why synthetic? And what if they don't have any clue about laws at all, but simply just do ala Blindsight.
15
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:28:35 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.

We're probably just too young a species and too limited to grasp the right metaphysical picture here.

Synthetic life-forms that can travel across space with greater ease and greater memory/cognition likely have a better handle on what laws are universally applied.

Or so I hope...
16
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by TLEILAXU on November 16, 2018, 09:25:07 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
I see, but that's still quite something of a statement..  I don't know, I guess this type of philosophy of science isn't for me.
17
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:14:50 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...

I think she's saying there is no fundamental theory, at least not one we could suss out from our status as biological beings with limited cognitive context.
18
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by TLEILAXU on November 16, 2018, 09:13:17 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
So special cases of even more fundamental theory? I don't think phycisists aren't considering that, which is why I found it confusing...
19
Philosophy & Science / Is There Downward Causation in Chemistry?
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:10:25 pm »
Is There Downward Causation in Chemistry?

Link to the Full Paper is on the upper right hand corner.

Quote
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is either physical, or depends on the physical. It is usually taken to be committed to the causal closure of physics. But if physics is causally closed, then there can be no genuine causation from the entities, properties and processes of such ‘higher-level’ sciences as chemistry and biology ‘downwards’ to the physical. Arguments for the causal closure of physics have presented it as an empirical thesis, made plausible by the onward march of quantum-mechanical explanation. Some physicalists even cite this onward march as the historical explanation of why versions of emergentism which are incompatible with the causal closure of physics were so much less widespread after the emergence of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. Thus, for instance, C.D. Broad formulated an emergentist position according to which the possession of a chemical property by an object may confer on it causal capacities that transcend those it possesses in virtue of its physical properties. But, so the physicalist story goes, quantum-mechanical explanations of chemical structure and bonding were able to proceed without appeal to any such ‘downward causation.’ Hence chemical emergentism became much less plausible. In this paper, I investigate Broad’s characterisation of downward causation, and question whether it is as incompatible with modern quantum-mechanical explanation as contemporary physicalists think.
20
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 16, 2018, 09:08:19 pm »
I don't get it. Seems she's saying that since complex systems are often computationally intractable without considerable simplifications, somehow that is bad and physicists should feel bad?

I think it's more a meta-question - do things made b/c Science work because there are universal laws or contextual laws?

In her view quantum mechanics is not the underlying description of reality, but a contextual set of laws that work in specific conditions in the same way classical physics work.

Hence the world is "dappled", the applicable regularities depend on contexts. I don't know if this is true, but it is rather interesting as a metaphysics.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10