Robert Tulip wrote:

tbarron wrote:I have the sense that there's a similar divide between Robert and me. He seems pretty sure that information has its own existence, independent of any physical representation (at least that's my understanding of his position). It seems pretty obvious to me that such is not the case.

Information has its own existence. Genes are the best example. Trait information is encoded in genes, irrespective of human observation of this fact. When the human genome was 'represented' by sequencing, the information in it did not suddenly spring into existence. This information had been causing protein chemistry since the dawn of life.

Robert, what would be wrong with saying that genes do what they do, while we create information regarding what they do? Proof of this could be that a gene cannot possibly 'get it wrong'. What it does is alway 'right,' even in those rare cases when it doesn't copy perfectly. We, however are surely not always right about the information that genes encode. We try to represent what they do through information, but it is only an attempt and as Tom believes, it does not have real existence.

Hey Robert, I don't suppose it would do any good to petition you not to litter your good prose with jargon like 'viral' and 'memetic'? I just had to ask it
Bill

However, this hypothetical conjecture - saying maybe our universe is not the whole or only universe - is entirely unproductive as a way of understanding our own universe. Here, mathematics is consistent and logic is eternal.

But Robert, that's simply not the case. I was hoping you'd respond to my examples of where even the most simple of our logics do not apply. Logic seems to apply universally because we have shed what doesn't work over thousands of years. What could be more simple than the rule of identity(A=A)? Yet, modern science shows that we can't rely on this rule empirically. The only place it still applies is to our abstractions. That point alone makes it clear that logic is developed by us as our best system at this time of reasoning. We will need to continually advance it and modify it to incorporate new discoveries.

What you're referring to when you mention mathematic being eternal is not our abstractions of real world instances. You're instead referring to whatever underlying reason there is for nature to be explained by mathematics. Mathematics is merely an abstraction of that underlying reason. We do not know what that reason is, but this doesn't give us the elbow room to elevate our mathematical abstractions to be real things.

Science and logic are, in principle, not 'made up' but discovered.

Science and logic are most certainly made up. What is not made up is why objective reality behaves in such a predictable manner that our constructions of logic and science are able to apply. This can be thought of similar to Plato's forms, as the distinction between category and instance. Science is made up, but the instances it discovers, the objectively real laws of nature, are not made up. It is vital to maintain this distinction to gain the proper perspective.

Just because actual space bends in the presence of gravity does not mean that ideal space should not be imagined as Euclidean.

There is no such thing as ideal space, almost all of our universe is warped by mass to some extent. What you refer to as ideal space is nothing but an idea in your head, it doesn't equate to the real world. This is where idealism becomes absurd, that inferences gained by our understanding of our world are somehow more truthful than objective reality.

DWill wrote:what would be wrong with saying that genes do what they do, while we create information regarding what they do? Proof of this could be that a gene cannot possibly 'get it wrong'. What it does is alway 'right,' even in those rare cases when it doesn't copy perfectly. We, however are surely not always right about the information that genes encode. We try to represent what they do through information, but it is only an attempt and as Tom believes, it does not have real existence.

There is an established scientific usage, expressed in The Selfish Gene, that genes provide information to activate traits. This occurs directly within the body, regardless of human knowledge of it. It depends though, on your definition of information. If you choose to say that any transmission of data that is not mediated by a human brain is not information, I think that ignores the actual data transfer operating in genetics.

Hey Robert, I don't suppose it would do any good to petition you not to litter your good prose with jargon like 'viral' and 'memetic'? I just had to ask it
Bill

Bill, you are objecting to my statement "The memetic power of worldviews, whether religious or scientific or other, derives in large part from the viral method of convincing their adherents that they are absolute and universal."

This comment derives from Dawkins' observation that in the arms races between germs and their victims, germs are continually evolving new and novel ways to get around defences, as there is big genetic paydirt for such successes - testing Murphy's Law to work out just what can go wrong.

In the case of human religion, the God meme has 'hit on' a fantastic viral trick. Convincing the adherent that you are the only possible meme is a superb way to improve memetic fecundity, fidelity and longevity. My comment was just that this is a big part of the power of religion.

WAP281009

Interbane wrote:

However, this hypothetical conjecture - saying maybe our universe is not the whole or only universe - is entirely unproductive as a way of understanding our own universe. Here, mathematics is consistent and logic is eternal.

But Robert, that's simply not the case. I was hoping you'd respond to my examples of where even the most simple of our logics do not apply. Logic seems to apply universally because we have shed what doesn't work over thousands of years. What could be more simple than the rule of identity(A=A)? Yet, modern science shows that we can't rely on this rule empirically. The only place it still applies is to our abstractions. That point alone makes it clear that logic is developed by us as our best system at this time of reasoning. We will need to continually advance it and modify it to incorporate new discoveries.

Interbane, you are entirely twisting the findings of science in service of a misguided agenda with your strange assertion here that a thing can be something else. Common sense says a thing is what it is and not something else. Logic supports this common sense. The fact that a thing (eg a quark) may appear to human perception in different ways is entirely irrelevant to the basic premise of deductive logic that as an existing thing it is what it is. You are confusing the limits of perception with the verities of eternal logic.

What you're referring to when you mention mathematic being eternal is not our abstractions of real world instances. You're instead referring to whatever underlying reason there is for nature to be explained by mathematics. Mathematics is merely an abstraction of that underlying reason. We do not know what that reason is, but this doesn't give us the elbow room to elevate our mathematical abstractions to be real things.

Your concept of ‘underlying reason’ is right to some extent, and something to work with. It seems we agree the ratios of proportional relations are real. However, your admission that nature follows an underlying reason explained by mathematics directly contradicts your claim that ideas of number are not real. The reality of the ideas of mathematical logic is in their reflection of the reason inherent in the universe.

Science and logic are, in principle, not 'made up' but discovered.

Science and logic are most certainly made up. What is not made up is why objective reality behaves in such a predictable manner that our constructions of logic and science are able to apply. This can be thought of similar to Plato's forms, as the distinction between category and instance. Science is made up, but the instances it discovers, the objectively real laws of nature, are not made up. It is vital to maintain this distinction to gain the proper perspective.

Again, you twist the terms. “Made up” as introduced by TBarron, has connotations of fictional fantasy without objective reference. “Making up” science or logic would give false claims equal weight to true ones. With truth as the criterion, the greatness of rational investigation is the focus on discovering what is actually there, rather than imputing to reality something imposed by the mind (although this latter path has some validity in the construction of myth).

Just because actual space bends in the presence of gravity does not mean that ideal space should not be imagined as Euclidean.

There is no such thing as ideal space, almost all of our universe is warped by mass to some extent. What you refer to as ideal space is nothing but an idea in your head, it doesn't equate to the real world. This is where idealism becomes absurd, that inferences gained by our understanding of our world are somehow more truthful than objective reality.

It is not absurd to postulate ideal space. For example, in asking how far between two points, we can legitimately consider the distance relativistically, ie influenced by the gravity of nearby masses, or non-relativistically, correcting for gravity. It’s like if there is a black hole one mile across, then you would define its “actual” width in terms of the path of light around it, even though this figure could be markedly different from the observed diameter. Both methods of measuring have their applications. If “ideal space” is an abstraction, then so is distance itself.

Interbane, you are entirely twisting the findings of science in service of a misguided agenda with your strange assertion here that a thing can be something else. Common sense says a thing is what it is and not something else. Logic supports this common sense.

Read a book on quantum physics Robert, you'll find regardless of author a common theme repeating itself; common sense does not apply. Much of quantum physics is counterintuitive, and this isn't merely a limitation of observation. The mathematics that describe what is actually happening shows that it's counterintuitive. Logic and common sense have in common a macro worldview, which fits with them being nothing more than methods of understanding the world. Cavemen and Aristotle did not have quantum physics around which to develop their logic.

I will piggyback on your mentioning me having an agenda. You're right, but you must understand that my agenda has one directive; the truth. I have no other motive. If I'm wrong or if I'm biased, I will home in on that. However, I understand that others do not have the truth as their primary objective. There are other parallel motives, such as supporting some idea or another. Attempts to find a valid hypothesis for god is the most ubiquitous usurper of motive. I understand this, and naturally take the opposing stance. This isn't because I'm opposed to the idea, it's because I understand the other person has a motive which isn't only 'the truth'. Where there is parallel motive, there is almost always a deviation from the truth, thus my agenda. As a disclaimer, I doubt we can ever achieve absolute objective truth, but it is an ideal we should strive for.

However, your admission that nature follows an underlying reason explained by mathematics directly contradicts your claim that ideas of number are not real. The reality of the ideas of mathematical logic is in their reflection of the reason inherent in the universe.

As I said before, I hold somewhat of a pantheistic perspective regarding math and it's ability to describe the universe. I'm ambivalent on the subject without having a better understanding. I plan to read some books on the philosophy of mathematics here in the near future. I will say that after discussing this with you I'm leaning in the direction of math and logic being human creations, no matter how accurately they reflect reality. What they reflect, the actual physical processes and relationship, those are real. The methods we develop to describe them must necessarily accurately reflect them, but that doesn't mean these abstractions of ours exist outside our heads.

“Made up” as introduced by TBarron, has connotations of fictional fantasy without objective reference. “Making up” science or logic would give false claims equal weight to true ones.

Yet, science relies on us to make up our theories. We don't 'discover' them, as strange as that sounds. Some scientists, at some point in time, hypothesizes something, then tests that hypothesis against reality. While hypothesizing, inside the scientists head, he must weigh some potential hypotheses against others and what he currently knows about how nature works. The hypotheses that he judges will best survive experimentation are the ones he tests. It is in this way that theories aren't only 'made up', with stress on the word only. They are made up, but at the same time weighed against current scientific understandings. It is during repeated experimentation that verisimillitude can be assessed.

It’s like if there is a black hole one mile across, then you would define its “actual” width in terms of the path of light around it, even though this figure could be markedly different from the observed diameter.

Are you trying to validate the idea of ideal space by contrasting the observed diameter with actual diameter? One of the two is correct, the other isn't. Even though the observed diameter has it's applications(whatever they may be), the observed diameter is not necessarily the actual diameter. An example is Newton's equation for gravity. It is still very useful, but at the same time we understand that it isn't objectively true. By objectively true, I mean to express that it perfectly reflects reality, versus a mere approximation. We realize that it is an approximation, just as Einstein's theory may very well be an even more accurate approximation.

I don't think 'ideal space' is even a valid abstraction. It may be useful in the same way that Newton's laws are useful, but that does not mean it's an accurate reflection of reality. There is no 'ideal space' out there in objective reality from which to abstract the notion. Here, we must distinguish usefulness from truthfulness. They aren't the same. If you're hoping to show that logic is an eternal perfect reflection of reality, you must weight current logic against what is real. The more formal logic of Aristotle's time is shown to not apply to quantum physics. There is, of course, quantum logic that is being developed. Also, logic is meant to apply to reasoning rather than real things. The distinction is a difficult one, since that reasoning to which logic applies deals with real things.

I would recommend the work of John Barrow, especially The Constants of Nature: The Numbers that Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe.