tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post6256915750543510814..comments2023-07-02T10:59:59.422+01:00Comments on Marty Gull: Chris Port Blog #263. Winning the Narrative: Empiricism, Rationalism and MetaphysicsChris Port (Marty Gull)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-59299125475565786302012-08-31T13:36:32.612+01:002012-08-31T13:36:32.612+01:00'The best non-fiction, the best documentary, i...'The best non-fiction, the best documentary, is presented as a narrative with all the conventions of fiction.'<br /><br />'Different kinds of truth: religion, science and fiction'<br />Occam's Corner, The Guardian, Friday 31 August 2012<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2012/aug/31/truth-religion-science-fiction?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-38563132612207661212011-05-26T09:47:22.740+01:002011-05-26T09:47:22.740+01:00[Subsequent post: “Great! Can't answer, so you...[Subsequent post: “Great! Can't answer, so you pull the old QM card....gotta love it!"]<br /><br />[My response]: All roads lead to foam...<br /><br />Although (strictly speaking) non-sequiturs, you may find the following 'family resemblance' posts amusing when pondering some of the discrepancies between numbers and 'reality'...<br /><br />Marty Gull - Targets<br />http://martygull.blogspot.com/2011/03/chris-port-blog-130-marty-gull-targets.html<br /><br />Monkey Dust - Government School Targets<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLvDKI1T14Q&feature=relatedChris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-83126086397077239442011-05-26T09:46:56.007+01:002011-05-26T09:46:56.007+01:00[Subsequent post: “You didn't answer the quest...[Subsequent post: “You didn't answer the question, my friend;)"]<br /><br />[My response]: I have answered it. I've just not answered it on the terms you've suggested ;)<br /><br />Coherence gets more ‘fuzzy’ at the quantum scale. Quantum mechanics is the most consistently accurate scientific theory ever devised. Heisenberg was dismissive of attempts to understand what was ‘physically’ going on. As far as he was concerned, all that could be claimed about quantum mechanics was that the maths worked. The uncertainty principle, and the strange interference of measurement and even consciousness on quantum level 'events'/probability waveforms, are still profoundly incomprehensible to us. As a lyricist physicist, I derive a wry satisfaction from this. Maths is designed to be ‘perfect’, yet the universe (so far) eludes perfect notation. There is, of course, no such thing as an objective system.Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-5132855737043453612011-05-26T09:46:24.429+01:002011-05-26T09:46:24.429+01:00[Subsequent post: “Nice Google. Now, please explai...[Subsequent post: “Nice Google. Now, please explain how, if we are [individually] [making] mathematical truths, subjectively, how they are united into a coherent [objective] system."]<br /><br />[My response]: Because that's what we've designed the system to do. If it's not consistent, its not maths. You're starting to slip into Wittgenstein's 'category errors'.<br /><br />Mathematics (unlike language) is specifically designed to be consistent and coherent. The universe, by existing, is coherent. The ‘laws’ of physics are consistent and (quantum theory of gravity aside) mostly coherent down to the Planck scale. To map a coherent system onto a coherent universe, then claim that the universe is somehow a manifestation of the system, is to confuse two different categories of coherence. They are physically unrelated. They just look similar. Fortunately, the consistency and coherence of our mathematical system enables us to make testable predictions about the consistency and coherence of physical systems. There is a ‘family resemblance’ concept at work here. But they are not the same thing at all.Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-41688537975605473452011-05-25T22:58:25.781+01:002011-05-25T22:58:25.781+01:00"... as far as the laws of mathematics refer ..."... as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein.Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-49754264544122654322011-05-25T22:05:28.025+01:002011-05-25T22:05:28.025+01:00[My response to a subsequent post that "the u...[My response to a subsequent post that "the universe is mathematics made function"...]<br /><br />I think that you may be falling into a classic teleological trap (getting things back to front).<br /><br />Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or direction in natural processes. To say that “the universe is mathematics made function” is to infer that mathematics preceded the universe, and that the ‘purpose’ of the universe is to give mathematics physical form. <br /><br />I would argue that in reality it is completely the other way around. The universe came first. Mathematics is our expression of patterns that we observe in it. These patterns are relationships attributed by our minds, not inherent properties. The only inherent properties of the universe are the four basic force charges and the ways in which they interact with each other. Everything else in the universe is an ‘emergent property’ rather than an expression of function.Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292754114795396839.post-38153337325801449072011-05-25T21:11:25.847+01:002011-05-25T21:11:25.847+01:00From the The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason...From the The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) Facebook page. A classic example of how empiricists can get themselves into trouble without metaphysical perspective...<br /><br />[Original post]: "I have just had a thought that may bear some examination and may be a problem for theists, though they will have a facile way out. It has just occurred to me that Mathematics is something that exists in effect outside of the universe and simply is. Completely immutable, absolute, existent before time or the big bang, defining everything there after, and built upon rock solid axioms. Like “god” Mathematics is eternal and self existent though sadly has offered no opinion as to how Noah should have built the ark."<br /><br />[My reply]: The word ‘exist’ may be leading you astray here. Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. It is overwhelmingly probable that these phenomena exist independently of our minds. However, mathematics is the study of the phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. Mathematics is the attribution of consistency in the mind. The universe itself is as indifferent to mathematics as it is to beauty. Without consciousness, mathematics would not exist.Chris Port (Marty Gull)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10072213193656248085noreply@blogger.com