What does physicalist science tell us about reality?

[donsalmon]

What does science tell us about the universe?
⁠
1. Start with sense perception.
2. eliminate EVERYTHING about the experience except measurements.
3. Discern invariant mathematical patterns (otherwise known as laws of nature - I'll refer to them as IMPs) and compare the mathematical behavior of variant patterns of measurements (VPMs) with IMPs.
4. After collecting enough data on the correlative (NOT causal - causation in science is only consistent causation (CC) - see David Hume and Aristotle on this) patterns, develop hypothesis regarding CC, and from that, develop a theory.
⁠
⁠ EXAMPLE

1. Start with an apple.
2. Subject the apple to all kinds of measurements, and leave everything that can possibly be experienced about the apple - color, shape, taste, the "feel" of solidity, etc behind
3. Take these measurements (variable patterns) and analyze them in terms of the "laws of nature"
4. Develop a hypothesis about what causes these measurements to change as they do when you subject them to various tests, and then come up with a theory.
⁠
Notice that we've left behind the real world - the world of ontological Reality - in step 2.
⁠
That means that EVERYTHING about the apple after that is an abstraction, an abstract concept BASED on a particular kind of limited, quantitative or mathematical analysis of sense perception.

In other words, in the world of the physicist, there is no apple, only numbers.
⁠
⁠
The following are NOT reality but ABSTRACT mathematical concepts:
⁠
(as defined by physicists):
⁠
Matter (I have to say "as defined by physicists" because people say, "I'll hit you with a hammer and you'll see what matter is" - no that's sense perception; we've already left that behind in step 2)
Energy (no you do NOT experience energy AS DEFINED by scientists)
Information (Bernardo does an excellent job of showing precisely why “information” can’t possibly be the substance of the universe)
Electricity (No you DON'T!)
Gravity (no you do NOT experience gravity as defined by scientists)
Magnetism (NOPE!)
Space (not that either; NOT the sense perception but an abstraction)
Time (DITTO)


⁠*****************

So that is it. When New Age folks say, "Oh wow, far out, science says it's all energy, just like yoga, man, it's all energy,' they're taking a word from science which is a pure abstraction, a concept meant to describe the behavior of certain perceptions, and use it as if it's the same thing as the yogis mean by energy (or as they say, "Shakti").


Well, we might smile at the naivete of the New Agers, but many sophisticated theologians do the same thing. "'Matter' is the body of God. Once we understand this, we can unite science and spirituality." "Matter" as used by scientists is an abstraction used to describe the behavior of certain perceptions. The concept as defined by physicists tells us nothing about what matter IS, only what it does. Technically, since the area of IS is theology, you could say there's no contradiction. That's absolutely true. But to say they're the same is like saying, "Why, I don't need to get on a plane to go to Morocco. I have the map right here. In fact, would you like a sample of Morrocon cous-cous? Look, there it is in that lovely photo. Have a bite."

***

If we look closely at what's going on here, it's clear that it's a matter of Zen. A student once went to a teacher and said, "Can you sum up Zen for me?"

The teacher said, "Attention."

The student responded, "Well, ok, not THAT simple. Could you say anything more?"

The teacher responded, "Attention, attention."

The student said, "Ok now, come on, help me out. What does attention mean?"

The teacher responded, "Attention means attention."

WHAT we know of the world is inseparable from what we ATTEND to and HOW we attend to it. If we attend to the world as if there were no experiential qualities, it is not surprising that we are creating a world which is hostile to experience.

[Ben Iscatus]

This is beautifully done, thank you. The only part I'm not sure about is the last, since I understand attention to involve focus (and often metacognition), whereas experience in general can happen without any focus of attention.

[Jim Cross]

I'm not exactly following what you are trying to get at.

I don't see physicalist science as completely different from what we habitually do everyday.

For example, if we toss a ball into the air, we expect it to fall to ground. If we see lightning, we expect to hear thunder. If we light a fire under a pot of water, we expect the water to become warmer. If we remove the fire, we expect the water to become cooler.

It's all about prediction. Science just adds measurement and more precision.

[Jim Cross]

What does science tell us about the universe?
⁠
1. Start with sense perception.
2. eliminate EVERYTHING about the experience except measurements.
3. Discern invariant mathematical patterns (otherwise known as laws of nature - I'll refer to them as IMPs) and compare the mathematical behavior of variant patterns of measurements (VPMs) with IMPs.
4. After collecting enough data on the correlative (NOT causal - causation in science is only consistent causation (CC) - see David Hume and Aristotle on this) patterns, develop hypothesis regarding CC, and from that, develop a theory.
⁠
⁠ EXAMPLE

1. Start with an apple.
2. Subject the apple to all kinds of measurements, and leave everything that can possibly be experienced about the apple - color, shape, taste, the "feel" of solidity, etc behind
3. Take these measurements (variable patterns) and analyze them in terms of the "laws of nature"
4. Develop a hypothesis about what causes these measurements to change as they do when you subject them to various tests, and then come up with a theory.
⁠
Notice that we've left behind the real world - the world of ontological Reality - in step 2.
⁠
That means that EVERYTHING about the apple after that is an abstraction, an abstract concept BASED on a particular kind of limited, quantitative or mathematical analysis of sense perception.

In other words, in the world of the physicist, there is no apple, only numbers.
⁠
⁠
The following are NOT reality but ABSTRACT mathematical concepts:
⁠
(as defined by physicists):
⁠
Matter (I have to say "as defined by physicists" because people say, "I'll hit you with a hammer and you'll see what matter is" - no that's sense perception; we've already left that behind in step 2)
Energy (no you do NOT experience energy AS DEFINED by scientists)
Information (Bernardo does an excellent job of showing precisely why “information” can’t possibly be the substance of the universe)
Electricity (No you DON'T!)
Gravity (no you do NOT experience gravity as defined by scientists)
Magnetism (NOPE!)
Space (not that either; NOT the sense perception but an abstraction)
Time (DITTO)


⁠*****************

So that is it. When New Age folks say, "Oh wow, far out, science says it's all energy, just like yoga, man, it's all energy,' they're taking a word from science which is a pure abstraction, a concept meant to describe the behavior of certain perceptions, and use it as if it's the same thing as the yogis mean by energy (or as they say, "Shakti").


Well, we might smile at the naivete of the New Agers, but many sophisticated theologians do the same thing. "'Matter' is the body of God. Once we understand this, we can unite science and spirituality." "Matter" as used by scientists is an abstraction used to describe the behavior of certain perceptions. The concept as defined by physicists tells us nothing about what matter IS, only what it does. Technically, since the area of IS is theology, you could say there's no contradiction. That's absolutely true. But to say they're the same is like saying, "Why, I don't need to get on a plane to go to Morocco. I have the map right here. In fact, would you like a sample of Morrocon cous-cous? Look, there it is in that lovely photo. Have a bite."

***

If we look closely at what's going on here, it's clear that it's a matter of Zen. A student once went to a teacher and said, "Can you sum up Zen for me?"

The teacher said, "Attention."

The student responded, "Well, ok, not THAT simple. Could you say anything more?"

The teacher responded, "Attention, attention."

The student said, "Ok now, come on, help me out. What does attention mean?"

The teacher responded, "Attention means attention."

WHAT we know of the world is inseparable from what we ATTEND to and HOW we attend to it. If we attend to the world as if there were no experiential qualities, it is not surprising that we are creating a world which is hostile to experience.

Maybe I see what your confusion is about.

You are confusing the abstract concepts that model reality (energy, matter, gravity, etc) with reality itself.

[AshvinP]

Maybe I see what your confusion is about.

You are confusing the abstract concepts that model reality (energy, matter, gravity, etc) with reality itself.

That is practically the definition of "physicalism" or "materialism", Jim. Just a slight case of projection... Don is pointing out why you guys (including Rovelli RQM followers and all Eastern mystical materialists) have been confusing abstractions for Reality going on centuries now and may want to stop doing so, as it leads to no true understanding (it never did), and does not even lead to beneficial practical application anymore.

[Eugene I]

That is correct, I just wrote this in a parallel thread"
"Scientific measurements only reveal to us consistent patterns of sense-perceptional phenomena in time-space framework. The theoretical area of natural sciences finds mathematical equations that model and approximate the observed patterns with mathematical expressions. These models are very useful for practical purposes because they can predict the behavior of natural systems. However, I do not believe that these math models have anything to do with the "noumenal" source of those phenomena. They only give us approximate math models of how the phenomena behave, but do not explain what they "noumenally" are and what their noumenal source is."

You are right, the naive realism interprets the models literally and believes that math abstractions (fields, energy, particles, velocities etc) represent some actual objective reality. We have no evidence that such interpretation is true.

Still, we can not completely rule out a possibility that the models may have something to do with the noumenal reality. For example, in Tegmark's philosophy of "Mathematical Universe" the math is actually what the reality is, and that explains why our math models are so effective in describing it. I personally not a fan of Tegmark's philosophy, obviously it runs into the same "hard problem of consciousness".

But there is still a problem for any philosophy/metaphysics/ontology: the fact that the observed conscious phenomena always follow consistent patterns that can be accurately approximated and predicted by certain math models requires an explanation. Any metaphysics, ontology or spiritual worldview is ought to explain how these empirical facts and consistent patterns of phenomena that we observe emerge from (or caused by) the noumenal reality that such metaphysics assumes to exist. Every metaphysics has this explanatory challenge, which usually remains an unsolved explanatory gap for most of the known variants of metaphysics/ontology.

[Jim Cross]

Maybe I see what your confusion is about.

You are confusing the abstract concepts that model reality (energy, matter, gravity, etc) with reality itself.

That is practically the definition of "physicalism" or "materialism", Jim. Just a slight case of projection... Don is pointing out why you guys (including Rovelli RQM followers and all Eastern mystical materialists) have been confusing abstractions for Reality going on centuries now and may want to stop doing so, as it leads to no true understanding (it never did), and does not even lead to beneficial practical application anymore.

Ashvin,

You're crazy. This is what you think physicalists think. You're attacking a straw man.

[Jim Cross]

That is correct, I just wrote this in a parallel thread"
"Scientific measurements only reveal to us consistent patterns of sense-perceptional phenomena in time-space framework. The theoretical area of natural sciences finds mathematical equations that model and approximate the observed patterns with mathematical expressions. These models are very useful for practical purposes because they can predict the behavior of natural systems. However, I do not believe that these math models have anything to do with the "noumenal" source of those phenomena. They only give us approximate math models of how the phenomena behave, but do not explain what they "noumenally" are and what their noumenal source is."

You are right, the naive realism interprets the models literally and believes that math abstractions (fields, energy, particles, velocities etc) represent some actual objective reality. We have no evidence that such interpretation is true.

Still, we can not completely rule out a possibility that the models may have something to do with the noumenal reality. For example, in Tegmark's philosophy of "Mathematical Universe" the math is actually what the reality is, and that explains why our math models are so effective in describing it. I personally not a fan of Tegmark's philosophy, obviously it runs into the same "hard problem of consciousness".

But there is still a problem for any philosophy/metaphysics/ontology: the fact that the observed conscious phenomena always follow consistent patterns that can be accurately approximated and predicted by certain math models requires an explanation. Any metaphysics, ontology or spiritual worldview is ought to explain how these empirical facts and consistent patterns of phenomena that we observe emerge from (or caused by) the noumenal reality that such metaphysics assumes to exist. Every metaphysics has this explanatory challenge, which usually remains an unsolved explanatory gap for most of the known variants of metaphysics/ontology.

I mostly agree with you but want to point out that most (maybe not all) physicalists are not naive realists.

All models are false - including the one that asserts mind or consciousness is ultimate reality; however, some models are useful .

[Eugene I]

All models are false - including the one that asserts mind or consciousness is ultimate reality; however, some models are useful .

OK, but then also including the one that asserts matter is ultimate reality.

But here we need to distinguish math models of natural sciences that are not concerned (or should not be concerned) with the nature of ultimate reality, and metaphysical models that are allowed to and are intended to make inferences about the nature of ultimate reality. To say that they are by default all false is IMO overstatement, we just do not know if they are true or false, there is still a possibility that one of them may turn out to be true, but we just don't know with absolute certainty which one it would be.

[Soul_of_Shu]

To say that they are by default all false is IMO overstatement, we just do not know if they are true or false, there is still a possibility that one of them may turn out to be true, but we just don't know with absolute certainty which one it would be.

To this monad of irreducible Mind, seems pretty much like saying that all models are provisional ... except my preferred one of course