For many people, the phenomenon of consciousness is the best evidence we have that there must be something important missing in our basic physical description of the world. According to this worry, a bunch of atoms and particles, mindlessly obeying the laws of physics, can’t actually experience the way a conscious creature does. There’s no such thing as “what it is to be like” a collection of purely physical atoms; it would lack qualia, the irreducibly subjective components of our experience of the world. One argument for this conclusion is that we can conceive of collections of atoms that behave physically in exactly the same way as ordinary humans, but don’t have those inner experiences — philosophical zombies. (If you think about it carefully, I would claim, you would realize that zombies are harder to conceive of than you might originally have guessed — but that’s an argument for another time.)
The folks who find this line of reasoning compelling are not necessarily traditional Cartesian dualists who think that there is an immaterial soul distinct from the body. On the contrary, they often appreciate the arguments against “substance dualism,” and have a high degree of respect for the laws of physics (which don’t seem to need or provide evidence for any non-physical influences on our atoms). But still, they insist, there’s no way to just throw a bunch of mindless physical matter together and expect it to experience true consciousness.
People who want to dance this tricky two-step — respect for the laws of physics, but an insistence that consciousness can’t reduce to the physical — are forced to face up to a certain problem, which we might call the causal box argument. It goes like this. (Feel free to replace “physical particles” with “quantum fields” if you want to be fastidious.)
- Consciousness cannot be accounted for by physical particles obeying mindless equations.
- Human beings seem to be made up — even if not exclusively — of physical particles.
- To the best of our knowledge, those particles obey mindless equations, without exception.
- Therefore, consciousness does not exist.
Nobody actually believes this argument, let us hasten to add — they typically just deny one of the premises.
But there is a tiny sliver of wiggle room that might allow us to salvage something special about consciousness without giving up on the laws of physics — the concept of downward causation. Here we’re invoking the idea that there are different levels at which we can describe reality, as I discussed in The Big Picture at great length. We say that “higher” (more coarse-grained) levels are emergent, but that word means different things to different people. So-called “weak” emergence just says the obvious thing, that higher-level notions like the fluidity or solidity of a material substance emerge out of the properties of its microscopic constituents. In principle, if not in practice, the microscopic description is absolutely complete and comprehensive. A “strong” form of emergence would suggest that something truly new comes into being at the higher levels, something that just isn’t there in the microscopic description.
Downward causation is one manifestation of this strong-emergentist attitude. It’s the idea that what happens at lower levels can be directly influenced (causally acted upon) by what is happening at the higher levels. The idea, in other words, that you can’t really understand the microscopic behavior without knowing something about the macroscopic.
There is no reason to think that anything like downward causation really happens in the world, at least not down to the level of particles and forces. While I was writing The Big Picture, I grumbled on Twitter about how people kept talking about it but how I didn’t want to discuss it in the book; naturally, I was hectored into writing something about it.
But you can see why the concept of downward causation might be attractive to someone who doesn’t think that consciousness can be accounted for by the fields and equations of the Core Theory. Sure, the idea would be, maybe electrons and nuclei act according to the laws of physics, but those laws need to include feedback from higher levels onto that microscopic behavior — including whether or not those particles are part of a conscious creature. In that way, consciousness can play a decisive, causal role in the universe, without actually violating any physical laws.
One person who thinks that way is John Searle, the extremely distinguished philosopher from Berkeley (and originator of the Chinese Room argument). I recently received an email from Henrik Røed Sherling, who took a class with Searle and came across this very issue. He sent me this email, which he was kind enough to allow me to reproduce here:
Hi Professor Carroll,
I read your book and was at the same time awestruck and angered, because I thought your entire section on the mind was both well-written and awfully wrong — until I started thinking about it, that is. Now I genuinely don’t know what to think anymore, but I’m trying to work through it by writing a paper on the topic.
I took Philosophy of Mind with John Searle last semester at UC Berkeley. He convinced me of a lot of ideas of which your book has now disabused me. But despite your occasionally effective jabs at Searle, you never explicitly refute his own theory of the mind, Biological Naturalism. I want to do that, using an argument from your book, but I first need to make sure that I properly understand it.
Searle says this of consciousness: it is caused by neuronal processes and realized in neuronal systems, but is not ontologically reducible to these; consciousness is not just a word we have for something else that is more fundamental. He uses the following analogy to visualize his description: consciousness is to the mind like fluidity is to water. It’s a higher-level feature caused by lower-level features and realized in a system of said lower-level features. Of course, for his version of consciousness to escape the charge of epiphenomenalism, he needs the higher-level feature in this analogy to act causally on the lower-level features — he needs downward causation. In typical fashion he says that “no one in their right mind” can say that solidity does not act causally when a hammer strikes a nail, but it appears to me that this is what you are saying.
So to my questions. Is it right to say that your argument against the existence of downward causation boils down to the incompatible vocabularies of lower-level and higher-level theories? I.e. that there is no such thing as a gluon in Fluid Dynamics, nor anything such as a fluid in the Standard Model, so a cause in one theory cannot have an effect in the other simply because causes and effects are different things in the different theories; gluons don’t affect fluidity, temperaturs and pressures do; fluids don’t affect gluons, quarks and fields do. If I have understood you right, then there couldn’t be any upward causation either. In which case Searle’s theory is not only epiphenomenal, it’s plain inaccurate from the get-go; he wants consciousness to both be a higher-level feature of neuronal processes and to be caused by them. Did I get this right?
Best regards,
Henrik Røed Sherling
Here was my reply:
Dear Henrik–
Thanks for writing. Genuinely not knowing what to think is always an acceptable stance!
I think your summary of my views are pretty accurate. As I say on p. 375, poetic naturalists tend not to be impressed by downward causation, but not by upward causation either! At least, not if your theory of each individual level is complete and consistent.
Part of the issue is, as often happens, an inconsistent use of a natural-language word, in this case “cause.” The kinds of dynamical, explain-this-occurrence causes that we’re talking about here are a different beast than inter-level implications (that one might be tempted to sloppily refer to as “causes”). Features of a lower level, like conservation of energy, can certainly imply or entail features of higher-level descriptions; and indeed the converse is also possible. But saying that such implications are “causes” is to mean something completely different than when we say “swinging my elbow caused the glass of wine to fall to the floor.”
So, I like to think I’m in my right mind, and I’m happy to admit that solidity acts causally when a hammer strikes a nail. But I don’t describe that nail as a collection of particles obeying the Core Theory *and* additionally as a solid object that a hammer can hit; we should use one language or the other. At the level of elementary particles, there’s no such concept as “solidity,” and it doesn’t act causally.
To be perfectly careful — all this is how we currently see things according to modern physics. An electron responds to the other fields precisely at its location, in quantitatively well-understood ways that make no reference to whether it’s in a nail, in a brain, or in interstellar space. We can of course imagine that this understanding is wrong, and that future investigations will reveal the electron really does care about those things. That would be the greatest discovery in physics since quantum mechanics itself, perhaps of all time; but I’m not holding my breath.
I really do think that enormous confusion is caused in many areas — not just consciousness, but free will and even more purely physical phenomena — by the simple mistake of starting sentences in one language or layer of description (“I thought about summoning up the will power to resist that extra slice of pizza…”) but then ending them in a completely different vocabulary (“… but my atoms obeyed the laws of the Standard Model, so what could I do?”) The dynamical rules of the Core Theory aren’t just vague suggestions; they are absolutely precise statements about how the quantum fields making up you and me behave under any circumstances (within the “everyday life” domain of validity). And those rules say that the behavior of, say, an electron is determined by the local values of other quantum fields at the position of the electron — and by nothing else. (That’s “locality” or “microcausality” in quantum field theory.) In particular, as long as the quantum fields at the precise position of the electron are the same, the larger context in which it is embedded is utterly irrelevant.
It’s possible that the real world is different, and there is such inter-level feedback. That’s an experimentally testable question! As I mentioned to Henrik, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of our lifetimes. And there’s basically no evidence that it’s true. But it’s possible.
So I don’t think downward causation is of any help to attempts to free the phenomenon of consciousness from arising in a completely conventional way from the collective behavior of microscopic physical constituents of matter. We’re allowed to talk about consciousness as a real, causally efficacious phenomenon — as long as we stick to the appropriate human-scale level of description. But electrons get along just fine without it.
“The generalized Schrodinger equation is deterministic, but the measurement/observation corresponding to the state vector it describes is not.”
It is if you adopt the MWI of QFT. Only the Copenhagen interpretation assumes a silly dice-rolling assumption.
Ben,
By inflation, I assume you mean the CMBR? It seems unlikely I would observe a faster than light expansion of the initial stage, with any telescope.
Dark energy is premised on the rate of redshift changing about 5-7 billion years ago, depending on the version. It has nothing to do with the inflation stage.
The story of dark energy is interesting in how it developed and is currently presented. Nowadays we hear the universe started expanding faster about 7 billion years ago, but that is an uninformed edit of what was initially reported.
The original theory was that after the initial, near speed of light expansion, post inflation stage, that due to gravity, the universe has been slowing at a steady rate ever since. But what Perlmutter, et al discovered was that the rate dropped off considerably for the first half the age of the universe, then flattened out and the reduction in the rate of redshift was much more gradual. To use a ballistics analogy, it was assumed it was like a fired projectile, like a bullet from a gun and that it gradually slowed from the initial explosion, but the slower and steadier decrease in the rate, of the second half of the age of the universe needed another explanation, as it was as if the projectile, after slowing from the initial stage, had a rocket motor kick in and keep it going. Dark Energy is the rocket motor.
Now if we look at it from the opposite direction, outward from our own view of the universe, rather than inward from the edge, what we do see is that the rate of redshift starts out slowly and builds on itself, eventually going parabolic, until it seems to reach the speed of light and that amounts to a horizon line, over which visible light won’t travel.
Now if we were to be really far out crackpot speculative and suppose redshift as an optical effect that compounded on itself, it would explain what we do see quite easily. Both us as the center of this expansion, as the rate increases in all directions, proportional to distance and why this rate of increase curves upward.
As for dark matter, that is a gap between our spacetime theory of gravity and what we actually see.
Again to play the crackpot, what if gravity is not a property of mass, but that mass is an effect of this vacuum we call gravity? Then it would extend far beyond what we might properly refer to as mass.
Necessarily when radiant energy finds a way to coalesce into mass, it occupies much less space, causing a vacuum. Just like when radiation is released from mass, as in nuclear weapons, it creates enormous pressure, because it occupies more space.
Your friendly neighborhood crackpot,
John
I’m fully onboard with MWI – to me it’s pretty obviously true. Note that quantum mechanics is perfectly explained by my ‘triple-aspect’ ontology (information-fields-cognition), and MWI more or less naturally falls out as a consequence.
In my ontology, here’s how I interpret QM:
Information: The wavefunctions are ‘pure information’ residing in ‘Hilbert space’
Cognition: The ‘Born rule’ is actually part of a ‘theory of perception’, that provides a rule connecting the information in the wavefunctions to actual observables perceived in the mind’s of observers.
Fields: When the Information in the wavefunction is combined with ‘cognition’ , classical physics (fields and matter) emerges from a theory of decoherence.
Many-Worlds is a consequence of the fact that the information in the wave-function represents a ‘quantum computation’ of every possible classical state, and all computations are physically real.
All make sense? 😀
Neil
‘ “The generalized Schrodinger equation is deterministic, but the measurement/observation corresponding to the state vector it describes is not.”
It is if you adopt the MWI of QFT. Only the Copenhagen interpretation assumes a silly dice-rolling assumption.’
MWI, though fashionable, is hardly a universal (sorry) position for professional physicists and has more than a few issues, one of which is defining measurement. Metaphysically there seem to be a spread of interpretations of MWI. Sean has a take on it posted here but I don’t think its the only one.
Ben G
1) The profligacy of MWI is an issue, but infinite profligacy is a major problem. I know the bottom-line “solution” for the eternal inflation multiverse is that every new universe created has a negative energy geometry and positive energy contents – voila! Zero net energy, so zero problem. Whew! But why has that empty point suddenly blown up into a universe, while the vast majority haven’t. Quantum fluctuation? Of what? That point wasn’t so empty after all – it was crammed with laws and mechanisms, and unlike Max Tegmark I can’t begin to identify that multiverse, dependent as it is on quantum fluctuation, with the MWI multiverse which is (allegedly) needed to explain quantium fluctuation in the first place. Bootstraps gone mad – and all to “explain” the apparently irreducible features of this one known universe by postulating a deeper, equally irreducible, multiverse.
2) But the real point of this reply is that you answer an argument I was not making, and ignore the one I was. Again. Moe’s analogy for Everett’s relative state interpretation works ok (though Everett would not have approved of bringing conscious beings into it…) But Moe’s aim was to eliminate the dice-roll mechanism from QM. He merely replaced it with another mechanism which is (necessarily) indistinguishable in all observable outcomes. No gain, so no point. Since we need a multiverse as an extra, we are actually worse off. That would be true even if the extra requirement was minimal – one neutrino every billion years, say, instead of > 10^100 particles every second.
…I should have added that the fluctuation is presumably one of an infinite number of such forever invisible possibilities at every point in every universe millions of times every second – if MWI is true. I’d rather believe in (and look for) the “dice”.
The term “speculative bubble” comes to mind. Though given some of the ideas being put forth, it’s more like the speculative mania phase.
Complexity, whether chemistry, biological evolution, society, economics, technology and likely theory, is also characterized as being increasingly unstable. Consequently the solution is more complexity, to solve the various irregularities and then eventual collapse, back to a more stable stage, where the process begins anew.
Stephen Jay Gould described it as punctuated equilibrium, though the equilibrium phase is one of increasing complexity, as organisms seek to fill and maximize every possible niche in the ecosystem. Which makes them ever more specialized and inflexible. Which causes cascading collapses, when disruptions occur, though often minor disruptions create more niches to fill back up.
So consider physics, not in terms of grand visions of the universe, but various academics competing with one another and you get a good understanding of this rush into ever more untestable speculation, as any possible connection to reality pales in comparison to what the human mind can propose.
Part of the problem here is that there are no conclusive arguments for these different interpretations of QM. We can only state what we personally prefer about one interpretation over another, or what doesn’t feel right about another. The only way it can truly be sorted out is through experiment. Of course, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing possible limitations or concerns with the different interpretations. Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but I get the impression sometimes that it’s being forgotten that this isn’t going to be solved through a conversation and for now, will ultimately come down to what feels nicer. Personally, I’m a fan of the MWI. But really, it’s mostly a toss up for me. That’s about all I can say about it.
zarzuelazen,
Why say “The wavefunctions are ‘pure information’ “? Does this mean anything different from “the wavefunction correctly describes the physical system”? If not, talk of “information” seems metaphorical at best and not particularly helpful. Unless you’re sending a mathematical formula in a text message and you need to stay under your data limits – but somehow I don’t think that’s what you mean.
zarzuelazen
I don’t get it. I think your ontology is dualistic, or at least aspect-dualistic. The wave function is both “pure information” (i.e. not material) and “a quantum computation… physically real.”
For me, the “physically real” aspect of computation is the machine it runs on; if you add that behind the “pure information” your ontology becomes circular, with no fundamental explanation.
But my real concern is your “fields” paragraph. When the wave function encounters cognition, decoherence leads to the observed universe. Surely that IS the Copenhagen Interpretation – you don’t NEED MWI.
John M
I meant to pick up on this biut it slipped my mind:
“The assumption is that time is this foundational dimensionality we experience as duration and so a unit of time would be the same amount of duration whether measured from event a to b, or b to a. The reality is that what is measured is [in?] action and duration is simply the state of the present, as this action is occurring. The most basic characteristic of action is inertia and that is why time is asymmetric. The earth turns one direction, not any other, because of inertia.”
You seem to be saying three things in answer to my before-and-after comment on thermodynamic fluctuations:
1) Time is actually made of “durations”. Well, that’s a view. But before and after are just relations, not durations. Conscious time is a sequence of ideas. Duration is a mathematical property of the phenomenal world. I’m well aware that the relativity of simultaneity has to be addressed, but let’s not get bogged down. It’s less of a problem for me – since I think some kind of consciousness is fundamental, with the accumulation of ideas/thoughts/computations accounting for the direction of time – than for relativity theorists with their Minkowski space-time, who end up appealing hopefully (and tautologically) to thermodynamics.
2) We only observe instantaneous states of the universe. If that were so, then there would be two obvious consequences. Firstly, we would have no justification whatever for the view that anything else existed but that moment. Parmenides of Elea argued for that 2,500 years ago. I would have directed him to the serial qiuality of his own thoughts, including his reasoning. Secondly, assuming we hurdled the first consequence, physical law as received offers only a deterministic two-way street, with no preferred direction, or that statistically (i.e. thermodynamically) defined arrow of time, BUT that leads precisely to the situation where any departure from the maximum entropy state is overwhelmingly likely to be (or to be a part of) a relatively minor fluctuation, flanked in all directions (spatial or temporal) by higher entropy states rather than some consequence of a vastly more improbable state. Appeal to a singularity is an appeal to a miracle; appeal to an infinite multiverse is equivalent to claiming that “s**t happens” is an explanation. (It’s actually worse than that, since the Everettian multiverse STILL requires statistics to run it – we are explaining statistics in nature by appealing to statistics in nature.)
3) Inertia accounts for time. I can’t buy that: the law of inertia describes changeless states. The awareness of motion/time requires at the very least the absorption and emission of photons, which affects the momenta of particles. That might seem unimportant in terms of the motions of planets, but it is a key fact about the actual behaviour of the particles involved – it is fundamental in QM. If you can build a planet out of non-QM stuff, you can test your theory. The days, months and years of astronomical time depend on motion in a gravitational field, and not on inertial motion. It is the statistics of the interactions (gravitational or other), not the inertia, which account for time in the standard view.
@Logicophilosophicus
It is indeed a circular loop I’m proposing.
Take the 3 elements in my ontology (information, fields, cognition). I’m saying that every element is composed of a *combination* of the other 2 in a circular loop. So information is composed of (fields+cognition). Fields are composed of (information+cognition). And cognition is composed of (information+fields). This is how the wave function can be *both* pure information *and* material. It’s a loop!
Far from being a ‘bug’, the circular nature of it is a ‘feature’. It is the only possible ontology that permits a total explanation of all elements.
You are correct that this ontology is compatible with both Copenhagen and MWI. But unlike Copenhagen, it provides a clear realist picture.
The root of information is form. Which is nature’s expression of information, i.e., static configuration. What conveys form and information is energy. As in the big E. While form gives definition to energy. Even if it’s just frequency, amplitude, velocity, etc.
We constantly try to compress information into its most concise forms. Which is to do more with less. The ideal of this would be to do everything with nothing.
Nature is also constantly trying to compress form. Which we experience as gravity. The more dense it gets, the more excess energy is radiated. The ultimate of gravity is a black hole, which actually seem to function as the eye of a cosmic storm and radiates most of the energy falling into it. Then shots what does out the poles. Even one black hole is more efficient than two and when they fall into each other, radiate away even more energy.
So energy is constantly moving onto new forms, while form comes into being and dissolves. Galaxies are energy radiating out and mass/form falling in.
Energy goes from prior to succeeding forms, ie. past to future, while form goes future to past, is it coalesces and dissolves. Time only appears linear, as sequences of events, like the surface of the earth appears flat.
Zz
It’s a loop over there: over here it’s a vicious circle, prohibited by the principle of sufficient reason. If you let an untrue proposition into your logic, you can prove LITERALLY anything. For example you could prove that A = not-A. Which you have…
JM
“Form goes from future to past, as it coalesces and dissolves.” This is really vague stuff. What do you MEAN? Are you saying that “form” gradually comes into existence and gradually disappears again? How is that demonstrating a progression AGAINST the arrow of time? Anyway, show me a form that is in the future: I have never encountered anything that is in the future.
With your flat-earth analogy I suppose you mean that time is cyclical. There may be cycles, but there is no exact repetition: at best there may be “gyres” as Yeats called them, advancing spirals. The differences define the progression of time. As Everett pointed out in his thesis (section on Observation) even an inanimate measuring device requires a memory – if there is no comparison between states before and at/after an event, then no change has been measured.
Logico,
There is only the present and so time is an effect. Form begins, grows, stabilizes, and then breaks down and dissipates. Whether it is events, or material objects, they are progressing along a timeline from start to finish, while the process moves onto other forms. Consider a factory; The product goes start to finish, while the process points the other direction, consuming material and expeling product.
For instance, when you were born, your life was in the future, now some of it is in the past and eventually it will all be in the past, so you as an entity and event goes from future to past. Your problem might be that you are assigning some location to future and past, rather than stages of change.
The point isn’t that time is cyclical in terms of going back where it started, but that it is constantly feeding back on itself. It is like a tapestry being woven of strands pulled from what had been woven, as the past is being consumed by the present, given the energy is conserved and so the past has to give way as part of the process of occurrence.
It’s not fundamentally linear, if the only line is an effect, while occurrence is the only reality.
Keep in mind the surface of the earth we do seem to experience is effectively flat.
JM
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
The past – unlike the future.
@Logicophilosophicus
There are 3 self-consistent loops. Let:
Wf=Wavefunctions(Information), Cn=Cognition, Fi=Fields
(1) Wf combines with Cn, and Fi emerges. Fi then outputs feed-back to Wf and Cn.
(2) Wf combines with Fi, and Cn emerges. Cn then feeds-back to Wf and Fi
(3) Cn combines with Fi and Wf emerges. Wf then sends feed-back to Cn and Fi.
There’s 3 separate complementary descriptions. So there’s no vicious circle.
Logico,
“Time is actually made of “durations”.
Physics treats it as units of duration. My point is duration is the present, as the events unfold.
” We only observe instantaneous states of the universe.”
No, we observe what is manifest. That the “present” seems instantaneous is due to much of this activity occurring at the speed of light and so we have to process it as flashes of perception, which are changing multiple time a second.
Entropy seems based on an atomistic view of reality, in that all these particles should eventually distribute evenly, but what if there is an inherently cyclical nature of reality more fundamental than its quantification? Say the binary of form and energy. One dynamic and expanding out, while the other static and coalescing in. Keep in mind we evolved over millions of years as tool using creatures. That would seem to create a strong bias toward objects, with their actions seemingly a second order function, but those objects are contextual. Form follows function. It is the dynamic, the energy, giving rise to information/form, not necessarily the other way around. So entropy is only form presumably dissipating its energy, overlooking the fact energy is primal to form in the first place. As i said, the most essential features of the universe are galaxies and they are cycles of energy radiating out as form/mass falls in. Basically a cosmic convection cycle.
” Inertia accounts for time.”
No, I said inertia accounts for time being asymmetric, rather than symmetric. Even photons are traveling one direction, not the other. It is when we treat the measure, duration, as somehow more fundamental that what is being measured, action, that we have trouble understanding how the direction of time arises. Duration is not like distance.
Ben Goren
Sorry, I wrote the comment after a bad day, It was dumb, your posts have been interesting to read and stimulating, and that’s maybe why I picked out your name for abuse (!). I don’t agree with you, but until I can debate you in a civilized manner I am the one who should shut up a bit.
JM
Sorry – it’s all too vague. “We observe what is manifest” = “We observe.” How does that tautology answer the assertion that we observe instantaneous states? It doesn’t even look at the idea.
“Duration is the present, as events unfold.” You have again ignored the issue: how do we know events unfold (i.e. that change has taken place)? By comparing two states, before/then/past and after/now/present. Between them is a duration (mathematical physics) or an addition to the sequence of ideas (psychology/philosophy).
Your Humpty-Dumpty use of words doesn’t translate into the language of discussion. My own view of language is that it is a shared model of the world. We not only communicate our ideas in words and syntax, we think verbally. If you don’t get your language straightened out, you can’t think straight.
Zz
It’s not the pi-r-squared you need to worry about, it’s the “viciousness”. My French-Footnote example involved permissible circularity, because a sentence about sentences might well apply to itself. Vicious Circle is a well-known technical term in logic, referring to the fallacy of relying on a conclusion to arrive at that conclusion, e.g. “If A is true, then B is true, then C is true; but the truth of C is seen to imply the truth of A; therefore A is true.” Since this boils down to “If A is true, then (among other things) A is true” it is devoid of force.
Laius coupled with Jocasta – Oedipus emerged;
Oedipus coupled with Jocasta – Antigone emerged;
Imagine Laius was still alive, and coupled with Antigone – can you see that it is impossible for Jocasta to emerge? (In trashy SF stories the Antigone-like character travels back in time, and becomes her mother’s mother, or her own mother… It would still be impossible.)
Baron Munchhausen lifted his horse by its harness to get it -and himself as rider – over an otherwise insurmountable obstacle. In real life, the obstacle remains insurmountable.
@Logicophilosophicus
A scientific theory is *not* a system of axioms from which we make deductions. It’s a coherent set of concepts fitted together to form explanations and make predictions. At root all scientific theories involve some degree of circularity, because in the real world not all concepts can precisely defined, and must always ultimately be grounded in empirical observational data.
Self-consistent loops aren’t a problem. I could easily write computer code to implement the scheme I gave above and it works just fine. The computer doesn’t blow it’s top or melt-down 😉
What do you think neural networks are? They are precisely circular systems where network output can be ‘feed-back’ as input into the system.
Logico,
The photons enter our eyes. Is that too vague?
Time is an effect, like temperature, color, pressure, etc.
“By comparing two states, before/then/past and after/now/present. Between them is a duration (mathematical physics) or an addition to the sequence of ideas (psychology/philosophy).”
Which is called “memory.” There is no underlaying fourth dimension. It is a projection of narrative. Which likely arose from navigation functions, consequently the close spatial connections.
Zz
What predictions has your theory made so far?
JM
Enter, narrative, navigation… these cannot be described without time/change/motion. Temperature and pressure (in a gas, say) are defined according to the kinetics of gases, again explicitly requiring time. v=s/t, etc.
“Which is called memory.” What? A sequence of ideas? A duration? A comparison? Memory is the recall of a past idea, which we compare with a present observation, e.g. I measure an iron rod, heat it, remeasure it and conclude that it has expanded. Can you describe that experiment without the words before and after, or past and present?
Logico,
How would you describe a wave, other than in terms of frequency and amplitude? Does that mean frequency and amplitude are some underlaying platonic property of the universe, which the wave only expresses, or that they are simply descriptive of the nature of waves?
The question isn’t whether time exists. You and I exist. The color red exists. The question is whether time is a description and effect of the process of change, or whether there is some underlaying dimension of “block time” and change within the state of the present is a subjective illusion, as all moments and events co-exist in this fourth dimension. Such that we could time travel through wormholes in the “fabric of spacetime.”