KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Commentary 37 (to R8 by Muller)

NO ONTOLOGY NO PHYSICS ?
by John Mikes
30 May 2001, posted 12 June 2001

[ I have added paragraph number in {brackets} - HFJM ]

{1}
«INTRODUCTION»

«Herbert Muller's [R8] raised very relevant questions in the MIR-notMIR topic and related thinking. In the present Comment I want to apologize for not taking up all of them since over the past half year since I composed <C12> my thinking changed re some points and I cannot defend my former position against HM's now agreeable remarks.

{2}
I want to include some ideas from *physicists* by education, who, however, negate (or at least question - evade?) the validity of formal physics. I have not (yet?) absorbed such thinking in toto but did not discount its validity either. This writing has a double purpose: it is both a reply and an exposition of some of my recent (modified) views. My present addition is enclosed into « - » signs - I am not changing HM's [markings], especially his "quotations" from my C12 post in quotation marks (" - ").- »

{3}
[HM's par #1] - [INTRODUCTION]

[John Mikes' Commentary 12 is a particular challenge to me, chiefly because I am not a physicist.] ... [... until further notice I assume that the basic conceptual questions are not different whether one deals with physics or with the mind-brain relation (or also with other questions). Thus I find it always of interest to discover common points of thinking in both fields.]

«JM: General remark: I am not a physicist either and secondary studies don't transform - only impress - one's mindset. In some cases into a rebellion.»

{4}
[ I will start here (Part A) with some notes on JM's view as described in the last part of his commentary. My comments are largely in the form of questions. This is followed by some more general remarks in Part B, and a discussion of ontology in physics in Part C. Quotations from Mikes are in "quotation marks", my remarks are in [brackets]. - ]

---------------------------

{5}
[Part A]

[2]
" (3) … The goal is a 'followable' working hypothesis for a construct of the world with the now paradoxical findings included, without an involvement of 'supernatural' help. I am aware that the supernaturalists will retort: "easy to exclude an extra supernatural, if you make it part of the natural" - but so be it. "

[ I am not certain about the meaning of "supernatural" here, does it refer to religious teachings ? Or to metaphysics, as in "realism" ?]

{6}
«The word was used to cut out some broader concept of a Creator, be it a god, or a pantheistic nature-phenomenon, a designing higher intelligence. Exclusion of 'miracles, mystical occurrences' at whim or necessity.»

[3]
" I have to start with the Plenitude, a zero-information infinite dynamic invariance of the all-interchanging everything. More than what we would include into a TOE and without the quantized equational restrictions of such. It is a total symmetry of a dynamic *process* in nonlocal and atemporal freedom - hard to visualize within the usual terminology of the physics-impaired. Not a static construct."

{7}
[ As a physics-impaired person, I assume that you mean a mind-independent (ie, metaphysical) process, even if it is not static, and from what you say in the following, this seems confirmed; but see also [7] below : perhaps you want to leave this undecided ? Or both simultaneously ? In alternation ? I am not trying to make a joke here, actually a continuous re-evaluation of one's position is probably more helpful than one or another firm conviction. This question will come up a number of times in the following. ]

{8}
«Physics-impaired we all are. Our language, our thoughts are space-time based conceptual ideas, unless paradoxical. The atemporality of a change or a causal connection disturbs a wording, even thinking. Even the time-reversal in QM is mostly unnatural and one has to 'force' the mind to accept its use. We simply CANNOT think in reversing cause and effect. I am sorry to state that this is my problem as well. 'Metaphysical' may be anything outside one's 'physical' system belief, which will be put as uncertain below. »

«and so on in this spirit of 'physical thinking' in a denial of physics. They go way beyond the scope of the mind-body problem and the reality/virtuality or sub/objective phases. I gave a taste of it to raise the possibility that "WE" become obsolete in our thinking?»

{9}
[4] " Since it includes everything, the infinite system occasionally ends up with some asymmetry as well, (if not otherwise: by grouping together similar elements) which, however, dynamically transcend back into the symmetrical invariance. Such asymmetric elements - symmetry breaks - are the Big Bangs and the resulting observable construct (complexity) is called a universe. The fulguration is atemporal and returns into the Plenitude-symmetry from which it formed. This is *"the Plenitude View".* I would not assign a MIR to the Plenitude: with its zero-information dynamics it is different from our concept of a "reality". However, it is 'MI' (= mind independent). "

{10}
[ What you call "the infinite system" ("everything") seems to be seen as mind-independent, and thus it does not include the mind. If this plenitude shows "asymmetries", it has already (MI-pre-fabricated ?) structures, which would seem to indicate presence of some information, despite its zero-information content. The second part of this statement contradicts the first - how do you explain this ? The way I understand the universe of physicists, it is not free of structure. It is what physicists call (ie, believe to be) reality, usually seen as mind-independently pre-structured. Is your "plenitude" different from that, and if so in what sense ? "Reality" in my opinion is (for everybody including physicists) the result of investing a reality-belief into created structures (derived from zero structure, 0-D); it does not come alone, without a subject (an "observer"). Also, how do you (or how does anyone) decide what "are" and are not "elements" in the sense mentioned by you ? This is the same question as : how did Wittgenstein decide what was and what was not "the case" ? ]

{11}
«One deluge of questions! Such scrutiny contributed to the changes I referred to above. I attempt some reply in a corrected(?) earlier sense, while below I will show a different view. All we 'know' is in the mind, accordingly "nothing we know of" can be MI. Furthermore, all our reality consists of impact interpreted by the mind. My earlier usage of MIR was based on the epistemic evolution during which cognizance - earlier unknown - accumulated in (became accessible to) the mind. Logically it had to be existing but inaccessible, a close but not identical term used as 'Independent'. The word, however, tricked me with its meanings: "has nothing to do with" or "not generated by". In universe terms (see below) WE are part of the universe, eo ipso our mind cannot be independent from it: it is part of it as well. All that changes when the idea of an Observer Moment is introduced: we have an actual mind-content and that is it. Past or future are not provable, physical systems neither, the existence is virtual with all connotations as the momentarily available mind content as the single observation we can make. Let me illustrate this position below. »

---------------------------------

{12}
« A DIGRESSION: »

«Excerpts from a discussion forum of mostly physics-educated young thinkers who express non-conform ideas. To keep their privacy I will refer to initials A,B,C, only. The list address: everything-list@eskimo.com, discussion time February 2001 between A(>) and C(>>), B (unmarked). I start in medias res.»

---------------------------------

"......."

"......."

{13}
What was the point of Anthropic Reasoning 101? «reasonable» anthropic ideas apply to 'life' in 'space' etc., 'they' assume a physical universe which is the substrate for a system which generates thoughts. {«Our thoughts that is, anthropic ones for the OM [Observer Moment] - JM»}

"Life" is a high-level concept, but the property of being an "observer" may not be, and that's basically what this debate is about. And I don't think that what I was saying was trivial -- I've seen plenty of discussions about the anthropic principle get bogged down by the fact that different people are using subtly different definitions without realizing it, so I wanted to define things clearly at the outset. They can be interpreted this way, but they don't have to be. The copernican anthropic principle can be described entirely in terms of the probability of being one observer-moment vs. another one, which is all I'm really assuming -- I tend not to believe in the dualistic "observer-moments vs. physical substrate" view either.

{14}
I think this is bollocks. A 'physical' universe is a massive assumption, which I say again: I do not share. I assert that only your current thought exists, as far as you know. And your current thought includes a contemplation of the anthropic principle.

Yes, but I'm assuming you're not really a solipsist, right? Even though you can never "prove" the existence of anything other than your current thought, I had assumed from other comments you made that you at least believed in the existence of a large set of observer-moments, perhaps with some kind of measure assigned to the set. Am I wrong?

...

the "reference class" can only consist of observer-moments that are using anthropic reasoning?

{15}
Yes, the reference is OMs which include thoughts about the anthropic principle. Why do you think the reference class should include only thoughts about the anthropic principle? Why not all observer-moments?

I do say that it doesn't work even with the multiple universes. It assumes that 'life' requires a suitable physical substrate. I believe that this is almost certainly false.

{16}
When you have an experience of interacting with another human, do you believe you are in some sense interacting with an observer-moment separate from your own? How about an animal, or a computer program? My own view is that we can indeed describe reality entirely in terms of observer-moments, but that what we call "physical" patterns may just be other observer-moments viewed "from the outside" in some sense. This is equivalent to the panpsychist view endorsed by Chalmers, which says that even a simple physical system like a thermostat has some consciousness associated with it ... note that in this view it doesn't make much difference whether the "physical system" has its own independent existence, or whether a "physical system" is just what an observer-moment looks like when viewed from the outside by another observer-moment. Clearly, OMs containing thoughts about the anthropic principle can exist. That much we can say. We have no firm evidence to suggest that any other constructs exist (although, of course, my current OM does include 'memories' of other thoughts). OK, but do you believe in the existence of non-'A' OMs? You can't be sure they exist either. I think a TOE only has to be "plausible", not "provable" ... otherwise you can't go beyond solipsism. ......... (and so on)

-------------------------------------------

{17}
«...and another part, showing the passionate belief in non-belief...»

-------------------------------------------

.... It is pure speculation that 'simpler' thoughts can exist. I'm not sure how you define thought complexity. It is perfectly likely that the thought you are having now is the simplest thought in existence – even though it includes speculation about what possible, 'simpler', thoughts _might_ exist.

As I said, anything's possible, including the fact that my current observer-moment is the only thing in existence. But we won't get very far designing a TOE if we aren't willing to make a few unprovable assumptions. The reason I believe in "simple" observer-moments is that I expect a good TOE to define OMs mathematically, in terms of computations or something similar.

{18}
You don't even know that 'you' have a 'computer' - something that itself requires a 'physical world'. You are making dozens of unjustifiable leaps here.

What is your definition of "unjustifiable?" Is any belief other than solipsism unjustifiable? Anyway, as I said, you don't need to believe in a physical world to believe that OMs correspond to computations, or some other mathematical structure (depending on what form your TOE takes).

But in that case, why do you think that observer-moments of the laws of physics operating normally should be any more common than observer-moments seeing crazy violations of physical law?

{19}
Can you not understand that I don't believe in physics?

My question was about observer-moments which see the *appearance* of an orderly physical world vs. observer-moments which see crazy disorder.

There is no proof of a physical world. There is no proof of a physical world. There is no proof of a physical world. There is no proof of a physical world. There is no proof of a physical world. There is no proof of a physical world. There are no laws. There is just this OM, that is all 'I' knows. All 'I' knows is this current thought.

{20}
I may not have been making myself clear, but as I've been saying, none of my arguments ultimately depend on the assumption of a "physical world." And again, I thought we were discussing TOE's, not some ultimate philosophical idea of what we can "know"...if God asked you to bet on the existence or nonexistence of other OMs besides your current one, what would you say?

------------------------------

{21}
« I apologize for the long digression, illustrating the uncompromising vigor of "physically thinking " about denying "physically thinking".»

« In view of the above 'excerpt, nothing in an OM (observer moment) can ever be MI: it is a momentary reflection IN the mind (if one ever accepts this concept). What I had "in mind" (earlier) was a system being construed without the INPUT of (our) mind-work. However: if it is within the OM, it complies with being (and only being) interpreted by the mind. So it seems I have to resign from the MIR-noMIR topic altogether and I do until the question clears up in MY mind (OM or not). I don't share the 'excerpt's opinion that my existence (my actual OM) does not have to be supported by a physical (whatever that may be) system. I really feel the trap of falling into total solipsism - IMO the ultimate unscience. I feel brainwashed into natural science. »

--------------------------

{22}
«Returning to [4]:»

« About HM's question concerning 'structure/non structure' (zero or nonzero info) pushes me into a semantic quagmire: I describe a system: (as drawn up) the 'Plenitude', of which I DO NOT WANT to say (know) anything else except the circumstances which generate Big Bangs. This is why I separate the 'Pl-view' so strictly from the 'Universe-view'. I deny any formation to get into our mind from a Pl-view, because by design we have no access to the Pl - next to speculation- ie. no Pl-observation ever. The transitory asymmetry-state is a fulguration with no consequence within the Pl-view, while it is a long lasting and wide-extending ('physical'?) system in the Universe-view. Details of the Plenitude-system are not explicable in our one-sided human terms and logic or its (physical or nonphysical) Universe-view. It would be a sci-fi escapade - wouldn't the entire hypothesis be one?»

{23}
«I was asked by my lifelong critic "why do we have to speculate in such topics?" Questions about "origins" arose ever since homo started to abstract the existence and the mind stepped above the mere physiological survival. Teachers of all thousands of religions gave perfect answers, fitting the mental evolutionary level of the actual society, by applying to gullibility and faith. When science started to spread among the negligibly few of the thinking ones in western society, to replace the creationist belief – a scientific version was sought to believe in. "The world has got to be started somehow" and it led to the faith in a quantum fluctuation, a Big Bang. This is the reigning belief today. It still works on a category mismatch: the 'creation' of something from nothing - in our physical commonplace terms. Disproportion nothingness into structure. With paradoxes galore. The jury is out: a choice between a supernatural creating force and a category mismatch. My reason for setting up the entire Pl-system is to raise "reasonable doubt" against a 'judgement' of mystique, religion, vs a flimsy quantum flipflap as 'originating' our world. I postulated a fictitious system, described with semantics of the ongoing natural science, which by its regular description, generates 'things' like our universe. And only that. To view it with the eye of physics-of-the-universe is a mistake. NOTHING in the universe view applies to the Plenitude except the semantics. The asymmetric complexity originated as a 'necessarily emerging' quale and after it was formed it returns into nonexistence when the infinite invariance swallows back the fulguration. An irregularity 'in/by' the system, not a structural ingredient of the system itself - in a Pl-view. A fluctuation.

{24}
This is far from the OM, which is a universe-view - variation with thoughts - (maybe) including the Plenitude as well. Anthropic thoughts, as a consequence of our anthropically understood (?) existence and way of thinking.»

[6] " * " The Universe-View" * - from the inside - is subject to the structure of the appropriate universe. Our view includes aeons (or picoseconds) of time, parsec-billions (or nanometers) of space, a causality-sense, which is in our culture quantitative (as in human mathematics). We have no access from this universe to other universes which may have totally different (physics?) structure and sensing/acting (mental?) capabilities. "

{25}
[ Do you mean the universes of other experiencers (say animals, or humans 5000 years ago, or in 5000 years from now), or else universes-in-themselves ? If not these, what are you referring to ? And actually, what is the reason for you to suggest that there "are" (or may "be") other universes ? ]

« I am not talking about "OUR" universe as seen by different observers at different times. The (total, meaning quanti and quali) infinity of the Plenitude postulates unlimited infinite fluctuations in universe-forming occasions. The infinity assumed in quality as well draws the assumption of the infinitely different quality of the universes. We have no reason or means to restrict such infinite-drawing conclusions. It did not start with Everett's Multiple Universe Interpretation. The idea might have earlier roots for sure. However: most 'Multiworld' views imagine similar structures to ours, while I assume that in the infinite variability the multitude of universes have an infinite variety of qualia. One cannot assume the generation of ONE exceptional item in infinity. (God?) »

{26}
[7] " This 'universe view' expands the plenitudinal-view symmetry break and restoration into a (long) time-expansion, a zero-sum process which we call evolution. (Darwin only considered a select part of life *buildup* phenomena in our terrestrial biosphere). This process of the universe-view is MIR(1), the 'reality' of our universe. It includes the development of higher complexity ingredients, where the response to information turned 'sensing', subsequently into 'thinking' (see above "Abstraction") as in such complexities as called the human animal. (My apologies to other thinking animals). It is MIR in the sense that the development of the mind is only passively included in the evolutionary process. It exists independently of (but including) the mind and its activity. "

{27}
[ The "passivity" of the mind needs clarification. One can insist that the structuring of color, smell, pain, is something which we do not deliberately decide, and the same is true for most structuring of shapes (Gestalten). The empiricists took this to mean (implicitly for the most part) that they are "given" in a pre-structured way ("to the senses"). But this is, in my opinion, where they got into difficulty, which has persisted to this day in science. The point is that even when no voluntary action is involved, the qualities and structures would not be there without our doing (ie, our action, which may be entirely non-deliberate, largely biologically determined). Is it not an error to conclude from the involuntary nature of the structuring process that they are mind-independently constituted ? ]

{28}
«I think HM is absolutely right: there is nothing in our mind that can be mind-independent: interpreting anything is mind function and a 'passivity' may refer only to the lack of active constructing-building input by the mind. This with the above OM-considerations even destroys more efficiently the MI(R) aspect I raised and hereby withdrew.»

[ It seems that some theoretical physicists in particular leave the question of reality undecided, in limbo, and concentrate on mathematics without specifying what exactly is being mathematicised. This ("shut up and calculate") is probably better than naïve realism or materialism (ie, static metaphysics), but it does not help with the reality question. One has to acknowledge that reality is the result of the investment of reality-beliefs in (posited, asserted) structures created within experience. Some QM theorists agree in principle that they can only talk about experience, not about a world (or universe) in-itself. But there is a high MIR-relapse rate among them, it seems. ]

{29}
«I agree and probably join the 'relapse'. Even "experience" is in limbo with the OM image, where we "think" of having experience, past knowledge, or future plans.»

[8](snipped)

« Both my [8] and [9] are wrongly put MIR speculations.. I agree with HM's remarks to both.»

[9](snipped)

------------------------------

{30}
Part B

[12]

[ In the following, I will briefly respond to some additional points JM makes, as comments on TA32, in the first part of his C12, without repeating what I have said above. ]

" <1> … I am viewing the concepts from a natural science angle … "He said so" is no argument I would accept. " [ This last is essential for any thinking about conceptual structures. ]

" The mind-brain relation is principally negated for two reasons: they belong into qualitatively different domains and the functions are not comparable (transmutable), necessary for a 'relation' development. "

{31}
[ I am not sure about the meaning of this statement. There is surely some relation between the two, no matter how they are defined, thus I don't see how it can be negated. ]

«At the time of writing I was impressed by opinions saying that the brain is the multitude of neurons. I referred to the usual problem of a 'mind-body' treatise considered mostly as a cornerstone in monistic – dualistic positions. In this respect I referred to the quality mismatch between histologist data and mental observations expressed (or tried to) as a (mostly causal?) "relation". I agree with HM's remark two par. below, yet I still don't find an untold kind of relation real (existing) (if they are not even proposed), upon the two mentioned ones which are said to be 'not acceptable'. Maybe 'deny' is an inappropriate word for disregarding and 'negate' for not going into discussing it.»

{32}
" The mental aspect of the complexity human is a complexity by itself and not accessible either by reductionist analysis in its complex qualia, nor by physical measurements on material compositions. No causal connection has been established between the brain function and the mind function so far. "

[ I agree with this part, but this only means that the relation is neither a reduction of one to the other, nor an objective causal one. ]

« Agree»

{33}
[15] " In [20] "words are only used by humans" may be extended to animals 'who' *understand* words (a form of usage, however passive) like "heel" or other word-commands by tamers even without the use of body language. The active use of words has anatomical barriers, although a parrot produces understandable words, (and according to latest news, there is a kind of African parrot that even comprehends the meaning of some words it said). "

[ However, animals do not invent language in the human sense, nor are they dependent on language use in the same way. ]

«Nor do humans invent the song of the whales 'their way' »

{34}
[16] " [30]: I agree with the failure of a TOE as an equational system. One cannot compose quantitative correlations to all-natural (complexity) systems. Quantizing is restricted to the already known parts, known by a reductionist analysis. "

[ This ("already known parts") is an interesting point. To what extent would you say this is recognized in the scientific community ? In view of the prominent tendency to extend objective theories to everything (including, not excluding, experience, as "the mind" or "consciousness"), one gets the impression : not by many. ]

{35}
« TOE is usually used as 'equationally expressed' in physical terms. An equation cannot include unknown items and their relationships (as: ' = '), so it is restricted to the 'past' knowledge. This position - as far as my incomplete information extends - is recognized only in select and restricted segments of the scientific community, e.g. researchers of 'certain' complexity. Topics HM mentions as extension are mostly unidentified in the 'scientific community of obsolescence' (pardon me the expression) - as the guardians of formalism based on past (reductionistic) science. The participants of the 'list' I referred to in the Digression are not part of such restrictions, although they sometimes interchange the 'computational' or the 'computable' (in a broad sense, not numerically though) with 'existing'.»

{36}
" [50] … "thinking does not come from the brain, the brain comes from thinking." I had to look closer into the second part "

[ The second one is the important part. The crux of the mind-brain relation is that : the brain comes from the mind (not vice versa) in the same sense as all mental structures originate in experience (commonly called "the mind" or "consciousness"), which is our only entrance (see TA32 [50ff]). But this structure creation should not be mis-understood as only "social construction" (which is now a fashionable word) : social construction itself is derived (ie, it is a secondary step), since it requires structure building by individuals as its basis. ]

{37}
«HM's (correct) explanation comes from the recent change in the meaning of 'brain', I briefly touched above (vs. the widely used term equating the brain with a multitude of neurons), so - and I agree - we should understand 'brain' as more than just the contents of the skull even more than such contents plus their biological reactions? Some could ask: what distinction would we so have between brain and mind? I consider this a trap-question, because the natural reply may be: mind is restricted to mental activity while brain is the conductor of the body (as well) - what could easily continue into: so mind IS the consciousness (formally speaking)? No, it is not (formally speaking), if we include an unconsciousness (strictly bodily: by anesthesia) into a formal consciousness term and accept the role of the (new) brain in thinking.»

{38}
«Complexity-wise I consider the mind the as a mental aspect of the complexity human, while the brain (in its extension-meaning) is the material tool translating the nonlocal-atemporal mind into a matterly existence. It is a transitional step serving the Chalmersian problem, while the skull-content and CNS are the material tools to 'execute' after the translation. Indeed that would be a - *mind-body-(and in between)* - problem. Who knows with how much 'in between'?»

{39}
[21] " … I found the first part obvious: physiological, physical, chemical functions cannot be transferred from the "movement of matter" (Engels) into another quale – the mental domain of thought, emotion, decision - the non-cgs describable movements. However ... Mark Hubey indicated … the multitude of neurons in cooperation can transcend quality barriers. I would now rephrase this and Lenin's maxim of "quantity going into quality" as: the multifold connectivity may assemble into a complexity of its own, maybe including more, not yet observed factors and develop new qualia. So far such additional functions did not show up in laboratory experiments … "

{40}
[ For me this is an erroneous argument. Because quantities are secondary developments of thinking, depending for instance on availability of numbers (cf. Hauser, R5 of TA32 [B5]) which originate inside originally unstructured experience, it is not possible to come from quantity to quality (both appear to be viewed objectively by JM and MH). The proposition is of the same type as trying to go from other concepts (eg, brain function) to mind (experience), or from object to subject. It is safe to say that this will never happen in laboratory experiments, nor elsewhere. ]

{40}
« Although HM in the preceding par. enforces my position from which I forced myself into approaching the opinion of many (mostly physicists/mathematicians, among them Mark H) I have to question the statement of quantity - quality intransitionality. As Georg Cantor said: a set is a many looking like a one - including the set-quality, not findable in 'one'. The 'army' of many being different from some single soldiers and many examples show the complexity-formation of quantity of units – once assembled into an entity . This is in essence the "more" of Aristotle in the 'total vs. the sum of ingredients'. Qualia emerge by the mere multiplying of components, 5 cows vs. a stampede of a big herd of bison, the attitude when owning $100 vs a $billion, loving one wife or a harem of 50, etc. Assemblages beget (I don't like to use 'emerge') complexities with developing qualia (group-characteristics) not deducible from the characteristics of the single ingredients. If I want to stand corrected - and I do - I emphasize the 'assemblage' of many vs the mere number difference. (Only if the multitude of 11 b neurons act in concert... and yet, they still don't think, nor does the 'renewed' brain. What does? still open to speculation.) »

{41}
[23] " Although brain and mind are part of the (static) MIR,...snip

«I delete this part with concurring with HM's reply and explanations -

mostly of the 'as-if-MIR' concept. I have no further comment to this point.»

-------------------------------

{42}

Part C

[26]

[27]

[28]

«Informative and meaningful paragraphs, no comment here.»

-------------------------------

John Mikes