There is only one description of the thing - it requires me, a describer. Since I can describe imaginary things, existence of the "thing being described" isn't even needed.
And the answer to the question, "What is the thing-in-itself?" is "the thing in itself." That is the only answer which captures all that can be captured and all that cannot.
There is no sin in this, nor any mystery. To do otherwise would be to require omnicience - since all things are connected to all other things, and the state of all these interactions evolves through time. The process of conceptualization is handy because it cuts off and limits the extension (the "what is touched") by the thing-in-itself. It's a limiting process of the type we see in model-making, an attempt to gather from the too-large-to-handle picture some elements of interest. When those elements are reliable patterns we then call them laws or rules.
If you like, you can think of the laws as merely a way I communicate my expectations to others about what will happen under certain conditions. There is no stricture imposed on the universe to obey the laws and although we hold some rules as laudable, it's the same thing as when I tell you a coworker is lazy. I am communicating my belief that the coworker, if given the chance, will follow a pattern I call "lazy." The fact that I have identified this pattern doesn't impose the property on the coworker. I might be wrong. They may have changed their work habits. I might be back-stabbing the coworker to gain status for myself. Of course, you are free to form your own opinion on the matter, to examine whatever evidences I submit, and to reevaluate the situation as time marches on. Should my judgement pass your peer review, you may, in turn, start to proclaim the coworker is lazy too. (Which she is.)
I think I was not all that clear. There are only two instances of a thing. What it is, and that which is created by a describer. According to the QM thread, the first instance may be in some question but, I suppose for the sake of sanity, we’ll just assume that the-thing-in-itself does, in fact, possess some manner of reality distinct from the describer of the thing.
In the case of imaginary things the question is, of course, academic. But in the case of everything else, there is a ‘thing-being-described’ (for now). And since we’re in the process of adjudicating the essence of the process of description, the ‘truth’ (which may, in this singular case, actually be the appropriate term) of both the process and the ‘thing’ may have finally become relevant. Also relevant since it at the very least appears as if there is more than a metaphorical relationship between our scientific models and that which is modeled. So far ‘appears’ is as far as anyone has got with that question.
Thus…it is reasonable to generate a phenomenology to describe that which our models occur as. We use the word ‘information’ to represent this phenomenology. It is also reasonable to generate a phenomenology to describe the process by which ‘information’ is processed to achieve these models. We use the word ‘intelligence’ to represent that particular phenomenology.
Neither of these terms has any explicit empirical representation. But…just because they cannot be explicitly defined does not mean that that which they represent has no legitimacy. The word ‘intelligence’ is almost synonymous with ‘human being’, despite the fact that neither has any explicit definition. And the word ‘information’ is also synonymous with ‘thought’…again despite the fact that neither can be explicitly adjudicated. In each case, something of enormous and sufficiently differentiated qualities exists to support the existence of a term to represent it.
This is the meaning of ‘normative’. It occurs across vast swathes of the human landscape. Quite legitimately as well. Thus…the conditions that occur as ‘normative’ cannot be simply dismissed because they lack explicit empirical representation.
I suppose that, even if the truth of reality were somehow resolved it would not necessarily alter the life of any one of us…at least it wouldn’t have to. The limits of our understanding would still be the limits of our understanding. Unfortunately, most folks do not possess the skills of a Wittgenstein in knowing when there are things that ‘must be passed over in silence’. Like all incomprehensible realities, it would inevitably be misunderstood and misrepresented. IOW…if there is a God (of whatever qualities)…it must almost inevitably be intelligent enough to understand how stupid human beings are (or…perhaps more charitably…be intelligent enough to understand the limits of understanding and why they exist).
Currently on whose books?
Indisputable? Go on, I dispute it, on the grounds that not only are you wrong, but that you have no testable hypothesis, there is nothing repeatable about your claims, just vague hand-waving. I watch science being done every day. It is a very clear and simple process, and I know exactly how one tiny little bit of it works. Just because science, many centuries into its existence, came up with evidence that the planet was ancient and that species evolve, it doesn't mean that you bible-bashers can dismiss it. After all, you're always troubled by the concept of evidence. You may not like it, but it is entirely your right to be wrong.
That’s all very nice, but I think you’re talking about someone else. As for what is known about how the brain creates ‘you’ (and therefore…how ‘you’ create science [or anything else])…here is the current consensus position in neuroscience:
“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”
I would suggest that…like Lukraak_Sisser…your ideological zeal is getting the better of you. But if you want to dispute it, go right ahead. Produce this thing you call ‘evidence’. Find me someone who can explain how this happens. I unconditionally guarantee that you will not be able to find anyone anywhere anyhow who can even begin to definitively explain how your brain produces a single letter of a single word of a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single post you or anyone else has ever deposited on these threads.
Since you will not be able to accomplish this… your claim that I am ‘hand-waving’ is itself…hand waving.
Which means….just like I said…science has no idea how science happens. It’s all….faith.
Boggles the mind…it truly does. Why don’t you take a moment and look through the various threads at ISP and count the number of times skeptics describe reality as ‘following the laws of physics’ (…often in direct response to theists who constantly like to claim that science cannot explain everything).
I have no issue with it. Like I said…it’s hardly a controversial statement. Perhaps it will come as something of a surprise to your fellow skeptics that you find it so questionable. It’s quite obviously meant metaphorically (cause it’s backwards…and there was a thread where this very issue was quite explicitly clarified…let me know if you’d like an education and I’ll find it for you)…but it is represented that way because, according to every normative instinct that human beings have…that is how it looks, even to a scientist deeply steeped in rational discourse.
So why don’t we find out where hecd2 stands on all this, since you seem to take issue with so many of your fellow skeptics. We’ll just use a very familiar piece of science as our reference:
E=mc2
Here’s the list of questions you can answer:
1 Was this created / discovered by an intelligent entity? If you want a good definition of the word ‘intelligent’…I will just point to Einstein and say…’that’.
2 We could also take this equation and ask: Would it be reasonable to conclude that a ‘thing’ with the capacity to create / discover / generate / comprehend / apply (any one, any combination, or all of the preceding) this equation would be described by the word ‘intelligent’?
3 If neither ‘created’ or ‘discovered’ is the word you would use (when describing Einstein and this equation)…what word would you use to describe how Einstein arrived at this conclusion?
4 If an astrophysicist / cosmologist / mathematician / physicist is studying experiments from the LHC…does this equation still apply?
5 If an astrophysicist / cosmologist / mathematician / physicist is working on data related to galaxies at the farthest edges of the known universe…does this equation still apply?
6 Is there anywhere in the known universe where it is known or assumed that this equation becomes invalid?
7 Presumably you will agree that the word ‘intelligence’ does some have some manner of normative application. Could you find anyone who would dispute that the author of that equation is a prime…arguably indisputable… example of it (to whatever degree ‘it’ exists as a thing)?
8 Is it, or is it not, generally (normatively) agreed that ‘information’ is what your intelligence (mind) processes? If it is some other variety of ‘thing’ perhaps you could enlighten us as to what that is.
9 Do we actually know what variety of ‘thing’ it is…or if it is a ‘thing’ at all?
10 If you want a definition of ‘information’…I would point to your head and say ‘the pieces that constitute what you are thinking’. If you (again) want a definition of intelligence I would again point to your head and say…’the process that is going on there’. Basically… moving all those pieces (information) around to generate new pieces.
11 Is it, or is it not, generally agreed that ‘consciousness’ and ‘mind’ are essentially equivalent. If you want a definition of ‘consciousness’ I would point to your head and say…’what is there that is generated by the physical activity of the brain but which is not the physical activity of the brain’. ‘You’…in other words. If you look earlier in my post you will notice a statement by a group of neuroscientists in which they differentiate between the physical brain and that which it generates (consciousness / ‘you’). That is the extent of normative understanding at the moment.
Eleven simple questions. Shouldn’t be all that hard. Once we’ve got all that out of the way, we can find out what any of this is all about.
As for my own position…it is simply that we create / discover the laws of physics and that they do describe everything from here to the edge of the universe and back. We (who are the only example of consciousness that we know of) use our intelligence to process information to generate these laws of physics.
I can almost guarantee that you won’t find a credible scientist on the planet who will find anything remotely controversial about a single word in that statement.
I sometimes substitute the word ‘discover’ but the difference is trivial since it is simply a matter of faith. We have no idea either where they come from or how it happens. Even if I use the word create…ultimately your definition is useless because I don’t create the process of creation itself…therefore I am always somehow in the process of discovery, not creation. What matters is…what is it that is generated.. and what is the relationship between what is generated and where it comes from / how it is generated?
It may be true that we do not have explicit empirical definitions for these terms (consciousness, information, intelligence, etc.)…but we still have functional / normative definitions which just about everyone recognizes and uses every moment of every day (including innumerable scientists).
Thus…normatively speaking…a human being is an intelligent entity, by definition.
Normatively speaking…a human mind processes information, by definition (because that is simply the convention we’ve established to describe the ‘stuff-of-thought’).
Normatively speaking…consciousness is what a ‘you’ is…by definition.
Normatively speaking…the phrase “a conscious human being uses information and intelligence to create the laws of physics”…is not in the least bit controversial. It is a normative statement using mutually agreeable meanings to describe an activity.
A few have extended the topic, which is actually quite interesting in its own right. Daniel's posts are just low-hanging fruit.
I would like to find some method by which I could reliably determine authorship/intelligence/design, but haven't yet figured out if one is possible.
…and what if that ‘method’ is some manner of subjective undertaking? There is, in fact, a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is exactly the case. Meaning…you will discover that one is possible when you discover it. It’s not a matter of putting the right words together in the right order…it’s a matter of putting the right words together in the right order…and understanding what they mean (which might depend on something other than words entirely).
…as the old saying goes: “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”
What is amazing is the degree to which this aphorism is accurate…but also the degree to which there does not exist a science on the planet that can explicitly confirm this fact.
So much for science!
This is hardly a revelation though. In virtually every corner of the planet and every moment of history can be found examples of human wisdom that point to these conclusions. They’re not science…but I still prefer what Wittgenstein had to say about science:
“Man has to awaken to wonder - and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.”
I wonder if there will ever occur a ‘science’ that has the capacity to explain conclusions like that?
"Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".
Really…that’s it!
As things currently stand, science cannot explain what anything actually is, where everything actually comes from, what you are, or how you (or science) can explain anything at all!
In fact…all we do have are models…and we don’t even know what the explicit relationship is between the models and whatever-it-is that all the models describe / represent. They work real well of course…all these models. But nobody has a clue why that is. ‘Coincidence’ just doesn’t seem to cut it.
So basically…we’re ultimately left with one giant question mark…about everything (…yup…everything!). And ‘everything’ is in the process of being reduced to something called ‘information’. Thus…what you, me, and everything somehow is…is one vast case of information processing. Which…just by coincidence…is how most computer scientists like to define consciousness. You. Who knows what that all means. Not me, that’s for sure. But if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck…maybe it is a duck…just maybe.
…and I guess we can also dispense with the corollary of the g.o.t.g. fallacy…just so we don’t waste time.
“If God (or ‘whatever’) created / creates everything…what created God?”
I would simply respond: “Assuming that this thing ‘God’ is whatever-it-is that created / creates 15 billion light years of everything…time, space, maybe even additional dimensions, absolutely insane levels of every kind of mathematical complexity comprehensible and incomprehensible, consciousness, reason, logic, emotions, intelligence…even science itself…etc. etc. etc….
…what evidence is there that you or anyone could even begin to comprehend the answer to ‘what created God’? Especially ….ESPECIALLY…when it can easily be conclusively demonstrated that neither you nor any science on the planet come anywhere close to knowing what you yourself even are!
…so, given that you have yet to comprehend the existence of an entity that has the limited qualities of a few decades of existence in a small corner of galactic real-estate that does not come close to even comprehending itself (aka: you) …what even remote reason is there to believe that this thing (you) could even begin to comprehend the origins of that which not only creates you but which creates something of the dimensions just described?
Plainly…none!
