Those darned Laws Of Physics

Soubrette

The Philosophy Spice Girl
S
Joined
Apr 3, 2002
Messages
671
Hey all

First, for those interested - I'm back after a long and arduous trip :)

Second - before I left I was involved in a discussion regarding Frank's jingle. I have no idea where it is anymore so I hope that those involved will indulge me in continuing with a new and more relevant thread.

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.

So we have what appears to be a syllogism - two premises leading to a conclusion.

Now I am going to admit that I have no problem with the conclusion assuming the person it is aimed at is a Hard Materialist. If you follow these beliefs then the idea that people obey the laws of physics seems to me an obvious one - I want to discuss this.

But I also want to discuss the actual syllogism itself - where does it stand or hold for you? Is there something wrong with the premises? Or in the conclusion?

Please can I ask that everyone concentrate on the syllogism and its conclusion exclusively - I'm not interesting a bashing thread - I believe we have plenty of those already.

I also don't want the thread to become a battle of crappy syllogisms - if you want to use one as an example then please do, but also explain clearly why you are using it.

And would those who were kind enough to post to the other thread please feel free to repeat their initial points - I would be very grateful if they would :)

Sou

(Edited to add: The journey back was long and arduous - as well as incredibly boring. The holiday itself wasn't :) It occured to me that trip could have more than one meaning - but now I'm babbling so I'll shut up :o ;))
 
Hiya Sou:

I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following: The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?

Let me know.
 
I am sorry . . . who are you again?

[Stop that!--Ed]

Ah . . . yes, pull up a chair, I will have Seed bring you some tea unless you prefer something more "medicinal."

Anyways, I remain unaware of anything done by humans with free will that breaks the laws of physics. Thus, I am afraid I have recognized the whole rant about "free will" rather facile.

--J.D.
 
Frank ... er, I mean Doctor X:

Of course you know who Sou is.
 
Win said:
Hiya Sou:

I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following: The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?

Let me know.
Click to expand...

Hey Win :)

Never become an advertiser :p

How does your phrase differ substantively from the original "atoms obey the laws of physic"?

What I suppose I'm asking is that your premise certainly seems more precise than the original premise but the original premise conveys the same meaning does it not? If you don't think so then explain to me why not :)

Dr X (and Ed)

Are you saying that for you this syllogism holds?

And I'll have a hot chocolate if there's one going :p

Sou
 
I say obedience only applies to cognizant beings anyway. Anything that "obeys" simply because it is acted upon by a physical force isn't really "obeying" the force, it has no capabilities of its own. Atoms don't "obey," but people can.
 
Sou:

You ask:

How does your phrase differ substantively from the original "atoms obey the laws of physic"?
Click to expand...

And I respond, well, that's exactly what I was asking when I said, "I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following."

Ultimately, I already have all the answers. ;)

I'm just trying to make it fun for the rest of you. :D
 
c4ts said:
I say obedience only applies to cognizant beings anyway. Anything that "obeys" simply because it is acted upon by a physical force isn't really "obeying" the force, it has no capabilities of its own. Atoms don't "obey," but people can.
Click to expand...

So are you saying, c4ts that you only have a problem with the word obey? That if we were to change the intial premise to Win's suggestion then, for you, the syllogism would hold?

Win - if you know it all, then share with your eager acolyte :p In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original? In my opinion it doesn't, but if you think differently then I'd like to know :D

And you always make things...interesting ;)

Sou
 
Sou:

You ask:

In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have offered it as an alternative.

Nevertheless, you say:

In my opinion it doesn't
Click to expand...

and I'd be interested in reading exactly why you feel the two are effectively the same.
 
Sou:

Where are your Banshees?

Anyways, I believe we have some Giardelli's left. . . .

For me, agreeing with the semantics over "obey," the syllogist lacks a point.

If I trip I fall.

If I toss you over the balcony, you scream and fail your arms for an amusing second or two before you demonstrate Newtonian interaction with the pavement followed by the Hounds removing what is left.

All of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

I suppose some wish to argue that my choice to toss you is somehow governed and decreed by a law somewhere . . . an equation.

Certainly, if you ask the Staff direct the Quartet to perform their rendition of "Achy Breaky Heart" this will elicit said demonstration of gravity, though Staff may get to you before I do.

Of course, that is your choice.

I find this whole "free will" debate rather sophmoric, frankly, right up there with the "how do you know that the tree is still there when you are not looking at it?"

If someone wishes to delude himself that he has no free will, very well.

--J.D.
 
Soubrette said:


So are you saying, c4ts that you only have a problem with the word obey? That if we were to change the intial premise to Win's suggestion then, for you, the syllogism would hold?

Win - if you know it all, then share with your eager acolyte :p In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original? In my opinion it doesn't, but if you think differently then I'd like to know :D

And you always make things...interesting ;)

Sou
Click to expand...

Well, it's not simply semantics, or I could just look up "obey" and say Franko wasn't fitting the same definition in both cases. It's the distortion of the concept of obedience, or of what most people consider obedience to be.

I disagree entirely with Franko's use of the word "obey," or any other word he would use to mean the same thing. Obedience applies to a relationship between a master and a subject, where the master orders the subject. For example, "dogs can obey humans" or "dogs can obey the commands of humans" are essentially the same thing (although the wording is different). But to say "clothes obey humans" or "clothes obey human commands" doesn't quite make sense. Franko says TLOP are the commands of the Goddess when he says "you obey TLOP," so when Franko says "atoms obey TLOP," he means "atoms obey the commands of the Goddess" which doesn't make sense without antrhopomorphizing the atoms first, which is absurd. Atoms obey commands no better than clothes. Also, are there any situations concerning obedience, other than non-examples, where disobedience is impossible?
 
Win - just to make it easier for me, let's look at the two alternatives.

The somewhat basic but snappy:

"Atoms obey the Laws of Physics"

And the more substantial:

"The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?"

So we have the idea that the behaviour of atoms rather than the atoms themselves are the ones affected by the laws of physics. This, I think, in the first instance, is more accurate but surely referring to "atoms" themselves would still be understood.

If I could use an example. My car works when I start the ignition - surely it would be more accurate to say - my car's engine works when I start the ignition. However understanding is certainly not precluded by the use of the imprecise original sentence?

Then we have the words "obey" and "described" Again the second word, for me. is more accurate - but the word obey is still meaningful in its context.

In short - the new premise is semantically more correct but the original one conveys the same meaning - if in a much simple and more colloquial way.

Now I've shown you mine - you show you me yours :)

Dr X - it always amazes me that people wish to take part in a discussion only to pronounce on how boring it is :p

Win - please stop teasing Dr X.

c4ts - so again - if we put Win's suggestion in the place of the initial premise - would the syllogism hold for you

The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics
People are made of atoms
The behaviour of People is described by the laws of physics

Thanks

Sou
 
Soubrette said:

c4ts - so again - if we put Win's suggestion in the place of the initial premise - would the syllogism hold for you

The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics
People are made of atoms
The behaviour of People is described by the laws of physics

Thanks

Sou
Click to expand...

No. That's just doing the same thing again, this time with behavior.
 
Soubrette said:
Hey all

First, for those interested - I'm back after a long and arduous trip :)

Second - before I left I was involved in a discussion regarding Frank's jingle. I have no idea where it is anymore so I hope that those involved will indulge me in continuing with a new and more relevant thread.

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.

So we have what appears to be a syllogism - two premises leading to a conclusion.
Click to expand...


People are made of atoms? What exactly is that supposed to mean? The only meaning that I can attach to it is that people can be completely understood once we know everything about the atoms and their properties, and their interactions of other atoms comprising a persons body. But in supposing this we are implicitly assuming the correctness of both reductionism and the notion that the world is physically closed. But once we assume this then it necessarily follows that people obey the laws of physics.

In other words the argument establishes precisely nothing because the second premise on its own entails the conclusion. And the second premise I would assert is far from being certain.
 
Soubrette said:
Win - just to make it easier for me, let's look at the two alternatives.

The somewhat basic but snappy:

"Atoms obey the Laws of Physics"

And the more substantial:

"The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?"

So we have the idea that the behaviour of atoms rather than the atoms themselves are the ones affected by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

I think your very last sentence displays the basic attitude that Win objects to -- it certainly sets off warning lights for me.

Nothing is "affected" by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are mathematical formulae that humans have invented to describe objective behavior that we observe. They certainly do a goob job of describing many things we see, but a) they are admittedly incomplete, and b) it is only a human assumption that nature must work in a predictable, rationally knowable way. That outlook has worked for us pretty well so far, but we assume that it must always be so at our own peril.

Suppose that we were watching a basketball game, and trying to figure out the rules. It seems pretty obvious at first glance that two points are scored whenever a basket is made. If all we ever saw was a game where no three-point shots were successful, we might even conclude that two points per basket was a fundamental "law of basketball." But we would be wrong, simply because our observation was incomplete. Now, obviously, further observation would help us figure out the more subtle rules -- but could we ever be 100% sure that we knew all of the rules? What if there was some obscure rule that had just never come up?

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's a mistake for us to assume that the laws of physics that we have derived dictate the behavior of nature, just as it would be a mistake to assume that the "laws of basketball" we derived from watching a game for half an hour dictated the behavior of the game itself.

In my opinion, the phrase "atoms obey the laws of physics" underscores that difference. It implies that the "laws of physics" are prescriptive rather than descriptive, which is the attitude that opens the door for nonsense of the Franko variety.

Does that make any sense?

Jeremy
 
Sou:

Now I've shown you mine - you show you me yours
Click to expand...

'kay.

The word "obey" conveys the idea that the laws of physics are some kind of "meta-cop" that dictate the action of things that exist in the physical world. The "laws of physics" say jump, and we mere partciles say "how high."

The fact that we use the phrase, "the laws of physics," to describe our understanding of the world is just an accident of language.

Even assuming that when we talk about the "laws of physics," we're really talking about the *ultimate* laws of physics, all we're saying is: The behaviour of atoms is described in the following way.

If you'd like to maintain that we can get fro there to "Atoms obey the laws of physics," I'd love to read the argument.
 
Win,

The word "obey" conveys the idea that the laws of physics are some kind of "meta-cop" that dictate the action of things that exist in the physical world. The "laws of physics" say jump, and we mere partciles say "how high."

The fact that we use the phrase, "the laws of physics," to describe our understanding of the world is just an accident of language.

Even assuming that when we talk about the "laws of physics," we're really talking about the *ultimate* laws of physics, all we're saying is: The behaviour of atoms is described in the following way.

If you'd like to maintain that we can get fro there to "Atoms obey the laws of physics," I'd love to read the argument.
Click to expand...

I agree totally (imagine that :p). Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.

Of course, it is all irrelevant, since this failed attempt at a syllogism is intended to show that materialism is incompatible with Libertarian free-will, which none of the materialists here claim to believes in anyway.

Dr. Stupid
 
Doctor X:
Anyways, I remain unaware of anything done by humans with free will that breaks the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's not the actions of humans which break the laws of physic, but rather free will itself that would do so, were it to exist. If free will is a characteristic of human consciousness, which itself is an emergent property of physical complexity, then to what extent, exactly, is free will "free"? If physical interactions in the brain yield other physical interactions, which yield other physical interactions, all of which are, in principle, predictable as viewed from a given initial state and which eventually result in the emergence of consciousness, how can free will be said to exist?

In trying to view things from a strictly materialist viewpoint, the only way I can see the will being "free" from determinism is if there exist random influences in a given sequence of physical interactions in the brain which result in unexpected subsequent interactions. If this is the case, as it seems to be, then it could probably be said that human consciousness is not deterministic. But would these random influences, which yield this freedom from determinism, result in free will or in random behavior? If consciousness emerges from nondeterministic, complex physical interactions, we still don't seem to be able to say that free will exists, unless we're willing to say that the source of free will is randomness. Somehow, randomness doesn't quite equate with free will in my mind. It seems to me that free will would be freedom from the results of deterministic physical interactions and randomness, which, I guess, is impossible. The existence of free will would therefore breach the laws of physics. I don't know.

Of course, Franko doesn't buy the random influence bit anyhow. In his mind, the appearance of randomness is nothing more than a reflection of the limitations of the models we use to describe reality and make predictions. Moreover, he feels that as our models approach a perfect description of reality, there will be fewer and fewer observations of random influences until, finally, there will be none. Which, of course, still leaves us hanging out in the cosmos, obeying the laws of physics without any cottin pickin' free will.

I had no choice but to babble thusly. I am made of atoms. Or perhaps Franko is wrong and this post is nothing more than a random brainfart. :D
 
I think it is important to remember that the syllogism applies to Hard Materialism only. The Laws of Physics mentioned are the actual laws of physics - not the imperfect mathematical formulae that we use to attempt to explain them.

Of course if you don't believe that there is an underlying Law of Physics - which may be only theoretically knowable - then what do you believe in? Interested parties wish to know:p

c4ts

Actually I'd like to move away from the conclusions that Frank reaches beyond his syllogism and just concentrate on the it alone. I'm not interested at this point in time in Logical Deism, the goddess etc - all I'm interested in is that syllogism. I want to understand why it provokes such a strong response:) And I want to see why it doesn't provoke such a strong response in me - where am I looking at it differently compared to you :)

So you don't believe that the laws of physics affect the behaviour of people? And if you don't - what do you think does affect their behaviour?

Eyes Shining Angrily

So let's take the position that "atoms" is another colloqialism for all the physical odds and bods that we, as people, are made of - isn't this what a Hard Materialist would believe? If not. what else would they be looking for?

Jeremy

I like your phrase "it is only a human assumption that nature must work in a predictable, rationally knowable way." I agree wholeheartedly with that - but isn't this the assumption that Hard Materialism is based on?

As I have said at the beginning of this post - I don't believe that the syllogism refers to the mathematical formulae that we use to try and describe the laws of physics - I think it relates to what Win refers to as the "ultimate" laws of physics - the actual underlying laws of physics.

To use your basketball analogy. We may not be able to know all the rules after watching basketball for a half an hour - but we might take a stab at writing those rules down - we might get some right and some wrong - but it doesn't take away from the fact that those players are playing to some rules - whether you or I know them, or not:)

Win

I can't add to my argument - I think the original syllogism uses colloquial language to make its point. For a person to say they disagree because they believe the terms used are imprecise, to me at this time, is just semantics.

Persuade me :)

Stimpy

You agree with Win :eek: Actually I think you and Win are closer in agreement with lots of things:)

But why does this syllogism fail? - forget the conclusions that Frank draws from it - I want to talk about this syllogism only - for a Hard Materialist - why would it fail?

Thanks

Sou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom