If we knew all the laws of Nature, we should need only one fact, or the description of one actual phenomenon, to infer all the particular results at that point. Now we know only a few laws, and our result is vitiated, not, of course, by any confusion or irregularity in Nature, but by our ignorance of essential elements in the calculation. Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws, which we have not detected, is still more wonderful. The particular laws are as our points of view, as, to the traveller, a mountain outline varies with every step, and it has an infinite number of profiles, though absolutely but one form. Even when cleft or bored through it is not comprehended in its entireness.

—Walden—
—Henry David Thoreau—

Didn't Henry David Thoreau go off to live in the woods like Ted Kaczynski?

David only pretended to good to the woods. He was on Emerson's backlot. Her usually dined with them. He wanted to be close enough to walk to his mother's so she could do his laundry. Thoreau was a poseur and a fraud.

Men of science and their mothers...

Trite words pretending sophistication to state the obvious.


Some people reach a level of fame wherein they can do no wrong and are brilliant even if they aren't.

Stealing :) !

"If we knew all the laws of Nature, we should need only one fact, or the description of one actual phenomenon, to infer all the particular results at that point."

COMMENT: This is essentially Laplacian determinism, which of course is NOW scientifically known to be false, but which was a common scientific belief in the 19th Century. Thoreau's point is based upon the implications of our ignorance of the scope of nature's laws but is not a criticism of "naturalism" itself, the claim that reality follows from such laws, if they all could be discovered.
___________________________________

"Now we know only a few laws, and our result is vitiated, not, of course, by any confusion or irregularity in Nature, but by our ignorance of essential elements in the calculation."

COMMENT: At any given time, science likes to think it knows all of the underlying laws of nature. In the 19th Century basically it was Newtonian laws, and later Maxwell (electromagnetism), with Darwinism providing an expansion into biology. Even today, many, if not most, physicists believe that science knows *essentially* all the applicable laws of nature, and that such laws *can* explain (at least in principle) all of nature, including life, on a fundamental level. They are thereby reductionists. Their acknowledged ignorance is typically with respect to the initial and boundary conditions of any given event, and the specific pathways and complexity generated by the underlying known laws. But, all that said, science's ignorance is generally NOT thought to be in "the essential elements in the calculation." (Although, scientists of all stripes often pay lip service to the limitations of science.)
_______________________________________

"Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws, which we have not detected, is still more wonderful."

COMMENT: A powerfully prescient observation (IMO) against reductionism. Many scientists now believe in what can be fairly described as 'transcendent' laws (although they would probably not use that term), which are needed to explain such complex natural phenomena as life, consciousness, evolution, etc. So, we now have such vague concepts as "emergent properties" "self-organization," "top-down causation," and natural "agency," none of which are supported by traditional science. Explanations of the complexity of underlying *phenomena* making such transcendent laws necessary, and add a great deal to the Newtonian, Maxwellian, and quantum picture of reality, and its limited laws of force, mass, and motion as applied to subatomic particles.
___________________________________

"The particular laws are as our points of view, as, to the traveler, a mountain outline varies with every step, and it has an infinite number of profiles, though absolutely but one form. Even when cleft or bored through it is not comprehended in its entireness."

COMMENT: I will leave this more poetic description to you. The essential point, of course, is that reality is underdetermined by science. The question is by how much. Yet, the wonder we see, and Thoreau saw, in nature's complexity "at every step" points to a reality where the laws of physics, as currently known and understood, fall way short of providing an adequate explanation. And this observation follows through to chemistry, biology, ecology, and sociology, not to mention neuroscience and human cognitive psychology (human nature). (References available upon request.)

Anyway, great quote. Thanks.

Actually, it is the motivation to develop a Grand Unified Theory on the way to the Theory of Everything. People are indeed working on it.

:)

That motivation has long since been declared a pipedream and essentially abandoned. In the first place, TOE are mathematical constructs, and it is quite obvious that "everything" is not mathematics. Here are the words of physicist John Barrow explaining why so-called Theories of Everything fail, and will continue to fail:

"'Why is the world mathematical?' we ask. But, on second thoughts, don't many of the things we encounter in everyday life seem more like almost anything but mathematics. Mathematics is relegated to the description of a peculiar skeletal world that we are assured lies behind the mere appearances, a world that is simpler than the one in which we are daily participants. Yet we find nothing mathematical about emotions and judgements, about music or art. How then, when we speak of 'Theories of Everything' and pursue them with mathematics confident that all diversity will evaporate to leave nothing but number, can we draw the line that divides those elusive phenomena which are intrinsically non-mathematical from those which are encompassed by a Theory of Everything? What are the things that cannot be included in the physicist's conception of 'everything'? There appear to be such things, but they are more often than not excluded from the discussion on the grounds that they are not 'scientific'-- a response not unlike that of the infamous Master of Balliol of whom it was said that 'what he doesn't know isn't knowledge.'

(John Barrow, *New Theories of Everything* (2007) p. 242)

The above quotation is highly relevant to this thread, and in particular my comments above.

Did you consider that perhpas slskipper's coments are tongue-in-cheek?

Did you consider that perhaps slskipper's comments are tongue-in-cheek?

COMMENT: No. Except perhaps as a position in hindsight.

Nor did I consider your comments to the OP to be tongue-in-cheek:

"Trite words pretending sophistication to state the obvious. Some people reach a level of fame wherein they can do no wrong and are brilliant even if they aren't."

Now, to avoid further embarrassment, I strongly recommend that you claim such a position in hindsight . . . And the sooner the better. :-)

Nope. Meant it exactly as it is. No tongue in cheek.

Not a fan of pretense as you are.

"People are indeed working on it"

Like a surfer living in his van.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2025 11:48AM by bradley.

Thoreau would be horrified by what our society has become.

somehow living my life for the approval of Thoreau has never crossed my mind. Nor will it again.

Amen

Considering that you made two snarky posts in this thread to take old Henry down a notch or two, he seems to have more rent-free space in your brain than you might be willing to admit.

I own a copy of Walden that I have never been able to get through more than about 5 pages. It just doesn't speak to me. I should give it away. It will never get read by me.

There are only two quotes of his that I find memorable - "Simplify, simplify", and "if you see someone walking toward you with the obvious intention of doing you good, run for your life."

I've read even less of Ralph Emerson, and remember no quotes. I'm just not a Transcendentalist at heart I guess. Melville will have to do. Close enough.

Considering that you made two snarky posts in this thread to take old Henry down a notch or two, he seems to have more rent-free space in your brain than you might be willing to admit.

COMMENT: Hummmm. Maybe that applies to others as well. After all, RfMers don't have to read "old Henry," but they always do, or seem to, at least just long enough to realize they are angry or confused, but don't know quite why. So, I get irrational diatribes and/or banal soundbites. (Except for you, of course!)

__________________________________

I own a copy of Walden that I have never been able to get through more than about 5 pages. It just doesn't speak to me. I should give it away. It will never get read by me.

COMMENT: Me too. I prefer clearly stated facts, propositions and pure logic. I too have little patience for poetic commentary on scientific matters and need people like Human to explain such things to me.
________________________________

There are only two quotes of his that I find memorable - "Simplify, simplify", and "if you see someone walking toward you with the obvious intention of doing you good, run for your life."

COMMENT: "Simply, simplify" reminds me of Occam's Razer. Very nice cliche but certainly not applicable to *observable* reality. That is why the so-called TOE is such nonsense. All you have to do is look around, and behold you immediately discover that neither nature nor its laws are simple. But keep cranking out those AI algorithms. Who knows, maybe general intelligence and (God forbid) free will will magically "emerge" at some point!
______________________________

I've read even less of Ralph Emerson, and remember no quotes. I'm just not a Transcendentalist at heart I guess. Melville will have to do. Close enough.

COMMENT: Not a Transcendentalist at heart? Oh, I beg to differ. As long as you are a mathematical platonist, you ARE a transcendentalist at heart, whether you know it or not, or admit it or not. You just like to pick and choose what transcendentalist doctrines are sufficiently scientific. Mathematics yes; religion, no. Remember, when it comes to worldviews, all roads lead back to consistency! :-)

Does consistently wrong count?

If Thoreau doesn't satisfy your yen for Zen, I shouldn't try, but...

Science and religion could be yin and yang poles of one system. Both seem to be evolving. Inquisitions and witch burning are in the past. Maybe we exmos don't have so much to complain about after all.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2025 12:02PM by bradley.

> COMMENT: Hummmm. Maybe that applies to others as
> well. After all, RfMers don't have to read "old
> Henry," but they always do, or seem to, at least
> just long enough to realize they are angry or
> confused, but don't know quite why.

There you go again, projecting your emotions onto your critics. Disagreement, Henry, is not the same thing as "anger."


---------------
> COMMENT: Me too. I prefer clearly stated facts,
> propositions and pure logic.

If that were true, you would read and discuss cutting-edge science as published in peer-reviewed journals. But you never do that. You prefer secondary sources that have done the hard work of digesting the science for you.

Prove me wrong? Show us one example of a peer-reviewed scientific study that you have cited in any of your 2,371 posts on RfM.


-------------
> COMMENT: "Simply, simplify" reminds me of Occam's
> Razer. Very nice cliche but certainly not
> applicable to *observable* reality. That is why
> the so-called TOE is such nonsense. All you have
> to do is look around, and behold you immediately
> discover that neither nature nor its laws are
> simple.

Incorrect.

You have claimed many times that your personal observations are as valid as, and very possibly more valid than, empirical science. See, for example, this post in which you praised your personal "intuition" three times.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2530437,2530556#msg-2530556

Or this one, in which you did that four times.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2529891,2530057#msg-2530057

With perhaps one or two exceptions, no other RfM poster claims such "intuitive" insights into ultimate reality. Why? Because it takes monumental arrogance to argue that your own feelings are as consequential as actual science.


------------------
> But keep cranking out those AI algorithms.
> Who knows, maybe general intelligence and (God
> forbid) free will will magically "emerge" at some
> point!

Sometimes attempted irony is itself ironic.


---------------
> COMMENT: Not a Transcendentalist at heart? Oh, I
> beg to differ. As long as you are a mathematical
> platonist, you ARE a transcendentalist at heart. . .

You seem confident that BoJ is a platonist. Are his views on the matter relevant? Or is this another situation in which a secondary source is preferable the primary one.


---------------
> You just like to pick and choose what
> transcendentalist doctrines are sufficiently
> scientific.

And you don't?

Again, show us anywhere in your 2,371 RfM posts where you've cited primary scientific research. If you cannot do that, you have no grounds for arguing that others are not sufficiently rigorous in their views.

HENRY SAID: "After all, RfMers don't have to read "old Henry," but they always do, or seem to, at least just long enough to realize they are angry or confused, but don't know quite why. So, I get irrational diatribes and/or banal soundbites."

COMMENT: Ah yes, here we go again! I think I will pass on pointing out all of the specifics of your stupidity here, except for two ridiculous statements that might lead others astray:

"Prove me wrong? Show us one example of a peer-reviewed scientific study that you have cited in any of your 2,371 posts on RfM."

COMMENT: Really, you have counted my posts? Have you annotated them all, too? Are any of them on your refrigerator? I am flattered. Minimally, you must at least take them very seriously!

Newsflash: (1) Virtually all books published by a University Press are "peer-reviewed" to some extent, even if informally! (2) The only general exception is when an author has sufficient stature such that his or her credibility is already established by their own well-recognized peer-reviewed work.

https://library.rrc.ca/Peer_review/scholarly-books

The authors I cite ALL satisfy either (1) or (2) above, often both. Consider my quotation of John Barrow in this very thread, from his book *New Theories of Everything.* The publisher is Oxford University Press, thus (1) is satisfied. As such, it was probably peer-reviewed to some extent. Moreover, Barrow is an extremely well-known, established, and highly credible and respected theoretical physicist. All you have to do is check out his Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow

Here is another tip. You can actually read the book, and in particular check out the "Acknowledgments." Here Barrow states:

"For advertent or inadvertent comments and discussions which have helped in the writing of this book I am grateful to David Bailin, Margaret Boden, Danko Bosanac, Gregory Chaitin, Paul Davies, Bernard d'Espagnat, Jeffrey Friedman, Michael Green, Chris Isham, John Manger, Bill McCrea, Leon Mestel, John Polkinghorn, Aaron Sloman, John Maynard Smith, Neil Spurway, Euan Squires, Rene Thom, Frank Tipler, John Wheeler, Denys Wilkerson, Peter Williams, and Tom Willmore."

Many if not most of these people are also extremely prominent in the literature of theoretical physics, cosmology, and philosophy of science. I own and have read the books and essays of many of them.

Now, none of this makes Barrow's book beyond criticism. I have a bookshelf full of books and essays by prominent authors having a different point of view about TOEs and have read all of them. But Barrow's logic is extremely compelling, as evidenced by my quote from the book. In any event, your non-peer-reviewed criticism is just ridiculous.

Now, go through all of my alleged 2,371 posts that you apparently love so much, and find one citation that troubles you as 'non-scholarly'. Check the publisher and the author's reputation and status, and if you still are concerned about credibility get back to me with specifics--not just an RfM link and soundbite.

____________________________________________

"Again, show us anywhere in your 2,371 RfM posts where you've cited primary scientific research. If you cannot do that, you have no grounds for arguing that others are not sufficiently rigorous in their views."

COMMENT: See above! Just a stupid comment! First, I have never argued anywhere that others are not "sufficiently rigorous in their views." Rather, what I often point out is that others CANNOT OR DO NOT STATE THEIR VIEWS AS A COHERENT ARGUMENT IN LOGICAL FORM (FACTS AND INFERENCES), MUCH LESS ARGUE FOR THEM WHEN CHALLENGED. THEY (LIKE YOU) CANNOT OR DO NOT CITE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THEIR SUPPOSED VIEWS. ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS RHETORICALLY ATTACK ME WITH NONSENSE! (LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE!)

So, here is your challenge. Sticking to the present thread, (1) what views have I cited here that you disagree with, and why? (2) What exactly are your own views on the matter? (3) What is your logical argument in support of such views? (4) What authority can you cite in support of your views?

Finally, BoJ admitted years ago that he was "a reluctant mathematical Platonist." That is not a per se criticism because that is the position of most mathematicians. Moreover, that is exactly how I would characterize myself. As far as I know he has not backed off from that position.

IF INDEED HE HASN'T, AND AS I RECENTLY POINTED OUT, HE IS COMMITTED TO A TRANSCENDENTAL WORLDVIEW, WHERE MATHEMATICS EXISTS IN A 'MATHEMATICAL HEAVEN' OF SOME SORT. I acknowledge that same problem for myself. The difference is that I readily admit that transcendence is part of reality, in many different forms (e.g. consciousness and free will), of which we do not have perfect knowledge. What I object to is assuming uncritically such a heaven for mathematics, while claiming that religious transcendentalism is foolish, and/or per se irrational.

Now, people here on the board do not generally know much about theoretical mathematics, or philosophy of mathematics. But they do know that they are conscious agents who wake up every day and deliberate over decisions, make choices, and act accordingly. And they know that the physical world is affected by such choices. ALL OF THIS TOO INVOLVES TRANSCENDENCE. Why? Because it is coming 'face to face' with a reality that 'transcends' the explanations of materialist science, or the material world. There is literally NO scientific explanatory nexus between the matter in motion of the material world of science and subjective, phenomenal, conscious experience of that world. Put in even more stark terms, there is no scientific explanatory nexus between the complex neuronal activity of the physical brain and the subjective, conscious, experiences of human beings and other animals that are produced by that brain. There is an 'in principle' disconnect. Why should any physical system, however complex, produce conscious experience? No one knows.

"Stupid," Henry? Multiple instances of extensive capitalization?

You seem triggered. You even sound "angry" and perhaps even "confused."


----------------
> COMMENT: Really, you have counted my posts?

I just used the search function and there it was at the top of the page: 2371 total posts--well, now 2372. So no, thank God, I have not read the vast majority of your posts.


---------------
> Newsflash: (1) Virtually all books published by a
> University Press are "peer-reviewed" to some
> extent, even if informally! (2) The only general
> exception is when an author has sufficient stature
> such that his or her credibility is already
> established by their own well-recognized
> peer-reviewed work.

So you confirm my assertion that 1) in a dozen years you have not deigned to read or provide a link to a single scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal, and 2) you only read pre-digested stuff (albeit of the highest quality!).


-----------------------
> Consider my quotation of John
> Barrow in this very thread, from his book *New
> Theories of Everything.* The publisher is Oxford
> University Press, thus (1) is satisfied.

Psst. OUP is not considered an academic press. It's high-end popular press.


--------------
> . . . it was probably peer-reviewed to some extent.

"Probably?" "To some extent?"


---------------
> "For advertent or inadvertent comments and
> discussions which have helped in the writing of
> this book I am grateful to David Bailin, Margaret
> Boden, Danko Bosanac, Gregory Chaitin, Paul
> Davies, Bernard d'Espagnat, Jeffrey Friedman,
> Michael Green, Chris Isham, John Manger, Bill
> McCrea, Leon Mestel, John Polkinghorn, Aaron
> Sloman, John Maynard Smith, Neil Spurway, Euan
> Squires, Rene Thom, Frank Tipler, John Wheeler,
> Denys Wilkerson, Peter Williams, and Tom
> Willmore."

You know what "Acknowledgements" are? They're where the author says thanks to people whose work he did not cite, thereby making them the first agents of digestion, your beloved authors the secondary agents of digestion, and you a ruminant standing in some field chewing your cud for the third or fourth time.


--------------
> Now, go through all of my alleged 2,371 posts that
> you apparently love so much. . .

"Love?"


------------
> COMMENT: See above! Just a stupid comment! First,
> I have never argued anywhere that others are not
> "sufficiently rigorous in their views." Rather,
> what I often point out is that others CANNOT OR DO
> NOT STATE THEIR VIEWS AS A COHERENT ARGUMENT IN
> LOGICAL FORM (FACTS AND INFERENCES), MUCH LESS
> ARGUE FOR THEM WHEN CHALLENGED. THEY (LIKE YOU)
> CANNOT OR DO NOT CITE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THEIR
> SUPPOSED VIEWS. ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS
> RHETORICALLY ATTACK ME WITH NONSENSE! (LIKE YOU
> ARE DOING HERE!)

This is where you lose your composure.


----------------
> So, here is your challenge. Sticking to the
> present thread, (1) what views have I cited here
> that you disagree with, and why? (2) What exactly
> are your own views on the matter? (3) What is
> your logical argument in support of such views?
> (4) What authority can you cite in support of your
> views?

I have many problems with your analysis, Henry, but the most fundamental one--the one from which all the others stem--is epistemological. You keep telling us that what you perceive as "intuitively" true is in reality true. The flaw in that reasoning is that the unfortunate schizophrenic in the tinfoil hat down the street views the cosmos precisely the same way.


------------
> IF INDEED HE HASN'T, AND AS I RECENTLY POINTED
> OUT, HE IS COMMITTED TO A TRANSCENDENTAL
> WORLDVIEW, WHERE MATHEMATICS EXISTS IN A
> 'MATHEMATICAL HEAVEN' OF SOME SORT.

Sit down for a minute. You'll feel better.


-----------------
> There is literally NO scientific
> explanatory nexus between the matter in motion of
> the material world of science and subjective,
> phenomenal, conscious experience of that world.

There's a wealth of information on aspects of that cluster of issues. You just refuse to look at it.


--------------
> Put in even more stark terms, there is no
> scientific explanatory nexus between the complex
> neuronal activity of the physical brain and the
> subjective, conscious, experiences of human beings
> and other animals that are produced by that brain.

Traumatic brain damage does not alter one's "conscious. . . experience" of the world in predictable ways?


-----------
> There is an 'in principle' disconnect. Why should
> any physical system, however complex, produce
> conscious experience?

There it is. You have an a priori belief that you refuse to subject to the test of empirical science.

No one is so blind--not even someone who's suffered traumatic damage to his visual cortex--as he who will not see.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2025 08:48PM by Lot's Wife.

"Show us one example of a peer-reviewed scientific study that you have cited in any of your 2,371 posts on RfM."

Isn't that similar to "We thank thee, Oh God, for a prophet"? It's so tribal. Peer review is a gatekeeping process that doesn't even work. The journals are full of research that can't be replicated. "Anti-Mormon" literature is not peer reviewed. I suppose I shouldn't read that either.

The position of physical materialism is no more sustainable than that of 19th Century Mormonism. Sure, it sounds plausible initially, but as more and more evidence creeps in, one needs to question the enterprise. For example, non-local effects cannot be explained away. Even simple experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of prayer cannot be explained away. I mean they can, but not without looking desperate or obtuse.

About science being empirical and not intuitive, I disagree. Many Nobel laureates have credited intuitive revelations with their success.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2025 11:24PM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Show us one example of a peer-reviewed scientific
> study that you have cited in any of your 2,371
> posts on RfM."
>
> Isn't that similar to "We thank thee, Oh God, for
> a prophet"? It's so tribal.

Whoosh.


------------
> Peer review is a
> gatekeeping process that doesn't even work. The
> journals are full of research that can't be
> replicated.

To which journals are you referring? I ask because I would love to see one that is "full" of research that can't be replicated.

My strong suspicion here is that you don't have any actual examples in mind and are just extrapolating from the regrettable fact that bad research is all too common if, thankfully, still a small minority in the best journals.

But hey, who would be so churlish as to let reality preclude hyperbole?


----------------
> The position of physical materialism is no more
> sustainable than that of 19th Century Mormonism.

That would be more plausible, bradley, if you did not base your epistemology on the very science you now reject. But just the other day you said that:

> The ATP oxidative reduction cycle that
> powers cells also serves as an information
> interface to this timeless domain to guide
> cellular mitosis.

Far be it from me to question your hypothesis about "an information interface" for which there is no evidence, but isn't the rest of that sentence founded squarely on the very "physical materialism" you now disavow?


----------
> Sure, it sounds plausible initially, but as more
> and more evidence creeps in, one needs to question
> the enterprise.

Evidence like NDEs in which people who are alive describe what it was like being dead?


-----------
> Even simple experiments
> demonstrating the effectiveness of prayer cannot
> be explained away. I mean they can, but not
> without looking desperate or obtuse.

Irony.


------------------
> About science being empirical and not intuitive, I
> disagree. Many Nobel laureates have credited
> intuitive revelations with their success.

Intuitive revelations that they then tested empirically or, when the intuition preceded the applicable science, proposed for later testing--like General Relativity?


-----------------
You are correct, though, in surmising that I put you and Henry in roughly the same epistemological category: "warm feeling in the heart" sort of stuff. He rejects a priori any evidence that challenges his biases, and you accept any pseudo-evidence that accords with your preferences.

Both approaches are--how did you put it?--irreplicable in controlled empirical studies.

Science attempts to create increasingly accurate approximations of reality.

Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night
God said, "Let Newton Be" and all was light.