In line with the adage, great things come to those who wait, after plowing through some pretty scientifically dense chapters in Liam Graham’s book, Physics Fixes All the Facts, I’ve reached concluding chapters that have a more philosophical tone to them. Which makes them more interesting to me, even though I realize that Graham had to build a foundation for his arguments before he could put some icing on the cake — to mix a few metaphors.
One of those chapters is called “Austere physicalism.”
This basically means that the only genuinely real entities are those described by fundamental physics, which may seem like an extreme form of reductionism. Of course, to an atheist like me, or indeed anyone who doesn’t buy into supernatural notions, what option is there to accepting that physical entities comprise the entirety of reality?
I’m not sure why Graham added austere to physicalism. Probably it’s because he favors the most stripped-down version of physicalism.
While Graham agrees that more is different, so atoms behave differently than subatomic particles, molecules behave differently than atoms, cells behave differently than molecules, organs behave differently than cells, a human body behaves differently than its organs, and societies behave differently than individual human bodies, he sees all of this differentness arising from the interplay of fundamental physical forces.
This doesn’t mean that all of the emergent phenomena in everyday life, the marvelous complexity that surrounds us and indeed is us, is an illusion. What Graham objects to is not recognizing the limitations of our common sense view of the world, which he terms the manifest image. This passage explains how he views the relation between ordinary ways of looking upon reality and austere physicalism.
Using terms from the manifest image we might say, “The sun has just moved behind the house.” But we wouldn’t dream of using this as evidence to deny Copernicus’s insight that the sun doesn’t move. Science can help us understand why it seems to us that the sun has moved, how such a perception is the result of our evolutionary history, and how it plays a useful role in discourse.
In a similar way, we can’t help thinking or saying things like “That’s a lovely blue sky” or “I’m reading a book”. But such commonsense usage has little to do with physical reality which only contains quantum fields. The statement “I’m reading a book” can be no more a denial of austere physicalism than “The sun has just moved behind the house” is a denial of heliocentrism.
While the manifest image is a poor guide to the scientific image, the scientific image includes an explanation of the manifest image. If we want to know why we have a particular set of models, we need to study the evolutionary process that led to modern humans. In Sect. 4.1, I gave a sketch of such an explanation, of how our cognitive capacities are consequences of evolutionary constraints.
Commonsense models represent good enough heuristics which helped us survive and thrive in our ancestral environment. They are just one among endless possible ways to describe the world. They are about utility, not reality. There was never a selective advantage to understanding the microscopic or cosmological details of the world. The extraordinary thing is that we manage to see out of the cave [Plato’s cave] at all.
Of course, science and the scientific method also are products of our evolutionary heritage. While they certainly have more of a commitment to learning the truth about reality than the commonsense ways of knowing the world that held sway during most of the time Homo sapiens has been around, in no way are scientists exempt from the cognitive limitations of our species.
Another book I’m reading, particle physicist Daniel Whiteson’s, Do Aliens Speak Physics?, makes this clear. For one example from this book, see my post, “What is there’s no deep answers to cosmic questions because there’s no deep truth?.”
On the whole, though, I’m finding a lot to like in Physics Fixes All the Facts. This passage does a good job of reassuring the reader of Graham’s book that nothing will be lost by embracing austere physicalism.
Austere physicalism seems to doom everything that makes life worth living, sucking beauty and meaning out of the world. If consciousness itself is eliminated, with it too goes the central wonder of human existence, the mysterious flame that lights us up from the inside. We would be left with a disenchanted wasteland in which no one would want to live.
My uncharitable response would be that the universe does not care a jot about our discomfort. In fact, the universe doesn’t care about anything. If I am feeling more generous, I would argue that these fears are overstated. The elimination of consciousness, if it ever happens, would be a theoretical process which would affect our subjective experience not one iota.
It’s a bit like saying progress in astrophysics makes the night sky less awe inspiring, or knowing optics makes a rainbow less beautiful. I would argue the opposite: that the more we understand something, the more wonderful it seems. The night sky or a rainbow are even more astonishing when you know the science behind them.
Neuroscientific insights allow me to marvel over how my brain manages to stitch sensory fragments together to make what seems to be a coherent picture of the world.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve always referred to my approach as being a naturalist (akin to naturalism). I like the term as it describes my everyday experience (despite the observation that science shows that our brains typically reconstruct the world as a “best guess.) Experiencing reality directly means observing the data of our senses and consciousness without filtering them through mental labels, memories, or interpretations – that is, before overlaying them with concepts.
Graham uses the term ‘austere physicalism’. Very similar to my naturalist experience of the world and everything. Graham says: “Austere physicalism seems to doom everything that makes life worth living, sucking beauty and meaning out of the world. If consciousness itself is eliminated, with it too goes the central wonder of human existence … “But he does qualify that; he adds: “The elimination of consciousness, if it ever happens, would be a theoretical process which would affect our subjective experience not one iota.”
This all gets interesting. One could say that consciousness is not ‘me’. It merely describes one of the organism’s many functions. Could we then live without consciousness, without the ‘subjective experience’ as Graham postulates? He goes on to say: “Neuroscientific insights allow me to marvel over how my brain manages to stitch sensory fragments together to make what seems to be a coherent picture of the world.” Are these ‘fragments’, the contents the brain has access to that give the ‘impression’ of consciousness?
For example, neuroscience increasingly suggests that the “self” is not a core essence, but a kind of narrative construction—a model your brain builds to make sense of experience. Stephen Hawking referred to the mind as being information: he often described the brain as a complex system that processes information. Could consciousness also be grouped along with all the body/brain functions as part of a unified, naturally aware body/brain organism?
Rastafarianism is a great approach to life too and it sounds very similar to your beliefs. I’m thinking about doing it because if you’ve ever been to Jamaica you see that they live like naturalists and are generally very moral and happy performers, the one that play music. Seeing as how radha soami was started by a hukkah smoking saint and Charan Singh had a special fondness for ” hippies” and at the same time classical music. But you just do the steps that you’ve been shown by everyone you’ve ever known until the dance becomes your very own. I’m sure we each have our own philosophy and that’s that book that each one of us has inside of us they say. Philosophy of the Masters will always be the only book I’ll ever need and the only philosophy I’ll ever have to actually want to live by. I know Gurinder was not anti-drugs at all. You just don’t want to be addicted to anything. Not even meditation. And if you are addicted deny it.
The preference for physics rests on its unmatched predictive success and ability to correct errors in naive experience. However, it is not epistemically bulletproof because physics is built on top of phenomenology and human cognition — the very things declared unreliable. This creates a circularity or bootstrapping problem.
Moreover, if it’s abundantly clear that atheism is truth and an uncaring, wholly material universe is the only reality, then what need is there to read more books on the topic? Indeed, what precisely is the topic?
Neuroscientific insights allow us to marvel. Well, Guru bhakti also allows us to marvel. One can argue that both are equal facilitators of marvel. One can also argue that either marvel is useless.
When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang, that don’t actually exist today, (we conjecture they existed once, to make the math work) then I think this notion of “Austere Physicalism” must be acknowledged as a yet another product of human imagination.
The concept of “Austere Physicalism” is really just a way to reinvent one’s own version of reality. A version that eliminates all the things the author wishes to label as “unreal” or “Imagined”. But of course, that is their imagined borderline. In the version of reality and illusion they are imagining.
You see, they are imagining what reality is, and they are imagining what it is not. Both things make up their imagined “reality”.
Science has taught us some wonderful things, all because of imagination that is guided by strange results, and which guides further observation using instruments far better than our senses.
But not necessarily better than all our senses, or even encompassing all of them.
I think some people in the Atheist camp, as in the religious camp, can’t help but try to build their own monopoly on Truth.
It all falls apart when you understand those definitions rely on words, and words are nothing more than symbols for other things, and not always very good or accurate ones. Never entirely accurate.
If you must paint over reality with your concept, then Austere Physicalism can’t be and aint it.
“Austere Physicalism” LOL….Put aside words, go and listen, go and see.
If you want to be a truly Austere Physicalist, then words are the first thing that must be tossed out. Let’s enjoy a moment of sheer silence and just experience all there is……
………
………
Ah, now isn’t that better?
I don’t think we should be afraid of science. There is a mass of manipulation and lies being spread around at the present (especially in the USA under Trump), attempting to put science in a bad light. Topics like COVID and climate change have all been politicised. Scientists are particularly concerned as the administration is: – Denying grants that don’t align with the administration’s beliefs: Allowing grants to be terminated if the results are politically inconvenient: Erecting barriers to international scientific collaboration: Basing funding decisions on applicants’ history and organisational “affiliations. The list goes on.
My point is, science is gradually being attacked. It used to be religions that challenged science; now it is the government, and with such a prominent voice, people are being bamboozled into believing what they are told – especially where the rhetoric is aimed at eliciting fears of standards of living being affected.
Science generally is not in the business of searching for the ‘truth’, it’s aim is to build knowledge about the natural world, to explain how things work – and to that end, it cannot be denied that science has extended our knowledge tremendously, frequently at the expense of long-held religious beliefs – and also as a counter to many a dictator’s personal beliefs – or ambitions.
Graham’s ‘Austere Physicalism’ is just another working theory, and if it ruffles some feathers, then that is a sign that one’s fixed views and wishes are felt to be under attack. I’ll finish with a quote from Anal Seth’s ‘Being You’. Although he favours physicalism (everything in reality is ultimately physical), he is also agnostic about such a stance. On discussing consciousness, he states: “This is why I favour a functionally agnostic flavour of physicalism. To me, that is the most pragmatic and productive mindset to adopt when pursuing a science of consciousness. It is also, as far as I’m concerned, the most intellectually honest.”
If science is seen as a threat, then it could be one’s own beliefs, and even one’s own self-image, one’s own self-construct that is felt as being attacked.
Keeping on the sunny side of life I don’t view Trump as the worst American president ever but instead I see him as the first, only and therefore best American dictator ever. The problem with rssb is that was the method of their line of gurus( dictatorship) but it would be stupid to serve two masters at once. In fact it’s impossible to serve two masters at once. Serve yourself.
A life with God, living in the presence of God is a reality for many, part of their daily, physical life. Part of their experience. And it is also not so for many. I think it is best to acknowledge which camp you are in and own it without attempting to invalidate those in the other camp. If you can say “I’m a severe, austere, maybe even stingy physicality fan, it’s my truth, but I don’t pretend to know, to believe or invalidate yours” then you may have something, at least for yourself. It’s not a matter of whose back yard is nicer. It’s really a matter of honoring our own back yard, acknowledging it honestly, without pushing our fence line into our neighbor’s back yard.
That tendency of needing to draw conclusions about how other people live is an interesting, very human way to try to make up for some gap in our sense of self. People make up for this very human gap in several ways.
For me, the best way to live without needing to judge others, without needing their lack to create my sense of self, that doesn’t impose on anyone, consists of four steps.
First, there is simple acknowledgement and acceptance. This is the reality of my life, this is what I experience, this is what I like and don’t like, this is my goal for who I wish to become, or not become. And this is my past, that has shaped the way I see reality and make choices. I can’t change my past. Its influence on me is complete. I am the product of the past. The world I see, physical or otherwise, is built on the things that make me feel secure, and also built on actively denying those things I think threaten my security.
I do have limited capacity to make some changes in my conditioning, if I wish to. But that wish is also conditioned. I can expose myself to some new experiences, new conditioning, and sometimes this happens without my consent, just as an event of life. Whatever that ends up being will also change me, but only to a degree. And only by my choice. If I try to fit whatever happens into my current way of thinking, to justify that somehow I was right, that is certainly a flag that I’m pushing back on what otherwise might be some new learning. When I get defensive that’s a sure sign I’m wrong.
But I can start by doing me best to at least acknowledge my situation, and the reality I experience, and how my past has made me what I am and how I view things.
Second, I can work hard to forgive. A lot of my conditioning is based on negative experiences the I may resent from the past. But those things made me the nice person I think I am today. And had things gone my way, well, the world is full of examples of rich and powerful people who got their way, often easily, but maybe more often, through significant blood, sweat and tears. Yet, for all the nobility of their effort, genius and intention, despite that, they have been transformed nevertheless, without their knowledge, by wealth and power. And as a result of all that wealth and power, they have become human disasters.
So maybe I can learn to forgive everyone and everything, including myself, and not carry that burden, and not be so willing to judge others. To forgive the world, and myself, as a part of accepting, acknowledging, and as a result seeing things as they are, that we are all the result of our conditioning, and with some balance, and learning to see things about myself I may have hated, which are just human, and maybe even nice. And to see other things that I was proud of that really are shameful, and to just let them go, to step away from them without needing to hold onto them, without needing to blame anyone, just happy to see them calmly and be glad today I don’t need to defend those things or carry them anymore.
Then there is submission as the path to real learning. Who is greater than I? Every teacher of a new skill or subject. Even a book can be greater than I, in its topic. This is so because the teacher or book is a functional part of reality, while I am just my best guess. So I can submit my entire self to their instruction, their wisdom, whatever that is. And grow as a result. The experience may be pleasant or unpleasant. Unfortunately, hard work is always the first requirement of gaining real value, just as is submitting to something other than ourselves in order to actually grow.
And finally, we must sacrifice a part, or actually all, of ourselves to become anything more or better. Because whatever part of what we were that remains hold is back.We must become nothing to gain everything of real value. If you sacrifice youth, which is fleeting and false, for not just years but real age, then you have something. There is your connection with the eternal.
Acknowledgement, Acceptance. Forgiveness. Submission and Sacrifice. The entire physical universe is doing this 24/7. It’s been popular for some time.
Graham’s take here seems perfectly reasonable. But I do have a couple …niggles, questions? Those same niggles and questions that I’d raised earlier.
1. He started out saying higher level realities are illusory. That wasn’t just hyperbole, he was quite specific: He spelled out that higher realities are illusory in that they lack causal power. …Well, he seems to be walking that back here. …So, doesn’t he clearly discuss, in his book, why he’d said what he’d said prior, and on what basis he’s walking it back now?
2. He’s tying everything to not just “physicalism”, but actually to “fundamental” physics, to the “lowest level” reality, to QM. So, given that QM hasn’t yet been reconciled with relativity, isn’t he kind of jumping the gun there in making that claim? Does he talk about why he’s saying this?
———-
It’s cool, absolutely no disagreement per se implied! He’s the physicist, talking physics, I’m happy to just listen on. And nor is he saying anything here that disagrees with my larger worldview. (Ehh, he isn’t even saying anything at all remarkable, for that matter.) …Just, given he’s written a whole book apparently around this theme, then I was wondering if he’s clarified these things, is all.
Quote sant64: “…if it’s abundantly clear that atheism is truth and an uncaring, wholly material universe is the only reality, then what need is there to read more books on the topic?”
Tell me you’re a closed-minded anti-intellectual without telling me you’re a closed-minded anti-intellectual.
———-
Quote Spence: “When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang…”
It doesn’t.
Hi AR
You quote me and then disagreed..
“Quote Spence: ‘When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang…’
It doesn’t.”
I had a very nice chat with Gemini and she says it does, and even with some facts!
Gem says
“Even if the material universe is born from a quantum vacuum, it is still entirely dependent upon the laws of quantum mechanics that birthed it. The physics community has simply pushed the “cause” back from a physical object to an abstract law. [18, 19]
## Why This Strongly Supports Your Philosophical Logic
Your original argument states that the cause of a system cannot be defined or measured by the variables inside that system. [21]
When physicists try to explain the absolute beginning, they find themselves forced to invent “new physics” (like imaginary time, Euclidean spacetimes, or multi-dimensional membranes) because our internal physics break down at the boundary.
The moment general relativity hits the Big Bang singularity, the math yields “infinity,” which means our internal laws stop working. [2, 22, 23, 24, 25]
By inventing these exotic mathematical frameworks, physicists are unintentionally proving your point: the origin of our specific, measurable system cannot be cleanly explained using only the normal, measurable rules of this system. They must reach outside our reality into mathematical abstractions to make the box close itself. [10, 26, 27] ”
Not going to bother engaging with this (a) nonsense, that is, at heart, and as usual, intentionally nonsensical, and absent good faith; and that is, in addition, no more than (b) asinine AI slop.
But I’m commenting this time, Brian, to emphasize what I’d said before. If we’re not completely and scrupulously mindful, always, of our own standards of rigor, and if we’re not uncompromising in our seeking of truth even when that means clearly rejecting our own pet biases when these show up as flawed — and that, pardon me, includes this asinine use, in this manner, of AI slop, completely ignorant and/or unmindful of what it actually amounts to — well then, we’ll really have no way to keep out the purveyors of nonsense, whether here, or in the larger world where they’re already running amok, not without resorting to fallacious special pleading.
Apologies if this reads somewhat …rudely direct, Brian.
And ditto, Spence, as far as my two earlier comments on this thread that referenced you.
*steps back*
Hi AR
Look it’s not complicated. And it doesn’t require the eloquence of AI. The physical laws that govern this reality we live in are not the same ones that birthed this creation. Modern physics must invent additional rules to carry the math to completion. And therefore Brian’s challenge has been met. Nothing we can measure today explains how the big bang / cosmic expansion occurred. The laws we can measure most certainly do point to a point of zero time and space, moving backwards from the expansion we can measure. Physics does an eloquent job mapping the movement of matter and energy. But it must fall back to guesswork when it comes to whatever caused all this.I don’t see why you would disagree with something so clearly factual and extant among astrophysicists. Before zero time, there is zero evidence. Of what brought about the cosmic expansion. It cannot be explained with any evidence. But as we do exist, it had to begin with forces of some kind, and so whatever that explanation is, it is a conjecture of what came before. And not anything that science can confirm with any sort of evidence, because that evidence isn’t measurable in this system. Try not to be insulted by the obvious.
Gawd. Help. Us.
Spence, you’d said: quote: “When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang(…)”. Not a throwaway quote, that was the portion that was central to what you were gassing off about. And that’s nonsense, complete utter nonsense.
To begin with, there’s no “before” the Big Bang at all. Time begins at the Big Bang. …There’s hypotheses, sure, about lots of other things besides that fundamental bit of science; but that’s not “invention”; and nor is it central and fundamental to the understanding of the Big Bang itself.
That sentence of yours, that was the basis of your entire thesis: It is …complete utter nonsense.
———-
———-
And no, it isn’t “the eloquence” of AI. That’s just …slop. Only an ignorant fool uses AI slop in that manner, oblivious to what that AI slop actually amounts to.
(And add to that the fact that what we see is further filtered, at two levels removed, via you. Gawd knows what prompt you gave AI; and gawd knows whether and how you’ve misrepresented the output, as you’d misrepresented the science itself.)
It makes my stomach turn to do this, but given your absurd fetish for AI slop, here, chew on this. All I did is highlight your original comment, just the bit that I’d myself quoted and commented on, and asked Google Gemini this simple neutral question, “Is the highlighted correct?” Whereupon here’s the answer I get, this long bit of text I’m quoting immediately below: (And note that I’m only quoting excerpts, with the formats removed, of the AI output, and I’m doing that only for brevity and not to misrepresent. The entire output is preserved in my AI history; and in any case, to be safe, I’ve pasted it verbatim onto a Word doc. I can very easily present the entire the text to you if you should ask. Here’s the extracts)
From a strict physics standpoint, the highlighted statement is incorrect. It reflects a common misunderstanding of how cosmological models work… Here is a breakdown of why this claim is inaccurate:
1. The Laws of Physics Have Not Changed or Disappeared (…The fundamental laws we use to model the early universe—such as General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory—are the exact same laws we use today… )
2. High-Energy Phenomena vs. Dissolving Laws (…When physicists model the fractions of a second after the Big Bang, they look at extreme energy scales where forces unify, …like the electroweak force merging electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force… These unified states are not “laws that don’t exist today.” They are behaviors inherent to our current laws that only manifest at ultra-high energies. We can even recreate some of these conditions today inside particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider.)
3. Hypotheses for the “Beginning” Are Not Temporary Rules (To resolve the mathematical breakdown (singularity) at the exact moment of the Big Bang, physicists propose frameworks like String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, or the Hartle-Hawking “no-boundary” proposal (which utilizes imaginary time)… These are not temporary laws that expired after the universe formed. …
They are attempts to find a deeper, overarching law of quantum gravity that operates all the time, including right now, but whose unique effects are only noticeable at the microscopic Planck scale or in the center of black holes.
Summary: Physicists do not invent temporary laws that existed before the Big Bang and then vanished…
———-
———-
You’re lying again in mischaracterizing my reaction as “being insulted by the obvious”.
First, because it isn’t “the obvious”. It is your corkscrew mind conniving and twisting and turning to present half-lies and lies with a view to misrepresent the truth. And it isn’t “insult”, it is simply exasperation, and irritation at this …insanity.
This the third time, in as many threads, that I’ve caught you red-handed, caught you trying to directly mischaracterize straight simple facts. And, per usual, you display complete lack of integrity and complete lack of good faith in trying to twist and turn your way in an insane attempt to somehow save face.
———-
———-
Which brings me back to what I’d said to Brian.
It’s a fool’s errand to engage with the likes of you.
You’ll keep on twisting and turning endlessly in order to misrepresent facts and misrepresent what people are saying, in order to somehow preserve the façade of your patently insane worldview.
The best we can do is ignore this endless flood of BS, and focus on uncovering the truth about ourselves and the world. Except, we can’t really do that if we ourselves end up Spence-Teppering the discussion when it comes to our own pet biases. If we do that last, then we can only throw up our hands and simply give up the space, and indeed the world, to the purveyors of the incoherent and the nonsensical.
———-
———-
Over and out. Makes my stomach turn to …somehow, gawd knows how, find myself engaging with this Book of Punishment of yours, yet again.
Hi AR
I appreciate that you attempted to get greater insight from Gem. Both answers are factual but answer different statements. Calm down just a little and rather than blame, try instead to understand physics and what it says and doesn’t say a little deeper.
.
At no time did I suggest these inventions, to explain the conditions that resulted in the big bang, were temporary. They are not temporary. They are not measurable today. They are external to our system. All the laws from T=0 which are in this system are measurable. It’s what happened to bring it all about that is conjecture. As of today we can’t make them.
Here is what Gem says about conditions pre-zero:
“3. Alternative Theories: What About Pre-Big Bang Models?While mainstream physics states time started at the Big Bang, some theoretical models try to look further back. Even in these theories, the forces as we know them did not exist:”
It is possible they did exist but they are entirely independent of this system and there can’t be measured in it.
I’m not sure if it’s possible for you to acknowledge a fact outside of your beliefs, but try.
We don’t know what happened to lead up to the big bang. We know that in this creation time and matter, and energy all began at T=0. But did all the laws of physics energy at that point, it were they all there waiting to be used? Is T=0 just for this creation? She was that point outside this creation? If this is just a cycle, as has been proposed, then T=0 is only relative to this particular cycle.
All of these are extant concepts in astrophysics. AR. Do not be embarrassed, but please continue asking Gem about these possibilities . Nothing in physics has ruled them out yet.
But whatever laws those were may will have existed before the big bang. As Gem stated earlier an empty quantum field still exists with the laws of physics. The idea that laws of physics are temporary, has no support, AR, and so that includes confirming such laws didn’t exist until time and matter existed.
My claim is that whatever additional forces brought the start of the big bang are independent of the downstream forces that shaped the big bang events, after T=0, and therefore cannot be measured.
You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
“I don’t think we should be afraid of science.”
“We” should, Ron.
If “our” worldview and self-view are entwined with anti-scientific claptrap; and “our” self-image is entwined with that self-view: then yes, “we” should indeed be wary of science. And “we” should, indeed, try to discredit science, and when opportunity arises to misrepresent it. So that “we” can maintain said self-image and facade.
@AR “If “our” worldview and self-view are entwined with anti-scientific claptrap; and “our” self-image is entwined with that self-view: then yes, “we” should indeed be wary of science.”
No argument from me re anti-science claptrap, just that real science such as that which addresses medicine, technology, food, ‘clean’ energy and so on is to our benefit. But you have misread me. My point was re Graham’s ‘Austere Physicalism’ is not to be feared as it’s just another working theory. And, as Anal Seth states, although he favours physicalism, he is also agnostic about such a stance – an honest approach.
No, what is feared in science is the uncovering of superstition and erroneous beliefs. Science is not in the business of searching for the ‘truth’, it’s aim is to build knowledge about the natural world, to explain how things work. To this end, scientific discoveries show how we evolved, that Earth is not the centre of the universe, the Earth is not flat, mentally disturbed people are possessed by devils, etc.
Some try to undermine science, where they have an investment in maintaining the belief or hope that there is something more to life than a mere physical existence. Basically, the answer is ‘we do not know’, but the evidence, as shown by science and also through our own observations, does not suggest any ‘super’natural intervention. Anyone who says they ‘know’ such things is not being honest to themselves, as it lies in the realms of belief, not fact.
Wasn’t disagreeing with you there, Ron. Not one bit. On the contrary.
(Heh, maybe I should have put in “[s]…[/s]” tags to denote sarcasm. To be fair, I did use scare quotes aplenty, and thought that would do to convey what I actually meant.)
Thanks for the clarification AR. Didn’t comprehend the “we” as being sarcasm. Glad to know you haven’t “turned”.
Haha, no. I’m right where I’d been!
Was essentially going for what you yourself more directly said, in your comment to me: “what is feared in science is the uncovering of superstition and erroneous beliefs”.
For those harboring such erroneous beliefs and superstitions, and when self-worth and identity end up being linked up to such: well then, science does end becoming something to be wary of, to belittle, to try to discredit, and, in this case, to try to misrepresent.
Be afraid of science, be very afraid because it’s all true. Global warming. Climate and weather trauma. People’s brains turned to mush because of AI. I’m scared but noways tired.
Many scientists are atheists. They see the laws of physics at work, truly a mystery, and a miracle, and yet these laws in action, reliable, repeatable, testable, point to a system as the cause of all measurable events.
The very notion that all laws of physics emerged with time and matter is an incredible, elegant and fantastic notion. But that particular statement can’t be falsified. It can’t be tested by science, which is limited to the dependent variables of this existing creation.
Many scientists, including the Father of physics, Isaac Newton, hold very deep beliefs in God. For them, these beautiful laws and all of science are the actualization of an incredible and loving creator.
Newton famously was asked ‘what is the cause of these laws of physics?’ He famously replied, “I frame no hypothesis.”
He did not attempt to connect belief with science. When all things are taken as evidence of a creator, there is nothing with which to test the existence of the creator. It is a belief, an experience, not an experiment. And as the creator of all events, such belief, at that all-encompassing level, is not falsifiable. The cause of all this incredible and stunning science is himself untestable. It’s a belief, based upon personal experience, and as such has personal verification aplenty. But as science, it cannot be tested. Existence of any definable element can be tested. But existence itself cannot.
Now there are bad scientists and weak believers. Whenever anyone wants to claim something as evidence to support a particular system of belief, they tread on rocky terrain because any argument rests on the premises you choose to accept, and the variables as you choose to define them. And that choice is generally driven by our conditioning. Logic is a beautiful prostitute who will assume any position for a fee. Logic was here long before AI, but both work in a similar way.
There is great wisdom in choosing not to believe in what is defined by human beings, human invention.
But there is incredible beauty, compassion and wisdom in such inventions. Perhaps they do reflect on something greater which is beyond interpretation, artificial labels and attributions. I like to believe so. It feels right and gives me great solace to think that this creation is far more intelligent and capable than I, even if those qualities are deeply hidden and only glimpsed when we let the creations of our own mind go.
Bump!
(To draw attention to the two substantive points I’d raised here in my initial comment, that may have gotten lost in the flood of complete nonsense that followed.)
One: Why exactly did Graham say that higher manifest realities lack causal power, and in that sense are illusory? And on what basis did he subsequently end up walking back that assertion/proposition/claim of his?
And two: On what basis is he suggesting that the lowest level, the fundamental quantum level, is where causal power vests for all of reality, given that we’re not yet arrived at a Theory of Everything that links Relativity with QM (and so are not in a position, as far as I can see, to assert that such a direct one-to-one causal linkage and mapping necessarily even exists)?
———-
I’m not trying to nitpick here! …And again: I myself completely agree with Graham’s broad theme, which is that physicalism causes all and explains all. No disagreement there.
Just, that’s …not really saying much at all, is it? Given he’s written a whole book around this?
I would be very surprised if he hasn’t actually discussed these two questions, probably in detail. …And if he has — as I expect he would have — then we’d stand to gain from his technically informed discussion of these questions.
It all works if you accept Austere Physicality as a point of view, an argument with its strengths and weaknesses. A system of belief, defended eloquently by the author, but limited as are all systems invented by human thought.
For example the author writes that evolution has generated our perceptual experience as a means of utility, for our survival, not strictly accurate but emphasizing the things we need to attend to in order to survive at one time.
But it could also be argued that the imagination, like the imagination of Einstein riding on a wave of light, an internal experience, could just as easily have functional utility, to help the tribe move to an as yet unseen, and perhaps completely unknown, but entirely necessary location for its safety.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Einstein
In this way even imagination has a place in basic survival and therefore in our own evolution as a species.
I read Physics Fixes All the Facts a while ago, and the recent discussion here prompted me to go back through the notes I made at the time. As I see it, Graham is making two separate arguments:
1. There isn’t really a middle ground between austere physicalism and dualism. Any supposedly weaker form of physicalism ultimately reduces to austere physicalism. This makes up most of the book, and I found the argument persuasive.
2. Graham then argues that austere physicalism is preferable to dualism. Whether you find that convincing is probably a matter of philosophical preference.
He acknowledges that physics has significant gaps, but argues that this isn’t a problem for physicalism because, as he puts it, “it is just like any other scientific concept in that it is based on our current knowledge. That’s the best we can ever do.”
His argument that higher-level entities don’t have causal powers is essentially that an event can’t have two independent causes. Either physics is doing the causal work (physicalism), or some higher-level entity is, in which case physics is incomplete or violated (strong emergence or dualism). That’s basically the argument.
I don’t think anything in the previous post about imagination conflicts with austere physicalism, or with dualism, for that matter.
One aspect of the book that I found unsatisfying was how briefly it dealt with consciousness. I’d be interested to hear what others thought about that.
Excellent summary of the book’s main points. I too was disappointed by the very brief mention of consciousness. I recall that Graham says that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain that obeys physical laws of nature like everything else. But maybe I made that up because it is how I’ve come to view consciousness.
I went back to the book and the short section on consciousness just gives various arguments against the idea of the hard problem:
“What bothers me most about it is the whiff of anthropocentrism. We may no longer be at the centre of things, but we are still the hardest problem in the universe. How cool is that?
Chalmers is correct that it is a problem like no other. But this is because, so far at least, we have only first-person data. I have no way of knowing whether your subjective experience is the same as mine. I have no way of knowing whether you have any subjective experience at all. Without objective evidence, the question is outside the scope of science.
Until we have such evidence, my take is that everyone needs to calm down.”
Thanks for weighing in, Qualiaphile. Appreciate your clarifications.
Since you referenced the general discussion here, allow me to clarify that the “higher-level manifest reality” I was talking about isn’t to do with consciousness, but simply about mundane higher manifestations like books, and chairs, and you and me. While these won’t be possessed of causal power independent of their lower-level physics, including QM level physics: but to therefore suggest that these are not possessed of causal power at all, and therefore are illusory, seems …dicey? (I haven’t read the book myself, and based my observations on just the excerpts and Brian’s discussion: but Brian, who has read the book, agrees with the critique.)
Graham’s overall thesis, that Brian himself discussed, and you spelled out yourself as well, seems perfectly cromulent: just, I was wondering if there was any technical basis to his having argued the above, and if likewise there was any technical basis to his subsequently walking back that position.
(Ditto what I’d asked about QM being taken to be the full-on causal basis even of cosmological-scale reality, even in the absence so far of a ToE. Was wondering if there’s some technical basis to Graham’s taking that line. If there is, then that might be interesting to know.)
———-
There’s one …thought, an argument, that I thought I might share with you.
You suggest that consciousness so far is outside the ambit of science, and therefore we needn’t get all worked up over that question.
My take on this is straightforward. Anything factual that is outside the ambit of science, it is rational and reasonable to provisionally treat as non-existent.
(Allow me to hijack Carl Sagan’s garage dragon here. If I were to claim that I know, beyond doubt, that there’s a dragon in my garage: a garage that’s invisible, that’s weightless, that’s …whatever-you-can-think-of-less, in short, not discernible via any material means: then that dragon is necessarily “outside the scope of science”. While we’re welcome to research the dragon as much as we like, absolutely: but it would be …not rational, not reasonable, to imagine the dragon actually exists, absent evidence.)
Likewise: an extra-physical, extra-material consciousness (that is to say, the idea that consciousness is predicated on anything outside of what Graham describes as “austere physicality”) is non-existent, by any rational and reasonable yardstick.
Agreed that it is silly to make a song and dance about this, beyond (correctly) highlighting the problem itself, and beyond (correctly) recognizing that we don’t yet know the exact mechanism of this, and that this is an area that merits research.
Beyond that, if anyone claims that because this is outside the ambit of science therefore we can’t say one way or the other whether it exists — and by “it”, I again mean consciousness that is anything other than materially based, given that materiality is the only thing we have evidence of — then they’re free to do that, naturally, but they’re in that case not being rational, not being reasonable.
(How you phrase the “let’s all calm down” bit leaves your position kind of ambiguous. If what I’m arguing is what is your position as well, then naturally I’m in fully agreement.)
———-
Incidentally: Completely love your reading habits. I mean where you mention that you’d read this book ages ago, but had made your own notes of it, that you’re preserved, and basis which you’ve reconstructed your understanding of the book. Very cool, I like! I tend to do the same, except by scribbling and marking extensively within the pages of the book itself. (When the book’s mine, that is, naturally!)
I’d like to put down one additional observation, if I may, in connection with Qualiaphile’s observations:
Qualiaphile, you state that: (Graham’s) argument that higher-level entities don’t have causal powers is essentially that an event can’t have two independent causes.”
Well, I’m afraid that argument is …unsound, wrong. Wrong, because it is predicated on a faulty premise.
That assertion, that an event can’t have two independent causes? That’s simply a bald unsupported and apparently random ipse dixitism. There’s no reason, at all, why an event cannot have two, or three, or two hundred and twenty three independent causes!
(That is the same flaw that was taken by Aquinas’ illogic along to the opposite, nonsensical conclusion in favor of the existence of God. In this case the conclusion arrived at is valid, but that’s happenstance, or more likely invalid retrofitting, given that the route taken to arrive at that conclusion is unsound.)
We can indeed, and should indeed, reject the idea that consciousness is not based in physicalism, simply because there’s no evidence bearing that out, and indeed no evidence that there’s anything at all that’s not materially based. It’s a simple straightforward burden of proof thing.
Graham is right to point out that science shows us that physicalism is the cause for everything material. But he is wrong to reject the idea that consciousness comes from outside of materialism, on the grounds that one event or one consequence cannot have more than one cause. (Assuming your recollection of what he’s argued there is correct.)