• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Does "Physical" Really Mean?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So you do not dispute that according to your definition of "physical," information is not physical, i.e., information is not an atom and does not exchange a force particle with atoms.

I didn't say that to be physical something has to exchange a force particle. You read that in somehow. For example, a collection of physical things is again physical, yes? But there is no exchange of force particles. Information is physical because it *is* the physical state of the system.

And obviously you have not substantiated your claim that "the current evidence" indicates that the wave function is merely subjective.

The current, best view from quantum gravity is that the wave function is dependent on the observer. Is that proven? No. But is it the 'best guess' currently? Yes.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I didn't say that to be physical something has to exchange a force particle.
I asked you what you meant by "interaction" but you didn't answer. If you mean something other than an exchange of force particles, then tell us.

You read that in somehow. For example, a collection of physical things is again physical, yes? But there is no exchange of force particles. Information is physical because it *is* the physical state of the system.
So is the wave function.

The current, best view from quantum gravity is that the wave function is dependent on the observer. Is that proven? No. But is it the 'best guess' currently? Yes.
So what you meant when you said there is evidence that the wave function is subjective is that that there no evidence.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I asked you what you meant by "interaction" but you didn't answer. If you mean something other than an exchange of force particles, then tell us.
A change in either side can produce a change in the other.

So is the wave function.

Fair enough. I am not committed to the non-physical nature of the wave function. I am committed to the physical nature of fermions and bosons.

So what you meant when you said there is evidence that the wave function is subjective is that that there no evidence.

Part of the issue here is what you want to call 'subjective'. For example, two observers moving in relation to each other will differ in their measurements of things like distances and durations. Do that make distances and durations 'subjective'? If not, does that mean they are 'objective'? If so, how can they differ for the same event? I suspect the problem is in the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective' in these cases: there isn't a clear line without further definition of concepts.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A change in either side can produce a change in the other.
How does "one side" produce a change "in the other side"?

As I recall, you referred to atoms, not "sides," in your definition of "physical".

Part of the issue here is what you want to call 'subjective'. For example, two observers moving in relation to each other will differ in their measurements of things like distances and durations. Do that make distances and durations 'subjective'? If not, does that mean they are 'objective'? If so, how can they differ for the same event? I suspect the problem is in the distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective' in these cases: there isn't a clear line without further definition of concepts.
I used the terms "objective" and "subjective" here specifically because on the other thread you seemed to have such a definitive and unwavering idea that the wave function is not objective but is subjective.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
How does "one side" produce a change "in the other side"?

As I recall, you referred to atoms, not "sides," in your definition of "physical".

Sheesh. One side of the interaction is the atom. The other side is whatever vou are testing as physical. And, again, it is an inductive definition. Anything that interacts with something that interacts with an atom is also physical, etc.

I used the terms "objective" and "subjective" here specifically because on the other thread you seemed to have such a definitive and unwavering idea that the wave function is not objective but is subjective.

Then you have been reading more into my position than is there. I certainly consider it a possibility that it is 'objective', but I am not perfectly sure what the term 'objective' means. Are measurements of distance objective?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sheesh. One side of the interaction is the atom. The other side is whatever vou are testing as physical. And, again, it is an inductive definition. Anything that interacts with something that interacts with an atom is also physical, etc.
I say that testing the hypothesis of whether something is "physical" according to your definition of that adjective is impossible unless you can figure out what you mean by "interaction".

And, further, as far as I know, regardless of what you mean by "interaction," we will never observe a down quark interacting with an atom, therefore we will never be able to claim that the down quark is "physical" according to your definition.

In addition, it does not seem to me that your concept of information in #24, as our "interpretation of the physical state," indicates that information would be "physical" according to your definition of that adjective.

These conundrums merely highlight the issue of the unimportance of the term "physical". This adjective is used a lot (by some people) in a variety of ways, but it's difficult to pin down a consistent definition for purposes of metaphysics.

Then you have been reading more into my position than is there. I certainly consider it a possibility that it is 'objective', but I am not perfectly sure what the term 'objective' means. Are measurements of distance objective?
Yes, general relativity was the beginning of destruction of the idea that empirical reality is experienced the same for everyone regardless of conditions, even while the mathematical nature of empirical reality is unquestionable. Distance is relative to inertial frame of reference, which, in turn, is determined those quantities calculated as energy and momentum.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I say that testing the hypothesis of whether something is "physical" according to your definition of that adjective is impossible unless you can figure out what you mean by "interaction".

And, further, as far as I know, regardless of what you mean by "interaction," we will never observe a down quark interacting with an atom, therefore we will never be able to claim that the down quark is "physical" according to your definition.

Even by the limited definition requiring an exchange of bosons, a down quark would certainly be interacting with the atom it is a part of through *at least* the exchange of photons and of W particles.I'm not quite sure why you see as not interacting. For that matter, it would also be interacting with other atoms, if that is an issue for you.

In addition, it does not seem to me that your concept of information in #24, as our "interpretation of the physical state," indicates that information would be "physical" according to your definition of that adjective.

These conundrums merely highlight the issue of the unimportance of the term "physical". This adjective is used a lot (by some people) in a variety of ways, but it's difficult to pin down a consistent definition for purposes of metaphysics.

And once again, physicalism is the position that everything supervenes (philosophical sense) on the physical. Ultimately, this means that everything has a physical explanation. So, whether or not you want information to be physical itself, it still supervenes on the physical and that is enough to be consistent with physicalism. So a physical object has physical properties. Whether you want to regard those properties as themselves physical is rather irrelevant. They are dependent on the physical aspects and nothing else.

Of course, the underlying issue is that metaphysics is so ****ed up that it really isn't a valid subject to begin with. The point is that essentially anything in the real world is only defined operationally, not formally. So, even an electron is ultimately defined operationally: how it interacts and how it is to be detected, etc. Any metaphysics that doesn't take this process of operational definition seriously is flawed from the start.

Yes, general relativity was the beginning of destruction of the idea that empirical reality is experienced the same for everyone regardless of conditions, even while the mathematical nature of empirical reality is unquestionable. Distance is relative to inertial frame of reference, which, in turn, is determined those quantities calculated as energy and momentum.
But the energy and momentum also depend on the observer. And yet we regard all of those as physical properties. Which means that 'dependent on an observer' is distinct from 'subjective' or 'objective': the observations in a reference frame are still objective in that frame, for example.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, general relativity was the beginning of destruction of the idea that empirical reality is experienced the same for everyone regardless of conditions, even while the mathematical nature of empirical reality is unquestionable. .


No, empirical reality doens't have a 'mathematical nature' any more than it has an 'English nature' or a 'French nature'. Mathematics is simply a formal language we have invented to help us talk about empirical reality .
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Even by the limited definition requiring an exchange of bosons, a down quark would certainly be interacting with the atom it is a part of through *at least* the exchange of photons and of W particles.I'm not quite sure why you see as not interacting. For that matter, it would also be interacting with other atoms, if that is an issue for you.
Cite the experiment where a down quark has been shown to exchange a force particle with any other particle.

And once again, physicalism is the position that everything supervenes (philosophical sense) on the physical.
So, in other words, everything is extraneous to or in addition to to "the physical".

BTW: I've never seen the definition of physical that you have stated.

Also, BTW, "physical" is an adjective except when referring to an examination of the body such as doctors perform. One does not put articles in front of adjectives.

Of course, the underlying issue is that metaphysics is so ****ed up that it really isn't a valid subject to begin with.
You're the one who has declared his commitment to a metaphysical thesis that you can't even define, much less argue for. You shouldn't turn metaphysics into bad religion.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Cite the experiment where a down quark has been shown to exchange a force particle with any other particle.

Now you are simply being a troll. Down quarks interact via all the known forces: strong, weak, E&M and gravity. So they exchange gluons with other quarks in the nucleus, photons with electrons, and vector bosons with electrons and other quarks.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Prove it.

I notice you ignored the rest of my post. Mathematics is a language we invented to help us describe the universe. But the universe itself no more has a 'mathematical nature' any more than it has an 'English nature'. Both mathematics and English are languages we use to describe the universe. But they are not the universe.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Now you are simply being a troll. Down quarks interact via all the known forces: strong, weak, E&M and gravity. So they exchange gluons with other quarks in the nucleus, photons with electrons, and vector bosons with electrons and other quarks.
The reason that you are unable to cite any experiment demonstrating that the down quark exchanges any force particle with what you refer to as a "physical" particle, is because there has been no such demonstration. Right?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I notice you ignored the rest of my post.
No, I didn't ignore your claims; I merely challenged you to prove that your claims have some basis in reality. Many of your claims don't. "Prove it" means to state and substantiate a fact, and state the deduction.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And once again, physicalism is the position that everything supervenes (philosophical sense) on the physical.
I'm not sure that you have grasped the fact that according to this definition of "physicalism," if "everything supervenes on the physical," then "everything" is different than and in addition to "the physical".

Evidently, "physicalism" is just nonsensical dualism.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The reason that you are unable to cite any experiment demonstrating that the down quark exchanges any force particle with what you refer to as a "physical" particle, is because there has been no such demonstration. Right?

Look at the standard model of particle physics. Do you want me to prove that?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I didn't ignore your claims; I merely challenged you to prove that your claims have some basis in reality. Many of your claims don't. "Prove it" means to state and substantiate a fact, and state the deduction.

Actually, you are the one claiming a fact: that the universe *does* have a 'mathematical nature'. Can you prove this?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I didn't ignore your claims; I merely challenged you to prove that your claims have some basis in reality. Many of your claims don't. "Prove it" means to state and substantiate a fact, and state the deduction.

And you seem to miss the fact that if everything supervenes on the physical, then everything is explained by the physical. After that, it is simply BS labeling whether something is physical or not.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Look at the standard model of particle physics. Do you want me to prove that?
Please do if you believe it will help you to show that the down quark exchanges a force particle with atoms.

Just to stay on track, you also haven't been able to argue that either information or the wave function are physical, according to your definition of "physical". Right?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually, you are the one claiming a fact: that the universe *does* have a 'mathematical nature'. Can you prove this?
I argue for the proposition that empirical reality is mathematical in its nature by the fact that what physicists discover about empirical reality are mathematical relations. Physicists never discover anything about empirical reality that isn't (part of) a relation between quantities. This fact is just the first premise of the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument for mathematical realism, as argued here: Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism

What do you claim is the nature of empirical reality if not mathematical? Why is mathematics so "unreasonably effective" in discerning what is true about empirical reality, if the nature of empirical reality is something other than mathematical? I.e., it's only because of the mathematical nature of empirical reality that physicists were able to correctly predict there must a Higgs particle that is defined by certain quantities.
 
Top