(May 17, 2025 at 9:48 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:(May 17, 2025 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Physical laws don't determine what happens, they just summarize what we observe.
You're conflating theory and phenomena here. Our physical laws are descriptive. They help us explain and predict what's going on. The phenomena on which these theories are based exist independent of the theories or explanations. In a complete absence of physicists or observers of any type, rocks will keep falling.
Theories don't determine what happens in the real world. Phenomena do. In a fully deterministic framework those phenomena govern everything. Emergent behaviours are lovely, but first and foremost, they follow the basic underlying rules. Langton's Ant doesn't suddenly decide to start turning left instead of right on a black square just because it's taken up an exciting new career in highway construction.
I'm so used to making faux pas's on these forums that I usually just essentially say 'Sod it' and let them slide
But why not make an exception once in a while Basically what you're saying here is what I meant the other day; that the underlying laws of physics, whatever they are, or whatever they turn out to be, determine what happens next. Not theories about them, competing or otherwise, but the actual underlying laws, set in stone, whether we understand them or not... the underlying phenomena. So in your opinion was there anything wrong with my original statement "but it's all in my view still ultimately achieved by and represented in physical neurons and thus determined by physical laws" or was I just being gaslit or misunderstood as usual, intentionally or otherwise? Or is it I that needs to refine my language and/or understanding?
