3 ms·
Whatever it is, it follows a deterministic ruleset, else there be madness. If it follows a deterministic ruleset, and we can observe it directly or indirectly,
by louithethrid 9y ago
Whatever it is, it follows a deterministic ruleset, else there be madness. If it follows a deterministic ruleset, and we can observe it directly or indirectly, and write those rules down- theorize about those rules - we can allmost call it physics.
If the feeling of beeing a clock, winds up a spring in the clock that works a mechanism that feels like fear on beeing predictable (aka exploitable) - that does not make the clock less observable.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoQuantum physics has thrown a wrench into the 17th century Newtonian theory of the universe being totally mechanical, like a game of billiards.
- jnicholasp 9y agoAt the very bottom of physics, if we ever reach it with our observations and theories, there will be something that simply is, and is not explained by the interactions of some sub-system. The foundational elements of physics are probably non-conscious (assuming the currently known particles and fields are indeed non-conscious). What grounds do we have for asserting as certain that consciousness is not a foundational thing-that-simply-is, but must definitely be composed from sub-systems that are themselves non-conscious?