|
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If we discover causal forces "outside the physical realm" (as we did when we first developed the theory of electromagnetism), we will simply redefine "the physical realm" to include the new, previously-unknown physics. (That, or we'll expand the domain of physics while preserving the legacy terminology, like when we decided that "world" meant a planet, or an "atom" could be separated into parts.) > What meaning do you assign to the symbol "real" in this context? Doesn't matter, because physics doesn't care whether or not its domain is "real". We can ignore the metaphysicians because physics is the study of models, observations, and discrepancies, and would work just as well if reality were an illusion. > I doubt you can actually see the future. If you disagree, please explain, using only physics, how you can. Information enters my brain. My brain gradually builds a predictive model, according to some (presumably physical) process that I call "me". I can then make confident conditional statements about the future, which historically have been overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) correct where the antecedent is satisfied. By induction, I infer that I possess the general ability to see the future with high accuracy, in certain domains. Though information theory is usually considered a branch of mathematics, the (incredibly eldritch) field of thermodynamics allows theorems of information theory to be translated into theorems of physics, and (in some cases) vice versa. > Do you believe that aggregate reality is constrained by your cognitive abilities, No, but again, that's irrelevant. |
You are telling stories. Stories are the foundation of the culture you have been raised in, they trump everything.
I know you don't understand what I'm saying.