Let’s taboo physics: it can mean ‘the set of laws on which the universe runs’ (henceforth physical laws), or ‘the academic discipline studying those laws’ (physical science). Is love captured by physics? It is captured by physical laws (i.e. a logically omniscient being could derive a description of love from them¹), but not by physical science (i.e. not all physicists are much better at getting laid than a typical layman).
Caveats about needing both differential equations and boundary conditions (the equations of the SM and of GR as known today don’t even predict an arrow of time, without the boundary condition of very low entropy in the past), which could be moot given some as-yet-unknown law (Hawking and Penrose sometimes think about such things).
Is love captured by physics? It is captured by physical laws (i.e. a logically omniscient being could derive a description of love from them)
This is still the same “statement of faith” that I criticized at greater length, later in the thread. Love is an experience, and you will not even find a description (to say nothing of an explanation) of an experience, in any sort of physics that we know about, nor in any other discourse that can be reduced to that sort of physics. Our mathematical physics describes what the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave are doing, but it says nothing about what anything is. The nature of experience is a problem of the latter kind, which is one reason why explanations of it in terms of matter, number, and computation are hollow. Then there is the more specific problem that the atomized ontology of physics is an ill-suited place in which to find complex unities like conscious states, which is why I say there will need to be new formal developments in physics, and new physical discoveries in neurobiology, before even a revised physicalism has any chance of explaining us.
Love is an experience, and you will not even find a description (to say nothing of an explanation) of an experience, in any sort of physics that we know about, nor in any other discourse that can be reduced to that sort of physics.
If you simulate the standard model of particle physics with appropriate initial conditions, your simulation will include four-limbed beings who will be happy to describe the experience of love to you at great length. (It’s true that no one will be able to verify this claim any time soon, but there’s every reason to believe it, because the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood). Doesn’t this mean that physics contains a description of the experience of love?
Are you singling out “love” for any specific reason or are you using it as a general example of all human emotions (e.g. fear, trust, jealousy, feeling of knowing, hate, happiness, etc.)?
Let’s taboo physics: it can mean ‘the set of laws on which the universe runs’ (henceforth physical laws), or ‘the academic discipline studying those laws’ (physical science). Is love captured by physics? It is captured by physical laws (i.e. a logically omniscient being could derive a description of love from them¹), but not by physical science (i.e. not all physicists are much better at getting laid than a typical layman).
Caveats about needing both differential equations and boundary conditions (the equations of the SM and of GR as known today don’t even predict an arrow of time, without the boundary condition of very low entropy in the past), which could be moot given some as-yet-unknown law (Hawking and Penrose sometimes think about such things).
This is still the same “statement of faith” that I criticized at greater length, later in the thread. Love is an experience, and you will not even find a description (to say nothing of an explanation) of an experience, in any sort of physics that we know about, nor in any other discourse that can be reduced to that sort of physics. Our mathematical physics describes what the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave are doing, but it says nothing about what anything is. The nature of experience is a problem of the latter kind, which is one reason why explanations of it in terms of matter, number, and computation are hollow. Then there is the more specific problem that the atomized ontology of physics is an ill-suited place in which to find complex unities like conscious states, which is why I say there will need to be new formal developments in physics, and new physical discoveries in neurobiology, before even a revised physicalism has any chance of explaining us.
If you simulate the standard model of particle physics with appropriate initial conditions, your simulation will include four-limbed beings who will be happy to describe the experience of love to you at great length. (It’s true that no one will be able to verify this claim any time soon, but there’s every reason to believe it, because the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood). Doesn’t this mean that physics contains a description of the experience of love?
Are you singling out “love” for any specific reason or are you using it as a general example of all human emotions (e.g. fear, trust, jealousy, feeling of knowing, hate, happiness, etc.)?
Using it as a general example.