The universe consists of space, particles in that space, and forces, enabled by energy, that control the relationships and positions of particles in space. That’s it. That’s all there is. There’s nothing more. It seems to be sufficient.
Due to the influence of forces, particles are unevenly distributed in space. Forces cause particles to change positions or hold relative positions in space. When forces change then particles respond by changing their positions. Patterns of forces cause collections of particles to behave in a coordinated fashion. These coordinated collections of particles are called things. Lonnie Mandigo is a thing; a collection of particles that more or less maintain their positions relative to each other by means of an arrangement, a pattern, of forces.
Things are often composed of other things. Lonnie Mandigo is composed of skin, muscle, bones, and other structures collectively called organs. This pattern of things and their relationships to each other, through the influence of various forces, compose the thing known as Lonnie Mandigo. This form of composition, this pattern, is a hierarchical relationship. The things within a hierarchical relationship behave in a coordinated way that enables the existence of the higher-level thing. The collection of Lonnie Mandigo’s organs are Lonnie Mandigo.
For the higher-level thing to exist there must also be some sort of cohesion between its components. They must interact with each other in a particular way in order to maintain the integrity of the higher-level thing. If the relationships, the patterns of forces, that exist between Lonnie Mandigo’s organs are disrupted, then Lonnie Mandigo may cease to exist as a thing.
A particular arrangement of particles in space, and by implication of things in space, is called a state. A change in the arrangement of a particle or collection of particles, things, is called an event. Lonnie Mandigo picks up a coffee cup, another thing, by means of a collection of patterns of forces. The force pattern necessary to extend an arm. The force pattern necessary to grasp the cup. The force pattern necessary to lift the cup. An event occurred that changed the state of the coffee cup from resting on the table to being held by Lonnie Mandigo’s hand. There were events, changes in state, to Lonnie’s arm and hand as well.
Patterns of particles, i.e. states, and patterns of forces that cause changes in states, i.e. events, are collectively called facts. Lonnie Mandigo picking up a coffee cup is a fact. Lonnie Mandigo holding the coffee cup is a fact. All of the steps along the way to holding the coffee cup are facts.
A fact is a characteristic of some portion of the universe, a relationship of space, particles, and forces. That’s it. That’s all there is. There’s nothing more. It seems to be sufficient.
Nice categorization, and very provocative statements. What kind of process did you use to develop these conclusions?
ReplyDeleteThis is along the path of teasing apart facts and beliefs and the interactions between the "physical world" and our perceptions of it. Fact needed a firmer definition as a starting point. This is vulnerable to other views of the universe such as it's nothing more than a pattern of probabilities. May need to come back to that at some point.
ReplyDeleteSounds like this is a statement of what you consider facts about the world, from which you can explore concepts regarding perception and belief? If so, then I was wondering how you settled on those assertions being fundamentally true, and perhaps what you mean by something being a fact.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I'm interested in the process you used -- how you thought through stuff, useful books or other media, insightful conversations, etc.
Okay, let me know if this answers your question. Please clarify and help guide me if it does not.
DeleteThe motivation for doing this comes from years of life and work experience of watching people talk past each other, having entirely disconnected conversations, when they thought they were talking about that same things. Being clear about what you mean by using particular words is vital if you are to communicate effectively. "Fact" is an important word that I hope to use in future conversations and posts and I’m practicing diligence in making clear what I mean by fact in a way that can be referred to by me and anyone else who cares to check in the future. At the very least, this may help to keep me consistent.
"Truth" is a notion that needs and will have a blog post of its own. In this case two tests are applied to my assertions about fact: First, am I highlighting aspects of the notion of fact that are relevant to what I want to say? I reserve the right to enhance these assertions if I discover other aspects of fact that are relevant but have not been addressed. Second, I subscribe to the scientific principle that the best available description is the one that is closest to reality. Any description will be abandoned and possibly all of the arguments based on it if a description of fact is discovered that more closely describes reality. Some proposed notions about the fundamental structure of the universe make this a very real risk. A useful read is Max Tegmark’s “Our Mathematical Universe”.
My assertions about the structure of the universe being space containing particles being acted upon by forces and their interactions is a synthesis of years of learning about conventional notions of physics from a blizzard of different sources. I should have a ready reference that summarizes this in more detail, but I don’t have one handy at the moment. Finding one is work that I should do.
Tying the instantaneous condition of a collection of particles in space to the word "state" isn’t something I can likely take any credit for. It seems like the correct use of the word in English. Tying the word "event" to the temporal relationship of two states within a system of constraints also seems like the correct use of the word English. Other words might be used to convey the same notions, but I like these. Note that this opens the door to a description of the use of the word "time". Another candidate for a separate blog post.
Regarding process, the general flow is to tie the more general, the "universe", to the more specific, "fact", and to label landmarks along the way; "space", "particles", "forces", "things", "states", and "events". Each of these is tied by assertion to the more general notions that they are derived from. In a sense this is creating a hierarchical structure.
Fundamentally the most important thing to remember is that these are all assertions that I’m making about reality with the underlying claim that these are the set of assertions most closely aligned with reality that are available to me today. I share these assertions so that; first, I know what I’m talking about more clearly, second, you know what I’m talking about so we can communicate more effectively, and third, to give you an opportunity to consider incorporating these assertions into your belief system and to influence the way you interact with the universe (a blog post that I’m working my up to). The last two enable us to become a reasoning and acting system more powerful than each of us as individuals. This in turn will provide us with greater insight into the implications of the workings of the universe and will better enable us to survive and thrive in it. It beats the heck out of being a random disconnected particle.
Does this answer your question?
This helps, thanks.
DeleteI was confused about the definition of "fact", and initially may have thought that you were limiting it only to descriptions of relationships of things in the universe, which seemed to leave out use of the term for independent assertions as in the first paragraph. My mistake.
It was the formation of those initial "sufficient" assertions that I was asking about.
For example, deliberate use of "particle", given the significant debates (ie, the lack of scientific consensus of quantum interpretation) is what struck me as provocative. Tegmark's book is on my list of things to read, as one among various possible descriptions of reality.
It's great that you are striving for improved group reasoning. However, your list of three reasons for this work does not include any sense of learning from others with the possibility of modifying your own belief system. Is that an intentional description (ie, expounding rather than discussion)?
Regardless, it might be nice to have some of what you've clarified in this exchange on an "About" page, so people can know your goals.