[Wittrs] Re: The Epiphenomenalism of Dennett-Consistent Philosophies of Consciousness
- From: Justintruth <truth.justin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:36:33 -0800 (PST)
My understanding is that the periodicity is solely a function of the
standard model of physics and that the periodicity is predicted by the
quantum theory of orbitals (especially the valence shells). We may not
be able to calculate all of the atoms' orbitals but I believe that the
standard model results in a prediction of the formation of the
elements and the periodicity of the elements and the bonding between
elements etc. It is electronic attraction and repulsion. Perhaps you
are referring to the exclusion principle? Or is it the problems with
computing large atom orbitals or molecular orbitals? Classical
mechanics could not even solve the three body problem in closed form
so it is not surprising to me that we can't do the calculations but I
think we believe that the principles of physics are operating and the
predicted result, that nuclei will form and electrons will form clouds
around nuclei and then that the atoms will interact are all a result
of physical principles. Being aware is not. Its just not predicted by
the science.
In fact the cosmic abundance of hydrogen and helium has been predicted
by cosmology and the rest of the elements creation are modeled fairly
well by nucleo-synthesis in the stars. They not only know the periodic
table as a result of physics but can predict how the atoms were formed
to a large degree.
I believe that most chemists would say that the periodic table is a
result of the standard model of quantum mechanics and for good reason.
The mechanism is clear. The chemical reactions are just the bonding -
motion - of the atoms as they collide and attach. Chemistry is a
description of the motion of atoms.
On Feb 1, 4:50 pm, "J D" <ubersi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Justin,
>
> The problem with this argument is that, were it valid, it would prove too
> much.
>
> The periodicity of the elements cannot be derived entirely from principles of
> physics. We can make some generalizations and point to various facts of
> physics that would account for this periodocity, but we can't get to the
> periodicity from physics.
>
> Does this prove that chemical reactions aren't physical processes?
>
> They aren't processes described by physics. But they are physical processes.
>
> And this helps to pinpoint one flaw in your argument: 1a-1c involve an
> equivocation in the use of "physical".
>
> JPDeMouy
>
> PS I'm not really a partisan in these discussions but I wanted to comment on
> the argument on its own terms.
>
> > 1a) We have agreed to describe my awareness as physical.
> > 1b) It is the job of physics to describe what we agree to call
> > physical.
> > 1c) Therefore physics should describe my awareness.
>
> > 2a) A description of the motion of particles is not a description of
> > awareness.
> > 2b) Physics is only a description of the motion of particles. (Using a
> > version of classical physics as a first order approximation)
> > 2c) Therefore physics does not describe my awareness.
>
> > 1c) Physics should describe my awareness
> > 2c) Physics does not describe my awareness
> > 3c) Physics needs to be modified to include a description of
> > awareness.
>
> Need Something? Check here:http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
