You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory.
What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived?
That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory.
That theory can posit "actually, there's matter, and there seems to be matter which does not possess this same capacity of observation, therefore this inert matter must have formed first, and then [insert hypothesis of your choice] that's how the observer arose".
That's valid.
However, it's not a fact, and it's not the only theory.
The theory I'm entertaining instead, is this: the observing phenomenon is as much a fundamental part of the universe as gravity. The reason some things don't seem to possess it is that we can't directly perceive other's observing phenomena, and it's only when this phenomena binds with matter in such a way (time, appearance, scale, complexity, frequency) that it can communicate with similar binding phenomena, then there is recognition: "you have a face, you're smiling, you seem to be alive, so I'm going to assign the observer trait to you".
Now that I recognize other observers we can communicate and form a theory, and see what we can agree on. Then and only then I can say "well let's pretend that there are no observers and see what we can agree on". And thus the laws of physics are born, as a mental model.
> You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory.
I agree with the map-territory distinction -- but the laws of physics (or, better, the "way things behave") is primarily in the territory, and only derivatively in the map. Our map may be more or less accurate, but the map presupposes the territory. Otherwise, nothing we can say about reality is more or less true than anything else, and absurdity results (like the hydrogen-oxygen example I gave before). If the way things behave is solely a property of the map, not of the territory, then it must be the case that we can't predict what will happen when we react hydrogen with oxygen. But we can predict this, and therefore the way things behave is a property of the territory. The map that says hydrogen+oxygen=water+heat is a better map -- that is, closer to the territory -- than one that says hydrogen+oxygen=chocolate bunny. But again, better vs worse map presupposes the territory, and presupposes that the stuff on the map points to real stuff on the territory, however imperfectly.
Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O?
> What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory.
Surely the fundamental fact is existence? Without this, there can be no observation, no observer, and no observed object. These things, like any individual thing, presuppose existence.
Further, your statement presupposes other things: for example, the law of non-contradiction (which is a facet of existence). Your statement says that there is a 'thing', that it observes, and that it constructs a theory. It must therefore take for granted that there is not nothing; that the 'thing' doesn't not observe; and that it doesn't not construct a theory. Otherwise the statement is meaningless.
This is just the beginning of what I could say, but your argument, like any argument, presupposes existence, the laws of logic, non-contradiction, the distinction of one object from another (the law of identity), etc. So we can't take an observer as a fundamental fact. More generally, we can't take any particular thing as the fundamental fact. Universal knowledge precedes particular knowledge. Existence in general precedes existence of the particular.
I'm not sure if this directly affects our disagreement, but it might help understand where I'm coming from :-)
> Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O?
I do agree with the second premise, but I'd say that's just saying we have a really good map for that particular area of the terrain. If you're going to your aunt's and you have a really good map, you're not going to show up in hong kong (I'm mapping the example onto your hydrogen-oxygen case).
But fundamentally, "the laws of physics" are still information as digested by the human brain. At one point our map of physics didn't include relativity. Now it does. The terrain did, but the map didn't.
With this in mind, it's crucial to remember that our current map has nearly no information about consciousness. It's like you have really detailed information about your aunt's neighbor in Chicago, and you know that Hong Kong exists and is Eastward. So you just assume that it's a straight road. Someone might suggest there's a few mountains in the way, but fundamentally you have no idea how to actually connect both points of the map.
Materliasm is essentially that to me, looking at the very detailed map of current physics, wiping their hands and saying yup that should be enough, it's a straight line from here.
>Surely the fundamental fact is existence?
I try to refrain from making an observer-observation distinction. To quote Krishnamurti "the observer is the observed".
Moving the discussion in this direction feels like another map, the map of logic. Within the framework of logic, I do agree with those terms. However, I don't think reality obeys logic in so much as logic is another way for us to make sense of the phenomena around us.
I hope I don't annoy you by another analogy: Imagine we're watching a wolf and his cub, and I ask which comes first. You say the father of course, because he was born earlier. This is true. However, I was asking which of them was ahead, that is in the present moment which of them will arrive first. You were answering from knowledge, not from direct observation.
Maps, models, and logic, are within the realm of thoughts. But experientially, without following and validating the narrative of thoughts, can you directly observe that there is existence without observation? Your thoughts will immediately tell you that this is already a contradiction: can you observe that there is no observer? Can you discern in your own experience "this is observation", "this is existence". Could they be one and the same?
This is where I'm coming from. Thank you for engaging in these topics which are tricky to discuss :)
I think the initial problem with your argument remains. If the 'laws of physics' (honestly I'm not keen on that term except for casual use -- can we say 'way things behave'?) only exist in the human brain, and not in reality, then we have the problem that our map does not point to any territory. All maps are imperfect, but the 'map' that includes relativity is more accurate than the one that includes Newtonian mechanics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that includes Aristotelian physics, which in turn is more accurate that the one that says a giant dragon in the sky controls everything, etc. But again, the map presupposes a territory. The fact that one map is better than the other presupposes something independent of any map that each map must be measured against to determine its accuracy. Given that each map is attempting to describe the 'way things behave', it implies that a territory, independent of any map, exists; and further, that the 'way things behave' exists on the territory. Agree?
And therefore, the original statement that I took issue with, which was "[t]he laws of physics are 'universally' agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with" must be false.
> Materliasm is essentially that to me, looking at the very detailed map of current physics, wiping their hands and saying yup that should be enough, it's a straight line from here.
Oh I totally agree with you about that. I'm not a materialist at all, as my comment history will reveal. Materialism cannot account for the obvious fact of consciousness, or the fact that the human mind is capable of reasoning. In general, any philosophy that tries to reduce all reality to a single principle (like matter, number, energy, power, dialectic, the self, etc) is suspect, IMO. Starting with 'existence' as the first principle avoids this problem.
> I try to refrain from making an observer-observation distinction. To quote Krishnamurti "the observer is the observed"... I don't think reality obeys logic in so much as logic is another way for us to make sense of the phenomena around us.
This must imply that someone who says 'the observer is not the observed' (assuming he means these terms in the same sense as Krishnamurti) is wrong, but this only makes sense if one accepts logic as an unbreakable and truly-existing principle.
So I would disagree that logic is a map; instead, logic must be presupposed by any statement or any belief; it must be presupposed by any map. (I think logic is 'baked into' existence itself -- it's inseperable from existence -- in some sense it is existence.) Again, if we deny the law of non-contradiction (one of the first principles of logic), anything we say, believe or think can be true or false in the same sense at the same time, so any attempt to make any sense of reality will inevitable not even get to first base. Hence, nothing we say would have any meaning whatsoever. So hence, I disagree that logic is within the realm of thoughts (except insofar as it's something we grasp or see - meaning it's only derivatively in the realm of thought).
> Can you discern in your own experience "this is observation", "this is existence". Could they be one and the same?
I'd respond by saying that all these questions presuppose something, which is existence, for the reasons I gave in this and my previous post. The fact that you can ask these questions, and that there is any meaning in the questions, presupposes that (for example) the law of non-contradiction exists independently of you (and me, etc).
> Thank you for engaging in these topics which are tricky to discuss :)
What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived?
That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory.
That theory can posit "actually, there's matter, and there seems to be matter which does not possess this same capacity of observation, therefore this inert matter must have formed first, and then [insert hypothesis of your choice] that's how the observer arose".
That's valid.
However, it's not a fact, and it's not the only theory.
The theory I'm entertaining instead, is this: the observing phenomenon is as much a fundamental part of the universe as gravity. The reason some things don't seem to possess it is that we can't directly perceive other's observing phenomena, and it's only when this phenomena binds with matter in such a way (time, appearance, scale, complexity, frequency) that it can communicate with similar binding phenomena, then there is recognition: "you have a face, you're smiling, you seem to be alive, so I'm going to assign the observer trait to you".
Now that I recognize other observers we can communicate and form a theory, and see what we can agree on. Then and only then I can say "well let's pretend that there are no observers and see what we can agree on". And thus the laws of physics are born, as a mental model.