Philosophers cannot agree on whether mathematical objects exist or are pure fictions — Gnomon

For the very simple reason that is numbers are real, but not material... — Wayfarer

So, you are you convinced that when you look at a pair of diamonds encased in the platinum ring encircling your beloved's finger, no part of that crushed carbon attaches to the number two floating around immaterially within your brain?

I acknowledge and respect your substantial accomplishments as a professional architect. As I understand architecture, you are a geometrician grounded in the math of structural engineering. And, moreover, all of this is coupled with graphic artistry.

Professionals the likes of Max Planck, Niels Bohr, John Wheeler and Terrence Deacon have trudged long hours through the trenches of empirical discovery en route to their various ruminations in maturity. Some of them perhaps have been esoteric.

The point of my thesis is to provide a conjunction (BothAnd) that weaves together the disjunctions of Science and Philosophy. For example, Physics is empirical, but Math is theoretical; yet both exist in the same world as different forms of the same universal substance. So, I can agree that those who "align with either", to the exclusion of the other, is playing the fool. Watch your step! :joke: — Gnomon

• You talk of weaving together the disjunctions of science and philosophy; can you name a specific problem that Enformaction is attacking?

• You say math is theoretical; some components of pure math are theoretical; to claim math in general is theoretical is, to my thinking, like saying language in general is theoretical. Language, whether numerical or verbal, has within-the-discipline issues and projects that attract theoreticians, but characterizing language in general as being theoretical when, for example, there's a compendium of applied math (architecture), bespeaks a slapdash imprecision emblematic of a thinker spewing superficial glosses upon a variety of deep and complex disciplines, each of which rigorous explorers examine individually over a lifetime.

• You talk of disciplines both empirical and theoretical inhabiting one, universal substance. Such language, contrary to your arguments toward establishing an immaterial ground for existence (it from bit), suggest a largely unexamined, foundational belief existence is grounded within the material (I know, the merger is intentional, that is, during those moments when it strikes your fancy).

• You turn the rapier point around to me when you endorse both_and over either_or. My retort is to declare "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

• I know that materialism rendered a holy of holies becomes a death trap. At the other end of the spectrum, skittering around, spewing glib, scientific catchphrases scintillating with the current cachet in smartypants verbiage becomes another death trap.

I'm digressing into becoming defensive by attacking both your methodology and your execution; not my original purpose.

The main thing I want to do herein is confess to the fact all of the above criticisms have, until very recently, been perfectly applicable to my own methodology and execution.

If I'm projecting my faults onto you erroneously, I apologize.

The best of what I've shared with you is this accurate picture of my character as a pretentious, full-of-himself, science_philosophy flirt now starting to get real.

Returning to our case, ...the sound uttered by one individual reaches the ears of another individual; This individual makes an acoustic image... of what he has heard; but now what appears is the language that the listener individual possesses. — JuanZu

But in a communication between two persons we cannot think of this specific configuration ("hello, how are you") without a cause, and equally we cannot think of this specific configuration as something mysteriously contained in sound while it flies through the air. Given these two impossibilities, the conclusion, evidently, is that the effect suffered by the listener's is produced and not transferred. — JuanZu

Hence, as your statements may suggest (emphasis in bold mine), only an active mind can generate and then process information? Signs themselves are gathered pools of thermodynamic potential available for processing towards information by active minds that supply constraints that occupy in the negative, a core function of the generative processes of cognition?

I'm drawing my concept words from Terrence W. Deacon, who wrote: Incomplete Mind.

Have you been attempting to convey to my understanding something akin to the following quote from Deacon: REPRESENTATION

We can conclude that a representational relationship cannot be vested in any
object or structure or sign vehicle. It is not reducible to any specific physical
distinction, nor is it fully constituted by a correspondence relationship. But
neither is it a primitive unanalyzable property of minds. Instead, even simple
functional and representational relationships emerge from a nested
interdependence of generative processes that are distinctive only insofar as they embody specific absences in their dynamics and their relationships to one
another. These absences embody, in the negative, the constraints imposed on the
physical substrates of signals, thoughts, and communications which can be
transferred from one substrate to another, and which thereby play efficacious
roles in the world as inherited constraints on what tends to occur, rather than
acting as pushes or pulls forcing events in one direction or another. Constraints
don’t do work, but they are the scaffolding upon which the capacity to do work
depends.

This is only the barest outline of an information theory that is sufficient to
account for some of the most basic features of functional and representational
relationships, so it cannot be expected to span the entire gap from biological
function to conscious agency. But considering that even very elementary
accounts of biological function and representation are currently little more than
analogies to man-made machines and human communications, even a general
schema that offers a constructive rather than a merely descriptive analogical
approach is an important advance.

In this exploration of the relationship between information theory,
thermodynamics, and natural selection, we have unpacked some of the
unrecognized complexity hidden within the concept of information. By
generalizing the insight captured by Claude Shannon’s equation of information
with entropy reduction and constraint propagation, and tracing its linkage to
analogues in thermodynamic and evolutionary domains, we have been able to
address some of the most vexing issues of representation, reference, and
normativity (i.e., usefulness). By removing these inadequacies in current
definitions of information, we may at last overcome the seemingly
insurmountable obstacles to formulating a theory of representation that is
sufficiently rich to serve as the basis for biology and the cognitive neurosciences,
and sufficiently grounded in physics to explain representational fallibility, error
checking, information creation, and the relationship between informational and
energetic processes.

The "parallels" are philosophical analogies, and have no basis in materialistic Science. — Gnomon

You beg off from the arduous path of scientific rigor by drawing a hard boundary around your philosophical postulations, and yet all of them seem to be funded by the theories and experimental verifications of materialistic science. If your philosophy were authentically divested from rational materialism, I think it would be almost barren. Given this situation, it's clear to me you'd benefit greatly by investing more time in study of science with rigor, whether reductive or not.

Regarding your currency with the fashionable isms of the populist publications for the science-adjacent, you cover the whole waterfront. Enformaction has popular titbits for just about everyone as it unfolds its wings and, like a game of three-card Molly, deftly shifts its positions. There's materialism for those conversant in QM and its imponderables; there's Spirituality for votaries questing for understanding of the metaphysical grounds of existence; there's mysticism taking up an intermediary ambiguity between matter and spirit. Enformaction is a clever dynamo. "Can't catch me!" He exclaims. "Now I'm here, galavanting with the scientists. Whoa! Now I'm hanging out with the pious crowd. Look out. I'm deep in the mists of the misty moors of the unknowable. Can't catch me!"

Riffing behind researchers and practitioners with jazzy renditions of their hard-won themes that you comprehend with noteworthy proficiency is nonetheless science_philosophy lite.

I know these comments, being harsh, will be tough to swallow, but they're intentionally so. I've walked a mile down the road you're still walking. As we dialog, I feel like I'm talking to myself. I'm referring to myself of the recent past. I've spun around with the centrifugal excitement of a whirlygigging carousel whose name is Vanity. Suddenly jumping off, the radical change in momentum puts an aching into my knees. That's what happens when you emerge from the giddy flights of fancy sponsored by self-importance.

Now that I'm walking on solid ground, inching along slowly, experiencing substantial things, I look back on my days as an airman borne aloft without an airplane and laugh at myself.

Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. — Gnomon

I have a question about it.

Both = referring to two things regarded and identified together; used before the first of two alternatives to emphasize that the statement being made applies to each; having it both ways (in your case, having it both ways in spite of seeming incompatibility).

And = used to connect things that are to be taken jointly.

It seems to me that "both" and "and" are virtually the same thing. Perhaps they're not identical, but I think they're very close to being so. Therefore, regarding the Both/And Principle, my first thought is that this is a redundancy. If that's the case, then your use of the forward slash (/), which conventionally indicates an opposition between polarities, expresses something incorrect.

On another point, you suggest with your language that, regarding the Both/And Principle, "Both" equals the disjunction operator which, properly speaking is "or" not "both." Here's the evidence supporting this:

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question. — Gnomon

Perhaps, as you say, I'm looking at the surface of the principle and missing its true meaning. So, why is the Both/And Principle not a redundancy? (Note - I do see that if the principle intentionally joins redundancy and opposition to express paradox, then its logical absurdity is intended.)

The mind (i.e. mental activity) may be matter-based. Are you (Gnomon) denying that possibility? It's not clear, but by stating this dichotomy, it seems that way. — Relativist

I join Relativist in posing this question to you. Also, I will attempt to reenforce his supposition about mind being matter-based by claiming that any phenomenon with time duration is physical because spacetime is a physical medium. Thoughts, possessing time duration, are therefore physical.

both Concretions and Abstractions exist side-by-side in the Real/Ideal world. — Gnomon

If, by concretions and abstractions, you mean to say concrete things and abstract things exist side-by-side within the natural world, I agree. I don't agree, however, that the concrete/abstract debate parallels the mind/body debate. The former is non-controversial, the latter anything but. Since, in my opinion, language is unambiguously physical, it's not enough to acknowledge language as being materialistic. This ascription suggests that language has domain over things both material and immaterial. Embedded within this premise is the additional premise that thoughts are immaterial, another premise I dispute.

With the advent of the concept of spacetime as a physical phenomenon, the spiritualist faces a deep puzzle in the attempt to postulate existing things that have no duration in time.

...in the case of two people who speak the same language. The sounds uttered by each individual are nothing more than sound waves with a certain structure (this includes syntax). But in themselves, these waves do not contain information... — JuanZu

...if we assume... we can isolate some sound wave and analyze it, we will not find anything other than sound -because is in abstent of relation. — JuanZu

It looks like you're trying to have it both ways: you acknowledge that spoken dialogue is both inflected grammatically (tense, mood, number, case and gender) and modulated vocally (pauses, volume changes, accents, rate-of-delivery changes, diction). You end by claiming sound waves convey no meaning because they are absent of relation.

In the first part of your statement, you make it clear (by implication) that individual words and their vocal utterances have relationships between themselves as expressed by each speaker individually. That everyday dialogues involve no exchanges of information is a curious claim extremely counter-intuitive if true.

...the sound uttered by one individual reaches the ears of another individual; This individual makes an acoustic image (just as Saussure understands it) of what he has heard; but now what appears is the language that the listener individual possesses. It means something to him: the sound uttered (one system of signs) has effects on another system of signs (the language sedimented in the listener's memory). — JuanZu

If I understand correctly what you've written (which may not be what you intend to communicate), then "acoustic image" equals the listener's language database actively interrelating to some utterances of the speaker. In my common sense understanding, I have no question about this being an instance wherein an interweaving relationship is unfolding through the process of information exchange between two speakers having a conversation.

If the utterances of the speaker mean something to the listener, again, my common sense tells me the listener's accessed portion of his language database is being reconfigured by the information exchange process to the effect of him cognizing the speaker's meaning. In short, the listener now knows what the speaker is thinking, whereas before, he didn't. I see no room for doubting, via common sense, that an information exchange from one sentient to another has occurred.

Your point throughout our dialogue, as I understand it, claims that utterance involves no exchange of information because information exchange can only occur between to sign-systems databases, i.e., two language databases held in memory by sentients.

But in your above quote, you acknowledge that utterances in dialogues are both logically inflected and aurally modulated. Strip away the inflection and the modulation and the two signs-systems databases have nothing to work with but a signifier-absent, droning hum. You say as much in your words below:

"hello, how are you" our listening friend understands. They are specific effects in the listener's language due to the more or less ordered structure of the sound waves uttered by the speaker.[/quote]

... — JuanZu

But in a communication between two persons we cannot think of this specific configuration ("hello, how are you") without a cause, and equally we cannot think of this specific configuration as something mysteriously contained in sound while it flies through the air. Given these two impossibilities, the conclusion, evidently, is that the effect suffered by the listener's is produced and not transferred. — JuanZu

Your above quote is the crux of your argument, and it's what I've been struggling to understand in the terms of the language you've been using.

The cause is the thinking of the two sentients who inflect and modulate their utterances. That this thinking and communicating is a physical, objective exchange of information through spacetime is evidenced by the generations of newborn humans who acquire language skills. There can be no doubt that at least a portion of these language skills originate externally before the learning child becomes able to internalize them. Noam Chomsky, a linguist, theorizes existence of an innate, human aptitude for language; that's the internal portion.

Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? — Gnomon

The disjunction: science or philosophy, with respect to consciousness studies, runs parallel to the disjunction: physics or math, with respect to Relativity. Anyone operating within either of these two disciplines who aligns with either of these disjunctions assumes position to play the part of the fool.

You can hover in the vicinity of philosophy without a grounding in science, and you can hover in the vicinity of physics without math, but the immersion-in-depth requisite for proficient, authoritative understanding of either necessitates these groundings.

My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon

To me this sounds like a description of stored energy and, therefore, I say in response: Where there's energy there's material and thus your attempt to occupy ambiguous position between material/immaterial is false. Your Enformaction, like Deacon's constitutive absence, stands squarely within the material world.

Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question. — Gnomon

I surmise from your above two quotes that you wish to escape the mind/body conflict by pairing the two positions such that you transcend the impasse while at the same time carving out a niche for your own postulations. Speaking structurally, with Enformaction, you're going non-binary.

So, the Both/And Principle is the lynchpin of Enformation.

Both/And translates to: disjunction operator (or)/conjunction operator (and).

Let’s examine your Both/And principle logically with X = Material and Y = Immaterial.

If Material = True and Immaterial = True, then

(X or Y) / (X and Y) translates to (True or True) or (True and True). This evaluates to (True or True). This evaluates to True as the final state. If both material world and immaterial world exist, then the Both/And Principle contains truth content.

Let’s assume the reality of the material world is not in dispute (Solipsists speak now or forever hold your peace).

What about the reality of the immaterial world? It’s in dispute.

Does Gnomon’s claim for the ambiguity of Enformaction hold true? I dispute Gnomon’s defense by arguing his Enformaction, as defined, equals potential energy and that, being energetic (although non-kinetic), is material, not ambiguous.

So now we can evaluate the truth content of the Both/And Principle in application to Enformaction as defined: …the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both[/i].

If Material = True and Immaterial = False, then

(X or Y) / (X and Y) translates to (True or False) or (True and False). This evaluates to (True or False). This evaluates to True as the final state. This means that within the disjunction operator, there’s truth content even if only one of the terms is true because they’re not connected. The Both/And Principle contains truth content within one of its chambers.

An example of the disjunction operator containing truth value for (X or Y) which evaluates to (True or False) which evaluates to True is: "…the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both."

If, as I argue, this is a claim for a transcendent ambiguity that is really a description of stored energy, a material reality, then we’re looking at a (True or False) disjunction that evaluates to a final state that has truth content.

The conventional interpretation of my argument expresses as the claim the material world is true whereas the immaterial world (and evasive ambiguity) is false and yet, claims about the immaterial world can nevertheless make statements true in the material world.

One possible further interpretation is that spiritual claims about existence draw some of their truth from claims that ultimately pertain to attributes of human nature as it expresses itself within the natural world. This indicates in turn that spirituality is sometimes in fact a sub-division of human psychology.

Finally, this leads us to speculate about spiritualist-human-psychology occupying a position on the continuum of material things inhabiting the natural world.

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon

Mental phenomena inhabit the natural world as material realities.

...I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter. — Gnomon

Your language implies mind is a component of matter because in your thinking about its emergence, your language invokes the concept of emergence, an action that, in context here, manifests physically. Your usage is evidence your thinking alternates between two realms, one material, the other immaterial. When you argue that immaterial things emerge from material things, you imply that the material and the immaterial have common ground. This means the two modes have an intersection wherein their supposed parallelism collapses. The necessity of common ground for interaction means the spirit world cannot interact with the material world and remain wholly spiritual. Familiar evidence of this is the manifestation of Jesus as flesh and blood.

Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter — Gnomon

There's no metaphysics here. This is physics within the framework of thermodynamics. This framework includes the higher-orders of thermodynamics: morphodynamics and teleodynamics. This broadly inclusive framework includes mind, but there's no mind-over-matter in the sense of Cartesian Dualism. This is to say there's no metaphysical entity inhabiting an immaterial universe and spiritually controlling material objects within the natural world.

The theme behind my arguments thus far is the premise that much (if not all) of what spiritual parallelism to date claims for itself is actually higher-order materialism. My premise is not, however, an expression of reductive materialism. It is, instead, a mandate to seek the release of spirituality from Cartesian Dualism.

I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. But, equally, the subject does not contribute information either. The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu

The relationship between Book_Reader, as described by you above is Book ¬⇋ Reader: no info passes between them.

Also, as described by you above:

but rather it (info) is generated. — JuanZu

In the picture you give us, there is no info transit, in either direction, between book and reader.

Even so, the info is generated.

...we say that a book has information, we also say that among all the ink marks there is something that, however, those ink marks are not. — JuanZu

...it is necessary to say that the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu

Give us a picture of: both systems of signs entering into some type of relation; also, give us a picture of the environment in which both systems of signs are entering into some type of relation.

This request does NOT seek after language that is a vague, abstract description such as:

the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu

No. This request seeks after a description (of both systems of signs entering into some type of relation producing the info) within the everyday world of human experience. An example of a successful response to the request is a narration of a movie that shows both systems of signs entering into some type of relation producing the info as an event unfolding within the everyday world of human experience.

The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu

This effect is generated by what cause? What is the location of this effect? (If you're theorizing an effect without a cause, elaborate essential details of this phenomenon).

I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. — JuanZu

Picture yourself reading a printed-on-paper book. The common-sense view says the conjugated signs in the book diminish the possible meanings of the employed sign system to some specific meanings that the reader cognizes within the brain as a narrative of visuals, dialogues, actions and events, all of which conjoin to express a hero's journey of discovery and change.

Now, imagine all of the signs on the pages of the book being deleted, leaving behind blank pages. What is the additional component or dynamical process, beyond the signs, that communicates the narrative to the reader?

Also, imagine that nothing transits from the blank pages to the reader's brain. How does the reader glean a narrative from the book?

...the subject does not contribute information either. — JuanZu

Finally, imagine that the reader, with respect to the book, brings a mind that is a blank slate devoid of information pertinent to the book's contents. How does the reader decode and understand a narrative totally foreign to everything the reader knows?

You think I've become ensnared within physicalism?

You talk of mind emergent from matter. How does a non-physical entity emerge? Is not emergence, like all actions, a matter_energy, dynamical process (of geometrical transformation with attendant momentum)?

What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below)

Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.

Name some metaphysical effects of physical force.

EnFormAction ⟹ energy = causation; form = matter; action = control. Energy_form_matter are physical things. Where is the immaterial component of EnFormAction?

An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. — Gnomon

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material.

Isn't it clear we can't even conceptualize immaterial things except as negations of material things, with these said negations also being material things in obverse mode?

Might it be possible that the claims for certain attributes of the immaterial world made by religionists and spiritualists can all be expressed through material phenomena? Under this configuration, a monist physical universe is no less soulful or spiritual or eternal than a dualist matter/spirit universe. One possible difference might be deletion of mysticism from the monist_physical universe.

Note how I haven't made declarations about the immaterial universe being fictional. Instead, I've presented arguments you must demolish en route to establishing its reality.

Doesn't the term "Intelligibility" refer to an "intellect" or a "mind"? Isn't that giving mental properties to the sign? — JuanZu

"Intelligible" simply means "able to be understood," as with the example of a book. Do you think something devoid of information can be understood?

Regarding the interface linking object with observer, we have the question: What does each correspondent contribute to the interface?

If the observed object, in this case the sign, contributes no information to the interface, then we’re back to claiming the human mind dreams the details of the sign internally. This explanation must then further explain how, or if, any mind makes contact with an objective reality beyond itself.

We should bear in mind that pattern recognition (reading of signs) involves both information and information processing. How can the latter be performed without input from the former?

Of the two options here: 1) The mind is an idealistic producer of dreamworlds populated by Plato’s ideal forms, or 2) Intelligible object and Agent Intellect are two objects that interact to form an interface interior & exterior to both, I expect most thinkers will find it easier to embrace the second option.

Interface represents an entangled objectivity that possesses both interior and exterior surfaces. Following this claim, we can say that the sign reads the Agent Intellect just as the Agent Intellect reads the sign. In the case of the former, the sign exerts the shaping influence of a gravitational field curving the mind with its intelligibility. This is a mirror of what the Agent Intellect does to the sign. In this situation, information is physical.

EFA... is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter. — Gnomon

The upshot of our dialogue so far, as I see it, involves two cruxes: 1) We have a disjunction to evaluate: We know matter via mind, or we know mind via matter; 2) Mind/Matter are not two parallel categories, but rather two positions on a continuum within one category.

Regarding the first crux, is it just one or the other? If so, we have a conditional: x ⟹ y or y ⟹ x, with x = mind and y = matter. If x = True, which is to say if mind as a distinct category exists, and if y = True, which is to say matter as a distinct category exists, then x ⟹ y = True and y ⟹ x = True. In this case science and religion have no argument.

Even if x = False, x ⟹ y = True. In this case, the existence of mind as a distinct category is false, but its implication of matter, while logically valid, is not existentially real.

If y = False , meaning the existence of matter as a distinct category is false, then x ⟹ y = False, even if x = True. Thus, mind as a distinct category, while logically valid, in this situation does not imply matter is independently real.

Given these complications, I surmise that the second crux is the better choice regarding the search for a clear path forward to the truth rooted within common sense.

Now we can evaluate a bi-conditional representing two positions within one category: Mind_Matter are two states positioned along one continuum.

Given x ⟺ y, with x = True and y = True, we have a bi-directional implication of two states being one value in variant forms along one continuum. Whether this equivalence refers to an independently real phenomenon is a moot question with respect to logic.

Given x ⟺ y, with x = False and y = False, we have a bi-directional implication of two non-existent states. This equivalence, being non-existent and therefore meaningless, has nothing to say.

Since we're here and dialoguing about the nature of the states of things, we have evidence of Mind_Matter, and thus x ⟺ y, with x = True and y = True, looks like our best choice.

My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:

EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon

You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories).

One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution. — Gnomon

From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution

Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post. :nerd: — Gnomon

Let me start by asking a question pertaining to each of the fragments highlighted in bold italics.

Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal?

Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical?

Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction?

If you want to make a generalization of the idea of language to apply it to physical processes [beyond human existence] I have no problem. In fact I'm doing the same thing, kinda
... The difference is that we both have different ideas of how something called "information" takes place for a language, or for a sign system. — JuanZu

As to the first part of your quote, regarding language applied to physical processes, as to that, I say, "language is physical."

How language is physical and what structure supports the physicality of language are two questions that have been under consideration and attacked in debate for at least the last two millennia.

I’ll venture an intuitive conjecture that we, too, have really been considering the physicality of language.

With “The Structure of the Physicality of Language” specified as our rubric, I think we have two important questions before us: 1) What’s the physical structure connecting signification with intelligibility and 2) What’s the physical relationship between information and meaning?

Aristotle has weighed in on the first question with his Agent Intellect concept. Per Aristotle, Agent Intellect is internal to human. It’s the necessary cognitive mechanism that detects the intelligibility of a sign. The physical structure, then, is the interface positioning Agent Intellect before sign, with intelligibility and its decoding as meaning an emergent property of Agent Intellect.

This configuration generates the interesting situation wherein subject/object are interwoven into a multi-part whole. The ambiguity of subject/object as discrete poles within this configuration accounts for much of the undecidability of the matter/mind debate.

It could be that the only resolution possible is the bias of individual character, as with the question whether the glass is half full or half empty.

I claim that information takes place... between at least two sign systems. — JuanZu

So, for example, a footprint on the beach (a sign). In itself it does not have information; The information takes place once the human enters the scene. — JuanZu

The information is then not an internal property of the foot print, nor internal to the human-sign-field. Information is produced, therefore, in the relation. — JuanZu

Your three above quotes, taken together, raise, by implication, the question: Where is the physical location of the relation?

Whether this relation is a physical phenomenon lies at the center of my purpose in my conduct of this inquiry.

Another critically important question asks: How is the physical relation produced?

I claim that a sign, as a discrete physical entity, possesses some type of information in the form of intelligibility. Moreover, I claim that this intelligibility is physical.

This claim seems to bog down in the quagmire attached to the following question: Are numbers invented or discovered? I argue that numbers, like other types of signs, are physical and therefore discovered rather than invented. If this were not the case, how could the animal kingdom, before advent of humans, have practiced adaptation to their various environments?

Since their successful adaptations prior to humans cannot be disputed per the evolutionary claim positing some of them as our direct forebears, if follows logically that successful species made intelligent use of various physical significations about their environments towards survival and reproduction.

For these reasons, I claim that information is ambiguously internal-and-external to both the physical signification and the physical Agent Intellect who decodes the information and meaning of the former.

The curious situation that we have in nature is one with physical language as an operator positioned between sign and Agent Intellect, with intelligibility and cognition interweaving an interface that is some kind of non-local physicality, a close relative of absential materialism.

I never said that the physical elements, whether ordered or not, that precede the generation of information, can be something generated by the human imagination. — JuanZu

I'm attempting to examine whether or not your statements thus far imply what you deny in the above quote.

What I am claiming is that a signal like that has no information, no matter how organized that signal is. I consider that Information and order are not the same thing. The information would arise when that signal is received and enters into relation with any environment that is constituted by a system of signs. — JuanZu

Your two statements highlighted above, taken together, as I understand them, assert that order and information are separate categories that have no intersection.

From this it follows that information is only passed from one sign-field to another sign-field.

Since order has no intersection (common ground) with information, there's the question whether organized nature, prior to the signing of sentient humans, entails dynamical processes that support signing before the advent of the human species. In short, the question asks whether organized nature sans humanity is a potentially language-bearing environment. Does pre-human nature possess language-bearing properties, albeit in latent form?

Also, there's the question whether pre-human nature includes dynamical information processes. Does it sound right to think that apes, for example, had no available information useful for their adaptation to the environment?

If pre-human nature possessed neither information nor language, then human, upon experiencing nature, could see only a jumbled confusion of chaotic, sensory signals from the senses to the brain.

The jumbled confusion of sensory signals would be perceived even if nature is organized if, as you say, an organized signal has no information. It is information that empowers a human observer to make sense of the abundance of sensory signals inputting to the brain every moment. We perceive signal input without information as noise.

The linguistic human brain, acting in tandem with information-bearing signals, assigns meaning to the inputting information via reiterative reduction of the improbability of reception of a specific set of inputting stimuli.

If pre-human, organized nature contains no information_language-bearing dynamical processes, then human, holding possession of such within itself, must generate an information_language-bearing dynamical process within its own brain in independence from the objective natural world. This is a process of daydreaming reality into existence as an information_language-bearing dynamical reality. This is an instance as mind as the ground of matter. This is Plato's transcendent realm of ideal things. This is Berkeley's Idealism.

my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". — Gnomon

...the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr

I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part.

I guess we're trying to visualize an evolutionary transition linking an antecedent dynamical species with a descendent dynamical species emergent from its predecessor.

“How Mind Emerged From Matter,” Deacon’s subtitle, suggests to me his belief matter is the ground of mind.

...my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, ...we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter.

The main point of our flow chart, as I see it, is to answer visually_structurally which component is ground and which is emergent property, or whether, as a third possibility, the interweave of the two components is essentially ambiguous.

If someone comes across a set of marks in the most fortuitous way and intuits that these marks contain a message or information, they cannot validate that intuition a priori. — JuanZu

Do you not agree that signal transmission involves the process of reduction of the improbability of the reiteration of the same signal again and again, and that the information conveyed by the signal is not only the intended communication conveyed by the signs, but also what's conveyed by the aforementioned reduction of improbability. This reduced improbability of randomization of a signal transmission (noise) creates an absence (of infinite other possible transmission content) that constrains signal transmission to a specific set of signs that therefore possesses meaning.

This multiplex configuration of signal transmission in terms of an absence coupled with a presence examples absential materialism.

In defense of your thesis (quoted at top) can you argue that the first-born sentient did not dream itself into an organized reality of signal transmission via absential constraint with attached meaning?

If the information is born from the a posteriori relationship, it must always be assumed a priori that there is a moment of uninformed reality (in the sense that there is no message hidden or stored somewhere). — JuanZu

As I read your above quote, I'm thinking maybe you're positing a rather pure form of idealism of the George Berkeley variety. My rationale for this interpretation: if reality has no inherent meaning apart from a perceiving sentient, then said reality, necessarily fabulist, must be dreamed into existence by said sentient.

One weakness of idealism might be its silence on the question of the informationalizability of reality, even at thermodynamic equilibrium.

Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon

Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic."

Thanks for your overview_summary of Incomplete Nature.

The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind. — Gnomon

In the above quote do you express a binary view of physical/non-physical, which is to ask, do you see them as discrete polarities?

I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy" but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. — Gnomon

Above I asked about you possibly owning a binary physical/non-physical view because I suspect Deacon is propounding a view that might be characterized as absential-materialism, or absential-existentialism. As such, his theory is, in my understanding, non-binary materialism.

Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions. — Gnomon

Your overview of Incomplete Nature is instructive and useful. Can you contrast Incomplete Nature and Enformationism?

I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. — Gnomon

I don't think there's any controversy here. I don't have any philosophical issues with the quoted section of Post 68. I asked if you wrote the quotation because thermo-dynamics, morpho-dynamics and teleo-dynamics are, by my understanding, cornerstones of Terrence W. Deacon's important book, "Incomplete Nature."

Deacon, being a neuro-anthropologist with a history of professorships at Harvard U, Boston U and UC Berkeley, makes me dis-inclined to jump to the conclusion he propounds controversial, fringe science.

I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties.

Even though you quote his three components, I can't tell for sure if you accept them as real and essential to information and sentience.

Also, I'd like to know if enformationism has major differences from Deacon's model.

Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. — Gnomon

You make a good point and I apologize for being unreasonable.

I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. — Gnomon

What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68

Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above?

What Is The Power of Absence? : Post 68
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html



You say:

I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. — Gnomon

Did you not write Post 68 that appears on your Enformationism blog?

Regarding your quote from Gregory Bateson:

It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon

Do you not recognize your above quote of Bateson as his definition of information?

I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog.

Thanks for the paper below:

The patterns which connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/sinding-larsen-the-patterns-which-connect.pdf

,

*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis — Gnomon

After reading the above, I went to this link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/408645

Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis. — Gnomon

From there I went to: https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

Is this your website?

Your quote from Gregory Bateson:

It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon

leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?

If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness?

:up:

This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive. — ucarr

Yes. My interpretation of your declaration and to this I repost your affirmation:

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.
— ucarr

:up: — 180 Proof

You've now read my denial of its truth content:

The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty. — ucarr

Now you must refute it, or lose our debate by default.

You've only defended your own misreading (↪180 Proof)¹ – res ipsa loquitur. Again, ucarr, invalidate what I actually argue¹ or concede the point. — 180 Proof

Your above statement, like previous, similar statements, merely DECLARES that my reading is a misreading. You have yet to PROVE it's a misreading.

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules... — 180 Proof

As I've already stated and you've already affirmed: per the above quote, IFF membership in TF-set requires that "X = transcendent" and "X = fact," THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules. This is a declaration "X" and "fact" are mutually exclusive. Since your conclusion (in spite of your Latin quote) is not a self-evident truth, an extrinsic, formal proof is required to establish its truth.

Here's an example of what might be entailed in a proof of my understanding being a misreading: since, per the rules of TF-set, X = transcendent and X = fact, then fact = transcendent. There must exist TF-facts for TF-set to have members. However, "fact = transcendent" is false.

Now we see that proof of your "If...then" claim requires proof "fact = transcendent is false." is also true. If you have evidence TFs don't exist, you must cite this evidence.

Following my reading of your statement, I attack your premise TFs don't exist:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set. — ucarr

The upshot of the above argument follows from conceptualizing the wave function as a member of a set. Before measurement, its presence within a set, being probable, suggests the set is empty whereas, in fact, the occupation of the set by probable members positions said occupation somewhere between empty and occupied. This is an argument that denies TF-set is empty.

If you have logic_evidence that prevents sets from having probable members, then you must cite it.

TFs as a logical possibility, like time running in both directions as a logical possibility, so far has no consensus regarding empirical, substantiating evidence. In the case of time, no one counts the evidence in absentia as refutation. Why should we not think likewise regarding TFs?

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof

You have quoted my demonstration; show it is invalid as is or concede the point. I've no interest in trying to persuade you of anything, ucarr. — 180 Proof

After quoting your demonstration, I presented an argument based upon my reading of your demonstration:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set. — ucarr

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". You're objecting to a strawman, ucarr, rather than what I wrote. — 180 Proof

After you dismiss my reading of your demonstration, I present a defense of my reading:

Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.
— 180 Proof

then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2). — ucarr

I'm not asking you to persuade me. I'm asking you to convince me with a refutation of my defense.

My suggestion is you study the elementary theory of sets in order to use the notation accurately. Then compose your ideas accordingly. — jgill

I acknowledge your suggestion specifies the correct way for me to proceed and I will act accordingly.

Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr

The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. — jgill

I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement.

You've completely misread what I wrote. The argument does not refer to "transcendent T" or "transcendent F". — 180 Proof

Since "posit" means: put forward as a basis of argument, and you put forward as a basis of argument that:

IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members. — 180 Proof

then my saying, as interpretation of your argument that: membership rule (1) X is transcendent means X = transcendent (per rule (1) seems correct as does rule (2) X is a fact interpreted as meaning X = fact (per rule (2). How is it that my interpreting and ascribing your two named attributes for membership in TF-set is erroneous? To prove your point, I think you need to show a break in my chain of inference. It won't do for you to merely declare such a break exists. You must write a statement of symbolic logic that shows this break. You frequently declare non sequitur without showing it via your own explicit, written chain of inference. Mere declarations won’t do.

While you're at the task of showing instead of merely declaring, you also need to show us in an explicit, written chain of inference what is your underlying logic supporting your declaration that: your IFF... THEN correlative conjunction, in concluding "there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules" is an unbroken chain of inference.

To transcend a fact isn'tcremotely "similar" to a property or process supervening on a fact. — 180 Proof

How is it they're dissimilar? Can you describe with explicit details how they're dissimilar? Can you buttress your description with an example? Can you buttress your example with its logical correlative?

I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific function and something else... the set of facts? Is "t" a transcendent fact? I cannpt see what system you are using here for the formalisation. — Banno

Thanks for bearing with me up to this point. Clearly, the fog is coming solely from my side. That you see a couple of things I'm attempting in fumbling fashion marks progress in my mind although for you such micro-advances are cold comfort.

Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions.

Yes, f(f) is supposed to be a generalization denoting the commonwealth of sets of facts.

My engagements with proficient logicians helps me in the same manner that a new speaker of english, while stumbling through conversation with a native speaker, manages to understand a few meaningful communications and, even better, manages to send one or two.

To wit: IFF TF-set has two membership rules – (1) X is transcendent, (2) X is a fact, THEN there is not any X that satisfies both membership rules; THEREFORE TF-set does not have any actual members.

Is this paraphrase any clearer? — 180 Proof

Your paraphrase, like your original statement, comes across to me loudly and clearly. What's not clear is whether or not I rationally interpret what you communicate clearly.

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts.

Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?

Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence. — ucarr

Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, if, as I believe, they are pertinent to your argument, then you need to answer my questions because supervenience across sets is a cognitive reality.

...how does it relate to my post? — Banno

The attempted logic calculus is supposed to show me doing the math you claim I'm not doing.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. — ucarr

↪ucarr Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing. — Banno

You ever try to converse with an english-as-a-second-language learner? Consider such a learner who's never been in an ESL classroom. Some immigrants learn english by watching tv commercials, right?

Ever read any quotes from Yogi Berra, the NY Yankees manager who was born across the tracks from logic? If there's gonna be a formal ceremony, "include me out."

f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) is supposed to show that tf (transcendent fact) occupies the set of transcendent facts {t,f}. Since transcendent means "going beyond a boundary" the set {t,f} holds members that are paired with set {t} and set {f}, but the latter two sets are not subsets of {t,f}. By stretching the common sense meaning of things to an extreme, I'm saying {t} and {f} are transcendently members of an empty set.
180 Proof is using tf = { } to show that, so far, there's no evidence for the existence of such facts.

My intention is to show, through a logic calculus interpretation of his argument that, with the terms of his argument rearranged, it says that, {t,f} does exist as a logical relationship. This, of course, falls short of existential proof of real TF, but it's something to keep the debate going re: the possibility of the emergent property: super-nature.

So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?[/quote]

You're supposed to read it as "a function acting on t, or a function acting on f," such that the empty set of {t,f} is populated, albeit transcendently.

Correction: f(t) + f(f) ≆ f(t+f) is supposed to show that the terms are approximate because non-local members of a set aren't members in a straightforward and simple situation.

The parallel is that inorganic matter gives no clue to the possibility of the organic matter of living organisms, yet it's a predicate for life. Just as non-life predicates life, emptiness acts on transcendent facts to populate an empty set. The somethingness of an empty set is consistent with it being a member of every set.

What is that?

It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld. — Banno

I'm glad you asked me the question.

It's trying to say that if X is transcendent, the domain of its transcendence can include itself.

Self-transcendence, being complicated, leads naive logicians like me to messy expressions like the one you quoted.

It's saying the function of a transcendent fact is the set of that transcendent fact correlated with its antecedent definition reciprocally. That simply means that a self-transcendent fact is a higher-order of itself in a paradoxical configuration. This isn't really mysterious, the wacky language be darned, because an emergent property can be predicated upon a ground lacking utterly that property. So then, the ground, in this scenario the lower order or lower set, supervenes upon the property not like itself, although, in this case, the higher property is itself, and thus the paradox.

What's exciting about my logical calculus is that it talks about paradox as an emergent property in extremis: self-transcendence. Might it be the way out of the OBO (Origin Boundary Ontology = the first/eternal existing thing) puzzle?

You're supposed to go through the terms of my logical calculus and discover breaks in the inferential chain, perhaps ultimately reducing the statement to reductio ad absurdum status.

There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno

Hello Banno, Can you or someone you know examine my logic calculus in the post linked below? I'd sure like to have a useful assessment.

Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction... — Tom Storm

Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842888

If X is Transcendent AND if X is a Fact, then X belongs to TF-set. The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules  simultaneously. — 180 Proof, c2008

In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. — Wikipedia

Hello 180 Proof, can you talk a little bit about how you understand supervenience?

I ask for your thoughts on supervenience because within the context of sets of logical relations, I, more-or-less, equate supervenience and transcendence. Here's my narrative:

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact).

So your first sentence contradicts your second sentence. Instead of: The set's okay, there just are not any members (so far) which (can) satisfy both rules simultaneously, we have: The set's okay, and its members transcend_supervene each other, albeit paradoxically. Self-transcendence, when misread through the lens of Newtonian determinism, acquires the appearance of an empty set.

Let me see your counter-narrative.

...distinguishing things and events as different ontological categories is extremely valuable... — wonderer1

Is there any part of an event that doesn't belong to the mass_energy category?

Our language allows "the" to modify "event," thus indicating the latter is a noun i.e., a thing. Does this syntax present a fallacy?

Since many events encompass many things as their components, each with its own configuration of its components, does a configuration of multiple things suggest something different from a solitary thing?

Perhaps periods of time in an emotional state are more reasonably understood as events than as things? I'd say that from such a perspective our inability to discuss the volume of an emotional state becomes a non-issue — wonderer1

You imply events are not things. Why aren't they?

...apropos to discussing events, the duration of time spent in an emotional state is a meaningful measure. — wonderer1

Is there any phenomenon that doesn't find time a meaningful measure?

The cycle between psychedelic and non-psychedelic modes are characterized by an increase and decrease in people's conceptual, perceptual and emotional latent inhibition. Once the latent inhibition allows us to see the roughness/curviness of the edges of our concepts/percepts/emotions, the boundaries fall apart; panic and chaos ensues. We eventually find our solace and joy in acceptance of the destruction of the logical; we find calmness in realizing the paralogicality at the bottom of everything... — Ø implies everything

:up: :100:

Your narrative is excellent! You've added good reasoning to the argument without the poetic frills of my whimsical imagery. Thank-you for weighing in, Ø implies everything.