"Something from nothing" at the start of the universe is problem inherent in our understanding of linear time, whether you agree with Berkelean idealism or not. Theists often cite it as proof of god, because it seems impossible and attributing the impossible to god makes sense to them. But while they're wrong about it proving god, you can't use it to disprove god either. The universe's beginning simply doesn't make sense to our normal way of thinking, we can only conclude that it doesn't work like the rest of time, not whether there could or couldn't be a god involved. — Paul

The Big Bang hypothesis didn't "make sense" to atheistic naturalists, back in the early 20th century. For example, Einstein included a dimensionless "cosmological constant"*1 in his theory of relativity, specifically to force the numbers to describe the static eternal universe, that he believed was necessary. He later abandoned that attempt to make the numbers "make sense", after Hubble provided evidence that the universe was not static, but expanding, and not eternal, but temporal. Also, the origin of that expansion has been calculated as a dimensionless-spaceless-timeless-matterless Singularity, from which space-time-mater-energy suddenly appeared . . . . much to the surprise and chagrin of those who assumed the universe was eternal & self-existent & godless.

Since, then several scientists & philosophers have searched for some other Ontological Necessity*2 that is not traditionally theistic. So, our materialistic "normal way of thinking" may not be able to "make sense" of anything (being or entity) immaterial & preternatural. So, the non-empirical (mythical) notions of eternal Multiverse and infinite Many Worlds have been postulated as explanations of our temporal & spatial existence, that make more sense than the equally non-empirical Theistic theories of traditional religions. Unfortunately, they "make sense" only if you accept metaphysical Materialism & Naturalism as the axiom of your belief system. But are just as un-provable as any god-hypothesis. :smile:


*1. The "Einstein cosmological constant" refers to a term added by Albert Einstein to his theory of general relativity, represented by the Greek letter "lambda" (Λ), which was initially introduced to force a static universe model by counteracting gravity with a repulsive force, but later considered by Einstein as his "biggest blunder" when evidence emerged showing the universe is expanding.
___Google AI overview

*2. Ontological Necessity :
René Descartes also defended a similar argument in the 17th century. Descartes compared the ontological argument to a geometric demonstration, arguing that necessary existence is as obvious as the fact that a triangle has angles that equal two right angles.
___Google AI overview

No, I think this is mistaken. I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. — Shawn

I assume Syndicalism is what you think should be happening. I agree with that sentiment. But I see no evidence that it is actually happening in the US. Some American companies refer to their employees as "associates", implying that they have a stake in the profits. But, I doubt that the employees are actually unionized, or have ownership, in any practical sense.

Back in the 1950s, my father was a blue-collar union man in a steel mill. So he made decent wages and livable benefits, compared to non-union jobs. But such unionized labor has since vanished, as factories in the US have closed and gone to non-union semi-socialist China.

I've long thought that the antagonistic employer/worker relationship in unionized companies was unhealthy. So, some form of worker ownership would be preferable. A few white-collar companies seem to provide some financial stake in the company, but not many blue-collar jobs, as far as I can see.

My own state has absorbed many formerly unionized assembly-line jobs from Detroit, to staff the non-union auto factories. Big fast-growing companies, like Amazon, hire lots of local people, specifically because they are not unionized. And most attempts to unionize typically fail. So, no, I don't see any trend toward Syndicalization in the US. Is it happening in other countries? :smile:


Syndicalism : a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions.
___Oxford dictionary

Anyway, I believe that cooperation leads to better results, and with the bloated concern with rational self-interest and egotism and deterrence, we are living in a fearful and less efficient state than possible. — Shawn

Is that statement of belief a reaction to the sad state of American politics, in which top-down competitive Capitalism is winning the "game" against bottom-up Cooperative Socialism? The 18th century revolution against Monarchy allowed a few decades of Republican rule by the common people. But now it seems that the republic itself is being ruled by egotistical Oligarchs --- with their trickle-down economics --- and may be trending back towards a Monarchy, with one Oligarch to rule them all. The few decades of cooperative democracy seems to be a mere blip on the age-old historical chart of world economy, no? :smile:

First Law of Economics :
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is a well-known aphorism that describes the tendency of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth and economic success over time, while the poor fall behind. It can also be used to describe the widening gap in income between the rich and the poor.
___Google AI overview

Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?" — T Clark

I did not mean that characterization to be derogatory, but merely descriptive. As I said above, I have no formal education in Philosophy, and my background is more in Science. So, the layman's opinion you are questioning covers several thousand years of philosophizing. It's just my general impression of a gradual trend from mytho-poetic Hindu, Chinese, Pre-Socratic-Greek and Hebrew wisdom literature, to modern analytical & science-based philosophizing. Nietzsche may be a throwback to the mythopoetic style in his Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Does the Lao Tse excerpt below sound more like ancient mythical poetry or like modern analytical philosophy to you? I could say that Plato & Aristotle were transitional, but the change from Classical to Modern took 2000 years, with a side-track into doctrinal Theology. Do you see the trend in Writing Styles I was referring to? :smile:

What was Lao Tzu's philosophy? :
He advocated a deep, connective empathy between people as the means to peace and harmony and claimed that such empathy was possible through recognition of the cosmic force of the Tao which had created all things, bound all things, moved all things, and finally loosed all things back into their original state.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Lao-Tzu/

Tao te Ching
The Way - cannot be told.
The Name - cannot be named.
The nameless is the Way of Heaven and Earth.
The named is Matrix of the Myriad Creatures.
Eliminate desire to find the Way.
Embrace desire to know the Creature.
The two are identical,
But differ in name as they arise.
Identical they are called mysterious,
Mystery on mystery,
The gate of many secrets.
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Chinese/TaoTeChing.php#anchor_Toc42848702

it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?

To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al??? — Swanty

Sorry, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion. I have no formal training in philosophy, and I've never read any Kant or Hegel, except in Wikipedia and popular books. There are others on the forum who might chime in. :smile:

PS___ I did try to read Foucault years ago. But his run-on sentences, some a hundred words long, left me wondering "what . . . . ?".

So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty

Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). You can take your pick of various writing styles on this forum. But it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

I don't know if the absence of there being anything to perceive would be necessarily a hindrance for God, although there are tropes that the reason anything exists at all, was because He experienced a sense of incompleteness without there being something other than Him to contemplate. — Wayfarer

If G*D is sentient, in a manner similar to human perception, then a feeling of incompleteness might be imputed. But, if G*D/Nature is purely rational, Spock-like, then emotions & feelings may not be included in its super-natural constitution. These are big "ifs" though, and we will never have enough evidence to allow a conclusive "then".

However, why would an eternal boundless necessary Being create just one fleeting instance of temporal existence? For example, a modern non-theistic conjecture beyond the scope of real-world evidence is the Multiverse hypothesis. A random roiling of matter/energy that accidentally produces a self-sustaining world every few uber-zillion Earth-years. In that case, there is no "why?"

Yet, if we can equate an eternal world-creating ALL with traditional notions of Deity, then perhaps G*D occupies and amuses He/rself with the hobby of creating temporary universes with various physical settings in anticipation of learning how each 'verse will work out. That would give God something to Perceive, to Contemplate, and to have something like parental feelings for. Hence, not a "Mind Alone". You could guess that G*D passes the timelessness, before & after space-time, with unlimited Creativity*1.

Is that speculative scenario any less plausible than any other conjectures into the unknown? It presumes that the Creator-mind must have at least the Potential for every Actual feature of He/r creations. :smile:


*1. Creativity : the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work. ___Oxford dictionary

↪I like sushi
Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle — Moliere

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :

"Aristotle was influenced by the Eleusinian Mysteries, a secret religious festival that took place in ancient Greece and was central to the development of much of Western civilization"
___Google AI overview

I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate. — Brendan Golledge

One troll on the TPF forum likes to uses "Dunning-Kruger" as a code word to call his interlocutor "stupid" without using a forum-forbidden word. He thinks he's clever for sneaking in an ad hominem instead of actually making a philosophical counter argument. Have you experienced that illicit usage of a technical term? Is that why you started this thread? :smile:

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence. — I like sushi

I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:


Is Aristotle the father of science?
Aristotle was considered to be the father of modern science because he was the father of the scientific method. He was the pioneer of the development of the scientific method, which is the hallmark of the modern science. Aristotle was the first to conduct empirical studies, which is what modern science is based on.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-aristotle-considered-the-father-of-modern-science.html

Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language? — Gnomon

Philosophy Now magazine (Oct-Nov 2024) has an article somewhat related to the Metaphorical Language problem in technical philosophical discussions : Naturalized Metaphysics, as contrasted with Classical Metaphysics, which I take to refer primarily to 5th century BC Greek philosophy. The author presents his distinction in terms of Left vs Right Brain functions. Since Plato & Aristotle had no modern technology to provide empirical facts, most of their assertions tend to be drawn from a broad holistic attention (right) instead of the narrow analytical focus (left) of modern science. :smile:

Quotes from the article :
"Take language, for example. It can be used in a more precise and technical manner . . . or it can be used in a more ambiguous, metaphorical, and open way."

".. . abstract uses of language make sense to us only within the more general context of metaphorical language that links abstract concepts to the peculiarities of our bodies and their environments."

Speaking of brain hemispheres : "The right is, generally speaking, the hemisphere that evolved to understand . . . . The left hemisphere is more a sort of servant, useful for specific tasks, but unable to comprehend the whole."
Note --- Hume opined that "“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi

Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:


Aristotle did not believe in the reincarnation of the soul, but he did believe in the immortality of the soul. Aristotle's theory of the soul was that the soul was a capacity, not a substance, and that it animated the body, allowing a person to be alive and to perform activities. He believed that the soul did not exist independently of the body, and that a person was more closely identified with their body than their soul.
___Google AI overview

Economics can only be called a science with the fundamental underlying feature of game theory, explaining it. . . . . why economics is in a dismal state — Shawn

My economics text in college was The New World of Economics by Mckenzie & Tullock. They didn't define Economics explicitly in terms of Game Theory, but it was based on the "new work" in the 1960-70s, including Public Choice Theory.

My marginal note in the book was : "When the numbers (values) are removed from the mathematically derived diagrams, what is left is a pure logic diagram {e.g. Normal or Bell curve} showing abstract relationships. From this we can derive general principles which can be applied to specific cases and the numbers plugged back in."

Ironically --- considering the state of 2024 American politics --- the authors concluded, in the chapter on presidential elections, that "In a two-party system, the intelligent politician attempts to find the middle of the distribution". But, in the years since the book was written, politics and economics seems to have strayed from that rationale of moderation, toward more extreme positions.

Today, Liberals & Conservatives don't pander to middling moderates, but to true believers in those polar opposite worldviews. This has pushed both politics, and economics in general, toward "take no prisoners" & "winner take all" policies. One side will invest in "dirty" but doable Fracking, to the exclusion of "clean" power, while the other will push technologies that are not ready for prime time. Fortunately, the US has enough inertia & momentum to do both, despite the divided politics.

Economics was originally called the "dismal science" because of the no-win conclusions of Malthusian bottom-line production predictions. But today, the gloomy outlook may be more due to the top-down political pressures, which may overwork the goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs, or strangle her with regulations. :sad:


The Dismal Science :
In a series of papers, Martin Weitzman has proposed a Dismal Theorem. The general idea is that, under limited conditions concerning the structure of uncertainty and preferences, society has an indefinitely large expected loss from high-consequence, low-probability events.
https://cowles.yale.edu/node/144793

DISMAL BELL CURVE

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker

A somewhat different perspective might postulate that truly "Intelligent species" cope with evolutionary pressures by finding practical solutions, not by "making sh*t up" as one poster put it. From the beginning of complex societies, Religion was been intertwined with Politics and Science. For example, the Pagan Nature Gods were typically metaphorical attempts to understand the vagaries of weather & climate & human interactions. They were early "theories" of how the world works. And "adaptive responses", if you will.

Since Nature seemed to be pretty well organized, a king-like god was proposed to mandate the laws of nature that make things work smoothly and predictably. For thousands of years, in most cultures, their religion has provided a pragmatic basis for political and technological problems . . . not perfect, but workable. Also, the human subjects of tyrannical kings probably feared their flesh & blood rulers more than the imaginary deities. Relatively primitive people built artificial mountains (pyramids), not by the magic powers of priests (or aliens), but by learning how gravity works.

Around 500BC though, the Greeks began to express Nature's regularities as more abstract and less anthro-morphic principles : Logos instead of Zeus, First Cause instead of Fates. These principles appealed more to Reason than to Emotion. Our modern Science has continued that trend away from anthro-metaphors toward pure abstractions like intangible Energy, which is said to transform magically into Matter. In fact the current fundamental reality, replacing Atomism, is the notion of a purely mathematical Quantum Field. That imaginary expanse is a metaphorical reference to a field of wheat with a stalk of grain at each point.

So, we continue to refine our labels and metaphors to enhance our artificial power over the natural powers-that-be. Admittedly, some of our scientific metaphors, such as Aether --- which served as an early account of what we now call the Electrical Field --- simply exchange one metaphor for another. Even our modern democratic/oligarchic Politics has a prominent role for a god-like ruler who promises to Make Reality Great Again. Pragmatic voters will choose the propaganda image that seems to provide practical benefits (answers to prayers, such as keeping demonic immigrants at bay), in the here & now, not in some remote life-after-life. If that "adaptation" doesn't work, we can try again in four years. :smile:

"Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science." — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus

Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.

So, many philosophers today yield to the published opinions of the pioneers on the interpretation of quantum math into human meaning. Unfortunately, we Ordinary Language amateurs have to accept some ambiguity of understanding. Does Schrodinger's equation*2 mean anything to you? Fortunately, there are a few philosophically inclined physicists today, such as Paul Davies, that we can trust to interpret the math into words that forum posters can understand.

Materialistic philosophers typically have trust issues on metaphysical questions. So perhaps they shouldn't get involved in philosophy forum discussions of Quantum Physics, which is inherently immaterial and metaphysical*3. It's true that most philosophers, especially forum amateurs, are not equipped to answer . . . . in mathematical terms. Fortunately few do. So what's your point? :smile:


*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you?
The interpretations of Ordinary Language philosophers may be somewhat less ambiguous than those of laymen; but they are always debatable, especially on internet forums.

*2. Schrödinger's equation in mathematical symbols is written as: "Hψ = iħ ∂ψ/∂t"
Note --- Does that foreign expression mean anything to you? Would you like a translation into English?

*3. Quantum physics can be considered metaphysical in a few ways:
# Quantum physics can force a rethinking of metaphysics :
The radical nature of quantum physics can lead to a rethinking of metaphysics. For example, quantum physics can imply that the world is fundamentally indeterministic, or that causes aren't always local to their effects.
# Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities :
Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities that pure rational reflection can't. For example, quantum mechanics can reveal that things can be fuzzy at the quantum level, or that space-time can be curved.
# Quantum entanglement has metaphysical consequences :
Quantum entanglement has been thought to have deep metaphysical consequences. For example, it has been claimed to show that Humean supervenience is false.
___Google AI overview

Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon

Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. :smile:


"Statistics topics are often discussed in math classes or taught within a math department. However, statistics arguably is not a branch of mathematics. It is a mathematical science, built upon the mathematical discipline of probability. . . . . Statistics is not meaningful without context though mathematics generally is."
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsStuff/Home/isStatsMath.html

"A philosophical interpretation is the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(philosophy)

"Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements?" ___Wikipedia
Note --- Probability is not deterministic computation, but stochastic guessing. Not true/false, but 50/50.

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.

Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods. :smile:


*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview

*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger

↪Gnomon
No, no, no. It's not nearly so complicated, there's no need for all this complicated verbiage. Science studies objects and objective facts - how big is it, where is it, how fast is it moving, how does it interact, what causes it, etc. This it does for everything from the sub-atomic to cosmic scales. But as consciousness does not appear as an object, it is not included in that analysis as a matter of principle. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that scientists should simply leave the Mind/Body problem to impractical philosophers? I suspect that pragmatic scientists and Buddhists, with no metaphysical axe to grind, would agree with you : "shut-up and calculate"*1. Yet, metaphysical monistic Materialists also simplify the "problem" by insisting that Mind is nothing but Matter doing what comes naturally*2. So, they resolve the "problem" by telling Idealistic philosophers to butt-out.

The OP concluded that the circularity of the Science vs Philosophy battle makes the problem insoluble*3. If it's as simple as you imply, why can't we drive a stake into the heart of the Hard Problem? Maybe the eternal recurrence of this topic is due to the Materialism vs Idealism divide within philosophy. My unorthodox BothAnd philosophical worldview simplifies the problem by assuming a monistic substance (Information) that can exist as both Matter and Mind. Problem solved! :wink:

*1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is only hard within the context of materialism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/169rqih/hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_not_hard/

*2. Some argue that the hard problem of consciousness is not actually hard, and that it can be solved through further analysis of the brain and behavior:
___Google AI overview

*3. Excerpt from the OP :
"Let's first assume that the hard problem of consciousness is not the lack of scientific knowledge in that domain but the paradox it creates when thinking of consciousness as an object in the world. Any materialistic theories about it is followed by this question "why are these materialistic phenomena accompanied by experience?". And any materialistic attempt to answer that question also ends up being followed by the same question, creating a circularity that seems impossible to escape."
____Skalidris

The whole 'hard problem' arises from regarding consciousness as an object, which it is not, while science itself is based on objective facts. It's not complicated, but it's hard to see. — Wayfarer

Presumably, Science studies reality "as-is", while Philosophy studies the world "as-if"*1. That's why scientists observe the Brain, but philosophers imagine the Mind. Consciousness is not a material object, but our Minds can picture the state or qualia or function of Knowingness*2 as-if it is an object-of-interest in a hypothetical context.

What makes the scientific study of a metaphysical concept "hard" is the tendency to analyze the Function*3 of the brain as-if it's the material product of a mechanism instead of the immaterial purpose of that system. Metaphysical disputes are "impossible to solve" analytically, they can only be resolved holistically --- by placing the parts into a universal context. Not by substance dualism, but by essence monism.

If we can't agree on the Nature*4 of the Cosmic context --- Materialism vs Idealism or Physical vs Metaphysical --- we will continue to disagree on the possibility of an emergent Mind-function. Ideas are "hard to see". Hence, factionally "impossible to solve". :smile:

*1. “As if” thinking concerns the ability to think in some imagined context other than the reality that is presented in front.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_5-1
Note --- As-Is thinking looks at actual things. As-If thinking looks at possible states.
"A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. Possible worlds are widely used as a formal device in logic, philosophy, and linguistics in order to provide a semantics for intensional and modal logic." ___Wikipedia

*2. What is another word for knowingness?
synonyms: awareness, cognisance, cognizance, consciousness.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/knowingness
Note --- The suffix "-ness" means "state, condition, or quality"

*3. A "function" refers to the specific purpose or role something or someone has, essentially describing what something does or is designed to do;
___Google AI overview

*4. "The nature of" is an expression that refers to the basic character or quality of something."
___Google AI overview

"Grab your right hand with your right hand and report back." — Wayfarer

IMPOSSIBLE IDEA : AS-IF not as-is

I have a few questions about Spinoza’s substance monism, which I’m quite new to. Am I right in saying this is the (broad) outline of his argument: — tom111

I have no formal training in philosophy, so most of your questions are over my head. But, since your post has elicited only one response, I might as well give it a shot. One shot (question) at a time please.

Substance Monism*1 is an implicit philosophical assumption of my personal worldview, that I call Enformationism. Ironically, Spinoza called that ultimate essence "God", but deliberately avoided aligning his definition with Jewish or Christian theology. So, a more modern name for that all-pervading substance*2 might be "Nature" or "Matter". However, his notion of Nature is infinite & eternal, so in that sense is not compatible with our post-big-bang material-temporal (space-time) science-revealed world.

My 21st century name for Spinoza's "Substance" is Information*3 (or EnFormAction)*4, which is the precursor of Physical Energy, which is more fundamental than Matter. Any answers I might give will be based on this un-orthodox philosophical foundation. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Substance monism is the idea that only one substance exists, and Benedict de Spinoza (1632—1677) argued that God or Nature is that one substance. Spinoza's argument for substance monism is based on the following premises: Every substance has at least one attribute, Two substances cannot share the same nature or attribute, God has all possible attributes, and God exists.
___Google AI overview

*2. According to Aristotle, substance and essence are the same, and the essence of a substance is what causes it to exist.
___Google AI overview

*3. What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*4. EnFormAction : the act of giving form to the formless
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? In your example, it seems that you are simply saying that potential is simply the current state of an electric battery before being connected to a system to supply it with energy. Some batteries are never connected to a system so it would be incorrect to say that they have the potential to do anything. It is our ignorance of what the future holds for the battery that makes us think of "potentials" and "possibilities" when, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing except within our minds. — Harry Hindu

Our discussions about Consciousness have branched off into questions about "Potential" : what is it? In the quote*1 below, the postulated pre-existent "nothingness" consists of noumenal (ideal) Causal Laws*2 whose effects are what we call "real". Those pre-big-bang Laws & Energy may be what Aristotle postulated as Potential, and what Schopenhauer called WILL*3. :smile:

*1. SOMETHING FROM NOTHING?
"In the very beginning there was a void–– a curious form of vacuum –– a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential."
—- Leon Lederman, The God Particle
"Leon Max Lederman was an American experimental physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988" ___Wikipedia
Note --- I just came across this quote in my Enformationism thesis, that may shed some light . . . . . or may cast a shadow. Is it Science or spooky nonsense?

*2. A causal law is a law of nature that describes the relationship between two distinct events or features of a system, with one event or feature causing the other. Causal laws are a key part of scientific theories and are often used in philosophical analyses of science.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Regulating Laws + Working Energy = Causation

*3. "Schopenhauer's postulated noumenal world is quite different: reality in itself, independent of our sense perceptions, is a single undifferentiated entity that we can know about. He called this entity the Will. Schopenhauer's Will was something new, and very strange."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Arthur_Schopenhauer_1788-1860
Note 1 --- Does that "strange" Cosmic Will sound like the Potential for change (including Natural Laws) that causes new things to emerge into Reality, and defines the forms they take? Is Will/Potential the source/cause of "reality itself"?
Note 2 --- In my thesis, Potential is the source of all Causation, the mother of Energy, and the origin of all Change. One of its noumenal babies is the power-to-know that we call Consciousness. Potential "exists" only as a philosophical concept, not as a physical thing or force. Only the effects (the offspring) of Potential exist in the real material world. Philosophers know of its logical necessity only via inference, not observation.

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? . . . . there is no such thing except within our minds — Harry Hindu

Potential exists only in our minds. Potential is Ideal, not Real. Potential is knowledge in a mind, not a material substance or physical force. Not-yet-real is also an idea in a mind, consisting of knowledge of a possible future state given specified conditions*1.

Some posters may think that I am talking about some spooky spiritual force when I refer to "Potential". There seems to be a lot of confusion about what Aristotle was talking about, when he made a distinction between Potential and Actual. It's discussed in detail in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Today, we refer to not-yet-real statistical possibility as Potential*2. :smile:

*1. What are actuality and potentiality? :
As used in discussions of philosophy, potential and actual refer to “what might be” and “what is.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html

*2. Statistical potential
Statistical potentials or knowledge-based potentials are scoring functions derived from an analysis of known protein structures in the Protein Data Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_potential

Our difference centers on whether or not a potential current embodied within a charged battery is physical whereas a potential current embodied within the mind's memory is abstract. In both cases the potential is tied to something physical: a) the charged battery and its difference of potential; b) the mind's memory and the difference of potential it represents abstractly. — ucarr

For my philosophical purposes, I'm more interested in abstract Cosmic Potential than in concrete battery potential. A physical form of cosmic potential is Energy, in all its aspects*1 . But the universe has enormous abstract potential that is not-yet-actual. One example is the hypothetical Vacuum Energy. Potential energy is just knowledge of a possible future state.

All of those potentials are not real or actual until activated by some inter-connection. Even vacuum energy, presumably everywhere all around us, must be only Potential until actualized. Otherwise, the universe would burn itself up. The only non-physical forms of energy are the abstract concepts in a mind, such as Cosmic Potential Energy*2, or the knowledge that a AA battery will not shock you (i.e. only potential), unless you complete a circuit between poles, actualizing the Potential. :smile:


*1. Types of Energy :
"There are ten types of energy: chemical energy, mechanical energy, nuclear energy, gravitational energy, light energy, radiant energy, sound energy, motion energy, thermal energy, and electrical energy. In general, the first four on the list are potential energy and the last six are considered forms of kinetic energy."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/energy-definition-types.html
Note --- This list doesn't mention all the various physical Forces that are probably specific forms of general energy. The ultimate source of all those applications of causation is what I would call Cosmic Potential, or in my thesis : EnFormAction.

*2. Abstract Cosmic Potential :
Similar to Schopenhauer's World as Will. On the cosmic scale, it's Potential until actualized in specific instances of Causation. All generalizations are mental concepts, not material objects. Philosophy deals with generalizations. Science with specifics.
In Schopenhauer's philosophy, "will" is considered a fundamental, blind, and unconscious energy that permeates all of reality, acting as the driving force behind everything from the growth of a plant to human desires, essentially representing the core essence of existence beyond our perception of the world as a collection of objects; it is not a conscious choice but a primal, underlying force to strive and perpetuate life.
___Google AI overview

Difference of potential is rooted in the extant charge of the concentrated particles. It is real. . . .
There is a basic difference between having an idea about current flow and having a charged battery ready to deliver current flow. — ucarr

Yes. The battery poles are certainly Real. but until they are connected into a circuit, the electric current is only Potential.
Difference is a mental concept : Ideal not-yet Real.
Potential is not a real thing, but an ideal concept that points to a future state.
Difference and Potential are found only in Conscious Minds, not in the material world. :smile:

I think the idea of potential is just that - an idea and not some inherent property of reality. Ideas like randomness, probability, possibility and potential are all ideas that stem from our ignorance. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Potential is not-yet Real. Science and philosophy are tools for dispelling our ignorance. :smile:

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Potential Innovation :
# The notion of an immaterial goal-seeking principle that motivates the behavior of both animate and inanimate entities has been entertained by thinkers through the ages. Aristotle coined the term Entelechy to represent a fundamental internal ambition to be more than it is. It explains a variety of transformations in Physics and Metaphysics, where mechanistic accounts are unknown.
# Modern Science also lapses into metaphysics with terms that imply goal-directed action. The “power” of an electric battery to cause machines to work is called “Potential”, because the actual work remains in the future. Likewise quantum fields harbor Virtual Particles that are not yet real, pending the intentional poke of a mind.
# Other technical but spooky terms for immaterial potential are Soul, Elan Vital, Will, etc. They produce seemingly ententional behavior without any overt evidence of physical energy exchange. In place of energy, we can only detect exchanges of Information.
# The dynamics of transformation and innovation are due to what I call EnFormAction : the teleological force of cosmic “Will”, imagined metaphorically as stored-up creative power as in an electric battery. That potential is released only when a circuit is completed by making a real connection between two poles.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Entelechy : the realization of potential.
Oxford Languages

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you? — Gnomon
Yes. — ucarr

Please explain. :smile:

I thought maybe your holistic combination of substance, form and dynamics creates an environment wherein parts are simultaneously discrete and gestalt. — ucarr

Yes. Parts are also Holons. :smile:

A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole. In this way, a holon can be considered a subsystem within a larger hierarchical system. ___Wiki

The whole landscape of evolution is a branching web of boundaries both combining and separating. — ucarr

Yes. Evolution combines old parts into new complex-integrated-systems (gestalts : holons) by drawing different boundaries and combining old elements into novel Sets. The "power to enform" is the ability to draw boundaries forming different sets of components with new properties and functions. That's also what we call "design" or "programming". :smile:

So, for sentients, meaning is always personal? — ucarr

Yes. What else could it be?

Is paradox a synonym for enformaction? — ucarr

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you?

Premise -These questions make an approach to distilling what consciousness does objectively: it resolves paradoxes. — ucarr

That may be the evolutionary adaptive function that led to conscious awareness of Self & Other, which are often at odds.

Note --- My answers are derived from my personal thesis of Enformationism. I'll have to pass on your other questions, since they are outside my limited knowledge of science and philosophy. :smile:

So, in the case of an information field flanked by energy fields, we have a grouping of three energy fields, a two-plus-one with info being one type of energy and the flanks being another type of energy? — ucarr

No. All Energy Fields are also Information Fields. Its all information all the time. EnFormAction is singular and monistic. According to my thesis, it's the source of all physical fields. :smile:

WHAT IS ENERGY?
It’s not a particular thing, but a transferable (hence not intrinsic or inherent) property, ability, quality, that is quantifiable only in its effects.
“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

21st century physics has equated Information with causal Energy — Gnomon
So, you embrace the understanding information is physico-material? — ucarr

Yes. I call Energy the power to enform, to give form to the formless*1. The roots of "information" literally mean : the act of giving form". The result is to create meanings (forms) in a mind. The link below expands on on that strange notion.

The Big Bang theory postulates that the early universe was a pre-material plasma of quarks & gluons, which are hypothetical undetectable particles of sub-sub-atomic-matter. Yet the Cosmologists necessarily, but implicitly, assume that causal Energy and natural Laws (relationship principles) existed eternally before the beginning of our space-time. Another unstated assumption is that the Potential for mental phenomena (awareness) was inherent in whatever went "bang!".

That combination of Cause & Laws is what I call EnFormAction (EFA) : the natural holistic tendency to create complex systems from simpler components. One form of EFA in the known world is Gravity. Presumably that attractive force couldn't exist without Matter and Space, so it would have to emerge along with the stuff that fills space, which is curved to fit around those little bundles of inter-attraction. This both-physical-&-material (space/time, energy/matter, brain/mind) "understanding" is also implicit in what I call the BothAnd Principle*2.

*1. What is Information?
The Power to Enform
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# 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. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Information Philosopher : "Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. Why should it become the preferred basis for all philosophy?"
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/

If so, why is this brain-centered higher-order memory function immaterial? — ucarr

Meaning is a Meta-Narrative that is created in the brain out of incoming information, from external environment and inner milieu. In lower animals, Memory may simply record raw data. But in humans, Meaning places the world data in relationship to the Self-concept. As I understand it, meta- refers to anything that is over & above meaningless matter : the Map is not the Terrain. The rational Mind gives us a new perspective above & beyond that of the physical eyes.

Mind is a holistic Function of brain, not identical with the neural network. And a Function is an input-output relationship, not an object. Also, the abstract mental Output is more-than the concrete material Input. The Whole system (mind) is more than the sum of its parts (neurons + data). The parts may be physical and material, but the holistic processing system produces Ideas & Concepts, with no material properties, hence immaterial. :smile:

All knowledge must be integrated. Dualism causes problems. Monism solves those problems.
Either we take the attributes of waves and particles that do not contradict each other and integrate them into what it means to be a wavicle, or we come up with another word. What about process or information? — Harry Hindu

Yes! My personal worldview is Monistic & Integrated, and grounded on the 21st century science of Information. I call it Enformationism*1. From that perspective, I view quantum wavicles, not as material objects, but as mathematical (statistical) information*2, which is also the essence of Consciousness*3.

But another way to think of quantum reality is as a field of Potential that can become Actual : Quantum Field Theory. The monistic aspect of my philosophical thesis is that the world is all-Information-all-the-way-down. 21st century physics has equated Information with causal Energy*4, which is also transformable into Matter (E=MC^2). And ever-changing causal Energy (EnFormAction) can be described colloquially as a Verb*5. Does any of this make philosophical sense to you? :chin:


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict". In language it's called a "Verb".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other-knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information : ratios & relationships.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*5. One way to think of a Wavicle :
If everything is made of wavicles and vibrating all the time, then isn’t everything a verb?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlanWatts/comments/ed2juy/everything_is_in_motion/

Additionally, I dispute the idea that the brain is simply a 'physical object.' The brain might appear as a physical object when extracted from a body and examined by a pathologist or neuroscientist. But in its living context, the brain is part of an organism—embodied, encultured, and alive. In that sense, it's not just an object but part of a dynamic, living process that produces consciousness in ways that no computer can replicate. — Wayfarer

Good point! As an isolated lump of neural tissue, a brain is similar to your computer analogy : it processes data, but does not "understand" its meaning in the context of the wider world. On the other hand, a human body is a multi-function organism that does more than just process data. It also converts Energy into Life, and Data into Meaning.

The "more than" is characteristic of complex holistic systems. Complexity scientists cannot currently track each path of energy/data in body/brain to produce novel sentimental conscious concepts about the nurturing-yet-risky environment. But they are working on constructing an informative model of such autonomous integrated thinking & feeling systems*1. :smile:


*1. The New Science of Consciousness:
Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self
https://www.amazon.com/New-Science-Consciousness-Exploring-Complexity/dp/1633882195

Is an electron a wave or particle? How about neither and we come up with a better word? — Harry Hindu

Some have proposed "wavicle". What do you suggest?
My question about Math & Metaphysics was philosophical, not scientific. So the distinction between Real and Ideal is relevant for a philosophy forum. :smile:

What is a wavicle?
"It is in your dictionary. Something which simultaneously had the property of a wave and a particle in physics. My physics class was over 70 years ago so I’m not up on that contradictory word. It is like saying something is frozen and liquid at the same time. Like an “honest thief”.

Its a rather pathetic attempt to assign one ( made up) word to the wave-particle duality of nature that is described in quantum mechanics mathematics. Wave–particle duality ___Wikipedia.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-wavicle

↪Gnomon
Generally :up: but watch out for the tendency to reify, 'make into a thing'. — Wayfarer

Thanks. You have warned me about "reification" before*1. But it seems that most Philosophy-versus- Science arguments, going back to Plato's Idealism, hinge on the Reality (plausibility ; utility ; significance) of abstractions. Are Mathematics and Metaphysics "real" or "ideal"? Regardless of how you categorize them, Ideal or Abstract non-things are very important for philosophical discussions, no?.

Is the Aether, postulated by physicists to explain such ideas as "vacuum energy" real or ideal? Here's what I said about that : "I argue that the metaphysical Aether is immaterial, just like the hypothetical Quantum Vacuum and the Universal Quantum Field. It's not physical or spiritual, but mathematical (statistical) and mental (logical). If Math & Mind are real, so is the statistical sphere of Probability & Potential.". Is "immaterial" the same as non-thing & unreal? Is Math a real thing, or an abstraction in a human mind? Is the Quantum Field*2 a perceivable real thing, or an abstract human concept?

I didn't claim that Aether is an actual physical thing, as some physicists seem to imply*2. Instead, I'm saying that it is the Potential for causal Energy ; which is the Potential for actual Matter*3. So, the philosophical question here seems to be : is Potential to Actual*4 the same as Reification". It seems to "make nothing into a thing". :smile:


*1. Reification means to treat something abstract as if it were a physical thing. For example, you might reify an abstract concept like fear, happiness, or evil.
The process of turning human concepts, actions, processes, relations, and properties into tangible things
___Google AI overview

*2. According to current scientific understanding, quantum fields are considered to be real, existing throughout space and acting as the fundamental building blocks of the universe, with experimental evidence supporting their existence and effects; although they are a theoretical construct, they provide incredibly accurate predictions about the behavior of particles and are considered the best explanation for our physical reality at the subatomic level.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Is "considered to be real" a fact or a belief? Is a "theoretical construct" a real thing, or a reification?

*3. Yes, "energy is potential for matter" means that energy represents the capacity to do work or cause change in matter, essentially acting as a stored potential that can be released to create movement or transformations within matter; this is often described as potential energy, which is energy stored due to an object's position or state, ready to be converted into kinetic energy (motion) when conditions change.
___Google AI overview

*4. In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity of something to develop into a specific state or perform a specific function, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. These concepts are central to understanding change and reality, and helped Aristotle explain how things can change while maintaining their identity.
___Google AI overview

"The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. — Gnomon
I take issue with that in this essay. — Wayfarer

The Philosophy StackExchange quote*1 probably should have said that the wavefunction equation represents mathematically the probabilistic ontology of the sub-atomic foundation of the universe. But that's more than a mouthful. And may not make sense without some explication.

I read your essay, The Timeless Wave, and agree with its conclusions*2. For example, where you say "the wave function doesn’t seem to operate within any physical medium", it raises the ancient vexed question of an invisible immaterial Aether within which to propagate. In my own thesis, I argue that the metaphysical Aether is immaterial, just like the hypothetical Quantum Vacuum*3 and the Universal Quantum Field*4. It's not physical or spiritual, but mathematical (statistical) and mental (logical). If Math & Mind are real, so is the statistical sphere of Probability. As such, it's the causal essence (EnFormAction) of the Enformationism*5 worldview; it's where events happen. :smile:

*1. "The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. The wavefunction refers to the probabilistic knowledge that : (a) one physical system attributes to another physical system or (b) a fundamental element of consciousness attributes to a physical system."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/106658/what-are-the-arguments-for-or-against-the-wavefunction-being-a-subjective-vs-an

*2. "And it’s all of this that makes the nature of the wave-function a metaphysical question, rather than a question of physics as such". ___ The Timeless Wave

*3. "Yes, the quantum vacuum can be considered the modern equivalent of the aether:"
___Google AI overview
Note --- empty space is considered to be a potential source of energy.

*4. Quantum Field Theory
A "Universal Quantum Field" in the context of theoretical physics, particularly within Quantum Field Theory (QFT), represents a hypothetical single field that could potentially encompass all fundamental forces and particles in the universe, described mathematically as a complex quantum field with properties that allow for the creation and interaction of all known elementary particles, essentially acting as a unified field where all particles arise as excitations or fluctuations within it; however, such a unified field is currently a theoretical concept with no definitive experimental verification.
___ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

*5. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just Matter & Energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Causal EnFormAction is the essence of Energy, Matter, Aether, and Mind. See thesis for explanation.

Ever read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose? — J
Tried and failed. The maths was beyond me. I’ve often enjoyed Sir Roger’s talks on other topics. I’ve recently written a Medium essay about his views on QM. — Wayfarer

I read Emperor's New Mind long ago, but much of it was over my head. Years later, I'm beginning to vaguely see what he was aiming at : Consciousness is not a material phenomenon, but a non-algorithmic mathematical (logical relationships) aspect of reality. Perhaps it can be traced back to the original LOGOS, the logic of the universe, giving it form and meaning. I doubt that Penrose thought in terms of the Platonic principle of Cosmic Reason as the essence of Consciousness. But he seems to be using immaterial mathematical metaphors which point in that direction. :smile:


"Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer." ___Wikipedia

"Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function." ___Wikipedia

"The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. The wavefunction refers to the probabilistic knowledge that : (a) one physical system attributes to another physical system or (b) a fundamental element of consciousness attributes to a physical system."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/106658/what-are-the-arguments-for-or-against-the-wavefunction-being-a-subjective-vs-an

"Non-algorithmic mathematics involves metathought, which is the use of intuition, intention, and control. This is what distinguishes humans from machines, as machines are only endowed with an object-language, while metathought is described by a metalanguage." ___Google AI overview

What is logos in philosophy?
logos, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

PENROSE IMPOSSIBLE TRIANGLE : to measure is to extract meaning

↪Gnomon
What I find interesting to know, can you relate to that yourself, from own experience? — Carlo Roosen

By "that" do you mean becoming consciously aware of Nothingness? I don't remember any transition from unawareness of zeroness to the wordless experience of absence. Like "Infinity" & "Void" it was just a label for an abstract concept that I have no sensory experience with, but philosophers and mathematicians have to deal with.

However, I do remember becoming aware of the philosophical significance of the common word "Zero". It was the 2000 book ZERO, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by science writer Charles Seife. Referring to the notion of Zero, he said "it is infinity's twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang". So I think, in any Theory of Everything, we must take account of Nothing. :smile:

There are also things we do not attach words to—non-conceptual experiences. If we try to describe some of our deepest experiences, words will fall short. Our consciousness is larger than our conceptual reality. — Carlo Roosen

The phrase bolded above reminded me of articles I had recently seen while browsing the net. They refer to how we process the number Zero. Obviously, Zero is not a natural Perceptual experience, but an artificial Conceptual notion. So, until the last few centuries, words would indeed "fall short" of expressing the concept of nothingness.

Yet, after thousands of years of counting and calculating, humanity now has a word for something that is not a thing. One article said that the human brain takes more time to process the concept of Zero than any other number. Perhaps because Zero doesn't seem to fit the notion of numbering. But now we can include Nothing in our conceptual Model of Everything. :smile:


"For a brain which has evolved to process sensory stimuli, conceiving of empty sets is an extraordinary achievement,"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421133944.htm

"The brain has more neurons that prefer zero than other small numbers, which allows it to more accurately represent the empty set"
___ Google AI overview

This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment. But this religious belief also necessarily implies that there is a whole universe (or possibly multiverses) of beauty and goodness completely outside the scope of my own personal desires. — Brendan Golledge

Perhaps Deism is an aesthetic philosophy that sees beauty & design in the world, and speculates on its provenance. Not to serve physical needs, but to fulfill metaphysical desires for meaning & understanding. On the other hand, materialistic Science is not concerned with Beauty, but Utility. So, the role of theoretical Philosophy is "outside the scope" of physical necessities, but does serve the "human desire" for virtue & pleasure & happiness, and our homo sapiens need-to-know.

You haven't posted for a while, so I hope your original enthusiasm for Cosmology and Ontology has not been deterred by the nasty trolling attacks on philosophical speculations that transcend the practicalities of Immanentism and challenge the Faith of Materialism. This is not a Science symposium, it's a Philosophy forum. As biologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested, maybe we should consider them as Non-Overlapping Magisteria and different fields of study.

For example, Deism sees evidence of Design in Nature, but can't prove the existence of a Designer. Likewise, Science sees evidence of Dark Matter in the universe, but can't demonstrate what or where it is. Like the God-Hypothesis of all religions, Gravity & Dark Matter are hypothetical*1 causal forces, that work via "spooky action at a distance". But, for Newton & Einstein, such conjectures filled a need for understanding how & why the world works as it does. Like Gravity and Dark Matter, G*D serves as a conjectural causal principle in the universe. The only evidence for all these forces is circumstantial, not material. Astrophysicists have been faithfully searching for Dark Matter since the 1930s, and like G*D, it's still missing*2.

Analogous to Dark Matter theories, Deism accepts the notion that the universe is self-organizing, but makes no factual claims about Who, What or Where the Organizer is. Just as gravity is portrayed as warping empty space, G*D is an exotic notion that has to be accepted as an axiom in order to explain the observed organization of the universe. Newton's 17th century Gravity was an invisible inangible brute force. But 21st century Information (Enfomy*3) is more like a teleological computer program. An infinite deity is no more illogical than the concept of Zero or Void.

Forum trolls*4 seem to lump Deism into the same sh*tpot with the religious "opiate of the masses" in 15th -17th century Europe. But in Deism there is no opiate, no dogma, no faith, no covenant, just Reason & Science. Yet trolls, scarred by their own experience with authoritarian religions, cannot grasp that distinction. Modern religions are careful to accept the practical value of skeptical Science, but draw the line at having their own "revealed facts" placed under the microscope. Deism's scientific facts are empirically demonstrated. And its philosophical conjectures are open to rational argument.

Deism and Materialism are both based on metaphysical*5 Axioms that can't be proven*6. Axioms in philosophy and science are general statements that are not provable, but are generally assumed to be true or self-evident. They are accepted because they serve as the foundation for many other, more empirical facts. For some true believers though, the Axiom itself may become an article of Faith, instead of a placeholder.

Quantum Physics, with its ineffable mysteries, may have opened the door to a revival of the G*D hypothesis, to serve as an axiomatic foundation for all other attempts to explain how & why the world works as it does. For example, the commonly accepted Unified or Universal Field Theory is incompatible with Materialism*7, but serves as a framework for all of the superstructure of Physics. Deism*8 also has a mystery, and a missing First Cause, at the origin of the material universe. Yet, unlike the Dark Matter believers, Deists have accepted that it's futile to look for the metaphysical cause of all worldly effects inside the ongoing effect of Cosmic Evolution. Like Gravity, it's just an axiom. :smile:


*1. "Yes, gravity is an assumption in science because it cannot be proven. While we have never observed gravity change, we cannot prove that it will not change in the future."
___Google AI overview

*2. 85% of the matter in the universe is missing :
We have not yet found the elusive particles we believe dark matter consists of
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-universe-scientists-closer.html

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4. "A forum troll is someone who posts inflammatory, off-topic, or aggressive comments on online forums to intentionally upset others. Trolls are bullies who want to enrage online communities, not engage with them." ___Google AI overview

*5. "Materialism is the metaphysical theory that all reality is composed of matter, meaning everything, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained by physical processes and interactions, essentially denying the existence of any non-physical or spiritual entities." ___Google AI overview

*6. "Metaphysical : of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.
Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity"" ____ Wikipedia

*7. "Yes, universal field theory is incompatible with materialism because the most fundamental aspects of the material world cannot be understood in terms of material substances." ___Google AI overview

*8. Enlightenment Deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (1) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (2) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. ___Wikipedia

He argues that our perceptions of reality are not accurate reflections of the world as it truly is. Instead, he proposes that evolution has shaped our perceptions to prioritize survival. According to Hoffman, organisms that perceive the world in a way that maximizes fitness, rather than accuracy, are more likely to survive and reproduce. This leads to the conclusion that what we see, hear, and experience is not an objective representation of the world as it is, but a kind of 'user interface' designed to hide the complexity of reality and present simplified, useful representations to aid survival. — Wayfarer

Could it be argued that modern (enlightenment) Science is an attempt to improve observational accuracy for the purpose of learning to manipulate reality in service to human survival and thrival? Hence, not eliminative Materialism (matter only), but inclusive Realism (matter + mind). For example, the Webb telescope extends the range of our vision, not for practical survival purposes, but for theoretical knowledge that may have some specific survival advantages, if we humans ever encounter predatory aliens from foreign galaxies. In the meantime, that knowledge may be useful only for general philosophical applications : Ontology & Cosmology. :joke: