Wayfarer claims he doesn't agree with Kastrup's "mind at large", which I would say is itself an incoherent idea, but he apparently cannot offer any coherent alternative. — Janus
I've addressed that, in Is there 'Mind at Large'?, which I think is coherent, even if Tom Storm says it needs more detail. (I'm planning further installments. And re-visiting it, I think perhaps rather than invoking the spooky 'mind at large', I would just use the term 'some mind' or 'any mind' or 'the observer'.) — Wayfarer

seems to frequently criticize posts on the basis of incoherence. Which could mean that various statements & assertions in the post don't add-up to the postulated conclusion, or that the critic is incapable of following the implicit logic of the discussion. I Googled "philosophy -- coherence"*1 and found the page linked below. It says that "coherence" may imply Justified Belief, or may prove that the conclusion is True. I doubt that you are claiming that "Mind at Large" is provably true, but only that it is a believable possibility. So, his criticism may be saying that he doesn't agree with your conclusion, or that you haven't presented a detailed logical "system" to support your conjecture of a Universal Consciousness.

Over the millennia there have been many "systems" (theories) of philosophical Cosmic Consciousness : PanPsychism, PanTheism, PanEnDeism, . . . . ; and Kastrup's systematic & detailed worldview of Analytical Idealism is a recent addition. So, the easiest way to present a "coherent" theory pointing to the existence of some kind of intrinsic Mind in the Universe would be to simply accept one of those time-proven systems from the past as a label for your personal view. But apparently, what you have in mind is not exactly in accordance --- difference in detail --- with any of those older schemes of belief.

I'm in the same seemingly rudderless boat. Consequently, I was forced to produce my own personal thesis leading to the conclusion that our evolving world does indeed have a rudder. But few posters on this forum are willing to invest the time to plow through the details, evidences & arguments. So, they prefer to use prejudicial labels to characterize an unfamiliar system-of-thought, that they don't understand, as incoherent or simply untrue.

I continue to add "details" to my own thesis, as do you, but I doubt that any amount of itemization will convince someone who is not already inclined toward your point of view. If the general notion is abhorrent to their worldview, more particulars will not sway them. Concur? :smile:


*1. Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification :
According to the coherence theory of justification, also known as coherentism, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes. The coherence theory of justification should be distinguished from the coherence theory of truth. The former is a theory of what it means for a belief or a set of beliefs to be justified, or for a subject to be justified in holding the belief or set of beliefs. The latter is a theory of what it means for a belief or proposition to be true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

As for as Kastrup’s idealism - I do question the ‘mind at large’ idea in this essay - Is there ‘mind at large’? - — Wayfarer

In my last two posts on this thread, I responded to 's and 's challenges for you to state a firm either/or (cake or eat) position on the multi-faceted concept of Idealism. And one facet that you seem to waver on is the "mind at large" notion, which seems to imply some kind of God-mind ; although even Kastrup seems to be "of two minds" regarding the nature of that hypothetical entity.

In your Mind At Large article, you distinguished Scientific Materialism from Scientifically-Informed Idealism. And the latter phrase is close to my intention when I wrote the original Enformationism thesis. Yet invariably, posters on this forum insist that I take a stand for Scientific Materialism or for Philosophical Idealism. However, what I had in mind was more like your notion of "Scientifically-Informed Idealism" (SII).

Although your interpretation of SII may not be exactly the same as mine, I suspect that we both envision a middle-ground or transition between the poles of Mind and Matter. If so, then you and I are standing firmly on the bridge in between. For me, that Mind/Matter connection is Generic Information, as exemplified in physical causal Energy Fields, which Einstein linked to Matter in his E=MC^2 equation. Mathematical Mass is not the same thing as sensable Matter, but it's how our physical senses perceive Material objects in a gravitational field : resistance ; inertia.

If my guess is correct, then you and I are not vacillating between two poles, but stably standing in the middle ground, which some philosophers believe does not, cannot, exist. But we may still be unsure of the nature of the "mind at large" which serves as a Bridge Over Troubled Waters. For me, it's definitely not the God of Theology, but more like the Way-Path (organizing principle) of Taoism, or the Logos (rational principle) of Western Philosophy. Is my reckoning even close to your standpoint? :smile:

I can't help but contrast your response to me and your response to Gnomon, here: ↪Wayfarer
. Analytical Idealism is not, so far as I can make out, a form of Epistemological idealism. So again, you seem to me to want your cake and to eat it, by answering issues I raise from the point of view of Epistemological idealism while answering issues others raise from the point of view of ontological idealism. — Banno

Your use of the Cake metaphor sounds like you think it's a bad (magical?) idea to try to have it both ways ; perhaps like Jesus multiplying five loaves of bread into enough nutriment to feed five thousand people. But I view 's broadminded worldview as a useful philosophical attitude ; that I call BothAnd*1. It's a flexible binocular perspective that combines two conceptual frames into one philosophical worldview ; where you're not forced to choose one side to stand on.

Rather than viewing the Cake as either Material/Real or Immaterial/Ideal, he can see both sides of the equation. It's based on the traditional distinction between a physical Object (Terrain) and a metaphysical Metaphor (Map) : the idea/concept/synopsis/model of the terrain. Epistemology is about our sensory knowledge of real Objects. But Ontology is about our rational inference of ideal Essences. For example, Aristotle's HyloMorph combines a real material Cake (yummy!) and an ideal mental Cake (the abstract tasteless notion of cakeness).

Empirical Science specializes in practical sensable Epistemology, while Theoretical Philosophy focuses on impractical visionary Ontology. But, on this forum, in our search for perfect all-encompassing Truth, we often cross the line between the Cake you can eat, and the Cake you can only imagine. :smile:


*1. BothAnd :
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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

First job was to wind you back from confusing cognition as epistemic method with cognition as some kind of ontological mind stuff that grounds mind-independent reality. — apokrisis
If you looked at the Mind Created World piece, I explicitly state that I am not arguing for any such thing. — Wayfarer

Way off-topic :
As usual, 's discussion is over my head. But it may not be over yours. I had to Google A> "cognition as epistemic method"*1 to learn how it differs from B> "ontological mind stuff"*2. The "A" definition sounds like Ontology-as-usual, while the "B" version sounds like an Idealist interpretation of the traditional question of "what is Being?", but using a matter-based metaphor : "stuff". Which can be confusing for those who take metaphors literally.

Cognition is defined as 'mental activity", but that leaves open the question of how the human brain is able to metaphorically reach out beyond the skull into the material world, and bring back meaningful Percepts that can be transformed into useful Concepts. How do incoming photons (light energy) convey knowledge about the properties (redness) of the object that reflected the light? How does Cognition decode mathematical wavelengths into personal meanings? After several thousand years of argument and experimentation, a final answer to such questions seems as elusive as ever.

The notion of a "Mind Created World" seems to be another perennial conundrum that is not amenable to objective empirical finality. If so, is arbitrary Faith the only answer? I just read an article, in Beshara magazine, entitled Mind Over Matter*3. It's an interview with Bernardo Kastrup about his Analytical Idealism beliefs. One of his responses refers to Matter as an "extended transpersonal form of mind". Again, that sounds like Cosmic Mind-stuff (res cogitans) is a non-local ideal substance that can be molded into various forms of extended substance (res extensa).

Obviously, that universal mind-matter is not generated by my personal brain, so does it assume that the world is created by God-mind (panpsychism or cosmopsychism)*4? On one hand, Kastrup seems to deny most traditional Theology, but he is somewhat cagey about the nature of the god-mind-stuff that constitutes the world we personified-blobs-of-matter observe with our senses. If god-mind is not self-reflective, can it be intentional in its creative acts or just accidental? Sorry to unload on you, but such cosmic questions are pertinent to my own non-theological information-based philosophical theory of Evolution from cosmic Bang to local Cognition. :nerd:


*1. Epistemic cognition is knowledge about knowledge, especially knowledge about fundamental issues of justification and associated matters of objectivity, subjectivity, rationality, and truth.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_17
Specifically, individuals engage in epistemic cognition when they activate personal beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.669908/full

*2. Ontological mind stuff :
To ask about the ontology of mind, from the Greek word 'ontos', or 'being', is to inquire into the most fundamental metaphysical categories to which the mind may belong. Is the mind a physical thing, in principle like other material entities, but with more complex properties, or is it somehow immaterial?
https://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/Jacquette_Introduction.pdf

*3. Mind Over Matter :
I ended up as a metaphysical idealist –somebody who thinks that the whole of reality is mental in essence. It is not in your mind alone, not in my mind alone, but in an extended transpersonal form of mind which appears to us in the form that we call matter.
https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/mind-over-matter/

*4. Cosmopsychism :
Bernardo Kastrup also tells Michael Egnor that he does not think God is self-reflective. That, he thinks, is a unique job for humans.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-cosmopsychist-talks-about-the-universe-god-and-free-will/

It’s not a question of whether the ‘wave function’ is or isn’t mind-dependent. The equation describes the distribution of probabilities. When the measurement is taken the possibilities all reduce to a specific outcome. That is the ‘collapse’. Measurement is what does that, but measurement itself is not specified by the equation, and besides it leaves open the question of in what sense the particle exists prior to measurement. — Wayfarer

This thread has strayed away from the relatively simple yes/no/maybe question of a Just World --- where your opinion is just as valid as mine --- onto the open-ended (infinite ; non-empirical ; unverifiable) question of Subjective vs Objective Reality.

To Wit : Various interpretations of Quantum "collapse" seem to split along the line of another non-empirical question : is there a truly general Objective Observer to maintain the cosmos in Potential (statistical uncertainty - probability) when no specific Subjective observer is looking (measuring) to make it locally certain (Actuality)? Is it true that, the quantum waveform, and the immaterial field within which it is waving, is a generalized mathematical abstraction (mental image), not an observed real event?

seems to view Empirical Science as the closest possible approximation of perfect universal Objectivity, which trumps your ideal philosophical notion of a human-mind-independent Reality. Is there any way to resolve that Ideal/Real gap? :smile:


Gnomon reply to Wayfarer :
"I'm generally familiar with all those Observer World theories, but I'm not clear on one point. It should be obvious that observation of a physical object somehow creates a meta-physical world-view (mental image) in the mind of the observer.

But does anyone claim that your observation --- of a "collapsing" quantum event for instance --- creates the actual world that I personally routinely experience, apart from scientific experiments/measurements? Or that we collectively "participate" in creation of the world that we all more or less agree is out there?

Did Wheeler over-generalize from lab experiments to kitchen experience? Seems like we may be arguing about two different things here : my Ideal World vs everyone's Real World."
. . . . . from this Fair & Just thread

Scientific Objectivity :
The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

I’m sorry but which of these interpretations say that human minds are what cause the Universe to be? — apokrisis
Some points from the ChatGPT outline: — Wayfarer

Off-topic :
I'm generally familiar with all those Observer World theories, but I'm not clear on one point. It should be obvious that observation of a physical object somehow creates a meta-physical world-view (mental image) in the mind of the observer.

But does anyone claim that your observation --- of a "collapsing" quantum event for instance --- creates the actual world that I personally routinely experience, apart from scientific experiments/measurements? Or that we collectively "participate" in creation of the world that we all more or less agree is out there?

Did Wheeler over-generalize from lab experiments to kitchen experience? Seems like we may be arguing about two different things here : my Ideal World vs everyone's Real World. :chin:

Participation in Creation :
He would say things like 'No phenomenon is a true phenomenon until it's an observed phenomenon,'” said Robert M. Wald, a theoretical physicist at the University of Chicago who was Wheeler's doctoral student at the time. John Wheeler's “participatory universe” suggests that observers make the universe real.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-will-destroy-all-quantum-states-researchers-argue-20230307/

Einstein to Pais :
“Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”

Notice the implicit assumption in the statement that the physical world is 'the real world'. — Wayfarer

That is also my commonsense assumption, for all practical purposes. But, for philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between empirical Real world, and theoretical Ideal world. Even normally pragmatic scientists will imagine non-real scenarios as they try to make sense of the world-system as a whole. For example, since the semi-empirical Big Bang theory sounds like a taboo creation event, they may logically speculate about "what came before the Bang?" Some will dismiss it as a non-sense question, and dogmatically insist that this space-time world is one & done : no before or after. But others*1 seem to accept, as a matter of Faith/Fact, that an unverifiable/unfalsifiable Multiverse is the best answer. Presumably, in an infinity of worlds, random Good & Evil coin-flips will balance out. Some of us were just unlucky to be born into an out-of-whack alternate reality. Hence, the OP question for those of us in the contemporary world.

Since some very smart scientists accept the bizarre notion of an infinite chain of real-but-non-empirical realities, I can't find fault with ancient religious thinkers who took the "reality" of an eternal heavenly realm for granted. That unreal dual-world-view (enlightenment?) allowed them to make sense --- to balance the scales of Justice --- of their empirical temporal world. I don't think they were stupid to make such philosophical speculations. And apparently, such imaginary worlds have "made sense" to a majority of humans over millennia. They only differ, and argue, or fight, over the nit-picky details and the rules for navigating the Real and Ideal worlds. Some justice-seekers reach for the imaginary liberation of the elusive Nirvana emotional state --- picture yourself free from this suffering world ; while others piously or stoically endure the trials & tribulations of their empirical reality, in hopes of eventually enjoying eternal bliss in their imagined Paradise. Am I an idiot to entertain the optimistic notion that there's more to Reality than "first you suffer, and then you die"? :cool:



*1. Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Lee Smolin, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Partly, because the real world includes varying life conditions. We discover what's fair and what isn't, and respond accordingly, e.g. suffer, enjoy, form judgements and complain or praise the particular conditions in which we live. It takes discipline to remain indifferent to the reality of fairness. — jkop

Yes. The physical world is unbiased ; neither Just nor Unjust ; but its variety affords chances for both kinds of effects. That's why I call my worldview BothAnd : it's both Fair and Unfair, both Just and Unjust, depending on the place & time & person. So, the OP question is really about Culture, not Nature, about Psychology, not Physics. :smile:

You mention 'top down constraints' - but what is the ultimate source of those constraints? Can they be traced back to Lloyd Rees' 'six numbers'? Because that has a satisfyingly Platonist ring to it, in my view. — Wayfarer

My philosophical repertoire is limited, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Physics. So a lot of 's discussion (and your replies) are over my head. My comments are necessarily more general and conventional --- except for my personal unorthodox ideas, of course. Besides, this diversion onto Materialism vs Metaphysics or Realism vs Idealism is off-topic for this thread. Do you think it should be moved to a new thread? I'll let you and Apo decide what to call it. And you can get as deep & techy as you like. :smile:

To dissect in more detail, matter and form are terms needing more clarification here. But they are certainly equal partners in the deal as they arise together in dichotomous fashion. Each – as one of a pair of complementary limits on enmattered and informed Being – exists to the degree it stands in sharp contrast to its "other". They form a dichotomous relation, in other words. Logically speaking, matter and form are "mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive" as a pair of natural categories. — apokrisis

Off Topic:
Thanks for the clarification. But I like to take the dichotomous HyloMorph theory one step farther back in evolution. Even Aristotle seemed to imagine his Matter/Form*1 principle as an Essence. And, in my Information-based thesis, I labeled that essence as "Enformy"*2, working in the world as "EnFormAction" (the energy of causation), to counterbalance destructive Entropy, allowing Evolution to progress from Bang to Cosmos to Culture. Before the Bang, that creative causal essence was Monistic, like formless nameless Potential. But that's just a hypothetical postulation to explain how the chain of Causation got started from scratch. From that perspective, your "mutually exclusive" Matter/Form is not "jointly exhaustive, because it is a compound, subject to division.

My Monism is transcendent only in the sense that all abstractions and hypothetical entities transcend the realm of the senses. HyloMorph and Enformy don't exist in the real tangible world, but in the ideal realm of imagination. They are not scientific observations, but philosophical postulations. If you want a space-time model of eternal Potential, just look at the scientific notion of empty Space as brimming with Zero-Point or Vacuum Energy*3. :smile:


*1. Matterform :
The application of hylomorphism to essentialism is approached by Aristotle variously: as a way of distinguishing among changes; as a basis for the construction of scientific demonstration; as a principle of being in the science of being qua being.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rhiz-2022-0002/pdf
Note --- As an Essence, hylomorph is not dichotomous & contradictory, but unitary & complementary concepts. In my thesis, the non-local timeless causal Potential includes the Possibility for both Matter and Form (Mind). Don't send out a space-probe looking for Potential, because it ain't there.

*2. Enformy :
In theEnformationism 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

*3. Vacuum energy
An important concept in cosmology is that the 'empty space' between stars and
galaxies is not really empty at all! Today, the amount of invisible energy hidden in space is
just enough to be detected as Dark Energy, as astronomers measure the expansion speed of
the universe.
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/6Page87.pdf
Note --- This is not real detectable energy but mathematical hypothetical quantities to fill gaps in calculations. It's only indirectly detectable in the strange Casimir effect.

So you are talking in a way that takes matter for granted as that which already exists as a fact in its own ontic domain, just simply lacking the "other" of a shaping hand of a form. — apokrisis

Actually, it was not Gnomon, but Aristotle, in his HyloMorphism theory, who seemed to be taking Matter and Form for granted. As if those ideal elements of reality were sitting on a shelf, until combined by an ideal Chemist into real things. That would be a dualistic theory. But my thesis is monistic, in that there is a single precursor to all real things. It's not a thing itself, but the Potential for things. This hypothetical infinite & undefined Apeiron, somehow splits into Form (creative causation) and Matter (the stuff that is enformed & transformed). In practice, it's what I call "EnFormAction" : the power to give form to the formless. This is not just wordplay. The thesis gives some background for the logical necessity of Potential as precursor to Actual things. It includes Information Theory & Quantum Theory along with some philosophical history of Platonic Idealism and Aristotle's Causes. :nerd:

Note --- I could respond in more detail to the rest of your post, but that would take us further off-topic, and it deserves a thread of its own. Would you like to continue in a new thread & topic?

But this is a Philosophy forum, — Gnomon
Hmm. — apokrisis

Would you agree that Scientific Laws and Philosophical Principles are only "approximations" of Universal Essences? Obviously those "Ideals" are not real material things, so why do "wise" men continue to seek out such non-entities? Are they ignorant or stupid or god-smacked, or do they know something the rest of us don't? Perhaps, that there is more to the world than what meets the eye.

No need to reply. This post is just something to think about. :grin:

Note --- Irving Copi was the author of Introduction to Logic.


CAN "ESSENCE" BE A SCIENTIFIC TERM?
JACK KAMINSKY
Harpur College, State University of New York
In a recent paper Copi has argued for the admission of the term "essence" into scientific terminology. His primary reason is that the increasing adequacy of scientific theories is evidence of a gradual approximation to the real essences of things. Copi is aware that the laws of modern science are not to be taken as formulations of essences. But, he claims, "that is an ideal towards which science strives... Centuries hence wiser men will have radically different and more adequate theories, and their notions will be closer approximations than ours to the real essences of things."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/185721

Wise Man and his Essences :
Albert Einstein reinterpreted the inner workings of nature, the very essence of light, time, energy and gravity. His insights fundamentally changed the way we look at the universe--and made him the most famous scientist of the 20th century.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/einstein-s-revolution

But Matter is concrete, real, and changeable (perishable) — Gnomon
Sounds a little self contradictory. Not what you would expect from an essence. More work might be needed. — apokrisis

What are you implying? That a non-space-time essential principle could not produce mundane Matter from scratch? Such a non-noumenal notion may be the basic unproveable presumption of Materialism. Hence, a materialist would not expect a material object to be derived from an immaterial essence.

Even Aristotle, the guy who proposed the notion of dualistic HyloMorphism, viewed Essence as Causal*1. What I would expect from causal Essence is that it would give Form (design) to the malleable clay of Matter. When a potter produces a beautiful pot from ordinary clay, where did the Form and the Beauty come from? Was it inherent in the clay on a river bank, or in the noumenal mind of the creator?

Perhaps your notion of a concrete & real Essence needs more work. How did Materialists*2 arrive at the conclusion that many-form Matter is the monistic fundamental substance? Did they just take it for granted*3? Even old Hylomorpher himself defined Substance*4 as Being Itself, and Matter as contingent & accidental*5. Did they, like most Reductionists, ignore the contribution of an immaterial Mind to the dualistic combination of hyle and morph? Are Minds too spooky for you? :cool:

*1. Essence as Causal :
Aristotle frequently describes essence as a “cause” or “explanation”, thus ascribing to essence some sort of causal or explanatory role. This explanatory role is often explicated by scholars in terms of essence “making the thing be what it is” or “making it the very thing that it is”.
https://philarchive.org/rec/SIREAC
Note --- The Essence (beingness) of a thing is not the particular instance, but the universal design.

*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. ___Wikipedia
Note --- My thesis is based on an immaterial Monism --- causal Information (energy + form + action) --- which is an essential "substance" instead of a contingent "accident".

*3. Materialism is a Belief :
a. The best argument against materialism is the observation that the word material has lost all meaning. Materialism does not exist anymore. . . . .
c. The third best argument is that syntax cannot be derived from physics and semantics cannot be derived from physics. . . . .
f. The fifth best argument is the observation that materialists, apart from not existing, do not actually argue for their cause, they merely assume it to be true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/iyyto/most_compelling_arguments_against_materialism/
Note --- I suppose he means that Materialism, over millennia, was based on Atomism. But modern Physics has whiffed on each of its "fundamental" particles of matter : elements, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks. Now their Essential substance is a holistic mathematical Field (cartesian Plenum) with no matter in its dimensionless points. Need references?

*4. Substance is being existing in itself; accident is being existing in another as its subject. -- Being is known either as something which subsists in itself without needing to be sustained by another, or as something which needs a subject in which and by which it may exist.
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/cp26.htm
Note --- The modern notion of "Substance as material" is a reductive corruption of the original essential concept. Modern Science is necessarily Materialistic: Philosophy not necessarily.

*5. Matter is Accidental not essential :
Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
Note --- The Essence of a chair is the concept of Chairness. Concepts are what we know with, not what we make chairs out of.

Additionally, why do sentient beings contemplate the concept of a creator? It seems like a natural thing to question, and am wondering what are your thoughts on the matter. — Shawn

Some want to analyze your question from the perspective of Anthropologists or Biologists. But this is a philosophy forum. So, why not approach your "why?" question philosophically?

I would begin with the notion of Causation as more elementary than Creation. The Greek philosophers postulated abstract impersonal First Cause and Prime Mover instead of a humanoid Creator. So that might be a good starting point. We observe Causation (ongoing change) in the world, and postulate impersonal causal forces, such as aimless Energy and space-warping Gravity. So, we imagine tracing mechanical causation all the way back to the beginning. But Creation-from-scratch implies Intention, so the mind naturally turns to the personal human experience of creative causation.

Hence, the image of a human Creator to design & implement a real ever-changing self-organizing machine-like world system, seems to be intuitive. But, is it true? Do we have any way to prove the existence of an a priori Designer/Creator? I suppose you know the answer to that. :smile:

Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy.... — Gnomon
But the holistic systems view is hylomorphic rather than essentialist. There's that. — apokrisis

Off Topic :
I suppose "that" depends on whether you view Matter or Form as fundamental, or as equal partners. For Plato, Form is abstract, ideal, and timeless. But Matter is concrete, real, and changeable (perishable). So, which do you think is more Essential (absolutely necessary) : the multitude of physical Entities, or the unique metaphysical Form*1 ?

I assume you are describing Systems Science from the perspective of a pragmatic, reductive scientist. But this is a Philosophy forum, so what do you think would be the description of Holistic Systems from the perspective of a theoretical, generalizing Philosopher? Does Essence precede Instance? Is the Extension more fundamental than the Intention?

All physical systems in the real world are indeed compounds of matter & form. So, for a Chemist, the Matter (passive) may be more important than the Structure (interrelationships). But, for a Physicist, the energetic (active) component may be more important than the malleable substance. And, from a philosophical perspective, Matter is local & particular, while Form is universal & general. So, there's that. :smile:

*1. Aristotle's Causes :
Formal Cause: the essence of the object. Final Cause: the end/goal of the object, or what the object is good for.
https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/Aristotle/notes/AristotleCausesNotes.html

*2. Systems Theory :
In essence, systems theory operates on a simple guiding principle: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.carepatron.com/guides/systems-theory-in-psychology
Note --- The parts may be material, but the whole is an interrelationship between parts. And it's the relations that bind the parts into an integrated system. So, which is more fundamental to the system, the interchangeable pieces or the whole puzzle picture?

If determinism is true, there can still be morality in that we can consider an action right or wrong. Further, we can still give moral reasons in a determined setting. . . .
To Gnomon's original question - in a deterministic universe, if a wrong act is committed, then the world is thoroughly unjust ↪Gnomon because any attempt to punish is itself unjust. — NotAristotle

Do I understand you correctly to mean that : if the world is Deterministic, then a single wrong act makes the whole world system unjust : "a rotten apple spoils the whole barrel". And a single act of injustice makes the whole system unjust? No personal accountability?

That sounds like Old Testament justice, in which the sins of the king justified Yahweh's punishment of the whole nation with bloody invasion and exile in a foreign land. I would expect Determinism to be more like Cause & Effect? Would Libertarian or Random Justice be a better alternative? Would "Correction" be more just than "Punishment"? Is the world collectively Deterministic, or is there some freedom for individualized Justice? Maybe us sinners should hope for a little indeterminate leniency. :smile:

Aristotle Justice :
In the context of the death penalty, Aristotle's ethical stand can be understood through the lens of justice, which he considered to be the highest virtue. According to Aristotle, justice involves giving people their due, which means that individuals should be rewarded for their virtues and punished for their vices.
https://www.classace.io/answers/what-is-an-ethical-stand-on-death-penalty-base-on-aristotles-value-ethics

If your way of thinking has any real advantage, it has to be able to lead to better answers than the scientists have already figured out. Explain what is observed in some self-consistent fashion rather than ignore the critical details that don't fit your essences story. — apokrisis

Off-Topic : My "way of thinking" is characteristic of Philosophy, not Science. I've been trying to convince you that I'm not competing with scientists to produce practical applications of physical processes : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. Instead, I'm trying to update some ancient philosophical worldviews for application to the complexities of the contemporary chaotic world. The philosophical approach to understanding is Theoretical instead of Practical ; general instead of specific ; universal instead of local ; essential instead of detailed.

The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. Holism*1 is not anti-science or religious, but merely a different way of looking at the physical world. In fact, a new branch of science, Systems Theory, has arisen in the 21st century to study Complex Adaptive Systems*2, which are mostly living things with emergent*3 properties that cannot be found in their subatomic particles. The Santa Fe Institute*4 was established --- by atom bomb physicist Murray Gell-Man, et al --- primarily to study CAS*5, because most other research facilities were still focused on the parts instead of the whole systems.

Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy because it studies mostly living & thinking aspects of reality instead of dead matter. The Hard sciences can still profit from the use of Reductive methods, but the Soft sciences --- psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc --- will benefit from Holistic methods to study the behavior of Systems instead of Components. Unfortunately, those who still think reductively, may object to the unfamiliar terminology and concepts.

Getting back to the topic of this thread : I'm not asking if the atoms of matter are Fair & Just, but if complex adaptive humans as a social group can behave ethically. This is an ancient question, but a Holistic/Systems approach may shed new light on those old "hard questions", that have become muddled due to putting them under a technological microscope instead of just using the natural mind's rational faculty for "seeing" interrelationships.

By the way, you may be thinking of Essence as a reference to Spiritual stuff, but the Greek word ousia merely referred to fundamental "being' and "isness". Latin "Esse" (to be) is about Ontology, the philosophical science of Being. Can we get on the same page here? :smile:



*1. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. The aphorism "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", typically attributed to Aristotle, is often given as a glib summary of this proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

*2a. A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior of the components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
*2b. "The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear dynamical systems, has recently become a major focus of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences. Nonlinear systems are ubiquitous; as mathematician Stanislaw Ulam observed, to speak of "nonlinear science" is like calling zoology the study of "nonelephant animals" (quoted in Campbell et al. 1985, p. 374). The initial phase of research on nonlinear systems focused on deterministic chaos, but more recent studies have investigated the properties of self-organizing systems or anti-chaos. For mathematicians and physicists, the biggest surprise is that complexity lurks within extremely simple systems. For biologists, it is the idea that natural selection is not the sole source of order in the biological world. In the social sciences, it is suggested that emergence --- the idea that complex global patterns with new properties can emerge from local interactions --- could have a comparable impact."
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/papers/1383-complex-adaptive-systems

*3. Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

*4. The Santa Fe Institute (SFI) is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

*5. What is Complex Systems Science?
Complexity arises in any system in which many agents interact and adapt to one another and their environments. Examples of these complex systems include the nervous system, the Internet, ecosystems, economies, cities, and civilizations. As individual agents interact and adapt within these systems, evolutionary processes and often surprising "emergent" behaviors arise at the macro level. Complexity science attempts to find common mechanisms that lead to complexity in nominally distinct physical, biological, social, and technological systems.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

(1) According to physicists ... Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. — Gnomon
But this is simply nothing like how physics talks. You are projecting. It is your central misunderstanding.
An ontology of "stuff" is medieval science. Stuff as alchemy. Stuff as fluid stuff and corpuscular stuff. Stuff as a substance with inherent properties like gravity or levity. Stuff like calorie as the heat that flowed from one place to another.
Physics broke with this"essences" metaphysics by mathematical abstraction*6 — apokrisis

Off-topic : I normally don't reply to 's jibes, because his philosophical worldview specifically & disdainfully excludes my own. So, the sciencey stuff is necessary to provide some common ground for discussion. However, his questions were timely, as I am currently reading a book that, among other things, discusses the New Physics (Relativity & Quantum) of the 1920s.

On this forum, I am not "talking" as a physicist, but as an amateur philosopher with an unorthodox worldview : based on Holism, Quantum Observer Effects, Information Theory, and Complexity Theory. I'm not an expert in any of those fields, but I may be more knowledgeable than you think. However, as an outsider, I don't follow the official physics party line, so my presentation may sound strange to you. When I depart from standard physics language, I do so intentionally, not from ignorance.

For example, when I say "Energy is Causation"*1, it's a philosophical notion, not a conventional science concept. When I say "energy is fundamental"*2, I am including all of the various pre-material fields*3 that physicists postulate as foundational. For example, within an amorphous holistic electromagnetic field, a single Photon, the "carrier" of energy, can split into an Electron & a Positron, the primary elements of Matter*4. But, it's the energy field that is fundamental and essential, not the particles.

I am aware that modern physics carefully avoids terms such as "essence", but a mathematical quantum field is just an Essence by another name*6. Yet, I find the notion of pre-physical essences to be philosophically useful. For example, an electro-magnetic potential field of dimensionless mathematical "points" has no physical or material properties until it is converted into something real, by an "excitation", which in quantum theory may be an observation by a scientific mind. That may sound spooky, or medieval to you, but I try to accommodate such professional non-sense in my personal 21st century worldview. Ironically, some posters on this forum take a Scientism stance*5, which denigrates what philosophers do, as merely Lingustics. :smile:

PS___ Holism is another taboo term for pragmatic physics, that we can discuss at length in a separate thread, if you are so inclined.


*1. Is it true that energy is the ability to cause change?
Specifically, energy is defined as the ability to do work – which, for biology purposes, can be thought of as the ability to cause some kind of change. Energy can take many different forms: for instance, we're all familiar with light, heat, and electrical energy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/energy-and-enzymes/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/a/types-of-energy

*2. Is energy fundamental in physics?
Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one. Specifically, energy is an example of a conserved current derived from Noether's theorem. . . .
I would say that energy is more fundamental because matter is “merely” one subcategory of all types of particles/fields, while energy is not a subcategory of any broader concept.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fundamental-basis-of-the-universe

*3. Energy Fields are Fundamental :
I would say quantum fields are more fundamental. Numbers of particles, what kind (i.e. which field they belong to), where and when they are and their state of motion, are merely ways of describing states of fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122570/what-is-more-fundamental-fields-or-particles

*4. Energetic Photons produce substantial Matter :
For electron-positron pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production

*5. The arrogance of modern physics :
I’ve just finished reading {theoretical physicist} Lee Smolin’s new book The Trouble With Physics, . . .
Smolin was of a philosophical bent, and initially put off:
The atmosphere was not philosophical; it was harsh and aggressive, dominated by people who were brash, cocky, confident, and in some cases insulting to people who disagreed with them.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451

*6. Math is Metaphysics :
I agree with you that the sources of truth in mathematics can't be physical. For it seems clear to me that there would be mathematical truths even in a world that contained nothing physical at all (for instance, it would be true that the number of physical things in such a world is zero and therefore not greater than zero, not prime, etc.). So the sources of mathematical truth must be other than physical: if you like, metaphysical.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

↪Gnomon
(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?
(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance3 interact with material substance (re: substance duality)? — 180 Proof

Off Topic : You ask good philosophical questions, but you seem to expect Materialistic answers to Abstract inquiries. You expect 17th century deterministic answers, even though the foundations of post-classical physics are indeterminate. My understanding of Physics is post-classical, and entangled with Meta-Physics (the observer effect). Apparently, post-classical philosophy doesn't "make sense" to you. And your snarky (passive aggressive "sir") presentation is not good for communication.

(1) According to physicists, Energy acts on Matter because it has that "ability" --- by definition. Do you have a better answer to the "how" question? Apparently, the scientists don't.

(2) According to Einstein, Matter is a form of Energy*1 (monistic). Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. But "essence" is a philosophical concept, not a physical thing. It's similar to Kant's ding an sich. It's similar to Plato's Form*3, in the sense that it is pre-material.

Even more off-topic : Is your world view Nietzschean*4, in that you want to substitute phenomenal Will (local) for noumenal Essences (universal)? :nerd:


*1. Matter = Energy/C^2
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

*2. What is essence function in philosophy? : (Eastern Philosophy)
Essence is Absolute Reality, the fundamental "cause" or origin, while Function is manifest or relative reality, the discernible effects or manifestations of Essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiyong

*3. Form = Essence
One of the elements in Plato's theory of Forms is the claim that essences, or Forms, are necessary for, and provide the basis of, all causation and explanation; a claim that, famously, he makes and defends towards the end of Phaedo (95e ff.).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/platos-essentialism/introduction/3DA8714A3BCF69E17E6AD7B6B41615E6

*4. Nietzsche’s criticism of the Thing-in-itself :
Nietzsche's first disagreement is with Plato's ideal forms. In the parable of the cave, these forms were the ideals illuminated by the sun. Nietzsche claimed that rather than values illuminated from without, each person should make their own determination of values.
The idea that the value of something subsists in itself is Kant's thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich): noumenal essences that exist beyond human knowledge, like the forms, only shadows of which are seen in the cave.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/88781/what-exactly-is-nietzsche-s-criticism-of-the-thing-in-itself-and-is-it-supplante

↪Gnomon
:ok: So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ... — 180 Proof

Obviously you didn't take the time, or have the inclination, to "check" the off-topic & off-forum evidences presented in the thesis and blog. That's just as well, since your materialist or "immanentist" worldview might categorize the abstract, theoretical, mathematical, incorporeal grounding of Energy/Information/Qualia as over-your-head (transcendent), or off-limits (prejudice), and as the unreal, imaginary, statistical measurements of a rational mind. :joke: :cool:


Energy is not a material substance :
Explanations suggest that while some students may conceptualize energy as a substance with mass and volume, this idea is not consistently applied. In physics, energy is an abstract, non-material quantity associated with the state of a system.
Physics Education Research Central
https://www.per-central.org › wiki › File:1140

↪Gnomon
Why do you assume that energy (e.g. massless particles ... mental activity ...) is not material? — 180 Proof

It's a long off-topic story. But, if you have the time and the inclination, I have a thesis and blog to underwrite that philosophical inference. :smile:

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Philosophically, Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial ; you can't put it under a microscope. Therefore, if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Ability is usually imputed to Agents, not Things.

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
Note --- Matter is only one of may forms of Energy. Mind is another form. Materialism ignores all those other forms of Causal Agency. In this context, Information Regime = Things.

What would your commonsense notion of Fairness or Justice look like, within this human world? Is it specifiable, exactly? — Moliere

Ha! My commonsense solution to the Fairness & Justice problem would be to have a single-sovereign-supreme-superhuman judge to arbitrate between human definitions of My Justice and Your Fairness. Something like Molière's Tartuffe, relocated to heaven. But, since I gave up my religious solution years ago, I just don't worry about it. I'm certainly not a Marxist, except in the sense that he specified the problem for his day & time. His solution was missing the heavenly father to make the children behave. At my advanced age, I'm willing to let those who are more-concerned-&-more-able work-out the details of the next Utopia. :cool:

↪Gnomon's post strikes me as someone who does not have abstracted notions, and is wanting to see the limits of thinking on the subject, so this is a perfect sort of response, isn't it? — Moliere

Since I have no formal training in philosophy, 's posts are often over my head. So, in that sense, I may not have extremely "abstracted notions". But Fairness and Justice are fairly commonsense notions aren't they? Yet some posts make it more complicated, by further abstracting the notion of what kind of world (Hegelian, Marxist) can be judged morally.

Perhaps, as you said, it would be helpful to place "limits" on our thinking : to define our terms. One definition of "world" in this context might be simply "human culture", as the relevant element of ethical concern. I'll leave it to you and Apo to define whatever abstraction you are arguing about. :joke:

Is that an indirect way of saying that you identify as a Materialist? — Gnomon
No, but it depends what you mean by "materialist". — Banno

OK. What do you mean by "materialist" or "materialism"? Is there a definition of those terms that you would apply to your own worldview? For example, I am a Materialist in the sense that I take the existence of sensible Substance for granted, for all practical purposes. However, for philosophical (theoretical) purposes the term is sometimes taken to an extreme : THE sole fundamental substance. Which no longer makes sense, since Einstein's equation of Matter with Energy and Math.

The Hard position of Materialism makes another thing-I-take-for-granted inexplicable : my own sentient Mind : the only thing I know intimately. If you assume that massy matter is the sole universal substance, whence the invisible massless things (e.g. ideas ; appearances) that we imagine to represent various parts of the non-self world? Chalmers called that question "the hard problem". But materialists call it "irrelevant". To me, it seems that Energy (E=MC^2) is a more likely precursor of both Life and Mind. Is there a philosophical monist position for an Energist? No, I'm not an Energist, but that might be closer to the truth. :smile:

Modern Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- "interactions" = exchanges of energy. Interrelations = exchanges of essence (ratios ; proportions).

ding an sich — Gnomon
I don't think this notion can be made coherent — Banno

To me, the notion of ding an sich, as a philosophical essence, seems coherent (rational) enough. Of course, materialist Science doesn't do essences. So the ding seems to be a Philosophy thing. That may be because essence, qualia, property are categories of our rational analysis of the perceived world. :nerd:

Why things may not be what they seem to be :
The world as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world, or, in a memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means “The thing in itself”, but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is” (as distinct from how it appears to us). . . .
Kant was sure that there was a great deal more to it than that. He held that thinking in terms of causes was not a philosophical aberration, but arises out of the very essence of the way the human mind is constituted, the essence of the way it is compelled to reason.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kant_and_the_Thing_in_Itself

So a description of how things are, even if complete, does not tell us what we ought to do about it. — Banno

Yes. That's the role of Philosophy, not Science. As you noted, we will never have a complete comprehensive understanding of "how things are", or of ding an sich. All we ever know of the "real" world is the subjective sensations of our bodies, and the imagery (ideas) in our minds. But, without "objective facts", such as the contributions of physical Science, we might never be able to communicate from one mind to another.

The Facts of Science are intended to represent a hypothetical universal or god's view of "how things are". They may also be postulated as-if they are the common human experience. Unfortunately, the universal language of Science is Mathematics. Which is so abstract and idealized as to be incomprehensible to those who are not mathematically inclined. That's why a parent's smack on the rump of an unruly child is a directly sensible lesson, that can be easily understood as "you ought not to do that". It's close to a universal philosophical language. :wink:

I would not describe myself as an "immaterialist". I've argued that what are sometimes called abstract concepts are better understood as institutional facts. They manifest our intentions, so to speak. The "our" here is important. And the issues involved are complex. — Banno

Is that an indirect way of saying that you identify as a Materialist? The term I used was "immanentist", so your discussion of "immaterialist" misses the philosophical issue of Immanence vs Transcendence. I borrowed the term from another poster ; understanding it to mean something more like "realist" vs Idealist, or even "materialist" vs spiritualist in a different context. In other words, there is nothing --- no minds, no ideas, no spirits, no souls, no gods, and no philosophical metaphors --- that are not of this world : i.e. transcendent, hence not subject to verification or falsification. However, some Facts of Science (e.g. quantum quarks) are also institutional, and must be taken on Faith by those who are not members of the institution. :smile:

Immanentism :
any of several theories according to which God or an abstract mind or spirit pervades the world.
Note --- for this thread, I equate this term with "anti-supernatural", meaning that there is nothing out of this physical world. And "meta-physics" is sometimes interpreted as anti-immanent.

Institutional Facts :
In terms of Searle's theory, the facts he is puzzled by are institutional facts, i.e. facts created by assignment, performed by collective intentionality, of an agentive function of non-causal type to an object.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0589-0_18
Note --- This is over my head, but it sounds like a reference to church dogma about such non-entities as The Trinity. You can't see it, or even understand it, you just have to believe it. Ironically, a three-flavored Quark is a sort of Trinity.

And clearly the Cosmos, life and mind have turned out to have just that kind of self-organising logic. And thermodynamics – as a general label for a vast field of maths and science now – is all about systems that self-organise. So thermodynamics is how we can bring 21st C precision to a metaphysics of immanence. — apokrisis

seems to be one of the most philosophically knowledgeable posters on this forum. But his arguments tend to be rather terse, as if he has a canned answer for common problems. So, some fraught terms may be trigger-words for a succinct reply. Based on his dismissal of your arguments, I suspect that he equates both "Metaphysics" and "Transcendence" with other-worldly religion and spiritualism, instead of with abstract concepts and philosophical metaphors.

My own non-religious philosophical worldview is based on the notion of a "self-organizing logic" that serves as both Cause and Coordinator of the physical and meta-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of the world. For material objects, that "logic" can be summarized as the Laws of Thermodynamics : Energy ->->-> Entropy --- order always devolves into disorder. And yet, the Big Bang has somehow produced a marvelous complex cosmos instead of just a puff of smoke.

For philosophical concepts especially, that thermodynamic metaphor could be mis-interpreted. So, I have coined a neologism -- Enformy*1 -- to describe the positive force that physicists mis-labeled as "Negentropy". My coinage combines physical Energy and Platonic Form (design), to describe the ability of Nature to integrate isolated things into whole systems, including living organisms and thinking beings. I suppose you could call it a "metaphysics of immanence". But Banno might hear it as an oxymoron or paradox. :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms. Yet, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that a First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang, to program the potential for an almost infinite Cosmos into a sub-atomic Singularity.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Humans, more than most animals, are "animated by purpose". — Gnomon
This is debatable. Humans, with intellect and will, provide themselves the freedom to choose from a multitude of options in their activities. Animals seem to be driven towards very specific goals, without the capacity to choose. Each is "animated by purpose", and I do not see how you could argue one is more so than the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I should have said, "human purposes are both more complex and more general than animal's simple & narrowly focused goals" . But that's a mouthful, compared with just "more than". :smile:

That's all very clever, but tells me very little. — Banno
Clean out your ears. This was the OP that I was addressing. I was pointing to the third option of the pragmatic/semiotic view that stands beyond the impasse of the idealism vs realism debate. — apokrisis

Pardon, my intrusion. But I suspect your failure to communicate with may be foundering on the notion of "transcendent" ideas. If he is an Immanentist regarding abstract concepts --- God being just the most common example --- any reference to something transcendent may be meaningless to him.

You can ask him if that is why your argument "tells me very little". Some philosophers seem to believe that abstract ideals, such as Justice, exist eternally in a transcendent realm of perfect Forms. But others think that Ideal realm is just a metaphor based on our experience with things we know are on the other side of a wall, but can't see or touch. Metaphors are the lingua franca of philosophy. But some speak different dialects, making communication complicated.

If I'm guessing wrong, he will tell you, in no uncertain terms. :smile:

Yet, do you find the "mind of the observer" to be any less real than the physicality which it observes and thereby knows? And, if not, are not both then equally real aspects of that which constitutes "the world" as-is. — javra

Yes. If you define "real" as anything that can interact with other things, then the human mind is real. A rock is inert in itself, but can be used to break a window. An idea is subjective and invisible, but it can be used to affect other minds. For example, your post elicited this reply.

However, for philosophical purposes, it's often useful to distinguish Ideal from Real, even though both can be found in the "real" world. Ideas are not material, but are products of material brains. And Ideals, such as "Justice", are not located in some heavenly realm, but right here in this forum. :smile:

So from whence this metaphysical fixedness of thermodynamics as they currently are known (and as they occur) being an absolute and literally immovable/permanent grounding for absolutely everything - including notions of justice and fairness? — javra

I don't know how this thread got off-track on discussions of Physics and Thermodynamics as the "grounds" for ethical concepts. But, a quick Google search found that some modern developments in philosophy have narrowly focused on Linguistics and Phenomenology, which analyze common words down to their presumptive atomic meanings. I don't know about , but personally, I have no formal training in technical philosophy, or in modern deconstruction of traditional meanings.

So, my language is mostly colloquial, and never doctrinal. When I use a physical metaphor, it's intended only as an easily understood analogy between observable physical things and abstruse metaphysical abstractions. For me, "thermodynamic equilibrium" is not a dogma, but a simile with ethical equality. They are not "grounding for absolutely everything". Apparently, some who are more erudite are reading into our words meanings that were not intended. :cool:



Metaphor and Phenomenology
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Continental philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida go further in adding a linguistically creative dimension. They argue that metaphor and symbol act as the primary interpreters of reality, generating richer layers of perception, expression, and meaning in speculative thought. The interplay of metaphor and phenomenology introduces serious challenges and ambiguities within long-standing assumptions in the history of Western philosophy, largely with respect to the strict divide between the literal and figurative modes of reality based in the correspondence theory of truth.
https://iep.utm.edu › met-phen

Can the Universe be ordered without being animated by purpose? Do you see the difference? Purpose and reason seem to suggest A purpose and A reason. That is , a realism in which things works according to a certain scheme , a particular content of meaning. By contrast , it could be that the universe is ordered in the sense that it changes with respect to itself in a way that is profoundly intimate. What makes this unfolding ordered is not an assigned purpose, but the lack of arbitrary content violently polarizing its movement in one direction or another. — Joshs

Humans, more than most animals, are "animated by purpose". But the universe, as a whole system, is structured by Logic. That mathematical Logic is arithmetical, in that various threads of causation always add-up to a single global effect. Hence, the world may have an "assigned" (teleological) Purpose, but no-one knows what that final summation will be. Yet, humans, animated by their own motives, infer and impute various "schemes" to the world, to the World Mind.

Since we live in the middle of the Cosmic "life-span", the beginning and end are remote and vague. And, since causation interacts with itself --- action & reaction --- the "unfolding" can seem to be random & chaotic. So, humans like to impose their own purposes in order to "polarize" its path in their chosen direction. Nevertheless, Evolution --- to unroll like a scroll --- gradually reveals that which was inscrutable until actualized. And many evolutionists interpret that scroll as a story moving toward a denoument or coda. Some have proposed that rational homo sapiens must be the acme of evolution. Others, propose that logical artificial entities will eventually inherit the Earth. Presumably, their programming God looks like a robot.

Like most mysteries though, The End is obscured by misdirection, and the Purpose will only be revealed when all threads are tied-up in the final scene. Meanwhile, we will have to be content with incompletely informed prognostication ; which is "difficult, especially if it's about the future". :smile:

At any rate, this pithy conclusion of “the world is neither fair nor unfair” as just worded might be somewhat too non-dualistic for many, but I find it in full keeping with previously mentioned notions of “the world can be fair only to the extent that we make it so”. — javra

In the singing birds song, is he saying, "another world" : perhaps a Garden of Eden? Or is he imagining this present world as Non-Dual? Hamlet --- the melancholy Dane --- recognized that Good & Evil are not features of the world itself, but a personal interpretation : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Even so, Hamlet was driven mad by his pessimistic mindset. Can we be driven sane, by an optimistic attitude toward a world that can be interpreted either way? "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good". One person's misfortune is often another's good luck.

Back in my musically impressionable day, Bob Dylan concluded that the answer to unfairness and injustice and moral duality is "blowin in the wind". Does that mean there is no final solution to a world that blows both Hot and Cold, both Good and Evil?

My philosophical view is that the physical/material world is Monistic : a single dynamic causal force (amoral energy) that can have positive or negative effects, depending on the individual's me-centered --- or we-centered --- interpretation. That's why the Buddha preached a No-Self perspective, and the Stoics focused on self-control. Fairness & Justice are not of the world, but in the mind of the observer. The cosmos is what it is, but humans can imagine what it could be.

Apparently, homo sapiens is also the homo virtus of the animal world. Capable of seeing injustice, and of doing something about it, by working together toward the ideal of a fair & balanced society. By imposing moral structure on an amoral world. :smile:


Blowin' In The Wind
And how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
___Bob Dylan

I am religious, but don’t actually believe that this means that a eventually just world is determined even if everything happens for a reason. — Igitur

Yes. Modern religions still preach hope for perfect justice, but may no longer teach that piety will be immediately rewarded with peace and prosperity. Instead, believers should expect to suffer patiently --- in some cases for a lifetime --- buoyed by their faith in an Ideal-but-remote place & time, and a non-physical body. Even though secular laws have reasoned that "justice delayed is justice denied".

Most world religions propose some solution to the obvious & pervasive injustices of this material & temporal world : "vale of tears". In the Old Testament for example, justice was not to be expected in a heavenly afterlife, but in a society governed by the miraculously-revealed laws of God. Since that earthly society, Zion, a "city set on a hill", was repeatedly deconstructed by invaders --- sent by God to punish the Chosen People --- the notion of a heavenly city of refuge emerged. After the Jewish Messiah was crucified by another set of foreign invaders, an offshoot sect of Gentiles changed their expectations from Justice in this world and this life, to a spiritual world and an immortal life. Moreover, the divine "reason" why bad things happen to good people, was blamed on an Evil god, who foiled & frustrated the best-laid plans of the Good god. Since then, the real space-time world has been re-imagined, not as a god-designed Paradise, or a god-governed city-set-on-a-hill, but a battle-ground of constant warfare between heavenly hosts and demonic hordes.

In the book of Job, that faithful sufferer of divine injustice was ridiculed by his neighbors, who espoused a Just World theory*1. Even today, when historically dominant traditional religions have splintered into more than 45,000 sects*2 around the world, hope & faith in a Just World survives. In the US and Latin America, "The just world fallacy*3 is commonly seen in theologies with some form of worldly reward system, such as in Prosperity Gospel beliefs." So, in the face of real world injustice, hope & faith abide, that God would never allow his truly faithful followers to suffer. After several millennia of faith & works religions though, human societies seem to be no closer to the prophesied Just World. Clearly, the old moral laws inscribed in stone, have failed to produce an ideal society of god-fearing people. So, they have been reinterpreted, mostly by Paul, to be only a temporary pale imitation of the heavenly world-to-come in an unspecified future resolution to the perennial injustice problem. :smile:



*1. Job's Justice :
It addresses theodicy (why God permits evil in the world) through the experiences of the eponymous protagonist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

*2. Disunity of Religious Beliefs :
Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.
https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html

*3. Just World Fallacy :
The just world fallacy, also known euphemistically as the just world hypothesis, is a naturalistic fallacy that states that the consequences of all actions are predictable and deserved. This implies (although sometimes only subconsciously) a belief in some sort of universal force that ensures moral balance in the world, in such a way that a person who exhibits good and moral behavior will eventually be rewarded, while evil and immoral actions will eventually be punished. It is both a concept in theology and considered to be a cognitive bias in psychology. It is summed up by the phrase "What goes around, comes around."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_world_fallacy

↪apokrisis
Well, I suspect that ↪Gnomon will go along with your scientism. Of course, I don't think it is I who is not in the game. You do not appear to even see the ethical considerations. But my posts only elicit more spit. — Banno

I don't want to get in the middle of a spitting contest. But I'll point out that 's discussion of Ecology hardly qualifies as materialistic "scientism". Ecology does have practical applications, but its primary consideration is ethical & holistic*1 : the universe is more than an aggregation of objects & forces. For us earthlings, it's also an association of beings.

Regarding the ethical status of our world, Oughts and Values -- fair & just -- are not physical things to be studied by material scientists, but philosophical concepts that may even guide the investigations of biological scientists. It typically views the world as a holistic interactive integrated system. In which, only a few species are capable of ethical considerations. That's why homo sapiens are often viewed as the caretakers of non-human world*2 : the arbiters of fairness & justice.

The topical question of Fairness & Justice was not referring to the material world, as some have erroneously assumed. Instead it's about the "world" as an Ethical System of sentient beings. FWIW, I value the calm & rational inputs of both Banno and Apo. :grin:


*1. Ecological Ethics :
Ecological (or environmental) ethics is the study of what humans, individually and corporately, ought to value, ought to be, and ought to do in relationships with all other beings and elements in the biosphere.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ecology-ethics

*2. Who is the caretaker of the world?
Every generation serves as caretaker of this world | Secretary-General : United Nations in India.Apr 17, 2024

How does it make sense to ask which of these is in thermodynamic equilibrium? — Banno

The physical analogy between a Fair & Just distribution of social states, and thermodynamic equilibrium (balanced measure) is a philosophical metaphor, not to be taken literally. :cool:

Why do people use the term, 'Equal' instead of the proper term, 'equilibrium'?
Equilibrium is the balance of dynamic interaction—when the interactions being measured become “equal”.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-use-the-term-Equal-instead-of-the-proper-term-equilibrium
Equilibrium : a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

JUSTICE IS BALANCED : psychically, not physically

To which I might only add that ethics may be of more help here than physics. For while physics tells us what is the case, ethics acknowledges that we might well make things otherwise. — Banno

We may even gain some philosophical insights from Biology. My latest blog post is entitled : Synchrony : Small World Networks*1. In 1926, during the heyday of Quantum Physics, biologist Jan Smuts*2 intuited the general principle of Holism as an organizing force in biological Evolution. His acumen was immediately recognized by those who later became labeled as "New Agers". But it was overshadowed by the Atomic bomb builders, until the 21st century emergence of Complexity, Systems and Information sub-disciplines of science. As illustrated in the Oppenheimer movie, physics sans ethics can solve a temporary technical problem, but create an even greater moral dilemma.

Even Democratic politics, as currently practiced, is inherently us vs them dualistic. And a second American civil war is in the wind. But, are we ready for a more Holistic form of government? Will obedient robots, or common-sense-less AI do better than willful & selfish humans at self-government? Sigh! Idealistic Ethics has always been too feckless to overcome the predator/prey pragmatism of Politics. “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. :smile:


Gnomon reply to :
Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth.

*1. Small World Networks
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page24.html

*2. Jan Smuts :
Albert Einstein counted Smuts as one of approximately ten people that truly understood his theory of relativity.
https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/jan-smuts-reconsidered

In a perfect world, that might look rather like social democracy. — apokrisis

Isn't that the role of Philosophy, to deduce both the Good and the Bad aspects of the Real and Cultural worlds, and to devise a new more Ideal social system that will be better for A> those who seek justice, or B> those who seek power? Perhaps to emulate Nature in its physical perfecting tool : survival of the fittest, by means of competitive selection. Or to discover a new metaphysical tool for increasing moral fitness.

Unfortunately, as Marx noted, the thinking philosophers usually leave the implementation of their Utopias to doing politicians, who tend to sort themselves into dueling dualistic categories, such as Liberals and Conservatives, or Nationalists and Communists. What can we learn from the failures of either/or political paradigms? :cool:

Karl Marx politics :
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/04/29/the-point-is-to-change-the-world/

Is the real world fair and just?

Good~evil is tarred jargon as it does speak to the simplicities of reductionist models of causality. But we can sort of get what the terms are getting at from a systems perspective and its ecosystem style, richness constructing, hierarchical complexity. — apokrisis

Good vs Evil is indeed a religious concept, often expressed in dualistic terms of Gods and Devils. But the OP was not asking about such a two-value reductionist model. In the title, the question is about "Fair & Just", which are evaluations of the whole world from a "why me?" personal perspective. When Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair", the premise seems to be that the moral playing ground is not tilted in favor of the black or white team. In other words, the game of life is not rigged. So, each of us can expect to get our "just deserts" : punishment for wicked acts, and blessings for virtuous behavior. To a secular philosopher though, it should be obvious that Nature is fair & balanced only in the sense that it has no agenda pro or con "poor little me".

However, some who say "everything happens for a reason" seem to believe that --- although the natural world does not reward or punish --- its equitable system of actions & reactions*1 at least gives each of us a fighting chance to get what we deserve. Yet, when our personal experience implies that we don't get our Just Deserts, some may look for a super-natural force to blame, or to petition. For example, monotheistic religions originally had only a single universal Cause for every Effect. So, a duality had to be invented : an imaginary adversary who opposed the "perfect" works of the Good God. The polytheistic Pagans though, had a slightly different explanation for the imperfections of the Logos-designed world : an inferior demi-god to be held responsible for any defects. Either way, the dualistic worldview tends to portray the universe as a battleground of praiseworthy Good vs reproachable Evil.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to interpret your "systems perspective" in terms of philosophical Holism. Which is not a reductive Either/Or analysis, but an all-things-considered frame of reference. When viewed as a unique system, the Cosmos is neither Good nor Evil, but morally neutral. So, it's the personal perspective that judges general causality from a local point of view : "why me?". However, some philosophical systems, such as Stoicism and Buddhism, advise taking a more Holistic view of whatever happens : "why not me?" Instead of praising or condemning the gods for picking me for pain, or not protecting me, I must learn to deal equitably with both pain and pleasure, both Good and Evil. From that "systems perspective", in which I am merely a cog in a big wheel, the world is Fair & Just, in the sense that I am not singled-out, but an integral part of the whole system. Fortunately though, we humans are moral agents, who have the power to design a sub-system of our own : an ethical society, which is intended to be Fair and Just. Given more time, perhaps we --- moral agents collectively --- will be able to evolve our own little whole/hale/healthy Utopia, where Peace & Justice reign on Earth. :smile:


*1. Proportional Action and Reaction :
Newton's third law simply states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
https://spacecenter.org/science-in-action-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

Although I'm quite surprised by this, in a pleasant manner I'll add, I here fully endorse Banno's laconic answer (thought doubtless we'll differ on the ontological details):
Only if we make it so. — Banno — javra

That is also my own facile answer to this thread's title question. The physical universe is not a God to be held responsible for my personal flourishing or perishing. Instead, the world in which I live & act is an amoral (neutral) context for my own moral choices. So, if I want the world to be more Good and less Evil, it's my job as a moral agent to attempt to "make it so". Unfortunately, as you noted, our personal Utopia votes are seldom unanimous ; because we all "differ on the ontological details". Hence, the necessity for a moderate philosophical attitude toward the extremes of Good & Evil. :smile:

This is a tricky kind of causality to contemplate. It is not the reductionism of "cause and effect". But it was already where metaphysics started with Anaximander and his pre-socratic cosmology. . . . .
And then we get to the vexed issue of good and evil. Which is problematic because it replaces the complex systems causality of the natural world with the polarised story of a cause and effect world. A mechanistic viewpoint. Instead of a pair of actions that are complementary – as in a dichotomy or symmetry breaking – we have just a single arrow from a here to a there. There is a high and a low, a good and a bad, a wonderful and an awful. There is a place to leave behind and a place to approach. — apokrisis

Yes. If we wake-up one day and find ourselves in a world of simple positives & negatives --- warm milk vs warm urine --- as helpless babies all we can do is cry that "this wet diaper is appalling". But over time, we learn to take the ups & downs of life with self-help philosophical equanimity. The mature world is no longer Good vs Evil, but a nuanced environment that can be managed by rational actors into a worldview where we can look forward to waking up tomorrow in a familiar place with new challenges to manage. "A place to leave behind, and a place to approach". :smile:

I have encountered no reason to superimpose a philosphy or religion upon this in order to make its seem less appalling. — Tom Storm

Isn't that what philosophers have always done : to superimpose a reasoned worldview upon the myriad & contradictory details of the world we are "thrown" into? To make sense of what we sense ; to justify what seems unjust? To catch what is thrown at us, and throw it back with intention? To make choices that are not imposed upon us? :cool:

No. — Tom Storm

Quite succinct, and non-polemical. But I was hoping for some why or why-not discussion, that I could learn from. You could take your pick of a few comments or quotes that will illustrate a philosophical position or principle. For example, "No" could be construed as Nihilist. But is that just an emotional feeling, or a reasoned philosophical position, or a theory of how the world works? Please notice that I omitted a heavenly element from consideration. :smile: