One of the perennial problems in philosophy is why a general consensus or rational agreement is so hard to come by on virtually all the interesting topics. This is also a problem about philosophy, since the lack of agreement certainly has to give philosophers pause, and make them wonder about the value of what they’re doing. — J

The image that comes to mind while reading your post is that of the Blind Men and the Elephant. A plethora of perspectives will not yield unity of knowledge. So the ideal of Objectivity gradually emerged, to provide the god-like perspective that we now expect of Modern Science.

One postulated solution to that "perennial" conflict of opinions has been to politically agree on a single authority, whose opinion will overrule any lesser authority. So, primitive people bowed to the strongest man among them to decide controversial issues. But when strong-men resorted to violence, instead of reason, to reach consensus, the moderates looked for some higher authority. When Kings were found to work only on a tribal level, they postulated a singular Super-Human to rule them all. Yet unanimity of opinion continued to elude them.

20 centuries ago, the early Roman Church was internally divided due to various opinions on which "scriptures" were to be accepted as the "word of God". The result of their international Council of Nicea was the anthology we know today as "The Bible" : produced, after much wrangling and anathematizing. Since some concepts in that Authorized Version --- Trinity ; Body/Bread --- were contrary to common sense, Theologians began to approach The Discord Problem philosophically. But even applying Reason to matters of Faith did not result in unity of opinion. So, they agreed to accept the pagan Aristotle as a neutral authority on the nature of Nature. And the rest is history . . . . of excommunication & execution due to differences of opinion.

The moral of these stories may be to accept that human knowledge is incomplete, and subject to personal bias. But somehow we manage to move-on from these intersections of opinion. For example, in constitutional convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin made a last desperate attempt to pull unity out of the fires of passion. He cautioned his fellow delegates that it is human nature to consider themselves to be "in possession of all truth." Then he pleaded " that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument".

Perhaps, the few remaining schools of Philosophy, should include Philosophical Humility in their curriculum. With that fire extinguisher at hand, maybe we can keep chipping away at the walls of intellectual pride & prejudice that divide us. :nerd:



The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

The rest of the story :
In some versions, the blind men then discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth and come to blows. The stories also differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.

Philosophical Humility :
Aristotle understood humility as a moral virtue, sandwiched between the vices of arrogance and moral weakness. Like Socrates, he believed that humility must include accurate self-knowledge and a generous acknowledgment of the qualities of others that avoids distortion and extremes.
https://positivepsychology.com/humility/

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both? — Benj96

I got side-tracked from your original question, by push-back from those who feel that sub-atomic Physics and Meta-Physics are inappropriate reference-material for a (linguistic???) philosophical discussion.

Have you learned anything from this thread? Have you come closer to an answer to the question about physically or metaphorically equating Energy & Consciousness? FWIW, I have given that relationship some thought, as expressed in the ruminations below. :smile:

Mind as a Causal Force :
Functions don't exist apart from their physical systems, but they are clearly not properties of any single component. They also don't exist in isolation. For example, the function of a hammer is defined in relation to hands & nails. Likewise, a Mind is a function of whole brains, not neurons – of systems, not cogs. Yet, it seems that anything physical has the potential to produce Mind, but only when organized & actualized into complex mechanisms that act together in concert for collective goals & purposes.

Hence, Mind is an emergent quality of physical systems, yet is not a physical property of any of their atoms or subsystems. Matter is what a brain is made of, but Mind is what it does. Functions are also dynamic & emergent, not static features of matter. They require time & change to reveal their immaterial existence.

If we begin with the current materialistic scientific paradigm --- that reality is created by self-existent physical energy that somehow regulates itself (laws) --- then the emergence of non-physical Mind will remain a mystery. But, if we place Mind at the beginning, instead of the end of evolution, the story makes more sense. Mind is creative in the abstract, but it is also a causal force --- like a processing program --- in the concrete world. Mind manipulates information, which is the essence of energy.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

My central thesis can now be approached in words: The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. — Introduction

Do you think Bateson was talking about what we now know as "Information", in a broader philosophical sense than Shannon's narrow engineering useage? Ecology (the logic of Nature) is all about interconnections. Also the "hierarchic structure of thought" seems to be another reference to Logos in human conception.

His writings seem to assume a "Great Chain of Being" ontology, which is denied by most evolutionists, who see no logical connection between one link and another in evolution : e.g. random bush vs linear tree analogies. The interconnections are indeed complex, but without logical links, Evolution would not make sense, and couldn't be "approached in words". :smile:

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-pattern/14438
Note --- It's a logical structure, not a material substance.

I'm not attacking you, just doubting. Cheers. — Nils Loc

No worries mate. I wasn't talking about you being hostile. However,'s labeling of my position on Consciousness as a "New Age" religion, is typical of the aggressive defense of an anti-religion & anti-metaphysics world-view. My personal take on the Mind/Body controversy is indeed Meta-Physical and Philosophical, but I avoid bringing Religion into it. So, his attacks on a Straw Man completely miss their target.

For you, I was just trying to explain why I always seem to be on the defensive --- swatting at gnats --- in threads on metaphysical topics like this one. Actually, I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to refine my own understanding of such controversial subjects as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. And my hat's off to for coming up with a novel philosophical approach to the relationship between world-causing Energy & world-modeling Consciousness. It points upward toward eternal First Principles, not down to unstable ever-changing Matter. Apparently, doctrinaire Materialists equate Metaphysics with dogmatic theistic Religion, instead of open-minded agnostic Philosophy*1.

The topic of this thread is right down my alley*2, because both Quantum Physics and Information Theory have pointed toward a Monistic worldview, in which everything in the world, including Minds & Bodies, consists of evolved configurations (forms) of a Single Primordial First Cause, that Cosmologists are still looking for. But the scientific search runs into a brick wall at the Planck Time*4, leaving us with an ellipsis of conjecture about the time before Time*5. I don't expect the average TPF poster to be familiar with the scientific & philosophical speculation on the Big Before. So I try to patiently force-feed a few bits & pieces of the Cosmos & Consciousness puzzle into mundane materialistic minds. Sadly, you can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him think. :smile:


*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility. ___Wiki

*2. Quote from OP :
Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? Could the sensation of existing simply be energy organised in a particular relationship to matter, or to it's other forms, or to both?
Note --- In my thesis the organizer of matter is something like a creative computer program, which I call EnFormAction (energy + pattern + causation). Materialism takes malleable Matter as elemental. But my thesis takes causal & organizing Energy as fundamental.

*3. First Cause : Potential, not Spiritual

*4. Big Bang models back to Planck time :
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html
Note --- That primordial Force was not kinetic Energy in the modern sense, but something like Generic Cause of Change, which I call EnFormAction, combining the act of causation with the organized forms of matter that result. You won't find that term in textbooks.

*5. Did spacetime start with the Big bang? :
So General Relativity has not been able to predict (or retrodict) what happens before, or how this process really began. . . . .
However in the last few years, several mathematical cosmologists have taken seriously the idea that there was a Pre-Big Bang.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5150/did-spacetime-start-with-the-big-bang

That's a lot of yammering to say that you still haven't learned what a bit is. — wonderer1

OK. So what is your yammer-free definition of a "bit", in the context of this thread, questioning the relationship between Energy & Consciousness? :smile:

PS___Shannon's definition deliberately omitted the meaning of a bit to the analog brain of the conscious receiver of a communication, in favor of utility for processing in a non-conscious digital computer. If you merely parrot Shannon's yes/no definition, I'll know you missed the point of this thread.

Assuming you really do know what you are talking about, you lack a principal of charity. . . . Why don't we need to study physics or information theory to understand your philosophy? — Nils Loc

Have you noticed the uncharitable ridicule that has been directed toward and Gnomon, for daring to ask questions that question the material foundations of Consciousness? Materialism/Physicalism/Realism seems to be the most common ideology on this forum. So, Benj and I may be unwelcome interlopers in a clique of back-slapping believers, who give thumbs-up for good gotchas, not for good reasoning. Usually, the animosity is vaguely concealed under a veneer of science ; for example applying the Dunning-Kruger label to those they want to portray as ignorant idiots. I think Benj and I have been as charitable as possible in view of the mean-spirited ad hominem attacks.

Actually, it's usually those who don't like the meta-physical (mental) implications of Quantum & Information theories who bring up the question of empirical evidence. And non-classical quantum physics is the source of the puzzling empirical evidence that forced the quantum pioneers to drag sentient Observers & intellectual Information into their equations. Besides, the topic of this thread implied the "strange bedfellows" of Physical Energy and Mental Feelings : "Energy does a lot of things; Heat, electricity, chemicals, light, magnetism, nuclear, potential etc." Yet his actual question was not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?" So, Gnomon brought in some philosophical "evidence" --- including Information Theory --- pointing to the equation of Consciousness with Energy.

Please note that it was the uncharitable posters who insisted on physical evidence and "physical brains" as irreducible necessity for Consciousness. And who ridiculed the relevance of abstract statistical math to Information Bits. Ridicule is facile*2 denunciation, not a philosophical argument. You said that, unlike the Dunning-Kruger labelers, you are "assuming" that I know what I'm talking about. If so, why not take the brief*3 references to Physics, Math, and Information Theory seriously? Notice that I'm not forcing you to read abstruse scientific articles. The links are there for those who are interested enough to look into the information behind Information theory and Consciousness studies. I am not an expert on those sciences, but I have taken the time to read & ponder their philosophical implications.

Ironically, those who were taught Linguistic Philosophy in college may be baffled by the technical language of quantum physics and information mathematics. If so, it would be more charitable to withhold commentary, instead of displaying their incomprehension in passive-aggressive language. :smile:

PS___ In other threads, on topics related to Consciousness, I have been dismissively labeled an anti-science New Ager --- despite links to scientists, not to gurus. So, I get it from both sides : too-much Science on one hand, and Luddite on another. Does that mean I'm somewhere in the middle? Philosopher, for example.

*1. Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

*2. A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness :
Consciousness is not a phenomenon that comes from physics (as it is conceived but how to conceive it otherwise?)
Consciousness is a metaphysical substance. It is the mystery of what is being as opposed to what is thing.
https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness-21222/
Note --- Although the source of this clip is a Neuroscience study, it seems to be mostly a philosophical analysis of arguments over the last century. You don't have to read the article ; just take the brief, non-technical, excerpt for what it's worth.

*3. Quote from this thread :
↪Benj96's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity.
Note --- The link in the post gives a capsule definition of a complex & counter-intuitive concept, that originated with a quantum physicist, and has been debated by scientists & philosophers over the last century. If you are not interested in such topical "evidence" just ignore it.

And the fundamental element of Information theory (bit) is itself a mathematical ratio : a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% (nothing to everything) — Gnomon
Oh my Gelos. Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I just got off work, so I'd appreciate it if you could take care of that yourself. — wonderer1

I'm sorry that "you have no idea what I'm talking about". Maybe praying to Gelos will help. At least you might get a laugh out of it. :rofl:

If prayer doesn't work, maybe a little Google invocation of statistical Information probability will clarify the meaning of those little 1s & 0s : the fractional degree of certainty of a communication. :smile:


Information theory :
A key measure in information theory is entropy. Entropy quantifies the amount of uncertainty
involved in the value of a random variable or the outcome of a random process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Entropy (information theory) :
In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. . . .
The information content, also called the surprisal or self-information, of an event E E is a function which increases as the probability p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} of an event decreases. When p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 1, the surprisal of the event is low, but if p ( E ) {\displaystyle p(E)} is close to 0, the surprisal of the event is high. This relationship is described by the function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

Experimental Uncertainty :
Percent uncertainty is fractional uncertainty expressed as a percent, i.e. fractional uncertainty multiplied by 100.
https://www.bates.edu/physics-astronomy/files/2011/12/Experimental-Uncertainty1.pdf
Note --- If the technical definitions above are above your pay grade, a simpler analogy might help : The uncertainty of Information can be expressed as percentages ranging from Impossible (0%) to absolutely certain (100%). Or merely a probability ratio ranging from 0% (impossible) to 100% (actual).

The lowest level of data (bits) is fundamental, but not the representation of it. — Nils Loc

Yes! :up:

But what is a "Bit" made of? Is the relationship between 1 & 0 a material object, or a mathematical ratio? John A. Wheeler's 1989 It from Bit hypothesis, assumed that Information was the fundamental element of the world, and matter was just one form of the essential basis of reality (Platonic Form)*1. That radical notion inspired several young physicists in the 21st century to propose mathematical models of the universe, implying that matter is merely an evolved form of essential mathematics*2. These counter-intuitive conjectures are closer to speculative Philosophy than to physical Science. They are not empirically provable, but provide snack-food for hypothetical thought.

Math itself is essentially the Logical structure of the physical universe. And where does Rational Logic find its highest expression? In dumb Matter or in intelligent Minds? The human mind has evolved the unique talent of creating imaginary representations (signs ; symbols ; models) of material things and their inter-relationships (logical structure ; gestalts). And the fundamental element of Information theory (bit) is itself a mathematical ratio : a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% (nothing to everything) : a statistical (rational) relationship, not a real particle of matter : Informationism not Materialism.

So, maybe could reword his OP : "what is it like to be a Bit?" :joke:


*1. Theory of forms :
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Theory_of_forms

*2. What is the holographic Universe theory simplified?
A holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-universe-is-a-hologram
Note --- The world is probably not an illusion perpetrated by a great magician. It's just generic Information creating both Mind and Matter by means of the natural computation we call Evolution.

Units of Information :
The basic unit of information is called bit. It's a short form for binary digit. It takes only two values, 0 or 1. All other units of information are derived from the bit.
https://devopedia.org/units-of-information

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Information as a basic property of the universe
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/

↪Gnomon
My approach is more influenced by Buddhist Studies in not positing unknowable entities such as 'ideal minds' and assigning roles to them. That said, Peirce's intuition that the Universe itself is 'mind-like' - that our minds mirror its workings in some fundamental way - is persuasive to me. Peirce supported a modified form of scholastic realism concerning universals. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the Peircean position on "ideal minds". My personal approach is more like that of the Greek philosophers, who posited "unknowable" entities --- such as Logos, First Cause & Form --- and assigned functional real-world roles to them. Apparently, the Buddha also posited at least one hypothetical unknowable entity -- Nirvana -- and assigned a functional role to that imaginary state of mind : cessation of Duhkha (suffering). :smile:

Nirvana Unattainable? : hence unknowable (except possibly by dis-embodied spirits)
Nirvana is unattainable because you can't be completely desireless because you will still want to reach Nirvana and become Enlightened.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1b8v0v/nirvana_unattainable/

What is nirvana? :
Nirvana is a Sanskrit word for the goal of the Buddhist path: enlightenment ... impossible to describe.
https://tricycle.org › Home › Level 1
Note --- Nirvana : extinguishment, non-being, un-knowable (in the normal sense). I suppose that, in theory, a ghost could know the "peace that passes all understanding". (Philippians 4:7)

Scholastic Realism is a type of moderate realism. As such, it falls between platonism and nominalism on the issue of universals. Universals, strictly speaking, only exist in minds, but they are founded on real relations of similarity in the world.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Scholastic-Perspectives-Philosophical-Scholarship/dp/0820442704
Note --- Sounds similar to my own notion of ideal Universals : unknowable by the senses, but imaginable by the rational mind.

You overlooked the part where people equate consciousness with working physical brains. If we started performing brain surgery on you, we might be able to knock out everything associated with your philosophical theory. — Nils Loc

You missed the part where I never denied the contribution of a physical substrate to the production of consciousness. Mind is the function of Brain.

My thesis is not what you think it is. It's merely a scientific update of an ancient philosophical notion. And it's based on Information & Quantum Science, not a recycling of traditional Idealism.

In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is just one form of Generic Information (e.g. Platonic Form) ; Energy is another form ; Brain is another form ; and Consciousness is merely a recent innovation after 14 billion years of evolutionary computation. Those statements won't make sense to you until you can get past your subconscious preconceptions :smile:

So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. — Gnomon
I'm still lost as to why you don't think it's a false dichotomy. It is parsimonious/orthodox to conclude minds need physical materials to emerge in the universe and to do work. Where any work could possibly occur, you can apply the concept of energy. — Nils Loc

As I noted above, your "dichotomy" is not a part of the Enformationism thesis ; apparently it is a part of your preconception of the Mind/Body duality*1. My thesis is ultimately a Substance Monism -- a la Spinoza*2 -- postulating a single universal Substance/Essence -- a la Plato*3. :nerd:

PS___Note the colon (:) between Mind & Energy above. As a logic symbol it indicates an inter-relationship, not an either/or dichotomy, as would be implied by a slash symbol (/). Another name for my philosophy is "BothAnd"*4.
PPS___Thanks for the challenge though. It helps me to understand the many ways that a novel (or unfamiliar) concept can be mis-interpreted.


*1. Mind-body Dualism :
Mind and body dualism represents the metaphysical stance that mind and body are two distinct substances, each with a different essential nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115289/

*2. Substance Monism :
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

*3. Form Monism :
Plato's theory of Forms is a form of monism because it posits the existence of a single, unified reality that underlies all of existence. While other forms of idealism or monism may posit multiple levels or aspects of reality, Plato's theory emphasizes the essential unity of the world of Forms as the true reality.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Platos-theory-of-Forms-Why-is-it-a-form-of-monism-rather-than-dualism-or-pluralism-like-other-forms-of-idealism-monism

*4. BothAnd Principle :
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires 'skin in the game" to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Therefore, in the 1890s Peirce's philosophy referred to itself as objective idealism because it held that the mind comes first and the world is essentially mind (idealism) and the mind is independent of individuals (objectivism) — Wikipedia

That notion seems to go beyond your notion of a local Mind-Created World, to an ideal Mind that is literally out-of-this-world. Does Peirce define his postulated "The Mind" in more detail? How does "The Mind" compare to your creative "minds"? :smile:

The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious.How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous? — Nils Loc

A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.

Energy itself is not a material object, but merely the idea of Causation, inferred from observations of changes in matter. The ancient Greeks used the analogy of an ideal invisible worker to give us the idea of what Energy is. A modern, but still enigmatic, metaphor for "Energy" is stated in terms of "information regimes"*5. I'll leave you to ponder that one.

There's too many logical leaps -- for a forum post -- between pre-Big-Bang Potential Energy*6, and the eventual emergence of living creatures with rational minds. However, my Information-based thesis attempted to delineate those steps. But I still haven't yet covered all of the material objections to equating Mind with Energy. So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. I'm not trying to harass materialists, though. These forum posts are the means by which I continue to use contrary opinions to help me develop my personal understanding of the relationship between Energy, Matter and Mind.

It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. But modern sub-atomic physics was forced to do just that, in order to make sense of its paradoxical observations. And, a century later, we are still grappling with the counter-intuitive implications of philosophical Physics. :smile:

PS___Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.


*1. Photons as Carriers of Energy :
In conventional physics, the photon absorbed or released is nothing more than a quantum of pure energy.
https://www.universeofparticles.com/photons-as-carriers-of-energy/

*2. Does light have mass? :
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

*3. What is pure energy? :
There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- That's because "purity" is an ideal concept, not a real thing. Yet the concept does "exist" as a mental model : perfection uncontaminated by matter.

*4. Is mathematics a mental construct? :
Snapper (1979), in making sense of the intuitionist approach, defines mathematics as “the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other” (p. 210). In effect, mathematics has to be constructed to exist and cannot exist independently of the mind that constructs it.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/teaching-mathematics-overcoming-miscommunication/0/steps/327692

*5. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*6. Singularity : sometimes conceived as a not-yet-executed computer program
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang

Steady on, old chap. 'Buddha' means 'one who knows'. — Wayfarer

So does "gnomon". :joke:

A gnomon (/ˈnoʊˌmɒn, -mən/; from Ancient Greek γνώμων (gnṓmōn) 'one that knows or examines')

"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either. — Nils Loc

Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself. :smile:


The Socratic Method: How To Think For Yourself "
The Socratic approach involves participants in a process of critical thinking and self-examination as opposed to providing knowledge in a simple or didactic manner.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com › stoic-blog › the-s...

Didactic : In the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way.

So much grandiosity. — wonderer1

Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?

It's all too common for believers in A> a natural world of Matter & Mechanics to react negatively to the notion B> of a cultural world of Minds & Memes & Mathematics. The A>, "commonsense", worldview is that of Newton in the 17th century, and the latter B> "erudite" non-sense view was derived from the 20th century science of fundamental sub-atomic physics. Which is more impressive?

Note that I didn't use the taboo word "quantum", since it is too often associated with "bullsh*t" on this forum. There's a new book out now : Quantum Bullshit, by Chris Ferrie. It discusses "profound sounding quantum nonsense" such as Quantum consciousness & Quantum love & Quantum quackery & Quantum veganism. But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"

The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". For example, Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with massive Matter, implying a kind of transubstantiation*2. Then, quantum pioneer Heisenberg turned the microscope around to point at the mind of the observer*3. And John A. Wheeler noted the relationship between mental Information and material Mass*4.

Unfortunately, some religious people were quick to interpret those mind-related concepts in sublime terms, to support their supernatural-soul beliefs. But, anti-religious people were just as quick to damn scientifically practical foundational physics by association with such unrealistic "weirdos". Isn't there a middle-ground between those extremes? :smile:


*1. Scientific Grandiosity :
The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_112012
Note --- Information theory, combined with Quantum theory, is beginning to condense all of Physics down to a single concept : Mathematics (logic ; ratios ; relationships ; fields). In other words : Energy. Which is the causal Power to Enform, not just Material from Potential, but also Life from Matter, and Mind from living organism. It's all a single procession of en-formation. Isn't that grand!?

*2. Exactly what does E = mc2 mean? :
The equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence relationship. Before Einstein's radical thoughts, mass and energy were thought to be very different things.
https://www.uu.edu › dept › physics › scienceguys

*3. Uncertainty Principle :
The Heisenberg principle is an epistemological lack of information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/heisenberg/
Note --- In this case, Information consists of meaningful & useful ideas in a mind.

*4 Matter from Information :
One clear consequence of “it from bit” is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. “I think [Wheeler] was very radical,” says Zeilinger. “He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
Note --- Pardon the hyperbole. As he explained later, TAW did not mean that a single human mind could create a physical cosmos by an act of thought. He was noting the much more modest creative act of producing an idea about reality in the mind : in the sense of "to realize".

PS___Ooops. Was that too radical or profound for you?

Banno's law : the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it.

You seem gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow. — Nils Loc

Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.

Nobel Physicist and Philosophy basher, Richard Feyman felt the same frustration with the non-classical & counter-intuitive & non-classical Quantum aspects of the foundation of reality. That's why he advised his students to just "shut-up and calculate"*1. The "metaphysical implications" are too philosophical for mechanical physicists, and apparently for some TPF posters. But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile:

*1. Calculate but don't shut-up :
'Shut up and calculate' does a disservice to quantum physics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics

↪Banno
I think your objections are naive*1 and that idealism as I construe it is not necessarily saying what you think it is saying. I note that you think that it’s saying that the world is all and only in the mind - the first objection I note. I’m not arguing that. So your objections are basically straw man versions of the argument. And I’ll also add that you’re not even really making a serious effort. I think it’s all variations of ‘argument from the stone’. — Wayfarer

↪Wayfarer
I think you are claiming idealism but advocating antirealism*2. — Banno

*1. Naive Realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)
Note --- Is it possible that both "naive realists" and "philosophical idealists" are biased (by faith) toward a hypothetical "true" view, that neither can directly access? The key to the Truth door here is that Wayfarer's more sophisticated Idealism openly admits that its perfect Ideal World*3 is an unattainable goal that we can strive toward but never reach. Even the "extinguishment" of the grasping mind (as in Nirvana) would leave us without the means for knowing what lies on the other side of the closed door.

*2. Anti-realism :
In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
Note --- As Kant and other philosophers have noted, humans know only their own subjective model of reality, that they have created from sense impressions derived from a local & personal perspective, not from a god-like view of "an external independent reality". Consequently, naive realism is based on faith in a non-human objective model of the totality of reality.

*3. Nirvana fallacy
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nirvana_fallacy
Note --- I'm not accusing Wayfarer of this fallacy. Just noting that perfect Truth/Wisdom/Reality is unrealistic & idealistic. But that does not stop philosophers from seeking the unreachable Ideal. Wisdom lies in realizing your own limits --- what's impossible. :smile:

The Impossible Dream (The Quest)
Song by Mitch Leigh
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go…

The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc

Yes. Shannon, as an engineer, defined his communication theory of Information (knowledge transmission from mind to mind) in technical terms of physical Entropy (uncertainty ; ignorance). And the inverse (erasure) of Entropy is Energy*1. But that implicit equation of mental meaning with causal power was counter-intuitive to most scientists at the time. Hence, rejected by the non-philosophy-inclined, who were advised to "shut-up" about the metaphysical implications*2, and just "calculate".

A century later, Energy as a form of Information is still a concept on the periphery of science*3. However, the similarity of Information to Energy is evident in the First Law of Thermodynamics : Information, like Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. One form of Information is orderly knowledge (energy analogy) and another is disorderly ignorance (entropy analogy). The most basic form of Information (knowledge) may be Mathematics : the logic of the physical world.

When I responded to your question --- "where does the energy really come from?" --- I was not referring the energy-of-information-erasure experiment, but to the ultimate source of causation in the world : the First Cause. But that's off-topic, and controversial, as indicated in 's dismissive & erroneous assertion that "@Gnomon's enformationism" implies "accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals". Although others have used Quantum metaphysics to justify their religious beliefs, my thesis has nothing to do with any religion or god or Theosophy. So his insinuations are merely fallacious ad hominem attempts to belittle by association. The thesis does however require mixing physics with metaphysics (i.e. philosophy).

The Enformationism thesis is based upon the non-classical, hence counter-intuitive, metaphysics of Quantum and Information theories. It does not deny the practical applicability of Materialistic metaphysics in empirical science. And it does not support any Supernatural metaphysics in traditional religions. But, it does incorporate the Holistic metaphysics of modern transdisciplinary Systems Science*4. Which is unacceptable to those who believe Science is necessarily Deterministic and Reductive. Quantum science was forced to relinquish those 17th century classical beliefs in order to make sense of sub-atomic observations, such as the two-slit experiment. Interpretation of the perplexing results required the use of both Epistemology (knowledge ; information) & Ontology (being ; reality) concepts in an empirical context. :smile:


*1. Physicists investigate erasing information at zero energy cost :
In the context of information, information erasure corresponds to entropy erasure (or a decrease in entropy) and therefore requires a minimum amount of energy, which is determined by Landauer's erasure principle.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-erasing-energy.html

*2. A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : (often dismissed as Quantum Mysticism)
The revolution in physics that brought us to a quantum picture of the world was so radical that it does not merely force a rethinking of physics, but metaphysics as well. Quantum physics may imply that the world is fundamentally indeterminate, that causes are not always local to their effects, that there are many more than three spatial dimensions, that wholes are not simply sums of their parts, . . .
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/

*3. Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics.
Anthology edited by physicist Paul Davies, Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Note --- Davies uses the term "God" in his science writing in a sense closer to the abstract Prime Mover or First Cause of the Greek philosophers, than to the Creator of Christian apologists.

*4. Systems theory : (Holistic Science)
The fundamental concept of systems theory is that the whole system is more than than the totality of its parts.
https://research.com/education/what-is-systems-theory

No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data. — universeness

I didn't say that defining Information as "processed data" is prejudicial. In the context of Shannon's practical engineering solution to communication problems, it may be factual. But in the context of a Philosophical understanding of Information, it is prejudicial to imply that Information is only processed data*1.

Do you see how that little exclusive word could be biased toward a materialistic interpretation, and away from the other non-physical definitions used in Information Theory*2*3? As I noted : the ChatGPT did not accept the "only" definition, but concluded that "Information is not merely processed data"*4. Is that a factual statement, or an intelligent opinion? :smile:

*1. Quote from this thread:
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon

*2. Information theory definition :
Information theory is based on probability theory and statistics, where quantified information is usually described in terms of bits. Information theory often concerns itself with measures of information of the distributions associated with random variables. One of the most important measures is called entropy, which forms the building block of many other measures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Note --- Statistics is a mathematical (mental) tool for dealing with the randomness & uncertainty of the physical world. Entropy is the inverse of Energy, and negative causation as contrasted with positive causation. Entropy is a state, not a material thing, hence a mental/mathematical concept.

*3. It from Bit (matter from mind) :
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions. ___John A. Wheeler, quantum physicist
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

*4. Quote from this thread :
But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from? — Nils Loc

As a layman, I don't know "what's going on in the experiment". All I know is the conclusion that the scientists inferred from their experiments : that invisible intangible information can be converted into effective Energy and tangible Matter. Empirical physicists seem to be expanding on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, which explained mathematically how blazing stars can create rocky matter, such as iron, from a gaseous plasma of elementary particles, by means of geometric gravity. Some are even placing Information into the equation and are converting mathematical Data into causal Energy and malleable Matter.

That equation of Cause (energy) & Effect (matter) does not compute in Classical Newtonian Mechanics, but becomes reasonable in Modern Quantum Mathematics. In his Nobel lectures, Heisenberg indirectly referred to Einstein's equation as "the transmutation of energy into matter". If he had been following Shannon's equation of mental/mathematical Information to physical Entropy, Werner might have included "Information transmutation" in his speech.

Mental Information (ideas) can be "non-physically represented" in mathematical symbols, and now it can be physically transmuted (change of form). That counter-intuitive concept may underlie Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory. It assumes that mathematical ratios are not only rational (mental), but also physical (energy as ratio between hot & cold), and material (elementary particles as mathematical points in a universal Field). None of which makes sense, from a classical physics or common-sense perspective.

Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. But I won't get into it here, because metaphysical Materialists will react emotionally to a notion that seems to contradict their own matter-based belief system. And that would drive this thread even further away from the philosophical Koan in the OP. :smile:

I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data? — universeness

The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data".

But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

This insight is relevant to the OP, in that it offers a way to interpret an apparently non-sensical technical question --- what does it feel like to be energy?--- as a meaningful philosophical exploration of interpersonal understanding. That's assuming the question was not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically, in the as-if manner of creative philosophers throughout history. :smile:

PS___ Materialistic posters, who tend to be prosaic & literal-minded, may interpret such a clever question as a sign of Dunning-Kruger technical incompetence. But the mis-application of that technical term in a hypothetical context may be a sign of philosophical incompetence.

Philosophical Questions to Spark Deep Critical Thinking :
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/philosophical-questions/

Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle. . . .
Move over Einstein. — Nils Loc

Of course. That's why they are trying to devise an experiment to confirm the conjecture. There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. And, since Einstein's equation postulated that Energy can be converted into Mass (matter), it makes sense to postulate that an Information >> Energy >> Matter experiment would work.

However, my philosophical interest in Information is its relationship to Intelligence & Consciousness, not to Matter & Energy. I mention those theories & experiments only because many posters here seem to be more interested in the material aspects of the physical world, than the immaterial features of the meta-physical world. Those posters tend to bristle at any mention of Mind-stuff on a philosophy forum. Which may be why the topic of this thread has attracted a flock of matter-minded boo-birds.

We are still in the early stages of the Information Age. So, at the moment, these equivalences are more hypothetical than empirical. But, for me, that's where theoretical philosophy comes into the picture. :smile:

PS___ Einstein objected to the spooky, un-real, statistical, non-classical, non-mechanical, immaterial, mental, implications of Quantum theory*3. But eventually, he had to "move over" and let the quantum dice fall where statistical randomness dictates*4.


*1. Meta-Physical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The stochastic state of Quantum Superposition is literally "outside of human sense perception" until it is triggered to "collapse" from Potential math (idea) to Actual matter (object).
Stochastic : randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

*2. Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol1 in which a hypothetical intelligence—dubbed Maxwell’s demon—pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demon’s role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy2,3,4,5,6. An experimental demonstration of this information-to-energy conversion, however, has been elusive. Here we demonstrate that a non-equilibrium feedback manipulation of a Brownian particle on the basis of information about its location achieves a Szilárd-type information-to-energy conversion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821

*3. Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics? :
Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics, observing that God does not play dice. But, in fact, he thought more about the nature of atoms, molecules, and the emission and absorption of light—the core of what we now know as quantum theory—than he did about relativity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
Note --- Quantum scientists have grudgingly become accustomed to the idea that quantum Superposition is an unreal statistical mathematical state until an experimental observation transforms Potential/Virtual/Mathematical Fields into Actual/Real/Material Particles.

*4. Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.
The new experiment, conducted by a group led by Ronald Hanson, a physicist at the Dutch university’s Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, and joined by scientists from Spain and England, is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction. — wonderer1

No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad:

You seem to think the Chicken & Egg conundrum is a logical puzzle. It's a philosophical koan, something to think about. :smile:

And what you cite from Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma. — Banno

See my reply to above.

Before you accuse me of making assertions that should be restricted to physics experts, I'll deny in advance that my proposal is a Physics Fact ; it's merely a Philosophy conjecture. But, it helps to have some familiarity with cutting-edge Physics and Information theory. :smile:

On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store? — wonderer1

No. It's simply a Chicken or Egg conundrum for us to argue about. It's stated as a dichotomy, but that's simply to simplify the premises. Either/Or questions are like Ockham's Razor. However, if you can think of a third or fourth source of consciousness, we can add those options to the discussion, at the risk of obfuscation.

Your postulated alternative is not really an alternative. In view of modern physics, your car is constructed of Both energy And matter : E=MC^2. According to Einstein, they are merely different forms of the same essential stuff. And 21st century physicists have further postulated that matter & energy are different forms of another fundamental essence*1 : Information = en-form-action. And information is the meaning in a conscious mind.

's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity. By that made-up name, I'm referring to the Big Bang Singularity (a computer algorithm?) from which every thing in the Now universe was formed*3. Which came first, the energetic chicken or the embryonic egg? :smile:


*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Note --- 21st century physicists are extrapolating Einstein's Energy/Matter equivalence to include the strange "force" behind the Information Age and Artificial Intelligence. As professional materialists though, they are not making the further extrapolation that Energy = Matter = Mind. That's the contribution of Information scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity.

*2. EnFormAction :
Universal Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- This is a philosophical conjecture, not a physics assertion.

*3. What powered the Big Bang? :
The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
Note --- this hypothesis is not the basis of my Universal Causation. I just provided the link to show that Cosmologists are still looking for the ultimate cause of the original Bang, that Plato called the First Cause.

Io capisco, I think, but I also think that using metaphors, while apposite in poetry, isn't useful in philosophy--nor is it necessary. In poetry metaphors may be witty or evocative but in philosophy they merely invite misunderstanding and, worse, reification. Minds, ideas, concepts may not be considered
things literally, but are treated as if they were things. Why resort to metaphor in philosophy? — Ciceronianus

Those with a Physicalist or Materialist worldview tend to think that Philosophy should aspire to the mathematical clarity of Physics. But even Physics, since the advent of Quantum Theory (intrinsically uncertain & statistical), is forced to use metaphors & analogies to describe physical objects --- e.g. Virtual Particles & Mathematical Fields --- that are not knowable via the physical senses. A virtual particle is not a real particle, but only the statistical potential for a future piece of matter. A Quantum Field is not a physical field of grass, but merely the concept of an infinite array of non-local virtual particles. Don't you find the analogies easier to conceive than the ghostly reality?

If your subject is a physical object, a physical description (appearances, properties) would be sufficient. Yet, if the subject is an abstract concept, such as Consciousness or Reality, then a metaphorical analogy may be the only way to define what you are talking about. The ancient ideal of philosophy would be a series of verifiable postulations (premises) with true or false implications (conclusion). However, do you know of any modern philosophical questions that are simple true/false issues? :smile:

On Using Metaphors in Philosophy :
Blumenberg holds an extreme position in his advocacy of metaphors. In his opinion, metaphors are fundamental elements of philosophy.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm

Metaphor in analytic philosophy :
In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy (in particular, in the philosophy of language), metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth-conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. . . . . in a different, naturalist, approach, some English-speaking philosophers close to cognitive science, such as Lakoff, have made metaphor the central aspect of human rationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy

Metaphors in Philosophy and Science :
Many philosophers and scientists reach for metaphors, to help their readers get a handle on abstract concepts.
https://www.evidentia.net/evidentia/metaphors-in-philosophy-and-science/

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

That comment is an ad hominem, which -- as you well know -- should have no place in a philosophy dialog. It's also a Straw Man fallacy, which attacks a soft target, instead of addressing the hard question of the role of Mind in a material world. It may also be a Red Herring fallacy, to distract a discussion from focusing on the "real issue". Which, to paraphrase the topic of this thread is : "what does it feel like to be energy".

As worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". That may sound ridiculous to you, but it is a legitimate philosophical question for some of us, who take consciousness seriously, and don't dismiss it as immaterial. Is Consciousness a manifestation of causation (energy) or a material substance made of atoms? For example, Nagel's "what is it like to be a bat" is not a question that can be answered by Physics or Chemistry or Biology, but can be addressed only by Philosophical methods, which may use physical or mathematical metaphors, but is not provable by mathematical calculations.

Physics Envy philosophy is a common communication barrier on this forum. You seem to think we are doing Physics on this forum, instead of Philosophy. I don't know about the others mentioned, but I am not a physicist. So why would you accuse me of "doing physics without the math"? Why would you expect "expertise" in physics, when physical examples & analogies are used to make philosophical points? Taking metaphors literally may be another logical fallacy. :smile:

Sorry, but nobody sees the Universe from outside it. . . . . Your reference to "non-physical things" which "transcend the physical boundaries of material objects" suggests you treat mind, theories, symbols or ideas as equivalent to "things," immaterial but nonetheless existing, like objects, and therefore existing somewhere; but somewhere else (outside the Universe). — Ciceronianus

Yes --- except for the "outside the universe" implication. By "see" I meant "to imagine", not to sense photons in a physical sense. Human minds, and the cultural Meme-sphere*1, are literally inside the universe as a concept, but not in the sub-category of Material stuff. Culture -- including philosophy -- is not a material object, is it? That should go without saying on a philosophy forum. Except for those who imagine that this is a Science forum discussing material objects, instead of mental subjects. Where is the Internet located : in the universe of rocks, or of minds?

The English language is a pragmatic vocabulary, hence matter-based. For philosophical terminology though, we typically turn to Latin & Greek, not because they are any less matter-based, but because their literal meanings have been adapted for scientific & philosophical & metaphorical purposes. So, when I refer to a "thing"*2 on a philosophy forum, it's intended to be interpreted in a meta-physical or metaphorical sense. Yet, some prejudicially equate "metaphysical" with Religious. For Aristotle, Meta-physics was merely a different conceptual category from Physics ; the realm of philosophical interpretations & inferences about the physical world.

The "somewhere else" you interpreted is obviously not a physical location in the great beyond. But merely a conventional cultural notion, not located in the material world but in the common social "realm" of memes*3, not things. The term "sphere" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally, capish?. Some people on this forum seem to take all words in a post for their literal meaning, instead of allowing for the philosophical use of metaphorical language. I am not one of those unimaginative prosaic one-word-one-meaning thinkers. :smile:

*1. Memesphere :
meme + sphere the entire human community through which simple or simplified ideas pass quickly, irrespective of the quality or reliability of the idea.
https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=meme

*2. Thing :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*3. Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense — Gnomon
:roll: Strawman – unless you can cite where I have actually done so. — 180 Proof

I hereby cite all of your replies to my posts, which typically assert "strawman" versions of my own arguments, to make them seem like pseudo-science, instead of metaphysical philosophical views. For the record, as a non-scientist, I never make authoritative physical scientific claims, only amateur meta-physical philosophical opinions. I do however, link to the expertise of practicing scientists to support my philosophical points. So, your imputations of pseudoscience are made of imaginary straw. Your "physical interpretations" are invalid for meta-physical concepts.

The proof of my own "interpretation" of your interpretation will be in your inability to deny the assertion of an anti-metaphysical bias. For example, do you deny that for you "transcendent" means "unreal, immaterial, or non-physical", hence pseudoscientific ; even when used in a philosophical context, a la Kant? Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 a scientific claim about material reality, or an observation about how human minds interpret the world?

Do you deny your belief that posts on a philosophy forum require empirical physical evidence of validity? Do you have empirical evidence to support that belief? Like Materialism, your Immanentism is itself a non-empirical metaphysical belief system that lies outside the realm of physical reality. Note that I use "outside" with a meta-physical meaning, not a literal physical sense.

Do you deny that, for you, "outside or beyond" always refers to a super-natural religious realm, as opposed to, for example, a psychological concept -- with no objective material substance -- unless you equate neurons with ideas in your personal imaginary worldview? Do you deny the validity of Psychology as a "soft" science?*2 Does your worldview of Immanentism make allowances for subjective mental noumena with that lie "beyond" the reach of empirical testing? If not, please show me one of your physical ideas. :smile:


*1. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/


*2. Is Psychology a Science? :
An open letter, signed by 124 researchers — some specializing in consciousness and others not—made the provocative claim that one of the most widely discussed theories in the field, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), should be considered“pseudoscience. . . . The open letter justified the charge primarily on the grounds that IIT has “commitments” to panpsychism — the idea that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous — and that the theory “as a whole” may not be empirically testable. . . . Regarding testability, Quantum mechanics, for example, is highly productive, even though nobody can figure out how to experimentally test its various interpretations." ___ Anil Seth, professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex.
https://nautil.us/the-worth-of-wild-ideas-399097/
Note --- Technically, as a scientific hypothesis, IIT postulates something like Pan-mathematics, instead of traditional Panpsychism. Although some proponents admit to a Panpsychic philosophical interpretation.

*3. Immanentism :
Logically, the immanent makes sense in terms of the non-immanent, or of that which transcends or falls outside the immanent; it follows that the very meaning of immanence implies its own limit, i.e., transcendence.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism

Given that any such search is only possible for us in media res (not from the "outside" or "beyond"), assuming some transcendent "outside, beyond", like searching "up" on a 2D plane, is both nonsense and imaginary — 180 Proof
Maybe this is included in what you state, but it also presumes that what is beyond the Universe or transcends it is similar enough to what is in it that we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it, in some limited sense. Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God (who is endowed with characteristics we recognize as existing, if only dimly or in a diminished form, in the Universe). But why should that be the case? — Ciceronianus

As usual, interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense, while I use those terms for their metaphysical meaning. His Immanentist worldview seems to deny the possibility of Meta-Physics. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Metaphysics as "the branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality". One example of a First Principle is "an axiom*1 that cannot be deduced from any other within that system". In other words, it's an imaginary view (an inference, not an observation) of the system from the outside (not immanent, but extrinsic). Ultimate Reality is a view from the outside, not in a literal sense, as 180 alleges, but from an imaginary perspective, as philosophers do routinely. Presumably, Immanentism would not include the human talent for looking at the world from a vantage that exists only in a mind.

In philosophical Cosmology, the system of interest is the universe as a whole -- as seen from the outside -- including such immaterial elements as Minds, Ideas, Theories, Symbols, etc -- that are excluded from the Immanentist world. Such non-physical things are meta-physical, in the sense that they transcend the physical boundaries of material objects, and of proximate reality --- which Immanentism believes to be the only reality. Which is OK for scientists probing material phenomena, However, philosophers are focused on immaterial noumena : res cogitans of internal Ideality, not res extensa of external Reality. 180 may interpret "transcendence" in the religious sense of a super-natural realm, but philosophers use the term in the sense you noted : "we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it". Inferences are not observations with the physical eyes, but logical computations by means of the mind's eye, which is in meta res : as you put it, "what is beyond the {physical} Universe or transcends it". {my brackets}

180 uses the analogy of a 2D plane to illustrate his Flatland worldview, which ignores the 3D & 4D aspects of reality. For example, cosmologists don't limit themselves to a view of the world from the inside, but they go beyond the limits of proximate space-time to imagine an ultimate pre-time Multiverse, or hypothetical Many Worlds, that lie beyond (transcending) the world of physical experience, and of empirical evidence. Such ultimate worlds are not Real, but Ideal. Ironically, those imaginary models are not "perfect versions", but merely mundane replicas of our proximate imperfect reality. :smile:


*1. Axiom : in logic, an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiom
Note --- Self-evident concepts are imaginary mental phenomena, not "demonstrable" or empirical physical observations. They are useful for abstract reasoning, but have no material substance.

But you will be completely at a loss to say what that 'something' is. (Whilst you're reaching for your hatchet, I sense the impending feeling of futility that invariably accompanies our exchanges.) — Wayfarer

Like most materialists*1, 's Reality is limited to the reports of his physical senses. That blinkered worldview is good enough for most animals. But it omits the distinguishing feature of rational animals : the ability to infer abstractly what is not seen concretely*2*3. That mental function begins with observed premises and calculates conclusions that must also be logically true . . . . but not necessarily real in the here & now.

On a more positive note, Banno's poetic imagery, and yours, is materialistic. Yet the metaphors of poppies & butterflies are not referring to physical objects, but to human ideas & feelings : "the elusive butterfly of love" is not an insect. I wonder if an idea/feeling-rejecting materialist takes the symbolism literally. :smile:

*1. I don't know how Banno would characterize his personal worldview, because his posts are usually so succinct that the cosmology behind the pretty words is left to the imagination. That's fine for poetry, where the reader is expected to read-into the "text" his/her own meanings & feelings. But, for prosaic philosophy, it omits the essence of wisdom, to use words precisely, not just concisely. When is a poppy not a flower?*4 :smile:

*2. Inference in Arguments :
In logic, an inference is a process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
https://www.thoughtco.com/inference-logic-term-1691165

*3. Raven reasoning :
It's the strongest evidence yet that ravens have a “theory of mind” – that they can attribute mental states such as knowledge to others.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076025-ravens-fear-of-unseen-snoopers-hints-they-have-theory-of-mind/

*4. Red poppy flowers represent consolation, remembrance and death. Likewise, the poppy is a common symbol that has been used to represent everything from peace to death and even simply sleep.

We immanentists agree on that much at least – i.e. Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans! — 180 Proof

I had never heard that term before. Sounds similar to Panpsychism or Pantheism or Pandeism. As I had suspected, despite our differences, it seems that we may have something in common : reliance on Reason instead of Revelation for understanding the world, and our place in it. I sometimes use the term PanEnDeism to characterize my non-religious philosophical worldview --- from the perspective of uncensored Reasoning, that can imagine a view of the world from outside of space-time. That reflective perspective allows us to infer that the Causal Power behind the Big Bang existed prior to the bang, and is now immanent in the world we know, as the many & various forms of essential Information or EnFormAction.

As noted, I am willing to allow un-aided, but not transcendent, human Reason to speculate beyond the sensory boundaries of physical space-time reality. Quite a few respectable scientists have made detailed conjectures about the unknowable Source of the power that materialized in the hypothetical Big Bang. But most seem to take Cosmic Energy & Evolutionary Laws for granted. Though some may even interpret that Source as a God of some kind, which is now manifested in the reality of our human experience. Others, less imaginative, transcend the physical evidence, to conclude that the Before (e.g. Multiverse) was merely more of the same forever & ever, amen. Serial immanence? :smile:

Immanentism :
A philosophical position maintaining that human experience is the only ultimate source of verification. Absolute immanentism insists upon the self-sufficiency of man as the measure of all reality and defends its doctrine on the grounds that any supposed transcendence of reason would be, by definition, "beyond reason" and therefore beyond the scope of discourse or rational penetration.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism


The meaning of IMMANENTISM is any of several theories according to which God or an abstract mind or spirit pervades the world.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanentism
Note --- My personal abstract power of causation is called EnFormAction. It works like physical Energy, serially transforming from invisible Causation into tangible Matter, and back again, in accordance with the rules of Evolution, to create Darwin's "forms most beautiful" from formless Potential.

It's pretty simple really. You've said stuff, that if taken seriously, could get someone killed. I value fellow TPF members not dying stupidly.

So I do accuse you of BS.

Do you understand the relevance of what I am saying now? — wonderer1

No.

↪Gnomon
Glad to see you changing your claims in response to the critique hereabouts. — Banno

No. I simply changed your mis-interpretation of my views --- not my "claims".

Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

I'm sorry if my personal philosophical vocabulary has caused you to be "confused" or "uncertain". Yet the problem may be, not the literal meaning of the words, but the polarized belief system (or worldview) associated with certain taboo words*1. It's certainly not my intention to "promote" confusion.

Part of the "issue" though, may be your own rigid Certainty about questions that are inherently Uncertain. I imagine our contentious dialog as similar to that of a conservative "Baptist" and a liberal "Methodist"*2 : they both read from the same Bible, but reach different interpretations. Your problem with my carefully chosen words seems to be more political or religious than philosophical.

You accuse me of being deliberately deceptive. But it's more likely a case of self-deception, and I can't help you with that personal problem. Please don't expect me to change my worldview, or my vocabulary, just because it makes you uncomfortable. I guess we'll just have to go to different "churches", where our words won't be mis-interpreted. :smile:

PS___ But we can still meet in the street or the forum, without getting into fruitless arguments about the "true" meanings of words.


*1. For example, I use the uncommon word "ideality" to indicate the other side of the same coin as "reality". Is the meaning of that term so hard to guess? If it's still opaque to you, I have linked to a large publicly-available Glossary of terms, specifically relevant to my personal worldview*3. So I'm not hiding my intentions behind unfamiliar words. See the more conventional dictionary definition below.

*2. It's a metaphor, so please don't take it literally, or get huffy (look it up). I'll let you decide which symbolic denomination is yours. A science metaphor would be : the common-sense Classical mechanical (actual) Reality versus the philosophical-sense Quantum statistical (potential) Reality. But that complex analogy might be "confusing" for simple minds. And the inherent quantum Uncertainty Principle will leave the best minds in a state of "uncertainty".

*3. Ideality :
*** In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
*** Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is "collapsed" into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
*** Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. . . . . https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*#. Ideality :
a> the state or quality of being ideal.
b> the quality of expressing or being characterized by ideals.
c> an ideal or idealized thing.
___Oxford dictionary
d> the state or quality of that which is not materially real, but a human concept or experience. ___Gnomon

*#. The "one word one meaning fallacy" suggests that: People often mistakenly believe that a word can have only one correct meaning. Which of the following best explains why Hayakawa believes that a word never has exactly the same meaning twice: because the context surrounding the word is never twice the same.

*#. Dave Mason's song : We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree

Physicalism and naturalism are the assumed consensus of modern culture, very much the product of the European Enlightenment with its emphasis on pragmatic science and instrumental reason. Accordingly this essay will go against the grain of the mainstream consensus and even against what many will presume to be common sense. — Wayfarer

Ironically, even on a philosophy webpage --- presumably a forum for ideas about ideas --- many posters seem to instinctively argue against any form of meta-physics -- especially Idealism -- on the basis of priority of the five senses -- common to most animals -- over our unique human rational faculty. Consequently, they bow only to Physical Science --- with its artificial sensory enhancements --- instead of Meta-Physical Philosophy --- and its cultural reasoning enhancements (e.g. Logic) --- to support their sense-able beliefs.

That's partly paradoxical because the Common-Sense Perspective led most humans to believe in a flat earth and an earth-centered cosmos. Among the sensible ancients though, a few Greek philosophers used un-common-sense (abstract reasoning) to realize that our un-aided senses are not capable of seeing the world "in the round", so to speak. So they used the mental imagery of mathematics to rise above their limited physical plane. Nevertheless, it's hard to argue against Common Sense, because it is literally sense-able, and people tend to implicitly "believe their eyes". It seems that abstract philosophy was developed specifically to work around our inherent materialistic biases. Which is what Kant warned about with his sense-transcending "ding an sich" proposal.

On the other hand, some people are inclined to believe in unseen things that appeal to their Feelings. That's because hormonal feelings are the motivators of actions, and of attractions. But those sentiments are also a form of inwardly-focused Common Sense. Hence, people typically believe what they feel. And it's that latter notion of common-sense that hard-nosed Rationalists strenuously reject. That's why your rational approach to Idealism must skirt the feeling element, because it incites knee-jerk negative feelings in dogmatic Realists. Yet even the sixth sense of Reason is questionable, if it has no material evidence to support it. In the realm of Ideas & Reasons though, philosophers tend to lean on immaterial analogies and imaginary metaphors for props.

A recent scientific metaphor along these lines was Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception*1. That proposal was described in a book entitled The Case Against Reality. It postulated that natural evolution created big-brained animals with the latent ability to "see" what is not before their eyes, by means of imagination. Thereby, viewing a "mind created world". Even some small-brained birds seem to imagine other minds*2. So, it's not a super-natural power. Some of the non-things seen in the Mind's Eye are symbols & icons & gestalts. The latter are imaginary whole systems composed of bits & pieces of sensory perception. Although he makes a good case for Ideality, Hoffman's notion that our physical eyes see only superficial "appearances", has not been well-received among Philosophical physicalists. Was cognitive psychologist Hoffman presenting evidence in favor of Ideality, as an evolutionary offspring of Reality? :smile:

*1. The Interface Theory of Perception :
For the perceptions of H. sapiens, space-time is the desktop and physical objects are the icons. Our perceptions of space-time and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth and guide adaptive behaviors. Perception is an adaptive interface.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26384988/

*2. Ravens can imagine other minds :
Ravens display a human ability to imagine how others are thinking, a study has shown
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/ravens-can-imagine-how-others-are-thinking.601117

You said that potential energy is not real. — Banno

As I pointed-out before, you completely misunderstood, and/or deliberately mis-stated, the point I was making*1. First, it was not a scientific assertion, but a philosophical observation about A> the distinction between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality, B> also between a now state and a not-yet-real future statistical possibility*2. An unactualized Potential state is a mathematical idea without any sensable properties. Can you see, touch, or taste the Potential of an AAA battery. If not, in what sense is a Potential thing a Real thing? Is the unreality of Potential so hard to grasp?

Secondly, you are adding the word "energy" to my statement about "Potential", probably to make it sound obviously erroneous or foolish. What I said was "Potential is not Actual". But after you inserted the word "energy", I still said "yes", because the statistical possibility of energy is not a useful form of energy in the here & now. What can you accomplish with Potential energy without first converting its possibility into Actuality? By analogy, do you think a Potential colony on Mars --- as imagined by Elon Musk --- is a Real colony? Of course not. You're not stupid ; perhaps, just motivated to defend a mindless materialistic worldview.

Apparently this discussion of What's Real and What's Not has touched a nerve. And along with , you seem to think that Gnomon is a dangerous proponent of un-reality, or some other spooky supernatural stuff. Gnomon does make a distinction between physical Science (about material Things) and meta-physical Philosophy (about non-physical Ideas). But, for what it's worth, I will once again state that I do not believe there's anything super-natural in the Real world. However, I am aware that Mental/Mathematical objects (such as Potential states) are not Real things. Not supernatural though, but merely Ideal : existing only in the form of immaterial Ideas. And yes, mental ideas always have a material substrate : like computer solutions, they are immaterial functions of a material process*3 in a real world. Personally, I don't believe in dis-embodied ghosts. But if you think Ideas -- or functions, or statistics -- are material objects, show me one under a microscope. :smile:

PS___ You can ignore the footnotes if they make the argument too complex for you to follow. :joke:

*1. Quote from previous post :
So potential energy is not real? — Banno
Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it.

*2. The notion of potential existence may be supposed to apply to two categories of objects. The first one comprises objects which in fact will become real. They may be referred to as potential objects (sensu stricto). The second category consists of quasipotential objects which never will come into existence.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0097-9_7

*3. Ideas as Functions of a Process :
Although the word function assumed a different meaning with the rise of set theory and formal logic, the original relation is still used a lot among physicist, engineers or even mathematicians. . . . So it seems that something being a function of something else (or something depending on something else) is a very natural notion for many people.
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/307947/formalizations-of-the-idea-that-something-is-a-function-of-something-else
Note --- A Function is a mathematical relationship, not a material object. It's "real" only in the sense that it is a useful imaginary tool for humans, not due to any material embodiment. Math objects do not exist in material reality, but only as immaterial ratios in the ideality of rational minds.

What you were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion. — wonderer1

You can falsify scientific claims with counter-evidence. How would you falsify a philosophical analogy : Potential as not-yet-real future event? What made you think I was making a "truth claim"?

Why would you consider an electrical engineering definition "to be valuable to a philosophical discussion"? I don't accuse you of talking BS, but just of irrelevance to the topic of this thread. For example, as a "skillful" expert, how would you define "Potential Voltage" in terms of Quantum Electrodynamics (relativistic quantum field theory)? If you did, how would that relate to the OP question "what is reality"? :smile:


True or false : Philosophy is defined as a person merely offering an opinion on a subject and nothing more? https://quizlet.com/42756218/philosophy-101-final-review-true-or-false-flash-cards/

True-False Questions :
Russell argues that philosophy involves controversies on matters of which knowledge is impossible.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/testCT_summer3/node2.html

And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon
No it is not. And this is yet another example of your tendency to assert things without knowing what you are talking about. — wonderer1

Apparently, you are expecting technical answers on a philosophical forum. I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. Does your referenced link explain "what is real?". We are not talking about the same thing here. :smile:

PS___ Is your "skill" as an electrical engineer relevant to the topic of this thread?

So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd. . . . And again, your style is almost unreadable — Banno

That does seem odd. Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". Just a short list of instances would be more helpful than a blind blanket denouncement.

Your reference to "scientistic" is also odd, since my views are often radically different from those of the philosophy of Scientism.

Your vague non-specific replies are readable, but simplistic and indeterminate. I'm not sure what you are responding to. I don't know your background, but an education in analytical Linguistic Philosophy might make discussions of holistic Quantum Philosophy "unreadable". More specificity on your part would make communication, not necessarily more readable, but perhaps more meaningful. :smile:

PS___ Speaking of "unreadable", have you ever tried to read Hegel, Heidegger. or Wittgenstein? If you are not interested in the subject matter -- or have a short attention span -- you may not be motivated to read densely worded discourses.

PPS___Most responses on this forum are brief summaries of personal opinions. With no attempt to justify the amateur reasoning with links to opinions of experts on the topic. Most of my posts are condensed summaries of arguments that are more extensively detailed elsewhere, with links. It seems that we are not arguing true or false facts here, but agreeable or disagreeable opinions & worldviews.