-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
In general, that's true. Hossenfelder was not condemning scientists for creating theories to explain physical mysteries. What she warned against is falling-in-love with a pet theory, that no physical evidence can prove or disprove. She seems to think they are unaware of crossing the invisible line of demarcation between the Science & Philosophy magisteria.I see what you're saying, but the scientific method is to observe nature, create a theory (i.e. guess) THEN try to prove it. If there are theoretical physicists who believe in (for example) string theory and just end the inquiry there, then you're right, that's inexcusable. But what I see is these physicists doing experiments to prove said theory. — GLEN willows
She gives several examples of such transgressions of Empiricism (the scientific method), and labels their unfalsifiable theories as "Ascientific". In that case, they are doing Philosophy, not Science. As for doing experiments, many of those beautiful mathematical models are not subject to experimental verification -- at this time -- yet some persist on faith, that future technologies will open new windows into the abstract mathematical realms of such counterintuitive notions as String Theory. :smile:
PS__FWIW, Hossenfelder doesn't make this connection, but I place Mathematics under the heading of Metaphysics (abstract ideas), not Physics (concrete matter). You could say that Matter is embodied Mathematics : the logical, non-physical (relational) structure of an object.
Mathematical Metaphysics :
"Kant argues that mathematical reasoning cannot be employed outside the domain of mathematics proper for such reasoning, as he understands it, is necessarily directed at objects that are “determinately given in pure intuition a priori and without any empirical data”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/
"Math is only a Metaphysical subject insofar as it is an example of a system of consistent relational structure."
https://www.quora.com/Is-math-a-metaphysical-subject -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
I too, read books by Albert Ellis, and was impressed with his Rational-Emotive self-therapy. You could think of it as self-directed Philosophy, or merely as self-discipline. In a marginal note I wrote : "most people seem to think that emotions and reasoning are separate, un-connected processes. Whereas, in reality they mutually influence each other : emotions color our thinking, and thinking modifies our emotions". Perhaps Hamlet foreshadowed Ellis : "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". And Hamlet may be paraphrasing the Stoic philosopher Seneca : “Reason shows us there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” :smile:A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon. — Tom Storm -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
Yes. That was the premise of physicist Fritjof Capra's 1982 book, The Turning Point. In which he introduced the concepts of Holism and Systems Theory. He applied those ideas to all phases of modern culture. The name of the book suggests a future "paradigm shift" from narrow Reductive methods to broader Holistic thinking. :smile:Systems-centric is another way to characterize it: holism is one of the key characteristics of complex emergent systems. In this guise, it can form the focus of a legitimate paradigm shift, rather than just being a dirty word. — Pantagruel
PS__Holism does indeed require "going beyond the [reductive] facts" in order to see both sides of reality at once : material parts + metaphysical (mathematical) inter-relationships. Philosophy without imaginative Holism would be factual Physics. Yet. some posters seem to prefer it that way.
PPS__A crucial aspect of Philosophy is skepticism toward your own flights of fancy, to keep your feet on the ground.
Ancient Skepticism :
The Greek word skepsis means investigation. Literally, a “skeptic” is an inquirer. Not all ancient philosophers whom in retrospect we call “skeptics” refer to themselves as such. Nevertheless, they all embrace ways of life that are devoted to inquiry. Ancient skepticism is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything. This gives rise to their most controversial ambition: a life without belief.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I think Massimo Pigliucci would agree with you about the Non-overlapping Magisteria of Science and Philosophy. That's a nice way to avoid antagonism (stepping on toes) between the disciplines. But, in order to work, both sides have to buy-in to the dual domain premise. In practice though, some scientists feel free to engage in unverifiable philosophical speculations, as long as they can present their abstruse abstract mathematical models as true representations of reality.The two disciplines cover two different aspects of existence. Science is no more under the thumb of authority than philosophy is within academia. IMO — GLEN willows
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book, Lost in Math, to chide her fellow physicists for straying into philosophical territory. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except for the pretense that their hypothetical models (e.g. cosmic inflation) are real science. Instead of empirical evidence though, they judge their mathematical models in terms of aesthetics, and even doggedly defend them, as-if it was a matter of Faith. Ironically, her second book, Existential Physics, presents her own opinions, as a scientist, on several philosophical questions. To her credit, she labels her own conjectures, and those of other scientists, as "Ascientific" (i.e. philosophical).
This thread was started in order to discuss how & why some philosophers, and TPF posters, disparage their own profession or hobby, and place themselves "under the thumb of higher authority" (in this case : Empirical Science). Pigliucci's response was simply to point-out that there is no authoritative consensus position on the Foundational Questions of Physics. Which lie on the swampy borderland between the magisteria of Empirical Science and of Theoretical Philosophy. Their authoritative Bible of Science exists only in the imagination of believers. So, they cannot be proven wrong . . . or right. :smile:
Lost in Math : How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252
Philosophers want to know why physicists believe theories they can’t prove :
how physicists can come to believe in certain theories without necessarily having the empirical evidence that proves them.
https://qz.com/590406/philosophers-want-to-know-why-physicists-believe-theories-they-cant-prove/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I agree. He's trying to use scientific (physical) methods to study a philosophical (abstract, metaphysical) topic. But, I applaud his ingenuity for devising a mathematical analysis to study a mental phenomenon. It may even lead to methods for using AI to determine if a person in a coma is subliminally conscious.Probably you mean Giulio Tononi. His Phi function is untenable. — jgill
However, IIT is indeed untenable as a conventional secular Scientific project, because it ultimately requires a universal potential for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate. Consequently, neuroscientist Christof Koch even entertains the taboo idea of Panpsychism (universal consciousness). But my personal worldview is based on mundane universal Information (power to enform ; energy). So there's no need to grapple with the absurd notion of chatty conscious atoms exchanging gossip.
The bottom line is that I do not "support Tononi" in the sense that Krisis implies. For me, IIT is just one more bit of information for a Philosophical (Epistemological & Ontological) project. :smile:
Ubiquitous Information vs Universal Consciousness :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? The WIRED interviewer complains, “ I still can’t shake the feeling that consciousness arising through integrated information is — arbitrary, somehow. Like an assertion of faith. “ But Koch responds with “ But why should quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It seems arbitrary! “ Anyway, Koch is just one of several mainstream non-religious scientists who find the notion of Panpsychism to be a reasonable theory by which to answer some of the world's oldest Ontological head-scratchers.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
I agree. Aristotle referred to what we now call "Metaphysics", as "First Philosophy". But, for some on this forum Metaphysics is a four-letter word. And it may be true that some people will justify their out-of-bounds speculations under the pretense of merely doing metaphysics. But that's the risk we take for allowing freedom of thought. In a free society, we have to tolerate Neo-Nazis, even if we don't like what they say. Without freedom of thought, there would be no creativity, no progress. However, the free exchange of ideas must be funneled through a skeptical filter to remove the BS & cons. Yes, that's censorship, so even the skeptics must be subject to skeptical filtering.My hypothesis is that the philosophical project as such is, at its heart, metaphysical. Fichte says that. "To proceed beyond the facts...to go beyond experience as a whole...this is philosophy, and nothing else." — Pantagruel
For good practical reasons, Modern Science has constructed a restrictive box to contain its own speculations. Physics is limited to the study of details of the material world of the senses. But philosophy has goals that are not limited to pragmatic real-world results. With logic & imagination, it goes beyond the specific things of the world to reason-out general & universal principles. Even Physics makes use of unprovable generalities, such as natural laws, in order to make accurate predictions of physical behaviors. But those "normative rules" themselves must be accepted as "self-evident". We don't discover natural laws by dissecting Nature, but by viewing it as an integrated (whole) system. This approach is not necessarily super-natural, but it is Holistic (another four letter word for those who fear thinking outside Pandora's box). :smile:
Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: Metaphysica[1]) is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that is sometimes referred to as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology, in English. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics.
It is a compilation of various texts treating abstract subjects, notably Being, different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects and the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle) -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
180boo asks politely why Gnomon doesn't ever "answer any of my polite, direct, simple questions of your "unorthodoxy & jargon"?↪Gnomon
Well said! — Agent Smith
You can tell him for me : I fell for that smooth sibilant serpentine wooing before -- in the interest of philosophical dialogue -- only to find that his "arguments" are anything but "polite, direct & simple", consisting mostly of "ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age)". There are plenty of other posters on this forum that will take these novel ideas seriously, and challenge them in a respectful manner. So, I'll go back to my policy of avoiding baited traps, and ignoring ideological ambushes . :cool: -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Some have taken issue with your labels for the "two kinds" : Science vs Pre-science. Yet, I suspect you had a good reason to word it that way. Perhaps though, it's ultimately about Rational Empirical vs Intuitive Mythical approaches to knowledge. Most ancient religions explained how the world works in terms of metaphorical myths, intended to sound plausible to people without technologies to extend their built-in senses. With few verifiable sources of general information, the myths were accorded some authority by claiming divine revelation, which would be difficult to prove, one way or another.two kinds of people. — Art48
However, the non-revealed pre-science of Aristotle (observation & inference) was considered authoritative for centuries. Then, the additional requirements for replicability & falsifiability began to weed-out illusory or biased observations and erroneous inferences. The practical results of such empirical methods gained a lot of respect for post-Enlightenment science among the masses*1. But the Intuitive Mythical types still prefer their self-interest human-interest stories to the cold hard impersonal facts of science. So, it seems that many people pick & choose from both belief baskets : Objective Abstract Mechanical Science vs Subjective Metaphorical Personal Religion. Hence, not two types of people, but two types of worldviews, and two kinds of priest-experts : technological vs sociological. :smile:
PS___Another pertinent dichotomy might be Science (empirical) vs Science (theoretical). The latter is literally ascientific in the sense of non-empirical. So, you could think of the duality in terms of Science vs Philosophy.
*1. On the Intersection of Science and Religion :
The survey showed that just 16% of Christians in the U.S. say their religious beliefs “often” conflict with science
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Yeah. I eventually decided the Enformity*1 concept might be a step too far into the woo-world*2. Not for me, but for those prejudiced against alternatives to Materialism & Determinism. However, I still use the related coinage "Enformy" as an alternative to the scientific term "negentropy". Although Enformationism is a metaphysical philosophical conjecture*3, I try to stay safely on the natural side of the woo-woo wonderland. Unfortunately, hard-core physicalist/materialists view any notion of "an organizing principle"*4 (Enformy, Elan Vital, Holism, Natural Selection) as definitely across the woo-line.↪Gnomon
Didn't think so - that one looked pretty trashy and woo woo. — GLEN willows
That's because mechanistic science is based on the concept of a random un-directed universe. Hence, it has no plausible explanation for the undeniable self-organizing features of Evolution. Ironically, Darwin's notion of "Natural Selection" was modeled on the artificial Cultural Selection by humans, who intentionally steered genetic evolution toward their own perverse goals, such as dogs with un-naturally short legs or noses. Even more ironic is the concept of option-limiting Natural Laws, with no law-making agency other than Cosmic Accident.
There are plenty of otherwise pragmatic physicists who have come to conclusions similar to Enformy. In fact, famous physicist John A. Wheeler got the ball rolling in an Information-Theoretic direction with his "it from bit"*5. If that's woo, then I must accept that pejorative label. But I prefer to call it "philosophy", which is ascientific, in that it projects our understanding beyond the world of the 5 senses into the realm of Reason, the sixth sense. That may sound New Agey, but with no incense, chanting, gurus, crystal power, etc., it's a pallid excuse for a super-natural spirituality. :smile:
*1. What is Enformity? :
It attempts to steer a safe course between the Scylla of Materialistic Science & the Charybdis of Spiritualistic Faith.
☉ It follows the methodology of naturalistic Science as far as possible. But it does not shy away from meta-physical speculations where necessary.
☉ It will take issue with mainstream conventional Science, and with fringey unorthodox Pseudo-science.
☉ It deals with controversial technical scientific and philosophical questions, but from a layman’s perspective.
☉ It uses some edgy New Agey Noetic terminology where necessary, but it’s not intended to promote any associated magical mystical notions.
http://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html
*2. Woo Woo :
(slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=woo+woo
FWIW, I don't accept any of those beliefs.
*3. Pragmatic Science is clearly better than theoretical Philosophy and mythical Religion for explaining the mundane details of the natural world. But for information about the universe as a whole, scientists put on their philosophical hats, and become Cosmologists. "In fact, for all its virtues, physics tells us precisely nothing about the nature of the physical Universe. . . . The truth is that physics is a tool for prediction." So, science can tell us how the universe works, as a reliable mechanical system. Yet when it tries to fathom the essential nature of reality, it comes up with the weird paradoxes and infinities of the sub-atomic (sub-material) realm of Quantum fields.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
*4. The Fundamental Organizing Principle of Nature that We have No Word for. :
Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate in Physics, thought this principle was so important that he wrote it into his family crest: contraria sunt complementa, opposites are complements.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamental-organizing-principle-nature-we-have-word-frank-medlar?trk=pulse-article_more-articles_related-content-card
Note : the Latin concept is equivalent to the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang, and the digital code of 1/0 .
*5. It From Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Save the spooks for Halloween. I have a suggestion : why don't we just agree to disagree on whatever distraction we are disagreeing on, and return to the OP topic : philosophers who disparage philosophy, and hold Physics (with a capital P) sacrosanct?Spooky, ain't it? – when Gnomon, apokrisis & 180 Proof agree (more or less). — 180 Proof
Spooky, aye! Verrry spooky! :smile: — Agent Smith
Pigliucci was accosted for trying to interpret Quantum Physics with novel philosophical metaphors, instead of bowing to old creeds, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response, he noted that the Foundational Questions survey indicated that even the Copenhagen compromise is not accepted as gospel by over half of physicists. Each of the most popular "interpretations" has its own peculiar jargon : A> Copenhagen, B> Many Worlds, C> Objective Collapse, D> Quantum Bayesianism, E> Relational QM, and E> (my preference) Information-Theoretical. Which of these disparate "worldviews" are they defending? Personally, I don't care if they believe in Many Worlds with multiple models of 180 & krisis. So, I feel no need to attack them personally as "Parallelists".
That being the case, why do the Woo-Booers harp on my own unorthodox interpretation & jargon --- presented not as a scientific model, but as a personal philosophical worldview. I am not the first or last to present an extensive thesis on TPF with specialized technical jargon. But something about Enformationism seems to threaten the heart-felt belief system of a few counter-posters. Lashing-out emotionally, they don't offer alternative arguments, but merely ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age). What are they afraid of : that philosophy might possibly contribute something new & positive to our understanding of how & why the world works as it does? :cool: -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I know; it's a no-win situation. Like defending yourself from accusations of being a witch. Anything you say will be twisted to use against you.It doesn't help your case to implicitly compare yourself to perhaps the single most important figure in the development of modern science. Maybe aim your telescope a little lower. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't take this stuff seriously. I'm just teasing my Inquisitors, because are incorrigible. They already call me an "idiot" ("Dunning-Kruger" for the intellectual elite). So, I just "clap back" at them. I'd prefer to just ignore them. But they smell blood in the water, and won't go away. Every now & then you have to punch the shark on the nose. :joke:
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Innovators are often "incorrigible" in the face of Inquisition. :cool:Gnomon's famously – Dunning-Kruger? dogmatically New Ageist? – incorrigible on this point. — 180 Proof
In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
During his trial, Galileo offered the opportunity for the Inquisitor to look through the telescope himself and see what Galileo himself had seen. The Inquisitor refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2021/08/07/refusing-to-look-through-galileos-telescope/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What you're saying is that you'd prefer that I quote from your Science Bible : perhaps the Authorized Steven Hawking Version, or the Official Compendium of Scientism. Where can I get a copy of your holy text? Which guru is your jargon "master"?If you are genuinely interested, you wouldn't have to invent your own jargon. You would start by mastering all the jargons that have been created so as to then start to see the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project. — apokrisis
Since I'm not a professional scientist or philosopher or a monk copying old texts, I get my information from a variety of sources. I then combine their disparate ideas into a single philosophical system. But I don't concern myself with Orthodoxy, or regal imprimaturs, or memorizing creeds. The key to that systematizing is creativity, not servility to authority. :smile:
Why Coin Tech Terms? :
One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
PS__If you can get your nose out of your antique Science Bible, I can direct you to a Glossary of technical terms & neologisms, so you can better understand "the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project . . . . if you are genuinely interested." :wink: -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
No. That was a secondary website I started, but got side-tracked on the blog.↪Gnomon
This?
http://www.enformationism.info/Enformity/ — GLEN willows
The Enformationism thesis is here :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
It describes how I arrived at the conclusion that the fundamental element of reality is Generic Information. Hence, Enformationism is proposed as an update of 19th century Materialism, and ancient Spiritualism. Since Physics is beginning to equate Information (mind stuff) with Energy, and Energy was equated, by Einstein, with Matter (mass), Generic Information is all of the above : Energy, Matter, Mind. To put it into a historical philosophical context :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms. :smile:
PS___I'm just applying cutting-edge science to my own personal worldview. The only thing I add is a title to tie all the bits & pieces together into a philosophical system.
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental
This is not a scientific theory, so It doesn't quote academic or lab studies. It's a personal philosophical thesis, and quotes hundreds of scientist & philosopher opinions on physics and information theory. Because the primary subject (mind stuff) is immaterial, their speculations & conjectures are not verifiable empirically, but can make sense logically. :smile:Where does this theory derive from, it deals with a lot of scientific principles. Can you quote some studies? — GLEN willows
Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics
ed. by Paul Davies, physicist
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81 -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What physicists inappropriately label "Negentropy" is what I call, "Enformy". Entropy is dissipative & destructive, while Enformy is integrative & creative. You can think of Enformy as Energy + Information (causation plus direction). These are my personal opinions. Please don't ask for settled science on the topic.Or indeed, to move us even more towards a general theory of organisms, we aren’t even just structures of information. Life and mind are dissipative structures organised by semiosis. We are structures of meaning or negentropy. — apokrisis
Physicists have recently begun to equate Information with energy*1. It's a new idea, and hasn't caught on everywhere. Another novel idea is that of Information Causality*2, which links meaningful (mental) Information with the (physical) energy to produce change in (material) form*3. These concepts are still mostly in the theoretical and philosophical stage, but physicists are beginning to learn how to convert Information (mathematical data) into energy.*4
Enformed "structures of meaning" don't just happen by accident. Entropy happens by accident. But functional structures require logical interrelationships. Logic is both Mental and Mathematical. As Hossenfelder noted : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do". :smile:
*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
*2. Information causality :
We suggest that information causality—a generalization of the no-signalling condition—might be one of the foundational properties of nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08400
*3. The physical nature of information can be understood from three main perspectives: the relation between information and physical entropy; the strongly informational nature of the quantum view of nature; and the possibility of recasting physical laws in informational terms
http://informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html
*4. information-to-energy conversion :
suggests a new fundamental principle of an ‘information-to-heat engine’ that converts information into energy by feedback control.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821 -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
I'm not aware of any official doctrine for Holism*1. It's just a philosophical concept or principle. However, in my own personal worldview, Enformationism, consciousness is indeed an emergent property of matter/energy. Logically though, the Potential for both Life & Mind must be inherent in Nature. Possibly encoded in the original Singularity, from which all things in the world emerged. The creative effects of that Holistic tendency can explain why evolution is progressive and self-organizing, without external inputs.↪Gnomon
so according to this, would holism consider consciousness an emergent property, as suggested by Chalmers? — GLEN willows
In the Wiki link below, Jan Smuts calls Holism "a fundamental principle". In my own theory, I coined a new term "Enformy" to identify the role of Causal Information in evolution. Physicists gave it the inappropriate name "negentropy". Both of these are philosophical hypotheses, and the only evidence is logical inference from historical patterns, combined with the expanded theory of Information. Which links Information with Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change). :smile:
*1. Holism and Evolution :
After identifying the need for reform in the fundamental concepts of matter, life, and mind (chapter 1), Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Cheer up! As 180 noted, we are "bags of chemistry, and much more" The "more" is what we call Holism, or a functional system : parts working together toward a common goal (purpose).True that. It's depressing to hear someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson ask the rhetotorical question "so we're just bags of chemistry?" Science has been, since the Copernican revolution, in the business of demoting the status of humans from a-one-of-a-kind to just-another-face-in-the-crowd. — Agent Smith
In Existential Physics, Sabine Hossenfelder was asked : "are you just a bag of atoms?". She replied : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do." Giulio Tononi might say, it's the "Integrated Information" (Holism) that makes you into a selfish organism, with purposes & motives, and with the ability to love & be loved as a person. Atoms & chemicals working in isolation have no Life or Mind, or any other qualities as a Person.
So, you are not just a "bag of chemicals", you are a walking, talking, thinking, feeling, self-governing, purposeful, opinionated system of Information. And you can impose your selfish will upon the rest of the world like a Boss. But don't let your status at the pinnacle of evolution go to your head. Evolution is like the "moving finger", which writes what-is, then immediately moves-on to what's next. :cool:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
― Omar Khayyám -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Not so. Holists would say that 2 x 2 = 4.↪GLEN willows
Holists are those who say 2 + 2 = 5. — Agent Smith
Holism is not mere addition, but multiplication.*1
The whole system emerges from complex interactions of all components.
Holism is not just a just a bunch of things, but an integrated structure of things operating together for a single purpose; a coordinated function.
When a neural network of nodes begins to function in an integrated manner (i.e. purposefully), to process incoming/outgoing energy/information, the system as a whole becomes Animated & Conscious. That's the basic theory of IIT.*2
Any questions? :nerd:
*1. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. Slime Mold (part plant, part animal) is emergent life & mind : single cell without neurons, it becomes animated and intelligent enough to coordinate its syrupy actions to find food. Its gooey innards function together to process information, in order to serve its needs as a multipart organism.
How a single cell slime mold makes smart decisions without a central nervous system
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223121643.htm -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
The bare chart lacks context. Is this Binary classification intended to be an idealized snapshot of pluralistic reality, or to refer to an historical watershed like the Enlightenment? Does it apply now, or at some future time? Is the division innate or learned? How is it different from any other binary catalogue of human types (e.g. introvert/extrovert)? Are we stuck, or can we change classes? The table could be interpreted as contrasting open-mind Liberals vs closed-mind Conservatives. I assume you will expand on the underlying concept, to put it into a broader philosophical context, such as Universal Theology.Below is a rough, first-draft which describes two kinds of people.
(I think it's appropriate for this forum.)
Comments? — Art48
In the 60s, a similar notion became popular, the astrological Age of Aquarius. However, in that model, the Science category would be characterized by knowledge of abstract cosmic influences upon humans. Ironically, like most salvation schemes, this leap from a benighted past would be imposed upon humanity by outside forces, instead of from within, due to learning from experience. Ironically, although "astrological ages are taken to be associated with the precession of the equinoxes . . . . Astrologers do not agree on when the Aquarian age will start or even if it has already started." Apparently, after this cosmic turning-point, there would still be "two kinds of people" : enlightened and benighted ___Wiki
In Christian doctrine, similar either-or categories are "saved" & "unsaved', yet people are given a choice of which class they want to belong to. And they have an outline of how this personal & global paradigm shift will occur, and when, give or take a few millennia. Anyway, I'm just riffing on a theme of binary categories. :smile:
The Turning Point : Science, Society, and the Rising Culture is a 1982 book by Fritjof Capra :
Capra outlines and traces the history of science and economics, highlighting flaws in the Cartesian, Newtonian, and reductionist paradigms which have come to light in the context of contemporary empirical understanding of the physical sciences. He writes that these paradigms are now inadequate to guide human behavior and policy with regard to modern technology and ecology, then argues that society needs to develop the concepts and insights of holism and systems theory to solve its complex problems. His argument is clearly and strongly expressed, for a wide readership, presuming no prior knowledge of any branch of the sciences. For physicists the book is an instructive guide to why and how today's new science may affect tomorrow's society. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & MetaphysicsWhat did I say that was a smear? — T Clark
That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.
As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".
Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.
But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.
Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:
Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/
The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable.
5 days ago
Options — Gnomon -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I'm currently reading Existential Physics by Sabine Hossenfelder. The "existential" part of the title was probably an oblique reference to publicprofessional speculations beyond the scope of "settled" science into unfalsifiable metaphors, traditionally reserved for impractical philosophers. And as Pigliucci noted in my prior post quotes, the Foundational Questions of Physics are basically about un-settled Science. And those unsettling doubts are found mostly at the largest (Cosmology) and smallest (Quantum) scales of scientific knowledge. As a public explainer of Physics, she often gets asked for the official position of Science on topics that both scientists and laymen wonder & argue about. Hence, the book.And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism. — Gnomon
Most of the questions she addresses are from the demilitarized zone between Physics and Metaphysics. However --- sensitive to the common prejudice among Scientists, and diffident Philosophers, toward the taboo word "metaphysics" --- she typically substitutes "ascientific", which simply means : "not an empirical topic". But, I find a side-by-side comparison instructive. Aristotelian Physics & Metaphysics can be viewed as mirror images of each other : Observation/Theory, with a material object on one side, and an analogous image on the other. So, for my own philosophical purposes, the word "meta-physics" should convey the notion of that complementary correspondence of worldviews : Material & Mental*2.
On the apparently unrelated topic of "Predicting Unpredictability", Sabine gives an analogy with "uncomputability" : "take the economic system. It is a self-organized, adaptive system with the task of optimizing the distribution of resources. Some economists have argued that this optimization is partly uncomputable." Obviously the source of that non-linear logic is human choices and behavior. Which struck me as a good metaphor for the key difference between Physical and Metaphysical questions. Where material evidence is available, the answers are computable, based on physical laws. But where the premise is merely Mathematical (abstract) or Mental (imaginary), the comps disappear into infinity. Therefore, to those looking for real computable hardware, the soft mind-stuff looks black.
Feckless Philosophers feel free to conjecture into Infinity (or the time before time), where pious pragmatic Scientists fear to tread*1. Yet, some undaunted eccentric scientists put on their philosopher's hats (wizard cap?), and boldly go beyond the bounds of mundane Actuality, into the dark airless realm of unspecified Possibility. Many of them feel surprised & hurt to have their beloved mind-children dismissed as mere wizard woo. :cool:
*1.Ascientific (off-limits) questions per Hossenfelder : Many Worlds, Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation. Also, any taboo topics that are considered off-limits for pious physicists.
*2. Prior to Homo Sapiens the world had little Mental to speak of. Now, we are immersed in Memes (mental bits), zipping between minds at the speed of sound and of light.
WHICH IS REAL AND WHICH ILLUSION?
WHICH IS COMPUTABLE (real) AND WHICH UNCOMPUTABLE (unreal)?
Hint : infinities are displayed as black, because the computer's calculations go-off-the-charts there.
-
Could we be living in a simulation?
Where can I get a prescription that that? :smile:The red pill is a metaphor for the willingness/desire for knowledge no matter what the cost. — Agent Smith -
Could we be living in a simulation?
Ironically, Neo had to take a magic pill to open his mind to the possibility that his reality might not be what it seemed to his brainwashed senses. Where can we find such pill in our own Matrix? :wink:↪Gnomon
Syād ... The Matrix hypothesis is when skepticism becomes fun. — Agent Smith -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I agree. That's the whole point of putting debatable ideas on a public forum. Most threads on TPF have their pros & cons, yet manage to remain somewhat respectful, even though many of them go-off on technical tangents far from the OP. On this forum those nebulous limits are negotiated on the fly. So, elbowing, name-calling, poking-in-the-eye, and hits-below-the-belt are the price we pay for our freedom from rigid rules-of-order laws. Yet, some seem to believe that there are implicit taboo rules that all must respect. To which I respond, "where is it written?" I could poke back, in kind, with dialog-ending labels, but that's a low-class political tactic: "here's my response to your subtle argument : F.I.S.T."Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? — Gnomon
There are few restrictions here. But when views are presented others are free to poke at them. — jgill
If you're not the one being poked with prejudicial labels ("prove you're not a witch"), you may not notice anything awry. The injustice arises when free exploration strays into forbidden territory, and touches hot-button "don't go there" issues. And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism.
However, TPF harbors a few sentinels of heresy, who seem to believe there is no defining line, because there is no Metaphysics. Apparently, they think that Metaphysics died along with God, back in the 1950s. But then, in the 1960s, various Eastern god-concepts, and their associated philosophies, arose to fill the "god-shaped hole" in the human heart. My topics have nothing to do with such exotic stuff, by they get pigeon-holed in the Woo-slot, because I insist that my subject is Mental & Meta-physical, hence not governed by the laws of Matter & Physics, and not settled by empirical evidence. But the woo-labelers, deferring to the absolute authority of Physics over Philosophy, seem to believe -- in effect -- that the universe is all Hardware (mechanical rules), and no Software (logical laws).
I apologize for going-on at length with this off-topic diversion. If you were familiar with some of the recent threads I've posted on, you might understand why Obeisance to Science on TPF is an important obstacle to free philosophical exploration. The problem with philosophers bowing to the final authority of Pragmatic Empirical Science, is that If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like Physics. Anyway, my problem is not with you, but with the "smells like metaphysics" police. :smile:
"Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics".
___Massimo Pigliucci, Foundational Questions in Physics
Regarding metaphysical assumptions on existential questions : "not wrong, but ascientific". ___Sabine Hossenfelder, Existentential Physics
Ascientific : not a dictionary word, just "not science related" : hence philosophical.
OBEISANCE TO HIGHER AUTHORITY
-
Could we be living in a simulation?
The simulation hypothesis is fun for computer nerds to contemplate, perhaps because they see no personal consequences of the notion of artificial Reality. In Existential Physics, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder admitted, "I quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation. It gives me hope that things will be better on the next level." (heaven?) But that hope seems to be based on faith in the good intentions of the unknown programmers. She goes on to note that, "this simulation hypothesis . . . has been mostly ignored by physicists, but it enjoys a certain popularity among philosophers and people who like to think of themselves as intellectual. Evidently, it's more appealing the less you know about physics".What was taken for real (out there, distinct and separate from us) is being questioned; it could all be a hallucination (in our heads). As for considering the world tentatively/provisionally real, I'm all for it, but note, the damage is already done. — Agent Smith
But, what does she know about computer simulations, except for the mathematical models that theoretical physicists create to emulate how the physical world actually works? She seems to think the alien simulations are actually patterned after traditional religious beliefs about super-intelligent super-powerful beings. "The belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature, but that for some reason remains hidden from us, is a common element of monotheistic religions". Unfortunately, my own explorations of philosophical origins questions are typically placed in the obsolete notion basket, without any knowledge of the actual proposal. It suggests a logical explanation why an immaterial programmer would remain forever beyond the reach of our materialist metaphors. And why the programmer allows the program to run without miraculous interference.
Reality Simulation games would be no fun for emotion-driven players, if they couldn't play god, by occasionally over-riding the program. But an abstract bodiless self-existent Programmer (pure Logic, pure Math, pure Information) would presumably have no hormonal urges to over-ride the original end-state-intent (teleology) of the program : the Final Cause output. That makes sense to me, but Hossenfelder might still reject it as philosophical speculation beyond the hard physical evidence. But, that's OK, I don't pretend to be a physicist. Just an explorer beyond the edges of the known world. :nerd:
PS__ Hossenfelder goes on to say that "physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step-by step, like a computer code". But what if the universe functions more like a non-digital integrated brain. . . . . Just philosophical fodder for unfettered thought.
UNCHARTED TERRITORY --- HERE BE DRAGONS
DOES THE UNIVERSE RESEMBLE THE HUMAN BRAIN?
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-human-brain-resemble-universe.html
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.What did I say that was a smear? — T Clark
As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".
Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.
But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.
Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:
Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/
The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Don't worry about it. Just as you read something from your own imagination into my posts, I read some un-stated assumptions into your post. So, we're even.If I've misrepresented your argument, tell me which of my statements you don't agree with. Tell me what your conclusion is if not the one I state in the last bullet. — T Clark
Now, we can get back to the OP question about philosophical deference (diffidence) to Gospel Science on the debatable fringes of Physics : "Foundational Questions of Physics". The survey found that there is no single "consensus" interpretation of those fundamental questions of physics*1. Yet, some interpreters like to pretend that borderline (meta-physical) issues are authoritatively settled, and beyond question*2.
Although I quoted part of Pigliucci's discussion about "What does it mean to interpret Quantum Physics", It would be helpful to read the whole Skeptical Inquirer article, so you won't go-off on a wild tangent. No need to imagine heretical beliefs on my part. Heresy assumes some unquestionable, orthodox opinion established by authoritarian priests.
Besides, does it strike you as ironic that such a "woo-monger", as others have mis-labeled me, would be reading Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I have subscribed to SI, and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. So, I'm well-informed on the erroneous beliefs & methods of pseudo-science. Yet, I'm also well-aware of how defenders of the faith can rise-up in self-righteous anger at any un-conventional interpretations of the unsettled borderlands of knowledge. Philosophical pioneers, undaunted by inquisitors of orthodoxy, explore the realm of reputed dragons in search of philosophical wisdom. Besides, that fuzzy area off the map is not-yet settled Science, so it's open to interpretation. :cool:
*1. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum weirdness was proposed a century ago, in order to settle the acrimonious debates -- including accusations of "woo" -- that caused a great disturbance in the force of Physics. Several of the pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy -- often labeled derogatorily as "mysticism" -- in search of ways to interpret their counter-intuitive and non-classical observations. And the debate-goes-on to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
*2. Quantum mysticism :
Olav Hammer stated that Werner Heisenberg was so interested in India that he got the nickname "The Buddha". "However," states Hammer, "in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy (1959) there is no substantial trace of quantum mysticism;" and adds "In fact, Heisenberg discusses at length and endorses the decidedly non-mystical Copenhagen interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Actually, It was Pigliucci, who objected to the use of such a derisive slang term "woo" in a philosophical or scientific context. It's a short-hand emotive term for "I'm right, you're wrong", and avoids a lot of uncertainty & rational thinking. So, It is very popular among self-righteous posters on this forum. And, the question of "who introduced it", is moot.This was the term you introduced into the discussion. — apokrisis
Anyway, all of this hand-waving is beside the question, of "foundational issues of physics", which Pigliucci noted "smells like metaphysics". Are we discussing "settled" physics here, or questions that go beyond (meta) our understanding of physical reality? What are you so afraid of, that you feel the need to defend an orthodox interpretation of "foundational physics"? Did someone warn you that metaphysical ghosts will get you, if you stray from the true faith in physics?
I'm just kidding. I don't doubt that you know more than me about some technical aspects of borderline physics. But these "woo boo" diversions get tiresome, so I have to poke fun, in hopes of getting back on track : "philosophical diffidence" toward all-knowing Physics. :wink:
In the immortal words of late-night TV philosopher Craig Ferguson, "you're a racist, man". He says, in response to any top-down authoritarian shout-down. :joke:You may find it offensive. But it ain't racist. — apokrisis -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I'm not familiar with the "bicep data" that you claim I "threw" into the conversation as a "gotcha". Sounds like you know more about what I'm talking about than I do. Why don't you read my mind, and tell me more about that "bee in the bonnet". Or is it buzzing in your bonnet? You keep swatting at something I can't see. :joke:But anyhow, the way you throw the 2014 revision of the Bicep data into the conversation as some kind of "gotcha" is indicative of how little you are aware of the constraints on the conversation to be had. It shows you don't really know what you are talking about. — apokrisis -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin: — apokrisis
How do you dismiss the opinions of professional physicists & neurologists, and cosmologists, some with labs, who entertain fringey notions of "psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence". Their opinions are all over the internet, for those inclined to look. And they too, face institutional discrimination based on philosophical prejudice. Maybe "woo-boo" is actually a contest of political ideologies, not impartial Science. :cool:
The Ideology of Racism : Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination :
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark
Did you omit a prejudicial step, in your logical calculation of that damning conclusion from an unfavorable reading of the OP? Would you apply such biased reasoning (sophistry) to Massimo Pigliucci, too. In the Skeptical Inquirer article, he implied that he has had accusing fingers pointing at him. Following your logic, you could conclude that, " based on that confusion and lack of consensus" Pigliucci "is justified in any speculation . . . ." Not so easy to denigrate "a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics", is it?
Do you think the forum moderators should ban all posts that can be labeled by detractors as "metaphysics"? Should they change the name from The Philosophy Forum to The Empirical Science Forum, or perhaps the Anti-Meta-Physics Forum? What credible topics would we talk about? The possibility of creating a man-made black-hole universe in an atom smasher? Or is that too speculative? Where is the "evidence"? :smile:
Note -- TC, Generally, you seem to be more open-minded toward debatable ideas than the zealous "Anti-Woo Boo-Crew". So, I apologize if anything in this post sounds like a personal attack. It's hard to respond to smears without getting sh*t on your hands.
At Scientia Salon, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci admits to “always having had a troubled relationship with metaphysics.” He summarizes the reasons that have, over the course of his career, made it difficult for him to take the subject seriously. Surprisingly -- given that Pigliucci is, his eschewal of metaphysics notwithstanding, a professional philosopher -- none of these reasons is any good. Or rather, this is not surprising at all, since there simply are no good reasons for dismissing metaphysics -- and could not be, given that all purported reasons for doing so themselves invariably embody unexamined metaphysical assumptions. Thus, as Gilson famously observed, does metaphysics always bury its undertakers.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03/pigliucci-on-metaphysics.html
Is the Big Bang a black hole? :
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional. :smile:So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis
Evidence for cosmic inflation wanes
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-cosmic-inflation-wanes
Cosmic Inflation :
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
SPECULATION INTO THE TIME BEFORE TIME
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.
But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis
Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? Or are you just placing a prejudical label on ideas that offend your personal belief system? What formal rules of evidence do you use to formulate your confidently expressed personal opinion? Can you cite book, chapter & verse to support your "interpretation" of "animistic or theistic woo". Or is it just juvenile schoolyard name-calling? Why should we accept your scientistic booing as "knowledge"?
The OP, and Pigliucci's Skeptical Inquirer article, were motivated by such knee-jerk responses to quantum & metaphysical topics, that are characteristic of philosophical diffidence toward the absolute authority of Supreme Science. Ironically, they are, in my personal experience, expressed boldly & concisely, in a manner similar to the well-rehearsed creed-doctrines of Ideologies & religions (e.g. Scientism). But, as a non-believer, I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of Physics or Metaphysics. :cool:
Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional.
http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readings/STS101/Philosophy-TheoryOfKnowledge%20-%20flattened.pdf
Note -- which category do we discuss on this forum?
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? Based on what expertise do you label an expression of laymanship to be "facile"? Just askin'. :smile:Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject. — T Clark
PS__The quote above sounds like a good example of "philosophical diffidence" : e.g. non-professional TPF posters have no right to comment on physical topics. Just stick to your facile logic-chopping.
Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
Laymanship :a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field "For a layman, he knows a lot about the law."
Philosophical Logic Chopping : Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-Chopping -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I too am not a physicist, So anything I say about Quantum Physics on a philosophy forum should not be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on physical Science. As non-credentialed laymen, we're not revealing confirmed facts on TPF; just sharing ideas & opinions about open questions that have not been answered definitively by empirical methods. As Piggliucci said, some of them "smell like metaphysics". If professional scientists feel free to speculate on transcendent non-empirical possibilities (beyond space-time, or immaterial mathematical simulations), why should amateur philosophers feel bound to solid ground?members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.
For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist. — Tom Storm
Some of the diffident posters on TPF -- bowing to supreme Science -- seem to think "feckless" philosophy should be limited to the self-imposed empirical rules of physical Science. Hence, even professional philosophers like Pigliucci have no right to philosophize beyond the current state of scientific knowledge. Ironically, some of the popular interpretations that the Foundational Issues survey listed are literally ascientific explorations of "transcendent possibilities". So as I said above, "according to the survey, it seems that I'm in good company, along with credentialed scientists who postulate such ascientific (philosophical) notions as Many Worlds, Multiverses, and pre-big-bang Inflation".
As Pigliucci noted, the current state of Quantum Physics and Cosmology is anything but "settled science". So, I don't feel so cowed by the technological prowess of Physical Science, that I cannot have a little fun with transcendent possibilities. My own area of interest ("favorite interpretation") is primarily item "e" in TClark's graphic : Information Theoretical. And that subject matter gets dangerously close to forbidden territory of Mind & Consciousness. Even the sober scientists studying IIT, admit to the "strong possibility" of New Agey Panpsychism. :gasp:
Feckless : weak, ineffective, incompetent, futile -
Could we be living in a simulation?
To a pragmatic non-philosopher a realistic simulation would make no difference. But inquiring minds want to know. For example, Descartes, skeptical of his own ability to know the ultimate truth, postulated that a "demon" could be deceiving him, except for the solipsistic feeling of knowing thyself. Today, we might call that demon an extraterrestrial Alien, or a mundane AI that has miraculously become omniscient & omnipotent.What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof
Pragmatic, I salute you! — Agent Smith
However, Descartes seemed to be confident that his skepticism would reveal any "glitches" in the Matrix. That self-assurance was based on his "mind-better-known-than-body doctrine". So, the "difference" for a philosopher seems to be confidence in his own reasoning ability. However, if you discover no glitches, despite being alert for them, pragmatically it's all the same to you. Unless, you are an impractical idealist philosopher by nature. :cool:
mind-better-known-than-body doctrine :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ -
Philosophical AI
Perhaps, but the winnowing of experience separates the wisdom from the babble. Yet, Age alone doesn't make you wise, it just makes you old. Wisdom is the ability to know the difference between What-Is and What-Ought-To-Be. :smile:Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft
-
Western Classical v Eastern Mystical
Try to convince the Ukrainians that peace & harmony is inevitable. To the contrary, Philosophers of East & West have argued mostly for bottom-up happiness & harmony. For example, Confucius vainly tried to convince the rulers of his culture that the common people would meekly follow a virtuous lord, but would rebel against a vicious leader. Presumably, if individuals are happy, then the collective should be happy, and society should be harmonious & prosperous. But, political leaders of all times & places have tended to concern themselves primarily with harmony at the top, among their peers, leaving the hoi polloi to their own devices. Hypothetically, If Putin is happy, then everybody who counts (oligarchs) will be happy, and national harmony will reign. :joke: ironyWhy aim for "harmony"? — 180 Proof
@Gnomon
Good question, mon ami! As far as I can tell, there's no escaping harmony. Let's say we have disharmony - this with harmony is again harmony; iterate this to ∞ if you wish and/but you'll always end up harmony. It's amazing this yin-yang concept - if you oppose it, you endorse it! :cool: — Agent Smith
Similarly, the Epicurean notion of harmony was focused mainly on stability at the top of society. Assuming that if the rich & powerful were happy, the whole society should be harmonious -- as far as they (the cream of society) were concerned . But the Platonists & Idealists envisioned a more homogeneous happiness. The Epicurean worldview could be narrowly pragmatic, because it was primarily a view from the top of society. Hence, their self-centered ideal was personal Happiness, instead of general Harmony. Yet most Eastern & Western philosophers have concluded that you can't have personal Happiness without public Harmony. Of course, you are the best judge of what makes you happy, but, as a social being, you also have the innate ability (Empathy) to predict what will make other beings happy, so they will work together as a team, instead of a disorganized mob of MEs.
You could also summarize that the Epicureans tended to be Materialistic Reductionists, whereas the Platonists were Idealistic & Holistic. A similar top-down perspective seems to be the crux of Ayn Rand's argument for "The Virtue of Selfishness" She labeled that attitude as Objectivism, because what matters most is your own empirical experience of happiness. Her anti-socialist arguments were similar to Adam Smith's apology for Capitalism. He turned the socialist hierarchy of concerns upside-down, with the optimistic notion that a rising tide lifts all boats. The implication is that if I'm free to pursue my own happiness, then everybody else should be happy. Unfortunately, people at the bottom of the economic & political hierarchy may not see that theory as realistic. Anyway, idealistic generalizing philosophers have typically had little influence on political & economic leaders. Which may be why social harmony has always seemed to be anything but inevitable. :cool:
PS__This post is not about politics or economics, so don't get hung-up on Socialist vs Capitalist arguments. General harmony may be best approximated by meeting in the middle : not either/or, but both Idealism and Realism. Yin/Yang is a dynamic balance -- a dialectic -- always on the tipping point.
The Virtue of Selfishness :
Rand acknowledged in the book's introduction that the term 'selfishness' was not typically used to describe virtuous behavior, but insisted that her usage was consistent with a more precise meaning of the term as simply "concern with one's own interests". The equation of selfishness with evil, Rand said, had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
"Harmony, on the other hand, is more comprehensive. It includes happiness but also transcends it. It’s about expressing the many different aspects of our nature in balanced and adaptive ways. It’s about honoring our diverse and competing needs and values".
https://thinkgrowprosper.com/blog/harmony
Why is Spinoza an Epicurean?
Spinoza is pointedly silent about his philosophical allegiances. The only time he lets his guard down is in a letter to Boxel from September 1674 in which he positions himself in the epicurean camp (Ep. 56). Given this, it is surprising that in the multitude of Spinozas in the reception of his work an epicurean Spinoza is nowhere to be found – with a few exceptions that I discuss in the next section. I argue that Spinoza is an epicurean because he stages a dialectic between authority and utility.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c4cr -
Logic and Disbelief
I wouldn't say that humans "worship ignorance", but I could suggest that people fear "Uncertainty", and worship "Hope". Religious people are not idiots*1, so they can understand that invisible deities are dubious. But when under threat from various invisible agents of Evil, they play the odds, and bet on the Good Guy, behind the curtain of ignorance, that everyone else believes in. For example, the typical barefoot peasant in ancient times, had never seen their King or Pharaoh, but they could directly experience the consequences of disobeying the top-down social laws governing their behavior, and limiting their freedom.I was thinkin' more along the lines of ODDS is GODS. Miracles are highly improbable, not impossible (re the problem of induction), events and they're considered divine acts. In addition, the god of the gaps clearly demonstrates we worship ignorance.
Probability is the math of ignorance — Wikipedia — Agent Smith
Many Atheist arguments against the notion of an omnipotent & omnibenevolent deity point to the imperfection of the creation. But Leibniz seemed to acknowledge the obvious defects, and to ignore the unrealistic Garden of Eden myth. So, he focused his abstract mathematical argument on the Real world of ups & downs that we know directly. He didn't propose that our universe is a perfect world, but merely the "the best of all possible worlds". Which implies that his "perfect" god could not recreate heaven on Earth. Implying that H/er range of possibilities was limited for some self-imposed reason. The Genesis myth even hints at what that limitation was : human Reason (bestowing the freedom to choose). In the idyllic Garden, the immature humans were essentially naive animals with hands, but no ability to understand how to intellectually choose Good over Evil. The wily serpent was a metaphor for the short-term appeal of the Evil path.
Of course, most animals intuitively act in their own self-interest, to preserve Life and to avoid Death. But humans add the ability to Reason from what-is to what-if, in order to prepare for the long-term future -- the strait & narrow path. And it's that uniquely human talent for projecting from Now into the Future, that gives them more choices than mere animals, including chimps & dolphins. Hence, humans have developed herd instincts into world-wide cultures that redirect Nature to serve human interests (e.g air conditioning). Naturally, what's good for my local comfort is not necessarily good for the global environment. So, our choices always involve trade-offs.
Therefore, I conclude that a top-down Pre-Destined perfect world was not an option for this experiment in Free Will. Here, I'm reading-into Leibniz' argument, in order to explain why the Real world is not absolutely perfect, but the "best possible" compromise between Freedom and Determinism*2. Ironically, that trade-off between all-good & all-evil, implies that the Programmer of Evolution was not Omni-benevolent, but Omni-Potent, in the sense of possessing the Potential for both Good and Evil. I'll leave it to you to decide if, limited Free Will (human Reason) is a good-enough trade-off for off-setting the Hegelian Dialectic, zig-zagging between the poles of Good & Evil consequences of human choice. This "best of all possible worlds" is imperfect, but good-enough for survival of rational animals and moral agents*3. :smile:
*1. Theism apologist, "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646–1716) was one of the great thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is known as the last “universal genius”. . . . "Leibniz presented a number of arguments for the existence of God, which represent great contributions to philosophical knowledge." . . ."Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure" . . ."To the more difficult question whether there is a better world with perhaps a little less genocide and natural disaster Leibniz can only respond that, if so, God would have brought it into actuality. And this, of course, is to say that there really is no better possible world."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/
*2. Rationalism versus Fatalism -- Freewill Within Determinism :
By taking the long view, they can accept that G*D is neither Good nor Evil, but BothAnd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html
*3. Apparently, another genius, Voltaire, missed Leibniz' implication that the possibilities for creating a space-time world were finite. Hence, his satirical novel Candide. Since Leibniz referred to his mathematical deity as "perfect", I suspect that even he was not completely convinced by his own argument. Today though, we know more about the initial conditions, and natural laws, that function as limitations on progressive evolution. -
Logic and Disbelief
The origin of our world in a sudden act of creation is now generally accepted as a scientific fact, not a religious myth. But Science is limited by tradition and methodology to post-Big Bang evidence. So, any speculation beyond that limit is inherently ascientific, but legitimately philosophical. Undaunted, some curious scientists have put on their philosophical hats (dunce caps??) and projected from what is known, with reasonable probability, to what is unknown & unknowable & improbable. Such conjectures may be in the realm of statistical possibility, but can't be quantified in terms of probabilities, due to lack of evidence.That doesn't clarify what you meant by "all gods are possibilities" ... possibilities of what? — 180 Proof
Why? There are many definitions of God - from the OOO God to a malus Deus - and all of them jibe with or can be made to with what we know as reality. In short we can't rule out any of 'em as incompatible with our experiences. If you follow the theism-atheism feud, the back and forth between these two warring factions, you'll immediately see what I mean. — Agent Smith
That the initial conditions (e.g. max energy potential, min entropy ; something from nothing) are highly unlikely is undeniable. Yet, we can A> ignore it as an unimportant detail, or B> label it as an inexplicable mystery, or C> accept it as a challenge to human reasoning. For example, particle physicists may not concern themselves with why the original "particle" (Singularity) miraculously blinked into existence already charged with the potential energy & laws for a whole universe. But Astrophysicists, cannot just ignore the obvious implications (logical possibilities) of such an astronomically unlikely initial state. The best they've come-up with to-date though, is magical Inflation (The Great Inflator), or unfalsifiable Multiverse (The Great Beyond) : artificial God substitutes.
The beginning of the reality curve has been calculated down to subatomic Planck scale. So, we can logically extrapolate the curve backward using mathematical analysis*1. But, because the odds against the BB are so incredibly high, we have good reasons "to be suspicious"*2 . So, we are faced with three options: A> don't worry about it ; B> postulate a pre-existing universe to lower the odds ; or C> hypothesize a pre-existing Dealer to stack the deck*3. Hence, it comes down to a choice between ODDS or GODS. The only physical evidence for either is Reality with a big question mark (?).
Multiverses and Gods are imaginary possibilities of something-from-nothing-for-no-reason versus something-from-Potential-on-purpose. The OOO gods and the Great Flying Spaghetti monster are both satirical absurdities, and not intended to be taken seriously. But creator deities have been taken seriously by most wise men down through the ages. Ironically, a great unknowable Universe of Universes is taken seriously today by a few gambling speculators, based on minuscule mathematical possibilities. :smile:
*1. Billions of years of normal evolution compressed into an instant vertical line (by magic?)
*2. When we observe low-probability events in our Universe, we have every right to be suspicious.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-probability-misleads-us-about-the-universe-4f96f17d5b5f
*3. Eternal SpaceTime or Eternal Deity :
The preexisting spacetime would be quantized (preexisting meaning the matrix universe within which the fluctuation would occur) and
A fluctuation would give rise to a virtual particle or virtual energy which would be so massive that its conjugate duration of time of allowed existence, under the Heisenberg formula, would be bigger than the reigning quantum of time in the matrix universe, so that the only outcome allowed under the math would be that said particle becomes real : BANG)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-a-Big-Bang-occurring-right-now-due-to-quantum-fluctuations
GOD PARODIES : GOLB and GROB GOB GLOB GROD
https://adventuretimeconspiracies.tumblr.com/post/48374563533/deities-of-ooo-a-compilation
Gnomon
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum