Why is it so difficult to provide just one reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be realized, even if just a hypothetical one? Anyone?? — punos

1. A practical "difficulty" arises when a holistic (general) Philosophical question is expected to be answered in terms of reductive Scientific mechanisms.
2. Another adversity is that the skeptical questioner usually assumes that the question refers to absolute freedom from natural laws, as recounted in magical myths. Yet, like everything else in this world, human freedom is Relative to the wider context.
3. One more obstacle to reasonable discussions of Free Will is that many intellectuals today are philosophically Fatalistic in their presumption of Absolute Determinism. For them, the notion of exceptions to Fate is absurd.
4. Perhaps the biggest dilemma in Free Will Discussions though is the scientific "axiom" (unprovable assertion taken on faith to be self-evidently true) of the inevitable "second law" of Cause & Effect that drives all things to ultimate destruction.

With so many obstacles to overcome before even getting to the starting line, FreeWill advocates are handicapped & hobbled. So, all I'll say is that I have written down several "arguments" in favor of limited freewill for moral agents. That's what I call "unscripted freewill". Generally, Nature seems to be an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect. But Life itself is an exception to the ruthless rule of Entropy, relentlessly reducing organisms to ashes. Moreover, human Culture has a history of exceptions to that deterministic Law of Disorder.

Admittedly, both of those exceptions are temporary. But Life has been staving-off Death for multiple millennia, and Culture has been pushing-back unruly Nature for thousands of years. So, for those interested in atypical arguments for Freedom Within Determinism, I can provide links to a few of those reasons for acting as-if we have some freedom from Fate. :smile:

Paradox of Freewill :
Modern Science is based on the assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect, since the Big Bang beginning of the world. Logicians have created supposedly airtight arguments against the possibility of libertarian freedom-of-choice. And some theologians, who take the Bible at its word, have concluded that divine omniscience means that the entire existence of the creation was foreknown in detail; hence allowing no opportunity for individual sinners to make the fateful choice between Good or Evil, God or Devil. Thus, the incompatibility of Fate and Freedom has been debated for millennia. And the beat goes on . . . .
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
These are good challenges to enformationism. Does 'materialism' pass A & B? or physicalism? — Bylaw

I have repeatedly responded to 180's demands for empirical evidence to support the Enformationism thesis by pointing out the obvious : it's not a scientific thesis, and I am not a scientist. In 180's own words : it is not "an attempt to solve scientific problems". It's also not a vetted academic thesis. Enformationism is instead a personal philosophical thesis. Others are free to take it for what it's worth to them.

But 180 rejects & repudiates the thesis, apparently because it clashes with his own personal worldview. I'm not sure what to call his anti-idealism ideology, but it seems to be opposed to Metaphysics-in-general (non-physical aspects of reality), and to the metaphysical-New-Age-mindset (spiritual aspects of the world) in particular. In contrast to his Idealistic/Spiritualistic interpretation, the Enformationism thesis was based on the novel-but-pragmatic 20th century sciences of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. It was not in any way inspired by Eastern religions or New Age doctrines. Any similarity to NA though, may be due to the emphasis on Holistic philosophical methods instead of Reductive scientific methods.

Ironically, the introduction to Enformationism proposes a new paradigm to update the ancient belief-systems of both scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism. This new/old way of looking at the world has no inherent religious implications, but it can be interpreted to support a variety of Mind-over-Matter notions, although empirical evidence is lacking. As a scientific paradigm though, it has already found a key role in Quantum Theory, Complexity, and Cybernetics, among other disciplines. So, you are correct to note that Materialism/Physicalism are philosophies of Metaphysical Naturalism, that ironically exclude the generalizing (holistic) methods of Metaphysics. :cool:


Vulgar materialism is the kind represented by the British writer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) kicking a stone to prove its existence. Some forms emphasize the physical and biological basis of human social being. Materialism rejects Cartesian dualism and disembodied existence.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20111020111930156

Spiritualism :
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
___Oxford dictionary

Enformationism :
A new post-post-modern philosophical paradigm, proposed to supersede the obsolete modernist worldview of Materialism / Determinism. It proposes that matter and energy are essentially special forms of Generic Information.
Enformationism Glossary

David Bohm developed a quantum theory in which mind and matter are brought together. He writes: “A similar mind-like quality of matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum level, . . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914914/

Active information can be viewed as the underlying reality, both physical and mental, from which both mind and matter emerge.
http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/david-bohm/mind-matter-active-information/

Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Holism :
Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, had a tendency to have a holistic perspective. We can find it both in Plato and Aristotle.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism

Are there any strong arguments for free will?

Are the only arguments for determinism assuming the universe is a clock? — TiredThinker

My personal argument in favor of Limited Free Will is based on Evolution. Like a linear clock, it continues to click in a single direction (arrow of time), toward the not-yet-real future. Darwinian theory is based on directionless Randomness, guided by directional Selection. But who established the fitness formula (rules) for cosmic natural selection? Who knows?

Metaphorically, in between each tick of the evolutionary clock, there is a moment of decision, fit or not fit. But fit for what? Fitness implies Purpose (future goals). So, I assume that purposeful agents -- who can imagine a desirable future -- have some degree of freedom to decide their own short-term goals. And all those independent choices add-up, and cancel-out, to a single arrow of time, "toward infinity and beyond", as Buzz Lightyear so eloquently expressed it.

Therefore, unlike a cyclical clock, the space-time mechanism doesn't go around in circles. It progresses toward an ultimate goal ("optimal design solution"), that is not decided in advance, but chosen by every particular Fitness Function (algorithm) in the world*1. Apparently, piloted by reason, humans have a bit more fitness-choice freedom than a bacterium --- but within a deterministic context that is not concerned with my personal fitness goals. So, each of us has a limited degree of control over personal (one in a million?) and universal (one in a gazillion?) evolution toward a contingent future Omega Point. :cool:

*1. Those who fail the fitness function test fall into the slippery-slope of Entropy. Those who pass, get to play the next round of the Natural Selection game.

A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims. Fitness functions are used in genetic programming and genetic algorithms to guide simulations towards optimal design solutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function

Freewill Within Determinism :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

THE ARROW OF ENTROPY

As someone who has struggled with doubt in decision making, I have thought and searched for a reliable way to tell if a decision is self benefitting or self sabotaging. — Yohan

Skepticism is essential for both Science and Philosophy. But practitioners must be careful not to hobble their reasoning with self-doubt. It's a balancing act, hovering between Gullibility and Cynicism. I haven't read the article below. But it's just an example to show that you are not the only one to have doubts about Doubt. :smile:

Skepticism : self sabotaging :
http://www.lifestrategies.net/self-sabotage/articles-on-self-sabotage/the-power-in-skepticism/

Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea :grin:, it's out of my range of knowledge and interests. — Alkis Piskas

That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism. :joke:

Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. — Alkis Piskas

Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?

Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. Don't you suspect that some AI programmers (privately) envision a day when sci-fi robots interact with humans as civil persons and moral agents, instead of as slaves & expendable gadgets? Do you think, as employees of the Military-Industrial Complex, AI designers shouldn't explore those impractical possibilities? :nerd:

Artificial Purpose :
In summary, the goal of AI is to provide software that can reason on input and explain on output. AI will provide human-like interactions with software and offer decision support for specific tasks, but it's not a replacement for humans – and won't be anytime soon.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analytics/what-is-artificial-intelligence.html

Artificial general intelligence is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. ___Wikipedia

Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? — Alkis Piskas

I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.

But Quantum Theory forced scientists to address the active role of the observer for interpreting the signals we get from the environment. Donald Hoffman looked at the same question from the perspective of a Cognitive scientist. He came to the same conclusion as Kant's "occult ontology". He says that we perceive Reality in the same way we "interface" with a computer, via symbols (icons). Do you find that hard to believe? Can you take human limitations seriously? :smile:

PS___This is the same old Subjective versus Objective (Ideality vs Reality) question, that philosophers & scientists have been grappling with for millennia.


The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes :
Can we trust our senses to tell us the truth? Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_Against_Reality_Why_Evolution_H/JgJ1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Occult Ontology :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. . . . . For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Illusions or Approximations :
Envisioning two levels of reality, the apparent and the ultimate. IMHO, Kant didn’t mean that the appearances of our senses are deceptive illusions, but merely that they are useful approximations of objects that are otherwise incomprehensible to our senses, which evolved for human scale objects and energies.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Wow! This is the most"exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all. — Alkis Piskas

The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind. :nerd:


Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
This compendium, co-authored by 35 Santa Fe scientists, among others, and co-edited by Physicist Paul Davies, is a collaboration of scientists from around the world with at least one thing in common : a primary role for Information in their research on Physics, Microbiology, Mathematics, Computation, Cosmology, Evolution, Information Theory, Neuroscience, Game Theory, etc. . . . So, you can imagine that they come-up with lots of "exotic" ideas, and innovative definitions to describe the alien territory they are exploring.
"If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers". ___the Editors
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-matter-to-life/4DA89C33D0FF29E749E6B415739F8E5A

I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception . . . — Alkis Piskas

Cybernetics is about purposeful control and self-regulation. But it works by directing Causality (energy) into specific directions (channels) to produce useful behaviors. IT typically follows Shannon's technical definition of "information", which omits Meaning & Purpose from its equations, in favor of abstract numerical values. The result is impersonal robotic technology. But AI is now trying to put pupose & personality back into cybernetic systems. :smile:

Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with regulatory and purposive systems. The core concept of cybernetics is circular causality or feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion — Alkis Piskas

I wouldn't worry about that assertion in the context of physical laws. The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile:

The “Argument from Illusion” and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas :
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RMM_042_0217--the-argument-from-illusion-and-the-carte.htm

In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." ( — Alkis Piskas

My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. For example, the pre-shannon definition of "information" focused on its meaning to a human mind (knowledge). But Shannon abstracted away the Semantic human aspect, in order to convert "information" into empty vessels (1 or 0) that can mean anything to anyone. So, computers "encode", but humans "inform". :smile:


To Inform : inform implies the imparting of knowledge

Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?" — Alkis Piskas

Apparently, you missed their point. Like Energy, abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", to experience a sensation. Viewed that way, the author's assertions are not "absurd", but insightful. When energy (e.g light) is organized into meaningful patterns (color; heat; Morse-code; contrast) the human brain interprets that "code" into sensations that we call "feelings" (redness; warmth). Meaningful Patterns are Information. Such encoded (organized) patterns enform (give meaning to) the mind of a rational being.

As to "what kind of information" : Shannon defined it in terms of Syntax (abstract organization), but Tegmark was referring to Semantics (personal meaning). If you don't speak the language, its Syntax may seem "absurd". But if you know the vocabulary, its Semantics will seem sensible. :smile:

I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". — Alkis Piskas

Yes. From my Enformationism perspective, I interpret Plato's "Chaos" and "Form" as a wellspring of Potential from which Actual things emerge. The hypothetical Vacuum Energy is one example of Actual from Potential. The empty vacuum of space is said to possess Zero Point Energy. Its normal state is neutral, because the positive & negative energies cancel out. Yet physicists imagine the Energy Field as a simmering sauce bubbling with peaks & valleys of energy (quantum foam), where the "negative" values are Potential (unmeasurable), and the "positive" values are Actual (measurable). Likewise, I picture Chaos as a bubbling cauldron of EnFormAction (the power to enform; to cause change). In its neutral state, Chaos is random & disorderly. But in its positive state, it is organized (ordered into knowable forms). That's how I equate "order with information". See my philosophical (thesis) definition of "information" below. :nerd:

Chaos :
By “chaos” Plato does not mean the complete absence of order, but a kind of order, perhaps even a mechanical order, opposed to Reason.
https://iep.utm.edu/platoorg/

Order within Chaos :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/

Information is :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog

QUANTUM FOAM of bubbling energy

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course. — Alkis Piskas

Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.

Like most features of Quantum Theory, understanding the relationship between Energy, Matter & Mind can be complex & technical & counter-intuitive. Unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with "Quantum Weirdness", you'll just have to accept that some physicists have come to believe that Information (logical order ; meaning) is at the root of everything, both material and mental. Just as astronomers traced the light (energy) from stars back to a sudden emergence of something from nothing (who-knows-what), that Point of Beginning was also the origin of everything in the world today --- including Mind & Matter.*2

Likewise, the Enformationism Thesis*3 traces the evolution of Generic Information (in all its forms) back to the Big Bang. So, like Plato, I infer that the source of all rational order in the world (including Meaning) was what you could call "a mental force", which he labeled LOGOS (word, thought, principle, or speech). And all of those features of reality are associated, not with Matter, but with Mind. So, I infer that some kind of Mind "spoke" the world into existence. However, since I am skeptical of most pre-scientific speculation on the genesis of the world, I try to avoid the baggage-laden terms associated with Theism.

In view of the essential role of Information (the power to enform) in the world, I use such non-traditional terms as "Enformer" and "Programmer" to describe the abstract principle that Plato gave the mundane moniker "LOGOS". Generic Information*4 is not yet a settled scientific theory, but the causal role of Information is accepted by many Physicists & Philosophers. Most of them are also hesitant to use the "G" word, but a "rose by any other name" would smell like Deus.

So, you are correct that a world-creating Mind is necessarily prior to the Big Bang (space-time). Which means that we have no way of knowing the source of our enformed world. But, just as Cosmologists speculate (without evidence) on alien Multiverses & Many Worlds, Philosophers are free to ask questions about the Time-before-Time. Like most philosophical conjectures though, there is no final answer to such ultimate mysteries about "God, the Universe, and Everything". (Douglas Adams). :cool:


*1. Causal Information :
"information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature"
Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird
Note -- This is a book about why Quantum Theory is non-classical. He says "it's a theory about information"

*2. Big History – The Unfolding of “Information :
The Big Bang – and then there was “1”
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/2254/2099

*3. Enformationism :
A worldview grounded on the axiom that Information (the power to enform, to create), rather than matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. As a paradigm, it is intended to be a successor to 17th century Materialism, and to ancient Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*4. Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. — Alkis Piskas

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.

Since the ab origine causal input that created our complex universe, from a formless spec of nothingness (Singularity), is necessarily external to the knowable world --- imagine a pool shooter who stands apart from the pool table, but causes intentional effects on the table --- the only way to know the absent First Cause is to look at its real-world Effects. We can 'know' the long-gone artist by looking at his art-work. So if, as Information theorists have come to believe, everything in the world is some form of Generic Information (e.g. Energy), we can describe the Cosmic Cause as "Enformer" (form-giver), and as "extrinsic" (beyond the limits of space-time).

Understandably, most people are not content just to infer the "where" of the Source : the fount of Form. Instead, they want to know "who" created this organized world, along with its self-defining "laws". Yet, without a direct revelation from the Creator, we can only infer some logically necessary characteristics, and only guess at specifics. Which is why history is full of wild guesses about Gods, Prime Movers, First Causes, LOGOS, Creators, and now Enformers. But, your guess, about the time-before-time, is as authoritative as mine.

So, where-and-from-whom do you think the logical rules for Cosmic Self-Organization originated? Was it Random Chance or Happen-stance or Magic? If you are uncomfortable with ascribing personality to an unknowable absentee otherworldly 'Father' of Form, then we can use improper-names & impersonal-metaphors, such as Enformer or Programmer to describe the logical function of Law-Maker. :nerd:

*1. Matter-Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms
as explained in special relativity. . . . . Can information be reduced to matter-energy, and return us to only that single element?
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

*2. Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos Theory :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/

Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!). — Agent Smith

Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.

The usual (non-biblical) assumption is that self-organization is just an inherent creative property of Nature. But scientists have also concluded that dis-organizing Entropy is dismantling organisms almost as fast as they emerge from the contingencies of competitive Evolution. Yet, the very existence of a pocket of organic order in one corner of a minor galaxy, indicates that destructive Entropy is counter-balanced by some constructive "force" or "law".

I call that positive power EnFormAction (the ability to give form to the formless). Both "Form" and "Information" convey "intelligible" meaning to perceptive minds. Part of that meaning is what we could call objective Geometric Organization (shape) and part is the subjective Relevance of that object to rational observers. Formal application of that self-relevance is what we call "Morality" : how the social & natural environment impacts the well-being of sentient creatures.

So, Science & Religion interpret the origin & meaning of natural laws from different perspectives. Genesis implies that the laws were supposed to favor sentient creatures, especially rational beings. But, Science observes that Nature seems to be impartial or uncaring. Even the biblical Ecclesiastes sheds shade on the idea of favorable divine justice : "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

My conclusion then, is that Nature is indeed indiscriminate, in the sense that its effects on both sentient & insentient creatures are fair, and delicately balanced on a knife-edge of homeostasis between Good & Evil. So, if humans have an unfair advantage in evolutionary competition, it's in their moral sense : the ability to discern potential Good from Evil (i.e. to predict the future course of Nature & Culture, and its impact on the discerner). Yet, all predictions -- especially about the future -- are constrained by the limits on our information & understanding about both now and then. Which is why human societies have developed human-oriented moral rules, to supplement the impartial physical laws of Nature. To tip the balance in favor of moral agents. :cool:

Cosmos : implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wiki

Form : A form, according to Plato, is an abstract intelligible pattern that has various concrete sensible objects as specific instantiations. ___Quora

Chance : Fate ; probability ; happenstance ; un-intentional

The balance of Nature : The controversial Gaia hypothesis was developed in the 1970s by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis; it asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

Homeostasis : tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality

I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.

Even so, homo sapiens in-general are still not very a good at Math, especially Statistical relationships. Yet, we are good enough to create machines that are much faster & more accurate (to serve as our fangs & fleetness), but still depend on emotional humans to interpret the value & meaning of those abstract relationships. :joke:

PS__Reasoning sees & interprets geometric physical relationships by reference to some relative-but-reliable perspective -- usually the Self, or other authority. As a whole, and in general, the mathematical structure of the world is sometimes called "Sacred Geometry", because it seems to be designed by an omniscient Mathematician. But humans only see it "through a glass darkly".

Sacred Geometry :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2FYSLC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." ___Wikipedia — Alkis Piskas

I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.

Random accidents reveal no logical connection between Cause & Effect. But human Reason is attuned to such meaningful relationships, because linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. Perception of such causal links allows organisms to choose the Good and to eschew Evil. But, as far as we know, only human reason has analyzed the complex inter-relationships of causal networks down to abstract mathematical ratios. Hence, Mathematics is essentially the Logic of Nature. And "Reasoning" is the ability to infer personal meaning from those impersonal numerical values.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. They only mimic those general regulations for specific goals, by inventing artificial mechanisms that "reflect" those of Nature. For pragmatic purposes of Science, we can simply take that universal Logic for granted. But for the curious motives of Philosophy, we can try to trace its real-world effects back to the Source : the "LOGOS", as Plato called it. :nerd:

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.

The goal (Final Cause) of systematic regulation is to minimize negative, and to maximize positive, actions & changes --- to keep the system on track toward a desirable future state, or away from undesirable states. But who evaluates those states : the king or the populace, or both? Some "habits" are good (brushing twice a day) and some are bad (inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But both are focused on specific goals -- either short-term pleasure or long-term health. Are natural laws & constants random & arbitrary, or systematic & intentional, and for long or short-term benefits? Is the universe characterized by random noise, or by systematic processes? Science places its bets on the latter.

However, pragmatic Science is usually focused on short-term benefits from understanding Nature. Under the reductive microscope, both good & bad actions are observed. Some organisms consume (good) and others are consumed (bad). And those oppositions tend to cancel-out to a neutral, neither-good-nor-bad, system -- it simply works. But from a telescopic perspective, evolution is known to have begun in an un-promising explosion (expansion) from nothing to something. Yet, the world we now observe has produced finely-tuned (regulated) eco-systems that consistently stave-off dead-end Entropy, by harnessing & regulating the flow of life-enhancing Energy. From the simplicity of a stem-cell Singularity, the universe has matured into a complex organism, that promises to continue extracting order from Entropy into the far-off future.

Therefore, our universe is obviously a self-organizing organism, and evolution is a creative program -- generating animated Life & inquisitive Mind from inert Matter & random Energy. What, then, is the essence of organization : Self-regulation or Serendipity ; Law & Order or Lawless Disorder ; Innovation or Stagnation? Yet, it's also obvious today, that the world is not self-existent. So, both the physical substance and the abstract rules of regulation must have pre-existed. In that case, the philosophical question arises : was that Creative Act Intentional or Accidental? Your answer may reveal your positive or negative attitude toward the social- or eco-system you find yourself inextricably entangled with. :nerd:


PS___It's not a question of either Matter or Laws, but of Both-And. In isolation, Matter is inert, but in conjunction with Rules of behavior, simple substance evolves in a positive direction towards physical Complexity and meta-physical Self-awareness.

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an [unstated] agenda? Just asking. — Gnomon
Have you read the OP? Have you read the rest of the posts on this thread? If you don't want to play by the terms of discussion I set down, you should go to another thread or start your own. — Clarky

Sorry! I didn't mean to offend you. Although long threads tend to inevitably stray off-topic, that was not my intention. The OP didn't explain why the discussion was supposed to be limited to Classical Physics. Yet it seemed to me that you had an implicit goal for this thread --- beyond simply juxtaposing Materialism and Metaphysics, which are usually deemed to be exclusive (either/or) topics. Collingswood's list is the explicit agenda, but all the presuppositions are expressed in terms of Classical Absolutes, as contrasted with a 20th century world of Arbitrary Relativity. Perhaps my gaffe was to point at the invisible elephant in the room.

Now, after skimming the posts, I found the quote below that seems to point to a future expansion of the OP into a more contentious arena of Science & Philosophy. With a few exceptions (e.g. gravity as spooky action at a distance), Newton's Classical Physics was mostly amenable to human intuition about the logical & predictable way-of-the-world. But Quantum Physics threw a monkey wrench into the gears of classical mechanics. Quantum Logic seems to be Fuzzy and Indeterminate.

So, I just inferred that the "terms of discussion" were perhaps deliberately incomplete. Now, I see that you may be implying that reconciling Quantum Quirkiness with Classical Normality may require an updated 21st century worldview. And that is exactly what I have concluded myself : the world is not simply Either/Or (1/0), but complexly BothAnd (yin/yang). All parts of this world are inter-related (entangled) into a Whole System that we sometimes refer to holistically as "Nature". :smile:

Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics. — Clarky

Agenda : 1. a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.

Absolute : Pure & perfect ; a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

Arbitrary : based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Relativity : relationships viewed through special Frames of Reference

As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion. — Clarky

Yes. But a materialist might disagree with the label of "presupposition", and insist that it is just an "absolute truth" or "known fact". Assuming you do find some "absolute presuppositions" in Materialism, will that reflect on its Validity? Likewise with Spiritualism or Idealism or any kind of -ism. One man's presupposition may be another man's fundamental Truth.

The label for each belief system is intended to identify its core value, its ultimate truth, and its essential reality. Metaphysical debates on this forum tend to focus on finding false assumptions in the opposition worldview, while presenting obvious truths in the correct worldview. Then around & around we go. :joke:

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an agenda? Just asking.

Cognitive bias is a term from psychology, not philosophy, for a group of demonstrated systematic errors. See What Is Cognitive Bias? (↪Gnomon
) — Banno

I know. But the basic idea of Cognitive Bias goes back to Socrates & Plato. It seems to be the fundamental problem in Philosophy : the root of erroneous reasoning. :smile:

A case from Plato's Meno offers an intriguing example that cuts across some of the modern categories of cognitive biases.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-plato-knew-about-behavioural-economics-a-lot

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics. I’ll start off. — Clarky

I wasn't familiar with RGC, but his notion of "absolute presumptions" is interesting. In metaphysical discussions on this forum certain "presumptions" & prejudices quickly become apparent as posters line-up on opposite sides : crudely described as Physics versus Metaphysics. However, RGC seems to be returning to Socratic, versus Analytic, methods; apparently in response to Two-value Logical Positivism. Analytical Positivism seems to presume that knowledge is either True or False. Yet, Socrates demonstrated that most human knowledge is debatable.

I don't have the technical training to make any "absolute" observations on your list. But it's apparent that [1] is not very controversial in this day & age, but [2] is at the root of most of our interminable debates. Disagreements on the other items may depend on degree of commitment to Materialistic or Spiritualistic worldviews, which could also be labeled as "Realism vs Idealism". Absolute Presuppositions seem to assume a Black & While, Either/Or world. But Einstein's Relativism has implied that the world is BothAnd. :cool:


Socrates would challenge initial hypotheses and examine them for presumptions and assumptions.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Socrates_Legacy.htm

The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. ___Wikipedia

"Collingwood had nothing to contribute to the debate between realists and idealists; he would have regarded it as belonging to metaphysics as the study of pure being, not as metaphysics understood as a form of presuppositional analysis. . . . "
The task of philosophy, Collingwood claims in An Essay on Metaphysics, is not to assert propositions in answers to questions but to uncover presuppositions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood/

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
Note --- a minority of *educated* people today may still presume that the frustrations & rational challenges of the world are due to Trickster gods, or dueling deities, such as Jehovah & Satan.
** I caught a presupposition of my own.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
Note ---Since the advent of Quantum & Information theories in Science, the physical foundation of the world was been undermined. What was classically presumed to be absolute, now seems to be indeterminate & uncertain.

Yet, some people are more biased to accept the word of God, than others. — Gnomon
I didn't get that... — Skalidris

You must not live in the Bible Belt. The particular prejudice I referred to is not innate, but cultural --- specifically religious indoctrination. :smile:

PS___I just read a tribute to soicio-biologist E. O. Wilson. In his 2016 book, Half Earth, he said : "What is man? Storyteller, mythmaker, and destroyer of the living world. Thinking with a gabble of reason, emotion, and religion . . ."

How can we everbe sure that the decision we’re making isn’t biased? Biases are unconscious… — Skalidris

Cognitive bias is a philosophical theory to explain why supposedly rational people make errors in judgment. But, in practice, those with different opinions can accuse the other of bias, and without divine objectivity, no one can prove who's right and who's wrong. I suppose the frustration of a no-win "Mexican Standoff" of opposing opinions is what prompts some people to claim divine revelation, to break the logjam.

Yet, some people are more biased to accept the word of God, than others. In that case, only pseudo-objective "critical thinking", which examines your own motivations & tendencies, can occasionally discover a tipping-point of truth in a difficult dilemma. Unfortunately, if only one party in an ego contest is willing to back down, the win-lose result may not mean that Truth prevails. :smile:

Regarding Aristotle and the subject of objectivity - I think the whole concept, or rather orientation, of objectivity, is part and parcel of the modern period. The word itself only came into regular usage in the early modern period. And I think the deep reason for that is that pre-moderns, even very sophisticated pre-moderns such as the Greeks, experienced the world differently - not as an ensemble of objects, but as an intentional creation, and so had different kind of relationship with it -an 'I-Thou' relationship, not subject and object. — Wayfarer

Yes. I doubt that Aristotle thought in terms of total opposition between Subjective (ideal) & Objective (real), in the modern sense. But, he seems to have pioneered the mundane Pragmatic approach, that was later adopted by modern Science, to replace the sublime Theoretical/Theological*1 methods of the Scholastics. Nevetheless, I see the roots of modern thinking in his treatise on Nature. For example, where Plato used the notion of universal Ideal Form (eidos) as the ultimate reality, Aristotle used the term in reference to specific material objects.

Later, when Greek "ousia" (being or divine essence) was translated into Latin, two different words were used : essentia and substantia. Although "essence" can be interpreted as the immaterial logical structure of a thing, "substance" has come to be associated with the material fabric of an object. And latter-day materialistic science pointedly avoids the spiritual associations of "essence" in favor of the secular meaning of "substance". So, the modern subjective/objective dichotomy seems to reflect total rejection of the submissive ancient "I-Thou" relationship, in favor of today's dominating "I-it" attitude.

Since my personal worldview is Information-theoretic, I tend to see "Form" in both categories : essential & material. That's because 21st century Information theory now defines "Information" as both Mental (metaphysical meaning) and Material (physical substance). Hence, En-Form-Action (Energy) is the power to create (enform) both Mind and Matter, both Subjective Ideas and Objective Objects. :nerd:

*1. Theory : mental scheme ; speculation [possibly from "[i]theos/deus[/i]" (god) ]

Aristotle Objectivity :
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. . . .
Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. . . . .
Aristotle, by contrast, identifies the ordinary objects of sense experience as the most objective reality. He calls them “primary substance".
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
Note --- Ironically, Plato's ultimate reality (now known as "Ideal") seems to fit the modern notion of "objective reality". So, which is real, and which illusion?

Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Only the mathematical apparatus used to describe the behavior of matter is supposedly real, not matter itself. . . . .
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, — Gnomon
Sorry, I do not understand what you're saying here. — Jackson

If it was unclear, what I was implying was that your "First Principles" interpretation is one of many. So, I submitted some alternative versions of Aristotle's "purpose" for separating Physics from Metaphysics. The first volume was Scientific & Materialistic, looking at the environment. The second volume was Philosophical & Psychological, looking at the observer. Admittedly, that is not a traditional academic interpretation. But, it serves my 21st century information-theoretic purposes. And the links are intended to show that I am not alone in seeing the focus on the mind of the Observer, as Quantum Physics has forced scientists to do. :nerd:

PS__I'm not saying that Aristotle was a Quantum Scientist. Merely that his insight was prescient.

"I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, has been interpreted in various ways at various times."

Intentional Observer Effects on Quantum Randomness :
Observer effects are thus described as entanglement correlations between the intentional observer and the observed system
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00379/full

No. Aristotle's Metaphysics (a word he never uses) is about first principles of philosophy--not "Human Nature." — Jackson

Yes. I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, has been interpreted in various ways at various times. The Scholastics, for religious reasons, focused on the spiritual implications of his work. In fact, Ari himself referred to the theme of his book as "Theology", but from a (pre-christian, yet "virtuous", Pagan) perspective. Some modern academics have even portrayed Aristotle as an Atheistic Realist Scientist, and emphasized his differences from Mystical Idealistic Plato.

Nevertheless, having no academic training in Philosophy, I approached the book as a look at the rational Observers of Nature. And I tend to interpret the work in terms of my Information-theoretic worldview, which is not yet mainstream in academia. Hence, IMHO, it's an early treatise on Human Nature -- among other things -- and more like modern Psychology than Plato's more spiritual approach. But, he still referred to the human Soul, as the embodiment of Reason. His books cataloged the Categories that we still use millennia later in our Religion, Science, Cosmology, and Philosophy. :smile:

Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/

Topical Metaphysics :
Peirce divided metaphysics into (1) ontology or general metaphysics, (2) psychical or religious metaphysics, and (3) physical metaphysics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics

Metaphysics of Theology :
Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: Metaphysica) is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
Note -- Ari made it clear that he thought that contemporary Greek Religion was based on false premises, and fostered base motives for popularity, instead of promoting a rational search for worldly wisdom.

Philosophical Theology :
"For the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal. We hold, then, that God is a living being, eternal, most good; and therefore life and a continuous eternal existence belong to God; for that is what God is."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology

↪universeness
Well I for one was trying to unburden it of what I thought were questionable associations with Chinese philosophy, to return it to its Platonist-Aristotelian roots. — Wayfarer

When I engage in a discussion on "metaphysics" on this forum, I begin by trying to "unburden" that venerable term from it's Catholic Scholastic baggage. Aristotle didn't categorize the theme of the second volume of his book on Nature (phusis) as "super-natural". Instead, its topics were merely philosophical (general & universal, instead of specific & local) ideas & opinions about the natural world -- including its human spectators & commentators.

Ironically, the medieval Greek Renaissance spawned both Science and Scholasticism. And it was the biblical Scholastics, who inextricably linked the mundane Greek term "Meta-physics" with Christian concepts of an unseen parallel realm above the manifest natural world. Hence, for most western thinkers, "meta" doesn't mean simply "after" or "subsequent", but implies "above" and "superior". Which offends those who believe that scientific Reality is purely Material & Physical, hence uncontaminated with Mental or Spiritual impurities. Just the opposite of the Christian belief system, which views Matter as the pollution of spiritual souls.

Apparently, Eastern philosophies are not as well known by posters on TPF. In my experience, the most common negative associations of "metaphysics" is with European/Christian doctrine, not Buddhism or Taoism. Although the Body/Spirit or Brain/Mind distinction is also found in Eastern worldviews, that dueling Dualism seems to be most egregious in the West --- perhaps due to the Religion vs Science upheavals following the Enlightenment/Renaissance reformation, during which people were burned at the stake for doctrinal disputes. On the other hand, Eastern religions didn't place their emphasis on Belief, but on Behavior.

Anyway, I have tried with little success to return the descriptive term "meta-physics" to its original Aristotelian meaning. For him, Physics was the objective study of Physical Nature, and Meta-Physics was a subjective investigation of Human Nature. Not just what we know, but how we know (Epistemology). Not just what we are, but what "Being" is (Ontology). In other words, The Physics was observations of the Environment, and The Metaphysics was inwardly focused on the Observer. For example, there are no objective Laws in nature, because universal Principles are in the mind of the beholder.

Aristotle seemed to include Human Nature under the general topic of Nature. But modern pragmatic Science has come to dominate the study of our physical surroundings, even down to its barely physical substructure. So modern Philosophy got stuck holding the bag of meta-physical leftovers. Yet, Quantum Physics has begun to cross-over into the impractical unrealistic philosophical domain of spooky Non-classical-physics. And that neither-here-nor-there terrain is where toes get stepped-on and beliefs get tripped-up. :nerd:

ARISTOTLE'S NATURE INCLUDED BOTH SIDES OF PLATO'S IDEAL/REAL DICHOTOMY

Rather, the type of meditation where you aim for a detachment from bodily, emotional, and mental sensations. Where you passively watch your thoughts. Where you’re sitting on a mountain top watching the clouds of sensations drift slowly away. As sensations lessen, you experience yourself as noumena, as the thing-in-itself, as the real.
You’ve followed a way to reality. — Art48

I think I understand what you are getting at : there's more than one way of looking at "Reality" : to look outward or to look inward. For example, a human without physical senses (Helen Keller or meditator in Nirvana), might have no reason to develop a concept of Self/Other. It was only when the blind & deaf child (Keller) felt the insistent touch of something -- external to her own agency -- that she began to realize that some "other" was trying to communicate with her. But how did she imagine that non-self? To her, it was probably a non-visual image more like a ghost than a "real" person. However, eventually, she learned to interact with that outside agency as a well-defined, but still non-visual reality. So, which do you think was, to her, True Reality -- the touch-based image in her mind, or the unseen/unheard but flesh & blood source of communication?

For most of us, our mental images are visual & pictorial, and we treat that mental model as-if it is an accurate representation of external reality. However, that internal image itself is not Real, but Ideal. Consequently, it's all too easy for us to confuse the model with the original, the Ideal with the Real. Which may be why Plato presented his theory of Forms, to distinguish the wholly-other noumenal ultimate uber-reality from the self-created imaginary replica that Kant & Descartes later asserted is all-we-ever-know about the external Reality that many of us believe to be the True Reality.

Helen Keller's sense-deprived Reality, gave her a self-image as a ghost (Phantom) in an un-real world. Which may indicate that we build both our self-image (soul) and our world-model primarily from sensory impressions. However, those mental constructs are not Real & Concrete, but Ideal & Abstract. Yet, in our communications with other sighted people, we act as-if the model is the ding-an-sich. So, it seems that the Cartesian observer decides which model is Real (sensory), and which is Illusory (imaginary ; representation ; abstract Form ; Ideal ). Which is a real shadow, and which a self-defined imaginary shadow? :cool:

Helen Keller's self-image :
There was no way for Helen to witness or fully comprehend what was going on about her, and she felt like “a Phantom living in a world that was no-world”
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/spring02j/page2.htm

Late Lament :
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?
https://lyricsjonk.com/moody-blues-the-late-lament.html

Wolfram (creator of Mathematica) attempted to convince the scientific community that cellular automata were at the heart of virtually everything physical. He failed. — jgill

I don't know if Fredkin & Wolfram took their proposals of a Computer Universe literally, but the obvious determinism of the Cellular Automata notion may have suggested that the dynamic life-like-behavior & evolution-by-rule-based-selection of matrix-array computer algorithms could serve as a theoretical model for how the universe could work as an inter-active mathematical structure. Other mathematical geniuses have proposed the similar idea of a Mathematical Universe (relational reality) that processes its own internal Information in a logical manner. Even Pythagoras seemed to have a similar worldview 2500 years ago. So, perhaps there is some substance to the idea that mathematical (geometric) logic is at work on the (quantum??) foundation of reality, to produce the classical physical objects that we encounter on the human-macro-scale of reality.*1

Unfortunately for those visionary math geniuses, most scientists are pragmatists, and "radical Platonism" does not compute in their worldview. Moreover, any Theory of Everything is difficult to prove via the typical reductive methods of empirical science. Nevertheless, the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" in describing & predicting physical objects and processes is suggestive that logical structure may be at the root of Reality. So, I wouldn't worry that such an abstract Platonic worldview has failed to get traction in a concrete non-Platonic profession. :smile:

Cellular automata :
Their characteristic patterns appear faster than in other computing models and are shown visually in a compact manner as a result of their synchronous nature making them suitable to be studied both quantitatively and qualitatively, and also to be compared to physical and natural phenomena.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cellular_automata

The mathematical universe hypothesis :
I was quite fascinated by all these mathematical clues back in grad school. One Berkeley evening in 1990, while my friend Bill Poirier and I were sitting around speculating about the ultimate nature of reality, I suddenly had an idea for what it all meant: that our reality isn't just described by mathematics – it is mathematics, in a very specific sense. Not just aspects of it, but all of it, including you.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/

*1 The Schrodinger equation describes the geometry of the oceanic phase/form of quantum "particles".
A geometric interpretation of Schrödinger’s wave equation
https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0202v1.pdf

↪Agent Smith
↪Gnomon
I fail to see a non-trivial (woo-free) difference between "Enformationism" and the synopsis of "digitalism" featured in this 2002 Wired magazine article: — 180 Proof

That's OK. The one-eyed man fails to see in perspective, but gets by with a 2D image of the world. On this forum, we don't discriminate against the handicapped.

Digital Physics is a non-trivial hypothesis for those, like Fredkin, who view the world in terms of abstract mathematical forms. But most of us non-geniuses need a little more flesh on the bones, in order to see the beauty of the world.

If natural beauty is woo, I say "woo woo" to you too Boo Boo. But do you really want to continue that childish tongue-sticking & ear wagging on a mature-rated philosophical forum? :joke:

Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer that computes the evolution of the universe. The computer could be, for example, a huge cellular automaton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

What does woo woo mean? :
Noun. woo woo (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.

DO YOU SEE THE NON-TRIVIAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN FLESH & BONES ??


WOO WOO !!!


JUVENILE PHILOSOPHY (woo free)

Just curious,
1. How do you connect information to BothAnd?
2. What's the significance of Quantum mysticism in re EnFormaction? — Agent Smith

1. The path to that connection is a long story. And it's best understood by following the logic of the original thesis, as described in the Enformationism website. Basically, the concept for that thesis began from the sudden insight that Quantum & Information theories are "connected" at the root. I trace it back to reading an article about measuring Quantum particles, in which the physicist exclaimed "it's all [only] information". [my bracket] By that he meant, I assume, that we never know the particle as a ding an sich, but only extracted (abstract) information about the particle that is embedded & entangled in a larger system. "Aboutness" is an Information-theoretic concept.

2. The connection between Enformationism and Mysticism is the concept of Holism, as discussed in the Quantum Measurement thread (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705340). Most Spiritual traditions include some notion that we are all "entangled" in a Greater Whole. Some call it "God", but I prefer to use the less baggage-laden, and more philosophical concept of LOGOS. From a holistic-mystical perspective, you can imagine EnFormAction as the Will-of-God (Holy Spirit) flowing through the world, and causing meta-physical change. Or, from a reductive-scientific angle, you can imagine EFA as Energy flowing through the material world, and causing physical changes. Take your pick -- or just accept it as BothAnd. :cool:

Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

It seems the association between QM and mysticism was merely an accident - QM heavyweights like Heisenberg, etc. were drawn to Hindu mysticism and people jumped to conclusions ( :roll: ). This QM-Mysticism link was reinforced by "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections". — Agent Smith

The primary difference between Classical and Quantum physics is that on the sub-sensory level (e.g sub-atomic) your physical senses can't detect objects smaller than the wavelength of the the visible spectrum. An optical microscope is useless for viewing atomic-scale objects -- it's all just an undifferentiated blur; like the surface of the ocean concealing the myriad lifeforms in the deep. Consequently, scientists were forced to view their minuscule subjects Holistically (entangled in a group) instead of in the Classical Reductive manner (chop the system into its constituent parts). Coincidentally, Eastern philosophy -- which was just-then entering the consciousness of the colonizing West -- had, long before modern technology, already developed techniques of dealing with whole systems, in which the parts are unknown, hence mysterious.

So, the pioneers of Quantum physics merely borrowed some of the Hindu & Buddhist metaphors to describe the quirky quantum behaviors of entangled particles. To paraphrase the spoon-bender in The Matrix, a particle can pass through a barrier, because "there is no wall". The "wall" and the "particle" are One. When the Buddha said there is "no self" he probably meant that your personal "self" is an integral part of a larger system (the world soul). Again, coincidentally, those spiritual Eastern concepts were found to be useful for dealing with physical Quantum concepts. There was "no genuine connection" though, because you didn't have to become a practicing Buddhist or Transcendental Meditator to appreciate the value of a holistic perspective.

However, those same concepts were adopted by New Agers, who were looking for a "genuine connection" (spiritual instead of physical). They were tired of the fragmentation of Western societies, and the reduction of Capitalism to "cash is king" as a tool for exploitation. Unfortunately, my own application of Holism in the Enformationism worldview is often dismissed, by loyal believers in reductive Scientism, as New Age woo-woo. However, rather than rejecting Western Science or adopting Eastern Religions, I merely try to have the best of both worlds : Hence, the BothAnd philosophy. There's nothing inherently mystical in Holism, unless you want to worship the Mystery of Oneness. For me, Holism & Reductionism are merely two sides of the single coin of philosophical Wisdom. :nerd:

It is not that QM is not mysticism that interests me; it is that they seem to be so easily conflated with each other that I find so intriguing! — Agent Smith

Many of the pioneers of Quantum Theory -- (cat-killer) Schrodinger ; (buddha) Heisenberg ; Pauli ; Bohr ; Bohm ; Wigner ; Capra ; Seife ; etc. -- were slandered as "mystics", in part due to the mental metaphors (observation, choice, etc.) they used to explain & understand the "spooky" quantum paradoxes compared to "realistic" Classical science. Ironically, realist Einstein was proven wrong, and Quantum Queerness came to be taken for granted, as the weird way of the underworld. Perhaps, "lucid mysticism" is the "conflation" you had in mind. :smile:

Quantum Mysticism :
Does mysticism have a place in quantum mechanics today, or is the idea that the mind plays a role in creating reality best left to philosophical meditations? Harvard historian Juan Miguel Marin argues the former - not because physicists today should account for consciousness in their research, but because knowing the early history of the philosophical ideas in quantum mechanics is essential for understanding the theory on a fundamental level. . . . .
Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion.
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

Quantum Quacks :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Potential vs Actual :
In his earlier work, Stapp (1993) started with Heisenberg’s distinction between the potential and the actual (Heisenberg 1958), thereby taking a decisive step beyond the operational Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. While Heisenberg’s notion of the actual is related to a measured event in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation, his notion of the potential, of a tendency, relates to the situation before measurement, which expresses the idea of a reality independent of measurement.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

I'm trying to unpack this statement. Could this be related to the Wikipedia entry where it says that "a photon in flight is interpreted as...something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither." So upon flight the photon has a potential state but upon 'decoding' we deduce a history to say that it held an actual state (of a particle or a wave)? If so, the deduction of history follows the measurement, which is what I'm positing.

I don't think my current understanding assumes retrocausality since I'm not claiming that any information is being sent back in time. — keystone

I find that the terms "potential" and "actual" make more sense to me, as a layman, than "superposition" and "collapse". From that perspective, an unmeasured (undefined) Photon does not exist as a particle, but only a propagating "wave" of Possibility in an oceanic (holistic ; entangled) system of Potential Energy. When traveling at light-speed, It has no mass (matter) because it's not yet "manifest" as an individual "thing". Only when something slows down the quantum wave, by interference from the classical (macro) environment, does the wave begin to show specific properties, such as heat & mass.

The "interference" is like a pier post in the water (or a slit in a barrier) , it disturbs the incoming general (holistic) waveform, forcing it to take-on a specific (particular) form (i.e. disentanglement). In Beyond Weird, by Phillip Ball, he says, "we destroy the quantumness [entangled potential state] in proportion to the amount of information [energy] we import from the system [undefined state] into the environment [actual matter]". [my brackets]. When a massless photon smacks into a hunk of enformed matter, it transforms potential Energy into actual Force, causing changes in its structure.

Ball goes on to say that "the more information the environment 'absorbs' about a dust grain in superposition of position states, the more the grain becomes localized". Hence, Potential is non-local, and Actual is localized. In visual terms, the "grain" becomes less entangled in the oceanic system, and stands-out from the background as an individual object. However, we "deduce" that the particle was there all along, even before it became visible. You could say that it was there "in principle" (ideally ; theoretically) but not actually, until an observation reveals its location. This is the counter-intuitive Observer Effect, that Einstein questioned, by asking if the moon is still there even when no-one is looking at it.

You know the moon, or particle is there now, during the observation, but where was it in the past, unobserved? And what is the temporal relation between Actual "Now" and Potential "Then" ( a future state)? From a classical viewpoint, it's an apparent paradox. But in terms of abstract principles (potential & actual) it makes sense. That may be why Einstein proposed the counter-intuitive notion of Block-Time, in which all temporal states exist simultaneously in a static timeless eternity. Hence, "retro-causality" is not Actual, but merely Ideal (a mental image).

So, it's all relative. From one point-of-view, "history follows the measurement", as meaning follows a query. But from another angle, the pre-measured object was there all the time; you just didn't know it. The Greek root (metr- to measure) meant to extract information into a mind (L. mensura- to measure, from mens- mind or intention). In Quantum Theory, to extract information is equivalent to removing some matter/energy stuff from the thing observed (to abstract). But like pressing a rock into clay, the concave impression is not the thing, but it contains information about the thing. Ball calls that extracted information an "imprint" or a "replica". But that abstract knowledge is not the ding an sich. :nerd:

PS__My conclusion is that "reality" is both Potential and Actual. But we only know the actual stuff by means of our physical senses. The Potential stuff is only known by Reasoning backward from Actual Effects to Potential Causes. The relationship is similar to Plato's Ideal (mental) Form and Real (physical) things.

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. ___Wikipedia

PPS__The Observer's Choice "frames" reality as a personal interpretation of what's out there.
Einstein once said: “Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one ”. So, what we think of as reality is, in fact, just a local-personal-relative interpretation of it. In society, and in science, we share our particular frames in order to create a general conventional view of the world.

I was led to believe that kings/emperorors/shahs/khans/pharoahs/sultans based their campaigns on auguries carried out by priests, hoping for good/bad omens to give them some idea on the probability of success in their ventures. What was the success rate of such ventures? — Agent Smith

Probably, no one was keeping written records of their prophecies. Yet, people tend to remember the "hits" and forget the "misses" (confirmation bias). Selective memory, and poor probability calculations, allowed the seers to survive false prophecies . . . unless the king was especially p*ssed, and ordered "off with his head".

Many kings, with uneasy crowns, seemed to hope or believe that they were not subject to Destiny, or could curry favor with the gods to intervene on their behalf. But, just to be sure, they hired professional prognosticators to sneak a peek at the future. Those pros learned three useful tricks : 1. act confident, 2. be vague about details, and vivid about feelings, and 3. let the seeker interpret the meaning to suit his own hopes & wishes. Fortunately for the seers, Hope & Faith tend to view the murky future through rose-colored glasses. Thus enhancing the apparent success rate. :cool:

Predicting the Future :
The “accuracy” claimed for such visions of the future is 90%–100%. During late December or early January many newspapers print “predictions of top psychics” for the coming year. Again, high accuracy is claimed for such predictions. It is suggested the reader try the simple experiment of saving such a newspaper and reading it a year later. Such tests have been done many times, and the result is always that, at best, only 5%–10% of the predictions bear any resemblance to actual events; the ratio of successful to unsuccessful predictions is generally far below even the chance level
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/index.files/prophecy.shtml

Why is there a universe? — Gnomon
This ↑ is the million dollar question!
HOW (science) is an anagram of WHO (religion). — Agent Smith

Actually, there is not much money to be made in asking "why" questions. That's a philosophical query, and Philosophy is traditionally a low-income profession. If you want to make money, figure-out "how" a system works, and patent the process. On the other hand, some have figured-out "how" to convince others that they know "why" the world exists. But their money-making answer is typically not a simple mechanical (scientific) or logical (philosophical) concept, but an emotional (religious) myth, which has ME in a key role. By revealing the mysterious "who" of creation, they make their answer personal and meaningful. "Why" is a child-like question, and is often answered with "because . . .", or with assurances that the ultimate solution to the mystery will be revealed only to the Faithful.

Unfortunately, the Enformationism answer to the "why" question is logical, but impersonal. It's not final, but suggestive, and plausible. Like physicist/cosmologist Paul Davies' "who", of God and the New Physics, my Enformer is a postulated abstraction -- similar to Plato's LOGOS -- with no specifically human qualities, such as an emotional attachment to particular persons, populations, or polity. So, it only pushes the "why" question one step farther than the Big Bang, to propose a certain kind of First Cause that lit the fuse of that primordial event. From the Information perspective, there does seem to be Intention behind Evolution. But the Final Cause (the goal, the purpose, the "why") is not apparent to observers in the midst of evolving toward some future Omega Point.

The only revelation of the Enformer is the logical structure of the World itself. From which we gather clues, by empirical examination, or by philosophical Induction into theory. And the "new physics", that Davies refers to, is the Quantum infrastructure that undermined our old classical views of reality. "They learned to approach their subject in totally unexpected and novel ways that seemed to turn commonsense on its head and find closer accord with mysticism than materialism." Enformationism is one of those novel ways of looking at the world, and begins at the Information foundation, to construct a model that accords Mysticism with Materialism. :nerd:


"I want to know how God created this world." ___Albert Einstein

Aristotle's Four Causes :
End or Purpose: a final cause is that for the sake of which [purpose] a thing is changing.
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_Aristotelian_Causes.html

Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it

God & The New Physics :
"There are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a natural Deity."
Note -- his "deity" is natural in the sense of being embodied in the world as the informational structure of reality.
" . . . a fascinating look at the impact of science on what were formerly religious issues."
Back Cover

If everything, as per pantheism, is god then what's the difference between thing and god? They're synonymous as far as I can tell which ain't much. Is god then simply a placeholder, like the variable x in math, for the unnamed...soldier [The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao] or a generic term that applies to, well, all in the universe and perhaps beyond, even those that have been named?

Plus, what motivates such a standpoint? Why retain the word "god" and do away with everything else that previously defined him/her? Isn't that like taking a bag of toys and emptying it, then filling it with guns? The word "god" then is merely being used for effect. Bad Spinoza! Bad! — Agent Smith

I won't comment on Pantheism. But in PanEnDeism, the difference between God & Thing is the distinction between Whole & Part, between Creator & Creature. It's the difference that makes all the difference in meaning.

"God", "Brahma", "Tao" are indeed placeholders --- labels (X the unknown) for an enigmatic Cause with obvious Effects. Even pragmatic scientists, especially in Quantum Physics, commonly give metaphorical labels to unidentified causes of effects observed in their experiments. For example, the counter-intuitive wave-like behavior of quantum particles was defined mathematically, and was labeled as a "waveform". But, the implicit fluid field in which the energy was waving was unknown & undefined. Some researchers desperately resurrected the old discredited notion of "Aether". Yet, there is no physical evidence to support the hypothesis of an invisible intangible fluid in empty space. So, the term is, like "Dark Matter", a placeholder for an unknown cause of known effects.

Likewise, some modern philosophers, and cosmologists, have resurrected the ancient term "God" to serve as a proxy for the logically necessary First Cause of our universe, that was once belittled as a "Big Bang" in empty space. Even the term "singularity" merely served as a stand-in for knowledge, since it literally means "the undefined line between space-time and infinity-eternity". The word sounds like it's pointing to something unique, but that something is on the other side of the space-time boundary, where our senses cannot go.

So, what's wrong with using a well-known word for something imaginable, but un-knowable? One thing that's wrong with it, is the harsh prejudice associated with it. Which is why most of us try to avoid trigger-words like "n*gger", although we all know that it literally refers to a dark color, but metaphorically implies a host of aspersions. Consequently, when I use the "G" word in a philosophical sense, I spell it G*D, to mitigate its baggage : the derogatory political preconceptions of the unknowable referent.

Spinoza used the word "God", but equated it with "Nature". Apparently, he did so in view of its emotional effect on his Jewish & Christian readers. Of course, they were enraged. But philosophical PanEnDeists wouldn't have a problem with that equation, because they interpret its meaning in a different context from the "holy scriptures". :smile:

Aether :
In physics, aether theories propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field as a transmission medium . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Note -- what physicists call the "Quantum Field" is the mysterious Aether by another name.

Tao Te Ching :
The Tao that can be known is not [the eternal] Tao.
The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
Tao is all that exists and may exist;
The World is only a map of what exists and may exist
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/china_civ_temp/week03/pdfs/select4.pdf

God and the New Physics :
Science is now on the verge of answering our most profound questions about the nature of existence. Here Paul Davies explains how the far-reaching discoveries of recent physics are revolutionizing our world and, in particular, throwing light on many of the questions formerly posed by religion, such as:
Why is there a universe?
Where did we come from?
What is life?
How is the world organized?
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/134/13406/god-and-the-new-physics/9780140134629.html

Besides "woo-of-the-gaps", Pandeus also works for me. — 180 Proof

Poo-Poo of Woo-Woo, also works for you, as a Pan-put-down. One answer for all philosophical conjectures beyond the self-imposed limits of Materialism. The job of philosophy, though, is to fill the gaps in our understanding, with reasoning, where observation is impossible. :joke: