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:

I am for my part happy to live in a time in human history when science has come to the point of a theory that everything in the observable universe is really connected, basically consisting of the same energy. . . .
This is a great consolation. I could of course be discontent that we do not know more about the ultimate nature of this reality (energy), . . .
To keep on calling it God has become now a mere matter of taste, but I think we are safe if we state that God is neither an interventionist, nor bene-/malevolent, being when it comes to us as the human species. . . .
The physical phenomenon called energy that has generated us and that we consist of is indifferent to us as living beings, as indifferent as it was to the dinosaurs and is to Pluto. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Sounds like we may be kindred spirits. After high school I evolved away from my theistic upbringing, but I found no plausible reason-for-being in Materialistic science. So, I went through phases : Agnosticism, Deism, PanDeism, and finally PanEnDeism. In the latter, everything is indeed connected, even entangled, as vital parts of a single Whole System, the physical universe, which may be a part of a greater Whole, that some cultures refer to as Brahma or God or Tao.

My philosophical "First Cause" is similar to many nature-god-models (e.g. Gaia ; Deism ; PanDeism), except that its primary role was to create the natural system that we are integral parts of. Hence, our world is not separate from the creator, but is in-&-of G*D (PanEnDeism). I spell it with an asterisk to indicate that this is not an intervening Theistic deity -- like a mechanic repairing things that go wrong. If there is Good & Bad in the creation, it's because the designer had the Potential for both, and because an evolving world could not begin in a perfect state, like the Garden of Eden. Instead, our universe seems to be evolving, in complexity & intelligence, toward some ultimate state. Since I don't know anything about that final goal, I simply label it the "Omega Point". What we experience as Good vs Bad, is simply a zig-zagging heuristic search pattern, equivalent to Hegelian Dialectic.

As you suggested, this creative & destructive Causal Force is what we know in Physics as Energy/Entropy. But the current understanding is that Energy & Matter (mass) are interchangeable. And many pioneering physicists have concluded that even Energy is essentially a form of shape-shifting Information. Which boils down to a mathematical ratio between Something (1) and Nothing (0), or Hot (positive) and Cold (negative). The implication of that equvalence is, as some physicists have concluded : that Reality is essentially Mathematical & Logical, hence Mental. Therefore, Matter emerges from Energy, and Energy emerges from what I call EnFormAction : the creative Potential to become Actual (the power to enform). So, the "ultimate nature" of reality is as an Actual instance of a greater Ideality.

My non-religious philosophical worldview is labeled Enformationism (based on Quantum & Information theory, not on revelation). And the logically necessary First Cause has not revealed its name. So, you can call it whatever you like : "G*D", "Nature"; "Deus" ; The Great Mathematician ; or apropos of the Information theme : the Eternal Programmer. I won't expound on this slightly off-topic theme any more in this post. However, if you have questions, I have answers -- but no credentials and no authority. :nerd:

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AIPA....9i5206V/abstract

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Perhaps, what is needed is more thorough metaphysics than in the past, or system builders with more synthetic understanding, in putting the many broken fragments of the past pictures together in a new way. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what I have tried to do with my Enformationism worldview. It's based on the sciences of Quantum physics and Information theory, but it requires a Metaphysical approach to make sense of this new way of viewing the "uncanny valley" (e.g. spooky action a distance) of quantum-scale reality.

I doubt that Physicalists & Materialists are actually opposed to philosophical Metaphysics. Apparently, they don't see any practical difference between bible-based Catholic Scholastic Metaphysics and reason-based philosophical Ontology & Epistemology. Both ways of viewing the world attempt to observe reality from the outside --- a god-like perspective, which is unscientific. And they propose the existence of Universals & Generals & Ideals that exist only in a mental sense, and are not verifiable by empirical methods. So, if such ideas make sense to you, they must be taken for granted, not proven, except for logical consistency. :nerd:

PS__I attempt to repair the "broken fragments" of reductive science with the holistic glue of philosophy. Thesis (Metaphysical worldview) plus Anti-Thesis (Physical worldview) = Synthesis (Holistic worldview).

Uncanny Valley :
The horror in this movie comes from the suspense and the lack of information the audience has
https://nfhsraiderwire.com/showcase/2021/03/19/why-the-uncanny-valley-is-the-scariest-form-of-horror/

Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

Since the "Enlightenment" era (Age of Reason, circa 1700) --- rejection of revered speculations by ancient religious & philosophical authorities, along with the emergence of pragmatic materialist Science as a dominant factor in modern civilization --- Metaphysics has been in danger of going the way of the Dodo : ex-stinky. But, as long as some humans still have provocative curiosity & un-fettered imagination & practice the "art" of Reason, contemplation of the Big Picture (e.g. Ontology -- Epistemology) will have a place in the "art" of Philosophy.

Plato was mostly concerned with metaphysical questions, but Aristotle had his own "enlightenment" phase, which rejected speculation beyond what is "Real" & Practical. In his encyclopedic book on contemporary knowledge of Nature (The Physics, circa 350BC), the first volume was concerned mainly with the material world of the five senses. Yet, in his second volume --- perhaps intended as a philosophical commentary on the technical details in volume one --- he dealt with many of the same broad general conjectures as Plato.

For example, in his theory of hylomorphism, he posited that real natural things were not simply the superficial stuff you see & touch (Matter), but included an invisible essence (Form or logical structure) that organized raw material into specific things with inherent traits. However, he denied the existence of general intangible disembodied ethereal eternal subjective ideal Platonic Forms, and insisted that only embodied (lower case) forms, in specific palpable corporal material space-time real objective Things, are meaningful and practical, hence subject to human manipulation.

Ironically, very little of his The Physics remains viable relative to modern Science, while the volume that later became known as The Metaphysics, is still fiercely debated by both philosophers and scientists. The terms of such debates typically hinge on Natural vs SuperNatural status, and Idealistic vs Pragmatic interpretations. So, it appears that speculations on more-than-meets-the-eye remain popular in certain circles, and unpopular in others. For example, New Age philosophies hold Metaphysics in high esteem. But Post-Renaissance philosophies, such as Physicalism & Logical Positivism despise such irrational lapses, and label them as "Romanticism", at best.

Consequently, many of the visceral disputes on this philosophical forum, quickly devolve into trench warfare, with each side taking shots at the enemy across a non-mans-land divide. A few of us though, try to make peace (Synthesis) by straddling the no-go zone (Meta-Physics), and get shot at from both Thesis and Anti-Thesis antipodes. The Dodo is dead, long live Meta-Physics! :wink:


Romanticism : 1.(noun) impractical romantic ideals and attitudes

Meta-Physics :
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance, if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

Apropos of nothing : an old country music song by a family group of mostly girls -- one about 12 years old -- sang "heaven's just a sin away, wo wo". Obviously, the potential sinner is aware of the consequences of breaking God's thou-shalt-not rules. But she's tempted to commit adultery anyway : "I think I'm givin' in". Presumably, the one contemplating the moral math is a Southern Baptist.

Apparently, moral ambivalence is common, even among those who believe in a vengeful deity. Is that a sign of doubt (agnosticism) in the actual existence of the jealous God, or of hormone-addled lust overcomes-faith with hope-against-hope that she can get away with it, just this one time?

If sane people really literally believed the horror stories about eternal damnation in burning Hell, they would avoid provoking the damning deity at all cost. How could the anticipation of a momentary, here & now, Heaven-on-Earth (shot of dopamine) outweigh the scriptural "certainty" of a permanent Perdition in the not-yet-future? Whoever came up with such a stark (unremitting pain vs eternal pleasure) contrast, in the consequences of Sin versus Piety, was a moralizing genius . . . or an amoral demon. :naughty:

I appear to be a genuine agnostic - i.e. I am genuinely unsure as to the existence, or not, of God, or supernatural realms and life after death etc. in general. I've never seen an argument on either the atheist side or the theist side which I have found wholly convincing. This leads me to contemplate whether, given my lack of religious faith or observance, if I will be condemned to hell when I die. — RolandTyme

I call myself an Agnostic in the literal sense (ignorance of the facts), not in the "weak Atheist" sense (presumptive knowledge of absence). Based on my well-researched personal worldview, I am fairly sure that our world must have had a First Cause --- intelligent enough to create a self-developing universe from scratch, and to evolve creatures that are able to ask philosophical questions about Ontology (being) and Epistemology (knowing). Since we humans are creatures of space-time, we have no certain way of knowing what caused the Big Bang. So, as philosophers & scientists, we can only speculate using our "god-given" or "accidental" Reason.

Even most Atheists, now admit that something must have existed prior to the emergence of space-time from the Point of Origin (Multiverse : Many Worlds ; Inflaton Field, see below ). Most recycling-vs-creation scenarios assume it was simply more of the same material stuff we experience in the here & now. But, even faithful atheists will acknowledge that causal Energy & limiting Laws, are more essential than mere matter for moving & directing our evolving world. And some sober physicists have concluded that Energy is actually a causal form of General Information. So, my worldview is based on the inference that Information (mind stuff) is more fundamental than (malleable stuff). I won't go into the background of that concept here, as it has been cussed & discussed repeatedly on this forum.

If you accept that Information is the fundamental essence of our Reality, then some kind of Enformer is logically necessary to convert Potential Form into Actual forms. And if that makes sense to you, then you are halfway to belief in a God of some kind. But, which of the thousands of god-models would best qualify as the First Cause of our world. Since most ancient religious deities are described in humanoid forms or with human motives, and are obviously modeled on human political leaders, I find them to be poor candidates for the Cause of a physical emergence from almost nothing into everything knowable. Instead, I find a creative Principle, like Plato's LOGOS to be more fitting as the ultimate Enformer.

Although it's scientifically plausible, in view of 21st century Quantum & Information theories, such a rational "Philosopher's God" is not likely to inspire religious Faith. So, as philosophical thinkers, we must act upon incomplete evidence, and keep an open-mind about topics beyond our ken. As luck would have it, the ancient Agnostic attitude allows us to have a functional belief system, without committing to blind faith in the unknowable. Besides, spooky tales about a miserable or blissful afterlife, are nothing more substantial than ghost-stories & moralizing myths. Therefore, as you are philosophically inclined, you are free act as-if you believe whichever un-verifiable god-option makes sense to you. And you can worry about any uncertain imaginary afterlife you find believable, in view of your chosen god. :cool:

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." ___Wikipedia

Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined..
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BLOONARIUS THE INFLATOR OF WORLDS

Seems that my post didn't draw any attention :chin: Any response that helps to answer my questions will be more than appreciated. — Geerts

Perhaps the lack of response is due to lack of expertise (or talent) in Statistics & Probability. Objective science is based on factual observations. But statistical Probability is a subjective belief (inference ; prediction) about unobserved or not-yet real events & things (possibilities) --- based on the inexact (proportional) mathematics of implicit order within randomness. That's why Bayesian Inference uses the term "belief", rather than "fact", to describe our projections into the future --- which will only later be "proved" to be true & factual, or not.

I, probably (an unproven guess) like most on this forum, have no formal training in the "art" of probability. So, I won't even attempt to answer your technical questions, that are way over my head. :smile:

People Are Really Bad At Probability :
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061263/people-are-really-bad-at-probability-and-this-study-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-trick-us

I think all participants here know about the statement of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Shouldn't we, rather, speak of it's reasonable effectiveness? I can't see nothing unreasonable about it and can't even imagine how else it could be. — Landoma1

I'm guessing that Wigner's use of "unreasonable" was ironic or tongue-in-cheek. In view of the randomness & uncertainty of its Quantum foundation, it is perhaps surprising that on the Macro level of reality, its structure & processes are predictable & consistent. In other words, there is an underlying logic to the order of reality. And mathematics is simply an abstract form of Logic.

Moreover, Logic is essential to the extraction of meaningful information by humans (Reason). Some might say that Human Logic & Natural Logic both result from the Natural Laws that caused the Big Bang to self-organize into the smoothly functioning mechanism we see today. That orderly structure of interrelationships is what allows human mathematics (logical inference) to be both Reasonable and Effective. But why should a random & accidental "explosion" (expansion) of something from almost nothing turn out to be lawful (orderly & organized)? Perhaps Wigner saw signs of design in the world, but chose to comment on it equivocally, for professional reasons. :cool:

3. The LNC needs to be scrapped + a version of paraconsistent logic needs to be adopted — Agent Smith

Not so fast. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a good rule of thumb for most contexts. But there is one common circumstance where LNC does not apply : Holism. The reductive methods of science are appropriate for things-in-isolation. But when a thing participates in a larger System, it shares qualities of the system, which compromises some of its own properties. To a reductionist observer such holistic behavior may seem inconsistent and paradoxical.

For example : what Einstein called spooky-action-at-a-distance, Schrodinger called "entanglement". Which implies that some quantum particles in a holistic (waveform) system share some properties with other particles. Apparently, in their waveform state, electrons are connected to all other electrons in the universe, in such a way that a measurement of one instantly affects (e.g. flips the spin of) all similar particles. From that perspective, it's not a contradiction, but a feature of Holism : an emergent property. :smile:


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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

"The opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth"
___Neils Bohr, baffled by apparent violations of LNC

"We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space." ___John A. Wheeler

SHARING IS PARTICIPATING (parts unite with the whole)

Not until six pages in does Nagel even define what "like" means. Footnote 6, "Therefore the analogical form of the English expression "what it is like" is misleading. It does not mean "what (in our experience) it resembles," but rather "how it is for the subject himself."
This always troubled me. It seems his whole idea of "like" is vague or inchoherent. — Jackson

Standing alone, the phrase "what is it like" is indeed vague, in that it can apply to many different contexts. I just Googled "what is it like" and got pages of examples in return. Example : "what is it like to be in a coma?". The implication in most cases is a desire to understand how it "feels" to exist in a different place or body or condition. Or to read another person's mind.

Although the common phrase is not precisely defined, that omission never bothered me. Because the following discussion provided a specific context. So, I intuitively understood what he was implying. However, to make it a bit clearer, I might supply the implicit subjective reference : "what does it feel like to inhabit (exist in) the body of a bat". Or "if I could exchange bodies & brains with a sonar sensing creature, how would my personal existence be different?" The ontological question is focused on our way of knowing & interpreting the world through the lens of our species-defined physiological senses.

The 2003 movie Daredevil, featured a blind hero, who could "see" with his ears. The film attempted to help us see what he saw, to feel what he felt, by converting the sound of raindrops splashing on Elektra's face into a conceptual image --- by analogy with photons reflecting off the face. It was a plausible, yet fictional, way to know "what is it like" to be a blind super-hero. However, Nagel's question was more general & philosophical, epistemological & ontological. It probed the limits of our ability to know anything beyond the boundaries of our personal body & brain. :cool:

What Is It Like to Be a Bat? :
The paper presents several difficulties posed by consciousness, including the possible insolubility of the mind-body problem owing to "facts beyond the reach of human concepts", the limits of objectivity and reductionism, the "phenomenological features" of subjective experience, the limits of human imagination, and what it means to be a particular, conscious thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F


RAINDROPS FALLING ON HER FACE

My understanding of paraconsistent logic, from Graham Priest, is that things can contradict each other and still be true — Jackson

Yes. That is the implication of my personal BothAnd Philosophy. Some apparent "paradoxes" result from viewing only one side of the same coin. :smile:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

If I'm not mistaken, there is work in combining formal paraconsistent logic with formal fuzzy logic. But fuzzy logic itself is not a formalization of paraconsistent logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Perhaps, I should have prefaced that personal opinion with "it seems to me, that . . .". Before Agent mentioned it, I had never heard of "paraconsistent logic". But a quick Wiki review sounded like a description of Fuzzy Logic, which I was already familiar with. For my general purposes, I prefer the more colloquial and less technical-sounding term. From my layman's perspective, both terms seem to reflect the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Theory, as applied to other fields of investigation. :smile:

1. Classical logic has to use Occam's broom (sweep paradoxes under the rug) otherwise, via ex falso quodlibet, concede that classical logic is trivial.

2. We're using some version of paraconsistent logic and we're not aware of it. — Agent Smith

Classical binary Logic is best used for problems that can be precisely defined with integer numerical values. But human contradictions are seldom concisely defined; instead loosely sketched with inexplicit subjective truth-values.

A formalized version of "paraconsistent logic" (logic of paradox) is the Fuzzy Logic that is used in computer science for complex puzzles that are hard to define numerically, such as human beliefs & intuitions. It is especially useful in Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary Programming.

We're not aware of our sloppy logic because it is intuitive, so we don't normally examine it with classical rules in mind. That's why divisive emotional issues, such as Abortion & Racism tend to polarize people. And can only be resolved, to some degree, with critical (rational) thinking : to discover the inconsistencies in our beliefs. :cool:


Paraconsistent Logic :
A paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic which reject the principle of explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

Most if not all thinkers are under the impression that they're using classical logic - they don't take too kindly to contradictions. — Agent Smith

Actually, most thinkers have an ego-boosting impression of their own reasoning abilities. We find it easier to see the contradictions in other people's ideas than in our own thoughts. Intuition always seems true, even when it aint.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
— William James.

1. I haven't the foggiest why classical logic with its principle of bivalence (PB: true/false, nothing else) and the law of noncontradiction [LNC: [~(p & ~pl)] became the standard in Greek and then in Western philosophy. — Agent Smith

Sure you do. You said it yourself : the gray middle range of anything & any topic is "foggy", hence unclear. So, ancient philosophers, and enlightenment scientists, developed a binary standard for judgements of Truth and Facts. By setting the standard at the extremes, rather than in the murky middle, they achieved Clarity. But in practice, we tend to judge on the basis of tendencies & inclinations. Even if Hitler was good to dogs & children, we can say that his attitude toward Humanity leaned in the direction of Evil. Fortunately, most of us tend to fall into the mid-range of Ethics, so we are a bit Bad and a bit Good. Hence, BothAnd.

Therefore, the Law or Principle of Non-Contraction is a guide to parsing the nebulous complexities of reality. If we detect a significant inclination toward one extreme (True) or the other (False), usually we can safely treat the issue as either True or False, Good or Bad. But, since our judgement of such things is usually biased by experience, we need to be careful not to push the observed propensity toward a prejudged extreme. For example, American politics, on the Federal level, has always been polarized into Left vs Right, or Liberal vs Conservative. But for philosophical purposes, I would label myself as BothAnd : somewhat Liberal and somewhat Conservative. That's not a logical Contradiction, but a pragmatic concession to non-ideal Reality, which varies between those extremes, but generally follows a wavering path down the middle : BothAnd. :smile:

I guess that ultimately boils down to Yes & No (BothAnd, affirming both extremes because negation in classical logic flips the sign of propositions) but do notice here that the madhyamaka is more about denial (neither yes nor no) than affirmation (BothAnd). — Agent Smith

Yes/No. Some philosophers & scientists from both East & West, both ancient & modern, have described the progression of the World System (evolution) in terms of opposing forces (e.g. Yin/Yang) that offset each other, and result in the moderation that allows Life & Mind & human culture to emerge in the habitable zone between extremes. By contrast, "classical (Binary) logic" focused on the margins instead of the middle.

That unambiguous (certain) feature was taken to an extreme in the development of Digital Logic (1/0 ; all or nothing) for computers. Unfortunately, by omitting the middle range, such logic also leaves human meaning behind. Ironically, those empty shells have lots of room in the middle for programmers to insert their own meanings & values. It works like Algebra, in that A + B = C are merely general stand-in-symbols for specified values to be inserted by the calculator for specific conditions.

Paradoxically, binary computer logic has shown us the value of non-binary logic for replicating how the analog human brain works. By that I mean, Fuzzy Logic has been found useful in real-world situations, for which absolute Numerical values are hard to obtain. Instead, it provides imprecise, but meaningful, Truth values. That's why the BothAnd Philosophy and the Enformationism Worldview are based on a fuzzy quantum foundation. As in Quantum Bayseianism (QBism), there are no god-like absolute objective states, only relative human values, and "degrees of belief".

I'm currently reading Beyond Weird, by Phillip Ball, which is an attempt to reconcile the Fuzzy Logic of Quantum Theory with the precise values of Classical Binary Logic. He says, "quantum mechanics might seem 'weird', but it is not illogical. It's just that it employs a new and unfamiliar logic. If you can grasp it --- if you can accept that this is just how quantum mechanics works --- then the quantum world may stop seeming weird and become just another place, with different customs and traditions and with its own beautiful internal consistency". He doesn't call that "new logic" by name, but it's simply Fuzzy Logic. Which seems to be the way human Intuition works, to form beliefs and models of external reality.

Perhaps, the Madhyamaka "nihilism" or "emptiness" doctrine was actually a non-classical, non-binary approach to the non-digital (analog) view of reality that we experience in Intuition and Meditation. :smile:


Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false ___Wiki
Note -- Robotics researchers are attempting to make their bots more human, by using Fuzzy Logic, instead of Digital Logic.

Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement.[1][2] According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

A contradiction, ergo, is a feature, not a bug of your EnFormAction - BothAnd! G'day señor and good luck! — Agent Smith

Spasibo!
Contradiction is indeed a "feature" of EnFormAction (Energy), and of Information-in-general. The conflict derives from the wide range of Possibilities in Nature, as contrasted with the narrow range of legitimate Probabilities (Statistics). Although almost anything (within constraints, as noted below) is possible in the Virtual state, only one Physical (or actual) form can exist in the Real (actual) state. That's why Evolution & History bounce back & forth between positive (Good) & negative (Bad) values, as in Hegelian Dialectic. Fortunately for us observers, the opposing forces tend to offset, and typically result in moderate outcomes, somewhere between the extremes.

The "Range" of values in statistics begins at Zero on the low end, and goes up to 100% probability at the high end. So, Energy is like a Virtual Particle in superposition : in the Potential (virtual) state, it has a full range of Possibilities, but only takes on a specific value upon Actualization or Realization. For example, the phrase "I just realized" can be interpreted as Potential (unformed) Information in the Mind, that is suddenly converted into enformed Knowledge, as a specific concept condensed from general possibilities.

These notes are off the top of my head. So, I thank you for pushing me to expand my own understanding of Universal Information : Matter, Energy, & Mind. :smile:


Statistics :
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1, where, loosely speaking, 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty.

Dialectic :
A dialectic is when two seemingly conflicting things are true at the same time.
Note 1 -- The outcome of ongoing competition for Truth (Actuality) creates Reality, both Mental and Material.
Note 2 -- Sorry, such philosophical abstractions may be difficult for binary minds to deal with.

PS___The Dialectic path can be envisioned as waveforms progressing & interfering as seen in the Double Slit experiment of Quantum Theory.

REALITY ALTERNATES BETWEEN LIGHT & DARK, BUT AVERAGES GRAY

Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel. — Jackson

In philosophy, the concept of a historical dialectic, as an interpretive method, is typically associated with Hegel, even though he didn't originate the idea. :smile:

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary


Hegelian dialectic. / (hɪˈɡeɪlɪan, heɪˈɡiː-) / noun. philosophy an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic

The paradox: Information is foundational to EnFormAction, but your BothAnd principle works only if you lack information (you don't know which it is and hence you include both). — Agent Smith

I'm sure the BothAnd principle sounds paradoxical to many people. But that's only because Black-or-White , Good-vs-Evil , Either/Or thinking is so common. Two-value (divergent) thinking is a short-cut that jumps to broad general conclusions in specific situations, as in Racism. It's a tendency to see things in terms of polar extremes. Which is the conceptual cause of most conflict & suffering in the world.

But BothAnd is a simply a Holistic way of thinking, that can be illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. It looks at the world in terms of Complementarity, Reciprocity, & Holism, which is necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. From a historical perspective, it sees a zig-zagging Hegelian Dialectic (progression-of-evolution), which is a heuristic (searching) process that explores positive & negative alternatives, but always maintains a moderate (balanced) course between the extremes of Good vs Evil.

Conceptually, "Information" (ratio between alternatives ; 1/0) is a calculated Paradoxical (incompatible) Equation that yields a Logical answer to an apparent conflict [a : b :: b : c ; (+X) + (-Y) = (+/-Z)]. You don't passively "lack information", but you lack Certainty, so you actively extract Information into meaning via Reasoning. One of the primary functions of Philosophy is to resolve apparent Paradoxes into practical Wisdom, such as the Golden Rule, and "turn the other cheek". :nerd:


In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. ___Wikipedia

Hegelian Dialectic :
A theory of historical development that is often attributed to the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It proposes that cultural understanding progresses, despite conflicts, via 3 stages labeled Thesis (a dominant cultural worldview or “-Ism”), followed by Antithesis (an opposing view), then to Synthesis (a blend of the prior views). Stage 3 then becomes the thesis for the next round of quarreling belief systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary




YIN AND YANG UNIFIED INTO YIN/YANG

I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. — Louis

If humans continue to evolve into cyborgs or robots, the vegetarian question may become moot. Instead we'll be debating the morality of consuming Nuclear vs Hydrogen vs Solar energy vs Carbon-based Life-Forms, as the source of our electron diet. :joke:

What got me stoked was how inclusive your system is (BothAnd), something which, to me, requires us to utilize our ignorance rather than knowledge (vide infra, I quote you)
so we only know it by what it does, not what it is — Gnomon
Sorry, if this is a shallow understanding or worse a complete misunderstanding of EnFormAction — Agent Smith

Again, you are looking at the negative side of Information : Ignorance. But Shannon's mathematical definition covered the whole range, from Ignorance (zero ; 0 ; blank ; empty set) to Knowledge (all ; unity [1] ; 100% ; full set). Likewise, my worldview is intended to be "inclusive". That's why I call it a Theory of Everything.

The quote above compares Information to Energy. Scientists don't know what Energy is (ignorance), but they can measure what it does (action ; change). So, Energy is not a physical object, but a meta-physical Force. It's essentially the concept of Causation : the universal Actor (EnFormAction). And Change is the relation (ratio) between Cause & Effect ; Before & After. In my thesis, Energy is the Cause of everything in the world that follows from the First Cause. The BB Singularity was close to nothing (pure Potential ; zero Actual), but it has evolved via Causation (Change) into everything in the universe (All ; 100% : Unity).

So, our scientific ignorance of what Energy is (in essence) stems from a Materialist Either/Or worldview : either Physical or Nothing -- essences excluded. By contrast, an Information-based BothAnd worldview does know what Energy is, in essence : Logic ; Math ; Reason --- as applied to a physical world. However, that kind of Rational knowledge is not empirical (physical), but theoretical (mental), not scientific (reality), but philosophical (ideality). Yet, the Enformationism perspective views both sides of the same coin : sensory reality and imaginative ideality.

That's why my personal philosophical worldview is labelled as BothAnd : it is comprehensive; "inclusive" of both Matter and Mind ; both Physics and Meta-Physics. It acknowledges that our world is both Good and Bad; both Positive and Negative; both Potential and Actual. Without those polar alternatives, there would be no Change, no Cause, no Novelty. Only eternal boring BEING would exist in timelessness & spacelessness. :nerd:


Energy : "The simplest definition of energy is "the ability to do work". Energy is how things change and move."
https://www.ducksters.com/science/energy.php
Note -- Ability = Potential ; causal power

I like your style, assuming I've got a handle on what it is that you're trying to do. — Agent Smith

Thanks. But your illustration sounds rather bleak. My understanding of Information, on the other hand, is enlightening. It allows us to see (rationally) what can't be seen (visually). :wink:

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. — Hillary

For the record, I use the term "Information" in a much broader & general sense than Claude Shannon. From that universal perspective, Information is fundamentally Logical Structure : relationships & ratios. For example, Entropy is the breakdown of the structure that bonds matter into the objects & things we know via our senses. By contrast, "To Enform" (to create) is to combine isolated bits into meaningful & functional wholes (forms).

Logical structure is not physical (material), but meta-physical (mental ; mathematical). You can't see Logical structure with your eyes, but with your Reason (ability to know invisible ratios & relationships). Energy (hot) & Entropy (cold) are merely different forms of Information : constructive & destructive; active & inactive. The information of a wavefunction is mathematical & statistical, describing all possible states of a particle in superposition. That abstract knowledge may be meaningless to you, but to a quantum physicist it is elementary. :smile:

Logical structure refers to the way information in a document [or object] is organized; it defines the hierarchy of information and the relation between different parts of the document.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_213

What is Information? :
So, for the purposes of my philosophical worldview, I have constructed my own definitions, that reflect the ubiquity of Information in all aspects of reality, especially its mental & meaningful functions. Also, its role in Energy & Causation is important at both the Quantum & Cosmic levels of the world. For example, the Observer Effect of quantum theory implies that when a mind extracts information (knowledge) from a quantum system in Superposition (multiple states simultaneously) the waveform of that particle is forced to collapse into a single measurable state. In other words, the particle suddenly changes from Mathematical to Material.
BothAnd Blog, post 123
Note -- since Information is the essence of Energy, measurement of a quantum state extracts a bit of energy (information) from the possible particle, thus triggering the "collapse" from math to matter. (Yes, I know that's hard to wrap your mind around; but hey, it's quantum weirdness).

What information does the wavefunction convey? :
https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-function
Note -- in his book, Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball says "wavefunction collapse is then a generator of knowledge : it is not so much a process that gives us the answers, but it is a process by which answers are created".

What information is contained in the wavefunction? — Hillary

Statistical Information. We call it "Probability". Which is equivalent to "Potential". :smile: