↪Gnomon
The floor is yours. Say something. — I like sushi

Thanks, but I've already given my reply to the OP. Other, than that, I'm letting Voltaire and Einstein speak for me. Their personal opinions on the topic are not scientific facts, but philosophical inferences. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’. — I like sushi

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? That list would include the "great skeptic" Voltaire.

Speaking of "smart people", is it not interesting that Albert Einstein often used the word "god" in reference to the unsolved mysteries of the world? Obviously, he is not referring to the various popular definitions of gods & God. Wouldn't you like to know what all the fuss is about, before you begin to dissect the general concept of deity into specific "details". Is the OP question a legitimate topic for discussion on a philosophy forum?

Once we have established that there is some reasonable basis for the plethora of religious ( celestial superheroes) & philosophical (First Cause) cosmologies, we can take those reasons seriously. What is common to all of them? Only then, can we treat the OP topic with respect. After all, it's asking about "scientific grounds", not "scriptural" or "emotional" grounds for the widespread god-concept among humanity. What is it about the real world that causes people to look beyond their physical senses for a universal Cause? :smile:


"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
___Voltaire

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
___Voltaire

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
___Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
___Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
___Albert Einstein

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. — I like sushi

Actually, it's not that simple. For the reductive methods of empirical science, there is no way to analyze a Holistic concept into its constituent parts. Because, by definition, a Whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's not really a "shortfall" for physical Science, though. But it's an opportunity for theoretical Philosophy to pick-up the slack. Actually, there is a new approach that some call "Holistic Science" (HS), but is better known as "Systems Science" (SS). Unfortunately, like Philosophical conjectures, the conclusions of HS & SS are unlikely to be conclusively proven by empirical evidence*1. Human beliefs will always remain beyond the scope of standard scientific methods.

Regrettably, non-reductive methods are often indiscriminately ridiculed as "pseudoscience". Nevertheless, SS remains a useful approach for the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology & Sociology, which seldom produce final "proven" Facts. What they do offer is rational insights into confusing complex systems. Ironically, the holistic systematic procedures used are almost indistinguishable from the traditional methods of philosophical "thought experiments". Therefore, they could conceivably be applied to such perennial stumper questions, such as "what existed before the Big Bang", or" why do people believe in an invisible deity". :smile:

Holism in science :
Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Systems science :
To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems. The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, technology, computer science, engineering, and social sciences. . . .
The best known research institute in the field is the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, dedicated to the study of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science

A Theory of Almost Everything :
Santa Fe Institute, the self-anointed headquarters of complexity. ... is our best means of distinguishing science from pseudo-science.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/books/a-theory-of-almost-everything.html

*1. String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity are usually considered legitimate Science, even though their conjectures are unlikely to yield any empirical confirmation in our lifetime. Perhaps the Santa Fe Institute, as it gains legitimacy, will be emboldened to take-on the ultimate Systems questions about the conditional existence of the universe. Until then, that job will fall to non-institutional philosophers.

A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:
Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case. — 180 Proof

When I first started posting on this forum I noticed that you seemed to know a lot more about the history of philosophy than I do. So, I thought I might learn something from you. But I eventually learned that most of your replies to my posts can be summed-up in two words : "boo" & "hiss". Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally.

I've never been able to understand exactly what the sore point is, except that perhaps I don't pay homage to some authoritative scientists & philosophers, as listed in your post. I'll admit that I can't help being ignorant of a lot of the history of philosophy. In college, I took basic courses in all the major disciplines of Science. Yet the only philosophy course I took was "Logic", and that was a Math requirement. Consequently, I have a better-than-average understanding of science-in-general. But the only philosophers that I'm somewhat familiar with, are Plato & Aristotle --- who basically wrote "the book" on philosophy for the next 2500 years. As some wit observed, about "variations on a theme", it's all "footnotes to Plato".

Anyway, I only dove into philosophy seriously after I retired -- just a few years ago --and began to construct a broad-but-coherent worldview, for my own personal use. The prompt for that on-going project was the conjunction of two paradigm-shifting innovations in 20th century science : Quantum & Information theories. So, I'm trying to weave those disparate scientific concepts into a holistic & consistent philosophical worldview, for my own personal application. Yet, there are plenty of practicing scientists, who are also exploring the philosophical implications of an Information-based universe. And, as you so astutely noted, my personal BothAnd philosophy is merely an update of ancient Golden Mean & Moderation principles for a philosophical life, updated for the current polarized context of adamant Either/Or positions..

Anyway, my general posting policy is to ignore your replies to my posts, because they seldom have anything positive to contribute. They seem to be mostly polarized shout-downs & heckles. However, I must thank you for the links to Dialectic articles. They do seem to be relevant to my thesis, but I assume you were actually trying to pigeonhole me into some easily ridiculed historical positions. Since, as a novice, I'm not well-read in the doctrines you listed above, I have been forced to "reinvent the wheel" to suit a 21st century worldview and context. My "variation" on a long-running philosophical theme was incidental to the thrust of a novel perspective that the venerable philosophers you listed were completely ignorant of. I'm just a layman working alone, while scientific & philosophical pioneers are forging new trails into the unknown territory of information-based Mind & Matter. :cool:

PS__Your dismissal of my references to "Relativity" & "Superposition", indicates that you have no idea what aspects of those concepts I'm talking about. FWIW, I make my case in more detail in the thesis and blog.

Philosophical Attitude :
Karl Jasper submits that “he who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought, he who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition. He who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to question. He who acknowledges no mystery is no longer a seeker, because he humbly acknowledges the limit of possible knowledge. Karl jasper concluded that developing the philosophical attitude opens our mind to the unknowable that is revealed at those limits.”
https://medium.com/@TosinOlufeyimi/why-we-need-to-develop-the-philosophical-attitude-ea06f34bab94

The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

A Universe Built of Information :
"In the long journey of the human mind attempting to decode the workings of reality, one trusted companion has to be abandoned: the materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview."
___ James B. Glattfelder, physicist
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd Gnomon) — Agent Smith

For the record, I don't think of the BothAnd Principle as a rhetorical device. Instead, it's a harmonious Holistic worldview. In some aspects, a BothAnd perspective is like the modern scientific concepts of "Relativity" & "Superposition". It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument, in order to reach a better understanding of a complex situation as a whole system of interacting parts. So, it's also the philosophical basis of scientific Systems Theory. :smile:


Cataphasis : noun. Rhetoric. the use of affirmative statements to discuss a subject; affirmation through positive statements.

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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference;
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system.

So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work — Gnomon
I think that's a reification. — Wayfarer

Of course. But the suggestion was intended as a change of perspective, in order to adapt to a challenge to someone's religious worldview. From my own science-based philosophical worldview , I have concluded that what the ancients called "Spirit" (invisible agency), is what we now call "Energy" (invisible causation). The difference is that, thanks to Einstein, we can now equate invisible Energy & tangible Matter via the moderation of mathematical Mass. (E=MC^2)

With that in mind, I could re-word my tongue-in-cheek proposal as : "think of Matter as a tangible form of intangible Energy". That's not the fallacy of Reification, but the realization that Energy is a mental model constructed to explain physical changes, that would otherwise seem mysterious. Energy may seem less mysterious (spiritual), if you view it as an active form of Generic Information, which I also call "EnFormAction", to denote its relationship to mundane Energy .


Why are most forms of energy invisible to the naked eyes :
"There is no manifestation of energy that is visible. Even light itself is not visible."
"Mostly because energy is a model we invented to make our physics easier. It doesn't physicially exist, it's just something we created to show how things behave"
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-forms-of-energy-invisible-to-the-naked-eyes-while-we-can-see-heat-as-fire-for-example-What-make-some-forms-seen-and-other-not.
Note -- we see the effects of Energy inputs as the physical changes in Matter


Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

EnFormAction :
"En-" within : referring to essential changes of state
"Form-" to mold or give shape to : it's the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
"Action-" causation : the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
* So the cosmic force of EnFormAction is the Cause of all Things in the world and of all Actions or changes of state. In physical terms, it is both the Energy and the Material, plus the Mental concept of things. It is the creative impulse of evolution.*
* Plato’s "Form"s were described, not as physical things, but as the idea or concept or design of things. The conceptual structure of a thing can be expressed as geometric ratios & relationships which allow matter to take-on a specific shape. So, in a sense, the ideal Form of a real Thing is the mathematical recipe for transforming its potential into actual.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

So substance is a form of being, not stuff. Would it be conceivable that matter is ultimately composed of ousia? — Watchmaker

Perhaps. "Ousia" was adopted by Christian theologians as a reference to the spiritual "substance" or "essence" of God. So, if you think of Matter as a tangible form of incorporeal Spirit, that might work. But, for a science-oriented audience, it might be easier to convey the same idea by substituting 21st century "Information" for ancient spooky "Spirit".

From that perspective, God would be the Enformer, who created a world from his own "substance" : in this case, "Information" -- the creative power to enform. That's an update on an old pre-20th century Deistic notion : either God became the physical world, or that God transformed some of his metaphysical Essence into physical matter. Today, pragmatic scientists have learned that knowable Information (meaning) can transform into invisible Energy (potential ; causation), and into mathematical Mass, that we experience as weighty Matter. (E=MC^2)

However, that same "Information" was originally known as the intangible ideas & thoughts in a Mind, in a brain. So, Information is the ultimate shape-shifter. In my thesis though, I also refer to the ultimate source of all things as BEING : the "foundation of all existence". BEING is simply the power to become, to exist. To sum up : everything in this world is a form of Information, or as I prefer, EnFormAction. :nerd:


Metaphysics of God (as One Infinite Eternal Substance) :
Many philosophers and scientists of the past have understood God as One Dynamic Substance that causes and creates the world. This is conducive to the pantheist conception of God as the Universe / Nature / Reality.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-god-substance.htm

Mass, in physics, mathematical measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a ... change of state..

Is Information the Fifth Form of Matter? :
It states that information is the fundamental building block of the universe, and it has mass . . .
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/is-information-the-fifth-form-of-matter

Hmmm. Information is fundamental. But wouldn't there still need to be a mind to to "know" this information, as well as to "know how" to execute it? — Watchmaker

Yes. In my thesis, I call that "Knower" by various names that indicate only its functional role, because I don't know anything for sure about anything that is not within the space-time universe.

Since the "Knower", as a whole, must necessarily be more-than the comprehendable parts, I assume that he/she/it must be external & prior-to the known universe. Also, since some theorists portray the Information-centric universe as a computer program, I use the label "Programmer" to indicate the creative role of the "Enformer". And, for those who are more comfortable with the baggage-laden concept of God, I sometimes refer to the Knower as "G*D". The asterisk is intended to hint that this is not your grandfather's notion of deity. Some traditional philosophical appellations for the executor of the program is "First Cause" or "Prime Mover". Of course, William Paley's, pre-computer, functional description of "Watchmaker" is also historically appropriate.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever the "Knower" is, beyond the conceiver of the world's Information, is of no concern to me. I can make some assumptions & conjectures about Eternity & Infinity, but that's really beyond my scope of knowledge. Apparently, the Knower wants to be known only for He/r knowable Forms. If there is any other revelation, I don't know anything about it. Presumably, you can know the "Artist" by his/her works. :cool:

The Information Philosopher on Panpsychism :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/mind/panpsychism/

Universe information theory :
Digital physics is a speculative idea that the universe can be conceived of as a vast, digital computation device, or as the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Panpsychism says that consciousness is fundamental. What does that mean exactly, that consciousness is fundamental? That the substance that the universe is composed of is essentially consciousness? — Watchmaker

FWIW, I try to avoid the philosophical problems of Panpsychism, as it is usually formulated. If Consciousness is fundamental, then we could assume that every thing in the universe is conscious to some degree. But the notion of conscious atoms and dust particles has been vociferously debated. As an alternative, I take "Information", in a post-Shannon sense, as the Spinozan single substance of the universe. In order to understand what that means, you'd have to spend some time getting familiar with the scientific postulation that "Information" (essence of both matter & mind) is the fundamental element of Reality. I explore the meaning of that unorthodox concept in my BothAnd Blog. :smile:

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Goff scoffs at the materialist assumption that mental properties mysterious emerge from complexes of physical properties. "It’s silly to say that atoms are entirely removed from mentality, then wonder where mentality comes from." This discrepancy is why the ancient theory of Panpsychism proposed that even matter is made of Mind (psyche). “Consciousness” is the most common term used to indicate that metaphysical “substance” of reality. But the term is misleading, so I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" in reference to the mind-stuff of which sentience, awareness, feelings and knowledge are made.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??).

Surprisingly, some theists -- including my own religious background -- deny that their Faith is "just a feeling". Yet, in that case, their faith is transferred to objective scriptures, presumably based on eyewitness testimony : the Bible. Ironically, those church-authorized scriptures don't hold-up to dispassionate objective scrutiny. So, what can you do then, if the logical necessity of a First or Final Cause of contingent existence is impervious to empirical or scriptural assaults? For me, that rational conclusion falls into the category of principle-seeking Philosophy, instead of emotional or traditional Religion. Of course, as an abstract philosophical tenet, you lose all the good stuff : worldly blessings & heavenly hereafter. So, it doesn't inspire much in the way of feelings. :halo:

Is Faith Just a Feeling? :
Faith—properly understood—is not a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.
So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.
This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle—they can change from day to day.
https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-

Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? . . . .
Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. — Agent Smith

You guessed it! :blush:

A Proposed Alternative Theory of Reality :
. . . Both Material and Spiritual
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated & guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of "Entropy" (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive "Enformy" (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of "Enformy" has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Note -- The space-time world is inherently dualistic, divided into opposing forces (positive vs negative), and obverse forms (matter & energy), and antagonistic worldviews (Materialism vs Spiritualism). But, there remains a monistic origin for all the dualities of reality : the scientific "Singularity" or the philosophical "First Cause". Moreover, in the space-&-time-bound universe, there remains Substance Monism, as proposed by Spinoza : the "Single Substance" of the natural world, which he called "Nature or God". In my thesis I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to cause change. the term is a portmanteau, combining Energy & Information into a single creative force.

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
Bothand Blog, glossary

And I think we'll never know, as it's inside the particle. — EugeneW

Yes. Empirical evidence for the inner being of an electron may never be available. That's primarily because electrons are currently assumed to have no internal physical structure for dissecting scientists to analyze. However, that minor obstacle has never stopped theoretical scientists & philosophers from using their X-ray vision (imagination) to speculate on those opaque innards. For example, even a Neutron, with no charge, still contains Energy. So, we could assume that, like Mass, an Electron is made of Energy, which is not a material substance, but merely the potential for change.

Therefore, turning their attention to energy-in-general, some theorists have concluded that "Energy is Information". Moreover since, before Shannon, "information" was the common name for the intangible contents of a Mind (ideas ; thoughts ; memories ; intentions), we can guess that both Energy & Information are somehow related to Conscious Knowing. So, it seems that shape-shifting Energy takes on many different forms, from electron "Charge", to the "Mass" of matter, and even to the "Mind" of a brain. Consequently, some theoretical scientists have deduced that Energy/Information (my term : EnFormAction) is the fundamental substance of the universe. If so, what does that equation of Matter & Mind mean for the "metaphysical theory" of Physicalism? :gasp:


What is an electron made of? :
Electrons are fundamental particles so they cannot be decomposed into constituents. They are therefore not made or composed. An electron acts as a point charge and a point mass.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-electrons-made-up-of-Are-all-electrons-made-of-the-same-material

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

The mental resides in matter. Like charge in an electron. — EugeneW

That is a prescient observation. Both "Consciousness" and "Charge" seem to be intrinsic to matter. But to this day nobody knows what "Charge" is. The etymology literally refers to the "load" that a cart carries. But a wheeled cart could carry a variety of things as its "charge". So, the word is a place-keeper for a more specific definition. Like "Consciousness", empirical science takes its existence -- as an intrinsic property -- for granted -- because of what it does -- but cannot say exactly what it is. My philosophical guess is that Consciousness & Charge & Mass are various forms of Energy : the ability to cause change, to transform. But, what then is Energy or Force made of?

All of these mysterious "properties" are essences, not substances. Which is why empirical Science has to accept them for their functions, even though they can't say what their substance is. As suggested by the "intrinsic property" definition below, what all of these essences have in common is that they are relationships-between-points, not physical objects. The things related can be Physical objects, but the relationships are more like Mathematical ratios (relative values). Hence, a "Charge" can be imagined as the monetary value of a load of potatoes, or sheep, or bread-loaves. But a "monetary value" is simply an idea in a mind. So round & round we go.

Relationships are immaterial links, which can't be seen or touched, so they must be inferred by human "Reason", which "sees" the logical connections between things (see graphic below). And "Logic" is the essence of Semantics : the personal metaphorical or symbolic meanings we attribute to things, as-if their meaning was intrinsic, instead of extrinsic. Likewise, we can say that "Mind" is the function of a brain that sees (imagines) non-physical connections, or relative values, or logical conjunctions between concepts. But what then is "Mind" made of : some abstract ability to bind parts together into whole systems, or to analyze systems into component parts? That mental power itself has no known components -- it just is (Qualia, not Quanta). :cool:

Charge :
Middle English (in the general senses ‘to load’ and ‘a load’), from Old French charger (verb), charge (noun), from late Latin carricare, carcare ‘to load’, from Latin carrus ‘wheeled vehicle’.
___Oxford Dictionary

Intrinsic property :
An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)

Essence : the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

Q. What’s the nature of a charge or what gives a particle a negative charge or a positive one?
A. Simple answer is: we don't know.
It is simply an observation of reality that some elementary particles have an intrinsic property that we attribute to a charge. . . . Just as matter particles have an intrinsic mass property, so do charged particles have a charge.
https://www.quora.com/I-m-looking-for-a-philosophical-POV-on-what-exactly-a-charge-as-in-a-charged-particle-e-g-electron-really-means-How-and-what-really-is-a-charge

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world.

That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth.

However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire.

FWIW, my personal worldview is that "they" are indeed describing the same fundamental principle from different superficial perspectives. Hence, my holistic philosophy is labeled "BothAnd". It's based on merging the 21st century sciences of Information & Quantum, not on ancient beliefs in Materialism or Spiritualism. Instead, the "atom" of reality is mundane Enformation : the power to create novel forms of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Psyche. If that sounds absurd, NOMA also sounded ridiculous to those on opposite poles of the Knowledge continuum. :smile:


Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete

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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

The difference/similarity distinction is two heads of the same coin. I start with difference only because Hegel did and that's where my thinking was going.
If you start with the idea of absolute, undifferentiated being, then difference is the key to definition. If you start with the idea of pure indefinite being, a chaotic pleroma of difference, then yes, similarity is the key principal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I haven't read the previous posts in your dialog, but the "similarity vs difference" and "absolute undifferentiated being" rang a bell. In my personal worldview, the pre-BigBang source of our real world was what I call "BEING". I borrowed Plato's notion that real organized Cosmos emerged from ideal disorganized Chaos. But I have to distinguish the ideal concept of monolithic omnipotential Chaos -- no actual things, just potential for all things -- from the modern notion of irrational confusion & disorder. Another term for the unitary fullness of all possible things is a perfect Pleroma. But that has some specific religious references, that are not necessary for philosophical purposes.

In my usage, Chaos is "irrational" only in the sense that it is unitary & atomic, with no separate parts to rationalize or organize, and no pattern to disarray. So, BEING is "absolute & undifferentiated". It's also a Mathematical Singularity, in the sense of having no parts to define it, just pure Potential (creative power) from which all the components of our Reality are derived. Metaphorically, Chaos is like an ovum, which can split into two halves, which continue to divide & differentiate into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful". However, since the Chaos egg is assumed to be omni-potent, our universe is just a tiny fragment of the infinite possibilities that remain undifferentiated.

Realists & Physicalists typically envision those possible un-known pre-cosmoses as a physical Multiverse, or a real array of Many Worlds. But, I prefer to avoid speculating beyond the only differentiation that we know is necessary for our temporary & contingent home world to exist. Like idealistic Plato, and using Ockham's Razor, I simplify the Beginning of Being (space-time) down to just "pure indefinite BEING" (AKA : Chaos) and alloyed differentiated things (AKA : Cosmos). So, our physical world is characterized by both Difference & Similarity, whereas BEING is Indifferent & Unitary. Hence I must agree that "If you start with the idea of pure indefinite being", then "similarity is the key principal" for defining the multiplicity of created beings & things in our world. :nerd:


BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Mathematical Singularity :
In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)
Note -- the BigBang "Singularity" is a mathematical expression of the Unitary source of our differentiated reality : the ground of our being.

MANY WORLDS OR MULTIVERSE , WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ?

Right. To me that suggests an intrinsic connection between maths and the world. I'm interested in the idea that scientific laws exist where logical necessity meets physical causation. — Wayfarer

That's a new idea to me. But, in view of our discussion of the "logic of reality", I would imagine that Mathematical Logic (bonding relationships ; valence) is the structure of reality, and Mathematical Energy (ratios ; differences) is the cause of structural changes. That concept seems to be compatible with the Enformationism worldview, in which Generic Information (ratios, relationships, connections, differences) is the universal "substance" (per Spinoza) of the world.

Just riffing on a metaphorical theme here : perhaps, the holistic Potential of the pre-BigBang Singularity (egg : zygote), after fertilization (by whom??), contained two Actual aspects : material structure (female ; mother) and dynamic causation (male : sperm). Hence, by analogy with biological development, that initial binary scenario has evolved over the intervening eons into the multiplex world of Matter & Energy we know as Reality. The role of Matter, in this myth, is the stable (Necessity) structure, and Energy is the dynamic (Chance) force of transformation, which explores all options within Possibility Space.

But, who or what defines the limits on possibility? In my myth, the original Egg was programmed by a pre-existing Planner or Lawmaker. However, Materialists might imagine that pre-BB "substance" as a fecund Multiverse (the eternal Mother ; mater). And Spiritualists would picture the dynamic virility as a powerful Elan Vital (eternal Father ; pater). However, my metaphorical myth combines the dual aspects of Reality into a singular Source of Being (cosmic creative principle : Brahman). Of course, anything prior to our local space-time is inherently unknowable. But its causal & substantial (formal) role is still inferrable, by analogy with the substance & laws of the known world. Some might even like to call it the "Great Mathematician". :nerd:


How mathematics reveals the nature of the cosmos :
Mathematics is the language of the universe, and in learning this language, you are opening yourself up the core mechanisms by which the cosmos operates.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-mathematics-reveals-nature-cosmos.html

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog. post 33

Where this started for me was with the realisation of the reality of numbers. . . .
The popular answer is that they exist in the minds of humans only, that they're a mental construction. But the problem with that view is, it doesn't allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, nor for the fact that mathematics is governed by rules. So I'm firmly part of the 'mathematics is discovered' camp. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm not a mathematician, but I think of Math as the Logic of the universe. It's the non-physical "structure" of the physical world. That invisible framework of reality consists of stable consistent patterns of inter-relationships upon which are hung the physical "furniture" of the real world. We can't perceive those intangible links, but we can conceive them via rational inference. So, we "discover" the logical scaffolding of physics, not by empirical probing, but by imaginary conception. We seem to fill-in-the-blanks between things by mentally constructing a pattern of links to fit the pattern of nodes. When a particular pattern is found to be consistent & essential, we call them Rules or Laws that metaphorically "govern" that particular category (set) of nodes.

The stability & necessity of those invisible-but-knowable patterns make them effective for predicting missing nodes or links (components). They serve as a mental map that shows most-but-not-all roads & cities, so we can find our way around the world, even though we are half-blind to that intangible structure. Pardon my woolly description of a topic that is above my pay grade. As an architect, I used to design future concrete physical structures, by first creating an imaginary abstract pattern of relationships between imposed loads (forces) and columns & beams (links). When the math balanced-out, I could be assured that the "logic" of the structure was "sound". Only then, could I be sure that the Potential mental construct would -- when Actualized into material reality -- hold-up under the physical forces of the natural world. That's what I would call "reasonable effectiveness". :nerd:

PS__The mathematical & logical scaffolding of Nature forms the patterns-of-meaning that we call "Information".

Structure :
1. (noun) the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. (verb) construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to

But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." — Gnomon
A major digression, but I don't believe the nominalists ever properly understood the idea of the forms. A form is not a 'vague abstract entity' or an entity of any kind, if an entity is considered to be a thing. A form is more like a principle or defining characteristic, intelligible only to the 'eye of reason', and the loss of this understanding represents a watershed in the history of ideas. — Wayfarer

Your comment on "entities" may be a digression only in the sense of supplementary information. As I superficially understand the position of Nominalists, they were opposed to Realists, who didn't believe in anything non-physical anyway. For a non-physical abstract "entity", giving it a name doesn't make it a real thing.

So, their name-vs-entity argument seems to be a "how many angels can dance on a pin" debate. Below is the philosophical definition of "entity" I prefer. From that perspective, an Ideal entity, such as a Platonic Form, exists Abstractly & Potentially until Actualized physically. Of course, how that abstract-to-concrete transformation could occur, probably requires some notion of creation of Something (actual) from Nothing (potential). I suspect that concept of Potential existence does not compute in the worldview of Realists, Materialists, and Physicalists. For them, ideas & ideals, or principles & fundamental truths, are merely religious propaganda.

But, for me, a "Potential Entity" is a legitimate topic of philosophical discussion. If we can't talk about abstract ideas & ideals, what's the point of Philosophy? Unfortunately, we could debate endlessly about how that transformation occurs. But the Enformationism thesis proposes a possible answer : it's all metaphysical Information all the way down, only the material container (outward form) changes due to phase transitions or physical transformations. But, lets not digress on an abstruse mathematical or scientific description of phase states & transitions. Those ghostly apparitions might begin to sound like mathematical magic. Is a "phase state" a real or ideal entity? :cool:

PS__I would ask for more information on the "watershed event" stemming from the "eye of reason" notion. But that might be merely a digression from a digression. :wink:

Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

systems theory phase transition :
A phase space of a dynamical system is the collection of all possible states of the system in question. A phase transition occurs as a result of some external condition, such as temperature, pressure, etc.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/systems/DynamicalSystemsIntro.html
Note -- "possible states" sounds like unactualized Potential Entities.

So, if we flip the direction of entropy, we have a universe tending towards order. Life and other complex self-organizing systems emerge and begin increasing local entropy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. That's exactly what my coinage of Enformy proposes. Without some countervailing "force" to thwart destructive dis-organizing Entropy, randomness & disorder would prevail, and Evolution would become Devolution. Some scientists have made a weak acknowledgment of that downward-directional problem with the awkward term "Negentropy". Calling it negative though, permits them to treat the on-going progression of evolution as a quirky accident. However, giving that organizing principle a positive connotation allows us to interpret the singular direction of Time, and of Evolution, as-if it is working toward some teleological destination.

Not surprisingly, that may be why most scientists are uncomfortable with any hint of plan, purpose or positive direction in the natural world. Yet, if the universe is not, in any sense, directional, how could human intentions, and organized human Culture, emerge from purely random collisions of atoms? My assumption is that there is nothing in the actual Effect (Evolution ; Time) that was not potentially in the Cause (Big Bang). Although, mathematically, time should be reversible, in practice that's never observed in reality.

So, we shouldn't read too much into the news that "Scientists Have Reversed Time in a Quantum Computer". In abstract math, anything is possible. But in concrete reality, change is always uni-directional, toward the "heat death" of the universe. However, what if some future cyborg-culture learns how to permanently reverse Entropy? I'll leave you to work-out that Sci-Fi story. :nerd:


Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Intention : purpose, aim, plan, design, impulsion, intent, end, motive, ambition, ultimate-aim, obligation and more.

Entropy vs Enformy :
* Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
* The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That feedback-loop "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Culture vs Nature :
Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Note -- Human Culture is anti-entropic in that it opposes the disorganizing effects of natural processes. That's why we have to do regular maintenance on our un-natural technology.

I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer

Note : Shermer is the founder of Skeptic magazine, not SI. Coincidentally, I just read a Skeptical Inquirer article this morning, that mentioned the Plato & Aristotle concepts of "forms", "universals", and "essence". It's a review of Life is Simple, by geneticist Johnjoe McFadden, about "how Occam's Razor set science free". "William's heresy was to challenge the Church's view that theology was a real science . . ." We now understand that "theology" is philosophy, bound by an official mandate to support an authorized creed.

Referring to radical scholastic theologian, William of Occam, "He attacked the idea proposed by Plato that things we experience in our world are only faint shadows of the real objects that existed . . . somewhere." My own mildly-radical thesis is that our modern notion of "Information" can shed some light into the shadows of that ancient conjecture. The article continues : "Plato termed these 'real' objects Forms, and 'St. Augustine had already imported Plato's Forms into the early medieval Church where they became ideas in the mind of God." Those universal definitions (ideals) of real things were not just vaguely "somewhere", but specifically located in a the "mind" of the creator of the universe. Hence they became universal principles, governing particular things. McFadden goes-on to note that "Later, Aristotle modified the Forms into 'universals', which were thought to be the 'essence' of an object or concept". And that's how I came to connect the philosophical notions of "Forms" & "universals" & "essences" with our scientific concept of Information as abstract knowledge.

But, Occam concluded that "there was no need for any sort of vague, abstract, entity . . ." Ironically, Claude Shannon's definition of "information" sounds very much like a "vague, abstract, entity" symbolized by 1s & 0s. His "information" was quantified in terms of degrees of Entropy, which is itself a reference to the abstract concept of disorganization (the absence of order). But then, McFadden quotes a biologist that, "life is too complex, even irreducibly complex . . . for Occam's Razor to be of any use". However, If we envision "Information" (the creative power to enform) as both universal and essential, all that apparent complexity can be reduced to myriad forms of a single principle, which I call "EnFormAction".

The article even mentions some conjectures of theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, whose mildly-radical ideas I have discussed in the blog. One of those speculations is the notion of "genetic information", which I refer to as "generic information" to indicate that all the manifold things of reality can be traced back to a single simple principle of Essential Form. Anyway, my thesis agrees that "life is simple" when viewed from the perspective of a universal tendency to self-organize into more complex systems with unique properties, such as Life & Mind, from inorganic & mindless matter. The Skeptical Inquirer might not agree with my interpretation of the article, but I appreciate its consideration of creative simplicity, as a natural principle. :nerd:

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- EFA is the simple singular natural principle of organization, that causes the matter of the world to self-organize. It also produces the natural tendency that I call Enformy, which counteracts Entropy & Randomness, to produce complexity & progress.

But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. — Gnomon
So more intuitive than mathematical? What is gained by sacrificing full rigour here? — apokrisis

What-is-gained is, as you say, a notion that is "more intuitive than mathematical". I am not a mathematician. So, as an amateur philosopher, with no formal training, if I tried to present my Information thesis in mathematical terms, I would be out of my depth. That's why I have to depend on links to specialists, for those who desire a more rigorous treatment. Please click on some of my links for "full rigour". :nerd:

Of course telling your own tale in your own words is fair enough if you just want to arrive at your own synthesis of where modern science has got to. — apokrisis

Yes. I'm not pretending to be an expert in the science of Information. So, I merely use the speculations & conclusions of scientific professionals as evidence to support my own amateur philosophical conjectures. For example, the link below agrees with my contention that "information is the fundamental building block of the universe". If you have any technical questions, please contact the author. :smile:

New experiment could confirm the fifth state of matter in the universe :
Dr. Vopson's previous research suggests that information is the fundamental building block of the universe and has physical mass. . . .
He even claims that information could be the elusive dark matter that makes up almost a third of the universe. ___Physicist Dr. Melvin Vopson
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-state-universe.html

IS THIS RIGOROUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?

The issue is then how do your recover what folk think they mean by meaning, consciousness, mind, intentionality, agency, etc, from an infodynamic perspective? . . .
The theory isn't complete until it is the meaningfulness of signs all the way down, coupled to the meaningless of material contingency all the way up. — apokrisis

Since "infodynamics" is based on Shannon's definition of "information" in terms of Entropy & Thermodynamics, I tend to avoid that approach, in favor of a more general & less physical interpretation. Infodynamics may be a useful way to think about Information as a scientific concept. But my interest in Information is as a philosophical notion. Unfortunately, there are a few nagging gnats that view every topic from a reductive/scientific/materialistic perspective. I try to ignore them, but sometimes I have to swat at them, as they buzz in my face. It's OK though. They are a minor nuisance. :cool:

Enformy (analogy to thermodynamics):
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and Mind.
BothAnd Blog, post 28
Note -- In thermodynamics, what I call "Enformy" (philosophical concept) is known as "Negentropy" (physical term).

But to be a success, this reduction to "atoms of form" has to incorporate more than just a process metaphysics to take the edge off the hard materialism (that wants to oppose itself to the fluffy idealism). — apokrisis

Yes. When John A. Wheeler spoke of "bits" of Information, he was metaphorically imagining them as "atoms of form". Yet, "bits" by themselves have little-to-no influence on the real world. It's only in the corporate form of Systems or Wholes, and their related Processes, that atoms of information add-up to the dynamic physical swarms that we call physical objects.

It will take someone better informed on Semiology to interpret the various meanings of bits of information all-the-way-down and back-up again. As an amateur, I have to avoid getting bogged-down in philosophical technicalities that are over my head. Would you like to volunteer for the job of Information Semilologist? :smile:

So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. — Gnomon
Yes. And that is matched to? And the third thing that is a meaningful balance of the opposing forces of spontaneity and constraint is being explicitly offered in the theory where? — apokrisis

Good question. I may get into the details of that dynamic "balance" in a later post. But it's all about creative Enformy counter-balancing destructive Entropy. :smile:

Essence is "substance" in the secondary sense, notice "universal", "genus", "subject". That is how secondary substance is defined. In the primary sense, substance is defined as the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. But when he was trying to define his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design?

Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence? :brow:


hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.

Two kinds of Structure :
1. mathematical structure is an imaginary (idealized) pattern of relationships (links) without the nodes.
2. physical structure is the actual nodes arranged into a pattern resembling the mental design.

Fair enough. But remember Aristotle's dualism was of matter and form (hyle-morphe), not matter and spirit. — Wayfarer

Yes. But, from the perspective of Information theory, I place Hyle in the modern category of matter (physical substance), and "morphe" or "form" in the class of In-form-ation (mental -- design, pattern, meaning). And my thesis interprets the ancient notion of "spirit" (psyche, anima, atman, elan vital) as various interpretations of Energy as Causation & Trans-form-ation. Ultimately, everything in the space-time world is a unique form of shape-shifting EnFormAction (power + design + causation). Therefore, "spirit" is just one of many ways to characterize the particular expressions of Potential Platonic "Form", and Actual Aristotelian "Form". So, it's all Information/EnFormAction, all the way down. :joke:

EnFormAction :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
BothAnd Blog, post 60

SAME EN-FORM-ACTION ALL THE WAY DOWN

I've never liked that 'Skeptical Enquirer' rag, although I noted with surprise the recent online interview between one of its founders, Michael Shermer, and Bernardo Kastrup, which was surprisingly congenial, I thought, causing me to re-consider a little.) — Wayfarer

I have subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine for over 50 years. So, I'm well-informed about Pseudoscience & Paranormal pros & cons. SI is mainly focused on pop-sci UFO & Bigfoot controversies, while Skeptic seems to be more interested in the philosophical angle of Science versus Metaphysics.

Shermer is definitely on the side of physical Science, but he gives counter-paradigm proponents, such as Kastrup, the benefit of the doubt, as long as they don't stray too far from "established facts". He usually seems open to alternative interpretations of non-empirical speculative science, especially Quantum queerness. Which is also how I try to approach such debatable ideas. My own worldview is based on avant-garde scientific concepts, that have not yet made their way into the textbooks. An early deviation from the materialistic model was John A. Wheeler's "it from bit", which called into question the fundamental element or essence of physics. His heretical opinions about Materialist assumptions were tolerated only because his scientific credentials were impeccable ; yet "it from bit" remains a footnote in mainstream textbooks.

Even Einstein was disturbed by some of the metaphysical & idealistic implications of his own paradigm-busting ideas of Relativity & Light Quanta. But, he also insisted, that for him, imagination is more important than knowledge. And in that sense, Enformationism remains imaginary, since verification of nonphysical phenomena is still difficult. However some very smart people are also thinking along the same lines. I can take some comfort in knowing that someone as perceptive as Kastrup, has had his innovative ideas rejected as "voodoo" by prominent scientists.

My own experience with labels of "woo-mongering" have also caused me to reconsider, not the foundations of my worldview, but the way I express concepts that challenge the prevailing paradigm of Materialism, as its presumptions are gradually undermined by bits of quantum information. :nerd:

A Super-Simple, Non-Quantum Theory of Eternal Consciousness "
In “Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?”, recently posted by Scientific American, Kastrup contends that quantum mechanics—as well as cognitive science, which suggests that minds construct rather than passively mirroring reality--undermines the assumption that the physical world exists independently of our observations. He calls for a new paradigm that makes mind “the essence—cognitively but also physically—of what we perceive when we look at the world around ourselves.”
___John Horgan, Scientific American magazine
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/a-super-simple-non-quantum-theory-of-eternal-consciousness/

It From Bit :
"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." ___John A, Wheeler, physicist
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/

As for the 'trolls' - not all your critics are trolling. — Wayfarer

On a philosophical forum, I expect rational criticism. That's the whole point of presenting controversial (or idiosyncratic) topics for discussion. Fortunately, only few on this forum are trolls, who engage in passionate bullying instead of dispassionate reasoning. I assume they think they are defending the "revealed truth" of materialistic science (Scientism) from the falsehoods of casuistic Spiritualism. 180proveit likes to refer to non-physical notions as "donut holes without the dough". But I prefer another analogy : the Materialist worldview is like a Zombie : a body without a mind. The trolls also seem to equate "Metaphysics" with Christian Theology, whereas I associate "Meta-Physics" with the "wisdom" of Aristotle's follow-up to The Physics.

I deliberately chose the name Enformationism to indicate an inter-connecting bridge between Spiritualism and Materialism. That consilient notion is based on the recent discoveries indicating that Information (mind-stuff, knowledge, ideas, etc) is essentially the perception of logical Relationships (mathematical Ratios). Shannon himself related Information with Energy in the notion of Entropy. Consequently, some pioneering scientists are touting the concept that Matter, Energy & Information are different forms of the same essential "substance" (in the Aristotelian sense).

What the ancient sages called "spirit" is what we now know as "energy" : invisible forces & causes. And what the early philosophers called "matter" is now known to be merely a different form of Energy. And, in Thermodynamics, Energy is defined in terms of Ratios (relationships), which is also the basis of Reasoning (rational thought). So, I perceive a three-way relationship between causal Energy, substantial Matter, and rational Mind, which is an emergent function of energetic Life. This equation of Causation with Matter and Mind is indeed idiosyncratic and eccentric, in the sense that it is not yet a mainstream "fact" in scientific textbooks.

I came to this BothAnd (matter & mind) worldview late in life. So, I pursue my thesis on internet forums instead of in college classrooms. I don't expect to get any formal recognition for my minor contributions to Science & Philosophy. So, I have to be content with sharing the news with a few open minds on this forum, and on my blog. It's not a religion, but it serves as a sort of philosophical replacement for the religious worldview I was indoctrinated with as a child. Unfortunately, with no Bible to guide me, I'm like a child wandering in the wilderness. This forum provides feedback to help me get my bearings. :brow:


Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being’, or ‘wisdom’, or ‘theology’. A comment on these descriptions will help to clarify Aristotle’s topic. . . . .
In Metaphysics Α.1, Aristotle says that “everyone takes what is called ‘wisdom’ (sophia) to be concerned with the primary causes (aitia) and the starting-points (or principles, archai)” (981b28), and it is these causes and principles that he proposes to study in this work.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Information, Matter and Energy – a non-linear world-view :
Hence, nature can no longer be interpreted by means of matter and energy alone - a
third component is required: information.
https://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/paper/biosem-madl-2006.pdf

I get that. I've always understood it as your own invention, a brew or a stew or superscientific postreligious goo, and I like the taste of my poetry too. I've challenged you not because I resent such a harmless creation (I respect he creativity), but only philosophically for (in my eyes) being rather complacent about the concept of 'mind.' As I said initially, my nudges are from a place of 'semantic pragmatism' that generally finds folks way to satisfied where I scents ambiguity. Mind and matter? These tour in the path dump chew gather. — lll

I'm not sure what the "it" refers to in the quote above, which speaks of "universal Mind" & "PanEnDeism". Neither of which are my "own invention". Maybe you are disingenuously casting aspersions on my personal philosophical thesis : Enformationism. But I doubt that you know anything about it, other than that it sounds vaguely New Agey & manifestly Metaphysical. If you were to look into it though, you'd find that the premise was inspired by leading-edge scientific theories, and not by any far-out philosopher or giggling guru. So, in that sense, it is my "own invention".

Speaking of “inventive” ridicule, your “superscientific postreligious goo” is at least an improvement on 180prove-it's worn-out “woo”. His post-scientism sophistry takes the form of supercilious pseudo-philosophical arguments. As an incitement though, "woo" is not as effective as "n*gger". Moreover, ad hominems are so pre-medieval.

So, I'll share with you a new-to-me term of abuse : “Schizotypy”. It is an unproven psychological label (type) for odd or eccentric behavior or beliefs. But it sounds like "just-plain-crazy". I found that word in a Skeptical Inquirer article about UFO & alien invasions. “Everyday experiences, for those with schizotypal tendencies may cross an ethereal line into an unusual, idiosyncratic universe of occult importance and hidden truth”. Do you think that kind of psychological typing is "complacent about the concept of 'mind' "? Be forewarned, if you sling that schizo-sh*t at me, it will go right over my pointy little head.

The Sci-Inq article admits that “all human cultures possess beliefs in the paranormal”. And “paranormal” could apply to any novel idea that is counter-intuitive or statistically-atypical or paradigmatically unorthodox. So you could use that technical-sounding calumny to belittle anyone whose ideas you don't like, and don't want to seriously engage-with, using Philosophical Methodology . :joke:


Schizotypy : a theoretical concept that posits a continuum of personality characteristics and experiences, ranging from normal dissociative, imaginative states to extreme states of mind related to psychosis

Philosophical Methodology :
The questions in philosophical methodology do not primarily concern which philosophical claims are true, but how to determine which ones are true. . . .
The methods of philosophy differ in various respects from the methods found in the natural sciences. One important difference is that philosophy does not use experimental data obtained through measuring equipment like telescopes or cloud chambers to justify its claims.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology

PS__The same Skeptical Inquirer magazine (mar/apr 2022) has an article on the Scientific Method. Regarding "replicability", it says "the goal of science is to understand Nature". But lest you forget, the goal of Philosophy is to understand Culture, which as you noted, includes the "ambiguity" of the human Mind. Which can blithely string together offbeat arguments such as :"These tour in the path dump chew gather." Comprende?

But I would say that makes the ground of reality neither objective nor subjective, that these are the poles of the nature of experienced reality; rather that it transcends the self-other distinction which is the fundamental condition of embodiment (c.f. Buddhism) — Wayfarer

Yes. In my hypothetical worldview the "ground of reality" is a singular timeless spaceless whole, which encompasses all possibilities in the form of Platonic Forms or un-formed Potentials. So it is not characterized by the particulars & polarities of human experience. But then, I have no personal experience with Ideal perfection. And, I only think outside the "fundamental condition of embodiment" for the sake of philosophical argument. For all practical purposes, I am a materialist & realist. For the "trolls" though, that non-creedal position statement may sound oxymoronic.

However, on this philosophical forum, rather than take them for granted, we still debate what's "real" and what's "material". The only way I know to reconcile disagreements on such impractical questions is to put them into a larger context. To view the variety of things & beings against a hypothetical featureless background : the Ground of Being. I suppose even the Buddha must have been forced to assume such an Ideal perfect state, by which to compare the ups & downs of reality. Yet he advised his followers to avoid becoming entangled in metaphysical speculations & derogations, as some of us on this forum do. In order to maintain peace-of-mind though, we must become tough-minded. Can we draw strength from the Universal Mind, or do we just develop mental calluses from butting our individual minds together? :wink:

I don't think Kastrup is theistic. — Wayfarer

Nor am I. I'm not sure what niche Kastrup puts his own idealistic philosophy in, but my idiosyncratic philosophical position could also be labeled as "bottom-up Panpsychism", or as "PanEnDeism". Which are not necessarily religious in nature. Again though, the "trolls" like to put such mind-centric worldviews into some conventional conceptual box, so they can more easily trash them. :cool:

This sounds like a variety of deism. The philosophical problem, which I don't think you've address, is the trust you put in the word 'mind' to do so much lifting for you. — lll

Again, your perception is accurate, but your interpretation is off-target. My personal worldview is similar to Deism, but more specifically PanEnDeism. So, the "Universal Mind" is infinite & eternal, hence prior to, and outside of the space-time world. PED is an abstruse philosophical concept, not a popular religion. Unlike, the Abrahamic god, the hypothetical (mythical) deity of PED does not interfere in the workings of the world. Instead, like a Programmer, S/he created an evolutionary program, stored it in the Singularity, and executed it in the Big Bang. Metaphorically, you and I are avatars in the game, living by our wits, not by faith.

This is not a scriptural revelation, but a reasonable interpretation of 21st century science, especially Quantum & Information theories. However, if you have negative emotions about any god-concept, you can imagine the PED as a material Multiverse, or tower-of-turtles Many Worlds, or a Big Ball of creative Power, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever floats your boat. In any case the Energy & Laws that enform the material stuff, necessarily existed before the Beginning. Nobody knows for sure what caused our space-time universe to pop-out of who-knows-what-or-where. And nobody is going to condemn you to hell for denying the existence of a mystery that predates your world of experience. We are all just guessing here. :joke:

Panendeism : holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time, but does not intervene in its self-organizing evolution.

Primary substance, as defined by Aristotle is the individual, the particular, such as the individual man, or individual horse. Secondary substance is the species such as "man" or "horse". — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't claim to be an Aristotle scholar, but I got my definition from a philosophical dictionary. In the definition below, I don't concern myself with the confusing "qualifications". Instead, I interpret the distinction in a way that makes sense for my Enformationism thesis. The term "substance" today is usually defined as the material from which a thing is constructed : as a sculpture from marble or clay. But, in my thesis, I'm more interested in the mental or metaphysical concept (Platonic Form or Essence) of which the sculpture is an imitation. So I typically use "substance" to mean Real Matter, and "essence" to mean Ideal Mind. See below. :smile:

PS__Likewise, Information has "qualifications" that can be confusing if not carefully defined. In essence it is Ideal & Universal, but in particular, it can become Causal Energy, or Material Object. I didn't just make this up. It's where Information Theory has developed : that shape-shifting Information is the essence of reality : matter, energy & mind.

How does Aristotle define substance? :
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html

7. Substance and Essence :
One might have thought that this question had already been answered in the Categories. There we were given, as examples of primary substances, an individual man or horse, . . . Ζ.3 begins with a list of four possible candidates for being the substance of something: essence, universal, genus, and subject. . . . Aristotle’s preliminary answer (Ζ.4) to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence, but there are important qualifications.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Essence :
In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature” of a thing such that it possesses certain necessary, metaphysical characteristics or properties in contrast with merely accidental or contingent ones.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence

The notion of noble Lincoln is the essence (primary substance) of which the marble is the material (secondary substance) :
THE SHAPE IS NOT THE FORM

Does Kastrup think E & M are not correlated mathematically? What does the "=" sign in E=MC^2 mean? — Gnomon
He does, and of course that's true. But I was leery of the 'intangible energy' idea, as if that amounts to anything more than or other than physics. But I'm considering the idea that even the humble "=" sign has no physical equivalent, it's a purely rational idea, but without it maths couldn't even begin. — Wayfarer

I assume you got that idea from Kastrup's Materialism is Baloney, which I haven't read. But, I have read The Idea of the World. His worldview seems to be similar to my own Enformationism, in which Information (meaningful relationships) is the Ontological Primitive. However, I locate that "primitive" in the mind of the Programmer, not in the multiple minds of her avatars or creatures. Therefore, what seems "tangible" to me, should also seem real to anybody else.

In other words, Reality is objective, not Subjective. So, what I experience as Energy or Matter is actually out there. It's only my interpretation, my model of reality, that exists subjectively in my mind. Yet, we all -- energy, matter, & me -- exist in the imaginative Mind of God (the Enformer), so to speak. In which case, the "Idea of the World" is generated by the Cosmic Mind, not by me. Consequently, I have to take Einstein's word for it that Energy is mathematically (logically) correlated with Mass, but neither is itself a material object, but merely a Potential for causation and for materialization. :nerd:


Do we know what matter is? :
That leaves the question of mind vs. matter. What is primary? What is, in Kastrup’s words, the “ontological primitive”? Rovelli says it is all relations, yet there can be no relations that we know of without stuff. Relations don’t operate in a void. What is the stuff that makes relationships work? Kastrup says it is mind. That mind, or Mind, generates the perturbations of energy in the medium of mind and we call those perturbations the stuff of reality.
https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-up/do-we-know-what-matter-is-f05a335ac874

due to the materialistic bias of our common language. — Gnomon
Let's not forget the intense mentalistic bias of forum philosophers who won't/can't ingest any criticisms thereof, attached for the usual reasons to go stories. — lll

Your perception is accurate, even though your aim is off. This forum does have two strategic factions : mental emphasis vs physical emphasis. The pro-Metaphysics posters are talking about human Culture, while the anti-Metaphysics posters are focused on non-human Nature. The "pros" typically have no problem with Natural Science, but as appropriate on a Philosophy forum, they are more interested in Cultural phenomena (e.g. beliefs & practices). So, they necessarily have a "mentalistic bias". Culture is the specifically human aspect of the natural world.

Human culture is difficult to study by means of the reductive scientific method. That's why Psychology and Sociology essentially gave-up on trying to emulate Hard Science, and remain mostly philosophical & holistic in their methods (i.e. induction & argument ; systems instead of parts), and standards of evidence (e.g. logical coherence instead of physical replication). Philosophical theories are also non-falsifiable in that there are no mental "Black Swans" to refute a hypothesis. Testing of Philosophical theories is logical instead of physical. Unfortunately, you can lead a person to Truth, but you can't make him believe it.

Therefore, Philosophy can be characterized as "non-science", but not as "pseudo-science". Because it does not pretend to be producing empirical evidence for physical theories. It's merely trying to produce reasonable models of intangible human concepts. So, the standards of evidence for Philosophy are different from those of Science. That's why your "criticisms thereof" are not "ingested". They may be food-for-physical-belly, but not nourishment-for-metaphysical-thought. Your error is what Popper called the "Demarcation Problem". Hence, you are shooting at pseudo-science, and hitting thin air. :cool:


What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science? :
In general, the soft sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989

Human Culture vs Nature :
Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, art.
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/PH/CulturalAwareness/CulturalAwareness2.html

Popper's Falsifiability Theory :
* Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment.
* Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method, by replacing induction with the falsification principle.
* The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
* For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.

Demarcation Problem :
For Popper the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms “non-science” (e.g., logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Induction vs Deduction :
Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it. . . .
Deduction is a form of reasoning whereby the premises of the argument guarantee the conclusion.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Induction_(philosophy)

Note -- Philosophy does not speak of physical Reality, but of mental Ideality.

The problem with this is that you are lacking substance here. Meaningful relations between weightless things does not magically create a "massy world". Substance is what gives mass its inertia, its resistance to change, the ability to support you when you walk. So for example, if the ground was composed of meaningful relations of weightless things, we need to know why these relations are resistant to change. It is this resistance to change which produces the appearance of weight, and the massy world. But telling me that this is the result of meaningful relations doesn't tell me anything, unless you can say why some relations are more resistant to change than others. Does this mean that some are more meaningful than others? Why are some relations more meaningful than others? — Metaphysician Undercover

Good questions! But difficult to answer, due to the material bias of language. So, we resort to debatable analogies between metaphysical Concepts & physical Objects.

Aristotle made a distinction between two kinds of "substance". : 1. Primary Substance -- Being qua Being, or 2. Secondary Substances -- species & genera (i.e. specific instances of Being). As I interpret those categories, Primary Substance is Essence (massless potential), but Secondary Substance is Matter (massy existence). The earthy "ground" I take for granted is Secondary & sensory, hence no mystery. But, the "substance" that "miraculously" gives mass to matter is Primary & abstract. Actually, Mass is merely a different form of Energy : energy transforms into mass, which is the property of matter that is mysteriously attracted to other masses via gravity (L. heaviness).

In my thesis terminology, Primary Substance is the Power to Enform, to give form to the formless. In Einstein's equation, that mysterious ability to create Mass from the massless is "magical" Energy. And according to current Information theories, Energy (potential) is merely one form of generic Information -- the same non-stuff that creates Meaning in a brain. So, shape-shifting Information does seem to be magical -- but it's also material, and that's what brings massless ideas back down to earth.

Relations that are "resistant to change" are eternal & infinite, like Primary Substance : the essence of Being. Meaningful Relations are mental analogies. Physical Relations are thermodynamic ratios.

"More meaningful" in this context can be understood as higher Valence. In a thermodynamic ratio, the relative valences are expressed in higher & lower abstract numbers representing degrees of energy content (hot/cold). But, in mental evaluations, numerator & denominator are evaluated in terms of significance to Self (good/bad).

Any more questions? :smile:


Ratio :the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

Valence : the combining power of an element ; a value that adds-up

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Is information equivalent to energy? :
The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. — Gnomon
:down: No, you're on the wrong track here. And that's not even supported by the post you provide from Bernardo Kastrup (of whom I'm a keen reader, having just finished his Schopenhauer.) — Wayfarer

I was not referring to Kastrup's article in the excerpt above. It was a top of the head remark.

Does Kastrup think E & M are not correlated mathematically? What does the "=" sign in E=MC^2 mean? :chin:

I believe you'll find it hard to make sense of 'cognitive relationships' without dragging in the so-called 'physical' and various semantic conventions. — lll

Yes. I know that all too well. Human languages are derived from commonsense (sensory) experience. That's why we talk about private-subjective-Mental-concepts in terms of analogies to public-objective-Material-things, Much of the ranting on this forum is a result of mistaken terminology, That's also why I spend (waste?) so much verbiage on defining terms, and defining definitions, and linking to other's definitions.

Ironically, even spooky counter-intuitive (not common sense) Quantum Physics is expressed in material metaphors. For example, a Quantum "Field" is an intangible mathematical concept, but scientists describe it in metaphorical as-if language. Note, in the definitions below, that the term "Field" in physics is defined in terms of another material thing : a "Region". Likewise, my Information-based terminology is misconstrued by the "Trolls" (as I teasingly call them) as-if I'm making a scientific claim about a physical Substance*1, instead of a Philosophical hypothesis about the imaginary Realm (or Field, or Region) we call "Consciousness" or "Mind".

That inherent materiality of language makes discussion of immaterial topics confusing. "Mind" is defined below in terms of an indivisible material substance (like a Democratean atom). But another way to define the "subjective Mind" is as a holistic-system-of-brain-&-its-functions, that when divided into parts, no longer functions mentally. Chop off a piece of brain, and it may still have some neuronal activity, but its cognitive mental functions don't work in the absence of the rest of the system. A mind without a body/brain is metaphorically*2 known as a Ghost. We can imagine such a thing, but mustn't take as real.

The early 20th century Quantum scientists had the same difficulty in describing the atoms they were dissecting in the lab. They likened it to "plum pudding", and to "solar system", and to a "cloud". But all "likens" are metaphors compared to something detectable by the physical senses. Yet Mind & Consciousness are detectable only via rational inference. Hence, the "other minds" problem.

Like those pioneers of Quantum Theory, the attempts of paradigm-busting Information Theorists -- to discuss their Holistic Systems theory of fundamental Information -- are often victims of the misinterpretation of misplaced concreteness, due to the materialistic bias of our common language. :nerd:


*1. Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
Note -- "Form" is the immaterial essence, or defining principle of a thing, while "Matter" is the clay from which it is constructed. In-Form-ation is a meaningful (or metaphorical) projection in the theatre-of-the-mind that represents a real (or metaphorical) object in the world outside the body/brain.

*2. A metaphor is a mental representation of a thing or concept. It's an abstract symbol. It may be stated as-if a Fact, but is not to be taken literally. Semiology is the science of abstractions that exist only in Minds. So, it too is plagued with misconceptions, due to the limitations of language.

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/

But language too is material! :
Language is infused with materiality and should therefore not be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-017-9540-0

Field :
1. an expanse of open or cleared ground, especially a piece of land suitable or used for pasture or tillage.
2. field, in physics, a region in which each point has a physical quantity associated with it

Region :
1. an area or division, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.

MInd :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Element :
1. An element is a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances through chemistry.

What Is an Atom Like? :
Since the atom was discovered, many theories tried to depict what an atom is like. They have likened it to a plum pudding, a small ball, and even a tiny solar system. Perhaps, it is also imagined as a core with a cloud of small and light particles surrounding it.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/what-is-an-atom-like/

A Democratean Metaphor :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181641

MIND IS A METAPHOR FOR BRAIN FUNCTION

Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted. — Gnomon
Not at all. The Stoics, Epicureans and Atomists were materialists. Materialism has always existed as part of philosophy - even in ancient India. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I said "physicalism" was not an issue for them. They seemed to assume that Reality was both Material & Spiritual. But they didn't worry about how a spiritual Mind could emerge from a Material substrate. They just assumed that "god did it".

Only when our improving understanding of Matter found no obvious connection between Body & Mind, did Cartesian dualism become a philosophical problem. So, Descartes postulated that the Pineal gland in the brain was the "seat of the soul. But that didn't pan-out.

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. And, post-Shannon Information theory has found a logical/mathematical relationship between Energy & Information. Hence, some scientists & philosophers have concluded that Energy, Matter, & Mind are inter-related forms of the same fundamental "substance". :nerd:

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
So-called “information realism”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern. — Gnomon

In my view, it'd be easier to make your point by emphasizing the difference between sentences and neocortexes. . . .
So skeptical cynics are the true enemies of scientific progress? One funeral at a time, right? — lll

No. I'm not talking about conventional grammatical syntax or physical structure. My "point" was referring to "mathematical structure" & "mental meaning". Which are not constructed of matter or social conventions, but of cognitive relationships. (see definition of "Mathematical Structure" in reply to — Metaphysician Undercover above)

Cynics are obstacles to progress for whatever process they deny. But I'm not talking about "scientific progress", such as in Neurology. Instead, I'm referring to "philosophical progress", as in the "hard question" of Consciousness. How does matter become conscious of its environment and of itself? :smile:

reductive Reason — Gnomon
You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason. — L'éléphant

No. I mean scientific reasoning, as used effectively for the dissection of material objects. But when reductive methods are used on Holistic systems it misses the immaterial bonds that hold it together. So, those who insist on "empirical evidence" for philosophical concepts, such as "axioms". "principles", "categories", "substance", "essence", or "systems", may be applying "bone-headed, dismissive reason" to non-empirical problems. :smile:

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? . . .
The whole field of "process philosophy", which allows the substance of physical reality to be rendered as mathematical equations, instead of as matter, in a fundamental platonic realism, is derived from the annihilation of "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

For pragmatic l purposes -- such as walking on solid ground -- I take matter for granted. But for philosophical speculations, I have followed the findings of Quantum & Information sciences, to the conclusion that ultimate reality is in-substantial & immaterial. So, it seems possible that our massy world is constructed of weightless-but-meaningful relationships, such as mathematics & logic. Of course, that possibility is not amenable to empirical investigation. So, like Einstein riding on a light-beam, we must use the telescope of imagination to explore the unseen & intangible foundations of Reality.

Your reference to Process Philosophy is interesting. I've read A.N. Whitehead's book on the topic, but much of it was above my philosophical pay-grade. Can you direct me to a more accessible source of information on the "annihilation of matter" concept? :smile:

Mathematical structure :
In mathematics, a structure is a set endowed with some additional features on the set (e.g. an operation, relation, metric, or topology). Often, the additional features are attached or related to the set, so as to provide it with some additional meaning or significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure

Didn't know there was an anti-metaphysics brigade, but it seems inevitable, from a yin-yang point of view that is. . . .
So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. — Agent Smith

Oh yes. There's nothing new about the antagonistic split between reductive Reason & holistic Faith. It goes back, at least, to the Protestant Reformation. However, the "enlightenment" intellectual movement, of the 17th & 18th centuries, was not originally anti-metaphysics, but merely anti-dogma. Early church-educated scientists, using evidence & reason, concluded that the official cosmology of the Catholic Church was wrong on specific technical topics. Ironically, the geocentric cosmology of Christian Theologians was inherited from pagan Greeks & Romans (among others). But as soon as that doctrine was formally adopted as revealed Truth, it became incontrovertible dogma.

Certain features of the Earth-centric cosmology, while useful for theological purposes, upon closer inspection, turned-out to be unsuitable for mathematical calculations. But, by definition, doctrinal Faith cannot be wrong. So, what was originally an internal protestant movement -- defying church authority in favor of personal reasoning, and focused on minor scriptural exegesis -- was later expanded to defend against contradictory scientific interpretations. So, it was a three-way split : 1.Sacred Catholic, 2.Pious Protestant, and 3.Secular Science & Philosophy. My own heresy falls into the third slot.

Eventually, freethinking intellectuals turned against, not just scriptural squabbles, but Scholastic Metaphysics in general. A quarantine of material Physics from spiritual Metaphysics gradually became the doctrine of pragmatic Science. Although Physics & Metaphysics had been inter-twined in Philosophy since Aristotle, a divorce became inevitable during the Protestant & Scientific revolutions. So, Metaphysics (the science of ideas), despite its philosophical & intellectual origins, was then deemed not just anti-intellectual ("stupid idiots"), but also anti-science ("faith-based").

Sadly, that Matter/Mind partition of intellectual investigation continues to this day. So, the once esteemed label of "Metaphysics", has come to signify "Anti-Physics" and "Anti-Science". Which is why, even modern mind-researchers who focus on non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. Psychology), are careful to avoid the use of a tainted term in their work. Unfortunately, even Philosophers, who do not claim to do physical science, must also avoid any appearance of dabbling in "irrational" Metaphysics, for fear of being attacked by "the ghost-hunting brigade".

As a philosophical Skeptic myself, I don't mind their justified suspicion of rampant Pseudo-science and re-interpreted Theology. But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. Since Information Science is primarily concerned with topics such as Origin of Life, and Emergence of Consciousness, it begins to trespass across that cease-fire line drawn between Mind & Matter, by such scientists as Steven Jay Gould, which he labeled "non-overlapping magisteria". And those of us, who are interested in non-physical (e.g. mental) phenomena get caught in the crossfire. Keep your head down. :cool:


Non-Overlapping Magisteria :
that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Note -- the expanding domain of 21st century Information Theory from computers to minds has over-lapped into the no-go zone, and is being fired-upon by both sides of the powder-keg cease-fire zone.

My objection rests heavily on the inconsistency of there existing a perfect being in the same reality as an imperfect world. Can anyone provide an argument that provides justification for the existence of evil while taking into account the unnecessary evils, or gratuitous evils, that we seem to observe throughout our life experiences? — tryhard

Yes. I accept Aristotle's logic, which concludes that a First Cause is necessary to explain the contingent existence of our world. That's even more obvious since the evidence for a cosmic beginning was discovered in the notions of evolution and expansion. But although his Prime Mover was self-existent, he didn't insist that it was "perfect", in the sense of moral excellence.

So, my hypothetical model for a self-existent Programmer of our long-running & continually-evolving program is Eternal & Infinite Potential, hence all-encompassing. And that definition includes the potential (or statistical possibility) for both Good & Evil. Therefore, like all executing, but incomplete,digital algorithms, our world computes both positive & negative values (1s & 0s). But the final result (synthesis) remains to be calculated. The up & down dialectic process of evolution swings back & forth between Thesis (e.g. positive, relatively good) & Anti-thesis(e.g. negative ; relatively bad) high & low points. And the ultimate output value remains in the unforeseeable future.

This is a PanEnDeistic (not in same reality) concept of a cosmic creator, which is unlike the typical Theistic model of Goodness & Perfection, that belies the reality of an OK-but-hardly-perfect creation. Since evolution explores both positive & negative possibilities, there's no need for a Heaven or Hell. What you see, is what you get. :smile:


What is Hegelian dialectic of good and evil :
As for good and evil, Hegel was extremely obscure on the issue, and Marx of course dismissed them as metaphysical abstractions detached from reality.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/42562/what-is-hegelian-dialectic-of-good-and-evil-and-how-does-it-relate-to-binary-opp