I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".

Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. :smile:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
___ Rudyard Kipling

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

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

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space — Gnomon
Just filing this away. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time. :smile:

PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. — Wayfarer

You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile:

PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.

The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.

You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.

Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. :cool:

idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky

Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie. :smile:

In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:

2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it. — god must be atheist

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.

Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.

My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics. :cool:


*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.

Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/moderation-considered-virtue

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing.[/b]
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-cant-be-broken-but-can-they-be-defined?utm_source=pocket-newtab

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.. . . .
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid. — lll

Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile:

So - you’re trolling the trolls? — Wayfarer

Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.

As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics. :smile:

"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2

PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition. :cool:

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

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.

I'm not sure how far back the current physical vs non-physical contention can be traced. But a match was probably struck to the fuse when Enlightenment Science began to challenge the then-dominant Metaphysics of the Catholic Church. The subsequent separation of church & state may have cooled the flames for a while. But the resurgence of Creationism versus Evolutionism in the 20th century, stoked the latent fires of diametrically opposed worldviews : Spiritual vs Material. Around the turn of the 21st century, the Four Horsemen of Atheism began a concerted counter-attack. And the resultant polarization & politicization of worldviews is still reflected in debates on forums such as Quora and TPF.

Most of us on this forum seem to be open to polite exchanges of views. Unfortunately, those with black vs white attitudes have turned some philosophical dialogues into political diatribes. :sad:

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12649/meta-physical-versus-anti-metaphysical

That there is some sort of correlation between "the terrain", as a product of your sensations, and the thing itself, is just an assumption people make. — Metaphysician Undercover

That may be true in an abstract cognitive sense. But, if we didn't make the "connection" or "assumption" that a cliff edge (absence of solid ground) is really there, we could take a fatal step into the abyss. Our eyes & brains interpret edges as a sign that a surface changes direction. That's a useful assumption to assure evolutionary survival. Even in a Virtual Reality goggle, you'd be wise to assume, without proof, that an edge means either a real obstacle or an absent precipice. :joke:

Assumption : 1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

‘Ancient Brain’ Helps Us Interpret Edges :
https://theserf.org/news/ancient-brain-helps-us-interpret-edges/

Space is infinite. There is no end to it. The universe expands in it. Accelerated even. Will it come to a sudden stop because space ends? — EugeneW

Einstein defined the universe as "finite, but unbounded". Ironically, "unbounded" is one definition of "infinite". Yet, Einstein's mathematical universe is depicted as a sphere, which would actually be finite in space, except that "space" is inside the sphere. Now wrap your mind around the paradox of unbounded space trapped inside a finite sphere. :joke:

Einstein postulated that the universe is finite in time (bounded at the big bang singularity), and unbounded in space -- i.e., if one could travel the four dimensional universe in a geodesic one would not find a boundary, and would end up at the starting point, just like the path of a geodesic on the 3-dimension Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-the-Universe-be-finite-and-unbounded-and-still-be-Euclidean



What Lies Beyond the Edge of the Observable Universe? :
So, in some ways, infinity makes sense. But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won't just find more planets and stars and other forms of ...
https://futurism.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe

What is perceived and understood depends on the observer. — EugeneW

Yes. The eye is not the only component in vision. The brain interprets the visual stimuli in order to understand what is being seen. And even the brain has more than one way to Perceive, as exemplified in the "Blindsight" phenomenon. Moreover, the brain can Conceive of something that isn't there, as in illusions and mirages. So human perception is a combination of physical and non-physical functions. By "non-physical" I mean the interpretation of physical inputs into non-physical meaning in the Mind. Percepts are converted into Concepts. So, "what you see, ain't always what you got". :nerd:


Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as the primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.
___Wiki

So, now we are forced, and rightly so, to take the path of least resistance -- CAUSAL THEORY OF PERCEPTION. — L'éléphant

I wasn't familiar with the various theories of Perception, but the "Causal theory" seems intuitive to me. However, the "Emission Theory" seemed sensible to Plato. And Superman's X-ray Vision is a form of emission perception. So, I guess, what you Perceive is still somewhat dependent on what you Conceive. :cool:

The causal theory of perception consists roughly of the claim that necessarily, if a subject S sees an object O, then O causes S to have a visual experience. Some have held that this claim is a conceptual truth.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Theories of Preception :
The four main bottom-up theories of form and pattern perception are direct perception, template theories, feature theories, and recognition-by-components theory. Bottom-up theories describe approaches where perception starts with the stimuli whose appearance you take in through your eye.
https://philpapers.org/browse/the-causal-theory-of-perception

Emission theory (vision) :
Emission theory or extramission theory (variants: extromission) or extromissionism is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by eye beams ...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emission_theory_(visi...

True. But that doesn't mean you can't consider them objective reality. You gotta think something is real. — EugeneW

True! That's what Hoffman is talking about in his book, The Case Against Reality. He labels "what you think is real" as a mental model of reality, not reality as such (ding an sich). Those models are maps or guidebooks to Objective Reality, not the terrain itself. However, our maps are useful abstractions of the real world. If our models were not good approximations of the terrain though, we would soon get lost. Of course, you could "consider" your model to be "objective reality", but that would be self-deceptive. :smile:

Hoffman himself argues for Model Dependent Realism (MDR),concluding that “it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation.” . . .
However, he explains, “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.”
BothAnd Blog, post 105

We humans are permanently in subjective reality, as are all conscious life forms. Objection — Objective reality must exist independent of subjective reality. Just because we do not or cannot perceive it, does not mean it does not exist.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F

“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)

As you can see these two don't jibe with each other: on the one hand knowing is better than not knowing (2nd paragraph above) as decisions can only be made knowing what's true and what's false and on the other hand, there's this belief that we make high quality decisions when we're confused (aporia, 3rd paragraph above).
These two antipodal views both makes sense and does not is an instance of aporia (for me).
Can you help clear up the matter for me? — Agent Smith

Yes. Don't treat Truth & Falsity as "antipodal", but as a continuum between those poles.

As a recovering Perfectionist or Idealist, you need to accept that you will never know absolute Truth about anything. Nor will anyone else you encounter. That's partly due to the inherent uncertainties of the physical world, and to the intrinsic limitations of the human mind. Ironically, a common rhetorical tactic (on forums) is to present the appearance of personal Omniscience, or appeal to Authority (such as all-knowing Science), in order to manipulate confused or unsure people. Like Infinity, Comprehensive Truth is an ideal state that is never encountered in the real world.

Unkowns and mysteries are potentially dangerous, but also potentially-fruitful fields to plow . . . . carefully. Remember, Philosophy idealizes absolute Truth, but makes-do with approximate pragmatic truths, that it optimistically labels as practical "Wisdom". :smile:

Fitch’s paradox of knowability concerns any theory committed to the thesis that all truths are knowable. . . . The operative concept of “knowability” remains elusive but is meant to fall somewhere between equating truth uninformatively with what God would know and equating truth naively with what humans actually know. Equating truth with what God would know does not improve intelligibility, and equating it with what humans actually know fails to appreciate the objectivity and discoverability of truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

Pragmatic Truth :
Unlike correspondence theories, which tend to see truth as a static relation between a truth-bearer and a truth-maker, pragmatic theories of truth tend to view truth as a function of the practices people engage in, and the commitments people make, when they solve problems, make assertions, or conduct scientific inquiry ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/

SUBJECTIVE TRUTH

Does this mean that, despite denying it, vehemently, we're actually using some version of paraconsistent logic? — Agent Smith

Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check your own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin. :smile:

Absolute True Reality — Gnomon
Assuming there is such a thing. — jgill

In Reality, there is no such thing as "true reality". But absolute true Ideality, is another question. That's what Plato called the realm of "Forms". Ideality is a standard of perfection against which we compare & evaluate our imperfect world. Like "Infinity" we can conceive of such a perfect state, but we know better than to begin the journey to that destination. :joke:


What is reality? Why we still don't understand the world's true nature :
It’s the ultimate scientific quest – to understand everything that there is. But the closer we get, the further away it seems. Can we ever get to grips with the true nature of reality?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532670-700-what-is-reality-why-we-still-dont-understand-the-worlds-true-nature/

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of "Forms", he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call "Reality" consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Note __ A perfect circle is ideally defined by Pi D or PiR^2. But, in reality there are only polygons with a series of points & sides that approximate infinity.

As an adult, that primal joy has been replaced by annoyance, anxiety, and anger. I remain as perplexed as ever, but I now dislike it, it's not fun anymore. — Agent Smith

Your frustration may be due, in part, to unrealistic expectations. When I was young, I learned the hard way that I was a perfectionist, who couldn't deal with his own imperfections. As you grow older though, you learn to lower your expectations. Especially in Philosophy, Ideals are an impossible dream. Ambition is good, in moderate doses. :cool:


"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" ___Robert Browning

So is a real particle... :wink: — EugeneW

Ah yes. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman postulated in his book : The Case Against Reality, all human mental models of Reality are essentially "illusions". By that, he simply means that our ideas are Ideal, not Real. Unfortunately, some people can't accept that their personal Reality is artificial and man-made. So, we should not take them as literally true, but as pointers to true reality. That's because each mental model of Reality is abstract & fragmentary, derived from a limited perspective and shaped by personal biases. Even the composite models of Science are incomplete. Presumably, only God, looking down on the world from outside, would have the True, Comprehensive, Objective perspective of Reality. Consequently, our abstract mental & mathematical models of Physical & Virtual particles are both "imaginary simulations" of Absolute True Reality. :joke:

The Case Against Reality :
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world.
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/

"False" models as an integral part of science :
The models that scientists use are no different from the models you use in everyday life. They are simultaneously false and useful. Learning even a small amount about scientific models can be quite useful in detecting major limitations of scientific approaches. This knowledge enables one to pose relevant questions to those who developed the model.
https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/False.models/Text.html

I didn't know Plato had rejected infinity. Why did he do that, may I ask? — Agent Smith

I don't think Plato "rejected infinity". As you noted, his concept of a realm of Forms is functionally infinite in a Potential sense. However, Aristotle, as a realist, may have rejected the notion of "actual Infinity" as impossible in the real world of constant beginnings & endings. However. mathematics is not inherently realistic, so it can accommodate Ideal concepts.

Modern mathematics has been forced to become comfortable with the paradoxes of infinities. So, it has developed workarounds to deal with them. The easiest dodge is to define "infinity" as a large-but-countable number. Scientists though, typically prefer to avoid Infinities for practical reasons, such as the tendency to crash computers. But fearless Philosophers boldly go where scientists fear to tread : into Metaphysical Infinity, the realm of Possibility. :nerd:


Plato on the infinite :
The world of Forms: is a world in which everything “always is,” it “has no becoming,” and “does not change” (Timeaus, 28a). We know this world of Being by reason (i.e. through the rational part of our souls).
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Actual infinity :
Aristotle postulated that an actual infinity was impossible, because if it were possible, then something would have attained infinite magnitude, and would be "bigger than the heavens." However, he said, mathematics relating to infinity was not deprived of its applicability by this impossibility, because mathematicians did not need the infinite for their theorems, just a finite, arbitrarily large magnitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity


Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical.
https://www.britannica.com/science/infinity-mathematics

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's — Apollodorus

Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. But the political significance of such a symbol may be obvious to anyone familiar with the history of Fascism. Do you see the connection?

The link in your post indicates that reporters are still trying to understand why Russians are using a letter that is not in their Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it's meant to symbolize their "romanticized" mission of annexing a sovereign country into their reconstituted Russian empire. Since the intended meaning of the symbol has not been officially declared, I'm just offering my own personal interpretation : that it signifies Putin's dream of a "New World Order", with Russia as the dominant political & military player.. Do you imagine a different reason for the symbol.? :smile:


Why did Germany invade Poland? :
Germany invaded Poland to regain lost territory and ultimately rule their neighbor to the east.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-invades-poland

Swastika symbolism :
However, in the early 20th century, various right-wing adherents of the so-called “völkisch” movement in Germany, a movement in large part dedicated to uncovering a romanticized and largely mythical German/“Aryan” past, adopted the swastika as a symbol.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/swastika

Third Empire :
The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

If you mean that a VP is a non-physical bit of mind stuff I disagree. The real and virtual particle are just as real — EugeneW

OK. I won't argue with you about your personal opinion, or that of a particle physicist. FWIW, in my opinion is there's an important difference between Objective Reality and Virtual Reality. When I look into a VR headset, I'm aware that what I'm seeing is a crude imitation of reality : an artificial model of reality. For me, that mental construct is a non-physical thought, not a physical thing. Similarly, a VP is an imaginary simulation of a real particle. :smile:

Virtual reality (VR) is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality

Simulated :
1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : imitate.

Three years of graduate lab work (Cognitive Science / Psychology). Engineering projects and physics + chemistry lab work as an undergrad. Paralegal and mortgage underwriting work for decades (pre-pandemic). Left-Green political activism for decades (pre-9/11). I'd say I've been quite "mucky" in various ways ... — 180 Proof

As an untrained dilettante philosopher, I bow before your self-proclaimed Omniscience. But, I still don't appreciate your "dogmatic" (your word) True-Believer-in-Scientism shtick on this non-ideological forum. Most of us amateurs are well-informed about modern science in general, but we are not narrowly-focused specialists in any particular sub-field. So, our worldviews may be broader and more inclusive than yours. If that open-mindedness is what you call "woo", then woo-hoo give me a tattoo! :joke:

TPF Site Guidelines :
Types of posters who are welcome here:
Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that sense, "Infinity" may be used in a similar manner to "Googolplex", or my tongue-in-cheek usage of "Zillions". :joke:

A googolplex is the number 10googol, or equivalently, 10(10100) or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

Zillions :
an extremely large number of people or things.

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, — ssu

Oh, I didn't mean that the crossed "Z" of a swastika (symbol of German nationalism) was literally or consciously re-shaped into a symbol of Russian nationalism. But the resemblance is interesting. :wink:

JAPANESE TEMPLE SYMBOL

NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZI) SYMBOL

AMERICAN FASCIST SYMBOL

TRUMP CAMPAIGN LOGO

AMAZON SHIRT SYMBOL

Do you suppose people who recommend aporia (bafflement) as a healthy state of mind were conflating it with "awe and wonder". — Agent Smith

Maybe Einstein was a closet magician, pretending to be a mere scientist. He often attributed his curiosity about Nature to its inspiring "awe & wonder". But, instead of trading on occult mystery, he revealed the smoke & mirrors that had long concealed the underlying magic of reality. :cool:


One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."
___Albert Einstein

Nonsense. — 180 Proof

As usual, you missed the point of my description of what distinguishes Philosophy from Science. Some professional scientists with mucky hands, also do some philosophical speculation on the side. Apparently, you think that Philosophers should be required to present empirical evidence for their conjectures.

Do you consider yourself a Philosopher, perhaps an amateur like me? If so, what "mucky" physical experiments have you done? Do you tinker with real stuff in your basement? Or do you simply express personal opinions as Facts on forums? Do you simply quote the Scriptures of Science as evidence for your claims of what's Real, and what's not? :joke:


Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

It's been discussed a lot but I always say, never loose sight of its connection to Aristotle, for whom the term was coined. Otherwise metaphysics becomes a catch-all term for any kind of woo. — Wayfarer

Yes. For the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I typically define "metaphysics" in terms of the topics Aristotle discussed in the second volume of his treatise in Nature. There, he was not describing physical things, but ideas about things, or about Nature in general, including the human Mind and its Thoughts. Volume 1 was the primitive forerunner of modern Science, while volume 2 was the prescient ancestor of modern Philosophy. :smile:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

As for the Idea of infinity - residing in the world of Platonic Forms - I dunno what that would look like. What is the Form of infinity? — Agent Smith

I don't know that Plato had much to say about "infinity" per se.. But his Forms are essentially definitions of possible or potential things. So the Form of Infinity would be something like : 1. spacelessness, or 2. a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. Anyway, I suppose "Infinity" would look like nothingness, but with the potential for something. :smile:

Plato on the Infinite :
Plato therefore will locate the infinite in the world of change, but since the world we experience is a dependent and deficient, ‘less real’, world, Plato can be seen to continue in the ancient Greek tradition of rejecting the actual or transcendent and fully real infinite.
https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/plato.html

Agree with your analysis, on the whole. — Wayfarer

"Whole" . . . "holistic" . . . I get it. :joke:

C S Pierce also included abductive reasoning - reasoning from effect to probable cause. But the issue is that underlying 'scientism' is 'positivism' - that being, in a loose sense, the view that science and mathematical extrapolations of empirical observations are the sole forms of valid knowledge. — Wayfarer

Sure. But Positivism was mainly concerned with weeding-out Metaphysics. And most of modern Philosophy falls in that non-physical category, by default. If it ain't physical, it's metaphysical (i.e. religious faith). Which is why many philosophers try to dissociate themselves from Scholastic Metaphysics. :cool:

Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
PS___That's why I'm still searching for another simple term, besides "metaphysics" to distinguish the scope of Philosophy from that of Physical Sciences. So far, "non-physical" is a candidate. But even that discrimination seems to elicit negative reviews from those for whom "physical" means Real, and non-physical means un-real, hence non-existent. In what sense does Mind exist, if not as an illusory figment of imagination? It seems to be a no-win contest of perspectives. :sad:

↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof

No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion, but would be absurd for empirical dissection. Personally, I'm skeptical of ghosts & afterlife & reincarnation, but I'm willing to discuss such topics on an intellectual level, without eye-rolling. My interest would be why so many people with normal brains find the notion of disembodied Souls intuitively believable. :smile:

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Bafflement may be frustrating, but it can also be stimulating . . . . for those with a curious mind. :joke:

Reposted from the Infinity & Nonphysicalism thread

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

CYCLIC TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEGININGLESS & ENDLESS INFINITY

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

Virtual photons can transfer momentum and energy. Independently (not on mass shell). — EugeneW

I found that statement puzzling. But, I'm not qualified to comment on such technicalities that are way over my head. So, I Googled the first phrase above, and got this article on various "virtual" questions. It shows a Feynman diagram of a "a virtual photon, which transfers momentum from one to the other." Yet that "tidy" explanation is followed by a "but" clause.

The impression I got was that Actual particles act like bullets (to transmit momentum), but Virtual particles seem to transfer momentum in some other manner. The physical bullet metaphor is intuitive, but the non-physical non-bullet analogy is a mystery to me. It implies that a VP is like a bullet, except when it's not. You seem to be more knowledgeable on VP topics. Can you elucidate? :smile:

Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles :
This is a seemingly tidy explanation. Forces don't happen because of any sort of action at a distance, they happen because of virtual particles that spew out of things and hit other things, knocking them around. But this is misleading. Virtual particles are really not just like classical bullets.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Energy, Momentum and Mass-Shell :
Let us state here clearly, to avoid confusion, that when we speak of the mass of a particle we always mean the mass measured when the particle is at rest, not the apparent mass when it moves at high energy.
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~wahl/artic/physics/VeltmanPartphys/9789812563026_0005.pdf
Q--- Does a Virtual Particle have rest mass?

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad. — ssu

Speaking of speculation, I'm currently reading the Kindle book by novelist Ken Follett : NEVER. It was published in 2021, so its geopolitics is quite up-to-date for a work of fiction. Instead of The West versus Russia, it's The West (US primarily) versus China. Yet the level heads of both of the major powers are trying to defuse an insurrection in North Korea, which threatens to use its nukes. forcing a confrontation of the big boys. Hence the title. So China necessarily plays the role of peacemaker.

Follett portrays the internal political struggles between Old Guard of saber-rattling us-vs-them conservatives (there's even a Trump-type presidential candidate), and the younger, more cosmopolitan & less aggressive people on both sides. The ineffectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent on bomb-toting bullies & desperate dictators is illustrated. But the major powers can't afford to play Russian roulette. So, there may be no viable alternative (literally and figuratively) to laying chips on Las Vegas roulette.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain, will learn from history, that Putin's re-enactment of Hitler's invasion of Poland, will not turn-out as expected by the invaders. This unruly world resists being ordered even at the point of a missile. :smile:


The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks and vehicles in Ukraine and has come to symbolise support for president Vladimir Putin and the invasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/07/shocking-behaviour-russian-gymnast-shows-z-symbol-on-podium-next-to-ukrainian-winner

How the letter Z became a symbol for pro-war Russians "
https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-z-tank-marking-how-letter-became-symbol-pro-ukraine-war-invasion/

I know you believe that you wrote a reasoned unbiased unemotional post, but you didn’t come close to one. — Joe Mello

You may have missed the point of my later posts on this thread. Normally, I tend to ignore threads with extremist terminology, such as "unequivocal triumph". But GT mentioned "denizens of this forum" in a unflattering reference to those who do not accept his Scientism-based bible-thumping as philosophical arguments. So I tried one last time to convince him that this is not a Science forum, and that modern Philosophers are mainly focused on topics that don't lend themselves to empirical evidence. I never denigrated the work of empirical scientists. And all of my proffered "evidence" came from credentialed practitioners of various fields of science. So my comments were not in any sense anti-science, but merely pro-philosophy.. Apparently, he equates Philosophy with obsolete Religion conquered by triumphant Science..

He continued to insist "show me the evidence", yet ignored my many links to quotes by professional scientists supporting my modest comments. He didn't seem to be interested in the opinions of individual scientists. Instead, his absolute authority is capital "S" science -- as-if modern science is a monolithic institution like the Catholic Church, with canonical scriptures. Ironically, when I asked him for "book, chapter & verse" to support his "unequivocal" equivocations, he made no attempt to provide references. He seemed to equate his understanding of Science as the unquestionable gospel Truth. I still don't know where to find that Scriptural Science, where the secrets of the universe are revealed.

Others had commented on his apparent evangelical mission to propagate his canonical Truth, and to root-out unbelievers. So, I began to reflect his bullying tactics back at him. And he didn't like it at all, e.g. being treated as a naive idiot, ignorant of holy Science. Yet, he made no attempt to justify his own bragging boast of "Unequivocal Triumph" of Science over Philosophy. So, if you detected any "biased, emotional" inflections in my post, they were merely mirror images of GT's tactics, not my own. Since he is obviously attempting to convert The Philosophy Forum, into The Triumphant Science Forum, he should expect some vigorous resistance -- as Putin is getting to his invasion. Are you ready to take-up the cross of Scientism, and convert the heathens --- while remaining reasonable & unbiased & unemotional, of course? :cool:

Definition of Scientism
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist. 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism

What Does 'Truth' Mean To A Scientist? :
There are no absolute truths in science; there are only approximate truths. Whether a statement, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how closely you examine or measure the results.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/?sh=4391c5378206

Does Science Over-reach? :
We've all heard the phrase, "You can't argue with science." But should we take the accomplishments of science as evidence for scientism—the view that science is the best and only way to acquire genuine knowledge? Does faith in science require that we disregard all non-scientific viewpoints?
___Massimo Pugliucci, philosopher
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach

Philosophy and Science: What Can I Know? :
Philosophy is a thorny subject. Many philosophical statements cannot be formally proven, resulting in clever but endless debates. Scientists usually shy away from such ambiguity and retreat into their safe world of perceived clarity. Nevertheless, the philosophical study of nature is the wellspring of science. Simply asking “What is a law of nature?” poses a philosophical challenge.. . . .
Paradoxically, every question answered raises more and harder questions and theories appear to be losing meaning. If asked, some scientists will admit to these shortcomings: uncertainty and ignorance are inherent and ubiquitous in science. The final blow to a clear foundation of knowledge comes from the discoveries that incompleteness and randomness lurk at the heart of mathematics.
___James B. Glattfelder, physicist turned quant, turned complexity scientist, with a pinch of data science and a philosophical bent,
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_9

Well, they have unreal properties. Or rather, non-intuitive properties. — EugeneW

Yes. But that paradoxical description reminds me of the bible verse : "by their fruits ye shall know them". In the case of sub-atomic particles -- especially Virtual particles -- we only know them by their properties. So, if their properties are "unreal" or "non-intuitive", why call them "real". That seems to undermine our commonsense understanding of Reality. I suspect that they are treated as-if real, because the logical alternative label would be "Ideal". And that name could imply a ghostly figment of imagination. Hence not kosher for a scientific concept.

However, I prefer to think of Ideal Concepts in terms of Information Theory. Not just Shannon's reductive definition of empty carriers of abstract data, but the more general notion of "Information" as meaning in a mind. From that perspective, a Virtual Particle would be the mathematical definition of a possible thing in terms of Potential physical properties. But "possibility" is not a physical state, it's a mental inference. And I'm trying to make sense of that not-quite physical state as a philosophical concept.

It seems that a Virtual Particle exists only in a statistical sense, as a fractional or uncertain reality : e.g. 50% probability of being detected under specified conditions. In more vernacular terms, VP exists as a prediction of a future state. In it's current un-real state, it is not measurable. So, I conclude that VP exists only as an idea in the mind of a mathematician. And it's that Ideal state that I'm trying to label as "non-physical reality". The idea of VP certainly exists in our world, but it has no physical properties. What would you call that non-physical Mental kind of existence? :smile:

What is Information? :
Information is stimuli that has meaning in some context for its receiver.
https://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com › definition › infor...

Probability is a mathematical language used to discuss uncertain events and probability plays a key role in statistics.
https://www.stat.uci.edu/what-is-statistics/

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

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities.
https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

Fuck off. Come back when you want to produce an argument. — Garrett Travers

The use of vulgar four-letter words is considered gauche on this genteel forum. Besides, it sounds like the exasperation of defeat. But a philosophical forum is a zero-sum game, not a win-lose conflict. We are just trying to get closer to the whole truth, not motivated to score points for "our side". We're all on the same team here. No us-vs-them arguments, just all-of-us-truth-seekers dialogues.

Unfortunately, you seem to view (idealized) "Science" as the last bastion of absolute Truth. Coming from an evangelical background, I understand the confidence that comes from the certainty of having the word-of-God in a single book. But after my loss of faith in revealed Truth, I had a few polite exchanges of views, that eventually broke-down into defensive postures, when I refused to play the game on their one-sided terms. They insisted that the only admissible "evidence" was biblical. So, some acted like stymied bullies, and began to sulk. They took their infallible books and went home.

FWIW, you may find that "triumphant" trumpeting on a philosophy forum is going to be alienating for those who doubt partisan truth-claims. In any case, Neuroscience deals in "observables", while Psychology and Philosophy are forced to grapple with "un-observables". At the moment, neither profession is in a position to feel "triumphant" on the "hard-problem" of Consciousness (to know within, hence unobservable). :smile:

Scientific Truth :
The previous discussion concentrated on only one of the controversies that surround scientific realism, the debate about whether talk of unobservables should have the same status as talk of observables. Contemporary exchanges, however, are often directed at a broader issue: the possibility of judging whether any claim at all is true. Some of these exchanges involve issues that are as old as philosophy—very general questions about the nature and possibility of truth.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Scientific-truth

Skepticism vs Truth :
The view that truth in religion is ultimately based on faith rather than on reasoning or evidence—a doctrine known as fideism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Philosophical skepticism :
Unmitigated skeptics believe that objective truths are unknowable and that man should live in an isolated environment in order to win mental peace. . . . Mitigated skeptics hold that knowledge does not require certainty
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Philosophical_skepticism