So, could perhaps the second law of thermodynamics itself therefore be responsible for the creation of new energy via the expansion of space, which in turn undermines the effects of the second law on the universe as a whole? — Pfhorrest

I just came across the term "phantom energy" which seems to be what you are talking about. If such inflationary energy actually existed, it would result in a sudden "Big Rip", which sounds more dramatic (and unpleasant) than the current projection of a "Big Sigh" during the prolonged "heat death" of the universe. This reminds me of Woody Allen's quip : "I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens". :joke:

Expanding Space -- Negative Gravity :
However… it is possible that our universe contains what is known as “phantom energy” in the literature. A universe with phantom energy is unstable, because the density of phantom energy is increasing when the universe expands, but just like dark energy, phantom energy accelerates expansion. But in this case, it becomes a runaway process, known as the “Big Rip”.
https://www.quora.com/What-if-space-expanded-so-fast-that-virtual-particle-pairs-were-pulled-away-from-each-too-quickly-for-them-to-annihilate-each-other/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1?ch=99&share=a86bfb9b&srid=ozk3M

Phantom Energy :
Phantom energy is a hypothetical form of dark energy satisfying the equation of state with w < − 1 {\displaystyle w<-1} w<-1. It possesses negative kinetic energy, and predicts expansion of the universe in excess of that predicted by a cosmological constant, which leads to a Big Rip. The idea of phantom energy is often dismissed, as it would suggest that the vacuum is unstable with negative mass particles bursting into existence. The concept is hence tied to emerging theories of a continuously-created negative mass dark fluid, in which the cosmological constant can vary as a function of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_energy

Big Rip :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

I just wonder what the implications are of this and:
-how much of our world view is stuff we invent ourselves
- how much control we have over our world view — John Paterson

See my reply to for an introduction to Don Hoffman's answer to your question.

didn't know Hoffman had discussed his ideas with THE Francis Crick? I'm not surprised he was a critic.

I take it Hoffman is a lot more radical than the rather tame view that reality and our perception of it are not one and the same? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Don Hoffman was a close associate of Francis Crick, and they worked together for years. But Hoffman was a lot younger, and began to diverge from Crick in his basic worldview. Crick was a fairly traditional reductive-materialist-classical scientist, and famously said "you are nothing but a pack of neurons". Yet, over time, Hoffman's views turned toward more holistic Eastern models of reality, in which "You" are more than your physical structure. He also was influenced by the contra-classical findings of Quantum Theory -- including the role of the observer in constructing models of reality. And I wouldn't be surprised, if Crick lived long enough to read Hoffman's latest books, that he would find his ideas "radical". Nevertheless, Hoffman remains respectful of his mentor's contributions to science.

Hoffman's "astonishing hypothesis" is just the opposite from Crick's. And he turned the old evolutionary arguments for reality (arbitrary & random reshuffling of matter) upside-down, by implying that even hard-nosed no-nonsense scientists are dealing with illusions of their own making. This does not necessarily mean that there is no ultimate true Reality, but merely that each of us is like the blind-men and the elephant story, in which each observer sees only a part of the whole. In that case, the role of science is to have a meeting of minds, and to merge our various "illusions" into a single useful approximation of Holistic Reality. :nerd:


The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” ___Francis Crick
https://todayinsci.com/C/Crick_Francis/CrickFrancis-Quotations.htm

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman believes that evolution and quantum mechanics conspire to make objective reality an illusion.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

BLIND MEN OBSERVING A WHOLE ELEPHANT'S PARTS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

I think the most popular is Donald Hoffman's The case against reality. — Down The Rabbit Hole

FWIW, here's my blog review of Hoffman's book, and its thesis of Model Dependent Realism.

Reality is not what you see :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Model-dependent realism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

I don't see how you're getting that claim. I am both talking about the Principle of Least Action, and also talking about Noether's Theorem, but I don't see why you'd say one is a special case of the other. — Pfhorrest

It wasn't exactly a "claim", but just an observation. I don't know much about either theory. But after reading descriptions, the "principle" seemed to be more general in application than the "theorem". In any case, I concluded that the PLA would have the opposite effect from "efficiently" Increasing Entropy. Instead, it would tend to conserve available Energy, acting as a brake on the dissipating effects of energy decay -- the end result of which is the projected Heat Death of the universe.

A more positive outlook is important to my philosophical worldview, including the hypothesis of Enformy (negentropy), which works in opposition to deconstructing & digressing Entropy. I had coined the term "enformy" before I had heard of "negentropy". And one reason that awkward word is not better known, may be that some misanthropic physicists appear to be less interested in positive evolution, than in the scary negative impact of the motor of the world running down, leaving us stranded in a bleak future, with nowhere to go. :grin:


Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos. One example of negentropy is a star system such as the Solar System. ... The opposite of entropy is negentropy.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

As though the conserved quantity is not just energy per se, but free energy: so as some energy becomes unfree as entropy increases, there's a commensurate creation of new free energy to keep the total free energy constant, which new energy is added everywhere equally, manifesting as an expansion of space. — Pfhorrest

Again, I'm not qualified to comment on the mathematical or physical aspects of your proposed symmetrical relationship between Space & Time, or between Free Energy & Spatial Expansion. But, I am interested in the Philosophical and Cosmological implications of the proportional relationship between Energy and Entropy.

Noether's Theorem seems to be a special case of Maupertuis' Principle of Least Action. Which has been metaphorized as "The Lazy Universe Principle". But I would prefer to call it the "Conservative" or "Frugal Universe" principle. That is how I interpret the First Law. It's like Fossil Fuels : petroleum is not a renewable resource, so it must be used sparingly and recycled when possible. "A penny saved is a penny earned".

In this case, "Free Energy" is not free; it comes with a cost : Entropy (unavailable energy). So, the source of energy for the expansion of space is not a freebie. Therefore, the moral of this story is that Energy and Space-Time are finite --- hence, the expansion cannot go-on forever. :cool:

Maupertuis's principle :
It is a special case of the more generally stated principle of least action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maupertuis%27s_principle

The Lazy Universe :
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5024210

Thermodynamic free energy :
Since free energy usually contains potential energy, it is not absolute but depends on the choice of a zero point. Therefore, only relative free energy values, or changes in free energy, are physically meaningful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_free_energy

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form.

By our current best understanding of physics, the universe as a whole is not a closed system, because there's new energy being created everywhere all the time by the expansion of space. . . . what the corresponding symmetry to conservation of free energy would be. — Pfhorrest

Not necessarily new. I'm not a physicist, but I am interested in the symmetry between Energy & Entropy. Apparently, the universe began with all the energy it would ever have. But energy is a shape-shifter, in that it is constantly changing form, from potential to kinetic, from energy to mass, and back again. The traditional list of energy forms -- chemical, electrical, radiant, mechanical, thermal and nuclear -- may need to be updated to accommodate "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". But the general rule seems to be : "conserve energy, because it doesn't grow on trees". Therefore, despite speculations about "continuous creation", or "exchanging energy between mini-verses in a multiverse, our world still remains a closed system. But it's a dynamic system, and cybernetic system. So, it's a slippery bar of soap, for physicists to pin down. :smile:


What is the source of energy that is accelerating space? :
No new energy is created, it is potential energy converted into kinetic energy. ... The expansion is accelerating constantly, so that would seem to require a constant addition of energy. But if our universe is self contained, there is no external source of energy to create a force to accelerate space. . . .

There is no force or energy involved in the expansion of space. It is merely a natural result of the General Theory of Relativity.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-source-of-energy-that-is-accelerating-space

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- (amateur guess) apparently, Enformy is symmetrical, in that it maintains a dynamic balance between Potential (stored) and Actual (kinetic) Energy, by cycling through various physical forms. As space expands, its potential energy is converted into kinetic or inertial energy. But the total (whole) energy content of the Cosmos remains the same as in the beginning, when it went Bang!.

If you had only reason and no passion, you would be a computer. If you had only passion and no reason, you would be an animal (sorry animals, I couldn't find a better example). — TheMadFool

:up:

As I see it, the Stoic ideal was a harmonious balance between the extremes of Spock Logic and Captain Kirk passion. It was the Cynics that tended to the extreme of living life like a dog (sorry mutts). :grin: :lol:

I have searched on and off for years on what philosophical movements promote, or are in agreement with, the idea that everything in our experience can be interpreted/translated as mathematics. — Paul Fishwick

I tend to equate the human science of Mathematics with knowledge of the Logical structure of the universe. In mathematical analysis, we are describing certain logical relationships between things. And one result of those "equations" is a unified & holistic view of otherwise independent parts of reality. The physical parts of reality are visible and tangible. But the web of interrelationships is invisible, except to rational minds. So, Mathematics is essentially a form of Mind-reading, in the sense of Hawking's quote about knowing the mind of God.

With that broader notion in mind, I would call the mathematical aspect of reality : Meta-Physical. That's because it applies, not just to material relationships, but to meaningful & moral human (mental, emotional) relationships. Logical relationships have both numerical values (ratios) and moral values (true/false; good/bad). But those who focus their mathematical investigations on the parts, may not "see" the whole picture, that Hawking referred to as "God". Of course, he was not referring to the god-model of any particular religion, but to the Nature-god (or Logos) of the philosophers, specifically Spinoza. And, in that all-encompassing sense, Mathematics (Logic) is part & parcel of "everything". :smile:


"If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God" ___Stephen Hawking

Logic is empirical — RussellA

OK. You have made your semantic point. But my semantic point is that "Probability" is Virtual, not Actual ; Potential, not Real ; Future, not Here & Now. :smile:


In conclusion, theoretical probability is based on the assumption that outcomes have an equal chance of occurring while empirical probability is based on the observations of an experiment. There are two other types of probabilities and these are axiomatic probability and subjective probability.
https://medium.com/@emmabudu/the-difference-between-empirical-and-theoretical-probability-d42938aa8b7

Probability tells us how often some event will happen after many repeated trials. This topic covers theoretical, experimental, compound probability, permutations,​ ...
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/probability-library

They're used to make empirical predictions. How much more factual do you want? — Kenosha Kid

Those hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points do allow predictions that can be empirically tested. But the "objects" themselves are Theoretical, not Empirical ; Possible, not Factual. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with hypothesis or conjecture per se. :cool:

Potential energy is still energy. You can weigh it, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Potential Energy is Virtual Energy. And unhatched eggs are virtual chickens. :joke:

However, I don't understand the mechanism for teleological "intention". — RussellA

Teleology is an inference from observation of tendencies in natural patterns. If you watch a landslide, the only "intention" (tendency) you will see is that of gravity. Which dictates that an object with no means of self-movement will be caused to move by the outside force of gravitational "attraction". In this isolated case, we don't say that gravity is an "intentional" agent, but it is a "causal" agent. However, if you add-up all the uni-directional patterns in physics, you may notice that the current state (pattern) of causal change points back to what cosmologists call a "Singularity", where the causal lines disappear into the black-hole (metaphor) of Infinity.

Since everything that happened after the Big Bang -- including the emergence of flesh & blood intentional agents -- was fore-ordained (programmed) in that dimensionless point (no extension, only intention) , it would be reasonable to look for an intentional agent (outside force) to do the programming of the "mechanism" (evolution). The only other reasonable conclusion would be that a random confluence of atoms, accidentally caused a functioning world -- complete with life & mind & intentional agents -- to appear, as-if from nowhere. That's what you call a "Cosmic Coincidence" or a "miracle". So, which is more reasonable : coincidence or intention, to explain the progressive patterns of Nature? :smile:

Teleology and the intentions of supernatural agents :
These results are consistent with an intention-based theory of teleology, and help to reconcile the finding of a positive relationship between teleological endorsement and belief in supernatural agents, with the those of an enduring teleological bias.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32155580/
Note 1 -- by the same reasoning, you could conclude that those who do not endorse the notion of super-natural agents, are those with an enduring anti-teleological bias. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion, not fact. In my case, I am open to the notion of pre-big-bang agency, but it's not an article of faith. Is a consistent tendency in a specific direction (arrow of time) a sign of random coincidence, or goal-directed intention?
Note 2 -- a fireworks explosion has no inherent ordering mechanism (laws). So it's a self-destructive flash. But cosmic evolution shows evidence of on-going self-organization. So it's an enduring constructive evolution toward some unknown (to us) ultimate state.

Tracing current cosmological pattern back to its origin :

He is a panpsychic: "Koch has come around to the view that all forms of life — from apes, dogs and dolphins all the way down to microbes — possess a modicum of consciousness. — Pop

I respect Koch's authority in neuroscience, but I disagree with his philosophical interpretation of the universality of Consciousness**. That's because I reserve the "C" term for the only psyche we know directly : self-consciousness. All other forms of information processing are hypothetical. Panpsychism has the "virtue" of minimizing the importance of humanity. And a bit of humility in science & philosophy is necessary to avoid over-generalizing ideas (abstractions) beyond their proper scope. On the other hand, I assume there is a hierarchy of Consciousness, with atoms at the bottom of the pyramid, and humanity at the peak -- but with more evolution to come. :cool:

** For me, Consciousness is a highly-evolved form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In my thesis, Information (the power to enform, to cause change of form) is universal. Its best known form is ubiquitous causal Energy, which Physics views as the most essential aspect of our world : no energy, no matter, no minds, no consciousness.

Note -- Panpsychism, as a belief system, should lead, not only to Vegetarianism, but to Inedia, or Breathairianism. One example of such extreme views is the Jain religion in India, where people believe that humans could be reincarnated as insects, so they cover their faces in order to avoid inhaling gnats.

A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
___Wiki

Overgeneralize :
draw a conclusion or make a statement about (something) that is more general than is justified by the available evidence.
___Oxford

Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. — Gnomon

I think the distinction you're after is potential energy, which it has by virtue of its position in spacetime, and its mechanical energy, such as momentum and spin. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly! According to Einstein, the potential energy of a rock (uranium for example) can be converted into actual energy by deconstructing (disintegrating) its atoms. :nerd:

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Or predict future empirical observations, such as the decay chains of the Higgs boson involving W bosons (which are virtual particles). — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Virtual particles are theoretical objects that are used to make logical, not yet factual, predictions. Both the particles, and the prophesied future are imaginary until actualized in the real world. :smile:

Predictions :
While a causal hypothesis is a proposed explanation, a prediction is the expected result of a test that is derived, by deduction, from a hypothesis (or theory). The expected result is a logical consequence of assuming that the hypothesis (or theory) being tested is correct.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057150.pdf

I would argue that logic is empirical, as logic cannot exist in an empty domain.
There is no instance where a logical truth doesn't correspond with the world
]IE, ignoring coincidence as an answer, logic is empirical because logic is an intrinsic part of nature. — RussellA

I agree with last two assertions. But I think you are using the term "empirical" to mean "real", rather than "verifiable" or "testable". In definitions, "empirical" is usually contrasted with "theoretical" or "logical". Logic is indeed an inherent (real) aspect of Nature. But it is associated with metaphysical relationships, rather than with physical, empirically verifiable, objects. So Logic is more like a mental Theory about Reality, than a material Thing in the real world. :smile:

Empirical : based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic ___Oxford Dictionary

There seem to be many measurable physical effects that seem to point to the existence of virtual particles, but "virtual particles" are not the only possible explanation of these measurable effects. — RussellA

Yes. Like Dark Matter, Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations. And I don't doubt that they are useful constructs for the purposes of science. But I'm also aware that ancient people imagined invisible human-like agents to explain the otherwise inexplicable manifestations of invisible energy. For example, lightening reminded them of spears from heaven, so they assumed that someone was throwing them at specific targets, such as humans who offended the gods.

That general theory of disembodied Spirits was useful to pre-scientific thinkers for thousands of years. But we no longer need to imagine those natural effects as caused by human-like intentions, because Nature seems to be operating on auto-pilot. Hopefully, the need for ghostly objects will also no longer be necessary for future science. My money is on the causal (energy) and substantial (matter) effects of Generic Information (EnFormAction) in the natural world :nerd:

If you had a definition of consciousness then you may be able to make a coherent case for such a proposition, by examining whether the definition "only" fits humanity.

I have a definition of consciousness that fits humanity very well - "information integration for the purpose of self organization". — Pop

Yes. Your definition is broad enough to include almost anything that "processes" information, including a rock that absorbs radiant light energy, which it then "integrates" into its structure as thermal heat energy, which it then radiates back into the environment. Since I define Energy as a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction), the rock is "aware" of that incoming data only briefly. Whether that constitutes self-organization though is debatable. The rock may be changed by that interaction (thermal expansion), but the effects of such a minor change in structure might take eons to make a discernible difference. So I would reserve the term "information integration" for a more dramatic change, such as what happens when an animal "integrates" food into its structure and metabolism. That subliminal integration is essential for self-organization, but is it sufficient for meaningful Consciousness?

A dictionary definition of Consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." But it's hard enough to detect minimal consciousness in a comatose human, let alone a stone. Christof Koch laments the lack of a "consciousness meter" for that purpose. And elementary particles are even more remote from our concept of "awake" and "aware" than a rock. So, I prefer a narrower application of the term., that is more meaningful to the human mind, and to the human perspective. I'm not really concerned with what an atom thinks or feels, as it is dis-integrated in an atom smasher. However, I am interested in the advanced form of Information, that can be described as "Self-consciousness" --- knowing that you know. :grin:

Christof Koch -- What is Consciousness :
Consciousness is everything you experience. It is the tune stuck in your head, the sweetness of chocolate mousse, the throbbing pain of a toothache, the fierce love for your child and the bitter knowledge that eventually all feelings will end.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
Note -- he sounds like a homo sapiens chauvinist.

Is this due to G*D? I understand it as the laws of the universe ( including the ones we haven't discovered yet ) combining to cause Self organization, in an intrinsic way - Teleology, no externals necessary. — Pop

I think your "law of the universe" may be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. I didn't define it in terms of Self-Organization, but I suppose that's one way to look at it. Since the hypothetical Enformer is out of the picture, physical changes appear to be self-caused. That may be what Sheldrake had in mind for his notion of Morphic Resonance. But, I remain skeptical about his inference that "paranormal" events, such as mental telepathy are attributable to the Morphic Field. :smile:

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. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Morphic Resonance :
Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

But if everything is caused to self organize, then an intrinsic consciousness is necessary, in order to intrinsically navigate the information, and form an intrinsic "self" in the process. :cool: Which do you think it is? :smile: — Pop

I think the automatically evolving (self-organizing) processes of Nature imply that Organized Intention, rather than Disorderly Randomness, is at work. That's why I describe Evolution as functioning like a computer program, which seems intent on reaching some ultimate solution to an open question -- hopefully, the answer will be more enlightening than "42". But the original teleological Intention was in the mind of the postulated Programmer, and was eventually expressed in the emergence of creatures capable of their own self-control (cybernetics) and self-directed Intentions.

However, I refrain from applying the notion of self-consciousness to the lifeless & mindless elements (particles) of Physics. Instead, the "intrinsic consciousness" was in the Enformer, who achieves He/r goals by means of EnFormAction (a combination of causal Energy and cybernetic Information). Hence, Nature is a goal-directed cybernetic organism (a holistic system), imbued with self-directed consciousness by its Intentional Designer. But, I have to be careful not to say such outrageous things out-loud on this forum. :cool:

Principia Cybernetica :
Philosophies traditionally start with an ontology or metaphysics: a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality. In a traditional systemic philosophy, "organization" might be seen as the fundamental principle of being, rather than God, matter, or the laws of nature. However this still begs the question of where this organization comes from. In a constructive systemic philosophy, on the other hand, the essence is the process through which this organization is created.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHI.html
Note -- but who or what organized the process of Evolution???

Mass is energy, and that's generally considered a material property. — Kenosha Kid

Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. I like to think of Matter as a condensed form of slowed-down Energy. For example, as the frequency of light energy slows down, it's vibrations are less energetic. So at some point, light energy is transformed, as-if by magic, into a sluggish material form. That's how plants make potential-energy-rich, but low-frequency, sugar molecules from sunlight. Technically, Mass per se is not Energy. But it is mathematically equal to the frequency of the energy multiplied by the speed of propagation of light (E=MC^2). :smile:

mass–energy equivalence :
the energy E is measured in Joules, the mass m is measured in kilograms, and the speed of light is measured in meters per second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

But, on the other hand, if logical truths hold in any domain, then any domain has to contain the logical objects. Thus for logical objects there can be no empty domain. — RussellA

I am in general agreement with your assessment of Logic. But the quoted statement reminded me of the weird notion of Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles. The field itself is defined mathematically (logically) as a grid or matrix of dimensionless points (i.e. no extension, no measurable contents). And the Virtual Particles that theoretically occupy those points can be described as Potential-not-actual particles. Therefore, as a "logical object", a Virtual Particle seems to be an Empty Domain that could potentially be filled with substance.

Of course, most physicists prefer the positive-sounding term "virtual" to the negative implications of "not actual". In any case, the theoretical mathematicians don't really care that those "point" domains are mostly empty, until randomly-and-without-provocation, those vacant domains are filled with measurable particles of matter. It's only in an averaged statistical sense that the field is real. So, it seems that the human mind can "see" logical relationships between imaginary "objects". In that case, Virtual Particles could be described, philosophically, as Metaphysical instead of Physical. But that's a no-no in Physics. :smile:

Do Virtual Particles Really Exist? :
The effects of the quantum vacuum are real; the virtual particle visualization is useful, but the particles themselves are not real.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/

Virtual reality (VR)is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.

3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness. — Pop

My understanding may be a little different, in that I would say that every thing and every process in the world is a form of Generic EnFormAction (the power to cause change of form). One form is Matter. which is what we know as physical Objects. Energy is another form, but it's a process of change, not a static object. And Consciousness is also not a stable thing, but an ongoing process of interpreting incoming Information (energy) into Subjective Meaning. So, consciousness is more like Energy than Matter. But it's hard to say what an ongoing process is "made of". You could say that C consists of a stream of Ideas or symbols or meanings. But that's a metaphor analogous to flowing water, which is actually made-of both Matter (H20), and energy (momentum). Maybe C is like a water-wheel mill that uses flowing energy to convert raw material (grain) into edible (meaningful) flour. :joke:

This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and amplitude symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. — Pop

I think I vaguely grasp what you're saying. But to me, "symbolize" is a metaphor for what goes-on in a conscious mind, not in abstract space. Are you implying that the wavicle "memory" and "symbols" are in G*D's mind?

A symbol is a subjective idea (metaphor, analogy) that represents an external object or someone else's idea. For example, the NAZI swastika originally symbolized divinity & spirituality, or just good luck. But it was adopted by the NAZIs to symbolize the dynamic "spirit" of the German folk. So, like beauty, a symbol is in the conscious mind's eye of the beholder. :heart:

This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol. — Pop

Yes. C converts objective coded energy (out there) into subjective Meaning-to-Self (in here). In its coded form, the energy is meaningless. So, I guess you mean by "integrates", that C "interprets" patterns into meanings or symbols. :chin:

mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information. — Pop

Yes but, I would interpret "self-organization" as an action that is automatic, and inherent in the coded information, and requires no interpretation by the recipient. Something like a self-extracting ZIP file. But for me, it takes two to "integrate" or interpret many possible meanings into a singular relevance to the recipient's Self. So, I would say that incoming information (usually in the form of energy) is meaningless and non-symbolic, until it is process in a prepared mind with the code-key (reason) to extracting the potential information. Of course, the meaning of the incoming data was known to the sender (G*D??), but not to the receiver, until the mind "faciitates" the decoding process with a "code key" (Logic) that is known to both parties in the communication. :nerd:

Fair enough. Your understanding seems to have evolved since last we spoke, and so has mine. — Pop

My philosophical understanding has been rapidly evolving since the core concept of the Enformationism Thesis occurred to me about 12 years ago. I continue to develop that kernel in my blog, and on this forum. Having my solipsistic ideas challenged is key to making philosophical progress in the complex world beyond the Self. :smile:

The information of the first and second Wavicle is integrated ( and memorized ) to the form of the third Wavicle. — Pop

Unfortunately, that assertion seems to be based on assumptions that I am not privy to. I can vaguely imagine that each wave-front is altered (form changed) by its interaction with another wave. Thereby retaining a "memory" of the event, long after it happened. Is that even close to your understanding of wavicle "memory"? :chin:

consciousness as information integration — Pop

I interpret that assertion as saying that Consciousness is a process of "connecting the dots", or categorizing independent external factors into holistic meaning, to the observer. :nerd:

If a big bang is a disintegration, the opposite of a big bang will be integration. So, following a big bang period ( disintegration period ), one would expect an integration period . — Pop

That sounds like what Teilhard deChardin called the Omega Point. I just started reading the 1987 book by astronomer John Barrow and mathematical physicist Frank Tipler : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Both of those "visionary" scientists reached somewhat religious or mystical conclusions about the destiny of the universe. But they are usually ridiculed by scientists and philosophers who still hold the Copernican Principle dear. :cool:


The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.

Copernican Principle :
In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.
Note -- this is usually interpreted to mean that the universe is not Anthropic -- that there is nothing special about humanity, and the universe is not teleological.

Therefore, as the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation, "logic is empirical". — RussellA

OK. But it's the physics that's empirical, not the logical inferences. Logic is not a physical object, it's a mental process of making meaningful connections between otherwise meaningless events. The distinction is between the physical event and the metaphysical observation. People tend to see only the object in front of them, and ignore the seer (with knowledge and prejudices) behind their eyes. Simply seeing the obvious is not scientific observation. Classical Physics allowed scientists to ignore the observing mind. But, Quantum Theory requires scientists to include the Observer in the observation. :smile:

I thought I did explain. But I forgot you are a dualist, so it wouldn't make much of an impression on you, I'm sure.
For a dualist, information exists as patterns of energy / matter everywhere else except in mind! — Pop

If you explained the meaning of "information integrates itself", I missed it. Would you run it by me again?

Actually, I am both a Dualist and a Monist, just as I am both a Realist and an Idealist. That's how I unify a universe of many parts into a single whole system. But I don't understand how Holism could explain how a bit or byte of Information could "integrate itself". That seems to attribute some self-control to abstract Information/Energy -- as-if a bit of information is a self-conscious entity. I sometimes describe EnFormAction, metaphorically, as-if it works like the Holy Spirit of God, "moving on the face of the waters". But, it's not intended to be taken literally or physically or religiously.

As a world system, Information (EnFormAction) is already integrated, but when Generic Information takes on the form of Matter or Energy, it necessarily dis-integrates. Maybe what you meant to say was that Information is inherently unified in its holistic form. But the Integrated Information Theory, postulates that the real entities, that we perceive around us, must somehow become re-integrated. I'm not sure how the mathematical manipulations would actually achieve that goal. But we do it instinctively all the time when we change our perspective from subjective to objective, and vice-versa. So, information is constantly changing form, from holistic Potential, to particular Actual, and back again. In the human brain/mind, information is converted from neuro-chemical processes into the idea processing that we call "thinking". But the information doesn't re-integrate itself, because it requires intention on the part of the thinker. Anyway, this seems to be minor semantic distinction for me. But, I could be missing something important. :joke:


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. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.\
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS__I do see signs of Intentionality in the process of Thermodynamics and Evolution. And I propose a hypothetical deity to provide the teleological direction to the system as a whole. But taken literally, that could imply hard determinism. So, my metaphorical deity is assumed to give the world a push in a particular direction, then leave it alone to find its own path through almost infinite possibilities to a destination that is determined only in outline. Sadly, all of that hypothetical nonsense sounds like mere philosophical quibbling. So, I don't make a religion of it. :cool:

You are using an idealist argument - I love it! :razz: — Pop

Yes. But I also use Realist arguments where appropriate. However, it's the Idealist notions that tend to inflame some posters on this forum. I coined a term to describe my BothAnd philosophy : I'm a Redealist. I don't have to deny physical Reality in order to "see" meta-physical Ideality, the invisible world of interrelationships, that we know as Ideas or Meaning. Depending on what you are looking for, you will see and experience either the immaterial ideal world of Relationships. Or you can see the real world of Objects. It's a matter of perspective, as in Einstein's principle of Relativity. But some people seem to be blind (intentionally ?) to the reality of Relationships. And that is the whole point of Carlo Rovelli's latest book, HELGOLAND. The traditional belief of Science was that scientists can stand outside the Real world, and see it as it really is. But Kant shot-down that notion, long before Quantum Theory undermined the material foundation of Reality. Rovelli says, "the external point of view is a point of view that does not exist".

Rovelli goes on to say, while discussing the meaning of Information, that "this condition [subjectivity], which is perhaps a problem for naive materialism, is beautifully satisfied if we rethink matter as interaction and correlations". [my bracket] In my experience, the primary argument against Ideal concepts is based on the authoritative belief system (dogma) of Naive Materialism. That prejudice is understandable though, because we are all materialists, when we tend to the needs of the body. But the tip of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is "Self-Actualization", which has nothing to do with the physical body, but focuses on the meta-physical Self, which is merely an idea in the mind. Naive Materialism tends to view the mental aspects of the world as merely various functions of Matter.

My "Idealist" perspective turns that primacy around, to view Matter as merely one form of meta-physical Information. Rovelli emphasizes that Real/Ideal distinction by listing some of the obviously immaterial forms of mentality : "The mental world has different aspects --- meaning, intentionality, values, objectives, ends, emotions, aesthetic and moral senses, mathematical intuition, perception, creativity, consciousness . . . ." When Plato imagined a separate realm of Ideal Forms, those immaterial qualities are what he had in mind. Of course, that ideal realm is not really separate, just metaphorically on a different plane, so to speak. And it's metaphorical language, comparing ideal concepts with real objects, that annoy Naive Materialists. They will, of course, deny that label. But, you can label me a Redealist. :cool:

Naive Materialism :
According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects ... ___Wiki

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 idealists 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 (metaphorically equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns. — 180 Proof

OK. What is mathematics made of? Is it a collection of discrete (quantum particles), or universal fluid substance of some kind? Or is mathematics a human construct of imagination to represent the invisible relationships in nature? Do you think a dog would see a geometric triangle in an array of three unconnected dots? If the dog "sees" invisible lines between things, he may have a rudimentary grasp of geometry.

The distinction I was making is between the actual dots (objects) and the imaginary links (subjective). The white triangle illusion in the post above is an illustration of how human minds (dog minds??) fill-in the absences between things. Mathematical relationships (ratios) are imaginary (figurative, metaphorical) connections, not real (physical, material) bridges between objects. A mathematical "structure" (geometry) is not synonymous with a physical structure (steel beams) :cool:

"When an image is incomplete, your brain fills in the gaps by figuring out the most likely interpretation."
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/brain/optical-illusions-and-how-they-work/filling-in

I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist. — Pop

You're aware that the notion of a field is an imaginary mathematical construct, right? It's used like a matrix to organize abstractions into something resembling concrete reality. The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing.

Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium? :chin:

If the quantum field is not composed of "particles", what is the field made of?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind? — Pop

In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile:

↪Gnomon
So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? :brow: — 180 Proof

That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way. :grin:


Is space-time smooth or chunky? :
In order for the math of general relativity to work, this fabric of space-time has to be absolutely smooth at the tiniest of scales. No matter how far you zoom in, space-time will always be as wrinkle-free as a recently ironed shirt.
https://www.space.com/space-time-smooth-chunky-quantum-gravity.html
Is Spacetime quantized ? :
Today, while it is generally accepted that spacetime is quantized, there is disagreement as to how quantization manifests itself . ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318303447

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic. — RussellA

Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical. — RussellA

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact. :smile:

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make. — Janus

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make? — Janus

In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.

Generic Information :
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking. — Janus

I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism. — Janus

It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum? :wink:

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else? — Pop

He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation". :joke:

If you are asking about a fluid physical substrate for information to "wave" in, that is a question that puzzled the early pioneers of the wave nature of light energy. Some proposed that empty space contained an ethereal substance called "ether" or "aether". But, today most scientists evade that resemblance to a Spiritual substance by merely saying that light "behaves" like a wave, even though there may be no fluid substance to wave in. That also avoids having to reconcile its particle-like form, per Newton, with its wave-form, in two-slit experiments.

For my philosophical purposes though, I think that energy is not literally waving, but merely metaphorically. It's not a continuous analog wave, but a series of rapid digital quantum on/off (or actual/potential) winks that appear to the observer as a sine wave of ups & downs. For example, you could plot a Morse code signal in terms of a sine wave of maximum/minimum power instead of long/short duration. For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd:


Ether Theory :
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Discrete dots plotted as a continuous curve :

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. — Wayfarer

Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy." :joke:

Quantum Physics inadvertently placed the Observer back into the empirical equation, which was originally intended to omit the subjective prejudices of ordinary humans, that always led to differences of opinion. Ironically, the Copenhagen Interpretation was similar to the Council of Nicaea, as a means to distinguish mere differences-of-opinion from blatant heresies.

In their quest for perfect objectivity in empirical science, humans have created non-sentient machines that do all of the empirical observing, except extracting meaningful information from the observed relationships. And I've never heard of one telescope arguing with another piece of technical equipment about the significance of the observation. Any philosophical differences in Science are always correlated with physical Bodies, but only those with metaphysical Minds.

Rovelli seems to imply that the post-enlightenment notion of the Objective Observer, was a case of humans pretending to view the world from God's "privileged" perspective outside of the universe. But Quantum Theory knocked the legs out from that presumption : a human observer is an integral part of the system being observed. That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd:

Relational quantum mechanics :
The proponents of the relational interpretation argue that this approach resolves some of the traditional interpretational difficulties with quantum mechanics. By giving up our preconception of a global privileged state, issues around the measurement problem and local realism are resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

Copenhagen interpretation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Council of Nicaea :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And just for funsies . . . . :

Physical Logic :
In R.D. Sorkin's framework for logic in physics a clear separation is made between the collection of unasserted propositions about the physical world and the affirmation or denial of these propositions by the physical world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6266

Logical implies a higher view than the physical. :wink:
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/logical-vs-physical

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile:

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case?

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

It's true that Mind and Matter are merely different aspects of one reality, just as heads & tails are different aspects (views) of a single coin. But, as a philosophical question, what's the problem with discussing what makes them different? For example, how and why are they distinct from each other? If you prefer not to distinguish between them, does that mean you think it's dangerous to "look into the gaping abyss" of Metaphysics? What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? Should Science avoid discerning what makes one part of a whole different from another?

Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? Some "woke" people today think it's dangerous to scrutinize any genetic distinctions between races, because such, presumably biased, knowledge would inevitably lead to acts of racism. Should scientists be barred from investigating how racial "differences" cause some humans to react differently to the same medications? Is that a step in the right direction, or an emotional over-reaction to the long history of man's inhumanity to man? Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? Are such questions a matter of indifference to you? :cool:

Distinction (philosophy) :
Distinction, the fundamental philosophical abstraction, involves the recognition of difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(philosophy)

Res extensa :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extensa

This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate. I think it's safe to say that the only people interested in it are those who think it has some bearing on religious faith; either those who wish to justify religion or those who wish to refute it. Either way, it's a fool's errand! — Janus

I beg to differ with your over-simplified religion-versus-science characterization of this perennial Mind-Matter "debate". For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. But for many professional Quantum physicists, who are not concerned about "religious faith", the Mind-Matter Paradox is of vital interest. Wouldn't you agree that reveals a third category of far-from-foolish "people", who are vitally interested in the metaphysical aspects of Reality?

For example, I'm currently reading the latest book by atheist physicist Carlo Rovelli, HELGOLAND, in which he discusses the fundamental elements of reality, From the beginning, he makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. Yet, he insists that his position is not a Cartesian dichotomy of spiritual Mind in a physical Body. Instead, he says it unites those phenomena into a single Reality.

In one chapter, Rovelli recounts debates among mostly atheist-materialist leaders of the Russian communist revolution. Ironically, they accuse each other of "unjustified metaphysical assumptions". That's just one of many instances where the philosophical term "metaphysics" is used in a non-religious sense. Moreover, it seems that a keen interest in Meta-Physics is the primary distinction between an empirical Scientist, and a theoretical Philosopher. Yet, in their "physics envy", many philosophers today are forced to disguise their "metaphysical assumptions" with alternative terminology. However, metaphysics by any other name would smell as sweet, because sweetness is in the mind, not the body. :smile:


Embracing the relational nature of existence :
The success of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time has made theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli a household name. In his new book, Helgoland, Rovelli offers to the general public his interpretation of quantum mechanics, arguing that it solves the theory’s paradoxes by so profoundly redefining our notion of reality that it erases the ineffable mind-body dichotomy. . . . . Simply put, Rovelli argues—correctly, I believe—that we must abandon our belief in a cosmos populated by objects moving through space and time.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2021/06/08/helgoland/

Relational quantum mechanics :
The physical content of the theory has not to do with objects themselves, but the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Note -- relations are not material objects, but mental or mathematical evaluations. Some may think of math ratios as "physical", but only in the sense that they are usually associated with physical objects. But not always. Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

The "good company" you're keeping, Gnomon, are just as incoherent as your "thesis". — 180 Proof

You seem to have strong opinions about a thesis you know only from a few forum posts. Obviously, you still don't understand what my thesis is really proposing. Apparently, you read a few trigger words in my posts -- such as "Panpsychism" -- and then jump to a foregone conclusion without actually knowing how & why I use such terms in a novel manner. FWIW, I have placed below a link to an introduction to the Enformationism thesis. It also includes an even more condensed version in a popup, for those who can't follow long arguments. Unfortunately, the abbreviation may leave too much room for "reading into" my words, the reader's own meanings.

Speaking of "trigger words", in chapter six of Rovelli's book, he addresses some misuses of Quantum Theory to support some theories of Panpsychism and Spiritualism, which I also discuss in my blog. Although, he admits a hippie phase in his own past, he expresses disgust for New Age notions such as "quantum medicine" and "quantum spiritualism". And I agree with his scientific position. But I don't dismiss the ancient roots of such ideas as the work of neanderthals and idiots. For example, the sages, who invented the notion of invisible Spirits, were probably some of the smartest people in the world at the time. But what they described as animating "spirits" was actually what we now call invisible causal "energy". Unfortunately, the explanatory theories of those early philosophers and scientists were quickly converted into religious doctrines by those who wanted to use "science" to convince the gullible that they had influence over those scary natural forces.

Rovelli says "I don't find such arguments and such 'pan-psychism' persuasive in the slightest. . . . there is no need to attribute proto-consciousness to elementary systems . . ." And I agree. That's why I use the the more neutral, and technical, term "Information", instead of spooky "consciousness", to describe energy exchanges in bits & bytes at the quantum level of physics. However, he goes-on to discuss "Intentionality", which is a property of Information that goes beyond the mechanics of Energy, to include the notion of "Meaning". Then he says, "Two concepts bring us close to an answer : Information and evolution, even if neither is enough to comprehend what "meaning" is in physical terms." Later, he asserts, "a small miracle occurs, however, when we combine the two ideas of information and evolution." Again I agree, but I maintain that it is a natural "miracle", not a divine intervention. My thesis is all about the consequences of combining Information with Evolution. I had to coin a neologism to convey the meaning of that chimerical combination : EnFormAction. But, I'll leave it at that. I suspect that we have strayed far from the OP question of the relationship between Logic and Disbelief. :cool:

Introduction to Enformationism :
One of those early worldviews is Panpsychism, which is updated to replace ancient “Psyche” (spirit) with modern “EnFormAction” (creative energy)
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. — TheMadFool

OK. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I think what ↪Ying
was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism: — javra

Perhaps. But I was replying to Tim's implication that "balance" must be static. It's true that perfect balance would be "static" and frozen due to the cessation of motion. But that's not a description of our ever-changing world. Instead, positive and negative forces in the universe, seem to be balanced just enough to allow for the emergence of Life & Mind, which would not survive a more chaotic environment.

I interpret the circle that encloses the swirling black & white forms to symbolize the dynamic balance of a whole (non-dual) system consisting of (dual) diametrically opposing forces. A static balance would be symbolized as equal halves of the circle. ◑ But a slight imbalance would allow for change. ☯ :cool:


Is the world balanced? :
Yes! It is. The world exists because there is a balance, a balance slightly in favor of stabilizing forces as opposed to destabilizing forces, . . .
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-balanced

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case. — tim wood

That's why the Yin/Yang concept describes a dynamic balance. Even the symbol looks like it's whirling around. The complementary oppositions of our universe (male/female, hot/cold) are what makes the world go around -- figuratively and physically. ☯

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables — Gnomon
Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing! — TheMadFool

The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white.

Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :smile:

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html