Yeah, Seneca, Cicero, Aristotle - all hacks. I'm wondering why I bothered posting it. — Wayfarer

Don't let contrarian posts deter you. He's probably been imbibing too much of his namesake beverage. Which makes everything seem pointless. :joke:


Alcohol proof is a measure of the content of ethanol in an alcoholic beverage. The term was originally used in England and was equal to about 1.821 times the percentage alcohol by volume.
180 proof = 100% pure brain cell poison??? :100:

It strikes me that if the "real snake" (or whatever it may be) cannot be known, the mental representation snake is what is of significance to us. It doesn't matter what the "real snake" is, nor does it matter if our snake is a mental representation. — Ciceronianus the White

That description may be true of many people, who accept what they think they see as what is real. But to skeptical scientists and philosophers, and some poets, it does make a difference to know what is real and what is illusion. A major feature of wisdom is to know what you don't know.

That's the philosophical point behind the kick-*ss cover-story of the Matrix movie. Each of us must choose between the red pill of bitter truth, and the comfortable illusion of fake reality. :cool:


Late Lament :
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is grey is yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
___Moody Blues

So a simple fellow like me may be inclined to ask what, if that's the case, they "really" are if they're not a snake and a train, and what the difference is between the snake and the train (or what we only "think" are the snake and the train) and what the snake and train "really" are. If there is a difference, how does that difference affect what we do with what seem to be snakes and trains? — Ciceronianus the White

I haven't seen the article, but I have read the book. So, I'd say that the difference that makes a difference, between imaginary snakes and real snakes, is the practical distinction between Concrete and Abstract. Concrete things have physical properties, such as poison, that can have physical effects, such as death-by-snake-bite. But Abstract things, have their physical properties abstracted (pulled out), so what remains are ethereal meta-physical qualities (MPQ). MPQ are not inherent in snakes, but attributed by the observer. And one of the MPQ of both snakes-in-the-flesh and snakes-in-the-mind is that they can cause the real physical responses we call "fear". You may mistake a garden hose for a snake, but the fear-response will be the same. And some people have dropped dead from fear --- yet the cause was not bio-chemical toxin, but bio-mental shock.

If the mere idea of a snake can kill you, it's not due to what-is, but to what-seems. And what "seems to be" is important to humans, because we are motivated by feelings. Moreover, some of those feelings are pre-suppositions (beliefs) about what's real and/or important. Some of those suppositions are innate (learned by evolution), or empirical (learned by experience), but others may be superstitions (learned by education). But the emotional effect on the believer is real, whether triggered by "what-is" or by "what-seems" (physical or metaphysical). Yet, some of us belittle Meta-physics as not-real, even when such ideas have real-world consequences. For example, world-wars have killed millions for the sake of abstract ideas (Communism vs Capitalism), that are only indirectly connected to the real world. However, going to war over mere ideas may sound silly, so those who want to justify the physical effects of war (carnage) typically look for some real-world event to blame. Even when the "real" motivating reason is an abstraction like "honor", or "freedom", or "country".

The abstract difference that makes a difference is Subjective Meaning. :smile:



https://www.britannica.com/story/can-you-really-be-scared-to-death

"The quote seems to imply that, to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Theory, Plato's Ideal Forms (potential things) should be considered among the "real" things of the world. Hmmmmm." -- Gnomon

↪Gnomon
I wonder if there can be a more compelling example of a difference which makes no difference. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure what your point is -- other than a snarky remark -- but Potential is the difference that makes THE difference between something and nothing. It's what makes thermodynamics dynamic. It's what differentiates positive directional change from random non-directional disorder.

Into The Cool, by Schnieder and Sagan, says "nature abhors a gradient", meaning that any difference attracts change -- it's a hole just begging to be filled ; it's a potential on the verge of actuality ; it's a possibility that "wants" to be realized. :joke:

Into The Cool :
Their central thesis is contained in the striking catchphrase “nature abhors a gradient”; they propose that it is the flow of energy down gradients that is the central driving force that balances the Second Law’s drive toward disorder.
https://ncse.ngo/review-cool

Thermal gradients are caused by differences . . . .
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/thermal-gradient

A voltage gradient is a difference in electrical potential across a distance or space.

Potentiality and Actuality :
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
Note -- in other words, Potential is essential to Reality

Presuppositions versus Potentialities

Quote from Aristotle and Science thread :
"In [a] paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11494/aristotle-and-science


The quote seems to imply that, to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Theory, Plato's Ideal Forms (potential things) should be considered among the "real" things of the world. Hmmmmm. :chin:

↪Gnomon
Well, you've not challenged me on a substantive basis, so there's that. — 180 Proof

Touche! You've made it murkily clear that, for you, there is no "substantive basis" for any ideas that don't fit into your subjective view of objectivity. Touche! :joke:

What does he think is difference between the reality "out there" and the ideas about reality "in here"? If he says the difference is that one is "out there" and the other "in here" I'm not sure he says anything of note, so assume he says something else. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. Hoffman is saying something much more significant and revealing than "subjective is not objective". :smile:

The Case Against Reality :
A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Reality is not what you see :
In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Hoffman's quasi-Kantianism is contra-Platonic. — 180 Proof

Quasi- and Contra- are in the eye of the beholder. maybe what you mean is contra-180proof. I would call Hoffman's analogy of concepts with computer icons to be an update of both Kant and Plato.

By "anti-realist" I understand subject-dependency (i.e. conflation of ideas (maps) with facts (territory)) that is disputed by the Private Language argument and self-refuting Protagorean relativism. — 180 Proof

Unfortunately, your Ideal "Realist" world would be a world without Homo Sapiens -- a world without Selves -- just TV cameras recording reality without meaning.

... ^ideas are "mental-constructs"; knowledge is more than it's constituent ideas. — 180 Proof

Is that another "truism", or merely an opinion? If your worldview is holistic, then everything that is not simplistic and reductive is more than its constituents. Sounds like we agree on something. But I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. :wink:

Field Guide to The Contrarian :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201205/field-guide-the-contrarian

Too many misdirected and rhetorical questions. — 180 Proof

If the questions are misdirected, it's only because the target is fuzzy, or moving around. For example, what do you mean by "idealist (anti-realist, subjectivist) "reasoning"? That's not a rhetorical question. I offered "spiritualism" , but you are welcome to present other examples of "idealist reasoning".

Plato was perhaps the most influential "idealist" reasoner. And Aristotle is noted for trying to make his mentor's ideas more sensible and realistic. But, in fact he also relied on the notion of ideal essences underlying real substances. The point of Idealism is not to be "anti-realist", but to remind us that all of our knowledge of reality is a mental construct. Are you familiar with Donald Hoffman's book : The Case Against Reality? He doesn't deny Reality out there, but merely shows that we only know our ideas about reality, in here. :smile:


Idealism :
In philosophy, idealism is a diverse group of metaphysical views which all assert that "reality" is in some way indistinguishable or inseparable from human perception and/or understanding, that it is in some sense mentally constructed, or that it is otherwise closely connected to ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Why is it said that Plato was an idealist and Aristotle a realist? :
Very briefly, Aristotle was a realist because he believed that "forms" or universals couldn't exist uninstantiated, Plato believed they could.
I think it more proper to say that Plato was a non-dualist, rather than an idealist or even a monist. Also, one should not lose sight of the fact that Aristotle, being a disciple of Plato, was not only an empiricist (at heart or by temperament) but also a metaphysician (e.g. the ‘unmoved mover’). Someone here has drawn the attention on the misleading epithets, realist/idealist.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-said-that-Plato-was-an-idealist-and-Aristotle-a-realist-when-Aristotles-book-Politics-is-called-a-copy-of-Republic
Note -- Again, all I'm saying is that Reality is not really a simple stark Black vs White or True/False duality. That's why I have built my personal philosophy on the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity.

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

I only denigrate idealist (anti-realist, subjectivist) "reasoning" and agree with you that philosophy and science taken together can be quite synergetic. — 180 Proof

That's a neat black & white worldview : " Idealism versus Realism". But is your world really that simplistic, and devoid of ideas about things that could be, but are not? Are pre-suppositions idealistic while post-suppositions are realistic? Aren't hypothetical presuppositions a necessary first step toward empirically "proven" theoretical models of Reality? I doubt that you are really dead-set against human imagination, as a tool for learning. Instead, your dichotomy may be better summarized as Spiritualism versus Materialism. Where would we be now, if Einstein had never imagined himself, counter-factually, riding on a beam of light? ( (rhetorical questions) )

Ironically, Quantum Theory could be interpreted as "anti-realist", in that the ancient search for the reductionist Holy Grail -- the Atom -- has now been reduced to imagining invisible and intangible "fields" of virtual particles. Yet, physicists are prepared to accept that abstract mental model as-if it is real --- just as Spiritualists accept the notion of a ghost as real, even though it is merely the remnant Idea of a formerly living (real) person. When quantum theorist Feynman was challenged to prove that that his models represented true reality, he responded "shut-up and calculate".

All I'm suggesting is that Reality is not that simple. It includes both Things and Ideas-About-Things, both wet Brains and airy Minds. Idealism is merely a philosophical focus on the ideas we conceive about the presumed reality out there, beyond the reach of our physical senses. Unfortunately, some people are so in love with the idea of their ideal realm (e.g. Heaven) that they are willing to have their real bodies burned at the stake rather than recant. That's not Idealism, it's extremism. :cool:


Difference Between Idealism and Realism :
The two concepts can, in layman’s terms, be deemed different in perspectives; with idealism focusing on ‘what could be’, and realism focusing on ‘what actually is.’
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-idealism-and-realism/

Are quantum fields real, or merely a mathematical tool ? :
The point of all of above is, as far as science goes, what an experimentally established theory says is, for all intents and purposes, the reality.
https://www.quora.com › Are-quantum-fields-real-or-m...
Note -- "for all intents and purposes" means "not really"

Idealism :
Scientific Materialism is the assumption that particle Physics is the foundation of reality, and that our ideas are simply products of material processes. Empirical Idealism doesn't deny the existence of a real world, but reasons that all we can ever know about that hypothetical reality is the mental interpretations of sensory percepts. Platonic Idealism (Myth of the Cave) calls those interpretations illusions, and asserts that true Reality is equivalent to an idea in the mind of God. Enformationism is compatible with both views, depending on your perspective.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

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

↪Gnomon
Philosophy doesn't "disagree" with science (or history) over "the facts" because science (or history) provides philosophy with "the facts". You and I, however, disagree over whether or not philosophy determines "facts" – I say philosophy doesn't, and only proposes ideas about or interpretations/evalutations of facts (as well as other ideas and interpretations). Only idealists seem to conflate ideas with facts so promiscuously and then leap to the conclusion that "philosophy is a/the science". For me, a realist, philosophy is not theoretical or a science. (Witty). — 180 Proof

No. I actually agree with you, that the job of science is to test & "prove" hypothetical (philosophical) conjectures & factoids, in order to turn them into reliable & settled knowledge that can be used to predict the course of Nature. Unfortunately, scientific "facts", while temporarily "adequate for some particular task", remain subject to change over time. The scientific "facts" of Newton are now referred to as "classical physics", because they have been found to be inadequate at the quantum scale of reality.

So, Scientists "prove" philosophical hypotheses with practical tests, turning some of them into pragmatic theories. But then, Philosophers put some of those useful "facts" under a mental microscope, to discover the logical cracks in the facts. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, which is basically a philosopher who focuses on physics instead of meta-physics. He was once asked, "where is your laboratory?", and simply held up a pencil. By merely using imagination & math, he was able to turn classical physics on its head.

As the quote below asserts, Philosophers study "relations of (metaphysical) ideas", while Scientists study "matters of (physical) fact". When the two professions work together, human understanding progresses. Therefore, I also disagree with your denigration of philosophical reasoning, in that theoretical Philosophy is an integral part of practical Science :nerd:


Factoid : an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

Facts :
The word “fact” is used in at least two different ways. In the locution “matters of fact”, facts are taken to be what is contingently the case, or that of which we may have empirical or a posteriori knowledge. Thus Hume famously writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding: “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact”.

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics :
Philosophy has always played an essential role in the development of science, physics in particular, and is likely to continue to do so. ___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" . . . .As a whole, philosophy and the sciences are equal partners assisting creative thought in its explorations to attain generalising truth.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

↪Gnomon
Philosophers talk about (understanding) ideas and possibilities and scientists talk about (knowing) facts and probabilities, no? The latter propositions and the former suppositions, right? Yeah, in practice there are overlaps but the respective functions (i.e. epistemology & epistemes) are distinction. — 180 Proof

Yes. But, there is a wide range of those uncertain "overlaps" between "known" or "proven" facts, and "received opinions" or "heresies". The Scientific Method is a set of guidelines, intended to prevent scientists from confusing little "F" facts that are "adequate for some particular task", and capital "F" Facts that are True, now & forever, here & there. Philosophers have also devised long lists of Fallacies, to deter them from stumbling into the pitfalls of False Generalization from "known facts".

And yet, both professions still have room for disagreement on "facts" that fall into the gray area, between proven and proposed. Both groups try to walk the chalk line, but all too often stray from the strait & narrow. Which is one reason we have online Philosophical forums, where rational thinkers with slightly different worldviews, can share Facts and Opinions remotely without the danger of throttling each other.

For those of us, who are not omniscient, all our general "facts" are also personal "opinions". In all ages, the list of "proven" scientific facts is contingent upon further evidence, and always subject to change. For example, the Standard Model of Quantum Theory was essentially a contentious quorum consensus, similar to that of the official Catholic Canon of Nicaea -- not a revelation from above. And, many of the "propositions" of that theory would have been preposterous to Isaac Newton, who worried about his own proposition of "spooky action at a distance" : the pull of gravity.

That's why a touch of scientific humility is advisable for those on internet forums who wish to argue fixed facts and potential probabilities. Because Your Facts are pre-suppositions and My Facts are mere opinions. So, I could be wrong . . . . but I doubt it. :grin:

Scientific Humility :
Humility means being open to the possibility of being wrong, being willing to consider other people's ideas and being respectful
https://in-training.org/humility-science-science-always-wins-11239

Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge.
https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

I May Be Wrong but I Doubt It is a memoir by former American professional basketball player Charles Barkley.

Or is it more accurate to say that some people have false beliefs. I wonder if using the word facts here blurs the issue. There have always been people who held false beliefs, assuming them to be facts. — Tom Storm

Yes, but the problem with any true/false dichotomy is "who says", and "whose facts". The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has a Conspiracy Theory article entitled : "The fringe is mainstream". Professional skeptics have been struggling for almost 60 years to definitively define the Paranormal (weird, but not exactly super-natural), and to draw a line between fringe (presumably false) beliefs, and Normal/True/Mainstream worldviews.

By their own admission, in surveys, millions of Americans believe in "weird things". So, the article concludes, "the reality is clear : when we talk about 'fringe believers', we're actually talking about most people. . . . skeptics are the outliers." Moreover, some modern-day politicians, pointing the finger at "fake news", practice the very false-fact dissemination that they preach against. And are avidly supported by almost half of the US voting population. Obfuscating smoke & mirrors are essential to Magic, and to Advertising, and to Politics, and to Sophistry..

Ironically, most posters on this forum are strongly skeptical about some ideas, and are well-trained in Critical Thinking. And yet, we vociferously disagree on some dearly-held beliefs. And that's not due to ignorance or stupidity, but to the shades of gray surrounding some of the most important philosophical issues --- topics that are still debated after 2500 years of philosophical and scientific analysis. So, it seems to be a Mexican stand-off, between My Truth and Your Falsehood.

That's why I have adopted the BothAnd Principle to monitor my own beliefs, and of those I dialog with on this forum. Belief systems typically have a true/false hard core and maybe-yes/maybe-no soft edges, or fringes. If we disagree about the core issues, there's nothing to be done, except agree to disagree, or to step-off 20 paces. Yet, if we can find some common ground on the mushy-maybe terrain, perhaps both sides will get a little closer to big "T" Truth. :cool:

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

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. . . . ambiguity as a natural fact of life to be dealt with rationally and pragmatically.

We All Believe in Magic :
The widely spread view on magical beliefs in modern industrial cultures contends that magical beliefs are a bunch of curious phenomena that persist today as an unnecessary addition to a much more important set of rational beliefs. Contrary to this view, in this article, the view is presented, which suggests that the belief in magic is a fundamental property of the human mind. Individuals can consciously consider themselves to be completely rational people and deny that they believe in magic or God despite harboring a subconscious belief in the supernatural. Research also shows how engagement in magical thinking can enhance cognitive functioning, such as creative thinking, perception and memory.
The Belief in Magic in the Age of Science
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014521433

To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter. — 180 Proof

That's why most of the assertions on a philosophy forum should be taken with a grain of salt. Unlike physical scientists, philosophers -- and theoretical scientists -- are not bound by proven physical facts. Instead, they are free to suppose -- to say "what-if, given a few assumptions, X is true?" This is how Einstein discovered the physical implications of living in a relative, rather than an absolute & deterministic, world. Hence, most modern scientific "facts" are relative to a point-of-view or frame-of-reference. And they are provisional, given certain presumed preconditions.

By contrast, many informal philosophical expressions are based on un-stated pre-suppositions (beliefs), in which the conditions & limitations on the truth of the statement are not clearly defined. That's why Voltaire warned that, before making a definitive assertion, "first define your terms". Unfortunately, all too many of those implicit "facts" are only loosely defined -- adequate to a narrow task -- and may be interpreted to suit a presumed inference. Even Skeptics argue from a complex worldview that seems to them to be The Simple Truth. So, it's easy to be skeptical of other people's beliefs (presuppositions), but harder to skeptically dig around in the foundation of your own worldview, for fear of undermining The Truth. :smile:

Suppose :
1. assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.
1a : to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal

False Consensus :
"Everyone tends to assume that most normal, decent, intelligent people believe what we believe.":
SKEPTIC magazine, v26 n2

Or is it? I think the above needs to be qualified and that It is a case of the magic being in the eye of the beholders — Jacob-B

The current issue of SKEPTIC magazine has an article debunking the modern-day belief that Giordano Bruno was a martyr to Science, as opposed to myth-based religion. In fact, his notion of many other inhabited worlds out there, was at the time, not Science but science-fiction, since he had no evidence to support that imaginative scenario. Ironically today, a primary focus of "scientific" off-world exploration is to discover tangible evidence of life on other planets, such as Mars. And the faith that life is ubiquitous & cheap, rather than rare & precious, remains an article of motivating faith in search of facts. Bruno's mistake was not in speculating that stars might be suns with solar systems of their own, but in stubbornly insisting on that 17th century fiction as a matter of faith, for which he was prepared to die.

The same issue recounts a modern-day martyr, who blew himself, and a city block of Nashville, to kingdom come with a fertilizer-filled van. He left behind treatises declaring that his self-martyrdom was grounded in the faith that lizard people were running the country, and the world. As science-fiction, the notion of disguised reptoids taking-over the world might be amusing, as in the TV series "V". But as a belief to sacrifice your life for, it sounds insane to us enlightened skeptics. But the article notes that 12 million Americans believe the government is run by lizard people. Apparently, they don't think of that worldview as magical, but factual. So, it seems that facts are also in the eye of the believer. :gasp:

We are not merely some mammally organic ‘luck’,
But purposely evolved on this planet, near a star,
In that intended long and winding mindless ‘birth’
Of slowly drifting time, dust, and selection by death
That ever sifted the best from the rest: Sapiens! — PoeticUniverse

:up:

We don't know the utter end of this ever-changing cosm,
progressing by degrees from single spark to fathomless abyss,
with sentient eyes always looking up.
But, whatever end we are tending for,
its path has gone through us,
the fittest of the fit, so far. :cool:

Yeah, the consequences of such believe might be very devastating; makes me wonder why such a believe would ever arise under evolutionary constraints. — Daniel

The "belief" that Self is more important than Other seems to be inherent in how sentient beings perceive (awareness) their environment. All of our senses, including the extended sensing of Consciousness, are rooted in the brain & body of the sentient organism. And the primary purpose of sensation is to distinguish Self from Other. Once that dichotomy is established, the next determination is between Food and Self-sustenance. However, that Predator vs Prey relationship can also be reversed, as when the little fish is swallowed by a larger fish. So it's also important for survival to distinguish between Self-interest, and the interest of other Predators & Prey. Yet, it's only natural for personal interests to be most important to the self-centered Self-conscious organism.

Therefore, it seems that a hierarchy of interests is inherent in Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest, makes setting priorities paramount for every organism. Each "object" of evolution must value its own interests above those of other "subjects" of the weeding-out process of competitive fitness. Consequently, each organism, or "object", has a mandate to "out-fit" the competition. And humans seem to have taken that imperative to an extreme. Fortunately, we have also learned to moderate our self-aggrandizement to include the interests of Others within our own sphere of interest. That's why super-sentient humans had to develop a more formal cultural sense of communal Morality and inter-personal Ethics, that goes beyond what physical evolution could produce via natural instincts. :nerd:

Super-sentient : human senses have evolved beyond physical senses, to include meta-physical perception of self-other relationships. And that is a primary topic of human Philosophy.

SLIGHTLY OVERLAPPING INTERESTS :

SHARED INTERESTS :

Man, it seems to me, gives itself a special status among existing things; special in the sense that Man thinks Man, somehow, is more particularly unique OR essential (OR divine) compared to other existing things. — Daniel

Any Self has special status in its own eyes. The fat cat purring in your lap may be thinking that you exist only to serve her own needs & purposes. Any organism capable of a self-image would presumably place its own Self at the top of the value scale. Unfortunately, we can't read the minds of all those other self-centered beings. So, we point the finger of blame at the over-weening minds that are capable of expressing their smugness in words as well as deeds.

As a practical limitation, we can't all fit on the peak of a social pyramid. And the consequences of playing the king-of-the-hill game can be devastating to fragile egos. So, at least some introspective humans are acutely aware of the negative social effects of self-aggrandizing Egoism, and have developed counter-weights to selfish behavior. That's the primary purpose of man-made Morality : to round-off the sharp edges of ambitious Selves to make them less dangerous to other Selves.

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the "pigs" declared that all animals are equal, but some are "more equal" than others. Likewise, in the Human Farm, the homos have proclaimed their kind as "more equal" than all other sentient beings. And buoyed by that inflated self-image, they have proceeded to turn the natural world to their own artificial purposes. Ironically, their almost total dominance of the world's resources, still has at least one nemesis. Invisible and insentient organisms (loosely categorized) continue to terrorize humanity with plagues and pandemics, by merely implacably pursuing their own selfish purposes. Then again, the sapiens continue to assert their divine role as the collective rulers of this world, by creating means of mass-destruction of those pests. So, who's "da man" in this eternal struggle for supremacy? :wink:

History taught us that there was a fatal systemic deficiency within all Communist forms of government. Communist governments' centralized planned economies simply could not produce enough quality goods and services to meet even the basic needs of their citizens/subjects. — charles ferraro

A pragmatic accommodation to that inherent weakness of top-down planned economies may be why China has quickly converted from a purely Socialist economy to a Mixed economy. That switch has allowed them to become an economic powerhouse. But the political ideology is still basically Marxist & Communist, which tends to minimize political independence, and to mandate Unity (collectives, communes), which minimizes Diversity, and suppresses minorities. So, they have adapted to the practical requirements of a complex economy, even as they are reluctant to follow the West into their currently chaotic social systems, pitting individual rights against collective rights, and the few rich against the many poor.

However, I suspect that social unrest will eventually catch up with them. As it already has in Russia, nominally Socialist, but ruled by Oligarchs. Finding the sweet spot between a free economy and an inverted social pyramid, is like walking a tightrope : it helps to have a counter-balancing pole with enough inertia to keep the struggle between left & right from throwing the system off-balance. In the US, the Constitution has so-far provided sufficient moderating stability to keep us from plunging into the safety-net of Left or Right-wing Totalitarianism. But, the tightrope walker is trying to walk a fine line between two kinds of fatal systemic social failure. And is currently recovering its balance from a near fall into National Socialism, with a "free" economy for the rich & powerful, but requiring elimination of de-stabilizing social elements (those who are different). And the wavering goes on . . . . :cool:

Just look in the mirror at the increasing disorder that's organizing you, Gnomon! From what you've written, it appears you profoundly misunderstand (or "metaphysically" deny) entropy. And btw, I'm not a "reductionist". — 180 Proof

Again, you seem to be talking nonsense : "disorder that organizes". That paradoxical notion goes right over my pointy little head. It sounds like the "emptiness of space that is full of energy" in the quote below.

Can you explain "disorder that organizes" in dumbed-down terms for a simpleton like me. I'm sure you know more about such things that I do. However, since I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician, I am not interested in the narrow technical details of Energy/Entropy. My concern is only in the broad general philosophical implications of such abstruse topics. If I really had a use for the arcane details, I would ask you to teach me.

But I can be satisfied with illustrative metaphors, such as "Entropy is the flip-side of Energy". And although they are discussed as-if they are physical substances, they are more akin to spiritual substances like ectoplasm. In that case, "Entropy is like the ghost of Energy past". Neither is a material substance, but merely a condition, a state -- like before and after. That's why mystified scientists use poetic terms like "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" and "Dynamic Fluid" as placeholders for real understanding.

Perhaps you are actually being poetic, and ironic, when you speak of "disorder that organizes". Are you just pulling my leg? Are you actually a holist, pretending to be a reductionist? Are you metaphysically equating destructive Entropy with constructive Energy to emphasize the paradox of all change : Life is merely the process of approaching Death. :joke:

Dark Energy, Dark Matter :
"empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. . . .
The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

“Exergy balance equation” :
There is a direct connection between exergy destruction, entropy generation, and the reference temperature of environment, namely Exd=T0ΔSgen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/exergy-balance-equation
Note -- the poetic expression of Entropy as-if it is generated as a positive product of expending available Energy (exergy), rather than another step on the slippery slope that leads to the Heat Death of the universe. :cool: .

Energy is the potential for positive change (work, construction, organization)
Entropy is the result of negative change (dissipation, destruction, disorganization)

Nope, just dark energy. Phantom energy is something on top of that, that may or may not exist. Dark energy definitely does. — Pfhorrest

Oh! I thought you were proposing some novel form of energy. :smile:

Instead, the universe seems to be gradually maximizing order and organization. — Gnomon

This makes no sense; in fact, it's contradictory. According to thermodynamics: order is DISorganization ... DISorder is organization. — 180 Proof

I understand that you don't agree with my holistic & positive assessment of the direction of evolution. But how did you come-up with that Big Brother oxymoronic assertion? I assume you are thinking of Entropy as merely a mathematical description of the energy availability in a system. How can you equate "order" with "disorganization"? Is that how the world looks from a reductionist perspective?

In a non-mathematical sense (common sense), meaningful synonyms of Entropy are "disorder" and "disorganization". And in the context of describing the universe as an evolving system, dis-organization is the measurable effect of Entropy. A randomized system is not a system, because it lacks the patterns of organization that constitute a system. Entropy breaks down the order and organization of a functional system. That's why Claude Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Order (certainty ; meaning) versus Entropy (uncertainty ; meaningless). :cool:

Entropy as Disorder: History of a Misconception :
The claim “entropy is analogous to disorder” fails for one additional reason: the word “disorder” is hopelessly vague. Entropy is a precise, measurable quantity.
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5126822

Entropy :
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
___Oxford dictionary

Entropy :
In thermodynamics, entropy is often associated with the amount of order or disorder in a thermodynamic system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

Systems Theory :
Some may view the contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) as simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, recognizing interactions of the parts as not static and constant but dynamic processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Universe is an organized System :
A system is an entity with interrelated and interdependent parts; it is defined by its boundaries and is more than the sum of its parts (subsystem).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Evolution, the argument goes, is a decrease of entropy, because it involves things getting more organized over time, while the second law says that things get more disordered over time. So evolution violates the second law. ...
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm


“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

And so a universe that began as literally just an empty set, a zero, one black pixel, evolved more dimensions, larger dimensions, and more and more complex structure, because that became the best way of increasing entropy. — Pfhorrest

My personal cosmology is just the opposite of maximizing Entropy. Instead, the universe seems to be gradually maximizing order and organization. But, since we are currently at the You Are Here mid-point (in the graphic of my last post about the Big Rip), the amount of order right now is roughly equal to the amount of disorder.

However, if the "black pixel" was programmed to evolve in a positive (relative to humans) manner. That would imply that the original "set" (Singularity) was not "empty", but bursting full of Potential. If so, Evolution could be interpreted as the gradual actualization of that latent constructive Energy. Perhaps the destiny of this experiment in evolution would be something like a second Singularity -- as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil, or by Teilhard deChardin. :yum:

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: