I've been aware of Templeton for years, I've often read works by and about Templeton Prize winners, including Paul Davies, Bernard D'Espagnat and others. I think they do attempt to be objective but their attempt to connect science and spirituality makes a lot of people suspicious. (That saying 'the hermeneutics of suspicion' seems apt. There was a link provided above purporting to show their financial support of climate-change denial organisations, but the evidence doesn't seem clear-cut to me.) — Wayfarer

The mission statement below*1 does include "Theology" & "Philosophy", under the heading of Sciences and Scholarship. Also, "creativity, forgiveness, and free will" would disqualify their subjects from consideration, or to warrant "suspicion", by the Pro-Science / Anti-Religion posters on this forum.

But IMHO, that meta-physical subject matter shouldn't be disallowed on The Philosophy Forum. Their official mission is to promote "human flourishing", not promotion of any specific religious doctrine, as the Antis suspect. A more equal-opportunity posture toward Climate Change might include both Pro and Con research*2. :smile:

*1. What are the priorities of the Templeton Foundation?
We fund work on subjects ranging from black holes and evolution to creativity, forgiveness, and free will. We also encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, theologians, and the public at large. Our grantees produce field-leading scholarship across the sciences, theology, and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

*2. Templeton International Climate Change Fund :
An active approach to climate change investing. We favor companies providing low carbon solutions, companies transitioning to a low carbon economy and companies ...
https://www.franklintempleton.com › products › TICGX

What I fail to understand at bottom is how this new principle or law or whatever it is is something other than the law of entropy. Energy dissipates, disorder/information increases. —— unenlightened

Note --- The quote is from , not Gnomon. My response was to suggest an alternative role for Entropy in "information increase" : to include "energy dissipation" as a necessary investment in evolutionary progress. Hence, Information Increase follows from Energy expenditure, which increases Entropy. :cool:

. From what's been said above, that doesn't necessarily follow at all. There's a very interesting Wikipedia article on Entropy and Life*3, which talks about this. I think the key idea is that organisms are able to utilise and channel available energy to create greater degrees of order in the form of (drum roll) information, namely, DNA. But I don't think that 'energy dissipates therefore information increases' follows from that. In the non-living universe - from what we know the vast majority of the cosmos - there's no such 'increase in information' at all. Only occurs when organisms enter the picture, and why that should be still remains an open question, doesn't it? ('Warm little pond', anyone?) — Wayfarer

Yes. My post disagreed that information increase results from Entropy. Instead, "emergence of complex systems" such as Life, results from negative entropy, or EnFormAction*3, or Enformy*4 as postulated in my thesis --- perhaps to close Schrodinger's "open question". Even so, the role of Entropy (Energy dissipation) must be acknowledged as a hurdle for complex systems to overcome, in order for Information to increase.

Why Life & Mind could emerge within a cosmic system that was lifeless and mindless for 14 billion earth years remains an "open question" for reductive & materialistic Science. But, in a Holistic & Information-based world, the eventual emergence of Life & Mind, could be explained in terms of Enformationism*5. :nerd:

*3. Entropy and Life :
The 1944 book What is Life? by Nobel-laureate physicist Erwin Schrödinger stimulated further research in the field. In his book, Schrödinger originally stated that life feeds on negative entropy, or negentropy as it is sometimes called, but in a later edition corrected himself in response to complaints and stated that the true source is free energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

*4. Enformy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff, such as Life. Enformy counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge, that can recycle Free Energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information : EnFormAction --- A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. .
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

In the context of information theory, entropy represents the amount of uncertainty or information content in a message, rather than the loss or absence of information per se. . . . .
Did you notice the origin of the link between information and entropy that I provided above? In Shannon’s information theory, the term “entropy” is used in a different sense compared to its use in thermodynamics, though there is a conceptual link between the two. — Wayfarer

I didn't see the post you refer to until after I made my own post regarding your previous exchange with *1. I inferred that he was talking about the extreme brackets within which relative-minded humans are able to detect meaningful information. But that uncertain contingency is not how natural laws are typically defined, hence his doubt that the topical hypothesis qualifies as a "law". So, I shared his skepticism, but on different grounds.

Thermodynamics doesn't deal with Uncertainty, but merely the normal range of temperatures between Planck Heat & Absolute Zero. Yet, Information was defined in terms of a relative position between absolute Certainty and absolute Ignorance. Both mathematically idealized thermal states are devoid of "Difference", being All or Nothing. Anything outside that natural range would be super-naturally Certain.

As usual, your post above is an excellent summary of a subtle distinction : the relative "Difference that makes a Difference" in meaning to an analog mind. By contrast, Unenlightened seemed to focus on a mathematical definition of Entropy instead of a mental meaning. So, I commented on his example of "temporary order" that can be found within a general state of Chaos. That's the feature of Natural Evolution which allows bits of random Freedom within Determinism, making room for organized Life in a mostly random universe of dead matter. Life is always "temporary"& impermanent, hence easy to snuff out. However, since that concept is controversial & complex, I didn't go off-topic to pursue it.

I also didn't mention the potential for bias that might influence the Templeton Foundation in its support for this thesis. But over several years, I have not found signs of its support for any particular religious doctrine. If anything, the foundation seems to lean toward philosophical interpretations of scientific evidence. Hence it tends to contribute to scientific research on the margins of doctrinal Materialism ; not necessarily religious dogma. For example the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity is necessarily Holistic instead of Reductive. On the other hand, for some on this forum, any deviation from Classical Determinism is suspect. :smile:


*1. What I fail to understand at bottom is how this new principle or law or whatever it is is something other than the law of entropy. Energy dissipates, disorder/information increases. this allows that life, or a hurricane can produce temporary order that functions to increase total entropy. — unenlightened

Maximal order is minimal total information — unenlightened
How does that follow? Information is ordered, isn't it? — Wayfarer

I suspect that 's black vs white terminology is giving you problems. Apparently, what he means by "order" is absolute perfect order as contrasted with absolute "disorder". Both of those states provide zero information. For example, on a computer screen, total randomness of pixels (uniform gray) is meaningless. But total order, such as all black or all white, is also meaningless. Hence, useful information requires some degree of distinction (contrast) in order to make a meaningful "difference" to an observer.

Mathematically, Information is defined in terms of Entropy because it's a relative measure in between the ideal extremes of absolute Black or White. In reality, we seldom encounter such unqualified perfection. So, his assertion that "maximal order is minimal total information" sounds counter-intuitive. And the association of Information with Entropy sounds like a negative definition. As von Neumann said : "no one understands entropy". The human mind is not a digital computer (1/0). So, for our meat brains, "meaning" is relative & analog (1/37). :smile:

Entropy and disorder also have associations with equilibrium. Technically, entropy, from this perspective, is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium—that is, to perfect internal disorder. Likewise, the value of the entropy of a distribution of atoms and molecules in a thermodynamic system is a measure of the disorder in the arrangements of its particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder)

What I fail to understand at bottom is how this new principle or law or whatever it is is something other than the law of entropy. Energy dissipates, disorder/information increases. this allows that life, or a hurricane can produce temporary order that functions to increase total entropy. — unenlightened

The OP articles didn't mention Entropy specifically, but you may have a good point : to include "energy dissipation" as a necessary investment in evolutionary progress. That's how the "new law" works to transform an older adequate configuration into a novel & durable functional form*1. The "temporary disorder" is the price Nature pays for a step-up in functional value. For example, the disorderly Plasma of the Big Bang was essentially formless, and good for nothing but raw material for conversion into stable particles of elementary matter.

Energy per se causes Change (novelty), but Change/Novelty per se is not informative unless it produces a persistent function or meaning. Dissipation is not a good thing unless it leaves behind a stable form of organization, which is the payoff for the expenditure of Energy. As Entropy of a system temporarily increases, local organization may permanently increase, but only if the novel form fills a functional need for the environment of the system. Otherwise, the energy would be wasted. :smile:

# “The Universe generates novel combinations of atoms, molecules, cells, etc. Those combinations that are stable and can go on to engender even more novelty will continue to evolve. This is what makes life the most striking example of evolution, but evolution is everywhere.”

*1. Entropy (information theory) :
In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Note --- what's "surprising" about the transformation of a prior orderly state to a later organized state is the novelty that we define as meaningful or transformational Information : the difference that makes a familiar thing into an unfamiliar thing, or to force the observer to see an old thing from a new perspective.

Edit: Functional information, which is information we care about (aka a difference that makes a difference{to someone}) is information about order which is to say about disequilibrium and therefore exploitable energy. The details of a state of equilibrium are un exploitable and therefore useless. — unenlightened

Yes! "Functional Information" may make a difference to the material Universe, in terms of advancing the physical evolution of the Cosmic System. But, in order to be meaningful (something we "care about"), the change must have some positive effect on a human mind. We upright apes have learned to "exploit" the available Energy of our local physical system to serve our own physical fortunes (e.g. technology), and in hopes of advancing our metaphysical interests.

For living creatures, "equilibrium" is not a good thing. Like sharks, who are said to "swim or die", we humans must evolve or die-out. As a species, we survive by learning better ways to exploit the resources of the world, and to avoid repeating past mistakes, such as incomplete carbon exploitation that leaves behind toxic substances. Human technology has accelerated the progress & stability of evolution, but also the digress & instability --- hence we progress or die. In terms of "things we care about" it's metaphysical evolution, the subject matter of Philosophy. :nerd:

Quote from OP :
# the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity

Then to be clear you ought to use distinct terminology. (I suggest "gnatural selection".) You wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that you are talking about the same thing as scientifically informed people are talking about. — wonderer1

I assume it was Gnomon who you were categorizing as "ignorant" of Science. And the imputation of Agency as non-scientific. Please note that Darwin's Artificial Selection required intentional agents (humans) to make the teleological (I want more of this good stuff) choices that resulted in today's artificial soft sweet corn, instead of the natural hard-kernel starchy maize.

Also note that the authors, of the article this thread is based on, are professional scientists*1 ; so I must assume that they are "scientifically informed people". But they didn't bother to redefine the word "selection"*2 ; they only broadened its application from the Biology-of-living-things to everything else in the natural world, from Cosmology to Mineralogy. Maybe even Psychology was a product of natural selection. Or do you think Mind Functions were a cosmic accident?

However, since you feel the need for a new name for the cosmic process, by which Nature evolves novel Functions from older Forms, how about "Universal Selection", or "General Selection", or "Post-Darwinian Natural Selection"*3, as opposed to the "Special Selection" of Darwin's biological application? Are those Universal Laws too philosophical for you?*4 Are "functions" (how things work) too immaterial for your materialistically "informed" taste? :smile:

PS___The article did not imply an unconventional meaning of the verb "to select". They merely noted that the object of selection was not mere matter, but operational Functions of the various forms of matter.

FUNCTION Meaning: "one's proper work or purpose; power of acting in a specific proper way," https://www.etymonline.com/word/function

Artificial selection is an evolutionary process in which humans consciously select for or against particular features in organisms – for example, by choosing which individuals to save seeds from or breed from one generation to the next.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/artificial-selection/

What is agency in biology?
Agency is defined by Webster's dictionary as “the capacity to act or exert power”, and in robotics and AI research a system that can act in any way in response to environmental stimuli is sometimes considered agential. But in biology, typically something more is demanded.
https://www.templeton.org/discoveries/agency-in-biology



Quotes from OP :

*1. # The research team behind the law, which included philosophers, astrobiologists, a theoretical physicist, a mineralogist and a data scientist, have called it "the law of increasing functional information."

*2. # The law also says these configurations are selected based on function, and only a few survive.

*3. # And, some say evolution is strictly about Darwinian natural selection and common descent, Hazen says. But, "I'm talking about diversification and patterning through time" from one stage to the next,

*4. # "You have a universe that keeps mixing things up and then trying out new possibilities," Hazen says, adding that it encompasses biological evolution, too. Things that work are selected for, he adds. "That works on nonliving worlds, and it works on living worlds. It's just a natural process that seems to be universal."

MODERN SWEET CORN artificially evolved to suit human taste

But the notion of natural selection suggests some kind of universal teleological agency... — Gnomon
Only if one elects to remain ignorant as to what biologists mean by natural selection. — wonderer1

I'm not a Biologist. And not "ignorant" of the official biological application of "Selection". For philosophical purposes, I'm not bound to that physically focused meaning. See my post above for an alternative philosophical metaphysical definition of cosmic selection, that is not limited to living creatures, as mentioned in the OP articles. :smile:

Quote from OP :
# "The team's notion of fitness beyond biology is "really subtle, complex and wonderful," Stuart Kauffman adds".

In a separate post, I'll add some comments of my own. — Gnomon

Personal comments on topics of the OP :

1. Fitness : Darwin's biological criteria for Fitness was limited to living creatures. But this Information-based “fitness” includes all elements of the physical world. And could be extended to cover the meta-physical (Life & Mind) aspects of the world. For living organisms, fitness is Health (literally Wholeness). A broader definition of Fitness is Wholeness or Integrity or Functional Organization.

2. Selection : To select or choose functional outcomes is contrasted with random or accidental change. A selection is motivated by a future-directed input of Causation.
To select =
a> carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
b> (of a group of people or things) carefully chosen from a larger number as being the best or most valuable.

3. Function : A process directed toward some defined goal or purpose. A functional relation is a meaningful connection between information inputs and outputs. What is the function of a non-living or non-thinking thing? This could only apply to evolution if the process is directional, not random.
Examples : Mind is the function of Brain. Organization & Complexity are functions of Evolution.

4. Relation : A functional interconnection or bond or alliance with other entities. A complex organism is bonded or merged into an interrelated system by mutual purpose : correlation of direction toward a final state. Single elements are inert, and have no purpose, only action & reaction. Organisms share energy inputs to redirect reactions toward fitness of the system. A whole or integrated or interrelated System has multiple parts that work together toward some goal, beginning with continuation of the system over time.

5. Information : To Inform is to provide an essential or formative principle or quality to something. ___Oxford Languages

Formative Principle :
a> of or relating to formation, development, or growth
b> the active, determining principle or law defining a thing.

Qualia : instances of subjective, conscious experience.

Something that occurs to me, though, is that 'selection' is a transitive verb. It implies a sense of agency - that something is doing the selecting. I'll have to think about that some more. — Wayfarer

I agree that Darwin's word-choice of "selection"*1, to describe how Evolution works, inadvertently implied some "agency"*2 doing the choosing from among the options, both fit & unfit, generated by random mutations. His model for "selection" was the artificial evolution of domesticated animals suitable for human purposes. But the notion of natural selection suggests some kind of universal teleological agency programming the mechanisms of Evolution to work toward an inscrutable Final Cause : the output of evolution.

Ironically, most scientists emphasized the role of Random Accidents (lawless Chaos) to provide the physical variants from which Nature could choose, in order to construct the law-abiding Cosmos we see around us. The article linked below*3 refers to the implicit intentional agency of evolution who created "deterministic constraints", equivalent to Natural Laws, but who is the Natural Lawgiver? :smile:


*1. Evolutionary Selection :
Darwin and other scientists of his day argued that a process much like artificial selection happened in nature, without any human intervention. He argued that natural selection explained how a wide variety of life forms developed over time from a single common ancestor.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/

*2. Agency : In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

*3. Randomness isn't random :
A useful analogy can be made with the role of randomness in evolution. Darwin was not the first biologist to suggest that species changed over long periods of time. His two new fundamental ideas were that (1) the changes arose through random genetic variation, and (2) changes that enhanced the organism's ability to survive and reproduce would be preserved, while maladaptive changes would be eliminated by natural selection. Doubters of evolution often consider only the first point, about the randomness of natural variation, but not the second point, about the systematic action of natural selection. They make statements such as, “the development of a complex organism like Homo sapiens via random chance would be like a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a jumbo jet out of the scrap metal.” The flaw in this type of reasoning is that it ignores the deterministic constraints on the results of random processes.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Conceptual_Physics_(Crowell)/14%3A_Quantum_Physics/14.01%3A_Rules_of_Randomness

This kind of thinking suggests a kind of meta-science, as if science were on the cusp of metaphysical discovery, making speculative science the cutting edge of metaphysical disclosure. — Astrophel

Not my kind of thinking. Instead, I view Metaphysics as literally beyond the scope of reductive materialistic Science. You can atomize matter down to evanescent Quarks, but you still won't find any evidence of Mind or Consciousness or Being.

For me, Metaphysics is the role of Philosophy, which synthesizes particular evidence into general principles. In that sense, Einstein was a philosopher. His "speculative science" was indeed on the cusp of "metaphysical disclosure" : Relativity is a general metaphysical principle, not an observed physical fact.

Metaphysics makes its appearance not in the laboratory or on the white board of equations and their speculative "interpolation" where paradigms leave off, but in the simple relation between me and this cup on the table in the inquiry that brackets or suspends all superfluous and implicit assumptions that construct the knowledge relationship. — Astrophel

Yes! Metaphysics and Philosophy are all about Holistic inter-relationships not about Reductive isolated objects.

Transcendental idealism? It is right before your eyes. Drop the term 'idealism'. Better: transcendental phenomenology. — Astrophel

Yes, again! Phenomenology is about things & events "out there", But Transcendental Phenomenology would be focused on the ideal mental representations and interpretations of those real physical things. Traditional Idealism tended to reject reality as an illusion. And Materialism rejected ideality as an illusion. Perhaps your term will rise above those either/or worldviews, to accept that our world is both Mental and Material.

Phenomenology :
1.the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
2. an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. ___Oxford dictionary

↪Gnomon
Yes as I noted in my second response, my first might have been hasty, and I'm now reading the actual paper. :yikes: — Wayfarer

Thanks. I will appreciate your fair & balanced report on the technical paper. I have only read the news articles that summarized the original study. I got the impression that this was not a report on a specific scientific empirical experiment, but a philosophical analysis of general observational evidence.

Nevertheless, my takeaway is that it supports the philosophical and scientific approach to the physical world that is encapsulated in the concept of Holism (and Systems Theory)*1. Despite its first modern application to causes of Evolution, I don't view Holism as an empirical scientific theory. Instead, it's a rational philosophical hypothesis*2. It attempts to "establish causation" in the Aristotelian sense of Final & Formal causes, not in the physical sense of Material causes : post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This new study probably won't satisfy those who demand empirical proof for any generalized concept. Science deals with Specific Facts, while Philosophy is focused on Universal Principles. Besides its support from the Templeton Foundation*2 will blemish its findings with rumors of religious bias. :smile:


*1. Systems theory is the transdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made. ___Wikipedia

*2. Why is holism not scientific? :
However, holistic explanations do not establish causation because they do not examine behaviour in terms of operationalised variables that can be manipulated and measured. This means that holistic explanations are view as unscientific
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/issues-debates-evaluating-the-holism-and-reductionism-debate
Note --- This is why I would characterize Holism as a philosophical approach to complex questions, not a scientific fact for specific applications. It produces plausible "explanations" not "operationalised" tools for physical manipulation and measurement.

*3. John Templeton Foundation :
the Foundation is, and always has been, run in accordance with the wishes of Sir John Templeton Sr, who laid very strict criteria for its mission and approach", that it is "a non-political entity with no religious bias" and it "is totally independent of any other organisation and therefore neither endorses, nor contributes to political candidates, campaigns, or movements of any kind"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation
Note --- JTF does have an explicit bias toward encouraging "human flourishing".

↪Gnomon
You know, there's an old truism in science, 'a theory that explains everything explains nothing'. It suggests that if a theory is so broad and all-encompassing that it can be used to explain any observation or phenomenon, — Wayfarer

The scientists involved didn't present their findings as a Theory of Everything, but merely one thing (a new law) to explain three things (novelty, stability, reproducibility) that were not covered by Darwin's biological theory, and not possible in view of the conventional Big Bang Theory.

The authors didn't mention Holism, perhaps to avoid criticism as a New Age notion. But the proposed "law" is definitely not Reductive. Because it envisions functions of collective Systems that are not characteristic of their individual components. For example, traditional Atoms evolved by simple addition, but this law allows evolution by multiplication.

I expect that this theory of creative complexification will be quickly accepted as evidence for various religious doctrines. And it will be difficult to translate into empirical evidence. But the proof of the philosophical pudding will be in its explanatory power. Besides, the term Holism was originally presented in a scientific evolutionary context, not as a buzzword for Hinduism or Buddhism or
Taoism. :smile:

Quote from Cornell-Carnegie description above
the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity

But lack of certainty is no reason adopt an untrammelled fantasy life. — Tom Storm

Are you certain that Transcendental Idealism is about free-floating fantasies? Or is that just a prejudice against philosophical Idealism (science of ideas)? The OP is looking into "preconditions of experience", one of which is Life and another is Sentience (Mind ; Consciousness). Are those topics fantastic, and off-limits, to you? Is it a waste of time to discuss the reality behind physical appearances, that Kant called ding an sich (essences)? And what cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman called "core reality"?

Apparently, you free-associate Metaphysics with Religion & Spiritualism. But, for me Meta-physics is Philosophy, the science of minds & ideas : the non-physical non-fantasy aspects of Reality. For example, Psychology is about Metaphysics (res cogitans), while Neuroscience is about Biology (res vita). Have you seen anyone on this thread talking about gods & ghosts? Or is the association with Fantasy merely a figment of your imagination? That might be a topic for another thread. :smile:



A Case for Transcendental Idealism :
By ‘transcendental idealism’, I just mean the original view, plus my interpretation of it, made by Immanuel Kant; which starts with the core idea that we cannot know what is ‘transcendent’ to us (viz., what may exist completely independently of our representative faculties) but, rather, only what is ‘transcendental’ (viz., the necessary preconditions for the possibility of experience) . . . .
Quote from OP
Note --- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that we "we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy". But we don't have to fantasize those properties, we can interpolate them ("what may exist") from observational evidence. Physics is about what we can know via the physical senses. Metaphysics is about that which transcends the capabilities of our senses. The fact that our senses have limitations is not a fantasy. For example, invisible Oxygen is an interpretation of relevant evidence, not a perception --- yet it's essential for life. Likewise, electrons have never been seen or photographed, but they are essential for material properties. The orbit "image" below is calculated from mathematical data, not from visible light.

Nice place to be. But how is it different to collecting antiques? — Tom Storm

For me, Philosophy is a retirement hobby. But personally, I prefer collecting new ideas instead of old furniture. The difference is ideal vs real archetypes. Which is more valuable depends on where you "store your treasures". :smile:

It's because of my conversations with others about metaphysics that I have arrived my position. And note, I didn't say 'no need for metaphysics', I said no need for certain speculative forms thereof. — Tom Storm

Can you give me an example of non-speculative, empirically proven, Metaphysics? Chemistry may be the least speculative form of Physics. But, some people denigrate Quantum Physics because its inherent uncertainty invites speculation.

Check-out 's description of Metaphysics above. He implies that you can avoid the circularity of conflicting opinions by having your opinions given to you by a higher authority. Is that the kind of non-speculative metaphysics you prefer? :cool:

Metaphysics sets out the background against which the world is ordered, and is as much fiat as observation. One can avoid the circularity by recognising this. — Banno

Interesting way to define the role of Metaphysics : to give us a general "background" understanding of how the world system functions. Aristotle described how the natural world works in his Physics, then, in the section known as Metaphysics, looked into how the Cultural (mental) realm imposes human will onto Nature.

I could be wrong, but I think was responding to your intimation about "ideology", with an ironic example of ideology-in-action. A man in need of affordable healthcare, scorns the idea of socialist medicine, where personal needs are more important than economic ends. Apparently, his adopted ideology is not in his own interest.

Your definition of Metaphysics in terms of military-style top-down order-by-fiat, seems to imply that Authoritarian rule is how things get done in the world. By contrast, a truly Democratic world would go around in circles. Maybe the perceived need for imposed order from above underlies both Religious and Political thus-saith-the-Lord Ideology. The sheep (masses) may need a strong-arm shepherd, but autocratic order may not be in the best interest of independent thinkers, such as philosophers.

Historically, Authoritarian leaders have had little patience with peer-to-peer philosophy and rule-by-the-unruly-masses Democracy. They see themselves as god-like figures imposing order on a rudderless world. Socratic philosophy, though, focuses on the self-imposition of order (self-discipline) for individuals. On the other hand, even Plato's justice seemed to settle for a pragmatic middle ground, by granting authority to counter-balancing tribunals in lieu of his transcendental ideal : Philosopher Kings. The American constitution also compromised with popular elections of a tripartite government, instead of a single hereditary sovereign King : an imperfect blend of top-down "fiat" and bottom-up freedom. :smile:

Most contemporary philosophers of mind employ a Cartesian conceptual space in which reality is (at least potentially) divided into res extensa and res cogitans. Then, they ask: how res cogitans could possibly interact with res extensa? I am suggesting that this approach is nonsensical because reality cannot be divided into res extensa and res cogitans. — Dfpolis

Your OP seems to be challenging conventional dualistic philosophical and scientific categories, such as Mind vs Body, or Wave vs Particle. But your (radical?) alternative perspective is difficult for conventional thinkers to follow --- in part, because it doesn't seem to fit into traditional compartmental worldviews, such as Realism vs Idealism. Nevertheless, I am beginning to see that you may have a good point, but I don't know exactly what it is. Perhaps because it is wishy-washy wavelike instead of hard-point particular. Is that a fair assessment?

I get the impression that you might be one of those geniuses who doesn't "suffer fools gladly". For example, calling your fellow genius Descartes' categories of being : "nonsensical". I view his separation of Magisteria as a political compromise, to avoid conflicts between Religion & Science, not as an absolute philosophical principle. Nevetheless, his notion has been interpreted to imply an impassible barrier between res extensa and res cogitans. Which makes sense from a Dualistic perspective, but non-sense from a Monistic stance. Is your view ultimately monistic?

One clue to where you are coming from is the statement : "I am a moderate realist. That means I think universals do not have a separate existence, but do have a foundation in reality." But, does that mean your position is midway between the exclusive extremes of Realism & Idealism ; hence, allowing some common pathway for Interaction? If so, it may be close to my own philosophical worldview of Both/And. Yet, you seem to have come to your Neither/Nor position via a different path from mine.

I think, unlike our perceived mundane reality, ultimate Reality has the Potential for both Mental & Physical expressions. And evolution was like a computer program processing Causation (energy) over time into both Matter and Mind. Does any of that make sense from your cosmic perspective? :smile:

So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves."
We have known that there is electromagnetic field energy and momentum, permeating all space, since the late 19th century. As a result, Newton's third law is violated when electromagnetic forces are involved. — Dfpolis

You didn't deign to answer my request for a dumbed-down definition of "matter waves". So, I'm still not sure if you are referring to physical waves in a compressible substance, or metaphysical waves in an ethereal medium. I have a notion that light waves propagating in empty space are actually on-off alternations that are interpreted by the mind in terms of sinuous waves in a material substance. With no inertial mass to push off of, light has nothing reactive to act upon. But oscillations between something & nothing or potential & actual might be a clue to some of light's mysterious properties. This is not a developed theory, just a hunch for further investigation. :nerd:

Historically, artists, philosophers & scientists were the ones who were willing to put-in the effort to look beneath the surface, and "see" the universal essence of chairness : — Gnomon
Nicely put. But as someone who is neither an artist, philosopher or scientist, I feel I don't need to concern myself with idealism and such speculative frames. They add nothing to my experience. — Tom Storm

That's OK. I am also none of those professions. But, my retirement from the money-grubbing world, allows me to dabble in metaphysical speculation, with no expectation for learning practical knowledge. I don't "need" to concern myself with essences to put food on the table. I just enjoy sampling possibilities, like fine wine, searching for that sine qua non.

If you have "no need", or desire for metaphysics, why are you posting on a philosophy forum? What does it "add to your experience"? Are you simply looking for arguments against Idealism & Metaphysics? You'll find plenty of that negativity here, but you might have to wade through some mushy unfounded "speculations", including materialistic metaphysics, to get to the hard stuff. :smile:

Metaphysics :
In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/metaph-body.html

Sine qua non : an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary.
Literally "don't know what", but "it means more or less "Without (something), (something else) won't be possible."

Yes... but I guess it still leaves us with open questions about which metaphysical models we may be willing to engage with, or accept as worth our time. — Tom Storm

Good point! A Physical thing, like a chair, is real, specific & tangible, requiring little thought to perceive. But metaphysical models are ideal, general & abstract, so they require a greater investment of time & thought to conceive.

Historically, artists, philosophers & scientists were the ones who were willing to put-in the effort to look beneath the surface, and "see" the universal essence of chairness : In German --- der stuhl-en-sich. Physically, a specific chair is an aggregation of invisible atoms, which take-on a functional form. Philosophically, a chair is an instance of non-specific "sitting support", which includes such tangible objects as an Eames Chair, and intangible concepts as The Holy See in Rome. :smile:

Chairness ;
if the term “chair” is to have definite meaning, there must be something in common to all chairs. This is what an artisan must have knowledge of if s/he is to fabricate a chair. This thing that is common to all chairs – that all particular chairs “participate in”, is called “the form of the chair”, or “chairness”.
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/mcreynolds/phil301/forms.htm


Ceci n'est pas une chaise
This is not a chair, it's a representation of a chair ; which is an instance of chairness

C'mon, Gnomon, rectify this failing on your part by giving succinct, direct answers to my questions either in my previous post ↪180 Proof
and/or in these old posts linked above (or show that the questions are invalid in someway/s). — 180 Proof

OK. As usual, my unconventional & idiosyncratic answers are "invalid" from your authoritarian perspective. So, tell me what answers --- to your three questions --- you want to hear, and I'll feed them back to you, to see If I understand them. Parrots are succinct, because they simply repeat what they hear from others. Novel ideas require more verbiage to demonstrate the "difference that makes a difference".

Typically your evasive answers are so brusque, cryptic & "succinct" that they are enigmatic to my simple mind. There's an old saying : "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". So the question here is "who's zooming who?" :joke:


Who's Zoomin' Who?
Song by Aretha Franklin

You thought I'd be naive and tame
(You met your match)
But I beat you at your own game, oh
Take another look and tell me, baby . . .
Guess you believed the world
Played by your rules
The fish jumped off the hook, didn't I, baby?
(Who's zooming who?)

latter-day Scholastic (i.e. :sparkle:-of-the-gaps) of you ...
Of course. Why wouldn't it? — 180 Proof

This is why I can't have a philosophical dialog with you. I take your questions seriously, and provide long detailed answers. But you respond only with scorn, casting disrespectful aspersions on the intelligence & integrity of the questioner. That's an evasive Trump-like political counter-attack, not a Socratic dialogue. :cool:

PS___ Apparently your singular alternative to my Substance Monism, is to arbitrarily conflate an immaterial "act of creation" (verb) with its material product : the "creation" (noun). By contrast, my Ultimate substance is both the Power to Act (adverb) and the Potential for created things (adjective). They are attributes known by philosophical reasoning (e.g. Plato & Aristotle), not observed Forces & Objects of physics.

The medium is not a key term. Physics is not philosophy. It does not aim to tell us what is, but what we can expect to observe in the physical world. Then, philosophers try to place those observations in a larger context -- one that provides a consistent framework of all human experience. — Dfpolis

OK. So, why are we discussing "matter waves" on a philosophy forum. Does the distinction between Particles and Waves have a philosophical significance regarding Dualism & Interactionism?

↪Gnomon
I put the question about the nature of the wave function to ChatGPT. I don't regard it as authoritative, but it's a useful summary of the issues. But I don't think the question ought to be pursued further as it's tangential to the OP. — Wayfarer

I agree. :cool:

That physics has nothing more to say about what is vibrating does not mean that the constituents of matter do not oscillate in both space and time in well-defined ways. So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves." — Dfpolis

So, you fill the gap in physical understanding with a label : out there in the darkness of ignorance are "matter waves". Like medieval maps, in uncharted territory, you add a cautionary note : "here be dragons waves. But you leave the key term undefined. Is that an accurate assessment? :smile:

Also, free will is not indeterminate will. It is will determined by the agent willing. — Dfpolis

I agree. But Determinism/Fatalism denies that a willing agent can find a causal gap to fill with her own intentions. Whatever will be will be, regardless of human desires.

The situation is similar to the Materialistic assumption that intangible Consciousness has no causal role in the real world. Yet, I have come to a different understanding of Causal Consciousness, based on Quantum randomness and unpredictability, which implies that Nature has inherent openings (or soft spots) in the chain of events that allow for radical departures from Destiny : such as the advent of Life from dead Matter, and of Mind from dumb Matter.

If otherwise random Evolution did not have innate selection criteria allowing for departures from causal inertia and inexorable entropy, no significant change of direction would ever happen. And the Big Bang would become a Big Cataclysm : instant Entropy. Instead, what actually happened was inexorable advancement in complexity and organization, sufficient to produce Intelligent Matter and Willful Agents. :smile:

Matter is what composes bodies. They are composed of wave structures. — Dfpolis

What kind of substance (e.g. matter ; math ; other) are "wave structures" made of? :smile:

Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. — Gnomon
Clarification: so you are a substance dualist?
If not, what non-trivially distinguishes "physical events" from "metaphysical interactions"?
If so, how do you solve 'the interaction problem' and account for the apparent violation of the physical substance's Conservation Laws (i.e. causal closure)? — 180 Proof

# Substance Dualist? :
No. I'm a Substance Monist. But my hypothetical ultimate substance (EFA) violates your immanentist exclusionary rule.

Although both Matter & Mind are immanent, the Primary Origin of all post-big-bang secondary substances is presumed to be pre-BB. Does Immanentism allow for an eternal "Multiverse", or "Big Bounce" scenarios, powered by endless Energy and controlled by beginingless Laws? If not, then the immanent deity must be self-existent & self-contained, and the BB must be a scientific myth.

In my thesis, the universal substance is EnFormAction : the generic power to transform --- physical Energy being just one instance. Similar to Plato's universal FORM, it transforms from formless immaterial Potential into all Actual material & mental forms in the world : Energy, Matter & Mind. Of course, like Energy, you can't find EFA under a microscope. You can "see" it only via rational inference. It requires imagination. Does Immanentism have a place for metaphysical Imagination?

For example, just as the Big Bang was inferred by tracing current matter/energy patterns backward to a mathematical origin point, +/-14 billion years in the past. My thesis tracks current incarnations of EnFormAction (things & ideas) pointing back toward the original pre-space-time power-source that Plato called FORM. Obviously, that's not a Real thing ; merely an Ideal concept equivalent to an infinite pool of Potential. You also won't find this Aristotelian Substance in science books. If you do ever find it, it will exist only metaphorically in your immaterial mind (ideal), within a material vessel (real).

Note 1 --- I made up a name for my metaphysical force --- EnFormAction --- because immaterial "Energy" has too much Materialistic baggage, and immaterial Spirit has too many Religious impedimenta.
Note 2 --- Your Immanentism seems to be generally similar to my PanEnDeism, except that, like Spinoza's deus sive natura, it assumes that the universe is eternal. In which case, the Big Bang theory must be a scientific myth with no basis in fact. {see image below}
Note 3a --- Immanentism : the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
Note 3b --- Big Bang - Wikipedia :
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.


# Physical vs Metaphysical :
One traditional distinction between Physical and Metaphysical is that Physical Objects are Real (known via the senses) and Metaphysical Concepts are Ideal (known via reason). Therefore, “Physical Events” are those that are Perceived, and “Metaphysical Interactions” are Conceived. Does that categorization sound "trivial" to you?

Since our animal senses are inherent in human bodies, we seldom have a need to argue about whether we are seeing something Real. But since our Concepts are abstractions from reality, they are always moot, and fodder for philosophy. The waves of light entering our eyes are physical & real (quanta), but the mental image & feeling of color is metaphysical & ideal (qualia).

Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is (essence). Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made (malleable stuff). Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.

# The Interaction Problem :
Since Descartes' Dualism drew a do-not-cross line between physical Matter and metaphysical Mind, some have argued that such an impassible barrier prevents those separate domains from interacting. It would also prevent Mind from having any causal effect on Matter. Ironically, that wall-of-separation is just as impassible as the one between Church & State. I have references on Information Causation, if you are interested.

I don't share Descartes' substance dualism. Instead, my thesis postulates that both Mind and Matter are secondary & local instances of an Aristotelian primary & universal Substance (Essence or Genus). That's because my thesis is based on the polymorphic substance now known in physics as shape-shifting Information (energy - matter - mind). I call the Prime Substance EnFormAction : the power to transform (physical Energy being the most familiar causal form).

Since Quantum Physics combined with Information Theory to transform the Certainty & Determinism of classical mechanical Physics into the Uncertainty & Probability of 21st century science, we are now faced with the philosophical consequences of Einstein's Relativity. Hence, the mind of the observer is now a player in the physics game. And mental/mathematical Information can be converted into Energy & Matter, and vice-versa.

My thesis and blog go into extensive detail to describe the steps & stages between Universal Primary Progenitor Substance and its plethora of evolved secondary forms : e.g. Energy ; Matter ; Mind.
For more of my subjective observations and technical references on this topic see the thread on Dualism and Interactionism https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/846487

Spinoza's PanDeism vs Gnomon's PanEnDeism (thanks to


PS___ Early-on, I assumed that your antipathy to my ideas was due to a perceived Materialism vs Spiritualism posture. But now that you have given me another label (Immanentism) I see that the opposing postures are more like Natural vs Supernatural. But my BothAnd position is somewhere in between : both Immanent/Materialistic and Transcendent/Idealistic. Due to our similar-but-different worldviews, our associated vocabularies make communication difficult. So, I don't expect all this literal non-sense verbiage to be convincing. :smile:

↪Wayfarer
As with all natural science, it is a theoretical statement. The wave equations of quantum theory are well confirmed, and they are deterministic. — Dfpolis

Seems that you and are looking at different parts of the same elephant : equations or experiments. Maxwell's classical wave equation was clearly deterministic. That's why Schrödinger was perplexed when quantum measurements didn't confirm his classical expectations. The inescapable indeterminacy of quantum non-particles was famously illustrated in his Cat in the Box paradox. :nerd:

PS___ The general question of Determinism may have some bearing on the question of genetic or social Interactionism. But I'm not qualified to pursue that angle. Maybe you can "teach" me. :joke:

What exactly is deterministic in Schrödinger's equation?
In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/400162/what-exactly-is-deterministic-in-schr%C3%B6dingers-equation

Are quantum processes deterministic? :
Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? - Scientific American
“In quantum mechanics,” she explains, “we can only predict probabilities for measurement outcomes, rather than the measurement outcomes themselves. The outcomes are not determined, so quantum mechanics is indeterministic. Superdeterminism returns us to determinism.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/

Is superdeterminism a real thing?
In general, though, superdeterminism is fundamentally untestable, as the correlations can be postulated to exist since the Big Bang, making the loophole impossible to eliminate. - Wikipedia

My central thesis can now be approached in words: The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns. It is that metapattern which defines the vast generalization that, indeed, it is patterns which connect.

I warned some pages back that we would encounter emptiness, and indeed it is so. Mind is empty; it is nothing. It exists only in its ideas, and these again are no-things. Only the ideas are immanent, embodied in their examples. And the examples are, again, no-things. The claw, as an example, is not the Ding an sich; it is precisely not the "thing in itself." Rather, it is what mind makes of it, namely an example of something or other. — Introduction — Janus

The "claw" in that quote may refer to a cooked crab's claw, which Bergson used as an object lesson for the difference between living matter and dead matter. He didn't use the term in this case, but I think the "pattern that connects" is what we now call Holism. :smile:


Excerpt from Mind and Nature :
"I was prepared for that. I had two paper bags, and the first of these I opened, producing a freshly cooked crab, which I placed on the table. I then challenged the class somewhat as follows: "I want you to produce arguments which will convince me that this object is the remains of a living thing. . . . ."

Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. ___Oxford Dictionary

For science (and all other empirical studies), transcendental idealism entails that we can only ever claim empirical statements, at best, as valid for possible [perfect—in the sense of the best capabilities and not a perfect representation of reality-in-itself—human] experience. Thusly, science (and the like) are pragmatic for paradigmatic and not ontological purposes. — Bob Ross

Your summary of Transcendental Idealism reminded me of a Quantum pioneer's response to the question whether queer quantum science revealed anything about the Real world. It also sounds like something a modern Buddha might say. Or like the spoon-bending-boy to Neo. :smile:


Quote attributed to Neils Bohr :
When asked ... [about] an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer, 'There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.'

We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness evolved by natural selection.
30%
We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness did not evolve by natural selection
35% — petrichor

The two most popular options in this poll accept that Consciousness (C) is an immaterial causal phenomenon, but differ on how it came to be whatever it is : natural selection or other (divine ensoulment?). One option A> views Sentience as an emergent feature of the gradually developing world, while the other B> seems to assume that it is an otherworldly (unnatural) introduction into an otherwise natural process. So, A> is fairly conventional secular philosophy, while B> is closer to religious theology. Is that a fair assessment?

Both A & B seem to reject the definition of Conscious awareness as an Epiphenomenon*1. Which denies that it is an important primary feature of reality, being instead a useless incidental side effect or illusion. The definition below mentions that C remains, after all these years, a peculiar product of unknown etiology --- not observed, but experienced. So part of the problem with discussing C philosophically, is the mystery of its insubstantial existence in a material world.

Epiphenomenalism dismisses the non-physical connection between Being & Knowing as a minor metaphysical quibble, instead of an important physical phenomenon, such as causal Gravity*2 --- also an immaterial mystery, a century after Einstein's definition of Gravity as, not a physical force but metaphysical Geometry. Is that a fair assessment?

So, what have we learned here? That C is a "hard" problem because is is so empty & incorporeal & ethereal? Or that it falls into the crack between Real & Ideal, between Physics & Metaphysics, between Science & Religion? :smile:


*1. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it. ___Wikipedia

*2. Arrow of Causality and Quantum Gravity :
Causality, rather than the arrow of time, may be a more natural discriminant between the past and the future in quantum theories. ___American Physical Society
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.171601

Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness, though real, and though its form is determined by physical events, has no causal power. It doesn't influence behavior. All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor

No. Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. For example : a motivated physical sperm is obviously alive, but typically shows minimal signs of consciousness : its movement seems to be directed mostly by external forces in the womb, which guide its thrashing toward the uterus, where it accidentally bumps into the oosphere. And its penetration into the egg is controlled primarily by the cell-wall of the ovum. But once the twain have become one, a transformation occurs : motion & control (energy & organization) are combined into a cybernetic organism : input > output > feedback > modified output. Internal & external energy/information are integrated into a teleological system, with a mind/purpose of its own, so to speak.

After that organic system is expelled into the cold cruel world, it becomes an independent operator. At first, the baby is mostly a passive object pushed & pulled by external forces. But it gradually learns to impose its Will, its Purpose, on the outside world. And eventually, that Willpower becomes a goal-directed force-to-be-reckoned-with : e.g. Elon Musk. Few would deny that Musk is a conscious being, and that he has an indomitable Will, focused on whatever mission is currently in his Mind : e.g. rocket to mars. So, the pertinent question here is whether a rocket to mars would happen naturally, or would be the physical expression of a conscious mental map of space-faring humanity, with the ability to escape the effects of its own mis-management of its inherited habitat.

If you think subjective Consciousness is powerless to influence the behavior of other minds, and of mindless matter, don't get between Musk and his mission. :smile:


The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness :
Mental causation is vitally important to the integrated information theory (IIT), which says consciousness exists since it is causally efficacious. . . . . The causal efficacy of consciousness is vital to the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness. IIT opposes eliminativist and illusionist views that deny the ontological existence of consciousness, claiming to the contrary that consciousness is a real feature of the natural world
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517407/

If these symmetries were deductions, then they would be faulty deductions, just like the ancient ideal that the orbits of the planets were perfect circles, therefore eternal circular motions. However, I do not think that such things are deductions. I think that they are mathematical principles or axioms which are not properly applied. So they are handy tools, as you say, but when they are applied where they ought not be applied, they become misleading. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not a physicist or topologist, so I'm not qualified to argue the question of "faulty deduction". Are you?

Symmetry is not very high on my list of philosophical subjects. So, I wonder what difference it makes to you whether such relationships are directly objectively observed or subjectively deduced/induced from other observations. Your strongly-worded opinions --- "faulty" ; "properly" ; "ought not" --- imply that it's a moral/ethical or true/false question for you. Are you suggesting that physical symmetry --- or its "application" to philosophy --- violates some higher rule of reality?

Now that sounds like a philosophical topic. Since symmetries are related to natural laws & physical structure, they may qualify as elements of cosmic ethics : e.g. real vs unreal ; observation vs illusion. Does your worldview imply that physical symmetries not just are, but ought to be one way or another? Does physical symmetry have a philosophical role in the Dualism vs Monism question? :smile:

The role of symmetry in fundamental physics :
Einstein’s great advance in 1905 was to put symmetry first, to regard the symmetry principle as the primary feature of nature that constrains the allowable dynamical laws. . . . Symmetry principles play an important role with respect to the laws of nature. They summarize the regularities of the laws that are independent of the specific dynamics.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.93.25.14256


The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way

Symmetries are observed in nature. — Dfpolis
Symmetries are not observed in nature. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Symmetries are not observed, but deduced. Like constellations in the sky, the inferred patterns are mental, not material ; subjective, not objective. It's good to be aware of that distinction when engaged in metaphysical discussions. Symmetries are, however, handy tools for mathematical analysis of topological transformations. :smile:

Since you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? — Gnomon
No, I'm definitely not rigidly deterministic. I just find that the method you use to reach your conclusion is deeply flawed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm. What "method" was I using to reach the conclusion that Nature is not rigidly deterministic?? Actually, I'm not qualified to derive such a conclusion. I was just accepting the opinions of the scientists referenced in the quotes above below*2*3. I assume their reasoning was some combination of induction & deduction from experimental evidence or theoretical inference. :smile:

Quotes from my last post :

*2. Quantum nature not absolutely deterministic :
The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

*3. Quantum Universe: Fundamentally Probabilistic, Not Deterministic :
Einstein believed that the universe and its laws must be strictly deterministic. He felt that there could be no role for probability or chance, in nature's foundation. This is why Einstein didn't accept or agree with the theory of quantum mechanics.
https://www.wondriumdaily.com/quantum-u ... rministic/

↪Gnomon
:yikes: — Wayfarer

Sorry. I didn't mean to embarrass you with deep-felt praise. But, on this forum, you're my hero. :blush:

↪Gnomon
What is PanMaterialism? I Googled it and found nothing. — kudos

All-matter-all-the time-every-where. I just made-up a name to serve as an analogy with PanPsychism (all mind) or PanTheism (all god). My tongue-in-cheek intention was not to propose a new religion, but to draw attention to the secular "religion of our times"*1. :joke:

Materialism is not a synonym for "science", but an unprovable assumption or belief system or worldview*2. It began as the ancient philosophy/science of Atomism, not as a substitute for pagan religions*3. Even after thousands of years of argumentation, Atomism still has no explanation for such "hard" questions as the emergence of Consciousness in a material world.

Darwin's evolutionary theory did not require any divine intervention, but it did not assert that matter-is-all-there-is, and left open the question of Causation*4. It did however posit a replacement for direct divine intervention with random (statistical) accidents & innate selection criteria (specifications). The all-powerful-matter interpretation was added by those who wanted a secular alternative to Christian Creationism*5. But Materialism has also been used to fill all open & abstract philosophical questions with objective concrete stuff. Unfortunately, it tends to be leaky in the joints around subjective ideas, opinions & feelings. :smile:


*1. Materialism as a Worldview :
John Searle, the eminent professor of philosophy at U.C. Berkeley, once said that "there is a sense in which materialism is the religion of our time." . . . . Perhaps we can see how relevant materialism is to Darwinian evolution. For if materialism is true then something very much like Darwinism must be true. . . . . The explicit materialism of the Darwinians is the mirror image of creationism.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/09/what_is_the_wor/

*2. Definitions of "-ism" :
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. synonyms: doctrine, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ism

*3. Atomism is a metaphysical doctrine that asserts the existence of indivisible material unities that constitute all other material objects. This was suggested by several ancient philosophers and was revived by physicists when they discovered what we now call atoms (though they aren’t indivisible) . . . .
Materialism is a broad term in philosophy which posits that the subject at hand is ‘material’ or physically grounded. This usually takes the form of a metaphysical position on the nature of reality which contrasts with ‘immaterialism’ or ‘idealism’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

*4. Darwin's First Cause :
On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

*5. Materialism in academia is a fundamentalist belief system :
Materialism is the worldview that the only thing that exists is matter. Everything is matter. Not just tea cups and horses, but feelings of love and joy, thoughts and emotions, the taste of an apple, the beauty of a sunset. They are all matter.
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/materialism-in-academia-is-a-fundamentalist-belief-system/reading/

It seems like your plan is to beat materialism in kind with a material notion of spirit, a consciousness that is essentially the antiquated form of spirit itself, as the divine inside a divine subject. It is the idea of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of the divine in human form. And this whole thing seems caught in this post-Christian paradigm. In it we are constantly avoiding a notion of spirit while still operating within it.
Or maybe this higher level consciousness rests in empty actuality. — kudos

can speak for himself. In my opinion, he is the wisest poster on this forum, and with the fewest blind-spots.

I don't know where you found the notion of "a material notion of spirit" in his last post. That may be due to a "blind spot" of your own, which interprets everything in the world based on belief in an unproven axiom : PanMaterialism. Which seems caught in a post-Renaissance paradigm. Ironically, 20th century Quantum physics discovered a fundamental inter-connection between Mind and Matter*1. But the role (participation) of an observer's mind was quickly swept under the rug by the dominant class of classical (materialist) physicists.

Way did use the term "substance", but in the Aristotelian sense of Ousia (being ; existence)*2. FWIW, I interpret Wayfarer's use of "substance" as more closely related to Platonic Form (idea ; essence ; design ; concept)*2. Which is abhorrent to Materialists, who denigrate it as a spooky spirit or ghost : a la The Ghost in the Machine. Materialists seem to have a blind spot for the ancient philosophical concept of an immaterial general quality that makes an individual material thing (quanta) what it is.

Bergson's elan vital referred, not to a ghost, but to an organizing principle in nature. Since the Big Bang, Nature seems to have a self-organizing power that Materialists take for granted, but are loathe to give it a name*3. In the biological sciences it is recognized as essential to evolutionary development, but they label it as "spontaneous"*4 (a chain of accidents tending toward complexity & integration?) to imply that an "external stimulus" was not necessary. Similarly, astrophysicists assume, as an unproven axiom, that the Big Bang was a spontaneous or random event without precedence : pop goes the chaos, which evolves into a cosmos. And yet, some scientists --- bothered by the something-from-nothing implication --- have postulated an imaginary "external stimulus" in the form of an eternal material Multiverse. :smile:


*1. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"? :
According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a "participatory universe," Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

*2. What is the difference between substance and essence in Aristotle? :
Essence is what makes a thing that particular thing. In other words, essence is what makes “that chair.” Substance is what makes a thing a general thing. In other words, substance is what makes “a chair.”
https://o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/essence-substance-and-form-81c2b707c0d8

*3. Self-organization, also called spontaneous order in the social sciences, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
Note --- Quantum physics is characterized by non-locality. Not divine intervention, but holistic inter-action.

*4. Spontaneous : performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? — Gnomon
Yes, because the transition times can be calculated using the wave model. — Dfpolis

OK. I am duly chastened. I'm guilty of using physical concepts as philosophical metaphors . . . without doing the "calculations". :joke:

But the actual jumps seem to occur almost instantaneously. — Gnomon
No, they do not. They generate the light pulses we call photons, which have a finite duration in order to have a well-defined frequency (because of the uncertainty principle). So, we can tell how long the transitions take. Further, the transitions are much better described as wave phenomena than as particle phenomena. The electrons in each level have a well-defined energy and so a well-defined frequency. — Dfpolis

Did you notice that I qualified "instantaneous" with "almost". We're talking about Planck Time here. I suppose your definition of "instantaneous" is more rigidly rigorous than mine. Do you have a good reason for picking nits about metaphors? :joke:


Instantaneous :
The adjective instantaneous means “happening very quickly, in a single moment.”
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/instant-or-instantaneous-what-s-the-difference

The whole idea that coin-flipping is evidence of natural random chance is fundamentally flawed. The production of this random chance type of event is intentionally designed, as are all examples of such random chance generators, so these examples do nothing to support the claim of naturally occurring random chance events. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, but I was using the term "coin-flipping" metaphorically, not literally. Einstein used the similar metaphor of God playing dice, to ridicule the quantum evidence that Nature is inherently indeterminate*1*2. Also, I was not talking about un-natural Random Number Generators. Instead, I was referring to the innate Quantum Indeterminacy that provoked Heisenberg to define his Uncertainty Principle in terms of statistical Probability*3.

Since you found my implication that Nature is not rigidly Deterministic problematic, are you a strict classical Determinist*4 like Einstein? Newtonian physics was based on the, mathematically convenient, assumption of rigid laws controlling all actions in nature*5. But Quantum Physics demonstrated that Nature is more flexible than that*6. I even use the malleability of Nature as an argument in favor of FreeWill, and against Fate*7, for those who can manipulate the natural system culturally*7. But that's a topic for a different thread. :smile:


*1. Einstein's Determinism :
Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

*2. Does True Randomness Exist? :
Randomness as a fundamental property of nature: Also called True randomness, is when a phenomenon is intrinsically random and not dependent on our knowledge of the phenomenon.
https://medium.com/illumination/does-true-randomness-exist-5d2fc7f413dd

*3. Uncertainty principle :
The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

*4. Statistical Determinism :
According to classical determinism, the laws of nature are all strict rather than statistical, . . .
https://uh.edu/~psaka/sylla/stet.htm

*5. Quantum indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy is often understood as information (or lack of it) whose existence we infer, occurring in individual quantum systems, prior to measurement. Quantum randomness is the statistical manifestation of that indeterminacy, witnessable in results of experiments repeated many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

*6.Bayesian Belief-based Probability :
Bayesian statistics mostly involves conditional probability, . . .
https://statswithr.github.io/book/the-basics-of-bayesian-statistics.html

*7. Randomness :
In ancient history, the concepts of chance and randomness were intertwined with that of fate. . . .Although randomness had often been viewed as an obstacle and a nuisance for many centuries, in the 20th century computer scientists began to realize that the deliberate introduction of randomness into computations can be an effective tool for designing better algorithms. In some cases, such randomized algorithms even outperform the best deterministic methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Some years ago, when Lawrence Krauss published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing those who are well versed in both philosophy and physics were highly critical. They pointed out that his "nothing" was not nothing. Despite the title what he described is a universe from something, — Fooloso4

Yes. I take his potent & creative nothingness argument as supportive of my own interpretation of BB theory : that Causal Energy and Limiting Laws necessarily pre-existed the Bang --- not physically, but Platonically.

Non-empirical Philosophical conjectures, such as Multiverse and Many Worlds, also seem to assume that "something" preceded the beginning of our little space-time bubble. However, they imply that the "something" was simply more-of-the-same in a tower-of-turtles all the way down to an eternal Material Motherlode. Ironically, in our part of the ontic bubble, ever-changing matter seems to be anything but eternal. So, a more likely candidate for everlasting existence may be Platonic Logic or Tegmark's Mathematics. :nerd:

I would never weigh in on the content of empirical assertions by physicists and characterize my opinions as philosophical. I can only claim a philosophical stance when I remain neutral in this regard, that is, when I am careful not to offer any opinion on the veracity of facts generated within physics, and instead focus on the pre-empirical presuppositions grounding the way questions are posed in physics. — Joshs

That sounds like a reasonable philosophical approach to physical controversies. But some TPF posters challenge philosophical conjectures by insisting on verified empirical evidence. However, such hypotheses may presuppose later empirical evidence. For example, bending of light by gravity was a rational conclusion from Einstein's mathematical theory of gravitation, pending future astronomical confirmation.

Besides, "pre-empirical presuppositions" in mathematics are called "axioms" : presumed to be logically true until proven wrong by finding a black swan. Perhaps speculative philosophy has more in common with Platonic mathematics than with Pragmatic physics. :smile:


Axiom :
In formal mathematics an axiom is a formula or schema of formulas that is stipulated as true (and therefore not requiring proof). Axioms are the counterpart in mathematics of suppositions, assumptions, or premises in ordinary syllogistic logic.
https://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/axiom