I will add that the expression that mathematics is 'in the world' is meaningless, just as it would be to say that a carton of eggs contains the number 12. Mathematics gives us a common symbolic means to describe, quantify and understand the world in a way that is not just based on individual perception but is grounded in a shared understanding and inherited knowledge. — Wayfarer

That summation should put an end to this thread. But of course, we can argue about the pertinent meaning of each word in the last sentence. The short answer is "Yes". But what do you mean by "in", or "embedded", or "grounded"? :wink:

In sum, quantum mechanics is a math based on limitations in measurements and probability. As you noted a "field" or "wave" is a mathematical entity that is often confused with a physical reality. Its a metaphor in English. When examining the ocean, we don't calculate every single molecule of water. Its unnecessary. Does that mean that ocean waves are not made up of molecules? No. But for what we're calculating, its easier. This is the same thing as measuring light as a wave vs as a particle. For some experiments and circumstances, its better to calculate light as particles than waves. Are waves of life comprised of particles? Of course. But in those circumstances in math, its just better to calculate it as a wave. — Philosophim

That's a good summary of the quantum quandary. The arcane math accurately predicts the results of chemical processes, but the "reality", of both the invisible particles and the intangible waves, is hard to imagine. As you noted, both are analogies to common sense experience on the macro level of reality. And even the notion of Entanglement may be simply an analogy to the well known Holistic functions of complex systems*1. Metaphorical analogies are too often "confused" with the Material objects they refer back to.

The Santa Fe Institute*2 for the study of Complexity was established by quantum scientists (e.g. Murray Gell-Mann) among others, specifically to research the mysteries of complex physical systems, in which the contributions of parts may be subordinated to those of the system as whole. As you noted above, it's sometimes easier to calculate the behavior of a whole system than to track the zillions of dissolved parts (e.g. sea water & salt). The system label (e.g. cellular automata*3) may be an as-if metaphor to cover the interactive functions of uncountable physical elements.

I mention the use of holistic methods by scientific experts, because my philosophical use of the term "Holism" on this forum is often confused with, and condemned as, New Age religious beliefs about unseen spiritual realities. Despite that Reductive defense against Holistic models, we need to emulate the quantum pioneers --- who at first were baffled by the counter-intuitive, and contra-classical, evidence of quantized systems and entangled behaviors --- but eventually got on with their job of revealing the underlying roots of Reality. :smile:


*1. Holistic view in Complex Systems :
By adopting a holistic perspective of complex systems, the system rule enables us to navigate the intricate interdependencies and dynamics within them.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/system-thinking-rules-3-rule-holistic-view-complex-m/

*2. Santa Fe Institute :
. . . . the scientific knowledge that is associated with dynamic processes contains an amazingly rich variety of interconnections, involving distinct forms and levels of understanding. This variety of forms of dynamic knowledge, which is presently largely unrecognized, will be demonstrated via recent specific technical examples. It will be seen in these examples that the understandings (relationships) that have been discovered all have holistic characteristics. Moreover, their holistic qualities are unique in each case---in this sense, they are “emergent discoveries.” This suggests the future understanding of complex systems will involve the common activity of discovering new holistic forms of relationships.
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/working-papers/scientific-understanding-of-dynamic-phenomena-anal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

*3. Automata :
a moving mechanical device made in imitation of a human being.
___Oxford

This is very pragmatic for me, it is just how things are, but I still get very excited with lucid dreams. Nowadays I never try to actively engage with the dreams, I just let them happen and observe. — Olento

The lucid dreams recounted in my previous post were pragmatic and intentional, because I had been consciously trying to solve the obstacles to flying silently like a bird. Human flight, since the Wright brothers, had always relied on noisy machines instead of innate muscle power. Today, electric flying machines with closed-loop propellers are getting close to the ancient dream of flying like a bird.

In my not-so-ancient waking dream, while noiselessly flying above the tree-tops, I could hear the wind whispering, and sounds on the ground, not to mention seeing peripherally, without window-framing the view. These dreams had been inspired in part by the novel sensations of flying in my brother's single engine airplane, where the noise was intrusive, and made communication difficult, and the view was restricted.

Some time later, and no drugs involved, I began to repeatedly dream that I could fly, more like superman, just by pure willpower. And it felt great --- no rackety engines or even flapping wings. In that case, I was no longer trying to solve pragmatic problems, just enjoying the feeling. Now, years later, I still have brief lucid dreams, mostly during a gradual wake-up. But I don't focus on details, just go with the flow. :smile:

PS__ Years ago, I read an article about the use of Ayahuasca in South America, where indians imagined they could fly like a condor and prowl like a jaguar. Apparently, the drug stimulated something like a lucid dream, which was viewed as a spiritual reality by the drug user. Today, it's a recreational drug with spiritual implications, for those so inclined.

Soul Quest Ayahuasca Church
Orlando Florida
https://www.ayahuascachurches.org/

Perhaps it would be helpful to turn things around for a moment and ask, 'what would have to occur for nature to disobey laws?' — unenlightened

That's a good question. From our perspective as subjects to the Law, the physical regularities of Nature are Necessities*1 --- "gravity always wins". Also, since Nature has physical Forces to enforce those laws, the consequence is what we call Causation. Which raises the contentious question : is the lawful order & predictability of Nature due to top-down Causality (Lawmaker), or to fortuitous Accident (Chance)?

A slight alteration of the OP might ask : why are these particular Necessities needed for the workings of Nature? If the mechanics of the universe was completely random, no physical path would be favored, and Evolution would not need to be Selective, and Statistics would never vary from a central norm. Obviously, the world we live in is mostly non-random, except perhaps on the quantum level, where spontaneity happens just enough to call it "Uncertainty". On the macro scale though, most processes are directional and predictable --- hence the "effectiveness" of Science. So, it seems that a bit of fundamental randomness is Necessary, only to allow degrees of freedom (flexibility) in the otherwise deterministic path of Evolution*2. The general direction, at least on Earth, is toward more complexity & organization, with just enough plasticity to allow for novelty along the way*3.

Therefore, the universe --- or agents within --- could "disobey" natural Laws only if they were Un-necessary, or optional. But, as far as empirical Science can tell, the law-like limits on Physics are universal*4. And the only exceptions are found on the Quantum scale*5, which seem to serve only to dilute the mechanical rigidity of absolute Cause & Effect. So, only more Randomness, and less Lawfulness (i.e. Magic), would allow Nature to vary from it's legitimate path of orderly Causation & Evolution. :smile:


*1. What does necessary mean in philosophy?
In philosophy, necessity and sufficiency are two attributes that together constitute causality. A cause is necessary and sufficient to generate the effect. It being necessary is the negation or falsification: the effect cannot occur without the cause, so the cause is necessary for the effect to occur.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-explain-necessity-in-philosophy

*2. When being flexible matters :
In this debate, it has been argued that our view of evolutionary causation should be rethought by including more seriously developmental causes and causes of the individual acting organism. . . . to reflect on the causal role of agency, individuality, and the environment in evolution.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32285230/

*3. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/ULLECB

*4. Is natural law a law in the true sense? :
Laws of nature are the only real laws based on principle and truth. Natural laws are universal, eternal, and immutable,
Nature doesn’t “have” laws, since natural laws aren’t like man-made laws that tell people how they should behave. Instead, natural laws are merely our best descriptions of how we have observed that things behave within nature and how we think, by extension, things behave elsewhere within nature.
https://www.quora.com/Is-natural-law-a-law-in-the-true-sense

*5. Quantum Magic :
Some quantum scale behaviors (e.g. tunneling) might seem magical, but they are never found on the macro level of reality.

Quotes from this thread above :

Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. — Gnomon

But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened

No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding. — unenlightened

OK. But, if your reply above is not a "causal" explanation, how does it explain --- increase understanding of --- how local complexity could increase, in apparent violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? My footnote *2, describes a possible explanation --- given certain conjectures --- of how high-density stars could form even-though (despite) the uphill pull against the inexorable cosmic expansion trend toward lower overall density of matter*3. Ironically, it uses the counter-intuitive statistical notion of "Entropy Density"*4. Perhaps, instead of striking out "despite" in favor of "because", your explanation should insert "probably" or "possibly".

The Second Law is usually taken to be inviolable, with the possible exception of a highly unprovable & improbable First Cause scenario, as postulated in Cosmic Inflation theory, when presumably lax pre-bang physics also allowed a violation of the speed limit of light*5. Technically, that mathematical creation story took place before our Universe existed ; so it's not about Physics, but Meta-Physics : Voila! instant universe from nothing ; indistinguishable from magic. It's not a physical causal explanation, because it assumes a mysterious Cause that no longer exists in the real world. :smile:

PS___ Again, I apologize for pushing this esoteric Causation enigma, but it's a hobby-horse of mine.


*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*3. Entropy vs Density :
When we think about the Universe in the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, we’re imagining all the matter and radiation that we have today — currently spread out across a sphere some ~92 billion light-years in diameter — packed into a volume about the size of the world’s largest pumpkin. The Universe back at that stage was incredibly hot and dense, . . .
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*4. What is the relationship between entropy and density?
Density measures how closely the atoms are packed, whereas entropy measures the disorder or randomness. . . .
The law of entropy ( the law which says, entropy always increases) is better read as “there is a high probability that entropy always increases”. It’s not physics, but probability that governs this.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diference-between-density-and-entropy-basic

*5. Is cosmic inflation faster than light?
Around 13.8 billion years ago, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light for a fraction of a second, a period called cosmic inflation. Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it. It's possible that energy during this period was just part of the fabric of space-time.
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/

I think the scientific presumption is that demons do not exist. If they did exist, they would be just the entities to impose laws on particles like political economists such that wealth/energy would accumulate rather than dissipate. — unenlightened

Obviously, the "demon" was a metaphor that Maxwell used to illustrate a physical phenomenon --- work without a worker --- that had no better explanation. It remains a puzzle for both scientists and philosophers*1. But the metaphor is still used, not to explain but to illustrate, various anomalies in science. For example, physicist Paul Davies' The Demon in the Machine, in which he identifies the "demon" with Causal Information. Could that be the mysterious "entity to impose laws"? :smile:


*1. Maxwell's Demon is a way of demonstrating that the laws of mechanics are compatible with microstates and Hamiltonians that lead to an evolution which violates the Second Law of thermodynamics by transferring heat from a cold gas to a hot one without investing work. . . .
Maxwell’s Demon is a thought experiment devised by J. C. Maxwell in 1867 in order to show that the Second Law of thermodynamics is not universal, since it has a counter-example. Since the Second Law is taken by many to provide an arrow of time, the threat to its universality threatens the account of temporal directionality as well. Various attempts to “exorcise” the Demon, by proving that it is impossible for one reason or another, have been made throughout the years, but none of them were successful.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7516722/#:~:text=Maxwell%27s%20Demon%20is%20a%20way,hot%20one%20without%20investing%20work.

But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. — unenlightened

So, you think Entropy is a causal force, instead of merely a degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system, as defined by physicist Rudolph Clausius?*2 In a similar metaphorical sense, I called my own coinage of "Enformy" a counter-force to Entropy. That's not yet a scientific fact, but it's a useful way for philosophers to think about the "general trend" of the universe to go downhill, while in local pockets of organization, like planet Earth, the thermodynamic trend has been "violated" ; reversed toward Life and Order. :cool:

*2. Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder. . . .
the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. — unenlightened

That's a good analogy. But I object to the "pseudoscientific" characterization. "Holism" was originally a scientific term to describe how Evolution works its natural "magic". But the term was adopted by New Agers, and rendered contaminated by its association with supernatural beliefs. Similarly, the term "Metaphysics" was originally a useful philosophical term to describe topics, such as Mind, that are not understandable from a reductive physical perspective. Today, scientists use the term "Systems Theory" as a disguise for their holistic research*3. :nerd:

Systems Theory & Holism :
Systems have common defining properties, such as hierarchical ordering, coupling, permeability, holism, emergence, equifinality, and homeostasis. Representing the broader systems perspective are several specific theories and perspectives, such as Weick's theory of organizing, communication network perspectives, ecological and evolutionary perspectives, and self-organizing systems theory. Systems theory has been extensively applied in research areas ranging from communication design and adoption of technology use in organizational operations to professional communication, health campaigns, and public relations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316283969_Systems_theory

If one begins with maximal simplicity, there is nowhere to go but towards complexity. However, once complexity has evolved, it can devolve into more simple forms, and there are many examples, — unenlightened

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. My post referred to "Russell's statistical argument to explain Nature's regularities". Then I asked a philosophical (non-scientific) question : not how, but "why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average-out extreme states into a law-like & predictable moderate position?".

Here's a physical example : The behavior of gas-in-a-box (Maxwell's Demon) illustrates --- without explaining --- that natural-but-inexplicable trait of averaging the pressure, by moving particles from a demon-caused condensed state toward a more natural diffuse state : order to disorder, or energy to entropy. In between those extreme states the gases were free to move forward and backward. Even biological evolution allows change to move back & forth*1. Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. If so, the topical question could be rephrased as : why do physical systems tend to follow a middle-of-the-road course, toward more & more order, as they evolve? Moreover, why is the cosmos now in a moderate state of Entropy, which allows Life & Mind to emerge?

Scientists have not been able to empirically determine an “underlying reason” for that “law-like behavior”, or for the simple to complex direction of natural Evolution. But some philosophers have speculated beyond the physical boundaries of Science --- to postulate a First Cause or Logos --- hoping to explain the Impetus and Intention behind such regularities in a universe that could otherwise be totally random and directionless. Even some professional scientists, Terrence Deacon, Paul Davies, Max Planck, Norbert Wiener, etc, have used the term “teleology”, not to explain, but to describe the lawful & directional forms of natural processes. So, isn't it reasonable for even fun-loving amateur philosophers like us to push the boundaries toward a Theoretical and Metaphysical answer to those Why questions.

Regarding "maximal simplicity", I must suppose that would equate to minimum organization and max Entropy, as in the heat death (big freeze) of the universe. Which is the opposite of the Big Bang"s demonic (hot & dense) low Entropy*2 beginning. The article below, by physicist Ethan Siegel*2, implies that Evolution began in an almost perfectly ordered (superdense) state*3 like a Black Hole, from which there was "nowhere to go", but toward more internal freedom to change, and to organize into more complex systems. But, why not take the easy path, directly to complete Entropy, without the eons-long detour of incremental steps toward more & more organization? Instead, the BB theory describes the original state as a hot-dense Plasma, which is like a gas-in-a-box situation. For some unknown reason, a metaphorical Demon (Inflation???) moved all the particles into one side of the box, then opened the door to allow it evolve eventually & naturally into stars & galaxies & us. Hence today, we find "particles" of matter organized into upright bipedal creatures with big brains, who ask dumb Why? questions.

Here's one amateur philosophical (non-scientific) speculation of a possible answer to the OP question of "what makes nature comply with its own inherent laws of nature" {my added bold}. Entropy alone would never even get to the original plasma state. So, is it reasonable that some countervailing inherent "force" or "law"*4 is responsible for enforcing the "regulations" of evolutionary organization? :smile:

PS___Sorry to unload on you. I had a lot of momentum. :joke:

*1. Can Species Evolve Backwards? ;
Thus, penguins didn't "devolve," they simply adapted to their new environment, and in that particular case, that meant losing a feature that had previously been beneficial.
https://www.sciencealert.com/what-happens-when-species-evolve-backwards-the-strange-science-of-devolution

*2. Did the Universe have zero entropy when it first began? :
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. The Universe not only wasn’t maximally organized at the start of the Big Bang, but had quite a large entropy even at the earliest stages we can describe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

*3. Zero Entropy :
No entropy means no random motion in molecular level that means zero temperature that means zero heat energy that means zero possiblity for energy conversion that means "heat death of the universe" that means freeze of entire universe including all atoms and photons everything.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-is-no-entropy-in-the-universe

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
a. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
b. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

MAXWELL'S DEMON COSMOLOGY : low entropy initial state ; high entropy final state


COSMOLOGY : What Demon placed the BB at the top of the energy/entropy curve?
Natural evolution has a law-like gravity ride downhill from the demonic Normal position

I think it's called "regression to the mean". If you toss a coin twice you might get heads twice, tails twice or one of each ht or one of each th. If you toss a coin a million times, you are almost certain to get within a hundred or so equal numbers of heads and tails, because 'chances are'. — unenlightened

I just Googled Bertrand Russell's statistical argument*1 to explain Nature's regularities, without recourse to a supernatural lawmaker. At first it seems to make empirical sense. But with afterthought, Nature still shows evidence of top-down statistical "laws"*2, begging the question of a Lawmaker or Regulator of Nature's "program", to direct its meandering median path, perhaps toward some future state.

For example, why would a random, non-designed, process (e.g. Evolution or coin flipping) have a tendency to average out extreme states? Is there a mathematical "gravitational" force pulling events toward some middle course? To suggest that Nature tends toward moderation also raises Why questions. Physical Science has postulated dozens of hypothetical "Forces" to explain consistent physical behavior ; four of them deemed "fundamental" to physics. Even Aristotle described four Causes in nature.

Yet again, why would such mysterious invisible causal pulls & pushes, with power over tangible matter, emerge within a non-directional randomized system?*3 Even "Chance" and "Chaos" are found to be lawful*4, and subject to arbitrary tugs toward the statistical median. So, Russell's argument merely redirects the question, pointing to the empirical predictable regularities of mathematics, instead of the hypothetical Great Mathematician*5, who defines what is Normal. :smile:


*1. The Natural Law Argument :
The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. . . .
if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God Himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You have really a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because He is not the ultimate law-giver.
https://www.mit.edu/activities/mitmsa/NewSite/libstuff/russell/node3.html
Note --- this just kicks the Lawmaker question farther back down the road toward an "ultimate" Reason-maker. Perhaps, Plato's LOGOS?

*2. Empirical statistical laws :
An empirical statistical law or (in popular terminology) a law of statistics represents a type of behaviour that has been found across a number of datasets and, indeed, across a range of types of data sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_statistical_laws

*3. Is God a Mathematician? :
Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner once wondered about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in the formulation of the laws of nature. Is God a Mathematician? investigates why mathematics is as powerful as it is. ___Mario Livio, astrophysicist
https://www.amazon.com/God-Mathematician-Mario-Livio/dp/0743294068

*4. Laws of Chaos :
Chaos theory has been developed from the recognition that apparently simple physical systems which obey deterministic laws may nevertheless behave unpredictably.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/chaos-theory

*5. Who says God is a mathematician? :
Michio Kaku explains why he believes in an intelligent creator and describes God as a “mathematician” and his mind as “cosmic music.” “The final resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. ___ Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist
https://bigthink.com/the-well/mathematics/

Note that it is ""Transcendental Idealism" not "Transcendent Idealism". The CPR is not about "Transcendent Idealism", as this would lie beyond what the human can cognitively grasp and would move into the realm of the unknowable. Not only beyond human experience but also beyond human reason, because beyond the scope of empirical investigation. Included would be such concepts as God and the soul. — RussellA

That's what I suspected. But some critics seem to think Kant was talking about a supernatural Heavenly Realm, instead of a Hypothetical or Metaphorical state of perfection. Philosophical conjectures are often "beyond the scope of empirical investigation", but seldom beyond the range of rational analysis. Sadly, Philosophical Metaphors are all-too-often taken literally by those opposed to any preternatural implications.

On this forum, "transcendence" seems to be a taboo trigger-word for fully-invested Immanentists --- one in particular --- to get on their high-horse. Ironically, in a practical sense, I could be pigeon-holed into an Immanentism (reality vs ideality) slot. But when theorizing, I feel free to go beyond the current state of empirical knowledge, and to speculate into the unknown. Yet some would dismiss that philosophical freedom as a religious commitment to a supernatural faith. :halo:

Immanence and Transcendence :
Both what we can know by reason (immanence) and what we can know only by revelation (transcendence) are reflections of the very being of God. By contrast, immanence would signify that human reason is the highest norm for our knowledge of ethical and religious practices.
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28079/chapter-abstract/212098546?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The CPR is not about religion or the spiritual realism, but is about what we can practically know about the world using reason and observation. — RussellA

Thanks for the quote. As I indicated above, I assumed that Kant was writing as a reality-exploring philosopher --- searching for the boundaries of Epistemology --- not as a Christian apologist. However, some on TPF reject anything he says as-if it was religious propaganda. Yet he seems to rely on mundane reasoning, not on divine revelation, for his conclusion that there are some "things" (ding an sich) that are not accessible to "empirical investigation". And it's exactly those known-unknowns that intrigue me. :nerd:

Kant uses such a Transcendental Argument in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 against the Idealism of Berkeley in order not to prove that things exist independently of the mind, but only the possibility that things exist independently of the mind. — RussellA

Obviously, it would be impossible to prove anything beyond empirical evidence or the reach of reason. But what difference does it make to assert the "possibility" of such ding an sich? I'm guessing that he was responding to some aspect of Berkeley's Idealism. Ironically, Kant's own philosophy has the label "Idealism" pinned on it. So, he's not rejecting the general concept of Meta-Physical Reality, but some particular detail of Berkeley's formulation. Yes? :cool:

"Transcendental Idealism" uses the Transcendental Argument to make sense of the world given our sensory experiences. — RussellA

Thanks again. That makes sense to me. Although it obviously doesn't compute for some Kant bashers. Taken literally, the title "Transcendental Idealism" seems to be directly opposite to "Immanent Realism". Was that effrontery intentional? :smile:

PS___ The OP seems to be questioning the possibility of a First Cause or Lawmaker to force Nature into compliance with somewhat arbitrary top-down "laws", as opposed to innate regularities emerging bottom-up, due to the constraints of random interactions. Top-down Laws would be Transcendent, while bottom-up Regularities would be Immanent. Hence, the thread's side-track into questioning Kant's notion of things & forces "beyond our sensory experience" or our "cognitive grasp".

The term "transcendental idealism" should be thought of as a name rather than a description, as the Champs-Élysées is a name and not a description.
In fact, he proposed renaming his transcendental idealism with the more informative name of "formal" or "critical idealism," (Introduction to Critique of Pure Reason) — RussellA

I'm not a Kant scholar, and have never read any of his works. But, "Transcendence" is inherently a debatable term, since it is based on subjective imagination instead of objective observation. Some critics seem to assume that Kant's "transcendental" referred to a religious heavenly realm of perfection isolated from the imperfect physical world. But others, such as the 19th century Transcendentalists, apparently believed in a parallel "spiritual" realm within this world, perceivable via intuition. For example, as depicted in movies : innocent children, guided by feelings instead of reason, can "see" dead people, or demons, or disguised alien monsters.

Yet I'm getting the impression that Kant may have been merely making a pragmatic philosophical distinction between concrete physical Reality (actuality) and abstract mental Ideality (possibility), as a way to discuss metal phenomena (i.e. noumena), without the baggage of habitual physical preconceptions. But his choice of "Transcendence" as a label may sound absurd to those of a Materialist worldview, in which nothing could possibly transcend the apparent reality of the 5 senses --- as confirmed by empirical science. Unfortunately, his support for Christian doctrine would make his objectivity suspect.

How do you interpret his usage of "transcendence"? Specifically, in his view, what limits are being surpassed? Was he denigrating mythical Pure Reason in favor of mundane non-magical Practical Intuition? :smile:


Practical Intuition :
Practical Intuition provides the tools you need to develop your intuitive potential to its fullest.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1242635

Non-Magical Intuition :
Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/intuition

PS___ In Philosophy Now magazine #158, editor Grant Bartley discusses the cover question : Freewill vs Determinism. In answer to "what freewill involves", he refers to Kant's notion of going beyond physical limits : "Kant calls the will 'transcendental' --- by which he means that for it to operate, will must not be part of the causal system of the physical world". In other words, "Transcendental" means Supernatural.

Is that a valid interpretation of Kant? I'm sure even to mention such an "outrageous" possibility on TPF would cause to do his best ballistic Trump imitation : red face, sneering & blustering. But I'm seriously seeking to understand what Kant was talking about, because he's "one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy". https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

Does this mean that transcendental idealism is in the end unavoidable and there is no realistic alternative to this world-view? And is the possibility and success of science proof, that Kant was rightfully claiming that we can never attain to a knowledge of things surrounding us per se i.e. independent of us? — Pez

I'm not a Kant scholar. But my understanding of his Transcendental Idealism*1 is that it's merely an admonition to idea-mongering philosophers, not to confuse our artificial worldviews with absolute Reality. This is not exactly claiming, like Berkeley, that our perception of the world sees only "appearances" that represent the Ideal world as-if objects (ding an sich) ultimately exist in the mind of God. But merely to note that humans see only superficial Properties, that are meaningful to our space-time physical needs, instead of essential eternal Qualities.

Quantum Physics (QP) is another reminder that our 5 senses are attuned only to appearances, and our mental images represent only a fraction of reality. Heisenberg even echoed Kant to say that the "appearances" we call Reality, don't exist until observed. So, the quantum pioneers developed a new (non-mechanical) statistical worldview, to artificially sharpen the fuzziness of sub-atomic reality into a practical alternative to unrealistic Platonic Idealism.

In other words, QP is an attempt to make such abstract digital mathematical information useful to us coarse concrete analog organisms. As you suggested, the "success" of Quantum Physics, so alien to Classical Physics, allows us to adapt our way of dealing with the "transcendental" aspects of the world to a novel counter-intuitive "knowledge of things" that are not really things, such as non-local waves that can also behave like particles .

Whatever the Real World is, it is much more than our limited senses can cope with. So, we condense the incomprehensible behaviors of the Cosmos into mathematical symbols, and call them "natural laws". But Nature doesn't "comply" with our definitions ; instead, our formal laws are attempts to conform with Nature's regularities, symmetries, harmonies & proportions. :smile:


Transcendental Idealism :
In Kant’s view, human cognition is limited to objects that somehow depend on our minds (namely, appearances), whereas the mind-independent world (things in themselves) lies beyond the limits of our experience and cognition.
https://iep.utm.edu/kant-transcendental-idealism/

QUANTUM REALITY makes no sense to our senses

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Many thinkers have pondered "what causes the difference" between Classical (deterministic) Mechanics and Quantum (probabilistic) Statistics? The Quora explanation below*1 --- probably unintentionally --- suggests that the "non-traditional" difference may lie in a Holistic vs Particularistic*2 approach to understanding. My peculiar (philosophical) interpretation of the paradox is that the elusive quantum particle is normally "entangled" in a functional integrated System, which must be forced to "collapse" in order to reveal one isolated part of the whole complex.

But what is it about Measurement that pops the balloon? My personal unorthodox guess is that Measurement (root : mensura ; mens = mind) is an extraction of Information, which as noted in my previous post, is a form of Energy/Force*3. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) postulates that real world objects are collections of particles that are held together by some "force" similar to Gravity (gluons?) into a cohesive organization : a whole system with new functions in addition to those of the constituent parts*4. If that is the case, and if Information is a form of Energy (causation), then probing a sub-atomic system looking for particular answers, may disrupt the structural unity of the system --- like removing a single card from a card tower --- and reveal its components as they fall apart.

You may be able to suggest a more statistical analogy pointing to the same "collapse" effect. For me, this is just a philosophical footnote on the broader application of Holistic (general to specific) Deduction. :nerd:



*1. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic because it has to incorporate two incompatible properties into one whole.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-quantum-physics-not-deterministic

*2. 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

*3. Information is Energy :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*4. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. ___Wikipedia

Immanuel Kant presents us with a surprising and seemingly absurd alternative: we ourselves are the source of physical laws. Seemingly absurd, because we cannot influence the laws of nature. — Pez

I don't interpret Kant as implying that human observers create the laws of nature. What we do is to mathematically define the apparent necessities*1 of Nature. We observe "regularities" of cause & effect, then describe the process as-if it was imposed on nature by the Initial Influencer : The Prime Mover or The Impetus*2. So, humans are indeed the "source" of the formal & mathematical definitions, that we then use to predict statistically certain future outcomes of accurately formalized current conditions.

The knowledge of Necessity is not a physical empirical fact, but a metaphysical rational inference, just as all philosophical universals, a priori principles, are extrapolations from a few observations to a generalization. Yet, pace Hume*3, as far as we know, these "rules" are a priori & absolute, not contingent. So, it's not "absurd" to think of them as-if Divine Laws, even though we have no divine revelation to confirm our best guesses. Those "laws" are like Mathematics in general, taken to be true until an exception is observed.

Therefore, "what makes nature comply" with laws of our own defining? The implicit Impetus or First Cause of the ongoing sequence of Cause & Effect is the enforcer of Necessity. If the "laws" were not essential to the workings of the world, then the Source, or LOGOS, or Lawmaker would be superfluous. Is there any better answer to the implicit OP question : why is the world not totally Chaotic? :smile:

PS___ Galileo said, "The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics."
Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote : "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Logical patterns in nature would be unreasonable only if its processes were totally random, instead of mostly predictable. Is that why Plato postulated an ab original Logos?
Wigner : https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf


*1. Kant on the Laws of Nature :
Appearances may well offer cases from which a rule is possible in accordance with which something usually happens, but never a rule in accordance with which the succession is necessary… The strict universality of the rule is therefore not any property of empirical rules…
Wigner : https://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/jkreines/laws.htm
Note --- Hence, the universality & necessity of natural laws could only be mandated by a sovereign Ruler. Ouch!

*2. The Impetus :
In the latter work Philoponus became one of the earliest thinkers to reject Aristotle's dynamics and propose the "theory of impetus": i.e., an object moves and continues to move because of an energy imparted in it by the mover and ceases the movement when that energy is exhausted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philoponus
Note --- "impetus is something that impels, a stimulating factor while momentum is (physics of a body in motion) the product of its mass and velocity.” https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-impetus-and-momentum

*3. Hume Causality :
(1) The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time. (2) The cause must be prior to the effect. (3) There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. [...] (4) The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises but from the same cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humean_definition_of_causality
Note --- If this logic holds, we can rationally back-track causation to the original Prior : the First Cause, the Prime Necessity.

As-If : We use "as if" and "as though" to talk about an imaginary situation or a situation that may not be true but that is likely or possible.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/as-if-and-as-though

In thinking on causality, I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause". The definition and justification of this conclusion are written below. This may be a little abstract for some at first, so please ask questions if certain portions need some clarity. I welcome all criticism! — Philosophim

I've skimmed the thread, and most of it is over my little pointy head. But one sticking point seems to be confusing a logical First Cause (of some resulting chain of events) with an objective Thing or God operating in space-time. But your responses sound like what you have in mind is much more abstract & subjective, and more like a First Principle*1. That's simply a philosophical/mathematical concept, as contrasted with a physical/material object. And a mereological distinction is that the hypothetical Cause is not a part of the system of secondary causes & effects. The analogy I like to use is a pool-shooter, who stands outside the table and bouncing balls. :smile:

*1. First Principle :
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. That's why the quantum pioneers concluded that the conscious mind doing the sub-atomic measuring may have deterministic physical effects*1. Not due to Magical powers, but to something they have in common. Today, that something is typically known as "Information", especially in the form of causal Energy*2 and mental Entention*3. That notion is still in the early stages, and has not yet become scientific doctrine. But it is interesting fodder for philosophical speculation.

For those who are not afraid to conjecture into the unknown, such explorations may be called "quantum mysticism" or "quantum philosophy", depending on your attitude toward projecting what we know into the unknown. Nobel physicist Roger Penrose*1 is just one of many theorists who are pushing the boundaries of physics & psychology & math into uncharted territory, perhaps harboring strange "influences". :nerd:


*1. Quantum mind :
Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness . . . .

These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. . . .

Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

*2. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6[/i].

*3. Entention : an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action

As a common enough example, for such people proclaiming “science says so” is to proclaim the unquestionable truth of that which is stipulated. . . . .
Any position held on all of these many issues then being entirely metaphysical claims. — javra

Yes, but when I accuse them of holding a belief in authoritative Scientism, they don't seem to see what's wrong with that. Instead, they appear to think that Philosophy should be subservient to the final authority of infallible Empirical Science. But, when I ask for book, chapter & verse from their "unquestionable" Science Bible, I get no answer.

As I noted above, has a different definition of "metaphysics" from mine. And that discrepancy may be the reason for the topical question of this OP. In the 20th century, European physicists were still being trained in philosophy, and made metaphysical conjectures routinely, especially to explain the paradoxes of Quantum Theory. Are these aggressive anti-philosophy beliefs being promulgated in universities these days? I assume it's not just ignorance of philosophical concepts, of which 180 seems to be an expert. :smile:


DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SCIENTISM :
Scientism assumes that rational knowledge is scientific, and that everything else that claims to be knowledge is just superstitious, irrational, emotional, or nonsensical. Although Science and Scientism do share the same topics and content, their worldviews are entirely different.
https://journal.unpar.ac.id

The statement was aimed at those - including some hereabouts on a philosophy forum - which are antagonistic toward metaphysical enquiries period, to include investigations into the nature of causation, time, space, and identity, among others issues of metaphysical concern. And to me it goes hand in hand with what I've said here. — javra

To put this as colloquially as I can, metaphysical enquiry is the attempt to figure out what reality is really all about. — javra

I agree that Aristotle was concerned with Reality in general, and included Mental phenomena under the heading of Phusis (nature). But, since modern empirical Science split-off from traditional Philosophy, to go its own way, for some the term "metaphysics" came to mean "unscientific", with implications of "irrational". For my own purposes, I equate Metaphysics with Modern Philosophy, which has abandoned Empirical research to focus solely on Theoretical speculation. I even spell it with a hyphen, Meta-Physics, to emphasize that it's primarily the study of non-physical phenomena, such as Consciousness, and causation-in-general (vs specific causes).

Unfortunately, some TPF posters still seem to think that Metaphysics should be empirical. Hence, they insist that dissecting brains is the only way to understand the quality of Self-Awareness --- which seems to be unique to only a small selection of organic matter. For example, asserted above that "metaphysics is not theoretical". So, it seems that he is "antagonistic" only to Theoretical inquiries, that go beyond physical evidence, to conjecture about, not what is physically Real, but what is logically Possible. Hence, he might reject the Multiverse theories, not as Meta-Physical (literally beyond our space-time world), but as merely un-scientific, because empirical evidence is impossible. But the parallel notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang, would be characterized as mystical "woo-woo", presumably because it's pure speculation, un-grounded in hard facts.

According to that reasoning, "investigations into the nature of Causation" would have to be limited to looking at its material effects, not its original source : Aristotle's imaginary First Cause. For those "antagonistic" toward theoretical Metaphysics, any universal or general concepts would be taboo. That's because empirical Science can only study particulars, and to generalize (via induction) would be presumptive of omniscience. Ironically, polymath scientists do that all the time, crossing the line between Empirical Science and Theoretical Philosophy ; between what's Real, and what's Ideal ; twixt what's Actual and what's Potential . :smile:

What is the thought experiment about Schrödinger's cat? — ucarr

The paradoxical thought experiment was intended to illustrate the apparent absurdity of Quantum Superposition (wave/particle duality). Which required a paradigm shift in scientific understanding of Classical Determinism, and also implied that the intervention of a conscious mind could have causal effects on the physical world.

Schrödinger's expressed opinion --- that Consciousness, not Matter, is fundamental in the world --- is one of many instances of what calls "Quantum Mysticism". Which is why he wants to "distance TPF" from 20th century Science, in favor of 17th century Classical Physics. :smile:

Deacon sounds like he's espousing what C. Rovelli aptly calls "quantum nonsense"... — 180 Proof
I understand him to be making reference to Schrödinger's equation for a superpositionally dead & alive cat. — ucarr

There's a lot of "quantum non-sense" out there, because --- as Einstein objected --- some of it's key features are literally non-sensical, and contrary to common sense. But, sorry Einstein, "God does play dice" on the floor of reality.

Ironically, Rovelli's Relationalism is compatible with my own Enformationism. Inter-relationships are the essence of Information. Superposition is an unsustainable relationship, which "collapses" upon experimental questioning. :cool:


Carlo Rovelli’s Relationalism :
At first, Rovelli primarily applied his relationalism to quantum mechanics. However, Rovelli has gone on to apply this metaphysical position to just about every… thing.
Although the following piece is partly sympathetic to relationalism, the primary criticism which remains is that Rovelli appears to be simply inverting the (to use Derrida’s words) “violent hierarchy” that has (according to Rovelli) been set up between objects (or things) and relations in both Western philosophy and in modern physics. In other words, Rovelli has now placed relations — rather than objects — at the top of the pile.
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/carlo-rovellis-relationalism-as-defended-in-his-book-helgoland-2020-b66caf122159

...T. Deacon's thesis seems to be 'nonreductive physicalist scientism'... — 180 Proof
No. The long slog through the statistical bias towards equilibrium, i.e., entropy towards the far-from-equilibrium states required of life is illuminated in detail by the scientific work of Deacon in Incomplete Nature, a game-changer in the mind/body inquiry. — ucarr

Yes, it is a "game changer". But is not interested in changing the traditional Materialistic rules of the game*1. He seems to like it just the way it has been since the 5th century BC : rigid Atoms & inert Void, with no agent of Change, or role for a POV. A sentient perspective introduces disruptive opinionated Subjectivity into orderly factual Objective science.

Reductive Science is good at dissecting Atoms, but is unable to separate Mind from Brain. And it was baffled by the indeterminacy of Quantum Physics. Deacon's innovation is to focus on the Void --- the Absence --- that allows Atoms to change position & function --- to introduce novelty into a robotic mechanism. Without that Constitutive Absence, progressive evolution would be impossible. As the Atomism*2 entry below suggests, the Inventive Void that permits & causes re-arrangement of matter does not feature in 180's physical worldview, in which human experience is Absurd. :nerd:


*1. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter :
Incomplete Nature begins by accepting what other theories try to deny: that, although mental contents do indeed lack these material-energetic properties, they are still entirely products of physical processes and have an unprecedented kind of causal power that is unlike anything that physics and chemistry alone have so far explained. . . . We need a “theory of everything” which does not leave it absurd that we exist.
https://anthropology.berkeley.edu/incomplete-nature-how-mind-emerged-matter

*2. Ancient Atomism :
The interactions of particles too small to observe is a compelling way to account for perceptible changes in the natural world. Even Aristotle—often cast as the arch-enemy of atomism—allowed that there might be a lower limit to the quantity of matter that could instantiate certain properties. But not all atomist theories were based on an appearance/reality distinction: Buddhist philosophers posited phenomenal instants with minimum extension in time as well as space, to mirror the ephemerality of moments of human experience. Void spaces between atoms sometimes, but not always, feature in atomist theories.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/

Hello, 180 Proof. I've been learning from you, and I very much appreciate your patient instruction. I'm very gratified to have some of your attention. — ucarr

It might be instructive to ask 180 about his attitude toward Deacon's "radical" Incomplete Nature, and Absential theories. In view of his scathing remarks above regarding "quantum nonsense", ask him if Deacon's discussion of "Downward Causation" ; "Quantum Entanglement" ; "Emergence of Ententional Organization" (IN p161--164), and "Teleology" (IN chap4) is a case of "quantum mysticism", or just plain literal "nonsense". You might find that his conventional Materialism is more exclusive and closed-minded than your own. :smile:

PS___ His attention in this thread is primarily directed at mocking Gnomon, not instructing ucarr in the finer points of Materialist doctrine.


Incomplete Nature :
A radical new explanation of how life and consciousness emerge from physics and chemistry.
https://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914

The curiously closed mind :
It’s said that all truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then violently opposed and then, finally, it’s deemed self evident.
https://www.carolcassara.com/the-curiously-closed-mind/

Sorry, but look at Wikipedia for this definition:
"In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible."
This has nothing to do with your "downward causation" conception — Ypan1944

Yes. "Supervenience" is a technical logical term, and does not necessarily entail "downward causation". But some thinkers have used the notion of logical priority to infer physical order of causation. In that case, like Holism, it appears to conflict with the typical scientific method of Reductionism from a whole system to its constituent parts. But Nature seems to be able to work both ways, especially in its mental functions. If you don't like the term "Holism", does "non-reductive physicalism" make sense in your worldview? :smile:


Property Emergence, Supervenience, and Downward Causation :
Downward causation (DC) is the key notion in emergentist philosophy, as shown by the tension between the aspects of dependence and nonreducibility in the concept of supervenience, preferred by many philosophers to emergence as a basis for nonreductive physicalism.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S143176130470018X


According to NONREDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM, “mental properties, along with other “higher-level” properties, constitute an autonomous domain that resists reduction to the physical domain”
http://www.csun.edu/~tab2595/14_Reductive_Nonreductive_Physicalism.pdf
Note --- I wouldn't say "autonomous", but merely place Mind in a special philosophical category from Matter. You can't dissect Ideas with a scalpel, but with Reason.

All this epitomizing philosophies which argue against an examined life — javra

You do realize I was kidding? :joke:

I think you stand on solid ground whenever you correctly ground your conjectures in science.
You can do yourself a favor by keeping away from metaphysics for now. Metaphysics is your enemy because it lulls you into complacecey about not being your better self. — ucarr

I think you’re the one trying to bias Deacon towards immateriality. I don’t think he’s biased in either direction. He pays heed to immateriality, not because he prioritizes it over materiality, as you do. Instead, he pays it heed in order to bring it back into balance with materialistic science, which he eschews no more than he does immateriality. — ucarr

For the record, I am not a scientist. So, I don't pretend to be doing science on this forum. That's why 's cartoon of Gnomon, as a New Age nut, touting Quantum Mysticism, is completely wack.

Anyway, the physical sciences study objects -- including humans -- from the outside, and reveal little about the subject inside the skin. I try to keep myself informed about Physics, to serve as a "ground" for my explorations into MetaPhysics*1. And Quantum Physics opened up a whole new field of play, by discovering that the observing mind plays a role in the results of sub-atomic experiments. Unlike some New Agers though, I don't interpret that interpretation as evidence of magical mind-over-matter effects. But I do follow prominent physicists in their interpretation that Information (energy + mind stuff) is an active Agent*3 in physical changes. That is the "ground" of my Enformationism thesis. Which is philosophical & metaphysical, not scientific & physical in character.

Apparently, it's your materialistic bias that views my focus on Metaphysics as unscientific. I agree that Deacon is not a Spiritualist, but he does criticize Eliminative Materialism, "because it presumes that all reference to ententional phenomena can and must be eliminated from our scientific theories". (IN p81) And it's the metaphysical Ententional*3 functions of the human mind that I am interested in. Deacon quotes physicist Seth Lloyd : "the fact that the universe is at bottom computing, or is processing information, was actually established in the scientific sense . . . . showed that all atoms register bits of information". (IN p74) And that is the scientific "ground" of the Enformationism thesis.

Metaphysics is the study of the Self, not the non-self Nature that is the purview of Physics. Therefore, for me Metaphysics is not "the enemy", but the only tool for understanding the mind of the Observer, who is a physical participant in the material world, but also a meta-physical spectator looking on from the outside. :smile:



*1. Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/

*2. Agent : a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.

*3. Ententional :
Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term 'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention

I'm closer to saying that there is no metaphysical speculation; it is rather metaphysical imagination. We speculate only about that which might later be confirmed or disconfirmed. Much of metaphysics consists in playing dialectically with language—what if such and such (such and such that is the dialectical opposite of what we actually encounter) is really the case. — Janus

I agree that much of modern linguistic discussion is like a "what if" word-game played with abstruse terminology that wouldn't mean much to us mere mortals. But I prefer to think of Metaphysics, as Aristotle did : the study of Nature in general, and of ourselves as imaginative beings. This is the essence of Philosophy, as the search for useful Wisdom --- attempting to gain an omniscient worldview.

Since modern Science took over most of the objective pragmatic study of physical Nature though, Philosophy was left with mostly navel-gazing subjective subject-matter : turning its focus inward to learn about the mysterious Self doing the looking. Unfortunately, that self-directed introspection opens us to the slippery-slope of spiraling like a moth around an imaginary Truth. But forums like this can reveal non-self perspectives on the inner world, that may help to pull us out of our spin.

What-if counter-factual games may reveal more about the player, than about the wider world. :smile:

PS___ My response above was tongue-in-cheek, because I suspected that your post was a tease. Hence the :joke: smilie.


Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/

Hence, the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy, self-actualization of personal potential, is inherently a meta-physical "fiction" that we tell ourselves to provide non-physical motivation. That "need" is self-understanding ; including the relationship of the Self to the non-self world. Not just to experience the world, but to "understand the experience". — Gnomon
Or is it merely a shift in consciousness, in feeling, away from the neurotic need to understand, that leads to the deluded belief in the possibility of understanding, the relationship of the self to the non-self world in any way beyond, or more perfect than, the ordinary everyday? — Janus

Are you suggesting that metaphysical speculation is a mental illness similar to the hallucinations of psychosis? If so, how could we tell the difference between our hazy delusions and undiluted reality? Why not just accept the world as it is presented to our filtered awareness, without asking questions about True Reality? What difference does it make to psychotics, if their apparitions don't match those of the psychologist? Why not let the inmates run the asylum?

Perhaps posting on a forum can allow us to share & compare our personal delusions (speculations) with those of other loonies. Besides, how else can we gauge the progress of our "neurotic" need to actualize our personal potential? Do our pet animals feel a compulsion to climb above their subservient status, perhaps to reverse the master/pet relationship? Would it be an advantage to them to go beyond just experiencing whatever comes their way, in order to "understand the experience"? What's so important about broader understanding? Does it make the world any more predictable & controllable? Why not just go with the flow? :joke:

Metaphysics can be fun speculation and because it’s an arena where there are no right or wrong answers simply because those answers are unable to be probed by science means that only good critical thinking need be applied to various metaphysical postulations insuring against logical inconsistencies. — kindred

Yes, Metaphysical speculation is "fun" for those who have time & inclination to explore the big questions that have haunted humanity for eons. It's like a game or puzzle or hobby or lifting weights that won't put food on the table, but will add muscle to the Mind. Science has appropriated the "easy" questions --- that have right or wrong answers --- and left the "hard" questions --- such as the evolutionary role of Consciousness --- to feckless philosophers.

Many modern scientists, and ironically TPF posters, dismiss such open-ended speculation as a fruitless waste of time. But that's because they are prejudiced by their pragmatic - reductive - particular - solemn Belief System*1, typically labeled Materialism, Physicalism, Immanentism, etc., which arbitrarily define tangible Matter as prior to intangible Mind*2. For those of us who take a more imaginative - inclusive - playful perspective, we may try to imagine the world as a complete integrated system of parts, which add-up to a whole that is more than the sum.

It's knowledge of that elusive "more" --- which Aristotle labeled "wisdom"*3 --- that distinguishes idealistic humans from pragmatic animals. Most animals are experts at the necessities of life for their species. But humans are generalists, whose concerns go beyond Self & Tribe & Species & Now to encompass the whole universe, and other times & places. Universal causes & principles can be applied to any problem, including both practical & theoretical issues. For humans, once our practical necessities are taken care of, we have the leisure to turn our attention to a quixotic pursuit of Principles, that govern all of reality, both Mind & Matter : Metaphysics. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical materialism is a philosophical approach that argues that all philosophical, emotional, mental, and conscious states are a result from the material/physical world. Therefore, everything can be explained by looking at matter or ''the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-metaphysical-materialism.html
Note --- It's a faith, not a fact, that matter explains everything.
Philosophers seem to assume that "everything can be explained" by Universal Principles instead of Particular Objects.

*2. “Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points concepts and truth and demonstrative knowledge of what follows from them.” “Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable starting-points concepts and truth and demonstrative knowledge of what follows from them.”
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Aristotle-Philosopher.htm

*3. Aristotle Metaphysics :
"Since we are investigating this kind of knowledge, we must consider what these causes and principles are whose knowledge is Wisdom." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,025:1



PHYSICS vs METAPHYSICS = PART vs WHOLE

Metaphysics is the study of everything beyond what physics explains, that is a satisfying enough answer for many people, especially laymen. After all, when we talk about possibility, the modality of metaphysics encompasses the modality of physics. — Lionino

'Metaphysics', by my lights, is the study of that which is beyond the possibility of all experience, but is necessary to understand that experience. — Bob Ross

Those are good practical definitions of a term that is too often dismissed as religious superstitions.

Metaphysical prowling is a uniquely human endeavor. Presumably, few animals would waste their time thinking about thinking. But something in the nature of the human mind evokes not just feelings & experiences, but recursive reflections about those experiences. And it is that inward-aimed "eye" of Reason that allows us to "see" logical possibilities that are not yet actual & real --- "beyond what physics explains".

As a worldview, Metaphysics is the opposite of Materialism, which arbitrarily defines ideas, and ideas-about-ideas, as-if mere objects, whose value is only in feeding physical needs & motives. Metaphysics is not impersonal & objective, but selfish & subjective. Hence, the top tier of Maslow's hierarchy, self-actualization of personal potential, is inherently a meta-physical "fiction" that we tell ourselves to provide non-physical motivation. That "need" is self-understanding ; including the relationship of the Self to the non-self world. Not just to experience the world, but to "understand the experience".

Why do PF posters spend their valuable time fictionalizing reality, if not to feed those abstract high-level needs? Do we get a dopamine boost from writing a few bon mots that sometimes make us sound like grinning idiots? Or is there a higher motive --- more than the thrill of a greyhound chasing a fake rabbit --- that prompts us to stalk the unseen possibilities and unknown probabilities of mysteries, such as the physical or metaphysical underpinnings of Self-Awareness (Consciousness)? And to share that interpretation of universal principles with others who presumably have similar needs. :smile:

Metaphysical Prowling : careful intentional searching for intellectual sustenance

MASLOW'S PYRAMID OF HUMAN NECESSITIES
not just to maintain the body, but to feed the need for intellectual growth

I am not a "holist" : holism denies reductionism and I don't do that. — Ypan1944

Actually, the perspective of Holism does not deny Reductionism, it just offers a different (complementary)*1 way of looking at the world. Some scientists dismiss Holism as a New Age religious belief. But the term originally referred to a systematic approach to understanding the complex interactions of Evolution*2.

Your OP discussion of Strong Emergence sounds to me like a description of a holistic process, in which the unpredictable "emergence" of novel properties is a primary feature*3. But if you want to avoid the prejudicial "pseudoscience" associations with the term*4, you can just call it "Systems Theory", which is now widely used in various sciences studying complexity*5 : Biology, Economics, Ecology, etc. The Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complex Systems --- founded by physicist Murray Gell-Mann, among others --- is a prominent scientific think tank utilizing holistic Systems Theory.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the word "Holism", because I have actually read the book that introduced the term*1. And it had nothing to do with New Age religion. But if your personal experience has biased you against it, please feel free to use alternative terminology, such as "Integrated Whole Systems", to explain how metaphysical functions, such as Consciousness, could emerge from physical systems and biological organisms. :smile:

PS___ "Metaphysical" also has pseudoscience associations, due to its use by Catholic theologians. But the conceptual distinction originated in Aristotle's book on Nature, and referred to holistic comprehension of general principles, instead of reductive knowledge about specific things : "Since we are investigating this kind of knowledge, we must consider what these causes and principles are whose knowledge is Wisdom." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,025:1


*1. Reductionistic and Holistic Science :
Reductionism and holism are in fact interdependent and complementary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3067528/

*2. Holism and Evolution :
Holism and Evolution is a 1926 book by South African statesman Jan Smuts, in which he coined the word "holism", although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism. Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

*3. Holism and Emergence :
The concept of holism informs the methodology for a broad array of scientific fields and lifestyle practices. When applications of holism are said to reveal properties of a whole system beyond those of its parts, these qualities are referred to as emergent properties of that system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

*4. Systems Theory/Holism :
It (General System Theory) was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

*5. Emergence, (Self)Organization, and Complexity :
Many complex systems exhibit emergence: properties at one scale that are not present at another scale. Self-organization can be described when the components of a system interact to produce a global pattern or behavior, without a leader or external controller. Complexity is characterized by interactions. These interactions can generate novel information that is not present in initial nor boundary conditions, limiting prediction.
https://www.santafe.edu/events/emergence-selforganization-and-complexity

Emergent properties are therefore characteristics of the collective and not of their parts. “The whole is more than the parts.” — Ypan1944

This sounds like a description of Holism, as a metaphysical concept relevant to physical things & processes. But you didn't use that controversial term. Was that ententional?

The original title of this thread was spelled "emergency". That may have been a typo, but "Emergence" and "Emergency" are related concepts. "Emergence" usually refers to the gradual evolution of novelty within a system. But "Emergency" suggests a radical break in the chain of causation that requires special treatment. One kind of philosophically important "strong" emergence is the transition from a collection of parts to an integrated system with new properties of its own, such as the evolutionary appearance of self-animated matter, and self-referencing minds in the world. Is that what this thread is about? :smile:

PS___Bedau seems to be trying to avoid the metaphysical implications*2 of Strong Emergence, since it appears to violate the deterministic presumptions of Materialism. Are you defending an alternative metaphysic?

*1. emergence and emergency despite their common origin “are now completely differentiated, emergence meaning emerging or coming into notice, and emergency meaning a juncture that has arisen, especially one that calls for prompt measures”.
https://jazzmigration.com/language/en/emergence-emergency/

*2. I will argue that weak emergence (defined below) meets these three goals: it is metaphysically innocent, consistent with materialism,
http://people.reed.edu/~mab/papers/weak.emergence.pdf

Thanks for your link to Terrence Deacon. — Ypan1944

In another thread on this forum*1, we have been discussing Deacon's seminal concept of Constitutive or Causal Absence, as it relates to a Materialistic worldview. As you might expect, we have been going around in strange-loop circles on how to make sense of a creative causal gap*2 in the chain of Determinism*3, from the perspective that inert Matter is the fundamental element of reality.

For Deacon, that Constitutive Absence is similar to Hofstadter's Strange Loop, as an explanation for the emergence of new links, such as animated matter, in the chain of physical Necessity. One aspect of his theory is Downward Causation*4. Although the thread is currently spinning its wheels, the paradoxical notion of Absential Materialism may be obliquely relevant to your own OP. :smile:


*1. Absential Materialism : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14931/absential-materialism/p1

*2. Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3. Scientific determinism is the belief that whatever happens has physically determinate causes and is the predictable result of these causes.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759319

*4. The Metaphysics of Downward Causation :
Deacon’s approach is similar. He lists four Aristotelian causes and describes the process of a slow erosion of the plural notion of causality in the history of philosophy and science.
https://philarchive.org/archive/TABTMO

Therefore I like also to call artifacts emergent (even strong emergent): they need an inventor or artist to construct them, and they are in essence unpredictable. — Ypan1944

Cognitive & computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter, in Godel, Escher, Bach. argued that the fortuitous evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind was due to "strange loops" (feedback cycles) in physical processes. Thus, the "creativity" of an otherwise deterministic system is caused by a "glitch in the matrix". Classical physics had no explanation for novelty in evolution. But Quantum Physics discovered a possible gap in cause & effect determinism in the Uncertainty Principle, which makes sub-atomic processes somewhat unpredictable.

Ironically, the looping "glitch" itself is unexpected in classical deterministic physics. Which suggests the logical necessity for "an inventor or artist to construct them". But natural or supernatural creativity of any kind is abhorrent to most scientific worldviews, that are based on the predictability of nature. So, how else can we explain the appearance of Strong Emergence in the world, without assuming either sporadic Divine Intervention, or at least a hypothetical intelligent First Cause, to design or program a dynamic system capable of creating radical novelty, such as self-referencing "featherless bipeds" with big brains, who ask recursive questions about their own origins? :brow:

But how is it 'materialism'? What role does matter occupy in it? — Wayfarer
Your question is important because absential materialism has a knack for looking like immaterialism without being such. — ucarr

If it quacks like Immaterialism, and has a knack for "looking like immaterialism", why not call it "Immaterialism"? Why the evasion? Why must "Ideas" be defined in Materialist terms? Do you think "immaterial" is a code word for Spirit?

The metaphysics (belief system) of "objective" Materialism seems to be implicitly antagonistic to "subjective" Spiritualism & Superstition*1. But what if Ideas are not spiritual entities, but causal forces? Physical Energy*2 is an immaterial abstraction with no material properties, until transformed into the equally abstract quantities of Mass. Our senses interpret those abstractions as "Matter", conjectured by the ancient Greeks as the mother of all things.

I'm still intrigued by your notion of Absential Materialism, but it quacks like Ideal (or imaginary) objects (original matter)*3 waiting in the wings to be invited into the real world : i.e. ideal, not real matter. In any case, if it's absent, it's not real. Your term also seems to specifically contradict the philosophy of Idealism, which posits a similar preternatural source of perfect stuff (Forms) waiting to be transformed into real things. That's OK with me, because Enformationism differs from Idealism and Spiritualism, in that it equates Abstract Concepts with causal processes & functions (Energy), not imaginary homunculae or spooky Spirits.

Perhaps Absential Physicalism*4 would be a more appropriate term for what you have in mind, since Physics is concerned not with matter itself, but with changes in matter due to the effects of Energy. This would put the spotlight on the Active Causal Force (morph ; Form) instead of the inert lumpish lumber (hyle : wood). Newton's mysterious Gravity --- pushing stars around and pulling planets together --- is now defined in terms of Geometry, an abstract mathematical relationship*5. Are Gravity and Geometry material things? How are imaginary abstractions explained in the doctrines of Materialism?

As far as I can tell, Deacon is neither a traditional Materialist (all matter), nor a traditional Idealist (all mind). But he seems to envision a middle ground that accepts both sensory stuff and the rational faculty that makes sense of that stuff, so that philosophers can seriously debate their Ontological status. What he criticizes is Eliminative Materialism : "The assumption that all reference to ententional phenomena can and must be eliminated from our scientific theories and replaced by accounts of material mechanisms". My BothAnd position, like that of Deacon, accepts that Ideas are immaterial, but not spiritual. It's a substance Dualism that is ultimately an essence Monism. It also agrees with Deacon's notion of Teleology & Agency*6, without recourse to supernatural spirits. :smile:

PS___ Absential Materialism sounds to me like a reference to Aristotle's "Potential" : that which is statistically Possible, but not yet Actual.

*1. Materialism vs spiritualism :
Materialism is focused on the outside world, while spiritualism is focused on the inside world. Materialism is based on what we can see and touch, while spiritualism is based on our inner feelings and intuition. Materialism looks at life on the surface, while spiritualism is a deep way of looking at life. https://medium.com/@evan00moore00/materialism-vs-spiritualism-which-is-the-true-path-ad270e405785

*2. Do students conceptualize energy as a material substance? :
In physics, energy is an abstract, non- material quantity associated with the state of a system.
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/PERC02_Loverude-1.pdf

*3. Original Matter :
In Indian philosophy: The nature, origin, and structure of the world (prakriti)
Original Matter is uncaused, eternal, all-pervading, one, independent, self-complete, and has no distinguishable parts; the things that emerge out of this primitive matrix are, on the other hand, caused, noneternal, limited, many, dependent, wholes composed of parts, and manifested.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/matter-philosophy
Note --- How is Absential Materialism different from Original Matter?

*4. Absential Physicalism : the "Law of Attraction" that is evidenced in physical systems as-if caused by a Force, but defined by Einstein in terms of geometric relationships of mutual attraction*5. Coined by Gnomon.
Note --- What is "absent" is matter, what is Potential is logical structure.

*5. Einstein’s geometric gravity :
The key idea of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of spacetime geometry. https://www.einstein-online.info/en/GeomGravity/

*6. Locus of Agency : (Teleodynamics)
Chapter on FreeWill IN p 479
Does Absential Materialism theory allow for FreeWill, Self-Determination, and human Agency?

With strong emergence, the components lose their independence and a new ontological entity with new properties emerges. — Ypan1944

To some, Strong Emergence seems to imply a violation of Determinism, and Downward Causation implies a violation of physical Cause & Effect. Is this seemingly "magical" appearance of novelty the crux of your OP?

In his seminal work, Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon addresses both of those controversial topics. Yet, the Information Philosopher goes into even more detail, and both use the language of Information Theory to explain how the "magic" works. Are you familiar with these authors? :smile:


Emergence : A term used to designate an apparently discontinuous transition from one mode of causal properties to another of a higher rank, typically associated with an increase in scale in which lower-order component interactions contribute to the lower-order interactions. The term has a long and diverse history, but throughout this history it has been used to describe the way that living and mental processes depend upon chemical and physical processes, yet exhibit collective properties exhibited by living and non-mental processes, and in many cases appear to violate the ubiquitous tendencies exhibited by these component interactions
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Emergence :
Information philosophy explains the reality of emergence, because what emerges is new information.

Emergent Dualism :
Reductionist physicalists like Jaegwon Kim argue for the causal closure of the world. Causal closure is the idea that everything that is caused to happen in the world is caused by (earlier) physical events in the world. This eliminates the possibility of a "non-reductive" physicalism, in which higher level emergence properties and capabilities are not reducible to purely physical causes. Closure under physical causes denies the emergence of levels, in particular a non-reducible mental level, capable of downward causation.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergent_dualism.html

No. As you see from The Apple Dictionary, my use of realism adheres to Platonic realism. — ucarr

I'm not familiar with the term "platonic realism". I have always associated him with Idealism. But a quick look at the Stanford article under "Idealism", reveals that some philosophers have switched around the perspective of the term from god's view to human view of what's real. Which is confusing to me. In any case, my thesis begins from a pragmatic meaning of Real, and stops just short of Platonic Ideality. By that I mean, I make no omniscient claims about a super-real realm ; other than to accept, like Kant, that we can speculate on such ideals, but can only deal with the reality here & now.

Plato imagined a heavenly realm of perfect Forms, existing eternally, perhaps in the Mind of God/Logos. And that may be so, but my thesis doesn't depend on such a fairy castle. It does however, stop at the Big Bang Beginning of our space-time Reality, to look beyond the dark abyss of ignorance into a time & place before our Time & Space : like Moses looking down on the promised land, but denied entry. To take that Potential (not yet real) as Actual (really real) is to miss the whole point of the thesis.

When I use the term "Form" (initial cap) it is meant only to be an idealized symbol of the source of all real "forms" that we observe in the material world. I try to avoid the implication that it refers to a heavenly realm that is more real than mundane reality. But some readers may not understand, or accept, that distinction. Enformationism uses Berkeley's metaphor that our material world is "an idea in the Mind of God". But does not assert that there is an entity out there dreaming-up our world. Remember, the map is not the terrain, and the metaphor is not the thing. :smile:

Was Plato an idealist or a realist? :
Both, these categories are not really true opposites, and these categories often have more than one meaning. Plato was a realist to the extent that he posited the reality of abstract objects, i.e., the robust existence of the Forms. These objects, however, he posited to compose the ideal world, i.e., the realm of perfect objects, which are merely instantiated (imperfectly) by the physical objects familiar to you and me.
https://www.quora.com/Was-Plato-an-idealist-or-a-realist
Note --- From a divine perspective, what's Real is also Ideal. But from a human point of view, Reality is what we know via our senses, and Ideality is what we infer must be true, logically, but not necessarily really.

Now you seem to be pitching your tent on the ground of the immaterial. — ucarr

No. I'm pitching a metaphor on the ground of imaginary concepts. Abstractions, such as Qualia or Essence, are indeed immaterial, because we can imagine them, but can't see or touch them. :wink:

Now you're being forthright and clear about where you really stand. I thank-you for your candor here. — ucarr

Did you notice that the homunculus was labeled an imaginary metaphor, not a real material thing? Unlike materialistic Science, idealistic Philosophy can only put its subjects, ideas, under the imaginary microscope of analogy to sensable things. I try not to "stand" on mushy metaphorical ground. :nerd:

Praiseworthy indeed is your admission you don't really know how enformation is functionally structured into an interweave with matter. At present you can't give practical directions to researchers seeking to illuminate the passageways leading from computational neuroscience to abstract consciousness. — ucarr

Thanks for the faint praise, but it's not false modesty. Since I'm not a scientist, I don't pretend to be giving "practical directions" to professionals. I do however refer to practicing scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute who are working on such projects from a perspective of Information theory. Do you know of any neuroscientist who has discovered the "interweave" of Mind & Matter? :chin:

Information Theory and Consciousness :
Jost explores consciousness as a process for integrating information from the recent past and near future into the present, where we experience self.
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/juergen-jost-information-theory-and-consciousness

Hard Problem still mysterious after all these years :
Koch bet Chalmers a case of wine that within 25 years—that is, by 2023—researchers would discover a “clear” neural pattern underlying consciousness. . . . That word “clear” doomed Koch. “It’s clear that things are not clear,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality? — ucarr
Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life... And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind — Gnomon
If this quote directly above is what you believe -- and not just your paraphrasing of Information Philosopher -- please explain how it is consistent with your answer to my opening question. — ucarr

Maybe you are interpreting Descartes' "stuff" and "things" as referring to material objects. But both are indeterminate (non-specific) references to "substance" in the Aristotelian sense of essences (qualia) : attributes or classifications that identify, and are projected upon, the real world referent. Remember that languages are generally materialistic, in that their metaphors are pointers to material objects of the 5 senses that we all have in common. Otherwise, we could only communicate our ideas by direct mind-reading.

Your opening question describes a "realist doctrine" that sounds more like Idealism (or alt-reality) to me : postulating a mental realm of "abstract concepts" that exists in parallel to material reality, and may be considered more real than sensory reality. But, as a rule, I don't subscribe to that worldview. For all practical purposes, I am a Materialist and Realist. Yet for philosophical considerations (ideas about ideas) I must necessarily think somewhat like an Idealist.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that abstractions are not real : you can't eat an ideal cupcake, and an imaginary rose would not smell sweet. "Red" is a subjective conceptual quality, not an objective real thing. "Life" (or elan vital) is a quality of animated biological entities, not some kind of ghost that inhabits material objects. But we communicate the abstract concept of animation by means of analogies to processes or activities we observe with the eyes, and make sense of with the mind.

Likewise, "Potential" is not an objective thing out there in an ideal realm, but merely a mental projection of statistical Probability. We don't perceive Potential with our senses, but conceive it with our rational mind. And "Mind" is not a thing floating around in the aether, but simply the Function of a brain : what that ball of neurons does to allow us to navigate the real world.

Again, if you are accusing me of "embracing" the established doctrines of traditional Idealism--- or of traditional Materialism for that matter --- the answer is still "no". My personal -ism is Enformationism, which has a tentative foot in both worlds. :cool:

So, from your above quotes: a) you believe there is top-down causation from enformation -- ( meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter. -- to mind and then to body; b) you think the connection natural, not supernatural; c) you believe enformation, mind and matter form one interwoven continuum. Please explain how -- given your endorsement of this seamless continuum from enformation to mind to matter -- the first two links in the chain -- both immaterial -- connect with material brain? — ucarr

Ah! That is the "Hard Question" for which materialistic science has no answer, and that idealistic philosophies merely take for granted. My thesis postulates an explanation --- not scientifically, but philosophically --- for "how" Mind & Matter interrelate. By analogy, the relationship is similar to that between fluid Water and solid Ice ; the are merely different Forms of the same Essence : The Power/Potential to cause change in Form. If that leaves you thinking, huh?, then you need to refer to the website, which begins at the beginning, and works down from a> to b> to c>. :wink:

With your articulations of causation -- in both directions -- you appear to do what Deacon indicts in the early part of Incomplete Nature: sneaking into the system an unannounced homunculus who -- without explanation -- brings about a material/immaterial interface. — ucarr

Yes. The metaphorical "homunculus" in my thesis is Causal EnFormAction, the hypothetical precursor of physical Energy, and of biological Matter, and of metaphysical Thought Processes. The "explanation" for how the "little man" came to live in the human mind is expounded in the website & blog & and is on-going in this forum. It's not a final Theory of Everything, but I'm working on it. :nerd:

Enformationism :
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Thesis Abstract :
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- The Matrix movie is used as a metaphor for the role of Generic Information (raining code) in both the Machine world (abstract & Ideal) and the Zion world (concrete and real).

Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

You don't seem to understand how or why I interpret Deacon's Incomplete Nature in terms of Information, and to imply that Mind was transformed from Matter via the natural process of EnFormAction. If you think of "Information" as the mechanical process defined by Shannon, my usage as the dynamic Power to Transform won't make any sense. Deacon said that "The contemporary notion of information is likewise colloquially conceived of in substance-like terms" (p373), but went on to define it in energetic & relational & immaterial terms.*1

An article on the Information Philosopher's website*2 might reveal some significant implications of Deacon's philosophy of Absence that your Materialistic worldview overlooked. His three-part outline begins at the bottom with inert non-living Matter pushed around by Thermodynamics, then progresses to the mid-level Homeodynamics --- perhaps better described as homeostasis, since the physical changes are maintaining the status quo, with little innovation. But in the third level of his triad, Teleodynamics*3, non-living Matter mysteriously transforms into Living stuff, with the potential for organic growth, instead of mere gravitational clumping. During that transition from inert matter to dynamic physics, Evolution reveals a directional character aimed at some implicit future goal : Telos.

Level One begins as Plasma : just atoms whirling randomly in the void. Next, Level Two adds the arrow of Time, progressing & complexifying, a direction that will become apparent only to reflective Minds in the Third Level. Information in level One is the form of condensed Energy we know as Matter : precipitated out of the original chaotic Plasma into 3-dimensional res extensa. Then, Energy + Matter transforms on level Two into the dynamic organic systems we call Life. And eventually, that same Potential power-to-enform evolves into the immaterial non-dimensional thinking stuff (res cogitans) that we experience as Mind*4.

If this philosophical & cosmological approach to Deacon's work, begins to make sense to you, we can discuss it further. Meanwhile, I suggest you take a look at how the Information Philosopher interprets Deacon's Absentialism*5. :smile:


*1, Deacon's Absentialism :
"Information is the archetypical absential concept" IN p373

*2. Terrence Deacon :
Deacon's 2011 work Incomplete Nature has a strong triadic structure, inspired perhaps by an important influence from semiotics—the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce 's triad of icon, index, and symbol. Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic. The first two levels reflect the ancient philosophical dualism of materialism and idealism, or body and mind, respectively.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*3.Teleodynamics :
"Deacon's name for the third level in his dynamics hierarchy. It is built on and incorporates the two lower levels — the first level is physical and material, the second adds an informational and immaterial aspect."
"On Deacon's third level, "a difference that makes a difference" (cf.Gregory Bateson and Donald MacKay) emerges as a purposeful process we can identify as protolife."

*4. Information is Mind :
"Deacon sees clearly that information is neither matter nor energy; for example, knowledge in an organism's "mind" about the external constraints that its actions can influence."

*5. Absentialism :
He reifies this absence and says cryptically that "a causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences." He calls this a "figure/ground reversal" in which he focuses on what is absent rather than present, likening it to the concept of zero, the holes in the "(w)hole." We can agree with Deacon that ideas and information are immaterial, neither matter nor energy, but they need matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. And when they are embodied, they are obviously present (to my mind)
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Your above quote expresses the crux of our disagreement about the correct approach to practicing philosophy. You say, "Do philosophy by avoiding materialistic physics." I say, "Do philosophy by embracing materialistic physics." — ucarr

I have been enjoying the philosophical exercise of our on-going give & take dialog. Too many threads on this forum quickly descend into polarized name-calling : e.g. Materialism = Objective Truth vs Idealism = Subjective Fantasies, or vice-versa. You mentioned that I seem to be straddling those poles, but I view it as encompassing both "incomplete" worldviews into a single universal comprehension. My BothAnd perspective is not a controversy-ducking cop-out, but a recognition that there is philosophical value in both views : local & universal. Hence, an open-mind can make use of both sources of information : to see the world in stereo. Fortunately, we do seem to have some common ground in Deacon's seemingly paradoxical insight on the Power of Absence*1, but differ on which ancient traditional bi-polar worldview, Materialism vs Idealism, should govern our interpretation of its implications*2*3.

A typical approach to clashing worldviews is to accept one and reject the other. But I prefer to enjoy the best of both worldviews, to see both the material part (element) and the conceptual whole (system). To that end, grasping the manifold roles of broadly-conceived Information (ranging from matter to mind) provides a key to the puzzle of age-old philosophical conflicts. Claude Shannon opened the door to this new understanding with his technical definition of a mental phenomenon : ideas. But his narrow materialistic engineering approach, while effective for technical purposes, ignored a long history of philosophical scrutiny of the rational faculty. In the 21st century, Information Theory has exploded into a wide range of scientific & philosophical investigations*4, ranging from Simplicity to Complexity, and from singular Kernel to total Comprehension.

Therefore, I propose that we "do philosophy", not by avoiding the Science of Ideas*5, or by avoiding the Science of Matter, but by combining the insights of each into a more complete Science of Everything : from Big Bang Causation, to the appearance of organized Matter, to the emergence of inquiring Minds, to the retrospective of Cosmology. Thus, embracing both Mind and Matter as instances of Reality*6. :smile:



*1. The Power of Absence :
Deacon has independently arrived at an understanding of absence as causally efficacious in the emergence of life and consciousness
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/rea.12.2.y733588233q1m086
Note --- Deacon sees the "hidden connections" that are not apparent from a materialistic perspective.

*2. Materialism = Truth
To be a materialist is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense-organs. To acknowledge objective truth, i.e., truth not dependent upon man and mankind, is, in one Way or another, to recognise absolute truth.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5.htm

*3. Idealism = Truth :
The essential orientation of idealism can be sensed through some of its typical tenets: “Truth is the whole, or the Absolute”; “to be is to be perceived”; “reality reveals its ultimate nature more faithfully in its highest qualities (mental) than in its lowest (material)”; “the Ego is both subject and object.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism

*4. Information Theory and Complex Systems :
Welcome to Santa Fe Institute ... Information theory (in particular, the maximum information entropy formalism) provides a way to deal with such complexity . . .
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/papers/57-information-theory-a-foundation-for-complexity-

*5. Ideonomy -- The Science of Ideas :
Supposedly the word ideonomy was first coined by the French Encyclopedists, and they, too, are said to have used it to designate a science of ideas. What is unclear is whether these men made any actual contribution to the building of ideonomy, especially in the present sense. Perhaps they simply employed the word as a synonym for logic, pantology, philosophy in general, or philosophy applied to creative or social purposes.
https://ideonomy.mit.edu/intro.html

*6. Something Is Missing from the Materialist Framework :
Something is missing from the theoretical framework of natural science if it cannot explain the function and purpose that are ubiquitous in life. And yes, the answer is there in plain sight in Professor Deacon’s own words. The truth is that “ententional” properties are foundational. They are the genesis of all purpose in life.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/something-is-missing-from-the-materialist-framework/

I'm asking if you accept "grammar" as a synonym for "metaphysics." — ucarr

No.

Do you acknowledge embracing the realist doctrine abstract concepts have an objective experience inhabiting its own reality? — ucarr

No.

Is Causal Information a label for metaphysics as a whole, or is it a subdivision of general metaphysics? — ucarr

No. It's merely a description of the power to enform (Potential) in the physical world.

Are you claiming top-down causation from Enformation to matter_mass_energy? — ucarr

Yes. But by means of natural laws, not divine intervention.

"The downward . . . causation (from whole to part) is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities".
Deacon, Incomplete Nature p161

You're saying you don't see connections between my examples and philosophically engaging metaphysical principles? — ucarr

Yes.

What is the metaphysics of materialism? — ucarr

Any generalization of principles (all things are . . . .) from less than comprehensive experience is considered a metaphysical concept, not a physical or empirical fact*1. Also, portraying some principle as universal, implies either a First Cause or Eternal Being. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics of Materialism :
Materialism, is a causal theory of scientific reality. It is the argument that when we pronounce anything in our sense-experience to be real we imply an independent cause of it. According to the principle of relativity, the inference is entirely unnecessary and to insist on it unscientific.
https://www.nature.com/articles/108400a0

Never mind my absential materialism label. Is the gist of your response to Deacon the assertion that mind DID NOT emerge from matter? — ucarr

No. I have repeatedly denied that unwarranted implication. However, I do assert that Matter is not the primary cause of all phenomena in the world. My thesis goes into great detail to support the idea that Causal Information is prior to both physical Energy and malleable Matter.*2 :cool:

*2. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

Please elaborate your refutation of his unscientific concepts of end-directed "Teleology" of Evolution. Also, please check out this conversation re: its pertinence to teleodynamics: — ucarr

I was not "refuting" his notion of Teleology/Teleonomy, but instead noting that most scientists would say it's a religious concept, not a scientific principle*3. For me, Teleology is a legitimate philosophical inference from the observation of direction in evolution. For those, who find the notion of Ententional Evolution*4*5 unacceptable, Deacon offered the alternative term : Teleonomy, which attempts to avoid the implication of Design in Nature. However, Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection" (for fitness criteria) implied intentional Choice, but attributed it to Nature instead of to God. :wink:

*3. Teleological Misconceptions :
Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective “teleological” to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z

*4. Ententional :
Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term 'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention

*5. Teleology :
Philosophical term derived from Greek: telos (end, goal, purpose, design, finality) and logos (reason, explanation). Philosophers, from Aristotle onward, assumed that everything in the world has a purpose and a place in the scheme of history. As a religious concept, it means that the world was designed by God for a specific reason, such as producing sentient beings to stroke His ego with worship & sacrifices.
Enformationism theory observes that Evolution shows signs of progressing from past to future in increments of Enformation. From the upward trend of increasing organization over time, we must conclude that the randomness of reality (Entropy) is offset by a constructive force (Enformy). This directional trajectory implies an ultimate goal or final state. What that end might be is unknown, but speculation abounds.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

Here's another notable difference between us. Whereas you see my examples of ententional properties as being superficial due to a lack of philosophical essence, I see them as being substantial due to their mundanity. — ucarr

Your mundane examples may be "substantial"*6 enough for scientific endeavors, but lack the essential "qualities" or general principles necessary for philosophical purposes. :smile:

*6. Substance
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy