And as 180 Proof pointed out abstract objects really only exist in a physically instantiated form, which I agree with. — Mark Nyquist

I suspect that our definitions of "abstraction" are confined by our definitions of "concrete" or "real". From the perspective of monistic Materialism/Physicalism, nothing can be immaterial or unreal. The problem with lumping matter & mind into a single category though, is that we can't make the kinds of distinctions that philosophers are interested in. For example, in Plato's allegory of the cave "the shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world."

That's why Aristotle defined a contrast between "Substance" & "Essence". Metaphorically, it's like the difference between your body and its shadow. There is obviously a connection between them, but they are not the same substance. The shadow is not a thing, but merely the absence of light, which we interpret abstractly as-if it's a material thing. The old Peter Pan cartoon had some fun, showing Peter trying to sew his independent minded shadow onto his feet. As a materialist, he was interpreting an abstraction as a substance. Some of our abstractions may have physical instantiations, but some exist only in imaginative minds. :smile:

PS___A unicorn is an abstract idea based on real world experience with horses & narwhals. But we don't go out looking in the real world for an instantiation of the unicorn concept. Unless, that is, our worldview doesn't allow us to make the distinction between an instantiated concrete object and an imagined abstract idea.

Enlightenment philosophy may have demystified established doctrines of the era, but at the same time, initiated its own doctrines under religious, or at least theological, conditions, so the Enlightenment didn’t categorically reject all religious doctrines. — Mww

As a basically rational & non-religious introverted personality*1 --- who has been called "Spock-like" on another forum, and a "New Age mystic" on TPF --- I stand somewhere in the middle of the Materialism/Mysticism spectrum. So, I can understand why the early scientists preferred the pragmatic philosophy of Materialism to that of impractical Mysticism. A typical view of the spectrum might say that Materialism appeals to "rational" practical/realistic intellectuals on one end, while Mysticism is embraced mostly by "emotional" theoretical/idealistic feeling-type persons on the other extreme*1. Doctrinal Religions though, captured the loyalty of sheep-like masses who want/need to be told what to believe. { Note -- The Rational vs Emotional labels are simplistic either/or categories that ignore the median*2.} Ironically, the thinkers on both ends often view the opposite type as a member of the brain-washed majority.

However, my interest in feckless philosophy has exposed me to other (non-material) ways of thinking about the world and its people. Jesus responded to the skepticism from his critics with "he who has eyes to see, let him see". Apparently, I was born blind to the objects of "spiritual consciousness". But, I can see that at least half of the population is equipped with mystical eyes or hearts. So, I try not to "pass judgment" on those who don't see & feel as I do. Some of them can give elaborate reasons for believing as they do.

Having read the encyclopedic book Mysticism, by Evelyn Underhill, I understand that there is a long tradition of mystical ideation in the history of philosophy. Yet ecstatic mystics have typically lived on the fringes of staid formal religions. She said, "that while mysticism is an essential element in full human religion, it can never be the whole content of such religion". She could be very critical of formalized religions, and even referred to theology as "empirical mysticism". By contrast, she seemed to view the true mystics as "spiritual anarchists". Even the Catholic church, with its history of rational theology had an uneasy relationship with mystics, who ignored official dogma in favor of their own inner revelations.

It's true that the Enlightenment era scientists didn't immediately & categorically reject their religious doctrines. From Galileo to Newton, physical scientists attempted to reconcile their newly observed "facts" with their inherited belief systems. Yet eventually, the trend away from acceptance of formal religious institutions & doctrines became almost categorical*3. Ironically, in a 2009 poll, " just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power". So, even pragmatic practicing scientists seem to be able to reconcile their professional Materialism with a bit of personal Mysticism. :smile:


*1. rational vs emotional personality :
In common usage, being “rational” is assumed to be good, whereas being “irrational” or “emotional” is assumed to be bad and to lead to error. Psychological science, however, is primarily interested in understanding rather than in passing judgment on kinds of thought processes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128497/

*2. Psychology and the Rationality of Emotion :
Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky discovered some of the judgment heuristics that people use in everyday reasoning (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Much to the dismay of economists guided by “rational choice” models, it has become clear that people reason using whatever short-cuts or heuristics are available.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128497/

*3. Categorical rejection of religious doctrines :
92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

And since you referenced information physics I'll just say I don't think it's good science at all. — Mark Nyquist

We seem to be in agreement on the material vs non-material question. But not on the emerging concept of Generic Information as the fundamental element of reality. That still emerging "science" grew out of Information theory & Quantum physics since the early 20th century. And due to the subject non-matter, it is still more philosophy than empirical science. So, I'll have to agree with your assessment that it's not "good science"--- meaning productive of hard goods, like Atomic Bombs & Cell Phones.

However, since I am not a scientist, I am more interested in its philosophical implications, than in its material products. FWIW, the Santa Fe Institute views Information theory as essential to the emerging sciences of Systems & Complexity. So, maybe tangible results will eventually come from their studies of intangible Information.

Nevertheless, In my Enformationism thesis, I have made immaterial Information (power to create actual forms from unformed Potential) the foundation of my personal worldview --- regardless of any material toys that might result from understanding complex interacting systems as various manifestations of universal causal power : what I call EnFormAction --- conventionally known as Energy. :smile:



The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia
https://www.santafe.edu/

From the fact that abstractions are not material objects it does not follow that they are immaterial. They may be material processes. Digestion is a material process which is not a material object. — Janus

Since the prefix "im-" literally means "not", it follows that whatever is "not material" is literally "immaterial"*1. Yet apparently, those not-matter words have an unplatable implication for you. Perhaps, to you "immaterial" is equated with "unreal" or "spiritual", and "material" means "real" or "mundane". If so, your definition of "material" is even more metaphysical*2 than mine. Instead of those spooky notions though, I'm thinking in terms of reductive/pluralistic scientific categories, in which massive Matter is merely a condensed form of ethereal Energy (E=MC^2), or ultimately of elucidating Light.

In the metaphysics of Materialism, both tangible things and conceptual processes are included under the umbrella of Physicalism or Realism. Yet, physical scientists routinely make a distinction between Matter and processes affecting material objects. For example, Matter (mass) has inertia, and does not change position unless acted upon by some outside Force. But what substance is a force made of? For scientists, a Force is a type of Energy acting upon Matter*3. Ironically, The ancient philosophy of Materialism, led 18th century scientists to imagine Energy as a material substance : Phlogistion*4. But today, Energy (causation) is accepted as an immaterial & non-mechanical influence on matter (spooky action at a distance).

Materialism is a monistic doctrine*5, based on evidence of the physical senses. But my personal Enformationism worldview is also monistic, and based on the non-physical (immaterial) element of the real world that we know in various forms, such as Energy or Mind or Reason. According to Materialism, the Mind must be material. But that presumption leads to the philosophical Mind/Body Problem. Yet, if you assume that Generic Information is the basic element of the world, the "problem" vanishes as you look at it from a new perspective : Information Physics*6. I won't go into the details of that worldview here. I'll just mention that it's a novel form of Metaphysical Monism. :smile:


*1. A Prefix 'im' is used in the following two situations: Meaning not or no: when the prefix 'im' is used with some adjectives and nouns that begin with b, m, or p, it states the opposite meaning. For example immortal, immature, imperfect, etc.
https://theglobalmontessorinetwork.org/resource/elementary/prefixes-im-english/

*2. Metaphysical : referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. ___Wiki

*3. In physics, a force is an influence that causes the motion of an object with mass to change its velocity i.e., to accelerate. ___Wiki
Note -- Influence comes in many immaterial forms, from physical forces to social influences.

*4. Phlogiston, in early chemical theory, hypothetical principle of fire, of which every combustible substance was in part composed. In this view, the phenomena of burning, now called oxidation, was caused by the liberation of phlogiston, with the dephlogisticated substance left as an ash or residue.
https://www.britannica.com/science/phlogiston

*5. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. ___Wikipedia

*6. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161
Note -- 21st century scientists now posit Information as the fundamental element of reality.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

That's pertinent in many a thread. This is why I keep referring to Thomas Nagel's essay, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, although it is often misconstrued as an apologetic for religion, which it isn't. What Nagel is saying, is that there are certain avenues of thought that are cut off because of their association with religious ideas. And it is very much relevant to the point you're making. — Wayfarer

Yes. The materialistic Enlightenment era not only categorically rejected all Religious doctrines, it also rejected all philosophical beliefs that "go beyond" actual/factual descriptions of the world based on the five senses (meta-physics). It's such a categorical exclusion that makes calm reasoned discussions almost impossible, for those who wish to discuss anything that exists mentally but not materially : such as Consciousness or Monism.

Back when I tried to justify my rejection of my youthful religion, I had to make clear that I was not debating personal beliefs, but merely that I had found the material Bible --- often carried around like an ancient idol --- to be an unreliable foundation for such beliefs. Now, I'm having to reverse that strategy; to provide specific material facts for my worldview. Today, my philosophical beliefs are often categorically characterized as New Age instead of Christian. That's because Materialism ( a metaphysical system of belief) leaves no other trash can to put ideas about ideals into. :smile:


Note -- In the old TV series Dragnet, no-nonsense detective Sgt. Joe Friday often cut-off his rambling witnesses with : Just the facts ma'am". Ironically, Philosophy doesn't deal with "facts". That's the job of science.

↪Gnomon
Mental states, if they are equivalent to brain states, may be material. Abstractions generally are not material (IE they are not objects of the senses) but concepts, not physical, but conceptual. Calling such things "immaterial" is tendentious, in my view. — Janus

My use of "immaterial" is indeed "tendentious". It's intended to discriminate between tangible objects and intangible feelings. For example, Nagel's question "what is it like to be a bat?" is not inquiring about the stuff we can see or touch, but about the inner being : the sense of self. Even the terms "sense" & "feeling" may be biased (tendentious) toward materialism, in their literal reference to the five senses. That's why I sometimes refer to "Reason" as a sixth sense. It's a way of knowing that is not limited to physical sensations. By that, I don't mean that Reason is Extra Sensory Perception in the mystical meaning of that term. But merely that the brain can produce abstract concepts from concrete experience : by metaphorically removing the material flesh from the immaterial bones. Reason goes beyond the physics of matter (meta-physics). So, Materialism is literally irrational in that it excludes the immaterial function that we call "Reason".

As you said, Abstractions are not material objects. Which is why they can be described as immaterial. I don't mean that mental images are Spiritual, but merely that they are Ideas or Theories or Generalizations that have left behind their material substance, and exist in the Mind as imaginary Concepts, not sensory Percepts. Ghosts & Spirits are abstractions from real-world experience. But some people interpret those mental images as-if they are external objects in the real world, instead of internal ideas about the real world. "I ain't afraid of no ghosts", because ideas can't hurt my flesh.

Our matter-based vocabularies are problematic for philosophers, when we try to discuss anything that is not material. That may be why Aristotle made a distinction between "Substance" and "Essence". But some philosophers, such as Spinoza, used "substance" to refer to what Aristotle defined as "essence". In one sense, the essence of a thing is "what it's like" to be that thing. But in another sense, "essence" is the logical or ontological structure of a thing. Yet again, the word "structure" has a material bias, which makes it difficult to make sense of abstractions without sounding like non-sense. :smile:


PS__A Brain State is not a physical object but a functional property or quality of interrelated inter-operating neural elements. A neurosurgeon can't remove a specific brain state with his scalpel, It's not a physical organ. Brain states are excluded from literal Materialism.

To Abstract : existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Note -- In my vocabulary, Abstractions (ideas) are "immaterial". Thus, excluded from the Materialistic worldview.

Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint. Metaphysics is not restricted to "concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality". Also 'metaphysics' is not synonymous with 'supernatural'; the former term, in its "popular" sense may share some associations with 'supernatural', but not so in its philosophical sense. There is no 'philosophy of the supernatural'. — Janus

That may be true. But the pertinent point in this thread is that Materialism is presented as a natural fact, while alternative metaphysical notions are rejected as Super-natural fictions. It's like an old western showdown : there ain't no room in this town (Truth) for both tangible Matter and intangible Mind.

Some posters may imagine that Mind & Consciousness are ghostly spirits floating around in space. But in most of the dialogs I'm familiar with, Mental phenomena may be described as immaterial-but-natural Functions dependent on material substrates. We could debate about which came first -- Mind or Matter -- but that would be simply a contrast of personal opinions, not of objective Truths vs subjective Fictions. Even Objectivity is a subjective metaphysical concept, an Ideal to aspire to. :smile:

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon
Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? :smirk: — 180 Proof

FYI, the reference to "anti-metaphysical prejudice" was about the "pro-science, anti-philosophy" attitude common to devotees of Materialism*1. Not to anything that could be interpreted as "anti-metaphysics" on my part. Ooops! apparently, your "anti-metaphysical prejudice" did cause you to make that reversal of my intention. This is just another instance of the reason I tried to stop giving you fodder for exercising your preconceptions against non-empirical philosophical Meta-physics*2. Which you smirkingly interpret as "super-natural"*3. Oooops! I did it again -- trying to reason with a shuttered mind. It's like looking into a warped fun-house mirror.

As I have explained repeatedly though, I am not aware of anything supernatural in the natural world*4. The Meta-Physics I talk about is simply the products of a human mind : Ideas. Apparently, Materialists are forced by their dogma to assume that Ideas are material objects, that can be probed by the tools of physical science. By the same presumption, Consciousness would not be a debatable metaphysical notion, but a provable empirical physical object --- or collection of objects such as the Neural net.

FWIW, I don't think Consciousness is a super-natural phenomenon. It's a mundane feature of the real world, inhabited by thinking & sensing creatures. But Consciousness per se is a holistic Function of the neural net, not something physical. A Function is not a thing, but a relationship between things in a holistic system. For example, the function of the eye is Vision. You could destroy Vision by removing the eye. But unless you could reattach all the rest of the occular system, that eye alone would be blind. Vision is not in the eye, but in the system of interrelationships. BTW, the practical scientific application of Holism is known as "Systems Theory". :smile:

PS__ I use the term "Materialism" -- descriptively, not derogatorily -- to describe your standpoint in contrast to my own personal worldview. Yet, I could also use "Physicalism" or "Naturalism" or "Realism". Your criticism of my posts seems to indicate an antipathy to what you imagine to be "Spiritualism". But I labeled my personal worldview as Enformationism, because Quantum science & Information theory have discovered that Information plays two different roles in reality : both Matter and Mind. You may not agree with that interpretation, but it's my personal opinion, not a formal religion --- no spooky ghosts or supernatural magic --- just spooky "action at a distance", and the mundane mystery of Consciousness. Hence, no reason for hostility. Unless, you are afraid it is an aggressive challenge to your own personal belief system. It's not intended that way. For all Practical purposes, I am also a Materialist. It's only in impractical Philosophical purposes that I feel free to look at reality from a different perspective. :cool:


*1. Gnomon reply to Universeness on the Emergence thread :
No. I'm merely trying to untie the ropes of anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277

*2. Ironically, you keep trying to re-open a dead-end dialog. If you think Gnomon is such an idiot, why bother? Yet "blind faith" can be defined as doing the same thing, while expecting different results. Dialoging is not about winning.

*3. Smirk : one of your favorite smilies : :smirk:
to smile in an irritatingly smug, conceited, or silly way.
Note -- a smirk usually is a sign of a supercilious attitude :
behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.

*4. Super-natural :
When a philosophical dialogue goes beyond the limits of the Natural universe, we are treading on Super-Natural turf. You may imagine the hypothetical Multiverse or Many Worlds theories as-if they are natural things, but they are definitely not subject to empirical proving. Hence, by my definition, they are just as super-natural as a Heavenly World. Or perhaps, since those theories exist in human minds. they must be natural. Be careful how you use that notion. It could work both ways.

please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism is "anti-metaphysical" — 180 Proof
The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". What I usually say, when challenged for evidence, is the obvious fact that metaphysical topics are not amenable to empirical Science*1. Hence, Metaphysics is not provable ; not subject to physical/material evidence. As you noted, such topics "transcend" the classical physics of Newton, and cross-over the invisible line between modern Science and ancient Religion, into a no-man's land of quantum mysticism*2.

Instead, it's usually the Materialists who deny or denigrate traditional metaphysical arguments, on topics such as Consciousness. They seem to be requiring physical evidence of Consciousness, in all the wrong places, such as Neural Substrates. Personally, I don't know what the causal "substrate of Consciousness" is. Only that it is typically associated with Brains & Nerves. So, my discussions usually assume that "C" is not a material object, but a holistic function of material substrates.

On TPF, in posts by presumptive Materialists, the notion of Holism is typically rejected as mystical "woo". Even though the only mysterious feature in question is something like, "what is it like?" (i.e. what does it feel like; what is the form of personal experience?) Yet, when I point out that the term "holism" was actually coined in the 20th century by a Western-trained thinker, they still remain convinced (prejudiced) that it is a nutty New Age notion. Moreover, the basic concept --- although originally presented in terms of Evolutionary theory --- is amenable to Quantum Physics*3, if not to Classical Physics. That may be why several of the quantum pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy for insights into the non-classical, non-mechanical,immaterial aspects of quantum science*2.

As I said before, I have no problem with the pragmatic physical products of material science. It's only the non-physical philosophical mis-interpretations that I take issue with. And I don't substitute Spiritual theories for Mechanical explanations. I try to remain as close to the established physics as possible. Yet, any non-classical physics is quickly dismissed as spiritualistic "woo". So, I have learned the hard way to avoid getting into red-faced Political arguments with hard-line believers (defenders of classical Truth) in the ancient doctrine of Materialism. :smile:

*1.Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note -- Ironically, the term "subject-matter" is biased toward Materialism, and seems to exclude immaterial ideas about the material world. For me though, the subject of Meta-Physics is the non-physical aspects of the world. Specifically the mental Ideality of the human mind.

*2. Quantum Mysticism :
Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion.
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html
Note -- Wolfgang Pauli was a one of several quantum pioneers who acknowledged the limits of classical mechanical matter-based physics to make sense of the sub-atomic foundation of the real world.

*3. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

As to the culture wars and woo - I'm often accused of that myself so whatever I say is going to annoy someone. My take is that there really is a battle going on between the materialist worldview and its opponents, but I think that hardcore materialism is loosing that battle. — Wayfarer

Although I don't practice any formal religion, including New Age beliefs & practices, I'm often accused of pushing "woo" whenever I mention "Metaphysics". That's ironic, because -- for me -- metaphysical inquiries are all that remain for "feckless" philosophers to do ; since Empirical Science became the dominant practice of rational thinkers, by producing tangible money-making products instead of debatable worthless theories. Until, that is, Quantum Physics pulled the material rug out from under the axioms & assumptions of Classical Physics.

From my superficial study of Aristotle, I concluded that he deliberately divided his encyclopedia of Nature into Material Physics (observations of natural phenomena) and Mental Meta-Physics (ideas about ideas). The former is what later became the focus of Modern Physics & Chemistry & Mechanics. But the latter was eventually adopted by early Catholic theologians as the rules for their philosophical studies.

Those unquestionable authoritative concepts & rules, from "The Philosopher", served them well for the purpose of justifying some counter-intuitive (mystical) notions, such as the Trinity (three persons in one god). A time-honored authority figure wouldn't have been necessary though, if the plebeian Jesus cult hadn't evolved into a world empire, modeled on the official polytheistic state religions of Imperial Rome. Christian theologians were tasked with distinguishing the "True Religion" from both Polytheism and from competing Monotheisms. Their "woo-woo" inter-faith arguments were mostly about un-provable metaphysical beliefs, instead of empirical facts*1.

It's those non-sensical notions that were intellectually offensive to some of the early empiricists, such as Galileo. So, materialistic science could be construed as a protestant movement away from theological "woo". But today, the spiritual authority of ancient theologians & philosophers was undermined by the flood of empirical gadgets to make this mundane life materially better. Until that is, conventional Physics eroded its own material foundation with the discovery of immaterial & non-mechanical Quantum mathematics, where spooky-action-at-a-distance must be accepted as a real thing, and sub-atomic Quanta are no longer deterministic or quantifiable, and hard little atoms have evaporated into ethereal Quantum Fields of inter-relationships*2.

Many of the quantum pioneers began to engage in woo-ish philosophy, as they struggled to understand the real-world implications of mystifying quantum experiments. Yet, more pragmatic scientists decided to ignore the Ideal meanings, and to focus on the Real material products : to "shut-up and calculate". Consequently, Materialism has survived & thrived based on its effectiveness in producing technological tools & marvels. Meanwhile, the philosophy of Quantum reality languishes on opinion-swapping forums.

I have no problem with the Materialism embodied in my cell-phone. But I do take issue with ignoring the philosophical questions raised by the spooky foundations of the material world. If we can't discuss the intellectual products of modern science on a philosophy forum, what's the point of having a theory only forum? The woo-boo-birds don't see a problem with ignoring metaphysics, but I agree with you that the separation of Science (Realism) & Philosophy (Idealism) is a "culture war". And the materialists have the Atomic Bomb on their side (the ethics of power). However, since there is no actual engagement ---between Materialistic Pluralism and Idealistic Monism --- how can we tell who's winning? :smile:



*1. Theological Woo :
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is a phrase that, when used in modern contexts, can be used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or on questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate. ___Wikipedia

*2. Quantum Particles are now Continuous Fields :
In the end, we’ve learned that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed on its own. That’s not because of anything weird or spooky that it brought along with it, but because it wasn’t quite weird enough to account for the physical phenomena that actually occur in reality.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-fields-quantum-particles/

I'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognising only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception. — Wayfarer

I just started reading an internet article on the topic of Quantum Theology. Disclosure : Theos Think Tank is a Christian organization "researching the relationship between religion, politics and society". Since I have no religion to defend, my interest in Quantum Theology is related to Phillip Ball's recent book on the philosophy of Quantum Physics : "Beyond Weird".

In the article, what caught my eye was the phrase : "using language to describe things that can’t really be described". In my experience, philosophers have always used specialized language (metaphors, symbols, allegories, etc) to describe concepts that can't be described in physical terms. Ironically. the pioneers of Quantum Physics were forced to describe the objects of their study in unconventional meta-physical language : "non-locality ; "entanglement" ; "superposition", etc. I suspect that the "weirdness" of many of those queer notions derives from the difference between Monistic (metaphysical) and Pluralistic (material) worldviews.

I suppose that ancient mystics were faced with the same problem : how to describe their metaphysical experiences (feelings & imagery) in common subject-object language. Since I have had no experience with "extra-sensory" phenomena, I'm in a similar position with the Mystical realm as to the Quantum realm. I have to try to interpret the esoteric metaphors into concepts that I can relate to. Some people may take their analogies -- e.g. an atom as a miniature solar system --- too literally, because of the limitations of their experience and vocabulary.

I'm not trying to become a mystic --- too old and set in my real-world ways. But I've been led down the meta-physical road by my Information & Quantum based thesis : Enformationism. So, on TPF, I'm just trying to understand what some serious thinkers on this forum are talking about. And why other posters react emotionally/politically to the foreign language of "woo". Other than immersing myself in mystical literature, do you have any suggestions? :smile:


Quotes from essay :
"First, this essay draws from Philip Ball’s recent book Beyond Weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different. Ball is Britain’s leading popular science writer"

"I suspect there are implications in quantum physics for the kind of universe in which believers think they live,if only by casting shadows over the allegedly closed and deterministic Newtonian universe in which, for centuries, we were told we lived. As we will see, it is easy to see why so many philosophically–minded believers, whether religious, spiritual, new agey or secular, make this move."
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/09/14/quantum-theology

Quantum Weirdness : Blog post
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

As far as I see it neither a first cause nor infinite causes solve the problem of infinite causality, but visual aids help to a certain extent, in the end were left with a circle … asking where the circle came from is a valid question and it’s representation of circular logic in a way answers it. — invicta

, I can't apologize on behalf of the TPF forum. But personally, I'm sorry you got mired in the quicksand of the Literal Mind; of which there are several pits on this "meeting place of ideas". Personally, I saw some merit in your hypothetical, metaphorical, and symbolic approach to a "perennial" philosophical conundrum : "how did the observed chain of causation get started?". Or, in other words, "why is there something instead of nothing"?

Unlike Plato & Aristotle, some pseudo-philosopher posters are limited in their thinking to finite physical Reality : no place for metaphysical Ideality. Consequently, intimations of anything outside the physical/material system of Cause & Effect amounts to blasphemy against their personal belief system (their creed). As you've seen, they sometimes react with "furious anger and righteous indignation". (note -- don't look for links to the quotes, just take them literally, at face value)

Space-time Causation is obviously not a physical object in the real world. It is instead, an abstract idea conceived in the mind of observers to explain why one event is followed by another as-if by a transfer of momentum (conserved quantity of energy). But the energy itself is an idea (qualia), not a tangible substance (quanta) that could be poured into a bottle. Aristotle defined "Energy" (ergon) as a mysterious unseen "power" to act on objects. Modern physicists may have different terminology, but Causation is still an ideational attribution, not a tangible thing bounded by space-time.

The conventional symbol*1 for Infinity*2 is not a literal/physical example of a thing-without-beginning-or-end. Instead, it's a circle folded-over into a laid-over symbol of the number eight*3. Before that convention was adopted, some thinkers used the circle itself to represent something without beginning or end. Your Ouroboros image is another version of the same concept. Likewise, in modern times, we sometimes use a Mobius strip*4 to represent the imaginary concept of Infinity. But, literally & in reality, its just a finite strip of paper folded-over into a single surface topographic system, where you can draw a line, but never come to an edge. In another sense, the Mobius represents a seemingly impossible object, like a Klein Bottle*5.

I don't know about you, but I don't conceive of the postulated First Cause as a thing existing in space-time, and bound by the rules of Reality. Instead, it was imagined by the ancient philosophers as an Ideal solution to the seemingly impossible notion of Infinite Regress in a finite world. :smile:


*1. Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.

*2. Infinity : a state or quality, not a specific quantity

*3. A FOLDED FIGURE EIGHT, representing a never-ending circle

*4. A FOLDED CIRCULAR STRIP, representing a single-edged geometric surface with only one side

*5. A FOLDED FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE, with no inside or outside

I didn't start off wanting to argue for the role of esotericism so much as recognition of it as an often-unstated issue. The question was about the role of the transcendent. In plain language, there is no role, nothing to discuss (positivism, basically.) — Wayfarer

I've never had the sense that God or Nature is trying to communicate with me via occult channels. But my study of Information & Quantum theories has led me to agree with Plato & Aristotle : that a First Cause of some kind is a necessary conclusion from the open-ended chain of causation in nature. Yet even those philosophical pioneers didn't make any claims of esoteric knowledge . . . did they?

I don't know why that presumptive Creative Cause remains cloaked in mystery. Yet one possibility is that it is not a sentient being, but a merely a directional Principle of Nature. Another possibility is that the cloak of invisibility (transcendence) is necessary to allow sentient creatures to exercise moral free choice, without feeling coerced by an all-powerful ruler. Perhaps just to see where such an unbiased open-ended experiment might go.

Ironically many mystery seekers seem to be imagining and hoping for a loving & punishing Genesis type of Creator. One who whispers in the ears of favorite sons, to give them an advantage over the clueless, those blind to hidden variables. I can understand the urge of curiosity, but my experience with esoteric prophets (in literature) indicates that vulnerable blind faith is necessary for those who hope to obtain such secret knowledge --- by their own efforts, or through deals with insiders.

Yet for me --- instead of secret codes --- a direct -- or at least "open" -- channel of communication would be preferable. But my cautious skepticism ("trust but verify") leaves me open to accusations of not being sufficiently open-minded. In the real world though, unguarded minds are easy prey for false prophets & political predators. Therefore, some kind of Faith Filter seems advisable : just open enough to let the truth in, and to screen-out falsehoods. :smile:


Esotericism as claims to higher knowledge :
Somewhat crudely, esotericism can be described as a Western form of spirituality that stresses the importance of the individual effort to gain spiritual knowledge, or gnosis, whereby man is confronted with the divine aspect of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism

↪TonesInDeepFreeze
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and walk away. — Aristotle — Banno

Amen!

I don't know what set Tones off on his "Gnomon said" rant. Gnomon didn't say or mean whatever knocked the chip off his shoulder. Maybe the chip fell off by itself. I certainly had no intention to insult him, or to debate the technicalities of higher math with him. But he seems to be determined to make it all about the numbers.

I was about to mention that he's gnawing on an imaginary bone, with no nutritional value. But such a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek remark might just throw more fuel on the "he said --- she said" flame. So, instead, since this thread long ago veered off-topic, I'll take your advice to just laugh quietly and walk away. Thanks for the Aristotle??? quote. :joke:

PS___Since he's bursting at the seems, I'll let Tones have the last word : fill-in the blank [ . . . . . . . ]

You did it again: You bolded in my quote without indicating that the bolding was not original. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. I emphasized the subject of the sentence, to show where you missed the point of the original statement. Apparently, that didn't have the desired effect. But I'll continue to do it again, if you continue to misinterpret my meaning. In the words of Paul McCartney, "let it be". :smile:

I found kind of a bridge to Catholicism through the Christian mystics and ecumenicals, like Thomas Merton. There's actually a thriving albeit small sub-cultural grouping of Zen Catholicism. The Sermons of Meister Eckhardt are a perennial favourite. I like Richard Rohr. — Wayfarer

I suppose my boring non-Catholic, non-mystical Fundamentalist Protestant upbringing didn't prepare me for mystical experiences. The Bible was not taken as fantasy or mystery, but a literal history & prophecy of mundane events in the past, and things to come. We didn't do any of the fun stuff, like speaking in tongues of angels, or preaching "words of knowledge", or faith healing by laying-on of hands.

In Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson, he reviewed the history of Quantum Physics in Los Alamos & Santa Fe, New Mexico. The subtitle is Science, Faith, and the Search For Order. So he compared & contrasted the rational faith of the scientists, with the ancient mystical beliefs of local Indians (indigenous people). He also noted that the converted Indians found compatible expressions for their traditional mystical experiences in their own local brand of Catholicism.

In the final chapter, A Leap Into The Unknown, the author made this comment : "As we learn from the particle physicists, if we ascend to a higher level of abstraction, things that seem different on the surface suddenly appear as manifestations of a deeper unity". Could that "unity" be the same Monism that we are discussing in this thread? :smile:

Yes, the subject is:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause"
The predicate is:
are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics
That is a claim that "Infinite Regress and "First Cause" are (1) philosophical concepts and (2) they are not addressed by mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Again, that is not my claim. It's your erroneous interpretation, but not my intention. "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are examples of the subject content, acted upon by the predicate. Instead, it is "philosophical concepts" that the predicate modifies with "not addressed". And it's the "Infinite Regression"*1 argument, not the definition of "Infinity", that is in question.

However, I admitted above that the sentence construction could be misconstrued --- by someone with a pre-conception. Especially after the impassioned mathematical side-track had been going on for a while. That's why I added the bold, to indicate the subject of my sentence.

I suspect that we are actually in agreement about the math of PI & Infinity, but perhaps not about the philosophical concept of a pre-big-bang First Cause. Unfortunately, seems to be insisting on a colloquial usage of "infinity", while you are insisting on technical definitions. Therefore, on the side issue of Number Theory, the post is at an impasse. But the philosophical notion of a causal-regression-halting First Cause (or Prime Mover) has not been addressed & resolved in this thread, so is still an open question.

Consequently, the Pre-Big-Bang state of being (Ontology) remains a contentious issue among philosophers. Yet I maintain that it is a valid enigma, that serious scientists have attempted to resolve, not with math, but with the endless regression of a god-like eternal Multiverse*2 (Many Worlds), without beginning or end. :smile:


*1. Infinite Regress Arguments :
An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/
Note -- The relationship between elements is Causation, not mathematical value. The "first" member is the element in question.

*2. Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory :
"God’s existence is not provable by observations. The Multiverse is not provable by observations. God explains the Universe. The Multiverse explains the Universe. The Multiverse, then, is a lot like God. Weird, right?" ___by astrophysicist Marcelo Gleiser
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-religion/
Note -- You don't have to "waste time" by clicking on the link. I included a summation in the quote.

. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation". — Gnomon
I'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognizing only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception. — Wayfarer

Since my personal experience has been solely from the "subject-object" perspective, I have difficulty even imagining what a God-object perspective would look like. Also, I've had no "transpersonal" cognition. And what "insights" I have had are easily dismissed as mere opinion, since I have no "intersubjective validation". Is extra-sense-perception something that can be cultivated?

I've seen TV evangelists who demonstrate divinely inspired "word of knowledge" (gift of Holy Spirit). But I don't personally know anyone who claims to have transpersonal Visions, as opposed to mundane imagination (or TV tricks). In a sensory deprivation float tank I experienced unusual imagery, but not so out of the ordinary as to call it "transpersonal". I'm also generally unimaginative & boring, not prone to fantasy ideation. Should I just accept the evangelist's word for his word of knowledge?

Quite a few Catholic saints are reported to have experienced transpersonal divine messages from God or Mary. Should I just take them at their word, or should I require independent verification? Presumably, miracles performed by saints could be witnessed by objective observers. But a vision would be hard to validate, except by faith. Anyway, I'm personally familiar with internally-generated Intuition, but not with externally generated Visions or Knowledge. Are such extra-personal insights an aspect of your personal experience?

We humans have a talent that most animals lack : the ability to convert "sense perception" into mental conception (imagination ; to see what's not really there ; abstract mind pictures). When some of those non-sensory images arise unbidden by the perceiver, should they be interpreted as "transpersonal" --- I.e. originating from outside the conceiver? Even my notion of a Monistic Whole (of which I am a part, who can only postulate the Whole) is known by reason, not insight. :smile:

Extrasensory perception or ESP, also called sixth sense, is a claimed paranormal ability pertaining to reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses, but sensed with the mind. The term was adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine. ___ Wikipedia

GOD / WORLD PERSPECTIVE

That is nothing less than bizarre for you to say.
You wrote:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon — TonesInDeepFreeze

I owe you an apology. I assumed the subject of the sentence was obvious. But, in retrospect, apparently not. Mea culpa.

Therefore, to avoid contributing to the ongoing confusion, I should have emphasized that it's the "philosophical concepts" that are not addressed by mathematics. "Infinity" is a legitimate mathematical topic, but "Infinite Regression" is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Hence, to get into mathematical technicalities is irrelevant to questions about a world-creating act of Causation. An Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover is a Platonic/Aristotelian notion of Metaphysics, not Physics, nor Math. Does that make sense to you? Or do you think philosophical questions can be solved mathematically?

In the OP, A self-drawn circle is the theory to be "trashed", not the definition of Infinity. Since the topic is hypothetical/metaphysical (an idea, not an object), Plato used creation myths, not math, to illustrate his concept of a First Cause. Likewise, Invicta was using symbols & metaphors to make his point. Unfortunately, by introducing PI into the discussion, he opened himself to mathematical criticism. But I still maintain that the discussion veered off-topic into irrelevant technicalities. Apparently, in the face of such sniping, Invicta bailed on his own thread. :smile:


For those interested in the actual topic of this thread :

From OP : "But hang on a second, if it was self caused then there can’t be an infinite regression of causes. Anyone wanna trash this theory?"
That's a big "IF", but IMHO he's correct that a self-existing First Cause*1, would be the initiator/creator of causation in our contingent world*2. Hence, by positing a First Cause, the Greeks were avoiding the absurdity of infinite regression*3 . If we can all agree with that interpretation, maybe Invicta will get back in the game.

*1. first cause, sustaining cause, unmoved mover, necessary being :
On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Note -- Do the general questions listed above have mathematical solutions?

*2. First Cause : Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind. Their argument was basically as follows. Every finite and dependent being has a cause.
Note -- Therefore the regression of finite causation ends at the beginning.

*3. Infinite Regress Arguments attempt to refute a position by showing that the position leads to an absurd infinite sequence. This argument strategy is used in collaborative reasoning in everyday life, in science and in philosophy.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/humanities/departments/philosophy/research/research-projects/infinite-regress.aspx
Note -- Maybe Invicta will add to his theory an explanation for why Infinite Regress of Causation is deemed Absurd by some thinkers, even though that's exactly what the Multiverse theory postulates.

Generalizing even further, philosophy is—or is part of—enlightenment, a means by which humans are freed from domination, whether by nature, myth, religion, governments, whatever it happens to be:
I don’t have a specific question except: what do you think? — Jamal

I agree. But I might suggest that we broaden Moeller's definition from just formal "religions" to more general "dogmas". Dogmas -- authoritarian convictions -- arise in all phases of human belief, including Politics and Science. Ironically, some TPF posters are inclined to make dogmatic scientific assertions (e.g. Scientism) in cases where uncertainty is inherent (e.g. quantum physics). The role of modern Philosophy is indeed to shine light on dogmatic beliefs, but not to counter one dogma with another. :smile:


Dogmatism is defined as avoidance from accepting others' beliefs, ideas and behaviors. Dogmatic individuals have many problems in understanding new ideas. They cannot accept reasonable ideas instead of their incorrect ideas. They do not cooperate with others with different ideas.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395528/

But you also said, "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Again, I did not say what you attribute to me. The "not addressed" is your imaginary addition to what I said. Such irrelevant insinuations often diverge mundane philosophical threads off-topic into long sub-threads on peripheral technical or emotional issues. The open-ended OP --- an essay question, not true/false --- regarding opinions about "First Cause", was of mild interest to me, but not the nitty-gritty facts of mathematical infinities.

This whole off-topic series of accusations & counter-accusations is what I was referring to as "the shallow end of philosophical debate". I hope to have a more productive discussion with you on a different topic, where polarizing hot buttons have not been pushed --- accidentally or deliberately. Let's get back to sharing opinions on general philosophical questions, not specific mathematical technicalities. :smile:

Referring to as "he" :
"Unfortunately, he continues to argue with Banno about interminable terms that have no bearing on the original post -- just digging himself deeper into the shallow end of philosophical debate."

His response is quite relevant to your claim that infinite regress is not addressed in mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Tones, apparently you didn't read the OP, and responded only to some abbreviated second & third replies to assertions about Pi & circles & infinity. I would have to be an idiot to make the "claim" you pin on me above. Perhaps that prejudicial misunderstanding is why some posters are treating as an idiot, or worse a woo-monger. I am not arguing with your mathematical acumen, just with your mis-interpretation of what is being said.

What I actually said was that his OP was not a scientific or mathematical assertion, but a philosophical "theory" for discussion. He was disagreeing with Aristotle's use of "infinite regression" as a reason for proposing a First Cause. Then, he offered an alternative metaphor of a snake eating its tail, raising the issue of whether a circle is an example of infinite regress, due to its association with the irrational never-ending number PI. He even asked if "anyone wanna trash this theory?". Would anyone in his right mind ask that of a mathematical fact?

I actually disagreed with his use of the Ouroboros metaphor. But when others began to make an issue of the PI/infinity concept, I simply pointed out that it was used in a metaphorical context, not as mathematical fact. So, get off his back. If you want to get technical, PI is indeed an infinite series of numbers*1, and a circle -- no beginning or end -- is sometimes used symbolically as a metaphor for infinity*2. Unfortunately, he continues to argue with Banno about interminable terms that have no bearing on the original post -- just digging himself deeper into the shallow end of philosophical debate. :smile:


*1. The approximate value of pi is calculated to be 3.14159265…. and is an infinite decimal number. Therefore, it can be concluded from the above explanation that pi is an irrational number.
https://unacademy.com/content/question-answer/mathematics/is-pi-a-rational-or-irrational-number/

*2. Why is infinity not represented by a circle?
Why is the infinity symbol not a circle? Because it was already being used by the number zero, the letter 'O,' the composition operation for functions, and the degree symbol, among other things.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-infinity-logo-shaped-like-an-8-and-not-like-a-circle

Pi, spiral, symbol, math, infinity, irrational number :

Usually when someone posts a link, it is taken as a suggestion to visit that link. So, without you saying what specifically you wanted me to take from the article, I would have detoured to read and study an article of which all you mean to say is what you posted anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That is not my intention for using links. Instead, I try to say what I have to say in the post, and then add the links "for further reading"--- if someone is interested in more detail. In contentious threads like this though, where my limited knowledge will be challenged & dismissed, another function of links is to let the experts speak on the same topic, with the kind of authority I lack. :smile:

Wrong. I and others have studied infinite regress in detail, as infinite compositions or iterations. — jgill

Irrelevant ! I didn't intend to defend 's conclusions, but just to defend his right to use a colloquial meaning of "infinite" in a philosophical proposition, without being challenged to present a mathematical or scientific justification. The OP presents metaphors of snake-circles, not mathematical proofs. Is "self-caused" a mathematical concept?

Obviously, what has incensed some posters in this thread is the supernatural implications of the OP. Which they hope to demolish by turning a broad philosophical question into a narrow technical definition. Even though the universe is now known to have a finite beginning in spacetime, some thinkers like to think of it as infinite/eternal, so they don't have to deal with open-ended questions such as the OP. :smile:

PS___I usually find you to be more open-minded than the True/False debunkers. In a different thread, one poster asserted that "the opposite of science is pseudoscience". Which is indicative of either/or ; two-value reasoning. In that case, Philosophy must either present empirical evidence, or be rejected as Pseudoscience. Personally, I view Philosophy as complementary to Science, using different methods.

Colloquial : (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary. ___Oxford

STUDENTS’ COLLOQUIAL AND MATHEMATICAL DISCOURSES ON INFINITY AND LIMIT
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496910.pdf

What is "the natural number" ? — jgill

I'm not a mathematician, so I don't discriminate between Natural and Super-natural numbers. Is Infinity literally supernatural? :smile:

In mathematics, the natural numbers are the numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., possibly including 0 as well. Some definitions, including the standard ISO 80000-2, begin the natural numbers with 0, corresponding to ... ___Wikipedia

If you would like to make some point about what is written in a paper, then you can say what that point is, rather than just have me scurry and sidetrack to read something that you haven't said what about it you think is important to consider relative to what I've said. — TonesInDeepFreeze

All I had to say is in the title. :smile:

*1. Two-Valued Logic is Not Sufficient to Model Human Reasoning
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1651/12340059.pdf

↪Gnomon
"Pi is infinity" is not a mathematical proposition?
Or will you claim anything in order to defend your account? — Banno

As previously noted, I interpret his use of "infinity" as a philosophical postulation, not a mathematical proposition. Apparently, your more restrictive*1 vocabulary (your account) does not allow that distinction. :smile:


*1. Two-Valued Logic is Not Sufficient to Model Human Reasoning
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1651/12340059.pdf

Plotinus' philosophy was enormously influential on the successive ages of philosophy, up until and including Hegel, although subsequently deprecated, at least in English-speaking philosophy. The point being, that something like this 'unitive vision' is required to make sense of philosophical monism, if it is not to be reduced to a kind of caricature which takes 'the one' to consist of a kind of agglomeration of everything that exists. It is within the context of that unitive understanding that the distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' is, at least, intelligible, and which provides a framework for the meaning of monism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I know very little about Plotinus and Neoplatonism, but the notion of "unitive vision" seems to be common to both Early Greek and Eastern philosophies. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation".

The "distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' " may be the crux where Materialism and Monism part ways. For a materialist, the physical/material Universe is all that exists, excluding all metaphysical (mental) phenomena, and mathematical possibilities. Apparently, for Monists, "all" is more inclusive, going beyond the scientific Real, that can be observed, into the realm of philosophical Possibility & Potential.

Yet the same anti-metaphysical "deprecation" is applied to both Spiritualism and Holism. Although they are not the same thing. As you implied, the monistic Whole is not just an "agglomeration" of many parts, but a separate entity in its own right*1, with global properties/qualities that do not exist in isolated components. Ironically, Quantum Physics has discovered a new kind of Holism in the strange physical phenomena of Entanglement*2 : unreal statistical/relational existence*3. What then, is the nature of such incorporeal existence? :smile:


*1. A Spiritualist might call it "God" ; presuming to attribute humanlike properties to The One. But a Holist, lacking direct revelation, must be satisfied with a more abstract conception.

*2.Merelogical Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

*3. In logic, philosophy and related fields, mereology is the study of parts and the wholes they form. Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology ... Wikipedia

Disagreements about terminology are unnecessary. Discussants can instead acknowledge the clear definitions in mathematics: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Math definitions will not resolve the terminology disputes in this thread because is not making a mathematical proposition. "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics : the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. That may be why such open-ended (infinite???) concepts are annoying to some posters, since it can't be ruled True or False by numerical authority. Satisfactory (not true or false) answers will depend as much on intuition as on logic.

As evidenced by never-ending dialogues on this forum, some philosophical questions, including definitions, are often as clear as mud. If metaphysical meanings were as "clear" as math, we wouldn't have forums for extended argumentation. Instead, we could just "shut up and calculate". For those who prefer the clarity of Math, here's a nice online discussion forum : :smile:

Wolfram Community :
https://community.wolfram.com/content?curTag=mathematics

The Metaphysics of Stephen Wolfram :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jNMh8uuqQY

There's a problem with that definition, as no Buddhist would agree that illumination comprises 'knowledge of God', as Buddhism is not theistic. But nevertheless the general idea stands, which is that there is genuine insight into the domain of the first cause, etc. It is hard to obtain, and few obtain it, but real nonetheless. But as our view of all such matters is indeed so thoroughly jaundiced by the very dogma which our particular forms of religious consciousness have foisted on us, then it is impossible to differentiate that genuine type of insight from its ossified dogmatic remnants. But, as the sage Rumi said, 'there would be no fools gold, were there no gold'. — Wayfarer

Yes. Our problem as philosophers is to discriminate between "genuine insight" and "fake insight". For example, Einstein is generally regarded as an insightful scientist. As a theoretician, he didn't do the lab work, but seemed to intuitively see the general implications of the various bits of evidence --- to see the whole as a complete system of parts. Since his insights were about physical things & processes though, their genuiness can be proven by empirical testing. Yet, metaphysical ideas can only be tested by the "iron sharpens iron" method of comparative opinions.

Unfortunately, most philosophical "mysteries" -- such as First Cause or Consciousness -- are not so easy to prove. That's why Aristotle developed a formal Logic to help us see if the parts add-up to a genuine whole. Religious doctrines typically make sense in the context of their own premises. But, over time, some of those dogmatic premises fail the test of other contexts, other opinions (e.g. Protestant Reformation). Thus, our modern context -- for evaluation of dogma -- includes a whole world of enduring or failing doctrines. So, unlike medieval peasants, we have alternative doctrines to test our personal beliefs against. But it's up to each thinker to provide his own insight. Fortunately, intuition can be cultivated with practice ; even by us non-geniuses. :smile:


Insight refers to the ability to understand and gain a deep understanding of something, often through intuition or a sudden realization. It is the ability to see beyond the surface level of a problem or situation, and to grasp its underlying meaning or significance.
https://onlinephilosophy.org/insight

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ___Albert Einstein

Einstein :
“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”
https://www.learning-mind.com/albert-einstein-quotes/
Note --- Mystery is motivation, not conclusion.

A circle is a very close approximation of Pi which is infinity itself. — invicta
You would deny Invicta the privilege of meaning what he says? — Banno

No. As I pointed out above, the meaning of "infinite" varies depending on context and intent. So, I'm merely allowing to use the word in a way that suits his context. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but I want to hear his argument -- in his own words -- not necessarily in my personal vocabulary. :smile:


Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end. . . .
{1, 2, 3, ...} The sequence of natural numbers never ends, and is infinite.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

In Mathematics, “infinity” is the concept describing something which is larger than the natural number. — Gnomon
Huh? — jgill

Sorry, I forgot to provide a link. That quote came from a math website. I didn't make it up. :smile:

Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end. . . .
{1, 2, 3, ...} The sequence of natural numbers never ends, and is infinite.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

Gnomon
A circle is a very close approximation of Pi which is infinity itself. — invicta
This is gobbledygook. But I would not be surprised were you unable to see that. — Banno

As usual, we have here a vocabulary conflict between people with opposing points of view. Such disagreements are not resolved by disparagement. The word "infinity" has several definitions, depending on context*1.

I suspect that is using the term "Infinity" to mean simply a never-ending series of numbers*2. Perhaps a better word would be "indefinite". His colloquial usage is different from your technical version, but not meaningless "gobbledygook"*3. My tongue-in-cheek "Pi is infinite" link may be somewhat "gobbledy", but it expressed a notion that may be closer to Invicta's usage regarding "infinite regress". The number PI is a never-ending series, but in practice it has a finite value*4. PI as a concept is irrational, and in a general sense unbounded or infinite*5. :wink:



*1. What is Infinity?
Infinity is an idea of something that has no end. In general, it is something without any bound. It is a state of endlessness or having no limits in terms of time, space, or other quantity.

In Mathematics, “infinity” is the concept describing something which is larger than the natural number.

*2. Infinity : a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

*3. Gobbledygook : language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.

*4. PI infinite :
How is pi infinite? It’s not infinite in value. It’s more than 3 and less than 4, so its numerical value is certainly finite. What’s infinite about it is the amount of time, or more precisely the amount of calculation, that it would take to express its exact value.
https://www.quora.com/How-is-%CF%80-infinite-if-a-circle-has-finite-area

*5. PI is irrational :
Hence, pi is a real number, but since it is irrational, its decimal representation is endless, so we call it infinite.
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/do-we-have-any-mathematical-proof-that-pi-is-infinite.html

For me the "I am that I am" can be qualified by all: whos, what's, where's, when's, how's, and whys of existence and thus encapsulates or captures all distinctions or sets within it's universal Venn Diagram — Benj96

Yes. I sometimes refer to the infinite pool of Potential --- from which our space-time world probably emerged --- not as an eternal regression of Multiverses --- but simply as THE ALL. It's the unknowable, but imaginable, WHOLE -- "universal Venn diagram" -- of which all concrete things are parts. And one of those emergent features is the feeling of self-existence (Ego ; I am) characteristic of sentient observers. So, it's easy to imagine that the Whole is also self-aware. There is a human tendency to personify such abstract concepts metaphorically, to make them seem more real & tangible. But history shows how such a reified metaphor can go wrong.

Therefore, since I have no reliable knowledge of anything existing before the Big Bang. I think philosophical modesty requires us to avoid epitomizing the hypothetical ALL into a humanoid god. To paraphrase Wittgenstein : whereof we do not know, we must not speak. FWIW, in order to avoid the errors & excesses of world religions, I avoid imagining the philosophically necessary Eternal Potential as a humanoid ruler of the universe.

For the purposes of my Information-centric thesis*1 though, I do sometimes refer to that source of all forms as The Enformer*2, or The Programmer. I even sometimes call it "G*D", as an ambiguous reference to an almost universal human concept. Unfortunately, the intentional ambiguity is lost on some literal-minded posters, who interpret it as a reference to Jupiter or Jehovah. :smile:


*1. A thesis, not about ideal deities, but about how the information-based real world works. Since Shannon, scientists have learned that Information is both physical and mental. Physicist John A. Wheeler posited his "it from bit" theory, which other scientists are still developing into a useful way of understanding how the world works.

*2. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Singularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. Metaphorically I call it The Programmer.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Not only is it a third space and an indirect conduit of communication, but coining the writing as a "fiction", analogy, metaphor or artistic work, allows the person who expressed it to merely shrug, and say well its just a story, song, poem isn't t it? Think what you wish about it, dont take it literally (dont attack me), as its merely a hypothetical.

But I suspect that often a "fiction" or artwork is a convenient way to reflect what the author/artist truly believes about the world. That for them it isnt hypothetical or fictional at all. It is their understanding of truth/reality in disguise as a "take-it-or-leave-it fiction". — Benj96

Yes. Metaphors are vehicles for expressing meta-physical conceptions, as opposed to physical descriptions. Ironically, some posters associate "metaphysical"*1 with religion, not philosophy. And since modern philosophy long ago capitulated the study of Physical Nature to pragmatic scientists, all we have left of Aristotle's definition of Philosophy is the, religion tainted, mushy Metaphysics : ideas about ideas, not things ; preter-natural*2, not natural ; mental, not material.

Unfortunately, some on this forum, do take metaphysical Metaphors literally, as-if they are presented as scientific Facts. Hence, they don't argue the logic, but ridicule the image. However, as you noted, those who use metaphors on philosophy forums are not just blowing smoke. Although, not really real, their metaphors do express their beliefs & feelings as accurately as possible for non-physical non-things. So, it's the implicit underlying Belief that is attacked, not the reasoning behind it. Thus, high-minded Philosophy is reduced to down & dirty Politics & Religion :smile:


*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, including the first principles of: being or existence, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, and possibility. ____Wikipedia
Note -- Fundamental Reality is a broad general concept ; not a reference to particular things, but what things have in common. Those universal commonalities cannot be seen with the eye, but imagined with the mind. And they can only be expressed in words metaphorically, often as-if they are like tangible objects in certain ways.

*2. The Preternatural (or praeternatural) is that which appears outside or beside (Latin: præter) the natural. It is "suspended between the mundane and the miraculous". ___Wiki
The "Third Space"?

So Pi goes on infinitely buts it’s not infinite, whatever dude. — invicta

Sorry, arguing with bear-trap is pointless. Each of you is looking at the question from a different perspective, so your views will never meet, unless at Infinity. :joke:

Pi is infinite :
"Pi is magic. It is a number that is infinite, universal, transcendental, and irrational. It appears everywhere, and my mathematician friends tell me that Pi is as close to religion as you can get in math."
https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/pi-is-magic

How can we reconcile your term "action" into my terms: space, time and matter? Because the other 2: information and energy, are already agreed upon between us. — Benj96

EnFormAction*1 is only intended to be an evocative name for the universal causal Force or Energy behind all change in the world*2. And "Action" is simply what it does (it's job). EFA transforms Potential into Actual. And yes, the "form" element includes both Platonic ideal (the abstract design) and real material forms (the enformed thing)*3. "Space" is a necessity for "Matter", and "Time" is a consequence of Action. :smile:

*1. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*2. EFA is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical conjecture. It's only intended to be way to make sense of the multifarious roles of Generic Information in the world. If it makes sense to you, then that's all that "matters". If not, ignore it.

*3. For clarity, I spell the Platonic Ideal as "Form", and the real things built upon that logical structure, as "forms". Otherwise, people tend to confuse one with the other : the Ideal with the Real or vice-versa.

This is why I prefer the term "Potential" instead of EnFormAction. As simply put, potential has less assumption (imbedded or hidden information) in it than EnFormAction which conceals time, matter and space in the term "Action". — Benj96

I agree that Potential is more fundamental & comprehensive. Yet the distinction I make is that capital "P" potential is eternal & unchanging, while EFA creates (actualizes) the evolving space-time world. It's not intended as a religious concept. But as a biblical metaphor, it could be likened to the Holy Spirit moving across the face of the deep to create the world. Some will take EFA literally, as-if I'm saying its a real thing, or even a god*4. But for me, it's just a way to think about how Information (power to enform) works in the real world. So, yes, Potential came first. :cool:

*4. I don't pretend to know what that abstract Eternal Potential thinks. But if it is an intelligent being, "I am that I am" might be descriptive. Personally, I try to avoid personalizing the creative Potential that uses trial & error evolutionary methods to create a world from scratch over eons of time. "Scratch" being nothing but Enformation = Energy (causation) + Laws (intention).

I was (and am) a theosophical type (small t), who believes that the different wisdom traditions portray profound truths, but they are very hard to grasp. — Wayfarer

In Architecture school, I was once assigned the task of inventing a new religion, then designing a church or temple for its peculiar worship needs. Since I had been recently reading about Theosophy, instead of mars-worship, or buglike-alien-worship, or chocolate-chip-cookie worship, I chose the actual doctrines & practices of Theosophy (god wisdom) as the functional requirements for my building. It was so foreign to my upbringing that it seemed pure fantasy. FWIW, I was not then, nor am I now, a believer or practitioner of mystical Theosophy. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" :smile:


Theosophy : teaching about God and the world based on mystical insight.

any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, especially the movement founded in 1875 as the Theosophical Society by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott (1832–1907).

Theosophy is a term used in general to designate the knowledge of God supposed to be obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence. In method it differs from theology, which is the knowledge of God obtained by revelation, and from philosophy, which is the knowledge of Divine things acquire by human reasoning. . . . India is the home of all theosophic speculation.

Note --- Theosophy seems to be a sort of American amalgamation of Hinduism. So it may be a local source of much of what we now call New Age religion/philosophy

PS__The OP seems to be wondering if stark objective Science and warm & fuzzy subjective Mysticism could mate (cross-species) to produce something resembling a traditional fat furry Religion with abstract rational skeleton.

I believe energy is that which is because it is. Energy doesn't have a cause other than itself. — Benj96

In my own Information-based thesis, EnFormAction (generic energy) is the pre-space-time Cause of all change, including the Big Bang. It's the Cause of all causes. :smile:

No. A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself — Gnomon
I don't think Aristotle would have described his work that way. He was surrounded by those who rejected the idea of an intelligible whole. He fought them tooth and nail. — Paine

I'm not an Aristotle scholar, so that comment was just my general impression. But here's a quote*1 that seems to have it both ways : Causal Monism (general causality) and Causal Pluralism (sequential causes). I suspect that Plato might be more inclined to view the First & Final Cause as a Holistic, Ultimate, Ideal entity or concept. In any case, only an Eternal (timeless) Cause would put an end to the infinite regress (space/time) of causation. Perhaps Einstein's Block Time*2 would qualify as Causal Monism, since there is no cyclic time for sequential causes to do their thing. :smile:


*1. Causality is at the heart of Aristotle’s scientific and philosophical enterprise.
. . . Aristotle is committed to a form of causal pluralism . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

*2. Block Time? : "Everything everywhere all at once"
Those like Aristotle and Leibniz, who think that time is not independent of the events that occur in time, deny the existence of absolute time, ..
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

No. — Banno

OK. I was just trying to be accommodating to your & my limitations.

Perhaps my complex arguments have too many elements for your open/shut bear-trap mind*1. "Hard" problems are indeed difficult to follow, with all the twist & turns, and varying perspectives. Perhaps an "argument map" would help*2. But I'll save that for someone who is really interested in the OP question. :smile:


*1. Compared to my more excursive mind.

*2. Argument Map :
A complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). Complex arguments are very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved.
https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php