In the cause of physical brains, the brain state will be the configuration required to instantiate non-physical mental content. — Mark Nyquist

Not what I had in mind. The philosophical question is, how could you account for propostional content in terms of brain-states. The brain-mind identity theorists hold that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain. It's a complicated subject in philosophy of mind (Stanford article).

One line of argument against that is a variation of what is known as 'the argument from reason'. This says that, whatever we understand 'brain states' to be, if we are arguing that they are physical in nature, then they're incommensurable with propositional content (incommensurable meaning not able to be judged by the same standards; having no common standard of measurement.) Why? Because propositional content is wholly dependent on the relationship of ideas and if-then statements - if this is the case, then that is so. Any arguments relying on rational inference or logical syllogisms make use of something like this, and are instances of logical necessity - that is [x] is the case, then it must also be that [y]. But physical causation is of a different order to logical necessity. This is the subject of this thread from about a year ago.

Back on the topic of monism - I'm convinced that the original monist systems were derived from 'the unitive vision' in, for example, Plotinus. It is a fact that the word 'Cosmos' means 'ordered whole', and it was the conviction of many pre-modern cultures that the Universe functions as an ordered whole. Cosmology began as an attempt to conceive of the nature of that order. But the prospects of seeing the universe as an ordered whole in our day and age are very slight indeed, what with the multiverse conjecture and the realisation of the inconceivable vastness of the Universe. Maybe is beyond the intellectual powers of anyone to imagine the cosmos in those terms any more. 'All the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again.'

.. informed by modern information / computational theory. I stand by my earlier dismissal of Aristotle's cosmological argument as a pedantic aside by you, MU, that misses Fooloso4's conceptually salient forest for your anachronistic trees. — 180 Proof

I think you got lost in mixed metaphors Rig Hand (I hope you don't mind me calling you that). An anachronistic tree cannot be part of the modern day forest. So the fault is really Fooloso4's who tries to fit the anachronistic tree into the modern day forest, and in so doing kills the tree. Regardless of how conceptually salient Fooloso4's forest is, it only consists of pretend trees which are really dead, so it's all imaginary.

Back on the topic of monism - I'm convinced that the original monist systems were derived from 'the unitive vision' in, for example, Plotinus. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think there was a form of Neo-Platonism which denied the reality of matter, making it monist idealism. I don't think Plotinus would quite fit that bill though. But I think monism was prevalent in philosophy before this, Parmenides being monist idealist (all is being), and Heraclitus being monist materialist (all is flux).

The argument against it is that it somehow has to posit that these neuological states are at once physical and semantic, i.e. meaning-encoding. — Wayfarer

If microphysical entities can be both particle and wave why could not neurological states be both physical and semantic. Perhaps your unexamined preconceived notion of what it means to be physical is blinding you to the possibility.or perhaps it just doesn't suit you to believe suvh a thing is possible.

The wave particle duality may well be an heuristic device, but anyway, doesn’t have any bearing.

It has a bearing because things can actually be, counter intuitively, two things that seem incompatible. Do you think your intuitive preconceptions about how things must be are the last word on how things actually are?

Do you think your intuitive preconceptions about how things must be are the last word on how things actually are? — Janus

I actually offered an argument, not an 'intuitive preconception'. If you would like to address the argument, then I might respond.

If you point me to the argument, I'll be glad to address it, even though "might respond" does not sound very promising, and I dislike expending effort for nothing.

One line of argument against that is a variation of what is known as 'the argument from reason'. This says that, whatever we understand 'brain states' to be, if we are arguing that they are physical in nature, then they're incommensurable with propositional content (incommensurable meaning not able to be judged by the same standards; having no common standard of measurement.) Why? Because propositional content is wholly dependent on the relationship of ideas and if-then statements - if this is the case, then that is so. Any arguments relying on rational inference or logical syllogisms make use of something like this, and are instances of logical necessity - that is [x] is the case, then it must also be that [y]. But physical causation is of a different order to logical necessity. — Wayfarer

That neural states are causality-driven and/ or exclusively causality driven is an assumption which cannot be tested empirically, and that also does not involve a logical contradiction. Another point is that even though causality and propositionality (or causes and reasons) might seem incommensurable to us that can be, as Spinoza says, on account of looking at the one thing from two different incommensurable perspectives and may not reflect on the nature of physical processes, but rather on our naive understanding of them, or our dualistic "either/ or" kind of thinking.

But the challenge is, how can any kind of 'either/or' thinking or logical argument, in general, be explained in terms of the kinds of physical causation that characterises brain states? What I was challenging was the assertion that:

In the cause of physical brains, the brain state will be the configuration required to instantiate non-physical mental content. — Mark Nyquist

So, how to validate that statement is what is at issue. How do you think you could ascertain the empirical fact of that statement, on the basis of neuroscience.

But the challenge is, how can any kind of 'either/or' thinking or logical argument, in general, be explained in terms of the kinds of physical causation that characterises brain states? — Wayfarer

Well, it can't if the nature of our thinking makes it impossible to explain. It does not follow that because we cannot explain it, it must be impossible.

In the cause of physical brains, the brain state will be the configuration required to instantiate non-physical mental content.
— Mark Nyquist

So, how to validate that statement is what is at issue. How do you think you could ascertain the empirical fact of that statement, on the basis of neuroscience. — Wayfarer

I don't think we can, with the present state of our knowledge and understanding, validate that statement either.

Oh, ok. Promissory materialism, then.

Another point is that even though causality and propositionality (or causes and reasons) might seem incommensurable to us that can be, as Spinoza says, on account of looking at the one thing from two different incommensurable perspectives and may not reflect on the nature of physical processes, but rather on our naive understanding of them, or our dualistic "either/ or" kind of thinking. — Janus

:up: :up:

Promissory materialism, then. — Wayfarer

Well, they don't cash counterfeit idealism at my local bank. :smirk:

Right, it seems that both sides of the argument, both positions, are promissory. People adopt them on account of what seems most plausible to them, but as I keep saying, that will depend on what one's own set of unargued premises or presuppositions are. That's why I don't take a position on it, although to be honest I lean towards physicalism, since I believe physics is the closest thing, we have to being a pertinent source of information regarding the ultimate constitution of what-is.

People adopt them on account of what seems most plausible to them, but as I keep saying, that will depend on what one's own set of unargued premises or presuppositions are. — Janus

Not unargued. The argument is that logical necessity can't be accounted for in terms of physical causation as a matter of principle.

Yes but that speaks to our thinking, not to what-is. We already know that thinking in terms of causes and thinking in terms of reasons cannot be made commensurable with one another at this stage of our understanding; I can't imagine anyone claiming that they are. So if that is acknowledged, as it should be since it seems unarguable, it will depend on what conclusions, if any, you draw from that fact.

You seem to be pressing some point of logic that I don't see as relevant.

Maybe explaining my method would help. For some problems you can start with initial conditions and work all the way through to the end point. In philosophy we have this problem where we know something about our physical world but we inhabit a mental world. I think my best effort is placed in starting at the ends and working to the middle to find a solution.

I mentioned a couple days ago about the irrational number pi being an example of something immaterial that we encounter.

So pi doesn't physically exist but there is a history of mathematicians finding it's value to more and more decimal points (accuracy, fractional value). To me it seems like a good example of were physical brains and the immaterial meet. Of course the immaterial does not exist but also pi is not dependent on some preexisting state of brains either. It has to be discovered.

My guess to find pi was to use isosceles triangles but then I looked it up and it's not so easy. The first to do this used polygons but no trig or calculus. They made slow progress. And just to remind ourselves, trig values and pi are fixed relative to each other so you need to know one or the other first. You can't just calculate pi if you don't have the trig values.

Isaac Newton made the most progress on pi but you need to check that yourself. I've just read it for the first time. Of course, calculus methods and a few original tricks, I think.

Anyway. I'm critical of Monism that only goes so far and doesn't get into the environment that brains operate in, such as advanced maths.

Since Monism, as it exists on this forum, has failed to provide any coherent theory of information, a test of functionality should by applied.

Something like the ability to derive pi could be used.

Human brains can derive pi and I consider that a demonstration of the ability to hold, process and apply information.

So if deriving pi is the litmus test, then human brains pass.

Shannon information fails.

DNA information fails.

Quantum information fails.

Information as energy fails.

This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it.

Since Monism, as it exists on this forum, has failed to provide any coherent theory of information, a test of functionality should by applied.
Something like the ability to derive pi could be used. — Mark Nyquist

Monism is the belief that the variety of things in the world can be traced back to a single Origin or Substance or Cause. That is exactly what the Enformationism thesis attempts to do. The First Cause in that case is, not a person, place, or thing, but the creative power to enform. Presumably, it is empowered to create both material forms, such as stars, planets & rocks; and immaterial forms, such as rational minds --- from the same original source : Unrealized Potential. Since UP is not something that we experience in the real world, we can only conjecture about it. That's what Plato & Aristotle did with their First Cause (creator) and Prime Mover (causal energy) theories. It's something to think about, but being un-real, any such Monistic Origin cannot be scientifically-proven to exist, only philosophically shown to be plausible.

One "functional test" of such an un-real (ideal) Potential --- ability to create from scratch*1 (perhaps even via the gradual evolutionary process of en-formation*2) --- is the emergence of creatures that are more than just material real objects, but also immaterial ideal minds. And the primary function of a Mind is to see what is not obvious to the physical eye. For instance, the mathematical function PI is not a thing, but a relationship between two ways of measuring circular objects : circumferences & diameters. Any animal with eyes can see round objects. But perfect circles & circumferences & diameters are invisible to the eye. So the irrational ratio we call PI is only apparent to rational minds. How could such an abstract function arise from a merely material origin? :nerd:

*1. Create from scratch :
from the beginning, without using anything that already exists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/from-scratch

*2. Enformation :
to form (fashion ; create) something new from something old, or from unrealized potential

This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it. — Mark Nyquist

One definition of Monism is "a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world". If there is no ultimate distinction between Matter & Mind, then the duality we conceive must be missing some essence that is the same in both aspects of the world. In the Enformationism thesis, that ultimate essence is the power to create from scratch : to Enform (to give Actual form to formless Potential). We get glimpses of that creative power in : a> information as Energy ; DNA information ; Quantum information ; and Shannon information*3. All are capable of transforming one thing into another : Energy into Mass ; DNA into proteins ; Quantum fields of potential into actual particles of matter ; and meaningless Shannon information (data) into meaningful concepts (ideas) in human minds.

Monism is a holistic philosophical problem, not a reductive scientific project. So, the "how" of Monism is not subject to empirical evidence; only theoretical argument*4. In the Enformationism thesis the single definition of Monism is "The Power to Enform". :smile:

*3. Multiple definitions of Information :
Knowledge ; Intelligence ; meaning ; Energy ; DNA ; Qbits ; Shannon data ; Deacon "causal absence" ;
Note --- "Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification." https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

*4. How does Information transform Matter into Mind? By the reverse of Energy into Mass. In that case, Mind is not a physical Thing (brain), but a non-physical Power (potential) : to conceive of immaterial Ideas from experience with Real material objects.

I think you have mentioned giving form to the formless, and that could be the issue (or part) of what the monism/dualism question is about.

We deal with the formless but not without our physical brains.

I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains.

We deal with the formless but not without our physical brains.
I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains. — Mark Nyquist

Apparently, you are talking about material Form (substance) that is visible to the eye, while I am referring to immaterial Form (meaning). The philosophical First Cause, that I talk about, existed prior to all contingent causes, such as the Big Bang*1. So, there was nothing (no material things, no physical forms, no brains) to see at that point in pre-time*2. Your skepticism seems to be due to a common communication barrier on the forum : when one is talking about Physics and the other about Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Chaos :
Plato postulated a distinction between physical time-bound enformed Cosmos, and metaphysical timeless formless Chaos. You might say that his First Cause was a "pre-cause", the Potential to cause Actual events. He didn't personify that Potential as a god, but only as a philosophical or mathematical Principle.

A Void of nothing-but-unrealized-formless Potential makes no sense in Classical Physics, but for Philosophy & Quantum Physics, it allows us to talk about infinite unformed possibilities and other unreal notions as-if they were real things, like Virtual Particles. Therefore, for philosophical purposes, we can talk about a formless possibility that exists only as statistical Potential in an abstract mathematical realm with no squiggly DNA and no jello-like Brains. Does math exist in brains, or in minds?

For scientific purposes, when quantum physicists refer to "Superposition", it's not a place or thing, but merely an imaginary statistical state with no actual matter, position, momentum, but only the Potential to produce a physical particle when triggered by an Observation. Quantum Superposition transcends our physical experience with an actual position in space you can put your finger on.

Perhaps that's just a modern notion of formless Chaos, triggered by a mental Cause into producing a real world. The pioneers of quantum physics were, at first, skeptical of such a formless state of existence. But they were forced by the evidence to accept a metaphysical philosophical concept as having physical effects in the real world : the collapse of Potential into Actual.

*2. The Time before Time :
Time is not a thing, but a system of measurement. For physical purposes, we measure Time in terms of changes in physical objects : sun. moon, etc. But for philosophical purposes we use the word "time" metaphorically instead of materially. When Plato & Aristotle postulated a First Cause to explain all real world contingencies, they were not talking about any material form in space-time that could be seen with a physical eye, but an immaterial formless concept that can only be seen by the mind's eye : reason, inference, imagination. That's the difference between Physics and Philosophy.

Time is Energy :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential.

I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.

Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter?

There is quantum theory, so maybe it's in the math, but I don't understand it that way either.

Just trying to sort through the issues.

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential. — Mark Nyquist

From a Materialist perspective, the concept of "Potential"*1 is not just counterintuitive, but unreal : either a thing is real, or it's not. But Plato was an Idealist, so the notion of something-from-nothing could make sense, if that "field" of nothingness*2 had the hypothetical power of Potential. To non-idealists that sounds like Mysticism. But quantum pioneers were faced with making physical sense of squirrely subatomic systems that wouldn't commit to a meaningful position or momentum until measured by an outside agency. The Copenhagen Interpretation of that non-sense was a compromise between theory & practice. Although the Superposition principle*3 --- described by a statistical wave-function --- seems to be super-natural, in practice repeated experiments confirmed the mathematical existence of that strange state of formless (statistical, mathematical, potential, immaterial) quasi-being.

As a result of that Ideal/Real compromise, and their use of Buddhist & Hindu metaphors, those pioneers gained a reputation as mystics*3. So, more pragmatic, and less theoretical, physicists, such as Richard Feynman decided to avoid getting into murky philosophical swamps, by focusing on practical results instead of theoretical understanding of what's actually happening : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, other scientists (e.g. Penrose & Tegmark) were more accepting of Mathematical Existence as contrasted with Material Existence. Also, several respectable physicists have come to terms with the mystical implications of Quantum Physics*1.

If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of spooky Quantum Physics, from a philosophical perspective, check-out the book*4 by science writer, Phillip Ball, editor of the science journal Nature. But, be advised that the ardent Materialists on this forum will advise you to avoid hypothetical philosophizing, and just accept their pragmatic realistic doctrine. :smile:


*1, Philosophical Potential :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form ..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Ideal or Potential or Mathematical Form (pattern; design) is a subjective mental concept, while Real or Actual or Material Form (shape ; substance) is an objective empirical observation.

*2. Quantum Field Potential :
The quantum potential energy, as introduced by David Bohm, is defined and interpreted within symplectic quantum mechanics. It is a form of energy which cannot be localized in space. It represent the energy associated with the spatial curvature of the square-root quantum fidelity.
https://hal.science/hal-03591111/document
Note --- In physics, a Field is not a material object, but a zone of space with the potential to manifest real particles of matter. In their statistical potential state, they are called Virtual (not yet real) Particles.

*3. Superposition :
Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/superposition
Note --- Multiple possible or potential states is an ideal statistical concept, not a real stable object. That's why quantum physics is a statistical science instead of an empirical science. Empirical measurements are metaphorically said to "collapse" the superposed non-local field (like a popped balloon) into a particular mundane location.

*4. Quantum Mysticism :
The leading writers in the field were not "crank" New Age authors but highly experienced physicists such as Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Wheeler and Paul Davies.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_Mysticism

*5. Beyond Weird :
Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different
____Phillip Ball

FYI___
What is the Nyquist information theory?
The Nyquist theorem specifies that a sinuisoidal function in time or distance can be regenerated with no loss of information as long as it is sampled at a frequency greater than or equal to twice per cycle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/nyquist-theorem
Note -- This math is way over my head. So I'll stick to amateur philosophy.

Harry Nyquist comes up here occasionally.
I'm not related.

Harry Nyquist worked in the same areas as Chaude Shannon. Their work was with electronic communication. Seems unfortunate to me that it is viewed by many as the science of information. Their work should be viewed as electronics engineering and mathematics.

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential.

I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.

Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

Yes. What's logically missing from the Big Bang theory is a pre-existing Causal Agency of some kind. Most BB theorists just assume as an axiom (without evidence) that Causal Energy & Natural Laws existed prior to the beginning of space-time, as we know it. I agree. But, for my own philosophical purposes, I refer to that combination of Causation & Organization as EnFormAction.

I assume you are asking for scientific reasons, instead of philosophical conjectures, to explain how "nothing" could become "something". So here's a link to an article by theoretical physicist & astronomer, Marcelo Gleiser*2. He assumes, again by reasoning beyond evidence, that Quantum Mechanics (immaterial mathematical Field*1) existed somewhere out in pre-space-time, and just spontaneously burped-out the living & thinking world we call Reality. He doesn't directly refer to a conjectural "Multiverse" as the Agency of Energy Fields & Limiting Laws, but that's what some imagine to be the Forever Cause.

Likewise, I assume, based on similar conjecturing, that the combination of Quantum Causation and Information Organization (EnFormAction) pre-existed the enformed world we experience today as Reality. Plato & Aristotle knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so they referred to that same Hypothetical world enformer as the First Cause or Prime Mover. That Immaterial Nothing is what is still missing from Materialistic theories of Cosmology & Ontology.

My thesis and Gleiser's thesis are in agreement. But he's using scientific terminology (formless Field), while I'm using philosophical vocabulary (formless Potential) to describe the immaterial nothingness that transformed into material somethingness. Is it magic, or just Logic? Is it Reason or Conjecture? :smile:
.

*1. Field : Quantum theorists provide some rather abstruse mathematical definitions for that abstract alternative to concrete Atomism. But what they are referring to is, underneath the jargon, a non-local emptiness (void) where something happens. In other words, it's Nothing that has the potential to produce Material Things.

*2. Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe :
We can contemplate the idea of a metaphysical emptiness, a complete void where there is nothing. But these are concepts we make up, not necessarily things that exist.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nothingness-birth-universe/

I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that. Sorry it takes days for me to have a response but I run through various possibilities and I don't see any that don't have philosophical problems.

I like the phrase 'giving form to the formless' because that's how I understand information.
It's our brains that give form to the formless. What we see of human activity is a demonstration of its effect. However, as a force of nature I don't see evidence of this in things beyond our reach. So on a small scale our brains give form to the formless and can direct matter and energy, but I don't see it at cosmic scales or pre big bang. I'm looking at a number of things.but mostly just having a difficult attempt at getting a handle on it.

I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that — Mark Nyquist

Yes. The concept of "something from nothing" is radically counter-intuitive. But scientists, such as Gleiser seem to be using the word "nothing" with tongue in cheek. However, a mathematical Quantum Field is as close-to-nothing as you can get for an empirical scientist. Some physicists still insist that a Quantum Field is made-up of particles. But then they offer a paradoxical label --- Virtual (almost real) particles --- for those supposed bits of matter*3. Yet, Gleiser clarifies that his "Nothing in the Void" is not actual tangible Matter, but intangible mathematical "Vacuum Energy" (which we perceive only in its effects). So, I'll let you ponder the puzzle of the somethingness of Energy : is it a qualia or a quanta?.

In my own thesis, I try to clarify the paradox further (perhaps in vain) by defining Energy as Potential, which is not real until Actualized by an exchange of Form (perceptible pattern of relationships). Unfortunately, it's my unconventional use of the term "Form" --- as a mental/mathematical abstraction instead of a physical/material object --- that does not compute in a materialistic context & vocabulary.

In my thesis, Energy is not a material substance, but a mathematical ratio/relationship : e.g. Potential / Actual. As a philosophical concept*1, Energy is Causation : the relationship between prior Cause and after Effect*2; known as "Time" or "Change". Which is an abstract intellectual inference. So it must be conceived by reason instead of perceived by physical senses. That rational metaphysical notion is essential to the thesis, but seems to zip right over some heads without effect.

The bottom line for me is that we can, by rational inference, trace all Real things and Ideal concepts back to a pre-bang Platonic First Cause. That hypothetical pre-time Cause is not necessarily a person or thing, but perhaps an abstract infinite axiomatic principle of Potential : the power to impart actual Form to the statistical (virtual) Formless. By that I mean "Potential" is like the mathematical possibilities of gambling odds : ratio of possibility to actuality. We can only understand such un-real stuff by means of metaphors abstracted from sensory experience. For me, a universal all-encompassing First Cause of some kind is necessary for a unified philosophy of Monism. For Materialists, that unprovable Axiom might be a hypothetical eternal Multiverse. For others, it's a personal deity. What do you think the ultimate causal Singularity might be?

I'd better quit while I'm behind. Does any of this mathematical metaphysical non-sense make sense to you? Most of us, even would-be philosophers, are innately biased toward a Materialist worldview. So, to even mention "something that is not a thing", sounds like BS. But if you can imagine such a non-thing-with-the-power-to-cause-change (Ideal Potential), the rest will fall into place. :smile:


*1. Potential : In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*2. Causation : We only know it as the passage of Time : before states relative to after states.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

*3. Quantum Nothingness : Even though Virtual Particles are hypothetical entities --- based in part on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem --- scientists take them seriously. A may2023 Scientific American article is entitled : The Weight of Nothing. It describes an experiment intended to weigh the mass of Vacuum Energy photons as they "fluctuate in & out of actual existence". The article says "even though we can't capture these virtual particles in detectors, their presence is measurable". And measurement is a mental action.

In my own philosophical thesis of Generic Information, I refer to those virtual/real states as Potential & Actual. So the experiment assumes that in the microseconds of their transition from Virtual/Potential to Real/Actual & back existence, the experimenters will be able to measure the Actual portion of their fleeting existence. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes --- for those of us lacking precision instruments --- the empty vacuum is weightless and thingless.

Something I just came across are the returns coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope. There seems to be questions now that suggest the big bang theory needs revision. Something about distant galaxies appearing smaller that they should be with current theory.

That would be my best guess on how this origins problem will ultimately be solved. Or AI could solve it just by looking at more combinations than we are inclined to. It might not be that far off.

It might be an area where philosophy has limits and astronomers, physicists and mathematicians have the advantage.