There's much more to it than that. We can infer and predict outcomes, based on mathematical analysis of observations — Wayfarer

As soon as you say "observations", i.e. things that you see in the real, physical world, then it is no longer mathematics. In that case, you are doing physics or something similarly real-world.

Whence this predictive relationship between mathematical reasoning and material facts? — Wayfarer

The short story? We don't know.

My own speculation is that the real, physical world is consistent by assumption while mathematics is consistent by construction. So, that may allow for particular isomorphisms between both.

I find Eugene Wigner's essay on it very interesting. — Wayfarer

I think I can agree in globo with what Eugene Wigner writes. For example:

It is, as Schrodinger has remarked, a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered. The preceding discussion is intended to remind us, first, that it is not at all natural that "laws of nature" exist, much less that man is able to discover them. The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well.

Agreed. Science does not describe the unknown construction logic of the real, physical world, i.e "the true laws of nature". Science rather describes observable patterns that are incredibly resilient to experimental testing. These two things are obviously not the same. We are talking about science as a really useful and clever hack. Science will indeed probably never manage to become the theory of everything (ToE).

Every empirical law has the disquieting quality that one does not know its limitations.

Agreed. A method that observes the real, physical world is itself part of an abstract, Platonic world, and can therefore never observe itself. This is indeed the main weakness of empiricism.

Mathematics, or, rather, applied mathematics, is not so much the master of the situation in this function: it is merely serving as a tool. It is true, of course, that physics chooses certain mathematical concepts for the formulation of the laws of nature, and surely only a fraction of all mathematical concepts is used in physics. However, it is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct language.

Agreed. If the real, physical world is consistent -- on falsificationist grounds it is perfectly sound to assume this -- then the consistency-maintaining bureaucracy supplied by mathematics must indeed be the correct language.

I do object to Brouwer's direct, constructivist connection between mathematics and the real, physical world. Unlike physics, mathematics does not deal with the semantics of the real, physical world, but only with the consistency of abstract, language expressions. Furthermore, if you can test it, you should test it. So, mere symbol manipulation is not the main instrument for the analysis of the real, physical world.

The reader may be interested, in this connection, in Hilbert's rather testy remarks about intuitionism which "seeks to break up and to disfigure mathematics,"

Disagree. Hilbert does not disfigure mathematics. He rather seeks to maintain its purity. The real, physical world or any connection to it, is not a legitimate subject in mathematics. People who are interested in the real, physical world should rather seek answers in physics or other scientific disciplines, because mathematics is not about that.

I propose to refer to the observation which these examples illustrate as the empirical law of epistemology. Together with the laws of invariance of physical theories, it is an indispensable foundation of these theories. Without the laws of invariance the physical theories could have been given no foundation of fact; if the empirical law of epistemology were not correct, we would lack the encouragement and reassurance which are emotional necessities, without which the "laws of nature" could not have been successfully explored. It is therefore surprising how readily the wonderful gift contained in the empirical law of epistemology was taken for granted.

Agreed. Science is a knowledge-justification method. Hence, epistemology really matters to science. It is obviously unavoidable.

Still, epistemology is only "empirical" about the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge, and not about the real, physical world. So, the use of the term "empirical" is a bit ambiguous in this context. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a proper term for what epistemology does. The term that comes closest, is indeed "empirical", but it requires making a perspective shift from "real world" to "world of knowledge".

Whence this predictive relationship between mathematical reasoning and material facts?
— Wayfarer

The short story? We don't know. — alcontali

My main philosophical interest is in the argument that numbers (etc) are real but incorporeal; the same for all who can count, but only perceptible to the rational intellect. Which is pretty much the traditionalist view, it’s Platonism 101.

We naturally assume nowadays that mathematics can be grounded in physical nature by describing in neuro-linguistic terms - something the brain evolved to do; what Quine dubbed ‘naturalised epistemology’. The rationale being that the alternative seems too close to ‘natural theology’; Platonism falling victim to Darwinism. (See The Indispensability Argument.)

The term that comes closest, is indeed "empirical", but it requires making a perspective shift from "real world" to "world of knowledge". — alcontali

Right - and that world, is not, as you note, what is described as ‘the real, physical world’. That perspectival shift is key.

//ps// oh, and glad you like the Wigner essay, it was one of the first things I learned about when I started posting on forums.

No, I'd say those are complex relations regarding quantity. In other words, they would be pointlessly meaningless - correct me if I'm wrong here - in the complete absence of expressions of quantity such as that of "1". — javra

The expression "1" does not appear in set theory or in the lambda calculus (axiomatization of anonymous functions). You can optionally produce the concept of "1" as a necessary result of set theory or of the lambda calculus, but you can happily work in both mathematical theories and derive theorems, without ever mentioning the concept of "1".

Yes, I took calculus in high-school, but I'm no mathematician. Not my thing. — javra

I currently do mathematics as a hobby. For example, if a paper happens to be about Galois theory, I will more often than not read it. Still, I do not need Galois theory for my job. It is just a personal interest. At university, I had to sit, year after year, exams on operational research (linear programming and so on), which is some kind of subdiscipline in mathematics ("optimization"), but I absolutely never used it professionally. I did not dislike it, but I rather treated it like a game of chess. I no longer read anything about optimization because I consider it to be less interesting than other sub-disciplines.

My latest foray in mathematics has been modern Galois theory. It uses a pyramidal hierarchy of terminology.

The Banach-Tarski paradox (BTP) -- possibly a new subject for me -- does that too. To my great frustration, there seems to be very, very little overlap. So, BTP looks like a complete new mountain to overcome. That is why I hesitate so much! ;-)

By the way, it is not because you know one or more mathematical theorems that you understand anything about any other one. It is incredible ...

Mathematics is compelling in computer science, which in turn is compelling in software engineering. So, quite indirectly I deal with mathematics in a professional capacity. With the increasing importance of system security and also cryptocurrencies there has also been a spectacular invasion of mathematical thinking through the theories in cryptography.

Still, I have an exorbitant degree of confidence that none of the above means anything sans representations of unity, aka quantity. A geometric point, for all its marvels of being volumeless, is yet a quantity, for instance. — javra

A lot of modern mathematics is only visible as language, just as a symbol stream about other symbol streams.

For example, I do not see how to create a visual representation for the lambda calculus or the SKI combinator logic. There is nothing, but absolutely nothing visual to it. Seriously, what graphical representation could possibly apply to it?

These mathematical theories are close to computer science, where mathematics tends to be language about language. Of course, there are other sub-disciplines in mathematics that do have a visual representation, but that is not the mathematics that I have dealt with recently.

If the semantics of "quantity" needs better clarification, let me know. Alternatively, if you find I'm mistaken - but understand that "1" represents an idealized perfect integrity, or unity, of existent stuff - please offer some references to maths devoid of notions of quantity (such as the concept of "1", and its derivatives). — javra

The dominant axiomatization in mathematics, ZF set theory (along with AC), does not even mention "1". If you look at its nine axioms, the expression "1" is literally nowhere to be found.

Seriously, run through the symbolic first-order logic sentences for the axioms from first to last and try to find "1" or any other numeral. It is just not there.

It is, as Schrodinger has remarked, a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered. — alcontali

What do you think of this objection? A miracle is a violation of regularity and is therefore only visible against a background of regularity. So to me there's something strange in Schrodinger's remark. Still it is strange in some strange sense that there is a world here in the first place. But what makes this experience of the strangeness of the world possible? I'd guess it's our ability to imagine there not being a world. It also seems related to our ability to question the cause of God or whatever is supposed to save us from infinite regress in our explanations.

However, it is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct language. — alcontali

Interesting that Schrodinger uses accuracy to argue for mathematics being the correct language. His metric for correctness is itself mathematical.

The real, physical world or any connection to it, is not a legitimate subject in mathematics. People who are interested in the real, physical world should rather seek answers in physics or other scientific disciplines, because mathematics is not about that. — alcontali

I take this as a very 'pure math' position. What do you make of the fact that most math is not pure? I don't just mean science. I mean everyday life. What kind of tip should I leave? How many eggs are left in the fridge? How many more miles can I get with that needle close to E?

I'm not at all against pure-math, just to be clear. But consider the history of calculus. Applications came before rigorous axiomatic theory. Consider also how important intuition is learning math. Even pure mathematicians don't write out complete, formal proofs. They appeal to one another's intuition, and I think most of them aren't formalists at heart.

I take this as a very 'pure math' position. What do you make of the fact that most math is not pure? I don't just mean science. I mean everyday life. What kind of tip should I leave? How many eggs are left in the fridge? How many more miles can I get with that needle close to E? — joshua

There is nothing wrong with downstream applications, even the most simple ones, but none of that is part of the knowledge discipline of mathematics, which is something different.

I'm not at all against pure-math, just to be clear. But consider the history of calculus. Applications came before rigorous axiomatic theory. Consider also how important intuition is learning math. Even pure mathematicians don't write out complete, formal proofs. They appeal to one another's intuition, and I think most of them aren't formalists at heart. — joshua

If you exclusively deal with mathematics that has a straightforward visual representation, you may indeed develop a more constructivist mentality and even ontology of mathematics. Classical (Greek) geometry tends to be like that. and possibly even number theory. I just pointed out that there are areas in mathematics that are absolutely not like that; especially the disciplines that emerged only over the last century. In my opinion, (real-world) constructivism is even the wrong intuition. Symbol manipulation goes much more to the core of what it is about.

It used to be that people questioned pure mathematics as a merely theoretical exercise with no practical application.

With the spread of mobile phones that is much less the case than before. Almost everybody must have seen source code by now, and realized that it is about annotated abstract symbol streams. It is surprisingly close to the practice of symbol manipulation in first-order logic of mathematics.

Even the old question, Why do I need to spend so much time learning to read and write? is no longer asked by even toddlers who can see all the letters showing up on their tablet and who must wonder what they mean. It has become much more natural for them to learn this. I have never heard my own children ask why they should learn how to read and write.

I think that digital natives do not have an intuition problem with the technology that surrounds them.

The expression "1" does not appear in set theory or in the lambda calculus (axiomatization of anonymous functions). You can optionally produce the concept of "1" as a necessary result of set theory or of the lambda calculus, but you can happily work in both mathematical theories and derive theorems, without ever mentioning the concept of "1". — alcontali

The concept of 1 - of oneness - is however found. Expressions of quantity are obtained, at the very least, via mathematical object(s) in set theory and via variable(s) in lambda calculus (had to look the latter up to verify). That there can be one or more objects is an expression of quantity. Same holds true with variables.

What matters with quantity - at least I'll so argue - is that we idealize givens (be they concrete or abstract) to be integral wholes - i.e., units that by definition are undivided - that, then, can stand in relations to each other. "1" is simply one way to formally represent a singular integral whole. This concept is entailed in there being an object and not more, or a variable at play and not more.

To be explicit, my main argument being that conceptualization of quantity precedes conceptualization of all maths - in that it is prerequisite to mathematical thought. The aforementioned as just one example.

BTW, to my knowledge, no one has provided a logical or mathematical reason for why 1 + 1 must entail an equality to 2. One does not need to formally account for or even express this concept in order to faithfully apply it - this in ordinary life just as in theoretical maths. The same, I imagine, applies to the axiomatization of "1".

The dominant axiomatization in mathematics, ZF set theory (along with AC), does not even mention "1". If you look at its nine axioms, the expression "1" is literally nowhere to be found. — alcontali

I've browsed the link to the nine axioms. Thank you for the link. Here again variables are made use of. And, again, with these variables is entailed notions of quantity. And the axioms addressing variables come before those addressing functions (or relations between variables). For instance, X and Y are understood to be two variables, rather than one.

So, it is in a sense the 'relations between things' but I feel as though you're not really cutting through to the profound sense in which such relations and laws represent an underlying logos which guides and directs all things: not as a 'god' through acts of will but because they constitute the 'fabric of the cosmos. — Wayfarer

The "profound sense" of logical structure and causal power in the world, is what I call EnFormAction.EFA is also equivalent to Greek Logos. But both EFA and Logos are messengers (so to speak) not the source of creative power. The Telos is in the "mind of G*D".

At first, I was reluctant to attribute conscious teleological choices to the Source (G*D) of the power and intent that creates Cosmos from Chaos (unformed potential). But after exploring how and why the cosmos works as it does, I was forced to view the creation (via evolution) as an intentional act of will*. I don't know how Choice and Will might work in an immaterial infinite & eternal setting. But it seems to be analogous to human design or programming, using the basic mathematical language of 1s & 0s (something or nothing, on or off, being or non-being).

Therefore, Information (power to enform or create) is indeed the "fabric of the cosmos". By that I mean, mathematical relationships (ratios) are the threads that bind the material of the universe together. Here's an image showing nodes (nouns, stuff) and links (verbs, actions) in a dynamic system : https://previews.123rf.com/images/ramcreative/ramcreative1505/ramcreative150500006/40368993-global-network-sphere-abstract-geometric-spherical-shape-with-triangular-faces-globe-design-.jpg


* "There is purpose, then, in what is, and in what happens, in Nature" ---Aristotle, Metaphysics

using the basic mathematical language of 1s & 0s (something or nothing, on or off, being or non-being). — Gnomon

Might get back to this later. Short on time for now. If we are to entertain ancient concepts, 0 is a representation of a circle. As per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. A circle with a point at its center, represented light - in spiritual terms more often than not: nous, understanding. Also the sun, in more physical representations. Symbolically, the centered point could well be interpreted as the universal telos - Heraclitus's "zeus", for instance - that is ever-present to being, the latter represented by the circle.

Where a distinction is made between being (ousia) and existence (that which stands out to being), 1 then could represent a perfect unity of existence, not so much of being. This, at least, in ancient times by at least some ancients that made use of logos as concept.

I'll be hard-pressed to prove the aforementioned, but wanted to mention it as a possible perspective.

Do you see the "choice", as an actuality which is distinct from both the voltage and amperage? If the voltage is potential, it could sit there forever without an actuality (choice in this case) to actualize it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". As I said before, years ago, I began as an Agnostic, and was trying to avoid attributing Purpose, Will, Choice, to the First Cause. That original position would now be something like a Multiverse, blindly and randomly changing the bits & pieces of reality without any plan or purpose. But I have been forced by the evidence to admit that the creation of our world in a Big Bang was intentional. Yet I doubt that the Grand Goal is to create a race of sycophantic worshipers. So I don't know for sure what the ultimate Telos of evolution might be. All I know is that the universe is moving toward some Omega Point.

So, yes, Infinite Potential would be impotent without the power to Choose the final form of Temporal Actuality (Reality). But, since evolution seems to be inherently random, it requires Natural Selection (circumstantial choice by context) to guide it to some non-random outcome. That allows for some freedom within destiny, as exemplified by the emergence of Cultural Selection to nudge evolution toward human ends.

↪Gnomon
You might find Ervin Lazlo's idea interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 — Janus

Yes, his theory of an Akashic Field is similar to my notion of the universal Quantum Field as a web or fabric of Information interrelationships. Since his theory was inspired by Hindu philosophy, I might mention that my notion of G*D is similar to the philosophical concept of Brahman (ultimate reality or Ideality). But I try to avoid mixing-in some of the spicy religious flavor of Hindu Religion, in which Brahman is just another humanoid god. Deepak Chopra also seems to include some outdated Hindu science (e.g. Prana) in his writings on related subjects.

As per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. — javra

I normally use the word "Zero" in the modern sense of nothingness. But, the Greeks, possibly including Pythagoras, found the notion of non-being abhorrent**. For them, the circle was more like a Venn diagram, presumed to contain all possible things, hence Wholeness

Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). That's why I sometimes think of the cosmic compass (or the mathematical number line) beginning at Zero and ending as Infinity, hence encompassing all possible things. In which case Zero and Infinity are the same point in the circle of being .


** Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife

Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). — Gnomon

Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized.

Since it is information that ratios things, that limits and binds things, that gives being(s) form(s) - and since it is a new way of addressing pre-Socratic logos when conjoined with action and/or causation - in the complete absence of information (causal or otherwise) - i.e., in the complete absence of logos - it would be logically true that what would remain would be devoid of form, of limits. It would hence be a state devoid of thing-ness.

But here is what I take to be one pivotal ontological issue: Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness")

Certainly, Buddhists and Hindus do not. The only pivotal gripe between these two worldviews in this respect is whether or not this omega point can be considered "a self" or not. Either way, it is what awareness is hypothesized to someday become - this contingent on the choices of agents. The awareness just specified still holds being. It is not non-being from these interpretations - but, instead, hypothesized to be perfected state of being. It is - supposedly - a perfect, boundless (hence limitless and, hence, both infinite and eternal), quantity-devoid wholesome-ness of awareness that is furthermore devoid of ego (here meaning: any and all separation/distinction between self and other). It is pure being devoid of the information that divides it - and, hence, non-hyperbolically selfless. Alternatively stated, it is pure being devoid of the samsara that is existence (existence in the sense of that which stands out to being - one of the senses of samsara is "ever-changing world"). You seem to agree with this implication in your latter posts - but I'd like to verify whether or not you do.

Secondly, again here entertaining the thought experiment just offered, do you take this omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be unreal? (this in regard to your use of "no real things") [Tentatively upholding this view of the omega point, it is obviously not yet actualized, so it dwells only as potential; yet, if this omega point if ontically real, this potential is nevertheless all-pervasive - and, as such, is actual in its typically tacit influences upon, at the very least, all agents.]

I ask this second question because to those who uphold these or similar enough concepts, Moksha and/or Nirvana are considered to be the Real - with everything else being at best a contingent subsidiary (very much including our physical reality).

If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. Rather, I'll offer that, within this context, 0 would symbolize a universally actualized Moksha/Nirvana, or some like - a state in which samsara gets turned off, this in favor of limitless awareness, one devoid of "deaths and rebirths" as the Easterners say. Whereas 1 would symbolize not being per se but, rather, an completely integral existent that holds being (something I've yet to discover any evidence for either in contexts of philosophy or in those of the empirical sciences).

BTW, awareness never "stands out" to anybody, not even to the individual whose awareness is addressed. What stand out is various forms of information - such as information regarding my body and its motions that correlate quite well to that which I as awareness sense myself to will (I do not see my awareness when looking into a mirror, but the information that is my body). Hence, in the "stand out" sense of "existence", awareness does not exist. Instead, it strictly holds being. (Terms are of course context dependent, but since we're addressing the ontology which you've elaborated on ...)

All this, btw, mostly concerns not your latest post to me, but previous posts you've made in this thread.

Metaphysics, however, has nothing to do with figuring out knowledge justification. It does not revolve around justified (true) beliefs (JtB). It rather tries to rationally question the starting points of knowledge. — alcontali

I don't disagree with this and I agree with Popper when he says that metaphysics is not science insofar as its speculations or theories are not falsifiable. I also agree with Popper when he says that science does not begin with observation, but with new problems that may proceed from either metaphysical speculation, or from solving previous problems. Metaphysics is also inherently involved in science not merely ongoingly but in the related sense that science historically begins with the metaphysical speculations of the Presocratics.

So since metaphysical speculation involves one important way the creative imagination has been, and still is, involved in science, it is indispensable to advancing science. Science is not merely an empirical task but also, and in a very significant sense, a speculative one. Same goes for both mathematics and history.

To be explicit, my main argument being that conceptualization of quantity precedes conceptualization of all maths - in that it is prerequisite to mathematical thought. — javra

In fact, I agree to an important extent with that.

The foundations of mathematics are to some extent considered to be impredicative (circular). However, it is the language of first-order logic that is considered to be the real culprit.

The extending move from propositional to first-order logic is achieved by the introduction of universal quantifiers, such as $\forall$ (the "for each" construct).

What the $\forall$ implies, is the ability to move from element to element in a collection. That looks a lot like assuming a starting point (zero) and a successor function to move away from that starting point; even though all of that actually depends on the unmentioned implementation details of the $\forall$ symbol. Maybe it is possible to practically implement the traversal of a collection without using zero nor the principle of succession? Not sure, and possibly not.

Still, the existence of zero and a successor function are the core axioms in number theory (Dedekind-Peano); which could then already be implicitly pre-assumed in the language of first-order logic. So, number theory could in fact be expressed in a language that implicitly already assumes the existence of number theory, with the problem being hidden away inside the actual implementation of the $\forall$ universal quantifier.

The foundational crisis in (classical) mathematics started raging at the end of the 19th century and was never really solved. The final blows came in 1931 with Gödel's incompleteness theorems and in 1936 with Turing and Church's negative answers to the Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem.

So, yes, I guess that the foundations of mathematics are likely circular in some way.

At first, I was reluctant to attribute conscious teleological choices to the Source (G*D) of the power and intent that creates Cosmos from Chaos (unformed potential). But after exploring how and why the cosmos works as it does, I was forced to view the creation (via evolution) as an intentional act of will* — Gnomon

Well, good. I think about it in much the same way. I'm very aware of the fact that thinking this way puts one in the 'orbit of theism', so to speak, however, my theism is generally pretty non-theistic, although of course this is something almost impossible to articulate and usually pointless to explain.

Moksha and/or Nirvana are considered to be the Real - with everything else being at best a contingent subsidiary (very much including our physical reality). — javra

What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. Hence the commonly-encountered expression in those milieu, 'awakening to the Real'. This conveys the requirement for a change of heart or mind to understand or see the reality of being. In the Greek tradition it is 'metanoia', there is a Sanskrit equivalent 'paravritti' (actually, etymologically the resemblance is clear, as 'para' and 'meta' are both common indo-european roots, and 'vritti' may be translated as 'mind'.) ¹ It is something akin to a religious conversion, but of a more noetic (or dare we say gnostic) quality (although there are many porous boundaries.)

The Indian traditions are more concerned solely with liberation from the circle of birth-and-death, whereas the mathematical and rational forms of mysticism were associated with the Pythagorean tradition and its descendants. Arguably this is one of the reasons that modern scientific culture took root in the West rather than India or China ² . But the overall 'noetic' aim of the Greek tradition ought not to be forgotten (which it has been. We've kept the parts relevant to engineering, and jettisoned everything relevant to 'metanoia'.)

The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife — Gnomon

That's on my 'to read' list. As I understand it, Indian mathematicians (and specifically Buddhists) devised the symbol for zero (although Seife says Babylonians, but I think they were also Indo-Europeans) - something which Buddhists were comfortable with because of its conceptual compatibility with the Buddhist principle of emptiness (śūnyatā - hence, 'the Buddhists invented nothing' :-) . The reason this notion was anathema in the West was because of the maxim that 'nature abhors a vacuum', that zero was non-being and therefore a deficiency.

—————

1. D T Suzuki, commentary on Lankavatara Sutra.

2. Russell HWP, chapter on Pythagoras.

:up: + I would add or perhaps stress that there are metaphysical assumptions in place underlying current understandings, models and what is consider possible in science, and these lead to what is chosen to research and what isn't and how new information is integrated. It also guides ruling metaphors - which are often not considered metaphors - like 'physical' for example.

Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized. — javra

Since my theory of Enformationism is intended to be a scientific theory, I don't normally think in terms of religious concepts. I do use them as analogies and metaphors, such as Brahman = G*D. However, I can see that you might interpret the "heat death" of the universe as a sort of NIrvana (extinguishment, flame going out). Whether it is Moksha or Samsara (emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release), I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't apply to me personally, but perhaps to the hypothetical sentient universe (Omega Point) of deChardin.

Besides, the current end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it theory of heat death is actually hyperbolic, in the sense that it approaches infinity (singularity), but never reaches it. So, mathematically, all the energy (information) that the universe began with would fade away, but never disappear completely. Nevertheless, I sometimes imagine that all of the information in this world would complete its cycle by returning to its origin in the eternal-infinite Mind of G*D. But, again, I have no idea of what that would have to do with me personally.

Generic EnFormAction can become anything. But the Information that defines me is unique. Of course, G*D could reincarnate my Self-information, but I don't know why that would happen. Does G*D love me personally? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness") — javra

If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point, no. It would still be a part of this creation, this evolving space-time universe. And it would take a miracle to turn it into an eternal deity. So it would be a "being" (a something) instead of "BEING" (no-thing). Perhaps, a very intelligent and powerful being, but not a world-creating deity.

In my thesis, "nothingness" refers only to the absence of real material things. By contrast, "G*D" refers to all possible (potential but un-actualized) entities. For me, that is basically a mathematical concept instead of a religious notion. I don't expect salvation or liberation from cycles of death and rebirth. As far as I know, this life is a one-shot deal.

If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. — javra

I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential).

awareness does not exist. — javra

Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe.

What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. — Wayfarer

Reification : This is how a lot of metaphorical and metaphysical concepts get converted into religious ghosts, spirits, demons, and gods, complete with physical descriptions. For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings.

Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". — Gnomon

Care to explain what you mean by "live option"?

While I admire the enthusiasm for philosophy you appear to have, I disagree with a number of your premises - as best as I can make them out. I, for example, do agree with @Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical.

If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point [...] — Gnomon

No, I wasn't referring to deChardin.

Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe. — Gnomon

Nor as unicorns, bears, or mountains. I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. We were talking about the awareness of lifeforms, right? Meanwhile, since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with.

To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. This, however, is not something I find any value in entertaining.

Care to explain what you mean by "live option"? — Metaphysician Undercover

William James defined a "live choice" by contrast to a "dead choice". Obviously, these are metaphors, and probably used to avoid having to say "a real choice", which might imply an ideal/real distinction. A "live choice" is not forced by some outside power, or even logically necessary, but a spontaneous and preferred option -- a freewill choice.

While I admire the enthusiasm for philosophy you appear to have, I disagree with a number of your premises - as best as I can make them out. I, for example, do agree with Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical. — javra

Apparently you missed the point. I did not mean to imply that Potential was an isolated power with no connection to Actuality. My analogy of a battery was intended to show how potential can be delayed indefinitely until a choice is made to actualize. To elucidate, G*D is presumed to be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that all possibilities must be actualized all the time.

A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). But in practice, there is usually an on/off switch between the positive and negative poles, to allow the user to decide when and where the actualization takes place.That's a real world example, but the logic should apply to the ideal world of an omnipotent deity who exercises freewill in choosing when & where (self-control) to apply her otherwise unlimited power. :smile:

I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. — javra

The distinction was intended as a clarification of application, not as a personal put-down.

since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with. — javra

I didn't say "purposes", but "functions". The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. In folk philosophy, functions are often reified as-if they are invisible agents.

"Transportation" is what an automobile does, its function, not an invisible force pushing things around. "Consciousness" is what a brain does, not a disembodied spirit that operates the body & brain like a homunculus in the head. A lot of people would disagree with that assertion, because they believe in an immortal soul, imprisoned in a mortal body..

To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra

No. I believe that individual beings can arise from universal BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design.

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

It's worth recalling that in the Analogy of the Divided Line, which is the central to Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, that whilst knowledge of maths and geometry (dianoia) is higher than mere opinion or belief (pistis or doxa), it's still not quite so high as knowledge of the ideas (noesis). I am inclined to think that what this refers to has actually been altogether forgotten by modern culture - so, to us, it appears a nothing, a non-entity, nonsense. But that's because we're configured to think in certain ways. This is why critical philosophy really is critical - it calls into question most of what sober and sensible people take for granted. — Wayfarer

Is there a critical basis behind your seeming favouritism towards old Platonic metaphysics? Maybe it has been forgotten for a reason. Maybe it has long since been superseded.

Is there a critical basis behind your seeming favouritism towards old Platonic metaphysics? Maybe it has been forgotten for a reason. Maybe it has long since been superseded. — S

It hasn't been forgotten, because the books are plentiful and many read them. Some people though, do not, and therefore do not learn platonic metaphysics. It hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved

For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings. — Gnomon

Perhaps that's an inevitable consequence of trying to depict such ideas in imaginative form. Many current Hollywood films are overflowing with such imagery.

Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. — Gnomon

But unless you're physicalist, then you will question whether what exists 'in a physical sense' is really the benchmark of 'what is real' - contra the general understanding. After all, physics itself has been unable to locate a truly indivisible particle - well, at least one that can be shown to exist outside the elaborate mathematical model of the 'particle zoo'.

The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. — Gnomon

I think the better model of the rational mind is as 'that which perceives meaning'. There is no way to derive 'meaning' from neurobiology, without already assuming that ability; it's not something one can approach 'from the outside', so to speak, because every attempt to understand the relationship between brain and thinking must be an act of interpretation.

[Platonic metaphysics] hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Quite right.

To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra

No. I believe that beings can arise from BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design. — Gnomon

You lose me a bit with your terminology. All the same, from a previous post:

I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential). — Gnomon

In your system of representations, is "Zero" (non-being) the same as "G*D" (infinite BEING as transcendent potential)? If yes, they why all the comments on how they are different? If no, then how do you not start off with zero/non-being so as to arrive at being?

To be honest, though, the more I reread your posts, the more confused I get about what you're trying to say. Maybe its because I'm rather tired; still, I have a hard time discussing and/or debating something which I cannot make heads or tails out of.

It hasn't been forgotten, because the books are plentiful and many read them. Some people though, do not, and therefore do not learn platonic metaphysics. It hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

But evidently it's not treated quite the same now as it was back in its heyday, which was kind of the point. I wasn't implying that no one reads the books or that we have all of the answers. It has very largely been superseded, because it has lost prominence and a different methodology which has more to do with his pupil, Aristotle, and some who came before him such as Democritus, has largely taken over. And it has taken over for good reason. Just look at all of the progress we've made which we would not have otherwise made if we had remained stuck on the ancient philosophy of Plato.

A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). — Gnomon

Metaphors that contradict the literal meanings used are very confusing. A battery is charged with energy (Joules). The power stored is measured in Watts. When the battery is connected to an electrical circuit, the terminal voltage - or potential difference - 'pushes' the electric current through the circuit.

Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy.

Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion. :wink:

Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion — Pattern-chaser

Since the discussion is metaphysics, I would like to second the implicit ontology in this sentence. I think the primary substance is confusion. Occasionally there are order coalescences of confusion that we call belief and sometimes even knowledge. These are very thick, consistent portions of the monism.

I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists.

The primary substance is confusion.

I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists. — Coben

Earth, water, air and fire = solid, liquid, gas and energy. Not so far from modern science? :wink:

The primary substance is confusion. — Coben

You may be on to something here. :smile: