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

Where would you put metal on that scale?

Solid.

Why not in between solid and liquid?

Thank you. I actually like it. It's a form of idealism.

Now you're getting into traditional chinese medicine.

How so?
Metal like oil isn't distinctly solid, but amorphous.

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 It has very largely been superseded, because it has lost prominence and a different methodology which has more to do with his pupil, Aristotle, and some who came before him such as Democritus,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. — S

It wasn't prominent though. Socrates, and Plato, were two people who expressed dissatisfaction with the sophistry which was prominent at the time. Aristotle attempted to resolve some of the problems raised by Plato, so he has been often quoted. Now Aristotle has dropped from the forefront of metaphysics. And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics.

It appears you've misinterpreted my query.

Well, yes. But it seemed like you framed my first response as weighing in on solid/liquid issues. I wasn't. I just went back to my original reaction but via an image. There be other people who have made metal a fundamental substance, but the only ones I've encountered are those in TCM.

Fair enough.

Purpose of the question was about dealing with amorphous solids, as metaphysics is amorphous physics. Understanding metal then would be of vast significance, I think.

It wasn't prominent though. Socrates, and Plato, were two people who expressed dissatisfaction with the sophistry which was prominent at the time. Aristotle attempted to resolve some of the problems raised by Plato, so he has been often quoted. Now Aristotle has dropped from the forefront of metaphysics. And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well obviously nothing is prominent until it becomes so, and clearly it became so. Plato founded an academy which lasted hundreds of years. He is considered by many to be the most influential of philosophers. And I only brought up Aristotle because he has more in common with the prevalent methodology of critical examination than Plato, which gives reason to question why anyone would show favouritism towards Platonic metaphysics when it's outdated and has fallen out of fashion, so to speak. And also left unaddressed was my point about the impressive results which have been brought about through modern methods which ancient Platonic philosophy would have no hope of coming anywhere close to matching. Clearly Aristotle had more of the right idea in the way that he approached learning about the world, and perhaps doubly so for Democritus, who was way ahead of his time. What good is some allegory about a cave? That's probably done more harm than good. And being better than the sophists isn't all that impressive in the bigger picture.

You lose me a bit with your terminology. — javra

I feel your pain. :worry:

Since Enformationism is a new way of thinking about the world, I was forced to coin a lot of neologisms to avoid the historical baggage of older terms. A.N. Whitehead (Process and Reality) also coined a lot of new terms and used some old words with new meanings. But he didn't provide a list of those novel ideas for reference. So, although his ideas seemed to make sense in general, I found that following his argument was very difficult due to the ambiguity of terminology. That's why I have created a glossary of Enformationism terminology on a separate website. But if you were really interested in understanding the scientific & philosophical concept that "Information is the essence of reality" in more detail, it would be best to begin at the beginning by reading the whole thesis.

Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

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? — javra

I wouldn't worry about such hypotheticals. I don't know any more about G*D than you do. I just have a different way of thinking about G*D.

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'. — Wayfarer

That's why I prefer to use "physical" or "metaphysical" instead of "real" or "ideal". Plato asserted that his ideal Forms were the true reality, but that does not compute for most people who equate "physical" with "real". In my thesis, Information is both real and ideal; both physical and metaphysical. So I think of it as the intermediary between reality and ideality.

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. — Wayfarer

True.

Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy. — Pattern-chaser

The battery metaphor is an analogy between things that are physically different, but functionally similar.

. It was not intended to be taken literally. Since no-one knows what Energy is*, we must define it in terms of what it does. In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. Does that clarify your confusion?

* Energy is a form of Information. But that's a whole 'nother can of metaphysical worms.

The primary substance is confusion. — Coben

Ha! That's getting deep into metaphysics. And off-topic.

But from the perspective of Enformationism, I think of Greek Chaos as a field of randomness (entropy), like a TV screen with no signal (ordering energy). And Cosmos is the result of applying organizing information (signal) to disorderly static. So in that sense, confusion was indeed the original state of the world, and the "substance" (raw material) from which the Enformer created our little on-going program, like a TV screen with a meaningful image. Is that clear as chaos?

And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. — Gnomon

Energy = Voltage x Current x time

:chin:

Sounds a bit like the realist (hindu) version of my idealist structure.

But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Metaphysics is "weird" only in the sense that Religion and Science are weird : they are based on invisible intangible spooky forces or agents (like Energy & Gravity & Magnetism).
“Metaphysics is an evaluation of the more encompassing abstract paradigms. Metaphysics is essentially on a par with religion because of its low possibility of provability. Besides for religion’s diminutive degree of empiricism and logic, the only major difference between the two is that religion entails behavior modification. Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value.”
Dave Davidson
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-existence-of-Metaphysics

But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Nuh.

I, for example, do agree with Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical. — javra

Yes, we have logical possibility and real potential. You could say real potential is actual in the sense that it is, in at least some sense, active; it can activate, bring about, change, future actualities. But what is possible - potentiality - is not yet actual; we don't want to lose that distinction.

Metaphysics is essentially on a par with religion because of its low possibility of provability. Besides for religion’s diminutive degree of empiricism and logic, the only major difference between the two is that religion entails behavior modification. Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value.” — Gnomon

"Provability" only in the narrow sense of being able to be validated with respect to empirical observation; in other words, shown in the third person. But science itself now has major conflicts over cosmological questions like string theory and the related multiverse conjecture, and at issue is exactly the same question - whether these can ever be validated or falsified empirically. (Most critics say 'no', most advocates are saying 'it doesn't matter, mathematical elegance is sufficient justification'.)

What is needed in all this is an appreciation of the meaning of metaphysics in the context of the philosophical tradition. That is why, I suspect, classics scholars (which I am conspicuously not) will have insights into the meaning of the texts that us hoi polloi cannot and do not. But at least we should have the good grace to acknowledge that there really might be something there we genuinely don't understand, instead of saying 'well, it's like religion'.

we have logical possibility and real potential. — Janus

As I have pointed out, late in life Heisenberg revived the Aristotelian 'res potentia' to describe the nature of sub-atomic phenomena. He said they were right on the borderline between existence and possibility. And that is hard to accomodate if we expect 'existence' to have a univocal meaning, i.e. something either exists or it doesn't exist. What he was arguing is that these 'entities' actually seem to exhibit 'degrees of existence'. And personally I find the concept of 'degrees of existence' philosophically significant.

I don't think logical possibility is in any sense (necessarily) real potential; in other words, just because something is logically possible I don't see why we should think that gives the possibility some "degree of existence".

I think you linked this article:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

In that article an alternative "dualism" is presented, against the traditional dualism of res extensa and res cogitans, comprising res extensa and res potentia, being the "macro" and quantum "realms" respectively.

That seems more in accordance with what science tells us.

↪Gnomon
Sounds a bit like the realist (hindu) version of my idealist structure. — Coben

No. I am both Realist and Idealist (both Physics and Metaphysics). The extension of my Enformationism thesis is the BothAnd Blog.

Blog : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/

In that article an alternative "dualism" is presented, against the traditional dualism of res extensa and res cogitans, comprising res extensa and res potentia, being the "macro" and quantum "realms" respectively. — Janus

It also says:

At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.

which was very much the point at issue in the above conversation about reality of potentials.

Well, yes of course the "common" conception of reality is too limited if it denies real potential. Aligning the reality of potential or possibility with the non-spatio-temporal reality of the quantum is a neat move. It's not new, though; different variations had already been proposed by David Bohm, Ervin Lazlo, and others.

So, yes, these "potential realities" do not "exist in spacetime" rather they give rise to the actuality that is spacetime. This is also in line with what @apokrisis used to go on about; the idea of the "apeiron" and all that. For another take on this idea see also Incomplete Nature by Terence Deacon.

Anyone else read Philosophy Now?

A neat argument that much of modern theoretical physics is actually bad metaphysics.

:up: looks spot on so far, but I'm supposed to be working.....back later...