For me a claim is metaphysical if it cannot make predictions that can be tested empirically. I tend not to think that a proposition even counts as a claim unless it can be so tested, I would rather tend to count it as a metaphorical speculation, but it doesn't really matter what you call it if the distinction between what can be tested and what cannot is clear.

For me a claim is metaphysical if it cannot make predictions that can be tested empirically. — Janus

I assume that Deacon believes that his "absence" theories will someday be testable. At the moment they are supported primarily by circumstantial evidence. That "absence" has real world effects is based on inferring causation from observed effects. But the mechanics of how future potential can cause now effects is a mystery.

METAPHYSICAL EVOLUTION
In my EnFormAction hypothesis, the force "pulling" events toward a future state is not Mechanical or Magical, but Mathematical (hence Metaphysical)-- in the sense that the Creator's intention (ultimate goal) is being implemented physically step-by-step, but the whole system (evolution) is programmed to answer a general question. I know that's hard to grasp, but a software programmer does the same thing by devising a mathematical path from specific initial conditions to final (optimal) values that are not specified, hence unknown. This is how Evolutionary Programming works. Ironically, the Programmer (in both artificial and natural evolution) will be surprised by the answer. Does that mean the Creator is not omniscient? Yes, in a narrow sense, but I prefer to call it open-minded, and creative. :smile:

Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary Computation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I can't see how Deacon's thesis will ever be testable, but you never know, I guess. I think it is just a way of looking at things that you might think is more explanatory of the general situation as we experience and understand it. So, it could be favored on account of its general coherence with human experience, or rejected if not. I'm not too keen on the idea of a creator; I think it is an anthropomorphic notion, whether it is merely a deistic or a full-blown theistic one.

I can't see how Deacon's thesis will ever be testable, — Janus

Deacon's notion of "the power of absence" may never be testable via empirical methods, but it can be theoretically useful, just as many spooky effects in physics can predict some strange behaviors (quantum entanglement, black holes, dark matter, chaos theory, etc). And we can visualize an Attractor mathematically with computer graphics. In Chaos theory, some system values tend to evolve toward a point in empty space as-if they were being pulled by an unknown force. Unfortunately for the scientists, "as-if" is a metaphysical question, where "as-is" is an empirical physical fact.
Attractors : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

One mathematical term for a living organism is "dissipative structure". Regarding the "motivation of attractors", the link above says : "Dynamical systems in the physical world tend to arise from dissipative systems: if it were not for some driving force, the motion would cease." Deacon thinks that the statistical inter-relationships of dissipative structures are the key to the emergence of Life from non-living matter.
Dissipative Structures : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Note : see Glossary at bottom of article

I'm not too keen on the idea of a creator; I think it is an anthropomorphic notion, whether it is merely a deistic or a full-blown theistic one. — Janus

Due to my experience with fundamentalist Christian religion, I also became leery of all hear-say stories of invisible gods with human-like behaviors. But when I began developing my Enformationism worldview, I found that some kind of First Cause or "Enformer" was a necessary axiom in order to make sense of how the world works via enforming forces.

If it makes you feel any better, my notion of G*D is definitely not anthropomorphic, but essentially Mathematical or Logical. But lacking any relatable Physical imagery, the notion of a Metaphysical deity is much more difficult for non-philosophers to imagine. That's why even Monotheists have needed some physical idols (such as images of a man on a cross) to help them relate to a deity who exists both inside and outside the material (space-time) world.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. — S

It's sad that I have to tell you this, but this is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU, S seems to be confident that empirical science has the answer to all relevant questions. But that depends on what you consider relevant. For philosophers, Metaphysics is relevant.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The September issue of Scientific American magazine is titled : Truth, Lies, & Uncertainty, Searching for reality in unreal times. All of the articles cast doubt on the infallibility of reductive science. But one in particular might be instructive for Mr. S. George Musser's article is entitled : Virtual Reality, How close can physics bring us to a truly fundamental understanding of the world? Another term for "virtual reality" is Meta-Physics. He says, "The deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate. . . . Physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs." In other words, Quantum Physics is now struggling with Metaphysical questions.

If it makes you feel any better, my notion of G*D is definitely not anthropomorphic, but essentially Mathematical or Logical. — Gnomon

I really don't mind anyone's conception of God. I don't believe in a God, but if I were going to I would believe in a personal God. I don't think deistic or mathematical Gods are worth having, whereas a personal God could change your life (and hopefully for the better).

As to the need for a "first cause" I think that is just an artifact of linear human thinking.

As to the need for a "first cause" I think that is just an artifact of linear human thinking. — Janus

That's another way of saying "an artifact of human reasoning". Which was my intent, as opposed to nonlinear intuition or faith. This impersonal god-model could change your life, by changing your worldview, from sycophantic supplication or passive resgnation, to Stoic character and philosophical wisdom. :smile:

PS__I don't believe in G*D. It's just an axiom for interpreting the vicissitudes of life.

That's another way of saying "an artifact of human reasoning". Which was my intent, as opposed to nonlinear intuition or faith. This impersonal god-model could change your life, by changing your worldview, from sycophantic supplication, to Stoic character & freedom. — Gnomon

Not all reasoning must be based on the kind of linear thinking that demands a first cause, though.
The impersonal god model seems to be the same, for all intents and purposes, as the no-god model, so a god is not needed at all for "stoic character and freedom".

All I was saying was that for those who need a god, an impersonal god will not cut the mustard whereas a personal god will be a difference that makes a difference, and may make a profound, transformative difference. Some people want to follow; I think that is a fact of life. :wink:

Having said that the "gods" of Hinduism and Buddhism, even though impersonal, do seem to make a difference, but I think that is because the position there is that our true natures are one with God. We all are Buddhas, and Atman is Brahman. These Gods, are not impersonal, mathematical gods, but the fount of all wisdom for the faithful.

Not all reasoning must be based on the kind of linear thinking that demands a first cause, though. — Janus

True. But I tried the other kind of "reasoning", which results in the babel of world religions.

The impersonal god model seems to be the same, for all intents and purposes, as the no-god model, so a god is not needed at all for "stoic character and freedom". — Janus

True. But as I said, it's a scientific axiom for philosophical reasoning about the world, not a faith for making "a profound transformative difference." If you want a "transformative difference" get a baby . . . or a dog. :smile:

True. But I tried the other kind of "reasoning", which results in the babel of world religions. — Gnomon

Not all scientific thinking, or even much of it all seems to rely on the notion of "first cause" though.

True. But as I said, it's a scientific axiom for philosophical reasoning about the world, not a faith for making "a profound transformative difference." If you want a "transformative difference" get a baby . . . or a dog. :smile: — Gnomon

I never looked after a baby, but I have kept dogs, and when the last one died, I decided to profoundly transform my life by refraining from keeping any more. There I was reasoning from the premise, not of first cause, but of last cause. :joke:

Seriously, though I think we can reason philosophically ad infinitum without ever entertaining the idea of a first cause.

Physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs. — Gnomon

The modern trend is for a metaphysics of becoming (process) to supplant or uproot the traditional metaphysics of being. There are numerous reasons for this shift, Hegel/Marx, Einstein/Whitehead, for example.

Not all scientific thinking, or even much of it all seems to rely on the notion of "first cause" though. — Janus

True. But most scientific thinking is looking through a microscope for prior proximate causes, such as the billiard ball that impacted the one you are focused on. Philosophical thinking though looks beyond the local effects and asks about the ultimate cause : in billiards, it's the intention of the pool shooter to cause the 5 ball to go into the corner pocket.

Cosmologists are philosopher/scientists who consider the universe as a whole rather than as a collection of unrelated parts. They have tracked causation (energy exchanges) all the way back to the "beginning of time". That's as far back as the physical evidence goes. So most accept the Big Bang as the original "cause" of everything that occurs in space-time. But some are not satisfied with the pool cue answer, and ask what then caused the stick (Big Bang) to strike?

Since we have no physical evidence to go by, we must use logical inference to fill-in the blanks. Reductionist scientists simply fill-in the "a priori" ellipsis with the assumption of "more of the same" (physics) all the way back to infinity. But holistic thinkers tend to look for a metaphysical answer, such as the intention of some ultimate "buck stops here" First Cause. That's the difference between pragmatic Science, and theoretical Philosophy. Metaphysical theories have no "cash value" for those who are only interested in short-term return on their investment of research and cogitation.

Seriously, though I think we can reason philosophically ad infinitum without ever entertaining the idea of a first cause — Janus

Certainly. But the human brain, with experience only of the physical world, has no intuitive grasp of unbounded concepts such as "Infinity" or "Eternity". So most people who think beyond the here & now, tend to reason in terms of turtles-all-the-way-down. :smile:

Fortunately, the human mind has evolved to go beyond the space-time limitations of physics into the imaginative realm of metaphysics. But imagination needs to be grounded in physics in order to avoid veering off into the realm of fantasy. Which is why the philosopher-pioneers begin their theoretical explorations of Terra Incognita from the established harbor of pragmatic Science. Meanwhile, the contented settlers can live their whole lives without ever entertaining a thought of ultimate causes.

Turtles-all-the-way-down : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

In a phrase, Metaphysics is : Theories about theories.

The next question could be, are any of those 'theories' probabilities(?).


As you were.... .

All I was saying was that for those who need a god, an impersonal god will not cut the mustard — Janus

I am well aware that the majority of people will not be interested in an abstract "philosopher's god". Some will prefer a Father god, who brings rain for crops and defends them from evil. Others will prefer a Mother god, who gives unconditional love and succors the afflicted. A few capitalists will hold out for a Prosperity god who brings them luck in their financial affairs. And probably most will want some kind of Santa Claus god, who fulfills their wishes for all kinds of goodies.

That's OK with me. To each his own. My G*D does not require faith or evangelism. My G*D is personal for me, in that it fills a god-shaped hole in my heart, with information (Enformation) to make sense of the ins & outs & ups & downs of the world.

The modern trend is for a metaphysics of becoming (process) to supplant or uproot the traditional metaphysics of being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Most world religions view the world as beginning in a high point as a Garden of Eden or a Golden Age, from which we are now degenerating into corruption. For them, the only answer is divine intervention, or a kingdom of heaven, or the escape hatch of nirvana.

Yet, counter-intuitively, I see evidence that the world began as a seed, and is evolving into a great oak. We are now in the process of becoming something more and better -- I can't say what exactly, But perfection (Omega Point??) is still a long way off. So, my mid-term metaphysics is to read the script of emerging nature, and to play my minor role in what we are becoming.

But holistic thinkers tend to look for a metaphysical answer, such as the intention of some ultimate "buck stops here" First Cause. That's the difference between pragmatic Science, and theoretical Philosophy. Metaphysical theories have no "cash value" for those who are only interested in short-term return on their investment of research and cogitation. — Gnomon

Whatever might be thought to have given rise to the Big Bang, and be giving rise to the world of phenomena, for example the apeiron, the "quantum foam" or "quantum vacuum", could be thought to be "first cause", but I see no need to anthropomorphize it as any kind of intentional entity.

So most people who think beyond the here & now, tend to reason in terms of turtles-all-the-way-down. — Gnomon

For me beyond the "here and now" is simply the inconceivable. We can project whatever ideas we have gleaned from the "here and now" onto it; but I think we do so inappropriately. So for me the idea of a creator is an anthropomorphization; a projection of ourselves as creators writ large. The creator might be thought to be impersonal, but if it is thought as in any sense intentional, then it is an anthropomorphic projection. If I was going to adhere to any inappropriate anthropomorphic projection at all I would make it worthwhile, make it satisfy my emotional needs, go all the way, and imagine God as a personal, loving being.

That's OK with me. To each his own. My G*D does not require faith or evangelism. My G*D is personal for me, in that it fills a god-shaped hole in my heart, with information (Enformation) to make sense of the ins & outs & ups & downs of the world. — Gnomon

Sure, different projections suit different people I guess. Whatever floats your boat will do just fine.

but I see no need to anthropomorphize it as any kind of intentional entity. — Janus

I began my philosophical journey as an Agnostic. But I couldn't avoid the intuition of intention behind evolution. Unless the Big Bang was an astronomically unlikely random accident as many scientists prefer to believe, there must have been some kind of Intention (tendency) to create direction out of randomness (order out of disorder).

Epicurus and Lucretius called that necessary directional impetus "the Swerve", but ironically assumed that it was a fortuitous accident caused by the random jostling of atoms (now known as "quantum fluctuations"). I was also forced by simple logic to assume that some outside force caused the Big Bang to become a progressive evolving organism, instead of a dissipative explosion in space. There is no pattern in pure randomness. Without an imposed signal, your TV screen will randomly jitter & jostle & fluctuate forever. You may occasionally see a brief fluctuation that looks like something; but no ongoing organization like evolution.

Evolution is characterized by both Randomness and Selection -- the disorder (freedom) provides a variety of options, and the tendency toward order (intention) makes a choice (selection) between alternative possibilities, converting them into actualities. This is how computers work, and the selection criteria are provided by the Programmer. So Intention (purpose) is an assumed property of my axiomatic First Cause. As you implied before, an abstract do-nothing deity with no purpose would not be worthy of the name "G*D".

My use of the word "intention" is a metaphor, from our experience as goal-seeking humans, for something beyond our comprehension. As a projection of human mental teleology, it is inherently anthropomorphic; but it refers to an abstract concept, not a person.

The Swerve : "The second reason for thinking that atoms swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and 'break the bonds of fate,'." https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

For me beyond the "here and now" is simply the inconceivable. — Janus

Speaking of "beyond comprehension", projecting our knowledge of here & now into the unknown realms of possibility is something people do all the time. For example, the concepts of "zero" and "infinity" are literally inconceivable, except for the human talent for analogy. Similarly, imagining invisible agencies (gods, spirits) is a common tactic for explaining mysteries that are otherwise inconceivable. As I said before, my "G*D" concept is a metaphor (and an axiom) that allows me to make sense of the role of Information in the real world that is otherwise "beyond comprehension". That's what philosophers do when faced with mysteries. Even pragmatic scientists are forced to resort to imaginative metaphors in their quest to understand the fringes of reality (e.g. quantum fields are not real). G*D is not real.

I began my philosophical journey as an Agnostic. But I couldn't avoid the intuition of intention behind evolution. Unless the Big Bang was an astronomically unlikely random accident as many scientists prefer to believe, there must have been some kind of Intention (tendency) to create direction out of randomness (order out of disorder). — Gnomon

The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. Ervin Lazlo suggests that all the knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" and equates with the quantum vacuum or the apeiron. There is no "intentional knower", or "original purpose" in that field and the knowledge is accumulated from the evolution of the manifest realm; "nothing remians and yet nothing is lost". (Sphongle)

I seem to remember that he posits this comes about by quantum entanglement, This would also explain why people sometimes have 'past life memories' and if the eternalist idea of the Universe is accepted, it could explain why it is possible that people can have clairvoyant experiences.

But then you say this:

My use of the word "intention" is a metaphor, from our experience as goal-seeking humans, for something beyond our comprehension. As a projection of human mental teleology, it is inherently anthropomorphic; but it refers to an abstract concept, not a person. — Gnomon

which I can kind of agree with, but then I see no need to speak of intention at all, and I can't see how the metaphor, the notion of intention, makes sense in a context of thinking of pure mathematics or abstraction. Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, " the Rational is the Real" or something like that?

The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. — Janus

Then you would be in step with the majority of materialist scientists, who see evolution as a "random walk". But I see evolution as a "hockey stick" path of upward emergence. I won't go into the technical details, but which pattern you "see" will determine your position on Teleology.
Random Walk : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/random%20walk.png
Hockey Stick Path : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/hockey%20stick%20graph.jpg

knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" — Janus

Akashic and Quantum "Fields" are mathematical abstractions. And nobody knows how Quantum Entanglement works. So you could attribute any sort of powers to them, and rest assured that you wouldn't be proven wrong. Only the First Cause is logically necessary to explain everything in the evolving universe, born in an act of cosmic creation. That Creative Cause was either an accident or intentional. Which kind of cause you "see" will determine your position on Intention.

Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, — Janus

Yes. Something like that. But I call it EnFormAction because of the universal role of Information in evolution.

I see no need to speak of intention at all — Janus

If evolution was completely random, with no directional patterns at all, then there would be no need to speak of intention. But, if evolution appears to display tendencies (directional change), then the cause of that consistent non-random behavior would be an intention (goal-directed purpose). In the real world, perfect randomness is never seen, because there is an inherent countervailing tendency toward order. Indeed, the predictability of that emergent order is the foundation of Science. So, the question remains, what caused the "swerve" from random Chaos to orderly Cosmos; from Entropy to Enformy?

Random : lack of pattern or predictability in events; does not follow an intelligible pattern
Tend : regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.; go or move in a particular direction.

All of what you say is fair enough, but it is no less speculative, and I think even even more so, than quantum and akashic fields. At least the conjectures concerning quantum fields are testable. I see no evidence of teleology in evolution. Thinking in terms of akashic or morphogenic or quantum fields allows for the emergence of teleonomic direction and the laws of nature. Charles Sanders Peirce posited that the laws of nature are emergent, the resultant of acquired habit. Alfred North Whitehead posited something along similar lines (his God evolves along with the Universe). None of these metaphysical theories are testable, so which one you favor will come down to personal preference in the final analysis.

It's not really the standard usage of the term, so I wouldn't offer it as a descriptive definition, but I've been thinking recently that it could be usefully repurposed in a way that tracks loosely with it's history to use "metaphysics" to mean the parts of philosophy that underlie the physical sciences; so philosophy concerned with reality and knowledge, as the meaning of descriptive sentences, ontology, philosophy of mind, epistemology, philosophy of education, etc. And in parallel, we could use "metaethics" to mean the parts of philosophy underlying a parallel stack of ethical sciences that I advocate for, so "metaethics" in this sense meaning philosophy concerned with morality and justice, as in not only the meaning of prescriptive sentences, but also purpose, will, duty, governance, etc (and those "ethical sciences" stacking from something like applied ethics through a variety of economics and political science topics).

Mostly I'm tempted to use it for that because there seems to be no other umbrella word for the rest of philosophy that's not related to morality and justice. Back in school they had a "core philosophy" subtrack of the major and something like a "morality and justice" subtrack (I forget the exact name), and even then it bugged me that there was no better name for the not-moral stuff as a whole.

I made a similar suggestion early in this thread:

Just as metaethics is the study of what metaphysical, epistemological, phenomenological and semantic assumptions and commitments are entailed by ethical judgements, I would say metaphysics is the study of what ontological, epistemological, phenomenological and semantic assumptions and commitments ground the understandings and judgements of physics.

It's nuthin' to do with woo...for those kinds of feelings there's mystical writing and poetry. — Janus

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm new here (that was my first post besides in the introduction thread) so I'm a little unclear on what the norms here are. Am I expected to have read through the entirety of a thread before commenting? I've been kind of intimidated trying to find a thread to start commenting on since most of them seem to be pages and pages long already.

All of what you say is fair enough, but it is no less speculative, and I think even even more so, than quantum and akashic fields. — Janus

A First Cause of the evolving world is indeed speculative, but it is also logically necessary (if the world has not existed eternally). Quantum Fields are not empirical observations, but logical constructs to explain a variety of paradoxical observations. Like G*D, Fields are not defined in terms of material properties, but in terms of immaterial functions. So my hypothesis of G*D is scientific in that sense. It is intended to explain how Information (an Ideal concept) is so ubiquitous in the universe : i.e. the world is an idea in the mind of G*D (Idealism).

The modern usage of the 20th century mystical notion of an "Akashic Field" -- a pseudo-Hindu word for "aether" or "vacuum" -- is commonly defined in terms of a "Quantum Vacuum", which as I said above is a hypothetical logical construct that does not exist as a real thing. This emptiness is supposed to "record" events in its "memory". But the mystics can't explain how nothingness could record anything, except for an implicit magical deus ex machina, similar to Maxwell's metaphorical "daemon" organizing atoms of a gas. It was a thought experiment to illustrate a statistical concept, and not intended to be taken literally. But mystics tend to take a lot of metaphors and analogies literally.

If the Akashic Field was presented as the First Cause of the Big Bang, it would be equivalent to G*D or Brahman. Does anyone claim that an eternal Akashic Field created the real world from its infinite metaphysical memory?

Maxwell's Daemon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

"metaphysics" to mean the parts of philosophy that underlie the physical sciences — Pfhorrest

In my Enformationism thesis, I use the term "Meta-Physics" in a similar manner to your suggestion.

"Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns).
Forces are causal relationships between things.
Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives)."

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

If the Akashic Field was presented as the First Cause of the Big Bang, it would be equivalent to G*D or Brahman. Does anyone claim that an eternal Akashic Field created the real world from its infinite metaphysical memory? — Gnomon

The quantum vacuum is, if it is real, not merely a hypothetical logical construct. It is understood to be, not actually, but virtually or potentially, real. You could say it is the unmanifest origin of the manifest realm.

Lazlo speculates that actual events are "recorded" in the akashic filed, and that the akashic field in-forms actuality. This is not any form of idealism, though; the akashic field is not a conscious entity. Quantum theory does not posit that actual events are recorded in the quantum filed, as far as I know, but the quantum field, as the unmanifest, is understood to in-form the actual. If you want to know more about the akashic field hypothesis then you should read Lazlo. Bohm's thesis of the "implicate order' might be worth a look for you too.

Am I expected to have read through the entirety of a thread before commenting? — Pfhorrest

I don't know; I wouldn't say "expected". It is tedious reading through most threads, as much of the content is not very interesting, so I usually don't do that myself. Consequently, I have sometimes made comments which repeat what others have already said.

I was just pointing out that my comment agreed (more or less) with yours, not making a point that I had said it first or that you should not have repeated the same point. Saying "early in the thread" was more just a pointer in case you wanted to read the other comments nearby to gain context. :smile:

then you should read Lazlo. Bohm's thesis — Janus

I've read books by Laszlo and Bohm, Their ideas and speculations are similar to mine, but they focus more on the spooky fringes of Quantum Physics, while I try to stay closer to more mundane Information Theory, which is the basis of my thesis.

Insofar as you posit an intentional entity as first cause and director, I would say you have moved well beyond information theory, and into spookier regions than Lazlo and Bohm. :grin: