Or predict future empirical observations, such as the decay chains of the Higgs boson involving W bosons (which are virtual particles). — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Virtual particles are theoretical objects that are used to make logical, not yet factual, predictions. Both the particles, and the prophesied future are imaginary until actualized in the real world. :smile:

Predictions :
While a causal hypothesis is a proposed explanation, a prediction is the expected result of a test that is derived, by deduction, from a hypothesis (or theory). The expected result is a logical consequence of assuming that the hypothesis (or theory) being tested is correct.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057150.pdf

Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. — Gnomon

I think the distinction you're after is potential energy, which it has by virtue of its position in spacetime, and its mechanical energy, such as momentum and spin. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly! According to Einstein, the potential energy of a rock (uranium for example) can be converted into actual energy by deconstructing (disintegrating) its atoms. :nerd:

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Yes. Virtual particles are theoretical objects that are used to make logical, not yet factual, predictions. — Gnomon

They're used to make empirical predictions. How much more factual do you want?

Both the particles, and the prophesied future are imaginary until actualized in the real world — Gnomon

Well then why pick on virtual particles? That's all of science. If you can't predict something with it, it ain't science.

The expected result is a logical consequence of assuming that the hypothesis (or theory) being tested is correct. — Gnomon

Look up falsification instead. One assumes the theory is wrong. You cannot confirm a theory, only disprove it empirically.

According to Einstein, the potential energy of a rock (uranium for example) can be converted into actual energy by deconstructing (disintegrating) its atoms. :nerd: — Gnomon

Potential energy is still energy. You can weigh it, for instance. Again, the distinction is potential and mechanical, not potential and actual. The latter is your ideosyncratic terminology.

He is a panpsychic: "Koch has come around to the view that all forms of life — from apes, dogs and dolphins all the way down to microbes — possess a modicum of consciousness. — Pop

I respect Koch's authority in neuroscience, but I disagree with his philosophical interpretation of the universality of Consciousness**. That's because I reserve the "C" term for the only psyche we know directly : self-consciousness. All other forms of information processing are hypothetical. Panpsychism has the "virtue" of minimizing the importance of humanity. And a bit of humility in science & philosophy is necessary to avoid over-generalizing ideas (abstractions) beyond their proper scope. On the other hand, I assume there is a hierarchy of Consciousness, with atoms at the bottom of the pyramid, and humanity at the peak -- but with more evolution to come. :cool:

** For me, Consciousness is a highly-evolved form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In my thesis, Information (the power to enform, to cause change of form) is universal. Its best known form is ubiquitous causal Energy, which Physics views as the most essential aspect of our world : no energy, no matter, no minds, no consciousness.

Note -- Panpsychism, as a belief system, should lead, not only to Vegetarianism, but to Inedia, or Breathairianism. One example of such extreme views is the Jain religion in India, where people believe that humans could be reincarnated as insects, so they cover their faces in order to avoid inhaling gnats.

A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
___Wiki

Overgeneralize :
draw a conclusion or make a statement about (something) that is more general than is justified by the available evidence.
___Oxford

Philosophy, think about it
Nothing exists unless there is someone or something to think about it.
Even insects THINK, hey there is a bird, if I don't run, oops too late!
Algae, bad environment, gotta move, oops too late!
Clouds, too much (moisture,pressure), gotta move over there, oops rain.
Science or any subject can not exist without logic or reasoning!
Dreams and hallucinations are the only things that we believe without doubting.
We seek vague consensus in our reality, for there is no complete consensus on anything.

So Logic is more like a mental Theory about Reality, than a material Thing in the real world — Gnomon

Logic is empirical

A field of study must study something. Ornithology studies birds, aesthetics studies aesthetics, psychology studies the mind, physics studies physics. Similarly, logic studies logic.

As with the word "aesthetics", the word "logic" has two distinct meanings. First as a verb, a doing word, "to study". Second as a noun, the thing that is studied.

Logic (as a verb) is the study of the logical relationships between propositions, leading to the acceptance of one proposition (the conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises). A proposition is a combination of nouns and verbs that is either true or false, such as "all elephants are grey".

The truth or falsity of a proposition is determined by the T-sentence, such that
"all elephants are grey" is true iff all elephants are grey. The T-sentence sets out the equivalence between the word and the world. Therefore the propositions that logic (as a verb) studies have an equivalence through the T-sentence to facts in the world.

When looking at the world, we directly observe logic (as a noun) in the world. For example, we observe a particular rock as a single thing, something that is itself and not something else. We observe the same characteristic in other things, a bird, a tree, etc. IE, we directly observe the idea that x = x. This idea is an fact in the world discovered empirically.

1) As logic (as a verb) studies relationships of propositions, and as propositions have an equivalence with facts in the world, therefore, logic (as a verb) studies facts in the world.
2) As logic (as a verb) studies logic (as a noun), therefore, logic (as a noun) are facts in the world.
3) As facts in the world are empirically discovered, logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered.

In conclusion, i) logic (as a verb) is the study of something and logic (as a noun) is that which is being studied ii) logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered . In answer to Hilary Putnam's question in 1968, "Is logic empirical ?", the answer is yes.

However, I don't understand the mechanism for teleological "intention". — RussellA

Teleology is an inference from observation of tendencies in natural patterns. If you watch a landslide, the only "intention" (tendency) you will see is that of gravity. Which dictates that an object with no means of self-movement will be caused to move by the outside force of gravitational "attraction". In this isolated case, we don't say that gravity is an "intentional" agent, but it is a "causal" agent. However, if you add-up all the uni-directional patterns in physics, you may notice that the current state (pattern) of causal change points back to what cosmologists call a "Singularity", where the causal lines disappear into the black-hole (metaphor) of Infinity.

Since everything that happened after the Big Bang -- including the emergence of flesh & blood intentional agents -- was fore-ordained (programmed) in that dimensionless point (no extension, only intention) , it would be reasonable to look for an intentional agent (outside force) to do the programming of the "mechanism" (evolution). The only other reasonable conclusion would be that a random confluence of atoms, accidentally caused a functioning world -- complete with life & mind & intentional agents -- to appear, as-if from nowhere. That's what you call a "Cosmic Coincidence" or a "miracle". So, which is more reasonable : coincidence or intention, to explain the progressive patterns of Nature? :smile:

Teleology and the intentions of supernatural agents :
These results are consistent with an intention-based theory of teleology, and help to reconcile the finding of a positive relationship between teleological endorsement and belief in supernatural agents, with the those of an enduring teleological bias.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32155580/
Note 1 -- by the same reasoning, you could conclude that those who do not endorse the notion of super-natural agents, are those with an enduring anti-teleological bias. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion, not fact. In my case, I am open to the notion of pre-big-bang agency, but it's not an article of faith. Is a consistent tendency in a specific direction (arrow of time) a sign of random coincidence, or goal-directed intention?
Note 2 -- a fireworks explosion has no inherent ordering mechanism (laws). So it's a self-destructive flash. But cosmic evolution shows evidence of on-going self-organization. So it's an enduring constructive evolution toward some unknown (to us) ultimate state.

Tracing current cosmological pattern back to its origin :

They're used to make empirical predictions. How much more factual do you want? — Kenosha Kid

Those hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points do allow predictions that can be empirically tested. But the "objects" themselves are Theoretical, not Empirical ; Possible, not Factual. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with hypothesis or conjecture per se. :cool:

Potential energy is still energy. You can weigh it, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Potential Energy is Virtual Energy. And unhatched eggs are virtual chickens. :joke:

Logic is empirical — RussellA

OK. You have made your semantic point. But my semantic point is that "Probability" is Virtual, not Actual ; Potential, not Real ; Future, not Here & Now. :smile:


In conclusion, theoretical probability is based on the assumption that outcomes have an equal chance of occurring while empirical probability is based on the observations of an experiment. There are two other types of probabilities and these are axiomatic probability and subjective probability.
https://medium.com/@emmabudu/the-difference-between-empirical-and-theoretical-probability-d42938aa8b7

Probability tells us how often some event will happen after many repeated trials. This topic covers theoretical, experimental, compound probability, permutations,​ ...
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/probability-library