If the explanation you are considering is a physical one then there is nothing wrong with it, — Janus
That kind of question is not answerable in any verifiable or falsifiable manner in principle.. — Janus
The topic of this "philosophical discussion" is "what IS metaphysics", not "what is the correct or conventional definition of an obsolete Aristotelian concept". We agreed earlier that your definition and mine are different. And that's OK. I'm not arguing over conventional usage of the term, but attempting to show that there is a different interpretation of Aristotle's usage, with a practical application to 21st century Reality.Your idea of "meta-physics" may have value in philosophical discussions, but it isn't "metaphysics" as we normally use the word. We've been through all this before. I don't think we'll get anywhere going through it again. — T Clark
We have not (all of us, or most of us) agreed as to what metaphysics even is. — Manuel
Ideas are abstractions and have no material form. But they can be Causal, as in the Aryan Myth that motivated millions of people to join in a world war, and a holocaust, with devastating physical effects. — Gnomon
The topic of this "philosophical discussion" is "what IS metaphysics", not "what is the correct or conventional definition of an obsolete Aristotelian concept". — Gnomon
How could a non-physical explanation ever be tested? — Janus
How can something non-physical exist? :
The mind can conceive of objects that clearly have no physical counterpart. Such objects include concepts such as numbers, mathematical sets and functions, and philosophical relations and properties. If such objects are indeed entities, they are entities that exist only mind itself, not within space and time. — Gnomon
How could a non-physical explanation ever be tested? — Janus
I think scientifically educated people will find it very difficult to honestly believe in things for which there can be no definitive evidence. — Janus
You are mistaken, my friend. As I noted in my previous post, I don't do woo. So your prejudice against Metaphysics causes you to mis-interpret the meaning of my words. But that's OK. We'd have no use for philosophy if people didn't disagree on the applicable meaning of words in different contexts. But our good intentions keep us dialoging toward a meeting of minds. :cool:I think you're mistaken and have bought into the pop-science hype ofter promulgated by philosophically illiterate / negligent scientists and academic idealists and other latterday woo-woo sophists. — 180 Proof
From reply to above :Insofar as "information" has causal efficacy, it is physical (i.e. not "immaterial" or merely abstract/formal). — 180 Proof
Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form. The mental "difference" is in the abstract meaning of the Information. But hey, It's all the same to me : EnFormAction is transformation, which is Change, whether mental or physical. :smile:tell me succinctly, Gnomon, how "work" differs significantly from "change". — 180 Proof
In my world, there are physical differences (ratios ; numerical values) and there are mental distinctions (meanings ; reasons). But your worldview doesn't seem to have a place for a Meta-physical Mind. So, you look for physical analogues to such "nonsense" (woo) notions as : Betrayal, Charity, Courage, Cowardice, Cruelty, Forgiveness, Truth, Love, Anger, Fear, Grief, Happiness, Jealously, Sympathy, Insanity, Knowledge, Wisdom, Right/Wrong, Duty, Fame, Justice, Liberty, Friendship, Greed, Innocence, Rules, Social Norm, and Religion. If they are not physical, they don't exist, hence have no importance to a "Physicalist Mind" (an oxymoron) :joke:"Doing work" and "change ... both physical and mental" is, in my mind, a distinction without a difference. — 180 Proof
you do know why Karl Popper introduced the criterion of testability? And that he himself was not a materialist? — Wayfarer
Yes, but physical Photons are not the Information (meaning ; difference) itself. They are, like the 1s & 0s of computers, merely empty carriers of cargo (meaning). So, the physical Effects of photons are due to the non-physical contents, not the container. As a metaphor, imagine that an empty brass shell becomes a bomb when it is filled with potential energy. Besides, a Potential photon is barely physical, and it only becomes Actual when it slows down to "macro" speeds at which its potential condenses into Matter. So, the "source of Information" (meaning) is always a differentiating Mind of some kind. :cool:Photons are a good source of information in our macro world; light peels information off of an object for us to receive. — PoeticUniverse
Photons, Fields, & Quarks would have been dismissed by Aristotle as Platonic Ideals. — Gnomon
The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. ... it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.
During the coming years [i.e. after the 1950's], the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?
I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus
Yes. Popper made the same kind of distinction that I am making to distinguish Meta-Physics (world 2 &3) from Physics (world 1). Even though they like to quote Popper's Falsifiability rule for unconscious physical World 1, they deny the "emergent human phenomena" of conscious minds, that mysteriously evolved from insentient matter by a hypothetical phase change that left a record in fossils in the form of a gap (insert unknown cause here). :smile:Note that Popper thinks world 2 and 3 are emergent, not primordial; they are exclusively human phenomena for Popper. — Janus
Now, you're just getting nasty. So, I'll back-off the stinky word "Metaphysics", and present my aromatic turkey dinner in the form of Karl Popper's notion of non-falsifiable Worlds 2 &3 as noted in the reply to Janus below. Now, would you accept my invitation? :smile:You can define words any way you want. You can define a dog turd a large breed of poultry, but please don't invite me to Thanksgiving dinner at your house. — T Clark
Besides, a Potential photon is barely physical, and it only becomes Actual when it slows down to "macro" speeds at which its potential condenses into Matter. So, the "source of Information" (meaning) is always a differentiating Mind of some kind. — Gnomon
I agree. I am not a Cartesian Dualist. but an Information Monist. :smile:It may seem that an idea is definitely non-physical and yet causal (this is Descartes' problem). As Spinoza, solving this problem, would have it, I think that physical and non-physical (mental) are not two substances, but two kinds of perspective or ways of thinking about (some) things. So we can look at ideas as being non-physical (mental, semantic and so on) or physical (neural). Insofar as ideas are physical (neural) then they can of course be causative. — Janus
Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light.
That's about as close to nothing as you can imagine. But modern physicists have become grudgingly resigned to treating nothingness as-if it is a physical (material) object. Photons, Fields, & Quarks would have been dismissed by Aristotle as Platonic Ideals — Gnomon
It is imagined that two photons colliding is like a standing wave in a continuous Field of mathematical "substance". No one has ever observed such a collision of massless particles, they only see it's effects on massive matter as tracks in a fog chamber. Anyway, it's that hypothetical "standing wave" that I refer to as stable Matter. But, as I imagine it, the wavey Field of Energy (the power to Enform) exists only in the Mind of the Enformer (the Operator), who is able to transform nothing (or near nothing) into something. :smile:It is thought that two photons colliding can produce an electron and a positron, if this is what you mean by them slowing down, and this is under study. Photons don't decay on their own, which is why they will be left at the end of the universe. Also, "barely physical" is still physical.
I see that you have Mind's information operating a photon. — PoeticUniverse
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. A Quark is invisible and un-measurable, so in scientific terms it's only a theory (information) in a mind. Since it only exists as three-in-one, it's only as real as the Holy Trinity. :joke:Indeed, they are all close to nothing, as expected, being so minuscule, but 'close' is not nothing and so there is no "nothingness" to treat… — PoeticUniverse
A Quark is invisible and un-measurable, so in scientific terms it exists only as a theory in a mind. — Gnomon
It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons.[28] In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.[29] — Wikipedia
In my previous post I did not claim you did. I said it seems you've been taken-in by pop-science hype about "materialism".As I noted in my previous post, I don't do woo — Gnomon
What "prejudice"? I've proposed an alternative method of metaphysical speculation to the mainstream (i.e. Platonic) method you've undertaken. I've not "mis-interpreted" you but have taken your self-described "idealism / essentialism" at face value as pseudo-science masquerading as philosophy ("Meta-physics"). Criticism, Gnomon, is not "prejudice against". I'm always open to being persuaded otherwise. I'm familiar enough with digital physics, information theory, Bohmian QM, black hole entropy, etc, however, to recognize pseudo-scientific misappropriations of those theoretical constructs and interpretations when I encounter them (e.g. "Enformationism", etc)So your prejudice against Metaphysics causes you to mis-interpret the meaning of my words.
Then it would be physical, not "metaphysical". :roll:Metaphysical Causation
Explain why a physical brain physically "burns a lot of" physical "energy" (i.e. calories) if, as you suggest, "Information" is not "Work". Oh, btw, the human brain functions by constantly changing its neuronal configurations (re: neuroplasticity) that encode *wait for it, wait for it* new information (i.e. updating current information —> memories, expectations, predictions, feelings, learning-conditioning, etc).Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form
Strawman. I've only obliquely made empirical (and more directly analytical) objections to your 'idealist / essentialist claims' – you're peddling sophistical pseudo-science, Gnomon! – not "metaphysical" (e.g. physicalist or positivist) counter-claims. Btw, anti-idealism isn't necessarily physicalism (e.g. Kant wasn't a physicalist), so even your strawman consists of a strawman. :sweat:... "everything is physical" ...
Acosmist.Like Spinoza'sPantheistic"God" ... — Gnomon
Non-physical explanations are tested logically. That's what logic gives us, non-physical explanations — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.