I agree that the physical field is real and that our imagery of quantum fields have no relation to what they look like to "God". A real field or meadow IS a quantum field that is not isolated by science. What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea

I agree that the physical field is real . . . What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea — Gregory

May I suggest that the imaginary mathematical fields of Physics represent an invisible Ideality underlying Reality. The fields themselves are abstract & ideal, definitions with no actual physical properties, only mathematical values. Yet physicists treat them as-if the models are real --- as-if the map is the terrain. :smile:

PS___Mathematics is itself an abstraction of reality, minus all the physical stuff.


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary,

Here's a magnified photo of a single atom. How would you describe it in words?

We can't smell, taste, hear, or touch an atom so it's hard to say what it is in itself. We would have to be much smaller ourselves to know.

Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about

Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about — Gregory

True. Philosophy is about Ideas, while Physics is about "real" things. The original hypothetical concept of a modern Atom was a miniature solar system. Then it was portrayed as a tiny cloud of electrical potential. Now, that foggy fuzz (virtual particle) is imagined as an empty place in space (abstract field) where electro-magnetic events may or may not happen. But, regardless of the philosophical postulations, scientists continue to manipulate things they can't see, for practical purposes. It's like the concept of Energy, no one knows what it is, but only what it does. Theorists are shooting in the dark, while empiricists are making the darkness jump through hoops. :nerd:


The term “atom” was coined in ancient Greece and gave rise to the school of thought known as “atomism”. However, this theory was more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/

The atom now has been found through experimentation, thru the senses. Empiricism comes in different forms. Most agree that taste is in the tongue and not in the apple. So some will say tasting gives knowledge, and others not. I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe

I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe — Gregory

There are two basic meanings of "to prove" : 1. by evidence or 2. by argument. Scientists prove the existence of invisible physical objects, like neutrinos, by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as wispy trails left behind in a cloud chamber by unseen motes of matter. Philosophers prove the "existence" of metaphysical concepts, like Qualia, by logical syllogisms, derived from observations of behavior, or from intuitive axioms.

We cannot scientifically prove anything "external to the physical universe", such as Metaverses, Parallel Worlds, or a pre-bang magical Inflationary Instant. Those are imaginary or hypothetical, abstract mathematical extrapolations from known characteristics of the sensible aspects of Nature. That's because, unlike animals, humans can imagine things that do not exist in this place & time -- that are not Real, but Ideal. And philosophers, especially, specialize to hypothesize about unseen (hyper-sensory) things that are preter-natural. For example, the Greek theory of minuscule Atoms, was not a scientific observation, but a seemingly logical necessity to explain the physical objects we can see & touch. And intelligent people believed in such unseen things for several thousand years, based on inference, not evidence.

In a similar manner, some ancient & modern philosophers have deduced the logical necessity for a First Cause (or Creator) that exists external to the Effect or Creation. It's simply a matter of mental framing. If you look closely at a billiard table, you will see balls of hard stuff, moving around and interacting, as-if they had a mission. But only if you widen your scope to look external to the table, will you see the original Cause of that seemingly deliberate behavior : a pool shooter, with the intention of moving those balls into pockets without actually touching them.

"Potential" and "Contingency" are concepts, not real here & now things. They are rational inferences from many observations over extended time. All we can say is that such Qualia must exist in some sense, if we are to make sense of the dynamic world around us. Is that proof enough for you . . . as a philosopher? :nerd:

Neutrino :
The neutrino is perhaps the best-named particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: it is tiny, neutral, and weighs so little that no one has been able to measure its mass. . . . . Theorists predicted the neutrino’s existence in 1930, but it took experimenters 26 years to discover the particle.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutrinos

Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

To infer : to form an opinion from physical or logical premises

THE WORLD OF BILLIARD BALLS ON A MISSION


THE SPOOKY OFF-WORLD CAUSE OF ENTERPRISING BALLS

Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories"). — 180 Proof

You accuse me of "sophistry" whenever I make philosophical arguments instead of providing conventional scientific facts to prove my point. You also portray me as a Mystic, because I talk a lot about Meta-Physics instead of Physics. As I have noted before, if this was a Physics forum, your imputation might have merit. But since we are dialoging on The Philosophy Forum, your assertions miss their mark. And they seem more like "Sophistry" (rhetoric of persuasion focused on winning arguments instead of converging on Truth). So, there. I can lob labels too. But name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

PS__Are you expecting me to give-up and say "uncle"? Labels & Liables may tar my reputation, but they will never break my "spirit". :wink:

Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy

Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality

I would add that the universe doesn't have to see for us to see (and have purpose)

Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality — Gregory

As implied in my billiards illustration, the first cause of ball motion was not the cue ball or the stick (material substances), but the aiming & intention of the shooter's mind. The Contingency of the original Cause is the decision to strike or not, and the choice of goal or direction. No strike, no chain of causation, and no balls in the pockets, and no physical world for us to wonder about.

Aristotle defined the First Cause of all actions in the world as the "unmoved mover". In modern terms we define that "Prime Mover" as a mathematical Singularity. Some think of that speck-in-space as a substance, but it would have to compress all the matter of the universe into the equivalent of a Planck Mass. The word "singularity" also implies unity or wholeness : having no parts or divisions. No substance, just Form (design ; plan ; program).

So the Big Bang is what would happen if that infinite Potential, packed into a infinitesimal volume, suddenly exploded like the chain reaction in an atomic bomb. Fortunately for us, the sequence of events following the Bang was not exactly a "free fall", but was governed by Natural Laws, and regulated by Natural Selection. That's what I mean by deciding which direction to aim at.

Since, at the point of Singularity, all physical values go back to infinity or zero, there is no room for matter, or any other kind of substance. Only immaterial Intention, or Aim, or Design could be packed into nothingness, like the immaterial Information of a computer program. :smile:

Singularity :
A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/singularity
Note : this is where space & time goes off-the-charts, and disappears from the physicist's radar. In effect, there is no space-time prior to the First Cause. A Bit of Information is not a physical thing, but a mathematical "difference" -- a ratio, a value.

Infinitesimal : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.

Planck Mass :
The Planck length is the smallest distance. The Planck time is the smallest time. The Planck mass is the geometric mean of all masses in universe.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Planck-time-Planck-length-and-Planck-mass

For my filthy (crypto) lucre ...
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

[ ... ]

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
— WItty, TLP (1921)
An analoguous approximation of the metaphysical to the physical: (contra Aristotlean e.g. "only continuum, no vacuum, geocentric" dogmas) classical atomism ~ RQM; logical atomism ~ information entropy; etc. Definitional questions of "matter" and "energy" are, btw, methodologically vacuous. — 180 Proof

The problem is with the word 'divide'. The connections between things are as important as the things themselves and when things are severed apart they lose meaning. This is why reductive science is inadequate and destroys meaning.

All matter on Earth is moving at least at the rate the Earth moves, which is really fucking fast. Faster than our fastest vehicle, much faster. But we're right beside it, in motion. So we don't see that it's all just a blur.

Non sequitur. Witty says "divides into facts"; he's not talking about "things" as per TLP 1.1 (which you have quoted me quoting). Not "reductionist" at all.

You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness

While on a train you might feel stationary because of the "atmosphere" of the train walls. My position of empiricism is that we do see things how they are but not completely how they are.

You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness — Gregory

Yes. I have mentioned my understanding of the First Cause as possessing the Potential for all emergent properties of the evolving world, including Consciousness. However, I don't mean that the FC was or is conscious in the same sense as humans. I have no way of knowing about that. But, if our world has the property of Awareness, logically the original Cause must have the power to cause it to emerge at the proper time. An old saying is "there's nothing in the Effect, that was not already in the Cause -- as potential. :smile:


What is Law? : Limitations on action; rules governing creation; embodied Intention; imposed Will.
BothAnd Blog post 14
in the context of Big Bang Theory

Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too

Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too — Gregory

No. I was not familiar with Freke. But a quick Google indicates that his specialty is Gnosticism and Christian Mysticism. There are some incidental similarities between Gnosticism and my own worldview. But I don't think of it as Mysticism. There are also coincidental similarities with many of the major religious traditions, including the notion of Panpsychism and Pantheism. But, in my blog I try to make it clear that I am not mimicking any spiritual or mystical or theological beliefs.

My thesis began from two branches of modern Science : Quantum Theory & Information Theory. Both were pointing in the direction of Mind or Consciousness as the underlying essence of the material world as known via our senses. And that just happens to coincide with some ancient guesses about Soul & Spirit. For example, Aristotle's De Anima ( On The Soul) postulated that everything in the world is a composite of FORM (morph ; ousia) and MATTER (hyle), which is now known as Hylemorphism. Ari claimed that those two parts are inseparable aspects of a whole entity. Hence, when the body dies, the soul is extinguished : metaphorically, the pattern evaporates. The structure of the whole system collapses. That's Dualism within Monism.

Aristotle is commonly labeled as a Materialist, in contrast to Plato as an Idealist. But his notion of "Form" is equivalent to the immaterial design or pattern that the rational mind infers from observation of material objects. Those patterns are not visible to the senses, except to the sixth sense of Reason : which is the pattern-seeker, the information-knower, that allows humans discover the invisible laws of Nature. So, my "soul story" goes back beyond Gnosticism to the origins of Formal Philosophy. :nerd:

Note -- Christians who didn't like Freke's Gnosticism will not like my own Enformationism, because it doesn't pay homage to any particular canon of scriptures. Ken Wilbur's writings also bear some similarities to my worldview, but there are also differences.

Structure :
1. the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. to construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.
Note -- the essential structure of a thing is its Form, or Pattern or Inter-relations ; its EnFormAtion

De Anima :
His principal work in psychology, De Anima, reflects in different ways his pervasive interest in biological taxonomy and his most sophisticated physical and metaphysical theory. . . . . “the phenomena common to soul and body” . . . .‘Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally describe Aristotle’s view of body and soul as an instance of his “matter-formism.” That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/

I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics — 180 Proof

You have a reason for this,?

From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality

Allow me to clarify that Zeno proved everything is infinite in the universe and Aristotle responded that it's only potentially infinite, showing that he really didn't believe matter had true parts. He was an idealist like Plato

From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality — Gregory

That's not how I understand Aristotle. Compared to many modern philosophers, who make long tangled (metaphorical + material) arguments about Reality, or our Conception of it, Ari tended to get down to "brass tacks". To avoid Plato's imaginary eternal ideal "Forms" -- that have a ghostly existence outside of Reality -- Ari placed his conceptual "form" within each physical object. But he still couldn't completely do away with the fact that Form, or Order, or Structure is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. So yes, his "form" was in his head (morph), not in the material thing (hyle).

My interpretation of Hylemorphism (matter + mind) is that Reality is what our physical senses Perceive, and Ideality (the world of ideas) is what our minds Conceive. Objective Percepts are empirically verifiable; but subjective Concepts are always debatable. So, Aristotle reluctantly gave a dual definition of the world. Since the emergence of rational homo sapiens, It's both Real and Ideal, both Concrete and Abstract, both Sensory and Imaginary. :cool:

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas. They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of the concept behind principles, thoughts and beliefs.
___Wiki
Note -- Abstractions remove the flesh (matter) from the skeleton (structural relationships = form)

PS___I think your inference is correct, that Aristotle couldn't avoid making essentially the same distinction as Plato, between the Real material world, and the Ideal human model of the world. However, he was not denying the Real world, but merely admitting-into-evidence the Ideal concepts by which we communicate about the world. To eliminate Ideality, you would have to eliminate Humanity.

PPS___Quantum theory has pulled the foundational rug out from under Materialism. It has replaced physical Atoms of hard stuff with mathematical Fields of relationships, that can only be Conceived, not Perceived

Objects have infinite divisibility (the "finite" means discrete which means limit of infinite process, hence multiple objects), extension, and palpability. What makes a thing of common nature is not clear. Evolution has no definite definition of what a nature is and it gets harder to define when with objects that are not alive. As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. I don't see the human mind ending by the realization that everything in reality is just a bunch of stuff. It can be a spiritual awakening as well. From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body.

As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. — Gregory

Nominalism gives names to swarms of things that seem to cohere as a whole, but the swarm itself is not real. It's an imaginary singularity, that consists of multiple parts. As Juliet said about family labels : “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. She notes that the nominal label is not real either. A name is no more real than an abstract number (nominal). Ultimately, the metaphysical essence (Soul) of Romeo, was what she loved. The whole singular Self is what was meaningful to her, not the myriad cells that stick together into the shape she identified (labeled) as Romeo. The un-quantifiable Qualia of a rose or lover is not in the nominal protoplasm, but in its menta-physical wholeness. :joke:

From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body. — Gregory

True. Materialism cannot see metaphysical mental concepts, so it gives a label to the absence of matter, to represent the meaning of no-thing. However, when we give names to non-things, such as consciousness, we still treat them as-if they are real things. Although, for philosophical purposes, we put warning labels on non-things, to remind us that our "identify" is nothing, hence not important. And yet, we seem to enjoy the sweet smells (Oualia) of the Mind, even though there's nothing there but a lump of raw meat.

So, the ethereal "Mind", by the materialistic name of "Brain", still forms the essence of Self that we identify ourselves with. You don't identify with your slimy Brain, or any other part of your body. Your "Self", is the whole system of Quanta & Qualia which cohere as an identifiable mass of matter, that allows us to locate and identify "Gregory" in the real world. You are not a multiplicity of quantifiable things, but a conceptual qualitative Unity (Soul or Self). :cool:

A soul, Aristotle says, is “the actuality of a body that has life,” where life means the capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction. If one regards a living substance as a composite of matter and form, then the soul is the form of a natural—or, as Aristotle sometimes says, organic—body.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Philosophy-of-mind
Note -- a Composite is a conceptual whole, not a real thing. Life is not a real thing, but a conceptual label for a biological process.

Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions,
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

REAL BIRDS


IMAGINARY SWARM or is it a whale?

I do believe that the mind makes concepts of the world and these are needed for morality (imperatives on how we treat people) but nominalism for me is just recognizing that "two rabbits" are rabbits because of similarities between two particulars and there is no thing they are sharing between them. It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects

It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects — Gregory

I was not familiar with Nominalism, beyond the meaning of the Latin (name), so I Googled it. And the first impression I got was : Nominalism means that Philosophy a waste of time. However, the definition below could also be interpreted as merely an attempt to avoid Reification of abstractions. The existential significance of abstract concepts is not in objects themselves but in logical relationships between things. They don't exist "in the same way". The model is not the real thing.

However, the way you expressed it above sounds like : "if you can't put a number on it, it doesn't exist". But that's the whole point of the Qualia versus Quanta and Real versus Ideal debates. In my posts on this forum, I refer both to Empirical material objects and to Theoretical immaterial ideas. But, to confuse one with the other is the Reification Fallacy. I guess you could say that I take a Nominalist or a Realist perspective as appropriate to the context.

To take a hard position on the Quantitative side seems to eliminate much of what philosophy is about : Wisdom, Truth, Ethics, Meaning, and Value. All of those are General Concepts, and None is a nominal thing. So, in order to do philosophy, you'd have to treat them as Symbols or Metaphors or Maps pointing to aspects of Reality that "exist" only in Minds. Even so, we can Name them, if not Number them.

We even give names to abstract numbers as-if they are specific things. Consequently, instead taking a stand on the Individual or Universal bank of the river, I simply try to remember not to confuse "as-if" with "as-is". Because that ambiguity is at the root of many vehement debates about the meanings of our words. Is "being honest" an individual object? :chin:

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material.
Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.
https://gohighbrow.com/problem-of-universals-realism-vs-nominalism/

Reism is the doctrine that only things exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reism/

Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

there is no thing they are sharing between them — Gregory

A Pattern is not a singular thing, but an array of things with something shared in common. That shared structure is not a physical connection (thing), but a meaningful relationship. Human Reason is a Pattern Recognition function that "sees" the whole -- connects the dots -- in a random collection of parts. AI computers are only beginning to scratch the surface of that talent for dealing with Holistic concepts (groups ; categories) as-if they are nominal things, with which a computer can simulate human reasoning. :nerd:

Pattern recognition is used to give human recognition intelligence to machines that are required in image processing.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/pattern-recognition-introduction/

MEANING IS IN THE INVISIBLE RELATIONSHIPS NOT THE THINGS