Well yes. It’s the difference between tossing a classical coin to discover if it lands head or tails, and knowing that if you toss one of a pair of quantum entangled coins — apokrisis

I was thinking only of a more mundane application of S's equation, with wave packets and probabilities of a particle being at a particular place at a particular time. But I have zero knowledge of the experimental mechanisms involved. So I should avoid talking about things I do not understand. :confused:

So I should avoid talking about things I do not understand. — jgill

I take the opposite view. It’s the fastest way to learn. :grin:

Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? — Gnomon
There are few restrictions here. But when views are presented others are free to poke at them. — jgill

I agree. That's the whole point of putting debatable ideas on a public forum. Most threads on TPF have their pros & cons, yet manage to remain somewhat respectful, even though many of them go-off on technical tangents far from the OP. On this forum those nebulous limits are negotiated on the fly. So, elbowing, name-calling, poking-in-the-eye, and hits-below-the-belt are the price we pay for our freedom from rigid rules-of-order laws. Yet, some seem to believe that there are implicit taboo rules that all must respect. To which I respond, "where is it written?" I could poke back, in kind, with dialog-ending labels, but that's a low-class political tactic: "here's my response to your subtle argument : F.I.S.T."

If you're not the one being poked with prejudicial labels ("prove you're not a witch"), you may not notice anything awry. The injustice arises when free exploration strays into forbidden territory, and touches hot-button "don't go there" issues. And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism.

However, TPF harbors a few sentinels of heresy, who seem to believe there is no defining line, because there is no Metaphysics. Apparently, they think that Metaphysics died along with God, back in the 1950s. But then, in the 1960s, various Eastern god-concepts, and their associated philosophies, arose to fill the "god-shaped hole" in the human heart. My topics have nothing to do with such exotic stuff, by they get pigeon-holed in the Woo-slot, because I insist that my subject is Mental & Meta-physical, hence not governed by the laws of Matter & Physics, and not settled by empirical evidence. But the woo-labelers, deferring to the absolute authority of Physics over Philosophy, seem to believe -- in effect -- that the universe is all Hardware (mechanical rules), and no Software (logical laws).

I apologize for going-on at length with this off-topic diversion. If you were familiar with some of the recent threads I've posted on, you might understand why Obeisance to Science on TPF is an important obstacle to free philosophical exploration. The problem with philosophers bowing to the final authority of Pragmatic Empirical Science, is that If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like Physics. Anyway, my problem is not with you, but with the "smells like metaphysics" police. :smile:


"Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics".
___Massimo Pigliucci, Foundational Questions in Physics

Regarding metaphysical assumptions on existential questions : "not wrong, but ascientific". ___Sabine Hossenfelder, Existentential Physics

Ascientific : not a dictionary word, just "not science related" : hence philosophical.

OBEISANCE TO HIGHER AUTHORITY

I don't know if it's the same with other philosophy forums, but this one has a conspicuous scientific bias. It's as expected though (Streetlight effect & Maslow's hammer i.e. scientific reductionism).

It's a science literacy bias (as well as a science numeracy bias), mi amigo. Without that, TPF would be nothing more than Twitter or Reddit. :mask: :point:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/743651

The problem with philosophers bowing to the final authority of Pragmatic Empirical Science, is that If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like Physics. — Gnomon

All this complaining is a bit rich when it is you who invokes the physical concepts of information theory and quantum theory is every post I’ve seen from you.

You shouldn’t be surprised if people helpfully try to explain, well you don’t seem to exactly get what the concepts entail. Either as physics or metaphysics.

And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism. — Gnomon

I'm currently reading Existential Physics by Sabine Hossenfelder. The "existential" part of the title was probably an oblique reference to publicprofessional speculations beyond the scope of "settled" science into unfalsifiable metaphors, traditionally reserved for impractical philosophers. And as Pigliucci noted in my prior post quotes, the Foundational Questions of Physics are basically about un-settled Science. And those unsettling doubts are found mostly at the largest (Cosmology) and smallest (Quantum) scales of scientific knowledge. As a public explainer of Physics, she often gets asked for the official position of Science on topics that both scientists and laymen wonder & argue about. Hence, the book.

Most of the questions she addresses are from the demilitarized zone between Physics and Metaphysics. However --- sensitive to the common prejudice among Scientists, and diffident Philosophers, toward the taboo word "metaphysics" --- she typically substitutes "ascientific", which simply means : "not an empirical topic". But, I find a side-by-side comparison instructive. Aristotelian Physics & Metaphysics can be viewed as mirror images of each other : Observation/Theory, with a material object on one side, and an analogous image on the other. So, for my own philosophical purposes, the word "meta-physics" should convey the notion of that complementary correspondence of worldviews : Material & Mental*2.

On the apparently unrelated topic of "Predicting Unpredictability", Sabine gives an analogy with "uncomputability" : "take the economic system. It is a self-organized, adaptive system with the task of optimizing the distribution of resources. Some economists have argued that this optimization is partly uncomputable." Obviously the source of that non-linear logic is human choices and behavior. Which struck me as a good metaphor for the key difference between Physical and Metaphysical questions. Where material evidence is available, the answers are computable, based on physical laws. But where the premise is merely Mathematical (abstract) or Mental (imaginary), the comps disappear into infinity. Therefore, to those looking for real computable hardware, the soft mind-stuff looks black.

Feckless Philosophers feel free to conjecture into Infinity (or the time before time), where pious pragmatic Scientists fear to tread*1. Yet, some undaunted eccentric scientists put on their philosopher's hats (wizard cap?), and boldly go beyond the bounds of mundane Actuality, into the dark airless realm of unspecified Possibility. Many of them feel surprised & hurt to have their beloved mind-children dismissed as mere wizard woo. :cool:


*1.Ascientific (off-limits) questions per Hossenfelder : Many Worlds, Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation. Also, any taboo topics that are considered off-limits for pious physicists.

*2. Prior to Homo Sapiens the world had little Mental to speak of. Now, we are immersed in Memes (mental bits), zipping between minds at the speed of sound and of light.

WHICH IS REAL AND WHICH ILLUSION?

WHICH IS COMPUTABLE (real) AND WHICH UNCOMPUTABLE (unreal)?
Hint : infinities are displayed as black, because the computer's calculations go-off-the-charts there.

Obviously the source of that non-linear logic is human choices and behavior. Which struck me as a good metaphor for the key difference between Physical and Metaphysical questions. Where material evidence is available, the answers are computable, based on physical laws. — Gnomon

How does this insight apply to the three body problem of Newtonian physics? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

Just going from two to three masses in interaction and … whoops! Do the masses suddenly come alive in some wilful fashion, explaining their nonlinear behaviour?

What did I say that was a smear? — T Clark

That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.

As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".

Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.

But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.

Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:


Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/

The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable.
5 days ago
Options — Gnomon

It's a science literacy bias (as well as a science numeracy bias), mi amigo. Without that, TPF would be nothing more than Twitter or Reddit. :mask: :point: — 180 Proof

True that. It's depressing to hear someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson ask the rhetotorical question "so we're just bags of chemistry?" Science has been, since the Copernican revolution, in the business of demoting the status of humans from a-one-of-a-kind to just-another-face-in-the-crowd.

We are "bags of chemistry" and much more due to the complexity of that chemistry. Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment decenterings
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/569450
have scientifically (and philosophically) made explicit the degrees to which h. sapiens are embodied by and imbedded in the natural world.

I agree but with reservations.

True that. It's depressing to hear someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson ask the rhetotorical question "so we're just bags of chemistry?" Science has been, since the Copernican revolution, in the business of demoting the status of humans from a-one-of-a-kind to just-another-face-in-the-crowd. — Agent Smith

Cheer up! As 180 noted, we are "bags of chemistry, and much more" The "more" is what we call Holism, or a functional system : parts working together toward a common goal (purpose).

In Existential Physics, Sabine Hossenfelder was asked : "are you just a bag of atoms?". She replied : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do." Giulio Tononi might say, it's the "Integrated Information" (Holism) that makes you into a selfish organism, with purposes & motives, and with the ability to love & be loved as a person. Atoms & chemicals working in isolation have no Life or Mind, or any other qualities as a Person.

So, you are not just a "bag of chemicals", you are a walking, talking, thinking, feeling, self-governing, purposeful, opinionated system of Information. And you can impose your selfish will upon the rest of the world like a Boss. But don't let your status at the pinnacle of evolution go to your head. Evolution is like the "moving finger", which writes what-is, then immediately moves-on to what's next. :cool:



“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
― Omar Khayyám

So, you are not just a "bag of chemicals", you are a walking, talking, thinking, feeling, self-governing, purposeful, opinionated system of Information. — Gnomon

Or indeed, to move us even more towards a general theory of organisms, we aren’t even just structures of information. Life and mind are dissipative structures organised by semiosis. We are structures of meaning or negentropy.

In Existential Physics, Sabine Hossenfelder was asked : "are you just a bag of atoms?". She replied : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do." — Gnomon

Life and mind are dissipative structures organised by semiosis. We are structures of meaning or negentropy. — apokrisis

:100: :up:

Spooky, ain't it? – when Gnomon, apokrisis & 180 Proof agree (more or less). :smirk:

Or indeed, to move us even more towards a general theory of organisms, we aren’t even just structures of information. Life and mind are dissipative structures organised by semiosis. We are structures of meaning or negentropy. — apokrisis

What physicists inappropriately label "Negentropy" is what I call, "Enformy". Entropy is dissipative & destructive, while Enformy is integrative & creative. You can think of Enformy as Energy + Information (causation plus direction). These are my personal opinions. Please don't ask for settled science on the topic.

Physicists have recently begun to equate Information with energy*1. It's a new idea, and hasn't caught on everywhere. Another novel idea is that of Information Causality*2, which links meaningful (mental) Information with the (physical) energy to produce change in (material) form*3. These concepts are still mostly in the theoretical and philosophical stage, but physicists are beginning to learn how to convert Information (mathematical data) into energy.*4

Enformed "structures of meaning" don't just happen by accident. Entropy happens by accident. But functional structures require logical interrelationships. Logic is both Mental and Mathematical. As Hossenfelder noted : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do". :smile:


*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*2. Information causality :
We suggest that information causality—a generalization of the no-signalling condition—might be one of the foundational properties of nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08400

*3. The physical nature of information can be understood from three main perspectives: the relation between information and physical entropy; the strongly informational nature of the quantum view of nature; and the possibility of recasting physical laws in informational terms
http://informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html

*4. information-to-energy conversion :
suggests a new fundamental principle of an ‘information-to-heat engine’ that converts information into energy by feedback control.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821

Physicists have recently begun to equate Information with energy. — Gnomon

Pedantic fyi – Ludwig Boltzmann & James Clerk Maxwell founded statistical mechanics / thermodynamics in the 19th century.

Spooky, ain't it? – when Gnomon, apokrisis & 180 Proof agree (more or less). — 180 Proof

Spooky, aye! Verrry spooky! :smile:

What physicists inappropriately label "Negentropy" is what I call, "Enformy". — Gnomon

I think if you are the guy who half invented quantum mechanics – Schrodinger – and you called it negative entropy to make the infodynamic connection explicit in making your argument for code-based life, then you get to claim what is appropriate. :roll:

Generally, you seem quite uniformed about the wide range of scientific views that have led to this information theoretic turn in physics (and life science).

If you are genuinely interested, you wouldn't have to invent your own jargon. You would start by mastering all the jargons that have been created so as to then start to see the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project.

Generally, you [Gnomon] seem quite uniformed about the wide range of scientific views that have led to this information theoretic turn in physics (and life science).

If you are genuinely interested, you wouldn't have to invent your own jargon. You would start by mastering all the jargons that have been created so as to then start to see the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project. — apokrisis

Gnomon's famously – Dunning-Kruger? dogmatically New Ageist? – incorrigible on this point.

If you are genuinely interested, you wouldn't have to invent your own jargon. You would start by mastering all the jargons that have been created so as to then start to see the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project. — apokrisis

What you're saying is that you'd prefer that I quote from your Science Bible : perhaps the Authorized Steven Hawking Version, or the Official Compendium of Scientism. Where can I get a copy of your holy text? Which guru is your jargon "master"?

Since I'm not a professional scientist or philosopher or a monk copying old texts, I get my information from a variety of sources. I then combine their disparate ideas into a single philosophical system. But I don't concern myself with Orthodoxy, or regal imprimaturs, or memorizing creeds. The key to that systematizing is creativity, not servility to authority. :smile:

Why Coin Tech Terms? :
One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html

PS__If you can get your nose out of your antique Science Bible, I can direct you to a Glossary of technical terms & neologisms, so you can better understand "the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project . . . . if you are genuinely interested." :wink:

Gnomon's famously – Dunning-Kruger? dogmatically New Ageist? – incorrigible on this point. — 180 Proof

Innovators are often "incorrigible" in the face of Inquisition. :cool:

In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

During his trial, Galileo offered the opportunity for the Inquisitor to look through the telescope himself and see what Galileo himself had seen. The Inquisitor refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2021/08/07/refusing-to-look-through-galileos-telescope/

It doesn't help your case to implicitly compare yourself to perhaps the single most important figure in the development of modern science. Maybe aim your telescope a little lower.

It doesn't help your case to implicitly compare yourself to perhaps the single most important figure in the development of modern science. Maybe aim your telescope a little lower. — Srap Tasmaner

I know; it's a no-win situation. Like defending yourself from accusations of being a witch. Anything you say will be twisted to use against you.

I don't take this stuff seriously. I'm just teasing my Inquisitors, because are incorrigible. They already call me an "idiot" ("Dunning-Kruger" for the intellectual elite). So, I just "clap back" at them. I'd prefer to just ignore them. But they smell blood in the water, and won't go away. Every now & then you have to punch the shark on the nose. :joke:

Gnomon's famously – Dunning-Kruger? dogmatically New Ageist? – incorrigible on this point.
— 180 Proof

Innovators are often "incorrigible" in the face of Inquisition. — Gnomon

QED. :rofl:

Which guru is your jargon "master"? — Gnomon

I just said the opposite. The problem is that there are so many jargons already. So don’t confuse folk by redescribing the same things yet again. Invest some effort in engaging with the many communities of inquiry that already exist. That way you won’t look like a lone crackpot but someone who is fluent in a difficult and sprawling subject area.

But they smell blood in the water, and won't go away — Gnomon

They still search for fire they can breathe.

Spooky, ain't it? – when Gnomon, apokrisis & 180 Proof agree (more or less). — 180 Proof
Spooky, aye! Verrry spooky! :smile: — Agent Smith

Save the spooks for Halloween. I have a suggestion : why don't we just agree to disagree on whatever distraction we are disagreeing on, and return to the OP topic : philosophers who disparage philosophy, and hold Physics (with a capital P) sacrosanct?

Pigliucci was accosted for trying to interpret Quantum Physics with novel philosophical metaphors, instead of bowing to old creeds, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response, he noted that the Foundational Questions survey indicated that even the Copenhagen compromise is not accepted as gospel by over half of physicists. Each of the most popular "interpretations" has its own peculiar jargon : A> Copenhagen, B> Many Worlds, C> Objective Collapse, D> Quantum Bayesianism, E> Relational QM, and E> (my preference) Information-Theoretical. Which of these disparate "worldviews" are they defending? Personally, I don't care if they believe in Many Worlds with multiple models of 180 & krisis. So, I feel no need to attack them personally as "Parallelists".

That being the case, why do the Woo-Booers harp on my own unorthodox interpretation & jargon --- presented not as a scientific model, but as a personal philosophical worldview. I am not the first or last to present an extensive thesis on TPF with specialized technical jargon. But something about Enformationism seems to threaten the heart-felt belief system of a few counter-posters. Lashing-out emotionally, they don't offer alternative arguments, but merely ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age). What are they afraid of : that philosophy might possibly contribute something new & positive to our understanding of how & why the world works as it does? :cool:

Well said!

That being the case, why do the Woo-Booers harp on my own unorthodox interpretation & jargon --- presented not as a scientific model, but as a personal philosophical worldview. I am not the first or last to present an extensive thesis on TPF with specialized technical jargon. But something about Enformationism seems to threaten the heart-felt belief system of a few counter-posters. Lashing-out emotionally, they don't offer alternative arguments, but merely ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age). What are they afraid of : that philosophy might possibly contribute something new & positive to our understanding of how & why the world works as it does? — Gnomon

Why don't you ever answer any of my polite, direct, simple questions of your "unorthodoxy & jargon"? Apparently, you are afraid of exposing your own inability to make sound arguments in support of "Enformationism", etc. I'll gladly answer your questions above, Gnomon, once you have shown you're not, in fact, afraid by either (1) answering the following questions from old posts or (2) demonstrating that my questions of your "personal philosophical worldview" are unwarranted. :cool:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742056 (15 days ago)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718369 (3 months ago)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/709894 (4 months ago)