Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. Yet if they are tools, then they can't not exist. — god must be atheist

I agree that Language (Logic) and Mathematics are meta-physical functions (tools) that are necessary for the existence of the physical world. Some mathematicians have begun to view abstract Mathematics as the logical structure of the physical universe. In that case, math/logic is not in the physical world, it is the physical world. Our brains merely convert sensory digital inputs (information) into imaginary concepts that we accept as accurate representations of the physical world. We translate geometric & logical relationships into topological models of "real" things.

Although those conceptual "things" are merely ideas, for all practical purposes, they are the furniture of the real world. We treat our mental models as-if they are real. Those ideas may-or-may-not exist as physical objects, but they are still within the scope of the space-time natural world. Hence, not "super-natural", but merely "meta-physical"*2. Yes, I know it's a taboo word for Materialists. :smile:


*1. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*2. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was later labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Language and mathematics cannot exist without brains to support them. By observation, they exist as mental content and are emergent from and dependent on brain state.

T Clark said he has nothing more to say to me, because I stated that things that are not material do exist, and not at all supernatural things. I said some things that exist without material body are nevertheless dependent on material things for their existence. T Clark replied he and I have nothing more to say to each other. — god must be atheist

I assume you are talking about our exchanges in the "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?" thread. You have misstated my positions and put words in my mouth. I went back and looked at all our mutual posts in the thread to make sure I didn't misremember. I'll let @180 Proof speak for himself.

That being said, have at it.

180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist

Cite the claim/s you are referring to. Thanks.

... it is a thing without material existence that still exists.

Clarify what you mean by "a thing ... exists".

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
— T Clark
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing.[/quote]

These reflect my world view almost completely.

I would add 2.1. that entities can be made up based on physical substances, but being entities of... what? emotions, the "I" (eye) feeling, the senses, sensations... these are definitely based on physical substances, but they create motions of physical substances that can't be explained by rules that govern physical substances alone; they can't be explained by the laws of the physical universe. Such movements are a man approaching a woman to make love to her. A dead man will not approach a woman to make lover to her. Or a crab approaching a food item to eat it. A dead crab will not approach the food item. In these instances there is motivation that is not possible to explain by the laws of the physical universe alone, while at the same time the motivations are not supernatural, and they are not supernaturally originated. They don't have substance, but they have a presence. Go figure.

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.

My points are not good reasons to start a discussion over. That you call them "metaphysics" and I call them "points of belief" is a minor, very minor difference.

2.1. could be discussed or argued, but I won't be so military about it as I was when we talked about "metaphysical statements have no truth value".

--------------------------------------------

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
— god must be atheist

There's not much else for us to discuss then.
-- T Clark

===========================
It seems to me that I made an error. I somehow imagined, and that's how I remembered, that T Clark opposed my view [2.1.] of entities' existing while not being material, and that's why T Clark said he has nothing to say to me.

This is an error by me, I admit it, and I apologize for it.

However, the claim that is described in [2] is in opposition of my view decribed in [2.1] My mistake is that I misattributed the reason why T Clark has nothing to say to me. I attributed it to the disagreement described in [2] and in [2.1], whereas T Clark's not willing to talk to me is due to my calling the points above not metaphysical but of belief.

Sorry, I made this mistake, and again, I apologize.

Clarify what you mean by "a thing ... exists". — 180 Proof

Existence is being not nothing.

Cite the claim/s you are referring to. Thanks — 180 Proof

Please give me some time to research the quotes in which you tried to refute my argument that some human-made structures are not natural. It will be hard to show your stance, since your opinions on that thread section were expressed by derisive laughter shown by emojis.

You know what? Instead of my going on a busy-body wild goose chase and show your opinion the way you showed it, I ask you here to say what you consider not natural and what you consider natural that exists in the physical world. Please do not allow me to put words in your mouth; but I remember you asked me to show examples of any human creations that are not made by obeying natural phyisical laws; and I said that there are structures in the univerese that are not freely found in nature. From then on your arguments consisted of derisive laughter expressed by emoji(es), and I responded to it in like.

From there I jumped here, and declared that you denied that any physical creation or unit or change is natural. It may have been an invalid jump, as your point was (from your cryptic claims) I believe that all HUMAN creations were natural; but that does not necessarily mean that all creations are natural. Just because I juxtaposed human creation vs natural creations, you may have other creations in mind that are physical but not natural.

Please enlighten me of your opinion on what is natural, and if in your opinion anything in the physical world can be unnatural.

Thanks.

Existence is being not nothing. — god must be atheist

Clear as mud. :shade:

It will be hard to show your stance...

I don't see why: you claimed I had "insisted" on something – show me by citing my own words (with a link to put those words into context).

Look; you are not stupid. So don't for a moment think that I don't know your tactic. You oppose and you give opinions without making a stand on issues. Your main strength in argumenting is being evasive and noncommittal, while being at the same time provocative and apparently (but without substance) evocative.

You make the other person think by implying what your opinion is; then when we get to a conclusion, "yes, this is what 180 Proof's opinion is" you simply deny it, on the grounds that you never said it.

Why do you do this? Many may or may not think it's because you are spineless. I don't think that. I think you are just deathly afraid of being proven wrong.

For instance:

Existence is being not nothing.
— god must be atheist
Clear as mud. — 180 Proof

What??? Like I said, you are not stupid. But you are reduced to using your brilliant mind now for simple and childish naysaying, instead of providing arguments.

Again, I ask, why do you do this? This is a philosophy website, not junior kindergarten.

This wouldn't keep coming around if somebody just made up two different words for physical and conceptual existence.
I usually confine 'existence' to things that do so independently of the sentience that names them but don't take people to task if they refer to the existence of deadlines or psychoses; it's simply common parlance, imprecise but harmless. It goes unremarked until somebody makes an issue of the existence of time or mathematics or some other attribute of the universe. Okay, they exist the way 'blue' exists in the sky or 'friendliness' in a dog; they're not discreet things, processes or qualities, but complex attributes and processes and phenomena for which we have simple words to express how we apprehend the result.

Language doesn't lie on a table, waiting for somebody to pick it up and start playing it; thus, language has a different kind of existence from that of a trombone. Language 'exists' only as an idea; a convenient, easily recognizable collective label for a very large and complex combination of brain activities; it may be symbolically represented in many forms, but has no independent reality.

"Mind" stands for an even bigger complex of activity: for all of the processing that a brain does. But you can't put it down, leave the room and come back for it later. So it doesn't exist.

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural?

Nothing. However, not all things emerging from the physical world are themselves physical. They are all naturally occurring. Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things.

A correlation drawn between a specific sort of screech and a specific sort of predator is not physical. The screech is meaningful, and it becomes so by virtue of being/becoming a part of that correlation. When more than one creature draws the same correlation, then we have the basics of being one step closer to language use. Meaningful thought and/or belief is not supernatural. Language use is not supernatural. All language use draws correlations between different things. Drawing correlations between screeches and predators is forming basic belief that the predator is nearby when the screech is heard. If these creatures do it for the reason of sounding an alarm rather than the involuntary fear response at the sight of the predator, then we have a certain case of basic language use. If not, then we still have a basic case of shared meaning. Shared meaning is required for language use. That belief(that a predator is near) is meaningful to creatures drawing the correlations between the screech and the predator.

Meaningful thought and belief are existentially dependent upon the physical. They are neither supernatural nor physical.

:fire:

So you cannot cite from where you get

180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist

:ok: No need to take your OP seriously then since you're just making up context-free shit.

Which answer is closest to what you think is right? — god must be atheist

You’re missing a key option here, which is that Physicalism already presupposes the inseparable contribution of subjectivity in its formulation of the mind-independent ‘physical world’ without being aware of this.

“Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.”(Dan Zahavi)

“The unquestioned givenness of the objective world that is constitutive of scientific descriptions cannot capture the way in which the given is disclosed by a meaning-giving background. Thus, if anything, it is the transcendental, meaning-giving account that has ontological priority over an objective/causal description.”(Matthew Ratcliffe)

Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things. — creativesoul

What would a physical thing subsist in , outside of all ‘meaningful correlations’? Isn’t a physical thing a co-relationship between experiencer and object of experience? What features , properties and attributes do you imagine a physical thing to possess outside of our interaction with it? Aren’t features, properties and attributes correlational functions?

“It is an illusion to think that the notions of “object” or “reality” or “world” have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are “external facts”; he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, “what we cannot say – because it makes no sense – is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices” (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two. It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either”(Putnam 1978).

Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things.
— creativesoul

What would a physical thing subsist in , outside of all ‘meaningful correlations’? — Joshs

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?

Isn’t a physical thing a co-relationship between experiencer and object of experience?

Not in my view.

What features , properties and attributes do you imagine a physical thing to possess outside of our interaction with it?

Whatever it may consist of. I'm fond of parsing things in terms of their basic elementary constituents.

Aren’t features, properties and attributes correlational functions?

Not in my view.

“It is an illusion to think that the notions of “object” or “reality” or “world” have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are “external facts”;

I've no use for the notion of "external facts"

I would concur that it is mistaken to think that notions have sense independently of language use. However, I would only remark here that the thing outside in my yard is not my notion/conception of a kukui nut tree. To quite the contrary, it is a kukui nut tree. My notion of a kukui nut tree consists of correlations drawn between the thing named "kukui nut tree" and other things(such as the name). The kukui nut tree does not consist of correlations drawn between it and other things.

...he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, “what we cannot say – because it makes no sense – is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices” (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two.

Putnam may not be able to, but my twenty seven month old grandaughter could, and did. Someone told her that there was nothing in the fridge for her, and she showed them otherwise by opening the door and pointing out all the things inside.

It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either”(Putnam 1978).

Talking in terms of 'peeling our perceptions and beliefs off the world' is nonsense. I agree.

But when I said that the human mind is a non-phyiscal entity that exists with the aid of matter, but is itself not of matter, he balked at me.
Yet, without a mind there is no language, there is no mathematics. — god must be atheist

This sounds like the age-old debate between Materialism and Idealism. Even Plato and Aristotle were divided on the question of primacy. However, in his Hylomorphism theory, Aristotle seemed to admit that something immaterial (Form ; Substance ; Essence) was prior to, or at least co-existent with, physical Matter. In his "Physics", he mainly described tangible objects in the world, but also referred to logical processes that are invisible-yet-knowable to the rational human mind. Then, in the volume known as "Metaphysics", he turned to discussion of human ideas & theories about the material world. Those mental concepts are literally Ideal, and do not manifest in material form --- except perhaps to those who imagine that they see ghosts.

I suppose that Aristotle was too pragmatic to accept the mystical primacy of Mathematics, accepted as a fundamental belief by Pythagoreans. So he viewed Plato's Idealism as a little too spooky for his taste. But, in his own rational arguments, he was forced to resort to combining physical stuff (hyle ; matter) with mental concepts (morph ; form) in order to explain how the logical patterns by which we know Matter could transform into the ideal forms of mental images.

Modern empirical physicists also tend to imagine the "material" objects they study as aggregates of fundamental "atoms". This despite the fact that Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science. Their supposedly indivisible particles of Hyle have been divided & sub-divided into smaller fragments that are too ethereal (quarks) for our sense-extending tools to resolve. Hence, many if not most Theoretical physicists have decided that the fundamental entities of physical reality are mathematical Fields of inter-relationships (geometry). But, the empiricists still insist on calling the non-dimensional points --- that are geometrically-linked to other mathematically-defined points in otherwise empty space --- "Virtual (almost but not quite real) Particles".

So, it seems that philosophical disputes, about physical vs non-physical entities, boil down to a question of personal taste or belief systems (worldviews). But even "physical" Energy, which is essential to explain any change in material objects, is itself invisible & intangible. Being merely a name for the relationship between Cause & Effect : a process, not at thing. At the bottom line, modern empirical (mechanical) physicists, whose names are not well-known, are often overshadowed by theoretical (mathematical) physicists (Einstein, Tegmark et al). The latter create abstract mathematical models of things unseen, and publicize imaginative metaphors & imagery to explain the puzzling results of atom-smashing experiments and star-smashing astronomical events.

Consequently, it's inevitable that philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems will clash & balk, when translated into "physical evidence" to support their own logical structure. Is it real? Depends on how you define "reality" in words & images. Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe? :smile:

Quantum Science has undermined¹ the materialistic beliefs² of Classical science. — Gnomon

1.(In your own words) How so?

2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as?

... "physical"³ Energy ...

3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"?
If so, please cite an example.

... philosophical (metaphysical) belief⁴ systems ...

4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)

If so, then "belief systems" are not "philosophical (metaphysical)" ... maybe they are religious or political, social or psychological, normative or practical "belief systems" ... and therefore not what's at issue when we "clash & balk" at each other's disparate, seemingly incongruent, mis/interpretations of texts, concepts or phenomena. Then what's at issue? The usual suspects: fallacious arguments, obfuscating / evasive rhetoric, insufficient subject-matter knowledge, unwarranted neologisms, pseudo-science masquerading as speculation, etc. :sparkle: :eyes:
.

Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe?

The universe, then brains, then grammar-based cognition (i.e mind), then "the logical structure" of any X (e.g. X = "the universe, then brains, then ... etc"). Otherwise, "idealism" (i.e. anti-realism). :yawn:

180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist

That is a true statement . . . . within the framework of 180's worldview of Materialism or Physicalism or Realism (or whatever he prefers to call his personal belief system). From that perspective, Reality is what you know via your 5 senses, but it omits what you know via the 6th sense of Reason. Yet, by means of logical reasoning, we infer meanings that are not obvious to the naked eye. For example, my assumption that you are a rational being like me is a belief that is not based on physical evidence, but on abstract forms of behavior.

Hence, my belief about you is debatable, but not provable by empirical methods. The ancients attributed that gift of Reason to an immortal Soul. And much mischief has followed from the unwarranted "immortal" label attached to the combination of Life & Mind, that is referred to as "Spirit" or "Soul". So, a bit of skepticism toward Spiritualism is warranted. But 180, and other Physicalists, go beyond mere Skepticism into the Cynicism of Ideological disputation. FWIW In place of "immortal Soul", I prefer to use "mortal Self" to describe the person as a whole, including body, life & mind. The Self-image is indeed non-physical (i.e. Ideal), but not necessarily immortal.

That's why I typically avoid getting into creed-based disputes with 180proof. On the other hand, he does sometimes challenge my own unorthodox assertions with good skeptical philosophical questions. So, I'll take this opportunity to answer him indirectly in this post. The OP asks "what exists [is real] that is not physical [material]). And I have come to view Life & Mind as immaterial forms of the Logical processes we now know as "Information". But before that term was applied to machine thinking, it was used to describe the intangible contents of the human Mind : i.e. Ideas, Concepts, Memes, etc. We infer those thought-modules from our inter-communication of information, but cannot detect them by physical means.

That's why I have inferred from counter-intuitive Quantum Theory and abstract mathematical definitions of Information, that what we know as physical Energy is ultimately a mathematical relationship (1/0), equivalent to mental Logic. Hence, in agreement with some pioneering physicists (see below), I have come to equate the elements of Soul (life ; mind) with the abstract concept of Causation. I won't go into the details here, but instead -- if you'll pardon my intrusion -- I'll address some of his replies to my comments on this thread, from the perspective of my personal worldview : Enformationism -- the essence of everything, both physical & mental, in this world is a form of Generic Information (confer Plato's LOGOS). To 180, this sounds like the ravings of a New Age nut-case. But it's intended to be merely a merger of cutting-edge physical Science with the ancient meta-physical Philosophy of Plato & Aristotle, among others. It's all mundane ; no need for spooky Mysticism. :smile:


Reply to 180 :
" Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science". — Gnomon
1. (In your own words) How so? ___180proof
*** I have explained to 180 the "how so" repeatedly in my own words, and those of credentialed scientists. But, some of the concepts underlying the "how" are not compatible with the Materialistic belief system we now call "Classical Physics". So, they don't make sense from the perspective of a matter-based worldview. For example, Newton proposed an unknown force (gravity = heaviness, a quality) that could bind planets in their orbits. But he could not understand how that action-at-a-distance-across-empty-space could work.
*** Centuries later, Einstein explained that intangible (no ropes) pulling force in terms of counter-intuitive geometry of nothingness (curved vacuum). The medium of that non-physical traction was simply a mathematical relationship between masses of matter. But Mass itself is nothing more than a mathematical description of the immaterial property of Matter known as "Inertia" (resistance to change ; stubborness). The links between puller & pullee are immaterial vectors, that we symbolize with metaphorical numbers & arrows.
*** Although some practicing scientists resist some of the spookier implications of quantum theory, they have been forced to admit that our normal reality is underlain by an invisible domain that has subtle-but-vital bottom-up effects on the human scale. They might also grudgingly concede that the world's foundation of immaterial fields must be ultimately more real than the egocentric imaginary models of reality --- both materialistic & spiritualistic --- that we carry around in our heads. So, since both our macro & quantum world models can be boiled down to mental images, numbers & ideas, the question arises : what is true reality . . . a collection of isolated things, a swarm of mindless atoms, or a story woven of meanings? Personally, I find the idea of a world of ideas to be plausible & meaningful in the context of 21st century science.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page15.html

2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as? ___180
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques
Scientism : Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. ___Google
*** In my own words, Scientism rejects the traditional rational methods of Philosophy, based on the Classical Science belief in the final authority of empirical methods. However, in the words of quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg : "classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves". In that case, a fundamental belief of Scientism is that the human mind (Ideas) has no control over the physical world. Yet, historically, the power of Intention has transformed the natural world into an artificial habitat designed specifically for the needs of humans. To me, that sounds like mental Causation : from idea to implementation. Yes, matter must be moved in order to cause physical change, but the causal influence can be traced to the flow of mundane Information, not to New Agey mental energy such as Chi.

3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"? If so, please cite an example.
***The intuition of a "nonphysical" form of energy (Chi, Prana, Elan Vital) has been proposed by sages & philosophers over the ages to explain the existence of Life & Mind. But I prefer a modern term derived from Information Theory :EnFormAction. That made-up word refers to both physical & metaphysical forces in the world. It's based on the 21st century understanding that Energy & Matter are physical forms of Generic Information (the power to cause change in form). It's what Aristotle called "Potential" to explain the contingent existence of "Actual" things.
***An example of non-physical energy is human Intention. It's how humans fly to the moon. Intentional aims are directed toward a future state that does not yet exist. But, by applying that vector to matter (rockets) & energy (fuel), humans have collectively learned to fly like birds, and even to explore the moon. Without Intention, Nature would never put humans on an airless low-gravity satellite.
*** But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html


" ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems ..." ___180
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
*** Of course, Philosophy per se is not a particular belief system, but an evaluation of belief systems. And a dominant belief today, among scientists, is the primacy of Matter : i.e. Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. [Note : the -ism ending indicates a belief system, worldview, or philosophy] But Philosophy has always tried to understand all features of the real world, including those that cannot be attributed to inert Matter, or even to the invisible forces that act upon matter. Two of those mysterious properties of the world are Life and Mind. These are not material objects subject to empirical scrutiny, but processes that can only be analyzed by Reason. So, we are forced to rely on non-empirical Logic (including Math) to show us how such "meta-physical" properties could arise in a world of physical actions & reactions.
*** Today, we use the term "Energy" to describe all physical changes in the world. Presumably, in the Planck-scale Big Bang singularity, there was nothing but potential power to cause change. And the first form-change was from formless Cosmic Potential into ghostly free-floating "sub-particles" (quarks ; gluons) of potential matter called "plasma". Over time, that amorphous gaseous cloud was transformed into the fundamental particles that we know today as solid matter. This story is not based on direct evidence, but of imagination, to explain how stars, planets, and people began from a dimensionless point in non-space. Some call the Big Bang a "modern creation myth". And some form of that myth is fundamental to the belief system we call Scientism, which adapts Classical Materialism to the new facts of Quantum Physics . But it still excludes the intentional Observer from its calculations.
*** Not all scientists subscribe to the modern Matter myth. In fact, some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were forced to consider other paradigms to make sense of the Matter/Mind duality proposed by scientist/philospher Descartes. For example, the application of Information Theory to Quantum Theory has started a movement toward another "paradigm shift" in scientific belief systems. This is currently an adjustment to philosophical worldviews, but it may eventually result in a scientific paradigm shift equal to that of Quantum Physics.

Form is Information :
"Later, in the philosophy of Aristotle, matter was thought of in the relation between form and matter. All that we perceive in the world of phenomena is formed matter. Matter is in itself not a reality, but only a possibility, a "potentia" ; it exists only by means of form. In the natural process the "essence", as Aristotle calls it, passes over from mere possibility through form into actuality."
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
Note -- what Aristotle called "form" we can today equate with the causal power of Information, as discovered by Claude Shannon, and elaborated by later physicists.

The Matter Myth : Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Myth-Discoveries-Challenge-Understanding/dp/0743290917

PLASMA : Latin for FORM

Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. — god must be atheist

Where does math come from? Where does language come from? They come from people, who are made of matter, realized in brains, which are modifications of matter.

But if this image of matter is too restrictive, because in a sense it is, not everything in the universe is matter - dark energy, light, etc, are physical.

As Joseph Priestley says:

"It is said that we can have no conception how sensation or thought can arise from matter, they being things so very different from it, and bearing no sort of resemblance to anything like figure or motion; which is all that can result from any modification of matter, or any operation upon it.…this is an argument which derives all its force from our ignorance. Different as are the properties of sensation and thought, from such as are usually ascribed to matter, they may, nevertheless, inhere in the same substance, unless we can shew them to be absolutely incompatible with one another."

And also this quote, even more forcefully stated, from Schopenhauer:

"The tendency to gravity in the stone is precisely as inexplicable as is thinking in the human brain, and so on this score, we could also infer a spirit in the stone. Therefore to these disputants [between 'spiritualists' and 'materialists'] I would say: you think you know a dead matter, that is, one that is completely passive and devoid of properties, because you imagine you really understand everything that you are able to reduce to mechanical effect. But… you are unable to reduce them… If matter can fall to earth without you knowing why, so can it also think without you knowing why… If your dead and purely passive matter can as heaviness gravitate, or as electricity attract, repel, and emit spark, so too as brain pulp can it think."

Emphasis mine.

I think these are very solid arguments. We do not know how it is possible that matter (or physical stuff) can think, but it clearly does, as we see in ourselves.

Like a bull in a psychoceramics shop ...

To 180, this sounds like the ravings of a New Age nut-case. — Gnomon

Gnomon, sir, I prefer to categorize your "ravings" :sparkle: more precisely, as I've said previously, as pseudo-science masquerading as metaphysical speculation that's rationalized with soapbox sophistry. :eyes:

" ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems ..." ___180
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
*** Of course, Philosophy per se is not a particular belief system, but an evaluation of belief systems. And a dominant belief today, among scientists, is the primacy of Matter : i.e. Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. [Note : the -ism ending indicates a belief system, worldview, or philosophy

Thanks for proving my point about the persistent incoherence of your reasoning, Gnomon, with such a clear, telling example. :lol: :up:

180 proof insists that everything real is natural.
— god must be atheist

That is a true statement . . . .

Well then, unlike gmba, you're capable of using the TPF search function and citing my own words from our many exchanges to corrobrate your claim that what gmba says about my stated position on what is "real" or "natural" is "a true statement", right? :chin:

I only ask, Gnomon, because you promiscously assert things without valid arguments or sufficient evidence about philosophical or scientific topics you clearly do not understand. :sweat:

And while you seem in the mood to address my questions about your "New Age ravings", how about showing these old chestnuts some of that "Enformationism" :kiss:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676

Since the nature of things that are considered physical/material has changed (radically) over time, what is the definition of physical/material and should we assume that this definition will remain?

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
— T Clark
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing. — god must be atheist

[/quote]

what is the definition of physical/material and should we assume that this definition will remain? — Bylaw

I think the best answer I can provide to your quiestion, Bylaw, is point [2] in the above credo.

But it's not a perfect answer. Because the universa also contains empty space. And it contains functionalities that are not matter, yet they exist.

How would you define physical/material?

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural

But it's not a perfect answer. Because the universe also contains empty space. And it contains functionalities that are not matter, yet they exist. — god must be atheist

Recently, I have been exploring the oft-buried & resurrected zombie notion that "empty space" is full of something that has physical effects, but is not physical itself : Quintessence or Aether. The new understanding is that "empty space" is not a cloud of tiny particles, but something more like a Mathematical Field of Potential Energy. We detect & measure invisible intangible Energy, by what it does (function), not by what it is (physical material). And one of its functions is to create physical Matter by means of mathematical Mass. Is that something like what you had in mind in the OP? :smile:

PS__Like "Metaphysics", "Aether" can be a trigger-word for Classical-Physics-Materialists to denounce as "Pseudoscience". Yet, in the last century, the logical necessity for something like Aether has continued to pop-up among physicists uncomfortable with the compromises embedded in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, due to the unavoidable statistical uncertainties (probabilities) of quantum experiments. The Quora opinion linked below is not necessarily authoritative, but it provides food for thought : about non-physical (essential) existence.

Energy :
"Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic." https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/education/tell-me-about/physics-of-energy
Note -- Potential Energy is by definition, not actual. And Kinetic Energy is merely the after-effect of Energy Causation.

Does Aether Exist? :
"Under a surface of vociferous denying and pointing to flawed experiments there is a general acceptance even among modern physicists and Nobel Laureates that there is a physical strata that plays fundamentally the role of an Aether, although the term is so laden with philosophical prejudices that no one really dares to commit to the name Aether and all sorts of alternative and rather silly sounding denotations are invented: “quantum foam”, “quantum fluid” for instance or this “field” or that “field”, where nobody ever can point out what kind of physical species a field IS. There are at best vague ideas what a field DOES: "
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- It seems that, by labeling the mysterious source of "virtual" particles as a visualizable Cartesian "Field", quantum physics were attempting to avoid the prejudices attached to mystical ancient "Aether" : the ethereal atmosphere of the Olympian gods

Aether proven not to exist? :
Michelsen-Morley: the erroneous notion of a monolithic ether filling space through which all moving bodies must travel, led to the ill fated “M&M experiment” which inevitably yielded a null-result: nothing moves “through” the Aether, the Aether is not a substance filling an autonomous space, but space IS itself an Aether modality as we will see.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- The M-M experiment was assuming that Aether was a physical substance in space. But some new theories propose that non-physical Aether is SpaceTime : a mathematical mental model, not a physical object.

"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." ~Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace

Quintessence or Aether. — Gnomon

:lol: Woo-wooooosy.

So I suppose the Michelson–Morley experiment doesn't disprove the existence of "aether" after all, huh? :smirk:

'Atoms swirling and swerving in the void' still works philosophically. Consider these refinements as "physical/material" correlates: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532028

I wouldn't use those words, because their meaning has changed over time and now encompasses things with qualities (or without the qualities) of physical/material 'things' earlier. IOW anything that is considered real will be call physical/material by physicalists/materialists regardless of the qualities of that 'thing'. Both those words imply/represent a metaphysical stand on substance, but actually they are not taking a stand. So, I would just use words like real and existant and if you wanted an overarching position you could call it something like verificationism. Meaning something like we will consider something real if we can verify it's existence. Those terms are used as part of stands against dualism (often) or idealism (sometimes) or other monisms that do not consider everything physical. But for me the terms have no meaning beyond that something exists.

'Atoms swirling and swerving in the void' still works philosophically. Consider these refinements as "physical/material" correlates: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532028 — 180 Proof

I am not sure how this relates to what I wrote. Or perhaps better put - I haven't made an argument based on atoms swirling and swerving in the void or focusing on the void, so I am not quite sure what you are saying here. (and oddly, despite your quoting me, I got no notice that you had. I saw it by chance.)

You asked (another) for a definition of "physical/material" and I proposed one. If it's not helpful or not relevant or not wanted, that's up you (both).

Meaning something like we will consider something real if we can verify it's existence. — Bylaw

Good point. Well put. The only weaknesses of this definition are its use of undefinable elements, and its obvious subjectivity.

I think we can agree that we are humans and real to us is what is real to us. Yes, it's not only circular, but more so: it's a point-definition, and if we include the need for verification, then we really throw ourselves into the outer space of philosophical loo-loo land.

We are scraping the outer boundary of philosophy, the frontier where no man has gone before.

Any way you define reality, there are physical existances, I am sure, and things that are born of physical existencies. Some people deny the existence, not only the realness, of non-physical existencies. That is where my battle lies, not in defintions... defining life, god, love, reality and meaning I leave to the philosopers.

ok. I don't quite see a definition of physical/material in the link. I do see two, nicely present, different ways of looking at some ontology.

Good point. Well put. The only weaknesses of this definition are its use of undefinable elements, and its obvious subjectivity. — god must be atheist

It's open about it's subjectivity, sure. But it is about objectivity. Yes, we humans make decisions about what we consider objective. We do that whether we use the terms physical and material or if we don't use those terms. Scientists use the scientific method to make decisions about what is considered real (or physical or material). The only difference in what I am arguing for is it is leaving out a position on substance. And any elements are all definable. We just use nouns we have for other things we have decided are real.

Four Common Parts of a Cell. Although cells are diverse, all cells have certain parts in common. The parts include a plasma membrane, cytoplasm, ribosomes, and DNA.

When we discover a part we don't have to say it is physical. We can just say what it is a part of or does (effects/functions) or has as parts. And this would include more nebulous things like massless particles, particles in superposition, magnetic fields and so on.

I think we can agree that we are humans and real to us is what is real to us. — god must be atheist

Well, yes. But that's not what I am saying. I am suggesting we leave out words that imply substance because we keep shifting the goalposts. And we lose nothing if we simply, for example in science, say that X has been verified, rather than making metaphysical claims that only physical things are real.

and if we include the need for verification, then we really throw ourselves into the outer space of philosophical loo-loo land. — god must be atheist

That's what science does. They keep repeating experiments to verify in various places, say, that X exists, or X is made up of Y as we claimed and so on. They verify, or fail to, claims of existence or even find counterevidence and falsify. That's not woo woo. And no need to take an ontological stand on all of reality or even parts of it in the old ways philosophers and religious people did.

What you wrote about substances and physics and definable elements are not definitions; they are separate descriptors of what we consider reality. We can't verify reality; we can verify differentness of instances of what we consider reality.

That's why I wanted to avoid the whole issue. Reality can be decided over (i.e. what we consider reality) but it can't be verified.

For instance, scientists can't prove there is matter; they deal with it, they find its properties, but they can't verify matter.

Some users stopped talking to me, because I said matter is a matter of belief. (Or at least this is my recollection why they categorically said they won't talk to me.) I won't quote names, because my rote memory is shot; I don't know how to quote who said what. |(I know the mechanism, but it's too much work for too little return in this instance.) This is completely a side issue, but when it comes to reality, I adamantly support the view that reality is not proven, it is a matter of belief. I admit it COULD be the real thing, but there is no way we, humans, can prove it and/or verify its existence.

This all goes back to Hume, of course, the Humest Human.