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. — god must be atheist

OK, you're moving into a different area of philosophy (or perhaps I took you away from it. I can't remember) But then this argument you make here would also make it more likely to not talk about substance. We would notice differences, not substances.

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. — god must be atheist

We can verify differences. We can verify that when we do X and Y we get Z.

I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I don't think this line of argument makes a case for calling everything in reality physical or material. That was my focus.

When I say verify, I mean things like. When I add salt to water it leads to a solution that gets saturated until each liter has X amount of salt at 65 degrees Cent. So, 10 labs around the world do this and find this is the case. Or I do some experiments on the material in pig bones and state that there is calcium in there. Other people in other labs verify this (or find counterevidence or fail to verify.

I'm happy to question if we are finding out about ultimate reality or ding an sich.

But for me I have little problem using this idea of verification. But I am not attached to it and it seems like for you this means something much stronger than what it means to me. We have called X salt and Y water and so on. And when I do process C this happens. Hey can you verify this in your lab, thanks.

What I like about the term is it is process focused and pragmatic. Rather than making some claim that everything is physical so we know that only physical things will be found.

Some users stopped talking to me, because I said matter is a matter of belief. — god must be atheist

I agree in a couple of different ways with you.

I think it's a love axiom to work with, but I think it is silly to continue using it as a universal ontological claim. The meaning has changed too much over time to take it seriously.

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

[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.
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — god must be atheist

The OP questions our Ontological definition of Nature & Being : Physical (P) vs Non-physical (non-P) existence. That Either/Or distinction has boiled down to defining "substance" and "entity". So, I'll ask a few quibbling questions for clarification. This is not criticism, just a few pertinent open questions to think about.

[1] asserts an ordered universe, and [3] seems to attribute that logical organization to "principles & laws". Which category would you place those orderly forces into : P or non-P? If physical "Laws" (or regulations) are detectable only by rational minds, not by empirical methods, what is their Substance : Matter or Math or Mind or Aristotelian Essence, or Other?

Into which category would you place "Mathematics" [4] : P or non-P? If Math is a physical substance, is it Matter or Energy or Mind or Other? If neither Matter nor Energy, how can Math exist according to [2]? Supernatural existence has already been ruled-out by the topical question. So, if Math is non-P, in what sense is it Natural?

[9] Space & Time, as conventional concepts had always been imagined as separate functions of Nature (Reality), but fundamental & absolute. Yet, for theoretical graphical purposes, Einstein combined the notions of spatial Extension & temporal Duration into a single mathematical function : "Space-Time" or "Block-Time". Although still fundamental or essential, in what sense do Space & Time exist : P or non-P, or Other?

Typically, in philosophical dialog, both Ps & non-Ps are considered to be Entities, but in what sense : physical substance or metaphysical essence? Is "Being" defined exclusively, as Physical (matter & energy) and "Non-Being" as non-physical, or mutually as different modes of Being? If Non-physical entities are non-being, why should physicists or philosophers concern themselves with such non-existent non-entities? :smile:


Entity : a thing with distinct and independent existence.
But is the distinction mental or physical? Is the independence local or universal?

What is a substance according to Aristotle?
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html

The OP questions our Ontological definition of Nature & Being : Physical (P) vs Non-physical (non-P) existence. That Either/Or distinction has boiled down to defining "substance" and "entity". So, I'll ask a few quibbling questions for clarification. This is not criticism, just a few pertinent open questions to think about.

[1] asserts an ordered universe, and [3] seems to attribute that logical organization to "principles & laws". Which category would you place those orderly forces into : P or non-P? If physical "Laws" (or regulations) are detectable only by rational minds, not by empirical methods, what is their Substance : Matter or Math or Mind or Aristotelian Essence, or Other?

Into which category would you place "Mathematics" [4] : P or non-P? If Math is a physical substance, is it Matter or Energy or Mind or Other? If neither Matter nor Energy, how can Math exist according to [2]? Supernatural existence has already been ruled-out by the topical question. So, if Math is non-P, in what sense is it Natural? — Gnomon

Hmm. These questions keep getting asked and 'answered' on this forum.

My own take is maths is an abstraction, a product of human minds. Minds appear to be physical things in as much as we have no evidence of a mind without a physical body. But there is no firm answer available to all this yet, right? (Let's avoid qualia too, while we are at it.) And intellects far more powerful than ours have been no closer to definitively answering this question, so perhaps it can be bracketed and set aside until there's a breakthrough. A few arseholes on the internet are not going to resolve this and win the Nobel Prize.

Do we have any good evidence to decide that the foundations of logic are transcendent? Can we demonstrate that there is even such a thing as non-natural/super natural? What would the properties of non-natural be, I wonder? While we may speculate about the nature of maths or logic and call them spooky because they are useful but not corporeal, it seems fairly likely they only exist if bodies with minds can conceptualize them. There's no real need for Platonism or woo just yet, is there?

I wonder if maths, time and space and all those tricky matters are just part of a generalized neurocognitive system that allows us to understand the world and they have no reality outside of experience.

Thanks for asking those questions.

I copied the list from the post of a fellow user. I shan't name the user, in order to avoid a making a mistake for which I'm accountable.

I QUESTIONED the list. I said there are thing outside the assertions of those items. I left the list as is, assuming that that is the proposition that only material things exist. The last point says that. Somehow you cut off the last two or three points, which is unfortunate, as they were essential elements of the weltanschauung of the poster whose post-list i questioned.

I wonder if maths, time and space and all those tricky matters are just part of a generalized neurocognitive system that allows us to understand the world and they have no reality outside of experience. — Tom Storm

This is what I am driving at, too, except I recognize their existence as such. You talk of them as functions of a system; I agree that they depend on their existence on the system, but once created, they are body-less existencies.

This is only a viewpoint difference; an interpretation, between "existence without body" and "function of system". I am beginning to think that it does not really matter what you call it, but I still believe that they do exist; not as part of the system, but as function of the system, therefore they are SEPARATE from the system. Much like travelling speed of a car is dependent on the car's system, but the speed itself is separate from the system, and is in effect a measurable non-physically existent quality.

Apart from the interesting ontological questions, we simply need in everyday life to exist as humans a lot that isn't made up of atoms. An advanced language makes us what we are, just as understanding concepts. It's simply biology that makes us different from other animals.

Even the hard core materialist needs things like language and math. He or she might simply brush away the question with the standard answer that it all happens in the brain.

In a way, the problem is that existence and something being true is synonymous. From that we get confused.

In a way, the problem is that existence and something being true is synonymous. From that we get confused. — ssu

I agree with you, but I lost you at this part.

I went to the movies last night. True.

What exists here that "true" refers to? It's an assertion that "true" validates. The assertion exists? in a way yes, but if I say "i went to the beach yesterday" then it would be false and yet "false" also validates that the assertion happened, except it disagrees with it.

I agree with you, but I lost you at this part. — god must be atheist

Physical existence is quite clear: either something is made of atoms exists or it doesn't. Hence we can say that an animal we define or have named as being a horse exists ("horses exist" is a true statement) whereas an animal named as an unicorn doesn't (hence "Unicorns exist" is false). Here existence refers to physical existence.

Yet when we don't ask about physical objects, but refer to other questions, the "existence" isn't so straightforward: is there a very popular called mythic imaginary creature called an unicorn? Are there pictures, books or songs about unicorns? Of course. It's our questions that define the truth or falsity of the answers.

My own take is maths is an abstraction, a product of human minds. Minds appear to be physical things in as much as we have no evidence of a mind without a physical body. — Tom Storm

We seem to be using terms "Math", "Mind", and "Physical" in different senses. Equating the Chalice with the Wine. So, let's get more definitive.

Of course, the formalisms that we collectively call "Mathematics"*1 are mental constructs produced by many human minds over multiple lifetimes, yet they persist (exist) in some sense. To be clear, these non-scientific philosophical questions, about Physical vs Non-Physical existence, are referring to invisible & intangible features of the world, such as are studied by mathematicians : "quality, structure, space, and change". So, let's rephrase the question : are quality, structure, space, and change P or non-P? What is your take on the physicality of those features of Nature? Note : I'm not referring to the container, but to its contents -- not to a machine, but to its functions.

Again, the word "Mind"*2 is typically intended to distinguish the complex lump of tissue that controls the neural systems of the body from its functions or faculties : thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. Now, what is your take on the physicality of those natural phenomena?

The OP is making a distinction between "Physical"*3 and "Non-Physical". So, lets be more specific about the options here. Apparently, the wording of the question was trying to avoid using baggage-laden idioms, such as "Metaphysical" or "Spiritual". So, lets substitute some neutral terminology like "Mental" or "Abstract"*4.

With these distinctions in mind, let's reconsider the OP question : "What exists that is not of the physical world, but is not supernatural?" Are "Qualities" & "Memories" physical or supernatural objects consisting of matter, or merely abstract concepts consisting of immaterial logical structures (functional interrelationships)? Can you empirically study Ideas, Feelings, & Concepts by dissecting the physical body/brain? Or must you study them rationally, by examining their logical structure and their inferred relationships to concrete objects? :smile:


*1. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.
https://www.tntech.edu/cas/math/what-is-mathematics.php

*2. The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves. These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. ___Wikipedia

*3, Physical :
A. of or relating to material things
B. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.

*4. Abstract : existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Now I am even more confused in trying to understand what you say.

I'm still stuck at "Existence and something being true is synonymous". Wouldn't it be the "something being" synonymous with existence? And "true" is interchangeable with any other adjective.

Logically it's not just any kind of adjective. We assume that true things exist. We cherish for example mathematics because there true statements exist. Math gives them proofs. If 0=1, then basically you can prove anything in mathematics.

Yep, I may confuse you. Sorry. :yikes:

I am now totally confused by you. Now you say that truth and existence are assumptions?

No.

No? You said that in the previous post. How can you say that this is so and in the next post deny the very same thing?

Ah, in mathematics, yes. Sorry, I didn't understand you at first.

In mathematics you start with logical premises, and then get that system something is wrong of false in that system starting from the premises. (Hence if 0=1, then anything goes.) I forget what philosophical school of mathematics that is, but it basically just looks if the system is logical by it's own rules. Of course mathematics itself is under scrutiny here.

(Not my best day I assume)

So, let's rephrase the question : are quality, structure, space, and change P or non-P? What is your take on the physicality of those features of Nature? Note : I'm not referring to the container, but to its contents -- not to a machine, but to its functions. — Gnomon

I think we're just repeating ourselves and playing with language. And as far as physics and neuroscience goes, we are both out of our depth. And I already said this:

I wonder if maths, time and space and all those tricky matters are just part of a generalized neurocognitive system that allows us to understand the world and they have no reality outside of experience. — Tom Storm

Also this:

Can we demonstrate that there is even such a thing as non-natural/super natural? What would the properties of non-natural be, I wonder? — Tom Storm

How would we be able to answer these questions? We can't really proceed until there are better answers as far as I can tell.

Again, the word "Mind"*2 is typically intended to distinguish the complex lump of tissue that controls the neural systems of the body from its functions or faculties : thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. Now, what is your take on the physicality of those natural phenomena? — Gnomon

As I said, we don't yet have a definitive explanation of consciousness. But I suspect neuroscience will get there. Until there is a better model, I am comfortable with the notion that mind (metacognition) is the product of brains. But putative answers to this matter will depend upon what foundational metaphysics one adopts. If you're an idealist, say, all this is irrelevant.

Can you empirically study Ideas, Feelings, & Concepts by dissecting the physical body/brain? — Gnomon

My understanding is neuroscience is close to being able to do so using equipment, not dissection. But even physical things cannot always be measured or be the subject of empirical inquiry. How would we use empirical tools to discover what I ate for lunch on March 4, 1991? Is my lunch to be understood in non-physical terms?

I think we're just repeating ourselves and playing with language. And as far as physics and neuroscience goes, we are both out of our depth. — Tom Storm

This is merely a typical philosophical failure to adequately define our terms & categories. We talk past each other, not because as laymen we are out of our depth, but because one of us is discussing empirical "Physics and Neuroscience" and the other is discussing theoretical Philosophy. Fortunately, it's not all Greek to me, or to you, I assume.

As I noted before, concepts such as "quality, structure, space, and change" are not physical bodies, hence not subject to empirical dissection. Likewise the "function" of a thing is not a physical object, but a rational inference from observing the states & actions of the thing. So, equating the Mind (function) with the Brain (object) confuses physical properties (wet, warm, gelatinous) with mental functions (ideas, thoughts, feelings). Biologists & Neuroscientists study Brains, while Philosophers study Minds.

Yet, long before the knowing disciplines diverged -- partly due to technological tools for extending the human senses -- Aristotle wrote an encyclopedia of current knowledge of his era (iron & steel were high-tech). And for some reason, he saw fit to divide the work into volume 1 Physics and volume 2 Philosophy, later labeled Meta-Physics. The first volume described observations of natural objects and physical actions : Elements ; Motion. Then, in the second volume, he discussed philosophical cultural principles & theories that were intended to explain what we observed.

Ironically, since the 1700s, those philosophical topics have been branded taboo, and relegated to the sophistry of Theologians. So, what can laymen & non-scientists legitimately discuss on a philosophy forum? Are we limited to the language of Matter & Energy? Should we restrict our language to Physical "principles of classification"? Must we refrain from using Aristotle's language of "substance, quality, quantity, and relation", because such words can be interpreted theologically? If so, why not change the name of this forum to The Physics and Neuroscience Forum? :smile:


Physics vs Philosophy :
"many bitter scientific controversies are actually disputes about the selection of principles of classification or frameworks . . . .There simply is no science practiced independently of philosophy . . . . scientists should not pretend that empirical science is value free . . ."
___Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics

Language of Physicists :
"it is a language that produces pictures in our mind, but together with them the notion that the pictures have only a vague connection with reality, that they represent only a tendency toward reality"
"Actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism"
"The modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy"
"the nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science but also the general outlook of great masses of people. This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality. . . . Matter was the primary reality."
"an open hostility of science toward religion developed . . . . Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind. . . . . modern {quantum} physics . . . . finally resulted in the dissolution of the rigid frame"
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

We're repeating ourselves. Maybe we can talk another time. Take care.

It's our questions that define the truth or falsity of the answers. — ssu

:up:

:up: :up:

[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy. — god must be atheist

Well their is duality here is there not? Matter and energy are the same but separated by the quality of mass. Energy and matter both have mass; a hot box of matter has more mass than a cold box of the same amount of matter (because of the energy in the box system/heat).

The difference between matter and energy then is space-time (C) energy travels at the speed of light (timeless and distanceless but a potent cause of change) - it is not physical but has mass - the connection between it and matter, while matter does not travel at the speed of light (has duration/experiences time and occupies distance/space) - it is physical and is the subject of change (is less potent) and again has mass, but obeys its more potent counterpart (energy).

They are equivalent in the sense that they can be converted between one another (mass), but they are qualitatively different: matter is physical and changes while energy is non physical and causes change.

They are the two opposite ends of a spectrum separated by speed (distance/time) squared, or "momentum" ( velocity - "speed in space" and mass).

As Einstein proposed with his equation E=mc2.

[6] The behaviors of substances are caused. — god must be atheist

The behaviour of energy is to "cause" not be "caused", that's the perogative of matter (physical objects).

[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — god must be atheist

They are separate and absolute from the relativity (perspective) of matter/physical things/objects.
To energy on the other hand time and space are the same thing. Pure energy would "experience" no time and no distance - as it is pure change/ability to do work/pure potential - everything occurs simultaneously for energy, as a singularity, in a single instant. But as energy condenses into matter, time and space stretch out relative to this process.

Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable (rate - and thus the beginning of time and space - the only medium in which rate (change) can occur.

Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable (rate - and thus the beginning of time and space - the only medium in which rate (change) can occur. — Benj96

How did you arrive at that novel conclusion? I have entertained (inferred from E=MC^2) the above-my-paygrade-notion that Matter is essentially slowed-down (decelerated) Light energy. For example, at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter. I have found a few statements by scientists that could be interpreted as pointing in that direction, but nothing definitive.

Regarding the "beginning of time & space", what could cause presumably continuous (wavey) Pure Energy to coalesce into quantized (particular) photons (change ; time) and thence into matter (malleable ; space)? Can pure energy interact with itself? These are just rhetorical questions. :smile:

... Pure Energy ... — Gnomon

:lol:

How did you arrive at that novel conclusion? I have entertained (inferred from E=MC^2) the above-my-paygrade-notion that Matter is essentially slowed-down (decelerated) Light energy. For example, at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter. I have found a few statements by scientists that could be interpreted as pointing in that direction, but nothing definitive. — Gnomon

[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — god must be atheist

Well the photon is "matterless" yes (not physical/solid/has no dimension) but not massless. Matter and mass are not the same thing: Matter is the solidly of an object that we can see and measure the weight of in a given gravity. Mass on the other hand is the sum of both the matter (solid part) and energy (kinetic part/vibrations) of an object and doesn't depend on gravity.

Proof of this concept: a fully charged torch verses an uncharged torch. The mass (energy and matter) of a torch with a full battery is greater than the mass (energy and matter) of one where the batter is depleted. When you turn on a torch the chemical energy stored in the battery is converted into light energy that quickly bullets off out of the system taking its mass with it.

If a photon was massless how could it impart its mass to matter when it decelerates? Where other than energy would this mass come from otherwise? The key is understanding that the mass of a photon exists as "potential mass" just as a stretched spring represents "potential kinetic energy" which is converted to actual kinetic energy when it is released (accelerates). Which doesn't mean the mass doesn't exist (massless) it just means it cannot be measured at the speed of light because of what's simultaneously occurring to time and space at such a speed.

Can pure energy interact with itself? — Gnomon

That's a good question.
Energy Travelling at the speed of light cannot interact with itself. At the speed of light there is no change "experienced" only potential for change. For energy to interact with itself at the speed of light (do work/influence itself/generate information, that information would have to somehow travel faster than the speed limit - have greater momentum which isn't possible).
Because time dilates infinitely and space contracts infinitely at the speed of light there's no space-time in which anything can change anyways - a singularity.

As for why, when and how energy deccelerates and precipitates matter in a slower, time and space influenced medium (no longer potential but actual change) I'm not entirely sure if I'm honest.

Perhaps some fundamental law based on probability and possible states of being that forces energy to decelerate (change).

Well the photon is "matterless" yes (not physical/solid/has no dimension) but not massless. . . .
If a photon was massless how could it impart its mass to matter when it decelerates? — Benj96

A photon is said to be "massless"*1 when it is moving at lightspeed (its definitive state). In that case, it is essentially Pure Energy, undiluted by Matter (pace 180wooboo)*2. But when a photon slows down to a fraction of lightspeed, some of that Potential Energy is converted into Mass, which is a mathematical expression of its potential to be measured in terms of Matter. The "rest mass"*3 of a photon is only a hypothetical concept*4, since in practice a resting ("matterspeed") photon is no longer a photon (potential), but a particle of some material (actual).

At lightspeed, all of the photon's Energy is in the form of Momentum, which is the potential to transfer energy to another particle upon interaction. An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. Momentum & Mass are mathematical abstractions, and their only measurable properties are what we call Velocity & Matter.

When you said : "Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable." I responded with : "at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter." Put those notions together, and you get Aristotle's categories of Potential (momentum) and Actual (matter). Thus, explaining Einstein's equation of Energy with Mass times the speed of light squared (C^2). Do you agree that we (you, me, Albert) are saying the same thing in different words? :smile:


*1. A photon is massless, has no electric charge, and is a stable particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Note -- existentially stable, but not static (stationary).

*2. Pure energy is any field energy, like potential energy, any kinetic energy, like a fast moving particle, but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15122/what-is-pure-energy

*3. Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. . . .
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them,
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

*4. According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10 - 54 kg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943

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 — god must be atheist

Any use of the terms "Metaphysics" & "Beliefs" will terminate a dialog with several posters on TPF. That reaction is probably due to previous encounters with philosophically-frustrating dogmatic religious positions based on ancient Theology. However, personally, I find the notion of Meta-physics (non-physical) meaningful as a complementary perspective to Physics. Aristotle divided his encyclopedia on Nature (phusis) into two different categories of human understanding : 1> as known by the senses (physics) and 2> as known via reasoning (metaphysics). But, lingering prejudice against centuries of dominant Catholic dogma is strong on this forum . . . and with good reason. However, that rejection sometimes throws-out a beautiful baby with the nasty bathwater, and tars Philosophy with the brush of Religion, and identifies cutting-edge Science with New Age mumbo-jumbo. Ironically, over the last century, modern (post-quantum) physics has been rubbing our noses in the malodorous margins where Atomism (Materialism) dissolves into Fieldism (Mathematicalism).

Undaunted by the pitchforks & torches of anti-meta-physics witch-hunters, I am philosophically motivated to continue investigating the mysterious margins of post-quantum science. And one spooky notion that just won't die, is the ancient concept of ephemeral Aether, permeating reality with an invisible intangible substance. Yet, that's another taboo term that will elicit boos & hisses from those who are, like Einstein, uncomfortable with the idea of a chancy world where "God plays dice".

In addition to the Aether-supporting quotes from scientists in my previous posts, I realized belatedly that I had read a book about 10 years ago, that may have put some subconscious positive spin on the concept of Space-Time interpreted as Aether. The book was The Lightness of Being, Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces, by nobel physicist Frank Wilczek. From the Introduction :"Transcending older ideas about matter and space, he explains a remarkable new discovery : Matter is built from almost weightless units, and pure energy is the ultimate source of mass. . . . . Space is no mere container, empty and passive. It is a dynamic Grid --- a modern ether. The Grid*1 is more fundamental than any 'fundamental particles' . . ."

Inspired by that new-old notion of Reality, I will try to present additional scientific evidence and arguments to support the understanding that the physical material world of the senses, is underlain by a metaphysical mathematical realm of Potential that reveals itself only to human Reason. Of course, some will interpret such outlandish notions as support for ghosts & spirits. But disillusioned Wilczek had forsaken his Catholic upbringing, and concluded : "I came to think that if God exists, He (or She, or They or It) did a much more impressive job revealing Himself in the world than in the old books . . ." And that is also the position from which I approach the ongoing revelations of sub-quantum Physics. The resurrected Aether concept is still in the early stages of zombiehood, so there is no final authoritative consensus to ground your own beliefs. It's just something new & exciting ("field excitations") to challenge your current settled worldview. :smile:


*1. The Grid is Wilczek's term for Maxwell's continuous (non-particular) electromagnetic fields.

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other?

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

Yes. But that ancient dichotomy won't fly in the modern world. "Physical" is merely what we know about Nature via the mammalian senses. And, "Super-natural"*1 implies some form of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and an invisible realm above or behind mundane Reality*2. Which implies that ESP can perceive things & actions that are beyond the reach of mundane Science --- which ultimately depends on artificial (technological) extensions of the 5 physical senses.

In that case, the door is opened to charlatans (seers), who claim to possess ESP. So, those of us, who are not blessed with "second sight" must accept or reject the revelations of the Seers on faith or doubt. Yet, modern pragmatic, results-oriented, Science has out-shone the empty claims of the psychics -- in a secular sense -- with hard physical evidence. For example, our cell-phone crystal balls allow those of us without super-natural powers to see & control events on the other side of the world. Hence techno-magic makes blind-faith unnecessary.

That's why I prefer to use the term "Meta-physics" to mean the Complement of Physics. Unfortunately, that term is still associated with "supernatural", and is taken to be the Negation of Physics. So, I can't take advantage of its Complementary*3 implications, for fear of being misunderstood, due to its prejudicial baggage. I've tried a variety of alternatives, and "Non-Physical" seems to be the least offensive, but also least evocative of a complementary relationship.

What we know via the sixth sense of Reason (knowledge ; information ; meaning) is indeed invisible & intangible & non-physical (immaterial ; mental). But, since those matterless patterns of meaning (relationships) are found within the scope of ordinary reality, they are not Super-Natural. They are merely Mental or Imaginary or Conceptual : ideas about things, but not things themselves. Our mental models of reality are "not of the physical world", but exist (ideally) within the Natural world.

As far as we know, the ability to Reason (to infer what is not obvious to the senses) is a product of cause & effect Evolution. But it is not a physical effect, like position or shape change. The sense of Reason is a non-physical effect, like viral memes*4. It's another complementary relationship : Natural (physical) & Cultural (meta-physical). Together, they form our human understanding (model) of Reality, as a whole system. :smile:



*1. Supernatural : (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. ___Google

*2. Ironically, modern science has revealed a mysterious invisible sub-atomic domain right under our noses. So, the layman on the street could be forgiven for equating that sub-natural foundation of reality with the traditional super-natural heavenly realm. Are quarks any more physical than angels? As a non-scientist, she would have to take the existence of such entities on faith in those who infer their existence from immaterial (non-physical) mathematical evidence.

*3. Complementary : interdependent ; correlative ; Yin-Yang ; BothAnd

*4. Meme : A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. ___Wikipedia

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

Is "Narnia" the negation of Earth? Are "dancing angels" the negation of pinheads? Or hallucinations the negations of facts?

In the OP's poll, I selected the third oprion because, in part ...

Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))

Supernatural" a term used to indicate woo-of-the-gaps – "beyond" – in what we (think we) know about nature, however, amounts to babytalk? mystogogy? non-explanations? ... synonymous with superstitious.

So, in Western philosophy, does metaphysics concern (the) "super-natural"? No – not 'nature beyond nature' (infinite regress, etc) but instead something like 'the common denominator of every constituent of nature as a whole' or 'what within nature makes nature whole' (re: ).

Anyway, I recommend Spinoza over Aristotle (and, whenever possible, avoid Meta-Physics For Dummies :sweat:).

Much like travelling speed of a car is dependent on the car's system, but the speed itself is separate from the system, and is in effect a measurable non-physically existent quality. — god must be atheist

Hey, I wanted to ask if you could explain in which way the speed is separate from the system?