I think you two are defining "order" differently. Metaphysician Undercover means determinate form, and you are referring to the number of ways macroscopic properties can be microscopically instantiated -- for that is what entropy describes.Maybe I'm just naive, but how is the well-documented physical phenomenon/fact of negentropy not in and of itself sufficient evidence of this? — Pantagruel
Aquinas says that we cannot know essences (including our own) directly, but infer them from the actions flowing from them. Nietzsche (or maybe his sister) seems to want to do more, saying that there is nothing out of which what we observe to be dynamically continuous flows. I think that is metaphysically impossible, as potential acts are not yet operational. So, they cannot operate to make themselves actual. Consequently, something already actual must be the source of our phenomenological acts.And then there’s Nietzsche’s take on causation: — Joshs
the number of ways macroscopic properties can be microscopically instantiated -- for that is what entropy describes. — Dfpolis
Aquinas says that we cannot know essences (including our own) directly, but infer them from the actions flowing from them. Nietzsche (or maybe his sister) seems to want to do more, saying that there is nothing out of which what we observe to be dynamically continuous flows. I think that is metaphysically impossible, as potential acts are not yet operational. So, they cannot operate to make themselves actual. Consequently, something already actual must be the source of our phenomenological acts. — Dfpolis
That is because we were not discussing entropy, or even order per se.I just reviewed the entire thread, didn't find any reference to the microscopic instantiation of macroscopic properties (other than when you brought it up just now). — Pantagruel
No, I respect the human person, so, I am socially liberal except for abortion, where the problem is complex. I see a distinction between being alive and being a person, and rights as prospective.Would it be fair to say you sympathize with social conservative perspectives on many matters? — Joshs
First, this line of thought does not preclude intentional realities from acting on physical reality.If an object exists physically then it is affected by physical matter.
And if an object is physical matter then it can affect physical matter.
By observation, thought can affect physical matter and be affected by physical matter so thought is physical matter." — Mark Nyquist
To put the matter in a nutshell, the ontological vocabulary of the Greeks lead them to treat the existence of things and persons as a special case of the Bestehen von Sachverhalte. It is remarkable that not only onta but every other Greek word for "fact" can also mean "thing", and vice versa:-(Cf. chremata = pragmata in the fragment of Protagoras; ergon in the contrast with logos: "in fact" and "in word" gegonota as the perfect of onta, etc.) This failure on the part of the Greeks (at least before the Stoics) to make a systematic distinction between fact and thing underlies the more superficial and inaccurate charge that they confused the "to be" of predication with that of existence.
It may be thought that the neglect of such a distinction constitutes a serious shortcoming in Greek philosophy of the classical period. But it was precisely this indiscriminate use of einai and on which permitted the metaphysicians to state the problem of truth and reality in its most general form, to treat matters of fact and existence concerning the physical world as only a part of the problem (or as one of the possible answers), and to ask the ontological question itself: What is Being? that is, What is the object of true knowledge, the basis for true speech? If this is a question worth asking, then the ontological vocabulary of the Greeks, which permitted and encouraged them to ask it, must be regarded as a distinct philosophical asset. — Charles Kahn
Maybe I'm just naive, but how is the well-documented physical phenomenon/fact of negentropy not in and of itself sufficient evidence of this? — Pantagruel
I’m wondering how this relates to phenomenology, which it seems to me attempts to reduce all forms of causation to a single non-determinist form, thereby dispelling the spiritual woo-hoo without falling into materialist determinisms.
And then there’s Nietzsche’s take on causation: — Joshs
When I piece together what you ascribe to Aristotle, I don't understand it as a thought by itself." — Paine
The fact that you find it repugnant to think that order could emerge from disorder, tells us nothing about what occurs in nature or the rational mind. — Fooloso4
You can posit a pre-material final cause but in doing so you part ways with Aristotle. The final cause is always the end or telos of some being and does not exist apart from it. — Fooloso4
Where does Aristotle demonstrate this? We can distinguish between the final and formal cause but they are always at work together within a being. — Fooloso4
First actuality is being operational. Second actuality is operating. — Dfpolis
I am not arguing against having more than one principle in an organism (not against matter and form) as Aristotle recognized, but against having two things (res cogitans and res extensa) as Descartes thought. I've told you this a number of times before. — Dfpolis
Aristotle does not say that the human mind creates forms, but that it actualizes the intelligibility belonging to the form of the sensed object. He even says that in doing so, the nous becomes, in some way, the thing it knows. Thus, the known form is the form of the known. — Dfpolis
I have not proposed such a duality. Again, the known form is the form of the known. — Dfpolis
it appears like you never got to the point of understanding the consistency the way that I do. — Metaphysician Undercover
I actually covered a lot of my views relating thermodynamics and information theory by way of cybernetics in the dialog with ChatGPT I just posted in the Lounge. There is a lot of preamble because I needed to contextualize the discussion to make sure the neural net was weighting things correctly. The history of the conversation appears to change the nature of the response to any given question.Wikipedia tells me "In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality." Care to state your case? — Metaphysician Undercover
Similarly, metaphysical naturalists project nature onto an a priori model defined over a restricted conceptual space. With historical myopia, they tend to see dualism as the sole alternative to physicalism. — DfPolis
There is no point in continuing to respond to you.Metaphysician Undercover — Metaphysician Undercover
I actually covered a lot of my views relating thermodynamics and information theory by way of cybernetics in the dialog with ChatGPT I just posted in the Lounge. There is a lot of preamble because I needed to contextualize the discussion to make sure the neural net was weighting things correctly. The history of the conversation appears to change the nature of the response to any given question. — Pantagruel
This leads to the disastrously oxymoronic conception of 'a thinking substance' which is the single biggest contributor to modern physicalist philosophy. So this, I entirely agree with: — Wayfarer
I also agree with the gist of the 'fundamental abstraction', although again, I differ somewhat in my analysis of it. I trace the 'fundamental abstraction' to early modern science - a consequence of Cartesian dualism, and equally, the division of the world into primary and secondary qualities or attributes, with the primary qualities being the objects of physics and the secondary being assigned to 'mind' and thereby subjectivised and relativised**. I agree that Aristotle's hylomorphic model is vastly superior to the Cartesian, and also note that Aristotelian metaphysics is enjoying a comeback in the biological sciences. — Wayfarer
There is no point in continuing to respond to you. — Dfpolis
Do you accept that a "system" is an artificial thing? So any experiments carried with a system are designed and ordered by the engineers of the system, therefore not necessarily giving a proper representation of what is natural. — Metaphysician Undercover
A "system" is a whole, and as such it requires a boundary, or principle at least, which validates its supposed existence as a united whole. — Metaphysician Undercover
That is why the theological principle "God" is much better suited to philosophy, — Metaphysician Undercover
All material objects are preceded in time by the potential for their existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Necessarily therefore, either it simply Is or it simply Is Not. Strong conviction will not let us think that anything springs from Being except itself. Justice does not loosen her fetter to let Being be born or destroyed, but holds them fast. Thus our decision must be made in these terms: Is or Is Not. Surely by now we agree that it is necessary to reject the unthinkable unsayable path as untrue and to affirm the alternative as the path of reality and truth. — Parmenides, Way of Truth,7, Wheelwright collection (Emphasis mine)
*. I agree that Aristotle's hylomorphic model is vastly superior to the Cartesian, and also note that Aristotelian metaphysics is enjoying a comeback in the biological sciences. — Wayfarer
This makes almost exactly the point I am seeing to make: that 'what exists' is only ever an aspect or facet of 'what is', — Wayfarer
I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.