All good.

And as 180 Proof pointed out abstract objects really only exist in a physically instantiated form, which I agree with. — Mark Nyquist

I suspect that our definitions of "abstraction" are confined by our definitions of "concrete" or "real". From the perspective of monistic Materialism/Physicalism, nothing can be immaterial or unreal. The problem with lumping matter & mind into a single category though, is that we can't make the kinds of distinctions that philosophers are interested in. For example, in Plato's allegory of the cave "the shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world."

That's why Aristotle defined a contrast between "Substance" & "Essence". Metaphorically, it's like the difference between your body and its shadow. There is obviously a connection between them, but they are not the same substance. The shadow is not a thing, but merely the absence of light, which we interpret abstractly as-if it's a material thing. The old Peter Pan cartoon had some fun, showing Peter trying to sew his independent minded shadow onto his feet. As a materialist, he was interpreting an abstraction as a substance. Some of our abstractions may have physical instantiations, but some exist only in imaginative minds. :smile:

PS___A unicorn is an abstract idea based on real world experience with horses & narwhals. But we don't go out looking in the real world for an instantiation of the unicorn concept. Unless, that is, our worldview doesn't allow us to make the distinction between an instantiated concrete object and an imagined abstract idea.

I don't know why you are trying to bring what you speculate are my personal reactions to the term "immaterial" into the conversation. . . . . when something is said to be immaterial there are two common meanings: either that it doesn't exist or is unimportant, or that it exists in some way other than the material. — Janus

I didn't mean to offend you by inquiring into your personal preferences. But, it's that "some other way" definition of immaterial that is controversial. Besides, on this Philosophy Forum, personal feelings about hot-button words are all too often the crux of argumentation on divisive topics, as opposed to dictionary definitions.

As you noted, the use of "immaterial" could be simply a bland acknowledgment of the existence of abstract ideas, or a bitter put-down based on a negative value judgment against alternative belief systems. For example, "matter" & "antimatter" are usually not as emotionally laden as "material" & "immaterial". Some people highly value "spiritual concepts", while others openly despise them, or dismiss them as "immaterial". So, it's the emotional baggage attached to some words that make rational dialog difficult.

It doesn't matter to me personally which side of that divide you are on : a> immaterial good or b> immaterial bad. But in order to communicate I need to know which implicit meaning of the term you are intending. To be explicit, when I use the term "immaterial" or "meta-physical", I'm referring to concepts that may be "unimportant" for scientists, but centrally important for philosophers. Are you approaching the topic from the science side or the philosophy side? :smile:


Immaterial :
1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
2. un-real or non-existent
3. Philosophy -- spiritual, rather than physical.
___Oxford

Put-down :
a remark intended to humiliate or criticize someone.
___Oxford

As I see it we are able to think about 'past' or 'future' or 'everything' or 'nothing' or 'the unknowable' and so on because we possess symbolic language.

We also have memory and anticipation, which I think are also enabled, or at least greatly augmented, by language. I don't think this means that "the past or future can exist in our brains"; to me that idea doesn't make sense, so I see no need for an alternative. The reason I think it makes little sense is that past and future are just ideas. If they exist at all they exist as now, meaning that when the past existed it was present and when the future will exist it will be the present. Perhaps all moments are always physically existent, just not so for us we crawl through time.

So, I'm not being "resistant", I just don't see the reasoning that leads to your conclusion that "mental content is universally immaterial". I don't even know what that could mean, to be honest. But that's OK; we don't have to agree, it's just a matter of different perspectives.

I didn't mean to offend you by inquiring into your personal preferences. — Gnomon

You didn't inquire into my personal preferences, but spoke as if you knew what they were, and here you go again; assuming what my personal reactions are. But don't worry, I don't get offended by people in online exchanges, it's just ideas being exchanged, or ignored, or critiqued or whatever.

But, it's that "some other way" definition of immaterial that is controversial. Besides, on this Philosophy Forum, personal feelings about hot-button words are all too often the crux of argumentation on divisive topics, as opposed to dictionary definitions. — Gnomon

I don't see "some other way" as being uncontroversial, but as being philosophically useless unless it is explicated in a cogent manner. I haven't encountered any such explications, on here or anywhere else.

So, it's the emotional baggage attached to some words that make rational dialog difficult. — Gnomon

I'm not attached to any metaphysical views, but I realize that some, in particular those who have developed some kind of system or relate to some pre-existent dogma they are attached to, may have emotional baggage or investment in their ideas and beliefs. If you want to function fruitfully on this forum you would do well to drop such attachments and be open to learning new things. I'm referring here to the general "you" here, not you in particular, just to be clear.

I've seen quite a few people over more than a decade on these and other forums, touting the same set of ideas. like dogs who won't let go of their bones, and I'm astounded how attached some people become to their ideas. They are just ideas, for fuck's sake!

in order to communicate I need to know which implicit meaning of the term you are intending. To be explicit, when I use the term "immaterial" or "meta-physical", I'm referring to concepts that may be "unimportant" for scientists, but centrally important for philosophers. Are you approaching the topic from the science side or the philosophy side? — Gnomon

For me, 'metaphysical' denotes 'speculative ideas about the nature of things', which cannot be empirically tested or logically proven. As such, they may be interesting or not, fruitful for science or not. So, I agree with Popper that (some) metaphysical ideas are not unimportant for scientists, and I also think some metaphysical ideas may be important for some philosophers.

In general, though, I would say that only those metaphysical ideas which are informed by science can be important for philosophy as a whole, since Kant. So, for example, I don't think the idea of God is of much philosophical use these days, which is not to say that it could not be useful to some individuals in relation to their own personal philosophies; it's just that there are some things it is futile arguing for (or against).

So, to sum up, I don't see a division between the "science side" and " the philosophy side". Science informs us about ourselves, but it cannot answer all the questions that may be of importance to people, and it cannot prescribe how people should live either, but those are ethical, not metaphysical, issues.

:fire:

@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential.

Isn't Mathematical Platonism a common argument used to undermine physicalism — Tom Storm

Yes, philosophers have been debating Formalism (Platonism) versus Physicalism for millennia*1. But even Aristotle's theory of physical bodies combined Hyle (concrete matter) with Form (abstract pattern or design)*2. So, it seems that physical stuff and mathematical/logical patterns go together like birds of a feather. In reality, you can't have one without the other. But in ideality, Plato thought that the abstract Idea (form ; concept ; definition ; design ; pattern) of a real thing necessarily existed prior to its instantiation in the material world.

Consequently, a related question remains : which is primary, or which came first : real matter or the ideal potential for matter? The only scientific answer to that query may be the Astrophysics notion of "Singularity"*3. The astronomers traced the current contents of the universe back to near the beginning of space-time. From a Materialism perspective, they imagined that point in pre-time as infinite density of matter (e.g black hole). But from a slightly different angle (Mathism???) they viewed the point of "not yet" as the infinite density of gravity (a mathematical concept)*4. Whatever the Singularity is though, it is not a measurable material object. Hence unreal, or not yet real.

That's why I interpret the Big Bang theory as describing the point in pre-time where Ideality (potential) became Reality (actuality). But then, we could continue to argue about such hypothetical non-empirical concepts for a few more millennia. In the meantime, I agree with both Plato : that "Form is Ideal", and with Aristotle : that "Form + Matter = Real". So the complementary concept of "Ideal + Real = All Possibilities" is Monistic, not Pluralistic. :smile:


*1. Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato
Note -- Universal form (the idea of a kind of thing) is a category (generalization) that applies to all instances, hence it exists only as an Idea, not a particular thing.

*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism
Note -- Potential is a mathematical (statistical) concept, not a concrete tangible (actual) object

*3. Singularity : Physics•Mathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. ___Oxford
Note -- But philosophers want to know how that pre-real matter came to be compressed into the un-real density of Infinity.

*4. Gravitational Singularity :
A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Note -- An indefinite point is immeasurable, hence equivalent to zero (nothingness) or Infinity (everythingness). Or it could be defined as Potential (not yet real) instead of Actual (real thing).

You didn't inquire into my personal preferences, but spoke as if you knew what they were, and here you go again; assuming what my personal reactions are. But don't worry, I don't get offended by people in online exchanges, it's just ideas being exchanged, or ignored, or critiqued or whatever. — Janus

Actually, it's not always "just ideas" that are being exchanged on this forum. Sometimes it's ideas with emotional connotations (feelings) that are used, not to simply convey information, but to sneer at the worldview associated with those words.

As I said above, for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist. But for philosophical purposes, I am an Immaterialist (ideas about ideas). Consequently, when I insist on using immaterial (metaphysical)*2 language on a philosophy forum, some posters get riled-up. Sometimes an inquiry into weltanshauung itself triggers an emotional response*1. Monism is not a specific physical topic, but a general metaphysical belief system.

For example, has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above : "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential."*3. But in your case, I did not know in advance where you stood. Hence, the question about "personal preferences" of worldview. I want to know which toes are touchy, so I can avoid stepping on them.

Since he has made it clear that he trivializes my "Immaterial" (meta-physical) terminology as "inconsequential", I no longer dialog (dance) with him. On a philosophy forum, I expect metaphysical concepts ("ideas about ideas") to be taken seriously. If I wanted to discuss physical/material objects I would post on a Physics or Chemistry forum. As you said, "it's just ideas" -- immaterial concepts -- "being exchanged". Sticks & stones may step on your toes, but metaphysical words can't hurt you --- or can they? :smile:

*1. A worldview or a world-view or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[1] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. ____ Wiki

*2. Metaphysics :
Physics is all about nature, natural phenomenon, and our understanding of all relationships while metaphysics also tries to answer "why" questions. Why do we or universe exists or where have we come from and what is the cause of our existence are some of the questions that are tackled by metaphysics.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-physics-and-vs-metaphysics/

*3 Inconsequential :insignificant, unimportant, trivial, worthless . . .
___Oxford

For example, ↪180 Proof has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above: "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential." — Gnomon

Your silly projections aside, Gnomon: given that X is "immaterial" (i.e. not instantiable), what (non-trivial) difference does this X make (i.e. how is X consequential)? :chin:

Consequently, when I insist on using immaterial (metaphysical)*2 language on a philosophy forum, some posters get riled-up. — Gnomon

It seems to me from having observed your interactions over a few years that it is more the case that others think your ideas are under-determined by evidence, and over-determined by arbitrary speculation, and that it is you who becomes defensive and riled up when your ideas are challenged and then go on to project your own anger and defensiveness onto others. That's an honest assessment and not intended as a put-down.

I don't understand why you are apparently so bugged by @180 Proof; it's true he annoys a few posters on here by asking for actual arguments to support their pet theories or speculations. As I see it, he's very well informed philosophically and is providing a good service. If you find yourself being annoyed when your ideas are being challenged, it's a good opportunity to rethink your own assessment of the worth of the ideas you are apparently attached to. (Of course, I'm referring to the general 'you' here).

But even Aristotle's theory of physical bodies combined Hyle (concrete matter) with Form (abstract pattern or design)*2. — Gnomon

Now here's an example of misusing Aristotle: for him form is not "abstract pattern or design" but the substantial actualization of potential (matter) as evidenced by your own footnote:

*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. — Gnomon

:up:

Now here's an example of misusing Aristotle: for him form is not "abstract pattern or design" but the substantial actualization of potential (matter) as evidenced by your own footnote:
*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. — Gnomon — Janus

Thanks for your honest assessment. But 180 is the only poster on this forum that I cannot communicate with, due to his argumentation by name-calling, and his constant sniping. I may disagree with others, but the dialog usually remains civil. I can usually communicate with you because, even though our worldviews may be different, you don't often descend to snippy sophistry. So in the spirit of an "honest assessment", your attributions to me above are wrong.

FYI, when I followed the term "Form" with parenthetical information, it was not an attribution to (or misuse of) Aristotle; but merely alternative meanings of the word that are pertinent to my argument. I often expand defintions because some posters (especially 180) seem to insist on the simplistic "one word : one meaning" fallacy. In Philosophy though, we have to deal with the complexities of common language. For example, the excerpt below*1 indicates that the term Form was indeed equated with recognizable Patterns, "in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle". Moreover, there are accidental patterns (noise) and intentional or designed patterns (signal). And that distinction does make a difference in philosophical exchanges.

Not to beat a dead horse : In the Hylomorphism quote from my post, Aristotle makes a pertinent distinction between Potential (not yet real ; insubstantial) and Actual (substantial) Form. So, I was not "misusing" Aristotle. Your own preferred definition of Potential as "substantial actualization of potential", is in agreement with my assertion that, prior to actualization, Form is an unreal abstract idea : a pattern in the mind, not in matter*2. Do you agree that Abstractions are patterns stripped of substance? If so, then we can continue to discuss Monism. :smile:


*1. Form, In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the active, determining principle of a thing. The term was traditionally used to translate Plato’s eidos, by which he meant the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world;
https://www.britannica.com/summary/form-philosophy

*2. Is potential real? :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/54962/is-potential-real

Your silly projections aside, Gnomon: given that X is "immaterial" (i.e. not instantiable), what (non-trivial) difference does this X make (i.e. how is X consequential)? :chin:

In the Hylomorphism quote from my post, Aristotle makes a pertinent distinction between Potential (not yet real ; insubstantial) and Actual (substantial) Form. So, I was not "misusing" Aristotle. Your own preferred definition of Potential as "substantial actualization of potential", is in agreement with my assertion that, prior to actualization, Form is an unreal abstract idea : a pattern in the mind, not in matter*2. Do you agree that Abstractions are patterns stripped of substance? If so, then we can continue to discuss Monism. :smile:


*1. Form, In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the active, determining principle of a thing. The term was traditionally used to translate Plato’s eidos, by which he meant the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world; — Gnomon

But even Aristotle's theory of physical bodies combined Hyle (concrete matter) with Form (abstract pattern or design)*2. — Gnomon

I agree Aristotle makes a distinction between potential and actual. but I don't read him as thinking of potential as 'Insubstantial form" but as "primary matter" which I take to mean formless matter. We were not discussing Plato, but again I don't understand Plato's forms to be "abstract patterns" but rather understood to be things more real than actual forms.

For example, Aristotle, as I understand it, thought the form of the oak was in potential in the acorn, but not as something abstract, but a kind of real "concrete" potential. However, I am no scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, and I welcome correction (or confirmation) by someone more knowledgeable; perhaps @Fooloso4 might weigh in on this.

I think of "abstract" as denoting general ideas which are arrived at by abstracting away from the concrete details of particulars to arrive at common patterns or structures, so abstractions in this sense would be secondary and derivative, not primary and determining.

Now here's an example of misusing Aristotle: for him form is not "abstract pattern or design" but the substantial actualization of potential (matter) as evidenced by your own footnote: — Janus

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design, the other is the form of the individual, particular object, as united with the matter in hylomorphism.

For example, the excerpt below*1 indicates that the term Form was indeed equated with recognizable Patterns, "in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle". Moreover, there are accidental patterns (noise) and intentional or designed patterns (signal). And that distinction does make a difference in philosophical exchanges. — Gnomon

I would say that this is essentially correct. The abstraction, or "pattern" referred to here is "the form" in the sense of the formula, but the accidentals are proper to the form of the individual, and therefore not included in the abstracted form. This is the independent form, the form of the particular.

Form, In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the active, determining principle of a thing. — Gnomon

This is the important point, form is what is active or actual. So there are two sources of activity for Aristotle, and this completes Plato's resolution to the supposed "interaction problem" of dualism, making dualism much more sound. One source of actuality, or causation is found within the mind, as the source of intentional acts (final cause), and the other source is found within the external world as the independent forms of material objects.

I agree Aristotle makes a distinction between potential and actual. but I don't read him as thinking of potential as 'Insubstantial form" but as "primary matter" which I take to mean formless matter. We were not discussing Plato, but again I don't understand Plato's forms to be "abstract patterns" but rather understood to be things more real than actual forms. — Janus

Aristotle discusses the possibility of prime matter, as pure potential, but refutes this possibility as actually impossible, with the cosmological argument. This argument shows that if there ever was a time when there was matter and no form (prime matter), there would always be matter with no form, eternally, because prime matter could not actualize itself. But what we find in reality, is that there truly is form, actuality. Therefore it is impossible that there ever was matter without any form, prime matter.

According to Aristotle, living beings, ousiai (substances is a misleading translation from the Latin) are formed matter. Form, eidos, and matter, hule, are inseparable.

Joe Sachs explains it this way:

But being-at-work is what Aristotle says the form is, and the potency, or straining toward being-at-work is the way he characterizes material.

Aristotle rejects the idea that forms are patterns (Metaphysics 991a-b).

With regard to telos Sachs says:

Every being is an end in itself, and the word telos, that we translate as end, means completion.

I agree Aristotle makes a distinction between potential and actual. but I don't read him as thinking of potential as 'Insubstantial form" but as "primary matter" which I take to mean formless matter. We were not discussing Plato, but again I don't understand Plato's forms to be "abstract patterns" but rather understood to be things more real than actual forms. — Janus

I'm also not an authority on Plato or Aristotle, but my information-centric philosophy incorporates several of their ideas where relevant to quantum & information theory. My unconventional usage of terms like "abstract patterns" may be unfamiliar to those who are not conversant with some of the ideas coming out of quantum physics and information science. Some of those "weird" notions could be described as Platonic. For Plato, the idea or meaning or model or definition or design of a thing is its ideal Pattern*1. The rational mind recognizes abstract patterns in concrete things that are characteristic or typical of other similar things. Moreover, from a single Abstract or Potential pattern, many similar Real or Actual objects can be instantiated*2.

For example, as an architect, I create nonphysical "forms" (ideas) in my mind, then transfer that abstract design pattern onto paper to communicate the idea. So that later the abstract conceptual pattern can be constructed (in wood, stone & brick) to create a real enformed object (pattern + matter) that we call a "house". The bricks lying randomly on the ground would be "formless matter", and meaningless to the physical senses. However, the matterless forms or patterns (blueprints) are readily imaginable & meaningful to a rational mind that is trained to interpret those abstract patterns*3.

There are at least two kinds of "form" : Real Forms (physical instantiations) and Ideal Forms (mental abstractions). Metaphorically, those mental images have no "flesh" on their bones. So they could be described as "abstract patterns" or " "defleshed skeletons". But from a more common perspective, "formless matter" would be meaningless, like an "undefined definition". Material objects are the Real Forms from which we humans abstract ideas of Potential things (statistically possible, but not yet actualized). For example, in ancient times some people imagined Dragons, even though they had never seen one. Perhaps they combined three real patterns (definitions) : lizards, bats, and Greek Fire (flame throwing weapon) into a single abstract (unreal) concept : a flying, flame-throwing reptile.

When Plato asserted that Ideals are "more Real" than physical instantiations, he actually meant that they are "more Perfect". That's because material reality imposes physical limits on things, that could be ignored in an immaterial Ideal world. When an idealized house plan is converted into a real building, many compromises must be made to accommodate physical constraints. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright sometimes designed cantilevered roof overhangs that later drooped, because the wooden structure lost rigidity over time. He also designed beautiful innovative windows & skylights that later leaked, because the sealants available at the time deteriorated under ultraviolet light, and allowed water to penetrate. So, FLW was often described as "ahead of his time", and it took years for Actual technology to catch-up with his Potential imagination. :smile:


*1. Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argued, is the abstraction. He believed that ideas were more real than things. He developed a vision of two worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Platonic_idealism

*2. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Abstraction :
The essence of abstraction is preserving information that is relevant in a given context, and forgetting information that is irrelevant in that context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_science)

A BLUEPRINT IS NOT A HABITABLE HOUSE, but it is imaginable

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you cite a passage from Aristotle where he speaks about abstract pattern or design?

Aristotle rejects the idea that forms are patterns (Metaphysics 991a-b). — Fooloso4

Thanks, I'll check that reference.



Thanks for giving me a rundown of your understanding of form and matter; I didn't find that to be unfamiliar or contentious.

You have given two footnote references to Plato's ideas, but we were discussing Aristotle's understanding of form. not Plato's. Also, one of your footnotes appears to be your own writing amd the other does not seem to come from a scholarly source.

If we are going to cite Aristotle or Plato on these questions, I want to know what they thought, not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought.

Leaving the Ancients aside, my own understanding is that form and matter are inseparable. The blueprint drawing you showed is just another example of configured material: in this case ink on paper or pixels on a screen. It's true that it represents something else: a house that may or may not be built, but my main point is that patterns are never abstract but are always materially instantiated.

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design, the other is the form of the individual, particular object, as united with the matter in hylomorphism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I don't know how the experts interpret the slightly different Plato/Aristotle worldviews. But I get the impression that Plato imagined a Dualistic world, composed of both Ideal and Real stuff. Yet, Aristotle tried to merge Plato's duality into a Monistic worldview with his Hylomorphic theory*1. Apparently, the early Catholic theologians also tried to have it both ways : Physical and Metaphysical. They adopted Plato's Ideal realm as a heavenly or spiritual "uber-reality" in their Super-natural musings, and used Aristotle's more physical/material worldview as the basis for Natural Philosophy, which eventually became modern Science : always searching for useful functional patterns in Nature*2. Consequently, philosophy has been schizophrenic ever since.

The April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article entitled : How Descartes Inspired Science. The author notes that Descartes' mechanical model of reality was adopted by later scientists. Ironically, in his more theoretical & idealistic writings, Rene seemed to be a Dualist, as indicated by his Body/Soul model. In his Principles of Philosophy, he wrote : "We likewise discover that there cannot exist any atoms of matter that are of their own nature indivisible". The article then infers that, "In other words, atoms may not be actually infinitely divided, but they can be divided indefinitely". {my bold} To that, I would add that it's the imaginative mind that can "divide [ideas] indefinitely". {my brackets}

The article goes on to describe how Quantum scientists, eventually, were forced by their evidence to divide uncuttable Atoms indefinitely. "Murray Gell-Mann, then proposed the existence of Quarks, the particles that themselves make up protons and neutrons." And so-on to this day, they keep finding ever smaller constituents of the former fundamental element of Reality. On the other hand, mathematical quantum theorists have abandoned Monistic Atomism altogether, in favor of Quantum Field Theory*3, in which the defining "patterns of points" are abstract mathematical locations in space, in the form of cartesian coordinates. That continuing trend indicates to me that in theory (ideality), humans can divide reality indefinitely. :smile:


*1.Aristotle’s Categories :
Whereas Plato treated the abstract as more real than material particulars, in the Categories Aristotle takes material particulars as ontological bedrock — to the extent that being a primary substance makes something more real than anything else,
Note -- I don't know if the ancient Greeks had a word equivalent to our modern notion of "Abstraction". Our term derived from the Latin "to remove, or forcibly pull away". Likewise, the notion of "pattern" may also be a modern concept, especially in Information theory. However, in his Four Causes, "Form" is often translated as "pattern" or "design".

*2. Pattern : anything cognizable
" Aristotle coined the word syllogism for any valid pattern of inference"
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/aristo.pdf

*3. In theoretical physics, quantum field theory is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles. ___Wikipedia
Note -- What Wiki calls "quasi" [not quite real] particles are labeled by others as "virtual" particles, which implies that they are not physically existing, but are merely hypothetical entities

Note on Design Intent :
For Architects and other designers, the Design Intent is to create a physical Form which fulfills pre-specified functional requirements. Without intention the resulting Form would be accidental, probably non-functional, but definitely un-designed.

I like that you brought up design. Some may not agree, but what is design, if not the manipulation of non-physicals?
The thing itself does not yet exist and isn't the state of neurons alone but the forming of a state of neurons to fulfill a design requirement. The process is best understood as the manipulation of the non-physical or the immaterial.

Can you cite a passage from Aristotle where he speaks about abstract pattern or design? — Janus

If you won't take my word for it, I think it's best if you do your own reading. Otherwise I might just use Fooloso4's technique of taking quotes out of context, and giving inappropriate meaning to those quotes.

I suggest you start with his Physics to get a good preliminary and basic understanding, where form is said to be the formula, statement of essence, or definition. Then in On the Soul he describes the two distinct types of actuality, or form. To understand how form is the design of a thing, read Metaphysics Bk 7 very carefully. Happy reading!

I'm not asking you to interpret, or take out of context, but merely to quote any passage(s) where Aristotle speaks about abstract pattern or design.

As I said, I don't see much point in quoting passages. Read carefully Metaphysics Bk 7, though, that might help you. You ought to find that in Ch 7 he specifically focuses on things which come to be by design. He compares and discusses the similarities between things which are produced by art, and things produced by nature: "...but from art proceed the things of which the form is in the soul of the artist." 1031a, 34.

If we are going to cite Aristotle or Plato on these questions,I want to know what they thought, not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought.. . . . my own understanding is that form and matter are inseparable. — Janus

If you want to know what Aristotle & Plato thought on a particular question, you'll have to consult those authorities directly. But then, you'll have have to do the work of reconciling their differences into a single concept. On the other hand, if you want to know what a mere forum poster thinks on that question, you may have to endure some personal opinions and indirect references to the wisdom of the past. Since A & P literally wrote the book on Philosophy, anything I or anyone else might say will be merely footnotes*1 to those auteurs.

Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs. FWIW, my understanding of the relationship between Form and Matter derives mostly from modern Quantum Physics and Information Theory. And I frequently add quotes & links to those sources. In my view, the ancient concept of "Form" is now known as "Information" (the power to enform)*2. Therefore, links to my own writings are more to the point I'm making.

For Aristotle, Form & Matter are inter-related as dual principles. But, in my thesis, I go on to propose a monistic Ontology/Epistemology, in which the power to join potential Form with actual Matter is the ultimate principle : EnFormAction*3. And what joins (Energy) can also dis-join (Entropy). I'll apologize in advance, for adding a link to my own non-authoritarian ideas. :smile:


*1. The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

*2. Is it possible that everything is made of information? :
That's certainly a conjecture that was held by John Wheeler. This idea has gained more traction as the field of quantum information theory has developed. . . . It then becomes also self evident that everything is made of information as that is the essential definition of epistemology.
___Mark John Fernee , 20+ years as a physicist

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

As Art48 started by pointing out, Monism is reductionist, or you can derive the complex from the simple.

I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.

My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains.

I don't mind hearing about one or the other or any alternatives. There will be physical scales associated with any model and all the details need to be addressed like chain of control from the micro to the macro worlds.

↪Gnomon
I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.

My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains. — Mark Nyquist

Sure check it out. Skepticism is good ; especially when presented with novel or unconventional ideas : informed skepticism. Most people are only aware of Shannon's definition of Information, and its relationship to computers*1. But quantum physicists are now equating Information (the power to enform or to transform) with Energy. That's why I refer to the "most fundamental thing" as Generic Information*2. That's my term, not the physicists'. Note -- I spell "inform" with an "e" to distinguish it from data processing, and to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.

To give you an idea what I'm talking about, imagine that "in the beginning there was Generic Information, and that information begat Energy, and causal Energy begat Matter, and energized matter begat Mind". If that sounds like a fairy tale, wait until you hear the rest of the story. It's the story of Genesis, but as told by scientists, not ancient priests. The Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom that Energy & Laws (Enformation) existed prior to the beginning. And that's the key to a modern Monistic (all is information) worldview*3.

In my thesis, Generic Information exists in the form of both physical Neurons and metaphysical Brain States. "States" are not things, but (logico-mathematical) relationships between things. And it's the human mind's unique ability to recognize those immaterial patterns & states that has allowed humans to create and live-in artificial environments. Note --- "artifice" is similar to the "design" you referred to.

There's a lot of information out there about "Fundamental Information", but you have to go looking for it. And then you'll have to tie all those separate lines of information together. I list a few websites below. And the Enformationism thesis and blog have hundreds of references. One physicist in particular, Paul Davies*4, has been promoting this novel way of thinking about Information, in regard to both physics (matter) and metaphysics (mind), for years. :smile:


*1. Information, What Is It?
Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

*2. Generic Information :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. Monism :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html
Note -- For the record, I'm not promoting Panpsychism, but quite a few physicists & cosmologists are using that term to describe what I call Enformationism.

*4. Paul Davies :
https://cosmos.asu.edu/

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Is Information Fundamental?
https://closertotruth.com/video/llose-003/?referrer=8329

Chapter 1: Information is Fundamental
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789811234101_0001

Have you or anyone come across Feynman diagrams showing forward and backward flowing time. My interpretation is physical existence has some duration relative to clock time. It's worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism.

I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless.

Maybe just check backgrounds, but even some of the scientists seem a little off.

Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs. — Gnomon

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions about me. I am willing to accept anything that seems plausible to me, that is sufficiently enough supported by cogent argument and/ or evidence to be convincing enough to at least be entertained, if not believed, whether it comes from amateurs or professionals.

I'm familiar enough with the idea that information is metaphysically fundamental to know that it seems that position cannot be coherently expressed; it always just seems to consist in some kind of handwaving exercise. The very idea of information that is not physically instantiated makes no sense at all to me. The medium of conveyance of information, and the energy necessary to convey it, must be more fundamental than what is conveyed, in other words, or so it seems to me.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot cite anything which supports the claim that form is first and foremost abstract or "immaterial".

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot cite anything which supports the claim that form is first and foremost abstract or "immaterial". — Janus

As I said, in Aristotle there are two senses of "form".

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design, the other is the form of the individual, particular object, as united with the matter in hylomorphism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Someone might say one or the other is "first and foremost" but what would one base that judgement on?

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design — Metaphysician Undercover

I accept the other sense, but all I am asking for is textual evidence for the above sense as being more, something ontologically fundamental and at the same time "abstract" according to Aristotle, than merely the commonsensically obvious fact that every particular form or pattern can be reproduced, copied or visualized.

In short, as I see it. abstractions are not primary or fundamental they are abstracted from particulars, so they are therefore secondary and derivative.