:up:

Science is a method, an approach, of studying a subject.
Its not a subject or a tradition.
To claim any field or tradition is the sole possessor of the ability to establish facts, is cult-like thinking.

↪Manuel
I've come to believe that the term metaphysics itself is the problem. — Pantagruel

Yes. The term "metaphysics" is tainted by association with medieval Catholic theology, which is anathema (against belief) for empirical scientists. That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. Does any of that make sense to you?

Does any of that make sense to you? — Gnomon

No.

... spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. 

Does any of that make sense to you? — Gnomon

:zip:

Further to that, scientific method embodies a great many axioms, at least some of which are metaphysical, which, however, are not visible to science itself, as they’re not considered to be amongst the objects of scientific analysis. — Wayfarer

Can you name a few of those axioms you think are indispensable to modern science?

I think "science is founded on" pragmatic, or working, assumptions like that one. Such a "metaphysical position", however, may be a categorical generalization that has been subsequently deduced from scientific practices and findings. — 180 Proof

:up: I think the basic axiom of science is that nature is intelligible, and it could be argued that this is derived from the Christian idea that nature, being created by God, is a 'book' that is meant to be 'read' by his "crown of creation": us.

Beyond that being, possibly, along with the proto-scientific speculations of the Pre-Socratics, the explanation for why science developed in the West, and not for example in China, which in the 10th century was technologically well ahead of Europe, I agree with you what you seem to be suggesting: that science today only relies on the whole body of its previous knowledge and does not rely on any metaphysical assumptions. That is to say, you can be a practicing scientist and a Buddhist, Christian, atheist, nazi, or whatever, and your practice will not necessarily be hindered by your metaphysical beliefs.

Does any of that make sense to you? — Gnomon

No. — L'éléphant

Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology? In my Information-centric thesis, I've played around with other, less provocative, words (e.g. "mental" ; "non-physical", etc) for the abstract/immaterial topics (e.g. substance, quality, quantity, relation) included in Aristotle's treatise on Nature ; that was later categorized by theologians as "after" the books about physical entities, such as animals. But none of them resonated with me like the "meta" notion, and most abstract terminology is a "no-no" for materialistic philosophizing. Maybe, the visceral antipathy toward an ancient word is why Zuckerberg's Metaverse didn't pan out as he hoped. "Meta" no longer means merely "after" or "next" or "beyond" or "alongside"; it has come to imply pseudoscience or unreal or unimportant or irrelevant. Hence a perfectly fitting philosophical distinction was stigmatized for post-enlightenment thinkers.

Ironically, that taboo term is still on the books as an essential topic of study for Philosophers*1. For me, it's simply the study of non-things, such as Ideas, Concepts, Mental, Causation, etc. Yet, in the belief system of modern Materialism, all of those non-entities are inexplicably lumped under the heading of Matter, and excluded from the obvious heading of Metaphysical. But even the term "subject matter" is biased toward a simplistic materialistic worldview*2. Which may be why Chalmers labeled immaterial Consciousness as the Not Easy Problem.

So, for those of us on this forum, who want to discuss the contents of Minds (ideas, meanings, concepts, etc) are expected to avoid such taboo terms as "spirit", "soul", and "metaphysics". But I haven't yet found any evidence for a physical Atom of Mind, equivalent to the Atoms of Matter, that are now portrayed, by quantum physicists, as a non-local Field. The closest I've come to an "atom" of Mind, is what Information scientists call a "bit" of information. Yet, that term is merely an acronym for "binary digit", and is completely abstract, with no material substance, only metaphysical meaning. Oooops, I did it again. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical - Longer definition: Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*2. It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

*3. Aristotle. … metaphysics : he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-philosophy
Note -- The second "being" refers to everything in general, the essence of existence, instead a particular being knowable by the physical senses.

Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology? — Gnomon

No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. Did you know what Parmenides and his contemporaries wanted to know? The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real.

And therefore, the below is also a disastrous attempt to understand metaphysics:

That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon

You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.

If you want to de-legitimize this system of philosophy, launch a whole new approach -- or better yet, defend the analytics. Or talk about the continental, and its attack on the metaphysical methodology -- its lack of worthwhile philosophical problem.

Did you know what Parmenides and his contemporaries wanted to know? The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real. — L'éléphant

That was Democritus and Leucippus, the atomists. Parmenides was not an atomist.

No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. — L'éléphant

The reason I inferred that the word "metaphysics" was "tainted by its association with Christian theology" is that, on this forum, any mention of the word seems to polarize the dialog into politicized camps. I doubt that association with pagan Parmenides would evoke such a visceral dislike.

But thanks for mentioning Parmenides. In the quote below*1, his metaphysical topics are exactly the breakdown that I propose in my thesis ; especially the Mind/Matter relationship. Some of the most passionate defenders of Materialism, seem to define "Mind" as a physical phenomenon. In which case, I'm not allowed to address the non-physical aspects of Reality, such as Ideas, Concepts, Feelings, Meanings. With "all due respect", you seem to be making the same erroneous presumption about my intention. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://www.parmenides.me/metaphysics

You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.

If you want to de-legitimize this system of philosophy, launch a whole new approach -- or better yet, defend the analytics. Or talk about the continental, and its attack on the metaphysical methodology -- its lack of worthwhile philosophical problem. — L'éléphant

I have no formal training in philosophy, and do not concern myself with its "camps". Instead, it's my learned interlocutors who seem to polarize the discussion into a debate between pragmatic materialistic secular Physics, and theoretical immaterial religious Metaphysics. The latter is deemed "immaterial", hence irrelevant, and not worth discussing.

Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining".

I have no intention of "redesigning" Metaphysics, but to use it as a general category of non-physical topics for discussion. That's how Aristotle's works*2 were parsed by later philosophers & theologians : Physics = animals, plants, minerals, motion, etc ; and Meta-Physics = Categories, Principles, Being, Causation, Potential/Actual, Substance/Essence. So, I'm making exactly the distinctions that Parmenides presumably made, according to the quote above : Mind & Matter, Substance & Attributes, Potential & Actual.

The "whole new approach" to Physics/Metaphysics is not my invention. Instead, my amateur philosophical thesis is based on the "new worldview" emerging from Quantum & Information sciences*3. For example, the Einsteinian "Quantum Revolution" in the early 20th century, which undermined the authority of Newtonian Classical Mechanics. That radical revision of worldview has resulted in the 21st century reality of computers & moon rockets instead of hand-drawn star-charts & steam-powered locomotives. Parallel to that upheaval in physical science, the Information theory of Shannon has set in motion a radically different concept of mental contents.

Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms. These are not religious concepts, but their metaphysical implications have been gladly received by both Christian apologists and New Age gurus. Most, if not all of the quantum pioneers resorted to Eastern philosophical notions in their attempts to make sense of the counter-intuitive (non-mechanical) meta-physical aspects of quantum reality. They were roundly abused for heretical betrayal of classical Materialism & Mechanism, along with erroneous imputations of religious motives.

Just as Bohr & Heisenberg had no intention of undermining Classical Metaphysics, in their observer-centered Copenhagen interpretation, I am not trying to "de-legitimize" Philosophy or Science. I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile:


*2. the treatise we know as Aristotle’s Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle’s works. The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*3. A New Kind of Science :
The quantum revolution makes a radical break with classical physical science.
https://academic.oup.com/book/2738/chapter-abstract/143208750?redirectedFrom=fulltext

That was Democritus and Leucippus, the atomists. Parmenides was not an atomist. — Wayfarer

I wasn't referring to atomism. Here's a passage from a synthesis by Scott Austin, on Parmenides:

The 'Truth' section of the poem concludes with a recapitulatory metaphor: being is like a well-rounded sphere equal from every side; it is not right for it to be any bigger or any smaller anywhere, since nothingness cannot prevent it from reaching uniformity, and, since there is nothing in its own nature which would cause it to be asymmetrical, it rests evenly within its bounds…

The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all
' distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded, yet one which, in accordance with the Greek horror of the infinite, preserves its definiteness so that it can also be the truth, the implicit and single object of all language. Parmenides is thus the ' first metaphysician (or, if you prefer, theologian) to argue for those eternal attributes also shared by Plato's forms, by Aristotle's primary movers, and by their descendants in the history of philosophy. This picture of the truth as a single, abiding whole is next contrasted by the goddess with the picture to which the mortals subscribe. — Scott Austin

The synthesis goes on to say that Parmenides rejected the sensible world. But here is where the ambiguity is laid out -- the mortals believe in the sensible reality, but it is not "what is" according to him.

I'm not here to argue about what the heck Parmenides wanted -- after all, if he was saying that the truth has "definitiveness" in it, it is similar to saying that it has sensible qualities. And sensible qualities, we all know in the modern day, are those we come to know from sense perception, not logic.

Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining". — Gnomon

I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.

There's no prejudice here against metaphysics. This is a philosophy forum.

I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile: — Gnomon

By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon

You can't talk about a metaphysical theory without using a justification from both the material (sensible) world and concepts (object of the intellect). I just gave you Parmenides who couldn't stay away from shaping the truth into something we mortals could grasp, even though he purportedly rejected the sensible world.

Edit:

Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms. — Gnomon

Funny you chose superposition -- easily mistaken to be non-physical, even if to be taken as an experimental truth. Quantum notions are physical.

I wasn't referring to atomism — L'éléphant

Oh. I took that to be the meaning of the 'smallest unit', which is typically considered the atom.

The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real. — L'éléphant

Parmenides who couldn't stay away from shaping the truth into something we mortals could grasp, even though he purportedly rejected the sensible world. — L'éléphant

Parmenides was a mystic. He had more in common with the Vedic sages than with moderns.

I still don't know why you [Gnomon] have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism. — L'éléphant

I guess you haven't been paying attention. If you really care to know, just peruse the few posts below of exchanges with @Gnomon where, after hundreds of previous exchanges with him over the last few years, he had finally copped to his own crypto-"Panendeism"-of-the-gaps sophistry. :mask:

• two months ago ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792659

• three months ago ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781656

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/783039

• four months ago ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781098

I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.
There's no prejudice here against metaphysics. This is a philosophy forum. — L'éléphant

That's what I thought when I began to post on TPF a few years ago. Until then, I had little experience dialoging with philosophical thinkers. Most of my friends & colleagues avoided controversial topics, and most of my reading was in the physical sciences. That's why I described myself as “ingenuous” in the notes below. In recent years though, I have learned that Materialism seems to be the Monism for many modern philosophers, and that the most fervent of those believers exemplify the derogatory category of Scientism. Which was unknown to me before TPF.

I have tried on several occasions to clarify my non-religious usage of the term "metaphysics" for those who criticize the idea as incompatible with their wholly Physical (corporeal, tangible) worldview. But to no avail, because ingrained belief systems are resistant to change. FYI, FWIW, this is a sample review of my reasons for using that taboo term, when referring to the Mental/Rational/Philosophical aspects of reality, instead of Material/Sensory/Scientific phenomena : :smile:


THE MODERN MEANING OF METAPHYSICS
In my experience on TPF, posters with a Materialistic worldview are quick to object to my idiosyncratic usage of the ancient theological term "metaphysics". But I have no formal training in philosophy, so after retirement, when I began to develop my personal worldview (based on quantum & information science) I was naive about the prejudicial baggage attached to that term, beyond its literal meaning (Nature : volume 2). Ingenuously, I began to use that word in reference to the same sub-category of reality that Aristotle was discussing in his later books on Nature : Human Nature*1 (how philosophical humans perceive & categorize the world).

Of course, I was aware that early Catholic theologians --- who were not primarily interested in Aristotle's first books on the mundane aspects of Nature (phusis) --- simply distinguished the later works under the general heading of "metaphysics", meaning "after the physical stuff". By imputation though, the term "metaphysical" came to mean "super-natural"*2. Which, for a hard Materialist, means "not-real", hence "false" and "misleading". For the practical purposes of Science, I admit to being a soft Materialist*2. Yet, for philosophical purposes, I am a moderate Mentalist (mind stuff).

For the theologians, with a religious agenda, what made Human Nature special is the incorporation of an incorporeal Soul. But, for my philosophical thesis, “I have no need for that hypothesis”. Instead, the uniqueness of humanity is merely a metaphysical-but-not-spiritual talent for Imagining & Reasoning, which is head & shoulders above the mental abilities of any animal. Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references.

That emerging philosophical worldview can be interpreted as an update of 17th century Classical Physicalism*4 with the non-mechanical aspects of Quantum Physics (Atoms now characterized as amorphous Fields of information). And to re-interpret ancient Spiritualism in terms of modern Information Theory (both Conscious experience & Physical bodies composed of Integrated Information bits : Holism). It's a good thing that I am not fanatical about my personal worldview. Because most Materialists & Spiritualists are not aware that their own belief systems are going out of style, as quantum Science reveals the immaterial foundations of mundane reality. :nerd:

*1. Human Nature :
From a Materialist perspective, humans are simply animals, nothing more, especially no additional Soul. But from a Metaphysical perspective, humans are the apex animals on the only planet in the cosmos known to have non-physical phenomena. Most of those immaterial aspects, such as consciousness, are shared with other living creatures. Yet, our mental prowess seems to stem from our physical uniqueness : bipedal upright posture, which allowed for big brains, and exceptional visual acuity. Together, those advantages resulted in two special talents : Reasoning and Imagination. By combining those natural gifts, humans have developed a unique ability for seeing that which is not apparent (imagination), and for discerning the invisible generalities & universalities & interconnections in the world around them (inference). Together those faculties have produced collective behaviors not found in other animals : Materialist Science (technology) and Metaphysical Philosophy (wisdom).

*2. As a pragmatic Materialist, when I walk on solid ground, I believe that it will support my weight, even though I have been told by quantum scientists that material substances are mostly empty space --- filled with mathematical Fields instead of massive stuff .
Practically all of the matter we see and interact with is made of atoms, which are mostly empty space. Then why is reality so... solid? https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/matter-mostly-empty-space/

*3. Supernatural :
I am not aware of anything in the world that is super-natural. However, my philosophical reasoning runs into a physical dead-end at the beginning of space-time, which defines the boundaries of empirical science. Yet philosophy is not governed by the laws of physics, but by the rules of reason & speculation, which can literally go out of this world, in search of Multiverses & Many Worlds, and even supernatural deities.
In his empirical work, Isaac Newton laid down his own guidelines for “experimental philosophy”*4. Yet, for his speculative philosophy, he admitted to belief in a God that is not subject to physical evidence. Ironically, “apart from his publications on gravity and optics, Newton was also a biblical scholar, religious mystic, and alchemist”. https://www.aip.org/initialconditions/episode-10-newton-you-didnt-know

*4. Newton's Naturalistic Rules of Reason :
No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena.
1. Therefore, the causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same.
2. Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made, should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally.
3. In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true not withstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exception.
https://blogofthecosmos.com/2016/01/27/mortals-rejoice-at-so-great-an-ornament-of-the-human-race/

Oh. I took that to be the meaning of the 'smallest unit', which is typically considered the atom. — Wayfarer

I might have led you to that idea. Apologies.

Parmenides was a mystic. He had more in common with the Vedic sages than with moderns. — Wayfarer

I disagree. They had a notion of the atoms, in physics, but couldn't articulate it as we moderns articulate it. They were warm, but didn't quite get to the physics part of it. Speaking of which, earlier I said Parmenides was not an atomist. Well, all his musings point to that, actually.

I guess you haven't been paying attention. If you really care to know, just peruse the few posts below of exchanges with Gnomon where, after hundreds of previous exchanges with him over the last few years, he had finally copped to his own crypto-"Panendeism"-of-the-gaps sophistry. :mask: — 180 Proof

:smile: And I suppose, contagious? Ergh, I mean the mask.

Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. — Gnomon

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. You want it as raw as possible, and information is processed data. You've got layers and layers there to uncover. Did you not read the Parmenides passage? That's why I posted it here. They took the time to nail down the raw data until they could no longer go any further.
For example, atomism works as a theory because it's .. well.. the atom. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the theory sticks because they got it as raw as possible. Naturalism is similar. When we talk about the natural forces, or the physical laws of nature, you can't argue this down any further, if your point is to unravel what's in the physical laws or what's in the natural forces. They're a given.

But information, like I said, is processed data. They don't mimic the first principles or primary force, or fundamental unit. I mean, we put in a lot of creative license into it. You know the old mantra, garbage in garbage out -- I mean, sure we can balance the bank, in a manner of speaking; make it look pretty for the investors. But are the numbers accurate? I can make it appear like everything is in order, but with incorrect data.

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. You want it as raw as possible, and information is processed data. You've got layers and layers there to uncover. Did you not read the Parmenides passage? That's why I posted it here. They took the time to nail down the raw data until they could no longer go any further.
For example, atomism works as a theory because it's .. well.. the atom. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the theory sticks because they got it as raw as possible. Naturalism is similar. When we talk about the natural forces, or the physical laws of nature, you can't argue this down any further, if your point is to unravel what's in the physical laws or what's in the natural forces. They're a given. — L'éléphant

Pre-note : the radical ideas posited below are not scientific statements, but Cosmology conjectures.

Claude Shannon's early 20th century notion of Information might be something like "processed data", yet he quantified information in terms of Entropy (which is the undoing of order/organization)*1. However the inverse of Entropy is Negentropy, which is essentially organizing Energy. From that insight, scientists have developed mathematical theories equating Information with Energy*2. Quantum physicists have discovered that Information is much more than mere passive data. So your information about Information seems to be out of date.

The Enformationism thesis is based on 21st century AD Quantum & Information science, not on 5th century BC philosophical Ontology. The passage you quoted --- "The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded" --- denies the reality of Change*3, which is what Energy does, and Entropy undoes. (Energy = causation & transformation & enformation). Hence, if your own personal worldview is also static & unchanging, you will never understand the multiple roles of causal Information in the world. However, If you are interested in how the world is organized & enformed (naturally), the thesis & blog provide references & links with scientific support for equating Information with Energy & Causation*4.

Therefore, my "point? is not to "unravel physical laws". Quantum Physics has already unraveled some of the presumptions of Classical Physics*5. So, if your physical worldview is classical, it's a few centuries out of date. As stated in previous posts, my "point" is to update (not replace) the dominant Materialism of modern Philosophy, with new information from Quantum Science and post-Shannon Information Theory*6. :cool:

PS___You shouldn't depend on for information about Enformationism. He seems to be well-read in ancient Philosophy, but not in modern Science. Despite what he says, the Enformationism thesis is compatible with Naturalism, all the way back to the Big Bang. Apparently, he has read the thesis & blog & post links, only enough to scan for hot-button terms such as "panendeism" (which is explicitly discussed, not disguised). Apparently the philosophical implications of the thesis are contrary to his personal worldview (Parmenadean?). So, he has made it his mission on TPF to defend his fossilized belief system (Naturalism, Materialism, Realism, you name it) from fresh new information . He thinly disguises his disgust with sophistry. That's why I no longer engage in his word games.


*1. Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. Entropy also describes how much energy is not available to do work. The more disordered a system and higher the entropy, the less of a system's energy is available to do work.
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/12-3-second-law-of-thermodynamics-entropy

*2. Why is energy information?
The idea that information is related to Energy (or Entropy, equivalently) is due to Landauer (1961) who investigated the question of the physical limitations for a computing engine. He found that the acquisition of information through a measurement required a dissipation of at least (kT  ln 2) energy for each bit of information gathered. Van Neumann in 1949 already qualitatively suggested that energy dissipation is necessary to process information.
In statistical mechanics there is a concept of information conservation; meaning - as a thermodynamical system evolves the information is conserved. The status of a thermodynamical system is in principle reversible if I just have enough capacity to measure a status in detail. If I know at time t the exact position and momentum of all particles, I can theoretically figure out the status at t-1 using the laws of mechanics. THUS INFORMATION IS CONSERVED.
https://www.quora.com/Is-information-energy

*3. According to Parmenides, everything that exists is permanent, ungenerated, indestructible, and unchanging. According to traditional interpretation (no longer universally accepted, but still common) Parmenides goes even further, denying that there is such a thing as plurality.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm
Note --- In Plato's philosophy, what is unchanging is not Reality, but Ideality, not Nature, but Supernature.

*4. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

*5. Though classical mechanics is false, as relativity and quantum mechanics reveal, there are many reasons for philosophers to continue investigating its proper interpretation (i.e., what the world would be like if classical mechanics were true).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/classical-mechanics-philosophy

*6. Information theory in Post-Shannon period
https://shannon.engr.tamu.edu/front-page/

PS___You shouldn't depend on ↪180 Proof for information about Enformationism. He seems to be well-read in ancient Philosophy, but not in modern Science. Despite what he says, the Enformationism thesis is compatible with Naturalism, all the way back to the Big Bang. Apparently, he has read the thesis & blog & post links, only enough to scan for hot-button terms such as "panendeism" (which is explicitly discussed, not disguised). Apparently the philosophical implications of the thesis are contrary to his personal worldview (Parmenadean?) So, he has made it his mission on TPF to defend his fossilized belief system (Naturalism, Materialism, Realism, you name it) from fresh new information . He thinly disguises his disgust with sophistry. That's why I no longer engage in his word games. — Gnomon

:clap: :lol: Thanks for proving my point about you compulsively projecting your own defects on anyone who step by step calls you out on your BS, Gnomon. You "don't engage with" me because you have displayed these last few years how incapable you are of honest, informed & cogent dialectic. And your poor reasoning begins with your confessed god-of-the-gaps fallacy that's pointed out in a previous post...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/812298

postscript (from four months ago):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/775528

post-postscript: I'd love to formally debate you with a moderator here on TFP, Gnomon, on any philosophical and/or scientific points of disagreement ... Of course, however, you're too scared of submitting your dogmatic woo-woo to rigorous cross-examination, so ... :sweat:

:up:

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. — L'éléphant

As I noted in the post above, the equation of Energy & Information is ultimately a philosophical Cosmological conjecture, not a scientific assertion.

I apologize for dumping all that "information" on you in my previous posts. The Enformationism thesis is quite complex and based on cutting-edge science. So, for most people it probably sounds like gobbledygook. FYI, since I'm retired, and not in an academic or scientific environment, I'm using this forum as a supply of guinea-pigs to test my outlandish ideas. Incredulous responses give me feedback to chew on. I have no animus toward , but his impassioned Black vs White reactions, are not useful for my research purposes. Note the smilie in all my posts. :smile:

Having made my apologies, I hope you will forgive me for dumping on you some Cosmological ideas that are also new to me. In april/may 2023 Philosophy Now magazine, the question of the month is "what is time?" And the very first reply gave me food for thought along Enformationism lines. "Time needs to exist for change to happen. This means time must have existed before the Big Bang." The same could be said for Energy : the cause of Causation. In my thesis, I refer to the role of Energy in & after the Big Bang as EnFormAction (the power to enform and transform). In that case, I can go on to equate Generic Information with Cosmic Time.

That reply also said that "Time may be considered a one-way valve, preventing us from going backwards". Ironically, by equating Time with Energy, some scientists have proposed that Entropy is, in effect, Energy (change) going backwards. Yet we are not used to thinking in those terms. Perhaps, because Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change) typically cancel each other out, so that the net Energy state of the universe is a balanced equation.

The reply concludes, referring to cosmic Time, with : "It is the catalyst that allows energy and matter to move, combine, and break apart, creating the universe, and through entropy, destroying it". Again, that sounds like my multifunction concept of EnFormAction. The definition below is just one of many ways I have tried to explain the expanded role of mundane Information, beyond Shannon's inert data. Its relationship to Life & Mind & Consciousness & Self may require a lot more explication. But only if you feel ready to dive deeper into philosophical Cosmology. :nerd:

PS__I expect 180 will zoom-in on the hot-button words (e.g. Soul, Chi, Spirit) as evidence of a religious agenda. If so, he is missing the philosophical point of using well-known words in un-conventional ways and different contexts, as usual.

EnFormAction : the creative power to enform; to cause transformations from one form to another.
1. As the generic power of creation (Big Bang, Singularity), it turns eternal Potential into temporal Actual, it transforms Platonic Forms into physical Things.
2. As physical energy (Causation), it is the power to cause changes in material structure.
3. As condensed energy (Matter), it is light speed vibrations slowed down to more stable states.
4. As animating energy (elan vital, Chi), it is the power to cause complex matter to self-move.
5. As mental energy (Consciousness; knowing), it is the power to store & process incoming information as meaning relative to self.
6. As self-awareness (Self-consciousness; Will-Power), it is the power to make intentional changes to self and environment.
7. As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person (Chi, Spirit).
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. — L'éléphant

Since we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot (perhaps with a little push from ), I think it would improve our communication to look more closely at the terms that have become a stumbling block. As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what?

Another term that is often an obstacle to philosophical dialog is Metaphysics. In the OP of this thread, Pantagruel said, "This is an essentially new ontology (since it claims to redefine the notion of what is real at the most basic level). It is a metaphysical position that coincides with the emergence of a new scientific paradigm". What do you think he meant by "metaphysical"? Some TPF posters apparently interpret that ancient term to mean "theology" or "antiscience". But, as I noted in a previous post, I use it in the mundane & philosophical sense of topics that are not covered by physical science. For example, the OP of this thread seems to imply that the study of non-physical Consciousness could be considered Scientific from a broader perspective, in which both Physics and Metaphysics are sub-categories of universal Philosophy.

In the quote below, from the second post in this thread, 180 defines metaphysics in terms of "categorical statements", by contrast to Science as "hypothetical propositions". That's actually a good point --- if you equate Metaphysics with Philosophy, rather than Religion. Yes, Reductive Science tends to focus on Particulars, while Holistic Philosophy searches for General/Universals --- as in Kant's Categorical Imperative. But how would Science rationalize & categorize its observations without the General Principles we know as Natural Laws? Leibniz defined "Universal Science" as a branch of metaphysics, and asserted that the "universal science" is the true logic. Isn't the point of Reductive Science to discover the particular facts that conform to general laws and add-up to universal principles? Why can't Science & Metaphysics work together : producing both Hypotheses and Categoricals? Why would 180 describe "science as metaphysics" as "incoherent"? :smile:


180proof :
You don't make a case for "science as metaphysics" – besides, the phrase seems incoherent insofar as the latter consists of categorical statements (ideas) and the former hypothetical propositions (explanations).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13474/science-as-metaphysics/p1

As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what? — Gnomon

Well, first off, "Enformationism" is a made-up word for something like information. Not a problem at all. But I believe this has to do with the information theory which has been done by the likes of Shannon. I have not read Shannon, I looked up the origin of this school of thought. Here's a simple summary of what it means:

Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. — Wiki

So far so good.

But you wanted to make this information theory to be a school of thought in metaphysics. Listen, I read your posts about energy information. Again, not a problem. I don't care about the mechanics and the precision you want to present it. I'm not here to argue about the correct syntax or cause and effect of what happens when a computing engine is pushed to its limit. Dissipation of energy? Fine. I don't care about how much energy the storage and transmission of information takes up. The bit coin harvesting has become a household name so that even a 12 year old knows how to protest against how much energy is wasted.

But I do not agree with your supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. This is an abuse of philosophy. You said:

The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references. — Gnomon

...and therefore can pass off as a metaphysical speculation on the nature of existence? Energy, if you recall is a property, and as such, a regulative law. But energy applies to every entity. Think of what you're trying to answer when you try to answer the metaphysical problems. Aristotle, Plato, Descartes have all tried and succeeded in narrowing down what it is to exist -- or what it the essence of an entity like a human being.

How exactly is energy the ultimate existence? Because energy doesn't happen as a causal theory. It is also not the essence of an entity as it is present in all and everything.

I do not agree with your [@Gnomon's] supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. This is an abuse of philosophy. — L'éléphant

:100:

But you wanted to make this information theory to be a school of thought in metaphysics . . . . . — L'éléphant

Again, when I use the term "metaphysics" I'm not referring to scholastic theology. Instead, I have developed a personal worldview --- by adopting the scientific equation of mental Information (meaning) with physical Energy (causation)*1 --- that informs everything I say on this forum. To avoid such misconceptions on this thread, let's just drop the term "metaphysical" and use the term "non-physical". If you don't believe there is anything in the world that is "not physical", perhaps we can discuss that metaphysical assumption in a rational philosophical manner --- without any religious preconceptions or connotations. I'm not trying to impose my views on you, but merely to share views in the usual manner of a philosophical forum.

In any case, Enformationism is not a "school of thought", but merely the foundation of my own philosophy. There is no creed or dogma, just a few reinterpretations of both ancient religious beliefs, and classical scientific ideologies. My understanding of the broad implications of an Information-centric worldview is still evolving. For example, the notion that "Time is Energy" is so new to me that I am currently writing a blog post on the topic.

Therefore, you don't need to feel that your own personal belief system is threatened by my personal worldview. If you are a Naturalist, or a Materialist, or a Physicalist, that's OK with me. As I said before : "for all practical purposes I am a Materialist, but for philosophical reasons I am a Mentalist". Enformationism is not an attempt to replace or displace any of those reductive scientific approaches to understanding the world. Reductionism is a necessary technique for delving into the mysteries of the natural world, but it's not so good for philosophical understanding of the confounding complexities of the cultural world of the mind. That's why Systems Theory*2 has emerged as a scientific method for dealing with both social & physical Complexity.

As a holistic personal philosophy, Enformationism will not show you what atoms are made of, or how to create a cell phone. It is, however, a proposed, philosophical & non-religious, alternative to the belief systems (creeds) that are associated with those scientific methods (e.g Scientism). But no one is going to force an Information-Centric*3 worldview upon you. And no Pope is going to condemn you to Hell, if you don't profess your faith in an official deity. :smile:

*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/9/095206/1076232/The-mass-energy-information-equivalence-principle
Note --- AIP is the American Institute of Physics, not a religious organization

*2. Systems Theory :
Holistic perspective: Systems Theory emphasizes the importance of understanding the whole system and how its components interact, rather than just focusing on individual parts. This involves looking at the big picture and understanding how all the parts of the system work together to achieve the overall goal.
https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/systems-theory/

*3. The term "information-centric" is most often used in a technical sense for discussions of computer networking. But it is also used in a philosophical sense by thinkers exploring the margins of Information Theory

But I do not agree with your supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. — L'éléphant

Enformationism may not be a "metaphysical view" according to your definition, but it is according to the definition I include within the thesis : Metaphysics = mental Philosophy as contrasted with physical Science*4. By that, I mean Philosophy is the study of Ideas, not Objects. Philosophy also looks for general or universal principles that exist only in minds, instead of particular or atomic things that exist in physical forms. Perhaps, if in place of "metaphysics" you will read "mental" or "non-physical", you will avoid getting the wrong impression of what I'm talking about.

By "under the protection of science" I infer that you think Enformationism is an attempt to disguise religious beliefs with a scientific cloak. That attitude came as a surprise to me when began to counter-attack my holistic thesis, as-if it was a blasphemy toward his own (reductive??) belief system. If the shoe fits, I suppose he should wear it ; but it ain't my shoe that hurts his tender foot. It's his own imaginary shoe. :joke:

*4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, including the first principles of: being or existence, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note --- Enformationism agrees with quantum physicist John A. Wheeler that Information ("bit") is more fundamental than Matter ("it"). Does 180 accuse him of religious motives?

Enformationism is an attempt to disguise religious beliefs with a scientific cloak. — Gnomon

I agree ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792659

@L'elephant

How exactly is energy the ultimate existence? Because energy doesn't happen as a causal theory. It is also not the essence of an entity as it is present in all and everything. — L'éléphant

I appreciate you presenting credibility challenges to the Enformationism thesis. That's the point of philosophical dialogue. In early exchanges with he offered some food for thought. But now he has decided to simply portray Gnomon as a New Age nut, who believes in mystical energies. So he is satisfied to just caricature a variety anti-science beliefs that he tries to pin on me. That label allows him to argue from his own inherent superiority. His rationale is ridicule. However, if you will take the time to look at the links I post to support my unorthodox ideas, you will see that I always quote credentialed scientists & philosophers instead of Old Age or New Age religious or mystical authorities. You are free to take-up your incredulity with the quoted experts.

I won't attempt to address all those "doesn't" & "not" presumptions, but I will give you a link to a couple of philosophical/scientific opinions that Energy is the fundamental principle of the world*1. I combined those opinion sources because, technically, Reductive Science is not supposed posit such universal principles, just observe & record. Generalization is the role of Theory & Philosophy. As an amateur philosopher, you are entitled to disagree with these opinions. But you'll have to argue against their evidence. 180proveit sometimes sounds like he has access to an authoritative Bible of Scientism, with the final answer to such philosophical conjectures. But I suppose it's a secret document, because he's never revealed the source.

Here's a brief sample of personal opinions from individual scientists saying that Energy is the fundamental principle of the universe*2. This is not a survey off all scientists, from which you'd get a variety of pro & con opinions. Fortunately, Science is not a democratic enterprise where facts are determined by popular vote. Anyway, my notion of Energy is not mystical, but merely a combination of Empirical Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Both physical observation and mental generalization.

The Big Bang theory was a scientific rationale for astronomical observations, right back to the bang itself. Beyond that point it became a philosophical free-for-all. But most Cosmologists are forced to agree that two fundamental, non-contingent, requirements must have existed prior to the sudden emergence of Space & Time : Causal Energy*3 and Limiting Laws. In my thesis, both of those ab-original principles are forms of Generic Information : the power to enform (change + organization). In subsequent events, Energy does the causing & changing, while Laws do the organizing. Those fundamental principles are Physical only by association with the science of Physics, not due to any material substance. If such philo-scientific ideas are not too repellent to you, I can link you to posts & articles that go into much more depth, both scientifically and philosophically. :smile:


*1. What's Really Fundamental In Physics? :
Energy ends up being justified as a fundamental principle because of mass– the rest energy of particles respects the Energy Principle, but isn't a consequence of the motion of smaller things that can be described with force and momentum.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/10/26/whats-really-fundamental-in-physics/?sh=5f9ee62f61fb

*2. Is energy the fundamental basis of the universe? :
Both fields and energy are fundamental: Everything (and certainly every quantum field) contains energy, and the universe is made of quantum fields.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fundamental-basis-of-the-universe

*3. Causation and the flow of energy :
I argue for a third program, a physicalistic reduction of the causal relation to one of energy-momentum transference in the technical sense of physics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00174894


FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS AND MENTA-PHYSICS
Yes, some quantum physicists are playing around with teleportation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

:eyes: :lol:

my notion of Energy is not mystical, but merely a combination of Empirical Science and Theoretical Philosophy. — Gnomon

The criticism you have been insensitive to is that this is a metaphysics of fundamental substance and so another stab at monistic reductionism. Yet physics itself has moved on to a more properly holistic view of substance as the emergent product of a structure of relations. The Cosmos is a triadic system - the pincer movement of necessity acting on possibility to result in “substantial actuality” - rather than substance itself being the fundamental, and hence question-begging, ground of being.

So you are reading monism into ideas about information-entropy that are in fact descriptions of this triadic systems metaphysics.

Substantial being arises hylomorphically as informational constraints impinge on material uncertainty. Atoms of being - the fundamental particles - emerge out of the murk of the Big Bang as its global dimensionality becomes stably constrained enough to thus also contain stabilised local degrees of freedom. The determinate or decohered excitations we call bosons and fermions.

The cosmos has to cool and expand to undergo the phase transitions where the global dimensionality is flat enough for local excitations to be point-like enough.

So that is the kind of thing I find absent from your enactionism. It just reads as a caricature of where the science has been heading. It doesn’t engage with the actual metaphysics - the kind familiar since Anaximander and Aristotle - that physics has been trudging towards since the great shocks of quantum mechanics and relativity.

You get a harsh reaction from me for this reason. It would be OK if you understood the systems view and yet could still argue for some monistic and reductionist interpretation in the light of that.

But instead, you show you want to reduce things towards information as though that somehow allows for the double monism of Cartesian substance - a realm of mind that somehow runs alongside the realm of matter.

In physics, information and entropy are instead complementary frames for measuring reality in terms of Planck units. And Planck units are what encode the triadic relation at the heart of the Cosmos. Planck units combine local quantum indeterminacy, global gravitational curvature, and the third thing of the lightspeed interaction of the two.

So in talking about information, you are talking about this reciprocal connection between the geometric spacetime container and its localised fluctuations or excitations. You are not talking about a new kind of fundamental substance but about the fundamentally of a triadic relation in which substantial being is an emergent property.

On the one hand, there is thus the adoption of information theory as the new way to smuggle Cartesian dualism back into public discourse. It sounds “sciency” and it’s easy to quote-mine.

On the other hand there is serious metaphysics that responds to where physics and cosmology has taken us. We can instead see how Aristotle’s hylomorphism and four cause thinking are panning out pretty well. We can see how the likes of Schelling and Peirce were on the money. We can see how systems science and its structuralism is carrying the day.

The criticism you have been insensitive to is that this is a metaphysics of fundamental substance and so another stab at monistic reductionism. Yet physics itself has moved on to a more properly holistic view of substance as the emergent product of a structure of relations. — apokrisis

Ironically, a "holistic view of substance as the emergent product of a structure of relations"*1 *2 is a good summary of the Enformationism thesis. So, I don't see your criticism as negative, but as supportive of the thesis. It is indeed a "metaphysics of fundamental substance", in a sense similar to Spinoza's "monistic reductionism"*3. I also identify Generic Information with the amorphous Fields*4 of quantum physics (electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum), from which defined physical forms (particles) may emerge. Does that cutting-edge physics fit your "moved-on" description? Perhaps you have only been exposed to bits & pieces of the thesis in various forum threads on specific topics, instead of seeing the whole thesis in its native format. :nerd:

*1. Information is not a thing, but a holistic structure of interrelationships between things :
Data is a collection of facts, while information puts those facts into context.
https://bloomfire.com/blog/data-vs-information/

*2. Information relationships are mathematical ratios :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- Relationship = Ratio = Proportion = Statistical Ratio = "for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample".

*3. Benedict de Spinoza: Metaphysics :
Spinoza, however, rejects this traditional view and argues instead that there is only one substance, called “God” or “Nature.”
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Note -- Spinoza's substance is monistic & universal, but it has local corporeal instances (affections).

*4. The Universe as an Information Field :
An approach to a unified theory of everything! . . . "Information"is the only fundamental reality in this universe - everything we see and experience can ultimately always be described in terms of "State" , that is, a set of attributes, and the values of those attributes, pertaining to the entity in question.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/universe-information-field-approach-unified-theory-everything-singh/

So that is the kind of thing I find absent from your enactionism. It just reads as a caricature of where the science has been heading. It doesn’t engage with the actual metaphysics — apokrisis

I'm not sure what "that" refers to, but I assume it has something to do with using physical examples instead of metaphysical arguments. Yet that approach is necessary when I'm dialoging with posters holding a Materialistic/Pluralistic worldview. Besides, lacking formal training in philosophy, I'm more familiar with Science & Physics than with Philosophy & Metaphysics. So, if you can contribute some meta-physics to fill my deficiency, I'd appreciate it. Ironically, "Causal Absence"*5 is a metaphysical topic I discuss in theBothAnd Blog. :smile:

*5. Power of Absence :
Causation In Absentia
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

You are not talking about a new kind of fundamental substance but about the fundamentally of a triadic relation in which substantial being is an emergent property. — apokrisis

Did you see the "triad" diagram in my previous post? Is that what I am "not talking" about? Again, perhaps you can supply the deficit in my brief overview. :wink:

there is thus the adoption of information theory as the new way to smuggle Cartesian dualism back into public discourse. It sounds “sciency” and it’s easy to quote-mine. — apokrisis

Where did you get that erroneous idea? Cartesian Dualism is the exact opposite of the Information Holism of the Enformationism thesis. Perhaps you can "smuggle" some of your own theory into this thread on Monism. :cool:

Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. — Gnomon

It is this kind of conflation that illustrates the problem.

Sure Shannon produced the reciprocal maths to model information. Certainty could be quantified in terms of 1/uncertainty. The smaller your uncertainty, the greater your certainty. And vice versa.

But Shannon was talking about the certainty of have received a signal coming across a noisy channel. The question is whether a symbol was just transmitted, rather than whether this symbol was meaningful. A binary code then reveals itself to be the crisper way to transmit a stream of symbols as the contrast is maximised. You only have to chose between a sharp pair of choices – like a tone or its absence, a 1 or a 0.

Of course when humans are sending messages to each other, the effort involved suggests a stream of symbols is intended to have some mutually comprehensible interpretation. A binary code will at least minimise the noise and maximise the certainty of the message as it was written for sending.

But you now jump from a point about Shannon's definition of a bit to this guff about "meaningful mind-stuff". You conflate a mathematical claim – the epistemology of a model – with this ontic assumption about "the mind" being this kind of physically general "stuff" that has the intrinsic property of being meaningful – of having "sensory" qualities such as feelings and impressions.

This is an abuse of Shannon and a failure to supply a theory of meaning, such as to be found in the science of semiotics. You simply conflate Shannon's epistemology of quantification with the all to familiar speculative metaphysics where folk like to claim "information has qualitative properties". Somehow or other, information conceived of as a string of transmitted bits just has a substantial being of the kind that can shape a realm of material events.

You want to get away with this because modern information theory appears to say that Planck-scale bits really do in-form reality in a physicalist fashion. You have the holographic principle and quantum field theory appearing to support this "substantial stuff" notion.

But what I say you miss is that that Shannon and Jaynes laid the ground for a new epistemology of physics with their reciprocal work on information theory and statistical mechanics. The notion of information has become twinned with the notion of entropy. And neither of these want to make a naive claim about any kind of substantial stuff. Instead, both are about stepping back from the naive realism which sees the world as being "physical" in the way it appears to our sensory models. A realm of tables, chairs, duck, rabbits, cats and mat ... the world of "medium-sized dry goods" as Austin puts it.

We weren't getting anywhere in immersing ourselves in our direct-seeming sensuous and qualitative impression of reality – as Kant argued. And so physical theory has stepped back into a self-conscious epistemic modesty that frames acts of quantification in formal mathematical constructs.

And the great thing is that this turn in thought is holistic. It gets us back to Aristotle's hylomorphism of form and matter. We learn to describe the world in terms of its information content and its entropy content – both being metrics that make the least claims on a substantial and qualitative ontology.

This is very clean. Feelings are subjective. We each exist in our own noumenal reality model. But counting its and bits is as objective as we can get.

We can account for the globally-constraining forms of the world, and the locally-constructing events of the world, in the neutral language of definite ticks on a dial and our probabilistic models of a system with its countable microstates.

Information tells us if it was highly likely that there was just some event. Entropy analysis can then tell us how improbable it was. From the two, we can extract a thermodynamic notion of time, energy and change. The world runs downhill if its symmetry is broken in terms of a source and sink.

But anyway, the key point here is that science is backing away from naive realism to understand the world of abstract quantification. Just a mathematical model and its habits of measurement. Epistemic method replaces ontic claims about what is "really out there". This is what information and entropy are all about.

To suggest information or entropy are then "the real thing in itself" is to completely misrepresent the scientific enterprise. They are not new terms for substantial being. They are part of the journey away from that kind of naive realism which deals in matter or mind as the essential qualitative categories of nature.

But anyway, the key point here is that science is backing away from naive realism to understand the world of abstract quantification. Just a mathematical model and its habits of measurement. Epistemic method replaces ontic claims about what is "really out there". This is what information and entropy are all about. — apokrisis

The physicist Richard Muller, in Quora, expresses the opinion that current physicists are being misled by the graceful dynamics and beauty of mathematics. He argues that nature is a bit rougher in texture, with topics like String theory taking precedence over what is in fact real, not merely an intellectual sheen over fact. I assume he is thinking of quantum theory in particular.

At least superficially, this is contra to Wigner's famous piece on the unreasonable effectiveness. Perhaps not.

To suggest information or entropy are then "the real thing in itself" is to completely misrepresent the scientific enterprise. They are not new terms for substantial being. They are part of the journey away from that kind of naive realism which deals in matter or mind as the essential qualitative categories of nature. — apokrisis

This is where the Cassirer that I am currently reading starts. Being, as the original impetus of philosophical reflection, is actually "consciousness of the unity of being" - i.e. abstraction, what is common to all beings across all modalities of being. The universe is revealed in and through cognition itself.