You apply the thoughts onto the physical world i.e. typing, measuring, hammering, drilling, and driving ... etc. You have ideas how to use and manipulate the physical objects. But the ideas are in your head, not in the world. — Corvus

Ideas are in the head, but ideas can change the world.

If ideas in the brain exist as part of the physical structure of the brain, then this would explain how an idea can change the physical world.

In the same way that an idea physically exists within the brain, numbers, being ideas, would also only exist within the brain in physical form.

Ideas are in the head, but ideas can change the world. — RussellA

I had an idea to cut down the tree in the back garden for 10 years, but it was just an idea. The tree is still standing tall. Can ideas themselves change the world?

In the same way that an idea physically exists within the brain, numbers, being ideas, would also only exist within the brain in physical form. — RussellA

Where about in the brain do you see numbers existing in physical form?

Where about in the brain do you see numbers existing in physical form? — Corvus

P1 - Numbers and colours exist somewhere otherwise we couldn't be discussing them.
P2 - We know that numbers and colours exist in the mind because we are aware of them.
P3 - We observe the colour red even though colours don't exist in the world. What exists in the world is the wavelength 700nm. We mentally project the colour red onto the world that we are observing.

C1 - Similarly, it is possible that even though we observe numbers in the world, numbers need not exist in the world, as we can mentally project numbers onto the world.
C2 - As it is possible that numbers need not exist in the world, there need be no metaphysical angst about numbers existing in the world.

P4 - A calculator can manipulate numbers within the physical structure of the calculator in a deterministic and explainable way.

C3 - There needs be no metaphysical angst about numbers existing in a calculator.

P5 - Similarly, there is no reason why the brain cannot manipulate numbers within the physical structure of the brain in a deterministic and explainable way.

C4 - Similarly, there needs be no metaphysical angst about numbers existing in the mind.
C5 - Any metaphysical angst about numbers is unnecessary.

P1 - Numbers and colours exist somewhere otherwise we couldn't be discussing them. — RussellA

The fact that we are discussing something is not the evidence for existence of something. We can discuss about the unicorn or a flying pig. Does it mean the unicorn or flying pig exist?

"Numbers and colours exist somewhere"? Somewhere is like saying nowhere.
No one would know where the somewhere is. In which country, and which city, an what street, at which number of the property does it exist? It has to be a specific location that can be verified by possibility of visiting the site in person in giving out the location of the existence to be meaningful.

I could go on pointing out the logical problems in your list, but I will just stop at the first one (to save time).

The fact that we are discussing something is not the evidence for existence of something. We can discuss about the unicorn or a flying pig. Does it mean the unicorn or flying pig exist? — Corvus

They exist in literature and in the mind as thoughts.

If either the unicorn or flying pig didn't exist somewhere, then you couldn't have written your post.
===============================================================================

"Numbers and colours exist somewhere"? Somewhere is like saying nowhere. — Corvus

The expression "exists somewhere" does not mean "exists nowhere".

If either the unicorn or flying pig didn't exist somewhere, then you couldn't have written your post. — RussellA

I know them in my thoughts, and that's how I could write about them. I knew them as non-existence ideas, but they don't prevent me from writing about them. They don't exist. They are known as ideas.

The expression "exists somewhere" does not mean "exists nowhere". — RussellA

It means it doesn't mean anywhere. In other words, it is a meaningless assertion.

Right, i'm following

3 doesn't make sense on its own, but 3 kings do, 4 apples do as well.
It took me 2 days to read the book. 2 itself is meaningless, but 2 days makes sense. — Corvus

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? A concept is what alone? Just that...waiting to be grabbed? Meaningless? There for grabbing, always? There for making meaning? Should we, take it how it is? Use it as it is? Understand it as it is? And also be correct...some times? As it is, is meaningless to whom? One outcome still always exists/did/will. One outcome ought to exist... ? It is not a question of ought, it is, does, will, has already. Two things at once?

The answer: three. That is leaving three alone, and it makes sense to some while maybe not everyone. Like if you didnt know the question, but see that the answer to question five is, three. You would see.....
Q#5 - three or perhaps Question five: 3. Where would three alone exist anyways?

The concept of three, requires other things to be understood like counting, math, geometry, etc not all or one or the other...any one or all. With one, comes all and with three, comes 1 and 2....

Three as a concept, so be it for the hell or heaven of this discussion is of/in the world existing in Mind and/or material, either/or it does not matter for this sake, as they both can be/are counted and considered real or to exist.

I have three ideas,
I have three apples.
Let's repeat those three ideas,
let's juggle those three apples.

Who does it matter to if it does or does not? Who is asking? If the asker is needing an answer of surety, the self holds the answer/s already, JUST not yet aware where to look to find. It is not time, yet. Chance may not exist at all, time may be taken instead of used....enjoy it at the very least :party:


"3"/"Three" doesn't make sense alone, does "third"? Third and three are different how? Numbers are words? Numbers of names, like William Earl the third, William Earl lll, meaning three generations of Willy Earl exist...Generational suffixes make me wonder about: Numbers vs words...order? The concept includes what was taught/learned of order, 3 days and 3 apples are counted in three's but what makes three days and three chairs are of two different kinds.

Concept of time and order, and using language skills to name things with numbers, three chairs...three days. A day is a thing but not like the other thing. A concept vs tangible item, of material.....A concept of mind vs an object of mind, the way we describe them with words and different languages is of intelligent brains using minds to make experiences in life better fit, learning for next time...a lesson in time.

I wonder, if/is the word or concept known of "3"/three, one but not the other? [2] I'm thinking to myself: What are other one worded concepts? three is a concept, one word, aka alone, three chairs alone is not alone, its of three things. Three is never alone, perhaps. Three is a concept, then? Or numbers are what make the concept three possible to clearly count therefore grasp/see/understand?

We can put three rocks in the basket, whether we know what the concept of numbering or without knowing how to count. Knowing that this many things fit in this size basket, call it something other than three, three chairs and three days can be broken down, three is the name of the group, three is the concept of numbers in groups. Forming a concept from one to three, one idea, one chair, two idea, two chair....three!

Me thinking aloud and typing thoughts as it comes: "Space occupying vs material objects vs space occupying in mental/mind as materials that are known to exist, imagined, counted in head, space not required to fill....?"


Three is company!!

The more added to one word, the sense is still never assured out of it. Words alone, numbers alone do make sense but with context, awareness, and a clear view of its place (and YOURS) in/FROM the moving world.

Why you, Art48 or anyone at that, happens to even make sense or "see" three for what it is, as it is, alone...is interesting enough to someone. I am more interested in if what you see is to be verified? When,why if it must? To be labeled, confirmed, or not? Aware or not? True or not? From what exactly, is up in the air yet, reach!!!! stretch!!! almost gotcha!!! From a Right or wrong? Good or bad? EVIL? Yes or no?

We may see only you, seeing me...
outside looking in, an observer makes



12/17/24
801 pm holding off to post...above is raw, first draft/version
1013pm addition [1]
1030pm addition [2]


[1] I came to find Friedrich Nietzsche's, "Genealogy of Morals" of relevance to this comment and without looking. I found a youtube video after typing in the search bar on my ruko tv, "genealogy documentary," as I was looking for family tree types of stories, something about ancient blood lines and going about/ over how family lines have been traced and tracked. THEN a recommended video caught my eye, and I clicked. Found on Eternalised's YT channel, a 10 min video called "Genealogy of Morals | Friedrich Nietzsche" So, I have it playing in the backround as I am re-reading my comment above, not including the new additions 1, 2, the original draft finished at 801pm...and from what I took in and overheard, I intuitively drew connections, ( i am not fully saying I am on board with the work, I am just seeing connecions at this early point in my research ) , from both my comments and the video summary of the essay. I notice that topics of mutual interest resonated between thinkers. The essay touches on, Good bad evil, guilty conscious (bad conscious), morality and suffering as all are topics that I have mentioned in my last few contributions...no need to refer or point out specifics, it's all here and there. :monkey: I just so happened to learn about the essay AFTER these thoughts shared above came and were typed stream of consciousness style. Haven't even read it yet, though, I LOVE to see it



Yes!

We mentally project the colour red onto the world that we are observing. — RussellA

I am still confused about this specific topic or debated ongoing discussion... Colors we project mentally are compatible to what exists in nature it seems, we know or assume others are projecting that color as well...animals, plants included living things adapting to environment and survival instincts have developed with time. Vision is an important sense that humans/animals have. The living beings have built in, wit a purpose and function is to take place using the senses combined with the formation of the body that is adapted to the surroundings, environment or habitat that makes sense....

Combined the brain, body, and senses to the earth, location is relevant and it all can make sense when put together..ex eye sockets, eyeballs, bone shape of face are features we are born with (given we have no complications or disables or deformities) Our bodies assume we ought to see our surroundings, we project color to help us communicate what we see around us to our brains, informing and updating with each glance, each blink...each dream...we dont need color to see and survive, color blind people are navigating life just as fine, but the color is being read or projected in mind, but because the brain has developed to recognize / organize the environment to a point where it comes naturally to see color from wavelengths in this stage of evolution.

The fluid colors we "project" or see using our eyes, vision, and senses proper to the surroundings/material/light in scope of vision, presented before our eyes I thought was because of the range in the cones and rods, our photoreceptors sensitivity to light? The wavelengths we pick up according to external world around us, that we live in and take in (thru all senses available to us) being color coordinated mentally and not actually existing is just hard for me to understand, let alone believe so BLINDLY.

Where did that range come from? How do we know what will help the brain organize using our eye balls and reflexes/instinct/ability and how do we figure, that to see the color is helping the brain organize, what if it is for imprinting better memories from more vivid life experiences? The wavelength as it is shown to us in the world, use light to get to our eyes and our brain just instantly paints the picture live in front of us each time? I think its more of a stored quality, muscle memory if you will...instinct or maybe just a natural intelligence that comes with the brain/body working together in day to day life over time...

What is shown to us (in the world, in our heads) vs as it is? Specific experiences maybe are relevant to occur over/in time? TIME and perceptions....perhaps experience with perception...Awareness of that? AS that topic is still debatable, see thread on perception, the discussion is ongoing from many stances and starts, that was bound to go somewhere. How it crashes and burned is telling, but the end is not NO WHERE. It awaits a fellow traveler.

The direction is not welcoming or to be followed, though. Perhaps a dead end after all. Then, a U-turn is required. A choice. Take the next best exit, go that way....It is a complex area to discuss as both scientific and philosophical understandings about human nature come into play, at times that make nothing easy. Nothing good comes easy...

Easy goes it, life. So it seems. Humans are in it and under the scope....behind them as well...experiments, and observers....What else? A third party we forgot? In nature, plants/animals and with conscious beings in nature, humans-- are two different concepts, or experiences ...though they make sense together. We ought to be compatible.

Now were talkin

C5 - Any metaphysical angst about numbers is unnecessary. — RussellA

Agreed to this point..But wondering, what do numbers have to do with the concept of order? levels or ranks?

Colors we project mentally are compatible to what exists in nature it seems, we know or assume others are projecting that color as well...animals, plants included living things adapting to environment and survival instincts have developed with time. — Kizzy

The OP is about the ontological status of ideas. It goes on to ask "So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding?"

I agree when you say:
1) "Colors we project mentally are compatible to what exists in nature it seems"
2) "Vision is an important sense that humans/animals have."

As regards:
3) "we know or assume others are projecting that color as well.......animals, plants included living things adapting to environment and survival instincts have developed with time."

I agree that it is more than likely that when I see a postbox emitting a wavelength of 700mn, my subjective experience of the colour red is the same as everyone else's, all things being considered equal. After all, life has evolved over 3 billion years in synergy with its environment. However, it is not something that I can ever know in the absence of telepathy.

When I observe a postbox, I know that the colour red exists in my mind, and science tells me that a wavelength of 700nm exists in the world.

When I observe the world, I see the colour red, meaning that either i) a wavelength of 700nm is the colour red in the absence of any observer, which I find hard to accept or ii) I project my subjective experience of the colour red onto the world, which I find easier to accept.

As with colour, similarly with number, such that numbers exist in my mind but not the world. When I observe the world and see numbers, I have projected my subjective experience of numbers onto the world.

As colour exists in the mind but not the world, numbers exist in the mind but not the world.

Regarding the word "exist, as unicorns exist in literature but not the world, colours and numbers exist in the mind but not the world.

The word "subsist" is unnecessary.

When I observe a postbox, I know that the colour red exists in my mind, and science tells me that a wavelength of 700nm exists in the world. — RussellA

How could a wavelength of 700nm exist in the world? Wavelength is a measurement, or a complex idea which serves as a standard for measurement. As such, any statement of wavelength is an expression of an idea. Measurements are just a matter of projecting your subjective experience of numbers onto the world.

A measurement has the appearance of being "objective" because we apply "standards", "rules", "conventions", or "norms", which produce what some call "intersubjectivity", and others call "objectivity". Whichever of the two terms one chooses, it's generally employed as a means for taking the agreement which supports the "existence" of the standards, for granted.

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? — Kizzy

The point here is the OP was asking about the ontological status of ideas, hence 3 was used for a sample idea to consider. At this stage we are not considering any other objects for its ontological status, but a number which is a typical example of abstract ideas.

What do you know, when I say to you out of the blue "3"?

How could a wavelength of 700nm exist in the world? — Metaphysician Undercover

You are right. How can I say on the one hand that "numbers exist in the mind but not the world" but on the other hand say that "science tells me that a wavelength of 700nm exists in the world", when a wavelength of 700nm depends on the existence of numbers.

All I can say is that in order to communicate my ideas I can only use language.

My premise is that ideas only exist in the mind. This would lead to the paradox that if I am able to successfully communicate my ideas using language, then it follows that, as language exists outside the mind, these ideas now exist outside the mind, thereby negating my original premise.

All I can conclude is, as ideas only exist in the mind, and language exists outside the mind, it is impossible to communicate my ideas using language.

This sounds a bit like 6.54 of Wittgenstein's TLP, where he wrote

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

However, saying that, as an Existence Nihilist, I don't believe that wavelengths exist in the world. Hawthorne and Cortens (1995) spoke for the nihilist thus: “the concept of an object has no place in a perspicuous characterization of reality”.

I believe a world outside the mind exists, but not a world of objects, whether chairs or wavelengths, but rather a world of fundamental particles and forces existing in space and time.

As regards language, it can be argued that language, including the language of science, is more metaphorical rather than literal.

For example, metaphors are commonly used in science, such as: evolution by natural selection, F = ma, the wave theory of light, DNA is the code of life, the genome is the book of life, gravity, dendritic branches, Maxwell's Demon, Schrödinger’s cat, Einstein’s twins, greenhouse gas, the battle against cancer, faith in a hypothesis, the miracle of consciousness, the gift of understanding, the laws of physics, the language of mathematics, deserving an effective mathematics, etc

In this sense, I am using the expression "numbers exist in the mind but not the world" literally and the expression "science tells me that a wavelength of 700nm exists in the world" metaphorically.

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of language to mix literal and metaphorical expressions, and it is only the context that enables the reader to distinguish between the two.

The OP is about the ontological status of ideas. It goes on to ask "So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding?" — RussellA

Thanks for the response and clarifying your stance further.

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? — Kizzy


The point here is the OP was asking about the ontological status of ideas, hence 3 was used for a sample idea to consider. At this stage we are not considering any other objects for its ontological status, but a number which is a typical example of abstract ideas.

What do you know, when I say to you out of the blue "3"? — Corvus

I'd perk up because I like 3. I'd know that you know something and I would say "Three (3) what?," and assume you read or counted or recalled or referenced something that has to do with the number, the concept is meaningless, I only care about the number 3. It is stitched on the back of a few jerseys I have worn with pride! I'd know to ask you about it, I'd know I would be curious.

My apologies, I appreciate the redirection from you both as I did REACT instead of replying plainly with consideration to the OP. I jumped in on a back and forth without much thought at all, I just did it.

Anyways, I have much to say on this topic. I think about thinking thoughts, IDEAS and the Philosophy of Mind are especially of my personal interest! I shall be back when I have more time to think straight. My past thoughts and notes are boring me and I need something fresh! I know I have fresh, but I do not have the will to THINK about my thoughts, yet...Still, I am EXCITED! I am all over the place, right now...835pm 12/18/25 Looking forward to sharing latest and greatest!, Thanks



See my reply below to, (again, reacting to a back and forth), creativesoul whom was responding to frank's comment within the perception thread linked here: ( https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/922694 )
The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank


Data from inside the brain?

Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience. — creativesoul


What about just the/a "brain" with thinking thoughts?

Part of my initial comment says, "I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind"

So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding? — Art48


As an ex prof I never thought about it, and I don't recall hearing the expression, but I suppose it could be appropriate. — jgill

who would think about it??? :chin: :razz: :lol: Never thought about it, but supposes it could be "appropriate" ? For what? Common understanding? Like able to be commonly understood? Or actively a common understanding? I think not....Now that you are just now thinking about it, jgill, I would love to hear more! I should not assume that you actually DID think about it, at least not for long...I understand!

My premise is that ideas only exist in the mind. This would lead to the paradox that if I am able to successfully communicate my ideas using language, then it follows that, as language exists outside the mind, these ideas now exist outside the mind, thereby negating my original premise. — RussellA

Here's another related problem, which was given much consideration by the ancient Greeks, like Plato and Aristotle. Plato thought that since things exist as types, then the form, or type, idea, must be prior to the thing itself, to cause it to be the type of thing that it is. Aristotle showed that since a particular thing has a form unique to itself, which must be prior in time to the thing itself to account for it being the thing that it is and not something else, forms must be prior to material things. This indicates that there must be something similar to ideas, forms, which are prior in time to material existence, therefore outside of human minds.

I believe a world outside the mind exists, but not a world of objects, whether chairs or wavelengths, but rather a world of fundamental particles and forces existing in space and time. — RussellA

Isn't "force" just a concept?

Maybe it means there like 'specific motion or movement of these fundamental particles' the ones that RussellA shares words of, see above (as below)...
Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? Are we assuming they are in motion of direction ? Of material? material in motion? Energy in motion creating "force"? A concept? A verb? I agree, I suppose that "force" can be philosophically consumed as a concept, but as a definition I can see the verb aspect being relevant...I dont know...materials that transform into a force? Can we call this 'force' a concept, yes for now. However, I think it is more specific than "just a concept"

Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? — Kizzy

What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time?

Could time be potentiality, the possibility to be, endless possibility??

Plato thought that since things exist as types, then the form, or type, idea, must be prior to the thing itself, to cause it to be the type of thing that it is — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a particular lightning strike, and being a particualr instance is a token. Several lightning strikes would create a class of events, The Lightning Strike, which would be a type.

In practice, can anyone give any explanation, other than in the mind of God, where a Lightning Strike could exist prior to a lightning strike?
===============================================================================

Aristotle showed that since a particular thing has a form unique to itself, which must be prior in time to the thing itself to account for it being the thing that it is and not something else, forms must be prior to material things. — Metaphysician Undercover

A particular lightning strike has a particular form, which is unique to itself, and is different to the form of tree.

Suppose the form of the lightning strike existed 1,000 years before the actual lightning strike happened. Then by the same logic, to account for the form of the lightning strike being the thing that it is rather than something else, the form of the lightning strike must have existed prior to 1,000 years before the actual lightning strike, ad infinitum until the beginning of existence.

Therefore, the form of the lightning strike must have existed at the beginning of existence. Similarly the form of every event must have existed at the beginning of existence.

In other words, according to Aristotle, the form of this post, which has a form unique to itself, must have been determined at the beginning of existence, 13.7 billion years ago, which is a scary thought.
===============================================================================

This indicates that there must be something similar to ideas, forms, which are prior in time to material existence, therefore outside of human minds. — Metaphysician Undercover

Expanding to minds rather than just human minds, as as I am sure that the dinosaur had a mind.

I have the idea that lightening strikes are terrifying.

In practice, prior to minds, what was terrified by the idea of a lightning strike?
===============================================================================

Isn't "force" just a concept? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That's the problem.

But every word in language refers to a concept, in that "fundamental" is a concept, "particle" is a concept, "and" is a concept, etc.

It can also be argued that every word in language should be taken as a figure of speech rather than literally. For example, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson wrote the book Metaphors We Live By 1980. In science, Andrew May in Science 2000 argued that even Newton's second law, F = ma is a metaphor.

But concepts don't exist outside the mind.

Therefore, the problem is that language is using concepts which only exist in the mind to describe a world that exists outside the mind, where such concepts don't exist.

I agree that I am using the concept of "force", which exists in my mind, to describe something in the world, even though the concept "force" doesn't exist in the world.

And this is true for every word in language.

Language as a whole is using concepts, including the colour red and number, to describe a world where those concepts don't exist.

One possible conclusion would be that the world we observe exists in the mind, not outside the mind, in a Kantian kind of way.

Still, I am EXCITED! I am all over the place, right now...835pm 12/18/25 Looking forward to sharing latest and greatest!, Thanks — Kizzy

Great post thanks!! When I say "3" out of the blue, I cannot even know what I was meaning apart from the fact that 3 is a number. One could say, well 3 is an odd, and prime number so on, but that doesn't add much more info than it is a number. Number is a concept in the mind.

Numbers are only meaningful when it is describing the objects and entities in the real world. Number can also describe the events, processes, motions and changes too. Numbers describe and denote things, motions and the other concepts.

When you had a shirt with number 3 on it, the 3 is a symbol of number 3. It is not 3 itself at all. 3 has not just the symbol, but also name too namely "Three".

Due to its ability to describe and count the physical objects in the world, numbers are also a property for existence. If something exists, then it can be counted. If something can be counted, then it exists in the physical form.

Kant thought numbers are psychological and the a priori concepts in the mind. This tradition has been ciriticised by the later philosophers such as Bolzano and Husserl. Numbers and truth must exist in the world objectively without mind. This new trend of thinking revolutionised development in the new Logic, Mathematics and Proof theories which gave foundations for the work of Cantor, Hilbert, Russell and Whitehead. But I still believe Kant was right in his idea of numbers and abstract ideas as the products of mind.

That is my quick reflection on numbers. Maybe it has some logical flaws for sure, but I believe this is what philosophical debates are about. Pointing out the logical flaws and problems in the other folks arguments and ideas. Or coming to mutual agreement when they sound consistent and making sense. And learning the truths in dialectical and critical way.

There is a particular lightning strike, and being a particualr instance is a token. Several lightning strikes would create a class of events, The Lightning Strike, which would be a type. — RussellA

Yes, this is the issue which Plato addressed. When a lightening strike occurs, there has already been many events of the same type (lightening strikes). This implies that there is a form ("formula" if you like), which preexists the particular event, and determines what it will be.

In modern days we understand this as inductive reasoning, cause and effect, and laws of physics. This inclines us to think that these formulae are abstractions, the product of human minds, existing as ideas in human minds. And this is correct, but this way of thinking detracts from the need to consider some sort of "form" which preexists such events, and determines their nature.

A common way of representing the difference between the two types of "form" are as the laws of physics (human abstractions), and the laws of nature (what the laws of physics are supposed to represent, which causes things to behave the way that they do). Aristotle provided much guidance for separating the two senses of "form", the causal as prior to events, and the human abstractions as posterior to events.

In practice, can anyone give any explanation, other than in the mind of God, where a Lightning Strike could exist prior to a lightning strike? — RussellA

This is why "God" and "angels", are the most common explanation for the immaterial Forms which are necessarily prior to material existence, as cause of the orderly existence we observe. The prior Forms (laws of nature), are "idea-like", but they are prior to material existence rather than posterior to it (as abstractions are), being what causes whatever we determine as the fundamental elements of material existence to be, in the way that they are. Since the prior forms are "idea-like" as immaterial, and the cause of things being the way that they are, in much the same way that human ideas cause artificial things to be the way that they are, through freely willed activities, we posit a divine mind, "God".

Therefore, the form of the lightning strike must have existed at the beginning of existence. Similarly the form of every event must have existed at the beginning of existence.

In other words, according to Aristotle, the form of this post, which has a form unique to itself, must have been determined at the beginning of existence, 13.7 billion years ago, which is a scary thought. — RussellA

The issue is not so simple, because you are applying determinist principles here. When we account for the reality of freely willed events, the entire way that we understand "time" needs to be altered. Then we do not get this infinite regress to "the beginning of time". Free will allows a new, undetermined event to enter into the chain of causation determined by the past, at any moment in time.

The chain of causation is an abstraction, inductive principles derived from the observation of continuity in time. A thing, object with mass, will continue to be as it has been, in the past, unless caused to change. This is the basis for Newton's first law, and the "cause" of change here, was traditionally understood as another massive object (f=ma). The freely willed cause, however, as an immaterial cause known as "final cause", is free from that determinist causal chain. The freely willed cause must even escape the concept of "energy", because of the relativistic equivalence between mass and energy which renders "energy" as inertially deterministic.

Simply put, when we allow for the reality of freely willed events, we allow as a fundamental principle, a break in the continuity of being, between past and future, a break at the present. This is the lack of necessity between cause and effect, and in inductive reasoning, pointed to by Hume. Things do not necessarily continue as they have. This implies that the entire world of being, all that exists relative to our observational capacities, must be created anew at each passing moment of time.

That means that "the form of the world", consequently "the form of each event", as time passes, is produced (by what was referred to as the mind of God above), at each passing moment of time. This is the basis for the idea of divine "Providence", and the idea that God must act continually, at each moment to maintain His creation. The laws of physics, like Newton's first law, depend on "God's Will", as it is required that God actively recreates the world at each passing moment, and God having a free will, could recreate the world at any moment, in a way which is not consistent with determinist cause/effect.

es. That's the problem.

But every word in language refers to a concept, in that "fundamental" is a concept, "particle" is a concept, "and" is a concept, etc.

It can also be argued that every word in language should be taken as a figure of speech rather than literally. For example, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson wrote the book Metaphors We Live By 1980. In science, Andrew May in Science 2000 argued that even Newton's second law, F = ma is a metaphor. — RussellA

When you recognize the requirement for "idea-like" Forms, as explained above, which exist independently from human minds, this so-called problem is turned on its head. There is ideas internal to human minds, and ideas external to human minds. And, there is a supposed "material world" as a medium between these two. The material world, as it appears to us, is a representation of the consistency (temporal continuity) within the independent Forms. The key point is that this consistency is not necessary as the determinists represent it. It simply appears to us in this way, as the aspects of the independent Forms which appear to our senses as "the material world", are the parts which demonstrate such consistency. Consequently this constitutes the features of the material world which appear intelligible to us.

But concepts don't exist outside the mind.

Therefore, the problem is that language is using concepts which only exist in the mind to describe a world that exists outside the mind, where such concepts don't exist.

I agree that I am using the concept of "force", which exists in my mind, to describe something in the world, even though the concept "force" doesn't exist in the world.

And this is true for every word in language.

Language as a whole is using concepts, including the colour red and number, to describe a world where those concepts don't exist. — RussellA

So, try this. All words refer to concepts in human minds, as you say. And, outside of human minds there is another sort of "concepts", in another sort of mind (God's). These are the Forms. In the same way that words appear to you within the material medium, as alterations in its consistency which you can interpret as the representations of ideas in other human minds, allowing you to extract meaning, the consistency of physical objects, and the entire physical world, exists as representations of the ideas which exist in that other sort of mind.

Imagine that the other sort of mind is speaking an entirely different language, a language which utilizes consistency of the medium whereas human languages utilize the inconsistency of the medium. Being a sort of inverse language, in relation to our type of languages, it is very difficult to interpret these ideas. However, there is a key to interpretation, a principle, which if adhered to, it will guide the way. The key is the way that time passes, and the fact that everything which occurs at the present, the passage of every material event, has an immaterial (unobservable) Form prior to it in time, as the cause of that event. So, for example, when someone speaks, there is an immaterial cause of those words, within the mind of the speaker, and the material world is just the medium of passing time, which displays the communicative features. The human mind which makes that statement exploits a deficiency in the consistency of the medium, which provides free will the capacity to state that message, while the consistency itself is representative of the other sort of ideas.

A common way of representing the difference between the two types of "form" are as the laws of physics (human abstractions), and the laws of nature (what the laws of physics are supposed to represent, which causes things to behave the way that they do). Aristotle provided much guidance for separating the two senses of "form", the causal as prior to events, and the human abstractions as posterior to events. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a lot in your post, but taking your points one by one.

I observe a hundred times that when there are regions of excess positive and negative charge within a cloud then lightning occurs. I can ask why.

I can conclude that there is a Law of Nature such that when there are regions of excess positive and negative charge within a cloud lightning occurs.

There are two aspects to a "Law of Nature": as it exists in the mind and as it exists in a world outside the mind.

As regards the Law of Nature as it exists in a world outside the mind

Am I right is thinking that an Aristotelian Form and Law of Nature are analogous?

My question is, is it in fact the case that a Law of Nature precedes the event it describes, or is the Law of Nature contemporaneous with the event it describes. My belief is the latter.

If the Law of Nature is contemporaneous with the event it describes, and if the Aristotelian Form may be thought of as a Law of Nature, then the Aristotelian Form will also be contemporaneous with the event it describes.

Suppose there is a cloud with regions of excess positive and negative charge. This is not a prediction of a future lightning strike, but immediately gives rise to a lightning strike. The Law of Nature determines what does happen not what will happen.

It therefore seems that an Aristotelian Form, as with a Law of Nature, rather than pre-existing an event, can only be contemporaneous with an event.

IE, the Laws of Nature as abstractions in the mind are a posteriori to events, but the Laws of Nature in a world outside the mind, and by analogy the Aristotelian Forms, must be contemporaneous with events.

Since the prior forms are "idea-like" as immaterial, and the cause of things being the way that they are, in much the same way that human ideas cause artificial things to be the way that they are, through freely willed activities, we posit a divine mind, "God". — Metaphysician Undercover

The material and the immaterial

I can understand a God as being a prior cause to physical events, providing one accepts the possibility of a God.

I agree that human concepts can cause changes in the physical world, in that having the concept of thirst can cause a bottle of water in the world to move

The existence of Free Will is debated. Some argue that it is an illusion.

However, I don't agree that concepts in the mind and the Laws of Nature in a world outside the mind are immaterial, but rather that they are fully material.

As regards the particular Law of Nature that when there are regions of excess positive and negative charge within a cloud lightning occurs, there is nothing immaterial about this. The event is fully explainable as the deterministic behaviour of matter and forces between matter.

As regards concepts in the mind, as software exists within the hardware of a computer, concepts exist in the physical structure of the brain. If change the physical structure of the brain, then change the concepts within that physical structure.

No evidence has ever been presented of the dissociation of concepts from the brain, in that if a living brain moved from the living room to the dining room, no one would suggest the possibility of the concepts remaining in the living room.

IE, some may believe in God and Free Will, but it seems to me that they are not necessary as explanations of the relationship between mind and world outside the mind.

Free will allows a new, undetermined event to enter into the chain of causation determined by the past, at any moment in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some argue that Free Will is an illusion.

I observe a hundred times that when there are regions of excess positive and negative charge within a cloud then lightning occurs. I can ask why.

I can conclude that there is a Law of Nature such that when there are regions of excess positive and negative charge within a cloud lightning occurs. — RussellA

Notice that I distinguished between a law of physics, and a law of nature. What you describe is an inductive principle, like a law of physics. That is a descriptive principle. In the way I used the term, the law of nature is what the law of physics is supposed to represent, it is what is supposedly described by these inductive principles. Check the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" for reference.

Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications. — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

My usage was the latter sense of "laws of nature".

My question is, is it in fact the case that a Law of Nature precedes the event it describes, or is the Law of Nature contemporaneous with the event it describes. My belief is the latter. — RussellA

A "law of nature" in this sense necessarily precedes the event, because the laws of nature are what makes things act the way that they do. So they are the cause of an event occurring the way that it does, a way that is describable by laws of physics. Notice in the quote, that things "obey" the laws of nature, so the laws must be prior to an events, as the events will necessarily obey the laws.

Some argue that Free Will is an illusion. — RussellA

Yes, they have the freedom to do this. I don't believe that, do you?

Yes, they have the freedom to do this. I don't believe that, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is more likely that Free Will is an illusion than an actual thing.
===============================================================================

My usage was the latter sense of "laws of nature". — Metaphysician Undercover

In modern days we understand this as inductive reasoning, cause and effect, and laws of physics. This inclines us to think that these formulae are abstractions, the product of human minds, existing as ideas in human minds. And this is correct, but this way of thinking detracts from the need to consider some sort of "form" which preexists such events, and determines their nature. — Metaphysician Undercover

A "law of nature" in this sense necessarily precedes the event, because the laws of nature are what makes things act the way that they do. — Metaphysician Undercover

Laws of Nature
IE, you were referring to the Laws of Nature as "principles which govern the natural phenomena of the world" rather than "descriptions of the way the world is".

The question is, is it strictly true that "descriptions of the way the world is" are posterior to events and "principles which govern the natural phenomena of the world" are prior to events?

There is an overlap in Laws of Physics and Laws of Nature. For example, Newton's three laws of motion are described by the SEP article Laws of Nature as Laws of Nature and are described by the web site www.examples com as Laws of Physics.

By observing many times that the sun rises in the east, by inductive reasoning, I can propose the law that "the sun rises in the east". It is true that this law is posterior to my observations. But it is equally true that this law is prior to my observing the next sun rise.

When does a law become a Law of Nature?

If for hundreds of years hundreds of scientist have observed that F=ma, then this is sufficient for F=ma to become a Law of Nature.

But in principle the Law of Nature that F=ma is no different to my law that "the sun rises in the east", apart from the number of observations.

This Law of Nature is posterior to observations and prior to the next observation in exactly the same way that my law was posterior to my observations and prior to my next observation.

Whilst it is true that Laws of Nature are prior to the next event, they are also posterior to previous events.

The Law of Nature that F=ma is not the cause of the next event, it does not make the next event act as it does act and it does not determine the next event, but is a prediction about what the next event will be based on past experience.

Aristotle
Whereas for Plato Form is prior to physical things, for Aristotle's hylomorphic scheme, Form and Matter are intertwined. It may well be that Form is Matter, united by the Formal Cause.

As Form cannot exist independently of Matter, Form cannot exist prior to Matter but must be contemporaneous with it.

I think it is more likely that Free Will is an illusion than an actual thing. — RussellA

Personally, I don't see too much point in discussing philosophy with someone who doesn't believe in free will. The entire discussion would then have to revolve around persuading the person that they have the power (free will) to change that belief. And this "persuading" would have to carry the force of a deterministic cause, to change that person's mind, which is contrary to the principles believed in by the person who believes in free will. This makes the task of convincing a person of the reality of free wil an exercise in futility. The only way that a person will come to believe in the reality of free will is through introspection, examination of one's own personal experiences.

The question is, is it strictly true that "descriptions of the way the world is" are posterior to events and "principles which govern the natural phenomena of the world" are prior to events? — RussellA

The answer to that question is "yes", by the reasoning I gave.

There is an overlap in Laws of Physics and Laws of Nature. — RussellA

No, there is no overlap, for the same reason that there is no overlap of the map and the territory. An overlap would require that the map is mapping itself, but that would produce an unintelligible infinite regress, like looking into a mirror with a mirror behind you.

The Laws of Physics are the map (description), and the Laws of Nature are what is supposedly described by the map, as explained in the article I referred.

By observing many times that the sun rises in the east, by inductive reasoning, I can propose the law that "the sun rises in the east". It is true that this law is posterior to my observations. But it is equally true that this law is prior to my observing the next sun rise.

When does a law become a Law of Nature? — RussellA

OK, so take your example here. "the sun rises in the east" is the inductive, descriptive "law", which is posterior to your observations. The proposed "Laws of Nature" are what forces the earth to spin the way that it does, causing the appearance of the sun rising in the east.

If for hundreds of years hundreds of scientist have observed that F=ma, then this is sufficient for F=ma to become a Law of Nature. — RussellA

Not at all. The proposed "Laws of Nature", are whatever it is which causes bodies to act in that consistent way, the way which makes F=ma appear to be true.

Personally, I don't see too much point in discussing philosophy with someone who doesn't believe in free will. The entire discussion would then have to revolve around persuading the person that they have the power (free will) to change that belief. And this "persuading" would have to carry the force of a deterministic cause, to change that person's mind, which is contrary to the principles believed in by the person who believes in free will. This makes the task of convincing a person of the reality of free wil an exercise in futility. The only way that a person will come to believe in the reality of free will is through introspection, examination of one's own personal experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover

Free Will
A person hears an argument.

If that person has free will, then they are free to accept or reject the argument.

If that person has no free will, then it has been pre-determined whether they accept or reject the argument, and it is possible that they either accept or reject the argument.

Therefore, if I observe someone hearing an argument, my observing whether they accept or reject the argument is no guide as to whether or not they have free will.

Introspection
If a person has free will, through introspection they are free to reject the idea that they have free will, and conclude that they live in a deterministic world.

If a person has no free will, during introspection, it may have been pre-determined that they accept the idea that they have free will.

Introspection is no guide as to whether free will is an illusion or not.
===============================================================================

The Laws of Physics are the map (description), and the Laws of Nature are what is supposedly described by the map — Metaphysician Undercover

Two meanings of Law of Nature
It depends what you mean by "Law of Nature", because it has two possible interpretations.

Looking at Newton's First Law of Motion, possible meaning one is as a description, in that an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force.

Possible meaning two is the reason why an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force

I agree that there is a difference between a description of what happens and a reason why it happens

Looking at possible meaning two
Looking at why something happens, why an object will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force.

One question is, is the Law of Nature that an object remains at rest external and prior to the object or internal and contemporaneous with the object.

If this Law is external and prior to any particular object, and applies equally to all objects in space and time, then this raises the practical problem of where exactly does this Law exist?

If the Law is internal and contemporaneous within particular objects, and all objects in space and time follow the same Law, then this raises the practical problem as to why all these individual Laws, both spatially and temporally separate, are the same?

How exactly can there be a single Law of Nature that determines what happens to objects that are spatially and temporally separate?

Free Will
A person hears an argument.

If that person has free will, then they are free to accept or reject the argument. — RussellA

Isn't FREE WILL time based ? You don't have free will for the past, because you can't go back even 1 second into the past. But you have free will to choose and decide for now and future events in your life.

Introspection
If a person has free will, through introspection they are free to reject the idea that they have free will, and conclude that they live in a deterministic world.

If a person has no free will, during introspection, it may have been pre-determined that they accept the idea that they have free will.

Introspection is no guide as to whether free will is an illusion or not. — RussellA

The issue is not "whether free will is an illusion or not". It is whether the person believes in free will or not. If you can demonstrate to me how introspection revealed to you that free will is an illusion, and you live in a deterministic world, and how this introspective perspective inclined you to believe that free will is an illusion, I will listen to you. Perhaps I misunderstood my introspection which inclined me to believe that free will is true.

It depends what you mean by "Law of Nature", because it has two possible interpretations. — RussellA

That is why I have been very explicit in explaining to you the meaning which I intended, and I even quoted a reference.

Possible meaning two is the reason why an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an external force — RussellA

This is not a possible meaning for Newton's first law. It would be a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding. No "reason why" is given for that law, it is stated as a descriptive fact, just like "the sky is blue" states a descriptive fact. And to interpret "the sky is blue" as giving a reason why the sky is blue would be a misunderstanding of what is stated, just like interpreting "an object will remain at rest or continue moving in a straight line at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force" as giving a reason why an object will remain at rest or continue moving in a straight line at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force, would be a misunderstanding of what is stated.

If this Law is external and prior to any particular object, and applies equally to all objects in space and time, then this raises the practical problem of where exactly does this Law exist?

If the Law is internal and contemporaneous within particular objects, and all objects in space and time follow the same Law, then this raises the practical problem as to why all these individual Laws, both spatially and temporally separate, are the same?

How exactly can there be a single Law of Nature that determines what happens to objects that are spatially and temporally separate? — RussellA

Yes, these are problems which could be discussed. However, I see no reason to discuss them if they are just proposed as reason to accept the illogical premise of contemporaneousness. Once you reject contemporaneousness as illogical, I'll be ready to discuss these other issues.

Isn't FREE WILL time based ? — Corvus

At exactly 1pm I decide to press the letter "T" on my keyboard. If free will is the case, at exactly 1pm, I could equally decide whether to press or not press the letter"T". But at exactly 1pm I did decide press the letter "T".

By the Law of Contradiction, free will cannot be the case, as it would result in a contradiction. At exactly 1pm I can't equally decide to press or not press the letter "T" and decide to press the letter "T" at the same time.