Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time. — Wayfarer

Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. So, one sense of measurement is "to extract information into a mind". To "take the measure of something" is to convert the perceived object into a mental representation of the object : an idea or concept. Hence, metaphorically, some physical properties of the object are replicated in meta-physical (mental) images (ideas). Therefore, a particle of matter can impact another particle, but only a Mind can measure the meaning of that collision in terms of values & properties. A yardstick cannot measure anything in the absence of an interpreting mind.

The Quantum Measurement Problem*2 seems to be similar to Bergson's Clock. Mechanisms move one tick at a time, but humans measure Time as duration : the space between ticks. Hence, for 10 billion solar years, the expanding universe ticked along, with no one to measure that change in terms of duration (Time) or expansion (space) or importance (events). Do animals have a mental concept of Time, over & above the circadian rhythms of their bodies? Humans seem to feel time as flowing, but measure it in discrete increments : ticks of a mechanical clock or sub-atomic quanta. So, time is not a physical thing, but merely an on-going process of observed events that we experience as continuous, but measure as quantified. :smile:


*1. The measuring mind : The Latin word for "mind" is mens, not "mensura". "Mensura" is a separate Latin word meaning "measure".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+word+for+%22mind%22+mensura

*2. The quantum measurement problem is a foundational question in quantum mechanics concerning the apparent contradiction between a quantum system's deterministic evolution (as described by the Schrödinger equation) and the probabilistic "collapse" of its state into a single outcome upon measurement.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+measurement+problem

*3. Time is widely understood as a continuous flow of existence and events, progressing irreversibly from past to future, and is a fundamental aspect of reality as described by both physics and philosophy. While a continuous and divisible flow is the dominant view, particularly in how we experience it, the nature of time at the most fundamental, quantum level is still an area of debate, with some physicists suggesting a discrete model might be necessary to fully reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Is+Time+a+series+of+isolated+events%2C+or+a+continuous+flow+of+change%3F

Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. — Banno
At least your version of it does. — Wayfarer

Solipsism is self-centered. Each observer of the environment is a Self (knowing mind), and has a self-centered perspective. But, for scientific purposes, we compare our selfish worldviews in order to average-out the differences, and to discover the most common description or interpretation of the thing observed : Objective instead of Subjective*4.

In the Embarassing Graph article linked above, "The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement". Even so, the most "popular" interpretation of spooky Quantum Physics is the one that is most like Magic : Probabilistic Copenhagen (42%) : events happen that can't be explained in classical deterministic mechanical terms. Second most popular is mind-centered Information-Theoretical (24%). And farther down the list is belief-centered Quantum-Bayesianism (6%). So, most scientists seem to agree that something funny*5 (non-mechanical) is going on, that can seem magical or mundane, depending on the observer's worldview .

A scientist's sensory perceptions and machine data are empirical, but their measurements and interpretations are theory-laden. That's why we can argue in opposite directions from the same evidence. Likewise, physical events are real & empirical, but conscious ideas about those events are ideal & hypothetical (speculative). :nerd:


*4. Scientific objectivity is the principle that scientific claims, methods, and results should be free from personal biases, value judgments, community bias, and personal interests, aiming to accurately reflect the facts of the world. It involves focusing on evidence and proven facts, minimizing irrational emotions, and striving for neutrality and accuracy in research. While an ideal, achieving perfect objectivity is challenging, as scientists are influenced by their perspectives, culture, and the broader scientific community.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientific+objectivity

*5. The "magic" in the Copenhagen Interpretation refers to the seemingly inexplicable process of wave function collapse, where a quantum system's indeterminate probabilities resolve into a single, definite outcome upon measurement. Critics, including Schrödinger, found this abrupt, probabilistic change, which lacks a clear physical mechanism, to be "magical" and a weakness of the interpretation. For them, it introduces randomness and a lack of determinism that is contrary to classical physics, forcing an acceptance of an unanalyzable cause for the wave function's collapse.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+magic

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists — Jan

Jung seems to be saying that I personally create the reality I see. But I don't consciously or intentionally create my environment, I just passively (instinctively) accept it as a given, and interpret the incoming bits of energy as information signals from a non-self Reality. So, Epistemological Idealism doesn't make sense to me. The other varieties of Idealism : Subjective ; Objective ; Absolute ; Constitutive ; and Transcendental ; appear to be grasping at straws.

Only the Transcendental makes some Ontological sense --- in view of the Big Bang theory --- but then we have the problem of postulating an imaginary out-of-this-world Source of the incoming Information (Ideas) we interpret as Real. I don't flatly reject the God hypothesis, even though I have no personal experience to confirm it. Therefore, as an amateur philosopher, while I entertain the hypothetical notion of Idealism, for practical purposes I assume that there is a real material world out there, which is not a creation of my feeble imagination. :smile:

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful. — Athena

Modern Holistic thinking began in the 20th century along with Quantum physics : entanglement is holistic. But most scientists avoid the term "holism" due to its association with New Age "nuts". Other related terms are Cybernetics (control & communication in complex systems) ; General Systems Theory (interrelated parts that work together as a whole) ; Complexity Theory (systems that are too complicated to understand by analysis into parts) ; Emergence (novel features of whole systems that are not found in the parts) ; Synthesis (combining isolated elements into interrelated systems) ; Synergy (energetic interaction to produce an effect that is more than the sum of parts).

You might be interested in the book that introduced that New-Agey term : Holism and Evolution*1. As the title implies, it was focused mainly on evolutionary mysteries, such as how Life & Mind emerged from the muck of a nascent planet. It inspired Hippies & meditators of the 1960s with hope for a new Age of Aquarius. The holistic god-concept of New-Agers was an impersonal, cosmic life force or consciousness that is one with the universe. Disclaimer : despite some accusations, I am not now, and never have been a New Age hippie.

Another book that is more focused on Consciousness & god-concepts is The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder : a thick encyclopedic book "that synthesizes modern science and philosophy to explore the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning in the universe". It's intended for intelligent laymen, but includes a lot of technical stuff that you may not be interested in. However, it has chapters on "woo-woo" Shamanic traditions and Psychedelic cultures, that may be more appealing to you.

I, personally, have no experience with mind-altering substances, or out-of-body experiences. So my interest was more in the Holistic philosophical worldview, summarized as Syncretic Idealism : "a novel philosophical proposition that merges various idealist philosophies with insights from information theory and physics, while also integrating concepts from other belief systems like shamanism to create a unified, non-isolating worldview about the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence". :smile:


*1. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things. . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

However, I am not sure that the energy from the moment of the Big Bang is not also a unifying energy evolving into self-consciousness. — Athena

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile:


*1. From Matter to Life: Information and Causality is a 2017 edited collection of essays by experts in various fields, including physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy, exploring the role of information in the transition from non-living matter to life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=from+matter+to+life

*2. Information and the Nature of Reality :From Physics to Metaphysics is an edited collection of essays by scientists, philosophers, and theologians, published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 and reissued as a Canto Classic in 2014. Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, the book explores the growing importance of information as a fundamental concept in understanding the universe, moving beyond traditional views of mass and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+the+nature+of+reality

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Postulates that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed. — Jack Cummins

If pressed, I don't label myself as Theist or Atheist, but as Deist*1. That's because I am uncertain & ambivalent about God, but convinced that some transcendent creative power is necessary to make sense of our contingent world. Deism is not a religion, but a philosophical position*1. Regarding who or what created the Cosmos, all I know is that empirical cosmological knowledge only goes back to the black box known as the Big Bang Singularity. Any information prior to the beginning of space-time is pure speculation, based on hypothetical reasoning, not empirical observation. If you don't care about such perennial philosophical questions as First Cause & Prime Mover though, then peace be unto you.

I am not a Pantheist or Panpsychist, but I do postulate an alternative Pan-power : Energy, or as I like to call it : EnFormAction*2. In that view, the creative power to transform is universal, and responsible for all developments since the initial Bang. Whitehead's Process philosophy*3 also presumes some kind of universal directional causal power to explain complexifying evolution sparked by the Bang. But he didn't call it Panpsychism ; others added that label. In the quote below, "matter and experience" may be similar to Aristotle's Hylomorph (matter + form).

Since Matter is subject to the degradation of Entropy though, it cannot be eternal, but Form is an abstract mental/mathematical concept that is not subject to thermodynamics. So, the power to create and transform matter may be the transcendent force that is necessary to explain the Big Bang. What would you call the Source of that Cosmic Causation? And in what sense could it exist prior to the emergence of space-time? :smile:


*1. Deism is the philosophical belief in a creator God who established the universe and its natural laws but does not intervene in its ongoing affairs, particularly human events. Deists rely on human reason and the observation of nature, rather than divine revelation or religious scriptures, to understand the divine. This belief system, prominent during the Enlightenment, views God as a supreme architect or "divine clockmaker" who created the world and then left it to operate on its own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deism+philosophical+position+on+god

*2. EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- EFA is similar to Schopenhauer's Will to survive (biological evolution), and to Nietzche's Will to power (physical Energy), and to Bergson's Vital Energy (self organization). Matter is made of Energy, but what is Energy made of????

*3. Alfred North Whitehead developed a form of process panpsychism, a philosophy suggesting that all reality is composed of fundamental "actual occasions" with both mental and physical aspects, rather than inert material objects. This process-relational view holds that everything, from quanta to galaxies, has a "subjective" or experiential "inside" and an objective, physical "outside". He didn't use the term "panpsychism" himself but argued for a system where matter and experience are equally fundamental, with matter as the objective pole and mind as the subjective pole of these underlying actual entities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=alfred+north+whitehead+panpsychism
Note --- Whitehead's term "experience" may be misleading. I think it's more like Wheeler's "bit" of Information.

Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents. — Gnomon
Thanks for reminding me just how much of a crackpot he is. — apokrisis

Yes. From a Materialistic perspective, Hoffman is a heretical thinker, like Immanuel Kant, postulating a veiled noumenal reality (ding an sich) underlying the obvious phenomenal appearances of the physical senses. :smile:


Yes, Immanuel Kant is considered a profoundly important and influential thinker, often regarded as one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+important+thinker

Yes, Donald Hoffman is considered an important thinker for his work as a cognitive scientist and popular science author who has challenged the scientific consensus on perception and reality,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+important+thinker

This is metaphysics we are talking about. Substance is a claim about what “stands under”. And ontologically that is usually regarded as a stuff. A passive and stable material that can be worked up into an unlimited variety of forms.
. — apokrisis

That "passive & stable" stuff is indeed the fundamental substance of Ontological Materialism. But Aristotle defined his "Ousia" in terms of two elements : real Matter & ideal Form*1. Modern quantum physics concludes that active & dynamic Information (power to enform) is the essence of Matter*2. Shannon's "passive & stable" Information (data) has been found to also be active & causal (form giving), hence equated with Energy : E = MC^2.

My previous post linked to a book : Information is Energy. And. that creative-power-to-change-Form is the opposite of deforming Entropy*3. So, it seems that Aristotle was ahead of his time, to combine Matter (passive & stable) with Energy (power to transform). So, Matter (marble) is inert until it is given Form (sculpture) by its enforming Essence*4 (idea , concept), in the mind of the sculptor. Working together, inert Matter & causal Information (EnFormAction) are the System we call Evolution. Unfortunately, the metaphysics of Materialism ignores the active, causal half of the equation of Substance. :smile:

Note--- " be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you . . ."
Greek Apokrisis = answer

*1. Fundamental Substance :
In Aristotle's philosophy, substance (ousia) refers to the fundamental, individual entities that exist independently and are the subjects of predication. It's a central concept in his metaphysics, distinguishing between primary substances (individual things) and secondary substances (species and genera). Furthermore, Aristotle connects substance with matter and form, suggesting that all physical things are composed of these two elements
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+substance

*2. Information is Fundamental :
Information is more than just a description of our universe and the stuff in it: it is the most basic currency of existence.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3. Information is a Process :
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. Marble is the raw material, but the sculptor's concept of Form gives it meaning

I was also interested in the ideas of Whitehead, as described to me by Gnomon in my recent thread on panpsychism. This involves an emphasis on the transcendent and the imminent as processes. There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as source.

Generally, I am interested in comparative worldviews, especially Buddhism, which does not believe in a specific deity, but allows for some kind of transcendent levels of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I am currently reading a voluminous book written by a quantitative scientist, James Glattfelder : The Sentient Cosmos, which he labels a "synthesis of science and philosophy". About half the book is about immanent & empirical topics, and the other half are transcendent & theoretical : what would call woo-woo, based on his prejudice against the notion of transcendence. Apparently, his non-transcendent religion is Scientism. But, philosophers, such as Whitehead, do not limit their philosophical explorations to the material world, or to empirical methods.

Glattfelder seems to be amenable to Panpsychism, but he tends to avoid the fraught term "God", and substitutes more ambiguous terms such as "Source", "One", "intelligence", etc. Personally, I don't agree with his top-down notion of the the human brain as a kind of receiver tuned-in to the wavelengths of the Cosmic Consciousness. But, he is an extremely well-informed scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. So, I hear him out. And I'm learning a lot about various historical & modern attempts to understand where the immanent world came from, and why it is as it is, and how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of atoms. :smile:

PS___ Comparative Religion : Glattfelder also discusses an array of ancient & recent attempts to understand the place of Man in a material world : Shamanism, Hinduism (Brahman/Atman), Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Kabbalah, Christianity, Sufism, Sikhism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, etc. This variety could be confusing, but he finds a common theme among them. I am not religious in any sense, but I am philosophical. And a broad knowledge of philosophical concepts provides a time-tested foundation for your personal worldview.

The mind and the world are both owed proper scientific accounts. Hoffman’s idealism doesn’t have anything help here. — apokrisis

Hoffman is a cognitive scientist, and Systems such as Mind are cognitive concepts (ideas). Do you also consider Nobel-winning quantum theorists, such as Planck & Heisenberg, to be unhelpful, when they make non-empirical philosophical conjectures? :smile:


Donald Hoffman's theories, such as the Interface Theory of Perception and Conscious Realism, are not considered mainstream science, though he holds an established academic position and has conducted empirical research on visual perception. While his work incorporates scientific concepts and mathematical models to support philosophical claims about reality and consciousness, critics argue that much of his philosophy is metaphysical and unverifiable, lacking the falsifiability required for a scientific theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+donald+hoffman%27s+theory+scientific


Donald Hoffman's work represents a contemporary take on idealism, known as Conscious Realism, which posits that consciousness is the fundamental reality, and the physical world is an emergent property of interacting conscious agents, not the other way around. His theory centers on his Interface Theory of Perception (ITP), which, supported by the Fitness Beats Truth (FBT) Theorem, suggests our perceptions are "icons" that don't resemble objective reality but are rather adapted for evolutionary fitness, with reality being a deeper network of conscious agents. Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+idealism

I plainly said that information and entropy are just mathematical systems of measurement. They don’t tell us about informing or entropifying as real world processes. So the issue is about the how. You coined a term that suggest some general systems theory arises to cover this. But then the hand-waving begins. You speak as if information and energy are substantial things - like forces of nature - and so they just “do it”. Nuff said. — apokrisis

Information & Energy are the processes that make the Culture & Nature systems do what they do. If you don't think that is "substantial", then you won't understand the point of the Enformationism thesis. :smile:


Substantial : of considerable importance, size, or worth. ___ Oxford Dictionary

As epistemology, his point is mundane. As an ontological commitment, it makes the usual idealist mistake. . . .
But idealism fails to replace reductionism with anything better. — apokrisis

That assessment misses the point of Hoffman's thesis, and my own Information-centered worldview : not to "replace" pragmatic Reductionism, but to supplement it with philosophical Holism. Narrowly-focused Reductionism takes an Either/Or (true/false, black/white) stance, while the broader Enformationism worldview is BothAnd (Holistic, Complementary, YinYang).

Likewise, Hoffman's Idealism (Conscious Realism) is a moderate stance, between pure Platonic Idealism and modern absolute Materialism. Extreme forms of Idealism assert that we have no access to true or ultimate Reality. In that case, we would be completely in the dark. But, Hoffman describes a Veiled Reality, in which we do have some contact with Fundamental Essences, by means of the embodied Information that he calls "icons" (signs, symbols, semiology).

It's still true that we humans have no direct access to Kant's "ding an sich", or what d'Espagnat labeled "reality per se". So, Hoffman's Ontology describes Matter as a "useful fiction". In which case, we are not completely cut-off from ultimate Reality, because we can interface by means of ideas & information. :smile:

PS___ What is a System? : Semiotics is the systematic study of interpretation, meaning-making, semiosis and the communication of meaning. In semiotics, a sign is defined as anything that communicates intentional and unintentional meaning or feelings to the sign's interpreter. ___ Wiki


Donald Hoffman's "idealism," more formally known as his Conscious Realism, posits that consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and that what we perceive as physical objects are "icons" or user interfaces designed by interacting conscious agents. He argues that spacetime and physical objects emerge from the dynamics of these agents, not the other way around. While sharing similarities with philosophical idealism, Hoffman's approach is distinct due to its emphasis on integrating mathematical structures beyond spacetime and its foundation in what he calls a "deeper theory of conscious agents"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+idealism

Donald Hoffman's ontology, outlined in his theory of Conscious Realism, posits that consciousness and conscious agents are fundamental, and that the physical world, including spacetime, matter, and neurons, are not foundational but rather are emergent, useful fictions or a "user interface" to a deeper reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=donald+hoffman+ontology

But you had to invent your own term to turn information back into informing. So you clearly can see there is an issue to be sorted. — apokrisis

I did coin a novel term, EnFormAction, for my thesis, to indicate the equation of Information & Energy*1. But I didn't "invent" the physical interrelationship*2. Shannon defined information in terms of Entropy, but didn't pursue its reciprocal relation to Energy*3. Other scientists and philosophers in recent years have been exploring that connection between Causation & Life & Mind*4. So no, the equation of Causal Energy and Mental Information is not a figment of my imagination. Is that the "issue" you feel needs to be sorted? :cool:


*1. Information is Energy :
Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*2. The statement "information is energy" reflects a physical interpretation where information requires energy to be stored or transmitted, and conversely, information can be used to extract energy from a system, as seen in Maxwell's demon experiments, though information and energy are distinct concepts. While not identical, they are deeply connected, with some theories proposing an information-energy equivalence where information acts as a fundamental component of reality, much like matter and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

*3. Information-energy equivalence suggests that information has mass, which is supported by Landauer's principle stating that information is physical and has an associated energy cost when erased, and by the emerging Mass-Energy-Information (MEI) equivalence principle. The MEI principle claims that stored information has mass and can be converted to energy, leading to a full hard drive being marginally heavier than an empty one. While information is not a new state of matter, this principle allows for the physical storage and energetic manipulation of information, with potentially transformative implications for quantum computing and our understanding of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+energy+equivalence

*4. From Matter to Life: Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

My problem with this is it lapses into substance ontology which is reductionist. An ontology of stuffs rather than of processes or the holism of systems of self-stabilising interaction. . . .
If we are using physical jargon, then entropy-information is a good dichotomy but also locks us into an ontology of substance rather than process. — apokrisis

I don't understand that assessment. Energy & Entropy are Processes, not substances. Information --- or EnFormAction, as I like to spell it --- is also a process. Systems are mental concepts that categorize collections of interacting "stuffs" as-if unitary things. Which, as Organized Structures, we tend to think of as single substantial objects. So, I view Holism/Systems as an Ontology of Processes (causation ; change) instead of stable-but-malleable Matter.

If you agree with Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory*1, even Matter is a conscious construct, that humans use to guide their physical interactions with the world. Another way to look at Ontology is to view the Real World as a multilevel system of acting & reacting sub-systems. We physically "see" a superficial layer of reality, like "icons" on a computer screen. But lower, more fundamental, layers are where the action is. And, what we call Systems, are mostly interactions on the lower levels of reality. Our idea of a System*2 is based on our ability to conceive of invisible-intangible extra-sensory qualia --- "more than the sum" of material parts --- that makes it a Holistic concept.

That's an Idealistic philosophical approach, but for practical purposes, common-sense (science) may be a better guide to dealing with Reality. :smile:


*1. Matter in Mind :
Donald Hoffman argues that matter is not a fundamental aspect of reality but rather a symbolic representation or "icon" constructed by consciousness, similar to icons on a computer interface. In his theory of conscious realism, he posits that consciousness is the fundamental reality, and the physical world, including matter and spacetime, emerges from a network of conscious agents. Matter, in this view, doesn't exist independently of consciousness but is a useful, though not literal, construct for interacting with the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+on+matter

*2. Systems Theory :
A system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. More parts, means more interrelationships, and more complex properties & activities, including mental functions.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

This leads to the conclusion that a system, in our everyday understanding, is a conscious construct. Outside of our cognition, there can't be a separate system apart from other systems. — Astorre

Does this mean that Systems only exist for rational observers? Does a bear have a "conscious construct" of the forest he defecates in, or just the sensory observation of tree A, B, C, etc? Much of the disputation on this forum is about the reality & importance of individual things (Matter) versus our human tendency & ability to categorize real things into ideal aggregations & hierarchies & ecosystems (Mind). :smile:

A system is formed of its interactions rather than constructed from its components. — apokrisis

Well said!. That description implies that a System is not a material thing but an energetic process (individual change or group interaction). For example, the human Mind is not the physical brain (neural correlates of consciousness), but one of many command & control Functions of brain processes. The human brain is 2% of body weight, but 20% of energy usage. What is that energy doing besides processing information?

I just Googled the words "interaction" & "information"*1 and got the wiki definition below. That description sounds very similar to Holism*2*3. But I'm surprised that the scientific & philosophical concept of Holism (Systems, Complexity, Entanglement, etc) is not very familiar to posters on this forum. It provides a simple framework for understanding such conundrums as the "hard problem of consciousness", which is one of the most frequently posted topics on the forum.

For Physics, Interaction is an exchange of Energy (causation). And for Philosophy, Interaction is an exchange of Information (meaning). Yet, the relationship of Information & Energy*4 is not well known. { https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page30.html } Perhaps the best way to define a holistic System is to describe it in terms of Synergy*5 : energy + together. :smile:



*1. Interaction information expresses the amount of information (redundancy or synergy) bound up in a set of variables, beyond that which is present in any subset ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_information

*2. Holism is the interdisciplinary concept that systems possess emergent properties as wholes, which are greater than the sum of their individual parts, making them irreducible to their components. This approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of parts within a system and their collective function, contrasting with reductionism, which seeks to understand a whole by analyzing its smallest constituent elements. Holism is applied in various fields, including health, psychology, social sciences, and physics, to understand how bodies, minds, societies, or physical phenomena operate as integrated units
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=holism+information

*3. Holism :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. Energy & Information :
Energy is the physical capacity to do work, while information is the description or organization of matter and energy. Although distinct, energy and information are deeply interconnected: information requires energy to be processed and organized, and changes in information are accompanied by changes in energy, such as the heat generated when bits are erased in a computer, following Landauer's principle. This relationship is evident in biological systems, where information controls energy flow, and in physics, where the manipulation of information can be converted into energy and vice versa.

*5. *4. Synergy :
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.
___ Oxford Dictionary

I am curious, does philosophy have a definition of a system, or even better, a general systems theory? The word is bandied about ad nauseam and I am not convinced that it is always correctly used! — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes. The modern notion of Systems*1 sometimes gets mired in details. And Bertalanffy's definition was too technical for the layman. 19th century Reductive Science was unable to see the forest for the trees. Which is what made 20th century Quantum Physics so woo-woo mysterious. The forest is not a physical thing (objective), but a metaphysical collective concept (subjective).

So, I prefer to substitute another unfamiliar term, "Holism"*2, which may be somewhat easier to grasp. The 21st century science of Complexity*3 is the study of systems that are typically too complicated for reductionist methods to deal with. A key concept is Emergence, which sounds like magic for reductionist thinkers. For example, the sub-atomic phenomenon, that physicists call "Entanglement", is simply a Holistic effect of two or more particles that act like a single unit.

If you prefer Social Systems applications, such as Luhmann, one example is when individual people "aggregate" into a holistic crowd or mob or gang, and a novel collective behavior emerges :
"The wisdom of crowds theory suggests that the collective opinion of a group of people is often more accurate than the opinion of any single individual, even an expert. This idea, popularized by James Surowiecki's book of the same name, relies on the idea that diverse perspectives and independent judgments can lead to better outcomes when aggregated". :smile:


*1. General Systems Theory (GST) is an interdisciplinary framework, pioneered by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, that views phenomena as interconnected whole systems rather than isolated components, aiming to identify fundamental principles applicable across natural and social sciences. Key concepts include open systems, which interact with their environment; emergent properties, characteristics unique to the whole system; and feedback loops, where output informs new input, leading to self-regulation or homeostasis. GST offers a holistic perspective, contrasting with traditional reductionist approaches, and has influenced fields from biology to management science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=general+systems+theory%3F+

*2. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. In the Enformationism worldview, our space-time physical reality is a holon that is a component of the enfernal G*D-Mind.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- Oooops. That last line may sound too woo for you.

*3. "Santa Fe systems theory" refers to the field of complexity science and complex adaptive systems (CAS), which is heavily associated with the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) in New Mexico. SFI, founded in 1984, is a leading nonprofit research center dedicated to understanding how complex systems—such as biological, social, economic, and technological systems—evolve and adapt. These systems are characterized by interconnected elements, emergent behavior, and the capacity to learn from experience, rather than simple linear cause-and-effect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=santa+fe+systems+theory

Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)

The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.

If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter. — Illuminati

I'm just throwing some ideas out there, into the Aether, to see if any might stick :

#A. "pre-existing space" : Space-Time is not a real thing, but an imaginary geometric model that scientists use to understand Change. Since it is Ideal, scientists can extend the model timeline into the future or the past {image below}.

#B. "space itself is stretching" I assume this is a metaphor, as-if space is an elastic substance. Space is not a material substance that could stretch & warp, but the infinite Causal Potential that makes the local Matter Effect possible?

#C. "effect of phenomena" : As you put it : space is the conceived effect of sensable phenomena, such as Matter, relative to other Matter, or that is changing its size or location. But apparently, the Cause of the effect is undifferentiated Chaos that voluntarily begins to differentiate its infinite Potential into multiple space-time Actual Things. If so, then Chaos possesses Will-power*1 or Causal Power, Desire, Inclination, Choice???

#D. "space is not made of actual space" : Not a metaphor, but a mystery. So, what is formless empty nothingness made of : Aether*2? Traditionally Chaos = randomness or nothingness or void. As you said "not deterministic", so is Chaos pure Chance? Without the willpower to choose, anything that can happen will happen??? Is space made from the causal willpower we call Energy/Change? :smile:

*1. Will :
"Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself — the inner essence of everything — as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
Note --- Is "OIZ" similar to Schopenhauer's Will : more like a physical Force than a metaphysical G*D?

*2. Aether :
(or ether) can refer to the ancient Greek concept of the pure upper air breathed by gods, the personification of this sky deity, or a discredited scientific theory of a space-filling medium for light.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aether
In the 21st century, the "aether" concept reappears in physics, not as the 19th-century luminiferous medium, but as the Einstein ether, a framework exploring a space-filling medium compatible with Einstein's theories that could potentially explain dark matter/energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether
Note --- Not the Fifth Element, but the Only Substance (Aristotle/Spinoza)

SPACE-TIME BEFORE & AFTER BIG BANG

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Ironically, the dualistic notion of "disembodied consciousness" (ghosts) may be influenced by the materialistic foundation of our language and our sensory experience. For example, Spiritualists in the 19th century sometimes produced physical evidence that an invisible ghost had manifested in the seance. They made up a sciency-sounding name for spirit-slime : Ectoplasm*1.

It's the greenish stuff that ghosts "slimed" the Hollywood GhostBusters with. In practice, it was merely some un-identifiable viscous substance*2, such as animal fat or cheese dust, that seancers could see & touch, to bolster their Faith and undermine Skepticism. The fake solidified "spiritual energy" was so cheesy that modern paranormal investigators eschew the tangible slime, and depend on readout "evidence" from electronic devices as FaithBuilders. :smile:


*1. In spiritualism, ectoplasm, also known as simply ecto, is a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.
spiritualism ectoplasm

*2. Paranormal: What exactly is ectoplasm?
It doesn’t actually exist. The name came about back during the craze with Mediums and photography. It was generally faked, but more current pictures sometimes depict a cheesecloth like substance that appears. These are the closest thing that you will find that may be labeled “ectoplasm”.
https://www.quora.com/Paranormal-What-exactly-is-ectoplasm

You cant have something from nothing. — Illuminati

Yes, I know. But logically you can have the emergence of something Actual from the statistical possibilities of timeless spaceless mathematical Potential*1. :nerd:

PS___ Materialism assumes that Actual Stuff has always existed, so no need for un-actualized Potential. But that metaphysical axiom is not falsifiable or verifiable. Since the BB theory calculated that everything in the universe was originally stuffed into a spaceless dimensionless mathematical point, the calculations sailed over the edge of finite reality into the abyss of Infinity : the transcendent realm of timeless entities like numbers, existing in the dimensionless gap between Zero and One. Nothing spooky about that non-existent innumerable notion. :joke:


*1. Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert (and non-existent) until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note --- My ineffable "G*D"*2 may be roughly equivalent to your "OIZ".

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer, Potential. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Intention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- If you imagine that eternal Potential as something like ideal mathematical Logic, it would have no need for human emotions that arise from the limitations of finite beings in an ever-changing reality.

If I were you I would not respond unless it makes sense the next time you do and it is not off topic, dont forget that you are currently in: /Metaphysics and epistemology and my post is on the One, not a cult, not a poem, and definitelly not based on a limited capacity to comprehend ideas such as exhibited by you and others. — Illuminati

From the exchanges of insults, I see that you are becoming frustrated by the incomprehension of your unconventional ideas on a forum of philosophers & mathematicians. I can relate. Some of my attempts to explain the reasoning & inferring underlying my unorthodox Enformationism thesis also meet with shrugs of nescience.

As long as I stick to established concepts of Physics, the dialog flows both ways. But when the discussion branches off into Meta-Physics, the communication tends to go off-track. That's where I rely on my online Glossary to provide relevant definitions of what I'm saying, that may not be found in dictionaries & encyclopedias. But, of course, they have no academic or scientific credentials to give them an air of authority.

I suppose that one reason for the disconnect is that modern Philosophy is more strongly influenced by immanent Materialism than transcendent Metaphysics, and by the authority of modern Naturalists than by ancient masters of the Supernatural. My own limited knowledge of philosophy skips-over most of the Post-platonic ideas and picks-up again with 20th century topics. So, except for Plato & Aristotle, I am mostly ignorant of the Ancient Masters.

Obviously, you have given the "OIZ" concept a lot of thought and research. But, as you said, "The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate & ineffable". Which makes it difficult to define & express in conventional terms. . . . even technical philosophical terms . . . . which have been debated for millennia. So, all I can advise is to keep plugging-away (american idiom) at it. Even though I don't understand some of your inferences from the OIZ axiom, I have a general interest in such ineffable & transcendent topics. :smile:

The big bang was not an explosion that occurred at some point within a pre-existing void, but a simultaneous expansion of space itself. — Illuminati

Yes. That's how cosmologists typically describe the Big Bang. But it's easier for ordinary humans to picture it as a metaphorical explosion of something from nothing : perhaps a "pre-existing void" of un-actualized Potential, similar to vacuum energy.

Besides, it's difficult for us to imagine anything in the absence of Space-Time as a background against which to measure it. The BB theory is an attempt to describe "the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy as we know them".

In the Everything image below, the flash of light is the BB, and the expanding time-cone --- segment of a sphere --- is space-time-matter-energy-as-our-material-bodies-know-them. The black background could be No-thing/No Distinction, or it could be One-Infinite-Zero, or it could be the saucy abode of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster ; since we have no way of knowing what might exist outside the boundaries of space-time-matter-energy. But we can conjecture from what we do know. How do you know? :joke:

cosmic singularity for anyone interested. — Illuminati

A common definition of the Singularity*1 describes it as-if all the matter & energy of our present universe was compressed into a sub-atomic spec of space-time, hence "infinite density" stuff with no empty space, and no room for motion or change. Again, most of us can only imagine such a concept in space-time-matter terms. In the Singularity Graph below, the actual vs possible area under-the-red-line-but-outside-the-box is also outside of space-time, hence immeasurable & unknowable . . . . except by pure speculation of what's Possible. Which depends on your definition of Potential.

But. for my Information-theoretic thesis, I like to describe the Singularity as a computer program for the evolution of a physical universe. The contents of the Singularity are immaterial non-dimensional Information, i.e. abstract ideas or mathematical ratios. Presumably, the source of that Information was a Programmer, existing only in a Platonic sense outside of the space-time bubble "as we know it". Of course, that's only a metaphor or allegory derived from human experience with a finite material world : as we know it. :smile:


*1. The ontological status of the cosmological singularity, a concept within the Big Bang theory, is a topic of ongoing debate. It refers to the initial state of the universe, where density and spacetime curvature are thought to be infinite. While mathematically described, its physical reality and implications for our understanding of the universe are unclear, especially concerning the validity of physical laws at that point
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+Ontological+Status+of+the+Cosmological+Singularity


EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING


SINGULARITY GRAPH

Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. — Jack Cummins

The creative human mind can imagine "disembodied consciousness", just as it can imagine big-headed Klingons from a distant galaxy. But, in appropriate contexts, we can distinguish science-fantasy from science-facts. If Consciousness was a physical object --- like a brain --- it could exist apart from the human body. But, if you remove the brain from the body, something bad happens : Life & Mind cease. That's because they are on-going Processes produced by and dependent on material Mechanisms, not localized objects in space. That's why I prefer Whitehead's Process Philosophy to the notion of Ghosts who walk around with transparent ectoplasmic bodies. :joke:

GHOST GIRL

Oh yes these are serious questions, it is not an apophatic OIZ concept, I have said that-and I repeat- I do not follow the apophatic way strictly to make things easier. — Illuminati

OneInfinityZero are abstractions that refer to what we do not see & sense (that which doth not appear*1) in physical reality. So descriptions of such notions are necessarily negations of what we do see & sense. Hence, we can only discuss them with metaphors drawn from the real material world : Unity vs Multiplicity ; Infinity vs Finitude ; Zero vs Instance. Most philosophical dialogs are composed of such abstractions & metaphors. What is an easier "way" to follow OIZ, than to imagine negations of material things? Direct experience, via apparition, meditation or psychedelics? :smile:

*1. 1 John 3:2, which states, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." One, Infinite, Dimensionless . . . .

You are asking what is the moral ground of this all if that exists . . . .
A key concept in this is the concept of Karma as described by me. . . .
The One means that there is no other One, it is Unique and Simple — Illuminati

My religious training summarized the universal "moral ground" in the words of Jesus : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most world religions & philosophies agree on that basic rule of human interaction.

The fatalistic notion, that what you do will eventually be done to you, only makes sense to those who believe in reincarnation. I don't. So, the assumption that you only get one chance to learn & practice morality works better with the Golden Rule.

Yes. The Hebrews were told by Moses that Yahweh --- formerly a local storm god --- was henceforth the One Infinite Eternal God, and to worship no other gods (finite material idols) above Yahweh. But humans seem to instinctively prefer more humanoid space-time deities. Hence the Catholic paradox of one God in three persons . . . . and dozens of saints. :wink:

Like I mentioned there is no such thing as "dimensions", this is an illusion caused by the mind (twice, once in the world we see and again when being interpreted by the brain). — Illuminati

That may be true in the infinite "OIZ" non-dimension. But in the real world, things are knowable in various dimensions, depending on how you measure them. For the human mind --- here in the cave-world of Platonic illusions --- what is immeasurable (infinite) is unknowable and meaningless, hence we measure them with metaphors & negations.

Apparently, you are the escapee, who has returned to tell us benighted souls about a better, realer world out there in the great beyond. I have used similar analogies & metaphors in my own speculations. So, I'm not mocking you, I'm just not waiting for the all-powerful all-knowing aliens to come down and free us slaves from bondage to matter. :sad:

-In the beggining everything was non-deterministic (Chaos) and existed as One thing, then it was determined as specific and separate things. — Illuminati

I have also used Plato's model of a Cosmos from Chaos as a metaphor of how the material world came into being. And it's possible that such Infinite Potential is still out there, waiting for this world to burn itself up. But for my little pea brain, it's just a metaphor. And I don't know how to live in a metaphor. :cool:

The One Infinite Zero (OIZ) is presented as the ultimate, transcendent, and ineffable principle of all existence. It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite, and unmoving. Beyond any determination or description: it has no properties, belongs to no category, and is neither this nor that. It is not a being (Ον) because even “being” implies distinction. Formless, indeterminate, non-discrete, without beginning or end, it precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. Complete and self-sufficient, it requires nothing beyond itself to exist and lacks nothing. Undivided and homogeneous, it does not consist of parts and cannot be truly divided or cut; any perceived divisibility is phenomenal and internal. The “normal” state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity – a state of absolute potential. — Illuminati

Now that I am aware of the apophatic "OIZ" concept, what's the next step? Am I required to worship a formless featureless non-entity? Am I expected to join a Faith Community? Should I change my errant life in some mysterious ways? Can I become One with "OIZ"? These are serious questions.

In my post-retirement philosophical explorations I have come across many of the religious & spiritual & mystical concepts*1 mentioned in the OP. But so far, I haven't been sufficiently motivated to do anything different from my mundane daily activities. So my interest in surreal spirituality is not much more than child-like curiosity about what other people believe.

The book I'm currently reading says that a few intrepid adventurers have accessed the infinite dimensions and "diamond light" of The Divine or The Absolute by using psychedelic drugs. Like you, the author seems to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of esoteric information, but with a focus on 21st century science & philosophy & psychonaut "masters". Yet I remain stolidly locally-lucid and drug-free. Does that mean I am not a candidate for enlightenment? :smile:


*1. So What Is The Perennial Philosophy, According to Aldous Huxley? Huxley identifies a few basic tenets from which the perennial philosophy is composed: There is a transcendent divine — an eternal ultimate reality. There is an immanent divine — a ground of being and spiritual nature within the world.
https://medium.com/skeptical-spirituality/book-review-the-perennial-philosophy-by-aldous-huxley-af4584816dde

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely. — Jack Cummins

Transcendent & Numinous experiences are not real phenomena. but ideal imaginary models of unseen things. So, they are obviously not out-there in the Real world. Philosophers like to explore such exotic possibilities, but our material bodies necessarily remain behind in the physical world that sustains their life functions. For me, I treat such explorations of the un-mapped territories like going to the movies : at the end of the Platonic shadow-show, I always go home to my immanent abode. :wink:

PS___ When you die in the real world, you don't survive to make another movie. Unless, you believe --- without evidence --- in reincarnation. Your living body does depend on stuff that, for practical purposes, can be reduced to the physical. For the life of the Mind though, some people can live on fantasies. That's why they go to rom-com and super-hero movies.

This is not philosophy vs Science, Science has its roots in Metaphysics and Theology and Epistemology among others. Our Grand Masters went the other way around, understood the One to understand the universe. And so can we. — Illuminati

My philosophy leans much more toward empirical Science & Ontology than to mysticism or spiritualism or Henology. I also tend to be skeptical of ideas that are outlandish & unconventional. But for philosophical learning, I try to defer judgement and keep an open mind, in order to broaden my worldview.

I explore some of those far-out notions only out of intellectual curiosity, not religious motivation. Since non-empirical entities cannot be proven True, in the empirical sense, I don't concern myself with their big-T Truth. I'm currently reading a big book that begins with a review of the current state of Science, but then delves into Natural Magic & Shamanic & Psychedelic adventures in "other dimensions". I have no personal experience with mind-altering drugs, so their exploits in parallel worlds with transcendent Intelligences & Mother Universes are treated as creative Fiction or Fantasy, not mundane Facts.

I also read the "bible" of Scottish Rite Freemasonry by 33rd degree Albert Pike. But I am not a mason. I found it interesting, but not relevant to my mundane world. Although they use the metaphor of Great Architect, the Mason's God seems more like your OneInfiniteZero than the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. All I know about the Grand Masters of the Illuminati is rumors & conspiracy theories. So, I'm not likely to accept anything the GMs say as sublime Truth. :smile:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance. — Gnomon
Then why dont you agree that space itself among everything else is the realization of the potential and this potential is completelly fake, space is not made of space, colour is not made of colour, do you see where Im getting with this? — Illuminati

Yes, I see where you are going with such negations of mundane reality : toward Idealism & Spiritualism & Neo-Platonism. But I am much more comfortable with my familiar "fake" world. I explore such otherworldly realms only to put my this-worldly experiences into a mid-range context between tangible Materialism and intangible Idealism. Platonic Ideals & Transcendent Deities inform my worldview on the margins. But I always return to my warm cave with a fire casting shadows on the wall, where I can see the space-time silhouettes with my own eyes. :joke:

If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate. — Illuminati

In physics, Light is described as a quantum phenomenon, and the quanta of light are called Photons (packets of energy). But that materialistic definition is true only for convenience in mathematical calculations. However, Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and tangible Matter.

For philosophical purposes though, Energy is essential to everything that changes, including Life and Mind. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began from nothing (no matter) as a burst of causal Energy, suspiciously similar to the "let there be light" in Genesis. But that raw Energy necessarily included Information (natural laws) to guide the processes of Evolution. My term for that combination of Causation & Direction is EnFormAction*1 : the power to transform, to evolve.

Therefore, Light (energy) is the metaphorical essence & fabric of the universe, both Matter & MInd. If you are interested in an amateur theory-of-everything, my Information-based thesis & blog "elaborate" further, in great detail. :nerd:

PS___ Since Light-Energy is essential & fundamental, it is not composed of "something else". Ultimately, physical Energy is actualized from immaterial Potential. For Materialists though, Potential does not exist, because it is immaterial (not yet real).

*1. EnFormAction :
# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Philosophically, it's Schopenhauer's Will & Idea. So EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena? — Illuminati

Enformy*2 is my coined term for what Schrodinger called "negentropy", referring to Free Energy that is available to do work. By contrast, Entropy is Wasted Energy that is no longer able to cause constructive change. Therefore, I consider Entropy to be Negative (disorder, disorganization), and Enformy to be Positive (order, organization) forces in Evolution. They are mirror images (thesis/anti-thesis) of "one phenomena" : Causation. :smile:


*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Can you explain in terms of physics if space itself requires spatial integration (meaning a pre-existing or newly created space) and if so how does this volume appear if nothing can be created from nothing according to science? If this volume is pre-existent how is new space being added? We know that space stretches, meaning space is not being added. If this space is pre-existent how was it formed if there was no matter or anything at all("back then") which is now contained in space? — Illuminati

"Nothing from nothing" is true within the physical/material universe. But the Big Bang theory logically implies that Something (our everything material world) was created from no-thing (some unknowable transcendent Potential)*3*4. Physicists typically stop their researches at that space-time boundary. But philosophers are not bound by the requirement for empirical evidence. Anyway, the pre-bang-potential is not Real (no space, no time, no matter), but Ideal & speculative (no practical applications). Hence, useful only for philosophical argumentation. :cool:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance.

*3. Cosmos from Chaos :
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of the universe, suggesting it expanded from an extremely hot, dense state, not from nothing. While often described as "something from nothing," the theory actually posits that all of space, time, matter, and energy originated from that initial state, not that they came from a pre-existing void.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing

*4. Cosmos from Chaos :
In Plato's cosmology, as presented in the Timaeus, the universe (cosmos) is not created from nothing but rather emerges from a pre-existing state of chaos . . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmos+from+chaos
Note --- Chaos, here, refers to Plato's realm of Ideal Forms, that are not Real, but only Potential, until Actualized by the Demiurge.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this. — Jack Cummins

Whitehead described his God as both transcendent and immanent. So any divine actions in the physical world are Natural, not supernatural interventions from heaven. His theology was labeled, by his associate, as Panentheism. But I prefer to spell it PanEnDeism, in order to avoid the doctrinal associations of Theism.

Whitehead's philosophy was also labeled as Panpsychism. But he typically reserved the term "Consciousness" for humans, and used generic "Experience" to refer to other dynamic-but-meaningless interactions, such as exchanges of Energy. I think that term still sounds absurd, implying sentient atoms. So, I use different terminology, that is intended to be less spooky or strange. :smile:

PS___ My first attempt to read his book left me feeling inadequate to the task. I eventually got a better understanding from third-person accounts of Process Philosophy.

*1. Whitehead's panpsychism, or more accurately, his process-relational philosophy, posits that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of reality, not just a characteristic of humans or animals. His view differs from traditional panpsychism by emphasizing the "experiential" nature of all entities, rather than just consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panpsychism

Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block. — Illuminati

That's a poetic metaphor of how the One became Many, or the Singularity became a Cosmos. Here's a recent blog post*1 to indicate that I have been thinking along similar lines, but in different terms*2. My background is more physical than philosophical. So, my metaphors are often derived from Physics instead of Metaphysics. :nerd:

*1. Light is Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page48.html

*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy.

Whole : Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, — Illuminati

My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe.

I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile:

*3. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living beings.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy?

I will gladly provide with the PDF and any explanation on the contents as well. If you understand modern Greek it would be better as the original is written in Greek and is a better and superior version.
If you find any potential errors let me know. — Illuminati

Thanks for the offer, but I may be too old to jump into such a complex & comprehensive work of philosophical art. I'm currently skimming the summary of Page 13 & 14. I may have a few questions and comments later.

So, far it looks compatible with my own musings on the First Cause & Prime Mover & Chaos of Plato & Aristotle*1. A simple but vague explanation of what-caused-the-Big-Bang is "Infinite Potential". But some on this forum don't believe in anything that is not Actual, including Zero.

If I was not so accustomed to it, the impolite & irrational & dogmatic responses on this thread would embarrass me. But OneInfiniteZero is not allowed (taboo) in the immanent belief system of Materialism, with its multiplicity of finite things. So, what you are talking about sounds absurd & blasphemous to them. :smile:

PS___ My religious upbringing introduced be to a few words of Biblical Greek translated into 17th century English. So, I would not be able to read the original version of your work.


*1. https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

I do not want to hurt you or make you feel bad, but please read and study more. — Ulthien

Sticks & stones may break my bones, but Forum posts can't hurt me. So, when someone says "read and study more" I assume they are referring to a 'thus saith the Lord" Bible, and a revealed Faith. Thanks, but I don't do Faith anymore. Besides, for me, the provenance of Consciousness is just a philosophical curiosity question, not of eternal salvation. :cool:

Living organisms dissipate entropy to maintain homeostasis, and this principle is deeply rooted in thermodynamics. — Ulthien

Energy and Entropy are not material substances that can be concentrated or watered-down. They are actually statistical measures of potential for work (for physical change). But, for convenience, we often refer to them metaphorically as-if they are tangible things. How is my metaphor wrong, and yours is right? :smile:

In the beginning was the One.
At the beginning of everything - not chronologically, but logically
and ontologically - was the One. — Illuminati

I haven't had time to read your whole post. But, after skimming, I can say that your OneInfiniteZero is very close to what I call "God of the philosophers" to distinguish it from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Your definition seems to fit my own non-religious philosophical worldview. Later, I may request a PDF or hard copy. :smile:

Panpsychism may be an attempt to understanding creativity in the universe, or consciousness in the unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I'm sure that Panpsychism has always been a serious attempt to understand how such imperceptible phenomena as Life & Mind can exist in an obviously material world. But it's based on an ancient notion of Psyche as a wandering Spirit or embodied Soul. Generally, Spirit was added to Matter to animate it. And Soul was added to matter to produce sentient Mind. Together those ghostly essences were supposed to explain the creativity of the living & thinking world, as contrasted with a universe of dull dead Matter. Modern scientists who advocate All-Mind are more sophisticated than primitive animists. But they still find it difficult to reconcile immaterial Mind with substantial Matter, without relying on spooky ghost-stuff.

However, modern science has given us a much more complete understanding of how the world works. Unfortunately, the 17th century model of a mechanical world is still common today. So, those who advocate All-Mind seem to be reacting to the dullness & deadness of an All-Matter universe. But Materialists deny & decry the religious & anti-science backlash against mechanical Science, that resulted in the Spiritualism of the 19th century. So, who's right and who's wrong?

Maybe both worldviews are partly correct and part erroneous. For example, A.N. Whitehead proposed a 20th century worldview that incorporated some aspects both ancient Religion and modern Science*1. His notion of the Will of God, acting in the world, is closer to Schopenhauer's Will & Idea than to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. And his updated notion of Spirit & Soul is closer to modern Energy, than to ancient Animism*2, with body-hopping ghosts that convert dead matter into living & thinking organisms.

If you are inclined to think that Spiritualist seances actually call-up ghosts from a parallel spirit-realm, you won't like Whitehead's version. The 21st century variety of All-Mind includes another century of scientific development since Whitehead. Modern scientists who advocate Panpsychism are imagining Consciousness as-if it is something like Causal Energy : invisible, but effective. And some try to dissociate their definition of Consciousness from spooky Spiritualism, and to avoid dealing with the notion of sentient Atoms --- which do input & output Energy, but show no signs of Sentience.

Therefore, I see no need to wrestle with the contradiction of "consciousness in the unconscious". Even rocks play the thermodynamic game with Energy. And plants go a step further by evolving life-nurturing metabolism, converting Energy into structure & maintenance. But only the most recent stages of evolution display evidence of Awareness and knowing-that-you-know. Some even seem to possess Self-Awareness (Soul) as the pinnacle of emergent Consciousness. :smile:


*1. 20th Century Spirituality :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, often called Process Philosophy, offers a unique perspective on spirituality that moves away from traditional, static views of reality and God. Instead of focusing on fixed substances or a transcendent, uninvolved deity, Whitehead emphasizes the dynamic nature of reality as a process of becoming, with God being both immanent and transcendent, actively involved in the world's evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+spiritualism

*2. Animism & Spiritualism :
Animism is a belief system that attributes a spiritual essence or soul to all living and non-living things, including plants, animals, objects, and natural phenomena. It's not a formal religion itself, but rather a worldview that can be found within various cultures and religions. Animism emphasizes relationships and interactions between humans and the spiritual world, often involving rituals and practices to connect with or appease spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*3. Experiential Energy :
In Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy, energy is not just a physical property, but a fundamental aspect of all reality, interwoven with experience and becoming. Whitehead views energy not as inert substance, but as dynamic activity, with subjective feeling or potential for experience at all levels. This means even seemingly inanimate objects have a degree of experience or feeling associated with their energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+energy
Note --- His Experiential Energy is similar to my notion of EnFormAction. It's primal energy that had the innate potential to produce matter, and to organize it into living & thinking systems. I suppose you could call it Panpsychism without wandering ghosts & suffering rocks.

PS___ Contra Frankenstein, you can't animate a dead body with pure energy (lightening). Instead, you need enformed (programmed) Energy : EnFormAction. The secret ingredient is encoded Information. And, yes, that implies a Big Bang Programmer similar to Whitehead's transcendent/immanent "God".

Theories of morphic resonance or memes also do not explain shifts in the different kingdoms in evolution, such as the shift from.mineral to vegetable, or animal to human. They require a higher organisation factor beyond mere memory.

It is about creativity inherent in nature. The shifts in the emergence of the kingdoms is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdom both having sentience and the human having consciousness of knowledge, especially through language for the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins

In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction*1, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy*2. Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy*3, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that Enformation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.

Working together, these physical (energy) & meta-physical (logic) forces are responsible for creating a complex Cosmos from an initial explosion of Energy (Big Bang) and Information (Natural Laws). Materialists tend to ignore or misinterpret the directional guidance of those laws, including Thermodynamics [hot vs cold = change] and Dialectic [sequential Logic is directional]. Absent those taken-for-granted Laws, the BB would be a pop & poof flash-in-the-pan followed-by-a-fizzle, like fireworks --- instead of the orderly organizing system we now observe.

The source of those original logical & limiting laws in the initial conditions of our universe is a mystery. Some think an eternal mechanical-yet-creative multiverse would explain the explosion of bounded something from unbounded nothingness. Others, prefer to imagine an eternal God, with a human-like Mind, to design & program a statistical Singularity into a burst of let-there-be-light. I have seen no hard evidence for either, so both are hypothetical scenarios. Hence, my thesis begins after the Beginning. :smile:

PS___ Panpsychism is not an illusion. It's just an incomplete explanation.


*1. EnFormAction :
Energy + Form + Action = Information
Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law [or force] of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will or Schopenhauer's Will) that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility (un-actualized Potential). AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. Mislabeled in science as Negentropy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. An information-centric philosophy, in its broadest sense, views information as a fundamental aspect of reality, potentially even more fundamental than matter or energy. This perspective suggests that the universe, including consciousness and human existence, can be understood as expressions or patterns of information. It challenges traditional, human-centered or matter-centric views of the world and proposes that information processing is key to understanding phenomena like consciousness and the nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information-centric+philosophy

BANG, FLASH, & FIZZLE

Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:
"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

Since feckless Philosophy has not solved all the world's problems in 2600 years, would you characterize your alternative program --- to achieve "a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves" --- as Science or Politics or Religion, or perhaps a fusion of all of the above? Working independently, none of those problem-solving procedures has come close to a real-world solution.

Empirical Science has made some progress in dealing with Natural Evils, mostly by isolating humans from Nature. Which has introduced some problems of its own. Spiritual Religion has addressed the world's problems primarily by promising salvation in another life, or a parallel world, or in drug-fueled dreams. But most philosophical solutions --- Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism --- deal with "The Problem", not by perfecting Nature, but by making an attitude adjustment in the mind of the sufferer.

I tend to view Nature (Universe) as an ongoing holistic program/system that is made creative & dynamic*2 by its internal conflicts & contradictions*3, and by having open options (freewill) at decision points. That's not a paradox, but a necessity for any living & evolving system. So, the only way to fix our careering Cosmos may be to go back to the beginning and work from the top-down, perhaps with Pre-destination. :wink:


*1. Questions Without Answers :
While philosophy certainly grapples with fundamental and enduring questions, the idea that it's solely "the study of questions without answers" is an oversimplification. Philosophy involves rigorous inquiry into fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, often with the aim of finding answers or at least deeper understanding, even if definitive solutions remain elusive. . . . . .
Philosophy explores complex, abstract questions that often lack easy or universally accepted answers. These questions challenge our assumptions and push us to think critically about the world and our place in it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Philosophy+%3A%3D+The+study+of+questions+without+answers

*2. Creativity often thrives on internal conflicts and contradictions, rather than being hindered by them. These tensions can be a source of inspiration and drive innovation, forcing individuals to reconcile opposing ideas or navigate complex emotions. . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=creativity+internal+conflicts+%26+contradictions

*3. Good vs Evil : in physical terms, boils down to the conflict between constructive Energy/Forces and destructive Entropy. The universe so far seems to have negotiated a compromise or stand-off between those positive & negative powers. But the emergence of Life & Mind may indicate a slight balance-tipping advantage toward order & organization & complexity & harmony.

I am asking this after a conversation with a friend about energy, causation and consciousness with a friend. During the discussion I became aware that I have mixed thoughts on pansychism, the notion that objects have some rudimentary consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Some sober scientists are taking the notion of Panpsychism seriously. But I think their definition is too broad. I prefer to make a clear distinction between Conscious Awareness and Causal Forces. FWIW, here's a recent relevant post on my blog. :smile:

Enformationism vs Panpsychism :
The notion of an incorporeal Idea as the cause of real-world effects on palpable matter is not commonly held by Physicalists & Materialists. . . .
In his book on the philosophy of Panpsychism, Peter Ells makes an affirmation of belief in a “sensuous cosmos” : "To actually or concretely exist . . . is precisely to be an experiential entity, or to be composed of experiential entities"
The language of that assertion is my primary disagreement with Panpsychism : the term “experiential” implying that everything in the universe is sentient (sensing + knowing). But, in what sense is a rock sentient? How does it know? It exchanges abstract Energy/Entropy with its environment. But does a rock remember the “experience” of flowing in the form of homogeneous red-hot magma inside the Earth, then at a later time, the thrill of being spewed-out onto the surface of a cooling planet, where new experiences as dis-aggregated fragments await? . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html

BTW, even Bohm's*4 "realistic perspective" is typically labeled as a form of Idealism — Gnomon
Bohmian mechanics is just straightforward realism that happens to involve non-locality. — Apustimelogist

Unfortunately, for quantum pioneers, trained in classical physics, non-locality was not as "straightforward" as you imply. :smile:

*1. Is reality not locally real? :
“Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true.
https://dangaristo.com/portfolio/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
Note --- That's why common-sense classical physics is no longer the standard model for 21st century physicists.

I can't see how idealism is able to explain three things - or perhaps better, in offering explanations it admits that there are truths that are independent of mind and so ceases to be different to realism in any interesting way.
Novelty.
We are sometimes surprised by things that are unexpected. How is this possible if all that there is, is already in one’s mind?
Agreement .
You and I agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something external to us both on which to agree?
Error.
We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we believe? — Banno

Depends on how idealism is interpreted. — Wayfarer

Banno's questions seem to be based on an Either/Or dichotomy between Realism/Idealism or Subject/Object ; in which reasonable people must accept one perspective and reject the other. Hence, if you are an Idealist, then for you (the subject) there is no (objective) Reality. Berkeley did seem to imply that material reality is a figment of human imagination, since the non-self world is a figment of God's imagination.

Since I don't know how to read the mind of God, I must take for granted that sensable phenomena (appearances) are signals from something (material) out there (Johnson's stone). From my BothAnd perspective, the world/mind (real/ideal) go-between is Energy (Information ; EnFormAction). So, Johnson's stone is not an invention of his imagination. But the pain in his foot is.

The bottom line is that my worldview is not Either/Or, but Both/And. What do you think? Is there a Real world out there that is independent of my mind? Or is there a Great Gulf (dichotomy) between God-mind and Man-mind, that we observers cross only by a leap of Faith? As Banno seems to interpret Idealism. :smile:


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- For Berkeley, the "whole system" would be the Mind of God. For others, it may be simply everything in the post-Bang world, including Mind and Matter.

Not really sure what this is trying to convey. Thefe are several coherent realist perspectives on QM which don't invoke any form of collapse, such as Bohmian, Many Worlds, Stochastic mechanics and possibly others — Apustimelogist

I'm sure that is aware of those other scientific "perspectives"*1 --- or interpretations --- which postulate something like a parallel reality that is "not directly observable" : hence not empirical. But among Philosophers, the Copenhagen version*2 may be the most popular*3 --- if that matters to anyone. It may lack philosophical rigor, and due to inherent Uncertainty, a single coherent explanation, but it is a fertile field for philosophical exploration.

For hypothetical scientific purposes, one or more of those alternative perspectives may better suit a materialist frame of mind*3. But, on a philosophical forum, and for philosophical purposes (introspecting the human mind), some form of Idealism, with a 2500 year history, may be more appropriate. BTW, even Bohm's*4 "realistic perspective" is typically labeled as a form of Idealism. :smile:



*1. Realist perspectives on quantum mechanics generally assert that quantum phenomena reflect an underlying reality, even if that reality is not directly observable or fully understood. This contrasts with interpretations that view quantum mechanics as purely a tool for prediction or a description of our knowledge rather than a reflection of objective reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realist+perspectives+on+quantum+mechanics

*2. The Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted as a foundational framework for understanding quantum mechanics, though it's not universally embraced. It's often the first interpretation presented in textbooks and forms the basis for much of the standard quantum mechanics curriculum. However, it's not without its critics, and alternative interpretations like the Many-Worlds interpretation or pilot-wave theories exist and have their proponents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+is+accepted

*3. Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on :
More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation.
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/physicists-still-divided-about-quantum-world-100-years-on/article_af1d9414-7a94-5378-88fa-1c0f40dacdad.html

*4. David Bohm's philosophical perspective, often termed "Bohmian idealism," posits a unified, interconnected reality where consciousness and the physical world are not separate but rather different expressions of a deeper, underlying order.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bohm+idealism

In this view, to know something is not simply to construct a mental representation of it, but to participate in its form — to take into oneself, immaterially, the essence of what the thing is. — Wayfarer

Aristotle postulated a primitive definition of Energy (energeia) as the actualization of Potential. And modern physics has equated causal energy with knowledge (meaningful Information)*1*2. For which I coined the term EnFormAction : the power to transform. Until now, I hadn't thought of that transformation from potential to actual as participation*3 in the Platonic form of an object : the importation of some property/qualia into oneself.

Example : A photon --- atom of energy --- somehow picks up information about an apple as it reflects off the surface. When that photon is absorbed by a receptor in the retina, the colorless energy is converted into electrical signals that the brain can interpret (meaning) as redness. So you could say that the brain/mind*4 has been informed of a quality of appleness. The image in the brain or meaning in mind is not a chunk of apple matter, but a "bit" of appleness : the essence of a round red fruit out there in the real world.

If Aristotle was correct, a free photon (kinetic energy) is not yet a carrier, but a Potential for conveying Energy/Information from one place to another. . . . from matter to mind. Hence, our sponge-like minds are continually soaking-up essences from the material world : participating in its existence.??? :nerd:


*1. Information is Energy :
This book defines a dynamic concept of information that results in a conservation of information principle. . . . . conservation of energy . . .
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*2. Information as a basic property of the universe :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*3. Participation : "participation" means the act or state of sharing, partaking, or receiving a part of something.
The "part" in question is what philosophers call Essence, or Qualia.

*4. Brain/Mind is a system ; brain is structure ; mind is function