You overlooked the part where people equate consciousness with working physical brains. If we started performing brain surgery on you, we might be able to knock out everything associated with your philosophical theory. — Nils Loc

You missed the part where I never denied the contribution of a physical substrate to the production of consciousness. Mind is the function of Brain.

My thesis is not what you think it is. It's merely a scientific update of an ancient philosophical notion. And it's based on Information & Quantum Science, not a recycling of traditional Idealism.

In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is just one form of Generic Information (e.g. Platonic Form) ; Energy is another form ; Brain is another form ; and Consciousness is merely a recent innovation after 14 billion years of evolutionary computation. Those statements won't make sense to you until you can get past your subconscious preconceptions :smile:

So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. — Gnomon
I'm still lost as to why you don't think it's a false dichotomy. It is parsimonious/orthodox to conclude minds need physical materials to emerge in the universe and to do work. Where any work could possibly occur, you can apply the concept of energy. — Nils Loc

As I noted above, your "dichotomy" is not a part of the Enformationism thesis ; apparently it is a part of your preconception of the Mind/Body duality*1. My thesis is ultimately a Substance Monism -- a la Spinoza*2 -- postulating a single universal Substance/Essence -- a la Plato*3. :nerd:

PS___Note the colon (:) between Mind & Energy above. As a logic symbol it indicates an inter-relationship, not an either/or dichotomy, as would be implied by a slash symbol (/). Another name for my philosophy is "BothAnd"*4.
PPS___Thanks for the challenge though. It helps me to understand the many ways that a novel (or unfamiliar) concept can be mis-interpreted.


*1. Mind-body Dualism :
Mind and body dualism represents the metaphysical stance that mind and body are two distinct substances, each with a different essential nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115289/

*2. Substance Monism :
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

*3. Form Monism :
Plato's theory of Forms is a form of monism because it posits the existence of a single, unified reality that underlies all of existence. While other forms of idealism or monism may posit multiple levels or aspects of reality, Plato's theory emphasizes the essential unity of the world of Forms as the true reality.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Platos-theory-of-Forms-Why-is-it-a-form-of-monism-rather-than-dualism-or-pluralism-like-other-forms-of-idealism-monism

*4. BothAnd Principle :
The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires 'skin in the game" to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Therefore, in the 1890s Peirce's philosophy referred to itself as objective idealism because it held that the mind comes first and the world is essentially mind (idealism) and the mind is independent of individuals (objectivism) — Wikipedia

That notion seems to go beyond your notion of a local Mind-Created World, to an ideal Mind that is literally out-of-this-world. Does Peirce define his postulated "The Mind" in more detail? How does "The Mind" compare to your creative "minds"? :smile:

The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious.How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous? — Nils Loc

A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.

Energy itself is not a material object, but merely the idea of Causation, inferred from observations of changes in matter. The ancient Greeks used the analogy of an ideal invisible worker to give us the idea of what Energy is. A modern, but still enigmatic, metaphor for "Energy" is stated in terms of "information regimes"*5. I'll leave you to ponder that one.

There's too many logical leaps -- for a forum post -- between pre-Big-Bang Potential Energy*6, and the eventual emergence of living creatures with rational minds. However, my Information-based thesis attempted to delineate those steps. But I still haven't yet covered all of the material objections to equating Mind with Energy. So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. I'm not trying to harass materialists, though. These forum posts are the means by which I continue to use contrary opinions to help me develop my personal understanding of the relationship between Energy, Matter and Mind.

It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. But modern sub-atomic physics was forced to do just that, in order to make sense of its paradoxical observations. And, a century later, we are still grappling with the counter-intuitive implications of philosophical Physics. :smile:

PS___Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.


*1. Photons as Carriers of Energy :
In conventional physics, the photon absorbed or released is nothing more than a quantum of pure energy.
https://www.universeofparticles.com/photons-as-carriers-of-energy/

*2. Does light have mass? :
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

*3. What is pure energy? :
There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- That's because "purity" is an ideal concept, not a real thing. Yet the concept does "exist" as a mental model : perfection uncontaminated by matter.

*4. Is mathematics a mental construct? :
Snapper (1979), in making sense of the intuitionist approach, defines mathematics as “the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other” (p. 210). In effect, mathematics has to be constructed to exist and cannot exist independently of the mind that constructs it.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/teaching-mathematics-overcoming-miscommunication/0/steps/327692

*5. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*6. Singularity : sometimes conceived as a not-yet-executed computer program
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang

Steady on, old chap. 'Buddha' means 'one who knows'. — Wayfarer

So does "gnomon". :joke:

A gnomon (/ˈnoʊˌmɒn, -mən/; from Ancient Greek γνώμων (gnṓmōn) 'one that knows or examines')

"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either. — Nils Loc

Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself. :smile:


The Socratic Method: How To Think For Yourself "
The Socratic approach involves participants in a process of critical thinking and self-examination as opposed to providing knowledge in a simple or didactic manner.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com › stoic-blog › the-s...

Didactic : In the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way.

So much grandiosity. — wonderer1

Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?

It's all too common for believers in A> a natural world of Matter & Mechanics to react negatively to the notion B> of a cultural world of Minds & Memes & Mathematics. The A>, "commonsense", worldview is that of Newton in the 17th century, and the latter B> "erudite" non-sense view was derived from the 20th century science of fundamental sub-atomic physics. Which is more impressive?

Note that I didn't use the taboo word "quantum", since it is too often associated with "bullsh*t" on this forum. There's a new book out now : Quantum Bullshit, by Chris Ferrie. It discusses "profound sounding quantum nonsense" such as Quantum consciousness & Quantum love & Quantum quackery & Quantum veganism. But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"

The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". For example, Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with massive Matter, implying a kind of transubstantiation*2. Then, quantum pioneer Heisenberg turned the microscope around to point at the mind of the observer*3. And John A. Wheeler noted the relationship between mental Information and material Mass*4.

Unfortunately, some religious people were quick to interpret those mind-related concepts in sublime terms, to support their supernatural-soul beliefs. But, anti-religious people were just as quick to damn scientifically practical foundational physics by association with such unrealistic "weirdos". Isn't there a middle-ground between those extremes? :smile:


*1. Scientific Grandiosity :
The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_112012
Note --- Information theory, combined with Quantum theory, is beginning to condense all of Physics down to a single concept : Mathematics (logic ; ratios ; relationships ; fields). In other words : Energy. Which is the causal Power to Enform, not just Material from Potential, but also Life from Matter, and Mind from living organism. It's all a single procession of en-formation. Isn't that grand!?

*2. Exactly what does E = mc2 mean? :
The equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence relationship. Before Einstein's radical thoughts, mass and energy were thought to be very different things.
https://www.uu.edu › dept › physics › scienceguys

*3. Uncertainty Principle :
The Heisenberg principle is an epistemological lack of information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/heisenberg/
Note --- In this case, Information consists of meaningful & useful ideas in a mind.

*4 Matter from Information :
One clear consequence of “it from bit” is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. “I think [Wheeler] was very radical,” says Zeilinger. “He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
Note --- Pardon the hyperbole. As he explained later, TAW did not mean that a single human mind could create a physical cosmos by an act of thought. He was noting the much more modest creative act of producing an idea about reality in the mind : in the sense of "to realize".

PS___Ooops. Was that too radical or profound for you?

Banno's law : the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it.

You seem gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow. — Nils Loc

Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.

Nobel Physicist and Philosophy basher, Richard Feyman felt the same frustration with the non-classical & counter-intuitive & non-classical Quantum aspects of the foundation of reality. That's why he advised his students to just "shut-up and calculate"*1. The "metaphysical implications" are too philosophical for mechanical physicists, and apparently for some TPF posters. But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile:

*1. Calculate but don't shut-up :
'Shut up and calculate' does a disservice to quantum physics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics

↪Banno
I think your objections are naive*1 and that idealism as I construe it is not necessarily saying what you think it is saying. I note that you think that it’s saying that the world is all and only in the mind - the first objection I note. I’m not arguing that. So your objections are basically straw man versions of the argument. And I’ll also add that you’re not even really making a serious effort. I think it’s all variations of ‘argument from the stone’. — Wayfarer

↪Wayfarer
I think you are claiming idealism but advocating antirealism*2. — Banno

*1. Naive Realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)
Note --- Is it possible that both "naive realists" and "philosophical idealists" are biased (by faith) toward a hypothetical "true" view, that neither can directly access? The key to the Truth door here is that Wayfarer's more sophisticated Idealism openly admits that its perfect Ideal World*3 is an unattainable goal that we can strive toward but never reach. Even the "extinguishment" of the grasping mind (as in Nirvana) would leave us without the means for knowing what lies on the other side of the closed door.

*2. Anti-realism :
In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
Note --- As Kant and other philosophers have noted, humans know only their own subjective model of reality, that they have created from sense impressions derived from a local & personal perspective, not from a god-like view of "an external independent reality". Consequently, naive realism is based on faith in a non-human objective model of the totality of reality.

*3. Nirvana fallacy
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nirvana_fallacy
Note --- I'm not accusing Wayfarer of this fallacy. Just noting that perfect Truth/Wisdom/Reality is unrealistic & idealistic. But that does not stop philosophers from seeking the unreachable Ideal. Wisdom lies in realizing your own limits --- what's impossible. :smile:

The Impossible Dream (The Quest)
Song by Mitch Leigh
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go…

The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc

Yes. Shannon, as an engineer, defined his communication theory of Information (knowledge transmission from mind to mind) in technical terms of physical Entropy (uncertainty ; ignorance). And the inverse (erasure) of Entropy is Energy*1. But that implicit equation of mental meaning with causal power was counter-intuitive to most scientists at the time. Hence, rejected by the non-philosophy-inclined, who were advised to "shut-up" about the metaphysical implications*2, and just "calculate".

A century later, Energy as a form of Information is still a concept on the periphery of science*3. However, the similarity of Information to Energy is evident in the First Law of Thermodynamics : Information, like Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. One form of Information is orderly knowledge (energy analogy) and another is disorderly ignorance (entropy analogy). The most basic form of Information (knowledge) may be Mathematics : the logic of the physical world.

When I responded to your question --- "where does the energy really come from?" --- I was not referring the energy-of-information-erasure experiment, but to the ultimate source of causation in the world : the First Cause. But that's off-topic, and controversial, as indicated in 's dismissive & erroneous assertion that "@Gnomon's enformationism" implies "accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals". Although others have used Quantum metaphysics to justify their religious beliefs, my thesis has nothing to do with any religion or god or Theosophy. So his insinuations are merely fallacious ad hominem attempts to belittle by association. The thesis does however require mixing physics with metaphysics (i.e. philosophy).

The Enformationism thesis is based upon the non-classical, hence counter-intuitive, metaphysics of Quantum and Information theories. It does not deny the practical applicability of Materialistic metaphysics in empirical science. And it does not support any Supernatural metaphysics in traditional religions. But, it does incorporate the Holistic metaphysics of modern transdisciplinary Systems Science*4. Which is unacceptable to those who believe Science is necessarily Deterministic and Reductive. Quantum science was forced to relinquish those 17th century classical beliefs in order to make sense of sub-atomic observations, such as the two-slit experiment. Interpretation of the perplexing results required the use of both Epistemology (knowledge ; information) & Ontology (being ; reality) concepts in an empirical context. :smile:


*1. Physicists investigate erasing information at zero energy cost :
In the context of information, information erasure corresponds to entropy erasure (or a decrease in entropy) and therefore requires a minimum amount of energy, which is determined by Landauer's erasure principle.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-erasing-energy.html

*2. A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : (often dismissed as Quantum Mysticism)
The revolution in physics that brought us to a quantum picture of the world was so radical that it does not merely force a rethinking of physics, but metaphysics as well. Quantum physics may imply that the world is fundamentally indeterminate, that causes are not always local to their effects, that there are many more than three spatial dimensions, that wholes are not simply sums of their parts, . . .
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/

*3. Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics.
Anthology edited by physicist Paul Davies, Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Note --- Davies uses the term "God" in his science writing in a sense closer to the abstract Prime Mover or First Cause of the Greek philosophers, than to the Creator of Christian apologists.

*4. Systems theory : (Holistic Science)
The fundamental concept of systems theory is that the whole system is more than than the totality of its parts.
https://research.com/education/what-is-systems-theory

No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data. — universeness

I didn't say that defining Information as "processed data" is prejudicial. In the context of Shannon's practical engineering solution to communication problems, it may be factual. But in the context of a Philosophical understanding of Information, it is prejudicial to imply that Information is only processed data*1.

Do you see how that little exclusive word could be biased toward a materialistic interpretation, and away from the other non-physical definitions used in Information Theory*2*3? As I noted : the ChatGPT did not accept the "only" definition, but concluded that "Information is not merely processed data"*4. Is that a factual statement, or an intelligent opinion? :smile:

*1. Quote from this thread:
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon

*2. Information theory definition :
Information theory is based on probability theory and statistics, where quantified information is usually described in terms of bits. Information theory often concerns itself with measures of information of the distributions associated with random variables. One of the most important measures is called entropy, which forms the building block of many other measures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Note --- Statistics is a mathematical (mental) tool for dealing with the randomness & uncertainty of the physical world. Entropy is the inverse of Energy, and negative causation as contrasted with positive causation. Entropy is a state, not a material thing, hence a mental/mathematical concept.

*3. It from Bit (matter from mind) :
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions. ___John A. Wheeler, quantum physicist
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

*4. Quote from this thread :
But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from? — Nils Loc

As a layman, I don't know "what's going on in the experiment". All I know is the conclusion that the scientists inferred from their experiments : that invisible intangible information can be converted into effective Energy and tangible Matter. Empirical physicists seem to be expanding on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, which explained mathematically how blazing stars can create rocky matter, such as iron, from a gaseous plasma of elementary particles, by means of geometric gravity. Some are even placing Information into the equation and are converting mathematical Data into causal Energy and malleable Matter.

That equation of Cause (energy) & Effect (matter) does not compute in Classical Newtonian Mechanics, but becomes reasonable in Modern Quantum Mathematics. In his Nobel lectures, Heisenberg indirectly referred to Einstein's equation as "the transmutation of energy into matter". If he had been following Shannon's equation of mental/mathematical Information to physical Entropy, Werner might have included "Information transmutation" in his speech.

Mental Information (ideas) can be "non-physically represented" in mathematical symbols, and now it can be physically transmuted (change of form). That counter-intuitive concept may underlie Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory. It assumes that mathematical ratios are not only rational (mental), but also physical (energy as ratio between hot & cold), and material (elementary particles as mathematical points in a universal Field). None of which makes sense, from a classical physics or common-sense perspective.

Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. But I won't get into it here, because metaphysical Materialists will react emotionally to a notion that seems to contradict their own matter-based belief system. And that would drive this thread even further away from the philosophical Koan in the OP. :smile:

I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data? — universeness

The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data".

But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

This insight is relevant to the OP, in that it offers a way to interpret an apparently non-sensical technical question --- what does it feel like to be energy?--- as a meaningful philosophical exploration of interpersonal understanding. That's assuming the question was not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically, in the as-if manner of creative philosophers throughout history. :smile:

PS___ Materialistic posters, who tend to be prosaic & literal-minded, may interpret such a clever question as a sign of Dunning-Kruger technical incompetence. But the mis-application of that technical term in a hypothetical context may be a sign of philosophical incompetence.

Philosophical Questions to Spark Deep Critical Thinking :
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/philosophical-questions/

Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle. . . .
Move over Einstein. — Nils Loc

Of course. That's why they are trying to devise an experiment to confirm the conjecture. There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. And, since Einstein's equation postulated that Energy can be converted into Mass (matter), it makes sense to postulate that an Information >> Energy >> Matter experiment would work.

However, my philosophical interest in Information is its relationship to Intelligence & Consciousness, not to Matter & Energy. I mention those theories & experiments only because many posters here seem to be more interested in the material aspects of the physical world, than the immaterial features of the meta-physical world. Those posters tend to bristle at any mention of Mind-stuff on a philosophy forum. Which may be why the topic of this thread has attracted a flock of matter-minded boo-birds.

We are still in the early stages of the Information Age. So, at the moment, these equivalences are more hypothetical than empirical. But, for me, that's where theoretical philosophy comes into the picture. :smile:

PS___ Einstein objected to the spooky, un-real, statistical, non-classical, non-mechanical, immaterial, mental, implications of Quantum theory*3. But eventually, he had to "move over" and let the quantum dice fall where statistical randomness dictates*4.


*1. Meta-Physical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The stochastic state of Quantum Superposition is literally "outside of human sense perception" until it is triggered to "collapse" from Potential math (idea) to Actual matter (object).
Stochastic : randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

*2. Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol1 in which a hypothetical intelligence—dubbed Maxwell’s demon—pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demon’s role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy2,3,4,5,6. An experimental demonstration of this information-to-energy conversion, however, has been elusive. Here we demonstrate that a non-equilibrium feedback manipulation of a Brownian particle on the basis of information about its location achieves a Szilárd-type information-to-energy conversion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821

*3. Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics? :
Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics, observing that God does not play dice. But, in fact, he thought more about the nature of atoms, molecules, and the emission and absorption of light—the core of what we now know as quantum theory—than he did about relativity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
Note --- Quantum scientists have grudgingly become accustomed to the idea that quantum Superposition is an unreal statistical mathematical state until an experimental observation transforms Potential/Virtual/Mathematical Fields into Actual/Real/Material Particles.

*4. Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.
The new experiment, conducted by a group led by Ronald Hanson, a physicist at the Dutch university’s Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, and joined by scientists from Spain and England, is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction. — wonderer1

No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad:

You seem to think the Chicken & Egg conundrum is a logical puzzle. It's a philosophical koan, something to think about. :smile:

And what you cite from Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma. — Banno

See my reply to above.

Before you accuse me of making assertions that should be restricted to physics experts, I'll deny in advance that my proposal is a Physics Fact ; it's merely a Philosophy conjecture. But, it helps to have some familiarity with cutting-edge Physics and Information theory. :smile:

On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store? — wonderer1

No. It's simply a Chicken or Egg conundrum for us to argue about. It's stated as a dichotomy, but that's simply to simplify the premises. Either/Or questions are like Ockham's Razor. However, if you can think of a third or fourth source of consciousness, we can add those options to the discussion, at the risk of obfuscation.

Your postulated alternative is not really an alternative. In view of modern physics, your car is constructed of Both energy And matter : E=MC^2. According to Einstein, they are merely different forms of the same essential stuff. And 21st century physicists have further postulated that matter & energy are different forms of another fundamental essence*1 : Information = en-form-action. And information is the meaning in a conscious mind.

's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity. By that made-up name, I'm referring to the Big Bang Singularity (a computer algorithm?) from which every thing in the Now universe was formed*3. Which came first, the energetic chicken or the embryonic egg? :smile:


*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Note --- 21st century physicists are extrapolating Einstein's Energy/Matter equivalence to include the strange "force" behind the Information Age and Artificial Intelligence. As professional materialists though, they are not making the further extrapolation that Energy = Matter = Mind. That's the contribution of Information scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity.

*2. EnFormAction :
Universal Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- This is a philosophical conjecture, not a physics assertion.

*3. What powered the Big Bang? :
The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
Note --- this hypothesis is not the basis of my Universal Causation. I just provided the link to show that Cosmologists are still looking for the ultimate cause of the original Bang, that Plato called the First Cause.

Io capisco, I think, but I also think that using metaphors, while apposite in poetry, isn't useful in philosophy--nor is it necessary. In poetry metaphors may be witty or evocative but in philosophy they merely invite misunderstanding and, worse, reification. Minds, ideas, concepts may not be considered
things literally, but are treated as if they were things. Why resort to metaphor in philosophy? — Ciceronianus

Those with a Physicalist or Materialist worldview tend to think that Philosophy should aspire to the mathematical clarity of Physics. But even Physics, since the advent of Quantum Theory (intrinsically uncertain & statistical), is forced to use metaphors & analogies to describe physical objects --- e.g. Virtual Particles & Mathematical Fields --- that are not knowable via the physical senses. A virtual particle is not a real particle, but only the statistical potential for a future piece of matter. A Quantum Field is not a physical field of grass, but merely the concept of an infinite array of non-local virtual particles. Don't you find the analogies easier to conceive than the ghostly reality?

If your subject is a physical object, a physical description (appearances, properties) would be sufficient. Yet, if the subject is an abstract concept, such as Consciousness or Reality, then a metaphorical analogy may be the only way to define what you are talking about. The ancient ideal of philosophy would be a series of verifiable postulations (premises) with true or false implications (conclusion). However, do you know of any modern philosophical questions that are simple true/false issues? :smile:

On Using Metaphors in Philosophy :
Blumenberg holds an extreme position in his advocacy of metaphors. In his opinion, metaphors are fundamental elements of philosophy.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm

Metaphor in analytic philosophy :
In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy (in particular, in the philosophy of language), metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth-conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. . . . . in a different, naturalist, approach, some English-speaking philosophers close to cognitive science, such as Lakoff, have made metaphor the central aspect of human rationality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy

Metaphors in Philosophy and Science :
Many philosophers and scientists reach for metaphors, to help their readers get a handle on abstract concepts.
https://www.evidentia.net/evidentia/metaphors-in-philosophy-and-science/

There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno

That comment is an ad hominem, which -- as you well know -- should have no place in a philosophy dialog. It's also a Straw Man fallacy, which attacks a soft target, instead of addressing the hard question of the role of Mind in a material world. It may also be a Red Herring fallacy, to distract a discussion from focusing on the "real issue". Which, to paraphrase the topic of this thread is : "what does it feel like to be energy".

As worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". That may sound ridiculous to you, but it is a legitimate philosophical question for some of us, who take consciousness seriously, and don't dismiss it as immaterial. Is Consciousness a manifestation of causation (energy) or a material substance made of atoms? For example, Nagel's "what is it like to be a bat" is not a question that can be answered by Physics or Chemistry or Biology, but can be addressed only by Philosophical methods, which may use physical or mathematical metaphors, but is not provable by mathematical calculations.

Physics Envy philosophy is a common communication barrier on this forum. You seem to think we are doing Physics on this forum, instead of Philosophy. I don't know about the others mentioned, but I am not a physicist. So why would you accuse me of "doing physics without the math"? Why would you expect "expertise" in physics, when physical examples & analogies are used to make philosophical points? Taking metaphors literally may be another logical fallacy. :smile:

Sorry, but nobody sees the Universe from outside it. . . . . Your reference to "non-physical things" which "transcend the physical boundaries of material objects" suggests you treat mind, theories, symbols or ideas as equivalent to "things," immaterial but nonetheless existing, like objects, and therefore existing somewhere; but somewhere else (outside the Universe). — Ciceronianus

Yes --- except for the "outside the universe" implication. By "see" I meant "to imagine", not to sense photons in a physical sense. Human minds, and the cultural Meme-sphere*1, are literally inside the universe as a concept, but not in the sub-category of Material stuff. Culture -- including philosophy -- is not a material object, is it? That should go without saying on a philosophy forum. Except for those who imagine that this is a Science forum discussing material objects, instead of mental subjects. Where is the Internet located : in the universe of rocks, or of minds?

The English language is a pragmatic vocabulary, hence matter-based. For philosophical terminology though, we typically turn to Latin & Greek, not because they are any less matter-based, but because their literal meanings have been adapted for scientific & philosophical & metaphorical purposes. So, when I refer to a "thing"*2 on a philosophy forum, it's intended to be interpreted in a meta-physical or metaphorical sense. Yet, some prejudicially equate "metaphysical" with Religious. For Aristotle, Meta-physics was merely a different conceptual category from Physics ; the realm of philosophical interpretations & inferences about the physical world.

The "somewhere else" you interpreted is obviously not a physical location in the great beyond. But merely a conventional cultural notion, not located in the material world but in the common social "realm" of memes*3, not things. The term "sphere" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally, capish?. Some people on this forum seem to take all words in a post for their literal meaning, instead of allowing for the philosophical use of metaphorical language. I am not one of those unimaginative prosaic one-word-one-meaning thinkers. :smile:

*1. Memesphere :
meme + sphere the entire human community through which simple or simplified ideas pass quickly, irrespective of the quality or reliability of the idea.
https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=meme

*2. Thing :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*3. Memes : an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense — Gnomon
:roll: Strawman – unless you can cite where I have actually done so. — 180 Proof

I hereby cite all of your replies to my posts, which typically assert "strawman" versions of my own arguments, to make them seem like pseudo-science, instead of metaphysical philosophical views. For the record, as a non-scientist, I never make authoritative physical scientific claims, only amateur meta-physical philosophical opinions. I do however, link to the expertise of practicing scientists to support my philosophical points. So, your imputations of pseudoscience are made of imaginary straw. Your "physical interpretations" are invalid for meta-physical concepts.

The proof of my own "interpretation" of your interpretation will be in your inability to deny the assertion of an anti-metaphysical bias. For example, do you deny that for you "transcendent" means "unreal, immaterial, or non-physical", hence pseudoscientific ; even when used in a philosophical context, a la Kant? Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 a scientific claim about material reality, or an observation about how human minds interpret the world?

Do you deny your belief that posts on a philosophy forum require empirical physical evidence of validity? Do you have empirical evidence to support that belief? Like Materialism, your Immanentism is itself a non-empirical metaphysical belief system that lies outside the realm of physical reality. Note that I use "outside" with a meta-physical meaning, not a literal physical sense.

Do you deny that, for you, "outside or beyond" always refers to a super-natural religious realm, as opposed to, for example, a psychological concept -- with no objective material substance -- unless you equate neurons with ideas in your personal imaginary worldview? Do you deny the validity of Psychology as a "soft" science?*2 Does your worldview of Immanentism make allowances for subjective mental noumena with that lie "beyond" the reach of empirical testing? If not, please show me one of your physical ideas. :smile:


*1. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/


*2. Is Psychology a Science? :
An open letter, signed by 124 researchers — some specializing in consciousness and others not—made the provocative claim that one of the most widely discussed theories in the field, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), should be considered“pseudoscience. . . . The open letter justified the charge primarily on the grounds that IIT has “commitments” to panpsychism — the idea that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous — and that the theory “as a whole” may not be empirically testable. . . . Regarding testability, Quantum mechanics, for example, is highly productive, even though nobody can figure out how to experimentally test its various interpretations." ___ Anil Seth, professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex.
https://nautil.us/the-worth-of-wild-ideas-399097/
Note --- Technically, as a scientific hypothesis, IIT postulates something like Pan-mathematics, instead of traditional Panpsychism. Although some proponents admit to a Panpsychic philosophical interpretation.

*3. Immanentism :
Logically, the immanent makes sense in terms of the non-immanent, or of that which transcends or falls outside the immanent; it follows that the very meaning of immanence implies its own limit, i.e., transcendence.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism

Given that any such search is only possible for us in media res (not from the "outside" or "beyond"), assuming some transcendent "outside, beyond", like searching "up" on a 2D plane, is both nonsense and imaginary — 180 Proof
Maybe this is included in what you state, but it also presumes that what is beyond the Universe or transcends it is similar enough to what is in it that we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it, in some limited sense. Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God (who is endowed with characteristics we recognize as existing, if only dimly or in a diminished form, in the Universe). But why should that be the case? — Ciceronianus

As usual, interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense, while I use those terms for their metaphysical meaning. His Immanentist worldview seems to deny the possibility of Meta-Physics. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Metaphysics as "the branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality". One example of a First Principle is "an axiom*1 that cannot be deduced from any other within that system". In other words, it's an imaginary view (an inference, not an observation) of the system from the outside (not immanent, but extrinsic). Ultimate Reality is a view from the outside, not in a literal sense, as 180 alleges, but from an imaginary perspective, as philosophers do routinely. Presumably, Immanentism would not include the human talent for looking at the world from a vantage that exists only in a mind.

In philosophical Cosmology, the system of interest is the universe as a whole -- as seen from the outside -- including such immaterial elements as Minds, Ideas, Theories, Symbols, etc -- that are excluded from the Immanentist world. Such non-physical things are meta-physical, in the sense that they transcend the physical boundaries of material objects, and of proximate reality --- which Immanentism believes to be the only reality. Which is OK for scientists probing material phenomena, However, philosophers are focused on immaterial noumena : res cogitans of internal Ideality, not res extensa of external Reality. 180 may interpret "transcendence" in the religious sense of a super-natural realm, but philosophers use the term in the sense you noted : "we're capable of knowing it or making inferences regarding it". Inferences are not observations with the physical eyes, but logical computations by means of the mind's eye, which is in meta res : as you put it, "what is beyond the {physical} Universe or transcends it". {my brackets}

180 uses the analogy of a 2D plane to illustrate his Flatland worldview, which ignores the 3D & 4D aspects of reality. For example, cosmologists don't limit themselves to a view of the world from the inside, but they go beyond the limits of proximate space-time to imagine an ultimate pre-time Multiverse, or hypothetical Many Worlds, that lie beyond (transcending) the world of physical experience, and of empirical evidence. Such ultimate worlds are not Real, but Ideal. Ironically, those imaginary models are not "perfect versions", but merely mundane replicas of our proximate imperfect reality. :smile:


*1. Axiom : in logic, an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiom
Note --- Self-evident concepts are imaginary mental phenomena, not "demonstrable" or empirical physical observations. They are useful for abstract reasoning, but have no material substance.

But you will be completely at a loss to say what that 'something' is. (Whilst you're reaching for your hatchet, I sense the impending feeling of futility that invariably accompanies our exchanges.) — Wayfarer

Like most materialists*1, 's Reality is limited to the reports of his physical senses. That blinkered worldview is good enough for most animals. But it omits the distinguishing feature of rational animals : the ability to infer abstractly what is not seen concretely*2*3. That mental function begins with observed premises and calculates conclusions that must also be logically true . . . . but not necessarily real in the here & now.

On a more positive note, Banno's poetic imagery, and yours, is materialistic. Yet the metaphors of poppies & butterflies are not referring to physical objects, but to human ideas & feelings : "the elusive butterfly of love" is not an insect. I wonder if an idea/feeling-rejecting materialist takes the symbolism literally. :smile:

*1. I don't know how Banno would characterize his personal worldview, because his posts are usually so succinct that the cosmology behind the pretty words is left to the imagination. That's fine for poetry, where the reader is expected to read-into the "text" his/her own meanings & feelings. But, for prosaic philosophy, it omits the essence of wisdom, to use words precisely, not just concisely. When is a poppy not a flower?*4 :smile:

*2. Inference in Arguments :
In logic, an inference is a process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
https://www.thoughtco.com/inference-logic-term-1691165

*3. Raven reasoning :
It's the strongest evidence yet that ravens have a “theory of mind” – that they can attribute mental states such as knowledge to others.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076025-ravens-fear-of-unseen-snoopers-hints-they-have-theory-of-mind/

*4. Red poppy flowers represent consolation, remembrance and death. Likewise, the poppy is a common symbol that has been used to represent everything from peace to death and even simply sleep.

We immanentists agree on that much at least – i.e. Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans! — 180 Proof

I had never heard that term before. Sounds similar to Panpsychism or Pantheism or Pandeism. As I had suspected, despite our differences, it seems that we may have something in common : reliance on Reason instead of Revelation for understanding the world, and our place in it. I sometimes use the term PanEnDeism to characterize my non-religious philosophical worldview --- from the perspective of uncensored Reasoning, that can imagine a view of the world from outside of space-time. That reflective perspective allows us to infer that the Causal Power behind the Big Bang existed prior to the bang, and is now immanent in the world we know, as the many & various forms of essential Information or EnFormAction.

As noted, I am willing to allow un-aided, but not transcendent, human Reason to speculate beyond the sensory boundaries of physical space-time reality. Quite a few respectable scientists have made detailed conjectures about the unknowable Source of the power that materialized in the hypothetical Big Bang. But most seem to take Cosmic Energy & Evolutionary Laws for granted. Though some may even interpret that Source as a God of some kind, which is now manifested in the reality of our human experience. Others, less imaginative, transcend the physical evidence, to conclude that the Before (e.g. Multiverse) was merely more of the same forever & ever, amen. Serial immanence? :smile:

Immanentism :
A philosophical position maintaining that human experience is the only ultimate source of verification. Absolute immanentism insists upon the self-sufficiency of man as the measure of all reality and defends its doctrine on the grounds that any supposed transcendence of reason would be, by definition, "beyond reason" and therefore beyond the scope of discourse or rational penetration.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/immanentism


The meaning of IMMANENTISM is any of several theories according to which God or an abstract mind or spirit pervades the world.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanentism
Note --- My personal abstract power of causation is called EnFormAction. It works like physical Energy, serially transforming from invisible Causation into tangible Matter, and back again, in accordance with the rules of Evolution, to create Darwin's "forms most beautiful" from formless Potential.

It's pretty simple really. You've said stuff, that if taken seriously, could get someone killed. I value fellow TPF members not dying stupidly.

So I do accuse you of BS.

Do you understand the relevance of what I am saying now? — wonderer1

No.

↪Gnomon
Glad to see you changing your claims in response to the critique hereabouts. — Banno

No. I simply changed your mis-interpretation of my views --- not my "claims".

Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

I'm sorry if my personal philosophical vocabulary has caused you to be "confused" or "uncertain". Yet the problem may be, not the literal meaning of the words, but the polarized belief system (or worldview) associated with certain taboo words*1. It's certainly not my intention to "promote" confusion.

Part of the "issue" though, may be your own rigid Certainty about questions that are inherently Uncertain. I imagine our contentious dialog as similar to that of a conservative "Baptist" and a liberal "Methodist"*2 : they both read from the same Bible, but reach different interpretations. Your problem with my carefully chosen words seems to be more political or religious than philosophical.

You accuse me of being deliberately deceptive. But it's more likely a case of self-deception, and I can't help you with that personal problem. Please don't expect me to change my worldview, or my vocabulary, just because it makes you uncomfortable. I guess we'll just have to go to different "churches", where our words won't be mis-interpreted. :smile:

PS___ But we can still meet in the street or the forum, without getting into fruitless arguments about the "true" meanings of words.


*1. For example, I use the uncommon word "ideality" to indicate the other side of the same coin as "reality". Is the meaning of that term so hard to guess? If it's still opaque to you, I have linked to a large publicly-available Glossary of terms, specifically relevant to my personal worldview*3. So I'm not hiding my intentions behind unfamiliar words. See the more conventional dictionary definition below.

*2. It's a metaphor, so please don't take it literally, or get huffy (look it up). I'll let you decide which symbolic denomination is yours. A science metaphor would be : the common-sense Classical mechanical (actual) Reality versus the philosophical-sense Quantum statistical (potential) Reality. But that complex analogy might be "confusing" for simple minds. And the inherent quantum Uncertainty Principle will leave the best minds in a state of "uncertainty".

*3. Ideality :
*** In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
*** Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is "collapsed" into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
*** Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. . . . . https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*#. Ideality :
a> the state or quality of being ideal.
b> the quality of expressing or being characterized by ideals.
c> an ideal or idealized thing.
___Oxford dictionary
d> the state or quality of that which is not materially real, but a human concept or experience. ___Gnomon

*#. The "one word one meaning fallacy" suggests that: People often mistakenly believe that a word can have only one correct meaning. Which of the following best explains why Hayakawa believes that a word never has exactly the same meaning twice: because the context surrounding the word is never twice the same.

*#. Dave Mason's song : We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree

Physicalism and naturalism are the assumed consensus of modern culture, very much the product of the European Enlightenment with its emphasis on pragmatic science and instrumental reason. Accordingly this essay will go against the grain of the mainstream consensus and even against what many will presume to be common sense. — Wayfarer

Ironically, even on a philosophy webpage --- presumably a forum for ideas about ideas --- many posters seem to instinctively argue against any form of meta-physics -- especially Idealism -- on the basis of priority of the five senses -- common to most animals -- over our unique human rational faculty. Consequently, they bow only to Physical Science --- with its artificial sensory enhancements --- instead of Meta-Physical Philosophy --- and its cultural reasoning enhancements (e.g. Logic) --- to support their sense-able beliefs.

That's partly paradoxical because the Common-Sense Perspective led most humans to believe in a flat earth and an earth-centered cosmos. Among the sensible ancients though, a few Greek philosophers used un-common-sense (abstract reasoning) to realize that our un-aided senses are not capable of seeing the world "in the round", so to speak. So they used the mental imagery of mathematics to rise above their limited physical plane. Nevertheless, it's hard to argue against Common Sense, because it is literally sense-able, and people tend to implicitly "believe their eyes". It seems that abstract philosophy was developed specifically to work around our inherent materialistic biases. Which is what Kant warned about with his sense-transcending "ding an sich" proposal.

On the other hand, some people are inclined to believe in unseen things that appeal to their Feelings. That's because hormonal feelings are the motivators of actions, and of attractions. But those sentiments are also a form of inwardly-focused Common Sense. Hence, people typically believe what they feel. And it's that latter notion of common-sense that hard-nosed Rationalists strenuously reject. That's why your rational approach to Idealism must skirt the feeling element, because it incites knee-jerk negative feelings in dogmatic Realists. Yet even the sixth sense of Reason is questionable, if it has no material evidence to support it. In the realm of Ideas & Reasons though, philosophers tend to lean on immaterial analogies and imaginary metaphors for props.

A recent scientific metaphor along these lines was Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception*1. That proposal was described in a book entitled The Case Against Reality. It postulated that natural evolution created big-brained animals with the latent ability to "see" what is not before their eyes, by means of imagination. Thereby, viewing a "mind created world". Even some small-brained birds seem to imagine other minds*2. So, it's not a super-natural power. Some of the non-things seen in the Mind's Eye are symbols & icons & gestalts. The latter are imaginary whole systems composed of bits & pieces of sensory perception. Although he makes a good case for Ideality, Hoffman's notion that our physical eyes see only superficial "appearances", has not been well-received among Philosophical physicalists. Was cognitive psychologist Hoffman presenting evidence in favor of Ideality, as an evolutionary offspring of Reality? :smile:

*1. The Interface Theory of Perception :
For the perceptions of H. sapiens, space-time is the desktop and physical objects are the icons. Our perceptions of space-time and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth and guide adaptive behaviors. Perception is an adaptive interface.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26384988/

*2. Ravens can imagine other minds :
Ravens display a human ability to imagine how others are thinking, a study has shown
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/ravens-can-imagine-how-others-are-thinking.601117

You said that potential energy is not real. — Banno

As I pointed-out before, you completely misunderstood, and/or deliberately mis-stated, the point I was making*1. First, it was not a scientific assertion, but a philosophical observation about A> the distinction between physical Reality and metaphysical Ideality, B> also between a now state and a not-yet-real future statistical possibility*2. An unactualized Potential state is a mathematical idea without any sensable properties. Can you see, touch, or taste the Potential of an AAA battery. If not, in what sense is a Potential thing a Real thing? Is the unreality of Potential so hard to grasp?

Secondly, you are adding the word "energy" to my statement about "Potential", probably to make it sound obviously erroneous or foolish. What I said was "Potential is not Actual". But after you inserted the word "energy", I still said "yes", because the statistical possibility of energy is not a useful form of energy in the here & now. What can you accomplish with Potential energy without first converting its possibility into Actuality? By analogy, do you think a Potential colony on Mars --- as imagined by Elon Musk --- is a Real colony? Of course not. You're not stupid ; perhaps, just motivated to defend a mindless materialistic worldview.

Apparently this discussion of What's Real and What's Not has touched a nerve. And along with , you seem to think that Gnomon is a dangerous proponent of un-reality, or some other spooky supernatural stuff. Gnomon does make a distinction between physical Science (about material Things) and meta-physical Philosophy (about non-physical Ideas). But, for what it's worth, I will once again state that I do not believe there's anything super-natural in the Real world. However, I am aware that Mental/Mathematical objects (such as Potential states) are not Real things. Not supernatural though, but merely Ideal : existing only in the form of immaterial Ideas. And yes, mental ideas always have a material substrate : like computer solutions, they are immaterial functions of a material process*3 in a real world. Personally, I don't believe in dis-embodied ghosts. But if you think Ideas -- or functions, or statistics -- are material objects, show me one under a microscope. :smile:

PS___ You can ignore the footnotes if they make the argument too complex for you to follow. :joke:

*1. Quote from previous post :
So potential energy is not real? — Banno
Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it.

*2. The notion of potential existence may be supposed to apply to two categories of objects. The first one comprises objects which in fact will become real. They may be referred to as potential objects (sensu stricto). The second category consists of quasipotential objects which never will come into existence.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0097-9_7

*3. Ideas as Functions of a Process :
Although the word function assumed a different meaning with the rise of set theory and formal logic, the original relation is still used a lot among physicist, engineers or even mathematicians. . . . So it seems that something being a function of something else (or something depending on something else) is a very natural notion for many people.
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/307947/formalizations-of-the-idea-that-something-is-a-function-of-something-else
Note --- A Function is a mathematical relationship, not a material object. It's "real" only in the sense that it is a useful imaginary tool for humans, not due to any material embodiment. Math objects do not exist in material reality, but only as immaterial ratios in the ideality of rational minds.

What you were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion. — wonderer1

You can falsify scientific claims with counter-evidence. How would you falsify a philosophical analogy : Potential as not-yet-real future event? What made you think I was making a "truth claim"?

Why would you consider an electrical engineering definition "to be valuable to a philosophical discussion"? I don't accuse you of talking BS, but just of irrelevance to the topic of this thread. For example, as a "skillful" expert, how would you define "Potential Voltage" in terms of Quantum Electrodynamics (relativistic quantum field theory)? If you did, how would that relate to the OP question "what is reality"? :smile:


True or false : Philosophy is defined as a person merely offering an opinion on a subject and nothing more? https://quizlet.com/42756218/philosophy-101-final-review-true-or-false-flash-cards/

True-False Questions :
Russell argues that philosophy involves controversies on matters of which knowledge is impossible.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/testCT_summer3/node2.html

And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon
No it is not. And this is yet another example of your tendency to assert things without knowing what you are talking about. — wonderer1

Apparently, you are expecting technical answers on a philosophical forum. I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. Does your referenced link explain "what is real?". We are not talking about the same thing here. :smile:

PS___ Is your "skill" as an electrical engineer relevant to the topic of this thread?

So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd. . . . And again, your style is almost unreadable — Banno

That does seem odd. Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". Just a short list of instances would be more helpful than a blind blanket denouncement.

Your reference to "scientistic" is also odd, since my views are often radically different from those of the philosophy of Scientism.

Your vague non-specific replies are readable, but simplistic and indeterminate. I'm not sure what you are responding to. I don't know your background, but an education in analytical Linguistic Philosophy might make discussions of holistic Quantum Philosophy "unreadable". More specificity on your part would make communication, not necessarily more readable, but perhaps more meaningful. :smile:

PS___ Speaking of "unreadable", have you ever tried to read Hegel, Heidegger. or Wittgenstein? If you are not interested in the subject matter -- or have a short attention span -- you may not be motivated to read densely worded discourses.

PPS___Most responses on this forum are brief summaries of personal opinions. With no attempt to justify the amateur reasoning with links to opinions of experts on the topic. Most of my posts are condensed summaries of arguments that are more extensively detailed elsewhere, with links. It seems that we are not arguing true or false facts here, but agreeable or disagreeable opinions & worldviews.

Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy. — wonderer1

You missed the point. I didn't refer to Aristotle as an authority on storage batteries, but as the guy who originally defined the terms "Potential" & "Actual"*1. Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. Aristotle's definition, in terms of existence, is pertinent to the OP topic of Reality. :smile:


*1. Actuality and Potentiality in Aristotle's Philosophy :
Aristotle described potentiality and actuality as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist.
https://www.iasexpress.net/modules/1-7-actuality-and-potentiality-in-aristotles-philosophy/

*2. Voltage is a measurement of potential electric energy between two points.
https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Voltage

Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled — wonderer1

Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? Since many of the controversies on this forum revolve around the physical foundations of the world (e.g. matter particles vs mathematical fields) , I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource.

But some posters seem to prefer the 17th century Classical model of physics*1, probably because it is more fitting to Common Sense. Yet, quantum physics has revealed that common sense is the view of superficial Appearances (per Kant)*2 rather than Ultimate Reality.

Besides, since my skillfully-selected Quantum Model varies, in certain aspects, from the Common Sense model, my interpretations are sometimes dismissed as "Woo", they are literally labelled as "non-sense", because quantum physics explores reality beyond the scope of un-aided human senses. So, the choice of model itself may be unacceptable for some posters. What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"? :smile:


*1. Classical physics :
Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Classical_physics

*2. Kant's Appearances :
Kantian appearances are not the objects of ordinary sense perception, for Kant holds that appearances in themselves (things in themselves, in the empirical sense) lack sensory qualities like color, taste, texture, etc.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

So potential energy is not real? — Banno

Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it. For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. Any potential thing or action is not yet real (i.e. not materialized), until actualized*1 in a system. Do you disagree with my list of opposites in this context? If so, in what sense is Potential real?*2.

Our worldviews seem to be different in some ways that lead us to mis-communicate. But worldviews are ideas (opinions) about Reality, not Reality itself. Worldviews are beliefs about Reality, not necessarily the Truth. So, I'm not trying to convert you to my belief system, but merely trying to share ideas that may be controversial. :smile:

*1. Potentiality and actuality
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist; but, the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note --- Do you equate "does not exist" with "not real"? If so, what was wrong with my equation of "potential" with "not yet real"?

*2. Real : actually existing as a {physical} thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- I added the bracket to indicate the common-sense definition of "real". But the philosophical definition is more subtle. As indicated in *1 above : "potential does exist", even though it has no physical form.

But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. — Banno

Are you accusing me of "dismantling the apparatus of physics"? Or merely of being "crass" enough to mention an alternative (non-mechanical) mechanism? Could you be more specific? Which "apparatus" am I tearing down? Newtonian Mechanics?*3 Actually, it was the pioneers of Quantum Theory who crassly deconstructed Newton's machine with "spooky action at a distance".

Do you think Physics is concerned with ontological Reality?*4 Classical Physics typically took the material substance of Reality for granted. But Quantum Physics undermined that confidence with the Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality. Apparently, you mis-interpret my references to Quantum Physics as anti-scientific*5. Some posters seem to think any philosophy prior to the 19th century is anti-science. Even 20th century Quantum Theory is considered part science (technology), and part anti-science (mysticsm). So my emphasis on Quantum philosophy seems to them as undermining the ground of reality.

What "exhortation" are you referring to?*6 Are you accusing me of propagandizing anti-science? If so, show me the quote. Are you equating non-Classical Quantum Physics with Anti-science? QP didn't replace Physics with Metaphysics, but it did re-introduce philosophical reasoning into scientific methods, that had been absent for several centuries*7. :smile:

*3. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics? :
In the Newtonian mechanics, particles and waves are two different entities, while in quantum mechanics these two are two sides of the same coin. Quantum mechanics associate wave function with every object. However, it must be noted that these quantum effects are diminished in the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-the-difference-between-newtonian-mechanics-and-quantum-mechanics.html
Note --- In this quote, "real world" seems refer to the common-sense macro level that our 5 senses report. If so, is the quantum foundation of our world "unreal"?

*4. "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." is a quote by German Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) that can be used in discussing the validity of measurements.
https://www.causeweb.org/cause/resources/library/r2533
Note --- By "nature" Heisenberg was referring to what Kant called "ding an sich" as opposed to "appearances". In the context of this thread, one could equate "Nature" with "Real", and "Super-nature" with un-real, yes? Personally, I am not aware of anything supernatural in this world. But some people equate "Ideal" with "supernatural". Do you?

*5. Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics).
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr320/lecture21.pdf
Note --- The math of QM is unquestioned. But the meaning continues to spark philosophical debate.

*6. Exhortation : an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Note --- In this case, to do what?

*7. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world. This gives rise to the collection of philosophical issues known as “the interpretation of quantum mechanics”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

Time is a special dimension that only occurs in relation to change happening in space. If we take space away (all three dimensions) would time exist or would it be meaningless to talk of time in such a hypothetical situation? — simplyG

Just as Space would not exist without Matter, Time would not exist without Change. They are two sides of the same coin. Which Einstein curiously labelled "space-time", as a four-dimensional continuum, not of Being, but of Potential. :smile:

Time is the currency of Physics :
In april/may 2023 Philosophy Now magazine, the question of the month is "what is time?" And the very first reply gave me food for thought along Enformationism lines : "Time needs to exist for change to happen. This means time must have existed before the Big Bang." Since the same can be said for Primordial Energy, could we say that Cosmic Energy is the cause of Causation?¹ In the Big Bang theory, “The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known”². [my bold] You’ve heard that “time is money”, but did you know that Time is Energy?
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the correction. I had never heard of Austin, before reading the Philosophy Now article. And my comments are based on the article, not from personal familiarity.

It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes. — Ciceronianus

Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1.

I'm a free-wheeling amateur, not a stodgy academic philosopher, so -- on an open forum -- I don't feel bound to accept the "authorized or received" meanings of outdated terminology. That unconventional "conceit" (i.e. freedom) drives up the wall. But he can't have me de-tenured (did I just make-up another word?), so I ignore his smirky*2 smarguments. Since you seem to be more sincere, I'll take your comments under advisement. :smile:

PS___ I know nothing about the Linguistic Turn in modern philosophy, other than "what I read in the papers". But I would assume that one focus would be on discovering mis-use, or unauthorized use, of old conventional*3 terminology. Yet again, such pedantry*4 would tend to suppress creativity of conceits (concepts)*5 in philosophy. I have no formal training in philosophical ideology, which leaves me naive, but also unprejudiced with prevailing dogma.

*1. Why Coin Tech Terms? :
In the Enformationism thesis, and in the BothAnd Blog, I have coined a lot of new words (neologisms) as short-cuts to complex or unfamiliar concepts. The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary purpose for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html

*2. Smirky : characterized by or having a smirk, especially so as to seem irritatingly smug or conceited. (his favorite smilicon :smirk: )

*3. Conventional : marked by attention to or adhering strictly to prescribed forms.

*4. Pedantry : excessive concern with minor details and rules

*5. What is a conceit in Latin? :
From the Latin term for “concept,” a poetic conceit is an often unconventional, logically complex, or surprising metaphor whose delights are more intellectual than sensual.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/conceit

But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? — Ciceronianus

To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy. :smile:

T.L. Austin — Gnomon
Hmm. — Banno

Thanks. I suspect that will applaud your succinct appraisal of my Synthetic assessment of Austin's Linguistic analysis of Philosophy's verbal non-sense about what's real & what's not. :smile:

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? — Gnomon
You seem to be confusing evidence with ways of modeling things. Your question doesn't make much sense to me. — wonderer1

OK. What kind of philosophical world model, based on what kind of scientific evidence, are you willing to accept as Real? Is that less confusing --- or more? :smile:

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such. — simplyG

Yes. That was the point of my introductory remarks in the post. Since each "subset" is based on different axioms & assumptions, we need to specify which world-model of Reality we are arguing from. Failure to do that leads to fruitless talking-past-each-other on such general topics as Reality. Unfortunately, the tinted lenses of our partial worldviews are often taken to reveal the world as it really is. So, we are surprised when others don't see it as we do.

My personal worldview is intended to unify the Dualism of fundamental physics into a philosophical Monism. It does so by "involving" the observer in the observation. As quantum physicist John A. Wheeler concluded, "this is a participatory universe" and that "everything is information" --- including the observing mind. :smile:


Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

What is real?
Depends.
A> What do you mean by "real"?
B> Do you want an Analytical answer, or a Synthetic solution, or a Technological test, or a Copenhagen compromise?

Austin & ‘Reality’ philosophy magazine article :
“Austin's view is that if they use the word 'real', it has the meaning it's found with, and not some special philosophical sense. So, we must pay careful attention to the usage of words if we are to avoid saying things that are confused or silly.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality

T.L. Austin has decreed that “a philosopher doesn't get to decide the meaning of a word”. Instead, he insists that we must deal with words as they are found in the wild, so to speak -- uncontaminated by philosophical sophistry. Since when does he have that authority? I suppose it was when the Linguistic Turn*1 began to transform Philosophy into a passive observer of the world as it seems to be, instead of an active participant in interpreting the world of “appearances”, that Kant said was a mask over the unknowable ideal “ding an sich”.

Austin seems to be a proponent of Analytical Philosophy, which was intended to emulate reductive Empirical science, by substituting metaphysical Words for physical Things under the microscope. Are Linguistic analysts fooling themselves that they are doing empirical Science ; when in fact it's just another application of philosophical reasoning, not to Reality but to our Ideas about reality (i.e. words)? What is language but conventionalized Metaphysics?*2A Is the study of language really analyzing reality? Or is it the layering of opinions upon opinions, ideas about ideas, not about reality itself?*2B

So, which authority can we rely on to tell us what philosophers can and cannot do? Austin seems to have a low opinion of his fellow philosophers, comparing them to deceptive magicians, who through sleight-of-word “gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind”.(Orwell on political propaganda). Is that all philosophy is : fake news & disinformation? Since Austin was himself a professional philosopher, how can you trust anything he says?

Analysis of human languages is indeed a valid approach to philosophical knowledge. But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. Moreover, conventional Meanings are second or third hand truths that have passed through millions of minds. By contrast, Empirical science aimed to study raw reality directly. But that 17th century aspiration was brought down to Earth by the damper of 20th century Quantum Uncertainty. Which revealed that Reality was not as cut-&-dried as previously assumed. It re-opened reality to interpretation from a variety of perspectives*4.

On TPF, quite a few posters seem to assume that Reductive Analytic Philosophy is the only legitimate form of thinking about ideas*5*6*7. Any other approach is dismissed as "irrational". But Quantum Physics pioneers were forced by the uncertainty & relativity of the foundations of Reality, to turn to Eastern philosophies for a more Holistic Systems approach. Ironically, the Copenhagen compromise re-introduced systematic (holistic) philosophical methods to fill the gaps where reductive Empirical methods no longer worked*8.

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? *9. Traditional philosophical answers were mostly meta-physical, since physical science was primitive in ancient times. 17th century Classical scientific answers were expressed in deterministic & mechanical imagery, which agreed with common-sense for most people in the Industrial Age. Then 20th century science discovered that the foundations of physics are uncertain (statistical) & non-mechanical (fields). Nevertheless, many 21st century philosophers seem to prefer the familiar "appearances" of Classical models, to the weird, but workable, mysteries of Quantum theories of Reality. Now, in the Information Age, Which world-model would you bet on, to accurately describe Reality? :smile:


*1. The Linguistic Turn :
Traditionally, the linguistic turn is taken to also mean the birth of analytic philosophy. One of the results of the linguistic turn was an increasing focus on logic and philosophy of language, and the cleavage between ideal language philosophy and ordinary language philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

*2A. Real is Being, and Language is Seeming :
Why didn't Austin's argument deter them? One reason might be that many postwar metaphysicians use the words 'there is" rather than the word 'real' . . . . Here the question becomes : there seem to be tables, but are there any?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality
*2B. “The ontology of a natural language is thus best characterized as the ontology competent speakers implicitly accept by way of using the language.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-language-ontology/

*3. According to one critique, “The linguistic turn aims to discover the truth through the analysis of language” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
Note --- To me that aim misses the hard target of objective Truth, and instead hits only various soft subjective opinions about Truth, as embedded in conventional words. That sounds like sieving muddy water to find-out what's solid reality.
Another critic says “Linguistic criticism certainly undercuts the spiritual world of ideas; but "language," when divorced from the particularities of different linguistic traditions, can also be "reified" and made into a philosophical fetish.“ https://science.jrank.org/pages/7827/Linguistic-Turn.html

*4. Interpretations of quantum mechanics :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*5. Aristotle and Understanding Reality :
In his view, colours and shapes are real, as real as trees, desks, people, and other objects that are members of a totality that can be called “reality” or “the universe.” However, reality is not exhausted by material objects that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, for Aristotle thought that there are also immaterial objects, objects that cannot be known by perception but only by a special cognitive capacity that he called “intellect.”
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004506077/BP000011.xml?language=en

*6. “Synonyms for ANALYTIC: reasonable, logical, valid, coherent, rational, sensible, good, sound; Antonyms of ANALYTIC: irrational, weak, unreasonable” https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/analytic

*7. Analytic vs Synthetic Philosophy :
So analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis – analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis – synthesis of modernity with history, individuals with society, and speculation with application.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Analytic_versus_Continental_Philosophy

*8. Copenhagen Metaphysics :
As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance. The aim of any metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is to account for these violations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

*9. What is metaphysics in relation to language? :
Is language a subset of metaphysics, or is metaphysics a subset of language, and if not what is language or metaphysics in relation to the other, and why is it difficult to represent those two in a sort of Venn diagram?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93225/what-is-metaphysics-in-relation-to-language