Yes! This makes sense thank you :)

It's quite amazing that energy has this ability to de-potentialise/become "substantial/substantiated" as matter going at a sub maximal speed. And be converted back to the speed of light again. But in essence it's quantity never changes. Just it's quality - what it's doing. The work of action or being acted upon in relative respect. — Benj96

I'm surprised that unconventional statement made sense to you. From the mundane perspective of Materialism, Energy is imagined to be merely a transient property of elemental matter, and envisioned as a flowing substance of some kind. But from a cosmic viewpoint, Energy seems to be almost magical. Which may be why its role is down-played in the belief system of secular Naturalism.

Since I have been looking at Energy as a form of Universal Information (power to enform/transform)*1, I have discovered many other form/patterns that I never expected. For example, even Time may be a manifestation of multi-morphing Energy. Human societies have called the cause of Causation by many names, such as "Spiritual power" or "transmogrification". However, for my own philosophical purposes, I prefer to look at the power to cause change from the perspective of modern Information theory, since it sounds more secular & scientific, and less threatening.

What you called "the ability to de-potentialize" is what Aristotle defined as the power to Actualize. From Plato's Idealistic perspective, he might think of Energy as "the propensity to Realize" : to convert Ideal possibilities into Real things. Since Energy is understood as the cause of Motion (change in location) it makes sense to define Lightspeed (the speed limit of the world) in terms of Energy. But my comments above were off the top of my head, so not yet fully developed.

Regarding "Quantity" and "Quality", I would say that potential Energy is a subjective Qualia until it transforms/actualizes into objective quantifiable Mass/Matter. That's why my worldview is based on Enformationism instead of Materialism : matter is not fundamental, but contingent on the causal power of Energy/EnFormAction*2. :smile:


*1. Information as Energy :
The literal equivalence of physical energy and mental information is still a fringe notion among scientists. But it has many credentialed champions, including Paul Davies, editor of the book noted above. Energy = Information.
http://blog-glossary/energy.

*2. EnFormAction : the action of transforming
Ententional 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

And this begs the question, if it never changes, then did it always exist as such? What can change or influence or act upon the unchanged? Nothing right? — Benj96

Wrong! :joke:

Energy is such an unchanging Cause of change. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total Energy (causal force) content of the universe is fixed, but as it causes physical changes, it can transform into Entropy (negative energy) and back again into Potential : the thermodynamic cycle. From a philosophical perspective, Energy itself is not a physical thing, but it is the metaphysical Potential for change*1 : hence total Energy is unchanged, even as it acts upon (influences) the changeable matter of the universe. Potential energy is the universal static power of position, which metaphorically flows (kinetic) through material objects causing changes in form along the way.

Those form changes are from order to disorder and vice-versa. The degree of order in a material object is measured in terms of structure (en-formed), while the degree of disorder is measured in terms of Entropy (dis-informed). In sum, the total quantity of Energy remains unchanged, even as it Changes (transforms) the material of the universe.

I know this way of thinking about Energy & Change is unconventional. And I'm currently playing with the equally unorthodox notion that Time is simply a measure of physical change due to the actions of Energy*2. One consequence of that way of thinking is to conclude that the expansion of the universe is not due to some mysterious Dark Energy, but merely to the increasing dimension of Time : also a thermodynamic cycle. BTW, Light is simply how we perceive Energy as it transforms into Time (change) at a constant rate (universally, not locally). If you're not too dazed & confused by this nonsense, I can expand on these novel views of the unchanging Cause of Change. :smile:


*1. WHAT IS ENERGY?
It’s not a particular thing, but a transferable (hence not intrinsic or inherent) property, ability, quality, that is quantifiable only in its effects.
“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

*2. Time is Progressive Change :
“Our primary conscious experience is one of the ‘progression’ of time; ... Entropy is change and therefore a function of time.”
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-causes-time-to-progress.147073/

I don't know what others had in mind, but I was responding just to your posting of the Einstein quote. There are those who think the metaphysicalist imagination should be unfettered by science, by physicalism, and I don't think Einstein was one of them. That is all my response was concerned with. — Janus

Yes. But is not one of "those" preferring "unfettered" imagination. The negative reactions to Wayfarer's OP seem to be falsely accusing him of making unsubstantiated scientific (physical) assertions, while ignoring his explicit framing of the topic in terms of philosophical (metaphysical) concepts. He was not arguing against Evolution or Biology, but against the axiomatic (unprovable) metaphysical beliefs of Materialism*1. :smile:

PS___I quoted pragmatist Thomas Dewey above : " if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter." The problem is that doctrinaire Materialists seem to omit Mind (the observer) from their metaphysical assumptions. However, Aristotle spoke of just such a mind/body dualism in his concept of Hylomorphism : matter + mind (nous ; form) = natural bodies. So the Monism of Materialism is missing an essential ingredient to explain the emergence of abstract thought (i.e. Reason) from physical evolution. :nerd:


*1. Materialism as a belief system :

Materialism asserts that everything is or can be explained in relation to matter.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/What_is_Materialism

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter. Thus, according to Materialism, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_materialism.html

It's a class and category thing. The first premise claims that rational and biological are classes, and a given phenomenon can be in one or the other but never both. The response (beginning with Anscombe) has most often been that rational and biological are categories, and there's no reason at all something can't be both. (Calling these both 'dualisms' obscures the distinction.) — Srap Tasmaner

I agree that philosophers, for the sake of argument, often make such compartmentalized distinctions, regarding controversial topics. From a general philosophical perspective, "Reason" and "Biology" and "Psychology" are in separate classes (type or kind or categories of being) with completely different physical and semantic characteristics. Yet, from the standpoint of a monistic Materialistic belief system, they are merely convenient categories for discussion, but ultimately all features & phenomena of the world are presumed to be subject to the rationally-inferred laws (regularities) of Physics.

Then, there is a monistic Meta-Physical*1 perspective, in which Matter is limited by the restrictions of physical laws, but Mental phenomena are free from such strictures. Which is why the human mind is able to believe and to tell lies. In that case, Reason is only subject to the Laws of Logic, which are essentially the same as Mathematics. :nerd:

*1. Meta-Physical : anything not perceivable via the physical senses, but conceivable by the mental faculties --- intangible, abstract

This is why I have tried to force y'all to be more specific. If you say, here's something evolution can't do, what do you mean by that? Are you in the trenches of biology, offering an alternative theory? Evidently not. Are you challenging science's approach to knowledge production? No one will say so. If you're saying that here's something that by definition evolution can't do, then you're playing semantic games and the rest of us can ignore you. — Srap Tasmaner

Specificity is a necessity for philosophical discussions, because each of us comes to the argument with a personal belief system (set of prejudices). That's why a primary rule of dialog is : first, define your terms. And that's why Wayfarer specified that his terminology is not limited to definitions classified under the heading of Materialism*2. He may not have been as specific about which alternative dictionary (or philosophical tradition) he draws his meanings from. But, I'm sure he will give you that information, if you ask him.

Regarding the evolution of Reason, I can't speak for Way. Our worldviews seem to be similar, but his philosophical background is quite different from mine. And he might disagree with some of my unconventional ideas & terminology. For myself though, I will specify that, for all practical purposes, I am a materialist, "living in a material world" (pace Madonna). And for scientific purposes, I assume that the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory is generally correct. Anything that currently exists in the world, is something that Evolution could do, and did. And that includes things/ideas that are not made of massive matter, but of meaningful information.

So, for my personal philosophical purposes, I have developed my own "alternative" theory, which does not exclude Mental phenomena from consideration*4. My private personal theory of evolution includes insights from Quantum & Information sciences, that were not known to Darwin. And it specifically attempts to explain how the immaterial class of Mind could evolve over eons of time from the initial conditions & laws & causes in place at the beginning of space-time. This alternative theory is intended to help explain how Evolution did somehow produce immaterial Minds, only after 14 billion years of physical/material interactions , not accidentally, but guided by the inherent Laws of Nature. :smile:

PS___Regarding "semantic games", when posters on a philosophy forum do not share, or attempt to understand, the worldviews (belief system & its assumptions) of their fellows, a dialog soon devolves into a "semantic game". So, lets make an effort to see the topic from someone else's perspective.


*2. Wayfarer from OP :
In order to clearly frame the argument from reason, it is necessary to understand what it is opposed to. This is usually said to be ‘naturalism’, but I will instead propose that its target is better named physicalism or materialism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14418/the-argument-from-reason/p1
Note --- He didn't say he was opposed to the Nature or the scientific method, only to certain belief systems that claim the absolute authority of Scientism.

*3. The Mind-Evolution Problem :
The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full

*4. Evolution of Mind :
But then the conscious mind constitutes a special dilemma, since this modern picture was produced precisely by excluding all mental properties from physical nature.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. — Gnomon
Did you read the OP? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. But perhaps I read it with different preconceptions.

I understood him to be questioning the metaphysical assumptions of doctrinal Materialism, not the empirical methods of practical Science. As pragmatist/naturalist John Dewey noted, modern Materialism pretends to be Monistic, but as an explanation for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate, logically it must assume Dualistic origins : similar to Aristotle's theory of Hylomorphism. :smile:

PS__The "foundational assumption" he was "challenging" is that of philosophical Materialism, not of pragmatic Science. So, his "alternative theory" was philosophical, not scientific.


THE METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF MATERIALISM :
In his first published article, "The Meta-physical Assumptions of Materialism" (written in 1881), Dewey found the doctrine "which declares that matter and its forces adequately account for all phenomena -- those of the material world, commonly so called, and those of life, mind, and society" -- to be lacking both in clarity and logical consistency. Of the several destructive conclusions which he discovered to be implicit in monistic materialism one was to be of particular importance for his later naturalism: if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Dewey.pdf

John Dewey :
John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment.
https://iep.utm.edu/john-dewey/

Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism

↪Gnomon
I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

Of course! I posted the quote only because Wayfarer's "revelations" were being implicitly compared to divine revelations, in the service of religion instead of science. I just wanted to remind forum posters that informed imagination is not a no-no on a philosophy forum.

Both philosophical and scientific theories are imaginary conjectures (speculations), not empirical observations. As Einstein noted, imagination points the way to future knowledge. And, as the OP implied : our current knowledge of the human Mind --- as contrasted with the Brain --- is quite sketchy, and based mostly on guessing. Moreover, the provenance and role of Reason (rational imagination) is suspect in some quarters, perhaps due to its being subject to the whims of Emotion. So, I think Way was being accused of being driven by passionate Emotion, instead of dispassionate Reason. I beg to differ. :smile:

David Hume on Reason :
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/hume.influencing.pdf

↪Joshs
I don't really understand him. On one hand, he says particles can't form consciousness because they have 0 consciousness, but on the other hand, he thinks that particles with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can.
I also don't understand his view on emergence. He says holomorphic emergence implies irreducibility, but it seems to me consciousness is reducible to matter + form at the end of the day. — Eugen

If you are interested in an amateur philosophical perspective, my thesis postulates a way to resolve your incomprehension of 0 + 0 = 1. Hint, one of those 0s is infinite. It also explains evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, by reference to the hylomorphic concept : hint Form is holistic. :smile:

If Jaworsky claims that it is logical to believe that a particle with 0 consciousness can form consciousness, how can he believe that a particle with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can create consciousness? — Eugen

I'm not familiar with Jaworsky, but on this forum, we have discussed how the ancient notion of hylomorphism might help to explain some perennial problems in science & philosophy (e.g. consciousness & emergence)*1. Unfortunately, Aristotle's compound of two ontological principles -- matter & form -- also brings together physics & metaphysics. And that's blasphemous to believers in the comprehensive powers of mechanical Materialism --- like the explosive clash of matter & antimatter.

The tangible substance (hyle) is not very controversial, because it's what we all know via the 5 senses. But the metaphysical part is essentially the same as Plato's concept of transcendent Form (idea or design or logical structure), and is only knowable via the sixth sense of Reason (inference). Apparently, not all humans are capable of grasping such imaginary abstractions; hence the incredulity toward anything immaterial. Even though Aristotle seemed to be uncomfortable with the notion of ideal transcendence, his distinction of Form from Matter, implied that the logical structure that the human recognizes (to cognize/conceive = to know) is invisible to the naked eye (to perceive = to see). Reason is like X-ray vision : it reveals the hidden structure within.

In the 20th century, Claude Shannon borrowed an old English term -- Information -- a traditionally transcendent concept (soul insight) referring to abstract knowledge : the act of generating internal representations of external concrete reality in the metaphysical Mind (e.g learning). Ironically, for his engineering purposes, the specific meaning (semantics) of such knowledge was not as important as the general ability to contain & convey (syntax) ideas from one mind to another. Yet, for my own philosophical purposes, I have adopted a definition of "Information" that harks back to Aristotle's distinction between malleable Matter (hyle) and causal Energy (act of changing form ; in-form-action).

Surprisingly, in the 21st century, scientists have re-discovered the identity of physical Energy and mental Information*2. Some people seem to think that Energy is a material substance that flows like water. But physicists are aware that Energy is an imaginary invisible intangible Cause to which we attribute observed changes in material objects. Just as invisible intangible Energy (action) can be transformed into Mass (matter), Mental Information can be transformed into Causal Energy, and vice-versa. Does any of that new science remind you of Aristotle's transformation of transcendent Form into immanent Matter? :smile:


*1. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual. The word is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words ὕλη (hyle: "wood, matter") and μορφή (morphē: "form"). Hylomorphic theories of physical entities have been undergoing a revival in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

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

Yes, yes, we all know there is another framework. What you need to argue for is exclusivity. . . .
As I understand it, you are not proposing an alternative scientific theory, and imagine your quest as challenging a foundational assumption of science. . . .
Your choice then is (1) present your view as a genuine scientific hypothesis; (2) challenge the methodology of science. Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. . . . .
There is one last alternative, which is not to challenge science but to live alongside it, — Srap Tasmaner

Personally, I don't read 's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Like me, he seems to be content with the pragmatic scientific "revelations" of the material world. But, at the same time, he is keenly aware that the human mind is still a black box*1 for those who seek a material explanation for Mental phenomena, such as Reasoning. That's why he is not proposing "an alternative scientific theory", or "challenging a foundational assumption", but instead, exploring some ancient & modern philosophical theories --- perhaps parallel to the materialistic presumptions, rather than diametrically opposed. Black vs White oppositions are typical of politics, but when philosophy gets into politics, what you get is Sophistry.

Your insistence on a "genuine scientific hypothesis" may reveal an implicit attitude of exclusivity : "Philosophy has nothing important to say about the 'hard problem', so only a scientific hypothesis can be taken seriously". It's true that philosophical theorizing is unlikely to reveal the physical "seat of consciousness". Yet a quick overview of current scientific hypotheses reveals that the imaginary "seat" seems to be all over the place, mostly in the head*2. Each team points to a different "grid" or region of the brain. But, are these localized conjectures any more authoritative than the generalized speculations of philosophers? For example, Chalmers is asking general "why" queries (relationships), instead of specific "what" questions (neurons)*3. FYI : David Chalmers is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University,

This is a philosophy forum. So why would you require an amateur philosopher to provide a "genuine scientific hypothesis", when the professional scientists, after years of research, are still arguing among themselves? Why should we force Philosophy to "challenge" Science, when they are so successful in working side-by-side*4? For example, Einstein was not an empirical scientist, but a mathematical seeker after a priori or necessary truths of nature. He postulated hypotheses based primarily on imagination*5, and then waited for the empiricists to provide the hard evidence to support what he already knew to be true : teamwork. Perhaps Wayfarer is already opting for your "last alternative". :smile:

PS___I interpret Wayfarer's "revelations" to be those of Imagination, rather than of divine Inspiration. He has already explained that he is not a theist, as you seem to imply.


*1. What does the mind is a black box mean? :
To behaviorists, the mind is a “black box.” In science and engineering, the term black box refers to any complex device for which we know the inputs and outputs, but not the inner workings.
https://www.td.org/insights/why-the-brain-is-still-a-black-box-and-what-to-do-about-it

*2. Seat of Consciousness :

"The brainstem is the seat of human consciousness"
https://medium.com/@philipodegard/the-seat-of-human-consciousness-6dbce3bfa6de

" At least two regions of the brain decide what we perceive"
https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-consciousness-brain-regions-1362/

"It found that consciousness may emerge from a grid-like interconnection of neurons at the back of the head. . . . The reigning theory is just a first win. The opposing team—which thinks consciousness stems from the executive frontal parts of the brain—is ready to fight back with a new test design."
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/27/where-does-consciousness-originate-two-leading-theories-go-head-to-head/

*3. Physics vs Experience :
The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia).
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

*4. Empirical vs Theoretical Science :
Science is about empirical knowledge; philosophy is often about that but is also about a priori knowledge (if it exists). Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

*5. PHILOSOPHY IS APPLIED IMAGINATION
To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own. Unlike perceiving and believing, imagining something does not require one to consider that something to be the case. Unlike desiring or anticipating, imagining something does not require one to wish or expect that something to be the case.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/

The model I'm trying to flesh out posits mind or consciousness as being a latent attribute or dimension of reality, which manifests when and wherever the appropriate physical conditions exist (apparently a rare occurrence) through the processes we know as evolutionary biology. This implies that the mind is not the outcome of that process, but at the source of it - but not as a creator Deity, more like Schopenhauer's Will. It is also not to say that ‘everything is conscious’ in the pantheistic sense, or that sub-atomic particles have some primitive form of experience. I see that as an attempt to rescue materialism by the injection of mind-stuff. — Wayfarer

Sounds very similar to my own personal project. Which I began a few years ago, after a quantum physicist remarked on what he saw on the quantum level of reality : "it's all information". That observation seemed to confirm John A. Wheeler's 1989 "It from Bit" conjecture. His Participatory Anthropic Universe sounds a lot like Panpsychism, plus the notion that human consciousness was somehow intended from the beginning of evolution. But being a scientist, he wouldn't be expected to make a religious doctrine of what he saw as a mere fact of Nature.

I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation (Idea)", and it looks to be generally compatible with my Enformationism worldview --- which I am also still "trying to flesh out". With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences -- Quantum & Information -- instead of from ancient philosophical & religious conjectures. However, I did find Plato's functional notion of First Cause to be a plausible way to express the un-knowable Source of the "Will" that is being expressed in gradual physical evolution. Early in the development of my thesis, I wrote an essay*1 to summarize my understanding of how intentional evolution might work, while avoiding the doctrinal prejudices of Intelligent Design. My primitive understanding has evolved since then, mainly due to feedback from this forum. Since I have no direct revelation from the First Cause, I can only guess at He/r characteristics & intentions, if any.

My personal worldview has a lot in common with ancient theories of Pantheism, but I would prefer to call it PanEnDeism*2, to avoid any dogmatic theistic implications. Also, I take issue with descriptions of primitive entities as "experiential". To me, that term seems to imply that sub-atomic particles consciously interact with their environment. Instead, I think of causal EnFormAction --- similar to Shop's "Will", but more like a goal-directed computer program --- as a primitive form of intentional Causation/Energy that took 14 billion years to evolve into Living & Thinking creatures, and most recently into Self-Conscious beings. This is not a Genesis account, but merely an educated guess. Why the wheelspinning of eons before the advent of philosophical cosmologists? I suppose it has something to do with FreeWill within an otherwise deterministic system of willful causation : matter + energy + laws.

I describe my thesis as a scientific/philosophical update of ancient Atomism/Materialism and Monism/Spiritualism, with new insights from Quantum & Information theories. Unfortunately, 180 scorns it as merely a sci-fi rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism. :smile:

Note --- My guess is that Self-Consciousness "manifests" when the Cosmic Program of Evolution reaches the minimum necessary complexity for feedback loops of information.
"Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop. The system can then be said to feed back into itself." ___Wikipedia


*1. Intelligent Evolution :
If the physical universe is not eternal, then the various speculative “multi-verse” and “many worlds” theories cannot explain the brute fact of our temporal existence. Instead, we must devise a theory
that accounts for the finite beginning and formless end envisioned by the cosmological experts.
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

*2. PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is a non-religious ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as preter-natural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

(And as to whether 'abstractions are causal', that is another question altogether. But the formative role of mathematical physics in science at least points in that direction.) — Wayfarer

As usual, we are treading in swampy terrain here, with pockets of philosophical quicksand all around. So, this post is likely to get your feet wet & squishy. will enjoy ROFLing and eye-rolling in bemused incredulity ; keeping his feet dry, by studiously avoiding the sodden speculations of theoretical Philosophy, in favor of the "hard" facts of empirical Science. Please pardon my excursion beyond the solid ground of objective Matter into the mucky bog of subjective Mind*1, on the leaky platform of a philosophy forum. :cool:

The vocabulary of dogmatic Materialism seems to exclude that which is behind the eyeballs*7 (ideal, abstract, private, subjective Representations/Meanings), and defines as "real" only that which lies on the objective (public) side of the lens, and labels the majority vote as Reality. Yet Kant --- echoing Plato --- noted that the observer actually knows only the internal ideal representation --- along with any personal biases --- not the external reality, or the ultimate ding an sich. But Materialists are not Kantians. So they naively believe that their abstract subjective image is the concrete objective thing; real enough for practical purposes.

On the other hand, some idealist Mathematicians (e.g. Tegmark) tend to think of their immaterial mental abstractions as somehow more real than the material embodiment of an essential logical structure of interrelationships. Tegmark's Mathworld is theoretical, while Dennett's Naturalistic world is empirical. Are you an Either/Or thinker? Do you define "Truth" as solely Real or only Ideal? For little ole me it's both : look to objective Reality for pragmatic (concrete) purposes, and to subjective Ideality for theoretical (abstract) reasons*4. Taken together, we may be able to get Closer To Truth.

Whereas Chemistry is mostly concerned with Matter (real malleable stuff), Physics is mainly focused on Energy (spooky invisible action)*3 . Hence, 21st century physicists no longer assume that reality is composed of hard material atoms. Instead, they imagine that the world is fundamentally an invisible Field of mathematical relationships (space-time nodes and meaningful links between them). In what sense is an abstract mathematical quantum field of Potential Energy Real*5? Quantum scientists find evidence that an invisible intangible nonlocal "cloud" of statistical possibilities can have tangible local actual effects*6. Is that real enough for your practical or theoretical purposes? :smile:


*1. Rejections of Idealism, often accuse Idealists of denying objective Reality, then metaphysically affirm the opposite. But that is an example of simplistic black vs white thinking, which defeats the purpose of Philosophy : to question assumptions, while avoiding dogmatism. I can't speak for Wayfarer, but the definitions in footnote *2 do not define my more complex integrated worldview, which is intended to combine the Objective (concrete) view of empirical science with the Subjective (abstract)*5 perspective of mind-probing philosophy, into a single holistic worldview. If you must label such a view, try inclusive portmanteau words like Re-dealism or I-realism, but please avoid the exclusive facile oppositions of Realism versus Idealism. :chin:


2. Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism :
a. something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
b. although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

*3. Is energy real or a concept? :
What is energy? Energy is one of the most basic concepts in physics, but also one of the hardest to define.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- Is "ability" a real thing? Is "work" a physical object? Is "causation" an observation or an inference?

*4. What is reality? :
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
___Philip K. Dick
"Ideality is that which, when you stop reasoning, goes away."
___Gnomon

*5. What is the philosophy of abstract thought?
Abstract thinking is the ability to understand concepts that are real, such as freedom or vulnerability, but which are not directly tied to concrete physical objects and experiences. Abstract thinking is the ability to absorb information from our senses and make connections to the wider world.
https://www.healthline.com/health/abstract-thinking

*6. Does quantum physics disprove causality?
No, quantum physics does not disprove causality. On the contrary, our best working quantum theory to date, quantum field theory, quite properly respects causality both on the macroscopic and on the microscopic level.
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-physics-disprove-causality


*7 PHYSICAL OPTICS plus METAPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION (meaning)
See the little raindrop, full of images, in the head? Is it the pineal gland or the soul? How do you know?

There are cases where fear and pre-mourning may not happen, don't you think? — Ludwig V

Yes, but those rare cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule. In my personal case, I take a Stoic attitude toward the cessation of Self : "don't worry about things that you can't control". But then, I suppose some people act as-if they believe they can ward-off death with prayers, or with accumulated positive Karma. :smile:


What did Marcus Aurelius say about death?
“The longest-lived and those who will die soonest lose the same thing. The present is all that they can give up, since that is all you have, and what you do not have, you cannot lose.”

Of course you will assume that information is physical ... — Wayfarer
For the *Quantum Woo Crew* ...

The Closer to Truth video asks "Is Information Fundamental?". And Seth Lloyd thinks it is. But, here's what The Information Philosopher says about that question :
"Seth Lloyd is quite correct that information ("bits") is physical ("its"). However, unlike things, which are concrete and material. Information is abstract and immaterial." *1 So, Information is "physical" in the same sense that Energy is physical & real : both are intangible causes that are detectable only in their effects*2. Abstractions are imaginary representations in minds.

Philosophically, you could say that the Atom of Energy is a Bit of Information. Otherwise, Energy has no measurable/quantifiable properties in itself, but only in its effects on Matter : Change, Causation. Therefore, Energy/Information is indeed "physical" and "real" in that it has effects on Material objects, even though it is not a material object/thing itself*4.

Energy is the Potential for change in Matter (e.g. motion). Information is the Potential for change in Minds (e.g. knowledge). Both are essential to knowable Reality, even though neither is a Material object. Instead, Matter is a tangible form of intangible Energy/Information : E=MC^2. Energy/Information is devoid of properties such as Mass & Velocity, but it is instead the Cause of such measurable properties*5. Energy is a Qualia (causation), but its effect/consequence is a Quanta (measurable difference).

180 seems to think that Energy/Information is "woo" simply because it it invisible & intangible, like a ghost. But most physicists believe that Energy is real, even though they have never seen a real particle of Potential (the ding an sich). Like a poltergeist, Energy/Information is knowable only when it causes a book to spontaneously fall off a shelf. To which we physicalists respond : "it was just Gravity", but what then, is gravity made of : graves, weights, heaviness?. :smile:


*1. Seth Lloyd : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/lloyd/

*2. Is energy real?From a physics perspective, is there actually energy? If it's not a thing, what is it, and how do we know it really exists?

It’s a very good question. Speaking as a physics teacher, too few students ask it, too few instructors answer it, and too few textbooks define the word “energy” (although all textbooks use this word a lot). Everybody just assumes we all know what “energy” means, but we don’t know. Furthermore, energy is the most fundamental physical concept of all, because the universe is made of quantized fields that are themselves made of energy. So everybody needs to know what “energy” means.

The problem appears to stem from the great physicist Richard Feynman, who seems to have thought energy was undefinable. He was wrong, but his thinking was very influential because he was, after all, Feynman.

Energy is a very specific entity. It is not a “thing.” It is, instead, a property of things. Let’s start with some definitions: A collection of physical objects is called a “physical system” or simply a “system”. When we say a system “has energy,” we mean that it has the capacity to do work. So, what does it mean to ”do work?” When you do work, you exert forces in order to alter the positions or velocities of objects. That is, work is the ability to change things by exerting forces to move objects around. Of course, all this can be defined and measured quantitively (which I won’t do here). The units are joules, or calories, or BTUs, or electron-volts. Thus, when we say that a ball flying through the air has “10 joules of energy,” we mean its speed gives it the ability to do 10 joules of work on some other system. This type of energy (energy due to motion) is called “kinetic energy.”

The bottom line: Yes, energy is quite real. It is the ability*3 to do work.
https://www.quora.com/Does-mental-energy-actually-exist-as-a-real-type-of-energy-or-is-it-just-another-meaning-for-brain-chemicals

*3. Ability : the physical or mental power or skill needed to do something.
Synonym : Potential : not yet real.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. ___Wiki

*4. Why information is energy?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note --- A "relationship" is a mathematical Ratio or Proportion between related things or ideas.

*5. Physicalism typically involves a methodological commitment to the view that, whatever the final, accurate description of reality looks like, it will be set out in terms of physical entities:things with properties like mass and velocity.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not-revealed-by-quantum-mechanics-auid-2512
Note --- That "commitment" is a metaphysical belief based on a priori assumptions.

↪Gnomon
I'd really appreciate it if you deleted that inane graphic. — Wayfarer

Does it remind you of someone you know? :smile:

As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting! Do you have a link to that experiment? How many monkeys involved (n=?)? Does it assume that the monkeys bang away randomly, or have they been taught to type purposefully --- as they do when pounding nuts with rocks? Compared to feckless philosophy, unfettered Science gets results. Oh, did the experiment begin 300,000 years ago, or did they use a Black Hole to accelerate time? :joke:

FWIW, here's what Wiki has to say on the Infinite Monkey Theorem : a thought experiment. :smile:

Infinite monkey theorem :
The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given unlimited time. . . . .
Even if every proton in the observable universe (which is estimated at roughly 1080) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys.[g] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys,[4] "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event ...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


A RATIONAL INTENTIONAL MONKEY times infinity

I would argue that a non-linguistic animal lives in the interface of past, present and future just as humans do. Watch a squirrel be interrupted in its pursuit of an acorn by a stray sound, and then return to its goal. — Joshs


Yes, they have memories, I said that. but the interface of past and future is the present. I'm not clear what you are saying different? I think I have made the time difference fairly clear. A cat sits by the mouse hole waiting for a mouse; there is anticipation but it is now. there is memory, but it is now. Now there is the acorn, now there is a sound, now there is the acorn. Never do you get the story of the pursuit of the acorn, an interruption and the return to the acorn - that is the human narrative, and resides nowhere in the squirrel. — unenlightened

I suppose the title of this thread is referring to the brief existence of the self-conscious Self : non-being . . . being . . . non-being. Which is a core theme of Religion and Philosophy, but not of Materialistic Philosophy, which knows only non-self : selfless matter. The squirrel is an earnest scientist in pursuit of substantial sustenance, not of essential story. Live for today, because tomorrow does not exist. By contrast, the Myth-makers and Wisdom-seekers find permanent Past and fabricated Future more interesting/important than the fleeting Present : "it is what it is, deal with it!"

As far as we know, humans are the only animals who construct a narrative as they do what the physical body mandates. That self-narrative, as recorded in memory, and in story & song, is the Self. Perhaps the selfish Self motivates the Body to take serial "selfies", to serve as an objective record of the Self-story. We know about the brevity of Self, only because so many of us have left behind objective narratives of a story interrupted. Most of us don't mourn the ending of a squirrel's self, perhaps because we don't know its story. But we do mourn the ellipsis of a loved-one, including a non-human pet, because we are emotionally invested in their story.

Ironically, emotional investment (cathexis) in one's own story may cause us to fear (pre-mourn) the end of the narrative & narrator. That painful bummer in the middle of the story has been evaded by ancient sages in various ways : acceptance, denial, sequel in heaven, etc. But some would have us imitate the innocence of animals by living in the moment, and ceasing to explain & judge ourselves as protagonists in the Self-story. But for humans, that would mean losing the most important thing in the world, Me. :smile:

What I meant is causation stops at some point. After that the question becomes metaphysical such as first cause etc. — simplyG

Yes. In spoken or written language, Ellipsis is the intentional omission of information. But the intention is indicated by a series of dots, or perhaps a smile/smirk after the last word in an incompleted thought : as a clue, meaning "you fill-in the blanks".

In Cosmology, the history of the Self-Organization of the physical universe suddenly stopped at a point in time, where time itself vanished into eternity, defined mathematically as a Singularity. Hence, some cosmologists apparently inferred an ellipsis in the history of our world --- even though there were no physical dots to indicate an intentional omission of information about the provenance of Reality. Not even a "once upon a time". So, they imagined a Metaphysical or Metaphorical gap-filler to allow the story to continue indefinitely into the past.

The inquiring mind seems to know somehow, that logically there should be more to the story. So, Materialists fill-in the pre-history blank with an infinite regression of Multiverses, while Spiritualists infer the logical necessity for an intentional Original Organizer. Which raises the question of what were the "contextual clues" pointing beyond the empirical beginning toward a hypothetical Cause of the known events?

Perhaps, our experience with physical Impetus & Momentum has primed us to look beyond the initial Action for an Actor, responsible for the subsequent patterns of Self-Organization. How else could Time/Change/Evolution just -- suddenly & without warning -- start Ticking/Changing/Organizing for no apparent reason? :smile:


Ellipsis : the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.

I don't know if any panpsychists believe anything like the scenario you have difficulty imagining, but it doesn't seem these three do. — Patterner

I had assumed that's the case, but wanted to get a second opinion. So my problem is not with the general concept, but with the specific terminology, such as "mind" and "experiential entity". In common usage, both of those words typically refer to human-scale consciousness & feelings & meanings. Yet, would an electron "mind" being ionized (separated from its atom)? Most of the criticisms of Panpsychism I've seen, focus on the plausibility of "tiny minds".

So, although my philosophical thesis has some parallels with Panpsychism, I use various forms of the term "Form" (Information : EnFormAction) to describe the doing & knowing aspects of reality. I suppose you could say it's a 21st century secular update of ancient religious Panpsychism.

I asked the question about "experiential entities" because that's the only part of Peter Ells' argument for Universal Mind, that sounded implausible to a modern mind. :smile:


Mind :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
2. be distressed, annoyed, or worried by.

Psyche :
the human soul, mind, or spirit.

Form :
the logical structure of something as distinguished from its material.

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. — Gnomon
I think that's mostly a problem for you and may explain things. Also 'unwillingness' is not a good word, it implies an ought - I 'ought' to be able to, right? I would say 'inability' would be more appropriate. I hold tentative positions on some matters, and was just writing elsewhere above - — Tom Storm

Yes. Our different attitudes towards opinions "may explain things". You seem motivated to avoid dogmatic positions, while I'm interested in discovering moderate "provisional positions". And yet, you do occasionally express a brief succinct opinion on some specific topics. Maybe you only avoid a priori topics that cannot be definitively proven true or false.

Perhaps you think broad general questions --- "some matters", such as Random vs Rational Reality --- are more likely to be answered imperiously, and perhaps based on debatable religious or political postures, instead of hard scientific facts. I'm keenly aware of that danger, but I'm willing to take a chance on exchanging opinions on such fraught topics, on the outside chance that I might learn something philosophically important. Such as "why some opinion exchanges are more polarized than others". :smile:

PS___Regarding the "ought" (moral obligations) aspects of expressed opinions, some might hold that scientific views (beliefs, opinions) ought to be expressed in terms of Factual Particulars, while philosophical perspectives ought to be expressed in Generalities & Possibilities --- or not expressed at all. I've noticed that some posters on this philosophy forum seem to deliberately avoid voicing general or speculative opinions (philosophy ; rationalism), and to restrict their views to particular & empirical facts (science ; naturalism)*1 *2. And they can be rather dogmatic about defending what they see as a wall of separation between Fact (science) & Fiction (philosophy). In that case, perhaps they ought not to be posting on a wishy-washy philosophy forum at all. :cool:


*1. :
Science only deals with subjects insofar as they are material, or physical, if you like. It is only those kinds of inquiries that can be rigorously tested. Other kinds of ideas (like the synthetic generalizations I mentioned earlier) are what we (collectively) cannot imagine being otherwise. Then there things which are true as a matter of logic.
What category do you think the idea your OP consists in is based on?
:
Philosophy, I would hope. I think the lineage of the argument can plausibly be traced back to the Phaedo.

*2 Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science :
We’ll start with what has historically been the most dominant view of the nature of philosophy:[1] let’s call this view ‘rationalism.’[2] After looking at this traditional perspective, we’ll review a more recent view of what philosophy is or should be: ‘naturalism.’
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. Is it the "emotional connotations" that cause you to take a position of Profound Skepticism? If the world is all a "blooming buzzing confusion"*1, why bother to post on a philosophy forum? Doesn't a forum like this presuppose that we can eventually make sense of the complex patterns of Nature, and the even more confusing patterns of Culture? Do you think that Nature is "leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer". :smile:

PS___Admittedly, sometimes forum threads, veering recklessly off-topic, seem to add to the original confusion that provokes the question. :joke:


In his book, The Principles of Psychology, William James defines the concept of 'blooming and buzzing confusion' to describe a baby's experience of the world as pure sensation that comes before any rationality. This experience becomes a reference to further interpretation of the coming sensations in life.
https://www.hamedkhosravi.com/A-Buzzing-Confusion-1

"Information" is very tough term because it is defined loads of different ways. I suppose here I should have used "Kolmogorov Complexity," in every instance here. This is a measure of how many bits it takes to describe something (really how many bits a computer program would need to be to produce an output of a full description).

So, that said, I would think that the "heat death," scenario, where the universe is in thermodynamic equilibrium, would have the greatest complexity/take the most bits to describe as a description of its macroproperties excludes a maximal number of possible microstates that must be excluded by specifying information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry, "Kolmogorov Complexity"*1 is way over my little pointy head. And, while your comments in the quote may have something to do with the hypothesis that the universe is a computer program, it doesn't address my request*2 for a link to the Second Law assertion.

The Santa Fe Institute studies physical Complexity from an information theoretic perspective. And they can get into some pretty abstruse word-salads. But my interest is much simpler, and primarily regarding the relationship between Meaningful Information and Causal Energy : i.e. Information defined in terms of Energy. Hence, I'd like to know more about the implications of the Second Law on the Conservation of Information.

So, I'll ask again : "Can you provide a link to a site or publication where that "claim" is made? It might clarify any presumptions behind such an assertion". I'm really interested in the basis of that claim. Not at all interested in "Kolmogorov Complexity". :smile:


*1. Kolmogorov complexity :
The notion of Kolmogorov complexity can be used to state and prove impossibility results akin to Cantor's diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and Turing's halting problem. In particular, no program P computing a lower bound for each text's Kolmogorov complexity can return a value essentially larger than P's own length (see section § Chaitin's incompleteness theorem); hence no single program can compute the exact Kolmogorov complexity for infinitely many texts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
Note --- "prove impossibility results"???? Not even in the ballpark of my layman dilettante vocabulary.

*2. I don't know what the reference to "impossible complexity" has to do with this claim :
"There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed". I was hoping you could point me to the source of that claim, so I could understand its implications : e.g. Metaphysical Information is as fundamental/essential to reality as Physical Energy.

↪wonderer1
Do animals have intentionality? They seem to from my perspective. What does this add to the discussion? — Tom Storm

What did you mean (intend) by that question? :joke:

Courts of Law often spend thousands of attorney hours in trying to prove or deny Intention --- after the fact. But during an action, the intent is fairly obvious to the human mind. We seem to have a talent for interpreting intentions, such as stalking behavior. For example, if we see a cheetah approaching an antelope, crouching slowly, hairs raised, ears forward & eyes fixed, it could be just playing, or it could be intent on murder. Likewise, Nature --- as a whole system --- seems to display intentional patterns of behavior, that can be rationalized into a purposive, meaningful, goal oriented, worldview. But proving it, after the fact, is arduous.

What does that ability to interpret behavior add to a discussion about Rationality? For humans the innate ability to recognize patterns can be enhanced by the addition of Rational analysis of the situation, as in the courtroom example. Reason allows humans to make fine distinctions that may not be apparent to an animal. If you point a gun at an antelope, it may not interpret your intentions as murderous. Artificial/cultural elements of the modern world require reason to enhance instinct. That may be why some exhausted thinkers idealize a return to a "state of nature" where arduous & fallible reasoning & argumentation is not required for survival.

The intention of the OP, seems to argue that rational humans are not mere instinctive animals. Hence more than just aggregations of atoms & tangles of neurons. It's that little extra immaterial essence --- je nais se quoi --- that distinguishes human nature from animal nature. :smile:

WHAT ARE THE ANIMAL'S INTENTIONS?

No, I was talking about how things seem to us as opposed to how they might really be. When we talk about order, it is based on our models of what order appears to be to us. — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are being evasive. Barring divine revelation, how else would we know anything about the world, except as they "seem to us" : via our senses & inferences? And how they seem is what our mental models tell us. Is your seemly model/map of the world orderly enough for us to understand it and discuss it, or disorderly enough to keep us forever in the dark about ultimate philosophical questions? As the OP inquired : do we humans possess " the ability to either genuinely apprehend truth, or to be rationally justified in making truth claims". It's not a trick question : do you find the world orderly enough for you to find your way around the local terrain, and to draw inferences about its wider patterns of Geology*1? :smile:

*1. Geology : "the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it".

My point is simple. How would we know? We seem to have discovered some regularities in our little patch. We can claim no such knowledge about the whole universe. I'm not even certain physics works the same across the universe - what's to say it isn't largely a function/invention of human cognition? — Tom Storm

Are you claiming complete ignorance about the world, or just "profound skepticism"? Is mathematics simply a child's game of counting fish? Or a science that allows us to guess about what happens next, and what happened before. Kant was skeptical about our ability to know what's what, but despite that handicap, he wrote thousands of words to instruct us about the positive & negative aspects of Epistemology.

On this forum, few of us claim to speak from absolute authority. We just share personal opinions/models, and that's how we expand & refine our "little patch" of reliable knowledge. By comparing our worldviews, we may learn what ideas are imaginary "inventions", and which are realistic enough to be reliable "knowledge". :nerd:

Epistemological rationalism :
Humans will always find things arranged in certain patterns because it is they who have unwittingly so arranged them. Kant held, however, that these certainties were bought at a heavy price. Just because a priori insights are a reflection of the mind, they cannot be trusted as a reflection of the world outside the mind. Whether the rational order in which sensation is arranged—the order, for example, of time, space, and causality—represents an order holding among things-in-themselves (German Dinge-an-sich) cannot be known. Kant’s rationalism was thus the counterpart of a profound skepticism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/rationalism/Epistemological-rationalism-in-modern-philosophies#ref561225

I am dissappointed, but never surprised, to observe the routine deprecation of the faculty of reason. I think the classical notion of reason is rather non-PC, for various reasons, chief among them that it distinguishes humans from other species. — Wayfarer

I suppose, in order to avoid the historical slavery of political/religious Spiritualism (soul more important/essential than body, and ideals worth dying for), Materialism has gone to the opposite extreme : a mundane real body without a spooky ideal mind ; hence, free-range animals with guns & computers instead of teeth & claws.

However, my interest in philosophy/science is that it allows us to do what animals can't : to know thyself. A bit of introspection can make us both proud of human culture, and ashamed of its imperfections. We may be almost indistinguishable from animals in our biology, but human psychology allows us to use tools for leverage to move the world.

Yet, when ungoverned by Reason, those tools can turn us into blood-thirsty savages. "Guns don't kill people; People with guns, knives, tanks, missiles kill people". Often for irrational reasons : e.g. Putin's political dreams of a glorious ideal empire justify Ukrainocide. Aren't humans distinguished!

Does Materialism/Physicalism inherently turn us into secular humanists & pacifists? Is there a philosophical middle ground, where physical bodies & metaphysical minds can coexist? :worry:

Again, take a look at the chapter headings and abstracts (all available online) of Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. He has a compelling answer to at least part of this question. — Wayfarer

I just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. It seems to address some of the common sticking points on this forum. I'm guessing that he leans toward a Platonic worldview, but I'll try to remain open-minded. :smile:

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. In judgments of randomness, there is always a degree of doubt. Statistical analysis is inherently limited to probabilities instead of certainties*1. But I was talking about Philosophy, not Mathematics. For philosophical purposes, we routinely make judgements about Necessity vs Chance. I don't know about animals, but human nature seems to have an innate sense of Order vs Disorder. And, of course, there may be emotional reactions in those faced with Orderly/Predictable vs Disorderly/Unpredictable situations.

But this is a calm reasonable intellectual philosophy forum --- no heretics in dungeons --- so what I'm talking about is the Logical Connotations of an Ontological question : " Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program, or a random sequence of accidents". If the universe is a series of accidents, going nowhere, then the project of Science is impossible*2. But, if there is at least some perceptible order within background randomness, the project of Philosophy --- to make sense of the world --- is reasonable*3. For now, you can ignore the "self-learning" interpretation of some observers. We can get into that later.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? Are you able --- can you convince yourself --- to make such a philosophical generalization? Caution, your answer may have emotional implications. I'm not asking you to go on record though ; it's just you and me here. Are you afraid to make such a summary judgment of the historical patterns of evolutionary development over 14 billion years? :smile:


*1. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article by the physicist Eugene Wigner. In the paper, Wigner observes that a physical theory's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions. ___Wikipedia

*2. Nature of Science :
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems. Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation.
https://www.shapeoflife.org/nature-science-scientific-knowledge-assumes-order-and-consistency-natural-systems

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

The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes. It is, therefore, an argument against materialist philosophy of mind. According to the argument, if such theories were true, our thoughts, and so also our reasoning, would be determined on the molecular level by neurochemistry, leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

On the TPF forum, this a no-win argument. Both Physicalists and Metaphysicalists typically agree on the details of physics, neuro-chemistry, and cosmology all the way back to the rationally-inferred Big Bang, but disagree on the metaphysical question of direction vs randomness.

So, the argument eventually boils down to A> a rational intentional Creation ( temporal Cosmos) vs B> accidental random Causation (timeless Chaos), dating back to the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. Each party, exercising Reason & Inference, can find evidence to support his conclusion, based on that original Axiomatic assumption. But they arrive at different rational conclusions : a world that makes sense to the rational mind vs a world that makes sense for the sensory body*1.

Ontological question : Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program*2, or a random sequence of accidents that over eons has stumbled upon a formula to cause a few constellations of atoms to imagine that they exist, simply because they can think. What do you think? :smile:


*1. Is the World Rational? :
Our preliminary hypothesis asserts that the world has a certain property owing to which it can be successfully investigated by us. We call it the hypothesis of the rationality of the world (or simply the rationality of the world).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-77626-0_5

*2. The Conservation of Information :
I'd be surprised if materialist/physicalist/deterministic scientists would think in terms of "learning" in a law-limited "deterministic" system*1. However computer scientists, and Information theorists, do sometimes use such anthro-morphic terminology metaphorically*2. So, if the "laws of nature" are imagined as a computer program, the universe could conceivably learn, in the same sense that Artificial Intelligence does*3, by means of "non-deterministic algorithms"*4.

But AI is not natural, and currently requires a natural Programmer to establish the parameters of the system. Would a self-organizing, self-learning world also require the services of a preter-natural Programmer to bootstrap the system?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816834

There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed. . . . The claim here is that, even if T1 can be described in fewer bits than T2, you can just evolve T1 into T2, thus a description of T1 actually is a description of T2! This implies the scandal of deduction, that nothing new is learned from deterministic computation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The causal role of information in the world is of interest to me, both scientifically and philosophically. Can you provide a link to a site or publication where that "claim" is made? It might clarify any presumptions behind such an assertion.

I'd be surprised if materialist/physicalist/deterministic scientists would think in terms of "learning" in a law-limited "deterministic" system*1. However computer scientists, and Information theorists, do sometimes use such anthro-morphic terminology metaphorically*2. So, if the "laws of nature" are imagined as a computer program, the universe could conceivably learn, in the same sense that Artificial Intelligence does*3, by means of "non-deterministic algorithms"*4.

But AI is not natural, and currently requires a natural Programmer to establish the parameters of the system. Would a self-organizing, self-learning world also require the services of a preter-natural Programmer to bootstrap the system?

As I mentioned above, this kind of sci-phi (science/philosophy) is over my head. But I'm learning. Does that mean I was not destined to post on such an abstruse question? :smile:


*1. What is physics-informed learning? :
What is physics-informed machine learning? Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence and computer science that focuses on the use of data and algorithms that attempt to imitate the function of the human brain, improving in accuracy over time.
https://www.pnnl.gov/explainer-articles/physics-informed-machine-learning

*2. Physicists working with Microsoft think the universe is a self-learning computer :
https://thenextweb.com/news/physicists-working-with-microsoft-think-the-universe-is-a-self-learning-computer

*3. Causal Determinism :
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

*4. What is a nondeterministic algorithm? :
A nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, given a particular input, can produce different outputs. This is in contrast to a deterministic algorithm, which will always produce the same output for a given input. Nondeterministic algorithms are often used in artificial intelligence (AI) applications.
https://www.aiforanyone.org/glossary/nondeterministic-algorithm

Time is other than change, for a number of reasons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Granted. The word "Time" has many shaded meanings, depending on context. But they all seem to refer to discernible Change of some kind. So I was talking about Time as we know it conventionally & empirically (by sensory experience of differences*1 between one observation and another : i.e. Change/Causation*2).

Obviously, only a fraction of the physical changes in the universe are observed or observable (by humans). And philosophers have examined the Epistemology & Ontology of Time from various perspectives : (1) fatalism; (2) reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; (3) the topology of time; (4) McTaggart’s argument; (5) the A-theory and the B-theory; (6) presentism, eternalism, and the growing block theory; (7) the 3D/4D debate about persistence; (8) the dynamic and the static theory; (9) the moving spotlight theory; (10) time travel; (11) time and physics and (12) time and rationality*3.

However, only the "Block Time" models involve something "other than change". And Block Time is simply a scientific term for traditional philosophical timeless/changeless Eternity. Are you referring to Events --- if that notion even makes sense in a timeless state of being -- in which nothing changes? In a physical Event, any difference/change is observable in the material form. But, what would constitute a metaphysical temporal Event? I suppose that Fatalism could be construed as a metaphysical concept of Time, in that the predetermined world of the gods, could be interpreted scientifically as a type of expanding Block Time*4.

In Block Time and Eternity theories, a traditional conventional term is used metaphorical & negatively, in order to indicate what Eternity (timelessness) is not. Can you give a positive example of Time that does not involve Change? If so, I may have to modify my essay on Time as Energy/Change, to add : "among other things". :smile:


*1. In my information-based thesis, Time is "the difference that makes a difference" (Bateson on Meaning). If time is "other than Change", does it make any Difference/Meaning to a sentient mind?

"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy." https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html

*2. I suppose our sensory inputs at different points-in-time, would only be static snapshots, without rational (metaphysical) inference to link those instantaneous frames into a continuous movie. So, from that perspective, Time is not physical Change, but a mental construct that we interpret as Change.

*3. Time :
Those like Aristotle and Leibniz, who think that time is not independent of the events that occur in time, deny the existence of absolute time,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

*4. What is the growing block theory of time? :
The growing block theory of time holds that the past and present are real, and the future is unreal. The passage of time comprises new things coming into existence: as the present moves forward, and what was once present becomes past, the 'block' of reality grows.
https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/527/4317403?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- The Christian concept of Eternity is not static, but more like a "growing block time", which is a process separated from the laws of Nature in a heavenly realm : outside of Time.

There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed. While thinking this through, it occured to me that formulations of this claim often rely on the "scandal of deduction," the idea that deductive reasoning produces no information. . . . At first glance this seems wrong. Our universe began in a very low entropy state, . . . — Count Timothy von Icarus

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy or higher Math, my comments on the notion that "deductive reasoning produces no information", may not be of high quality. To clearly define the ratio of "reasoning" to Information content, could get into some tricky reasoning beyond my limited abilities. But, since my amateur philosophical retirement hobby is based on Quantum & Information theories, I may be able to make some pertinent comments. I hope they are not off-topic.

First, the quoted phrase above, parallels the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seems to equate Information with Energy. Indeed, some scientists today do make that equation*1. Since the second law implies that the universe began with a limited amount of Energy/Information, some might infer that maximum Entropy at "Heat Death" would mean Zero Energy & Zero Information : hence Zero Universe. But, is it possible that local energy/information users could import energy from the almost empty vastness of space-time*2, in order to optimize their local throughput of energy & information? That may be how some sci-fi alien species are able to become entrepreneurial space-farers, exploring & conquering less efficient (or less-fortunate) species, such as Earthlings.

In that case, with the Quality of Information in mind, instead of just Quantity, the value of Information, would be, not just conserved but compounded, like money in an interest-bearing account, or in risky-but-high-yield investments. Relative to the whole universe, increasing Entropy is equivalent to a negative interest rate, such as monetary inflation. Our Cosmos is a closed banking system, but it began with a stock-pile of low entropy-high energy/information. So, the evolution of increasing intelligence (information quality ) could conceivably offset the energy inflation (entropy) of expansion without new inputs*3.

Therefore, I agree that Deduction shouldn't be scandalous, just because, unlike Induction/Production it doesn't output new information (facts). On the other hand, by testing old information (beliefs), Deduction should produce better quality information. For an evolutionary analogy, animals that developed intelligence, in response to environmental stresses, gradually evolved into new species. Physically, still animals, but metaphysically a new species (homo economicus), that is more efficient in processing information mentally. No longer dependent on teeth & claws, they use imagination & ideas to make their fortune in the world. :smile:

PS___Energy and Information are not the same thing, but different forms of the same thing : Potential.


*1. Information converted to energy :
Toyabe and colleagues have observed this energy-information equivalence . . .
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*2. Vacuum Energy :
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

*3. Weight of Evidence and Information Value :
In data analysis, Logistic Regression models take as input categorical and numerical data, and output the probability of the occurrence of the event.
https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/06/understand-weight-of-evidence-and-information-value/
Note --- Shannon's mathematical definition of Information is based on statistical Probability

The fact that The Agent (that's what I'll call it for you) cannot be known empirical, does not prevent us from knowing it. That's what's described by Aquinas, as knowing the cause by its effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That's why, although I lost faith in the bible stories about a father-like Creator, I couldn't deny the reverse logic --- from effect to cause --- that points back to an ultimate Causal Agent of some kind. Until 1931, most scientists apparently assumed that the universe "just-is", with no need for an origin explanation.

Yet, in the early 20th century, pragmatic Astronomers followed the trail of circumstantial red-shift evidence back to a sudden beginning in a mathematical Singularity --- at which the evidence vanishes. When a hunter-tracker, looking for the nest/lair (origin) of his prey, discovers that the trail of tracks suddenly vanishes, he may look up for signs of an eagle to explain the lack of tracks. Or, he can keep searching in the same direction, to see if he can pick-up the trail again.

The Multiverse theory (eternal physical causation) is of the latter kind. Based on the presumption of physical continuity, it assumes that there must be more of the same tracks out there somewhere. Yet, metaphysical Causal Agency theories tend to look-up for some kind of non-empirical Agent to explain the origin of a contingent Reality. Both approaches begin their philosophical search at the transition from empirical evidence to an abyss of Uncertainty. Then, Physicalists fill-in the blanks with hypothetical (presumably real) physical stuff. And Metaphysicalists project (necessarily Ideal) non-physical non-empirical non-stuff into the unknowable void. Or, at least the Potential for real stuff.

Which method is more likely to discover the true origin of Reality? Depends on whether you prefer Real (empirical) Truth or Ideal (logical) Truth. Either way, the search for ultimate truth is, as you say, complicated by the absence of evidence. :smile:

To understand the passing of time as non-empirical, yet having an empirical effect (change and activity), is a first step toward understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting notion : time (change) without a material substrate to evolve. How would you describe "non-empirical passage of time"? "Eternity" is usually defined as changeless by philosophers. But for religious purposes, Heavenly Eternity has been described as changeable, but never-ending. How would you define "non-empirical" (non-experiential)Time? :cool:

PS___I recently imagined a new way to think of Time in terms of Causal Energy*1. Not exactly "non-empirical" but knowable only by observing its Effects. Could that be a "step" toward "understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects"?

*1. Time is Energy :
Time is merely how we measure the expenditure of Energy in the form of Entropy (negative trends). Since Energy itself is not a sensable phenomenon, we like to think of it, metaphorically, as a river flowing from a mountaintop into the valley. And yet along the way down, we get some value for the expenditure of Time. The cosmic payback is what we call Evolution, in the positive sense of living creatures descending from inert material.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other? — Gnomon
That's the issue, we do not properly know the source of this form of agency. But evidence indicates that we ought to accept it as real. So to portray it as nonexistent just because systems theory doesn't provide the means for modeling it, is a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

A coy response. But not having empirical knowledge of the cosmic Agent hasn't stopped philosophers from describing its necessary properties, based on rational inference alone. Plato identified his abstract agency in terms of Causation, and Aristotle defined his Prime Actor in terms of Motion, both of which are forms of Change. And yet, such non-human pre-existing Agents are usually imagined as inherently uncaused, unmoved, and changeless ; all negative attributes. But nothing in the known (contingent ; space-time) Real World fits those speculative descriptions. So, anything we might say about the Agent/Agency --- including "real" --- is just an uneducated guess. Care to take a shot in the dark? :smile:

PS___I tend to define my conjectured "form of Agency" in terms of Organization (i.e Information), among other positive attributes : e.g. Enformer. However, since I "do not properly know", no personal characteristics or attributes are presumed.


What the First Cause Is :
Rather, the First Cause is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, has libertarian freedom, and is enormously powerful, that is, a transcendent immaterial Creator.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-94403-2_6
Note --- the Kalam argument is based on monotheist presumptions. Which inadvertently makes the First Person responsible for all the good and bad things in the world. Which may be why most monotheists prefer to offload the Evil stuff onto a personal Bad Guy. Ironically, that dualistic gambit seems to deny the mono of Monotheism.

Is the word "experiential" in this usage, a metaphor for conscious human subjective experience? Or does he really believe that atoms are literally aware of their environment? — Gnomon
I haven't read it, but from what you quote it's almost certainly literal. Panpsychists literally think that, in some sense or other, everything is conscious. — bert1

Yes. His version of Panpsychism is Idealist, and assumes that Consciousness is fundamental to reality. My alternative version could be called Pan-Informationism, which understands Causation as fundamental and Consciousness as emergent, so only the potential for complexification was essential. That's why it took 14 billion years for Self-Consciousness to appear on a minor planet on the edge of an ordinary galaxy of a near-infinite cosmos. Anyway, it's that "some sense" that I'm grasping at. :smile:

I presume that minimal "experience"*1 means to sense (to be affected by) incoming energy/information . And ultimately perhaps to make sense (meaning) of that data. — Gnomon
I think that presumption is wrong in the context of panpsychism. I suspect that's not what most panpsychists mean. — bert1

Apparently, there is some variety of interpretations of philosophical Panpsychism, but Ells does seem to mean that his "experiential entities" actually know what's happening. In the book, he asks a question : "But an experiential entity is a tiny mind. Doesn't mind require grounding in matter, or at least in some kind of 'substance' " He then answers his own question : "they are fundamental and thus require no grounding in matter, 'substance' or anything else." If "Mind" here is not metaphorical, but literal, it implies conscious awareness of experiences.

I still have difficulty imagining Atomic (elemental, unanalyzable) Minds exchanging knowledge with other "tiny minds" on a sub-atomic scale : a tiny chat room or Twitter. That sounds like a Reductive definition of an otherwise Holistic concept. However, I could describe the equivalent elemental bit of Causal Information as an "Enformation Vector"*2 by analogy with a mathematical/physical Vector (magnitude + direction). Yet, in a cosmic ontological sense, such a Vector could be described as (being + becoming).

I won't delve into the similarities & differences with my own story of Consciousness here. But FWIW, I'll note that Ells ends the book with : "No one starts out nowadays by being a panpsychist, still less an idealist. . . . My religious beliefs have changed also, and from a secular humanist I have become a Quaker . . . . Nonetheless, I am more than a Deist, as I believe in the efficacy of prayer in aligning ourselves to the will of God . . ." Do you view Panpsychism as more than a personal philosophical worldview, and perhaps as a social religious belief system?

Although Enformationism has some parallels to Panpsychism, I remain ambivalent about a personal God for us to pray to. That position would make one vulnerable to the Problem of Evil, that could be traced back to an original Evil or incompetent Mind. Which is one reason I modified Idealistic Panpsychism into a somewhat more realistic extrapolation of Information Theory. :smile:

PS___I apologize if I seem to be pushing this thread off-track. But understanding the Panpsychism underpinnings of my own worldview is important to me. Maybe a little push-back will help.


*1. Mind : the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought. ___Oxford

*2. CAUSAL ENFORMACTION VECTOR : magnitude = phi, as in Integrated Information theory

As a panpsychist I have been asked a few times for evidence of consciousness in rocks and other such objects. — bert1

I'm currently re-reading Peter Ells' 2010 book, Panpsychism, because he discusses in detail many controversial topics that arise in philosophical metaphysics of Consciousness. One aspect of his terminology is puzzling to me though. Ells asserts that "experiential entities are the fundamental entities of idealist panpsychism". Although he is very explicit in his definitions of other terms, he seems to take the existence of "experiential entities" as a given or essential axiom. Is the word "experiential" in this usage, a metaphor for conscious human subjective experience? Or does he really believe that atoms are literally aware of their environment? Where does the Psyche (mind) come-in to this equation?

I presume that minimal "experience"*1 means to sense (to be affected by) incoming energy/information . And ultimately perhaps to make sense (meaning) of that data. If so, in what sense does a grain of sand experience its environment? Maybe a physical meaning of "to experience" is to undergo change due to a causal event. But how does that kind of experience add-up to the kind of human experience that we call "knowledge" or "memory" or "psychic" experience? Again, I can understand Brainless Experience as a metaphor for inputs & outputs of energy. But Ells seems to view it more literally as something equivalent to human cognition.

I should mention that my own understanding of fundamental entities in the world acknowledges that they exchange energy/information with their environment, and they record that input/output as a change in the material form (e.g. temperature ; structure ; position) of the object, but without gaining any conceptual knowledge that I would call meaningful "experience". For example, a grain of sand might be moved in location by the impact of momentum from another object. But, is the grain consciously aware of that moment in its history? I suspect that a lot of the incredulity toward Panpsychism hinges on such ambiguous terminology. :smile:

PS___As a panpsychist, Ell's assumes that Consciousness (experience) is fundamental to the world. But since objective evidence for such Awareness only appeared on the scene after billions of years of evolution --- the emergence of Living & Thinking things with centralized brains of some kind*2 --- I began to refer to proto-consciousness in terms of Information Theory. As the "power to enform", that prototype of Cognition is equivalent to physical Potential Energy, which can transform into actual Mass/Matter. But as the world evolved & complexified, a new form of Generic Energy/Information emerged as what we call "Mind" : an immaterial function (activity) of material brains.


*1. To Experience : (philosophy)
Experience refers to conscious events in general, more specifically to perceptions, or to the practical knowledge and familiarity that is produced by these processes. Understood as a conscious event in the widest sense, experience involves a subject to which various items are presented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

*2. I must admit that, in microscopic videos of brainless single cell organisms, they appear to know what they are doing, as they search for food. But a scientist might say the appearance is due to anthropomorphic interpretation of blind mechanical inputs & outputs, as a human would experience it.

↪Gnomon
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?

Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that — Mark Nyquist

Yes. The concept of "something from nothing" is radically counter-intuitive. But scientists, such as Gleiser seem to be using the word "nothing" with tongue in cheek. However, a mathematical Quantum Field is as close-to-nothing as you can get for an empirical scientist. Some physicists still insist that a Quantum Field is made-up of particles. But then they offer a paradoxical label --- Virtual (almost real) particles --- for those supposed bits of matter*3. Yet, Gleiser clarifies that his "Nothing in the Void" is not actual tangible Matter, but intangible mathematical "Vacuum Energy" (which we perceive only in its effects). So, I'll let you ponder the puzzle of the somethingness of Energy : is it a qualia or a quanta?.

In my own thesis, I try to clarify the paradox further (perhaps in vain) by defining Energy as Potential, which is not real until Actualized by an exchange of Form (perceptible pattern of relationships). Unfortunately, it's my unconventional use of the term "Form" --- as a mental/mathematical abstraction instead of a physical/material object --- that does not compute in a materialistic context & vocabulary.

In my thesis, Energy is not a material substance, but a mathematical ratio/relationship : e.g. Potential / Actual. As a philosophical concept*1, Energy is Causation : the relationship between prior Cause and after Effect*2; known as "Time" or "Change". Which is an abstract intellectual inference. So it must be conceived by reason instead of perceived by physical senses. That rational metaphysical notion is essential to the thesis, but seems to zip right over some heads without effect.

The bottom line for me is that we can, by rational inference, trace all Real things and Ideal concepts back to a pre-bang Platonic First Cause. That hypothetical pre-time Cause is not necessarily a person or thing, but perhaps an abstract infinite axiomatic principle of Potential : the power to impart actual Form to the statistical (virtual) Formless. By that I mean "Potential" is like the mathematical possibilities of gambling odds : ratio of possibility to actuality. We can only understand such un-real stuff by means of metaphors abstracted from sensory experience. For me, a universal all-encompassing First Cause of some kind is necessary for a unified philosophy of Monism. For Materialists, that unprovable Axiom might be a hypothetical eternal Multiverse. For others, it's a personal deity. What do you think the ultimate causal Singularity might be?

I'd better quit while I'm behind. Does any of this mathematical metaphysical non-sense make sense to you? Most of us, even would-be philosophers, are innately biased toward a Materialist worldview. So, to even mention "something that is not a thing", sounds like BS. But if you can imagine such a non-thing-with-the-power-to-cause-change (Ideal Potential), the rest will fall into place. :smile:


*1. Potential : In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*2. Causation : We only know it as the passage of Time : before states relative to after states.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

*3. Quantum Nothingness : Even though Virtual Particles are hypothetical entities --- based in part on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem --- scientists take them seriously. A may2023 Scientific American article is entitled : The Weight of Nothing. It describes an experiment intended to weigh the mass of Vacuum Energy photons as they "fluctuate in & out of actual existence". The article says "even though we can't capture these virtual particles in detectors, their presence is measurable". And measurement is a mental action.

In my own philosophical thesis of Generic Information, I refer to those virtual/real states as Potential & Actual. So the experiment assumes that in the microseconds of their transition from Virtual/Potential to Real/Actual & back existence, the experimenters will be able to measure the Actual portion of their fleeting existence. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes --- for those of us lacking precision instruments --- the empty vacuum is weightless and thingless.

Even if we accept your idiosyncratic framing of causality as agency - an ontology of animism - the logic of systems still applies. — apokrisis
I fully agree with these remarks. Agency is only one part of the story. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get the impression that is not a fan of Agency in any case, especially top-down agency. So, just for you, here's some ideas from a new biological model of Self-Organization that doesn't mention outside Agency specifically, but does repeatedly mention the role of Information. Is "top-down" information a form of agency? If these information-biased excerpts from the article interest you, I'd like to hear your comments. :smile:

Designing Life :
"Synthetic Morphology" (due to intervention of human agents)
"spontaneously organize" (for no apparent reason ???)
"biological forms seem to have inevitable, unique target structures" (pre-programming??)
"they are able to make use of top-down information" (whence ???)
"Where does form come from? What rules has evolution developed for controlling it?" (Form = pre-coded information?)
"How does a featureless blob that is the early embryo know what to make and where to make it?" (formless potential transformed/enformed into cognizable objects)
"Morphogenesis is a subtle process involving the interplay of information at the scales of the whole organism." (some early theories of morphogenesis were rejected as mystical, because the "rules" were unknown, and the key feature was Holism . Yet Alan Turing postulated a mathematical Theory of Pattern Formation, that is now called a theory of Morphogenesis)
"Einstein . . . . what the real determinant of form and organization is seems quite obscure."
"global rules governing form" ( universal Generic Information ???)
"bioelectric signaling" (Biosemiotics??)
"morphological engineering . . . . desired structure" (natural morphology = design ??)

Scientific American magazine, may 2023, by Phillip Ball
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/synthetic-morphology-lets-scientists-create-new-life-forms/

Time to get hip to the latest trip? Information theory is so 1990s. These guys are the names you want to start dropping and quote-mining to make it sound like you are up with the game. — apokrisis

Sounds like you've got it all figured-out, while I'm still working-out the bugs in my own little homely theory of causal information. Therefore, I bow to your air of superiority --- as I did obeisance to 180's arrogance before*1. I can't even come close to such a sense of absolute certainty. So I'm not in a position to be condescending. And I'm not engaged in whatever mano e mano game you are playing.

For the record, I'm not really trying to play catch-up with your "hip" expertise. I'm content to just plod along, developing my personal & amateur Information-centric philosophical worldview. It keeps me amused. But I don't take it so seriously that I get offended by alternative perspectives on the world. I can even fit Biosemiotics --- as I superficially understand it --- neatly into the Enformationism thesis. Yet I make no claim to scientific rigor in my non-professional, non-academic retirement hobby. I leave that up to the pros. Hence, on this forum, I'll try to avoid a stare-down with those who are so far above my pay grade, and to limit my dialoging to other un-hip amateur philosophers closer to my own level. :smile:

PS___I see that you are viewing my thesis from the perspective of 1990s Information theory. But I'm incorporating 21st century Information theory into my world model, that you seem to be unaware of, and even disdainful of. That's OK though, I keep myself entertained with feckless Philosophy as a means, not to know-it-all, but to "know thyself".

*1. But I'm an independent-minded vassal, who sometimes mutters under his breath : "E pur si muove"

Really? I had the idea that since e=mc2 that energy - which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the status of Energy is still debated by physicists. For example a mathematician might assert that "Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one." Yet, a Physicist might insist that "Both force and energy are concepts which are frame-dependent". As a mathematical equation or physical formulation --- E=MC^2 --- that relativity might be true. But derived from what? Perhaps our physical notion of Energy is derived from observations of actual Causation. Which is still not a material thing, but the implicit invisible directional process underlying physical change.

Energy per se does not tell us anything about Existence. It's only about Change & Evolution. Consequently, some kind of philosophical pre-Bang First Cause is necessary to explain the Ontology of both Material existence and Effective causation. But that's even more Mysterious than even immaterial mathematical conceptual Energy. Therefore, I have concluded that Metaphysical EnFormAction (the potential to convert Possible into Actual, Ideal into Real, Energy into Matter) is the Ontological fundamental. Yet, even that material Causation might be secondary to ontological Creation.

All that aside, I still agree with you that Energy (the concept) is epistemologically fundamental to the science of Physics, which is all about Change. Yet, in this Science as Metaphysics thread, to avoid misunderstandings, we may need to specify whether we are talking about Physics (science ; energy) or about Meta-Physics (philosophy ; enformation). :smile:

Stop making excuses for yourself. It is your lack of credible analysis and understanding of the subject matter itself. — apokrisis

This thread --- on a philosophical question --- is beginning to devolve into a political or religious debate instead of a dispassionate dialog. Some indignant posters seem to be defending canonical positions instead of philosophical postulations. So, since the OP is of interest to me, I'll continue on, while trying to avoid the hostile dug-in posters with polarized worldviews and ad hominem arguments : attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message. Fortunately, there are still a few calm open-minded thinkers on the forum. :cool:

If I may... Step 1 to understanding apokrisis is to swap the idea of "causes" for the idea of "prevents". — Srap Tasmaner

Although the basic idea of Positive vs Negative (absential)*1 Causation makes some abstract sense, I'm not familiar with the notion of active "Prevention" in supposedly Natural processes such as Self-Organization. In complex systems, random "interference" sometimes occurs, but non-random "prevention" seems to imply an active "intervention". Which could suggest some kind of Agency. For example, most of the search items (causation vs prevention) involve medical or psychiatric interventions or omissions*2 by human doctors.

As I understand the concept of Self-Organization, the only secondary causal agency is the Self : as in "self-causation". Which hints at some non-linear potential in the original causal input : e.g. the Big Bang. By "non-linear" I mean something like the codes of a guided missile that can change course along the way to the target.

Is there another external agency, that counters the Linear momentum of the initial Cause? In billiards, the pool shooter is the First Cause, and subsequent paths of the balls are the result of momentum & direction (vector) inputs. I suppose you could say that the perimeter of the table "prevents" the balls from exploring all paths in the universe. But the table is a man-made object, constructed with intent to prevent or constrain degrees of freedom.

In the context of Big Bang theory, any subsequent exchanges of causal energy are presumably due to exchanges of momentum, which are not intentional or preventional*3. Is postulating some Active Agent*2 changing the direction of causation by intentional prevention. Or am I missing the point? :smile:

*1. Absential Causation : Terrence Deacon term
Absential ~ Causality. a form of causality dependent on specifically absent features and unrealized potentials can be compatible with our best science
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

*2. Causation by Omission :
For example, to take fairly simple cases, 'causation' by omission involves a negative event 'causing' something, and prevention involves something 'causing' a negative event.

*3. The Philosophy of Prevention :
Prevention is an active process, prevention is a kind of practical as well as philosophical intervention.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299747527_The_Philosophy_of_Prevention