And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. — Gnomon

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another. — Benj96

Quantum physics has expanded the classical notion of "force" to include a variety of causes of change, including the faster-than-light-causal-force of the Entanglement effect. I could cite many more of them for 180wooboo's enlightenment. But since he missed the point of the quote, I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature. And which I expect he will reject & ridicule. :smile:

Intention is a force :
Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person's actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/The-Importance-Of-Intention-The-Consequences-Of-769252

"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence each other, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?") — Benj96

I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.

I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.

Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature. :smile:



Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics

Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.

Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.

Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & logical)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. :smile:

*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2629-nature-and-culture.html

*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia

*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

Yes. But that ancient dichotomy won't fly in the modern world. "Physical" is merely what we know about Nature via the mammalian senses. And, "Super-natural"*1 implies some form of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and an invisible realm above or behind mundane Reality*2. Which implies that ESP can perceive things & actions that are beyond the reach of mundane Science --- which ultimately depends on artificial (technological) extensions of the 5 physical senses.

In that case, the door is opened to charlatans (seers), who claim to possess ESP. So, those of us, who are not blessed with "second sight" must accept or reject the revelations of the Seers on faith or doubt. Yet, modern pragmatic, results-oriented, Science has out-shone the empty claims of the psychics -- in a secular sense -- with hard physical evidence. For example, our cell-phone crystal balls allow those of us without super-natural powers to see & control events on the other side of the world. Hence techno-magic makes blind-faith unnecessary.

That's why I prefer to use the term "Meta-physics" to mean the Complement of Physics. Unfortunately, that term is still associated with "supernatural", and is taken to be the Negation of Physics. So, I can't take advantage of its Complementary*3 implications, for fear of being misunderstood, due to its prejudicial baggage. I've tried a variety of alternatives, and "Non-Physical" seems to be the least offensive, but also least evocative of a complementary relationship.

What we know via the sixth sense of Reason (knowledge ; information ; meaning) is indeed invisible & intangible & non-physical (immaterial ; mental). But, since those matterless patterns of meaning (relationships) are found within the scope of ordinary reality, they are not Super-Natural. They are merely Mental or Imaginary or Conceptual : ideas about things, but not things themselves. Our mental models of reality are "not of the physical world", but exist (ideally) within the Natural world.

As far as we know, the ability to Reason (to infer what is not obvious to the senses) is a product of cause & effect Evolution. But it is not a physical effect, like position or shape change. The sense of Reason is a non-physical effect, like viral memes*4. It's another complementary relationship : Natural (physical) & Cultural (meta-physical). Together, they form our human understanding (model) of Reality, as a whole system. :smile:



*1. Supernatural : (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. ___Google

*2. Ironically, modern science has revealed a mysterious invisible sub-atomic domain right under our noses. So, the layman on the street could be forgiven for equating that sub-natural foundation of reality with the traditional super-natural heavenly realm. Are quarks any more physical than angels? As a non-scientist, she would have to take the existence of such entities on faith in those who infer their existence from immaterial (non-physical) mathematical evidence.

*3. Complementary : interdependent ; correlative ; Yin-Yang ; BothAnd

*4. Meme : A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. ___Wikipedia

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
— god must be atheist
There's not much else for us to discuss then.
-- T Clark — god must be atheist

Any use of the terms "Metaphysics" & "Beliefs" will terminate a dialog with several posters on TPF. That reaction is probably due to previous encounters with philosophically-frustrating dogmatic religious positions based on ancient Theology. However, personally, I find the notion of Meta-physics (non-physical) meaningful as a complementary perspective to Physics. Aristotle divided his encyclopedia on Nature (phusis) into two different categories of human understanding : 1> as known by the senses (physics) and 2> as known via reasoning (metaphysics). But, lingering prejudice against centuries of dominant Catholic dogma is strong on this forum . . . and with good reason. However, that rejection sometimes throws-out a beautiful baby with the nasty bathwater, and tars Philosophy with the brush of Religion, and identifies cutting-edge Science with New Age mumbo-jumbo. Ironically, over the last century, modern (post-quantum) physics has been rubbing our noses in the malodorous margins where Atomism (Materialism) dissolves into Fieldism (Mathematicalism).

Undaunted by the pitchforks & torches of anti-meta-physics witch-hunters, I am philosophically motivated to continue investigating the mysterious margins of post-quantum science. And one spooky notion that just won't die, is the ancient concept of ephemeral Aether, permeating reality with an invisible intangible substance. Yet, that's another taboo term that will elicit boos & hisses from those who are, like Einstein, uncomfortable with the idea of a chancy world where "God plays dice".

In addition to the Aether-supporting quotes from scientists in my previous posts, I realized belatedly that I had read a book about 10 years ago, that may have put some subconscious positive spin on the concept of Space-Time interpreted as Aether. The book was The Lightness of Being, Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces, by nobel physicist Frank Wilczek. From the Introduction :"Transcending older ideas about matter and space, he explains a remarkable new discovery : Matter is built from almost weightless units, and pure energy is the ultimate source of mass. . . . . Space is no mere container, empty and passive. It is a dynamic Grid --- a modern ether. The Grid*1 is more fundamental than any 'fundamental particles' . . ."

Inspired by that new-old notion of Reality, I will try to present additional scientific evidence and arguments to support the understanding that the physical material world of the senses, is underlain by a metaphysical mathematical realm of Potential that reveals itself only to human Reason. Of course, some will interpret such outlandish notions as support for ghosts & spirits. But disillusioned Wilczek had forsaken his Catholic upbringing, and concluded : "I came to think that if God exists, He (or She, or They or It) did a much more impressive job revealing Himself in the world than in the old books . . ." And that is also the position from which I approach the ongoing revelations of sub-quantum Physics. The resurrected Aether concept is still in the early stages of zombiehood, so there is no final authoritative consensus to ground your own beliefs. It's just something new & exciting ("field excitations") to challenge your current settled worldview. :smile:


*1. The Grid is Wilczek's term for Maxwell's continuous (non-particular) electromagnetic fields.

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning... — Gnomon
No, I mean an explicit form of reasoning. — Banno

I've never read Hegel, and I'm not a disciple of Marx, so I don't care what you think about their philosophy, which is usually characterized as a form Idealism. For the purposes of this thread, my interest is in the Dialectic dynamic as the logical process of competition, for weaning-out the unfit or untrue, which is more like brutal Realism . So, let's get real.

In the vector geometry of Physics, causal energy consists of both force-value and spatial direction. In Philosophical dialog, arguments have both truth-value (force) and ideological direction (e.g Idealism ; Realism ; Marxism). We make our dialectical arguments "explicit" by defining our terms. And if necessary, by numbering our premises & conclusions. And if challenged further, by abstracting the original thesis, the antithetical argument, and the logical conclusion in conventional symbols.

On this layman's forum though, we seldom get that explicit, and the format of argumentation typically strays from any officially-approved structure. However, you can't get much simpler than (a)Thesis > (b) Antithesis > (c) Synthesis, or (a) Premise > (b) Counter-premise > (c) Mutual Agreement. Is that too Ideal for you?

In Evolution, random mutation produces multiple novel combinations that are selected by the the life-or-death-dialog of striving to survive. The physical criteria for bare survival typically mean that the bigger, stronger, or faster get to reproduce. But the philosophical criteria for progress is to be smarter, or in some way more suitable, for whatever niche is available. Homo Sapiens didn't get to its dominant position by imposing its physical advantages, but by using its philosophical prowess.

In Quantum physics, Heisenberg, among others, compared the non-classical philosophical dilemmas & physical paradoxes as the result of a dialectic process of Potential becoming Actual. Of course, any reference to "dialectic" will be popular with Marxists, but I'm talking about physicists. And Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is not inherently ideological, but essentially mathematical & physical (billiard balls). The concept can be expressed symbolically as an interaction between vectors with direction & value, as illustrated below. Is that explicit enough for you? :smile:

PS__I've enjoyed this dialectic dialog, but I don't expect to reach a mutual conclusion. Historically, in a less-than-ideal world, the Synthesis stage of a Dialectic process is usually immediately challenged by a new or mutated Antithesis. Philosophy never ends.

Dialectic :
also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

The Quantum Dialectic :
The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Formal Dialectical Approaches :
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_6


DIALECTICS OF BILLIARDS

I said Dialectic is not logic. That is quite different. — Banno

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning, as defined by your preferred authority. By "logical" I meant merely any formal process of inferring truth from premises. That is "quite different : Authoritarian vs Liberal. I apologize for implying that you dismissed Dialectic as illogical. :smile:

Logical : characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

Well the photon is "matterless" yes (not physical/solid/has no dimension) but not massless. . . .
If a photon was massless how could it impart its mass to matter when it decelerates? — Benj96

A photon is said to be "massless"*1 when it is moving at lightspeed (its definitive state). In that case, it is essentially Pure Energy, undiluted by Matter (pace 180wooboo)*2. But when a photon slows down to a fraction of lightspeed, some of that Potential Energy is converted into Mass, which is a mathematical expression of its potential to be measured in terms of Matter. The "rest mass"*3 of a photon is only a hypothetical concept*4, since in practice a resting ("matterspeed") photon is no longer a photon (potential), but a particle of some material (actual).

At lightspeed, all of the photon's Energy is in the form of Momentum, which is the potential to transfer energy to another particle upon interaction. An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. Momentum & Mass are mathematical abstractions, and their only measurable properties are what we call Velocity & Matter.

When you said : "Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable." I responded with : "at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter." Put those notions together, and you get Aristotle's categories of Potential (momentum) and Actual (matter). Thus, explaining Einstein's equation of Energy with Mass times the speed of light squared (C^2). Do you agree that we (you, me, Albert) are saying the same thing in different words? :smile:


*1. A photon is massless, has no electric charge, and is a stable particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Note -- existentially stable, but not static (stationary).

*2. Pure energy is any field energy, like potential energy, any kinetic energy, like a fast moving particle, but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15122/what-is-pure-energy

*3. Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. . . .
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them,
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

*4. According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10 - 54 kg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943

Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable (rate - and thus the beginning of time and space - the only medium in which rate (change) can occur. — Benj96

How did you arrive at that novel conclusion? I have entertained (inferred from E=MC^2) the above-my-paygrade-notion that Matter is essentially slowed-down (decelerated) Light energy. For example, at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter. I have found a few statements by scientists that could be interpreted as pointing in that direction, but nothing definitive.

Regarding the "beginning of time & space", what could cause presumably continuous (wavey) Pure Energy to coalesce into quantized (particular) photons (change ; time) and thence into matter (malleable ; space)? Can pure energy interact with itself? These are just rhetorical questions. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I didn't notice this until now.
I don't see how it addresses the point of mine that you quote:
Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno
Here is a link to an account of logic: The Open Logic Text complete build (Large file). it's pretty much a summation of the core ideas of Logic as presently understood.
Neither Hegel nor Dialectic are mentioned. — Banno

My post was intended to address your conditional assertion that The Dialectic is not logical*1. Says who? As presently understood, by whom?

Since you didn't define "modern logic", or specify which canon of modern logic you considered authoritative, I felt free to introduce some alternative views, that I consider pertinent to the OP. I quoted two modern (20th & 21st century) definitions of Logic*1 that go beyond the ancient categorical Logic of Aristotle, extending its scope to include Quantum & Information sciences.

The OP may be interpreted to imply that the Linear Logic*2 of Classical science & history was "broken" (or bent) by the antitheticall discovery of Non-linear Logic at the foundations of Physics. So IMHO, a 21st century synthesis of philosophy & science should make allowance for the inherent uncertainties & ambiguities of human understanding, while still pursuing practical & logical conclusions.

The Open Logic Project*3 seems to be mostly linguistic & mathematical, and ignores the practical & historical & evolutionary logic of Hegel and the physical Fuzzy Logic*4 of Quantum science. Which I think are pertinent to the OP topic. So, please pardon me, if I took liberties with your undefined quote. My response may not address your (ambiguous) intended point, so I inserted my own definitions into the gap.

BTW, please don't take my quotes to be arguing in favor of Marxism*5. Politics makes for strange philosophical bedfellows. Yes, I had an ax to grind, but it was philosophical, not political. :smile:


*1. "Dialectic, also called dialectics, originally a form of logical argumentation but now a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

*2. "Linear logic is deeply ingrained in the Western mind set. There is one ‘right’ answer, and we need to find it. . . . This might have been true until quantum mechanics introduced an element of normative chaos into the natural sciences. Perhaps Western thinking must now learn to embrace opposed or parallel truths".
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19093-8_16

*3. Note -- The Open Logic Project does include Many Valued Logic, which is one way to label Quantum Logic. But it misses the historical & scientific implications of those non-linear patterns of causation.

*4. "Dialectical logic is the system of laws of thought, developed within the Hegelian and Marxist traditions, which seeks to supplement or replace the laws of formal logic. The precise nature of the relation between dialectical and formal logic was hotly debated within the Soviet Union and China." ___Wikipedia

*5. "It is the “dialectics,” however, that is commonly found as the universal law in “quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, the law of evolution of living organisms, the law of evolution of societies” and even “in the law of development of thought.” Therefore, it may be regarded as “the logic of nature.” In view of this fact, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and indeed every science can be understood only by the logic of dialectics. The confusion brought about on the interpretation of quantum mechanics had its main origin in the fact that physicists did not have the logic of dialectics."
https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakata/ch01.htm

I think we're just repeating ourselves and playing with language. And as far as physics and neuroscience goes, we are both out of our depth. — Tom Storm

This is merely a typical philosophical failure to adequately define our terms & categories. We talk past each other, not because as laymen we are out of our depth, but because one of us is discussing empirical "Physics and Neuroscience" and the other is discussing theoretical Philosophy. Fortunately, it's not all Greek to me, or to you, I assume.

As I noted before, concepts such as "quality, structure, space, and change" are not physical bodies, hence not subject to empirical dissection. Likewise the "function" of a thing is not a physical object, but a rational inference from observing the states & actions of the thing. So, equating the Mind (function) with the Brain (object) confuses physical properties (wet, warm, gelatinous) with mental functions (ideas, thoughts, feelings). Biologists & Neuroscientists study Brains, while Philosophers study Minds.

Yet, long before the knowing disciplines diverged -- partly due to technological tools for extending the human senses -- Aristotle wrote an encyclopedia of current knowledge of his era (iron & steel were high-tech). And for some reason, he saw fit to divide the work into volume 1 Physics and volume 2 Philosophy, later labeled Meta-Physics. The first volume described observations of natural objects and physical actions : Elements ; Motion. Then, in the second volume, he discussed philosophical cultural principles & theories that were intended to explain what we observed.

Ironically, since the 1700s, those philosophical topics have been branded taboo, and relegated to the sophistry of Theologians. So, what can laymen & non-scientists legitimately discuss on a philosophy forum? Are we limited to the language of Matter & Energy? Should we restrict our language to Physical "principles of classification"? Must we refrain from using Aristotle's language of "substance, quality, quantity, and relation", because such words can be interpreted theologically? If so, why not change the name of this forum to The Physics and Neuroscience Forum? :smile:


Physics vs Philosophy :
"many bitter scientific controversies are actually disputes about the selection of principles of classification or frameworks . . . .There simply is no science practiced independently of philosophy . . . . scientists should not pretend that empirical science is value free . . ."
___Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics

Language of Physicists :
"it is a language that produces pictures in our mind, but together with them the notion that the pictures have only a vague connection with reality, that they represent only a tendency toward reality"
"Actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism"
"The modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy"
"the nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science but also the general outlook of great masses of people. This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality. . . . Matter was the primary reality."
"an open hostility of science toward religion developed . . . . Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind. . . . . modern {quantum} physics . . . . finally resulted in the dissolution of the rigid frame"
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

My own take is maths is an abstraction, a product of human minds. Minds appear to be physical things in as much as we have no evidence of a mind without a physical body. — Tom Storm

We seem to be using terms "Math", "Mind", and "Physical" in different senses. Equating the Chalice with the Wine. So, let's get more definitive.

Of course, the formalisms that we collectively call "Mathematics"*1 are mental constructs produced by many human minds over multiple lifetimes, yet they persist (exist) in some sense. To be clear, these non-scientific philosophical questions, about Physical vs Non-Physical existence, are referring to invisible & intangible features of the world, such as are studied by mathematicians : "quality, structure, space, and change". So, let's rephrase the question : are quality, structure, space, and change P or non-P? What is your take on the physicality of those features of Nature? Note : I'm not referring to the container, but to its contents -- not to a machine, but to its functions.

Again, the word "Mind"*2 is typically intended to distinguish the complex lump of tissue that controls the neural systems of the body from its functions or faculties : thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. Now, what is your take on the physicality of those natural phenomena?

The OP is making a distinction between "Physical"*3 and "Non-Physical". So, lets be more specific about the options here. Apparently, the wording of the question was trying to avoid using baggage-laden idioms, such as "Metaphysical" or "Spiritual". So, lets substitute some neutral terminology like "Mental" or "Abstract"*4.

With these distinctions in mind, let's reconsider the OP question : "What exists that is not of the physical world, but is not supernatural?" Are "Qualities" & "Memories" physical or supernatural objects consisting of matter, or merely abstract concepts consisting of immaterial logical structures (functional interrelationships)? Can you empirically study Ideas, Feelings, & Concepts by dissecting the physical body/brain? Or must you study them rationally, by examining their logical structure and their inferred relationships to concrete objects? :smile:


*1. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.
https://www.tntech.edu/cas/math/what-is-mathematics.php

*2. The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. Often the term is also identified with the phenomena themselves. These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation. ___Wikipedia

*3, Physical :
A. of or relating to material things
B. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.

*4. Abstract : existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural?

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — god must be atheist

The OP questions our Ontological definition of Nature & Being : Physical (P) vs Non-physical (non-P) existence. That Either/Or distinction has boiled down to defining "substance" and "entity". So, I'll ask a few quibbling questions for clarification. This is not criticism, just a few pertinent open questions to think about.

[1] asserts an ordered universe, and [3] seems to attribute that logical organization to "principles & laws". Which category would you place those orderly forces into : P or non-P? If physical "Laws" (or regulations) are detectable only by rational minds, not by empirical methods, what is their Substance : Matter or Math or Mind or Aristotelian Essence, or Other?

Into which category would you place "Mathematics" [4] : P or non-P? If Math is a physical substance, is it Matter or Energy or Mind or Other? If neither Matter nor Energy, how can Math exist according to [2]? Supernatural existence has already been ruled-out by the topical question. So, if Math is non-P, in what sense is it Natural?

[9] Space & Time, as conventional concepts had always been imagined as separate functions of Nature (Reality), but fundamental & absolute. Yet, for theoretical graphical purposes, Einstein combined the notions of spatial Extension & temporal Duration into a single mathematical function : "Space-Time" or "Block-Time". Although still fundamental or essential, in what sense do Space & Time exist : P or non-P, or Other?

Typically, in philosophical dialog, both Ps & non-Ps are considered to be Entities, but in what sense : physical substance or metaphysical essence? Is "Being" defined exclusively, as Physical (matter & energy) and "Non-Being" as non-physical, or mutually as different modes of Being? If Non-physical entities are non-being, why should physicists or philosophers concern themselves with such non-existent non-entities? :smile:


Entity : a thing with distinct and independent existence.
But is the distinction mental or physical? Is the independence local or universal?

What is a substance according to Aristotle?
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural

But it's not a perfect answer. Because the universe also contains empty space. And it contains functionalities that are not matter, yet they exist. — god must be atheist

Recently, I have been exploring the oft-buried & resurrected zombie notion that "empty space" is full of something that has physical effects, but is not physical itself : Quintessence or Aether. The new understanding is that "empty space" is not a cloud of tiny particles, but something more like a Mathematical Field of Potential Energy. We detect & measure invisible intangible Energy, by what it does (function), not by what it is (physical material). And one of its functions is to create physical Matter by means of mathematical Mass. Is that something like what you had in mind in the OP? :smile:

PS__Like "Metaphysics", "Aether" can be a trigger-word for Classical-Physics-Materialists to denounce as "Pseudoscience". Yet, in the last century, the logical necessity for something like Aether has continued to pop-up among physicists uncomfortable with the compromises embedded in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, due to the unavoidable statistical uncertainties (probabilities) of quantum experiments. The Quora opinion linked below is not necessarily authoritative, but it provides food for thought : about non-physical (essential) existence.

Energy :
"Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic." https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/education/tell-me-about/physics-of-energy
Note -- Potential Energy is by definition, not actual. And Kinetic Energy is merely the after-effect of Energy Causation.

Does Aether Exist? :
"Under a surface of vociferous denying and pointing to flawed experiments there is a general acceptance even among modern physicists and Nobel Laureates that there is a physical strata that plays fundamentally the role of an Aether, although the term is so laden with philosophical prejudices that no one really dares to commit to the name Aether and all sorts of alternative and rather silly sounding denotations are invented: “quantum foam”, “quantum fluid” for instance or this “field” or that “field”, where nobody ever can point out what kind of physical species a field IS. There are at best vague ideas what a field DOES: "
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- It seems that, by labeling the mysterious source of "virtual" particles as a visualizable Cartesian "Field", quantum physics were attempting to avoid the prejudices attached to mystical ancient "Aether" : the ethereal atmosphere of the Olympian gods

Aether proven not to exist? :
Michelsen-Morley: the erroneous notion of a monolithic ether filling space through which all moving bodies must travel, led to the ill fated “M&M experiment” which inevitably yielded a null-result: nothing moves “through” the Aether, the Aether is not a substance filling an autonomous space, but space IS itself an Aether modality as we will see.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics
Note -- The M-M experiment was assuming that Aether was a physical substance in space. But some new theories propose that non-physical Aether is SpaceTime : a mathematical mental model, not a physical object.

Ontic determinacy, or the condition of being ontically determined, specifies that which is determined to be limited or bounded in duration, extension, or some other respect(s) - this by some determining factor(s), i.e. by some determinant(s). . . . Mathematical infinity specifies a state of being. This state of being is defined by the lack of limits or boundaries. — javra

Not familiar with that technical term, I googled "ontic determinacy" and found an article on "ontic vagueness"*1. Mathematical Infinity is vague only in the sense that it is off-the-map of real numbers. For example, in Fractal Graphics places where the computer encounters infinities, it stops calculating and renders the area as black, signifying merely "undefined" or "unbounded" or "indeterminate". However, physicists studying sub-atomic particles, also encounter off-the-map Math. Although that aspect of reality is beyond our ability to comprehend or to define, Heisenberg labeled it as an essential feature of the quantum level of reality : "Uncertainty" or or "Indeterminacy".

Unlike ancient mapmakers, who put warnings on the uncharted areas of their maps "here be dragons", Heisenberg merely warned that empirical quantum physics faded into theoretical metaphysics at the margins. So, he defined the ontically indeterminate zones in terms of "the old concept of 'potentia' in Aristotelian philosophy*2" (i.e. metaphysics). Then he bracketed that mysterious unknown zone as "something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality". In Statistics, its called "Probability", and in Metaphysics, it's known as "Potential"

He didn't go so far as to label the state of Superposition as supernatural or unreal or nonbeing. Instead, he placed it in the statistical realm of infinite Possibilities, within which some things are more Probable than others. This is just a different way of looking at what we think of as Reality. So, he rejected the option of throwing-hands-up and declaring "absurd". "The other way of approach was Bohr's concept of complementarity . . . . as two complementary descriptions of the same reality". Two different states-of-being.

Unfortunately, to some of his colleagues that compromise smacked of equating empirical Physics with spooky Metaphysics. Nevertheless, in the 21st century, physicists have been forced to accept the unacceptable position of Overlapping Magisteria. Reality, on the quantum scale, is a vague gray area that is neither fully real & physical, but also not-yet-real (possible) & meta-physical (ideal or mathematical). :smile:

*1. Ontic Vagueness :
A note about terminology: for this paper, I‟m using "ontic vagueness‟ because that‟s been perhaps the most common term in the literature on the subject. "Metaphysical vagueness‟ is probably the better
term (see Williams (2008)b for discussion). Perhaps even better would be to stop talking about
vagueness altogether and just talk about metaphysical indeterminacy.
https://elizabethbarnesphilosophy.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/1/0/38105685/ontic_vagueness_final.pdf

*2. Physics and Philosophy, by Werner Heisenberg, 1958


THE BLACK AREAS OF A FRACTAL ARE INFINITE, HENCE INDETERMINATE

Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno

In his 1958 book, Physics & Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg tried to explicate -- for a general audience -- his key concept of "Quantum Uncertainty". So he contrasted the fractional statistical nature of quantum superposition with the integral factual assumptions of Aristotelian Logic. Apparently, he coined the term "Quantum Logic"*1, but today we might substitute the term "Fuzzy Logic"*2. Early quantum physicists were grappling with the ambiguous reality of super-posed particles that are not-yet particular, but holistic, as-if merely waves in a universal fluid medium*3.

Since, in dual-slit experiments, sub-atomic particles acted-as-if continuous & undefined -- until the moment of measurement -- the statistical status of their pre-measurement existence seemed too vague to be real --- for those accustomed to yes/no classical Logic. So, Heisenberg proposed a new way of thinking about statistical "expectations", which he called "Uncertainty" or "Undecided". Hence, describing particles in their statistical-state, he said "one might call it an objective tendency or possibility, a 'potentia'*4 in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy".

In the math of Schrodinger's equation, that not-yet-real state exists as a fraction of the whole system of Potential + Actual physics. Hence, the necessity to include an "imaginary" number*5 in the equation. Like "Zero", we can imagine the concept of a fractional object, but we can't measure it in situ. So, our statistical expectations are based on an internal dialectic of Possible / Actual = Probable or Potential --- a state we can imagine mathematically, but can't measure physically. In the Dialectic, Thesis & Antithesis are fractional (possible) facts (opinions), and only become whole & real upon Synthesis into a complete universal system (truth).

Ironically, Quantum Logic is a Complementary concept, as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol. Which may explain why the pioneers of Quantum Physics began to use some of the Holistic language of Eastern philosophies. Which you could call the dialectic logic of post-modern post-classical Quantum Physics. Maybe that East-West Dialectic didn't "break the world", but merely undermined the certainty of Classical worldviews. ☯

*1. Quantum Logic :
"quantum logic" describes uncertainties of the real world (to be more precise, the uncertainty of our best theory of the world), while "fuzzy logic" described the uncertainty of our reasoning. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=cs_techrep

*2. Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 ___Wiki
Note -- those numbers between 1 (something) and 0 (nothing) represent fractions of whole reality : fractional facts.

*3. Space as Aether :
The story of how early relativity experiments proved the aether doesn't exist isn't really true. What they showed was that the aether isn't needed to explain the results. By the 1970s it was demonstrated that if an aether exists it must be completely undetectable by relativity experiments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/?sh=517781273ed3
Note -- Aether (fluid space) is like Dark Matter (non-physical matter), undetectable or uncertain, but useful as a hypothetical model of cosmic physics.

*4. Potential / Actual :
Aristotle insists later on that while potentia can be characterized by its relation to actus, actus in the sense of an actuality is a undefinable
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/actus%20and%20potentia.pdf
Note -- Actual is what we call "Real", while Potential is statistically (ideally) Possible, but not physically Real.

*5. Imaginary number :
To understand fractals, you need to understand complex numbers. Complex numbers are a way to put two coordinates (x,y) into one number with two parts. One is a real number, which is any regular number like 3, 8.5, or 12/45. The other is an imaginary number, which is defined as the square root of a negative number,
Note -- Fractals are images illustrating the strange (infinite ; undefined) properties of fragmented (fractional ; incomplete) reality. Maybe the undefined margins of reality are the realm of not-yet-real particles?

THE BLACK AREAS OF A FRACTAL ARE INFINITE, HENCE UNDEFINED

As a parallel investigation, 20th and 21st century physics have come to rely on the concept of a field: matter is not fundamentally solid and stable, but rather a vast array of ripples or disturbances in a sort of fluid medium characterized by perpetual motion, with relatively persistent focal points of these perturbations being what we observe and model in the form of particles. — Enrique

Your proposed model of Consciousness is way over my head. And my brain is still smoking, from scanning another extensive & elaborate internet-theory-of-everything that may, or may not, be related to your description of matter fields quoted above. I don't want to knock you off course. But I'm just curious about how both of these unorthodox postulations might relate to my own avante garde model of reality. Due to the century-old state of Quantum Uncertainty, I remain open-minded -- though skeptical -- about alternative views of Reality.

This space-wave theory of the structure of physical reality might be genius, merely eccentric, or possibly crackpot. It's based on a mathematical reinterpretation of quantum theory – by Geoff Haselhurst et al -- proposing A> the Wave Structure of Matter, and B> that the “fluid medium” for those waves is the Aristotelian Substance we call “Space”. It sounds similar to some early quantum hypotheses of intangible-yet-fluid Aether as the medium of quantum waves. Consciousness is only one of many applications of this novel concept of Space and Matter. I'm not competent to critique the Wave Structure theory. But it piques my curiosity about the fundamental relationship between Physics & Metaphysics, and my own Information-based worldview.

On Quora Forum, I asked Haselhurst for a synopsis of his long & winding theory. I'd specifically like to know how Consciousness could arise from wave interactions in fluid space. So far, I haven't gotten a response. As far as I can tell, few professional physicists are aware of this re-re-interpretation of the role of empty space in reality. This theory is not specifically about Consciousness, so If it seems off-topic to you, I'll understand. But it could put your own Mind/Matter concept into a new context -- even farther beyond Classical Physics than Relativity and Quantum theories.. :smile:

On Truth & Reality
The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
The Dynamic Unity of Reality
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/

THE FOCAL POINT IS NOT A PARTICLE

180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist

That is a true statement . . . . within the framework of 180's worldview of Materialism or Physicalism or Realism (or whatever he prefers to call his personal belief system). From that perspective, Reality is what you know via your 5 senses, but it omits what you know via the 6th sense of Reason. Yet, by means of logical reasoning, we infer meanings that are not obvious to the naked eye. For example, my assumption that you are a rational being like me is a belief that is not based on physical evidence, but on abstract forms of behavior.

Hence, my belief about you is debatable, but not provable by empirical methods. The ancients attributed that gift of Reason to an immortal Soul. And much mischief has followed from the unwarranted "immortal" label attached to the combination of Life & Mind, that is referred to as "Spirit" or "Soul". So, a bit of skepticism toward Spiritualism is warranted. But 180, and other Physicalists, go beyond mere Skepticism into the Cynicism of Ideological disputation. FWIW In place of "immortal Soul", I prefer to use "mortal Self" to describe the person as a whole, including body, life & mind. The Self-image is indeed non-physical (i.e. Ideal), but not necessarily immortal.

That's why I typically avoid getting into creed-based disputes with 180proof. On the other hand, he does sometimes challenge my own unorthodox assertions with good skeptical philosophical questions. So, I'll take this opportunity to answer him indirectly in this post. The OP asks "what exists [is real] that is not physical [material]). And I have come to view Life & Mind as immaterial forms of the Logical processes we now know as "Information". But before that term was applied to machine thinking, it was used to describe the intangible contents of the human Mind : i.e. Ideas, Concepts, Memes, etc. We infer those thought-modules from our inter-communication of information, but cannot detect them by physical means.

That's why I have inferred from counter-intuitive Quantum Theory and abstract mathematical definitions of Information, that what we know as physical Energy is ultimately a mathematical relationship (1/0), equivalent to mental Logic. Hence, in agreement with some pioneering physicists (see below), I have come to equate the elements of Soul (life ; mind) with the abstract concept of Causation. I won't go into the details here, but instead -- if you'll pardon my intrusion -- I'll address some of his replies to my comments on this thread, from the perspective of my personal worldview : Enformationism -- the essence of everything, both physical & mental, in this world is a form of Generic Information (confer Plato's LOGOS). To 180, this sounds like the ravings of a New Age nut-case. But it's intended to be merely a merger of cutting-edge physical Science with the ancient meta-physical Philosophy of Plato & Aristotle, among others. It's all mundane ; no need for spooky Mysticism. :smile:


Reply to 180 :
" Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science". — Gnomon
1. (In your own words) How so? ___180proof
*** I have explained to 180 the "how so" repeatedly in my own words, and those of credentialed scientists. But, some of the concepts underlying the "how" are not compatible with the Materialistic belief system we now call "Classical Physics". So, they don't make sense from the perspective of a matter-based worldview. For example, Newton proposed an unknown force (gravity = heaviness, a quality) that could bind planets in their orbits. But he could not understand how that action-at-a-distance-across-empty-space could work.
*** Centuries later, Einstein explained that intangible (no ropes) pulling force in terms of counter-intuitive geometry of nothingness (curved vacuum). The medium of that non-physical traction was simply a mathematical relationship between masses of matter. But Mass itself is nothing more than a mathematical description of the immaterial property of Matter known as "Inertia" (resistance to change ; stubborness). The links between puller & pullee are immaterial vectors, that we symbolize with metaphorical numbers & arrows.
*** Although some practicing scientists resist some of the spookier implications of quantum theory, they have been forced to admit that our normal reality is underlain by an invisible domain that has subtle-but-vital bottom-up effects on the human scale. They might also grudgingly concede that the world's foundation of immaterial fields must be ultimately more real than the egocentric imaginary models of reality --- both materialistic & spiritualistic --- that we carry around in our heads. So, since both our macro & quantum world models can be boiled down to mental images, numbers & ideas, the question arises : what is true reality . . . a collection of isolated things, a swarm of mindless atoms, or a story woven of meanings? Personally, I find the idea of a world of ideas to be plausible & meaningful in the context of 21st century science.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page15.html

2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as? ___180
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques
Scientism : Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. ___Google
*** In my own words, Scientism rejects the traditional rational methods of Philosophy, based on the Classical Science belief in the final authority of empirical methods. However, in the words of quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg : "classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves". In that case, a fundamental belief of Scientism is that the human mind (Ideas) has no control over the physical world. Yet, historically, the power of Intention has transformed the natural world into an artificial habitat designed specifically for the needs of humans. To me, that sounds like mental Causation : from idea to implementation. Yes, matter must be moved in order to cause physical change, but the causal influence can be traced to the flow of mundane Information, not to New Agey mental energy such as Chi.

3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"? If so, please cite an example.
***The intuition of a "nonphysical" form of energy (Chi, Prana, Elan Vital) has been proposed by sages & philosophers over the ages to explain the existence of Life & Mind. But I prefer a modern term derived from Information Theory :EnFormAction. That made-up word refers to both physical & metaphysical forces in the world. It's based on the 21st century understanding that Energy & Matter are physical forms of Generic Information (the power to cause change in form). It's what Aristotle called "Potential" to explain the contingent existence of "Actual" things.
***An example of non-physical energy is human Intention. It's how humans fly to the moon. Intentional aims are directed toward a future state that does not yet exist. But, by applying that vector to matter (rockets) & energy (fuel), humans have collectively learned to fly like birds, and even to explore the moon. Without Intention, Nature would never put humans on an airless low-gravity satellite.
*** But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html


" ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems ..." ___180
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
*** Of course, Philosophy per se is not a particular belief system, but an evaluation of belief systems. And a dominant belief today, among scientists, is the primacy of Matter : i.e. Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. [Note : the -ism ending indicates a belief system, worldview, or philosophy] But Philosophy has always tried to understand all features of the real world, including those that cannot be attributed to inert Matter, or even to the invisible forces that act upon matter. Two of those mysterious properties of the world are Life and Mind. These are not material objects subject to empirical scrutiny, but processes that can only be analyzed by Reason. So, we are forced to rely on non-empirical Logic (including Math) to show us how such "meta-physical" properties could arise in a world of physical actions & reactions.
*** Today, we use the term "Energy" to describe all physical changes in the world. Presumably, in the Planck-scale Big Bang singularity, there was nothing but potential power to cause change. And the first form-change was from formless Cosmic Potential into ghostly free-floating "sub-particles" (quarks ; gluons) of potential matter called "plasma". Over time, that amorphous gaseous cloud was transformed into the fundamental particles that we know today as solid matter. This story is not based on direct evidence, but of imagination, to explain how stars, planets, and people began from a dimensionless point in non-space. Some call the Big Bang a "modern creation myth". And some form of that myth is fundamental to the belief system we call Scientism, which adapts Classical Materialism to the new facts of Quantum Physics . But it still excludes the intentional Observer from its calculations.
*** Not all scientists subscribe to the modern Matter myth. In fact, some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were forced to consider other paradigms to make sense of the Matter/Mind duality proposed by scientist/philospher Descartes. For example, the application of Information Theory to Quantum Theory has started a movement toward another "paradigm shift" in scientific belief systems. This is currently an adjustment to philosophical worldviews, but it may eventually result in a scientific paradigm shift equal to that of Quantum Physics.

Form is Information :
"Later, in the philosophy of Aristotle, matter was thought of in the relation between form and matter. All that we perceive in the world of phenomena is formed matter. Matter is in itself not a reality, but only a possibility, a "potentia" ; it exists only by means of form. In the natural process the "essence", as Aristotle calls it, passes over from mere possibility through form into actuality."
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
Note -- what Aristotle called "form" we can today equate with the causal power of Information, as discovered by Claude Shannon, and elaborated by later physicists.

The Matter Myth : Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Myth-Discoveries-Challenge-Understanding/dp/0743290917

PLASMA : Latin for FORM

But when I said that the human mind is a non-phyiscal entity that exists with the aid of matter, but is itself not of matter, he balked at me.
Yet, without a mind there is no language, there is no mathematics. — god must be atheist

This sounds like the age-old debate between Materialism and Idealism. Even Plato and Aristotle were divided on the question of primacy. However, in his Hylomorphism theory, Aristotle seemed to admit that something immaterial (Form ; Substance ; Essence) was prior to, or at least co-existent with, physical Matter. In his "Physics", he mainly described tangible objects in the world, but also referred to logical processes that are invisible-yet-knowable to the rational human mind. Then, in the volume known as "Metaphysics", he turned to discussion of human ideas & theories about the material world. Those mental concepts are literally Ideal, and do not manifest in material form --- except perhaps to those who imagine that they see ghosts.

I suppose that Aristotle was too pragmatic to accept the mystical primacy of Mathematics, accepted as a fundamental belief by Pythagoreans. So he viewed Plato's Idealism as a little too spooky for his taste. But, in his own rational arguments, he was forced to resort to combining physical stuff (hyle ; matter) with mental concepts (morph ; form) in order to explain how the logical patterns by which we know Matter could transform into the ideal forms of mental images.

Modern empirical physicists also tend to imagine the "material" objects they study as aggregates of fundamental "atoms". This despite the fact that Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science. Their supposedly indivisible particles of Hyle have been divided & sub-divided into smaller fragments that are too ethereal (quarks) for our sense-extending tools to resolve. Hence, many if not most Theoretical physicists have decided that the fundamental entities of physical reality are mathematical Fields of inter-relationships (geometry). But, the empiricists still insist on calling the non-dimensional points --- that are geometrically-linked to other mathematically-defined points in otherwise empty space --- "Virtual (almost but not quite real) Particles".

So, it seems that philosophical disputes, about physical vs non-physical entities, boil down to a question of personal taste or belief systems (worldviews). But even "physical" Energy, which is essential to explain any change in material objects, is itself invisible & intangible. Being merely a name for the relationship between Cause & Effect : a process, not at thing. At the bottom line, modern empirical (mechanical) physicists, whose names are not well-known, are often overshadowed by theoretical (mathematical) physicists (Einstein, Tegmark et al). The latter create abstract mathematical models of things unseen, and publicize imaginative metaphors & imagery to explain the puzzling results of atom-smashing experiments and star-smashing astronomical events.

Consequently, it's inevitable that philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems will clash & balk, when translated into "physical evidence" to support their own logical structure. Is it real? Depends on how you define "reality" in words & images. Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe? :smile:

Thomas Mann wrote: What I believe, what I value most, is transitoriness. But is not transitoriness — the perishableness of life — something very sad? No! It is the very soul of existence. It imparts value, dignity, interest to life. Transitoriness creates time — and “time is the essence.” Potentially at least, time is the supreme, most useful gift.
Time is related to — yes, identical with — everything creative and active, with every progress toward a higher goal. Without transitoriness, without beginning or end, birth or death, there is no time, either. Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

Is this a mere coincidence or a two-factor synchronicity? I just flipped through a book I read almost 15 years ago, and in the next moment clicked on this thread. Both are concerned with "timelessness", but from different perspectives. Gevin Giorbran's book, Everything Forever, Learning to See Timelessness, was published in 2007. He was influenced by Einstein's concept of Block Time, and David Bohm's notion of Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Giorbran seems to emphasize, not the "transitoriness" of Time, but its comprehensiveness (wholeness). He looks at Time from the outside, instead of the inside.

His universal view of Time is expressed in terms of both Zero and Eternity : "what zero is not is nonexistence", and "our universe is in the process of merging with the timeless sum of all, with the infinite whole, with everything forever". Some of his assertions will sound mystical to those with a pragmatic empirical bent, but his book is so dense with quotes & images & diagrams & facts & details, that he comes across as a visionary genius. Unfortunately, like too many geniuses, he committed suicide shortly after writing this book. I hope he's enjoying the peace & harmony of timelessness, without getting bored by stagnation.

I find some of his extrapolations & conclusions hard to accept, but his presentation is provocative, and hard to refute. That's also true of Einstein's theory of Block Time : "everything everywhere all at once". Giorbran says, "Usually we imagine the whole of physical reality moves along with us through time. Yet that assumption might be like someone reading a book and believing that once a page is turned it no longer exists, or someone believing the pages that haven't been read yet do not exist until one turns the page".

Thomas Mann's notion of Time seems to come from a personal experiential point of view. But Giorbran's version is from a global, universal, and philosophical perspective. Mann's concept feels more sensuous & real, while Giorbran's idea seems more abstract & ideal. Could both aspects be true simultaneously? :smile:

THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF GIORBRAN

Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. Yet if they are tools, then they can't not exist. — god must be atheist

I agree that Language (Logic) and Mathematics are meta-physical functions (tools) that are necessary for the existence of the physical world. Some mathematicians have begun to view abstract Mathematics as the logical structure of the physical universe. In that case, math/logic is not in the physical world, it is the physical world. Our brains merely convert sensory digital inputs (information) into imaginary concepts that we accept as accurate representations of the physical world. We translate geometric & logical relationships into topological models of "real" things.

Although those conceptual "things" are merely ideas, for all practical purposes, they are the furniture of the real world. We treat our mental models as-if they are real. Those ideas may-or-may-not exist as physical objects, but they are still within the scope of the space-time natural world. Hence, not "super-natural", but merely "meta-physical"*2. Yes, I know it's a taboo word for Materialists. :smile:


*1. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*2. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was later labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I still haven’t seen a convincing argument against my idea of causation!
A cause is necessity between particular things. — invizzy

I'm not an Aristotle scholar. But, I assume you are using "necessity" in the Aristotelian sense of a lawful relationship (metaphysical connection) between objects that results in physical change. This seems to be a specific case of Ari's notion of a natural "place" for everything --- perhaps a primitive notion of gravity/mass. Some things are naturally superior (gravitas) to others, and possess more inherent force or power, to rule subordinate things. This concept was later applied to the divine (natural) right of Kings & Nobles to govern lesser beings. The "necessary" ruler/ruled relationship was inherently metaphysical, even though it was sometimes enforced by physical compulsion. So, is your "necessity" a metaphysical concept or a physical law -- which are historically related*1?

In a post above, you seem to imply that Causation itself is "a thing". If so, is it a physical object or a mathematical (metaphysical) ratio between Cause & Effect, mover & moved, ruler & ruled? In physics, the necessity of Cause & Effect is limited by the Space-Time "light cone", which is set by the speed of Light (photons ; particular things), which are particles or waves that propagate causal Energy from one place-time to another. In which case, the speed limit of Light is essentially a Natural Law governing Causation, and Necessity Relations.

As I understand it, in the Aristotelian model of Necessity, the First Cause (Prime Mover) of Nature is also the Final Cause of all natural events. And any intermediate Effective causes (energy ; force : momentum) are essentially agents of the ultimate cause. This is a teleological notion, which indicates that causal events are Necessary due to their subordinate relationship to the Ultimate Authority of the Prime Cause. But Hume denied that human induction (from objective observation) could logically infer an unbroken (necessary) chain of causation from First to Final causes. Is that an argument against your idea of causation, or merely missing the metaphysical point? :smile:


*1. Divine Natural Law :
While our main focus will be on the status of the natural law as constituting the principles of practical rationality, we should consider for a moment at least the importance within Aquinas’s view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine providence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

*2. Causal Agent :
Aristotle defines the agent or efficient "cause" (κινοῦν, kinoûn) of an object as that which causes change and drives transient motion (such as a painter painting a house) (see Aristotle, Physics II 3, 194b29). In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

The dialectic of lordship and bondage, most commonly called the master-slave dialectic — Dermot Griffin

I've never read any of Hegel's writings, but somehow I came to associate his name with the notion of a historical (or natural) Dialectic summarized in terms of Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. I just read the novel by Ken Follett, World Without End, set in late medieval England, when the long-running semi-stable Feudal System of Lords & Serfs was beginning to unravel. The author doesn't analyze the situation philosophically, but describes it in such visceral detail that the reader feels like a first-hand witness to man's inhumanity to man, and especially to women. In light of our modern -- enlightened, but less than perfect -- system, that darker era feels depressing, especially when compressed into a single story-line.

The period Follett describes is in the centuries following the 1215 Magna Carta*1, when the King was forced to define in writing the legal rights of his subject nobles (Barons, Counts, Earls, etc). Those rights were not directly extended to the Serfs, who were bound to Land & Lord. Yet, they continued to incrementally resist & rebel against the Master-Slave relationship. And since the Lords were dependent on those who provided their food & material, they were eventually forced to pass-on some of their own "individual rights" to those under their authority. As Follett's book illustrated, the historical power struggle leading up to more general democratic rights, as defined in the 1787 US Constitution, followed an excruciating (for both those on top & bottom) zig-zag path of ups & downs, back & forth.

Likewise, the "Class Struggle" that Marx summarized as the Logic of Nature, has not yet been fully resolved. Even the US Constitution and most Parliamentary systems, still accept a natural bicameral order of Lords/Senators (the few) and Commons/Congressmen (the many). Marx's ideal of egalitarian communal politics has proven susceptible to the motivating power of abstract money. Hence, the new Feudalism of Capitalism : Billionaire Oligarchs ruling the bare-survival masses.

If the 3-stage Dialectic is truly the logic of Nature, we must assume that the power-pushing-politics will continue to dance to the Cha Cha rhythms of one step forward, one step back, then both step forward together : as rulers & ruled court the favor of each other in coy pursuit & evasion. The question is, can we consider this erratic process as upward progress toward a more harmonious world? Science Fiction presents both Utopian and Dystopian views of the future. But, if current movies are any indication, dystopian & apocalyptic futures seem to be more common in our "enlightened" era. :meh:



*1. Magna Carta :
"the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

(What is the difference between implication and causality?) — Karlen Karapetyan

Your well defined, but complex, post goes over my philosophically untrained head. But I will comment on one facet of the Causation question that I am somewhat familiar with. In the pre-scientific era : the implication that an object in motion could cause another object to move was intuitive (e.g experience with billiard balls). But the the observers had no idea how to explain mechanical transfer of motion between objects. An ancient word for invisible causes was "Spirit" (wind or breath). So, the implication was that some invisible "ooomph" was transmitted from the moving object to the stationary object, forcing it to move in the same direction. Today, we use the words "Energy" and "Force" to explain the transmission of unseen "momentum" from the kinetic object to the static object. But all of those "ooomph" words describe a mathematical relationship, not a material substance that can be off-loaded from one carrier to another.

The causal relationship between Kinetic & Static is so reliable, that we would be surprised if the cue ball struck the eight ball, and suddenly stopped dead, with no corresponding acceleration of the the struck ball. Where did the "oomph" go? Due to our intuition of cause & effect we have come to expect Action & Reaction to be joined at the hip (Necessity is implicit). That is the ancient belief we call "Causality". But scientists have since explained the causal mystery in terms of Mathematical ratios instead of Material substances. Momentum is not a load of stuff carried by moving objects, but a dominant/submissive relation between primary Action and secondary Reaction. However, we can now explain Causation in terms of Information Theory.

Metaphorically, the active partner in this exchange issues a coded command (kinetic energy) and the passive partner (static Mass) obeys, by shouldering the original Power Load (momentum) and transporting it in a direction & velocity that is proportional to the relative powers of Dominant & Submissive agents. In this case, the Load (or Charge) is not material stuff, but immaterial (mathematical) Information about the relative interrelationship. To view Causation in terms of Information Theory is a novel concept, but has been demonstrated experimentally. :smile:


Causal Force :
As we experience enough cases of a particular constant conjunction, our minds begin to pass a natural determination from cause to effect, adding a little more “oomph” to the prediction of the effect every time, a growing certitude that the effect will follow again. It is the internal impression of this “oomph” that gives rise to our idea of necessity,
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

Information transfer is the way information is turned into a code and transferred from one place to another.
https://www.generationgenius.com/information-transfer-lesson-for-kids/

Energy transformation, also known as energy conversion, is the process of changing energy from one form to another. In physics, energy is a quantity that provides the capacity to perform work or moving, or provides heat. ___Wikipedia

Information to Energy conversion :
We briefly review the first experimental demonstration of Maxwell's demon of Szilard's engine type that converts information to free energy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629685/

EnFormAction : the power to cause change of form, or motion

Form : a pattern by which we recognize & define objects in the world.

Does quantum physics say nothing is real?

When I get into the philosophy about it I get stuff like "well that depends what you mean by reality", after that I pretty much tune it out. — Darkneos

Late to the party here. I haven't read beyond the first page of posts. But I don't see where the key word has been defined in terms of quantum physics. Hence, the thread has migrated off-topic to loosely relevant notions of "opposition". Anyway FWIW, I'll add my two cents worth on the fraught topic of Reality, which underlies many of the heated disputes on the forum. We seem to split between a narrow physical definition, and a broader metaphysical meaning of "Real".

The early quantum scientists argued among themselves about the same existential question. In his 1958 book, Physics and Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg discussed Descartes' division of the world into "res extensa" (matter) and "res cogitans" (mind). Werner concluded that "the position to which the Cartesian partition has led with respect to the "res extensa" was what one may call metaphysical realism. . . . This is to be distinguished from practical realism." That dichotomy forces us to distinguish between two different uses of the word "real". Then he noted, "actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism".

Today, some philosophers bow to the empirical authority of Classical Physics, and define "Real" in terms of 17th century Materialism. But a few still see a role for Platonic Idealism ; especially since Quantum Physics emerged, and undermined some of the unproven assumptions for the primacy of matter. For example, the ancient philosophy of Atomism has now crumbled under the onslaught of Quantum reduction into a meta-physical world of amorphous fields of statistical Probability, populated by dimensionless points that are labeled as Virtual Particles.

Despite the philosophical concerns of Quantum pioneers, most physicists today tend to treat "virtual" particles as-if they are "real" lumps of matter, instead of immaterial mathematical concepts of warping "excitations" in a local zone of non-local empty-but-plastic space. So, they are doggedly holding on to the outdated classical definition of "Real". Meanwhile a few contemporary philosophers & scientists are redefining "Real" in the metaphysical terms of Quantum queerness. So, what do you mean by "Real" : pragmatic or philosophical? :smile:



How can we know what's Real? :
In a world of idealistic & imaginative humans, how can we know what's real, and what's fantasy? The scientific method was designed for just that purpose. But it originally assumed a clear distinction between Fact and Fiction. Unfortunately, such a precise dichotomy is no longer realistic, since the thoroughly attested Quantum Theory describes the invisible foundations of our observed universe in terms of entities that are literally-unreal abstractions, verifiable only by inference from paradoxical lab results. In my own personal experience, I have never seen a wishy-washy-waving quantum particle or felt the spooky chill of a quantum field brimming with ghostly unborn particles. Hence, I have to trust the professional physicists who assure me that what I see with my natural senses is not the ultimate reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note__ The pioneers of Quantum Theory were perplexed by their inability to apply Classical notions of physical reality to what they were finding in their sub-atomic experiments. Niels Bohr: "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." That last line is prescient of John A. Wheeler's assertion that "We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe".

Realism vs Realistic :
A pertinent philosophical distinction is between Objective reality and Subjective ideality. Or in more technical terms : Phenomena (reality as we know it) and Noumena (ideal reality). Of course, we can only guess at the latter, based on models created from our sense impressions. We only sense the tiny part of Cosmos that is within the limited reach of our physical senses. But our rational minds have allowed us to expand the range of our knowledge of reality. So, we are now aware of an unseen realm, not of ghosts & fairies, but of waves of potential and particles of possibility. To a classical physicist such literal non-sense would sound fantastic. But we moderns now accept such fantasies, because our priests of physics can work miracles, by calling upon the powers of the underworld. I’m kidding, of course, but it’s literally true. For example, flash memory works its magic by producing particles that can pass through solid walls (Quantum Tunneling)⁴¹.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page54.html

I fear that my ideas are being lost in translation! (In particular I’m not sure what the word ‘belief’ is doing here!) — invizzy

I added the "belief" because our words are usually expressions of belief, which does not always correspond to objective reality. Hence our language may "cause" erroneous or undesirable effects in the natural & cultural worlds. I apologize, if that goes off-topic. :yikes:

So that’s my idea, that causation is a special sort of word. — invizzy

Yes. We normally use the word "cause" in reference to natural exchanges of energy that result in physical changes in the material world. But, human Will (Intention or Purpose) is an artificial form of causation, which causes changes in both physical and psychical realms of the world. So, in that sense, the word "causation" is indeed "special". :wink:

PS__I would say that Causation is both Linguistic (mental) and "in the world (physical).

Intentional Causation :
Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. Most traditional religions have always assumed a steady-state universe that either stays the same forever, or simply goes around in circles. But agnostic or godless scientists determined that the evidence from Biology, Geology, and Paleontology indicates that many small random changes add-up to progressive evolution toward increasing order and complexity -- at least in the corner of the cosmos we can study in detail. Of course, that development is not perfectly deterministic -- more like a little dance of creation : two steps forward and one step back. But it seems to imply some purpose behind the prancing procession.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

↪Gnomon
As if choosing freely were the same as choosing randomly. — Banno

Yes. The Galton illustration of randomness within the normal curve of statistical determination does not take into account Intentional choices. Instead, the fundamental randomness, or uncertainty, on the quantum scale of physics, merely indicates that causal Determinism, although the norm, is not absolute. Thus providing gaps (statistical uncertainty) to be exploited by Intentional Causation.

I'm currently reading Werner Heisenberg's book, Physics and Philosophy. There he makes a statement that, at first glance, sounds similar to Anscombe's denial of Causality & Determinism : "The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory". But then, he goes on to say, "Therefore, the law of causality is reduced to the method of scientific research ; it is the condition which makes science possible. Since we actually apply this method, the law of causality is 'a priori' and is not derived from experience".

By "a priori" he means intuitive & logical. But his own Uncertainty Principle implies that the logical natural "law" of Causation is somewhat flexible. In my own theory of Freedom within Determinism, the natural world has produced a new kind of causation : human Intention (Will). And history records many instances of culture (including Science) modifying the natural course of causation. Nevertheless, the current ecological crises indicate that un-natural (artificial) causation may conflict with, but does not negate the normal processes of natural laws governing Cause & Effect. The bottom line is that human behavior & choices & effects are somewhat unpredictable, from merely extending past causal norms into the near future. :smile:


Statistical Uncertainty :
Uncertainty in statistics is measured by the amount of error in an estimate of the mean or average value of a population.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/uncertainty-science-statistics

The uncertainty principle implies that it is in general not possible to predict the value of a quantity with arbitrary certainty, even if all initial conditions are known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The only offence is your ongoing refusal to directly address the article you are pretending to critique — Banno

I'm not dialoging with Anscombe. So, my intention was not to critique her article, but the statement you quoted from it. I was trying to dialog with Banno. Assuming you agreed with it, I was hoping you would defend that quote. My interest was in the definitive dismissal of Causal Determinism, not in pursuing off-topic "irrelevancies". Sorry to have wasted your time. But I have learned something from this one-sided dialog. :smile:

PS__I once used the Galton board of bouncing balls to argue in favor of Freedom from Determinism. But my interlocutor was not buying it. So, I moved on to other arguments.

"In the last issue, John Hartung rejected my clumsy attempt at a mechanical
analogy to human freedom within a context of determinism. Specifically, he defined
"free will" in terms of "purpose", which is a property of living beings, not of ping pong
balls. Nevertheless, he still seems to believe that even human beings have no personal
freedom, hence no more purpose in life than a ping pong ball. Unfortunately, I failed to
clearly show that personal purpose is the very thing that elevates human actions above the
purely mechanical cause and effect system envisioned by Mr. Hartung".

↪Gnomon
Hmm. There's not a lot of point in continuing a conversation about an article that you won't read. Your comments do not mesh with the article, nor with what I wrote about the article,
Anscombe does not deny causation. She denies determinism. She carefully examines several ways in which the word is used and shows them to be wanting. So your pointing to examples of causation is besides the point.
She also carefully distinguishes causation and determinism, something I do not see in your posts. — Banno

Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I was just quibbling with Anscombe's definitive statement : "determinism is impossible". That's what we do on TPF isn't it : quibble? "She denies determinism". I don't. However, I do see a philosophical place for limited FreeWill within a general milieu of Causation & Determinism. If "determinism is impossible" then empirical Science is impossible. And if FreeWill is impossible, then human Culture is impotent. I was merely arguing in favor of human Intention as one of many causes in the world. So, if she had said "determinism is not inevitable" I would have no quibble.

She also "distinguishes causation and determinism", which seems to be a linguistic quibble. The OP asks if causation is just a word (belief) with no referent in reality. Perhaps in Linguistic Philosophy that interpretation is meaningful. But in Scientific Philosophy, the word "causation" should have a solid grounding in physics. Admittedly, inevitable Determinism is a belief, not a verified fact. But it's a belief based on lots of objective evidence. However, Freewill is also a belief, and based on personal subjective experience. It's the lack of empirical evidence that allows some to deny the common belief in FreeWill.

You seemed to assume that I was arguing in favor of strict Determinism. Which is just the opposite of my intent. I suppose, if you interpret her argument to be not just against absolute Determinism, but also in favor of relative Freedom, I could agree. But, if that's what she meant, I missed it in my perusal. I did a search for "freewill" in the article, and found only one instance. So, the point of the article seemed to be mostly a linguistic quibble between Causation & Determinism, not an attempt to show that FreeWill is possible. :smile:

Causality vs Determinism :
Determinism is more than belief in causality. The defining feature of determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causality. The essence of determinism is that everything that happens is the only thing that could possibly happen (given the past) under those circumstances
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=causality+vs+determinism
Note-- If you interpret human Intention as a form of causation, then there is no need to postulate a gap in the chain of causation. Hence, natural Determinism is supplemented with cultural Intention. :nerd:

Anscombe :
"It was natural that when physics went indeterministic, some thinkers should have seized on this
indeterminism as being just what was wanted for defending the freedom of the will".
https://iweb.langara.ca/rjohns/files/2016/09/anscombe_causality.pdf
Note -- that is just what some philosophers did -- equating quantum indeterminism with human freedom. But, to empirical scientists that sounds like a Quantum Leap of Faith over the lack of evidence. So, I'm content with a non-empirical (theoretical ; philosophical) justification of FreeWill. :cool:

Further, your use of "circuitous" indicates some antipathy. And I've already suggested that her first argument is that the notion of causation remains undefined, — Banno

I had never heard of Anscombe or her absolute assertion that "determinism is impossible". So, I couldn't have approached the article with antipathy -- more like curiosity. Anyway, if she is going to reach a definitive conclusion about causation & determinism, why would she be content to leave her subject undefined, or undefinable? What kind of argument is that? If she had said, more modestly, "determinism is not inevitable", I would have to agree.

From their historical experience, ancient humans seemed to believe that divine causation was inevitable. Hence the pessimistic (or heroic) attitude of Fatalism. But, I doubt that modern physicists were fatalists. Instead, to them, Classical Determinism merely meant that Causation was consistent enough to make practical (or pragmatic) projections into the future course of events. Yet. Quantum Physicists were perplexed by the inherently unpredictable nature of quantum events. That's why Heisenberg proposed his Uncertainty Principle, to introduce a bit of Doubt into Determinism. Nevertheless, quantum physicists still use Schrodinger's equation to make useful predictions, despite the inherent margin of error.

On the macro scale of human experience, consistent causal Determinism seems to be reliable -- to a high degree of certainty -- as illustrated in the DART experiment sending a missile to intercept the path of an asteroid ten months into the future, and thousands of miles from Earth. So, to say that "determinism is impossible" seems to be a bit extravagant, even though we now know it is not inevitable. Instead, human FreeWill (purposeful action) seems to allow us to choose "different paths" to destiny, which modifies, but does not deny the general rule of Cause & Effect.

Therefore, I would say that Determinism is generally how the randomly interacting physical world works, but for rational humans the purposeful mental world introduces both Linguistic (Mental) & Physical degrees of freedom into the chain of Cause & Effect. That's because willful Intention, for all practical purposes, is a goal-directed form of causal Energy. It's not just the ability to do haphazard work, but to cause specific desirable changes in the world. :smile:


Fatalism vs Determinism :
In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942/A-Level/Philosophy/What-is-the-difference-between-determinism-and-fatalism/

Determinism Is Not Just Causality :
Determinism is more than belief in causality. The defining feature of determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causality. The essence of determinism is that everything that happens is the only thing that could possibly happen (given the past) under those circumstances.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cultural-animal/200906/determinism-is-not-just-causality

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions. . . . It is vital to illustrate how the principle applies to relatively intelligible physical situations since it is indiscernible on the macroscopic scales that humans experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Mental versus Physical Causation :
Pragmatic science assumes that anything not detectable by our physical senses, or by their mechanical extensions, is unreal — merely a side effect of brain operations. That materialistic presumption also applies to causality, in which physical events are predictably followed by effects in the real world; but, non-physical events, such as conscious thoughts, are effective only within the body. Those metaphysical activities are called "brain functions", and while personally useful, they are not in the mainstream of objective causation. Nevertheless, for ordinary humans, they are not mere side-effects, but our direct link to reality.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page69.html

I'm guessing that Anscombe's assertion that "determinism is impossible" was based on Quantum Probability, — Gnomon
No.
There remains the possibility of your reading the article rather than guessing. — Banno

I did scan the article, but its circuitous reasoning lost me. So, I was hoping you could summarize how she arrived at the bold "assertion that determinism is impossible". In the quote below, it sounds like she was saying that the "inventions of indeterministic physics" are merely linguistic "dogma" instead of a physical fact. What's your guess? Is classical determinism a natural fact, or just a philosophical metaphor to fill-in our ignorance of what's really going on in the world?

My own understanding of Causation is expressed in terms of Mathematical & Logical relationships. Even causal Energy is defined in terms of Proportions & Ratios (E=MC^2 ; where C is a dimensionless number). Since our knowledge of Math is mental instead of sensory -- inferred instead of observed -- it makes sense to me that human reasoning & intentions could have some effect on those causal relationships. In which case, I could say that "orderly determinism is normal & probable, but abnormal (intentional) deviations (indeterminism) are statistically possible". I just made that up, so don't hold me to it. :smile:

Causation (philosophy) :
Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/causation

Hume on Causation :
Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
Note -- Hume's problem of Induction reminds us that our reasoning from-this-to-that is fallible, hence some skepticism is advisable. But to conclude that "determinism is impossible" would cripple the disciplines of Science & Philosophy. Yet, to infer that "determinism is inevitable" would deny the universal human assumption of free choice, upon which our personal behavior & communal culture are based.

Anscombe :
Yet my argument lies always open to the charge of appealing to
ignorance.. . . .
It has taken the inventions of indeterministic physics to shake the
rather common dogmatic conviction that determinism is a
presupposition, or perhaps a conclusion, of scientific knowledge.
https://iweb.langara.ca/rjohns/files/2016/09/anscombe_causality.pdf

Anscombe points out that determinism is an impossible, or at least quite unnecessary, goal for physics.
One does not need compatibilism if cause does not necessitate determination. IF the physical world is not a clockwork mechanism - and it seems it is not - then there is room for free will without resort to compatiblism. — Banno

I'm guessing that Anscombe's assertion that "determinism is impossible" was based on Quantum Probability, Uncertainty and Indeterminacy. But early Quantum physicists (e.g. Einstein) argued that "god does not play dice". The implication being that Classical physics was based on an uninterrupted causal chain (i.e. no miracles). Eventually, Quantum physicists grudgingly revised their classical worldview, to include a bit of indeterminism, as long as it was confined to the invisible quantum level of reality.

From that acccomodative perspective, the universe is still viewed as mostly mechanical & deterministic, but with minor glitches in some of the smaller clockwork cogs. On the scale of Cosmology though, scientists also have to deal with incomplete knowledge of initial conditions : the original setting of the clock. Nevertheless, most physicists act as-if they believe that indeterminacy is an exception to the rule. Hence, free-will philosophers are still challenged to specify some kind of causes to fill any presumed minor gaps in the chain of cause & effect. So, human agency must be somehow justified as compatible with general/universal energy-mediated Causation.

I looked up Donald Davidson to see what he had to say about FreeWill. His notion of "reasons as causes" seems to be compatible with my own concept of Freedom within Determinism, in which human Reason has evolved into a non-physical causal agency that can have physical effects (e.g. to put a man on the moon). What he calls 'reasons" are based on purposeful teleological concepts of a future state that results from human "intentions or motives", rather than natural forces.

Even so, human culture is still working within the general constraints of physics. As President Kennedy said, "we want to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". Collective human Will, finds ways to overcome physical obstacles, not by ignoring physics, but by learning to leverage physics in ways that are un-natural, (i.e. Cultural), but compatible. :smile:


Reasons as Causes :
Davidson’s first major philosophical publication was the seminal paper ‘Actions, Reasons and Causes’ (1963). In that paper Davidson sets out to defend the view that the explanation of action by reference to reasons (something we do, for instance, when we refer to an agent’s intentions or motives in acting) is also a form of causal explanation. Indeed, he argues that reasons explain actions just inasmuch as they are the causes of those actions. This approach was in clear opposition to the Wittgensteinian orthodoxy of the time.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/#ReasCaus

That out of the way, it's true that the mechanisms of causation themselves are a series of intermediate causal claims. — Agent Smith

I just read in Werner Heisenberg's book, Physics and Philosophy, that "causality can only explain later events by earlier events, but it can never explain the beginning". The First Cause. :smile:

her target is more determinism than causation, but there is a firm attack on the " ‘Always when this, then that’" (final paragraph) that ↪Gnomon and ↪Agent Smith
seem to advocate. It irritates me because (!) I maintain some sympathy for Davidson's treatment of human actions in causal terms. — Banno

" ‘Always when this, then that’" sounds like absolute Determinism, or Fatalism. But Gnomon "advocates" Compatibilism : freedom within determinism. It assumes that human Will is a non-natural (artificial) Cause. By that I mean, human Culture has found ways to modify natural causation, to suit their own needs & desires. Would Nature put men on the Moon or Mars?

Can you summarize Anscombe's "attack", and Davidson's "treatment"? Do they argue in favor of human FreeWill -- sometimes but not always pre-determined? Is their approach physical or linguistic or noetic? :smile:


Compatibilism is the doctrine that determinism is logically compatible or consistent with what is said to be a single idea of freedom that really concerns us and with a related kind of moral responsibility -- the freedom in question being voluntariness.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html

Freewill within Determinism :
Science depends on predictable determinism. But philosophy looks for unpredictable unique meanings : "the difference that makes a difference". Free choice interferes with the smooth flow of cause & effect determinism, because it introduces an element of non-random novelty, directed toward self-interest. Even an if-then dichotomy, in a complex system, becomes a multiple-choice question. In a computer, a diode is a simple either-or choice, with no chance for conflict. But in a self-conscious person, each fork in the road has two viable options, the predetermined path or My Way. After countless steps up the ladder from energy exchange, to information flow, to knowledge transfers, metaphysical Consciousness gradually evolves from Quantum Physics.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page33.html

It seems most people who write about causation take causation to be ‘in the world’ in some way, as some sort of force or a relationship (e.g. perhaps regularity as per Hume) between things in the world or something like that. I think probability raising would be covered by this seeing as we’re talking about probabilities of things in the world.
Perhaps causation is a relationship between a WORD for a thing in the world and the FACT of another thing in the world.
What do you think? Could causation be a relationship between words and things rather than things and things? — invizzy

Perhaps the linguistic confusion you are referring to is due in part to the use of a single English word, "cause", to translate Aristotle's four causal relationships. Today, we usually think of "Causation" in terms of Energy. But for Ari, the word "energeia" simply meant objective (productive) physical "work", and "ation" meant a subjective rational explanation, a reason, a why. We observe the Fact of change, and then explain it in Words.

Apparently, he thought of Causation in terms of changed relationships on several levels of being, such as before & after, which could be either intentional (artificial) or accidental (natural). The most basic relationship is between a "Material" substance (physical properties) and its shape (formal properties) : natural metallic bronze vs culturally-enformed statue. Next, is the "Formal" relationship between the old & new shape : accidental (natural) rock shape vs designed sculpture shape. Then, the sculptor's mental design intent, the "why", is what he means by the "Final" cause.

However, our modern scientific notion of Causation puts the emphasis in the middle, on the "Efficient" cause, which in most cases involves the application of Energy to an object or substance. Natural change is presumed to be random & accidental, while Cultural change is intentional & teleological. It mentally envisions the future state or shape, toward which to aim in the process of applying efficient causation to the material cause. Plan the work, then do the work.

The bottom line is that Aristotle's four causes cover the full range of possible causal relationships : for example, 1> between natural state & artificial state ; 2> original observed form & final imagined form ; 3> between physical force & material bronze ; 4> between innate shape & envisioned alternative (designed) shape. The pre-change state is an observed Fact, while the envisioned state is an imaginary future Fact. The first is a sensory Thing, the second is a mental Idea of a thing.

Plato & Aristotle used the term LOGOS ("word") in reference to rationally caused change, as opposed to natural (factual) change. Our modern language seems to have trouble making such philosophical distinctions. Which may be why Quantum Physics seems so paradoxical & counterintuitive. The Mind of the observer/causer was left out of the equation. :smile:

WHAT WAS THE SCULPTOR THINKING ?

↪Gnomon
And yet, something like visible light can 'travel' several hundreds of thousands of miles through a vacuum as a potential, never touching matter as we know it, finally reaching our retinas or photographic equipment only to affect us with the sights and images we call reality. I find that challenging to grasp with the classical intuition. There seems to be a new and different type of intuition being formed there. A physical effect emerging from the self-reflexive nature attributed to the potential. I think it really breaks down the divide there a lot. For instance, is kinetic energy something that exists in the sense of being 'out there,' when we look more deeply into it and find there are a number of potentials being fulfilled and unfulfilled based on how it is being observed? It's almost like the physical world is affected by a sort of creativity. — kudos

Yes. The key distinction between Potential Energy and Actual Energy is Inter-action. I think of Energy as a form of Information. In its statistical state, light Energy does not exist physically, hence is invisible. But when it interacts with Matter, Energy causes a change of form. Invisible mathematical Potential becomes visible Actual, a real state of matter in motion (Kinetic Energy). That's why massless light energy can travel through dark empty space imperceptibly & unchanged until it meets a physical object, and is reflected into a visual receptor.

For example, in the eye, the statistical potential of light energy transforms from a non-local wave of potential into particular photons which interact with the chemical Rhodopsin to produce a flow of electrons, which in turn, cause the brain to produce an image of whatever object the light last interacted with (reflected from). In other words, it communicates information about that object. But the mental image itself is subjective, and possesses none of the material substance of the object. That's what I call a creative act. Something new has been created, which did not exist before. But its existence is Ideal, instead of Real.

Heisenberg explained the counterintuitive nature of quantum physics in terms of "a subjective element in the description of atomic events, since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer, and we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning". Or, as Kant noted, we never know the ding an sich [thing itself] but only our mediated perception of the thing. John A. Wheeler described that "breakdown of the classical divide" between Real & Ideal, or Potential & Actual, in terms of a "participatory universe", in which the observer is a ["self reflexive"] part of the thing observed. Some have interpreted that participation to mean that the observer, "contrary to classical intuition", creates his own version of Reality. I wouldn't take that notion literally -- as Many Worlds proponents do -- but it might help to think of it as an as-if model of "complementary reality" as Bohr put it. It's a way to see both sides of the real/ideal coin simultaneously. :smile:

You said the potential energy is in the spring (or at least you seemed to.). Strictly speaking, potential energy doesn't have a location. You could think of it as a sophisticated prediction. — frank
I don't understand this.If it exists nowhere, it doesn't exist. — Hanover

Aristotle's differentiation between Potential & Actual, as two different ways to exist, may help you to understand the same distinction in Physics. You could say that Potential is universal and non-local, while Actual is specific and local. For example, a AA battery is said to have the Potential for 1.5 volt-amps of current, even when no current (kinetic energy) is flowing. In a sense, the potential is stored in what physicists now call a "Field" (the universe as a whole).

Electrons bound to the field (entangled) are labeled as "Virtual" (essential ; wavelike), to distinguish them from Actual electrons flowing as causal current in a material substrate. In a battery, the electrons are bound to atoms as chemicals (inactive potential energy), but when "flowing" they are what we call "free" or Active or Actual Energy (particular ; pointlike). Potential Energy (virtual existence) has the ability to do work in the future, but is not currently causing change (actual existence).

You'll just have to get used to the idea of two kinds of existence : Real (particular ; physical) and Ideal (holistic ; potential). Warning, some won't like the metaphysical implications of this duality of Energy & Matter. :smile:


Potentiality and actuality :
The actuality-potentiality distinction in Aristotle is a key element linked to everything in his physics and metaphysics.. . .Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist. . . . Actuality comes from Latin actualitas and is a traditional translation, but its normal meaning in Latin is 'anything which is currently happening'. . . . The two words energeia and entelecheia were coined by Aristotle, and he stated that their meanings were intended to converge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note -- When Aristotle says a thing "does not exist", he means as a material object. So Potential existence is what we today would call "statistical probability", but Ari refers to it as "Form" (mathematical structure as opposed to material structure).

Electron Flow :
Because these virtually unbound electrons are free to leave their respective atoms and float around in the space between adjacent atoms, they are often called free electrons.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conductors-insulators-electron-flow/

I have no formal education but for primary school, after that I picked things up along where I went which I started to do more frequently with the mainstream availability of theinternet. — Seeker

I too, have no formal education in Philosophy, except for a math course in basic Logic. Some of these threads & posts use technical scientific and philosophical jargon for brevity, which can make comprehension difficult, especially in a second language. Fortunately you can Google most of the unfamiliar terms, or look for them in Wikipedia. But, if any discussions are unclear, feel free to ask for clarification. If they know what they are talking about, most posters will welcome opportunities to expand on their brief comments. :smile:

↪Gnomon
exactly. If a scientist has an untenable theory, other scientists will point it out, and this critique can - as it does in this case - lead to positive results. It’s a self-correcting methodology. As is philosophy. No harm, no foul. — GLEN willows

In the Heisenberg book quoted before, he refers to quantum physicists' impractical "thought experiments" as "ideal experiments". Thus implying a link to Plato's Idealism. However, he noted that "new ideal experiments were invented to trace any possible inconsistency of the theory . . ." Unlike most British & American physicists though, Heisenberg was schooled in Germany, which at the time considered Philosophy to be essential to a well-rounded education.

The book's introduction says "Heisenbrerg puts great emphasis on the distinction Descartes made between mind and matter, which is at the core of the classical belief in an objective reality. . . . Aristotle, for example, conceived of tangible matter as the imposition of form on a 'potentia', a sort of universal essence comprising possibility rather than actuality". Later quantum physicists, who may not have been familiar with ancient philosophical notions of a dualism between Potential & Actual or Ideal & Real, used the term "Virtual", in place of "Potential" or "Essential", to describe statistical particles that are not-yet-real. They then treat those non-dimensional mathematical points of probability as-if they are real. Even though the word "virtual" literally means Essential, which is a taboo term in classical Physics.

Some modern philosophers dismiss Descartes' Duality, and Aristotle's Potential, as un-real, hence unworthy of rational consideration, even in thought experiments and "ideal experiments". But, as noted above, sometimes those un-real models are useful to virtually test the interpretations of paradoxical quantum experiments. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Yes I see what you (and Hossenfelder) are saying. I'm just not sure what the problem with an unprovable theory would be, in practical terms. — GLEN willows

Hossenfelder is not saying that bold conjectures (beyond current testability) by scientists should be censored. She's just noting that, until a theory becomes verifiable or falsifiable, it's not empirical Science, but theoretical Philosophy*1, which she labels "Ascientific". Philosophers are free to create imaginary or mathematical models as analogies & metaphors for conceptualizing difficult problems. But those models shouldn't be treated as hard science, until they have been tested against hard reality.

One example of a scientist creating an idealized model, was Neils Bohr's picture of an atom as a miniature solar system. That image was popular among scientists & laymen for several years, because it made sense in classical terms. But, eventually, quantum physicists had to concede that the model was not realistic, and led to untenable expectations. It served well as a philosophical model for further theorizing, but eventually had to be abandoned because it failed to explain the results of experiments.

You could say that Bohr's unprovable theory was useful ("practical") to illustrate where it failed to match empirical evidence. When challenged by Heisenberg, Bohr later revised his classical model to cover the paradoxes & uncertainties of the "strange kind of reality" that underlies our conventional classical models of reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the result of that compromise between intuitive classical concepts and counter-intuitive quantum weirdness. :smile:


*1, "The Copenhagen response is to insist that asking such a [objective] question is essentially asking for a classical account of the quantum world, which by definition can't be done". That's why Heisenberg proposed a more subjective philosophical account. "That he would do this at all sets Heisenberg apart from most modern physicists, who generally disdain or simply ignore philosophical thinking about their subject". That disdainful attitude, even among philosophers, is the topic of this thread.. ___ Werner Heisenberg, Intro to Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science (1958.