Comments
-
Is causation linguistic rather than in the world?
" ‘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?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
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 -
Is causation linguistic rather than in the world?
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.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
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 ?
-
Historical Forms of Energy
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.↪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
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: -
Historical Forms of Energy
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).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
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/ -
Some positive feedback
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: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 -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
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.↪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
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: -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
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.↪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
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. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
In general, that's true. Hossenfelder was not condemning scientists for creating theories to explain physical mysteries. What she warned against is falling-in-love with a pet theory, that no physical evidence can prove or disprove. She seems to think they are unaware of crossing the invisible line of demarcation between the Science & Philosophy magisteria.I see what you're saying, but the scientific method is to observe nature, create a theory (i.e. guess) THEN try to prove it. If there are theoretical physicists who believe in (for example) string theory and just end the inquiry there, then you're right, that's inexcusable. But what I see is these physicists doing experiments to prove said theory. — GLEN willows
She gives several examples of such transgressions of Empiricism (the scientific method), and labels their unfalsifiable theories as "Ascientific". In that case, they are doing Philosophy, not Science. As for doing experiments, many of those beautiful mathematical models are not subject to experimental verification -- at this time -- yet some persist on faith, that future technologies will open new windows into the abstract mathematical realms of such counterintuitive notions as String Theory. :smile:
PS__FWIW, Hossenfelder doesn't make this connection, but I place Mathematics under the heading of Metaphysics (abstract ideas), not Physics (concrete matter). You could say that Matter is embodied Mathematics : the logical, non-physical (relational) structure of an object.
Mathematical Metaphysics :
"Kant argues that mathematical reasoning cannot be employed outside the domain of mathematics proper for such reasoning, as he understands it, is necessarily directed at objects that are “determinately given in pure intuition a priori and without any empirical data”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/
"Math is only a Metaphysical subject insofar as it is an example of a system of consistent relational structure."
https://www.quora.com/Is-math-a-metaphysical-subject -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
I too, read books by Albert Ellis, and was impressed with his Rational-Emotive self-therapy. You could think of it as self-directed Philosophy, or merely as self-discipline. In a marginal note I wrote : "most people seem to think that emotions and reasoning are separate, un-connected processes. Whereas, in reality they mutually influence each other : emotions color our thinking, and thinking modifies our emotions". Perhaps Hamlet foreshadowed Ellis : "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". And Hamlet may be paraphrasing the Stoic philosopher Seneca : “Reason shows us there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” :smile:A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon. — Tom Storm -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
Yes. That was the premise of physicist Fritjof Capra's 1982 book, The Turning Point. In which he introduced the concepts of Holism and Systems Theory. He applied those ideas to all phases of modern culture. The name of the book suggests a future "paradigm shift" from narrow Reductive methods to broader Holistic thinking. :smile:Systems-centric is another way to characterize it: holism is one of the key characteristics of complex emergent systems. In this guise, it can form the focus of a legitimate paradigm shift, rather than just being a dirty word. — Pantagruel
PS__Holism does indeed require "going beyond the [reductive] facts" in order to see both sides of reality at once : material parts + metaphysical (mathematical) inter-relationships. Philosophy without imaginative Holism would be factual Physics. Yet. some posters seem to prefer it that way.
PPS__A crucial aspect of Philosophy is skepticism toward your own flights of fancy, to keep your feet on the ground.
Ancient Skepticism :
The Greek word skepsis means investigation. Literally, a “skeptic” is an inquirer. Not all ancient philosophers whom in retrospect we call “skeptics” refer to themselves as such. Nevertheless, they all embrace ways of life that are devoted to inquiry. Ancient skepticism is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything. This gives rise to their most controversial ambition: a life without belief.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I think Massimo Pigliucci would agree with you about the Non-overlapping Magisteria of Science and Philosophy. That's a nice way to avoid antagonism (stepping on toes) between the disciplines. But, in order to work, both sides have to buy-in to the dual domain premise. In practice though, some scientists feel free to engage in unverifiable philosophical speculations, as long as they can present their abstruse abstract mathematical models as true representations of reality.The two disciplines cover two different aspects of existence. Science is no more under the thumb of authority than philosophy is within academia. IMO — GLEN willows
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book, Lost in Math, to chide her fellow physicists for straying into philosophical territory. Not that there's anything wrong with that, except for the pretense that their hypothetical models (e.g. cosmic inflation) are real science. Instead of empirical evidence though, they judge their mathematical models in terms of aesthetics, and even doggedly defend them, as-if it was a matter of Faith. Ironically, her second book, Existential Physics, presents her own opinions, as a scientist, on several philosophical questions. To her credit, she labels her own conjectures, and those of other scientists, as "Ascientific" (i.e. philosophical).
This thread was started in order to discuss how & why some philosophers, and TPF posters, disparage their own profession or hobby, and place themselves "under the thumb of higher authority" (in this case : Empirical Science). Pigliucci's response was simply to point-out that there is no authoritative consensus position on the Foundational Questions of Physics. Which lie on the swampy borderland between the magisteria of Empirical Science and of Theoretical Philosophy. Their authoritative Bible of Science exists only in the imagination of believers. So, they cannot be proven wrong . . . or right. :smile:
Lost in Math : How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252
Philosophers want to know why physicists believe theories they can’t prove :
how physicists can come to believe in certain theories without necessarily having the empirical evidence that proves them.
https://qz.com/590406/philosophers-want-to-know-why-physicists-believe-theories-they-cant-prove/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I agree. He's trying to use scientific (physical) methods to study a philosophical (abstract, metaphysical) topic. But, I applaud his ingenuity for devising a mathematical analysis to study a mental phenomenon. It may even lead to methods for using AI to determine if a person in a coma is subliminally conscious.Probably you mean Giulio Tononi. His Phi function is untenable. — jgill
However, IIT is indeed untenable as a conventional secular Scientific project, because it ultimately requires a universal potential for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate. Consequently, neuroscientist Christof Koch even entertains the taboo idea of Panpsychism (universal consciousness). But my personal worldview is based on mundane universal Information (power to enform ; energy). So there's no need to grapple with the absurd notion of chatty conscious atoms exchanging gossip.
The bottom line is that I do not "support Tononi" in the sense that Krisis implies. For me, IIT is just one more bit of information for a Philosophical (Epistemological & Ontological) project. :smile:
Ubiquitous Information vs Universal Consciousness :
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? The WIRED interviewer complains, “ I still can’t shake the feeling that consciousness arising through integrated information is — arbitrary, somehow. Like an assertion of faith. “ But Koch responds with “ But why should quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It seems arbitrary! “ Anyway, Koch is just one of several mainstream non-religious scientists who find the notion of Panpsychism to be a reasonable theory by which to answer some of the world's oldest Ontological head-scratchers.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page13.html -
Nature of the Philosophical Project
I agree. Aristotle referred to what we now call "Metaphysics", as "First Philosophy". But, for some on this forum Metaphysics is a four-letter word. And it may be true that some people will justify their out-of-bounds speculations under the pretense of merely doing metaphysics. But that's the risk we take for allowing freedom of thought. In a free society, we have to tolerate Neo-Nazis, even if we don't like what they say. Without freedom of thought, there would be no creativity, no progress. However, the free exchange of ideas must be funneled through a skeptical filter to remove the BS & cons. Yes, that's censorship, so even the skeptics must be subject to skeptical filtering.My hypothesis is that the philosophical project as such is, at its heart, metaphysical. Fichte says that. "To proceed beyond the facts...to go beyond experience as a whole...this is philosophy, and nothing else." — Pantagruel
For good practical reasons, Modern Science has constructed a restrictive box to contain its own speculations. Physics is limited to the study of details of the material world of the senses. But philosophy has goals that are not limited to pragmatic real-world results. With logic & imagination, it goes beyond the specific things of the world to reason-out general & universal principles. Even Physics makes use of unprovable generalities, such as natural laws, in order to make accurate predictions of physical behaviors. But those "normative rules" themselves must be accepted as "self-evident". We don't discover natural laws by dissecting Nature, but by viewing it as an integrated (whole) system. This approach is not necessarily super-natural, but it is Holistic (another four letter word for those who fear thinking outside Pandora's box). :smile:
Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: Metaphysica[1]) is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that is sometimes referred to as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology, in English. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics.
It is a compilation of various texts treating abstract subjects, notably Being, different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects and the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle) -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
180boo asks politely why Gnomon doesn't ever "answer any of my polite, direct, simple questions of your "unorthodoxy & jargon"?↪Gnomon
Well said! — Agent Smith
You can tell him for me : I fell for that smooth sibilant serpentine wooing before -- in the interest of philosophical dialogue -- only to find that his "arguments" are anything but "polite, direct & simple", consisting mostly of "ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age)". There are plenty of other posters on this forum that will take these novel ideas seriously, and challenge them in a respectful manner. So, I'll go back to my policy of avoiding baited traps, and ignoring ideological ambushes . :cool: -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Some have taken issue with your labels for the "two kinds" : Science vs Pre-science. Yet, I suspect you had a good reason to word it that way. Perhaps though, it's ultimately about Rational Empirical vs Intuitive Mythical approaches to knowledge. Most ancient religions explained how the world works in terms of metaphorical myths, intended to sound plausible to people without technologies to extend their built-in senses. With few verifiable sources of general information, the myths were accorded some authority by claiming divine revelation, which would be difficult to prove, one way or another.two kinds of people. — Art48
However, the non-revealed pre-science of Aristotle (observation & inference) was considered authoritative for centuries. Then, the additional requirements for replicability & falsifiability began to weed-out illusory or biased observations and erroneous inferences. The practical results of such empirical methods gained a lot of respect for post-Enlightenment science among the masses*1. But the Intuitive Mythical types still prefer their self-interest human-interest stories to the cold hard impersonal facts of science. So, it seems that many people pick & choose from both belief baskets : Objective Abstract Mechanical Science vs Subjective Metaphorical Personal Religion. Hence, not two types of people, but two types of worldviews, and two kinds of priest-experts : technological vs sociological. :smile:
PS___Another pertinent dichotomy might be Science (empirical) vs Science (theoretical). The latter is literally ascientific in the sense of non-empirical. So, you could think of the duality in terms of Science vs Philosophy.
*1. On the Intersection of Science and Religion :
The survey showed that just 16% of Christians in the U.S. say their religious beliefs “often” conflict with science
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/winter-2021/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Yeah. I eventually decided the Enformity*1 concept might be a step too far into the woo-world*2. Not for me, but for those prejudiced against alternatives to Materialism & Determinism. However, I still use the related coinage "Enformy" as an alternative to the scientific term "negentropy". Although Enformationism is a metaphysical philosophical conjecture*3, I try to stay safely on the natural side of the woo-woo wonderland. Unfortunately, hard-core physicalist/materialists view any notion of "an organizing principle"*4 (Enformy, Elan Vital, Holism, Natural Selection) as definitely across the woo-line.↪Gnomon
Didn't think so - that one looked pretty trashy and woo woo. — GLEN willows
That's because mechanistic science is based on the concept of a random un-directed universe. Hence, it has no plausible explanation for the undeniable self-organizing features of Evolution. Ironically, Darwin's notion of "Natural Selection" was modeled on the artificial Cultural Selection by humans, who intentionally steered genetic evolution toward their own perverse goals, such as dogs with un-naturally short legs or noses. Even more ironic is the concept of option-limiting Natural Laws, with no law-making agency other than Cosmic Accident.
There are plenty of otherwise pragmatic physicists who have come to conclusions similar to Enformy. In fact, famous physicist John A. Wheeler got the ball rolling in an Information-Theoretic direction with his "it from bit"*5. If that's woo, then I must accept that pejorative label. But I prefer to call it "philosophy", which is ascientific, in that it projects our understanding beyond the world of the 5 senses into the realm of Reason, the sixth sense. That may sound New Agey, but with no incense, chanting, gurus, crystal power, etc., it's a pallid excuse for a super-natural spirituality. :smile:
*1. What is Enformity? :
It attempts to steer a safe course between the Scylla of Materialistic Science & the Charybdis of Spiritualistic Faith.
☉ It follows the methodology of naturalistic Science as far as possible. But it does not shy away from meta-physical speculations where necessary.
☉ It will take issue with mainstream conventional Science, and with fringey unorthodox Pseudo-science.
☉ It deals with controversial technical scientific and philosophical questions, but from a layman’s perspective.
☉ It uses some edgy New Agey Noetic terminology where necessary, but it’s not intended to promote any associated magical mystical notions.
http://www.enformity.enformationism.info/page2%20welcome.html
*2. Woo Woo :
(slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=woo+woo
FWIW, I don't accept any of those beliefs.
*3. Pragmatic Science is clearly better than theoretical Philosophy and mythical Religion for explaining the mundane details of the natural world. But for information about the universe as a whole, scientists put on their philosophical hats, and become Cosmologists. "In fact, for all its virtues, physics tells us precisely nothing about the nature of the physical Universe. . . . The truth is that physics is a tool for prediction." So, science can tell us how the universe works, as a reliable mechanical system. Yet when it tries to fathom the essential nature of reality, it comes up with the weird paradoxes and infinities of the sub-atomic (sub-material) realm of Quantum fields.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
*4. The Fundamental Organizing Principle of Nature that We have No Word for. :
Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate in Physics, thought this principle was so important that he wrote it into his family crest: contraria sunt complementa, opposites are complements.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamental-organizing-principle-nature-we-have-word-frank-medlar?trk=pulse-article_more-articles_related-content-card
Note : the Latin concept is equivalent to the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang, and the digital code of 1/0 .
*5. It From Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Save the spooks for Halloween. I have a suggestion : why don't we just agree to disagree on whatever distraction we are disagreeing on, and return to the OP topic : philosophers who disparage philosophy, and hold Physics (with a capital P) sacrosanct?Spooky, ain't it? – when Gnomon, apokrisis & 180 Proof agree (more or less). — 180 Proof
Spooky, aye! Verrry spooky! :smile: — Agent Smith
Pigliucci was accosted for trying to interpret Quantum Physics with novel philosophical metaphors, instead of bowing to old creeds, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response, he noted that the Foundational Questions survey indicated that even the Copenhagen compromise is not accepted as gospel by over half of physicists. Each of the most popular "interpretations" has its own peculiar jargon : A> Copenhagen, B> Many Worlds, C> Objective Collapse, D> Quantum Bayesianism, E> Relational QM, and E> (my preference) Information-Theoretical. Which of these disparate "worldviews" are they defending? Personally, I don't care if they believe in Many Worlds with multiple models of 180 & krisis. So, I feel no need to attack them personally as "Parallelists".
That being the case, why do the Woo-Booers harp on my own unorthodox interpretation & jargon --- presented not as a scientific model, but as a personal philosophical worldview. I am not the first or last to present an extensive thesis on TPF with specialized technical jargon. But something about Enformationism seems to threaten the heart-felt belief system of a few counter-posters. Lashing-out emotionally, they don't offer alternative arguments, but merely ad hominems (Dunning-Kruger) and stereotyped labels (New Age). What are they afraid of : that philosophy might possibly contribute something new & positive to our understanding of how & why the world works as it does? :cool: -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I know; it's a no-win situation. Like defending yourself from accusations of being a witch. Anything you say will be twisted to use against you.It doesn't help your case to implicitly compare yourself to perhaps the single most important figure in the development of modern science. Maybe aim your telescope a little lower. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't take this stuff seriously. I'm just teasing my Inquisitors, because are incorrigible. They already call me an "idiot" ("Dunning-Kruger" for the intellectual elite). So, I just "clap back" at them. I'd prefer to just ignore them. But they smell blood in the water, and won't go away. Every now & then you have to punch the shark on the nose. :joke:
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Innovators are often "incorrigible" in the face of Inquisition. :cool:Gnomon's famously – Dunning-Kruger? dogmatically New Ageist? – incorrigible on this point. — 180 Proof
In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
During his trial, Galileo offered the opportunity for the Inquisitor to look through the telescope himself and see what Galileo himself had seen. The Inquisitor refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2021/08/07/refusing-to-look-through-galileos-telescope/ -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What you're saying is that you'd prefer that I quote from your Science Bible : perhaps the Authorized Steven Hawking Version, or the Official Compendium of Scientism. Where can I get a copy of your holy text? Which guru is your jargon "master"?If you are genuinely interested, you wouldn't have to invent your own jargon. You would start by mastering all the jargons that have been created so as to then start to see the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project. — apokrisis
Since I'm not a professional scientist or philosopher or a monk copying old texts, I get my information from a variety of sources. I then combine their disparate ideas into a single philosophical system. But I don't concern myself with Orthodoxy, or regal imprimaturs, or memorizing creeds. The key to that systematizing is creativity, not servility to authority. :smile:
Why Coin Tech Terms? :
One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html
PS__If you can get your nose out of your antique Science Bible, I can direct you to a Glossary of technical terms & neologisms, so you can better understand "the broader outlines of this central modern metaphysical project . . . . if you are genuinely interested." :wink: -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
No. That was a secondary website I started, but got side-tracked on the blog.↪Gnomon
This?
http://www.enformationism.info/Enformity/ — GLEN willows
The Enformationism thesis is here :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
It describes how I arrived at the conclusion that the fundamental element of reality is Generic Information. Hence, Enformationism is proposed as an update of 19th century Materialism, and ancient Spiritualism. Since Physics is beginning to equate Information (mind stuff) with Energy, and Energy was equated, by Einstein, with Matter (mass), Generic Information is all of the above : Energy, Matter, Mind. To put it into a historical philosophical context :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms. :smile:
PS___I'm just applying cutting-edge science to my own personal worldview. The only thing I add is a title to tie all the bits & pieces together into a philosophical system.
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental
This is not a scientific theory, so It doesn't quote academic or lab studies. It's a personal philosophical thesis, and quotes hundreds of scientist & philosopher opinions on physics and information theory. Because the primary subject (mind stuff) is immaterial, their speculations & conjectures are not verifiable empirically, but can make sense logically. :smile:Where does this theory derive from, it deals with a lot of scientific principles. Can you quote some studies? — GLEN willows
Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics
ed. by Paul Davies, physicist
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-and-the-nature-of-reality/811A28839BB7B63AAB63DC355FBE8C81 -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What physicists inappropriately label "Negentropy" is what I call, "Enformy". Entropy is dissipative & destructive, while Enformy is integrative & creative. You can think of Enformy as Energy + Information (causation plus direction). These are my personal opinions. Please don't ask for settled science on the topic.Or indeed, to move us even more towards a general theory of organisms, we aren’t even just structures of information. Life and mind are dissipative structures organised by semiosis. We are structures of meaning or negentropy. — apokrisis
Physicists have recently begun to equate Information with energy*1. It's a new idea, and hasn't caught on everywhere. Another novel idea is that of Information Causality*2, which links meaningful (mental) Information with the (physical) energy to produce change in (material) form*3. These concepts are still mostly in the theoretical and philosophical stage, but physicists are beginning to learn how to convert Information (mathematical data) into energy.*4
Enformed "structures of meaning" don't just happen by accident. Entropy happens by accident. But functional structures require logical interrelationships. Logic is both Mental and Mathematical. As Hossenfelder noted : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do". :smile:
*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
*2. Information causality :
We suggest that information causality—a generalization of the no-signalling condition—might be one of the foundational properties of nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08400
*3. The physical nature of information can be understood from three main perspectives: the relation between information and physical entropy; the strongly informational nature of the quantum view of nature; and the possibility of recasting physical laws in informational terms
http://informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC03.html
*4. information-to-energy conversion :
suggests a new fundamental principle of an ‘information-to-heat engine’ that converts information into energy by feedback control.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821 -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
I'm not aware of any official doctrine for Holism*1. It's just a philosophical concept or principle. However, in my own personal worldview, Enformationism, consciousness is indeed an emergent property of matter/energy. Logically though, the Potential for both Life & Mind must be inherent in Nature. Possibly encoded in the original Singularity, from which all things in the world emerged. The creative effects of that Holistic tendency can explain why evolution is progressive and self-organizing, without external inputs.↪Gnomon
so according to this, would holism consider consciousness an emergent property, as suggested by Chalmers? — GLEN willows
In the Wiki link below, Jan Smuts calls Holism "a fundamental principle". In my own theory, I coined a new term "Enformy" to identify the role of Causal Information in evolution. Physicists gave it the inappropriate name "negentropy". Both of these are philosophical hypotheses, and the only evidence is logical inference from historical patterns, combined with the expanded theory of Information. Which links Information with Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change). :smile:
*1. Holism and Evolution :
After identifying the need for reform in the fundamental concepts of matter, life, and mind (chapter 1), Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Cheer up! As 180 noted, we are "bags of chemistry, and much more" The "more" is what we call Holism, or a functional system : parts working together toward a common goal (purpose).True that. It's depressing to hear someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson ask the rhetotorical question "so we're just bags of chemistry?" Science has been, since the Copernican revolution, in the business of demoting the status of humans from a-one-of-a-kind to just-another-face-in-the-crowd. — Agent Smith
In Existential Physics, Sabine Hossenfelder was asked : "are you just a bag of atoms?". She replied : "The relevant property of humans is not our constituents. It's the way the constituents are arranged ; it's the information you need to build a human, the information that tells you what it can do." Giulio Tononi might say, it's the "Integrated Information" (Holism) that makes you into a selfish organism, with purposes & motives, and with the ability to love & be loved as a person. Atoms & chemicals working in isolation have no Life or Mind, or any other qualities as a Person.
So, you are not just a "bag of chemicals", you are a walking, talking, thinking, feeling, self-governing, purposeful, opinionated system of Information. And you can impose your selfish will upon the rest of the world like a Boss. But don't let your status at the pinnacle of evolution go to your head. Evolution is like the "moving finger", which writes what-is, then immediately moves-on to what's next. :cool:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
― Omar Khayyám -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
Not so. Holists would say that 2 x 2 = 4.↪GLEN willows
Holists are those who say 2 + 2 = 5. — Agent Smith
Holism is not mere addition, but multiplication.*1
The whole system emerges from complex interactions of all components.
Holism is not just a just a bunch of things, but an integrated structure of things operating together for a single purpose; a coordinated function.
When a neural network of nodes begins to function in an integrated manner (i.e. purposefully), to process incoming/outgoing energy/information, the system as a whole becomes Animated & Conscious. That's the basic theory of IIT.*2
Any questions? :nerd:
*1. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. Slime Mold (part plant, part animal) is emergent life & mind : single cell without neurons, it becomes animated and intelligent enough to coordinate its syrupy actions to find food. Its gooey innards function together to process information, in order to serve its needs as a multipart organism.
How a single cell slime mold makes smart decisions without a central nervous system
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223121643.htm -
Pre-science and scientific mentality
The bare chart lacks context. Is this Binary classification intended to be an idealized snapshot of pluralistic reality, or to refer to an historical watershed like the Enlightenment? Does it apply now, or at some future time? Is the division innate or learned? How is it different from any other binary catalogue of human types (e.g. introvert/extrovert)? Are we stuck, or can we change classes? The table could be interpreted as contrasting open-mind Liberals vs closed-mind Conservatives. I assume you will expand on the underlying concept, to put it into a broader philosophical context, such as Universal Theology.Below is a rough, first-draft which describes two kinds of people.
(I think it's appropriate for this forum.)
Comments? — Art48
In the 60s, a similar notion became popular, the astrological Age of Aquarius. However, in that model, the Science category would be characterized by knowledge of abstract cosmic influences upon humans. Ironically, like most salvation schemes, this leap from a benighted past would be imposed upon humanity by outside forces, instead of from within, due to learning from experience. Ironically, although "astrological ages are taken to be associated with the precession of the equinoxes . . . . Astrologers do not agree on when the Aquarian age will start or even if it has already started." Apparently, after this cosmic turning-point, there would still be "two kinds of people" : enlightened and benighted ___Wiki
In Christian doctrine, similar either-or categories are "saved" & "unsaved', yet people are given a choice of which class they want to belong to. And they have an outline of how this personal & global paradigm shift will occur, and when, give or take a few millennia. Anyway, I'm just riffing on a theme of binary categories. :smile:
The Turning Point : Science, Society, and the Rising Culture is a 1982 book by Fritjof Capra :
Capra outlines and traces the history of science and economics, highlighting flaws in the Cartesian, Newtonian, and reductionist paradigms which have come to light in the context of contemporary empirical understanding of the physical sciences. He writes that these paradigms are now inadequate to guide human behavior and policy with regard to modern technology and ecology, then argues that society needs to develop the concepts and insights of holism and systems theory to solve its complex problems. His argument is clearly and strongly expressed, for a wide readership, presuming no prior knowledge of any branch of the sciences. For physicists the book is an instructive guide to why and how today's new science may affect tomorrow's society. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & MetaphysicsWhat did I say that was a smear? — T Clark
That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.
As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".
Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.
But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.
Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:
Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/
The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable.
5 days ago
Options — Gnomon -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I'm currently reading Existential Physics by Sabine Hossenfelder. The "existential" part of the title was probably an oblique reference to publicprofessional speculations beyond the scope of "settled" science into unfalsifiable metaphors, traditionally reserved for impractical philosophers. And as Pigliucci noted in my prior post quotes, the Foundational Questions of Physics are basically about un-settled Science. And those unsettling doubts are found mostly at the largest (Cosmology) and smallest (Quantum) scales of scientific knowledge. As a public explainer of Physics, she often gets asked for the official position of Science on topics that both scientists and laymen wonder & argue about. Hence, the book.And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism. — Gnomon
Most of the questions she addresses are from the demilitarized zone between Physics and Metaphysics. However --- sensitive to the common prejudice among Scientists, and diffident Philosophers, toward the taboo word "metaphysics" --- she typically substitutes "ascientific", which simply means : "not an empirical topic". But, I find a side-by-side comparison instructive. Aristotelian Physics & Metaphysics can be viewed as mirror images of each other : Observation/Theory, with a material object on one side, and an analogous image on the other. So, for my own philosophical purposes, the word "meta-physics" should convey the notion of that complementary correspondence of worldviews : Material & Mental*2.
On the apparently unrelated topic of "Predicting Unpredictability", Sabine gives an analogy with "uncomputability" : "take the economic system. It is a self-organized, adaptive system with the task of optimizing the distribution of resources. Some economists have argued that this optimization is partly uncomputable." Obviously the source of that non-linear logic is human choices and behavior. Which struck me as a good metaphor for the key difference between Physical and Metaphysical questions. Where material evidence is available, the answers are computable, based on physical laws. But where the premise is merely Mathematical (abstract) or Mental (imaginary), the comps disappear into infinity. Therefore, to those looking for real computable hardware, the soft mind-stuff looks black.
Feckless Philosophers feel free to conjecture into Infinity (or the time before time), where pious pragmatic Scientists fear to tread*1. Yet, some undaunted eccentric scientists put on their philosopher's hats (wizard cap?), and boldly go beyond the bounds of mundane Actuality, into the dark airless realm of unspecified Possibility. Many of them feel surprised & hurt to have their beloved mind-children dismissed as mere wizard woo. :cool:
*1.Ascientific (off-limits) questions per Hossenfelder : Many Worlds, Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation. Also, any taboo topics that are considered off-limits for pious physicists.
*2. Prior to Homo Sapiens the world had little Mental to speak of. Now, we are immersed in Memes (mental bits), zipping between minds at the speed of sound and of light.
WHICH IS REAL AND WHICH ILLUSION?
WHICH IS COMPUTABLE (real) AND WHICH UNCOMPUTABLE (unreal)?
Hint : infinities are displayed as black, because the computer's calculations go-off-the-charts there.
-
Could we be living in a simulation?
Where can I get a prescription that that? :smile:The red pill is a metaphor for the willingness/desire for knowledge no matter what the cost. — Agent Smith -
Could we be living in a simulation?
Ironically, Neo had to take a magic pill to open his mind to the possibility that his reality might not be what it seemed to his brainwashed senses. Where can we find such pill in our own Matrix? :wink:↪Gnomon
Syād ... The Matrix hypothesis is when skepticism becomes fun. — Agent Smith -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I agree. That's the whole point of putting debatable ideas on a public forum. Most threads on TPF have their pros & cons, yet manage to remain somewhat respectful, even though many of them go-off on technical tangents far from the OP. On this forum those nebulous limits are negotiated on the fly. So, elbowing, name-calling, poking-in-the-eye, and hits-below-the-belt are the price we pay for our freedom from rigid rules-of-order laws. Yet, some seem to believe that there are implicit taboo rules that all must respect. To which I respond, "where is it written?" I could poke back, in kind, with dialog-ending labels, but that's a low-class political tactic: "here's my response to your subtle argument : F.I.S.T."Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? — Gnomon
There are few restrictions here. But when views are presented others are free to poke at them. — jgill
If you're not the one being poked with prejudicial labels ("prove you're not a witch"), you may not notice anything awry. The injustice arises when free exploration strays into forbidden territory, and touches hot-button "don't go there" issues. And one of those high-tension topics is "where to draw the no-go line between Physics and Metaphysics"; as Piggliucci discussed in the OP quote . On TPF we can safely discuss the philosophical implications of Fuzzy Physics, on the quantum scale, where no-one can prove you wrong --- as long as you stay within the traditional boundaries of 18th century Materialism.
However, TPF harbors a few sentinels of heresy, who seem to believe there is no defining line, because there is no Metaphysics. Apparently, they think that Metaphysics died along with God, back in the 1950s. But then, in the 1960s, various Eastern god-concepts, and their associated philosophies, arose to fill the "god-shaped hole" in the human heart. My topics have nothing to do with such exotic stuff, by they get pigeon-holed in the Woo-slot, because I insist that my subject is Mental & Meta-physical, hence not governed by the laws of Matter & Physics, and not settled by empirical evidence. But the woo-labelers, deferring to the absolute authority of Physics over Philosophy, seem to believe -- in effect -- that the universe is all Hardware (mechanical rules), and no Software (logical laws).
I apologize for going-on at length with this off-topic diversion. If you were familiar with some of the recent threads I've posted on, you might understand why Obeisance to Science on TPF is an important obstacle to free philosophical exploration. The problem with philosophers bowing to the final authority of Pragmatic Empirical Science, is that If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like Physics. Anyway, my problem is not with you, but with the "smells like metaphysics" police. :smile:
"Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics".
___Massimo Pigliucci, Foundational Questions in Physics
Regarding metaphysical assumptions on existential questions : "not wrong, but ascientific". ___Sabine Hossenfelder, Existentential Physics
Ascientific : not a dictionary word, just "not science related" : hence philosophical.
OBEISANCE TO HIGHER AUTHORITY
-
Could we be living in a simulation?
The simulation hypothesis is fun for computer nerds to contemplate, perhaps because they see no personal consequences of the notion of artificial Reality. In Existential Physics, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder admitted, "I quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation. It gives me hope that things will be better on the next level." (heaven?) But that hope seems to be based on faith in the good intentions of the unknown programmers. She goes on to note that, "this simulation hypothesis . . . has been mostly ignored by physicists, but it enjoys a certain popularity among philosophers and people who like to think of themselves as intellectual. Evidently, it's more appealing the less you know about physics".What was taken for real (out there, distinct and separate from us) is being questioned; it could all be a hallucination (in our heads). As for considering the world tentatively/provisionally real, I'm all for it, but note, the damage is already done. — Agent Smith
But, what does she know about computer simulations, except for the mathematical models that theoretical physicists create to emulate how the physical world actually works? She seems to think the alien simulations are actually patterned after traditional religious beliefs about super-intelligent super-powerful beings. "The belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature, but that for some reason remains hidden from us, is a common element of monotheistic religions". Unfortunately, my own explorations of philosophical origins questions are typically placed in the obsolete notion basket, without any knowledge of the actual proposal. It suggests a logical explanation why an immaterial programmer would remain forever beyond the reach of our materialist metaphors. And why the programmer allows the program to run without miraculous interference.
Reality Simulation games would be no fun for emotion-driven players, if they couldn't play god, by occasionally over-riding the program. But an abstract bodiless self-existent Programmer (pure Logic, pure Math, pure Information) would presumably have no hormonal urges to over-ride the original end-state-intent (teleology) of the program : the Final Cause output. That makes sense to me, but Hossenfelder might still reject it as philosophical speculation beyond the hard physical evidence. But, that's OK, I don't pretend to be a physicist. Just an explorer beyond the edges of the known world. :nerd:
PS__ Hossenfelder goes on to say that "physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step-by step, like a computer code". But what if the universe functions more like a non-digital integrated brain. . . . . Just philosophical fodder for unfettered thought.
UNCHARTED TERRITORY --- HERE BE DRAGONS
DOES THE UNIVERSE RESEMBLE THE HUMAN BRAIN?
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-human-brain-resemble-universe.html
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
That was not directed at you personally, but characterized the depressing downward trend of below-the-belt ideological argumentation, on a question originally raised by a prominent professional philosopher, but linked by an easier-to-besmirch amateur.What did I say that was a smear? — T Clark
As usual, this whole thread has gone off-topic into an indiscriminate mud-slinging battle. I was hoping that my last post to you was my last word on that off-topic. But . . . I just found a new article on Nautilus, a cutting-edge science-oriented online magazine, that reminded me of the "woo-boo" labels on TPF. I wouldn't bother to bother, but you seem to be somewhat more flexible than some others who are alert to quash non-conforming "interpretations" on the unsettled fringes on the "Foundations of Science".
Caleb Scharf is an accredited astronomer & astrobiologist, who feels confident that his credentials allow him to propose a sci-fi notion of mysterious world-creating "aliens", without raising judgmental eyebrows, as long as the aliens are assumed without evidence to be mere biological creatures, just like us, only much more advanced intellectually. Maybe even literally AI, artificial intelligence, existing perhaps due to some un-fathomable pre-big-bang artifice.
But similar super-intelligent creator-concepts for the ultimate source of physical laws -- defined by logic, not by physics -- (e.g. Plato's LOGOS) -- but with just as much physical evidence (the mathematical-logical laws themselves) -- are declared to be beyond-the-pale for Philosophers & non-scientists, who project from the space-time world into the unknowable time-before-time, when god-like aliens could experiment with coded laws to create a simulated reality within Reality.
Who wrote the "laws" limiting how far amateur philosophers can speculate, beyond the "revealed Word" of physical Science? Can't we have a little speculative fun here, without getting stoned as apostates from The Absolute Truth, as interpreted by whom (the physics Pope)? Does a degree in physics qualify you to make--up "crazy" stuff? Or should that kind of free-thinking be banned for non-law-abiding un-fettered philosophers, on a forum with no empirical output ? :nerd:
Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence? :
Alien life could be so advanced it becomes indistinguishable from physics.
"But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—as crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements".
https://nautil.us/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence-236218/
The meaning of "BEYOND THE PALE" is offensive or unacceptable. -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Don't worry about it. Just as you read something from your own imagination into my posts, I read some un-stated assumptions into your post. So, we're even.If I've misrepresented your argument, tell me which of my statements you don't agree with. Tell me what your conclusion is if not the one I state in the last bullet. — T Clark
Now, we can get back to the OP question about philosophical deference (diffidence) to Gospel Science on the debatable fringes of Physics : "Foundational Questions of Physics". The survey found that there is no single "consensus" interpretation of those fundamental questions of physics*1. Yet, some interpreters like to pretend that borderline (meta-physical) issues are authoritatively settled, and beyond question*2.
Although I quoted part of Pigliucci's discussion about "What does it mean to interpret Quantum Physics", It would be helpful to read the whole Skeptical Inquirer article, so you won't go-off on a wild tangent. No need to imagine heretical beliefs on my part. Heresy assumes some unquestionable, orthodox opinion established by authoritarian priests.
Besides, does it strike you as ironic that such a "woo-monger", as others have mis-labeled me, would be reading Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I have subscribed to SI, and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. So, I'm well-informed on the erroneous beliefs & methods of pseudo-science. Yet, I'm also well-aware of how defenders of the faith can rise-up in self-righteous anger at any un-conventional interpretations of the unsettled borderlands of knowledge. Philosophical pioneers, undaunted by inquisitors of orthodoxy, explore the realm of reputed dragons in search of philosophical wisdom. Besides, that fuzzy area off the map is not-yet settled Science, so it's open to interpretation. :cool:
*1. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum weirdness was proposed a century ago, in order to settle the acrimonious debates -- including accusations of "woo" -- that caused a great disturbance in the force of Physics. Several of the pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy -- often labeled derogatorily as "mysticism" -- in search of ways to interpret their counter-intuitive and non-classical observations. And the debate-goes-on to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
*2. Quantum mysticism :
Olav Hammer stated that Werner Heisenberg was so interested in India that he got the nickname "The Buddha". "However," states Hammer, "in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy (1959) there is no substantial trace of quantum mysticism;" and adds "In fact, Heisenberg discusses at length and endorses the decidedly non-mystical Copenhagen interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Actually, It was Pigliucci, who objected to the use of such a derisive slang term "woo" in a philosophical or scientific context. It's a short-hand emotive term for "I'm right, you're wrong", and avoids a lot of uncertainty & rational thinking. So, It is very popular among self-righteous posters on this forum. And, the question of "who introduced it", is moot.This was the term you introduced into the discussion. — apokrisis
Anyway, all of this hand-waving is beside the question, of "foundational issues of physics", which Pigliucci noted "smells like metaphysics". Are we discussing "settled" physics here, or questions that go beyond (meta) our understanding of physical reality? What are you so afraid of, that you feel the need to defend an orthodox interpretation of "foundational physics"? Did someone warn you that metaphysical ghosts will get you, if you stray from the true faith in physics?
I'm just kidding. I don't doubt that you know more than me about some technical aspects of borderline physics. But these "woo boo" diversions get tiresome, so I have to poke fun, in hopes of getting back on track : "philosophical diffidence" toward all-knowing Physics. :wink:
In the immortal words of late-night TV philosopher Craig Ferguson, "you're a racist, man". He says, in response to any top-down authoritarian shout-down. :joke:You may find it offensive. But it ain't racist. — apokrisis -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
I'm not familiar with the "bicep data" that you claim I "threw" into the conversation as a "gotcha". Sounds like you know more about what I'm talking about than I do. Why don't you read my mind, and tell me more about that "bee in the bonnet". Or is it buzzing in your bonnet? You keep swatting at something I can't see. :joke:But anyhow, the way you throw the 2014 revision of the Bicep data into the conversation as some kind of "gotcha" is indicative of how little you are aware of the constraints on the conversation to be had. It shows you don't really know what you are talking about. — apokrisis -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin: — apokrisis
How do you dismiss the opinions of professional physicists & neurologists, and cosmologists, some with labs, who entertain fringey notions of "psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence". Their opinions are all over the internet, for those inclined to look. And they too, face institutional discrimination based on philosophical prejudice. Maybe "woo-boo" is actually a contest of political ideologies, not impartial Science. :cool:
The Ideology of Racism : Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination :
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark
Did you omit a prejudicial step, in your logical calculation of that damning conclusion from an unfavorable reading of the OP? Would you apply such biased reasoning (sophistry) to Massimo Pigliucci, too. In the Skeptical Inquirer article, he implied that he has had accusing fingers pointing at him. Following your logic, you could conclude that, " based on that confusion and lack of consensus" Pigliucci "is justified in any speculation . . . ." Not so easy to denigrate "a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics", is it?
Do you think the forum moderators should ban all posts that can be labeled by detractors as "metaphysics"? Should they change the name from The Philosophy Forum to The Empirical Science Forum, or perhaps the Anti-Meta-Physics Forum? What credible topics would we talk about? The possibility of creating a man-made black-hole universe in an atom smasher? Or is that too speculative? Where is the "evidence"? :smile:
Note -- TC, Generally, you seem to be more open-minded toward debatable ideas than the zealous "Anti-Woo Boo-Crew". So, I apologize if anything in this post sounds like a personal attack. It's hard to respond to smears without getting sh*t on your hands.
At Scientia Salon, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci admits to “always having had a troubled relationship with metaphysics.” He summarizes the reasons that have, over the course of his career, made it difficult for him to take the subject seriously. Surprisingly -- given that Pigliucci is, his eschewal of metaphysics notwithstanding, a professional philosopher -- none of these reasons is any good. Or rather, this is not surprising at all, since there simply are no good reasons for dismissing metaphysics -- and could not be, given that all purported reasons for doing so themselves invariably embody unexamined metaphysical assumptions. Thus, as Gilson famously observed, does metaphysics always bury its undertakers.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03/pigliucci-on-metaphysics.html
Is the Big Bang a black hole? :
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html -
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional. :smile:So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis
Evidence for cosmic inflation wanes
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-cosmic-inflation-wanes
Cosmic Inflation :
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
SPECULATION INTO THE TIME BEFORE TIME
-
Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.
But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis
Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? Or are you just placing a prejudical label on ideas that offend your personal belief system? What formal rules of evidence do you use to formulate your confidently expressed personal opinion? Can you cite book, chapter & verse to support your "interpretation" of "animistic or theistic woo". Or is it just juvenile schoolyard name-calling? Why should we accept your scientistic booing as "knowledge"?
The OP, and Pigliucci's Skeptical Inquirer article, were motivated by such knee-jerk responses to quantum & metaphysical topics, that are characteristic of philosophical diffidence toward the absolute authority of Supreme Science. Ironically, they are, in my personal experience, expressed boldly & concisely, in a manner similar to the well-rehearsed creed-doctrines of Ideologies & religions (e.g. Scientism). But, as a non-believer, I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of Physics or Metaphysics. :cool:
Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional.
http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readings/STS101/Philosophy-TheoryOfKnowledge%20-%20flattened.pdf
Note -- which category do we discuss on this forum?
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Gnomon
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum