Gnomon

Comments

Immaterialism
This is because quantum fields are not in spacetime — Gnomon
Because quantum fields are Fundamental. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. They are fundamental because they are mathematical, and consist of non-dimensional Information instead of 4D space-time. Physicists know that their mathematical models of "fields" and "virtual particles" are not real, but for simplification, they treat them as-if they are. But that reverse-abstraction could lead to a confusion between Physical (terrain) and Phenomenal (map).

Dialogs, that hinge on definitions, often get cross-ways because of our language, which doesn't necessary distinguish between real references and metaphorical allusions. Theoretical (mathematical) physicists tend to be more poetic in their language than empirical physicists. That's because the ideal (abstract) objects of their study are invisible, and hard to describe, except by analogy to real (concrete) things that are visible and tangible.

Unfortunately, some non-physicists may treat their imaginary grids & zero-dimensional points as-if they are real things out there in space. That's OK as long as they are communicating with mathematicians. But others may take them literally, instead of poetically. :cool:

Reification Fallacy :
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Poetic Metaphor :
Metaphor: compares two things directly without using “like” or “as”; the subject IS the object.
Note -- in 80's slang, the "as-if" retort means "no way"!

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

The words physical and phenomenal are synonyms, but do differ in nuance. Specifically, physical applies to what is perceived directly by the senses and may contrast with mental, spiritual, or imaginary.

A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object

1."Fields are mathematical constructs only. They suggest the interactions of forces, as in gravitation and magnetism. However, far from being forces, gravitation and magnetic effects are interactions."
2."Fields are mathematical constructs only. They are not physical. They are not real."
https://www.quora.com/In-physics-are-fields-merely-mathematical-conveniences-or-models-or-do-they-have-a-physical-existence-of-some-kind-If-physical-what-are-they-composed-of
Immaterialism
More accurately, the universe is made of quanta; that definition covers more than atoms. So, anyway, all that forms is of quanta. — PoeticUniverse
More accurately, the physical space-time universe is quantifiable. But that definition doesn't cover the Qualia by which we quantify (evaluate). I just happened to receive this excerpted Quora Forum update today. It makes the formerly heretical assertion of an immaterial Platonic "world" that is not quantifiable in terms of space-time measurements. Of course, theoretical mathematicians are more likely to accept Platonism as "true" than empirical physicists.

Both Plato and Aristotle made a distinction between specific quantifiable things and general definitive Forms, that are knowable by Reason, but immeasurable by counting. So, maybe you meant to say "all space-occupying physical objects are made of Quarks". I prefer to distinguish the essential "Form" (Platonic) from the superficial physical "Shape". The Form of a thing is its mathematical structure, or general category. It does not exist in space-time, but in the imagination of a Mind.

Some mathematical theoreticians postulate that the universe is a Quantum Computer. But the data being processed are not physical things, but mathematical values. And values are meanings that exist only in meta-physical minds. Relative values are not empirical physical facts but attributed mental meanings. :smile:

What does not need space or time to exist? :
But there’s another “world” out there, with independently discoverable things in it: The Platonic world of mathematical truths. Things in mathematics: the decimal digits of pi, the properties of algebraic equations, the relationship between the sides of a triangle, etc., are all independently discoverable, so arguably, they “exist”; but their existence is entirely independent of space and time, as they are tied to neither location nor moment in time. ___Victor Toth, resident Quora expert on Physics
https://www.quora.com/What-does-not-need-space-or-time-to-exist/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1?ch=18&oid=323996550&share=20cc5750&srid=umKAX&target_type=answer

Form :
1. the visible shape or configuration of something.
2. a type or kind of thing
3. the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter

Quarks :
1. "Well, I think the simplest way of stating it is that quarks are the fundamental constituent of matter, of all the stuff that's around us," .
2. Quarks are particles that are not only hard to see, but pretty much impossible to measure.
3. At the scale we are talking about here, there are no particles. There are only quantum fields.
4. it's not possible to measure the value of quantum fields at any point in space. This is because quantum fields are not in spacetime
___excerpts from various sources
Immaterialism
As pointed out by others, "vulgar materialism" (stipulated here ↪180 Proof) isn't a position any significant philosopher or scientist has held in over a century, so your anti-naturalistic, dualist-idealist opposition pathetically pushes only an open door. — 180 Proof
As usual, you are way ahead of me in your mindfulness of scholarly disputations. Since I have no formal training in philosophy, I am not familiar with the abstruse technicalities of genteel postulators. And I don't spend my time trying to keep up on the latest fashion in Matter-over-Mind "metaphysical" theories.

So, rather than directing me to "study" another abstruse academic book, perhaps you could give me a quick summary of "non-vulgar" Materialism, as it relates to this thread. Specifically, I'd like to know how Meaning can be inferred from processing Matter. Reminds me of the scrambled pig brains, my father once required me to eat. :joke:

Vulgar Materialism :
a tendency of mid-19th century bourgeois philosophy that came into being at the same time as the great discoveries in the natural sciences of the century.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vulgar+Materialism

Varieties of Materialisms :
"The word materialism has been used in modern times to refer to a family of metaphysical theories"
Mechanical materialism ; physicalistic materialism ; emergent materialism ; double-aspect materialism ; dialectical materialism, . . . .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note -- I'm not sure which of these is "vulgar" and which is elite.

One can be any flavor of "vulgar materialist" (A); one can commit to neither the "philosophical" nor "methodological" position (B); one can be committed to either position and not the other (C1/2); or one can be committed to both positions (D). My own commitments, if you haven't guessed already, are most compatible with (D). — 180 Proof
That sounds similar to my own BothAnd position, which takes a complementary view of apparent oppositions.
Immaterialism
I'll take it as something. The word 'immaterial' doesn't seem to be doing any work. It's like 'unstuff' that is still stuff.
Since the universe has atoms, 'mind' would be of atoms. — PoeticUniverse
I've never heard of "mind atoms" before. So I Googled it, and sure enough there is such a hypothesis. But my gist of the articles is that they are actually talking about a computer Brain, not a meaning manipulating Mind. Anyway, from my Information-centric viewpoint, the atom of Mind would be a Bit of Information (meaning), not a spec of carbon (matter).

A brain or computer is indeed a processor of information, but only a sentient Mind can extract meaning from the passing patterns of data. Our different understanding of what constitutes a Mind was articulated by Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. Until AI robots become philosophers, which interpretation is correct remains a matter of opinion. :smile:

Atoms of Mind :
A network of interconnected atoms could be used to construct a “quantum brain”
https://physicsworld.com/a/interconnected-single-atoms-could-make-a-quantum-brain/

Chinese Room :
Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the "strong AI" hypothesis is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Intention (purpose) :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel.
BothAnd Blog, post 14
Note -- computers inherit their intention, purpose, goal from the Programmer, not from a confluence of atoms or electrons.
Immaterialism
Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter" — Gnomon
Wouldn't it still be the stuff of something to be able to be? — PoeticUniverse
Yes. I call it "mind stuff"; otherwise known as Information. It's being is both Ideal (meaning) and Real (matter). Unfortunately. some on this forum have had a bad experience with religious damnation and New Age superstitions. So they lump all immaterial notions into the same category with ancient Spiritualism and New Age Mysticism. Such belief systems were reasonable back when gods & nature spirits were the best explanation for mysterious natural phenomena. But, today we have different words to explain those causal forces (e.g. Energy = power). And yet, Energy (kinetic ; mechanical) itself is not any concrete material "stuff". It's abstract & invisible & intangible, so we can only infer its existence from its effects (changes in material things). But scientists still don't know any more about what it is (its being), than the ancients, who inferred whimsical invisible personas making things move. Their poetic & romantic worldview is understandable in view of their limited technological knowledge. But it was logical, for the time.

However, the unromantic Greek philosophers saw no reason to infer personal intention (spirits) behind causation. So, they used more abstract terms, such as "Potential" & "Logos" to label those creative & organizing forces. My own information-based worldview combines the insights of the ancients with the empirical evidence of the moderns. And Information Theory is able to bridge the gap between Spiritualism and Materialism with a more mathematical terminology for invisible causes. One of those is "Ratio", which is the essential causal force of Thermodynamics (ratio of hot to cold). But that term is also the root of "Rational" which refers to mental processes (reasoning) rather than to any tangible stuff. Moreover, all mental abstractions (ideas, concepts) are stripped of their physical "stuff", so their being is literally "immaterial" & meta-physical (or preter-natural, if the "meta" term offends you).

Since "stuff" is an indeterminate label for the substance or essence of something, Realists & Pragmatists think of it as Matter, while Idealists & Theorists may imagine it as Mind. For example, some mathematical theorists have concluded that the basic stuff of the world is invisible loops of energy in an esoteric hyper-dimensional space. Since those different perspectives are often viewed as polar opposites, I tend to compromise with what's known as Pragmatic Idealism. I didn't make that up, but it seems to fit my Holistic BothAnd worldview. :cool:

PS___This and other similar threads tend to quickly entropy (verb) from a search for Consilience via intellectual philosophical dialog into an emotional ideological debate. That's not philosophy, it's politics. My position is unaligned & moderate, but the man in the middle gets caught in the crossfire. So I try to take my pummeling with good humor, while standing my middle ground.

Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Pragmatic Idealism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_idealism

Consilience : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR POLARIZED POLITICS
Immaterialism
So is there an observer effect? I'm a math professor, not a physicist. I'm open to being proven wrong, but can you cite a source that is more than opinion? — Real Gone Cat
This surprising "effect" puzzled the pioneers of Quantum Physics, who had no common sense explanation. Since then, their interpretation has been debated by experts in the field, with no final resolution. So any "source" will necessarily be someone's "opinion".

My own understanding of how a machine can "observe" an experiment, is that it extracts information from the process. And that knowledge has meaning only for the human experimenter. When I get time, I'll try to find a source for that interpretation. It only makes sense though, if extracting Information is equivalent to extracting energy, hence affecting the chain of causation. And that's a whole 'nother debate. I don't take it as gospel, but it makes sense in view of my non-expert Enformationism thesis. :nerd:

What is the Observer generated information process? :
Up to now both information and its connection to reality have not scientifically conclusive definitions neither implicit origin. They emerge in observing multiple impulses interactive yes-no actions modeling information Bits. The observed information process connects reality, information, and creates Observer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05129
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1710.pdf
Note -- This technical report doesn't directly address your question. But it does imply that extracting bits of information (data ; meaning) is equivalent to extracting energy, thus having "real" effects. It's a negative impact on the measurement, similar to letting a bit of air out of a tire. But not necessarily like one billiard ball hitting another, for a positive impact. Extracting Information may be the "non-physical component" mentioned by Fernee.
The problem with "Materialism"
The inferiority and superiority complexes come not from Freud but from Adler. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
Yes, I know. Adler formalized it, but the general notion probably came from Freud. :smile:

Freud thought that a superiority complex was actually a way to compensate or overcompensate for areas in which we are lacking or failing
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/superiority-complex
Immaterialism
No. I'm implying that your either "material" or "immaterial" formulation is fallacious because "immaterial" is neither an intelligible nor a corroborable option compared to – negation of – the material. — 180 Proof
Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter", why is my conclusion that "material" and "immaterial" are categorical oppositions "un-intelligible"? I'm aware that materialists may prefer to define "immaterial" as "unimportant" or "irrelevant". However, that's not a literal meaning, but an antagonistic denigration. To use one of your favorite phrases, you are "cherry-picking" my words to suit your strategy of belittling what you don't like. Personally, I have no problem with your 19th century Materialism, because I can reconcile it with 21st century Information Theory. I dialog with you, not to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but to convince myself that my worldview can withstand attempts to suppress novel ideas with passionate put-downs.

Since my thesis uses that ambiguous term to describe the natural human mind, and its imaginary product (ideas), you are reading "supernatural" where my reference is to a natural phenomenon. You continue to miss the point of the Enformationism thesis: not to deny material reality, but to corroborate the old common-sense worldview of Materialism with the new paradigm paradoxes of Quantum Physics & Information Theory. Are non-local Entanglement & Quantum Tunneling & Acausal Events intelligible or sensible phemomena from a materialist perspective? Attempts to explain them away usually focus on the immaterial (mental) math instead of material (physical) substance.

My apologies to Einstein, God does play dice with the universe. And the consequences of that innate randomness made common-sense deterministic Classical Materialist Physics immaterial for the un-common-sense & Indeterminacy of the 21st century paradigm. Fortunately, Information Theory can ride to the rescue, by looking at both sides of a single coin. :cool:

Immaterial synonyms : intangible, incorporeal, not material, bodiless,
Also : transcendental, unearthly, supernatural.

On September 27, 1972, scientists performed the first test of Bell's inequality. God does play dice with the Universe, after all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/27/happy-anniversary-to-the-test-that-showed-god-does-play-dice-with-the-universe/?sh=1720f2f17b05

Quantum Physics : Yes, physicists have said that it makes no sense. For example, Richard Feynman said “No one understands quantum mechanics” and Niels Bohr famously said, “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”
https://www.quora.com/Many-physicists-have-said-that-quantum-mechanics-makes-no-sense-What-needs-to-be-discovered-understood-for-quantum-mechanics-to-make-sense

https://sebjaniak.com/acausal-information.html

↪Gnomon
If you really want to learn why your "immaterialist" speculations 'about information' (or "mind") is, at best, mere 'pseudo-science rationalized by bad philosophy', study Metzinger's work. . . . I'm confident you won't bother — 180 Proof
Why is Metzinger the sole authority on "immaterialist speculations"? If you really want to know what I mean by "Immaterial", study the Enformationism thesis, or any number of Information-centric studies. But I'm "confident you won't bother", because you are so invested in your outdated Classical interpretation of Physics. Yes, I'm mocking you with your own words. But I'm just kidding, because your old-fashioned belief system is "immaterial" to me, literally & figuratively. :joke:

Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)
Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
BothAnd Glossary

PS___I prefer not to engage in mutual mud-slinging, so I consider this dialog as a harmless snow-ball fight, that we can laugh about.
The problem with "Materialism"
(some serious irony going on here, I must say... 180 is the one who "doesn't often hit you with a real argument"? You sure about that?) — Seppo
It may be ironic, but "science says" assertions are not arguments. They leave no room for dialog. :smile:
The problem with "Materialism"
So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning in talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas
I agree. Self-evident axioms are a good starting point, but if not off-set by new input, they will go full circle, back to the original position, nothing learned.

An uncompromising materialist-physicalist seems to think of his worldview, not necessarily as Materialistic, but as Realistic. It's a Black versus White position, that makes no allowance for anything Idealistic or Non-empirical. Hence, their posting on a philosophy forum is not necessarily a search for Truth or Meaning, but for Superiority or Dominance. They may feel superior because they have Science on their side ; just as some aggressive Christians act condescending, because they have God on their side. Both prefer Assertion to Argument. For the haughty, two-way Philosophical dialog is for losers. :joke:

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Superiority Complex : an attitude of superiority which conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure.
Note -- I don't often quote Freud as a philosophical or scientific position, but he was good at making memorable metaphors.
The problem with "Materialism"
↪180 Proof
Whenever I say something you don’t understand, which happens a lot, you call it a ‘non sequitur’. Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? If that is not an intelligible question, then say why it is not, instead of reverting to your usual codified nonsense, if that is even possible for you. — Wayfarer
I suspect that 180 is using Mohamed Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy, trying to wear you down by chasing his shifty position. He doesn't often hit you with a real argument, but merely throws accusatory jabs & jibes at you. He may think of his strategy as Socratic gad-fly, but it comes across as annoying-gnat. I take the bait sometimes, when I need the exercise. :joke:

To jibe means to say something rude or insulting that is intended to make another person look foolish.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/jibe
Immaterialism
If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. — Gnomon
Another false dichotomy – occupational hazard of dualism ("BothAnd" :roll:), no doubt. — 180 Proof
Are you implying that "Material" and "Immaterial" are the same thing? That they are indistinguishable? That they play the same role in reality? From what philosophical position are Qualia and Quanta identical?

Yes, my BothAnd thesis can reconcile their obvious practical difference by noting that they consist of the same ultimate substance : not matter, but the universal potential (power) to enform both things and ideas. Material stuff and Immaterial ideas are both parts of a greater Whole. For example, Energy (causation) is mathematically equivalent to Mass (matter), but in physical reality they are different forms of the same non-stuff, Potential : to become. To be material, or to be immaterial; that is the question. :joke:

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Glossary
Immaterialism
In fact, the observer effect exists in classical physics as well - to measure air pressure in a tire, we must let out a little air, thus changing the pressure. — Real Gone Cat
What you are calling "observer effect" is actually the "measurement effect". The measuring tools of quantum observers are typically wave/particles, such as photons, that have momentum, and consequently transfer some of that force to the object it is measuring. Their impact on the target is not like a bullet (local) though, but like a tidal wave (non-local). In a still mysterious transformation, the non-physical intention of observation causes a continuous wave to "collapse" into a dis-continuous bullet. That doesn't happen in Classical Physics, except when super-heroes use mind-control to move matter.

Those who deny the "observer effect" are assuming that the scientists setting-up the experiment are not smart enough to avoid the measurement problem. The early 20th century pioneers of QT didn't have the technology to minimize the energy exchange. But even 21st century researchers haven't been able to completely eliminate the problem. So, when you caution me (a non-physicist) from citing Quantum Physics as an example of something "non-physical", you are also arguing with some of "the greatest minds of the 20th century". :nerd:

What Is The Observer Effect In Quantum Mechanics? :
The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Even so, the scientists found that the very presence of the detector “observer” near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier.
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html

What counts has an observation in quantum mechanics? Does a person need to be involved? :
The problem is that an observation implies something non-physical. . . . The root cause of this confusion is the nature of a measurement. A measurement has both a physical and a non-physical component. , , , This measurement problem has plagued many of the greatest minds of the 20th century, such as Einstein, von Neumann, Schrödinger, and Wigner.
___Mark John Fernee , , 20+ years as a physicist
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reduce-the-effects-of-the-Observer-Effect-in-quantum-physics
Immaterialism
My "favorite" book of philosophy of mind (or neurophilosophy) is still, after 15+ years, Being No One by Thomas Metzinger — 180 Proof
I wasn't familiar with Metzinger, so I Googled the book name. From my cursory glance, his view seems to agree with my own understanding of "Self". I prefer to use that term in place of the ancient notion of an immaterial "Soul", which was assumed to be able to leave the body behind during drug trips & NDEs, and which could exit the material world in case of Final Death. In my view, the Self is not a wandering Spirit, but merely a mental representation of the body. As a mental model it is no more real than the scientific notion of a Virtual Particle, which is Potential minus Actual.

That's why I place it in the category of "Immaterial" (made of abstract ideas instead of concrete matter). That being the case, I don't understand why you like the concept of "Being No One", but reject the idea of an immaterial Self image. The Self is not separarable from the physical body, but it's also not the same substance as the body. That may sound like traditional Dualism, but ultimately the substance of both Mind and Body is Monistic Enformation (the potential to cause changes in form or pattern).

Like Spinoza's "universal substance" EnFormAction is neither Matter nor Energy, but only Potential. So, my worldview is Monistic, but it allows for multiple sub-categories with different properties. For example, Matter is Actual, Energy is Causal, and Mind is Ideal (the map or model is an abstract version of the terrain or object). :nerd:

Being No One :
According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/being-no-one
Note -- the mental process is like a movie, a running representation of reality, not the ding an sich.

Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe. . . .
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Virtual : not physically existing. It is distinguished from the real by the fact that it lacks an absolute, physical form. It is a mental simulation of a real or potential thing.

Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
Note -- that definition sounds suspiciously akin to the definition of causal Energy. Which is why I coined the neologism : EnFormAction.

Abstraction : Universal or General or Ideal concepts instead of particular things or objects. The idea of a thing as contrasted with the real Thing. A pattern of inter-relationships that make a thing what it is, but minus the matter.
Immaterialism
Where Gnomon goes wrong is to call that entirely physical process "immaterialism". — Real Gone Cat

I have been repeatedly cautioned to not cross the line from Physics into the danger zone of Meta-Physics. But, if we ignore the "immaterial" aspects of reality, we are dismissing the importance of Mind as a new feature of the evolving world. Until only a few thousand years ago, the universe was completely mindless. But since then, Nature has been transformed into Culture. Was the force behind that emergence aimless Energy or inert Matter? Or was it the future-focused set of ideas & purposes we know as the human Mind? Must we pretend to be blind to mind?

In a sense, Nature has given birth to a completely new kind of power : Intention. If you can reconcile mundane Physics with Purpose, then I suppose you could equate Mind with Matter. But then, what kind of material is a "physical process" made of? What physical force set the direction for evolution, so that it could produce Technology? Physics deliberately excluded mental phenomena from consideration until it was forced to acknowledge the role of Observers in otherwise "entirely physical processes". But Philosophy is not physics. So it can freely cross the non-physical barrier into Meta-Physics (not Spiritualism, but Mentalism). Nature did not scruple to cross that arbitrary line, when it turned Matter into Mind. :cool:

Process : a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Concept :
in the Analytic school of philosophy, the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue.
Note -- are Concepts material or immaterial? What kind of matter are they made of? Are they Real or Ideal? — Gnomon
Immaterialism
Where Gnomon goes wrong is to call that entirely physical process "immaterialism". — Real Gone Cat
I have been repeatedly cautioned to not cross the line from Physics into the danger zone of Meta-Physics. But, if we ignore the "immaterial" aspects of reality, we are dismissing the importance of Mind as a new feature of the evolving world. Until only a few thousand years ago, the universe was completely mindless. But since then, Nature has been transformed into Culture. Was the force behind that emergence aimless Energy or inert Matter? Or was it the future-focused set of ideas & purposes we know as the human Mind? Must we pretend to be blind to mind?

In a sense, Nature has given birth to a completely new kind of power : Intention. If you can reconcile mundane Physics with Purpose, then I suppose you could equate Mind with Matter. But then, what kind of material is a "physical process" made of? What physical force set the direction for evolution, so that it could produce Technology? Physics deliberately excluded mental phenomena from consideration until it was forced to acknowledge the role of Observers in otherwise "entirely physical processes". But Philosophy is not physics. So it can freely cross the non-physical barrier into Meta-Physics (not Spiritualism, but Mentalism). Nature did not scruple to cross that arbitrary line, when it turned Matter into Mind. :cool:

Process : a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Concept :
in the Analytic school of philosophy, the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue.
Note -- are concepts material or immaterial? What kind of matter are they made of? Are they Real or Ideal?
Immaterialism
So there is incoming information. From where?

If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism. — Real Gone Cat
You may have mis-interpreted my definition of Qualia. I was not referring to information coming in from some sublime source outside the universe. Instead, I was talking about mundane information, usually as some form of energy, that's incoming from outside the body of the observer. AFAIK, we receive meaningful information primarily via our physical senses. One internal source of information though, might be what we call "intuition". Some like to think that it's God talking to you. But it's more likely information that has been processed sub-consciously, which is important enough to be reported to the conscious mind. Intuition is not "solipsism", even though it comes from within.

However, my personal worldview is based on the idea that Information is ubiquitous. It's not just in computers, it's everywhere ; in sensible physical forms, such as Matter, and in semi-physical forms, such as Energy. We used to think of Energy as a physical substance (phlogiston), but physicists now define it in terms of mathematical wave functions. Our sensory organs can translate those vibrating waves of potential (think Morse code) into material forms (e.g. rhodopsin, transforms light into electricity). Likewise, our rational Mind translates incoming Information into meaning. Moreover, the Big Bang theory implies that some energy source from "outside" the space-time universe, was the original input of Information, or as I like to spell it : EnFormAction (the power to give form to the formless)

The physical world is indeed dualistic, if you make a distinction between Matter & Mind as different forms of "something". We know that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, But what is Mind made of? I think Matter, Energy, & Mind are all forms of Generic Information. Hence, our Dualism could be construed as Tripleism. However, if all those are distinguishable forms of a single universal "something", then the ultimate -ism would be Monism. Spinoza defined "God" as the "single substance consisting of infinite attributes". In my own thesis, that universal substance is shape-shifting Information. My website and blog explain how I arrived at that conclusion, by combining Quantum Theory with Information Theory. Therefore, my answer to "what form the Outside takes" is what I call EnFormAction (energy + form + action). You can call it "God", but I prefer to call that "thing we can never know" : Enformer, or Programmer. :nerd:

EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Word Counts?
Could this forum have a word count? It seems like some people don't consider that less can be more. Maybe on a post by post basis the OP can set a min and max words for replies? — TiredThinker
The fix for a prolix post is automatic. Most readers will tune-out if they can't see where a post is going. Those most interested in the topic will hang-on longer. But treading water is more tiring when you can't see the shore. :smile:
Immaterialism
I'm not sure what's so special about the quantum scale. — Cornwell1
The link in my last post will give you an overview of what's special enough about Quantum physics to call it a "Paradigm Shift". That's why physicists now distinguish between the Classical physics of Newton, and the Quantum physics of the 20th century. It was the radical new worldview of non-local acausal physics that inspired Thomas Kuhn to coin a novel phrase. What used to be Common Sense becomes marginalized in the new era. For example, Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points instead of real material Atoms. :smile:

Are We in the Middle of a Paradigm Shift? :
If Einstein was such a creative thinker that he literally redefined our view of the world, why did he reject one of the basic implications of quantum physics?
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2021/04/28/are-we-in-the-middle-of-a-paradigm-shift
Immaterialism
In what else than matter can the mind reside? — Cornwell1
The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. Many of the posts on this thread are talking past each other. When the topic is about "immaterialism" it's referring to Qualia, not Quanta. Qualia, as subjective patterns, can reside in a variety of material objects. Pattern recognition occurs, not in a Brain, but in a Mind. The "observer" is not a homunculus. Qualia is "what it feels like" to observe a pattern of incoming information.

Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. Reductionism ad absurdo, ("reducing to an absurdity.") Yet some, but not all, physicists persist in trying to maintain an illusion of the old Materialistic model of hard little atoms as the fundamental elements of reality. For example, what they now call "virtual" particles, are not bits of matter, but merely mathematical points in an imaginary grid. A "point" has no spatial dimensions, so we can't see them, we can only imagine them. Like the Cheshire Cat, the matter just fades away, leaving only a smile. :grin:

From Quanta to Qualia: How a Paradigm Shift Turns Into Science :
Ever since the development of quantum mechanics in the first part of the 20th century, a new world view has emerged. Today, the physicalist objective assumption that objects exist independently of acts of observation has been challenged. The repercussions of this radical challenge to our common-sense perception of the world are far-reaching, although not yet generally realized. Here we argue that there is a complementary view to the way science which is being practiced, and that consciousness itself is primary and qualia form the foundation of experience. We outline the arguments of why the new science of qualia will tie objects that are being perceived to the subjective experience, through the units of subjective experience called qualia.
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/152/

WHERE'S THE CAT?
Immaterialism
Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof
Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile: — Gnomon
Language, Mr. Proof. Watch your language! There are sensitive immaterial minds on this forum. :grin:

↪Gnomon
"Immaterialism" as in e.g. dis-embodied minds? :eyes: Res ipsa loquitur. — 180 Proof
No. Once again you miss the point, because you can't put your physical finger on a Function. The target is invisible to the eye, but knowable to a rational Mind. Do you have one of those spooky non-things? Or are you ipso facto dis-enminded?

"Immaterialism" refers to the mental functions of embodied brains. It's not about wandering ghosts or out-of-body experiences. That would be Spiritualism. "If one did not start with a materialist bias, materialism would not be invoked as an explanation for a whole range of experiments in neuroscience " ___Michael Egnor, neuroscientist

Instead, it's the age-old philosophical category of mental Qualia as contrasted with material Quanta. If you are so sure that the Mind is a material object, you could prove it by posting a picture of one. Does the mind show-up in electron microscope images? Even atoms look like anonymous balls of fluff. So what does the Mind look like, gray matter or white matter? The burden of proof is back in your court. :joke:

what is a function? :
A technical definition of a function is: a relation from a set of inputs to a set of possible outputs where each input is related to exactly one output. ... We can write the statement that f is a function from X to Y using the function notation f:X→Y.
https://mathinsight.org/definition/function
Note -- The function of a mechanism is not the machine, but the purpose of the process.

Is the Mind Immaterial or Material? :
Of course, dualism doesn’t necessarily answer these questions, merely pushing it back a level, but materialism has yet to explain it either, generating a sort of infinite regress of homunculi.
https://authortomharper.com/2019/06/13/is-the-mind-immaterial-or-material/

Science Points To An Immaterial Mind :
For example, I pointed out that abstract thought cannot be localized to one specific region of the brain, whereas perception and movement are highly localizable. I interpreted this as being most consistent with the immateriality of abstract thought.
Michael Egnor; neurosurgeon, and Senior Fellow, Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/science-points-to-an-immaterial-mind/

WHERE CAN WE FIND THE MIND?
Death, finitude and life ever after
Are these philosophies of finitude's bringing purpose/meaning just platitudes or wishful thinking? Isn't terror the natural and most justified human condition? — Yvonne
No. The "terror" of death is usually caused by either fear of the unknown, or the angst of damnation. It's ironic that we are afraid of ignorance, the abyss of unknowing, even though we inhabited that same mysterious darkness for uncounted eons before we were born. We emerged from the nothingness of dreamless sleep, and are fated to return for an endless nap. Our life is bracketed with the Big Sleep. In our finite world, we have no experience with infinity, but we can imagine it. Yet, when mundane maladies are available, why worry about imaginary evils?

Some religions are happy to give us something to worry about. First, they entice us with the unlikely notion of everlasting Life, then negatively motivate us with the prospect of either everlasting oblivion, or of eternal torture in full awareness. Those who believe what they are told as naive gullible children can be excused for living in terror of Life's dead-end. But those who question such scary campfire stories can rise above irrational fear of death, and perhaps even embrace it as the Big Rest or Long Respite from striving. Just let it be. :cool:

Our revels now are ended :
‘We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep.’
___Shakespeare, The Tempest
Universe as a Language
I assume you replied to me? Yeah, poor Christopher. That Dawkins book is a laugh! He litterally claims he was enlightened by the truth that people and animals are slaves of genes and memes. Now what a meme! — HKpinsky
Although Dawkins is clearly opposed to formal religions, which he believes makes meme-slaves of believers, he retains a somewhat religious perspective, similar to that of Carl Sagan, in the form of humble awe at the magnificence of the real world. :smile:

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked -- as I am surprisingly often -- why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?”
___Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow
WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
What's the mathematical structure of a piece of music? — Cornwell1
In theory, everything in the universe can be analyzed down to its mathematical structure (conceptual inter-relationships). Math is not a physical object. It is instead the logical order (organization) of things and ideas. Since Logic is not made of matter, it is only knowable to a rational mind. Even "un-cuttable" atoms & in-divisible quarks have an internal or fundamental mathematical structure. The emotional sonic structure of music is intuitive for most minds, but only rational minds can infer the logical mathematical organization of music. :nerd:

What is Mathematical Music Theory? Mathematical music theory uses modern mathematical structures to 1. analyze works of music (describe and explain them), 2. study, characterize, and reconstruct musical objects such as the consonant triad, the diatonic scale, the Ionian mode, the consonance/dissonance dichotomy...
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~tmfiore/1/FioreWhatIsMathMusTheoryBasicSlides.pdf

What Is A Mathematical Structure? :
A mathematical structure is nothing but a (more or less) complicated organization of smaller, more fundamental mathematical substructures. Numbers are one kind of structure, and they can be used to build bigger structures like vectors and matrices
https://truebeautyofmath.com/what-is-a-mathematical-structure/

Logic and mathematics are two sister-disciplines, because logic is this very general theory of inference and reasoning, and inference and reasoning play a very big role in mathematics,
http://serious-science.org/logic-and-mathematics-7243
Immaterialism
Strawman. Stop your onanistic bs, G. :lol: — 180 Proof
Is that your final answer to the question of Immaterialism? :smile:
Immaterialism
what you're saying is, noise generates signals from noise. — 180 Proof
Do you think mind=noise??? — RogueAI
↪180 Proof
's assertion was intentionally ridiculous, because he's trying to make your position sound absurd. His vigorous defense of Orthodox Materialism, attacks what he perceives as heretical Immaterialism (or spiritualism, or idealism). To him, Mind is a Myth or Illusion. So any reference to such phantoms is only so much noise.

I would re-word his quoted phrase as : "the rational Mind interprets meaningful signals from incoming Information. That which is not informative is noise." I actually enjoy sparring with him, just as I used to dialog with devout Christian propagandists, because it's good exercise for my own rational faculties to distinguish Information from Noise. :grin:

PS__I will apologize in advance for mis-representing his philosophical position. But that's because he mostly attacks other beliefs, but doesn't make his own position clear. That's a common tactic in propaganda. It's a one-way dialog. :cool:
Immaterialism
A particle is no concept. It's a reality. — Cornwell1
Is that an empirical fact, or a theoretical belief? Is the particle physical or virtual? :smile:

Do virtual particles actually physically exist? :
Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word virtual particles are particlemorphic ( :) ), having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist
Immaterialism
Your flavor of idealism, G, like the others, conflates ontology and epistemology – what is real = what i know / what i know = what is real – from which many instances of category mistakes follow. A "worldview" is dogma (i.e. sophistry at best), IMO, not a philosophy. — 180 Proof
I'm sorry my "flavor of Idealism" doesn't suit your personal taste. Your mis-interpretation and mis-characterization of my worldview doesn't offend me, but it does amuse me. You seem to be spooked by a ghost that's merely reflected light. My BothAnd model does indeed "conflate" (or conciliate) the nature-of-being, and theory-of-knowledge. But that's not just a New Age position, it has become fairly common among scientists, especially Quantum Physicists. It doesn't deny Reality, but, unlike hardline Materialism, merely includes mental properties within the scope of Being and Knowing. Your worldview might be dogmatic & one-sided, but mine is necessarily open-minded & holistic. Open to both material Actuality and to mental Possibility. My world is not Black & White, it includes all the colors of the rainbow.

You accuse me of dogmatic anti-reality Idealism, when my model is actually a blend of classical Realism and quantum Idealism (see below). I'm not making this sh*t up. I get most of it from sober physicists, not Age of Aquarius astrologers. However, I am grateful that some people are at least looking at the other side of the Real coin. When I go to the local health food store, owned by a turban-topped American Sikh, I admire some of the artistic trinkets that portray nature, not as dead matter, but as a living organism. While I ignore the books on Goddesses, Gurus, & Angels, I appreciate the reverent attitude toward the Life that animates the material world. Peace & Love. :grin: :victory:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

Quantum Idealism? :
In his book The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose points to two of the most popular ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics given by physicists: “(a) there is no reality expressed in the (mathematical) formalism of quantum mechanics at all, and the diametrically opposite view of (b) that the quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/quantum-idealism/

Worldview : a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Sophistry :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something.
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/
Immaterialism
Category mistake — 180 Proof
Yes. My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter. Therefore, in order to remove Mind from the world, you'd have to eliminate all thinking creatures. Especially humans. Just think, for almost 14 billion years, the universe consisted of your preferred Category. No immaterial ideas or mistaken opinions to ruin the perfection of a smooth-running physical machine. It's been all downhill since the first caveman saw fire as a tool, not just a scary physical phenomenon like lightening. :joke:

How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence, please. — 180 Proof
The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years. Only in the last couple of centuries have smart people acted as-if they were mindless. The evidence is Rational inference, not Physical measurement. So, mindless hunks of matter are oblivious to it. :cool:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note -- Where is the physical evidence for any of the above principles? Do you have a sense for immaterial principles? I do; it's called "Reason".
Immaterialism
I don't see a problem in the particle concept — Cornwell1
Rovelli doesn't have a problem with the concept (idea) of a particle. But the reality of a particle is ambiguous (metaphor or object?). As a waveform, it is an immaterial mathematical function, and only when that (potential) function "collapses" does it take on an (actual) Eigenstate (inherent position or momentum). That's when its mathematical qualities convert to physical properties. The wave-function can be calculated, but the physical state must be measured. :smile:

What is a particle? :
These difficulties have lead some to suggest that in general QFT should not be interpreted in terms of particle states, but rather in terms of eigenstates of local operators.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409054

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? :
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/
Immaterialism
Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof
The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. You can't depend on shape or texture or smell to differentiate good ideas from bad ideas. But your sixth sense of Reason is your Lie Detector.

Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has a built-in logic, but it still must be programmed with instances of both signal and noise, in order to have a basis for comparison. A rose aroma in a bottle might smell as sweet, but it could be artificial. That's why we have mandated labels, because the senses can be fooled by cheap imitations (Wakisaki). :joke: .
Immaterialism
Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties. — Cornwell1
Ideally, yes. But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs. That's why Skepticism requires, not only a critique of others, but a self-assessment of your own values. I would like to think that I am always objective, but posting on this forum is a quick way to be challenged to re-assess your own philosophical position. :cool:
Immaterialism
So again, here you are explaining how things are for everyone, not just yourself. So again, you are projecting your ideas about how things are independent of yourself, and how things are even if I were to disagree or not be aware of these "facts" that you are asserting. — Harry Hindu
That's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. So, apparently, you are "explaining how things are" for me. Can you point to a "fact" that I was asserting? My assertions were in the form of personal opinions. Of course, those opinions are based on the facts as-I-see-them. But you seem to see them differently. That's OK though. That's what a philosophy forum is all about. Yet you are accusing me of Pontificating, which the last thing I would do. Sounds like you are "projecting your ideas" onto me. What did I say to cause you to portray my personal opinions as dogmatic declarations? :gasp:

Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what? — Harry Hindu
Just the opposite. My philosophical position is BothAnd, not Either/Or. As noted in the quote above, we obtain Information via our physical senses, and our meta-physical reasoning. But I suppose that a hard-line Realist would reject any information that doesn't have a physical instance. That's what I referred to as being "blind in one eye". Did you miss the link above, that says "reality is not what you think it is"? Rovelli is not rejecting Meta-physics, but pointing-out that Materialism is not a complete (true or accurate) model of Reality. :smile:

PS___ I apologize for sounding defensive. But your "disagreement" seems visceral & aggressive instead of rational & philosophical. Come, let us reason together.
WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
Don't think so. Quarks can be viewed as triplets — Cornwell1
I'd like to "view" that unitary triplet. Can you post a picture? :wink:

Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note -- For over two thousand years the Atom was defined as the true elementary indivisible particle. If Quarks have no structure, why are they hypothetically portrayed with internal parts? The Holy Trinity is also described as One deity with three forms : up, down, and yummy. :joke:

ONE QUARK IN THREE FLAVORS blueberry, strawberry and lemon-lime
Immaterialism
Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute .. — Edmund
Yes. In this thread we are arguing over the same polarized philosophical positions as Physics (Materialism) vs Metaphysics (Idealism). I reconcile that apparent contraposition with the BothAnd philosophy. I suppose you could call it a perspective that shifts its position depending on the relation between subject & object. That's similar to a Doppler Shift or Gravitational Lens Shift of stars. The star is not really changing position but merely it's apparent position relative to the observer. :nerd:

Meta-Physics :
4. "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. "Meta-physics" refers to the ideas 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.
BothAnd Blog glossary

META-PHYSICAL PROBOSCIDEAN

PHYSICAL ELEPHANTIDAE
WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
That idea seems to predict well, but it models phenomena that are poorly understood. — jgill
Yes. Tegmark's mathematical model of the world is an attempt to describe the "poorly understood" phenomena on the Quantum level of reality. We know pretty well what Quarks do, but have no idea what they are. We can't compare them to anything in our sensory experience of the world. The definition of a Quark, or of Superposition, sounds about as counter-intuitive as the Catholic Trinity. :joke:
WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
But what constitutes a mathematical "Field" (why do you write it with a capital F?). — Cornwell1
Hypothetical Quantum Fields consist of abstract relationships (ratios ; vectors) that are not real things but ideal mathematical "points" & "links". When those points have measurable values, the field can be assumed to be real. I capitalize the word "field" to emphasize that it is not a real object, but an abstract model of some feature of Reality. I capitalize "Reality" to emphasize that it's a mental model of what's outside your skull, not necessarily the ding an sich. :nerd:

A field is a mathematical abstraction. ... Vector fields are not real, for the same reasons vectors are not real; the electric field is real ..
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322983/how-real-are-fields

Ding An Sich : (in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.

I think that here you conflate reality with fantasy, as Tegmark seems to do. — Cornwell1
No. I don't conflate "Reality" with "Ideality", I merely compare them as hypothetical mental models, not the actual " totality of real things and events". Our models of reality are not necessarily "fantasies", but they are inherently "imaginary". So, I'd be careful about labeling Tegmark's speculations as "fantasy". It's possible that he knows something you don't. As I said in the post, I don't agree with all of his conjectures, but they seem to be based on a deep insight into Reality (objects : things) and Ideality (models ; ideas). :smile:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
book by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

A model of reality explains how the universe was created and how it operates. You might think that this is a definition of reality itself, but it isn't, which can be illustrated by looking at the most popular model, known as naïve realism. In a nutshell, naïve realism says that what you see is what you get.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/The-Most-Popular-Model-of-Reality-Is-Wrong-14842693.php
WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
According to physicist Max Tegmark, there are nothing but mathematical structures and 'the physical world' is just a nested network of mathematical structures to which we (observers) happen to belong, or inhabit. . . . This looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof
I've only read one of Tegmark's books, but I have a general idea of "what he's talking about". I'm not sure I agree with all his speculations, but his basic notion that Reality is fundamentally mathematical makes sense to me, especially in light of Quantum Physics, where the structure of reality is a mathematical Field.

Personally, I prefer the more inclusive term "Information" (Matter + Energy + Mind) to the austere abstract ideality of a pure mathematical structure underlying the messy concrete material world. My view combines a bit of Plato's Idealism (LOGOS) with a smidgen of Spinoza's universal substance Monism (G*D). Consequently, my world model consists of both Material objects (known by senses) and Mathematical (Mental) structures (known by reason). :nerd:

Substance or Structure :
Baruch Spinoza denied Descartes' "real distinction" between mind and matter. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple "attributes". . . . . The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Our Mathematical Universe :
My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
___Max Tegmark, theoretical physicist
Note to self -- The basic element of my Information Universe is the "Re-El" (reality element) which is a ratio between existence and non-existence (1 or 0). The universe as a whole, is continuous, but its constituent parts are discrete.
Immaterialism
From a realist perspective, bias is a dirty word , a failure to grasp what is truly there to be grasped, if only as an unreachable ideal, an ‘unattainable perfection’. For post-realism, objectivity is a dirty word , concealing what is always already there for us, and ‘bias’ speaks to the actual world, not to a flawed representation of it. — Joshs
Yes. In the ideal true perfect model of Reality, there can be no bias or ignorance. But that model only exists in heaven. We can strive to reach the unreachable star of perfect objectivity. But only Idealists believe they are already there. :joke:

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to run where the brave dare not go

This is my quest . . . .

To reach the unreachable, the unreachable
The unreachable star
Immaterialism
Spoken like a true realist. — Harry Hindu
No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.
I'm not a true anything. As noted in the post, my personal philosophy is BothAnd. As a relative Realist, I accept the evidence of my eyes as plausible facts, upon which to build my personal model of Reality. But as an amateur philosopher, I also accept that vetted ideas are also useful bricks for my model. Your mental model of Reality may be different from mine, but on this forum, we can share our biased views, in order to see our differences and our agreements. That is not likely to result in a "true" view of the world. But it's better than being blind in one eye. :cool:

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Home » Gnomon

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message