Maybe some naive realists assume that, but sensible realists find the imaginable possibility that the Universe exists independently of humans more plausible than its imaginable antithesis. — Janus

My post was not directed at the independence of human observers from what they are observing, but merely noting that perfect Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. The Objectivity of Science is not a property of any single observer, but of the bias-canceling methodology of Collective Skepticism, which tends to balance extreme views into a mean or average. The Stanford article below makes the same point : Science may be objective, but a particular scientist is still subject to personal bias. :smile:

PS__I won't go into the debatable implications of Quantum Entanglement for the independence of the observer.

SCIENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY :
Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is an objective description of the real structure of the world.
https://www.banglajol.info

Scientific Objectivity :
Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, . . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

"The first principle [of scientific skepticism] is that you must not fool yourself --- and you are the easiest person to fool"
___Richard Feynman, physicist

The importance of perception. Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? Also did the Bishop anticipate the measurement problem in physics? The role of the observer from conceptual art to quantum physics seems alive and well. — Edmund

Uncompromising Realists are assuming that they can observe the world from an objective perspective, which eliminates the subjective biases of the observer. Although, objectivity is the ideal goal of Science, it's an unattainable perfection. Objective purity would require decontaminating the body of its "selfish genes" and the mind of "acquired beliefs". And the same goes for inflexible Idealists.

However, even polarized Realism vs Idealism or Objectivism vs Subjectivism philosophical positions are peculiar personalized belief systems. They are not obtained from a privileged universal all-seeing point of view. That's why we have to occasionally purge our erroneous beliefs by comparing them to other partial perspectives, as on this forum. The result will not be Purity, but it may be de-polarized and homogenized. From that broadened perspective, we may be able to see both Matter and Mind. :smile:


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

Homogenized : mixed ; merged ; blended ; synthesized ; unified

I was trying to respond to comments on my post, but it has been removed. Do you know why it was removed? — Ree Zen

Sometimes they move your post to another current thread on the same topic. But they should leave a note to that effect. You are welcome to add your comments to the long-running thread below. But your angle may be different enough to warrant a new thread. :smile:


Free Will and Other Popular Delusions
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/631949

There is a lot about Dawkins’ gene-centred theory that I disagree with. Not least of these disagreements is regarding the oversimplified ‘selfish/altruistic’ binary on which it is based. — Possibility

I suspect that Dawkins' metaphorical anthropomorphic gene quip may have been misinterpreted when taken out of context. He actually had in mind a more technical concept, that might go over the head of a layman. It's much easier to "oversimplify", and portray genes as little demons with their own selfish agenda, mind-controlling their human vessels with gene-propagating urges.

However, Dawkins' "gene-demon theory" may have been intended to imply the materialistic view : that humans do not have Free Will, because their behavior is directed by both internal (genetic) and external (energetic) drives. I won't go into the details here, but my view is that humans are able to avoid robotic or zombie behavior, because, although their freedom of choice is limited, at least they have the power of Free Won't. :smile:

The selfish-gene theory of natural selection can be restated as follows: Genes do not present themselves naked to the scrutiny of natural selection, instead they present their phenotypic effects. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

It isn’t our genes that get immortality, then, but the unconsolidated information they contain. — Possibility

Yes. Your reference to "Information" is right down my Enformationism alley. My philosophical worldview is based on the notion that Causal Information is more fundamental than Matter & Energy. Hence, Information is the substance of Matter, Energy and Mind. :nerd:

The Golden Rule assumes equality - it shouldn’t need a genetic qualifier. — Possibility

Unfortunately, in practice, many people who agree with that moral mandate, assume it refers to "others like me". That's why sages & preachers & teachers have had to repeat that admonition for every generation, to adapt it to evolving scientific understanding, and to expanding cultural inclusiveness. High-minded abstract Ethics requires a conscious decision to overrule your visceral Genetic inclination (Free Won't). :cool:

Now I haven't read up on ecological relative regulation you alluded to. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe that is another model that we could discuss. — Caldwell

Sorry. I wasn't familiar with the technical term "absolute emission". It sounded like "no regulation -- emit all the pollution you want". So, my tongue-in-cheek response was to tone it down to "relative ecological emission regulations". It's not an existing method of regulation, but merely an admonition for moderation in both "emission of pollution' and "regulation of emission". Since I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll back-off now. :joke:

In that case, let's shoot for absolute emission then, — Caldwell

Let's not give-up on Economic or Ecological relative regulation. Natural systems are inherently self-regulating by deterministic Genetics. But in human Cultural systems, FreeWill throws a monkey wrench in the gears. That's why cannibalistic humans would quickly go extinct in a dog-eat-dog world, without Social Contract laws, regulated by self-determining Reason. :joke:

PS___Let's not debate Freedom from Determinism here. That's a topic for another thread.

It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects — Gregory

I was not familiar with Nominalism, beyond the meaning of the Latin (name), so I Googled it. And the first impression I got was : Nominalism means that Philosophy a waste of time. However, the definition below could also be interpreted as merely an attempt to avoid Reification of abstractions. The existential significance of abstract concepts is not in objects themselves but in logical relationships between things. They don't exist "in the same way". The model is not the real thing.

However, the way you expressed it above sounds like : "if you can't put a number on it, it doesn't exist". But that's the whole point of the Qualia versus Quanta and Real versus Ideal debates. In my posts on this forum, I refer both to Empirical material objects and to Theoretical immaterial ideas. But, to confuse one with the other is the Reification Fallacy. I guess you could say that I take a Nominalist or a Realist perspective as appropriate to the context.

To take a hard position on the Quantitative side seems to eliminate much of what philosophy is about : Wisdom, Truth, Ethics, Meaning, and Value. All of those are General Concepts, and None is a nominal thing. So, in order to do philosophy, you'd have to treat them as Symbols or Metaphors or Maps pointing to aspects of Reality that "exist" only in Minds. Even so, we can Name them, if not Number them.

We even give names to abstract numbers as-if they are specific things. Consequently, instead taking a stand on the Individual or Universal bank of the river, I simply try to remember not to confuse "as-if" with "as-is". Because that ambiguity is at the root of many vehement debates about the meanings of our words. Is "being honest" an individual object? :chin:

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material.
Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.
https://gohighbrow.com/problem-of-universals-realism-vs-nominalism/

Reism is the doctrine that only things exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reism/

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.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

there is no thing they are sharing between them — Gregory

A Pattern is not a singular thing, but an array of things with something shared in common. That shared structure is not a physical connection (thing), but a meaningful relationship. Human Reason is a Pattern Recognition function that "sees" the whole -- connects the dots -- in a random collection of parts. AI computers are only beginning to scratch the surface of that talent for dealing with Holistic concepts (groups ; categories) as-if they are nominal things, with which a computer can simulate human reasoning. :nerd:

Pattern recognition is used to give human recognition intelligence to machines that are required in image processing.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/pattern-recognition-introduction/

MEANING IS IN THE INVISIBLE RELATIONSHIPS NOT THE THINGS

As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. — Gregory

Nominalism gives names to swarms of things that seem to cohere as a whole, but the swarm itself is not real. It's an imaginary singularity, that consists of multiple parts. As Juliet said about family labels : “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. She notes that the nominal label is not real either. A name is no more real than an abstract number (nominal). Ultimately, the metaphysical essence (Soul) of Romeo, was what she loved. The whole singular Self is what was meaningful to her, not the myriad cells that stick together into the shape she identified (labeled) as Romeo. The un-quantifiable Qualia of a rose or lover is not in the nominal protoplasm, but in its menta-physical wholeness. :joke:

From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body. — Gregory

True. Materialism cannot see metaphysical mental concepts, so it gives a label to the absence of matter, to represent the meaning of no-thing. However, when we give names to non-things, such as consciousness, we still treat them as-if they are real things. Although, for philosophical purposes, we put warning labels on non-things, to remind us that our "identify" is nothing, hence not important. And yet, we seem to enjoy the sweet smells (Oualia) of the Mind, even though there's nothing there but a lump of raw meat.

So, the ethereal "Mind", by the materialistic name of "Brain", still forms the essence of Self that we identify ourselves with. You don't identify with your slimy Brain, or any other part of your body. Your "Self", is the whole system of Quanta & Qualia which cohere as an identifiable mass of matter, that allows us to locate and identify "Gregory" in the real world. You are not a multiplicity of quantifiable things, but a conceptual qualitative Unity (Soul or Self). :cool:

A soul, Aristotle says, is “the actuality of a body that has life,” where life means the capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction. If one regards a living substance as a composite of matter and form, then the soul is the form of a natural—or, as Aristotle sometimes says, organic—body.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Philosophy-of-mind
Note -- a Composite is a conceptual whole, not a real thing. Life is not a real thing, but a conceptual label for a biological process.

Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions,
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

REAL BIRDS


IMAGINARY SWARM or is it a whale?

So, maybe it's an assumption that the market will take care of itself, and thermodynamics, in conclusion gets taken care of? — Caldwell

Interpersonal Market Economics, by contrast to Top-down Government Planning, is like Democracy : it assumes that erroneous or extreme ideas (irrational elements) will neutralize or normalize each other. And, as Winston Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

Monetary Economics is not a logical physical system, like Thermodynamics; it's a passionate Prey versus Predator ecosystem that sometimes gets out of balance due to selfish human interference. Fortunately, some altruistic humans are working to offset the imbalance by providing a targeted counter-force (e.g. reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone). But even that well-intentioned response may be based on incomplete information about the state & trend of the system. So, we may have to just get used to an imperfect & erratic Economy & Ecology, until Economists become omniscient, or Human monetary interactions become more predictable and controllable, like Physical energy exchanges. :cool:


“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” This quotation is used to illustrate the self-centeredness of men and thereby to motivate the market as the best allocation mechanism.
___Adam Smith
https://faces-online.nl/en/the-godfather-of-economics-adam-smith-in-five-quotes/

How does this relate to Kant’s model of time? — Joshs

I wasn't familiar with Kant's opinion of Time. But a quick Google indicates that his Critique of Pure Reason ("which is a combination of rationalism and empiricism") treats Time & Change, not as objectively Real, but as subjectively Ideal. We imagine time by Intuition or infer it by Reason, because we can't see it with our objective empirical senses. So, we impute Time to Reality. And that's essentially what I was saying. :smile:

Kant believes that time, for us, is intuitive
https://decodedpast.com/immanuel-kant-on-time-a-theory-from-the-heart/

Impute : to represent something as being done, caused, or possessed by someone; to attribute.

From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality — Gregory

That's not how I understand Aristotle. Compared to many modern philosophers, who make long tangled (metaphorical + material) arguments about Reality, or our Conception of it, Ari tended to get down to "brass tacks". To avoid Plato's imaginary eternal ideal "Forms" -- that have a ghostly existence outside of Reality -- Ari placed his conceptual "form" within each physical object. But he still couldn't completely do away with the fact that Form, or Order, or Structure is an abstract concept, not a concrete object. So yes, his "form" was in his head (morph), not in the material thing (hyle).

My interpretation of Hylemorphism (matter + mind) is that Reality is what our physical senses Perceive, and Ideality (the world of ideas) is what our minds Conceive. Objective Percepts are empirically verifiable; but subjective Concepts are always debatable. So, Aristotle reluctantly gave a dual definition of the world. Since the emergence of rational homo sapiens, It's both Real and Ideal, both Concrete and Abstract, both Sensory and Imaginary. :cool:

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas. They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of the concept behind principles, thoughts and beliefs.
___Wiki
Note -- Abstractions remove the flesh (matter) from the skeleton (structural relationships = form)

PS___I think your inference is correct, that Aristotle couldn't avoid making essentially the same distinction as Plato, between the Real material world, and the Ideal human model of the world. However, he was not denying the Real world, but merely admitting-into-evidence the Ideal concepts by which we communicate about the world. To eliminate Ideality, you would have to eliminate Humanity.

PPS___Quantum theory has pulled the foundational rug out from under Materialism. It has replaced physical Atoms of hard stuff with mathematical Fields of relationships, that can only be Conceived, not Perceived

So, the pre-inflationary Planck cell can be compared with Aristotle's objective unmoved mover and the perfect circular motion. Our friend was ahead of his "time"! — Raymond

Yes. As in so many other philosophical quandaries, Aristotle tried to dispel mysteries -- such as Plato's "Forms" -- with practical applications. For example, a designing engineer envisions the "structure" of a future building, not as concrete beams & columns, but as abstract relationships, represented by vectors (arrows & values)

By defining Time as our perception of the sequential structure of evolving reality (order),he focused on what we are measuring : non-spatial relationships that evolve in an orderly mathematical manner. Those relationships are what I call "Information", a mental geometry, by which we measure the differences (or ratios) between Instants or Instances in terms of Meaning or Value to Self. We perceive those non-spatial ratios by Reason (rational thinking). :nerd:

Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent on change. . . . this means that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, that it is a kind of measure)
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199247900.001.0001/acprof-9780199247905
Note -- we don't perceive Change itself, but the difference between point A and point B in a sequence --- like frames in a movie.

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
BothAnd Blog Glossary

MENTAL GEOMETRY OF ABSTRACT VECTORS

I think there are two kinds of times, mutually exclusive. — Raymond

Regarding the "mystery" of Time, here's a link to an article with a unique concept of "why time flies". Apparently Time is Relative, not just to Space, and personal experience, but to our empathic connection to other time voyagers. :smile:


Empathy Is a Clock That Ticks in the Consciousness of Another :
. . . Kierkegaard’s assertion that “the moment is not properly an atom of time but an atom of eternity.” Time is a social phenomenon. This property is not incidental to time; it is its essence.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/09/04/alan-burdick-why-time-flies-empathy/

I think there are two kinds of times, mutually exclusive. Entropic time and perfect clock time. — Raymond

Yes. There are various ways of measuring the passage or static-state of Time. Entropy measures the dissipation of Potential Time from the beginning of the downhill stream. Clock time measures Time as a metaphorical flow, like a river. Block Time measures Time's dimensions as-if the fluid is frozen into a block of ice. And Space-Time imagines emptiness as-if it's a solid object. But all of those "measurements" are attempts to reify an abstraction via metaphorical pointers to physical things. We don't know Time via our physical senses, but only with our sixth sense of Reason, which relates one thing or state to another. Time is not Real, but Ideal, a metaphor in the mind, not a flowing river or immobile ice-cube out there. There's probably no "perfect" way to measure a shape-shifting ghost. :nerd:

How can time cause change? — Raymond

Metaphorically. :joke:

↪Gnomon
Not sure how you’ve managed to focus on words in what I’ve written that are tangential to the points I was trying to make... I assume you’re attempting to be agreeable. — Possibility

I apologize, if I missed your point. But in the quotation, "striving" was separated from "beyond ourselves". So, apparently you are talking about "Altruism" instead of "Ambition". That un-selfish attitude requires concern or love for others, which tends to be reserved for only those close to Self : "my family", our kind", "our species". Ironically, some humans seem to love their pets more than people.

Anyway, I agree with what you were saying. Since we are supposedly motivated by our "selfish genes", we have to make a conscious choice to extend our self-protective inclinations to those who don't share our genes. That's why almost all religions & philosophies preach Altruism. Perhaps you would amend the Golden Rule to "do unto others (even those with different genes) . . ." :cool:

In many ways I agree with your essay on principle (although I cringe at the metaphorical language and personified deity). — Possibility

I assume you are referring to the Intelligent Evolution essay. But, I deliberately tried to avoid personalizing the First Cause as a typical super-human. Instead, I sometimes refer to that abstract philosophical principle as "G*D", to indicate that, although it created (enformed) the universe, it's not what most people imagine as a Feudal Lord in the heavenly castle.

My notion is closer to TAO, or LOGOS, as the ordering & enforming force in Nature. The essay has a Glossary that defines my unconventional understanding of what my information-based thesis calls "The Enformer". It's derived from the cutting-edge scientific postulation that "Generic Information" is the single substance (matter) & causal agency (energy) of the world. Since that Prime Mover is necessarily prior to the Big Bang, it is literally super-natural, and can only be imagined in terms of metaphors pointing to familiar things in the Real World. :starstruck:

G*D :
A generic name for the origin and ground of
all being. ~ The First Cause of all physical
existence. The Prime Mover who started the
cause & effect process of evolution. The Crea-
tor of the universe. ~ G*D is super-natural, in
the sense that nature is a sub-category of G*D.
G*D is the whole of which the universe is a
part. . . . .

I’ve never really settled on a position in a pessimistic-optimistic binary - if you’re looking to stick me with a label, then I’m afraid you’ll be regularly confused. — Possibility

That's OK. I sometimes label myself as a "Peptomist" : optimistic despite all the reasons to be pessimistic. Also, my personal philosophy is labeled as "BothAnd". :joke:

And by ‘true direction’, I’m not talking about positive-negative or upward-downward. — Possibility

Unfortunately, we can only communicate abstract Qualia in terms of concrete metaphors, such as directional arrows pointing up or down. When my evolution chart shows a hockey-stick up-turn, it's intended to illustrate both Quantitative increase and Qualitative progress. I don't know what the hypothetical Omega Point will be, but the assumption is that it will be better, in some sense, than the current or past state of the universe. That qualitative judgment may not be apparent to those of us at a single point in space-time. But I'm hoping the qualitatively-improved state would be knowable from a Holistic perspective, as-if from an objective Eye-in-the-Sky. :nerd:

From Plato to Einstein, time has been thought of by many. Everyone knows what time is. That's why I wonder what the big mystery is. — Raymond

Actually, "Time" is like Energy. Intuitively,everybody knows what it does, but the mystery arises when you ask what it is. For scientific purposes, a thing is its substance (material). But for philosophical inquiries a process is what it causes. Like Energy, Time causes Change. But then you'll have to define that term. In the 20th century, Time was defined as the fourth dimension : a way to measure Change. But that still didn't answer what it is. So, to avoid further debate, they agreed on a metaphorical definition : Block Time. Which is equivalent to the ancient philosophical notion of unchanging Eternity. But that is not an answer to what Time consists of. So the mystery remains. Since there are so many partial definitions of Time, perhaps the best policy is : "don't worry about it, it is what it is". :joke:

BTW, what do you think it is?

PS___In my thesis, there's one tantalizing hint to what Time is : Difference. "The difference that makes a difference" is what we know as Meaning.

It’s not about identifying whose perspective, but about striving

beyond ourselves. — Possibility

Yes. Ambition is one human trait that distinguishes the species from "lower" animals. But that "striving" sometimes results in humanity running roughshod over the placid sheep, So, the key to reigning-in our aspirations is the philosophical motto of "Moderation in all things". Strive to better yourself, but not at the expense of others. :pray:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning

It is when we pay attention to the qualitative relations of statistical anomalies that we begin to understand the true direction of the cosmos. — Possibility

Hmmm. Is that "true direction" sloping upward or downward? If by "qualitative relations" you mean Ethics or Morality, I am encouraged by Steven Pinker's analysis of history -- The Better Angels of Our Nature -- which concluded that, in certain ways, humanity has been improving its collective morality. :halo:

Moral vs Technological Progress :
Several recent science-oriented magazines have had cover articles on topics such as : The War on Science and Knowledge, Anti-Intellectualism in Today's America [SI Mar/Apr2018]. One culprit in this rejection of Enlightenment values is the Post-modern philosophy, which views history, not as the hopeful record of an upward trend in human development, but as the grim story of an eternal power struggle between Us-vs-Them, Haves-vs-Have-nots, Elites-vs-Commoners, and various other polarized interest groups. Ironically, this atheistic, anti-modern, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-progressive movement has some parallels with the goals of Fundamentalist Christians & Muslims. It shares with those theistic religions their dualistic worldview of an ongoing power struggle between Good vs Evil forces. So, it seems that moderate freethinkers may be caught in the crossfire between the Antis on left & right. . . . . Steven Pinker, probably motivated in part by this pessimistic trend in academic & religious circles, has contributed a plethora of reasonable & plausible evidence for a more optimistic outlook.
BothAnd Blog, post 24

This is where our science has steered us wrong, describing natural evolution as random, unintelligent and impersonal - in deliberate contrast to how we have described ourselves and all that we create. — Possibility

I agree. The Enformationism thesis provides an alternative to the dystopian vision of some interpreters of the scientific portrayal of the evolving world as "random, unintelligent, and impersonal". My own essay on the topic is Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth. Note -- the essay should not be confused with religious "Intelligent Creation" theories. :cool:

Well, that’s not how I interpret the myth at all. The idea, as I see it, was that A&E were supposed to understand how the garden worked in harmony before calling the shots — Possibility

Some Christians also interpret the myth in an idyllic manner. The pedantic point, however, was to show how the world had declined from that enlightened beginning, when Lions were vegetarians, due to A&E's disobedience to divine will. Latter day myths of The Fall are not concerned with gods, but with humanity's disregard for the laws of Nature. In Myths to Live By, Joseph Campbell advised us not to take those legends literally, but as metaphors to guide our moral behavior. So, if you read the Garden myth as a model of hippie harmony, that's OK. Peace & love! :love:

Well, I see language, information and the universe all as evolving from an ignorant, isolated and exclusive base towards greater awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Hey! That sounds more optimistic than some of your earlier remarks. Well done! :up:

I think the curve between 300YA and now is not faithful. When life has evolved to the form of life we see nowadays, enformation seems pretty constant untill the Sun blows up 5 BY from now. Enformation seems to have decreased exponentially the last 300 years, instead of increased. When the Sun blows up all enformation on Earth will be dead and gone and enformation will even become impossible if all matter has turned into pure energy in the far future. So the red curve will go to zero then. — Raymond

OK. You can draw your own hypothetical curve. But mine covers billions of years, and the minor ups & downs are not apparent at this scale. Note that the chart says "not to scale". It would be the length of a football field if drawn to scale with human emergence (and incidentally Language) on the scene.

Besides, according to optimistic futurists and sci-fi writers, by the time the sun turns red and expands to the orbit of Earth, humans or cyborgs or androids will already be inhabiting distant worlds. If so, the upward beat of progress goes on & on. "To the future, and beyond", to quote Buzz Lightyear. :smile:

Exponential Growth of Information Technology :
https://www.gregschool.org/gregschoollessons/2017/3/14/exponential-growth-of-information-technology-1-hkykf

BTW -- you may have missed my meaning of "Enformation" (EnFormAction). It's equivalent to causal Energy. Which is expected to gradually dissipate into total Entropy in the era of "heat death". But I can't foresee that far ahead. The chart assumes we will reach the "Omega Point", whatever that might be, long before all suns go dark. :cool:

This metaphor of Homo sapiens as a ‘wild card’ is from the perspective of... Homo sapiens. — Possibility

You say that as-if the "perspective" of human observers is a bad thing. From whose perspective would you expect a more objective understanding? Would the opinion of canis familiaris provide a more accurate overview of human predictability. Humans have made a science -- Economics (the "dismal science') -- of trying to predict human behavior individually & collectively. Yet, even though the future path of social groups may track closer to the "normal" Bell Curve of statistics, prognosticators must always be alert for Black Swans, that knock the best laid predictions of mice & men off track. :joke:

The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable :
2. Fat Tails -- In economics, a Bell Curve probability distribution that indicates a high level of potential Black Swan risk by the unusual graphical thickness of its extreme ends, which are normally skinny. It’s the unpredictability of such blind-side hits that makes it scary.
BothAnd Blog, post 69

My objection here is not to emergence or to ‘freedom within determinism’, but to the idea that humanity ‘added’ this free will to an existing determinism. — Possibility

Yes, I appreciate your skepticism about the power of human nature to "change the direction of " evolution. Yet, that's exactly what the graphic is intended to illustrate. Of course, some historians are pessimistic about the deductive downward direction of human influence. But others, especially historians of the future, are more sanguine about the positive contribution of human intelligence. Many of us are depressed by apocalyptic & dystopian movies, and alarmed by the scary gossip & "fake news" in popular media, not to mention the "signs & omens" of self-professed prophets. But sober observers of humanity tend to discount such extremist alarmism, and focus on the mundane facts, both pro & con, that tend to track right down the moderate middle, with maybe a hint of positive direction (additional velocity?).

The opinion that humanity is "destroying nature" is also a human perspective. But, I think we need to give "us" the benefit of the doubt. After all, homo sapiens are late-bloomers on the evolutionary scene. And, we only have a few years of recorded civilized history, compared to billions of years of un-intelligent (random) "natural" (wild) evolution. In that relatively short span, humans have indeed gone counter to the "wisdom" of impersonal Nature, in order to adapt their habitat to their selfish "hierarchy of needs". that go beyond Physiology (food & procreation) and Safety (survival long enough to procreate), to include such special needs as Love & Esteem (sex + the need to be needed), and Self-Actualization (to go beyond their animal nature). Moreover, part of self-actualization is the accumulation of wisdom by learning from our mistakes. Another aspect of human actualization may be to avoid the extinction of the species, by taking partial control of the de-selection function of evolution.

The myth of Genesis indicated that the purpose of humans was to be caretakers of the Garden. But, Adam & Eve were not content just to trim the hedges & clean-up the poop. They wanted to be the landscapers & designers of their garden. As the human population grew, in response to the divine commandment, or innate urge, to be fruitful, they were forced to expand the human domain into formerly wild territory. So, the question is : did God/Mother-Nature intend for people to be merely bipedal animals with hands to clip the bushes and scoop the poop? Or was the extra intelligence supposed to be put to use as co-creators of their world? If A & E had bowed to pressure from above, not to live up to their Potential (to explore Possibilities), then maybe we would still be living in caves, with smokey fires, and wearing scratchy skins or fig leaves. :nerd:

Humanity Is About to Transition To “Evolution by Intelligent Direction” :
https://futurism.com/humanity-is-about-to-transition-to-evolution-by-intelligent-direction

A perception of directional change assumes a conflict between our needs and those of the rest of the earth. — Possibility

I get where you''re coming from. But my focus in this thread is on the linguistic metaphor of the OP. I see language as evolving upward from grunts & gestures to poems & programs, not to mention creative profanity. And I perceive (or conceive) a pattern of raw Information evolving into the power of human imagination & intention. So, if you know how to weed-out the mis-information & mis-interpretations & mis-applications that threaten to make us miss the opportunities of our Potential, feel free to go ahead and add critical thinking & error-correction to our cave-man nature. But that may be a topic for another thread. :cool:

Anyway, I wanna run something by you. What if we represent all analyzed data as pictures/images. This may help us see patterns more easily, yes? — Agent Smith

Yes. Words typically convey only conventional ideas that are already in the vocabulary, That's why creative writers like to use metaphorical language to suggest a shade of meaning that is not in the dictionary definition of the words.

For the same reason, philosophical discussions require a lot of defining of terms, to make sure we are talking about the same thing. But since philosophy is mostly concerned with generalities or abstractions that are difficult to pin down, a graphic picture is worth a thousand simplified symbols. It allows the viewer to see for herself the various patterns of relationships implicit in the verbal description. :smile:

Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too — Gregory

No. I was not familiar with Freke. But a quick Google indicates that his specialty is Gnosticism and Christian Mysticism. There are some incidental similarities between Gnosticism and my own worldview. But I don't think of it as Mysticism. There are also coincidental similarities with many of the major religious traditions, including the notion of Panpsychism and Pantheism. But, in my blog I try to make it clear that I am not mimicking any spiritual or mystical or theological beliefs.

My thesis began from two branches of modern Science : Quantum Theory & Information Theory. Both were pointing in the direction of Mind or Consciousness as the underlying essence of the material world as known via our senses. And that just happens to coincide with some ancient guesses about Soul & Spirit. For example, Aristotle's De Anima ( On The Soul) postulated that everything in the world is a composite of FORM (morph ; ousia) and MATTER (hyle), which is now known as Hylemorphism. Ari claimed that those two parts are inseparable aspects of a whole entity. Hence, when the body dies, the soul is extinguished : metaphorically, the pattern evaporates. The structure of the whole system collapses. That's Dualism within Monism.

Aristotle is commonly labeled as a Materialist, in contrast to Plato as an Idealist. But his notion of "Form" is equivalent to the immaterial design or pattern that the rational mind infers from observation of material objects. Those patterns are not visible to the senses, except to the sixth sense of Reason : which is the pattern-seeker, the information-knower, that allows humans discover the invisible laws of Nature. So, my "soul story" goes back beyond Gnosticism to the origins of Formal Philosophy. :nerd:

Note -- Christians who didn't like Freke's Gnosticism will not like my own Enformationism, because it doesn't pay homage to any particular canon of scriptures. Ken Wilbur's writings also bear some similarities to my worldview, but there are also differences.

Structure :
1. the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
2. to construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to.
Note -- the essential structure of a thing is its Form, or Pattern or Inter-relations ; its EnFormAtion

De Anima :
His principal work in psychology, De Anima, reflects in different ways his pervasive interest in biological taxonomy and his most sophisticated physical and metaphysical theory. . . . . “the phenomena common to soul and body” . . . .‘Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally describe Aristotle’s view of body and soul as an instance of his “matter-formism.” That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/

You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness — Gregory

Yes. I have mentioned my understanding of the First Cause as possessing the Potential for all emergent properties of the evolving world, including Consciousness. However, I don't mean that the FC was or is conscious in the same sense as humans. I have no way of knowing about that. But, if our world has the property of Awareness, logically the original Cause must have the power to cause it to emerge at the proper time. An old saying is "there's nothing in the Effect, that was not already in the Cause -- as potential. :smile:


What is Law? : Limitations on action; rules governing creation; embodied Intention; imposed Will.
BothAnd Blog post 14
in the context of Big Bang Theory

I would argue that’s not speaking metaphorically, but ambiguously. Metaphor has a specific qualitative relation as well as a variable. Either it emerged (in which case it didn’t ‘change the direction of evolution’ but rather followed it) or it was ‘added’ by humans. I’m also curious as to the source of your definition of ‘emergence’: the first I’ve seen and the second I understand, but the third seems a contrivance. ‘More than’ and ‘in addition to’ are not the same in relation to emergence. — Possibility

The metaphor in my post was to compare homo sapiens to a "wild card". If you're not familiar with that Poker jargon, I give the pertinent definition below. Hopefully, that will remove some of the "ambiguity". The intended implication was that humanity added a bit of FreeWill into evolutionary Determinism. If we disagree about what I call "Freedom within Determinism", there's an ongoing thread on that topic. I also have several blog posts to define, in no uncertain terms, how I arrived at that notion. If that doesn't convince you, all I can say is "different words for different nerds".

Regarding "Emergence", I used that term in the sense of Holism, in which new properties are "added" to the system that were not expressed before in the parts. However, in my view, the Potential for those new expressions were in the evolutionary "program" from the beginning. But the Holistic novelties only emerge when certain pre-conditions have already been established. In other words, Humanity, with language & freewill, didn't just appear by magic. So, if my usage of the term is a "contrivance", perhaps you should make an edit to the Wiki definition.

If you don't agree that the Emergence of humanity "changed the direction of evolution", we may just have to agree to disagree. It's just my personal opinion. FWIW, the graph below illustrates the acceleration of evolution (mostly technological) after the emergence of Life & Mind & Civilization. It looks like a hockey stick for the same reason Climate Change did : selfish human choices have "homo-formed" (that's a play on "terra-formed) Earth to suit the needs of "featherless bipeds". :cool:


Wild Card : "a person or thing whose influence is unpredictable or whose qualities are uncertain."
___Oxford Languages

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.
Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/632281

COSMIC PROGRESSION GRAPH

Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality — Gregory

As implied in my billiards illustration, the first cause of ball motion was not the cue ball or the stick (material substances), but the aiming & intention of the shooter's mind. The Contingency of the original Cause is the decision to strike or not, and the choice of goal or direction. No strike, no chain of causation, and no balls in the pockets, and no physical world for us to wonder about.

Aristotle defined the First Cause of all actions in the world as the "unmoved mover". In modern terms we define that "Prime Mover" as a mathematical Singularity. Some think of that speck-in-space as a substance, but it would have to compress all the matter of the universe into the equivalent of a Planck Mass. The word "singularity" also implies unity or wholeness : having no parts or divisions. No substance, just Form (design ; plan ; program).

So the Big Bang is what would happen if that infinite Potential, packed into a infinitesimal volume, suddenly exploded like the chain reaction in an atomic bomb. Fortunately for us, the sequence of events following the Bang was not exactly a "free fall", but was governed by Natural Laws, and regulated by Natural Selection. That's what I mean by deciding which direction to aim at.

Since, at the point of Singularity, all physical values go back to infinity or zero, there is no room for matter, or any other kind of substance. Only immaterial Intention, or Aim, or Design could be packed into nothingness, like the immaterial Information of a computer program. :smile:

Singularity :
A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/singularity
Note : this is where space & time goes off-the-charts, and disappears from the physicist's radar. In effect, there is no space-time prior to the First Cause. A Bit of Information is not a physical thing, but a mathematical "difference" -- a ratio, a value.

Infinitesimal : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.

Planck Mass :
The Planck length is the smallest distance. The Planck time is the smallest time. The Planck mass is the geometric mean of all masses in universe.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Planck-time-Planck-length-and-Planck-mass

Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories"). — 180 Proof

You accuse me of "sophistry" whenever I make philosophical arguments instead of providing conventional scientific facts to prove my point. You also portray me as a Mystic, because I talk a lot about Meta-Physics instead of Physics. As I have noted before, if this was a Physics forum, your imputation might have merit. But since we are dialoging on The Philosophy Forum, your assertions miss their mark. And they seem more like "Sophistry" (rhetoric of persuasion focused on winning arguments instead of converging on Truth). So, there. I can lob labels too. But name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

PS__Are you expecting me to give-up and say "uncle"? Labels & Liables may tar my reputation, but they will never break my "spirit". :wink:

Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy

Other than our intuition, what's to say actual no-thingness didn't give rise to everything else? Bear in mind, something having an infinite past is absurd too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Such distractions about abstractions can go-on into the infinity before infinity -- if we don't put up an arbitrary barrier to eternal extrapolation. One way to do that is to narrowly define the subject of discussion. So, what is this "no-thing-ness" we are imagining for the sake of argument? Typically, the term refers to the concept of a vacuum or absence of physical objects. But we humans tend to think of imaginary non-physical concepts as-if they are things. Does Absence count?

Should we include ethereal Feelings and Qualia in the category of things-in-absentia? The "Future" does not exist in any physical sense, but we speak & act as-if it's a real thing. Plato insisted that his abstract Forms "gave rise" to concrete Reality, even though they were merely abstract designs for potential things. As mentioned above, the notion of "Zero" seemed absurd to the Greek philosophers. Yet today, we use those "far-fetched" symbols of nothingness (00000) as-if they are countable objects.

So, perhaps we need to distinguish between actual physical "things" and imaginary metaphorical "things", in order to abbreviate this thread. Does "Absence" exist in any meaningful sense? If not, this may be merely an excursion into mundane somethingness. If so, we may be talking about "Constitutive Absence". :smile:

Absence :
It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
Re : Terrence Deacon : Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe — Gregory

There are two basic meanings of "to prove" : 1. by evidence or 2. by argument. Scientists prove the existence of invisible physical objects, like neutrinos, by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as wispy trails left behind in a cloud chamber by unseen motes of matter. Philosophers prove the "existence" of metaphysical concepts, like Qualia, by logical syllogisms, derived from observations of behavior, or from intuitive axioms.

We cannot scientifically prove anything "external to the physical universe", such as Metaverses, Parallel Worlds, or a pre-bang magical Inflationary Instant. Those are imaginary or hypothetical, abstract mathematical extrapolations from known characteristics of the sensible aspects of Nature. That's because, unlike animals, humans can imagine things that do not exist in this place & time -- that are not Real, but Ideal. And philosophers, especially, specialize to hypothesize about unseen (hyper-sensory) things that are preter-natural. For example, the Greek theory of minuscule Atoms, was not a scientific observation, but a seemingly logical necessity to explain the physical objects we can see & touch. And intelligent people believed in such unseen things for several thousand years, based on inference, not evidence.

In a similar manner, some ancient & modern philosophers have deduced the logical necessity for a First Cause (or Creator) that exists external to the Effect or Creation. It's simply a matter of mental framing. If you look closely at a billiard table, you will see balls of hard stuff, moving around and interacting, as-if they had a mission. But only if you widen your scope to look external to the table, will you see the original Cause of that seemingly deliberate behavior : a pool shooter, with the intention of moving those balls into pockets without actually touching them.

"Potential" and "Contingency" are concepts, not real here & now things. They are rational inferences from many observations over extended time. All we can say is that such Qualia must exist in some sense, if we are to make sense of the dynamic world around us. Is that proof enough for you . . . as a philosopher? :nerd:

Neutrino :
The neutrino is perhaps the best-named particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: it is tiny, neutral, and weighs so little that no one has been able to measure its mass. . . . . Theorists predicted the neutrino’s existence in 1930, but it took experimenters 26 years to discover the particle.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutrinos

Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

To infer : to form an opinion from physical or logical premises

THE WORLD OF BILLIARD BALLS ON A MISSION


THE SPOOKY OFF-WORLD CAUSE OF ENTERPRISING BALLS

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Since we are only familiar with being, non-existence is counter-intuitive. So, it's easier for us to imagine NOW extending into the Past and Future with no boundaries. But intuition tends to be prejudiced by personal experience.

The ancient Greeks were excellent mathematicians, but they had no concept of "Zero" (nothingness). Yet in more recent times, that non-intuitive notion has proven to be quite useful in abstract mathematics. Consequently, as hypothetical philosophical postulations, we are now more comfortable with such literal non-sense, even though it has no counterpart in physical Reality. That's why "Zero" and "Infinity" are meta-physical philosophical speculations, not physical scientific facts. And philosophical thinkers have been known to fetch some of their most exotic ideas from afar-far-away. :nerd:

incidentally, contrary to Gnomon’s view, I don’t see humanity or personal opinion as some ‘addition’ to the natural process of the universe. — Possibility

Sorry Poss. You seem to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about Gnomon's "view". I was speaking metaphorically when I said, "homo sapiens . . . added a wild card . . . to Logic & Math". Actually, the potential (possibility) for that personal perspective must have been lain dormant in the logical structure of reality (Logos) for billions of years. But that latent "wild card" only became Actual when the human brain began to include self-referential feedback loops in the ongoing linear Logic of reality, resulting in what I call "Ideality" : a novel feature in the meaningless pre-human Cosmos.

That statistical anomaly (Linguistic Logic ; math with meaning) has abruptly changed the direction of evolution, to serve the personal interests, emotions, & opinions of a self-reflective species of upright apes. It has produced a new "tool" (formal conventional Language) with logical leverage to produce Qualia, where before there was only Quanta. Language is an Objective form of Subjective thought. And it has allowed cooperative communication that is more flexible, and generalizable, than the proto-language of hormones & pheromones. So "humanity or personal opinion" was an "addition" to natural processes only in the sense of Emergence. :wink:


Emergence :
1. the process of coming into view or becoming exposed after being concealed.
2. potential properties in parts of a system that are only expressed in their holistic interrelationships
3. the whole is "more than" (in addition to) the sum of its parts

Logos :
Greek term meaning “word”, “reason”, “proportion”. It was used by philosophers in a technical sense to mean a cosmic principle of order and knowledge. In ancient Greek philosophy and theology, Logos was the divine Reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about — Gregory

True. Philosophy is about Ideas, while Physics is about "real" things. The original hypothetical concept of a modern Atom was a miniature solar system. Then it was portrayed as a tiny cloud of electrical potential. Now, that foggy fuzz (virtual particle) is imagined as an empty place in space (abstract field) where electro-magnetic events may or may not happen. But, regardless of the philosophical postulations, scientists continue to manipulate things they can't see, for practical purposes. It's like the concept of Energy, no one knows what it is, but only what it does. Theorists are shooting in the dark, while empiricists are making the darkness jump through hoops. :nerd:


The term “atom” was coined in ancient Greece and gave rise to the school of thought known as “atomism”. However, this theory was more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/

I agree that the physical field is real . . . What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea — Gregory

May I suggest that the imaginary mathematical fields of Physics represent an invisible Ideality underlying Reality. The fields themselves are abstract & ideal, definitions with no actual physical properties, only mathematical values. Yet physicists treat them as-if the models are real --- as-if the map is the terrain. :smile:

PS___Mathematics is itself an abstraction of reality, minus all the physical stuff.


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
BothAnd Blog Glossary,

Here's a magnified photo of a single atom. How would you describe it in words?

There's a problem that is not part of the economist's calculation. They need to talk to a physicist. — Banno

I vaguely remember from long ago an economics book (New World of Economics, 1975 ???) that recommended an approach more like Physics. But the problem with such a model is that physical systems are better-behaved and more predictable than chaotic human groups. In fact, I suspect that some economists tried to make models based on physics, and failed to get reliable results. Yet again, their Bell-curve models didn't fit the messy realities of collective and individual human nature.*1

In Freakonomics (2003) the authors said "Why the conventional wisdom is so often wrong . . . How "experts" --- from criminologists to real-estate agents to political scientists --- bend the facts . . . Why knowing what to measure, and how to measure it, is the key to understanding modern life . . . That almost sounds like a reference to physical measurements. But it would actually be more like the meta-physical measurements of Psychology. :joke:

*1. Note to self in front page of the book : "When the numbers (values) are removed from the mathematically derived chart, what is left is a pure logic diagram, showing abstract relationships. From this we can derive general principles which can be applied to specific cases and the numbers plugged back in". So young, so naive. Maybe they hadn't perfected Chaos Theory back then. Or Black Swan theory. :grin:

The assumption of continuity is one the physics undermines - tipping points and phase changes, rather than smooth curves. — Banno

Of course. Short term economic or evolutionary paths tend to look like the first chart below. But Long-term paths typically vary around a fairly constant mean -- maybe even sloping upward, as in chart 2. Although global warming currently looks like a hockey-stick, over 10,000 years the system has balanced itself well enough to keep Life alive. But now, it seems that a little global government intervention/regulation may be necessary to get us back on track. Dystopian visions of economic/thermal/ thermo-nuclear apocalypse may be premature. Have a little faith in humanity -- we haven't bombed ourselves into oblivion yet . . . :cool:

1. SHORT TERM ECONOMICS

2. LONG TERM ECONOMICS

3. GLOBAL WARMING UPS & DOWNS

It can inductively be shown that the universe behaves like a language. On the most basic level, everything in the universe can be said to simply be information (regardless of what the universe is composed of on the higher level). Therefore, the universe can be said to be an arrangement of information. . . . thus providing meaning to all of life and existence — Thinker108

Most of Christopher Langan's CognitiveTheoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is way over my head. But in a brief review on my blog, I noted that it seemed to be mostly compatible with my own Enformationism thesis, which is also Information-Theoretic. Both are Theories of Everything (TOE), including Science, but they are not scientific theories. Instead of empirical evidence, his reasoning is based on Axioms & Tautologies, so it's a philosophical worldview.

Since he assumes that the universe evolves in a logical manner, it can be compared metaphorically to a human language, which must make sense to other humans. And since Logic is a verbal form of mathematical relationships, the logic of language must add-up meaningfully. Unfortunately, the logical structure of language is often blurred with metaphorical figures that are not as exact as numerical figures.

So, I would guess that the universe has evolved in a purely mathematical process of Thermo-dynamic (hot-cold ; positive-negative) relationships. But the advent of homo sapiens -- and their most useful tool, Language -- may have added a wild-card to the Logic & Math : personal opinions. Nevertheless, I have concluded that an understanding of the essential role of Information, in all its forms, can provide some cosmic meaning to Life, Existence, and Everything. :nerd:

CTMU :
It seems to be a philosophical theory derived from current scientific models, but I doubt that it could ever be proven true in any scientific sense.
BothAnd Blog, post 11

Another Theory of Everything :
His proposal falls into the category of Cosmology, or Reality Theory, which examine Nature in its broadest sense, including conjectures on why our world exists at all. They inevitably imply an ultimate fundamental Reality beyond space-time, underlying the superficial parts we can detect with our senses.
BothAnd Blog, post 37

Classical economics breaches the first and second laws of thermodynamics by treating the economy as a closed system that increases in order. — Banno

Classical economic theory also assumed rational individual actors and minimal government interference. Thermodynamics may be logical (rational), but the regulation (natural laws) is inherent in the system. The human factor in economics is a wild card. And, I suppose it's also an irrational element in Earth-based thermodynamics, resulting in global warming. Fortunately for us, over the long haul, the erratic path of both systems, tends to balance-out at a moderate mean. Let's hope, anyway. We don't really want to eradicate humans from the planet, do we? :cool:

I understand metaphysics to be a second (or higher) order categorical, noncognitive, discourse (re: conceptual interpretations) and physics to be a first order hypothetical, cognitive, discourse (re: testable explanatory models). — 180 Proof

I had to Google "noncognitive discourse". It sounds like "subliminal communication". But I don't know how that would work (mental telepathy?).

The article quoted (or "cherry-picked") below is over my head. But it seems to equate "cognitive" with empirical ("predictive") Science, and "noncognitive" with theoretical (speculative) Philosophy (or metaphysics). So, I infer that you would agree with Richard Feynman's dismissal of Philosophical (or metaphysical) interpretations of Quantum Theory : "Shut up and calculate". And that division of labor is OK with me. You can be a "mathematical physicist" calculating predictive facts, and I'll remain in the "unskilled" camp, as a "theoretical" philosopher, speculating on "non-cognitive" meanings.

The notions I discourse about are primarily non-computable, and hence debatable. That's why philosophers are still debating the same hypothetical questions raised by Plato & Aristotle back in the "dark ages" before predictive reductive Science emerged as the technological foundation of modern civilization. And that's also why I post on a Philosophical forum instead of a Physics forum. I only ask that you grant us unpredictable holistic "cherry-pickers" the right to free speech on this marketplace of ideas. Thanks. :smile:


cognitive versus noncognitive :
Under hermeneutics, ‘the application of such honorific’s as “objective” and “cognitive” is never anything more than an expression of the presence of, or the hope for, agreement among inquirers’ (335). It is not another way of knowing, as understanding rather than explanation, but a way of coping. It enables us to give the notion of “cognitive” to predictive science and to stop worrying about the “noncognitive”
https://philosophymasters.wordpress.com/tag/cognitive-versus-noncognitive/

Attributed to Feynman :
Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics?
Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652

I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics. Had I been an ancient / classical thinker, I'd have preferred (e.g.) Epicurus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes of Syracuse, Chrysippus of Soli, Sextus Empiricus ... to (the dogmatic tradition of) Plato-Aristotle, Plotinus et al. — 180 Proof

I apologize, if my tongue-in-cheek remark offended you. Perhaps, I should have said that you seem to prefer Physics to Metaphysics (anti-physics to you). But to me that's the same thing as Philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between his scientific studies of Nature (phusis), and his philosophical analysis & commentary on Nature (including non-physical concepts and theories) by placing them in a separate volume. He didn't give them different names though, "metaphysics" was added later. It was all love-of-wisdom to him.

For Ari, physical studies were merely a small part of the pre-scientific endeavor to understand the world. Today, it's all turned around : physics is the dominant field of study, and philosophy is a minor player in the game of knowing what's what. But, TPF is a philosophy forum, insignificant as it is, so IMHO the focus of our discussions should be on the abstract notions in his second volume. However, the fuzzy margins of Physics, especially on the Quantum scale, are invisible to our physical senses, and knowable only with our non-physical sense of Reason. So those abstract concepts, such as Quarks, are fair game for philosophical critique.

Therefore, when we are discussing fringe theories, there is little empirical evidence to place under the magnifying glass. That may be why several of the pioneers of QT were labeled as "mystics". Their theoretical descriptions of sub-reality did not agree with intuition or classical physics. But the math was so predictive, that empirical physicists decided to stop arguing about the real meaning of the theory, and to "just shut-up and calculate". That way, they can avoid the stain of "mysticism" & "metaphysics". But, I'm not a professional mathematical physicist. And I have no reputation to smear with such labels. So, I feel free to explore the spooky borderlands of the physical world, including the immaterial stuff of the Mind.

As far as I can tell. None of my speculations into the non-physical aspects of the world are "inconsistent with current physics". They merely delve into the darkness on the fringes of physical understanding, where even sober scientists begin to sound a bit mystical. And that's partly because such quantum queerness as Entanglement, are more amenable to the Holistic Eastern traditions, than to the Reductive Western approach. Quantum science sounds so counter-intuitive to Western ears because they expected to find Atoms at the bottom of their dissections. But, as pragmatic "calculators", they were forced to imagine invisible "fields" metaphorically, as-if they are real things.

If you don't mind, I'll continue to consult Plato & Aristotle for philosophical insights. But I refer to modern scientists to support my Information Theoretic philosophy, with empirical evidence, and even some non-empirical hypotheses where the evidence is murky. :cool: .

Do quarks really exist? :
Nope, quarks never exist on their own. The reason is that it takes more energy to separate a pair of quarks than the quarks themselves contain.
https://www.quora.com/Do-quarks-exist-not-just-as-a-useful-mathematical-concept-that-helps-explain-physical-behaviour-but-physically-exist

Quantum mysticism :
Appropriation by New Age thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Note -- my Enformationism worldview is Holistic, but not New Age. It's similar in some ways to those of Deepak Chopra, but far different in others.

What did Einstein say about quantum entanglement? :
Albert Einstein colorfully dismissed quantum entanglement—the ability of separated objects to share a condition or state—as “spooky action at a distance.” Over the past few decades, however, physicists have demonstrated the reality of spooky action over ever greater distances—even from Earth to a satellite in space.
Note -- Albert was right that parted paired particles is "spooky", in the sense of counter-intuitive. But, he was wrong in dismissing it as "mystical", just because it didn't fit his reductive paradigm. The long-distance relationship is real, but not reductive. It's merely Holistic, as in Systems Theory.

Meta-physics :
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

PICTURE OF IMAGINARY QUANTUM FIELD


PICTURE OF REAL PHYSICAL FIELD

Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard some Aristotelians say only form exists, others that only organic things have forms, and others that everything has form and prime matter. — Gregory

Yes. Philosophers have varying opinions on almost everything. That's why we dialog : to see if there is some common ground within the wide range of personal beliefs.

People use the term "Form" with either concrete or abstract meanings, but they may not make it clear which is intended. That word may refer to the physical contours of the matter comprising an object. Or, it may indicate the mathematical pattern of relationships that we infer as, that which is common to a category of things. For example, dogs come in many sizes & shapes but there is some underlying similarity between all of them. So, the essence of "dogginess" is not any particular physical shape or shagginess, but a general pattern of interrelated features that our brains interpret as "dog", and not as "cat". I tend to think of that "essential pattern" as abstract, logical & mathematical instead of concrete, perceptual & physical. By rationally inferring that invisible conceptual commonality within variety, we derive meaning from the complexity of apparent reality.

Again, our use of metaphorical language, in poetry or philosophy, often leads to confusion about the intention. When you say "form", are you referring to what you see (perception), or what you infer (conception)? Is "form" the apparent shape & texture, or the implicit pattern of relationships? Form is the middle-name of In-Form-Ation, which is the meaning in a Mind. Plato merely described the concept of a thing metaphorically, as-if it was a perfect eternal essential pattern floating around out in space. But we don't have to take that notion literally, in order to find general meaning in specific things. :smile:


Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

ESSENCE VERSUS APPEARANCE

Try to make a water sculpture. You will see the differences with ice are not that slightly. Ice and stone are more alike than ice and water. — Raymond

Ha! Is the ice-water glass half-empty or half-full? What's the difference? :joke: