It's natural to ask questions and equally natural to look for reasonable answers. God is just one of the many manifestations of our curiosity (that killed the cat). Your logic is not new but that's a compliment - you see the value of ancient arguments or, at the very least, have found a means to reconstruct trains of thought that are as old as the mountains. Why reinvent the wheel? — Agent Smith

Actually, I didn't reinvent the wheel --- and I didn't find a full-size spare tire in the trunk of my new worldview. Instead, I have merely patched timeworn ancient philosophical wisdom with 21st century knowledge. Specifically, in the squishy Quantum foundation of reality, and in the ubiquity of Causal Information. These are not traditional factors in religious or philosophical arguments. But lots of pragmatic scientists*1 are beginning to see the philosophical implications of those fruitful features of cutting-edge Science.

I didn't go looking for God, but I couldn't ignore the logical arrows pointing toward a creation event in the beginning, and of directional causation in evolution. I'm still not a worshiper of G*D, but I do appreciate the ontological & epistemological closure of the First Cause concept. Plato & Aristotle were not conventionally religious, but even though they knew nothing of a Big Bang beginning, they saw the logical necessity for an outside force to cause Space & Time to emerge from Infinity & Eternity.

Faithful Atheists may still cling to hope for an infinite regress of space-time -- for which there is no evidence -- to provide a reasonable alternative to an act of creation. They have even been imaginative enough to find fabulous workarounds for the emergence of space-time from a dimensionless & timeless Singularity. They seem to find comfort in hypothetical sci-fi scenarios that conveniently ignore the first law of physics, and bypass the inconvenient physical bottleneck a few billion solar-cycles back. Yet, if only our thermodynamic universe can find a way to avoid the inevitable heat-death ahead, it will overcome Entropy and rise to live forever, like a vampire, or like Jesus. Hallelujah!

Those eternal-time schemes -- like Doctor Who and time-traveling Marvel heroes -- provide dramatic fodder for the adolescent imagination. But, personally, I don't find their various evasive tactics to be philosophically believable. So, unlike many religious people today, I assume that this life, and this world, is one & done. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong in one of infinite parallel-world afterlives. As long as I can remember who I was/am -- and what that round-thing-with-a-hole-in-it is supposed to do. :cool:


*1. See my Enformationism Thesis and BothAnd Blog for references to those wheel-patching scientists. Some may still claim to be Atheists, but others will admit to being Agnostic about the ultimate implications of their non-classical worldviews. Only a few are orthodox Theists.

THE WORLD RESTS ON TIME-TURTLES
. . . . . .ALL THE WAY DOWN . . . . .

3. Theism/Atheism — Agent Smith

I abandoned the Theistic religion of my childhood long ago. But I was never able to become an assured Atheist, because that theory-of-absence offered no explanation for such philosophical questions as "why is there something instead of nothing?" Apparently, Atheists are not troubled by such ontological or epistemological or existential quandaries. But Agnostics seem to need some closure on universal & general questions. So, my BothAnd philosophy combines Theism & Atheism into Agnosticism. Based on my Enformationism (enforming is creating) worldview, it's obvious that our contingent world is not self-existent. So, logically there should be some kind of First Cause to explain the chain of causation that led to my own contingent existence.

Unfortunately, sans revelation, I have no way of knowing about anything prior to the Big Bang beginning. So, I must admit that I don't know for sure that there is a God. But, just admitting practical ignorance doesn't satisfy the quest for impractical philosophical speculation : not what-is, but what-ought-to-be, logically . Therefore, I have proposed a reasonable god-model that is not Theistic, but also not a tower-of-turtles assumption like Many Worlds and Multiverse speculations. Instead, my hypothetical god-model is what odds-maker Blaise Pascal derisively called "the god of the philosophers". Apparently, he was more comfortable with a god of statistics (Chance). Yet, my own, non-anthro-morphic, non-miraculous First Cause notion is a god only in the broad sense (sensu amplo) of logical necessity. :smile:

Contingent :
1. subject to chance
2. dependent
3. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case

So I partly agree with you. I agree one should be clear on ones intend, and if asked for elaboration it should be provided, but I cannot account for all possible other interpretations of my words that are based on peoples ignorance on how the dictionary of the language they claim to use defines the word. They can ask me for clarification or look it up in the dictionary, or both. — Tomseltje

Unfortunately, relying on standard dictionary definitions ignores the distinction between Semantics (literal meaning) and Semiotics (emotional or contextual meaning). The science & philosophy of Semiotics became necessary in the 20th century, in part due to the proliferation of communication channels, and to the complex layering of subcultures. More recently, Kahneman & Tversky labeled a variety of ways that otherwise obvious meanings can be misinterpreted (e.g. availability heuristic), due to common errors in reasoning. That's especially true for Characterizing Labels.

In the Reductionism and Holism thread, my usage of "holism" as a scientific term was challenged. I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about. And it turned-out that the challenger was working with a vague Scientific definition, but his objection mostly involved a Semiotic meaning of the word, due to its negative association with New Agers & Hippies. For some people, the word "holism" -- like long-hair for males in the 60s -- still symbolizes counter-cultural lifestyles, and an anti-science attitude.

That lingering antagonism toward an appropriate scientific & philosophical term, forced scientists using holistic methods to label their work as Systems Theory, in order to avoid the biased baggage. However, to be more specific, the full name of the theory would be "Theory of Whole Systems". That's contrasted with Reductionism, which is a theory of fragmented systems.

So, if your intended meaning is misunderstood on this forum, it may not be due to ignorance of the dictionary definition, but to a prejudiced attitude toward what the term signifies or symbolizes. That shouldn't happen on a philosophical forum, but even philosophically-inclined people are subject to emotional & prejudicial errors in reasoning. Which is why some of the most contentious threads go-on-&-on, without reaching an agreeable interpretation of the topic. :smile:

Looks like, as is common, the word "holism" has different meanings - from the tenor of our discussions we're already aware of two: — Agent Smith

Of course. That's why the first rule of philosophical dialog is "define your terms". Otherwise, each participant may make unwarranted assumptions that don't match the other's meaning. For example, Bartrick seems to associate "Holism" with "peace & love spouting, weirdo-counter-cultural, long-haired hippie freaks", or with "incense burning, pot smoking, crystal gazing, mantra chanting, New Age nuts". But those prejudices have nothing to do with my personal understanding and usage of "Holism".

That's why my posts typically include several links to websites and quotes from experts. To help define my usage of controversial terms, and to show that you don't just have to take my personal definition as authoritative. For me, Holism is a philosophical, not religious topic. The basic concept of Holism goes back to Aristotle, and has a long Western history, apart from the recent influx of Eastern religious and philosophical notions. Yet, the definitive spelling & explanation of a wholistic approach for a scientific context was published in the early 20th century, just as Einstein's Relativity and Bohr's Quantum Theory were raising eyebrows among classically-trained scientists.

My personal interest in Holism is primarily scientific, since it is essential to understanding the apparent weirdness of Quantum Theory, and to grasping the multiple roles -- physical & metaphysical -- of Generic Information in the real world. The Quantum realm is now considered to be the intangible foundation of material reality. But from a classical science perspective, it seems to verge into Mysticism. In fact, many of the early pioneers of Quantum Physics were accused of being mystics, not because of any anti-science inclinations, but due to the exotic language of Eastern philosophy they adopted, when the jargon of Reductive Science didn't apply to what they were seeing in their experiments.

The bottom line is that I have built my personal philosophical worldview around the shocking new paradigms of the 20th century -- Relativity, Quantum Physics & Information Theory -- that have become mainstream, among scientists, in the 21st century. So, my ideas may seem perverse to anyone still laboring under an outdated classical worldview. :nerd:

PS__"No, I just know what I am talking about. You don't. You are just talking hippy nonsense." Bartricks will deny it, but he's making the One-Word-One-Meaning fallacy. Which is the opposite of the Equivocation Fallacy, where one word is deliberately used with different meanings. He is implying that his personal definition of the word "Holism" -- as Mysticism -- is the only true meaning.

PPS__Bartricks claims that his definition of "Holism" is the correct philosophical meaning; but doesn't give a reference. However, the man who coined the term "Holism" defined it's meaning as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." And that is how I use it. But what did he mean by "fundamental factor"? He also explained that in terms of physical Evolution of complex systems from simple elements. If you want philosophical authority, that ancient "hippy" Aristotle summarized the concept 2500 years ago as "The whole is more than the sum of its parts". Ironically, Ari used the Greek word hylos (literally "forest"), to imply that some of us "can't see the whole forest for the individual trees". I don't know where Bartricks got his indefinite definition : "a view about how properties behave".

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another.“ ___Voltaire.

One Word, One Meaning Fallacy :
https://prezi.com/8emq5xzndwnj/one-word-one-meaning-fallacy/

Holism is not the opposite of reductionism! — Bartricks
Why? — Agent Smith

Apparently. Bartricks prefers a very narrow exclusive definition of "holism", whereas I favor a broader, more inclusive, interpretation. Historically, you have many versions to choose from : Pythagoras, Aristotle, Taoism, Holistic Medicine, etc. So, how you use the term may be a matter of personal taste. Hence, my personal usage is based on Jan Smut's philosophical book Holism and Evolution. Yet, for the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I have also expanded the context of the term "Holism" to include Reductionism, as the other side of the Whole coin.

From that comprehensive (holistic) perspective, Holism and Reductionism are not "opposites" but complements as in the Yin/Yang symbol. And both are research methods used in modern science. Yet, the comprehensive definition makes more sense in view of my "non-classical" BothAnd logic. It's understandable that -- due to his classical, exclusive, two-value, Black or White, Either/Or definition -- Bartricks doesn't know what I'm talking about. :smile:

Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic is Ideal (god-like), but not Real (natural intelligence)

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. ___Wikipedia
Note -- Fuzzy Logic is how humans reason, and how quantum physics works

Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. ___Wikipedia

Holism and Evolution is a 1926 book by South African statesman Jan Smuts, in which he coined the word "holism", although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism. Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." ___Wiki
Note -- My coinage for that progressive, expansive, evolutionary factor is holistic "Enformy" : the power or tendency to create novel forms & species. That's how the amorphous Big Bang plasma, eventually condensed into quantum particles, then atoms & molecules, then stars & galaxies, and thence to living thinking creatures. If evolution was Reductive, nothing new would ever emerge from the random roiling of thermodynamics.

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

ANALYSIS + SYNTHESIS = HOLISM

Science is advancing. This is very obvious. But is philosophy? — Alkis Piskas

Remember that the discipline we now call "Science" is what Aristotle called "Natural Philosophy" or "physis" (growth or nature). As as the name implies, the subject of natural science evolves & progresses in an obvious manner, that we know via our physical senses. But, his second volume, under the same title, was actually concerned with what we now call "Culture" : opinions, activities & effects of the human Mind. Which we know only via our sixth sense of Reason (inference). So, we can't expect Metaphysical Cultural Science to make progress in the same sense as Physical Natural Science. Physics is about what is constantly changing, while Philosophy (Metaphysics) is all about eternal unchanging principles (digging for potatoes vs digging for gold).

Today, the cultural sciences -- Psychology (philosophy of mind), Anthropology, Sociology, History, etc -- are usually classified separately from the physical sciences, for obvious reasons. They definitely make progress, but lacking mathematical tools for measurement, it's not easy to evaluate & enumerate. Besides, most of their advances are built upon the physical evidence of Physics. For example, perhaps the most advanced philosophy of Mind/Consciousness is Integrated Information Theory, which is based on our experience with the mechanical minds we call computers.

One way to measure the "advancement" of human Culture (e.g. civilization), is to see how much of the modern world has been cultivated by homo sapiens, and how much remains unaffected by the expansive imagination of human minds. Philosophical Cynics tend view the effects of Culture on Nature as mostly negative & digressive. But, more sanguine philosophers see cultural progress as evolving incrementally, with two steps forward & one step back. And optimistic technological philosophers, like Ray Kurtzweil, seem to think that cultural technology will eventually supersede natural evolution (Mind over Matter).

As a species, our perspective & understanding evolves, but the underlying Truth doesn't change. Anyway, to compare the "advance" of Metaphysical Philosophy to the progress of Physical Science, is like weighing apples & oranges, or adding 2 + X = ?. :nerd:

1. Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest

Philosophical Progress :
the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead reportedly summed up the Greek thinker's accomplishments with the remark, “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.”
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/contributors/plato

Philosophical Science vs Natural Science :
The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge. 2. Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

CYNICAL COMPARISON OF PHILOSOPHY & SCIENCE

Reductionism: 1 + 2 = 3. Everything about the whole (3) is explicable in terms of its parts (1, 2).
Holism: 2H + O = H2O. As Gnomon pointed out, wetness (water) is inexplicable with the properties of hydrogen or oxygen. — Agent Smith

Good comparison. The key distinction here is that Reductionism deals with Quanta (discrete isolated objects) while Holism deals with Qualia (continuous integrated systems). Quanta includes particular things that can be known via physical senses (i.e. empirical). Qualia includes essences that make a thing what it is, and can be known only via meta-physical Reason (i.e. inference). After the birth of modern science immaterial essences (spirits) were excluded -- for good reasons -- from pragmatic studies. Yet, since the birth of the ironically-named Quantum Mechanics*1, it became necessary for Science to once again deal with whole systems, because the entangled sub-atomic "parts" can't be dealt with in isolation.

For example, Quarks (the hypothetical components of Protons, Neutrons, etc) are never found alone, but in trinities. And they are impossible to measure individually, so some scientists question if they are even real. Similarly, since all electrons seem to be simple & identical, John A. Wheeler proposed that there is only one electron in the universe*3. That theory may have been presented with tongue-in-cheek, because it couldn't be proven empirically. But it is suggestive of a universal holistic system, in which a single Universal Potential*4 is shared among all local instances.

An even murkier instance of Holistic Qualia may be illustrated in both Physical & Meta-Physical phase transitions*5. Scientists can measure the different properties of Water (liquid), Ice (solid), & Steam (gas), but they can't explain where those previously hidden properties came from. However, a philosophical (metaphysical) rationale is that H2O molecules have Potential (ideal) properties, as a whole system, that only Emerge*6 -- become Actual (real) -- under pre-specified environmental conditions.

Of course, hard-line Reductionists might be uncomfortable with the spooky spiritual implications of that hypothesis. Metaphorically, an unexpressed quality is like an invisible Soul, that animates or de-animates a tangible body. But, from the Systems Theory perspective, that's just the way Nature works : transforming Potential into Actual, and vice versa. Now you see it, now you don't. What's spooky about that? :joke:


*1. Quantum Holism : the defining feature of the quantum scale is Entanglement, which is immeasurable and holistic, hence known only by non-quantifiable Qualia.

*2. Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*3. One Electron Theory :
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if-every-electron-was-the-same-electron/

*4. Universal Potential : compare with Platonic Forms : "ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms",[5] are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

*5. Emergent Phase Transitions :
<< Evaporation, Condensation, Freezing, Melting, Sublimation & Deposition. Substances on Earth can exist in one of four phases, but mostly, they exist in one of three: solid, liquid or gas.>>
* Metaphysical phase changes are those we can imagine, but not sense. Somehow, inanimate matter transforms into living beings, yet we can’t detect the exact moment or location of the transition. Similarly, tangled masses of living tissue, such as the slimey tentacles of neurons, somehow cause a new non-physical function to emerge : Mind.
* If you know that these transformations are fundamentally changes in metaphysical information qualities, rather than physical material quantities, then the mystery becomes merely a common case of statistical probabilities, like tumbling dice. Laymen may have a problem with the equations, so metaphysical terms, like “cause” or “create” may be better understood.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

*6. 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

Interesting. Enformy seems like it would be an emergent factor from : The laws of physics being what they are and allowing for complexity to emerge. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Enformy" is my own term for what physicists refer to as "Negentropy". But that scientific nomenclature, taking Entropy as primary, makes it sound like a Fatalistic Force. On the contrary, "to enform" means "to give meaningful form to . . ." In other words, it's a creative force in nature. And Evolution is the record of an ongoing series of emergent forms, from a formless beginning (the abstract mathematical Singularity).

Since Energy is the universal Causal Force in nature, we could conclude that energy is also Enformy. But Energy is both creative and corrosive, both constructive Enformy and destructive Entropy. Also, the Big Bang -- imagined as an explosion -- would seem to be a deconstructive event. Instead, it began to self-organize into matter/antimatter, and thence into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful"*1. Therefore, I view Energy simply as the Potential for Change, which can be construed as good or bad, positive or negative. Hence, Enformy and Entropy are emergent factors of Energy, as positive & negative forms of Causation (i.e. the defining & organizing laws of physics).

Ironically, we usually think of Evolution as progressive from simple elements to complex compounds. But it is also digressive, in that most of its new forms don't survive the life or death competition of Random Change. So, if it were not for the "law of nature" we call Natural Selection, the nascent universe would have blinked-out long long ago. And I view Enformy as the embodiment of that natural tendency to progressive change.

From a viewpoint outside our universe, the Arrow of Time would seem to be pointing downward toward a cold-dark-heat-death. But, from the local perspective of living & thinking beings inside the Causal Train, Time's Arrow appears to be pointing upward, toward greater organization & complexity, hence Creativity. So, the Big Bang can be viewed as both a destructive explosion of Entropy, and a constructive expansion of Enformy. Personally, I prefer the more uplifting worldview. :cool:


*1. Darwin :
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3895-thus-from-the-war-of-nature-from-famine-and-death

Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Enformy :
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated and guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization, in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is detrimental, as encapsulated in the concept of Entropy (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive Enformy (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of “Enformy” has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page17.html

BIG BANG : EXPLOSION or EXPANSION --- DIVERGENT or EMERGENT ?

I've been told that reductionnism is more of a method than or a specific philosophical ism — musicpianoaccordion

It's true, that Reductionism is a primary intellectual tool of modern Science -- ever since the Enlightenment rebellion against Theological Science. Which could be construed as Holistic, in the sense that certain Theories were presented as Dogma, and intended to be swallowed whole, by Faith not Reason. Gallileo was a prime example of that new way of thinking. He looked at stars objectively (relative to each other), instead of subjectively (relative to the observer). Hence, he came to reject certain ancient astronomical theories, inherited from ancient Greeks, and presented as dogma by the church.

However, that new method (based on natural laws), was so successful, that over time, it became just as much a matter of faith for some, as Aristotelian Geocentrism (based on divine laws) had been for the medieval Catholic Church. The modern canonized version of that practical-rational-objective method is now known as the doctrine of Scientism. For adherents of that philosophical belief system (an -ism) it's not just a procedural method, but the sole source of Truth. And its primary abomination is subjective intuitive Faith, which is prejudicially associated with the presumed gullible attitude of Holism, and mystical New Ageism .

But Holism is also a scientific method, and the basis of Systems Theory, as applied to problems that are too large, or complex, or convoluted for the simplistic Reductive approach. Just as modern Reductionism is historically-related to the ancient philosophy of Atomism (Democritus), Modern Systems Theory is related to the ancient Holistic philosophy of Aristotle. But the modern term "holism" was only coined in 1926 ,by a philosopher-statesman, as a new/old method for studying evolution, among other complex processes. As I said before, these methods are not necessarily opposites, but complementary. It's only when they are adopted as an exclusive all-encompassing belief system that they become antagonistic. :smile:

PS___Since you seem to be interested in the application of Holism to Music,
Mathematical music analysis: a holistic approach :
https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/Mathematical-music-analysis-a-holistic-approach/9949333473302959

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best oronly objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning.
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle captures the idea of holism in his statement that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.”
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_holism.html

Holism (from Ancient Greek ὅλος (hólos) 'all, whole, entire', and -ism) is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

I was a civil engineer, often a very reductionist discipline. Example - storm sewer design. When you design a sewer system to handle stormwater, i.e. water resulting from rain or snow, on a property, regulations and standards of practice say you only have to take into account the maximum flow leaving the site. That doesn't take into account the time and sequence of flow on your property and in the system as a whole. Result - inadequate capacity and flooding. A holistic approach would take into account the effects of changes in flow from your property on the system as a whole. Problem - it's very hard, and expensive, to do that. — T Clark

That's an interesting example of the Reductive vs Holistic approach to problems. It reminded me of New Orleans before & after hurricane Katrina. After that disaster, the Civil engineers and Corp of Engineers were criticized, in retrospect, for not anticipating all the things that can go wrong. But, before the hurricane, it was well-known that the city was in danger of inundation, because most of it was below sea, river & lake level. The city itself was it was situated like a bathtub, surrounded by water on all sides, and with only one way out : down the drain, but with the stopper in place. For good practical reasons though, engineers are typically narrowly-focused on a particular technical problem. But, NO was a multi-faceted deterministic disaster, just waiting for the first deluge domino to fall.

As required by regulations, the engineers prepared for a hundred year storm, and didn't worry about a 200 year storm. But the holistic problem included more than just routine levee design, flood hydraulics, pipe carrying capacity, and pump removal capacity. NO also had wider economic, ecological, and political issues, that engineers don't get paid to deal with. Yet, Holistic thinkers, including some engineers, with a wider perspective, had been warning for years about the potential for a Titanic-scale tragedy. But like Cassandra, their prophecies of inevitable cataclysm were dismissed by narrow-minded bean-counters and myopic politicians, with attenuated agendas of their own.

Reductionism is appropriate for relatively simple, predictable problems. But compounded complexity results in too many possible paths for things to go wrong, and some paths are contradictory. So, that's where a Holistic approach is needed : to look for potential problems that are not obvious in independent parts (levees, pipes, pumps, etc), but emerge only from interdependent factors that multiply possible paths. To plot a feasible pathway out of the convoluted labyrinth of natural & man-made hazards. Fortunately, there are now scientists & engineers who are focused holistically on the dynamics of complexity, especially Complex Adaptive Systems. :smile:


Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/

Systems Theory/Holism :
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

In philosophy I often hear about how reductionism and holism are antonyms. — musicpianoaccordion

In philosophical arguments, Reductionism & Holism are typically presented as contrasting worldviews or belief systems. But in reality, they are complementary. Both are merely ways of understanding our complex, and ever-changing, world from different frames of reference. Reductionism simply chops complexity into bits & bytes that the human mind can deal with, and then draws general conclusions by adding those parts back together. Yet, Holism is a way of looking, not at the characteristics of individual components of a system, but at how the system functions as a whole. Moreover, each sub-component can also be viewed as a Holon, with essential properties of its own.

Scientists eventually realized that Reductionism was missing something important. So, they developed a new method of investigation, called Systems Theory. Which is merely Holism with a more technical sounding name. :cool:


Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a unique function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


Holism vs Reductionism :
Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi, are not inherent to Holism. But hostile Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

The problem, which has been proposed since Boltzmann's time, is that time and entropy are not necessarily correlated. They are contingently so. This is known as Loschmidt's paradox. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Classical macro Time is intuitive, hence easy to understand. It's just the measure of cycles that are meaningful to humans : day/night ; moon phases, etc. Quantum micro Time, not so much. We are not normally aware of cycles at subatomic scales : Energy field phases & Radioactive Decay. Also, Cosmic cycles are measured in billions of Earth years, hence not perceivable in a human lifetime. Plus, Einstein's Block Time has no cycles at all. So, the concept of Time that we take for granted is just one way of measuring Change in the physical world. That's not to mention the subjective experience of Time that varies due to emotional states. Consequently, like everything else in Einstein's worldview, Time is relative to the Observer.

Likewise, the general concept of Entropy is intuitive, as we are familiar with hot coffee that gets cold in a short time. But technically, Entropy is a measure of predictability into the future, which varies both with degrees of physical order/disorder, and with the subjective perception of the observer. So, we have two moving targets to shoot-at, when we define Time and Entropy. And that's not to mention the philosophical paradoxes of Time Reversal, which in theory should be possible, but is never actually observed in practice.

Therefore, I have come to realize that both Time & Entropy are correlated to a third function of Change, which we define in various ways depending on our frame of reference. I call that third aspect of Causation/Change : Enformy. It seems that Time & Entropy & Enformy are interrelated at all levels of reality : microstates, macrostates, and cosmicstates, that are never static -- except in mental snapshots -- but always changing, evolving and emerging. :nerd:


Time's Errant Arrow :
Time is arguably among the most primitive concepts we have—there can be no action or movement, no memory or thought, except in time. . . . .
"What is time? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I know not." ___Augustine . . . .
"... Philosophers tend to be divided into two camps. On one side there are those who regard the passage of time as an objective feature of reality, and interpret the present moment as the marker or leading edge of this advance. Some members of this camp give the present ontological priority, as well, sharing Augustine's view that the past and the future are unreal. Others take the view that the past is real in a way that the future is not, so that the present consists in something like the coming into being of determinate reality. .... Philosophers in the opposing camp regard the present as a subjective notion, often claiming that now is dependent on one's viewpoint in much the same way that here is. Just as "here" means roughly "this place", so "now" means roughly "this time", and in either case what is picked out depends where the speaker stands. In this view there is no more an objective division of the world into the past, the present, and the future than there is an objective division of a region of space into here and there. . . .
Often this is called the block universe view, the point being that it regards reality as a single entity of which time is an ingredient, rather than as a changeable entity set in time."
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. . . . .
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But the Enformation theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Would it be useful to consider a four dimensional (i.e. time inclusive) form of entropy? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually, one definition of Entropy is "the arrow of time". Time is a measure of Change, and Entropy is the direction of Change (e.g.from hot to cold). So, Entropy and Time are necessarily entangled, just like Space-Time. For example, Entropy is the effect of Time on Spatial objects. The notion of Temporal Entropy then, is not trivial, but essential to the "way of the world". Moreover, Evolution would have vanished into nothing eons ago, if not for positive Natural Selection, to oppose the negative effects of Random Mutation. Hence, Time moves in a partly positive direction (progress), despite negative Entropy, but to the complex workings of Space-Time-Entropy-Energy (i.e. four dimensions). :smile:

Entropy and Time :
The idea that entropy is associated with the “arrow of time” has its roots in Clausius’s statement on the Second Law: “Entropy of the Universe always increases.” However, the explicit association of the entropy with time’s arrow arises from Eddington. In this article, we start with a brief review of the idea that the “increase in entropy” is somehow associated with the direction in which time increases. Then, we examine three different, but equivalent definitions of entropy. We find that none of these definitions indicate any hint of a relationship between entropy and time. We can, therefore, conclude that entropy is a timeless quantity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7516914/
Entropy, as a mathematical concept is indeed timeless. But the effect of Entropy on Spatial objects is what we measure as "Time". So, together, Space-Time-Entropy-Energy is what we know as Cosmic Evolution. The positive twin of evil Entropy is what I call Enformy, which is another name for causal Energy.

Consciousness and Sentience are sometimes used interchangeably. But "sentience" literally refers to sensing the environment. And AI can already to that. — Gnomon
Let's stick to "consciousness" then :) — enqramot

Yes. Some plants, such as touch-me-not & venus flytrap, are "sentient" in a very limited sense. They sense and react to touch. But we don't usually think of them as Conscious. However, the typical scientific concept of Consciousness places it on a continuum from minimal sentience to Einsteinian intelligence. Nevertheless, some philosophers still imagine that Consciousness is something special & unique like a Soul. So, the OP seems to be searching for a physical mechanism that produces Self-Awareness. Yet, it's the last step on the continuum from Sentience to Consciousness that has, so far, resisted encapsulation.

One reason for that road-block may be the Reductive methods of Science. Some scientists assume that Consciousness is a function of Complexity. But complexity without Entanglement is just complicated. For example, Neanderthal brains were significantly larger (more neurons) that homo sapiens, but their intelligence was only slightly higher than that of a chimpanzee. So, it seems to be the single-minded interrelations of intelligent brains that produce the "difference that makes a difference" (i.e. information) in intelligence.

A current theory to explain that difference points to Social Intelligence as the difference maker. Whereas Neanders tended to hunt in small family groups (wolf-packs), Homos began to work together in large tribes of loosely-related people (communities). The SI hypothesis says that, individually, Neanders were about as smart as Homos. But, by cooperating collectively, Homos were able to offload some of the cognitive load to others. And that externalization of thought (language), eventually evolved into Writing, for even wider sharing of thoughts. In computer jargon, the collective human mind is a parallel processor.

Therefore, it's not just how many neurons a person has that determines intelligence, but the communal sharing of information with other brains, focused on the same task. Likewise, a more Holistic view of Consciousness might reveal that higher degrees of Sentience & Self-Awareness emerge from the evolution of collective Culture. Whereas Sentience is limited to the neurons of a single organism, sophisticated Consciousness (and Wisdom ; sapiens) may result from exporting & importing information between brains & minds via language*1. Sharing information via Culture is literally Con-scious-ness : knowing together". :nerd:

PS__Sci-Fi likes to extend that symbiosis to include include Mind-Reading. So, maybe human Consciousness is a form of "sym-mentosis". No magic required though. Just the ability to talk and read.

*1. For example, without Google & Wiki, my posts on this forum would read like Neander grunts.

Consciousness : from Latin conscius ‘knowing with others or in oneself’

The Social Intelligence hypothesis :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042522/

I'd rather philosophy steered clear of questions already settled. The operational principle of AI is already known, described in technical terms, there should be no need for an alternative explanation. — enqramot

Ha! Philosophy has no "settled questions", and philosophers are not content with mechanical "operational principles". So, the OP goal of encapsulating Consciousness, is still an open question.

Nevertheless, pragmatic scientists are still working on a Consciousness Meter to update the crude EEGs and somewhat more sophisticated MRIs. They are even using Artificial Intelligence to search for signs of Consciousness in Natural Intelligences that appear to be anaesthetic (unconscious). However, they are not looking for philosophical essences, but for operational signs & symptoms. So, even then, the OP on The Philosophy Forum will go unanswered. :smile:


Artificially intelligent consciousness meter :
https://www.monash.edu/data-futures-institute/study/phd-scholarship/artificially-intelligent-consciousness-meter

The hunt for hidden signs of consciousness in unreachable patients :
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031776/the-hunt-for-hidden-signs-of-consciousness-in-unreachable-patients/

Maybe consciousness isn't the right word, maybe sentience would be, — enqramot

Consciousness and Sentience are sometimes used interchangeably. But "sentience" literally refers to sensing the environment. And AI can already to that. For example, the current National Geographic magazine has a cover article on the sense of touch. And it shows a mechanical hand with touch sensors on the fingertips. Without "sentience" (feedback) an animated robot would be helplessly clumsy. But "consciousness" literally means to "know with". Certainly a robot with touch sensors can interpret sensible feedback in order to guide its behavior. But is it aware of itself as the agent (actor) of sentient behavior?

Therefore, the philosophical question here is "does a robot (AI) know that it knows"? Is it self-aware? To answer that question requires, not an Operational (scientific) definition, but an Essential (philosophical) explanation. All man-made machines have some minimal feedback to keep them on track. So, it's obvious that their functions are guided by operational feedback loops. And that is the basic definition of Cybernetics (self-controlled behavior). Which is why some AI researchers are satisfied with Operational Sentience, and don't concern themselves with Essential Consciousness. It's what Jackson calls an "engineering problem".

But philosophers are not engineers. So, they are free to ask impractical questions that may never be answered empirically. When an octopus acts as-if it recognizes its image in a mirror, is that just an operational function of sentience, or an essential function of self-awareness? We could debate such rhetorical questions forever. So, I can only say that, like most philosophical enigmas, it's a matter of degree, rather than Yes or No. Some intelligences are more conscious than others. So, it's hard to "encapsulate" Consciousness into a simple matter of fact.

Ironically, the one asking such impractical rhetorical questions may be the most self-aware, and the most introspective & self-questioning. The behavior of Intelligent animals is typically pragmatic, and focused on short-term goals : food, sex, etc. They don't usually create art for art's sake. But, when they do, can we deny them some degree of self-consciousness? :smile:

ELEPHANT SELF-PORTRAIT

How is conscious mind essentially different to AI on a strictly operational level? How would you go about programming such a thing? — enqramot

Your question hinges on your philosophical or technical definition of "Consciousness". Literally, the "-ness" suffix implies that the reference is to a general State or felt Quality (of sentience), not to a specific Thing or definite Quanta (e.g. neurons). In Nature, animated behavior (e.g. seek food, or avoid being food) is presumed to be a sign of minimal sentience, and self-awareness.

AI programs today are able to crudely mimic sophisticated human behaviors, and the common expectation is that the animation & expressions of man-made robots will eventually be indistinguishable from their nature-made makers -- on an "operational level". When that happens, the issue of enslaving sentient (knowing & feeling) beings could require the emancipation of artificial creatures, since modern ethical philosophy has decided that, in a Utopia, all "persons" are morally equal -- on an essential level.

Defining a proper ethical hierarchy is not a new moral conundrum though. For thousands of years, military captives were defined as "slaves", due to their limited freedom in the dominant culture. Since, many captives of the ruling power happened to have darker skin, that distinguishing mark came to be definitive. At the same time, females in a male-dominated society, due to their lack of military prowess, were defined as second-class citizens. At this point in time, the social status of AI is ambiguous ; some people treat their "comfort robots" almost as-if they are "real" pets or persons. But, dystopian movies typically portray dispassionate artificial beings as the dominant life-form (?) on the planet.

But, how can we distinguish a "real" Person from a person-like Mechanism? That "essential" difference is what Chalmers labeled the "Hard Problem" : to explain "why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences". The essence-of-sentience is also what Nagel was groping for in his query "what does it feel like?". Between humans, we take homo sapien feelings for granted, based on the assumption of similar genetic heritage, hence equivalent emotions. But, the genesis of AI, is a novel & unnatural lineage in evolution. So, although robots are technically the offspring of human minds, are they actually kin, or uncanny?

Knowing and Feeling are the operational functions of Consciousness. But Science doesn't do Essences. "If you can't measure it, it ain't real". Yet, a Cartesian solipsist could reply, "If I can't feel it, it ain't real". Therefore, I would answer the OP : that the essential difference between AI behavior and human Consciousness is the Qualia (the immeasurable feeling) of Knowing. Until Cyberneticists can reduce the Feeling-of-Knowing to a string of 1s & 0s, Consciousness will remain essential, yet ethereal. So, if a robot says it's conscious, we may just have to take it's expression for evidence. :smile:


Google AI has come to life :
AI ethicists warned Google not to impersonate humans. Now one of Google’s own thinks there’s a ghost in the machine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/

Google's AI is impressive, but it's not sentient. Here's why :
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/google-s-ai-impressive-it-s-not-sentient-here-s-n1296406

Hi, I am preparing my post-graduate entrance examination(philosophy), after I read the Chinese version of medieval philosophy of religion, our textbooks tend to explain the birth of Christianity in terms of class struggle, but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place. — guanyun

One novel idea of Christianity that may have appealed to the upper classes as well as the downtrodden classes, was the hope for divine justice in an afterlife. Judaism, and most pagan religions, assumed that you only get one life to live. So, stoic acceptance of arbitrary Fate & Fortune was your best option, compared to depression & suicide.

Before Apostle Paul's version of Christianity, the only other alternative to One-Life Fatalism was the theory of Many-Life Karma (cycling souls). That theory-of-reward-for-good-works (work-out your own destiny) probably arose as a sort of philosophical observation that the world system (Nature) tended to balance polar extremes (e.g. hot vs cold) to result in a moderate environment where life can flourish. So, they reasoned that the undeniable natural & cultural injustices (Evils) should eventually balance-out. But, not necessarily in this life ; so maybe in a future time, place & body. Unfortunately, such postponed justice has little practical here & now effect, and only provided a glimmer of speculative hope, that good or bad behavior in this life would be rewarded or punished in the next -- even though you may not then know why you deserve it. And, like all prophecies of the future, that grain of hope had to be taken with a heaping-spoonful of Faith in the Seer or Storyteller or Mythmaker.

Judaism traditionally had no concept of a spiritual afterlife, with only a few exceptions, such as Elijah, who was taken directly up to heaven. However, after a remnant returned from Babylonian captivity, they tried to pick-up where they left-off, with a physical this-worldly materialistic temple-based religion. But, that came to an end when their second temple was destroyed by invading Greek overlords. Consequently, the Jews began to develop a more spiritual & other-worldly synagogue-based religion. They also spun-off some more radical & reclusive mystical groups (e.g. Essenes), which tended to interpret their official priestly scriptures from a spiritual (Holy) perspective rather than the traditional materialistic pragmatic view. They also developed novel notions of personal -- as opposed to collective (family, tribe, nation) -- Sin against God. Some even practiced symbolic baptism, as a visible metaphor for washing away invisible sins. And that graphically-illustrated innovation was gladly incorporated into Christianity, as a step-toward and sign-of personal salvation -- not in the body of another person or animal, but your own spiritual Soul.

Therefore, Christianity had several religious innovations that distinguished it from Pagan & Greek & Roman beliefs & practices. However, as a message of hope for the downtrodden classes, the expectation of a Utopian Afterlife, was hard to believe, so the necessity of Faith was emphasized. For One-Lifers though, "Justice Deferred is justice denied" (Gladstone). Yet, for After-lifers, future justice might be enough incentive to live stoically for now, and to expect to be rewarded for their long-suffering Faith in a glorious heavenly hereafter. So, perhaps the subtle reasoning of extolling spiritual Faith over mundane Works appealed to people desperate for relief from life's trials & tribulations. Those who were not so hopeless though, could find other "subtle reasons" to adopt a Religion of Personal Salvation, and to abandon their old Religions of Social Order. :smile:

Why is it so difficult to provide just one reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be realized, even if just a hypothetical one? Anyone?? — punos

1. A practical "difficulty" arises when a holistic (general) Philosophical question is expected to be answered in terms of reductive Scientific mechanisms.
2. Another adversity is that the skeptical questioner usually assumes that the question refers to absolute freedom from natural laws, as recounted in magical myths. Yet, like everything else in this world, human freedom is Relative to the wider context.
3. One more obstacle to reasonable discussions of Free Will is that many intellectuals today are philosophically Fatalistic in their presumption of Absolute Determinism. For them, the notion of exceptions to Fate is absurd.
4. Perhaps the biggest dilemma in Free Will Discussions though is the scientific "axiom" (unprovable assertion taken on faith to be self-evidently true) of the inevitable "second law" of Cause & Effect that drives all things to ultimate destruction.

With so many obstacles to overcome before even getting to the starting line, FreeWill advocates are handicapped & hobbled. So, all I'll say is that I have written down several "arguments" in favor of limited freewill for moral agents. That's what I call "unscripted freewill". Generally, Nature seems to be an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect. But Life itself is an exception to the ruthless rule of Entropy, relentlessly reducing organisms to ashes. Moreover, human Culture has a history of exceptions to that deterministic Law of Disorder.

Admittedly, both of those exceptions are temporary. But Life has been staving-off Death for multiple millennia, and Culture has been pushing-back unruly Nature for thousands of years. So, for those interested in atypical arguments for Freedom Within Determinism, I can provide links to a few of those reasons for acting as-if we have some freedom from Fate. :smile:

Paradox of Freewill :
Modern Science is based on the assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect, since the Big Bang beginning of the world. Logicians have created supposedly airtight arguments against the possibility of libertarian freedom-of-choice. And some theologians, who take the Bible at its word, have concluded that divine omniscience means that the entire existence of the creation was foreknown in detail; hence allowing no opportunity for individual sinners to make the fateful choice between Good or Evil, God or Devil. Thus, the incompatibility of Fate and Freedom has been debated for millennia. And the beat goes on . . . .
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
These are good challenges to enformationism. Does 'materialism' pass A & B? or physicalism? — Bylaw

I have repeatedly responded to 180's demands for empirical evidence to support the Enformationism thesis by pointing out the obvious : it's not a scientific thesis, and I am not a scientist. In 180's own words : it is not "an attempt to solve scientific problems". It's also not a vetted academic thesis. Enformationism is instead a personal philosophical thesis. Others are free to take it for what it's worth to them.

But 180 rejects & repudiates the thesis, apparently because it clashes with his own personal worldview. I'm not sure what to call his anti-idealism ideology, but it seems to be opposed to Metaphysics-in-general (non-physical aspects of reality), and to the metaphysical-New-Age-mindset (spiritual aspects of the world) in particular. In contrast to his Idealistic/Spiritualistic interpretation, the Enformationism thesis was based on the novel-but-pragmatic 20th century sciences of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. It was not in any way inspired by Eastern religions or New Age doctrines. Any similarity to NA though, may be due to the emphasis on Holistic philosophical methods instead of Reductive scientific methods.

Ironically, the introduction to Enformationism proposes a new paradigm to update the ancient belief-systems of both scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism. This new/old way of looking at the world has no inherent religious implications, but it can be interpreted to support a variety of Mind-over-Matter notions, although empirical evidence is lacking. As a scientific paradigm though, it has already found a key role in Quantum Theory, Complexity, and Cybernetics, among other disciplines. So, you are correct to note that Materialism/Physicalism are philosophies of Metaphysical Naturalism, that ironically exclude the generalizing (holistic) methods of Metaphysics. :cool:


Vulgar materialism is the kind represented by the British writer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) kicking a stone to prove its existence. Some forms emphasize the physical and biological basis of human social being. Materialism rejects Cartesian dualism and disembodied existence.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20111020111930156

Spiritualism :
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
___Oxford dictionary

Enformationism :
A new post-post-modern philosophical paradigm, proposed to supersede the obsolete modernist worldview of Materialism / Determinism. It proposes that matter and energy are essentially special forms of Generic Information.
Enformationism Glossary

David Bohm developed a quantum theory in which mind and matter are brought together. He writes: “A similar mind-like quality of matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum level, . . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914914/

Active information can be viewed as the underlying reality, both physical and mental, from which both mind and matter emerge.
http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/david-bohm/mind-matter-active-information/

Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Holism :
Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, had a tendency to have a holistic perspective. We can find it both in Plato and Aristotle.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism

Are there any strong arguments for free will?

Are the only arguments for determinism assuming the universe is a clock? — TiredThinker

My personal argument in favor of Limited Free Will is based on Evolution. Like a linear clock, it continues to click in a single direction (arrow of time), toward the not-yet-real future. Darwinian theory is based on directionless Randomness, guided by directional Selection. But who established the fitness formula (rules) for cosmic natural selection? Who knows?

Metaphorically, in between each tick of the evolutionary clock, there is a moment of decision, fit or not fit. But fit for what? Fitness implies Purpose (future goals). So, I assume that purposeful agents -- who can imagine a desirable future -- have some degree of freedom to decide their own short-term goals. And all those independent choices add-up, and cancel-out, to a single arrow of time, "toward infinity and beyond", as Buzz Lightyear so eloquently expressed it.

Therefore, unlike a cyclical clock, the space-time mechanism doesn't go around in circles. It progresses toward an ultimate goal ("optimal design solution"), that is not decided in advance, but chosen by every particular Fitness Function (algorithm) in the world*1. Apparently, piloted by reason, humans have a bit more fitness-choice freedom than a bacterium --- but within a deterministic context that is not concerned with my personal fitness goals. So, each of us has a limited degree of control over personal (one in a million?) and universal (one in a gazillion?) evolution toward a contingent future Omega Point. :cool:

*1. Those who fail the fitness function test fall into the slippery-slope of Entropy. Those who pass, get to play the next round of the Natural Selection game.

A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims. Fitness functions are used in genetic programming and genetic algorithms to guide simulations towards optimal design solutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function

Freewill Within Determinism :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

THE ARROW OF ENTROPY

As someone who has struggled with doubt in decision making, I have thought and searched for a reliable way to tell if a decision is self benefitting or self sabotaging. — Yohan

Skepticism is essential for both Science and Philosophy. But practitioners must be careful not to hobble their reasoning with self-doubt. It's a balancing act, hovering between Gullibility and Cynicism. I haven't read the article below. But it's just an example to show that you are not the only one to have doubts about Doubt. :smile:

Skepticism : self sabotaging :
http://www.lifestrategies.net/self-sabotage/articles-on-self-sabotage/the-power-in-skepticism/

Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea :grin:, it's out of my range of knowledge and interests. — Alkis Piskas

That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism. :joke:

Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. — Alkis Piskas

Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?

Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. Don't you suspect that some AI programmers (privately) envision a day when sci-fi robots interact with humans as civil persons and moral agents, instead of as slaves & expendable gadgets? Do you think, as employees of the Military-Industrial Complex, AI designers shouldn't explore those impractical possibilities? :nerd:

Artificial Purpose :
In summary, the goal of AI is to provide software that can reason on input and explain on output. AI will provide human-like interactions with software and offer decision support for specific tasks, but it's not a replacement for humans – and won't be anytime soon.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analytics/what-is-artificial-intelligence.html

Artificial general intelligence is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. ___Wikipedia

Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? — Alkis Piskas

I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.

But Quantum Theory forced scientists to address the active role of the observer for interpreting the signals we get from the environment. Donald Hoffman looked at the same question from the perspective of a Cognitive scientist. He came to the same conclusion as Kant's "occult ontology". He says that we perceive Reality in the same way we "interface" with a computer, via symbols (icons). Do you find that hard to believe? Can you take human limitations seriously? :smile:

PS___This is the same old Subjective versus Objective (Ideality vs Reality) question, that philosophers & scientists have been grappling with for millennia.


The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes :
Can we trust our senses to tell us the truth? Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_Against_Reality_Why_Evolution_H/JgJ1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Occult Ontology :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. . . . . For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Illusions or Approximations :
Envisioning two levels of reality, the apparent and the ultimate. IMHO, Kant didn’t mean that the appearances of our senses are deceptive illusions, but merely that they are useful approximations of objects that are otherwise incomprehensible to our senses, which evolved for human scale objects and energies.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Wow! This is the most"exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all. — Alkis Piskas

The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind. :nerd:


Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
This compendium, co-authored by 35 Santa Fe scientists, among others, and co-edited by Physicist Paul Davies, is a collaboration of scientists from around the world with at least one thing in common : a primary role for Information in their research on Physics, Microbiology, Mathematics, Computation, Cosmology, Evolution, Information Theory, Neuroscience, Game Theory, etc. . . . So, you can imagine that they come-up with lots of "exotic" ideas, and innovative definitions to describe the alien territory they are exploring.
"If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers". ___the Editors
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-matter-to-life/4DA89C33D0FF29E749E6B415739F8E5A

I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception . . . — Alkis Piskas

Cybernetics is about purposeful control and self-regulation. But it works by directing Causality (energy) into specific directions (channels) to produce useful behaviors. IT typically follows Shannon's technical definition of "information", which omits Meaning & Purpose from its equations, in favor of abstract numerical values. The result is impersonal robotic technology. But AI is now trying to put pupose & personality back into cybernetic systems. :smile:

Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with regulatory and purposive systems. The core concept of cybernetics is circular causality or feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion — Alkis Piskas

I wouldn't worry about that assertion in the context of physical laws. The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile:

The “Argument from Illusion” and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas :
https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RMM_042_0217--the-argument-from-illusion-and-the-carte.htm

In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." ( — Alkis Piskas

My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. For example, the pre-shannon definition of "information" focused on its meaning to a human mind (knowledge). But Shannon abstracted away the Semantic human aspect, in order to convert "information" into empty vessels (1 or 0) that can mean anything to anyone. So, computers "encode", but humans "inform". :smile:


To Inform : inform implies the imparting of knowledge

Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?" — Alkis Piskas

Apparently, you missed their point. Like Energy, abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", to experience a sensation. Viewed that way, the author's assertions are not "absurd", but insightful. When energy (e.g light) is organized into meaningful patterns (color; heat; Morse-code; contrast) the human brain interprets that "code" into sensations that we call "feelings" (redness; warmth). Meaningful Patterns are Information. Such encoded (organized) patterns enform (give meaning to) the mind of a rational being.

As to "what kind of information" : Shannon defined it in terms of Syntax (abstract organization), but Tegmark was referring to Semantics (personal meaning). If you don't speak the language, its Syntax may seem "absurd". But if you know the vocabulary, its Semantics will seem sensible. :smile:

I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". — Alkis Piskas

Yes. From my Enformationism perspective, I interpret Plato's "Chaos" and "Form" as a wellspring of Potential from which Actual things emerge. The hypothetical Vacuum Energy is one example of Actual from Potential. The empty vacuum of space is said to possess Zero Point Energy. Its normal state is neutral, because the positive & negative energies cancel out. Yet physicists imagine the Energy Field as a simmering sauce bubbling with peaks & valleys of energy (quantum foam), where the "negative" values are Potential (unmeasurable), and the "positive" values are Actual (measurable). Likewise, I picture Chaos as a bubbling cauldron of EnFormAction (the power to enform; to cause change). In its neutral state, Chaos is random & disorderly. But in its positive state, it is organized (ordered into knowable forms). That's how I equate "order with information". See my philosophical (thesis) definition of "information" below. :nerd:

Chaos :
By “chaos” Plato does not mean the complete absence of order, but a kind of order, perhaps even a mechanical order, opposed to Reason.
https://iep.utm.edu/platoorg/

Order within Chaos :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/

Information is :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog

QUANTUM FOAM of bubbling energy

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course. — Alkis Piskas

Attributing a hypothetical Mind to the Big Bang, is a logical extrapolation from the cutting-edge of Information Theory. Claude Shannon removed Mind & Meaning (semantics) from General Information, in order to make it abstract & mechanical (syntax)). But, since then, physicists have discovered that Information is the essence Energy & Matter, as noted in the PDF. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1.

Like most features of Quantum Theory, understanding the relationship between Energy, Matter & Mind can be complex & technical & counter-intuitive. Unless you are willing to get your hands dirty with "Quantum Weirdness", you'll just have to accept that some physicists have come to believe that Information (logical order ; meaning) is at the root of everything, both material and mental. Just as astronomers traced the light (energy) from stars back to a sudden emergence of something from nothing (who-knows-what), that Point of Beginning was also the origin of everything in the world today --- including Mind & Matter.*2

Likewise, the Enformationism Thesis*3 traces the evolution of Generic Information (in all its forms) back to the Big Bang. So, like Plato, I infer that the source of all rational order in the world (including Meaning) was what you could call "a mental force", which he labeled LOGOS (word, thought, principle, or speech). And all of those features of reality are associated, not with Matter, but with Mind. So, I infer that some kind of Mind "spoke" the world into existence. However, since I am skeptical of most pre-scientific speculation on the genesis of the world, I try to avoid the baggage-laden terms associated with Theism.

In view of the essential role of Information (the power to enform) in the world, I use such non-traditional terms as "Enformer" and "Programmer" to describe the abstract principle that Plato gave the mundane moniker "LOGOS". Generic Information*4 is not yet a settled scientific theory, but the causal role of Information is accepted by many Physicists & Philosophers. Most of them are also hesitant to use the "G" word, but a "rose by any other name" would smell like Deus.

So, you are correct that a world-creating Mind is necessarily prior to the Big Bang (space-time). Which means that we have no way of knowing the source of our enformed world. But, just as Cosmologists speculate (without evidence) on alien Multiverses & Many Worlds, Philosophers are free to ask questions about the Time-before-Time. Like most philosophical conjectures though, there is no final answer to such ultimate mysteries about "God, the Universe, and Everything". (Douglas Adams). :cool:


*1. Causal Information :
"information causality might be one of the foundational properties of nature"
Phillip Ball, Beyond Weird
Note -- This is a book about why Quantum Theory is non-classical. He says "it's a theory about information"

*2. Big History – The Unfolding of “Information :
The Big Bang – and then there was “1”
https://jbh.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/2254/2099

*3. Enformationism :
A worldview grounded on the axiom that Information (the power to enform, to create), rather than matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. As a paradigm, it is intended to be a successor to 17th century Materialism, and to ancient Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*4. Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...
Your whole description is quite interesting. — Alkis Piskas

My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is an attempt to answer that pertinent question. It traces the lawful order of the physical world back to the Big Bang, and beyond . . . Since Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 : EnFormAction [my term], I have concluded that some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos*2 : creative Causation within formless Chance. And the "where" is out there beyond the bounds of our finite Cosmos.

Since the ab origine causal input that created our complex universe, from a formless spec of nothingness (Singularity), is necessarily external to the knowable world --- imagine a pool shooter who stands apart from the pool table, but causes intentional effects on the table --- the only way to know the absent First Cause is to look at its real-world Effects. We can 'know' the long-gone artist by looking at his art-work. So if, as Information theorists have come to believe, everything in the world is some form of Generic Information (e.g. Energy), we can describe the Cosmic Cause as "Enformer" (form-giver), and as "extrinsic" (beyond the limits of space-time).

Understandably, most people are not content just to infer the "where" of the Source : the fount of Form. Instead, they want to know "who" created this organized world, along with its self-defining "laws". Yet, without a direct revelation from the Creator, we can only infer some logically necessary characteristics, and only guess at specifics. Which is why history is full of wild guesses about Gods, Prime Movers, First Causes, LOGOS, Creators, and now Enformers. But, your guess, about the time-before-time, is as authoritative as mine.

So, where-and-from-whom do you think the logical rules for Cosmic Self-Organization originated? Was it Random Chance or Happen-stance or Magic? If you are uncomfortable with ascribing personality to an unknowable absentee otherworldly 'Father' of Form, then we can use improper-names & impersonal-metaphors, such as Enformer or Programmer to describe the logical function of Law-Maker. :nerd:

*1. Matter-Energy and Information :
In the realm of physics, everything is matter-energy, a single element that takes two basic forms
as explained in special relativity. . . . . Can information be reduced to matter-energy, and return us to only that single element?
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf

*2. Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos Theory :
But looked at over a long period of time, and tracking the branching changes in the planet that follow from it, all the chaos does produce a form of identifiable order. Patterns will appear out of the chaos. And this, in its essence, is chaos theory: finding order in the chaos.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/nietzsches_butterfly_an_introduction_to/

Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!). — Agent Smith

Biblical morality assumes that the world was created perfect, with ideal laws, but was corrupted by a couple of freed nature-slaves, who learned how to distinguish between Good & Evil. I take a different perspective though. According to Big Bang theory, our universe began from a formless spec of nothing (Chaos??), and has evolved -- apparently in accordance with innate rules -- into a vast complex Cosmos. Unfortunately for inquisitive creatures, the BBT gives us no insight into where those organizing rules (laws of physics) originated.

The usual (non-biblical) assumption is that self-organization is just an inherent creative property of Nature. But scientists have also concluded that dis-organizing Entropy is dismantling organisms almost as fast as they emerge from the contingencies of competitive Evolution. Yet, the very existence of a pocket of organic order in one corner of a minor galaxy, indicates that destructive Entropy is counter-balanced by some constructive "force" or "law".

I call that positive power EnFormAction (the ability to give form to the formless). Both "Form" and "Information" convey "intelligible" meaning to perceptive minds. Part of that meaning is what we could call objective Geometric Organization (shape) and part is the subjective Relevance of that object to rational observers. Formal application of that self-relevance is what we call "Morality" : how the social & natural environment impacts the well-being of sentient creatures.

So, Science & Religion interpret the origin & meaning of natural laws from different perspectives. Genesis implies that the laws were supposed to favor sentient creatures, especially rational beings. But, Science observes that Nature seems to be impartial or uncaring. Even the biblical Ecclesiastes sheds shade on the idea of favorable divine justice : "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

My conclusion then, is that Nature is indeed indiscriminate, in the sense that its effects on both sentient & insentient creatures are fair, and delicately balanced on a knife-edge of homeostasis between Good & Evil. So, if humans have an unfair advantage in evolutionary competition, it's in their moral sense : the ability to discern potential Good from Evil (i.e. to predict the future course of Nature & Culture, and its impact on the discerner). Yet, all predictions -- especially about the future -- are constrained by the limits on our information & understanding about both now and then. Which is why human societies have developed human-oriented moral rules, to supplement the impartial physical laws of Nature. To tip the balance in favor of moral agents. :cool:

Cosmos : implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wiki

Form : A form, according to Plato, is an abstract intelligible pattern that has various concrete sensible objects as specific instantiations. ___Quora

Chance : Fate ; probability ; happenstance ; un-intentional

The balance of Nature : The controversial Gaia hypothesis was developed in the 1970s by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis; it asserts that living beings interact with Earth to form a complex system which self-regulates to maintain the balance of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

Homeostasis : tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.

Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality

I find Hoffman's notion that we don't see Reality-as-ding-an-sich plausible. However, I was referring to the useful, yet imperfect, mental ability to perceive the mathematical logic in Nature. That talent for seeing invisible (implicit) links gives us a fitness advantage over animals (by making the logic explicit). Reason & Logic may be our substitute for fangs & fleetness.

Even so, homo sapiens in-general are still not very a good at Math, especially Statistical relationships. Yet, we are good enough to create machines that are much faster & more accurate (to serve as our fangs & fleetness), but still depend on emotional humans to interpret the value & meaning of those abstract relationships. :joke:

PS__Reasoning sees & interprets geometric physical relationships by reference to some relative-but-reliable perspective -- usually the Self, or other authority. As a whole, and in general, the mathematical structure of the world is sometimes called "Sacred Geometry", because it seems to be designed by an omniscient Mathematician. But humans only see it "through a glass darkly".

Sacred Geometry :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2FYSLC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." ___Wikipedia — Alkis Piskas

I think this description of Natural Laws makes an important point. The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, in part by analogy to human intentions & choices. The logical organization of Nature "implies" the rational intention to create Causes that produce Effects that can be detected & manipulated by rational methods to result in desirable ends. In other words, the ability to choose between Good & Evil.

Random accidents reveal no logical connection between Cause & Effect. But human Reason is attuned to such meaningful relationships, because linking causes & effects is valuable for survival in a dynamic world, where effects can be either Good or Bad. Perception of such causal links allows organisms to choose the Good and to eschew Evil. But, as far as we know, only human reason has analyzed the complex inter-relationships of causal networks down to abstract mathematical ratios. Hence, Mathematics is essentially the Logic of Nature. And "Reasoning" is the ability to infer personal meaning from those impersonal numerical values.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. They only mimic those general regulations for specific goals, by inventing artificial mechanisms that "reflect" those of Nature. For pragmatic purposes of Science, we can simply take that universal Logic for granted. But for the curious motives of Philosophy, we can try to trace its real-world effects back to the Source : the "LOGOS", as Plato called it. :nerd:

So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48

My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.

The goal (Final Cause) of systematic regulation is to minimize negative, and to maximize positive, actions & changes --- to keep the system on track toward a desirable future state, or away from undesirable states. But who evaluates those states : the king or the populace, or both? Some "habits" are good (brushing twice a day) and some are bad (inhaling carcinogenic smoke). But both are focused on specific goals -- either short-term pleasure or long-term health. Are natural laws & constants random & arbitrary, or systematic & intentional, and for long or short-term benefits? Is the universe characterized by random noise, or by systematic processes? Science places its bets on the latter.

However, pragmatic Science is usually focused on short-term benefits from understanding Nature. Under the reductive microscope, both good & bad actions are observed. Some organisms consume (good) and others are consumed (bad). And those oppositions tend to cancel-out to a neutral, neither-good-nor-bad, system -- it simply works. But from a telescopic perspective, evolution is known to have begun in an un-promising explosion (expansion) from nothing to something. Yet, the world we now observe has produced finely-tuned (regulated) eco-systems that consistently stave-off dead-end Entropy, by harnessing & regulating the flow of life-enhancing Energy. From the simplicity of a stem-cell Singularity, the universe has matured into a complex organism, that promises to continue extracting order from Entropy into the far-off future.

Therefore, our universe is obviously a self-organizing organism, and evolution is a creative program -- generating animated Life & inquisitive Mind from inert Matter & random Energy. What, then, is the essence of organization : Self-regulation or Serendipity ; Law & Order or Lawless Disorder ; Innovation or Stagnation? Yet, it's also obvious today, that the world is not self-existent. So, both the physical substance and the abstract rules of regulation must have pre-existed. In that case, the philosophical question arises : was that Creative Act Intentional or Accidental? Your answer may reveal your positive or negative attitude toward the social- or eco-system you find yourself inextricably entangled with. :nerd:


PS___It's not a question of either Matter or Laws, but of Both-And. In isolation, Matter is inert, but in conjunction with Rules of behavior, simple substance evolves in a positive direction towards physical Complexity and meta-physical Self-awareness.

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an [unstated] agenda? Just asking. — Gnomon
Have you read the OP? Have you read the rest of the posts on this thread? If you don't want to play by the terms of discussion I set down, you should go to another thread or start your own. — Clarky

Sorry! I didn't mean to offend you. Although long threads tend to inevitably stray off-topic, that was not my intention. The OP didn't explain why the discussion was supposed to be limited to Classical Physics. Yet it seemed to me that you had an implicit goal for this thread --- beyond simply juxtaposing Materialism and Metaphysics, which are usually deemed to be exclusive (either/or) topics. Collingswood's list is the explicit agenda, but all the presuppositions are expressed in terms of Classical Absolutes, as contrasted with a 20th century world of Arbitrary Relativity. Perhaps my gaffe was to point at the invisible elephant in the room.

Now, after skimming the posts, I found the quote below that seems to point to a future expansion of the OP into a more contentious arena of Science & Philosophy. With a few exceptions (e.g. gravity as spooky action at a distance), Newton's Classical Physics was mostly amenable to human intuition about the logical & predictable way-of-the-world. But Quantum Physics threw a monkey wrench into the gears of classical mechanics. Quantum Logic seems to be Fuzzy and Indeterminate.

So, I just inferred that the "terms of discussion" were perhaps deliberately incomplete. Now, I see that you may be implying that reconciling Quantum Quirkiness with Classical Normality may require an updated 21st century worldview. And that is exactly what I have concluded myself : the world is not simply Either/Or (1/0), but complexly BothAnd (yin/yang). All parts of this world are inter-related (entangled) into a Whole System that we sometimes refer to holistically as "Nature". :smile:

Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics. — Clarky

Agenda : 1. a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.

Absolute : Pure & perfect ; a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

Arbitrary : based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Relativity : relationships viewed through special Frames of Reference

As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion. — Clarky

Yes. But a materialist might disagree with the label of "presupposition", and insist that it is just an "absolute truth" or "known fact". Assuming you do find some "absolute presuppositions" in Materialism, will that reflect on its Validity? Likewise with Spiritualism or Idealism or any kind of -ism. One man's presupposition may be another man's fundamental Truth.

The label for each belief system is intended to identify its core value, its ultimate truth, and its essential reality. Metaphysical debates on this forum tend to focus on finding false assumptions in the opposition worldview, while presenting obvious truths in the correct worldview. Then around & around we go. :joke:

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an agenda? Just asking.

Cognitive bias is a term from psychology, not philosophy, for a group of demonstrated systematic errors. See What Is Cognitive Bias? (↪Gnomon
) — Banno

I know. But the basic idea of Cognitive Bias goes back to Socrates & Plato. It seems to be the fundamental problem in Philosophy : the root of erroneous reasoning. :smile:

A case from Plato's Meno offers an intriguing example that cuts across some of the modern categories of cognitive biases.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-plato-knew-about-behavioural-economics-a-lot