Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims. — TheMadFool

That's a good summary. If you don't mind, I may add it to my blog post on Meta-Physics. :smile:

Post done :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. Theories have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that. — T Clark

I started posting on this forum to discuss the big issues of Metaphysics, not the mundane details of Physics. But, in all too many threads, a stalled discussion turns to challenges of "what can you prove?", instead of "what is reasonable?" Metaphysics, in my opinion, is supposed to be focused on ideas that literally transcend the scope of empirical scientific methods, such as "what caused the Big Bang?" There is no way for us to know for sure about the time before Time, or a place outside of Space. As philosophers, all we can do is to make educated guesses, and then test them against the critical faculties of other educated guessers. The result will not be absolute Truth, but it may get us closer to truth.

Those educated guesses are what we call "Hypotheses", and when some guesses survive the scrutiny of peers, or lead to some replicable evidence, we may even call them "Theories". But even the best of our Theories, such as Thermodynamics and Evolution, are based on incomplete evidence. Hence, they are subject to falsification or revision in the future*1. Consequently, understanding the difference between Theory and Practice is essential to my understanding of Meta-Physics. A theory may-or-may-not have truth value, but only when it is put into practice will we know which. For example, Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species has been tested and proven accurate regarding adaptation to a changing environment. But after two centuries, evidence for divergent speciation has been iffy. *2 Likewise, Quantum Theory violates many of our reasonable intuitions, yet some of the mathematical models can be proven in practice.*3 So, we are sometimes forced to accept facts that defy common sense. And we have to adapt our incomplete theories over time.*4

My point is that a Theory is a "metaphysical entity" --- a meme in a mind, not a thing in the real world. A bird is a physical thing, but a species of birds is a mental category. General concepts and Universal Properties are Meta-Physical, according to the same categorical distinction between a Mental Meme and a Physical Gene. A theory is a model or map, not the physical thing or terrain. That's why I think it's important to differentiate between meta-physical theories and physical testing, between metaphysical "methods" (Philosophy) and physical methods (Science). Unscientific conjectures, such as Multiverses & Many Worlds, cannot be verified empirically, because they go beyond the physical limits of the Real World, into the Ideal Realm of Meta-Physics. *5

To many posters on this forum though, the distinction between Physics and Metaphysics is like the post-enlightenment political division between rational methodical Science and irrational mythical Religion. But that's not what I mean when I use the hyphenated term "Meta-Physics". By that I simply refer to the same difference that Descartes formalized between a physical Brain and a metaphysical Mind. A material Brain can be studied empirically, while the immaterial Mind can only be studied metaphorically. That's why the Behaviorism trend in Psychology was so brief. They soon realized that documenting physical actions was not the same as verifying mental intentions. Their hypothetical inferences often depended on the personal subjective biases of the observer. So, their "verifications" consisted mainly of confirming bias. That's why both Scientific and Philosophical models are subject to Peer Review. Only by comparing the "theories" of several observers can the errors be canceled out.

In my theory of Philosophy, Meta-Physics is about models and theories that are not currently verifiable. They can only be determined to be reasonable or not, based on Logic and incomplete evidence. And that requires Wisdom. Yet, we can't even define that term objectively, even though we may know it subjectively when we see it*6. So, let's not play the "show me the evidence" card, when the game is non-linear and open-ended. :nerd:


*1 Superseded theories in science :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
.
*2 Adaptation vs Speciation :
A new bird species that is only slightly different from others of the Finch family. So, it's more like evidence of adaptation, than of something entirely novel.
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

*3 "The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. "
___Erwin Schrodinger

*4 “It is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything; [for then] there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics

*5 "Nature is under no obligation to conform to our mathematical ideas—even the most brilliant ones"
___Avi Loeb, Astronomer

*6 "The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

“The devotee of myth is in a way a philosopher, for myth is made up of things that cause wonder."
― Aristotle , Metaphysics

"He, however, who begins with Metaphysics, will not only become confused in matters of religion, but will fall into complete infidelity."
___ Maimonides

To do so we must find an inescapable, or deniable only on pain of self-contradiction, position from which to proceed; if so, then I propose the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) with which to begin and regulate (my own) speculative droppings ... — 180 Proof

I'm not smart enough to know anything with such absolute certainty. That's why I look to geniuses like Aristotle to categorize General Principles that stand the test of time. And PNC was at the top of his list. :joke:

↪Gnomon
How do we know Aristotle wasn't suffering from episodic psychosis and that metaphysics was what happened in one of his fits of madness. — TheMadFool

How do we know YOU are not suffering from some psycho malady? I don't care. On this text-based forum, I'm interested in the reasonableness of your expressed ideas, not your mental health. Besides, an ad hominem attack on an ancient philosopher, who remains a major influence on Western thought after thousands of years, is (or should be) beneath you. :cool:



PS__Did you choose "Mad Fool" as your screen name, based on personal experience? I have dialoged with several forum posters who have admitted their drug-dampered insanity. :smile:

Last question: are you the enformationist? — Cartuna

No. Someone else from another forum has borrowed that label. But Enformationism is the title of my worldview website. :smile:

Enformationism :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

“What do you mean when you say ‘metaphysics’” — T Clark

Please don't give up on your Grail Quest for a definitive definition of the "M" word. For some on this forum it's a four-letter word, rhyming with "cr*p". But for me, Metaphysics is the essence of Philosophy. So, if we are going to dialog effectively on this forum, we need to get the General Principles nailed down before we get bogged-down in Specific Details. Yet, many physicists and philosophers reject such idealized notions as being-qua-being and essence to be un-real & super-natural, hence subversive of the Realistic & Materialistic dogma of post-Enlightenment Science. So, if 21st century Philosophy has any purpose at all, it should fall under the categorical heading of "Before Physics", or "more General & Universal than mere physical phenomena". Admittedly, Philosophy shares some of those supra-mundane interests with traditional & mystical Religions, but it also shares the goal of understanding the mundane real world with Physics. "Can't we all just get along?". ___Rodney King :cry:

FWIW, I have added a new post to my BothAnd Blog, as an attempt to explain, in more detail than possible in a forum post, my personal meaning of "Meta-Physics", as it applies to my personal philosophical and scientific worldview. :smile:

Meta-Physics : The Purview of Philosophy
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

PS__ the popup at the bottom of the second page is addressed to the Transcendent implications of the first principles of philosophy.

see it like a fuzzy sphere that can vibrate and take all kinds of forms. — Cartuna

Aggh! That mental image makes me dizzy. :gasp:

Like that man seeing his back in the mirror. Seeing yourself from the back can only be done wìth video. — Cartuna

Or with mental imagination. :joke:

How the artist sees himself

I think the ego is neither material neither mental. It lies at the boundary between them. So in a way it's both. Strange loops I see! — Cartuna

Interesting! How would you describe that "strange" neither-here-nor-there "boundary" -- metaphorically, of course. That's the beauty of metaphors, they help us to form our own personal images of the imaginary objects in other minds. Sometimes, the communication solution is to assume that a coin has two sides that we can't see simultaneously, That ambiguity requires us to do some mental (metaphorical) flipping. :smile:

neither fish nor fowl :
of indefinite character and difficult to identify or classify
to seem partly one thing and partly another,
not belonging to any suitable class or description.

NEITHER FOWL NOR BUNNY

I think this is true. I've been reconsidering my initial question. Maybe it should be: is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself? — Tim3003

The internet itself is hypothetically neutral, in the sense of The Wisdom of Crowds. The Net merely provides more-or-less equal access to information. But users choose which sources to rely on. That's our constitutional right. But the difference between Anarchy and Viable Democracy is chaos versus the organization of representative self-regulation.

In theory, we are supposed to elect regulators, who are more like Plato's Philosopher Kings than lawless rule by the rabble. In practice though, we tend to choose people who reflect our own biases (ahem -- tr*mp), not those noted for Rational Thinking. So, it seems that we need an Internet Constitution to regulate how we choose our regulators. Then, we need to institute some central body, not to dictate, but merely to curb our excesses. :cool:


A Constitution for the Internet :
http://www.federalist-debate.org/index.php/current/item/371-a-constitution-for-the-internet

Bill of Rights for the Internet :
https://edtechbooks.org/mediaandciviclearning/internet_constitution

Why You Can’t Always Trust the Wisdom of the Crowd :
https://time.com/4588021/power-of-networks/

I can't tell the difference between mass delusions/hallucinations and objectivity. — TheMadFool

The only difference is in the metaphorical interpretation of the mental image : i.e. what it means to you.
Unfortunately, abstract mental images & metaphors are too easy to mis-interpret, due mainly to pre-conceptions. So who deludes who? :chin:

But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
___Moody Blues, Late Lament

↪Gnomon
I like the images you post. I wish we could do this for all of philosophy. Pictures have a certain quality to them that allows them to get a point across in ways that words somehow can't. — TheMadFool

Yes. A picture is worth a thousand philosophical metaphors. :smile:

You consider the ego as a mental thing. I don't. . . .
. . . . .So the strange loop is a metaphorical loop, but at the same time it has a material counterpart in the brain. Looking at yoursel mentally will lead to inwardly radiating droste effects. — Cartuna

Yes. Ideal metaphors usually have some concrete counterpart in the real world that it refers to as a crude approximation of the abstraction in the mind. That's how we communicate images in our minds to other minds. They can look at the concrete object and form an approximate idea of what I'm imagining. However, if I show them a brain "gyrus" (something that loops back on itself) they won't understand what I mean by "self" or "ego" or "i".

The metaphorical object is not the mental image, but merely has some essential similarity : e.g. a physical thing that loops back on itself to represent by analogy the concept of a mind looking back at itself.. The Ego is an especially difficult notion of metaphorize in concrete terms :cool:

Analogy :
1. An analogy is a comparison made to show how two different things are similar, especially in limited ways.

Mind/Brain problem in Psychology and Philosophy :
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html

Apparently, you think of the Ego as a material object. Where is the Ego in this picture of a "physical thing"? Hint : there are lots of "strange loops" (gyri) in the picture. :joke:


THE BALLOON IS NOT THE EGO


This image is not the pipe

You reply by just stipulating that 'effect' and 'change' mean the same. — Bartricks

That's not what I said, or meant. I merely pointed-out that "cause", "effect", and "change" are inextricably (logically) linked in our experience. If we notice a Change in something, we look for the Cause of that Effect. Change, or Difference, is a clue that something happened. So, curious humans instinctively want to know how or why that happened, and the answer is in the Causation. The Cause is not the Effect ; the Change is not the Cause ; and the Effect is not the Cause, but merely a sign of Causation. Cause & Effect are the "causal relata" of Change.

Change is news; it could be good or bad for us. No-change is not interesting. Change is a Transformation from before to after. "Exchange" is the Cause of that new Form. Change is not a physical thing, it's a rational inference from experience with Before and After. For humans, Difference is the essence of Meaning. No difference, no significance. Meaning is the Difference that makes a Difference to me. Even the "change" in your pocket, is implicitly the result of a Cause or Action that exchanges one form of currency (paper money) into a different form (metal money). "Change" can be a noun ( referring to an Effect) or a verb (referring to the Cause).

The original Big Bang Theory appeared to imply a Change from Nothing to Something. But people instinctively began to ask about the Cause of that existential Conversion. A Multiverse would merely beg the question ; just a never-ending series of Effects. Likewise, Inflation tries to answer the Change question, without mentioning the Ultimate Cause. That's because, a First & Final Cause would be a Creator from scratch.

Does your Acausal definition of "Change", not somehow imply a Cause/Effect relationship? Or, are you talking about transcendent Change? That's a horse of a different color. In the real world, you can't have physical or metaphorical Change (Effect) without a Cause, unless the Cause is Absential, in which case, the Cause is not apparent. :joke:

PS__I apologize for going on & on about such an academic question. But the answer to "what is change" is essential to my worldview.

The Metaphysics of Causation :
Absences: The main argument for transcendence is that absences can be involved in causal relations. Absences are said to be transcendent entities. They are nothings, non-occurrences, and hence are not in the world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

Power of Absence :
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

That image freaks me out. — john27

A lot of people feel that something is wrong with their face in photographs, because they are more accustomed to seeing a reversed image in a mirror. For some, it gives them a creepy feeling of looking at a clone or doppelganger. :gasp:

Anyway, do not be distracted by that example. For this thread is about change, not causation — Bartricks

Your example is quite a stretch, so it is not much of a distraction -- more like a paradox or riddle. :joke:
Note -- see Koan below

Since you want to separate Causation from its Effect (Change), how would you define a "Cause", or an "Effect" without reference to the other? If a cause makes no difference (change) what does it do? :cool:

Causation : the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
Effect : 1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

PS___Koan : If Aristotle's First Cause (principle of causation) had existed forever, without any real world effect, was it really a cause?

I don't think this is what strange loops are. How can a conception go out in the world? It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. — Cartuna

Apparently, you're having difficulty with my metaphorical language. The ability to imagine ideas as-if they are real is a faculty limited to animals with rational minds : e.g. homo sapiens. A concept is not a physical object, but an ideal mental (meta-physical) subject. So, it can perform feats that are impossible for physical things ; just as your avatar in a video game can throw Chi (Qi) from its hands as-if it was a flame-thrower.

For a more philosophical example, a self-concept can metaphorically "go out into the world", then turn around and look back at itself. But, if you prefer to imagine the self-concept as some mysterious "thing" rotating inside the brain, that's OK with me. It's just another metaphor, though. Unless, you have some empirical knowledge of what kind of material that looping "thing" is made of. :smile:

Subjectivity in a philosophical context has to do with a lack of objective reality.
Note -- the Subject is your imaginary self (Latin - ego ; self ; "I"), not your physical body (Latin - Id ; Greek - soma).

Ego :
1. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
2. (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

Note : Reasoning is thinking without actually doing. Once you have reasoned an appropriate behavior, you can safely perform the action in the real word. When reasoning, you can metaphorically project yourself out into the world to see what the results of that action might be. AFAIK, there is no actual "thing" that gets projected. or "loops internally".

Mirror Image vs Self Image :

Sstrange loops won't help to explain the perception of the I. — Cartuna

The notion of a "strange loop" is a metaphor, not a mechanical diagram. When you "see" another person, it's direct perception. When you see yourself in a mirror it's reflected perception. But, when you see yourself in your mind, it's a conception : a meta-physical reflection. The metaphorical loop begins from your internal brain, goes out into the world, then loops back to take a "selfie" without a camera or phone. In some cases, we call it "insight". :cool:

Self reflection is like looking into a mirror and describing what you see.

↪Gnomon
That's not true - one can have a cause and effect relation without there being any change. — Bartricks

If so, it's not a causal relationship, but an inert (no change) relationship? For example, you might have a static geometric or positional relationship, without any change in either factor. :chin:

A brain does not perceive itself to be a brain. — 180 Proof

That's true. A brain doesn't have internal sense organs to make a physical sense of itself (neuronal pattern). But it does have a mind, to create a self-image, which is our meta-physical sense of self. Douglas Hofstadter refers to that internal feedback as a "strange loop". :cool:


I Am a Strange Loop :
Strange Loop says that each of us is a point of view, and one's perspective – indeed our most intimate subjectivity – can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No, Hofstadter hasn't gone mystical, religious, or superstitious; but he has pushed the boundaries of science by thinking poetically.
Book by Douglas Hofstadter
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop_by_Douglas_Hofstadter

A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started. Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

:up: Convenient fiction? — TheMadFool

Yes. Without that fictional Self, we would not know where we fit into the story of Life. We are the stars of our own show, playing in the Cartesian Theater. :smile:

Is everything we need to know about an effect already present in the cause? — Joshs

In theory, that may be the case. But in reality, there may be multiple causes for a single effect. In my information-based personal paradigm, I call the power of causation "EnFormAction". It's the cause of all changes in the world, both physical and mental. That general power to cause change (to enform) is also the source of all meaning (need to know) for our bodies and minds. It's analogous to both Energy and Willpower. Anything else you need to know? :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Yes, the relationship between the construct of the self and the 'I' is not straightforward. It does seem to be an aspect of awareness arising in brain consciousness, but the 'I' is not simply the brain. The concept of I is probably used in different ways but the elusive sense of I is likely to have given rise to the idea of 'the ghost in the machine'. — Jack Cummins

Apparently, you think of "I" as something different from the psychological Ego, or Self-Consciousness. I agree that the Self-image is not simply the physical brain. But it is an imaginary creation of the brain. That's why I place the Self under the categorical heading of Meta-Physical. But I don't view it as a Soul or Ghost that can run around outside the body-brain complex. The link below is a discussion of Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman's notion of Causal Absence and human Agency to explain the sense of an immaterial Ghost in a biological Machine.. :smile:


The Ghost in the Organism :
So Sherman chose to expand upon the allied notions of "Selves" and "Aims" as meta-physical agents in physical reality.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

Some say that we have a change when a thing has a property at one time that it does not have at another. However, that either doesn’t tell us what change in itself is - it just tells us when we typically recognize there to have been a change - or it is a circular and so tells us nothing. For it appeals to a change in temporal properties. — Bartricks

Change is the effect of a Cause. And we detect Change in the same way know Meaning ; by measuring the Difference in form : Information. By comparing prior Form to latter Form we infer the Cause of the Change. And my name for the cause of all change in the world is EnFormAction, which is analogous to Energy. So, Change is Transformation. That may not answer your question, but it may give you something to think about. :smile:

What is EnFormAction? :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

I wonder why does each of have an 'I' as an aspect of consciousness, or self consciousness? Are human beings the only living beings with a sense of 'I'? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, here's my take on the self-concept, from the perspective of Enformationism theory. The Self is not a Real thing, in the sense of a ghost, but it is an Ideal concept. As such, it is as useful as your mental model of the Real World, which according to Kant is not the ding an sich. We can't ask animals if they have a sense of self, but like humans, they act as-if they do. :cool:


Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

Animal self consciousness :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

I didn't realize the question of whether or not a field is physical remains contested by some of the most accomplished Ph.d's in the world! — Enrique

Those phd's do indeed treat their mathematical fields as-if they are real. But they are "physical" only in the sense that physicists use those statistical models to predict physical behavior. But the ideal points that represent particles are mathematically defined, not detected empirically. So, those hypothetical fields are not "contested" any more than "virtual particles" are contested. But, if you will Google "are quantum fields real?" you will see that some thinkers still worry that ideal "mental constructs", while theoretically useful, are not actually real things, hence un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers tend to have different standards for what is Real (material), and what is Ideal (mental).. :nerd:

Fields are an excellent model for a large number of phenomena, and provide excellent predictive power. However, models don't equate to reality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47q8uf/are_fields_real_or_just_a_mathematical_tool/

Fields are virtual mathematical models within another mathematical model :
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

Looking at it from my realist perspective, I think organic bodies are probably infused with nonelectromagnetic substances that instrumentation has not yet been designed to register. — Enrique

Is that "infusion" another kind of physical field or a "nonelectromagnetic" mental "field"? Mental (mathematical) fields can't be detected with EM instruments. But they can be inferred by rational methods. BTW, if the EM field of a brain constitutes the mind, according to CEMI theory, does the EM field of the heart also produce a mind? Some fringe scientists believe so, and propose heart-brain coherence as a therapy. That may be possible, but it's not a mainstream idea. :cool:

. With an electrical component about 60 times greater and an electromagnetic energy field 5000 times greater than the brain’s, the heart has a significant influence on the body down to the cellular level.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/building-the-habit-hero/202011/the-hearts-electromagnetic-field-is-your-superpower

I also think phenomena akin to a morphogenetic field exist, — Enrique

The general notion of a morphogenetic field (MGF) makes sense to me. But, like other Mental fields, it remains undetectable by conventional electromagnetic methods. For my philosophical purposes, I simply place the MGF under the broad heading of an Information Field : not physically detectable, but rationally inferable. However, I don't mean that Reason is a form of ESP, in a paranormal sense.. :wink:

Absence as causal factor is a powerful idea. — Enrique

I agree. :smile:
What Is The Power of Absence? :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

You might notice that the question was put in respect of a claim by a computer scientist that information is physical. — Wayfarer

I'm late to the party, and I may have replied a year or so ago. But FWIW, I'll add my two-cents worth to the Reification of Information question. My Enformationism thesis is based on the concept that Information is both Physical and Meta-physical ; both Material and Mental. To see both sides of the Information coin though, you have to look through two different Frames with different assumptions : Scientific and Philosophical.

Basically, Information is physical in the sense that Energy is physical : it's the power to cause change of form (E=MC^2). But Information is also meta-physical in that it is the abstract knowledge content of a Mind (i.e. meaning). The link below is my personal answer to some what-and-how Consciousness questions on this very forum. :smile:

What is Information? :
Is Information Physical or Metaphysical? . . . or both
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

What I've discussed so far seems to be based on electromagnetism. . . . . Consciousness explained? — Enrique

Electro-Magnetism is just one of many ghostly field theories : e.g. Classical, Quantum, Statistical, Gravitational. So what qualifies photon or electron dynamics to produce Consciousness? Do they have some Mental Property that is expressed as Awareness and Self-Consiousness only a high levels of complexity and concentration? Is that latent power a physical or meta-physical property? The inherent "mental property" in physics is what I call "EnFormAction" (causal Information). :chin:

By the way, I gave that book by Deacon a look, seems epic! My first impression is that his concept of absentia simply refers to the predictive capabilities in different arrays of matter and won't provide a unified framework of formal/final causality, but he could have evidence that disproves my intuitions. No doubt an awesome read! — Enrique

I was impressed by Deacon's insights & explanations, and have incorporated some of his ideas & analogies in my blog posts. For example, I refer to Causation in the real world (Energy) as a product of the "power to create novelty". Which is what I also call EnFormAction. :smile:


The Causal Power of Absence :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What Is The Power of Absence? :
Deacon says that Absence is “a defining property of life and mind”. Like the nameless Tao, it’s a way, not a wayfarer, it’s a channel, not the flowing water.
The notion of efficacious Absence is counter-intuitive, so it requires a lot of explanation and examples : Absence is like the emptiness of a cup that is able to contain & constrain coffee for the purpose of drinking. Potential is not real, but the power to realize.
Absence is like the “Strange Attractors” of physics, that act as-if they had a gravitational pull to cause things to move toward an empty point in space. By analogy with the physical law of Thermodynamics, think of it as Cold, the absence of Heat.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

The Ghost in the Organism :
he developed a theory of "Autogens" to explain how Life and Mind could emerge from lifeless & mindless matter, without any divine intervention.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

and I am hesitant to express this thought because it may sound misleading but I am talking about “panpsychism,” . . . .
I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes. — TheQuestion

Please don't worry about expressing non-mainstream views on this forum. That's what it's here for. But you can expect some negative feedback, along with the positive. Just let it roll off like water off a freshly waxed duck's derriere. :joke:

I doubt that Jesus was a PanPsychist (all is mind) or PanTheist (all is god), but he was in favor of Monotheism (my god for all men). However in recent years, many philosophically-inclined people have adopted some kind of PanPsychism paradigm. But that worldview pictures amoral Nature as the deity. The impartiality of Nature may seem ideal to some, who are tired of conflicts between "chosen people". But I think a more reasonable god-model would be the Logos, which was characterized by harmony & balance, instead of just an indifferent laissez faire deity.

So my hypothetical non-denominational First Cause is best described as PanEnDeistic ( all-in-god). This is still a nature-god, but one that is infinite & eternal, hence encompassing not just our little selfish world, but all possible worlds. Such a deity cannot be expected to answer partisan prayers, but will treat all creatures impartially, and allow them to develop according their natural and cultural talents. :cool:


Trump’s Top Pastor Delivers What May Be The Most Partisan Prayer In Convention History :
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/trumps-top-pastor-delivers-what-may-be-the-most-partisan-prayer-in-convention-history-6dbfab3552dc/

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Does this verse prove that God will save all people? No, it simply states that God “will have all men to be saved.” The word “will” in Greek is “thelo.” It means “will” (1 Cor. 7:36), or “desire” (Mark 9:35; Phil. 4:17). God desires that all people be saved. But, not all people will be saved.
https://carm.org/universalism/1-tim-24-2-pet-39-and-universalism/

Alongside top-down dictatorships like Russia and China, we end up with bottom-up dictatorships, instigated by the jungle of social media, wherein the loudest beasts attract followers and in time rule. Can informed Democracy survive? — Tim3003

Ancient philosophers warned against the pitfalls of Democracy ("popular rule" ; "mob rule"). Over the millennia since, people have experimented with variations on bottom-up rule, and have gradually weeded-out some of its weak points. The US Constitution was a major milestone in limiting the dangers of "tyranny of the majority" along with "tyranny of the few".

Many of the pioneers of the Internet envisioned it as an ideal format for Direct Democracy with no rules, just freedom to express the art of humanity without censorship. Ironically, that unbridled freedom has resulted in exactly the social problems that Plato predicted : "mass ignorance" (Twitter) ; "hysteria" (viral conspiracy theories) ; and "tyranny" (social media bullying). Unfortunately, proponents of Web 3.0 seem to focus more on technical improvements than moral & social considerations. Nevertheless, the wild-west freedom of the early internet has been partly & inconsistently tamed by the introduction of civilized laws (rule by rational rules, not reigning rulers). Maybe we need a formal Constitution for the Internet.

Until natural evolution has time to breed rational & civilized traits into brutish internet barbarians though, we'll just have to muddle along with cultural patches & temporary fixes. You might call the desired development : survival of the nice-est. :smile:


"Plato uses The Republic to deliver a damning critique of democracy that renders it conducive to mass ignorance, hysteria, and ultimately tyranny."
https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/why-plato-hated-democracy-3221e7dcd96e

Web 3.0 :
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/web-3-0/

Maybe I am just an odd person with odd perspectives but when I research thermodynamics and biblical scripture and articles of cosmology. I see the logic behind there being a God. — TheQuestion

I too see a role for "a God" when I contemplate the logic of our physical world. Unfortunately, it's not the God-of-the-Bible that I learned about in my religious upbringing. After the age of reason, my own skeptical review of the "Holy Book" led me to doubt that it is the word of God. Ironically, it was my education in Science that eventually convinced me that the ancient Greeks were correct in their conclusion, that a First Cause is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing". But the humanoid deity of most popular religions -- while useful for tribal cohesion -- is a poor model for a Cosmic Creator. On the other hand, the philosophical thinkers of most world religions have agreed, in general, on a creative Principle, that is not subject to the emotional outbursts of a sky-king with a fragile ego. Blaise Pascal dismissively called such an abstraction "the god of philosophers", which paled in comparison to "the God of Faith".

Some examples of philosophical god-concepts are : Greek Logos, Hindu Brahman, Chinese Tao, and the Jewish Alpha & Omega. These all are attempts to explain the existence of a Real Temporal & Spatial world in view of the Ideal concept of Eternity & Infinity. Most of them see signs of ideal Cosmic Order, within an imperfect & dissipative reality. Even modern Science acknowledges that, despite the ravages of Entropy, the world is organized in such a way that human reason can understand it. And even atheist scientists reluctantly use the ancient notion of divine "Laws" in reference to the orderly principles of Nature that make their pragmatic purposes possible.

These rational god-models may not be as emotionally satisfying as the notion of a super-hero who will save the world. But, they allow reasonable people to label the logical patterns of Nature, upon which they depend in order to survive and thrive, amid randomness & uncertainty. That's not an irrefutable Faith, but it is a reasonable Foundation upon which to build a positive outlook and a successful life. :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I'm not much of a propheteer either lol I'll just say I think specialized AI, algorithms programmed for specific analytical tasks, are an invaluable tool, but I'm quite frankly afraid of generalized AI, — Enrique

In the article noted in my previous post, McFadden says : "Consciousness is a product of evolution and, as such, it has a role to play in our survival. What is that role? The most obvious answer may be the right one – we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will". Since human C evolved by the trial & error process of Evolution, perhaps Evolutionary Algorithms are our best bet for cultivating Awareness in artificial Minds.

But, if our AI/Robots someday become sentient, we'll be forced to treat them as equals, instead of slaves. And we'll have just as much reason to fear them, as we now fear our human peers. Hopefully, they will not be as omnipotent as apocalyptic movies portray. Maybe they will be just as conflicted & uncertain as their freewill-faking flesh & phlegm forebears. :joke:


Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory claims that synchronous neuron firing generates strong electromagnetic fields which build up such that even further neurons are activated via an amplifying feedback loop. Upon reaching a sufficiently robust level within relatively large regions of the brain, EM fields can graduate to CEMI fields, integrating brain matter into the substance of fully conscious awareness. . . .
The following is my similar "coherence field" theory: — Enrique

I had read Johnjoe McFadden's book, Quantum Information, several years ago. So, I was vaguely aware of CEMI before I came across this thread. However, I just found a PDF of an article by JJMcF, that I had set-aside on my PC desktop a few years ago. So, now I am better able to comment on his "CEMI theory", and on your "Coherence Field" concept. Both seem to be correlates of Tononi's "IIT theory", and assume that an essential feature of Consciousness is "coherence", unity, integration, feedback loops, interconnection, synchronicity, wholeness, and Monism. (i.e. single-mindedness).

So, we all seem to be on the same track for discovering, not just correlates-of-consciousness, but the essence-of-awareness (EOA). McFadden goes one step beyond neuronal rhythms to the EM field generated by the symphony of synapses. Tononi postulated that some kind of measuring device, a PHI meter, could verify the presence of awareness in a brain. And McFadden implies that something like a hospital EEG machine would detect Consciousness, if we knew how to interpret the signals. Likewise, Rupert Sheldrake theorized that Biological Life is characterized by a Morphogenetic (form creating) Field. Some quantum theorists assume that the Quantum Field is the fundamental Reality. Other researchers believe that all of those unifying physical fields are ultimately expressions of a universal meta-physical Mathematical Field. And that is getting closer to my personal postulation of an immaterial "Information Field", that I call Enformy or EnFormAction.

Unfortunately, a mental field is (currently) only detectable by a conscious Mind, not by a machine. So, Consciousness may never be as simple to verify as running an EEG or an MRI. I don't doubt that we can gain a deeper understanding of the mental feedback loop we call "Consciousness" by focusing on the Correlates our instruments reveal. Which may be one reason why direct Mind-Reading has been a Holy Grail for millennia. Yet, in the article linked below, JJMcF answers the question : Can the cemi theory account for telepathy? with "No, I’m afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it", :nerd:

The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (cemi) Field Theory :
"However, all electrical circuits – and that’s basically all neurones -- generate an associated
energy field, known as an electromagnetic field or em field. This field contains precisely the
same information as the circuitry that generated it."
"our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop"
"time: we can only have one idea in our head at a time."
"a single unified idea, or gestalt,"
"My hypothesis is that consciousness is the experience of information, from the inside."
"we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will."
https://johnjoemcfadden.co.uk/popular-science/consciousness/

Physical Fields as mental constructs :
https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-treat-electric-field-in-that-case-any-field-as-a-physical-entity-rather-than-a-mathematical-construct
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193281/does-a-field-have-any-physical-meaning-or-significance
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Maybe you watched my 'Energy' video… Let me know if the answer is in there. — PoeticUniverse

Sorry, I was distracted by the girl in the red dress. All that dancing energy. . . . :wink:

I suppose the answer to the QG mystery may lie in-between Qualia & Quanta. Unfortunately, I couldn't find my long-ago poem about "Skebleens" : the binding forces in between. But I did find this pathetic puerile poesy in the archives :

Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet, but isn't it then a wonder then how QM works so well? — PoeticUniverse

I'm just guessing. But perhaps the Quantum Gravity gap is simply a matter of scale. Quantum effects typically manifest only on the smallest scales. And gravity is so weak that its effects only become apparent on cosmic scales, such as the curvature of vast quantities of space. Gravity is general and diffuse, while sub-atomic forces are specific and focused. Particle colliders require massive energy inputs just to study local quantum scales, but that's trivial compared to the gravitational forces of non-local Black Holes. Apparently, we need to amp-up our instruments in order to study Quantum effects inside a ginormous gravity well. Could the QG mystery be that simple, and that monumental? :chin:

Black Hole :
You might expect the authors to celebrate, but they say they also feel let down. Had the calculation involved deep features of quantum gravity rather than a light dusting, it might have been even harder to pull off, but once that was accomplished, it would have illuminated those depths. . . . .
In some way or other, space-time itself seems to fall apart at a black hole, implying that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper. Although Einstein conceived of gravity as the geometry of space-time, his theory also entails the dissolution of space-time, which is ultimately why information can escape its gravitational prison.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?". — Gnomon

For my own interests, I will expand on that inherent limitation of Quantum Physics : it explains why things fall apart (Entropy), but not why they assemble into whole systems. QT does not account for "spooky" Gravity. Perhaps that's because G is not a Quanta, but a Qualia : not Physical, but Metaphysical. (am I barking up the wrong axis?)

The article below, by British physicist Julian Barbour, reveals that "There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature at the fundamental microscopic level that distinguishes a direction of time" (upward complexifying Evolution). Then, he notes that "Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives rise to “anti-thermodynamic” behavior: Under its influence, uniformly distributed matter tends to break up into clusters. As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior using an entropy-type concept". That mysterious "clustering" behavior of matter is called by the negative-name of "Negentropy", attractive "Forces".

But, in my thesis, I call the positive aspect of Evolution : "Enformy". Previously, I had metaphorically compared it to the "strange attractor" force of Gravity. But I didn't think it was that simple. Now, I may have to rethink the Something that causes Things to gravitate into new things -- parts to become wholes -- elements to become systems. :chin:


The Mystery of Time’s Arrow :
anti-thermodynamic” behavior
https://nautil.us/issue/71/flow/the-mystery-of-times-arrow-rp

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, [ anti-thermodynamic ] natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I am a man of faith but I can still consider myself as a skeptic on particular topics. — TheQuestion

Yes. The apostle Paul taught that -- in some cases and on some topics -- we should temper Faith with a touch of Skepticism :
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [test] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
He was not talking about Ghost Hunting, but of new trends in popular opinion : especially a packaged belief system. If someone tells you "this pill will open your eyes to true reality", it would be wise to examine the label for a list of ingredients before swallowing. For example, LSD & PCP may show you a psychedelic alternative reality, but an overdose might just expand your mind until it pops.

Unfortunately, like street drugs, most religious doctrines don't come with a warning label. On the surface, they may sound attractive, but inwardly they may be full of "false prophets' or "ravening wolves". So how can we "try" or "test" the bitter pills? Trustingly try it and see what happens? Or use our rational faculties to research the alleged contents? When, long after the age of reason, I did the research, I learned that the book I was taught to take on Faith, was full of false spirits (unverifiable facts) and ravening prophets (those who assure you of "things hoped for". :cool:


hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/hallucinogens

People will never be able to create a human outside the womb of an already existing human being. By the very nature of human beings (or other organisms). — Cartuna

Transhumanists are aware of the biological facts of life. But they have faith in human creativity and ingenuity. Since the essence of a baby human is encoded into a spiral of physical stuff in the form of digital mathematical symbols (abstract Information), scientists assume that they can also use chains of 1s & 0s to produce, first a thinking machine (AI), and eventually a living machine (AL). And they see no need to add a dollop of Magic or a soupçon of Spirit to the formula, in order to manufacture a living organism. I don't believe in Magic, but I do believe in the multiplied power of leveraged Information (knowledge).

The history of human technology is littered with confident "nevers" -- "Men will never fly" -- that nevertheless became routine "evers". So, while I realize the Holy Grail of man-made-life may be harder to achieve than the Trans-homo-sapienistas assume, I'm not certain enough of my predictive abilities to prophesy the long-range future of a Global Science Project. Human Culture usually finds a way to exceed the limits of Human Nature. Maybe they will,or maybe they won't, make artificial babies. But some visionaries will die trying. :smile:

The past, present, and future of artificial life :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2014.00008/full

PS___Giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if god-like scientists do avoid the pitfalls of Frankenstein --- to finally rejoice : "it's alive!" --- they will never be able to create something from nothing. :starstruck:

Nothing has infinite potentiality.
[Infinite potentiality = (God's) omnipotence!] — TheMadFool

Yes. That equation works, if you define "nothing" as "no-real-thing but all-ideal-possibilities". Of course, empirical scientists don't believe in Ideals, such as Plato's Forms. For example, pragmatic skeptics find "something-from-something" to be logical, and "nothing-comes-from-nothing" as a fact. And that's true in our imperfect real world. But philosophers are theorists, who are not bound by pragmatic reality. For example, Einstein could envision riding on a photon at light speed. So, just as we can imagine the concepts of Zero & Infinity --- which are never found in Reality, but are useful in the Ideal Realm of Mathematics --- the notions of unlimited Possibility and infinite Potential are serviceable only for hypothetical purposes. That's why we eventually have to make our liberal hypotheses conform to conservative reality.

Unfortunately, for those who expect their "omnipotent God" to intervene on their behalf in the Real World, that hypothetical hope can only be fulfilled in imagination, in the form of idealized Faith. Even Plato's ideal Forms lose their perfection when transformed into real Things. That's because there is a logical categorical barrier between Ideal and Real ; between Idealism and Realism. Ideals are perfect immaterial meta-physical models, while Reality is an imperfect physical system. So, just as the Map is not the Terrain, our possible mental models are not actual physical things. Each realm has its own set of rules & laws.

The Relative laws of physical Reality are derivatives of Thermodynamics : the fractional ratio between this & that, hot & cold, simple & complex. But the Holistic laws of meta-physical Ideality are logical : 1 or 0, all or nothing, and-or-not. So, there is no imperfect in-between. The Ideal Omnipotent God either is (ideally) or is not (really). Yet, that black & white logic doesn't apply in the fractal Real world, where things may approach infinite perfection, but never reach that impossible dream. Reality always remains asymptotic to its boundary (the imaginary line between Real & Ideal ; Finite & Infinite ; Defined Order & Undefined Chaos). Perhaps that's why Fractals always fade to black before reaching infinity --- no matter how far in-or-out you zoom. :cool:


FRACTAL ZOOM : animated link

https://www.storyblocks.com/video/stock/digital-animation-of-a-fractal-zoom-s_qr0t59wj7niomu1

We have no idea what's going on, do we? — TheMadFool

We philosophers are free to speculate from ignorance, because we practice Nescience (why?) instead of Science (what). :joke:

Then the question is what exactly is it that flows through the posited feedback loops? Unclear! — TheMadFool

From behind the speculating spectacles of Nescience, it's clear to me. It's all EnFormAction all the time. :nerd:

EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html