It is the simplest, so there's really no more to go with it to keep it Fundamental. Its math may be messy, though. — PoeticUniverse

Some forum posters have asserted that the Cause of our world must be more complex than the Effect : e.g. an infinite array of multiverses. And in some cases that may seem to be true. For example, humans are still trying to create something (AI) that is at least as complex as a human. In speculation, it's possible that human culture will eventually create a race of robots that are equal-to or superior-to humanity.

But, I envision the "something" that created our complexifying universe as both more-than in Potential and less-than in Actual. For example, the math for computing the possibilities of Infinity (outside of space-time) is simple : just start at 1 and keep counting forever. But, if you start counting at 0 (zero), the first step is infinitely wide, and the math-machine just spins its wheels.

That's why I assume that the First Cause must be BothAnd. Both Infinity (all possibilities) and Zero (no thing). One of those possible powers is the god-like ability to lift itself with its own bootstraps : i.e. to be self-existent. But, an infinite Tower-of-Turtles is always missing something "fundamental" : a Foundation. So, for me, Aristotelian Potential is a necessary attribute of the Prime Cause. It may be "First" from our perspective in the gravity-well of space-time. But from the God's-eye-view of unlimited possibilities, it's a Forever Cause. :smile:

That our universe is somewhere in between perfect and the worst shows that there has to be a multiverse. Also, if there can be one universe then there can be more. — PoeticUniverse

The "argument from mediocrity" may be a reasonable statement. But, outside of our unique universe, it's unverifiable. so we'll never know if it's true. The infinite Potential of a Forever Cause, could very well include a Zillion Multiverses. But the only 'verse I know anything about is good ole GAIA. So I don't bog-down my mind by trying to do the math of Eternal Infinities. It's an unreal, meta-physical concept. More like Qualia than Quanta. Fun to speculate, but messy to calculate :wink:

Halt and Catch Fire :
a program command, such as dividing by zero, that will cause a computer to crash & burn.

Enfernity : my coinage of Spatially Infinite & Temporally Eternal

OMNIVERSE :

TURTLEVERSE :

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries. — PoeticUniverse

This description of the hypothetical First Cause of the Big Bang sounds like something I might write. It accurately outlines what I call : BEING ; Enformer ; LOGOS ; G*D ; etc. But we seem to differ in our opinions of exactly what that "Something" is, essentially.

In some of your retorts, you seem to imagine the Prime Cause as a Physical Thing -- like a cue ball -- while I lean toward a Meta-Physical Principle -- like Logos. 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?".

Temporary physical things are Real & Embodied & Relative. But only the eternal essential creative power-to-embody could be "Permanent", and all those other Absolute adjectives. Unfortunately, such a non-thing (absolute Zero ; Infinity) cannot exist in the thermodynamic Real world, because it would then be subject to Entropy and extinguishment (heat death). Yet, in the Ideal world of human reason, unconditioned Universals are essential to understanding of relative Reality. :cool:

Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS___Did I misunderstand your position, or did you misinterpret mine? :chin:

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries. — PoeticUniverse

I agree that your logic is impeccable. Yet, intelligent people still disagree on the details of exactly what that essential "Something" is, Ontologically. Is it a material Thing like a self-organizing planet? Is it an immaterial Force like Chi? Or is it an immortal Wizard like The Great OZ behind the curtain? I have my own notions on the subject, but others may disagree, depending on their idiosyncratic worldview, or their communal mindset. :smile:

Sorry, one cannot diminish the Casmir effect by saying ""Spooky". — PoeticUniverse

Yes. But I wasn't referring to the Effect, which is an empirical observation. It's the Cause that's uncanny. For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. That's because such a sucking force was not allowed in their realistic mechanistic paradigm, where a pushing force was transmitted by direct matter-to-matter contact. A come-hither pulling force smacked of witchcraft.

Einstein evaded that problem of Causal Agency by proposing the counter-intuitive notion of curved space-time. Which merely replaced one mystery with another. So, now the old materialistic paradigm has been replaced by the metaphor of matterless emptiness as an Aethereal substance. Ironically, he was the one who applied the scare-word "spooky" to "diminish" another concept that defies common sense. Yet, today most scientists have accommodated their professional worldviews to the experiment-baffling-randomness, and the non-local weirdness, and the wave-particle non-sense of Quantum Theory. In effect, they accept the strange empirical Effects, even as they rationalize even more occult theoretical Causes. :cool:



* We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. . . .
* Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers. . . .
* I have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the force of gravity, but I have not yet assigned a cause to gravity. . . ."
___Isaac Newton

* Einstein's general theory of relativity has an unusual answer to that question which will be explored in this spotlight text. In part, gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called “curvature”. Overall, gravity is intimately connected with the geometry of space and time. . . .
* Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. . .
* Albert Einstein famously said that quantum mechanics should allow two objects to affect each other's behaviour instantly across vast distances, something he dubbed “spooky action at a distance”
* “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”.
* “God Integrates Empirically”
___Albert Einstein

threshold network complexities that divide the conscious from the unconscious; — TheMadFool

Perhaps, those complexities (uncertainties) don't really divide Consciousness neatly into Awareness & Nescience, but are merely a foggy phase in a continuum of sensation from rock to rocket scientist. :nerd:

Don't you think feedback loops defined in terms of just energy istoo broad a definition for consciousness? — TheMadFool

Of course. It was just a concrete metaphor for something meta-physical. :wink:

Information then underpins consciousness. I thought IIT was was designed specifically to divorce/delink information from consciousness. — TheMadFool

I suppose IIT was a reductive attempt to quantify a mushy quality that is otherwise hard to pin down. To arbitrarily divide a Platonic continuum, that has no natural joints to carve. In my view, Generic Information is at one end of the evolutionary hierarchy, and evolved Consciousness is at the other. No gaps in the chain of emergence. :nerd:

No, the virtuals can't become particles; they don't have the full quanta. — PoeticUniverse

So, they're not even real enough to be virtual??? :joke:

They as real although brief make for the Casmir effect. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like "spooky action at a distance".
Like Gravity, Casimir "sucks". :joke:

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing :
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-casimir-effect-a-force-from-nothing/

Chaos Theory : The term 'Strange Attractor' is used to describe an attractor (a region or shape to which points are 'pulled' as the result of a certain process)
Note -- the "region" is in abstract Phase Space, not real State Space.

↪Gnomon
But I think the question remains. Why is quantum field theory, logic or statistical probabilities there? If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing. — Roger

One answer to such existential ontological questions is that, if anything exists now, something must have always existed. For Realists that bottomless Tower of Turtles is called the "Multiverse", more of the same forever. But a more philosophical answer is that the Potential for a new world must have always existed in the ideal realm of Possibility. And infinite Potential exists ("is there") because of Logical Necessity : being implies prior existence.

To materialists, such philosophical reasoning may sound like non-sense. Yet, for those who know that matter is subject to Entropy -- here today, gone tomorrow -- the timeless Source-of-Something must be immaterial, in some sense. For example, Claude Shannon defined his novel notion of Information as Negentropy (creative instead of destructive force or trend). Anyway, nothing come from nothing. And Matter comes from immaterial Energy : creative power.

And that's what Plato & Aristotle were referring to as the Ideal realm of Potential Forms, which are not Material, but Mental -- not Physical but Meta-Physical. Another Platonic term for a creative organizing power was LOGOS (the power of Reason). However, in my personal worldview, I use a modern concept to refer to the pre-space-time Potential for creating Real Things : Intentional Information (EnFormAction). Scientists sometimes speak of knowing the "Mind of God", when faced with that great unknown reservoir of not-yet-real reality. You can call it God, or G*D, or eternal Potential, or Logos. But wherever and whatever it is, that power-to-create-a-world-from-nothing is awesome. :smile:


“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".” ...

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

What is EnFormAction? :
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

Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

"Skeptic" is define as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
"Doubt" is define as a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction. — TheQuestion

Yes. As a young Agnostic I had doubts, instead of convictions, about my childhood religion. But now, as an elderly Skeptic, I am open to new evidence, but not bound by faith to accept un-verifiable beliefs. A Cynic doubts all beliefs of other ("stupid" ; "ignorant") people. So, my worldview is still growing and expanding, because like a shark, a philosophical Mind must keep swimming in order to survive. :joke:

Why is that something that must be/quantum field there? While it's possible there's no explanation possible, I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". — Roger

Quantum Field theory has been adopted as a metaphor for that which is not Real, but merely Potential, or logically Possible. The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized. The "nothing" that preceded the Big Bang Birth of our world may be compared to the un-real Statistical Probability of a mathematical Field. The field is characterized by Logic, but not Matter. :smile:

Are virtual particles Real ? :
Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit.

Virtual :
(Computing) not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Oxford

No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply. — baker

OK. But who is doing the marketing : The Mad Men? Asian practitioners of Buddhism would be expected to evangelize their own "brand" of Buddhism. For example, Chinese immigrants in the 19th century were mostly religious instead of philosophical. So, the marketing of an obscure oriental Philosophy to Westerners seems to have begun with academic scholars, such as D.T Suzuki. His austere Zen variant may have been presented in "realistic" terms, in order to make it more acceptable to secularists, and less threatening to Christians. But the non-scholars were seldom so pragmatic. And acceptance of vague Buddhist notions in the US, first became widespread among Beatniks and New Age Hippies, looking for an alternative to stagnant Western religions. So, even in its self-help forms, it retained some religious trappings such as mantras & symbolic spiritual candles. :smile:

Buddhism Travels West :
Knowledge of Buddhism has come through three main channels: Western scholars; the work of philosophers, writers and artists; and the arrival of Asian immigrants who have brought various forms of Buddhism with them to Europe, North America and Australia.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-west.htm

D. T. Suzuki :
Note -- not a marketer of motorcycles. :wink:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/D-T-Suzuki

Because it is omnipresently aware, it has no need to learn in a way comparable to humanity's and certainly no need to write. . . . . so that as consciousness theory advances we might have to increasingly come to terms with a dimension of existence residing beyond the purview of information. — Enrique

In general, that sounds like a description of an ineffable god : immaterial, eternal, infinite, omniscient, etc. And such reasoning is how I came to conclude that a non-dimensional (un-measurable) Cosmic Enformer is necessary to explain why & how our 3D universe suddenly emerged from nowhere. That Creative Principle is indeed beyond the purview of our physical Science, but not inaccessible to philosophical reasoning. As a Meta-Physical (outside the contingent universe) entity, the Creator can only be understood in terms of Generic Information. :nerd:

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all real things from a formless pool of possibility : the Ideal Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

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

How is an infocentric, technocultural paradigm going to approach this in the advent that it proves vital to constructing an accurate model of the world and perhaps humanity's prospects? — Enrique

I suppose the next few generations will use the Information Paradigm in the same way humans have always incorporated a novel technical worldview : by making a Religion out of it. It seems to be human nature to worship or fear whatever is beyond common understanding. So, I'm not making any prophecies or promises. :smile:

Where do you draw the line? How can you tell the difference between an interconnectedness that's conscious and one that isn't? I guess such questions expose the weak spots in IIT. — TheMadFool

Well, there's no empirical test for consciousness, although IIT was intended to be a step in that direction. So, we draw the line via philosophical inference. We try to establish a baseline from observation of a hierarchy of intelligent behaviors. For example, scientists searching for signs of life or extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) make lists of criteria, based on our understanding of terran biology & psychology.

As I noted in the previous post, I look for indicators of feedback loops between inputs and outputs of energy. Life itself is one kind of loop, which makes use of the incoming energy, before it eventually returns the waste, in the form of entropy. And since Entropy has been equated by Shannon with Information, it's also a sign of minimal intelligence. Since we can't draw a hard line between Chimps & Dophins & Robots and Humans, we may have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to assume that their behavior is consciously directed, with some minimal degree of Self-Consciousness. But the final arbiter may be feelings instead of reasons. :nerd:

What are internal information feedback loops? Are you talking about learning? — TheMadFool

Yes, the ability to learn, and to adapt behavior is a sign of Information loops, that use some of the incoming Information (EnFormAction) for the selfish*1 benefit of the organism. Atoms exchange energy and change electron orbits temporarily, but they show no signs of long-term learning. And yes, learning makes those entities somewhat unpredictable. Which is why psychology is not an exact science. :wink:

*1. Selfish, in the Dawkins sense

I'm about 90% confident we're not living in a computer simulation. — TheMadFool

I do sometimes use the metaphor of a Computer Simulation to describe how the origin and evolution of our world works, But, I don't take it literally. Gaia, as a self-regulating & self-improving system, works like a goal-driven program in some ways, but the processing is not limited to silicon logic gates. The Operating System was preset by initial conditions, while the Logic was encoded in natural laws, and Natural Selection serves as a high-level logic gate. :cool:

Programmer God :
A competent computer programmer doesn’t have to make frequent corrections to the operation of the program. Likewise, an omniscient Creator shouldn’t have to make special interventions in order to keep the world running properly. A world-wide flood would be a sign of gross incompetence.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I suppose there's room enough in IIT for a lot of weird conclusions: crystals e.g. by virtue of the "interconnectedness" of their molecules/atoms and the worldwide website, for the same reason, should be considered conscious. — TheMadFool

Yes. That's why I spend a lot of time on this forum denying that my Enformationism worldview is Mystical or Magical in it's implications. Everything is indeed interconnected by causal links, but not all nodes are causes in themselves, or self-aware. Instead, there is a hierarchy of Enformation organization.

For example, even though I have concluded that EnFormAction is universal in its effects, that doesn't mean that atoms are conscious in the human sense. Atoms and crystals may be "sentient" in the primitive sense of action & reaction, cause & effect. But, in order for anything to be Self-Conscious, it must have internal information feed-back loops, that result in novel outputs & behaviors, instead of just direct pass-thru of energy.

Ironically, the typical human ape-mind seems to automatically jump to human-like intentional interpretations of natural events. For example, a book falling off a shelf, may be attributed to a mischievous ghost, instead of a breeze or gravity. Many people are also overly dramatic & imaginative. It's more interesting, when you hear hoof-beats in Houston, to look for exotic Zebras, instead of mundane Horses. :joke:

I know some get into the "rich" symbolic undertones of religion, but I'm pragmatic and not much mystical (though like most I do get inspired), so not what I think about. — Enrique

Me too. When I first started investigating the ubiquitous role of Information in the world, I tried to avoid using the "G" word to describe the logically necessary Enformer behind the Big Bang beginning. But, eventually I gave in to the fact that most cultures are generally agreed on a few essential properties of their "god" models, even as they diverge on specifics : primarily creation of the world, or Ground of Being. And philosophical deities -- such as Brahma, Tao, and Great Spirit -- are more like intellectual Principles than humanoid supermen.

So, I chose to spell the word "G*D" to indicate that it means something different to me, than to most religious believers. The primary distinction is that we no longer need to posit an intervening (meddling) deity to explain most mysteries of Reality. Modern science has provided more likely explanations of cause & effect. However, the First Cause remains unresolved by any of the natural forces in the universe.

On the other hand, what the ancients called "Nature Spirits", causing things to move and change, is better understood as the work of invisible Energy. But, the Enformationism thesis notes that the combination of Quantum and Information theories have concluded that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, and Energy is a causal form of Information. Or as I spell it : EnFormAction --- the power to cause change in form.

Another remaining unresolved question is how to explain the apparent direction of Evolution, from simple things to complex organisms, and from dumb rocks to smart-*ss humans. Where some scientists emphasize the role of Randomness in natural changes, I see that Natural Selection plays the role of preset Criteria (conditions ; values) in a program. So, I can't deny the inference of Intention that was imparted to the space-time world in the Initial Conditions. That's why I conclude that the Enformer was equivalent to a Programmer, who creates a plan with built-in Logic, and an ultimate goal or problem to solve.

Since I have no way of knowing the Mind of G*D, I don't presume to understand the Whys of Creation, or the Final Cause of evolution. Consequently, I have no reason to fear or worship that Ultimate Principle, as-if it was an emotionally volatile human personality. Besides, the creeds and rituals of most Religions are addressed primarily to human Passions (Desires & Fears), not to their evidence-based Reason. That's why Enformationism is not a religious theology, but a philosophical worldview. :smile:

I suppose you're referring to paradigm shifts and I see one on the horizon but not in my lifetime though. — TheMadFool

Me too! But, instead of laughing or crying, I try to stay ahead of the curve leading to a civil war in Philosophy and Science. The shift has already begun, and I chronicle some of its tectonic effects in my BothAnd blog. But Rome didn't fall in a day. So I expect the overthrow-of-authority to be long and messy. Although I advocate a Copernican Revolution --- from Materialism and Spiritualism to an Information-Centric worldview --- I don't want to be there when the shooting starts. :joke:


quote from TPF . . . .
Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness :
"The Enformationism thesis is my amateur synopsis of another new paradigm : an "information theoretic" worldview. As one writer put it, this is another "Copernican Revolution" in perspective."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622840

Introduction to Enformationism :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

That science has a role in addressing the significance for humanity of what we call God is an interesting proposal. — Enrique

Here's a blog post to address the notion of "The God of Science", from the perspective of the Enformationism thesis. :smile:

The G*D of Science :
Eternal External Causal Agent
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page29.html

Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

I agree with you that matter and mind arise from the same basic substance and knowledge in these domains is mutually reinforcing: they expand together. — Enrique

in my thesis that fundamental Substance is more like Energy than Matter. And it's equivalent to Aristotle's definition of abstract "substance" (Ousia), which is what we now call "Essence" or "Potential". For Kant, it was "ding an sich". Those were all logical conjectures, to explain the emergence of new forms from old fhings.

But now we have empirical evidence for the transformation of Energy into Matter and vice-versa. However, Energy is typically labeled "physical" because it can be measured in terms of its effects on matter. Yet, scientists still can't say exactly what Energy IS, essentially. What is energy made of?

So my definition places Energy under the heading of Meta-Physics. because we can never directly know the ding an sich. And even Energy is categorized under the General label of EnFormAction -- the power to Enform, to Cause, to Create. They all "expand" (evolve) together as a single monistic Substance. :nerd:

The Measure of MInd

Is the mind in what is understood, or in the way in which it understands? — Pantagruel

Both. Mind is not an object, but a subject; not a thing, but a process. Specifically, processing Meaning. And Meaning is a relationship to Me. What is understood is Memes : units (bytes) of meaning. And the way memes are understood is by connections to other memes (memeplexes ; concepts). So Mind is both the process (thinking),and the stuff processed (data), plus the output (thoughts, meanings, consciousness). So, just as Mind (process) without Brain (processor) is useless, What without the Way is sterile. One without the Other is meaningless. It takes two to tango ; to understand. to know.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is an attempt to measure the Mind in terms of Wholeness (Phi). It adds-up the unit parts and computes the degree of interconnectedness. That holistic function of the Brain/Mind complex is Consciousness : the ability to extract personal meaning from inputs of data from the environment. It converts concrete Quanta (physical sensations) into abstract Qualia (meta-physical feelings).

Unfortunately, the Real physical stuff is easy to measure, but to measure the Ideal abstractions would require direct mind-reading. IOW, You would have to be Me. So, at this point in time, the only technology for knowing the world through someone else's eyes, is the old-fashioned method of converting mental abstractions (ideas, concepts) into material metaphors (words, memes). And in order to understand those memes, You would have to imagine what it's like to be Me. Which, as social animals, we do intuitively all the time.

However, Psychology is a formal attempt to rationally reduce those ethereal personal thoughts into realistic generalized meanings that we can all share. It converts private feelings into public symbols of common emotional states. So, it seems that the only way to measure a mind is to transform its hidden contents into conventional representations that all members of our verbal species can relate to. To Under-Stand is to put Your-Self in My position. :cool:

What is it like to be Me? :
Nagel believes reductionism is the most unlikely of all the current philosophical beliefs to shed life on consciousness.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/mini/What-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat--2-.pdf

But "it from bit", which he claims as reduction to a "yes and no" interrogation of existence seems manifestly superficial and even pernicious. — Enrique

As I see it, the existential impact of 21st century Science is 1> to reopen the God-question, that was a closed book since the Enlightenment rejection of biblical authority, 2> to reassess the role of Consciousness in a world of thinking machines, and 3> to undermine the classical physics of Atomism & Materialism. First, the Big Bang theory slammed the door on assumptions of a self-existent world, with no role for a Creator. Then, Information theory called into question the role of humanity as the dominant thinkers of the world. And finally, the replacement of material particles with ethereal Quantum Fields, as the fundamental substance of Reality, pulls the rug from under the classical Physical paradigm of "what you see is all there is".

I'm not sure what you mean by "it from bit" reduces existence to "yes or no". In my view, it expands the 21st century paradigm of science to include all-of-the-above. By that I mean, shape-shifting Information (Potential) is the essence of Matter & Mind & Energy. It's both Physical (Matter, Energy) and Meta-Physical (Mind). In what sense is the notion that real Matter (IT) is derived from essential Information (BIT), "superficial and pernicious"? It may be harmful to outdated scientific paradigms, but it should be beneficial for constructing new models of Reality. For many of us, nineteenth century Materialism is much more appealing to common-sense. But, philosophers & scientists need to go beyond common-knowledge. and learn to adapt their Darwinian ape-sense to fit the counter-intuitive "facts" of post-Quantum science. :smile:

How is a philosophy of information theory going to be integrated into cultural evolution as the predominant paradigm while meeting these challenges? Perhaps you can give this some informed thought. — Enrique

I have given it some considerable thought. And my Enformationism website was a first step in the direction of constructing a new paradigm upon the ashes of the old. But I'm not the only one involved in this Copernican Revolution. The webpage and the blog have links to many books and organizations that are on the forefront of this emerging worldview. However, I don't expect my puny personal efforts to have much impact on cultural evolution. Only if & when these new ideas catch-on among philosophers and scientists though, will it have a chance for widespread effects around the world.

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

What to do about all of this? — Enrique

First educate yourself. Then spread the word. Then do what you can do. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is an abstruse intellectual worldview, and it will take time for it to trickle-down, so to speak, to the common folk. And I don't expect to live to see Materialsm and Spiritualism replaced by Enformationism. :cool: .

Interesting how Einstein likened the substrate of general relativity to aether. Goes to show how much of a realist he was, — Enrique

Yes. Einstein initiated the new paradigm of Quantum Theory, but as a realist, he resisted its idealist implications for years. He also resisted the new paradigm of cosmology that we call the Big Bang, because he believed the universe was revolving in place, hence eternal. However, I think he was open-minded enough that, if he was alive today, he would accept the preponderance of evidence supporting both of those new worldviews.

The Enformationism thesis is my amateur synopsis of another new paradigm : an "information theoretic" worldview. As one writer put it, this is another "Copernican Revolution" in perspective. But, we are still in the early stages of constructing a scientific model around the notion of Information as the fundamental basis of reality. Note that in the links below, it's still posed as a question, not a fact. However, I have adopted the universality & ubiquity of Generic Information as the core of my personal philosophical worldview. :nerd:


Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Copernican Revolution, shift in the field of astronomy from a geocentric understanding of the universe, centred around Earth, to a heliocentric understanding, centred around the Sun, as articulated by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century.

Must admit that I don't yet understand why reifying information has become the standard. Seems strange that the concept of information is so liberally applied to physical structures which are not organized such that they have the capacity to interpret it."It from bit" makes no sense to me except from the perspective of a mathematical modeling that is specific to humanlike minds, but I'll have to check out the books you've recommended and then perhaps I will comprehend better. — Enrique

"It From Bit" is indeed a counter-intuitive concept. But when you assemble the scrambled pieces of the Quantum puzzle, including the "Observer Effect", the whole picture will begin to make sense. The books you referred to will help you to accept the reification of Information. But, if you don't have time to peruse them all, I have reviews of several of them on my blog.

Although Enformationism posits that a First Cause is logically necessary, to light the fuse of the Big Bang, it does not imply any particular religious interpretation. That Creative Enformer remains beyond the reach of empirical science, because it is literally out-of-this-world. However, I am willing to label my worldview as Deistic, and specifically as PanEnDeistic. That's a philosophical position, not a religion. :cool:


It From Bit :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler


The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

FWIW, Our two political parties are not simply polarized Black & White, or Red & Blue. This article illustrates that the "Great Divide" is much more complex. It seems that the actual problem is a shrinking moderate position, for finding common ground. I don't envy the politicians trying to pander to their constituency. :wink:

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Have you considered the psychology of metaphysics with your philosophy? I'd be interested to read your opinion about this topic considering how deeply you get into metaphysics. If you're talking about transcendent intention and purpose, you must have dabbled in some psychology of cosmic proportions! — Enrique

Of course! What I call "Meta-Physics" IS Psychology, among other things. But It refers to how we Conceive of the world, instead merely how we Perceive it. Originally, the psychology of the Mind was limited to abstract Philosophy. Then Behaviorism, in order to avoid Metaphysical implications, focused attention only on the mechanics of Perception and Animation. But that approach left the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness untouched.

From the times of Plato & Aristotle, the study of mental phenomena ("Information") was limited mostly to Philosophers. But, since Claude Shannon applied that Intellectual concept to Mechanical computers, many people have forgotten that the term originally applied only to the mysterious Metaphysical contents of Cartesian Minds.

Now, since Information Theory has expanded our horizons, the boundaries of Psychology have invaded other fields of science. The "psychology of metaphysics" has evolved beyond the scope of Psychology into the realm of Cosmology. Here's a sampler of recent books, written mainly by scientists, who are not Psychologists, Their common denominator is a role for psychological & physical Information in all aspects of Reality :

Incomplete Nature --- Terrence Deacon , Biologist (Aboutness)

Reality Is Not What It Seems --- Carlo Rovelli , Physicist (Illusions)

Information and the Nature of Reality --- Paul Davies, et al , Physicist (From Physics to Metaphysics)

Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight --- David Krakauer, ed , (Complexity)

From Matter to Life --- Paul Davies, et al , Cosmologist , (Information and Causality)

So, if you too want to "dabble" in spooky mental meta-physics, I'm available to show you how "transcendent intention and purpose" can be found in the Metaphysical (Ideal) and the Physical (Real) World. If you know where to look. :smile:

Note -- this thread may not be the appropriate place for such distractions.

Gravity waves traveling at the speed of light have been detected in outer space, so no aether necessary in that case: gravity propagates in a way similar to electromagnetic radiation. — Enrique

Yes. But even Einstein reluctantly (because of spooky "action at a distance" implications) used the term "aether" to describe the plastic properties of bendable space. In his Relativity model though, it was not pictured as a physical substance, but as an imaginary mathematical "field". Which, in my Information vocabulary, is a Meta-Physical concept instead of a Physical object or substance. The whole idea of curving nothingness was counter-intuitive then, and remains so today. Yet, the math is useful for predicting the behavior of Energy (EnFormAction). So scientists accept the model's utility, even though they don't understand its metaphysical implications. :cool:

Aether theories :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space, which can be identified through the mathematical concept of Geodesics. . . . . It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Note -- Physicists use Mathematical Fields as imaginary models to represent invisible relationships between ideal points. Those models are physical only in the sense that they are used by Physicists to describe things that are not material objects : invisible relations (links) between things.

HINT : THE GRID IS IMAGINARY, HENCE META-PHYSICAL

I would assert that all metaphysical reasoning, to the extent that it is intended to be true, does no more than work out the implications of premises which are more or less arbitrarily assumed to be true at the outset, — Enrique

Yes. It's called "Deductive Reasoning". Which was used by ancient philosophers, long before they had compiled enough empirical evidence to satisfy modern scientific requirements. Einstein predicted that light would bend in a gravity field --- based on logical (not empirical) premises --- before the evidence was obtained. That's why I think of him as a Metaphysican instead of a Physicist. :nerd:

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises. ... Inductive reasoning, or induction, is making an inference based on an observation, often of a sample.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction

I suppose pure mathematics is metaphysical in a sense, but I think its ultimate products are more appropriately identified as conceptual. — Enrique

Yes. In my Enformationism thesis, Mathematics is both Conceptual and Metaphysical. But my definition of Meta-Physics is different from the typical dictionary entry. The key distinction that I make is between sensory "Perception" (eye ; neurons), and rational "Conception" (mind ; meaning). The latter is what Daniel Dennett derisively called "the Cartesian Theater"; where the Mind (homunculus) is the meta-physical (conceptual) observer of the Brain's physical perceptions. :joke:

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

CARTESIAN THEATER
Metaphysical fried egg as seen by imaginary Homunculus

I think science supports the assertion that empty space does not exist. . . . . So I'm essentially claiming that fields are physical rather than purely mathematical entities. — Enrique

Yes. But space only exists where there is matter to occupy it, and to provide the curvature we call "Gravity". For example, classical Newtonian physics could not explain how gravity could be "propagated" between bodies, since cause & effect always required some material to transmit the causation. Therefore, the notion of Aether was postulated as a medium for the transmission of forces across the emptiness.

Now though, the general assumption is that vacuum is never completely void : it always has "latent" energy, which is not Actual energy, but merely Potential energy. Yet, that not-quite-real substance is also called a "Quantum Field". But it's still mathematically defined in essentially the same way as Aether. So, for anyone without high-tech instruments, interstellar space appears to human senses as nothingness.

Moreover, the hypothetical field of "zero point energy" can only be measured indirectly, because it is so close to Zero as to be essentially nothing. However, on a cosmic scale there must be enough of it to function as the Cosmic Constant (an unmeasured mathematical concept), which is relied upon to explain the expansion of the universe. So, the hypothetical notions of Aether, Vacuum Energy, and Quantum Fields are useful only for theoretical & mathematical purposes. And that's what I call "meta-physical" :nerd:


What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? :
In quantum field theory we are neglecting gravity. This means we are free to add any constant whatsoever to our definition of energy density. As long as we are free to do this, we can't really say what the vacuum energy density "really is". In other words, if we only consider quantum field theory and not general relativity, the vacuum energy density is NOT DETERMINED.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

Perhaps you can clarify: what is the substance of reasoning/inference, how is it fundamentally abstract, and when intention is given causal precedence in your philosophy, . . . — Enrique

In my thesis, the "substance" of Reasoning is EnFormAction. That's not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical thesis, based on post-Shannon Information Theory. Shannon's "Information" was all-or-nothing (1 or 0), while mine is all-of-the-above (0 . . . 100%). It's both Matter & Mind. So, for me, Generic Information is the Aristotelian "Substance" (essence) of everything in our world.

"Intention" is an inherently teleological (purposeful ; goal oriented) direction. And the universe is obviously moving not in just one direction, but in all directions. So, the power behind the expansion is literally Omnidirectional. But, since the ultimate goal of cosmic evolution is not apparent to us, most, but not all, scientists simply assume that there must be no purpose to it. Hence, the implication is that randomness rules. How then to explain the orderly patterns that science is built upon, and which are epitomized in the human Mind?

However, a few pioneering scientists have inferred some kind of Intention, in order to explain the "array of puzzling scientific “coincidences”, such as the unique “initial conditions” and “fine-tuned constants” that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures". That conclusion is typically known as "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". So, there are plenty of philosophical reasons to agree with Aristotle, that an intentional First Cause was logically necessary to get what-we-now-call-evolution started. Evolution may be randomized (shuffled cards), yet the order of the suits (species) is NOT accidental, but due to "Causal Precedence". :joke:

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

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Intention :
an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. · the end or object intended; purpose.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intention

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

INTENTION AIMS AT A TARGET

Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners. — baker

This thread seems to be arguing about different meanings of the label "Buddhism", as-if it is a homogenized belief & practice system. But, in fact, Buddhism is just as fragmented as Christianity, in terms of both creeds and rituals. The most basic division is between Theravada (orthodox) and Mahayana (heterodox). Then there is the range from Tibetan (traditional superstitions) to Zen (no doctrine, just doing). Some of these Buddhisms are somewhat "realistic", while others are more idealistic, and a few are just Wacko. So, for simplicity and accuracy, I think we need to stipulate whether we are talking about the various popular religions, or about the core philosophical (highbrow) worldview. In my opinion, it would be more profitable to discuss the latter on a Philosophical Forum. Perhaps Wayfarer could give us a synopsis to agree on. :smile:

Mahayana vs. Theravada :
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Mahayana_vs_Theravada

It is difficult for me to conceive of substantive causality as immaterial or lacking in matter (I'm more of a hylomorphism than ideal Forms guy), but posters at this forum seem to promote the idea that potential, some sort of latency, actually exists in a sense. This has led me to ponder what a physical field actually is and how it differs from the alleged informational substrate so popular with philosophers. — Enrique

Part of the difficulty in conceiving of Causality is that we only observe it indirectly in its effects on Matter. Therefore, we typically discuss the Form (Potential) half of hylomophism in terms of the part we know via our physical senses (Actual). Even our metaphysical metaphors are borrowed from examples of the sensory stuff. That's because we only know invisible Forms (abstract pattern ; intentional design) by rational inference & intuitive imagination. But of course, unlike empirical Scientists, theoretical Philosophers have no technological sensory extensions, hence are limited to the use of their old-fashioned rational tools for investigation of metaphysical topics, like Being, Qualia, and Logic. Those immaterial ideas are off-limits to empirical study.

Nevertheless, an old outdated Philosopher analyzed the general notion of Causality into four parts : 1> Formal (Potential or Conceptual) ; 2. Efficient (Energy ; Agency) ; 3> Material (Matter) ; and 4> Final (Purpose). The first & fourth causes are knowable only by philosophical reasoning, while the second & third are subject to empirical Scientific methods. Most modern philosophers have been taught to defer to scientists for knowledge of Reality. But they may forget that the philosophical tool of Reason is what ultimately makes sense of our physical sensations. Since primary (1) Causes are always potential, we can only infer them by rational inference from measurable changes in the stuff our senses are tuned to (2 & 3). Ironically. by following the methods of Empiricism, Philosophers may miss the implications of (4) intentional Purposes (i.e. reasons). Bumbling Nature is assumed to have no purposes, so any knowable & directional patterns must be accidental. And even reliable Energy is not viewed as purposeful Agency. That no-nonsense approach is good for Pragmatic Science, but it makes Theoretical Philosophy impotent to learn anything that is not obvious to the physical senses.

Such aspects of Reality as Existence (Being) and Qualia (Concepts) are often taken for granted, and not subjected to the penetrating gaze of Rational Inference (induction from specific examples to a general conclusion). Specific things are physical & empirical. but general theories are metaphysical & hypothetical. Most of Einstein's contributions to science (Relativity) fall into the latter category, because the concept came before the confirming evidence. Likewise, philosophical scientists postulate "physical fields" to explain puzzling observations, such as the wave/particle nature of light. The answer given below, to your question of what a Field "actually is", provides contradictory or paradoxical examples : "indivisible particles" ; "invisible forces", and "empty space". But even those antithetical notions make sense in terms of post-Shannon Information Theory. Yet, Potential does not exist "actually", but only as the "latency" that Plato called Ideal Forms : the source of all Real things in the world. Hence, Potential is not "Substantive" but Abstract. And Fields are Mathematical (Rational), not Material (Physical). :nerd:

Hylomorphism : every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
Note -- Ironically, Aristotle's "primary matter" is equivalent to Plato's "Form" ("Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own") . and his "form" is the substantial stuff we know as "Matter". Confusing, no?

Metaphysical :
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What are Quantum Fields made of? :
Instead of continuous, solid objects, matter is composed of indivisible quantum particles, held together through invisible forces that act across empty space.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/17/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real/?sh=1d77f1ef777a

What is "alleged" Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Abstract : 1.existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
Latent : (of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed.

(By the way, a poster at this site informed me that "EMF" stands for electromotive force, not EM field. I was appreciative he pointed that out to me, so I'll relay it to you.) — Enrique

Yes, but I defined my abbreviation in the same post : EMF = ElectroMagnetic Field, as a parallel to CEMI.

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. — Enrique

CEMI seems to be an adjunct to IIT (Integrated Information Theory). And it's similar in some ways to my own informal theory of Consciousness. Whereas, CEMI uses the metaphor of a physical electromagnetic field (EMF), I call it a metaphysical "Information Field". That's because, in my philosophical model, Information (EnFormAction ; causation) is prior-to physical reality. It's more like Energy in the sense of immeasurable (Potential) causation, than Matter as measurable stuff. Note : Energy is only measurable in its material effects, after the causal event.

A somewhat more concrete metaphor is to compare an "Information Field" to a Quantum Field. Unlike an EMF, a QF is composed of Virtual Particles (continuous mathematical waves) that have the Potential to become Actual bits of measurable matter (photons). The "perturbation" that triggers the phase transition from Potential to Actual is the completion of an Information "feedback loop". That works like completing an electrical circuit from battery to machine and back again to the Source. As I mentioned, this is a meta-physical philosophical hypothesis instead of a physical scientific theory. But, even the various scientific theories must eventually deal with the mysterious Mental aspects of Consciousness & Information. :nerd:

What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? If so, what? — TiredThinker

Yes. Human nature is both Natural and Cultural. That's the basis of my personal BothAnd philosophy. It's a holistic view of Causation. That's because, ultimately, the First Cause is Singular. :smile:

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

Buddhism is just realism.

The author claims that Buddhism's four noble truths and eightfold path lead to a life in accordance with nature. In a manner, a person is more in correspondence with the laws of causality in nature with the natural dispositions of human nature in mind. — Shawn

Another book compares Buddhism with pragmatic Stoicism. In my review of Brian Morris' Buddhist Metaphysics, I noted that, "Although mainstream Buddhism is a “form of mystical idealism”, the author says that it’s actually “a heady mixture of four quite distinct and contrasting metaphysical systems” : Common-sense Realism ; Theistic Spirituality ; Phenomenalism ; and Mystical Idealism." Later, he said, “Enlightenment as awareness suggests a common-sense realism”.[my emphasis] So, take your pick. Buddhism can be treated as romantic mysticism or as practical self-help advice. :smile:

Buddhist Metaphysics :
Atheistic Spirituality?
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page21.html

The theory that makes most sense to me - not my theory - is that in a many-party system, the least successful parties tend to evaporate, their voters migrating to one or more of the more successful parties. — tim wood

I'm currently reading a novel that describes British politics prior to WWII. And it illustrates the internal divisions of the Left wing --- between A> Traditional Middle-class Liberals, B> the lower-class Labour Party, and C> the upstart Communist Party. Their dithering & quibbling allowed the Conservative upper-class Royalist Party (Lords) to ignore ominous German & Russian aggression. Eventually, allowing Britain to be sucked into the hostilities after it was almost too late to stop the partitioning of Europe between Fascist & Communist governments. It took a holocaust, and near annihilation of Britain, for them to put aside their partisanship, and jump into the middle of the fray, in defense of Home & Hearth, both Hovel and Castle. :meh:

PS__The modest "virtue" of weak multi-party rule, compared with strong dictatorships, is that most official policies are watered-down from my-way-or-the-highway extremism to namby-pamby moderation. Thereby maintaining a dynamic state of peace & stability. But for those who feel their backs are against the wall, moderation is capitulation. Before the rise of Democracy there was only one party : one-man-rule. That kept things simple, but change (progress for some) could only be achieved by violent overthrow (win-lose), as in the Game of Thrones. The "successful party" was the one that could impose its will on the others (e.g. the one with the most dragons). The modern alternative is to allow all parties to win a little here & there. A win-win political strategy. :blush:

I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. — ssu

Yes. I was using the notion of "Religion" loosely, to refer to the communal sense of us-versus-them, not to any particular god-model. For example, Hitler was not literally worshipped as a god, but he was exalted as "der Fuhrer", leader of the Aryan "Folk" (chosen people). In a similar manner, the dictator of North Korea is addressed, not as a functionary Prime Minister, but as "dear leader" or "father of the people", reflecting the pre-communism Emperor worship. :smile:

PS__This thread reminded me of another parallel between Political and Religious societies. Both require some means of maintaining loyalty to the sovereignty of the realm. In modern literate establishments, that central authority is typically a written Constitution or Bible. In a constitutional political system, Police are required to regulate ethical behavior. And a biblical social system must have priests to interpret the laws and to regulate moral behavior.

In both cases, a systemic bias toward either common Law or individual Freedom can affect the justice & fairness of the organization. Secret police and Inquisition courts are inherently inclined toward defense of the ruling regime. But "defunded police" and lax courts tend toward anarchy and system collapse. Hence, the ongoing struggle between too-much and not-enough integrity of the Body Politic. In over-simplified terms, we call it Conservative versus Liberal politics. :cool:

No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, — TheMadFool

In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Raymond Tallis explores the notion he calls "post-tensed time". He's referring to our ability to address Possible time, which goes beyond the here & now. He says, "Beasts, unlike humans, live ahistorically, without a sense of extended time". But then he notes, "there is a consensus among physicists, and philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists, that while tenseless time is real, tensed time is not". By that he means that only "now" is real, so past & future are merely Potential & Historical.

He later says, "if however, we accept that there are things in the world that lie outside of what can be accommodated in physical science --- most obviously those things that are imported into the world by conscious beings". And I place those things-that-are-not-real (i.e. Ideal) under the philosophical category of Meta-Physics. Ironically, for a philosophy forum, I often get expressions of incomprehension when I apply the label "metaphysics" to Potentials and Possibilities. Apparently, that's what Tallis was referring to as "philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists" I call it simply philosophical "Physics Envy" : if it ain't physical (here & now) it ain't worth talking about.

Tallis goes on to say, "Calendars and the like are a formalization . . . of tensed time, so they depend on modes of temporality not found objectively in nature". He also says of Einstein, probably referring to the notion of Block Time, saying "While he accepted that past, present and future must be counted by physicists as illusions, . . . . he expressed regret that 'now', and consequently the difference between past and future, could not be grasped by physics". Moreover, such conceptual non-things cannot be grasped by philosophers whose skepticism is biased by Physics Envy. To them, such meta-physical modes of being are im-possible. :joke:

I was wondering whether the trade-off is worth it or even if it's "possible" to simply cease and desist investigating the world of possibilities. — TheMadFool

Most animals probably don't have a problem with possibilities. Generally, they just accept the world as it is. But hungry predators have to look ahead of here & now, in order to explore the possibilities around the next bend. And humans are basically weak predators, who have to rely on mental powers more than physical tools. So, they extend their grasp & vision with artificial senses, as far as they go. But, they don't stop there, because they have one sense that is ultimately more powerful than fangs & claws : Reasoning Ability. That's the power to go-beyond the Physical-what-is into the Meta-physical-what-might-be.

Therefore, human Reason is a tool or weapon that allows us to project our minds into the imaginary world of Possibility, Potential, and Probability. And exploration of that invisible statistical realm is what we call Philosophy, Science, and Religion. Unfortunately, there are risks in that immaterial sphere too. Primarily, the chance of treating fake falsehoods as actual factual. What appears to our mind's eye as solid ground might be a pit-fall. Which is why rational predatory humans have developed the shield of Skepticism, to protect them from becoming some other probing predator's prey.

However, if we cease & desist from exploring Possibilities, we run the risk of knowledge starvation. Apparently, those who post on this forum know what it's like for their mental ribs to stick-out. So, we stick our predatory necks out into meta-physical (not yet real) possibilities, even as our skeptical senses are alert for an ambush. But some of us have been so traumatized from being entrapped by attractive "truths" that turned out to be faith-bait, that we fear to venture into the unknown territory of beyond-physical-reality. Such careful Cynicism is understandable, but could be detrimental to our philosophical nourishment. :gasp:

PS__ Sorry, I got carried away with a Meta-physical Metaphor. :joke:

ALLURING LIES :

The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system. — ssu

I suspect that normally apolitical people become radically politicized when something they hold dear is threatened. That's when ordinary politics becomes religionized --- that is, sacred enough to kill for.. But Left and Right hold different things sacred. So a democratic society must somehow bow to all gods, and honor all belief systems, and avoid dishonoring any particular sacred cow.

Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult in a multi-cultural society. Classical Rome achieved that balance by equal treatment of all religions, except for the unifying official Roman religion of Emperor divinity. But, that balance was upset when Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Because monotheism is typically intolerant of "Other" gods. And that political imbalance led to the "fall of Rome".

In our day, even non-theistic religions like Fascism & Communism have become the "other gods" in some cases. That's because they demand the same kind of loyalty to nation or party, that used to be reserved for the gods of chosen people. Just as patriotic young men have always taken-up weapons in defense of home, or tribe, or city, or fatherland, they now replace democratic tolerance with death-dealing arguments ; "bow the knee or die". So, somehow, we must find a way to get back to pragmatic mundane politics, and away from all-or nothing idealistic partisanship. Perhaps a new national non-religion that accepts all gods and sacred cows. :cool:

PS__That's not a new idea. It was tried in post-revolution France : the Cult of the Supreme Being. It was a philosophical rational religion that only appealed to a minority of the populace. Apparently, human nature is not yet ready for a philosophical rational political system like Democracy.

Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US? — Inplainsight

I suppose it's mostly tradition, derived from the British Parliament within a monarchy, where the debating room had only two opposing sides : Left and Right. Later democracies probably learned that a two-party system forces moderates to choose a side : one extreme or the other -- the lesser of two evils. But, multi-party systems face the same problem, finding an acceptable middle ground within a diversity of opinion. Fortunately, as long as the extremists are roughly equal in power, most contests will result in an approximation of the moderate position. Unfortunately, all too often, one extreme is more ruthless (don't play fair) than the other : e.g. the extreme patriotism of Hitler's National Socialism and Trump's America First ; or the impractical (extreme idealism) ideology of Communism.. :cool:

-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?"
Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc. — Nickolasgaspar

I distinguish between physical properties (measurable) and ontological essence (rational). Integrated Information Theory is an attempt to measure mental qualities in terms of Phi. But Phi only measures the degree of integration of a system (an analogue of wholeness), but not Mind or Consciousness directly. And, just as a physical circuit is necessary to convert Voltage into Amperage, information feedback loops are essential to Minds. Some IIT advocates have proposed a Consciousness Meter, but implementing that idea is beyond current capabilities. It's not as easy to measure a subjective quality, as an objective property.

Digestion is comparable to Thinking only in the sense that both refer to holistic system functions instead of particular physical parts. However, Digestion produces measurable physical effects, while Thinking produces invisible images in the Cartesian Theater we call a Mind. Like all metaphors, the CT is not real, but ideal ; not physical, but meta-physical. If mental images & thoughts were physical, we wouldn't need metaphors to communicate them.

-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions. . . . The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Mapping physical causal paths, may give you a picture of How, but not the Why of the final output. The complexity & chaos (randomness) of brain systems tend to blur the map near the fringes "where be dragons". Ideas in a Mind are teleological in the sense that they point toward something that is not an actual thing, not present, not yet real. Terrence Deacon calls that meta-physical function “aboutness”.

-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic — Nickolasgaspar

That is indeed the model that most Consciousness researches are working with. But "empirical limitations" and logical loops tend to frustrate their attempts to force Minds to fit the model. Somehow, Mind is able to by-pass physical limitations (e.g. Lucid Dreaming), but not Logic in the universal sense. Contrary to the old wive's tale, if my flying dream-self crashes, I won't wake up dead. (I've tried it) You might say that Mind-Logic “transcends” Physical-Logic. Which also touches on the question of subjective FreeWill versus objective Determinism.

That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything. — Nickolasgaspar

True. But irrelevant to the philosophical problem of Meta-Physics. And I have answered that question in my personal worldview of Enformationism. The “problem” derives from an outdated Dualistic concept of Matter & Mind. But the emerging concept of Information is Monistic, in that the single power-to-enform comes in two forms : Physical (Matter) and Meta-Physical (Mind). I won't go into how I arrived at that conclusion in this post, but it's laid-out in my website. Information is a shape-shifter, which can transform from Energy into Matter into Mind. That may sound like non-sense in a Physicalist belief system, but not from a Fundamental-Information perspective. This recent book presents a physicist's “Information Theoretic Ontology” :
Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? . . . .. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, — Nickolasgaspar

It's easy to say that Imagination is just the output of a mechanical process. But not so easy to prove it. No machine we have constructed, including super-computers, has imagined anything like E=MC^2. Even their poetry is derivative and imitative. That's because a Whole is defined as more-than the sum of its parts. So the question remains, what is that "more than", the quality of wholeness, integrity, identity, unity? It's the difference between Data and Meaning.

So, Imagination is more-than just chemicals or neurons. Instead, it's the function of a whole System. Function is teleological and purposeful. It has the quality of Aboutness.
Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.

-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But even sober scientists can't resist speculating beyond established knowledge. As in Multiverse theories, the best they can do is to extend established knowledge into the future, beyond the scope of empirical confirmation. And it's well established that projecting the current state into the future soon "snaps" the logical chain by turning it into randomized mush.

-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. — Nickolasgaspar

Rejection of Theology is why Post-Enlightenment Era scientists abandoned all attempts to gain useful knowledge via meta-physical means. But, 21st century science has become more & more meta-physical as the old models of reality crumble under the gravity of Quantum weirdness, and the BB beginning of reality put a space-time limit on Nature. Even our units of Quanta are now more mathematical than physical : Fields instead of Atoms ; Virtual instead of Real particles.

Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? — Nickolasgaspar

Since the fundamental bits of Matter (atoms) were ground into the mathematical mush of Wave Functions. The original basis of Atomism was philosophical instead of empirical. And the foundations of modern physics are beginning to sound more philosophical than empirical. Scientists still use concrete metaphors to illustrate quantum abstractions. And their assumptions about Nature remain under the influence of common-sense Materialism.
“Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.”

demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", — Nickolasgaspar

Would you prefer to call our modern epistemology “Physicalism” or “Naturalism”? Materialism is not demonic, it's just outdated in an era of Relativity and Quantum Theory (which only appears quantized after continuous Waves “decompose” into Particles). Nature has become less mechanical & methodical and more spontaneous & statistical in this post-classical era. The post-enlightenment Mechanical “framework” is gradually giving way to a more Organic model. So, I don't “demonize” the older frameworks. Instead, I just categorize some of them as “misplaced Materialism”, which is similar to “misplaced Concreteness” (reification of abstractions).

Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons. — Nickolasgaspar

My point about a distinction between Empirical Science and Theoretical Science is that the cutting edge of science today (e.g. String Theory) is completely theoretical (mathematical), and not subject to being “verified empirically”. Hence, it is indistinguishable from feckless philosophy.

-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar

I suggest that we update our mental models of Nature and Reality to include their Non-Physical aspects. And post-Shannon Information Theory is one way to do that.

I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

The old Atomic & Materialistic models left no place for sub-atomic (quarks) and statistical aspects of Reality. Until recently, empirical Science dealt only with here & now Actuality. But, now they are forced to use statistical methods to model Reality. Potential, like Probability & Possibility, refers to that which is not here & now. Instead of empirical observations, they must use gambling odds. The once-firm foundations of Reality were imagined as Absolute & Actual, but now they are viewed as Relative & Potential. Fortunately, post-Shannon Information Theory can deal with both sides of the Natural coin.

Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Qualia are not quantifiable. And Statistical is only Potentially Real. So, I use “potential” according to Aristotle's usage : “a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential [statistical probability] does exist.” [my bracket] So, Potential existence is equivalent to Plato's Ideal Forms. The “properties” of real things (e.g. red of an apple) exist only in the minds of observers. And I call that Mind-stuff “meta-physical” instead of “physical”. :nerd:

PS__Obviously, I have a philosophical axe-to-grind. But, since it's based on a new paradigm and somewhat counter-intuitive (like Quantum Theory and Block Time) it can't be summarized in one post.

What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

PPS__ I have enjoyed the mental exercise (despite the meta-physical sweat) of responding to your stimulating questions. :smile:

-Correct The first word refers to claims that are beyond our current knowledge and the second refers to claims that are Above nature. — Nickolasgaspar

That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information. But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith.

Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates.

-Well that is not metaphysics for Neuroscience. The Mind is what the brain produces. — Nickolasgaspar

Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind? Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness : Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly. But how can matter imagine anything?

-Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses. — Nickolasgaspar

All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later.

PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology. But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions. The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????

The philosophical endeavor that tries to understand and glue new data, old epistemology or philosophy with new philosophical frameworks through reasoning is labeled Metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning. Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.

-I don't find such ideas useful because we humans have shown that we are really bad in our ontology. Great examples are Alchemists wasting resources for ages to chemically produce valuable metals, — Nickolasgaspar

The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function.

-It isn't a metaphysical notion from the moment it is observed and can be quantified in everyday phenomena. Stored energy is the potential to produce work...so its nothing metaphysical about it. i.e. As a cyclist I understand the potential energy I gather when climbing a hill. — Nickolasgaspar

In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage. :smile:

I don't think there is any way to find agreement between our two positions. — T Clark

So, there's no such thing as Meta-Physical? Hence no need for philosophical terms like Qualia and Quanta? If so, why do we keep trying to split Nature into two different philosophical categories? Are philosophers just frustrated scientists, trying to make their wordy theories seem applicable to the real world? Why then is Dualism so attractive to most non-philosophers? :cool:

PS__my worldview is ultimately Monistic, not Dualistic. If we could agree on that Unity, all disagreements would disappear.

PPS__ I apologize for not just going away quietly, but I think this topic is essential. Plus, I really get into this unreal stuff. :joke:

No it doesn't mean "outside physics".
That would be the term "υπερφυσικός" or supernatural (beyond nature). — Nickolasgaspar

On this forum, I've been struggling to separate "Metaphysics" from its "Supernatural" heritage in Western Religion. That's why I have suggested going back beyond (meta-) Christian Theology to see what non-religious Aristotle was actually talking about. As you noted, it certainly wasn't about anything supernatural or spooky, but about making a philosophical distinction between Qualia & Quanta, between Potential & Actual, and betwixt Cause & Effect. Unfortunately, to this day we still portray Mind metaphorically as a Brain, which leads some to think that only Matter matters for thinking.

His metaphysical category could be interpreted as "more comprehensive" or even "transcendent", in the sense that he thought of Philosophy as going "beyond" the Space-Time & Thermodynamic boundary of Physics into the realm of Mind & Ideas, that are only limited by Logical laws. Thus, adding Philosophical science to Physical science. Aristotle even tried to fit Plato's ideal Forms into physical Shapes, by insisting that Forms do not exist independently of Things.

And that is equivalent to the notion -- common among Information scientists -- that what we now call "Information", is physical, in the sense of embodied ideas. But, in my holistic view, Information is both Physical (effect) and Meta-Physical (cause). That's a delicate distinction, but it could clear-up millennia of misunderstanding in Philosophy and Science. :nerd:

Meta- :
Original Greek meaning — Meta (from the Greek μετά, meta, meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix meaning "more comprehensive" or "transcending."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

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. .
Note -- even physical science finds the meta-physical notion of not-yet-real Potential to be useful in the Real world. For example, the Voltage of a battery is nothing-but Static Potential, until it is actualized into Active Amperage. We can't see or touch meta-physical Potential with our senses, but we can imagine it with our minds.

MIND and/or MATTER?
EITHER / OR divisive (reductive)
BOTH - AND comprehensive (holistic)

I'm not frustrated, I just think your understanding and use of the word "metaphysics" is too different from mine for us to have a fruitful discussion now. — T Clark

Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.

That's why I suggested that we switch to some alternative words, such as "non-physical". Does a distinction between Physical and Non-physical compute in your Reality? Or do you lump Qualities and Properties together under the heading of Physical? Are such notions Natural or Supernatural (or Artificial) ; are they Real or Ideal, or what? What synonyms of Metaphysical would you prefer? :smile:

PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above