Comments
-
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
“Those of us who want to believe that human beings have free will must find sufficient evidence that our minds are something more than can ever be attributed to physical causes.”Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof
___Peter Carter, The Single Simple Question
Carter makes it clear that, although he has rationally concluded that causal determinism prohibits human freedom, emotionally he cannot accept that his beautiful world is inherently meaningless, that his loved ones are automatons, or that life itself is a farce. So, he holds out hope that his calculations are wrong.
This pathetic hope-against-all-hope is one of the "absurd human passions" that Hume referred to as inappropriate for a perfect deity. Carter must be aware that neither the world, nor its reasoning creatures, are perfect. Yet, his working definition of "FreeWill" seems to require a perfect & omniscient being. Hence, his project -- of proving that Determinism is not absolute -- is bound to fail. However, if he could accept a less-than-perfect definition of freedom, his desire for a world in which Reason is not ridiculous might prove to be reasonable. :smile:
Freedom within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.”
___Yehya
BothAnd Blog, post 48 -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
Boy! Your Nihilist & Determinist attitude has really made you sour and cynical. :naughty:Yeah, these litany of shallow definitions you lean so heavily upon in your posts are just lazy crutches crippling your intellectual credibility. :eyes: — 180 Proof
However, if your philosophical worldview is actually Absurdist or Existentialist -- as defined below -- then there may be some hope for you yet. Keep your narrow mind open, at least a crack. :smile:
Absurdism vs Nihilism :
Nihilists, specifically passive nihilists, believe that there's no intrinsic meaning in life and “it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found”. ... Absurdists, on the other hand, hesitantly allow the possibility for some meaning or value in life.
https://thinkingdeeply.medium.com/absurdism-vs-nihilism-explanations-and-differences-of-both-philosophies-cf571efe75e9
Determinism vs Existentialism :
In short, determinism stands against the notion of human responsibility and accountability, arguing instead that human beings do not will their own choices. On the contrary, existentialists suggest that accountability is essential to basic human functioning.
https://www.yoair.com/blog/which-side-of-philosophy-do-you-reside-on-determinism-vs-existentialism/
Note -- accountability requires some freedom of choice -
Look to yourself
My reference was not to the Greek alphabet, but to the evolutionary theory of paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Other scientists, such as Frank Tipler, have used the same name for the notion of upward progression of evolution toward some final resolution. I haven't made any detailed study of the process, so my use of the "Omega Point" is pure conjecture.Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. — universeness
However, the Inflationary instant at the beginning of the universe is also a hypothetical conjecture with no empirical evidence. Hence, the question mark. If the universe is just one phase of an eternal cosmic cycle, then the Omega Point would be the end of one rotation, and the beginning of another. But, if our universe is one-and-done, then the final state is either extinguishment, or the birth of a gestating deity -- some call it the "Cosmic Christ" -- as deChardin surmised. I don't claim to know which is correct, but I have made my guess. In any case, if evolution is indeed progressive, it should also be in the process of creating something new & different & better, in some sense. :cool:
The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
Respectfully : "To each his own". :wink:Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof
An old physically-grounded joke says that "Opinons are like *ssholes . . . everybody has one, and they stink". :joke:
Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.
-
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
As an amateur philosopher, I don't concern myself with reductive physical particles, but with the holistic meta-physical -- or "sub-physical" if you prefer Sean Carroll's sub-quantum category -- synergy that entangles grains of sand into solid concrete. Concrete has an inter-active matrix that binds weak loose parts into strong cohesive wholes.We’ll have to pick at some of the clues to see what might come out of them although not seeing anything about free will or not at the outset. . . . . Big Bang Cosmology indicates that many particles may be entangled with some others, having have been all together at the start although probably not everything is entangled with everything. — PoeticUniverse
The whole point of Holism is that multiple particles are entangled into a unitary system that has properties above & beyond those of its elements. So, if you are looking at the clues in isolation, you'll never see any emergent phenomena, such as Life or Mind or Free Will. I suspect his allegiance to reductive methods may have blinded Peter Carter to the very evidence he was seeking. :smile:
PS___In detective movies, the gumshoe follows the clues, and tells the DA, "I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it". Observation finds the clues, but intuition binds them into a verdict.
Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
MOTTO OF HOLISM
-
Look to yourself
For what it's worth, here's my own cosmic calendar. It shows an optimistic upward progression, despite all the physical entropy and political digressions. I attribute the upward evolution to the counter-entropy force of Enformy. Scientists call it "negentropy", but I prefer the more positive sounding term. :smile:The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar. — universeness
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BothAnd Blog -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
Yes. But ironically, some posters on this forum prefer to give "priority" to the reductive specific laws of Physics, and to diminish the importance of holistic general principles of Meta-Physics. In their view, nothing transcends the absolute laws of Lordly Nature, as revealed by the prophets of Physics. But, Einstein stuck a pin in the Classical Science bubble, by revealing that the world is Relative and Random. It's only "natural" selection that gives evolution a positive direction, by enforcing certain standards of fitness for progress.When we give metaphysical priority to our lived experience, that we think, act, and live as if we have free will, and recognize that this is clear evidence of the reality of something which transcends the laws of nature, we develop a completely different perspective of the laws of nature, and the reality of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
Unfortunately, as humanity gains more independence -- via cultural selection -- over the nature gods, our feeling of freedom from Fatalism makes some of us cocky. As-if we can ignore or manipulate universal natural laws with our little local levers of technology. That hubristic arrogation of power is what gets the willful & prideful in over their heads. Yet, a more modest attitude may allow us to get some of what we want, without running roughshod over everybody else. That doesn't give us transcendence over nature, but does permit humans to collaborate with Nature. :smile: -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
Yes. I suspect that the feeling of Free Will is easier to justify in the modern era of Democracy and Technology, than it was back when the average human seemed to be a pawn at the mercy of the powerful-&-willful men & gods & natural forces. My own half & half category is a sort of compromise between religious Positivism and scientific Negativism on the topic. Like most things in the imperfect real world, Freedom is relative. :smile:Free will may need to be unpacked into two categories: — Agent Smith -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
I may not have made it clear in the post above, that the author of the book wanted to prove that FreeWill is believable, but after all his reasoning, concluded that humans are slaves to Determinism.I too was indoctrinated with the "Free Will Theodicy" — 180 Proof
As a young adult, I went through a similar self-analysis of my own "theodicy", and came to basically the same conclusion. But, in my later years, the Enformationism worldview (science-based but information-centric), led me to look at the "facts" from a different perspective. So, my current "theodicy" is a BothAnd complementary compromise between Fatalism and Optimism. I think humanity has just enough freedom & force to nudge the flood of evolution into a rivulet on a course that is more suitable for human purposes. That new direction probably won't take us to heaven, but it may make the journey more enjoyable and purposeful. :smile: -
Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
I just can't leave the ghost of Free Will in peace. Since this is one of the most polarized topics on the forum, I find it one of the most interesting as a philosophical exercise.Since the Metaphysics, Yet Again thread has faded into the usual counter-accusations of "woo" and "non-sense", I thought I'd resurrect the ghost of Christmas past, by opening the Pandora's Box of "FreeWill", and related philosophical conundra. — Gnomon
In one of the posts above, I mentioned the book that I was currently reading : The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions. I eventually finished reading the book. Then I started a BothAnd Blog post to review it from my personal perspective, which seems similar to the author's. His father was a preacher, and the son of a preacherman. He doesn't specify the particular brand of Christianity he was indoctrinated in. But it probably was not very different from my own. And, like me, he bears no animosity to those who were not dissuaded by doubts.
Raised as a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist Christian, I took moral freedom for granted. But later I began to ask myself some of the same questions Carter dealt with in the book. Contrary to the title, his layman's philosophical investigation was not limited to a single question. But the central issue for him was Freedom versus Determinism. The cover says : "Connecting the Conundrums of God and Immortality, Free Will, the Strange Reality of Quantum Physics, and Finding Purpose in Existence." So, I merely followed his trail of breadcrumbs through the maze of Metaphysics and Physics.
The book review originally had the same name as this thread : FreeWill and other Popular Delusions. But I decided to add "Unscripted" to qualify FreeWill, in view of my takeaway from the project.The review is only three pages, but the end notes and afterthoughts go on for several more pages. If that's too much to read, you can just look at the pictures. :smile:
PS___ Anyone who is sincerely interested in this topic can message me for a link to the book review.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/messages/inbox/gnomon
https://www.amazon.com/Single-Simple-Question-Challenges-Convictions/dp/1695354788
-
Immaterialism
Sometimes it seems like finding a needle in a stack of needles. :joke:Your Award for finding the needle in the haystack: — PoeticUniverse
I clicked on the Austin Torney award, but it just sits there and slowly cycles, from beginning, to between, and back to the origin. Am I supposed to just stare at it, and meditate while mumbling a mantra, and sipping 'shroom soup? :cool: -
Immaterialism
Yes! And in my information-centric thesis, that "fire" is the universal force that I label as Potential EnFormAction, which works as active Energy, and rests as mundane Matter. :smile:HERE BE DRAGONS — Gnomon
And they breathe fire into the equations. — PoeticUniverse -
Look to yourself
Bravo! That sounds much more optimistic than the OP. I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals. :smile:BUT WE WILL! — universeness -
Look to yourself
That "suggestion" was not my personal opinion, but a reflection of the historical & current political polarization between "socialist" Liberals and "capitalist" Conservatives. Throughout history, those on the top echelons of society (owners of capital) were typically status-quo Conservatives. The Moderate mid-levels of society were content to just hang-on to their not-so-bad positions. And the huddled masses, were either passively accepting of their lot in life, or frustrated by the lead-ceilings as they tried to climb-up to the next rung in society.I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. — universeness
For millennia, upward social mobility was mostly a pipe dream, until the Socialism & Communism & Unionism movements reacted vigorously to the inhumane conditions of smoke-stack industrialism. As long as the masses remained compliant and quiescent though, there was no political polarization. But when poverty & racism & sexism became in-your-face issues, and the divide between Haves & Have-nots became un-ignorable. Only then did the top dogs began to have their noses pushed into their own sh*t.
Traditionally, Monarchic politics was a concern of only the rich & powerful. But, when Democratic ideals began to question the morality of ancestral aristocracy, a newly-revealed chasm between top & bottom of society soon became entrenched into routine Democratic politics. Unfortunately, the hierarchical gap between rich & poor remains to this day, as a running sore in all societies. Hence, the ancient Left vs Right division between noble peers, has evolved into a Top vs Bottom polarization of minority & majority classes. Yet, political mud-slinging still labels social Liberals as commie Leftists, and economic Conservatives as fascist Right-wingers. That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom. :cool: -
Look to yourself
Of course, it should. But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. For example, government-funded schools are now political battlegrounds over the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", among other academic concerns. One side seems to view it as an ethical issue regarding fair treatment of "minority" citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition treats it as a political propaganda attack on the besieged colorless race. (note -- I know nothing about the CR theory other than the label)I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. — Gnomon
Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. — universeness
Up to about a century ago, secular public schools were primarily mandated to produce ethically-good citizens. But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile: -
Look to yourself
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement? — universeness
___Karl Marx
Back to your original post --- who's responsible for the evil in the world? : A> God ; B> Politicians ; C> Philosophers ; d> You?
Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum. :cool:
-
Immaterialism
That's interesting! Sean Carroll's Effective Field Theory postulates a level of reality underlying the old Quantum Field Theory. 19th century Materialism was an update of ancient Atomism. But that was soon superseded by sub-atomic somethings (particles), then by sub-particle Quarks, as the foundation of reality. Now the sub-basement of reality is an even less substantial "approximation" of a Theory of Everything.The Quantum Field Theory on Which the Everyday World Supervenes:
Sean Carroll on QFT: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf — PoeticUniverse
Maybe I could sneak my own Enformationism theory into that vague virtual class of un-excited Nothingness that is "more fundamental" than an empty place of Potential particles. I used to label that Ideality as "Meta-Physics", but now I can call it "Sub-Physics" : the "underlying reality" that sub-venes the material Macro & mathematical QFT levels. :nerd:
Quantum field theory :
QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Effective field theory :
In physics, an effective field theory is a type of approximation, or effective theory, for an underlying physical theory,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_field_theory
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HERE BE DRAGONS
Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
"Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,"
-
Look to yourself
Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. :gasp:I will always feel guilty that I could have done more. Do we all deserve such a self-judgment? Is it possible to be too harsh on ourselves on this issue? I don't feel I am being too harsh, it feels correct. — universeness -
Look to yourself
Yes, the "don't" was an unfortunate typo that reversed the intended meaning. I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. And History is too eclectic & inclusive to apply direct force to specific individuals. Nevertheless, non-philosophers typically prefer simple broad principles, like the Golden Rule. Still, such general precepts must be interpreted for specific situations.But very few humans (academic philosophers aside)don'tthink that way
I assume you didn't intend the word 'don't' here. Why is this sentence true?
Lack of education? Due to the deliberate historical actions of others? Why do you think its true? — universeness
Academic Philosophers are unusual in their motivation to precisely analyze human behavior down to general rules. Yet, their collective conclusions tend to cluster in the shape of a Bell Curve, but with "fat tails". By that, I mean those who are highly motivated (narrowly focused experts) tend to move toward extreme positions. Moreover, the extremists are more likely to be opinion influencers, and leaders of "movements".
Fortunately for the rest of us, the Middle position (Aristotle's Golden Mean) still dominates the statistical distribution of opinions. That's why philosophical wisdom typically advocates a moderate stance, in order to avoid incessant warfare between right-wingers and left-wingers. However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition.
Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castles, regardless of how many follower's lives it cost. And they forced moderates to choose one extreme or the other. Which placed unreasonable and untenable ethical pressure on them. When trapped in the jaws of a moral either/or vise, they had no option, but to "look to themselves" for an incalculable solution. :cool: -
Look to yourself
This kind of hypothetical moral quandary puts people in untenable situations. If you accept the machine-like logical computation of Utilitarianism, or the god-like Categorical Imperative, then the moral solution would be obvious -- if you could instantly calculate all possible consequences of your decision. But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way.A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation. — universeness
Instead, we do quick back-of-the-envelope subconscious calculations, based on personal emotional values. That's usually good enough for small-group ethics. But when faced with global ethical repercussions, such as the Holocaust, ordinary people tend to do mundane acts (followed orders), and hope for the best. That's what Arendt called "the banality of evil".
You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world, were idealists, working toward Utopian dreams. Hence, there is no price too high to pay for Heaven-on-Earth. So their "final solutions" were not realistic, and were not calculated logically or mathematically. :sad:
“a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin -
Immaterialism
Yes. They are fundamental because they are mathematical, and consist of non-dimensional Information instead of 4D space-time. Physicists know that their mathematical models of "fields" and "virtual particles" are not real, but for simplification, they treat them as-if they are. But that reverse-abstraction could lead to a confusion between Physical (terrain) and Phenomenal (map).This is because quantum fields are not in spacetime — Gnomon
Because quantum fields are Fundamental. — PoeticUniverse
Dialogs, that hinge on definitions, often get cross-ways because of our language, which doesn't necessary distinguish between real references and metaphorical allusions. Theoretical (mathematical) physicists tend to be more poetic in their language than empirical physicists. That's because the ideal (abstract) objects of their study are invisible, and hard to describe, except by analogy to real (concrete) things that are visible and tangible.
Unfortunately, some non-physicists may treat their imaginary grids & zero-dimensional points as-if they are real things out there in space. That's OK as long as they are communicating with mathematicians. But others may take them literally, instead of poetically. :cool:
Reification Fallacy :
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Poetic Metaphor :
Metaphor: compares two things directly without using “like” or “as”; the subject IS the object.
Note -- in 80's slang, the "as-if" retort means "no way"!
Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21
The words physical and phenomenal are synonyms, but do differ in nuance. Specifically, physical applies to what is perceived directly by the senses and may contrast with mental, spiritual, or imaginary.
A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object
1."Fields are mathematical constructs only. They suggest the interactions of forces, as in gravitation and magnetism. However, far from being forces, gravitation and magnetic effects are interactions."
2."Fields are mathematical constructs only. They are not physical. They are not real."
https://www.quora.com/In-physics-are-fields-merely-mathematical-conveniences-or-models-or-do-they-have-a-physical-existence-of-some-kind-If-physical-what-are-they-composed-of -
Immaterialism
More accurately, the physical space-time universe is quantifiable. But that definition doesn't cover the Qualia by which we quantify (evaluate). I just happened to receive this excerpted Quora Forum update today. It makes the formerly heretical assertion of an immaterial Platonic "world" that is not quantifiable in terms of space-time measurements. Of course, theoretical mathematicians are more likely to accept Platonism as "true" than empirical physicists.More accurately, the universe is made of quanta; that definition covers more than atoms. So, anyway, all that forms is of quanta. — PoeticUniverse
Both Plato and Aristotle made a distinction between specific quantifiable things and general definitive Forms, that are knowable by Reason, but immeasurable by counting. So, maybe you meant to say "all space-occupying physical objects are made of Quarks". I prefer to distinguish the essential "Form" (Platonic) from the superficial physical "Shape". The Form of a thing is its mathematical structure, or general category. It does not exist in space-time, but in the imagination of a Mind.
Some mathematical theoreticians postulate that the universe is a Quantum Computer. But the data being processed are not physical things, but mathematical values. And values are meanings that exist only in meta-physical minds. Relative values are not empirical physical facts but attributed mental meanings. :smile:
What does not need space or time to exist? :
But there’s another “world” out there, with independently discoverable things in it: The Platonic world of mathematical truths. Things in mathematics: the decimal digits of pi, the properties of algebraic equations, the relationship between the sides of a triangle, etc., are all independently discoverable, so arguably, they “exist”; but their existence is entirely independent of space and time, as they are tied to neither location nor moment in time. ___Victor Toth, resident Quora expert on Physics
https://www.quora.com/What-does-not-need-space-or-time-to-exist/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1?ch=18&oid=323996550&share=20cc5750&srid=umKAX&target_type=answer
Form :
1. the visible shape or configuration of something.
2. a type or kind of thing
3. the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter
Quarks :
1. "Well, I think the simplest way of stating it is that quarks are the fundamental constituent of matter, of all the stuff that's around us," .
2. Quarks are particles that are not only hard to see, but pretty much impossible to measure.
3. At the scale we are talking about here, there are no particles. There are only quantum fields.
4. it's not possible to measure the value of quantum fields at any point in space. This is because quantum fields are not in spacetime
___excerpts from various sources -
Immaterialism
As usual, you are way ahead of me in your mindfulness of scholarly disputations. Since I have no formal training in philosophy, I am not familiar with the abstruse technicalities of genteel postulators. And I don't spend my time trying to keep up on the latest fashion in Matter-over-Mind "metaphysical" theories.As pointed out by others, "vulgar materialism" (stipulated here ↪180 Proof) isn't a position any significant philosopher or scientist has held in over a century, so your anti-naturalistic, dualist-idealist opposition pathetically pushes only an open door. — 180 Proof
So, rather than directing me to "study" another abstruse academic book, perhaps you could give me a quick summary of "non-vulgar" Materialism, as it relates to this thread. Specifically, I'd like to know how Meaning can be inferred from processing Matter. Reminds me of the scrambled pig brains, my father once required me to eat. :joke:
Vulgar Materialism :
a tendency of mid-19th century bourgeois philosophy that came into being at the same time as the great discoveries in the natural sciences of the century.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vulgar+Materialism
Varieties of Materialisms :
"The word materialism has been used in modern times to refer to a family of metaphysical theories"
Mechanical materialism ; physicalistic materialism ; emergent materialism ; double-aspect materialism ; dialectical materialism, . . . .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note -- I'm not sure which of these is "vulgar" and which is elite.
That sounds similar to my own BothAnd position, which takes a complementary view of apparent oppositions.One can be any flavor of "vulgar materialist" (A); one can commit to neither the "philosophical" nor "methodological" position (B); one can be committed to either position and not the other (C1/2); or one can be committed to both positions (D). My own commitments, if you haven't guessed already, are most compatible with (D). — 180 Proof -
Immaterialism
I've never heard of "mind atoms" before. So I Googled it, and sure enough there is such a hypothesis. But my gist of the articles is that they are actually talking about a computer Brain, not a meaning manipulating Mind. Anyway, from my Information-centric viewpoint, the atom of Mind would be a Bit of Information (meaning), not a spec of carbon (matter).I'll take it as something. The word 'immaterial' doesn't seem to be doing any work. It's like 'unstuff' that is still stuff.
Since the universe has atoms, 'mind' would be of atoms. — PoeticUniverse
A brain or computer is indeed a processor of information, but only a sentient Mind can extract meaning from the passing patterns of data. Our different understanding of what constitutes a Mind was articulated by Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. Until AI robots become philosophers, which interpretation is correct remains a matter of opinion. :smile:
Atoms of Mind :
A network of interconnected atoms could be used to construct a “quantum brain”
https://physicsworld.com/a/interconnected-single-atoms-could-make-a-quantum-brain/
Chinese Room :
Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the "strong AI" hypothesis is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Intention (purpose) :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel.
BothAnd Blog, post 14
Note -- computers inherit their intention, purpose, goal from the Programmer, not from a confluence of atoms or electrons. -
Immaterialism
Yes. I call it "mind stuff"; otherwise known as Information. It's being is both Ideal (meaning) and Real (matter). Unfortunately. some on this forum have had a bad experience with religious damnation and New Age superstitions. So they lump all immaterial notions into the same category with ancient Spiritualism and New Age Mysticism. Such belief systems were reasonable back when gods & nature spirits were the best explanation for mysterious natural phenomena. But, today we have different words to explain those causal forces (e.g. Energy = power). And yet, Energy (kinetic ; mechanical) itself is not any concrete material "stuff". It's abstract & invisible & intangible, so we can only infer its existence from its effects (changes in material things). But scientists still don't know any more about what it is (its being), than the ancients, who inferred whimsical invisible personas making things move. Their poetic & romantic worldview is understandable in view of their limited technological knowledge. But it was logical, for the time.Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter" — Gnomon
Wouldn't it still be the stuff of something to be able to be? — PoeticUniverse
However, the unromantic Greek philosophers saw no reason to infer personal intention (spirits) behind causation. So, they used more abstract terms, such as "Potential" & "Logos" to label those creative & organizing forces. My own information-based worldview combines the insights of the ancients with the empirical evidence of the moderns. And Information Theory is able to bridge the gap between Spiritualism and Materialism with a more mathematical terminology for invisible causes. One of those is "Ratio", which is the essential causal force of Thermodynamics (ratio of hot to cold). But that term is also the root of "Rational" which refers to mental processes (reasoning) rather than to any tangible stuff. Moreover, all mental abstractions (ideas, concepts) are stripped of their physical "stuff", so their being is literally "immaterial" & meta-physical (or preter-natural, if the "meta" term offends you).
Since "stuff" is an indeterminate label for the substance or essence of something, Realists & Pragmatists think of it as Matter, while Idealists & Theorists may imagine it as Mind. For example, some mathematical theorists have concluded that the basic stuff of the world is invisible loops of energy in an esoteric hyper-dimensional space. Since those different perspectives are often viewed as polar opposites, I tend to compromise with what's known as Pragmatic Idealism. I didn't make that up, but it seems to fit my Holistic BothAnd worldview. :cool:
PS___This and other similar threads tend to quickly entropy (verb) from a search for Consilience via intellectual philosophical dialog into an emotional ideological debate. That's not philosophy, it's politics. My position is unaligned & moderate, but the man in the middle gets caught in the crossfire. So I try to take my pummeling with good humor, while standing my middle ground.
Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Pragmatic Idealism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_idealism
Consilience : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.
NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR POLARIZED POLITICS
-
Immaterialism
This surprising "effect" puzzled the pioneers of Quantum Physics, who had no common sense explanation. Since then, their interpretation has been debated by experts in the field, with no final resolution. So any "source" will necessarily be someone's "opinion".So is there an observer effect? I'm a math professor, not a physicist. I'm open to being proven wrong, but can you cite a source that is more than opinion? — Real Gone Cat
My own understanding of how a machine can "observe" an experiment, is that it extracts information from the process. And that knowledge has meaning only for the human experimenter. When I get time, I'll try to find a source for that interpretation. It only makes sense though, if extracting Information is equivalent to extracting energy, hence affecting the chain of causation. And that's a whole 'nother debate. I don't take it as gospel, but it makes sense in view of my non-expert Enformationism thesis. :nerd:
What is the Observer generated information process? :
Up to now both information and its connection to reality have not scientifically conclusive definitions neither implicit origin. They emerge in observing multiple impulses interactive yes-no actions modeling information Bits. The observed information process connects reality, information, and creates Observer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05129
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1710.pdf
Note -- This technical report doesn't directly address your question. But it does imply that extracting bits of information (data ; meaning) is equivalent to extracting energy, thus having "real" effects. It's a negative impact on the measurement, similar to letting a bit of air out of a tire. But not necessarily like one billiard ball hitting another, for a positive impact. Extracting Information may be the "non-physical component" mentioned by Fernee. -
The problem with "Materialism"
Yes, I know. Adler formalized it, but the general notion probably came from Freud. :smile:The inferiority and superiority complexes come not from Freud but from Adler. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
Freud thought that a superiority complex was actually a way to compensate or overcompensate for areas in which we are lacking or failing
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/superiority-complex -
Immaterialism
Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter", why is my conclusion that "material" and "immaterial" are categorical oppositions "un-intelligible"? I'm aware that materialists may prefer to define "immaterial" as "unimportant" or "irrelevant". However, that's not a literal meaning, but an antagonistic denigration. To use one of your favorite phrases, you are "cherry-picking" my words to suit your strategy of belittling what you don't like. Personally, I have no problem with your 19th century Materialism, because I can reconcile it with 21st century Information Theory. I dialog with you, not to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but to convince myself that my worldview can withstand attempts to suppress novel ideas with passionate put-downs.No. I'm implying that your either "material" or "immaterial" formulation is fallacious because "immaterial" is neither an intelligible nor a corroborable option compared to – negation of – the material. — 180 Proof
Since my thesis uses that ambiguous term to describe the natural human mind, and its imaginary product (ideas), you are reading "supernatural" where my reference is to a natural phenomenon. You continue to miss the point of the Enformationism thesis: not to deny material reality, but to corroborate the old common-sense worldview of Materialism with the new paradigm paradoxes of Quantum Physics & Information Theory. Are non-local Entanglement & Quantum Tunneling & Acausal Events intelligible or sensible phemomena from a materialist perspective? Attempts to explain them away usually focus on the immaterial (mental) math instead of material (physical) substance.
My apologies to Einstein, God does play dice with the universe. And the consequences of that innate randomness made common-sense deterministic Classical Materialist Physics immaterial for the un-common-sense & Indeterminacy of the 21st century paradigm. Fortunately, Information Theory can ride to the rescue, by looking at both sides of a single coin. :cool:
Immaterial synonyms : intangible, incorporeal, not material, bodiless,
Also : transcendental, unearthly, supernatural.
On September 27, 1972, scientists performed the first test of Bell's inequality. God does play dice with the Universe, after all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/27/happy-anniversary-to-the-test-that-showed-god-does-play-dice-with-the-universe/?sh=1720f2f17b05
Quantum Physics : Yes, physicists have said that it makes no sense. For example, Richard Feynman said “No one understands quantum mechanics” and Niels Bohr famously said, “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”
https://www.quora.com/Many-physicists-have-said-that-quantum-mechanics-makes-no-sense-What-needs-to-be-discovered-understood-for-quantum-mechanics-to-make-sense
https://sebjaniak.com/acausal-information.html
Why is Metzinger the sole authority on "immaterialist speculations"? If you really want to know what I mean by "Immaterial", study the Enformationism thesis, or any number of Information-centric studies. But I'm "confident you won't bother", because you are so invested in your outdated Classical interpretation of Physics. Yes, I'm mocking you with your own words. But I'm just kidding, because your old-fashioned belief system is "immaterial" to me, literally & figuratively. :joke:↪Gnomon
If you really want to learn why your "immaterialist" speculations 'about information' (or "mind") is, at best, mere 'pseudo-science rationalized by bad philosophy', study Metzinger's work. . . . I'm confident you won't bother — 180 Proof
Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)
Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
BothAnd Glossary
PS___I prefer not to engage in mutual mud-slinging, so I consider this dialog as a harmless snow-ball fight, that we can laugh about. -
The problem with "Materialism"
It may be ironic, but "science says" assertions are not arguments. They leave no room for dialog. :smile:(some serious irony going on here, I must say... 180 is the one who "doesn't often hit you with a real argument"? You sure about that?) — Seppo -
The problem with "Materialism"
I agree. Self-evident axioms are a good starting point, but if not off-set by new input, they will go full circle, back to the original position, nothing learned.So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning in talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas
An uncompromising materialist-physicalist seems to think of his worldview, not necessarily as Materialistic, but as Realistic. It's a Black versus White position, that makes no allowance for anything Idealistic or Non-empirical. Hence, their posting on a philosophy forum is not necessarily a search for Truth or Meaning, but for Superiority or Dominance. They may feel superior because they have Science on their side ; just as some aggressive Christians act condescending, because they have God on their side. Both prefer Assertion to Argument. For the haughty, two-way Philosophical dialog is for losers. :joke:
An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Superiority Complex : an attitude of superiority which conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure.
Note -- I don't often quote Freud as a philosophical or scientific position, but he was good at making memorable metaphors.
-
The problem with "Materialism"
I suspect that 180 is using Mohamed Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy, trying to wear you down by chasing his shifty position. He doesn't often hit you with a real argument, but merely throws accusatory jabs & jibes at you. He may think of his strategy as Socratic gad-fly, but it comes across as annoying-gnat. I take the bait sometimes, when I need the exercise. :joke:↪180 Proof
Whenever I say something you don’t understand, which happens a lot, you call it a ‘non sequitur’. Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? If that is not an intelligible question, then say why it is not, instead of reverting to your usual codified nonsense, if that is even possible for you. — Wayfarer
To jibe means to say something rude or insulting that is intended to make another person look foolish.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/jibe -
Immaterialism
Are you implying that "Material" and "Immaterial" are the same thing? That they are indistinguishable? That they play the same role in reality? From what philosophical position are Qualia and Quanta identical?If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. — Gnomon
Another false dichotomy – occupational hazard of dualism ("BothAnd" :roll:), no doubt. — 180 Proof
Yes, my BothAnd thesis can reconcile their obvious practical difference by noting that they consist of the same ultimate substance : not matter, but the universal potential (power) to enform both things and ideas. Material stuff and Immaterial ideas are both parts of a greater Whole. For example, Energy (causation) is mathematically equivalent to Mass (matter), but in physical reality they are different forms of the same non-stuff, Potential : to become. To be material, or to be immaterial; that is the question. :joke:
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Glossary -
Immaterialism
What you are calling "observer effect" is actually the "measurement effect". The measuring tools of quantum observers are typically wave/particles, such as photons, that have momentum, and consequently transfer some of that force to the object it is measuring. Their impact on the target is not like a bullet (local) though, but like a tidal wave (non-local). In a still mysterious transformation, the non-physical intention of observation causes a continuous wave to "collapse" into a dis-continuous bullet. That doesn't happen in Classical Physics, except when super-heroes use mind-control to move matter.In fact, the observer effect exists in classical physics as well - to measure air pressure in a tire, we must let out a little air, thus changing the pressure. — Real Gone Cat
Those who deny the "observer effect" are assuming that the scientists setting-up the experiment are not smart enough to avoid the measurement problem. The early 20th century pioneers of QT didn't have the technology to minimize the energy exchange. But even 21st century researchers haven't been able to completely eliminate the problem. So, when you caution me (a non-physicist) from citing Quantum Physics as an example of something "non-physical", you are also arguing with some of "the greatest minds of the 20th century". :nerd:
What Is The Observer Effect In Quantum Mechanics? :
The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Even so, the scientists found that the very presence of the detector “observer” near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier.
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html
What counts has an observation in quantum mechanics? Does a person need to be involved? :
The problem is that an observation implies something non-physical. . . . The root cause of this confusion is the nature of a measurement. A measurement has both a physical and a non-physical component. , , , This measurement problem has plagued many of the greatest minds of the 20th century, such as Einstein, von Neumann, Schrödinger, and Wigner.
___Mark John Fernee , , 20+ years as a physicist
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reduce-the-effects-of-the-Observer-Effect-in-quantum-physics -
Immaterialism
I wasn't familiar with Metzinger, so I Googled the book name. From my cursory glance, his view seems to agree with my own understanding of "Self". I prefer to use that term in place of the ancient notion of an immaterial "Soul", which was assumed to be able to leave the body behind during drug trips & NDEs, and which could exit the material world in case of Final Death. In my view, the Self is not a wandering Spirit, but merely a mental representation of the body. As a mental model it is no more real than the scientific notion of a Virtual Particle, which is Potential minus Actual.My "favorite" book of philosophy of mind (or neurophilosophy) is still, after 15+ years, Being No One by Thomas Metzinger — 180 Proof
That's why I place it in the category of "Immaterial" (made of abstract ideas instead of concrete matter). That being the case, I don't understand why you like the concept of "Being No One", but reject the idea of an immaterial Self image. The Self is not separarable from the physical body, but it's also not the same substance as the body. That may sound like traditional Dualism, but ultimately the substance of both Mind and Body is Monistic Enformation (the potential to cause changes in form or pattern).
Like Spinoza's "universal substance" EnFormAction is neither Matter nor Energy, but only Potential. So, my worldview is Monistic, but it allows for multiple sub-categories with different properties. For example, Matter is Actual, Energy is Causal, and Mind is Ideal (the map or model is an abstract version of the terrain or object). :nerd:
Being No One :
According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model."
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/being-no-one
Note -- the mental process is like a movie, a running representation of reality, not the ding an sich.
Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe. . . .
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Virtual : not physically existing. It is distinguished from the real by the fact that it lacks an absolute, physical form. It is a mental simulation of a real or potential thing.
Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
Note -- that definition sounds suspiciously akin to the definition of causal Energy. Which is why I coined the neologism : EnFormAction.
Abstraction : Universal or General or Ideal concepts instead of particular things or objects. The idea of a thing as contrasted with the real Thing. A pattern of inter-relationships that make a thing what it is, but minus the matter.
-
ImmaterialismWhere Gnomon goes wrong is to call that entirely physical process "immaterialism". — Real Gone Cat
I have been repeatedly cautioned to not cross the line from Physics into the danger zone of Meta-Physics. But, if we ignore the "immaterial" aspects of reality, we are dismissing the importance of Mind as a new feature of the evolving world. Until only a few thousand years ago, the universe was completely mindless. But since then, Nature has been transformed into Culture. Was the force behind that emergence aimless Energy or inert Matter? Or was it the future-focused set of ideas & purposes we know as the human Mind? Must we pretend to be blind to mind?
In a sense, Nature has given birth to a completely new kind of power : Intention. If you can reconcile mundane Physics with Purpose, then I suppose you could equate Mind with Matter. But then, what kind of material is a "physical process" made of? What physical force set the direction for evolution, so that it could produce Technology? Physics deliberately excluded mental phenomena from consideration until it was forced to acknowledge the role of Observers in otherwise "entirely physical processes". But Philosophy is not physics. So it can freely cross the non-physical barrier into Meta-Physics (not Spiritualism, but Mentalism). Nature did not scruple to cross that arbitrary line, when it turned Matter into Mind. :cool:
Process : a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Concept :
in the Analytic school of philosophy, the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue.
Note -- are Concepts material or immaterial? What kind of matter are they made of? Are they Real or Ideal? — Gnomon -
Immaterialism
I have been repeatedly cautioned to not cross the line from Physics into the danger zone of Meta-Physics. But, if we ignore the "immaterial" aspects of reality, we are dismissing the importance of Mind as a new feature of the evolving world. Until only a few thousand years ago, the universe was completely mindless. But since then, Nature has been transformed into Culture. Was the force behind that emergence aimless Energy or inert Matter? Or was it the future-focused set of ideas & purposes we know as the human Mind? Must we pretend to be blind to mind?Where Gnomon goes wrong is to call that entirely physical process "immaterialism". — Real Gone Cat
In a sense, Nature has given birth to a completely new kind of power : Intention. If you can reconcile mundane Physics with Purpose, then I suppose you could equate Mind with Matter. But then, what kind of material is a "physical process" made of? What physical force set the direction for evolution, so that it could produce Technology? Physics deliberately excluded mental phenomena from consideration until it was forced to acknowledge the role of Observers in otherwise "entirely physical processes". But Philosophy is not physics. So it can freely cross the non-physical barrier into Meta-Physics (not Spiritualism, but Mentalism). Nature did not scruple to cross that arbitrary line, when it turned Matter into Mind. :cool:
Process : a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Concept :
in the Analytic school of philosophy, the subject matter of philosophy, which philosophers of the Analytic school hold to be concerned with the salient features of the language in which people speak of concepts at issue.
Note -- are concepts material or immaterial? What kind of matter are they made of? Are they Real or Ideal? -
Immaterialism
You may have mis-interpreted my definition of Qualia. I was not referring to information coming in from some sublime source outside the universe. Instead, I was talking about mundane information, usually as some form of energy, that's incoming from outside the body of the observer. AFAIK, we receive meaningful information primarily via our physical senses. One internal source of information though, might be what we call "intuition". Some like to think that it's God talking to you. But it's more likely information that has been processed sub-consciously, which is important enough to be reported to the conscious mind. Intuition is not "solipsism", even though it comes from within.So there is incoming information. From where?
If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism. — Real Gone Cat
However, my personal worldview is based on the idea that Information is ubiquitous. It's not just in computers, it's everywhere ; in sensible physical forms, such as Matter, and in semi-physical forms, such as Energy. We used to think of Energy as a physical substance (phlogiston), but physicists now define it in terms of mathematical wave functions. Our sensory organs can translate those vibrating waves of potential (think Morse code) into material forms (e.g. rhodopsin, transforms light into electricity). Likewise, our rational Mind translates incoming Information into meaning. Moreover, the Big Bang theory implies that some energy source from "outside" the space-time universe, was the original input of Information, or as I like to spell it : EnFormAction (the power to give form to the formless)
The physical world is indeed dualistic, if you make a distinction between Matter & Mind as different forms of "something". We know that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, But what is Mind made of? I think Matter, Energy, & Mind are all forms of Generic Information. Hence, our Dualism could be construed as Tripleism. However, if all those are distinguishable forms of a single universal "something", then the ultimate -ism would be Monism. Spinoza defined "God" as the "single substance consisting of infinite attributes". In my own thesis, that universal substance is shape-shifting Information. My website and blog explain how I arrived at that conclusion, by combining Quantum Theory with Information Theory. Therefore, my answer to "what form the Outside takes" is what I call EnFormAction (energy + form + action). You can call it "God", but I prefer to call that "thing we can never know" : Enformer, or Programmer. :nerd:
EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
BothAnd Blog Glossary -
Word Counts?
The fix for a prolix post is automatic. Most readers will tune-out if they can't see where a post is going. Those most interested in the topic will hang-on longer. But treading water is more tiring when you can't see the shore. :smile:Could this forum have a word count? It seems like some people don't consider that less can be more. Maybe on a post by post basis the OP can set a min and max words for replies? — TiredThinker -
Immaterialism
The link in my last post will give you an overview of what's special enough about Quantum physics to call it a "Paradigm Shift". That's why physicists now distinguish between the Classical physics of Newton, and the Quantum physics of the 20th century. It was the radical new worldview of non-local acausal physics that inspired Thomas Kuhn to coin a novel phrase. What used to be Common Sense becomes marginalized in the new era. For example, Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points instead of real material Atoms. :smile:I'm not sure what's so special about the quantum scale. — Cornwell1
Are We in the Middle of a Paradigm Shift? :
If Einstein was such a creative thinker that he literally redefined our view of the world, why did he reject one of the basic implications of quantum physics?
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2021/04/28/are-we-in-the-middle-of-a-paradigm-shift -
Immaterialism
The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial. Many of the posts on this thread are talking past each other. When the topic is about "immaterialism" it's referring to Qualia, not Quanta. Qualia, as subjective patterns, can reside in a variety of material objects. Pattern recognition occurs, not in a Brain, but in a Mind. The "observer" is not a homunculus. Qualia is "what it feels like" to observe a pattern of incoming information.In what else than matter can the mind reside? — Cornwell1
Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. Reductionism ad absurdo, ("reducing to an absurdity.") Yet some, but not all, physicists persist in trying to maintain an illusion of the old Materialistic model of hard little atoms as the fundamental elements of reality. For example, what they now call "virtual" particles, are not bits of matter, but merely mathematical points in an imaginary grid. A "point" has no spatial dimensions, so we can't see them, we can only imagine them. Like the Cheshire Cat, the matter just fades away, leaving only a smile. :grin:
From Quanta to Qualia: How a Paradigm Shift Turns Into Science :
Ever since the development of quantum mechanics in the first part of the 20th century, a new world view has emerged. Today, the physicalist objective assumption that objects exist independently of acts of observation has been challenged. The repercussions of this radical challenge to our common-sense perception of the world are far-reaching, although not yet generally realized. Here we argue that there is a complementary view to the way science which is being practiced, and that consciousness itself is primary and qualia form the foundation of experience. We outline the arguments of why the new science of qualia will tie objects that are being perceived to the subjective experience, through the units of subjective experience called qualia.
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/152/
WHERE'S THE CAT?
Gnomon
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum