Your flavor of idealism, G, like the others, conflates ontology and epistemology – what is real = what i know / what i know = what is real – from which many instances of category mistakes follow. A "worldview" is dogma (i.e. sophistry at best), IMO, not a philosophy. — 180 Proof

I'm sorry my "flavor of Idealism" doesn't suit your personal taste. Your mis-interpretation and mis-characterization of my worldview doesn't offend me, but it does amuse me. You seem to be spooked by a ghost that's merely reflected light. My BothAnd model does indeed "conflate" (or conciliate) the nature-of-being, and theory-of-knowledge. But that's not just a New Age position, it has become fairly common among scientists, especially Quantum Physicists. It doesn't deny Reality, but, unlike hardline Materialism, merely includes mental properties within the scope of Being and Knowing. Your worldview might be dogmatic & one-sided, but mine is necessarily open-minded & holistic. Open to both material Actuality and to mental Possibility. My world is not Black & White, it includes all the colors of the rainbow.

You accuse me of dogmatic anti-reality Idealism, when my model is actually a blend of classical Realism and quantum Idealism (see below). I'm not making this sh*t up. I get most of it from sober physicists, not Age of Aquarius astrologers. However, I am grateful that some people are at least looking at the other side of the Real coin. When I go to the local health food store, owned by a turban-topped American Sikh, I admire some of the artistic trinkets that portray nature, not as dead matter, but as a living organism. While I ignore the books on Goddesses, Gurus, & Angels, I appreciate the reverent attitude toward the Life that animates the material world. Peace & Love. :grin: :victory:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

Quantum Idealism? :
In his book The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose points to two of the most popular ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics given by physicists: “(a) there is no reality expressed in the (mathematical) formalism of quantum mechanics at all, and the diametrically opposite view of (b) that the quantum state completely describes actual reality with the alarming implication that all quantum alternatives must always continue to coexist.”
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/quantum-idealism/

Worldview : a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Sophistry :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something.
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/

Category mistake — 180 Proof

Yes. My whole worldview is a Category Mistake to you. It merely accepts that Mind is just as much a part of Reality as Matter. Therefore, in order to remove Mind from the world, you'd have to eliminate all thinking creatures. Especially humans. Just think, for almost 14 billion years, the universe consisted of your preferred Category. No immaterial ideas or mistaken opinions to ruin the perfection of a smooth-running physical machine. It's been all downhill since the first caveman saw fire as a tool, not just a scary physical phenomenon like lightening. :joke:

How do you/we know I/we have a "meta-physical sense"? Evidence, please. — 180 Proof

The existence of Meta-physical senses was an opinion of philosphers for thousands of years. Only in the last couple of centuries have smart people acted as-if they were mindless. The evidence is Rational inference, not Physical measurement. So, mindless hunks of matter are oblivious to it. :cool:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note -- Where is the physical evidence for any of the above principles? Do you have a sense for immaterial principles? I do; it's called "Reason".

I don't see a problem in the particle concept — Cornwell1

Rovelli doesn't have a problem with the concept (idea) of a particle. But the reality of a particle is ambiguous (metaphor or object?). As a waveform, it is an immaterial mathematical function, and only when that (potential) function "collapses" does it take on an (actual) Eigenstate (inherent position or momentum). That's when its mathematical qualities convert to physical properties. The wave-function can be calculated, but the physical state must be measured. :smile:

What is a particle? :
These difficulties have lead some to suggest that in general QFT should not be interpreted in terms of particle states, but rather in terms of eigenstates of local operators.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409054

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? :
Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Other than via physical instantiation (re: Boltzmann, Turing, Shannon, Von Neumann et al), how can we differentiate signals from noise? — 180 Proof

The same way you distinguish Truth from Falsehood. You can't depend on shape or texture or smell to differentiate good ideas from bad ideas. But your sixth sense of Reason is your Lie Detector.

Unlike your physical senses, your meta-physical sense has a built-in logic, but it still must be programmed with instances of both signal and noise, in order to have a basis for comparison. A rose aroma in a bottle might smell as sweet, but it could be artificial. That's why we have mandated labels, because the senses can be fooled by cheap imitations (Wakisaki). :joke: .

Why it does require that? We can consider an object without decontaminating our body of "selfish genes" and the mind of acquired believes. We can discover all kinds of properties in the studied object. These are objective properties. — Cornwell1

Ideally, yes. But, the confidence that your consideration of an object is free from bias (dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective) could indicate that you are not aware of your subconscious motives and beliefs. That's why Skepticism requires, not only a critique of others, but a self-assessment of your own values. I would like to think that I am always objective, but posting on this forum is a quick way to be challenged to re-assess your own philosophical position. :cool:

So again, here you are explaining how things are for everyone, not just yourself. So again, you are projecting your ideas about how things are independent of yourself, and how things are even if I were to disagree or not be aware of these "facts" that you are asserting. — Harry Hindu

That's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. So, apparently, you are "explaining how things are" for me. Can you point to a "fact" that I was asserting? My assertions were in the form of personal opinions. Of course, those opinions are based on the facts as-I-see-them. But you seem to see them differently. That's OK though. That's what a philosophy forum is all about. Yet you are accusing me of Pontificating, which the last thing I would do. Sounds like you are "projecting your ideas" onto me. What did I say to cause you to portray my personal opinions as dogmatic declarations? :gasp:

Are you saying that the information received through your eyes is true, accurate, or what? — Harry Hindu

Just the opposite. My philosophical position is BothAnd, not Either/Or. As noted in the quote above, we obtain Information via our physical senses, and our meta-physical reasoning. But I suppose that a hard-line Realist would reject any information that doesn't have a physical instance. That's what I referred to as being "blind in one eye". Did you miss the link above, that says "reality is not what you think it is"? Rovelli is not rejecting Meta-physics, but pointing-out that Materialism is not a complete (true or accurate) model of Reality. :smile:

PS___ I apologize for sounding defensive. But your "disagreement" seems visceral & aggressive instead of rational & philosophical. Come, let us reason together.

Don't think so. Quarks can be viewed as triplets — Cornwell1

I'd like to "view" that unitary triplet. Can you post a picture? :wink:

Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note -- For over two thousand years the Atom was defined as the true elementary indivisible particle. If Quarks have no structure, why are they hypothetically portrayed with internal parts? The Holy Trinity is also described as One deity with three forms : up, down, and yummy. :joke:

ONE QUARK IN THREE FLAVORS blueberry, strawberry and lemon-lime

Great discussion. Interested in something being "more or less objective" doesn't work with absolutes but I can live with shifting relativity to a fixed point which doesn't need to be absolute .. — Edmund

Yes. In this thread we are arguing over the same polarized philosophical positions as Physics (Materialism) vs Metaphysics (Idealism). I reconcile that apparent contraposition with the BothAnd philosophy. I suppose you could call it a perspective that shifts its position depending on the relation between subject & object. That's similar to a Doppler Shift or Gravitational Lens Shift of stars. The star is not really changing position but merely it's apparent position relative to the observer. :nerd:

Meta-Physics :
4. "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. "Meta-physics" refers to the ideas 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.
BothAnd Blog glossary

META-PHYSICAL PROBOSCIDEAN


PHYSICAL ELEPHANTIDAE

That idea seems to predict well, but it models phenomena that are poorly understood. — jgill

Yes. Tegmark's mathematical model of the world is an attempt to describe the "poorly understood" phenomena on the Quantum level of reality. We know pretty well what Quarks do, but have no idea what they are. We can't compare them to anything in our sensory experience of the world. The definition of a Quark, or of Superposition, sounds about as counter-intuitive as the Catholic Trinity. :joke:

But what constitutes a mathematical "Field" (why do you write it with a capital F?). — Cornwell1

Hypothetical Quantum Fields consist of abstract relationships (ratios ; vectors) that are not real things but ideal mathematical "points" & "links". When those points have measurable values, the field can be assumed to be real. I capitalize the word "field" to emphasize that it is not a real object, but an abstract model of some feature of Reality. I capitalize "Reality" to emphasize that it's a mental model of what's outside your skull, not necessarily the ding an sich. :nerd:

A field is a mathematical abstraction. ... Vector fields are not real, for the same reasons vectors are not real; the electric field is real ..
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322983/how-real-are-fields

Ding An Sich : (in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.

I think that here you conflate reality with fantasy, as Tegmark seems to do. — Cornwell1

No. I don't conflate "Reality" with "Ideality", I merely compare them as hypothetical mental models, not the actual " totality of real things and events". Our models of reality are not necessarily "fantasies", but they are inherently "imaginary". So, I'd be careful about labeling Tegmark's speculations as "fantasy". It's possible that he knows something you don't. As I said in the post, I don't agree with all of his conjectures, but they seem to be based on a deep insight into Reality (objects : things) and Ideality (models ; ideas). :smile:

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
book by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems

A model of reality explains how the universe was created and how it operates. You might think that this is a definition of reality itself, but it isn't, which can be illustrated by looking at the most popular model, known as naïve realism. In a nutshell, naïve realism says that what you see is what you get.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/The-Most-Popular-Model-of-Reality-Is-Wrong-14842693.php

According to physicist Max Tegmark, there are nothing but mathematical structures and 'the physical world' is just a nested network of mathematical structures to which we (observers) happen to belong, or inhabit. . . . This looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

I've only read one of Tegmark's books, but I have a general idea of "what he's talking about". I'm not sure I agree with all his speculations, but his basic notion that Reality is fundamentally mathematical makes sense to me, especially in light of Quantum Physics, where the structure of reality is a mathematical Field.

Personally, I prefer the more inclusive term "Information" (Matter + Energy + Mind) to the austere abstract ideality of a pure mathematical structure underlying the messy concrete material world. My view combines a bit of Plato's Idealism (LOGOS) with a smidgen of Spinoza's universal substance Monism (G*D). Consequently, my world model consists of both Material objects (known by senses) and Mathematical (Mental) structures (known by reason). :nerd:

Substance or Structure :
Baruch Spinoza denied Descartes' "real distinction" between mind and matter. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple "attributes". . . . . The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Our Mathematical Universe :
My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
___Max Tegmark, theoretical physicist
Note to self -- The basic element of my Information Universe is the "Re-El" (reality element) which is a ratio between existence and non-existence (1 or 0). The universe as a whole, is continuous, but its constituent parts are discrete.

From a realist perspective, bias is a dirty word , a failure to grasp what is truly there to be grasped, if only as an unreachable ideal, an ‘unattainable perfection’. For post-realism, objectivity is a dirty word , concealing what is always already there for us, and ‘bias’ speaks to the actual world, not to a flawed representation of it. — Joshs

Yes. In the ideal true perfect model of Reality, there can be no bias or ignorance. But that model only exists in heaven. We can strive to reach the unreachable star of perfect objectivity. But only Idealists believe they are already there. :joke:


To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to run where the brave dare not go

This is my quest . . . .

To reach the unreachable, the unreachable
The unreachable star

Spoken like a true realist. — Harry Hindu

No. The point of my post was to avoid a polarized position on either end of the Real - Ideal spectrum.
I'm not a true anything. As noted in the post, my personal philosophy is BothAnd. As a relative Realist, I accept the evidence of my eyes as plausible facts, upon which to build my personal model of Reality. But as an amateur philosopher, I also accept that vetted ideas are also useful bricks for my model. Your mental model of Reality may be different from mine, but on this forum, we can share our biased views, in order to see our differences and our agreements. That is not likely to result in a "true" view of the world. But it's better than being blind in one eye. :cool:


Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena. It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
BothAnd Glossary

Homogenized : mixed ; merged ; blended ; synthesized ; unified

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

there is no thing they are sharing between them — Gregory

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

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

MEANING IS IN THE INVISIBLE RELATIONSHIPS NOT THE THINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REAL BIRDS


IMAGINARY SWARM or is it a whale?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MENTAL GEOMETRY OF ABSTRACT VECTORS

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

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


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

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

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

How can time cause change? — Raymond

Metaphorically. :joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, what do you think it is?

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

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

beyond ourselves. — Possibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

COSMIC PROGRESSION GRAPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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