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

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

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 It may be harmful to outdated scientific paradigms, but it should be beneficial for constructing new models of Reality.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

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

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

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

What to do about all of this? — Enrique

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HINT : THE GRID IS IMAGINARY, HENCE META-PHYSICAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

CARTESIAN THEATER
Metaphysical fried egg as seen by imaginary Homunculus

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTENTION AIMS AT A TARGET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory claims that synchronous neuron firing generates strong electromagnetic fields which build up such that even further neurons are activated via an amplifying feedback loop. — Enrique

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buddhism is just realism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALLURING LIES :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist. .
Note -- even physical science finds the meta-physical notion of not-yet-real Potential to be useful in the Real world. For example, the Voltage of a battery is nothing-but Static Potential, until it is actualized into Active Amperage. We can't see or touch meta-physical Potential with our senses, but we can imagine it with our minds.

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

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

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

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

PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above

Isn't this more than 'Nothing'. Isn't it still a something in some kind of realm as above in that realm's level as tangible to that realm but not to ours? — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). So such abstract universals as G*D or TAO don't fall under the category of physical scientific things. Instead, they are metaphysical philosophical non-things. Knowable, but non-tangible. Holistic all-things, but not reductive things. More than nothing, in the sense that Infinity is more than nothing. :smile:

Thing :
1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

"The Way" is more than the pavement.

I think you and I have taken this as far as we can for now. — T Clark

I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.

I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine, reviewing a book about four "linguistic" philosophers, including Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The reviewer said that they had one thing in common : "the belief that mistaken assumptions about language are the wellsprings of error in philosophy". And I think most dictionary definitions of the term "Metaphysics" mainly reflect medieval Christian theologian usage of that word --- not Aristotle's original intention for his "first philosophy". That's why I contend that most dictionaries simply repeat those "mistaken assumptions" derived from blending Greek philosophy with Christian theology.

The article goes on to quote Heidegger : "we cannot he argues, reduce philosophy's biggest question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" to any system of knowledge, because it is a question that informs every such question". Note the word "informs". Does it refer to a physical phase change. or to a non-physical transfer of Meaning rather than Matter? That is the distinction underlying my personal definition of "Meta-Physics". Although I like the hyphenated term, for it's symmetrical metaphorical implications, I also sometimes substitute "Non-Physics" in order to avoid the theological baggage of "metaphysics". Do you accept that there are non-physical aspects of the world? If not, this thread will be at an impasse.

I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains? :cool:

Abstract and concrete :
In metaphysics, the distinction between abstract and concrete refers to a divide between two types of entities. Many philosophers hold that this difference has fundamental metaphysical significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word. — T Clark

I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .

Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny. So, that's how I derived a unique non-dictionary definition of "Meta-Physics" for my Enformationism thesis :cool:


What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/

It remains as the physical One; its rearrangements are temporary; it doesn't make new substances; it is ever itself. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like the TAO, or LOGOS, to which I compare my G*D concept. However, like Energy, G*D is not a physical object, but a functional process or flow. It's an "essence" not a physical substance. It's ineffable ; so you can't point to it and say "there it is". It's a holistic pattern of relationships, not an individual thing ; so you can know about it, but not see it. Therefore, as a system, I call it "Meta-Physical", in the sense that it is more than the sum of its physical parts. :smile:

TAO : The Tao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the Universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the Universe balanced.
In all its uses, the Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Since, with no beginning, it ne’er became;
Thus no Alif through Ye: it’s e’er the same. — PoeticUniverse

That's why I distinguish the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS from the space-time bubble of the physical temporal world :
First begat in a Bang, destined to die in a Sigh . . . . . :cool:

Ideas and opinions are not "by definition" metaphysical. — T Clark

Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output. :nerd:

PS__I just read an article about Arc proteins in the human brain, which are descendants of ancient viruses, and are essential for retention of long-term memories, even though the physical proteins are destroyed after a short "life-cycle". Somehow the memories are passed along to the next generation of Arc protein. Just as viruses are not alive, technically, these lumps of protoplasm are not ideas or memories --- but merely temporary containers for bits of information.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/all-your-memories-are-stored-by-one-weird-ancient-molecule?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Substrate : an underlying substance or layer. That which supports something.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

IS THIS WHAT A MEMORY LOOKS LIKE ?
https://virtuul.com/news/how-viruses-may-have-shaped-the-human-brain/

There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark

Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant. :smile:

That's fine for some, but it's not 'God'; it's just the simple basis of the more complex as the Ground of Determination. — PoeticUniverse

Of course. That's the point of the Multiverse hypothesis. Instead of a First Cause, it's a more-of-the-same-forever infinite (no beginning or end) chain-of-causation --- or a cosmic Conga Line of turtles, if you prefer a more concrete image. :wink:

? The one and only basis remains; no regress. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? :chin:

Einstein's discovery of the quantum discreteness of photons proved true, so it was not outlandish. — PoeticUniverse

True. But at the time it sounded unorthodox, hence "outlandish" (alien ; foreign) for the wave-propagation orthodoxy of the day. :smile:

Why No One Believed Einstein :
https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

We do see the mind-fields, and that is all we ever 'see'; they're as maps made in the brain process of consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? What color is yours? Mine is boring beige. :joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

"why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?"
___Gnomon

Cool video! So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . .

How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base? — PoeticUniverse

The leap-frogging turtle metaphor applies to the implicit infinite regress when an eternal buck-stopping agent is denied. In religious arguments it's common to be challenged with "so who created your God?". But the question only makes sense if the deity is subject to the limitations of space-time and matter-energy. Most Christians have no problem answering with "my God is eternal and self-existent". But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time.

However, if your hypothetical One is -- like my ALL -- non-physical, then the turtle-cycle would be unnecessary. And that's why my hypothetical God-substitute is defined as "Ideal" instead of "Real", Which in traditional religious terms would be "Spiritual" instead of "Physical". It's my contention that the Jewish concept of "Spirit" was equivalent to the Greek notion of "Ideal". And both seemed to be referring to the mysterious force in Nature that we now call causal "Energy". It's invisible & intangible, and physical only in that it has observable effects on Matter. Infinite Potential covers all possibilities at once, with no need for physical cycles of reproduction or creation. Hence, the First Cause is like an eternal inexhaustible battery of pent-up energy that is loosed upon the world, only when a feedback circuit is made -- a space-time cycle.

As a similar non-physical notion, Einstein surprised many folks when he declared that Gravity was not a real force. Because everybody knew from personal experience that gravity pulls on real bodies with invisible rope. Even worse, his radical theory pictured Gravity as "warped space". Which makes as much sense as "curved nothingness". But pragmatic scientists eventually learned to go along with that blasphemy against Lord Newton. Yet, Alfred was not done with knocking the props out from classical physics. His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics.

Therefore, as a pragmatic idealist, I have learned to accommodate all those radical paradigm shifts, by accepting the view of an increasing number of physicists and cosmologists, that even those fundamental fields consist of nothing but Information. Which is that same "stuff" that used to exist only in metaphysical Minds. And now even the physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. In Math, we call those invisible geometric links "ratios". Which ironically are what we "know" only with our rational power of Reason.Thus, I conclude that the "One", the "All", the "First Cause", the "buck-stopper" is simply the Eternal Enformer. :nerd:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ONE, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting it via rational inference
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

TWO SIDES OF SAME COIN

You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well. . . .
You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.

Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.

That's why I interpret "Block Time" in terms of Aristotelian Potential, the notion of infinite possibility, which requires a trigger (First Cause) to actualize. Potential is not Real, but merely Ideal, until an intentional directional choice causes something specific to actualize. This is not magic, but similar to a physical phase change, such as liquid water to solid ice. The potential for solidity was always there in H2O, but an external trigger causes the change from Possible to Actual. Besides, as you pointed out : "Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops".

The Materialism, Reductionism, Physicalism worldview leaves no role for Philosophy. In which case, this forum is a monumental waste of time, since we typically discuss things that are not things, but possibilities ; not actual or physical, hence unverifiable --- only arguable. Terence Green, in Philosophy Now, regarding A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism says : "this is philosophy as a barren wasteland --- stripped of all that philosophy had . . . . traditionally been concerned with : why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?". Logical Positivism has no answer for such illogical questions. Logic is about mechanical formal processes, but human Reason is about meaningful Forms (potential desiderata). Again, Green says about scientific Logical Positivism, "it can't deal with statements such as 'God exists'.". :nerd:


Desiderata : something that is needed or wanted. but does not yet exist.

Inert Potential : the voltage of an electric battery is simply a promise of future current. The promise is only fulfilled after some outside force completes the circuit, allowing useful current to flow. Eternal Ideal Potential likewise requires a Cause (intentional choice) to allow it to actualize into reality.

So, 'Nothing' does not challenge 'God', but the necessity of a single, simple base physical substance does, in that it required no creation. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. From your Physicalist perspective, "God" is No-Thing. But in my Enformationism view, G*D is Every-Thing, and is necessarily self-existent. Even a tower-of-turtles multiverse would have to be self-created in order to lay the foundation for the tower *1. :smile:

This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regress… — PoeticUniverse

Yes. But in my thesis G*D is both Programmer and Program, both Creator and Creation, both Sculptor and Marble. This is the holistic worldview of PanEnDeism (all in god). And it's only reasonable if ALL is omni-potential Information -- both the power-to-enform and the substance enformed ; both Mind and Matter. Similar to Spinoza's "universal substance", except updated to allow for a Big Bang beginning. :halo:

Panendeism holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time,
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Panendeism

The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.
This is as a multi-verse, — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. In Quantum Physics that trigger is a measurement (technically, the decision of what to measure). No-Thing could not make such a fateful choice, but Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. And that essential "something" is what I call "Teleological Intention" (purpose ; design). Unfortunately, we time-bound creatures don't know the intended End of evolution. So, the term Eutaxiological may be more appropriate than "Teleological". Like the hero in the movie Tron, we don't know how the game will end, but we are motivated to win, i.e. to survive long enough to have an impact on the outcome. :sweat:

Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
Note -- Superposition of a world-creating system can be in all possible states (infinity) and all possible times (eternity) until a non-random intention is chosen. How? In Infinity/Eternity all things are possible. :brow:

Teleological :
Purpose-driven evolution, as opposed to Eutaxiological, meaning simply that evolution must have had a First Cause, even if the Final Cause (purpose) is unknown.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page12.html

Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And here's how that could have happened. :nerd:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
“mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

*1 Tower of Turtles -- an infinite regress of causation

This is also what doomed Decartes’ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldn’t exchange energy.
The addition of a ‘non physical’ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress. — PoeticUniverse

As usual, your material-mind arguments are reasonable . . . from the classical Physicalism perspective. Through that ground-glass lens, only the physical senses make sense. And that's probably how non-rational animals see their world. Fortunately for reasonable people, theoretical Philosophy, unlike empirical Science, is not limited to the 5 senses (perception) for information (useful knowledge) about the world. Instead, it enlarges the scope of investigation by using the sixth sense of Rational Inference (conception). Only a rational mind can deal with the non-physical mysteries of existence, such as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. Physicalists can't see Consciousness, because they are looking through the transparent lens of Sentience.

By that meta-physical means, we now know how Mental (Information) and Physical (Matter) can exchange energy. And I'm not talking about reductive Shannon Information (digital bits), but holistic Conscious Information (holistic semantic meaning). From that angle, the Mental & Physical realms are distinct philosophical categories, while empirical Science has no category for the Mental aspects of the world. But if Information is indeed fundamental, as some physicists now infer, then Matter & Energy can be reduced to a single universal (monistic) substance : Information -- the power to transform. Pace Descartes *1.

Thus, the modern scope of Quantum & Information physics has been enlarged to encompass both the Mental (non-physical) and Material (physical) aspects of the real world. And to eliminate the need for an infinite regress of physical worlds, to explain how our cosmic domain could be born from an "undefined", hence non-physical, mathematical point of Potential. Pace PU. :nerd:

Property dualism :
It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

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

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Energy is meta-physical Potential :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information transmission without energy exchange :
We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. Because of that, this kind of communication without energy exchange may be called "Quantum Collect Calling".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3988

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined . . . . lacking differentiability or analyticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

*1 Pace is Latin for “in peace,” and in footnotes it means something like “no offense intended” toward a person or source that you are contradicting.

"God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown? — SpaceDweller

Yes. Like the Quarks of sub-atomic theory, the First Cause is logically necessary, but known only by rational inference. Some people claim to "know" God directly & personally via meditation or prayer or revelation. But that is a Gnostic form of "knowing" (by faith) instead of the usual knowing by physical experience. Personally, I don't find those alternative methods useful, but if it works for you, who am I to denigrate your subjective knowledge. :cool:

Quarks :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.

All is physical. — PoeticUniverse

Physicalism is indeed a fairly common philosophical position among Materialists. But Quantum & Information Theories have undermined the confident assumptions of that outdated Classical worldview. My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. The "material" element of reality is what we see with our senses, but the "form" is only known via the sixth sense of Reason. Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). Of course, the quantum foundation of Reality remains under the purview of Physics. But it is so close to nothing that quantum Information theory overlaps with the concerns of Philosophy. Like poets, quantum scientists use concrete metaphors to describe their indescribable abstractions. :nerd:

Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientist to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html

Quantum Philosophy :
https://theconversation.com/quantum-philosophy-4-ways-physics-will-challenge-your-reality-150175

In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. :cool:

Socrates spent his early years studying astronomy, geometry and other areas of sciences. ... Disappointed Socrates turned his attention to the study of the human character.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+socrates

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical. — PoeticUniverse

Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle? :wink:

Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:


-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?

Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

What's going on here, in physical terms? :

Is eternity self-evident? By eternity, I don’t only mean the notion of time collapsing, I also mean infinite phenomena. Infinity and eternity are one in the same. I for some reason find this to be an axiomatic truth which requires no reasoning, logically structured argument, or faith. It is an inherent, self-proving truth. Please tell me your thoughts. — Mp202020

Yes. For brevity, in my writing I sometimes refer to Eternity & Infinity as "Enfernity" : similar to Einstein's "Block-Time" or "Space-Time", but in a holistic sense, timeless & spaceless. Unfortunately, for Materialists & Atheists anything that is not particular is non-sense and counter-intuitive. So, on this forum, we spend a lot of time talking past each other about what's obvious and what's imaginary. Since we humans have no sensory experience of timelessness or spacelessness, or Zero, or Infinity, such abstractions are not intuitive for those who see only with their eyes, and dismiss imaginary concepts as "unreal", hence non-sense. Consequently, they may become offended if you ask them to show you an instance of Zero. :smile:

Enfernity, Enfernal :
A contraction of “Eternity & Infinity” to indicate the irrelevance of those dualistic terms in the holistic state prior to the emergence of space & time from the Big Bang Singularity. Eternity is not a long time, it's the absence of space-time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Block Time :
In Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, time is woven together with the three dimensions of space, forming a bendy, four-dimensional space-time continuum—a “block universe” encompassing the entire past, present, and future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical. — PoeticUniverse

True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?

Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:

MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]

Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]

"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]

As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical. — SpinOwOza

Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile: