↪Gnomon
So ... gravity waves, for instance, are not literally "waves" (because the vacuum of spacetime is "no fluid substance to wave in")? :brow: — 180 Proof

That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way. :grin:


Is space-time smooth or chunky? :
In order for the math of general relativity to work, this fabric of space-time has to be absolutely smooth at the tiniest of scales. No matter how far you zoom in, space-time will always be as wrinkle-free as a recently ironed shirt.
https://www.space.com/space-time-smooth-chunky-quantum-gravity.html
Is Spacetime quantized ? :
Today, while it is generally accepted that spacetime is quantized, there is disagreement as to how quantization manifests itself . ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318303447

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic. — RussellA

Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical. — RussellA

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact. :smile:

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make. — Janus

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make? — Janus

In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things. — Janus

And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.

Generic Information :
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. 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

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking. — Janus

I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism. — Janus

It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum? :wink:

Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else? — Pop

He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation". :joke:

If you are asking about a fluid physical substrate for information to "wave" in, that is a question that puzzled the early pioneers of the wave nature of light energy. Some proposed that empty space contained an ethereal substance called "ether" or "aether". But, today most scientists evade that resemblance to a Spiritual substance by merely saying that light "behaves" like a wave, even though there may be no fluid substance to wave in. That also avoids having to reconcile its particle-like form, per Newton, with its wave-form, in two-slit experiments.

For my philosophical purposes though, I think that energy is not literally waving, but merely metaphorically. It's not a continuous analog wave, but a series of rapid digital quantum on/off (or actual/potential) winks that appear to the observer as a sine wave of ups & downs. For example, you could plot a Morse code signal in terms of a sine wave of maximum/minimum power instead of long/short duration. For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd:


Ether Theory :
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Discrete dots plotted as a continuous curve :

Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. — Wayfarer

Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy." :joke:

Quantum Physics inadvertently placed the Observer back into the empirical equation, which was originally intended to omit the subjective prejudices of ordinary humans, that always led to differences of opinion. Ironically, the Copenhagen Interpretation was similar to the Council of Nicaea, as a means to distinguish mere differences-of-opinion from blatant heresies.

In their quest for perfect objectivity in empirical science, humans have created non-sentient machines that do all of the empirical observing, except extracting meaningful information from the observed relationships. And I've never heard of one telescope arguing with another piece of technical equipment about the significance of the observation. Any philosophical differences in Science are always correlated with physical Bodies, but only those with metaphysical Minds.

Rovelli seems to imply that the post-enlightenment notion of the Objective Observer, was a case of humans pretending to view the world from God's "privileged" perspective outside of the universe. But Quantum Theory knocked the legs out from that presumption : a human observer is an integral part of the system being observed. That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd:

Relational quantum mechanics :
The proponents of the relational interpretation argue that this approach resolves some of the traditional interpretational difficulties with quantum mechanics. By giving up our preconception of a global privileged state, issues around the measurement problem and local realism are resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

Copenhagen interpretation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Council of Nicaea :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And just for funsies . . . . :

Physical Logic :
In R.D. Sorkin's framework for logic in physics a clear separation is made between the collection of unasserted propositions about the physical world and the affirmation or denial of these propositions by the physical world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6266

Logical implies a higher view than the physical. :wink:
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/logical-vs-physical

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile:

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case?

So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience. — Janus

It's true that Mind and Matter are merely different aspects of one reality, just as heads & tails are different aspects (views) of a single coin. But, as a philosophical question, what's the problem with discussing what makes them different? For example, how and why are they distinct from each other? If you prefer not to distinguish between them, does that mean you think it's dangerous to "look into the gaping abyss" of Metaphysics? What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? Should Science avoid discerning what makes one part of a whole different from another?

Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? Some "woke" people today think it's dangerous to scrutinize any genetic distinctions between races, because such, presumably biased, knowledge would inevitably lead to acts of racism. Should scientists be barred from investigating how racial "differences" cause some humans to react differently to the same medications? Is that a step in the right direction, or an emotional over-reaction to the long history of man's inhumanity to man? Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? Are such questions a matter of indifference to you? :cool:

Distinction (philosophy) :
Distinction, the fundamental philosophical abstraction, involves the recognition of difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(philosophy)

Res extensa :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extensa

This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate. I think it's safe to say that the only people interested in it are those who think it has some bearing on religious faith; either those who wish to justify religion or those who wish to refute it. Either way, it's a fool's errand! — Janus

I beg to differ with your over-simplified religion-versus-science characterization of this perennial Mind-Matter "debate". For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. But for many professional Quantum physicists, who are not concerned about "religious faith", the Mind-Matter Paradox is of vital interest. Wouldn't you agree that reveals a third category of far-from-foolish "people", who are vitally interested in the metaphysical aspects of Reality?

For example, I'm currently reading the latest book by atheist physicist Carlo Rovelli, HELGOLAND, in which he discusses the fundamental elements of reality, From the beginning, he makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. Yet, he insists that his position is not a Cartesian dichotomy of spiritual Mind in a physical Body. Instead, he says it unites those phenomena into a single Reality.

In one chapter, Rovelli recounts debates among mostly atheist-materialist leaders of the Russian communist revolution. Ironically, they accuse each other of "unjustified metaphysical assumptions". That's just one of many instances where the philosophical term "metaphysics" is used in a non-religious sense. Moreover, it seems that a keen interest in Meta-Physics is the primary distinction between an empirical Scientist, and a theoretical Philosopher. Yet, in their "physics envy", many philosophers today are forced to disguise their "metaphysical assumptions" with alternative terminology. However, metaphysics by any other name would smell as sweet, because sweetness is in the mind, not the body. :smile:


Embracing the relational nature of existence :
The success of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time has made theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli a household name. In his new book, Helgoland, Rovelli offers to the general public his interpretation of quantum mechanics, arguing that it solves the theory’s paradoxes by so profoundly redefining our notion of reality that it erases the ineffable mind-body dichotomy. . . . . Simply put, Rovelli argues—correctly, I believe—that we must abandon our belief in a cosmos populated by objects moving through space and time.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2021/06/08/helgoland/

Relational quantum mechanics :
The physical content of the theory has not to do with objects themselves, but the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Note -- relations are not material objects, but mental or mathematical evaluations. Some may think of math ratios as "physical", but only in the sense that they are usually associated with physical objects. But not always. Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

The "good company" you're keeping, Gnomon, are just as incoherent as your "thesis". — 180 Proof

You seem to have strong opinions about a thesis you know only from a few forum posts. Obviously, you still don't understand what my thesis is really proposing. Apparently, you read a few trigger words in my posts -- such as "Panpsychism" -- and then jump to a foregone conclusion without actually knowing how & why I use such terms in a novel manner. FWIW, I have placed below a link to an introduction to the Enformationism thesis. It also includes an even more condensed version in a popup, for those who can't follow long arguments. Unfortunately, the abbreviation may leave too much room for "reading into" my words, the reader's own meanings.

Speaking of "trigger words", in chapter six of Rovelli's book, he addresses some misuses of Quantum Theory to support some theories of Panpsychism and Spiritualism, which I also discuss in my blog. Although, he admits a hippie phase in his own past, he expresses disgust for New Age notions such as "quantum medicine" and "quantum spiritualism". And I agree with his scientific position. But I don't dismiss the ancient roots of such ideas as the work of neanderthals and idiots. For example, the sages, who invented the notion of invisible Spirits, were probably some of the smartest people in the world at the time. But what they described as animating "spirits" was actually what we now call invisible causal "energy". Unfortunately, the explanatory theories of those early philosophers and scientists were quickly converted into religious doctrines by those who wanted to use "science" to convince the gullible that they had influence over those scary natural forces.

Rovelli says "I don't find such arguments and such 'pan-psychism' persuasive in the slightest. . . . there is no need to attribute proto-consciousness to elementary systems . . ." And I agree. That's why I use the the more neutral, and technical, term "Information", instead of spooky "consciousness", to describe energy exchanges in bits & bytes at the quantum level of physics. However, he goes-on to discuss "Intentionality", which is a property of Information that goes beyond the mechanics of Energy, to include the notion of "Meaning". Then he says, "Two concepts bring us close to an answer : Information and evolution, even if neither is enough to comprehend what "meaning" is in physical terms." Later, he asserts, "a small miracle occurs, however, when we combine the two ideas of information and evolution." Again I agree, but I maintain that it is a natural "miracle", not a divine intervention. My thesis is all about the consequences of combining Information with Evolution. I had to coin a neologism to convey the meaning of that chimerical combination : EnFormAction. But, I'll leave it at that. I suspect that we have strayed far from the OP question of the relationship between Logic and Disbelief. :cool:

Introduction to Enformationism :
One of those early worldviews is Panpsychism, which is updated to replace ancient “Psyche” (spirit) with modern “EnFormAction” (creative energy)
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. — TheMadFool

OK. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I think what ↪Ying
was getting at is that the yin/yang is rooted in the notion of nondualism: — javra

Perhaps. But I was replying to Tim's implication that "balance" must be static. It's true that perfect balance would be "static" and frozen due to the cessation of motion. But that's not a description of our ever-changing world. Instead, positive and negative forces in the universe, seem to be balanced just enough to allow for the emergence of Life & Mind, which would not survive a more chaotic environment.

I interpret the circle that encloses the swirling black & white forms to symbolize the dynamic balance of a whole (non-dual) system consisting of (dual) diametrically opposing forces. A static balance would be symbolized as equal halves of the circle. ◑ But a slight imbalance would allow for change. ☯ :cool:


Is the world balanced? :
Yes! It is. The world exists because there is a balance, a balance slightly in favor of stabilizing forces as opposed to destabilizing forces, . . .
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-world-balanced

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case. — tim wood

That's why the Yin/Yang concept describes a dynamic balance. Even the symbol looks like it's whirling around. The complementary oppositions of our universe (male/female, hot/cold) are what makes the world go around -- figuratively and physically. ☯

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables — Gnomon
Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing! — TheMadFool

The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white.

Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Gnomon
I said nothing about Rovelli's "interpretation of Aristotle". I was referring your anachronistic, neo/faux-Aristotlean interpretation (reading) of Rovelli's Hegoland. — 180 Proof

What do you think my "anachronistic, neo/faux-Aristotlean interpretation" is all about? Please, be constructive. Name-calling, and expressions of disgust ("I consider your interpretation BS") are not philosophical arguments. :joke:

How do you "interpret" Rovelli's interpretation of Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna's "central thesis" of emptiness? (chapter 5) He quotes him as saying "the ultimate reality, the essence, is absence, is vacuity". Does that notion fit your understanding of scientific Truth? From my perspective, Rovelli seems to approve of Nagarjuna's belief that the material world is an illusion. Therefore, he concludes that only relations are real. Yet, relationships only exist in the Minds of observers. And the function of Consciousness is to "see" invisible relations between things, is it not? Hence my thesis suggests that "ultimate reality" is not a collection of parts, but the Whole, which exists only as a web of relations. Does that sound disgusting from your scientific perspective? :cool:

Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon.. . . . "A central thesis of the book is that absence can still be efficacious."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

I do appreciate your ambitious speculative "thesis", however, even though I don't agree with it jumping the shark to masquerade as a "science" of some kind. — 180 Proof

What gave you the idea that my thesis is "masquerading as science"? Do you think it's actually a religious concept, disguised as science? Or could it be merely an emerging paradigm of quantum science and 21st century philosophy? :cool:

Enformationism :
This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

Symmetry is basically Dualism (Indian Philosophy), the idea/belief that the universe is made up of two but opposite parts. The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang
The idea is rather simple, examples will illustrate this: Hot-Cold, Tall-Short, Big-Small, Light-Dark, Male-Female, Particle-Antiparticle, etc.. Basically, thing vs anti-thing — TheMadFool

This is very similar to my own BothAnd worldview, in which all parts of the world have balancing counterparts. Hence logically & necessarily, Dualism is inherent in Reality. But the second half of my notion is that dualism was necessary to create distinctions, and to allow for change. If the physical world was monistic, there would be only one big thing, and no room for change. However, you could also argue that the a priori Singularity (or G*D) was monistic and holistic, but then in an unprovoked act of creation, split like nuclear fission into a Big Bang, first into two halves (e.g. matter-antimatter). Then, as a chain-reaction, it continued to divide in a manner similar to meiosis of living cells. :nerd: ☯ ☯ ☯ ☯ ☯

6. Since there's a being that's powerless, ignorant, and bad (me :sad:), there has to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (God proven). — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables, to hold-up as a logical argument. Besides, an all-encompassing Unity, could not exist within our imperfect and ever-changing reality. Nevertheless, I reached a similar holistic G*D conclusion via a different line of reasoning. It's based on the notion that evolution is executing a Program, which must have a Programmer. Yet, the relationship between Programmer and Program is not symmetrical, it's conceptual. The whole is not just another part, or a counterpart. :smile:

No. Having just read Hegoland myself, I consider your interpretation BS — 180 Proof

OK. But, I must object to your interpretation of Rovelli's interpretation of Aristotle. It's true that Aristotelian physics and metaphysics were rejected by some of the Enlightenment scientists, who were rebelling against Scholastic Philosophy (i.e. religious interpretations of Aristotle). And those early scientist's objections were reflected in Stephen Weinberg's book titled, Against Philosophy. Apparently, from his perspective, philosophy was all about Metaphysics. That's why Rovelli wrote a rejoinder, Physics Needs Philosophy. There, he recounts an ancient debate between Isocrates and Aristotle. And he concluded that, "Two millennia of development of the sciences and philosophy have vindicated and, if anything, strengthened Aristotle’s defense of philosophy against Isocrates’ accusations of futility."

It seems that Rovelli agrees that Philosophy is Metaphysics : i.e. theories rather than experiments. In another article, he says "I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct approximation of Newtonian physics in its appropriate domain, in the same precise sense in which Newton theory is ..." But in the same article, what he referred to as "Physics" was Aristotle's arguments, his theories, his generalizations, not his laboratory experiments. Today, few scientists, in their own work on Physics, refer to Aristotle's facts from the first volume of Phusis (Nature) . Yet they do make use of his Categories and Logical Arguments, which were expressed in the second volume, now known as The Metaphysics. Although, for Aristotle, both books addressed the current best knowledge of Nature, the first focused on Hyle (wood, matter), and the second on Form (essences, ideas, theories). What he didn't discuss in the Metaphysics was popular myths about the various gods & ghosts. When he did refer to "God", it was more like Spinoza's Nature God, than to the exploits of Zeus and Apollo. :wink:


Physics Needs Philosophy :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/

1. “Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form, but with regard to their mode of life.”
___Aristotle

IMO, Gnomon, your "Enformationism" is no less conceptually incoherent. — 180 Proof

Maybe so. But I am in good company. Since most of the metaphysical concepts in my thesis were derived from prominent scientists, like Rovelli, who are reinterpreting Nature in light of Quantum Theory, in terms of Relationships, not Material objects. Whether or not Enformationism is "conceptually incoherent", it is based on Quantum physicist John Archibald Wheeler's radical notion of "It from Bit". Could it be that your Classical interpretation of the thesis is what's muddled? :joke:

Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics :
Rovelli won the second prize in the 2013 FQXi contest ‘It From Bit or Bit From It?’ for his essay on “relative information”. His book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, has also been translated into 41 languages and has sold over a million copies worldwide.
https://medium.com/predict/carlo-rovellis-relational-quantum-mechanics-256cc264f394

"It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what 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 this is a participatory universe."
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
click box for popup
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html

↪Gnomon
Well, Spinoza Hume & Kant collectively drove the final stake through Aristotle's undead metaphysics centuries before "materialistic 20th century scientists" (who never even bothered to consider it). I call "BS", Gnomon, — 180 Proof

You've made it clear that, for you, Metaphysics is anti-scientific. But, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Aristotle's "First Principles" is a zombie? It's true that some philosophers and scientists have tried to put a stake through the heart of Scholastic Metaphysics. But Aristotle's abstract notion of Substance -- Quality, Quantity, and Relation, as the essence of concrete matter -- keeps rising from its grave to haunt hard-core Physicalists and Naturalists. I'm currently reading physicist Carlo Rovelli's book, Helgoland, about the origins of Quantum Theory. In his brief history of that revolution in Science, it's obvious that Metaphysics was inadvertently resurrected from a shallow grave. Which reminds me of Mark Twain's quip : "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"

Rovelli noted that while some of the QT founders were using metaphors from Buddhism and Hinduism to explain why the basement of reality is so full of spooky ghosts, such as Superposition and Entanglement, others were making non-empirical metaphysical claims of their own. He described Ernst Mach's "anti-metaphysical spirit", but then notes that the target of his criticism was not Aristotle, but the materialist scientists, who tried to understand QT in terms of Classical physics. Rovelli then quoted a philosopher friend, who asked "what are these 'most rooted metaphysical convictions' of ours, if not what we have become accustomed to believe precisely by handling stones and pieces of wood?" Rovelli labels those sober scientist's "metaphysical prejudices" as "naturalism without substance".

He says, "many interpretations of quantum mechanics . . . (Many Worlds, Hidden Variables, and Physical Collapse) . . . seem to me to be efforts to squeeze the discoveries of quantum physics into the canons of metaphysical prejudice." In other words, he's accusing some highly credentialed scientists of holding -- not empirical physical beliefs -- but metaphysical philosophical positions that are out of date. Moreover, he said that "Mach argues that the progress of science shows that this notion of 'matter' is an unjustified 'metaphysical' assumption". So, even post-enlightenment scientists hold-on to Metaphysical beliefs about Ontology and Epistemology.

Clearly, Rovelli is not using the term "metaphysics" in the sense of definition "2. abstract theory with no basis in reality", but of definition "1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space". The thesis of the book is that immaterial metaphysical mathematical Relations are the essential "substance" of Quantum Reality. However, Rovelli himself is a sober and credentialed scientist. Yet, he is also a Theoretical Physicist, so he experiments with metaphysical ideas, not physical objects. Do you consider his metaphysical science to be BS? :nerd:


Aristotle's Substance :
. . . four possible candidates for being the substance of something: essence, universal, genus, and subject.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
Note -- all of those proposed substances are subjective mental concepts, not objective material objects.

Rovelli's Field of physics :
Loop quantum gravity, by contrast, is concerned less with the matter that inhabits space-time than with the quantum properties of space-time itself.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theory-meets-loop-quantum-gravity-20160112/
Note -- the notion of invisible strings of matter vibrating in 11 dimensions is about as "naturalism without substance" as it gets. By contrast, the mathematical properties of space-time are legitimate subjects for a theoretical (philosophical) physicist, who doesn't pretend to study invisible, non-empirical matter.

I feel the need to clarify that, in our discussions, I am not arguing in favor of Pseudoscience or against Science. Instead, I'm trying to make 21st century science more inclusive. My Enformationism thesis has made me appreciate what Aristotle was talking about in the second volume of his treatise on Nature (Greek "physica"). Because the focus of the second volume was on the immaterial mental aspects of Nature : the theories that humans have developed about Nature-in-general. That encyclopedia of philosophical concepts was later labelled "The MetaPhysics" : simply indicating the second of two volumes. But over time that descriptive term took-on a secondary meaning, probably due to Catholic Theology (the Scholastics). It was used to refer to anything SuperNatural, as in gods & angels & demons. So, when empirical Science revolted against Catholic hegemony on Truth, they turned that useful theological distinction into a pejorative. Hence, today, "metaphysics" is commonly taken to mean "unrealistic" (definition 2 below).

Ironically, materialistic 20th century scientists, in their search for Truth, inadvertently blurred the imaginary line between Physics and Metaphysics, as it dug into the quantum foundations of Reality. Classical Materialism was based on the notion of solid "real" atoms as the fundamental building blocks of reality. But now, physicists have gradually come to accept that the basic elements of Reality are Fields of Virtual Particles. And those invisible intangible specks of mathematical information are defined as dimensionless nodes in a mathematical matrix of geometric interrelationships. So, they can be interpreted as either "realistic" or "imaginary", depending on your perspective. However, following Aristotle's example, I prefer to consider those fundaments as both Potential and Actual, as in the state of Superposition.

The classical picture of Reality, as a smooth continuum, was turned upside down by two discoveries : 1. the granular nature of Quantum physics, and 2. the digital nature of Information theory. And those discrete-but-entangled Virtual Particles are now known to consist of nothing more real than mathematical Information. From that counterintuitive insight, I have developed a Theory of Everything, based on the notion of superposition of Information : it can be both Real and Ideal, both Virtual and Material, both Energy and Matter, both True and False. Therefore, I conclude that our world is not simplistically black-or-white, but Complex and Relative --- in the sense of Einstein's theory of Relativity : what you see (your truth) depends on your frame of reference. Of course, that shades-of-gray worldview, makes distinguishing True from False more difficult. But philosophical wisdom has never been easy.

For example, those who are disposed to believe in ghosts or UFOs will see them in any strange reflections or fuzzy images, where imagination is allowed to construct patterns within randomness. But subjective interpretations of limited information seldom manifest themselves in a hard material form. I see ghosts & aliens in fictional portrayals all the time. But I have never seen them in person, or in non-fictional reality. So, while I remain skeptical about such vague manifestations, I cannot categorically dismiss them as absolutely false, because some very intelligent people do claim to "see" such things. So, like Schrodinger's cat, I merely imagine them in superposition of true/false, or as possible-but-not-likely. For me, they don't seem real, but I acknowledge that from their perspective (biased, prejudiced, or better informed??) their metaphysical idea of ghosts seems just as plausible as Invisible Fields and Virtual Particles. :nerd:


Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Virtual Reality :
Victor Toth (on Quora) "Virtual particles are called virtual” because they do NOT EXIST," (5/30/21). Gordon Caine (in Scientific American) "Virtual particles are indeed real particles," (10/09/06). Can anyone resolve this seeming contradiction?
"However, under certain very extreme circumstances, virtual particles can “become" real in a sense. And they may well be “real" in the minds of those who are intimately familiar with the mathematical formalism. It just becomes a matter of perspective."
____Quora

Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

Truth Embargo -- UFOs :
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/truth-embargo-ufos-are-suddenly-all-talk-washington-n1270560?utm_source=pocket-newtab

In the last decade or so my particular (contra one g/G at a time) 'posiitive atheism' has developed into an even more rigorous, parsimonous and general (contra g/G-Types, and only consequentially their g/G-Tokens) 'antitheism'. For integrity's sake (contra philosophical suicide), only crushing 'realist-cognitive theism' satisfies me – écrasez l'infâme! – while, without contempt or condescension, leaving alone otherwise inoffense 'noncognitive theists' (of "simple faith", like my mother). — 180 Proof

By now, you may have noticed that I am an equal-opportunity Skeptic. I can doubt the confident positive assertions of both Theists and Atheists. I was raised in an evangelical religion, which taught us how to "reason" with those of different beliefs -- including Christians who had lost their way. But it didn't take long for me to realize that it was futile to sow seeds of "truth" on stoney ground. Only those who are pre-disposed toward a certain version of the truth, would see the "error of their ways". That's why Jesus said metaphorically : “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” .

Since this is a forum for logical "wisdom seekers" you'd think that most would immediately recognize the Truth, and file it away in their wisdom cache. But, surprisingly, a significant number here have closed-off their minds to whole categories of "truth". And I have learned by empirical experience that "crushing" the opposition is a lose-lose approach to anything. Anyway, it's usually the inoffensive innocent non-cognitive types who are "crushed" by scorched-earth offensive tactics.

My "inoffensive non-cognitive mother" was lectured long into the night, by my positive cognitive-theist father, on fine points of doctrine, which he took for absolute essential truths, but she was more flexible about. For the sake of peace in the family, she pretended to go along with his hardline doctrines, but inwardly she was not pre-disposed to black & white worldviews. I suppose I inherited some aspects of both dispositions. But in my old age, I'm more inclined toward moderate win-win tactics. I can be flexible now, because I no longer believe that those who reject a particular version of The Truth will be tortured in Hell forever. Besides, aggressive evangelism is not approved on a philosophical forum of diverse worldviews. :nerd:

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, . . .
___2 Thessalonians 2:7-12

Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”
___John 18 : 38

Expressions of theism, etc which do not consist in truth-claims (i.e. religious nonrealism, mystical (esoteric) quietism, etc) are not of epistemic (or metaphysical) concern for secular freethinkers. — 180 Proof

FWIW, I consider myself to be a "secular freethinker". but I do have epistemic, ontological, and metaphysical "concern" for unorthodox truth claims. Many concepts that are currently accepted by the majority of scientists -- such as the counter-intuitive notion that the Earth moves around the Sun -- were once radically eccentric.

Most people in the world, not just Theists and Anti-theists, seem to believe that their personal ideology is The Truth, or close enough for their purposes. But they can't all be right, even those who claim to rely only on empirical facts. So, for me, all truth-claims are suspect. I am a card-carrying skeptic (e.g. subscribed to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine for over 40 years). Hence, I am well-informed about Science and Pseudoscience.

However, the invisible line between Orthodox Science and Pseudoscience is always murky & moot. Therefore, I try to keep an open mind about those borderline notions, but not so open that my brains fall out. I also try to follow Spinoza's motto, as quoted below. Yet, the purpose of Philosophy has always been to explore the fringes of knowledge (epistemology) in search of Truth and Wisdom.

The skeptical attitude toward other people's beliefs is not intended to be offensive, but defensive : to avoid taking the bait of superficially appealing doctrines. Nevertheless, I am not afraid to look closely at supposedly scientific, but non-empirical & fringey ideas -- such as String, and Many Worlds, and Instantaneous Inflation theories -- in order to see if I can fit them into my own worldview. That's how I work to get Closer to Truth, and not to bury my head in the sands of Official Truth. That's the freedom of a FreeThinker. :cool:


" I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human [beliefs] , but to understand them." —Baruch Spinoza
[my brackets]

Pseudoscience :
The wide umbrella of pseudoscience encompasses ideas that come from a variety of sources, and they generally have little in common except that they have been designated as such by members of the scientific community.
Discover Magazine, June 2021
Note -- Galileo's controversial ideas about a sun-centered system, were "designated" as pseudoscience (heresy) by members of the orthodox clergy.

Purpose of philosophy :
Philosophy overall aims to question assumptions we make about our lives and really dig in to the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. It can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world than is our habit.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/philosophy-definition-purpose.html

Fringe Theory :
Fringe theories include the models and proposals of fringe science . . . . the term fringe theory is closer to the popular understanding of the word theory—a hypothesis or a guess or an uncertain idea—than to the concept of an established scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory

Well, that may be, but is besides the point as far as I'm concerned. Truth-values are what they are regardless of "emotions and feelings" which is why they are extremely useful / reliable. — 180 Proof

For black & white thinkers, bolstered by the feeling of certainty, "truth-values are what they are", and anything else is false-values and illusions.

But my point was that no one in this world knows the absolute truth. And no-body is perfectly objective. Why do you think Einstein so passionately argued that "god does not play dice!" .He spent the last years of his life trying to prove that Quantum Indeterminacy was wrong. Apparently, he believed that the real world was deterministic, as assumed by the classical scientists. Was he wrong? Can you provide conclusive evidence, one way or another, that he knew the truth, or was believing a lie?

What makes you believe that your "truth-values". . . "are what they are"? Christians and Muslims also believe that their truth-values are the true-truth. Not because of empirical facts, but due to emotional certainty. Are you that certain of your "truth-values"? Could Reality be Relative, as Einstein asserted, to the chagrin of his fellow scientists?

The profoundest questions of philosophy, after 2500 years of the Rational search for wisdom, and 400 years of Empirical Science, have still not been answered to date. That's why we have a Philosophy Forum to continue that open-ended search for truth. It's also why neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn hosted a TV series, called Closer to Truth. Those who believe that empirical Science has the last word on Truth, may be surprised that serious scientists still disagree on fundamental questions. That's why the BothAnd Principle advises a touch of humility, and a broad mind, for those who seek the elusive butterfly of Truth. :joke:



Quantum indeterminism asserts that certain kinds of events, call them "Q events" are indeterministic. Really really really indeterministic, not just "as far as we know​" ...
https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm

↪Gnomon
Well, for me, where theism consists in truth-claims I find that upon examination these claims do not evince positive truth-values (and therefore "agnosticism" does not obtain); however, where truth-claims are not asserted about either the world or those who believe otherwise or not at all, there is no issue. Reasonable, rational, logical & pragmatic unbelief as far as I'm concerned. — 180 Proof

The point of my previous post was that "truth values" are ultimately evaluated in terms of emotions and feelings, or the lack thereof. The technical definitions of our words can be understood differently, depending on the emotional shadings of our worldviews. Hence, the contrasting "truth-values" (personal meaning) of our words.

For example, faith in God implies a "truth-claim". But, I submit that neither of us has empirical evidence, one way or the other, to verify the existence of an entity, that is by definition outside-of or more-than the physical universe. So, the Agnostic position may be the most rational solution. But, when human (and philosophical) yearnings for ultimate Truth are taken into account, there may be an answer that has the best, and perhaps the worst, of both worldviews.

I once had an extended pre-internet letter dialog with a relative, who was an evangelical Christian. And our conversation was as calm and rational as possible, since we knew, and loved & respected, each other. My concern was more with the veracity of the "scriptures", than with the general notion of a deity. But, when I asked her for the extra-biblical evidence to support her faith, she replied that she had "experienced" God in her own heart. So, does that sensation count as empirical evidence?

Since it was obvious that a rational logical debate was not going to change either belief system, we ended the exchange with the "to each his own" resolution. Much later, I developed my own philosophical worldview, that was neither Theist nor Atheist. It may not have much "truth-value" for you, but it allows me to look dispassionately at both sides of any contentious question. That accommodating worldview is what I call the BothAnd Principle. :cool:


Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol, and the two sides of one coin. 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.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. good vs evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (Ideality, Truth) doesn't change, but your conception of truth does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS__Technically, "scripture" simply means "writings". But for some it also means "absolute Truth". While, for others, it means "religious propaganda".

Why is "problem" in quotation marks? And what do you mean by "promised peak of the tipping point" in this context? Because it seems to me you're confusing climate tipping points with what I'm talking, which is a change in perspective. — Xtrix

If you will read the post slowly, you might catch the point of putting "problem" in quotes. Here's a hint : every generation has faced the same general "problem". The attempt to raise consciousness of the dangers of Climate Change is just one more of society's challenges that requires a "change in perspective". But, don't worry, the worldview problem of previous generations tends be forgotten by the current generation, as we face the same viewpoint "problem" under a new name. :smile:

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening -- similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale. — Xtrix

Back in the hippie sixties, the prophecy of a new awakening was called the Age of Aquarius : a new astrological cycle of peace & love. Thus began a long slow process of Consciousness Raising. And in the eighties, physicist Fritjof Capra wrote a book entitled The Turning Point. He called on scientists to make it happen : "to round the great turn from hard, mechanistic, reductionist science to soft, organic, systems-view science". Then in 2000, Malcom Gladwell wrote The Tipping Point, which described the viral spread of memes, hopefully, as a "social epidemic" of new thinking. Now, after years of promoting the meme of Global Warming -- which at first was misunderstood as only a matter of temperature -- the "problem" of Ecological Climate Change is widespread in the western world. But still, we look around and think : "why haven't we yet reached the promised peak of the tipping point, that heralds a New Awakening".

Practically speaking, I would guess that most Tipping Points in history were not necessarily a sudden dramatic turn of events, but a gradual evolution from an old worldview to a newer perspective. Hegel's Dialectic made the twists & turns of history sound like a neck-jerking experience of zigs & zags. But in retrospect, it often took centuries for an old epoch to be transformed into something recognizable as a new era. For example, it took three centuries for the "religious conversion" of Christianity, from a minor Jewish sect into a global imperial religion. So, if you look at the world from a broader evolutionary perspective, maybe you will see a, volatile but gradual, conversion from "dark ages" to "enlightenment", that has not yet reached perfection. But then, according to Hegel, it never does -- just Yinning & Yanging from Conservative to Liberal, and back again. Nevertheless, he was optimistic that the "spirit of history" would eventually evolve toward perfection at some future Omega Point. :cool:


http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Back to IIT, though - I think the above postulates highlight the limitations of a quantitative theory. Relevant information is that which counts for predicting future interaction with the system. Consciousness isn’t just about quantity, but about relevance: what counts for predicting future interaction. — Possibility

That's why I think quantitative IIT is a step in the right direction for reductive Science, but still can't account for the holistic aspects of the world, that are relevant to all humans, not just empirical scientists. :smile:


Reply to RougueAI above "
IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness, as a computative process, is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors : comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning.

The Logic of Atheism debate got me thinking about something. If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. — Pinprick

I suspect that most of the Atheists on this forum do have logical reasons for being skeptical of other people's belief in invisible deities. Their logic might be of the "if-then" form. For example, "if God is good, then why is there evil in the created world?". Others might simply say that belief in any questionable proposition, apart from empirical evidence, is illogical, hence unbelievable.

However, many of us absorbed a belief in the relationship between humanity and Nature (defined as deity), before the age of reason. So, our reasoning is grounded on that fundamental relationship, and any other worldview just doesn't make sense. Both sides of the "-ism" divide use logic & reason to arrive at "reasonable" conclusions to moot questions. And it's only their unquestioned assumptions (axioms) that allow then to reason-out different answers from the same evidence. That may be why you say that "logic" is not needed to be skeptical of non-conforming worldviews. The logic is implicit in their original belief system, biased one way or the other.

Those of us who post on philosophical forums though, tend to use explicit logical arguments in favor of their own views, and in opposition to different worldviews. Unfortunately, due to the different emotional meanings of the same terminology, they tend to talk past each other. That's why the great skeptic, Voltaire, said, "if you wish to converse with me, first define your terms". Formal Logic is only as good as the validity of its terms. Yet different worldviews have disparate emotional meanings, as contrasted with rational technical meanings, for the same words. That's why I set-out to define, not just technical terminology, but my innermost personal worldview, as carefully as possible. But still, I am misunderstood more often than not. :sad:


“If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."

Rovelli’s use of the h-bar is not as a symbol of quantum level ‘communication’ - it acts as a qualitative limitation in any calculated prediction. — Possibility

"Communication" was my term, not Rovelli's. And it was used deliberately, even though Rovelli specifically excludes the definition of "Information" that is relevant to my personal worldview. He says "the word 'information' . . . . is a word packed with ambiguity". That's exactly why I spend a lot of verbiage in my thesis & blog, to specify what I do and don't mean by "information", in the context of my un-orthodox understanding of how the world works -- not physically, but metaphysically. He goes on to say "'Information' is used here in an objective physical sense that has nothing to do with meaning". And that's OK for scientific descriptions of the physical world. But my concern is with the philosophical (semantic) meaning of metaphysical Information, as one human communicates subjective ideas to other humans.

In its most abstract and general sense, Information is simply mathematical ratios : relationships between one un-specified thing and another, (X : Y = 1 : 2). Those logical relations boil-down to yes/no, or true/false, or 1/0, as in digital computer code. And ratios or relationships have no meaning until they are interpreted by an observer : either a third party, or one of the communicants, who has a subjective perspective. And the "meaning" of an interchange is interpreted relative to the unique frame-of-reference of that third party. It is not an empirical fact of reality.

So, I take Rovelli's emphasis on the "relational" interpretation of quantum theory, as a pragmatic definition for physical scientific purposes. But my purpose is philosophical and metaphysical, in that it is concerned with how Conscious Minds, capable of knowing abstract Qualia, could evolve from a world of concrete Quanta. Therefore, for me, the relevant usage of "Information" is for qualitative concepts, not quantitative percepts. And the notion of a Prime Observer (third party), or holistic Cosmic Mind, has a qualitative meaning, that would not be of interest to a physicist attempting to reduce reality down to its fundamental granular quanta at the Planck scale. The holistic meaning of "reality" is continuous & non-finite, and exists only as a meaningful concept in a subjective mind. But then, as the "mind of god", that universal view would also be our objective reality. Yes? :smile:


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. . . . 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

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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

First is how we should view universal laws, such as the speed of light, or gravitational forces. These appear to be wholly arbitrary, — Count Timothy von Icarus

The laws & constants of our world do indeed seem to be "arbitrary" to us, because they boil-down to a sequence of numbers that have no meaning for us creatures of the code. I suspect that the agents inside a computer game (TRON, for example) or inside a simulated world ( such as The MATRIX) would not be able to make sense of the digital code that is streaming through their world. (see below) That's because they don't know the Mind of their Programmer -- his numerical language or his intentions for the game.

However, the only reasonable "explanation" for those fundamental ratios so far, is the Anthropic Principle. Atheists reject that notion, not because it's a crazy concept, but because it implies that the Universe, and its occupants, were intended to be here, and not a random accident. Since I have no animosity toward the notion of intentional creation, it sounds like a good guess to me. :smile:

Anthropic principle :
Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. . . .The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

There is also a nice dovetail between these aspects of reality and the image of God as a being that must create something outside itself to define itself and thus exist; something like the theology of Boehme. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm more familiar with Hegel than Boeme. But Wikipedia indicates that his notion of deity was basically Judeo-Christian, with some elements of Gnostic Mysticism. Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory also seems to be a modified version of Christian Theology, as viewed through a lens of Quantum spookiness. And I can see his point -- up to a point.

Some posters here jump to the conclusion, that my references to a "Creator" (Enformer) are evidence of either Christian or New Age sympathies. Yet in fact, I constructed my concept of the Creator-as-Programmer primarily from known facts of Astronomy (not Astrology), Cosmology (not Gnosticism), and Quantum Science (not Classical Science). I admit that it does sound New Agey, especially in the image of my previous post. But that was not my intention. So I don't claim to know the mind of G*D, except as demonstrated in the rational organization of the world. And I don't concern myself with Magic or Mysticism. :cool:

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, __Einstein

THE MATRIX -- RAINING CODE :

An informational ‘bit’ is a consolidated binary event — Possibility

Rovelli uses Planck's Proportionality Constant ( ħ ) as a symbol of quantum level "communication" in the form of Information or Energy. The constant defines a "quantum" of Energy and a "bit" of Information. As you say though, it always takes two to "entangle", to communicate. But he also makes a distinction between a Syntactic exchange (equivalent to a geometric relationship), and a Semantic interchange, which conveys Meaning between minds. That's my interpretation of course, He doesn't put it in exactly those terms. He does say, however, that "entanglement . . . is none other than the external perspective on the very relations that weave reality". (my emphasis) And you can define that third party to the exchange as a scientist's observation, or more generally as Berkeley's "God" who is "always about in the quad". That was the bishop's ontological argument for a universal Observer, who keeps the system up & running, even when there are no Quantum Physicists to measure the energy/information exchanges of minuscule particles. My own Enformationism thesis came to a similar conclusion. :nerd:

Queer quantum query in the quad :
https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg23130871-400-5-queer-quantum-query-in-the-quad/

Like Rovelli, I don’t believe there is any reason to posit a Cosmic Consciousness. — Possibility

Rovelli asks, "why is it that we are not able to describe where the electron is and what it is doing when we are not observing it? . . . . Observables! What does nature care whether there is anyone to observe or not?" Scientists don't have to worry about such questions, because Nature, or Spinoza's God, is always observing. But Rovelli has a different explanation : "the electron is a wave that spreads, and that is all. This is why it has no trajectory." When unobserved, there is no independent particles; there is only the hypothetical universal unitary non-quantized fluid or field in which a wave propagates. As I understand his point : the entangled system observes or tracks itself. Hence no third party is necessary. But what if G*D, or Cosmic Mind is the system? :chin:

But perhaps it comes down to whether one is inspired by the question or the answer... — Possibility

I suppose you could say that my Information-based worldview is what "inspired" me to assume, as an unprovable axiom, that a Cosmic Mind is necessary to imagine all the semantic information & causal energy in the world. :cool:

If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments, then how could it apply to a non-belief that is based on a lack of convincing arguments? — Pinprick

The logic of un-belief may be based on the old adage : "seeing is believing". Anything that I can't see, or otherwise verify for myself, is subjective hearsay. But most "isms" are also also grounded by a pragmatic attitude, which defines what can be accepted without evidence, and what should be treated with skepticism. Of course, it's always easy for us to be skeptical of other people's paradigms, that we don't share. And the emotional feelings of "isms", including Atheism, are often impervious to rational logic.

For example, Catholic Christians share much of their belief system with Protestant Christians, and non-christian Muslims. Yet, Catholics tend to assume that theirs is the true church, and Protestants are apostates from the truth. At the same time, the Protestant attitude is just the opposite. And centuries of rational (theological) arguments have been insufficient to overcome the feeling-of-certainty attached to their (our) beloved personal paradigms. Therefore, if a person's faith is so dependent on their subjective frame-of-reference, it behooves all of us, not just Atheists, to insist on a more objective foundation for belief, where possible.

Unfortunately, objective evidence for many human beliefs is not available. So, some things we must accept as more-or-less true (truish), as long as they don't clash with our foundational worldview. And the line-of-demarcation between Atheist and Theist beliefs usually falls into an evidence gap between the categories of "Physics" (Measurable Reality) and "Meta-Physics" (Immensurable Ideality). Ironically, many of us are more emotionally invested in subjective Ideas & Ideals, than in practical objective things, because objective facts are known only indirectly.

For example, most of us take for granted that the "solid" physical objects we see & touch are made-up of tiny balls called "atoms", because that is the conventional wisdom of classical Science. That's still true, even a century after Quantum scientists concluded from laboratory evidence -- plus lots of reasoning and arguments -- that atoms are nothing more than imaginary "balls" of mathematical probability. Like many Catholics, some of us pretend to go along with the official line (on Abortion, for instance), even as we act based on un-sanctioned beliefs. Besides, intuitive Classical Physics just feels more real than spooky Quantum Queerness, with its ghostly virtual particles.

So, what we choose to believe or disbelieve may depend more on our established belief system than on any logical or empirical evidence. And that a priori faith is your personal worldview, which in turn provides reasons for logical arguments. If the scenario of "selective truth" is indeed the case for most humans, a modicum of modesty should moderate our judgments of other people's views. And a mirror of skepticism toward our own beliefs, may help root-out fake facts. :cool:


Hume on Logic :
Hume argued that inductive reasoning (characteristic of the scientific method) and belief in causality cannot be justified rationally; instead, they result from custom and mental habit. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

How can we know what's true? :
We know something is true if it is in accordance with measurable reality. But just five hundred years ago, this seemingly self-evident premise was not common thinking. Instead, for much of recorded history, truth was rooted in scholasticism.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/07/how_do_we_know_what_is_true.html

How do we know that things are really made of atoms? :
Seeing is believing . . . or because the experts told us so?
https://www.quora.com/Are-atoms-imaginary-or-real-If-they-are-real-then-how-can-we-see-them
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151120-how-do-we-know-that-things-are-really-made-of-atoms

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

FWIW, here's my personal definition of holistic BEING, as contrasted with any particular being. Is that close to your understanding? Eternal BEING looking at He/r reflection in a panoply of created beings. :smile:

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

Ground of Being :
Paul Tillich was critical of the view of God as a type of being or presence. He felt that, if God were a being, God could not then properly be called the source of all being (due to the question of what, in turn, created God). As an alternative, he suggested that God be understood as the “ground of Being-Itself”.
https://religiousnaturalism.org/god-as-ground-of-being-paul-tillich/

Lets assume if two integers collide their values combine and gain different properties, however collisions become exponentially(?) harder as the size gets bigger. — Ben Ngai

I think your intuition has some validity, But, in what sense could "two integers collide"? In order to literally bump into each other, mathematical values (quanta) would have to possess material properties (qualia) That's why it's always hard to discuss metaphysics without using physical metaphors.

Values are subjective & relative evaluations from some perspective. Even mathematical "values" are assigned in the context of their relationship to subjective human observers. Nevertheless, my intuition is that ultimately "objective" mathematical & logical values & functions must be assigned relative to an observer outside the system : the universe. So, when universal or abstract values are added or subtracted (due to "collisions" or inter-relationships) the computation would be in a Mind of some kind, not in "empty space". Does that make any sense? :smile:

I think the main focus of IIT is more in predicting consciousness with greater accuracy. — Possibility

Yes. That too. IIT may be useful for the current application of computers in the search for hidden signs of consciousness in people that outwardly appear to be in a vegetative state (wakeful unawareness).

I doubt that Tononi had Star Trek technology in mind as he developed his theory. But the notion of quantifying consciousness would be a necessary step in that direction. The question remains though, if the quantitative values (objective numbers) would also include qualitative values (subjective feelings). Or would the holistic Self be filtered-out in the process of reducing a person to raw data? :smile:

PS__Rovelli's book focuses on the fundamental physical quantum-level inter-connectedness of the universe -- as the "web of relations that weaves reality". But, as a sober scientist, he avoids speculating on such meta-physical holistic notions as Cosmic Consciousness. He does, however, in a footnote, comment on Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos : "on a careful reading, I find that it doesn't offer any convincing arguments to sustain his thesis".

Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

All those guys had different definitions of the apex (God), but most took the existence of pyramidal Natural Hierarchy for granted. The notion of a non-hierarchical (egaliatarian) Nature seems to be a rather modern idea. Obviously, that classless concept does not describe how-it-is, but how-it-ought-to-be. Since the order of the real world (red in tooth & claw) is not Edenic (Lions eat grass and play with Lambs), they conclude that it was not created by someone as smart, or moral, as themselves. Hence, our disorderly world, with random acts of cruelty, is a result of erratic events instead of intentional intelligence. QED

However, that idealistic appraisal seems to assume that an all-powerful God would or should create only perfection. But perfection is complete & static, with no room to grow. So, what if the top guy (mono a mano) intended instead to create an ongoing logical process that approaches perfection gradually and slowly? In that case, the current hierarchical structure of evolution would make sense in terms of Bayesian Logic. No? :chin:

Bayesian Logic :
probabilistic logic that evolves over time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

I understand quality to be pure relational or organisational structure: an existence of relation without substance. In language, we can’t really make sense of quality until we attribute it as a property of. — Possibility

IIT seems to be intended as a step toward computerizing Consciousness. If you can quantify mental qualities, then you can conceivably construct a Star Trek Transporter, which analyzes a human body & mind into 1s & 0s, then transmits that digital information across space to a receiver, which then interprets the abstract numbers back into a concrete living thinking feeling human. But some Star Trek episodes addressed the reluctance of some people to be transported. Not because they doubted the mathematical algorithms ability to quantify matter, but because they were afraid that the essence of their Self/Soul would be filtered-out in the process of turning Qualia into Quanta. Other Science-Fiction writers have expressed that same concern in personal terms : "will that reconstituted body still be me?"

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, in his latest book HELGOLAND, presents his "relational" interpretation of Quantum Theory. He says "properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects". Those "bridges" are what we know in other contexts as "relationships". And the human mind interprets those patterns of relations as Qualitative Meaning. On a cosmic scale, it's what Rovelli calls : "the web of relations that weaves reality". And Reality is the "organizational structure" of the world. Ironically, this approach to physics places the emphasis on the mental links (relations, meanings) instead of the material nodes (substance). So, some of his fellow physicists will find that promotion of Mind above Matter to be tantamount to Panpsychism. Although, Rovelli doesn't go quite that far in his book. :smile:

But again, if you are agnostic, why did something I said get you to respond to me with such ... well, interest, passion, anger, whatever word you like. I said something that triggered you. Why else would you repeatedly say I don't belong on this forum, only in the end to completely agree with everything I said? What was it all about? — fishfry

Nothing you said "got to me", and nothing "triggered my anger". To the contrary, I got the impression that you were offended by my reference to the "G word", or to my use of the term "metaphysical". Personally, I don't care what you believe about Gods or UFOs. And I have no religious Faith to foist on you. I continued sparring with you though, because that's what I do on this forum. I have dialogs with many posters who don't agree with my worldview. But we are usually able to have calm, rational philosophical communication -- up to a point. And those who do get riled-up tend to gag on the notion of Meta-Physics.

So, I must ask why you continue to reply to my posts, even though both of us have said that we have nothing further to talk about. Apparently, something "got under your skin". And I suppose it's because your definition of "Metaphysics" is radically different from my definition of "Meta-Physics". FWIW, I'll give you my definition again, below. :grin: :joke: :cool:

PS__I never said that you "don't belong on this forum". I merely asked why you post on a philosophical forum, when you only want to talk about physical (empirical) evidence. Philosophers are theorists -- they don't do empirical research. Abstract, theoretical entities, such as gods & ghosts & neutrinos & dark matter, are "super-sensual" (i.e. no-one has ever seen or touched a chunk of Dark Matter, because "it's just a theory"). And reasonable people remain "agnostic" about things that seem plausible but can't be verified by personal experience. :smile:

PPS__Dark Matter has measurable effects on the physical world even though it is invisible --- just like the ancient weather "gods" and the "angels" that pushed planets around. They were like "Dark" Agents of change. :joke:

PPPS__ I can go on like this as long as you hold-up your end of the dialog. :halo:

See! -- "no blood, no foul".

What is the difference between Philosophy and Metaphysics? "
. . . . the difference between philosophy and metaphysics is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while metaphysics is the study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world.
https://wikidiff.com/philosophy/metaphysics

Meta-Physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the logical nature of reality, including the relationship between Matter & Mind, Substance & Attribute, Fact & Value, and Quanta & Qualia.
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

However "why questions" otherwise addressed to nonpersons (e.g. the universe) or mysteries (e.g. g/G) are based on assumed category mistakes; — 180 Proof

Actually, as I noted in my last reply to Fishfry, the nonperson (g/G) is a metaphor that philosophers have used for millennia in reference to holistic concepts that are beyond our personal sensory experience, but not beyond the reach of human Reason. The "category mistake" that is common with metaphors is to confuse the part with the whole.

For example, we speak confidently of "The Universe", as-if we know what we are talking about. But no-one on this planet has ever experienced that holistic entity. All we know about The Cosmos is a conceptual model that has been gradually assembled by sages & scientists, from fragments of empirical data. And even those bits of information are limited to our finite cosmic light horizon. Consequently, when we talk about "The Universe", we don't really know what we are talking about. We are just using models and metaphors to convey our subjective ideas & opinions. And that is the sense in which I use the terms "Programmer" and "G*D". :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to interpret what we now call "Energy" as purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Cosmos often simply means "universe". But the word is generally used to suggest an orderly or harmonious universe, as it was originally used by Pythagoras in the 6th century B.C. Thus, a religious mystic may help put us in touch with the cosmos, and so may a physicist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmos

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

all that would be needed is a brand new mathematical tool that'll do the job in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool

Some mathematicians & physicists, have advocated the "new science" of Cellular Automata, as a way to go beyond Analytic and Algorithmic methods in the search for knowledge. Unfortunately, as a path to new knowledge, CA may not appeal to analytical and reductive thinkers, because it is ultimately "undecidable". Stephen Wolfram, in his book, A new Kind of Science, advocates CA as a way to study complex systems, such as Minds, that are resistant to reductive methods. In other words, the new methods, including IIT, take a more holistic approach to undecidable and non-computable questions, such as "what is it like to be a bat?". :smile:


Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Cellular Automata :
The Game of Life is undecidable, which means that given an initial pattern and a later pattern, no algorithm exists that can tell whether the later pattern is ever going to appear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

A New Kind of Science :
Wolfram argues that one of his achievements is in providing a coherent system of ideas that justifies computation as an organizing principle of science. For instance, he argues that the concept of computational irreducibility (that some complex computations are not amenable to short-cuts and cannot be "reduced"), is ultimately the reason why computational models of nature must be considered in addition to traditional mathematical models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

* Regarding the ultimate nature of the world, I have no opinion, no beliefs, and little philosophical interest. That is, I am ignorant and apathetic. I don't know and I don't care. — fishfry

That's why we don't really have much to talk about. I responded to your original post, because it seemed to have something to do with the OP. But since then, you have indicated that both of us are wasting our time talking past each other. So, thanks for the exercise, but both of us have more important things to do. :cool:

PS__Regarding the implications of a God programming this world, I remain agnostic, since for me it's just a philosophical metaphor to explain why the world works as it does. When we talk about Minds & Consciousness, we have no choice but to discuss Meta-physics in terms of Meta-phors. For the record, I have no personal contact with any supernatural beings.

Ok, I like this. And if it's true that matter is a form of energy, then nothing belongs to anybody? — Foghorn

Are you advocating Communism? :joke:

Casual power to enform? — Foghorn

The terminology I'm using here comes from my personal worldview, as expressed in the Enformationism thesis, in which everything in this world is one form or another of generic causal creative Energy, which I call "EnFormAction".

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. . . . AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enform : To form; to fashion, to create.