According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.

Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods. :smile:


*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview

*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger

↪Gnomon
No, no, no. It's not nearly so complicated, there's no need for all this complicated verbiage. Science studies objects and objective facts - how big is it, where is it, how fast is it moving, how does it interact, what causes it, etc. This it does for everything from the sub-atomic to cosmic scales. But as consciousness does not appear as an object, it is not included in that analysis as a matter of principle. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that scientists should simply leave the Mind/Body problem to impractical philosophers? I suspect that pragmatic scientists and Buddhists, with no metaphysical axe to grind, would agree with you : "shut-up and calculate"*1. Yet, metaphysical monistic Materialists also simplify the "problem" by insisting that Mind is nothing but Matter doing what comes naturally*2. So, they resolve the "problem" by telling Idealistic philosophers to butt-out.

The OP concluded that the circularity of the Science vs Philosophy battle makes the problem insoluble*3. If it's as simple as you imply, why can't we drive a stake into the heart of the Hard Problem? Maybe the eternal recurrence of this topic is due to the Materialism vs Idealism divide within philosophy. My unorthodox BothAnd philosophical worldview simplifies the problem by assuming a monistic substance (Information) that can exist as both Matter and Mind. Problem solved! :wink:

*1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is only hard within the context of materialism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/169rqih/hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_not_hard/

*2. Some argue that the hard problem of consciousness is not actually hard, and that it can be solved through further analysis of the brain and behavior:
___Google AI overview

*3. Excerpt from the OP :
"Let's first assume that the hard problem of consciousness is not the lack of scientific knowledge in that domain but the paradox it creates when thinking of consciousness as an object in the world. Any materialistic theories about it is followed by this question "why are these materialistic phenomena accompanied by experience?". And any materialistic attempt to answer that question also ends up being followed by the same question, creating a circularity that seems impossible to escape."
____Skalidris

The whole 'hard problem' arises from regarding consciousness as an object, which it is not, while science itself is based on objective facts. It's not complicated, but it's hard to see. — Wayfarer

Presumably, Science studies reality "as-is", while Philosophy studies the world "as-if"*1. That's why scientists observe the Brain, but philosophers imagine the Mind. Consciousness is not a material object, but our Minds can picture the state or qualia or function of Knowingness*2 as-if it is an object-of-interest in a hypothetical context.

What makes the scientific study of a metaphysical concept "hard" is the tendency to analyze the Function*3 of the brain as-if it's the material product of a mechanism instead of the immaterial purpose of that system. Metaphysical disputes are "impossible to solve" analytically, they can only be resolved holistically --- by placing the parts into a universal context. Not by substance dualism, but by essence monism.

If we can't agree on the Nature*4 of the Cosmic context --- Materialism vs Idealism or Physical vs Metaphysical --- we will continue to disagree on the possibility of an emergent Mind-function. Ideas are "hard to see". Hence, factionally "impossible to solve". :smile:

*1. “As if” thinking concerns the ability to think in some imagined context other than the reality that is presented in front.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_5-1
Note --- As-Is thinking looks at actual things. As-If thinking looks at possible states.
"A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. Possible worlds are widely used as a formal device in logic, philosophy, and linguistics in order to provide a semantics for intensional and modal logic." ___Wikipedia

*2. What is another word for knowingness?
synonyms: awareness, cognisance, cognizance, consciousness.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/knowingness
Note --- The suffix "-ness" means "state, condition, or quality"

*3. A "function" refers to the specific purpose or role something or someone has, essentially describing what something does or is designed to do;
___Google AI overview

*4. "The nature of" is an expression that refers to the basic character or quality of something."
___Google AI overview

"Grab your right hand with your right hand and report back." — Wayfarer

IMPOSSIBLE IDEA : AS-IF not as-is

I have a few questions about Spinoza’s substance monism, which I’m quite new to. Am I right in saying this is the (broad) outline of his argument: — tom111

I have no formal training in philosophy, so most of your questions are over my head. But, since your post has elicited only one response, I might as well give it a shot. One shot (question) at a time please.

Substance Monism*1 is an implicit philosophical assumption of my personal worldview, that I call Enformationism. Ironically, Spinoza called that ultimate essence "God", but deliberately avoided aligning his definition with Jewish or Christian theology. So, a more modern name for that all-pervading substance*2 might be "Nature" or "Matter". However, his notion of Nature is infinite & eternal, so in that sense is not compatible with our post-big-bang material-temporal (space-time) science-revealed world.

My 21st century name for Spinoza's "Substance" is Information*3 (or EnFormAction)*4, which is the precursor of Physical Energy, which is more fundamental than Matter. Any answers I might give will be based on this un-orthodox philosophical foundation. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Substance monism is the idea that only one substance exists, and Benedict de Spinoza (1632—1677) argued that God or Nature is that one substance. Spinoza's argument for substance monism is based on the following premises: Every substance has at least one attribute, Two substances cannot share the same nature or attribute, God has all possible attributes, and God exists.
___Google AI overview

*2. According to Aristotle, substance and essence are the same, and the essence of a substance is what causes it to exist.
___Google AI overview

*3. What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*4. EnFormAction : the act of giving form to the formless
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. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? In your example, it seems that you are simply saying that potential is simply the current state of an electric battery before being connected to a system to supply it with energy. Some batteries are never connected to a system so it would be incorrect to say that they have the potential to do anything. It is our ignorance of what the future holds for the battery that makes us think of "potentials" and "possibilities" when, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing except within our minds. — Harry Hindu

Our discussions about Consciousness have branched off into questions about "Potential" : what is it? In the quote*1 below, the postulated pre-existent "nothingness" consists of noumenal (ideal) Causal Laws*2 whose effects are what we call "real". Those pre-big-bang Laws & Energy may be what Aristotle postulated as Potential, and what Schopenhauer called WILL*3. :smile:

*1. SOMETHING FROM NOTHING?
"In the very beginning there was a void–– a curious form of vacuum –– a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential."
—- Leon Lederman, The God Particle
"Leon Max Lederman was an American experimental physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988" ___Wikipedia
Note --- I just came across this quote in my Enformationism thesis, that may shed some light . . . . . or may cast a shadow. Is it Science or spooky nonsense?

*2. A causal law is a law of nature that describes the relationship between two distinct events or features of a system, with one event or feature causing the other. Causal laws are a key part of scientific theories and are often used in philosophical analyses of science.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Regulating Laws + Working Energy = Causation

*3. "Schopenhauer's postulated noumenal world is quite different: reality in itself, independent of our sense perceptions, is a single undifferentiated entity that we can know about. He called this entity the Will. Schopenhauer's Will was something new, and very strange."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Arthur_Schopenhauer_1788-1860
Note 1 --- Does that "strange" Cosmic Will sound like the Potential for change (including Natural Laws) that causes new things to emerge into Reality, and defines the forms they take? Is Will/Potential the source/cause of "reality itself"?
Note 2 --- In my thesis, Potential is the source of all Causation, the mother of Energy, and the origin of all Change. One of its noumenal babies is the power-to-know that we call Consciousness. Potential "exists" only as a philosophical concept, not as a physical thing or force. Only the effects (the offspring) of Potential exist in the real material world. Philosophers know of its logical necessity only via inference, not observation.

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? . . . . there is no such thing except within our minds — Harry Hindu

Potential exists only in our minds. Potential is Ideal, not Real. Potential is knowledge in a mind, not a material substance or physical force. Not-yet-real is also an idea in a mind, consisting of knowledge of a possible future state given specified conditions*1.

Some posters may think that I am talking about some spooky spiritual force when I refer to "Potential". There seems to be a lot of confusion about what Aristotle was talking about, when he made a distinction between Potential and Actual. It's discussed in detail in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Today, we refer to not-yet-real statistical possibility as Potential*2. :smile:

*1. What are actuality and potentiality? :
As used in discussions of philosophy, potential and actual refer to “what might be” and “what is.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html

*2. Statistical potential
Statistical potentials or knowledge-based potentials are scoring functions derived from an analysis of known protein structures in the Protein Data Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_potential

Our difference centers on whether or not a potential current embodied within a charged battery is physical whereas a potential current embodied within the mind's memory is abstract. In both cases the potential is tied to something physical: a) the charged battery and its difference of potential; b) the mind's memory and the difference of potential it represents abstractly. — ucarr

For my philosophical purposes, I'm more interested in abstract Cosmic Potential than in concrete battery potential. A physical form of cosmic potential is Energy, in all its aspects*1 . But the universe has enormous abstract potential that is not-yet-actual. One example is the hypothetical Vacuum Energy. Potential energy is just knowledge of a possible future state.

All of those potentials are not real or actual until activated by some inter-connection. Even vacuum energy, presumably everywhere all around us, must be only Potential until actualized. Otherwise, the universe would burn itself up. The only non-physical forms of energy are the abstract concepts in a mind, such as Cosmic Potential Energy*2, or the knowledge that a AA battery will not shock you (i.e. only potential), unless you complete a circuit between poles, actualizing the Potential. :smile:


*1. Types of Energy :
"There are ten types of energy: chemical energy, mechanical energy, nuclear energy, gravitational energy, light energy, radiant energy, sound energy, motion energy, thermal energy, and electrical energy. In general, the first four on the list are potential energy and the last six are considered forms of kinetic energy."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/energy-definition-types.html
Note --- This list doesn't mention all the various physical Forces that are probably specific forms of general energy. The ultimate source of all those applications of causation is what I would call Cosmic Potential, or in my thesis : EnFormAction.

*2. Abstract Cosmic Potential :
Similar to Schopenhauer's World as Will. On the cosmic scale, it's Potential until actualized in specific instances of Causation. All generalizations are mental concepts, not material objects. Philosophy deals with generalizations. Science with specifics.
In Schopenhauer's philosophy, "will" is considered a fundamental, blind, and unconscious energy that permeates all of reality, acting as the driving force behind everything from the growth of a plant to human desires, essentially representing the core essence of existence beyond our perception of the world as a collection of objects; it is not a conscious choice but a primal, underlying force to strive and perpetuate life.
___Google AI overview

Difference of potential is rooted in the extant charge of the concentrated particles. It is real. . . .
There is a basic difference between having an idea about current flow and having a charged battery ready to deliver current flow. — ucarr

Yes. The battery poles are certainly Real. but until they are connected into a circuit, the electric current is only Potential.
Difference is a mental concept : Ideal not-yet Real.
Potential is not a real thing, but an ideal concept that points to a future state.
Difference and Potential are found only in Conscious Minds, not in the material world. :smile:

I think the idea of potential is just that - an idea and not some inherent property of reality. Ideas like randomness, probability, possibility and potential are all ideas that stem from our ignorance. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Potential is not-yet Real. Science and philosophy are tools for dispelling our ignorance. :smile:

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Potential Innovation :
# The notion of an immaterial goal-seeking principle that motivates the behavior of both animate and inanimate entities has been entertained by thinkers through the ages. Aristotle coined the term Entelechy to represent a fundamental internal ambition to be more than it is. It explains a variety of transformations in Physics and Metaphysics, where mechanistic accounts are unknown.
# Modern Science also lapses into metaphysics with terms that imply goal-directed action. The “power” of an electric battery to cause machines to work is called “Potential”, because the actual work remains in the future. Likewise quantum fields harbor Virtual Particles that are not yet real, pending the intentional poke of a mind.
# Other technical but spooky terms for immaterial potential are Soul, Elan Vital, Will, etc. They produce seemingly ententional behavior without any overt evidence of physical energy exchange. In place of energy, we can only detect exchanges of Information.
# The dynamics of transformation and innovation are due to what I call EnFormAction : the teleological force of cosmic “Will”, imagined metaphorically as stored-up creative power as in an electric battery. That potential is released only when a circuit is completed by making a real connection between two poles.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Entelechy : the realization of potential.
Oxford Languages

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you? — Gnomon
Yes. — ucarr

Please explain. :smile:

I thought maybe your holistic combination of substance, form and dynamics creates an environment wherein parts are simultaneously discrete and gestalt. — ucarr

Yes. Parts are also Holons. :smile:

A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole. In this way, a holon can be considered a subsystem within a larger hierarchical system. ___Wiki

The whole landscape of evolution is a branching web of boundaries both combining and separating. — ucarr

Yes. Evolution combines old parts into new complex-integrated-systems (gestalts : holons) by drawing different boundaries and combining old elements into novel Sets. The "power to enform" is the ability to draw boundaries forming different sets of components with new properties and functions. That's also what we call "design" or "programming". :smile:

So, for sentients, meaning is always personal? — ucarr

Yes. What else could it be?

Is paradox a synonym for enformaction? — ucarr

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you?

Premise -These questions make an approach to distilling what consciousness does objectively: it resolves paradoxes. — ucarr

That may be the evolutionary adaptive function that led to conscious awareness of Self & Other, which are often at odds.

Note --- My answers are derived from my personal thesis of Enformationism. I'll have to pass on your other questions, since they are outside my limited knowledge of science and philosophy. :smile:

So, in the case of an information field flanked by energy fields, we have a grouping of three energy fields, a two-plus-one with info being one type of energy and the flanks being another type of energy? — ucarr

No. All Energy Fields are also Information Fields. Its all information all the time. EnFormAction is singular and monistic. According to my thesis, it's the source of all physical fields. :smile:

WHAT IS ENERGY?
It’s not a particular thing, but a transferable (hence not intrinsic or inherent) property, ability, quality, that is quantifiable only in its effects.
“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

21st century physics has equated Information with causal Energy — Gnomon
So, you embrace the understanding information is physico-material? — ucarr

Yes. I call Energy the power to enform, to give form to the formless*1. The roots of "information" literally mean : the act of giving form". The result is to create meanings (forms) in a mind. The link below expands on on that strange notion.

The Big Bang theory postulates that the early universe was a pre-material plasma of quarks & gluons, which are hypothetical undetectable particles of sub-sub-atomic-matter. Yet the Cosmologists necessarily, but implicitly, assume that causal Energy and natural Laws (relationship principles) existed eternally before the beginning of our space-time. Another unstated assumption is that the Potential for mental phenomena (awareness) was inherent in whatever went "bang!".

That combination of Cause & Laws is what I call EnFormAction (EFA) : the natural holistic tendency to create complex systems from simpler components. One form of EFA in the known world is Gravity. Presumably that attractive force couldn't exist without Matter and Space, so it would have to emerge along with the stuff that fills space, which is curved to fit around those little bundles of inter-attraction. This both-physical-&-material (space/time, energy/matter, brain/mind) "understanding" is also implicit in what I call the BothAnd Principle*2.

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

*2. 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.
# 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. space/time, good/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) doesn't change, but your conception of reality 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Information Philosopher : "Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated. Why should it become the preferred basis for all philosophy?"
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/

If so, why is this brain-centered higher-order memory function immaterial? — ucarr

Meaning is a Meta-Narrative that is created in the brain out of incoming information, from external environment and inner milieu. In lower animals, Memory may simply record raw data. But in humans, Meaning places the world data in relationship to the Self-concept. As I understand it, meta- refers to anything that is over & above meaningless matter : the Map is not the Terrain. The rational Mind gives us a new perspective above & beyond that of the physical eyes.

Mind is a holistic Function of brain, not identical with the neural network. And a Function is an input-output relationship, not an object. Also, the abstract mental Output is more-than the concrete material Input. The Whole system (mind) is more than the sum of its parts (neurons + data). The parts may be physical and material, but the holistic processing system produces Ideas & Concepts, with no material properties, hence immaterial. :smile:

All knowledge must be integrated. Dualism causes problems. Monism solves those problems.
Either we take the attributes of waves and particles that do not contradict each other and integrate them into what it means to be a wavicle, or we come up with another word. What about process or information? — Harry Hindu

Yes! My personal worldview is Monistic & Integrated, and grounded on the 21st century science of Information. I call it Enformationism*1. From that perspective, I view quantum wavicles, not as material objects, but as mathematical (statistical) information*2, which is also the essence of Consciousness*3.

But another way to think of quantum reality is as a field of Potential that can become Actual : Quantum Field Theory. The monistic aspect of my philosophical thesis is that the world is all-Information-all-the-way-down. 21st century physics has equated Information with causal Energy*4, which is also transformable into Matter (E=MC^2). And ever-changing causal Energy (EnFormAction) can be described colloquially as a Verb*5. Does any of this make philosophical sense to you? :chin:


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. 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". In language it's called a "Verb".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other-knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information : ratios & relationships.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*5. One way to think of a Wavicle :
If everything is made of wavicles and vibrating all the time, then isn’t everything a verb?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlanWatts/comments/ed2juy/everything_is_in_motion/

Additionally, I dispute the idea that the brain is simply a 'physical object.' The brain might appear as a physical object when extracted from a body and examined by a pathologist or neuroscientist. But in its living context, the brain is part of an organism—embodied, encultured, and alive. In that sense, it's not just an object but part of a dynamic, living process that produces consciousness in ways that no computer can replicate. — Wayfarer

Good point! As an isolated lump of neural tissue, a brain is similar to your computer analogy : it processes data, but does not "understand" its meaning in the context of the wider world. On the other hand, a human body is a multi-function organism that does more than just process data. It also converts Energy into Life, and Data into Meaning.

The "more than" is characteristic of complex holistic systems. Complexity scientists cannot currently track each path of energy/data in body/brain to produce novel sentimental conscious concepts about the nurturing-yet-risky environment. But they are working on constructing an informative model of such autonomous integrated thinking & feeling systems*1. :smile:


*1. The New Science of Consciousness:
Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self
https://www.amazon.com/New-Science-Consciousness-Exploring-Complexity/dp/1633882195

Is an electron a wave or particle? How about neither and we come up with a better word? — Harry Hindu

Some have proposed "wavicle". What do you suggest?
My question about Math & Metaphysics was philosophical, not scientific. So the distinction between Real and Ideal is relevant for a philosophy forum. :smile:

What is a wavicle?
"It is in your dictionary. Something which simultaneously had the property of a wave and a particle in physics. My physics class was over 70 years ago so I’m not up on that contradictory word. It is like saying something is frozen and liquid at the same time. Like an “honest thief”.

Its a rather pathetic attempt to assign one ( made up) word to the wave-particle duality of nature that is described in quantum mechanics mathematics. Wave–particle duality ___Wikipedia.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-wavicle

↪Gnomon
Generally :up: but watch out for the tendency to reify, 'make into a thing'. — Wayfarer

Thanks. You have warned me about "reification" before*1. But it seems that most Philosophy-versus- Science arguments, going back to Plato's Idealism, hinge on the Reality (plausibility ; utility ; significance) of abstractions. Are Mathematics and Metaphysics "real" or "ideal"? Regardless of how you categorize them, Ideal or Abstract non-things are very important for philosophical discussions, no?.

Is the Aether, postulated by physicists to explain such ideas as "vacuum energy" real or ideal? Here's what I said about that : "I argue that the metaphysical Aether is immaterial, just like the hypothetical Quantum Vacuum and the Universal Quantum Field. It's not physical or spiritual, but mathematical (statistical) and mental (logical). If Math & Mind are real, so is the statistical sphere of Probability & Potential.". Is "immaterial" the same as non-thing & unreal? Is Math a real thing, or an abstraction in a human mind? Is the Quantum Field*2 a perceivable real thing, or an abstract human concept?

I didn't claim that Aether is an actual physical thing, as some physicists seem to imply*2. Instead, I'm saying that it is the Potential for causal Energy ; which is the Potential for actual Matter*3. So, the philosophical question here seems to be : is Potential to Actual*4 the same as Reification". It seems to "make nothing into a thing". :smile:


*1. Reification means to treat something abstract as if it were a physical thing. For example, you might reify an abstract concept like fear, happiness, or evil.
The process of turning human concepts, actions, processes, relations, and properties into tangible things
___Google AI overview

*2. According to current scientific understanding, quantum fields are considered to be real, existing throughout space and acting as the fundamental building blocks of the universe, with experimental evidence supporting their existence and effects; although they are a theoretical construct, they provide incredibly accurate predictions about the behavior of particles and are considered the best explanation for our physical reality at the subatomic level.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Is "considered to be real" a fact or a belief? Is a "theoretical construct" a real thing, or a reification?

*3. Yes, "energy is potential for matter" means that energy represents the capacity to do work or cause change in matter, essentially acting as a stored potential that can be released to create movement or transformations within matter; this is often described as potential energy, which is energy stored due to an object's position or state, ready to be converted into kinetic energy (motion) when conditions change.
___Google AI overview

*4. In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity of something to develop into a specific state or perform a specific function, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. These concepts are central to understanding change and reality, and helped Aristotle explain how things can change while maintaining their identity.
___Google AI overview

"The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. — Gnomon
I take issue with that in this essay. — Wayfarer

The Philosophy StackExchange quote*1 probably should have said that the wavefunction equation represents mathematically the probabilistic ontology of the sub-atomic foundation of the universe. But that's more than a mouthful. And may not make sense without some explication.

I read your essay, The Timeless Wave, and agree with its conclusions*2. For example, where you say "the wave function doesn’t seem to operate within any physical medium", it raises the ancient vexed question of an invisible immaterial Aether within which to propagate. In my own thesis, I argue that the metaphysical Aether is immaterial, just like the hypothetical Quantum Vacuum*3 and the Universal Quantum Field*4. It's not physical or spiritual, but mathematical (statistical) and mental (logical). If Math & Mind are real, so is the statistical sphere of Probability. As such, it's the causal essence (EnFormAction) of the Enformationism*5 worldview; it's where events happen. :smile:

*1. "The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. The wavefunction refers to the probabilistic knowledge that : (a) one physical system attributes to another physical system or (b) a fundamental element of consciousness attributes to a physical system."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/106658/what-are-the-arguments-for-or-against-the-wavefunction-being-a-subjective-vs-an

*2. "And it’s all of this that makes the nature of the wave-function a metaphysical question, rather than a question of physics as such". ___ The Timeless Wave

*3. "Yes, the quantum vacuum can be considered the modern equivalent of the aether:"
___Google AI overview
Note --- empty space is considered to be a potential source of energy.

*4. Quantum Field Theory
A "Universal Quantum Field" in the context of theoretical physics, particularly within Quantum Field Theory (QFT), represents a hypothetical single field that could potentially encompass all fundamental forces and particles in the universe, described mathematically as a complex quantum field with properties that allow for the creation and interaction of all known elementary particles, essentially acting as a unified field where all particles arise as excitations or fluctuations within it; however, such a unified field is currently a theoretical concept with no definitive experimental verification.
___ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

*5. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just Matter & Energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Causal EnFormAction is the essence of Energy, Matter, Aether, and Mind. See thesis for explanation.

Ever read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose? — J
Tried and failed. The maths was beyond me. I’ve often enjoyed Sir Roger’s talks on other topics. I’ve recently written a Medium essay about his views on QM. — Wayfarer

I read Emperor's New Mind long ago, but much of it was over my head. Years later, I'm beginning to vaguely see what he was aiming at : Consciousness is not a material phenomenon, but a non-algorithmic mathematical (logical relationships) aspect of reality. Perhaps it can be traced back to the original LOGOS, the logic of the universe, giving it form and meaning. I doubt that Penrose thought in terms of the Platonic principle of Cosmic Reason as the essence of Consciousness. But he seems to be using immaterial mathematical metaphors which point in that direction. :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." ___Wikipedia

"Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function." ___Wikipedia

"The wavefunction is the ontological state of existence of systems in the universe. The wavefunction refers to the probabilistic knowledge that : (a) one physical system attributes to another physical system or (b) a fundamental element of consciousness attributes to a physical system."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/106658/what-are-the-arguments-for-or-against-the-wavefunction-being-a-subjective-vs-an

"Non-algorithmic mathematics involves metathought, which is the use of intuition, intention, and control. This is what distinguishes humans from machines, as machines are only endowed with an object-language, while metathought is described by a metalanguage." ___Google AI overview

What is logos in philosophy?
logos, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

PENROSE IMPOSSIBLE TRIANGLE : to measure is to extract meaning

↪Gnomon
What I find interesting to know, can you relate to that yourself, from own experience? — Carlo Roosen

By "that" do you mean becoming consciously aware of Nothingness? I don't remember any transition from unawareness of zeroness to the wordless experience of absence. Like "Infinity" & "Void" it was just a label for an abstract concept that I have no sensory experience with, but philosophers and mathematicians have to deal with.

However, I do remember becoming aware of the philosophical significance of the common word "Zero". It was the 2000 book ZERO, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by science writer Charles Seife. Referring to the notion of Zero, he said "it is infinity's twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang". So I think, in any Theory of Everything, we must take account of Nothing. :smile:

There are also things we do not attach words to—non-conceptual experiences. If we try to describe some of our deepest experiences, words will fall short. Our consciousness is larger than our conceptual reality. — Carlo Roosen

The phrase bolded above reminded me of articles I had recently seen while browsing the net. They refer to how we process the number Zero. Obviously, Zero is not a natural Perceptual experience, but an artificial Conceptual notion. So, until the last few centuries, words would indeed "fall short" of expressing the concept of nothingness.

Yet, after thousands of years of counting and calculating, humanity now has a word for something that is not a thing. One article said that the human brain takes more time to process the concept of Zero than any other number. Perhaps because Zero doesn't seem to fit the notion of numbering. But now we can include Nothing in our conceptual Model of Everything. :smile:


"For a brain which has evolved to process sensory stimuli, conceiving of empty sets is an extraordinary achievement,"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421133944.htm

"The brain has more neurons that prefer zero than other small numbers, which allows it to more accurately represent the empty set"
___ Google AI overview

This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment. But this religious belief also necessarily implies that there is a whole universe (or possibly multiverses) of beauty and goodness completely outside the scope of my own personal desires. — Brendan Golledge

Perhaps Deism is an aesthetic philosophy that sees beauty & design in the world, and speculates on its provenance. Not to serve physical needs, but to fulfill metaphysical desires for meaning & understanding. On the other hand, materialistic Science is not concerned with Beauty, but Utility. So, the role of theoretical Philosophy is "outside the scope" of physical necessities, but does serve the "human desire" for virtue & pleasure & happiness, and our homo sapiens need-to-know.

You haven't posted for a while, so I hope your original enthusiasm for Cosmology and Ontology has not been deterred by the nasty trolling attacks on philosophical speculations that transcend the practicalities of Immanentism and challenge the Faith of Materialism. This is not a Science symposium, it's a Philosophy forum. As biologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested, maybe we should consider them as Non-Overlapping Magisteria and different fields of study.

For example, Deism sees evidence of Design in Nature, but can't prove the existence of a Designer. Likewise, Science sees evidence of Dark Matter in the universe, but can't demonstrate what or where it is. Like the God-Hypothesis of all religions, Gravity & Dark Matter are hypothetical*1 causal forces, that work via "spooky action at a distance". But, for Newton & Einstein, such conjectures filled a need for understanding how & why the world works as it does. Like Gravity and Dark Matter, G*D serves as a conjectural causal principle in the universe. The only evidence for all these forces is circumstantial, not material. Astrophysicists have been faithfully searching for Dark Matter since the 1930s, and like G*D, it's still missing*2.

Analogous to Dark Matter theories, Deism accepts the notion that the universe is self-organizing, but makes no factual claims about Who, What or Where the Organizer is. Just as gravity is portrayed as warping empty space, G*D is an exotic notion that has to be accepted as an axiom in order to explain the observed organization of the universe. Newton's 17th century Gravity was an invisible inangible brute force. But 21st century Information (Enfomy*3) is more like a teleological computer program. An infinite deity is no more illogical than the concept of Zero or Void.

Forum trolls*4 seem to lump Deism into the same sh*tpot with the religious "opiate of the masses" in 15th -17th century Europe. But in Deism there is no opiate, no dogma, no faith, no covenant, just Reason & Science. Yet trolls, scarred by their own experience with authoritarian religions, cannot grasp that distinction. Modern religions are careful to accept the practical value of skeptical Science, but draw the line at having their own "revealed facts" placed under the microscope. Deism's scientific facts are empirically demonstrated. And its philosophical conjectures are open to rational argument.

Deism and Materialism are both based on metaphysical*5 Axioms that can't be proven*6. Axioms in philosophy and science are general statements that are not provable, but are generally assumed to be true or self-evident. They are accepted because they serve as the foundation for many other, more empirical facts. For some true believers though, the Axiom itself may become an article of Faith, instead of a placeholder.

Quantum Physics, with its ineffable mysteries, may have opened the door to a revival of the G*D hypothesis, to serve as an axiomatic foundation for all other attempts to explain how & why the world works as it does. For example, the commonly accepted Unified or Universal Field Theory is incompatible with Materialism*7, but serves as a framework for all of the superstructure of Physics. Deism*8 also has a mystery, and a missing First Cause, at the origin of the material universe. Yet, unlike the Dark Matter believers, Deists have accepted that it's futile to look for the metaphysical cause of all worldly effects inside the ongoing effect of Cosmic Evolution. Like Gravity, it's just an axiom. :smile:


*1. "Yes, gravity is an assumption in science because it cannot be proven. While we have never observed gravity change, we cannot prove that it will not change in the future."
___Google AI overview

*2. 85% of the matter in the universe is missing :
We have not yet found the elusive particles we believe dark matter consists of
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-universe-scientists-closer.html

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*4. "A forum troll is someone who posts inflammatory, off-topic, or aggressive comments on online forums to intentionally upset others. Trolls are bullies who want to enrage online communities, not engage with them." ___Google AI overview

*5. "Materialism is the metaphysical theory that all reality is composed of matter, meaning everything, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained by physical processes and interactions, essentially denying the existence of any non-physical or spiritual entities." ___Google AI overview

*6. "Metaphysical : of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.
Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity"" ____ Wikipedia

*7. "Yes, universal field theory is incompatible with materialism because the most fundamental aspects of the material world cannot be understood in terms of material substances." ___Google AI overview

*8. Enlightenment Deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (1) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (2) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. ___Wikipedia

He argues that our perceptions of reality are not accurate reflections of the world as it truly is. Instead, he proposes that evolution has shaped our perceptions to prioritize survival. According to Hoffman, organisms that perceive the world in a way that maximizes fitness, rather than accuracy, are more likely to survive and reproduce. This leads to the conclusion that what we see, hear, and experience is not an objective representation of the world as it is, but a kind of 'user interface' designed to hide the complexity of reality and present simplified, useful representations to aid survival. — Wayfarer

Could it be argued that modern (enlightenment) Science is an attempt to improve observational accuracy for the purpose of learning to manipulate reality in service to human survival and thrival? Hence, not eliminative Materialism (matter only), but inclusive Realism (matter + mind). For example, the Webb telescope extends the range of our vision, not for practical survival purposes, but for theoretical knowledge that may have some specific survival advantages, if we humans ever encounter predatory aliens from foreign galaxies. In the meantime, that knowledge may be useful only for general philosophical applications : Ontology & Cosmology. :joke:

levels of description
Up to this point, nothing immaterial has happened. We operate exclusively in the field of physics and physiology. . . . . In truth, it is not a causal relationship, but a correlation between two different levels of description of the same phenomenon — Wolfgang

Thanks for the novel approach to the categorical conundrum : Hard (theoretical ; philosophical) Problem as compared to the Easier (empirical ; scientific) Problem.

All causation is a correlation between Cause & Effect. But some (snapshot) relationships are static and statistical, with no change in (physical) state. A state change requires energy, and a source. The difference between physiology and psychology is A> state change (physical energy) and B> categorical shift (mental information). :smile:
"Correlation is a statistical measure that shows the relationship between two or more variables, while causation means that one event is the result of another. Correlation does not automatically imply causation, and causation always implies correlation." ___ Google AI overview

Typically, we start with a description of the visual process from a third-person perspective - in other words, we describe what is objectively observable. Then, suddenly, and often unconsciously, we switch to first-person perspective by asking why we experience the process of seeing in a certain way. — Wolfgang

Third person is objective. First person is subjective. Objective looks at external physical things (objects). Subjective looks at internal metaphysical concepts (ideas). Even if a physical Cause of observed change is not obvious, we still infer (from common experience) that some Cause was necessary. (e.g. Where did that bullet come from? We automatically look in the direction of the bang). :smile:
"The problem of causality is a philosophical issue that involves the difficulty of determining which events are causes and which are effects." ___ Google AI overview

"Why does consciousness feel the way it feels?", which already contain in their formulation the assumption that there must be an objective explanation for subjective experiences. — Wolfgang

From experience with the physical world we learn (assumption) to look for a cause for every change in state. The only exceptions are found in the uncertainties of quantum physics, in which an effect may seem to precede the cause. :smile:
"The idea that every effect has a cause is known as universal causation. However, some physicists and philosophers question whether cause and effect are as straightforward as they seem". ___ Google AI overview

we ask questions that are tautological in themselves and therefore fundamentally unanswerable. — Wolfgang

"Why?" questions correlate Objective with Subjective. Philosophical vs Scientific. Any answer is not empirical/objective but theoretical & personal. Theoretical opinions may be accepted without empirical evidence if they feed a need. The ability to see complementary or contrasting colors (redness vs green) allows us to discriminate a predator from the vegetation. Example : wetness is not an objective observation, but subjective qualia. Is that walking surface slippery? :smile:

the majority of philosophical problems are based on linguistic confusion. — Wolfgang

Animals without language, also lack a philosophical ability to ask why? So, they seldom confuse What Is with What Ought to Be. :smile:

This evolutionary perspective shows that consciousness is essentially an adaptive function for optimizing survivability. — Wolfgang

The human ability to predict the future state of a physical system is the core of both Science and Philosophy. The difference is that Science uses that information for practical (material) purposes, while Philosophy uses that premonition for psychological reasons (feelings & meanings). :smile:

Here FWIW, a definition of Deism
deism
noun: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. — tim wood

For me, Deism is not a religion of any kind. It is instead, a philosophical position that is an alternative to both biblical Religion and scientific Materialism. At this moment, I don't know a single Deist or Shaman in my area. And I have never joined with other worshipers of Nature*1 to dance around trees in the moonlight. However, if that is 's definition of Deism, I can understand why he likes to label me a "New Age nut". That common misunderstanding is why I don't normally identify myself as a practicing Deist ; just an amateur Philosopher.

I can't speak for , but my own definition of Deism is simply a philosophical worldview*2, not a worship of Nature or natural phenomena. Since I, long ago, realized that the Bible is not the Word of God, and lost faith in Revealed Religion, I discovered that Deism was a valid alternative, in which the Creation (Nature) is the revelation of the Creator (First Cause). Instead of studying the Bible, I now study secular Science. FWIW here's my own personal definition of Deism*3. :smile:


*1. What is an example of a natural religion?
What religions are based in nature? Many religions are based in nature, including pantheism, theism, panentheism, deism, polytheism,animism, totemism, shamanism, paganism, Saridharam, sarnaism,Kirat, and Wicca.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/nature-religion-overview-history-facts.html

*2. Philosophical Deism :
Aspects of Deism in Enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment Deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (1)reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (2) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

*3. Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshipped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

*4. Deist :
Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Note --- The "current scientific paradigm" is Materialism, which is useful for Chemistry, but not for Psychology or Cosmology. For example, cosmologists have been searching in vain since the 1990s for the Dark Matter particle. Hence, faith in Dark Matter is waning : "we have every reason to believe dark matter is everywhere. Yet we still don't know what it is." {Scientific American, Sept 2024}
Note ---Substitute "God" for "Dark Matter" and you may see a parallel to the "god is dead" notion in the 20th century.

So while it does not say, "You're an idiot," you yourself have instead said, "I'm an idiot," and apparently proud to be. — tim wood

No, but I'm embarrassed. Like a parent looking in the back seat to see what the ruckus is all about, you caught me pinning the arms of little brother who has been punching me to get a rise out of the parents. :yikes:

You weren't supposed to see that "explanation" of 's hidden meanings in abstruse jargon. Like I looked up the foreign phrase, even though my high school Latin allowed me to guess that the implication was a disparagement of Deism, as belief in a worthless negligent deity. The "coming from him" interpretation was based on years of personal experience with 180's sarcasm, scorn & sneering. Since I am one of his favorite victims, I try to warn newbies not to engage him in a serious dialog --- if your worldview involves any violation of his Immanentism belief system : "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience".

Apparently, you didn't notice that the Latin phrase was "defined" with tongue in cheek. When I was a newbie on this forum, I found 180 to be very intelligent and well-educated in philosophy. And our philosophical worldviews seemed to be generally compatible --- from my perspective. Except that any implication of Transcendence from the material world seems to trigger some flashbacks of his childhood religion (nun or priest abuse?). Provoking him to lash-out at the provocateur.

180 proof and I have a long history of his trolling my posts with lots of over-my-head philosophical jargon ; often couched with supercilious implications of stupidity toward anyone who could believe in supernatural beings. So, I no longer engage him in dialog. He seems to think that only blathering idiots could take seriously anything that transcends space-time, and especially anything reminiscent of traditional gods. His typical insult is to label me a New Age nut, due to my frequent references to Holism. I don't take such affronts seriously, though. So, they don't hurt my feelings. But someone new to his veiled ad hominem attacks may think he's trying to make a legitimate philosophical argument. :cool:


Excerpt from my post above to Brendan :
"As he {180} said, "The member {gnomon] to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean." For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot".

I am a deist because I find cosmological arguments convincing. Someone replied that deism was a completely useless belief. — Brendan Golledge

Will you elaborate on your topic, to explain why you refer to it as "functional" Deism? Is functional merely the opposite of useless? Or do you mean that G*D has some specific function in the evolving space-time world that presumably began, for no apparent reason, with a cosmological Bang? :smile:

Therefore, there are only 3 choices:
1. There exists a cause without a cause
2. There is an infinite regression of causes with no beginning
3. Causality is circular (maybe like someone going back in a time machine to start the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

Deism is a philosophical axiom, not a religion. However, probably due to its religious associations and implications, several posters take issue with your first choice : an uncaused, hence eternally existing, general power of causation or generator of change*1. For them, a space-time limit on philosophical Causation is not self-evident. But Entropy does place an ultimate limit on physical Causation.

Some philosophers are content with the First Cause/Prime Mover hypothesis of empirical astronomical Cosmology : an ex nihilo Big Bang with no known or knowable precedent. Others, like David Hume, don't take Causation for granted, but conclude that it is an artificial concept. And some don't consider Causation to be a concern : things just happen for no apparent reason. So, don't bother reasoning with them, since they don't accept your Axioms.

And don't bother reasoning with . As he said, "The member to whom I replied knows what all those terms mean." For example, "Res ipsa loquitur, coming from him, simply means "you're an idiot". As you noted, he doesn't make rational arguments, just ridiculing accusations. Since he doesn't agree with your Axioms*2, anything you say will be absurd nonsense to him.

And don't assume that Common Sense has any special validity on this forum. Philosophers can logic chop*3 any concept into infinite bits of non-sense. For example, in Set Theory, the Axiom of Choice*4 says that you can take one element of an old Set and construct a new Set, "even if the collection is infinite". So, when a thread reaches a point where the points are near infinite, its time to bail out. Or to limit your responses to those who seem to be on the same page.

There are a few posters on TPF who are willing to civilly discuss plausible, but debatable philosophical concepts like "First Cause" or "Deity" without resorting to political (us vs them) debates and supercilious Troll taunts. Dialog but don't debate. :smile:


*1. What is the meaning of uncaused first cause?
But remember that in this argument, “first cause” just. means “uncaused cause” - or, “something which causes other things to exist but was not itself caused to exist.” And there appears to be no contradiction in the idea of there being more than one uncaused cause.
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Note___ The statement in bold does violate the principle of Occam's Razor. A single Cause of the Big Bang should be sufficient. "Uncaused" implies self-existent, and some assume as an axiom that the hypothetical Multiverse is self-existent.

*2. Plausibility of Infinity and Transcendence :
Anything outside the set of Space-Time is philosophically conceivable, but scientifically non-empirical.

*3. Logic Chopping :
(fallacy)
Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › logicalfallacies

*4. Axiom of Choice :
Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

↪Gnomon
wow it sounds like you had almost the exact same idea as me years ago — Brendan Golledge

Like any philosophical worldview, Deism is subject to personal idiosyncrasies and interpretations. For example 's Monist Immanent Pandeism is generally compatible with my own Monist Transcendent PanEnDeism. Yet, for some unarticulated reason (emotion), he finds my view distasteful, and responds to my amateur scientific & cosmological arguments with sophistic ad hominems, plus rude trolling gibes and supercilious taunts. Go figure! :cool:

Monist Immanent Pantheism :
Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God, or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but believe that interpretations of the term differ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

Immanent vs Transcendent :
PanEnDeism is inclusive in that the hypothetical deity is both immanent and transcendent. Immanent as the ongoing Cause of Evolution, and Transcendent as the First Cause of our contingent space-time world.

I suppose the only difference between a materialistic worldview and my deistic worldview is the moral implication. If everything simply exists without known cause, then there is no moral implication. But if everything was made as it was for its own sake (like a giant artwork), then that morally implies that it is good, and that we ought to pay attention to it and appreciate it. So, my "religious" belief does not really accomplish anything other than a moral orientation. It makes no material claims that could not also be discovered in a purely materialistic worldview. — Brendan Golledge

I sometimes refer to my philosophical worldview as "Deism", or more specifically as PanEnDeism. Yet the "moral implication" of our world derives not from some divine Ideal that we are supposed to fulfill. but from its inherent opposing forces (positive vs negative ; good vs evil) that force us to make moral choices.

There may be a reason why the creation was not an all good paradise from the beginning. But as we know it --- from our perspective somewhere in the middle of the evolutionary process --- that duality of causes is perhaps its dominant feature, for both scientific and philosophical purposes. Nevertheless, we imagine that the Cause of the Creation was something like a single purposeful Mind. However, I must assume that the purpose of the Creation was not to create an all-good perfect paradise by divine fiat, but to allow the cosmic system to work-out its own destiny.

The "moral implication" of our ever-changing world is not for its Creator, but for its sentient creatures. :smile:


The Case for Deism :
Consequently, my proposed alternative deity is neither the all-good God of obsequious flattery, nor the evil incarnate of various Satanic fables; neither the bestower of blessings upon the faithful, nor the author of eternal damnation on those of other faiths. But merely the awesome enigmatic creative force behind all aspects of reality. The hypothetical G*D of the real world is not Good or Evil, but the Potential for all possible states.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page25.html

Deism vs Atheism :
Atheists & Humanists agree with Deists that most traditional religions, while useful for melding groups of unruly individuals into cohesive societies with standardized ethical systems, have gone astray from practical real-world truth in their search for idealistic other-worldly certainty. They observe that the social bonds of racial & religious tribalism also create rifts between tribes that are rife with strife. But more specifically, Atheists part ways with all forms of Theism on the touchy subject of supernatural deities that are imagined to rule the world, and whose existence must be taken on faith. While Neo-Deism has no use for a pantheon of cloud-dwelling Olympian deities or hordes of dirt-dwelling demons, it still has a role for a single ultimate principle of causation that created the universe, and governs its evolution. That abstract principle may or may not be personal, and may or may not be self-conscious; but it is essential to the existence & evolution of the natural world; hence must logically be a priori, in the sense of First Cause.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page39.html

I think in principle, it's probably impossible for us to find a theory of everything. This is because of Geodel's theorem, — Brendan Golledge

Ha! That Incompleteness Theorem may be G*D's invisibility cloak. But it's true only for "formal systems of logic", and chat room Philosophy is an informal system. So, we can prove our informal language theories-of-everything to our heart's content. Which may be why Faith is such a powerful mental attribute. For example, Materialism is more of an Axiom than a formal theory*1. As is Deism. Both propose to explain everything by reference to an assumed universal fact.

Pandeism (all is spirit) and Materialism (all is matter) postulate a universal substance within the universe, that explains everything else in the world. But PanEnDeism assumes that G*D is not so much a Substance, but a Cause*2. And the prevailing materialistic TOE, the Big Bang, assumes implicitly that Cause & Laws (e.g. Energy & Gravity ; Change & Organization)) existed eternally prior to the beginning of the material empirical world. Likewise, for Deism, Causation and Control are necessary attributes of any meaningful G*D. Hence the Deist logic : no G*D, no Energy or Order to make the plethora of material things. No G*D, no organized evolving world. QED. :halo:


*1. Is Materialism true? :
In general, materialism isn't 'empirically robust'. Indeed, it's empirically uncorroborable, because it doesn't make testable predictions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1opsr8/is_materialism_really_as_empirically_robust_as/

*2. Acquinas' Cosmological Argument :
The cause is God, the effect is the world :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2fgwx/revision/2

I don't think I entirely understood the comment about pandeism. It looks like you were arguing that we are all a dream in the mind of God, and it was somehow connected to physics. I suppose I already liked to imagine that God was something like a programmer and that we are the programmed world. I suppose that's very similar to being in the mind of God. — Brendan Golledge

All of the god-models you mentioned are merely frustrated attempts to answer the "why are we here" and "where is here" questions with non-religious (philosophical or scientific) representations of "things unseen". PanDeism and PanEnDeism merely mean that "G*D" is the whole of which we humans are like single-cells trying to imagine the whole body. The "we are dreamers within a dream" concept is suggestive, but we can't pinch ourselves to wake up. The cosmic "programmer" model is a plausible notion, that makes some sense to modern people, but is not much different in essence from ancient concepts of a gigantic invisible puppeteer pulling our invisible strings. After all, the model is not the deity, and we are shooting at a black cat in the dark. So all our attempts to understand something that is not observable with our physical senses is "mere Philosophy", and all moot, since we have no empirical evidence to support our mythical models.

Some philosophers, for whom traditional religious myths are passé, attempt to create theories that sound more like scientific models. For example, the notion of a "non-planck" universe sounds sciency, but only reduces G*D to an imaginary negative-dimension speck of matter, smaller than the smallest possible particle, hence deliciously mysterious. Likewise, "Acosmism" is a sort of negation of the knowable world, which denies its mundane reality in favor of a titillating paradox like the infinite unmanifest absolute. Ultimately, all our attempts to visualize something inherently invisible are going to be infinitely debatable. Consequently, we can't be dogmatic about any of our hypothetical god-models. But the alternative to such philosophical speculation is to smugly accept the absurdity of a world with no known reason for being.

For thousands of years, philosophers have been looking for clues at the scene of the crime : the physical universe. But the perpetrator is cleverly hidden behind an invisibility cloak. Is that inaccessibility a deliberate attempt to deceive us, or is it a logical necessity of a physical world created by a metaphysical deity? Deism has no final answer to the big "Why?" question. But we can amuse ourselves by exploring all possible solutions in a chat room. It's your turn to play detective. :cool:

I've written essays about God before, and it seems hard for most people to understand it. — Brendan Golledge

Thanks for the essay. I too have an unconventional understanding of The Universe, Nature, Evolution, and my role in it. But as soon as you use the word "God" you may encounter harsh push-back prejudice from those who are disappointed in the imperfections of our pale "Blue Dot" in the blackness. And even "Deism" may be viewed as faith in a do-nothing-deity. Years ago, I spelled it "G*D" to subtly indicate that it's not your grandfather's deity. For Atheists though, it's all the same old fairytale BS. And for those who follow traditional religions, its basically the same old materialistic Atheism with a veneer of deity. So I now use a variety of labels to indicate a generic loosely-defined god-concept. For example, ancient functional philosophical terms, such as "First Cause", "Prime Mover" and "Potential" sound more like scientific terminology than religious doctrines.

I was raised as a fundamentalist non-catholic Christian. But I began my non-religious sojourn as an Agnostic. Eventually I found Deism to be somewhat more positive, in that it acknowledges that something important is going on, that is beyond the Reductive scope of empirical Science. However, the dominant mono-theistic religions seem to "believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, then that must mean that he made creation exactly the way he wanted it from the very beginning". And yet, they all have to make doctrinal compromises to accommodate the obvious imperfections of the "creation" as we humans experience it. For example, a secondary evil god is presumed to have spoiled God's perfect paradise by introducing FreeWill into robotic animal behavior. But that pragmatic storyline adjustment undermines the ideal Omnipotent doctrine, with Duality, and Trinity.

Your admission that, "my "religious 'belief' does not really accomplish anything other than a moral orientation", may simply mean that you rely on rational Philosophy, instead of doctrinal Religion, for your moral compass. I agree that, "there are only 3 choices: 1. There exists a cause without a cause." Modern Cosmology is built upon the open-ended assumption of a sudden Big Bang emergence without a prior Cause. And philosophers, without empirical or biblical evidence can infer the logical necessity for an abstract First Cause of some indefinite kind, to fill the causal gap at the beginning of the ongoing chain of causation that we now refer to as Evolution. As you say, "Whatever option you choose is outside the scope of ordinary [scientific] logic". So, we fall back onto old-fashioned philosophical inference and hypothesis to add a few dots . . . . to the ellipsis at the beginning of space-time.

Since we Deists have no scriptural "word of god" to rely on, our revelation can only be the "Creation" that we can study using scientific methods. Having no direct communication with the First Cause, we can't even know for sure if it is a Person with a human-like mind. So, I agree that "the first cause isn't even a person". However, from the perspective of the Creation's thinking creatures, the world is both Physical/Material and Metaphysical/Spiritual*1, both Mechanical and Animated. Yet, by "spiritual" I only mean "philosophical".

Obviously, the pre-Bang First Cause cannot be a space-time physical object. So I agree with the "idea that math is somehow closely related to God". And, "God is then, perhaps, an infinity of abstract potential". However, as atheist physicist Steven Hawking wrote, "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God.". So, until then, we will have to be content with un-provable speculations, such as "he created the material universe in order to instantiate himself in particulars". In which case it might be, "my purpose to play a part in the evolutionary game".

You lamented that, "This philosophy is perhaps bleak because there is no covenant with the divine, and therefore there is no promise of personal fulfilment". The only "covenant with God" we humans have may be the innate urge to explore and understand the "artwork", in order to know the artist through the art. In that case, the only "personal fulfillment" may be to set our own goals and to produce our own "works of art". Like Virtue, Art may be its own reward. If the lack of a promise of Paradise is "bleak", then at least we can take some pride in our little "work of art", by which we individuals create a "good" Person, and as collectives create better Societies. I'll reserve the question of Progress for later posts, only if the thread tends in that direction. :smile:



*1. What does it mean to be spiritual? :
Spirituality means knowing that our lives have significance in a context beyond a mundane everyday existence at the level of biological needs that drive selfishness and aggression. It means knowing that we are a significant part of a purposeful unfolding of Life in our universe.
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/what-is-spirituality-maya-spencer-x.pdf?sfvrsn=f28df052_2

PALE BLUE DOT

Maybe form and formlessness are dependent on one another for meaning. It's one concept. — frank

Yes. In Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter seems to be making the point that is suggesting : that common sense equates the Material Object with its Meaning. "This is quite an amazing insight, and it demonstrates how far our native intuition can diverge from reality. We are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that every material object has substance and form. That is, an object's form inheres in the object itself, and is an aspect of the matter of which the object is made. Once again, we are misled by common sense. Actually, an object's form is an aspect of the object as an undivided whole, viewed from outside the object." Pinter also summarizes : "Form does not inhere in brute matter but emerges in Gestalt observation".

A Gestalt (holistic) observation sees not just the superficial object, but its internal structure and its interdependent context (the big picture). But Common sense --- e.g. Flat Earth and Materialism --- sees the obvious, but is blind to the implicit meaning or significance or value. On the other hand, a holistic perspective (philosophical sense?) sees the logical structure within the superficial substance, and its conceptual context. If so, then as Wayfarer implies, the isolated object, apart from its interrelationships, is Formless. However, a Gestalt view will observe both formless shape and enformed meaning. :smile:

Note : The modern definitions of Substance and Form are influenced by post-enlightenment reductive Materialism. Their ancient philosophical meanings were more holistic.

I think both form and content are missing from the blob Bob received. Can we take a closer look at the relationship between these things? — frank

Ironically, I had just read a book review in Philosophy Now magazine, before I noticed this post. The book author discusses the "neoliberal consumerist worldview", and the reviewer noted : "in postmodern culture the value of art is financial rather than aesthetic". The illustration showed a stainless steel sculpture by Jeff Koons, which sold for $91 million dollars in 2019. What did the buyer get for his financial fortune : a> a tchotchke to put on a shelf for the aesthetic amusement of his friends, or b> a steel object emulating a child's plastic balloon? Is "The Rabbit" merely a material thing (Hyle), or an aesthetic idea (Morph) in the form of a visual joke : steel art emulating plastic plaything?

Aristotle's Hylomorphism*2 has been interpreted in various ways. The Hyle (wood) component is obviously a material object, but the Morph (Form) component is defined philosophically as "immaterial". Yet Materialists may not distinguish between the tangible (stuff) of the Thing and the Idea (meaning) of the Thing. Is the aesthetic value of the Rabbit in the stainless steel, or in the irony of a child's toy on a museum pedestal? Did the buyer pay for the physical Matter or the metaphysical Form? Which is the "content", the steel or the joke? :joke:


*1. A financial investment, or a sight gag (wink, wink)?


2. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being as a compound of matter and immaterial form, with the generic form as immanently real within the individual. ___Wikipedia

*3. Steel Manufacturer Pays More Than $100 Million to Reduce Emissions from its Dearborn, Michigan Facility
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/steel-manufacturer-pays-more-100-million-reduce-emissions-its-dearborn-michigan


PS___
a> Does the stainless steel Rabbit have more or less Content (material or financial or aesthetic value) than the plastic inflatable Rabbit?
b> The language on such topics gets confusing. Is the steel mill (*3) paying for negative Material (hyle ; pollution) and positive Content (form ; ethics ; purity ; public image ; legal status )?

I have observed more than a few people argue that potency/potential is best left out of natural philosophy because it is, in principle, not empirically observable. Only act can be observable, hence, being good modern empiricists, we have no need for potency.
Well, I can understand this argument, even if I don't agree with it. However, it seems to me that the same exact sort of argument can be made against the infinite/continuous. After all, the infinite is, in principle, unobservable. We cannot have measurements consisting of an infinite number of decimals for instance.
Yet modern empirical thinking does not seem to have the same attitude on the infinite. Certainly, there are arguments for finitism, and it seems to be an idea that is getting more popular in physics, but no one says that it must be the case because the infinite is unobservable.
Indeed, that continuous mathematics is useful is often taken to simply imply an unobservable continuum. But this sort of reasoning seems to work just as well for potency, no?
So what's the difference?
Or is the "observability" thing really just a red herring? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I suspect that an "observability" argument against Potential is indeed a "red herring" to disguise the metaphysical worldview of Materialism*1 as a matter of Fact instead of Faith. A response to my discussion of Voltage as Potential (not yet real) current, elicited, not a counterargument, but an ad hominem accusation of heresy : "pseudophilosophy is defined by a lack of epistemic conscientiousness"*2. Ironically, all my links to definitions of electrical Potential were to scientific sites, not philosophical or pseudoscientific sites.

Therefore, I'm guessing that the motivation behind that accusation of was in defense of the Materialism belief system*3*4, that you seem to be questioning. As you noted, "Potential" is similar to "Infinite", in that both scientific concepts are based, not on empirical observation, but on rational inference. Although those terms refer to something that is not observable or measurable, they are used frequently in scientific documents refering to "things" that are not-yet-real, or observable.

So, what's the difference between Empirical Observable here & now facts, and Rational Imaginative placeless & timeless theories? Potential is like Infinity, in that it is not observable via the physical senses, but inferable by means of mental (immaterial ; mathematical) Reasoning. Infinity is not Real or Physical, but Ideal and Meta-Physical. Likewise, Materialism is not observable, but must be taken on faith. :smile:


*1. Materialism is the view that, because only physical matter and its properties exist, minds are merely manifestations of matter and are reducible to physical features. Metaphysical materialists claim that all things except minds or ideas are ultimately physical or bodily.
http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quest4.html

*2. Pseudophilosophy : Analogous to pseudoscience, can there be such a thing as pseudophilosophy, in which one makes claims with philosophical pretensions which on closer inspection turn out to be bullshit?
https://psyche.co/ideas/pseudophilosophy-encourages-confused-self-indulgent-thinking

*3. Materialism is Metaphysical :
# To say that materialism is a form of ontological monism means that it identifies what is real in terms of the practical (pragmatic) value of things.
#" Metaphysical dualists (e.g., Descartes) argue that the two kinds of things in the world—namely, spiritual things (minds, ideas) and material things (bodies)—cannot be explained in terms of one another".
# "Philosophical dualists like Descartes argue that mind and matter are fundamentally two different aspects of the same non-mental and non-physical substance."
http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quest4.html

*4.Materialistic Monism :
Materialistic monists believe that the physical, material world (not the mental world) is primary. They believe that consciousness is essentially part of the material world too, because it arises through our interaction with the material world.

*5. Materialism in academia is a fundamentalist belief system :
The metaphysics of materialism is a belief system held in large swathes of academia in the same manner, and often for the same reasons, that religious beliefs are held in fundamentalist organizations,
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/materialism-in-academia-is-a-fundamentalist-belief-system/reading/

I have observed more than a few people argue that potency/potential is best left out of natural philosophy because it is, in principle, not empirically observable. Only act can be observable, hence, being good modern empiricists, we have no need for potency. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm no mathmatician, but it seems to me that in a practical sense we need at least the mathematical ideas of infinity and continuums. I'm not seeing a similar need for potency. — wonderer1

As you said, "only acts can be observed", but Potential for a future Act can be imagined, and even calculated mathematically. Ironically, Wonderer1 sees no need for spooky spiritual Potency, because he has a Mathematical term for the before/after relationship of Causation : Difference*1. He seems to think that mathematics is empirical, hence more real than metaphysical Potential. So, he asserts that Voltage can exist in the absence of Current flow*2. Which is true in the metaphysical sense of a calculated, but not measured, Difference. In Aristotelian terms, Voltage is a Formal (theoretical) Cause, not a Material (empirical) Cause*3.

In a storage battery the Voltage is not measured empirically, but calculated mathematically*2. You can hold a AA battery in your hand without getting shocked, because your skin is too resistive for such a small Potential to flow*2. Hence, you can have Potential (metaphysical ; ideal) Voltage without any (physical ; real) current flow. Voltage, as a mathematical definition, is a theoretical Cause without material Effect.

In what sense does Potential exist : space-time or infinity ; reality or ideality ; actual or theoretical? In what sense does Mathematics exist : material or metaphysical?*4 :smile:


*1. How to find voltage without current?
How to Calculate Voltage Across a Resistor (with Pictures)
With basic algebra, we can change Ohm's Law to solve for voltage instead of current: I = V / IR = VR / IR = V.
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Voltage-Across-a-Resistor

*2. Voltage without Current :
Voltage can exist without current, as it is the cause of flowing charge. Current does not exist without voltage, as voltage is the main cause to flow current except theoretical superconductor.
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/difference-between-voltage-and-current/

*3. What is a voltage source with no current?
Voltage sources provide an almost-constant output voltage as long as the current drawn from the source is within the source's capabilities. An ideal voltage source loaded by an open circuit (i.e., an infinite impedance) will provide no current (and hence no power).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_source

*4. Mathematics is Metaphysics :
Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this is also the case for the objects that are studied in mathematics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

...The upshot of these considerations is that the gravitational arrangement of the Universe is bafflingly regular and uniform*. There seems to be no obvious reason why the Universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organised pattern of motion seems like a miracle. Is it? Let us examine various responses to this mystery: — Paul Davies, God and the New Physics

Thanks for that quote, in the context of Cosmic Intelligence. I read Davies' book many years ago. And it had a lasting effect on my personal worldview, both scientific and philosophical. As a scientist, his use of "God" in the title wouldn't be taken seriously if he was referring to primitive & traditional concepts of world-creating deities. Yet, he admitted that "there are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a "natural Deity". Which seems to be the implication of the OP.

The Big Bang Theory was originally described in terms that sound like a physical event that we typically call an "Explosion". But the actual explosions we observe or create could be characterized as Instant Entropy, and depicted as the vanishingly-brief flash of light emitted from New Years Day fireworks. Such an explosion converts stored Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy then back into the Nothingness of total Entropy. In an attempt to avoid that nothing-to-nothing flash-in-the-pan*1 implication, some scientists preferred to portray the event as-if a gradual & orderly "Expansion" , i.e. Evolution. Even so, no scientific theory has an explanation for the source of that cosmic causal Energy, or for the physical Laws that control & coordinate the evolutionary expansion of undefined Potential into the "organized patterns" of a self-defining Cosmos . . . . instead of the dissipated dust of expired Entropy.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was an attempt to explain the emergence of living & thinking organisms from a purely material & mechanical system of Causation & Selection. Yet, he seemed to assume, as an unarticulated Axiom, that the necessary god-like Power & Logic existed eternally. Henri Bergson also had no explanation for the how & why of Evolution. But he recognized the necessity for some kind of Intelligent Design*2 in the title of his book : Creative Evolution. Unfortunately, our lack of direct evidence for a pre-bang Intelligence, limits any explanation for the original Cause & Laws --- necessary to program the Evolutionary Mechanism with logical rules (if-then, and/or) --- to rational Philosophical Speculation. Therefore, the OP question cannot be answered with empirical scientific facts. We can only apply our human form of Logic & Intelligence to continue the search for answers to Ontological questions. :cool:


*1. flash-in-the-pan : a sudden spasmodic effort that accomplishes nothing

*2. What is the most accurate definition of intelligence?
Although contemporary definitions of intelligence vary considerably, experts generally agree that intelligence involves mental abilities such as logic, reasoning, problem-solving, and planning.
https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-intelligence-2795035

Well, the concept of potential is used all the time in practical matters, e.g. the counterfactual analysis that makes up a great bulk of the work done in the sciences, engineering problems, "potential energy," potential growth in economics, attracting "potential mates" in biology, etc.
It's really more in the realm of metaphysics or something like the amorphous "metaphysics of science" that the prohibition on talking about potentialities seems to hold. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think you have hit upon the prohibitive problem with the word "potential" : Metaphysics. It implies the creation of something new that does not yet exist in physical form : Counterfactual.

As you noted, materialistic Science is OK with the notion of Potential in cases where the before & after can be measured, in theory. For example, a AA battery is rated for 1.5 volts, but that future current is imaginary in the sense that it cannot be measured until a hypothetical circuit is completed by some external Cause. So, what is rated is unreal Potential*1 instead of real Actual voltage.

Ironically, the Potential of a physical battery refers to something physically non-existent, hence literally Metaphysical : knowable only by Reason, not by Senses*2. When defined mathematically, as in Quantum Field Energy*3, it's a statistical scientific notion. Although the storage medium (empty space) is immaterial, the math makes sense. But when defined philosophically, it's a taboo religious concept, in which the storage medium is presumed to be supernatural. :nerd:


1. Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential volatage is inert until actualized by some causal trigger.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

2. Metaphysical :
an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. . . . Thus, metaphysical claims stand today between the absolutist claims of science (scientism) and the complete relativism of postmodernism and deconstructionism.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*3. Quantum potential energy and non-locality :
It is a form of energy which cannot be localized in space. It represent the energy associated with the spatial curvature of the square-root . . . . The quantum potential energy has the units of energy but it does not share the characteristic properties of neither potential nor kinetic energies as understood in classical physics.
https://hal.science › file › quantumpotentialenergy