As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting! Do you have a link to that experiment? How many monkeys involved (n=?)? Does it assume that the monkeys bang away randomly, or have they been taught to type purposefully --- as they do when pounding nuts with rocks? Compared to feckless philosophy, unfettered Science gets results. Oh, did the experiment begin 300,000 years ago, or did they use a Black Hole to accelerate time? :joke:

FWIW, here's what Wiki has to say on the Infinite Monkey Theorem : a thought experiment. :smile:

Infinite monkey theorem :
The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given unlimited time. . . . .
Even if every proton in the observable universe (which is estimated at roughly 1080) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys.[g] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys,[4] "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event ...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


A RATIONAL INTENTIONAL MONKEY times infinity

I would argue that a non-linguistic animal lives in the interface of past, present and future just as humans do. Watch a squirrel be interrupted in its pursuit of an acorn by a stray sound, and then return to its goal. — Joshs


Yes, they have memories, I said that. but the interface of past and future is the present. I'm not clear what you are saying different? I think I have made the time difference fairly clear. A cat sits by the mouse hole waiting for a mouse; there is anticipation but it is now. there is memory, but it is now. Now there is the acorn, now there is a sound, now there is the acorn. Never do you get the story of the pursuit of the acorn, an interruption and the return to the acorn - that is the human narrative, and resides nowhere in the squirrel. — unenlightened

I suppose the title of this thread is referring to the brief existence of the self-conscious Self : non-being . . . being . . . non-being. Which is a core theme of Religion and Philosophy, but not of Materialistic Philosophy, which knows only non-self : selfless matter. The squirrel is an earnest scientist in pursuit of substantial sustenance, not of essential story. Live for today, because tomorrow does not exist. By contrast, the Myth-makers and Wisdom-seekers find permanent Past and fabricated Future more interesting/important than the fleeting Present : "it is what it is, deal with it!"

As far as we know, humans are the only animals who construct a narrative as they do what the physical body mandates. That self-narrative, as recorded in memory, and in story & song, is the Self. Perhaps the selfish Self motivates the Body to take serial "selfies", to serve as an objective record of the Self-story. We know about the brevity of Self, only because so many of us have left behind objective narratives of a story interrupted. Most of us don't mourn the ending of a squirrel's self, perhaps because we don't know its story. But we do mourn the ellipsis of a loved-one, including a non-human pet, because we are emotionally invested in their story.

Ironically, emotional investment (cathexis) in one's own story may cause us to fear (pre-mourn) the end of the narrative & narrator. That painful bummer in the middle of the story has been evaded by ancient sages in various ways : acceptance, denial, sequel in heaven, etc. But some would have us imitate the innocence of animals by living in the moment, and ceasing to explain & judge ourselves as protagonists in the Self-story. But for humans, that would mean losing the most important thing in the world, Me. :smile:

What I meant is causation stops at some point. After that the question becomes metaphysical such as first cause etc. — simplyG

Yes. In spoken or written language, Ellipsis is the intentional omission of information. But the intention is indicated by a series of dots, or perhaps a smile/smirk after the last word in an incompleted thought : as a clue, meaning "you fill-in the blanks".

In Cosmology, the history of the Self-Organization of the physical universe suddenly stopped at a point in time, where time itself vanished into eternity, defined mathematically as a Singularity. Hence, some cosmologists apparently inferred an ellipsis in the history of our world --- even though there were no physical dots to indicate an intentional omission of information about the provenance of Reality. Not even a "once upon a time". So, they imagined a Metaphysical or Metaphorical gap-filler to allow the story to continue indefinitely into the past.

The inquiring mind seems to know somehow, that logically there should be more to the story. So, Materialists fill-in the pre-history blank with an infinite regression of Multiverses, while Spiritualists infer the logical necessity for an intentional Original Organizer. Which raises the question of what were the "contextual clues" pointing beyond the empirical beginning toward a hypothetical Cause of the known events?

Perhaps, our experience with physical Impetus & Momentum has primed us to look beyond the initial Action for an Actor, responsible for the subsequent patterns of Self-Organization. How else could Time/Change/Evolution just -- suddenly & without warning -- start Ticking/Changing/Organizing for no apparent reason? :smile:


Ellipsis : the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.

I don't know if any panpsychists believe anything like the scenario you have difficulty imagining, but it doesn't seem these three do. — Patterner

I had assumed that's the case, but wanted to get a second opinion. So my problem is not with the general concept, but with the specific terminology, such as "mind" and "experiential entity". In common usage, both of those words typically refer to human-scale consciousness & feelings & meanings. Yet, would an electron "mind" being ionized (separated from its atom)? Most of the criticisms of Panpsychism I've seen, focus on the plausibility of "tiny minds".

So, although my philosophical thesis has some parallels with Panpsychism, I use various forms of the term "Form" (Information : EnFormAction) to describe the doing & knowing aspects of reality. I suppose you could say it's a 21st century secular update of ancient religious Panpsychism.

I asked the question about "experiential entities" because that's the only part of Peter Ells' argument for Universal Mind, that sounded implausible to a modern mind. :smile:


Mind :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
2. be distressed, annoyed, or worried by.

Psyche :
the human soul, mind, or spirit.

Form :
the logical structure of something as distinguished from its material.

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. — Gnomon
I think that's mostly a problem for you and may explain things. Also 'unwillingness' is not a good word, it implies an ought - I 'ought' to be able to, right? I would say 'inability' would be more appropriate. I hold tentative positions on some matters, and was just writing elsewhere above - — Tom Storm

Yes. Our different attitudes towards opinions "may explain things". You seem motivated to avoid dogmatic positions, while I'm interested in discovering moderate "provisional positions". And yet, you do occasionally express a brief succinct opinion on some specific topics. Maybe you only avoid a priori topics that cannot be definitively proven true or false.

Perhaps you think broad general questions --- "some matters", such as Random vs Rational Reality --- are more likely to be answered imperiously, and perhaps based on debatable religious or political postures, instead of hard scientific facts. I'm keenly aware of that danger, but I'm willing to take a chance on exchanging opinions on such fraught topics, on the outside chance that I might learn something philosophically important. Such as "why some opinion exchanges are more polarized than others". :smile:

PS___Regarding the "ought" (moral obligations) aspects of expressed opinions, some might hold that scientific views (beliefs, opinions) ought to be expressed in terms of Factual Particulars, while philosophical perspectives ought to be expressed in Generalities & Possibilities --- or not expressed at all. I've noticed that some posters on this philosophy forum seem to deliberately avoid voicing general or speculative opinions (philosophy ; rationalism), and to restrict their views to particular & empirical facts (science ; naturalism)*1 *2. And they can be rather dogmatic about defending what they see as a wall of separation between Fact (science) & Fiction (philosophy). In that case, perhaps they ought not to be posting on a wishy-washy philosophy forum at all. :cool:


*1. :
Science only deals with subjects insofar as they are material, or physical, if you like. It is only those kinds of inquiries that can be rigorously tested. Other kinds of ideas (like the synthetic generalizations I mentioned earlier) are what we (collectively) cannot imagine being otherwise. Then there things which are true as a matter of logic.
What category do you think the idea your OP consists in is based on?
:
Philosophy, I would hope. I think the lineage of the argument can plausibly be traced back to the Phaedo.

*2 Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science :
We’ll start with what has historically been the most dominant view of the nature of philosophy:[1] let’s call this view ‘rationalism.’[2] After looking at this traditional perspective, we’ll review a more recent view of what philosophy is or should be: ‘naturalism.’
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. Is it the "emotional connotations" that cause you to take a position of Profound Skepticism? If the world is all a "blooming buzzing confusion"*1, why bother to post on a philosophy forum? Doesn't a forum like this presuppose that we can eventually make sense of the complex patterns of Nature, and the even more confusing patterns of Culture? Do you think that Nature is "leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer". :smile:

PS___Admittedly, sometimes forum threads, veering recklessly off-topic, seem to add to the original confusion that provokes the question. :joke:


In his book, The Principles of Psychology, William James defines the concept of 'blooming and buzzing confusion' to describe a baby's experience of the world as pure sensation that comes before any rationality. This experience becomes a reference to further interpretation of the coming sensations in life.
https://www.hamedkhosravi.com/A-Buzzing-Confusion-1

"Information" is very tough term because it is defined loads of different ways. I suppose here I should have used "Kolmogorov Complexity," in every instance here. This is a measure of how many bits it takes to describe something (really how many bits a computer program would need to be to produce an output of a full description).

So, that said, I would think that the "heat death," scenario, where the universe is in thermodynamic equilibrium, would have the greatest complexity/take the most bits to describe as a description of its macroproperties excludes a maximal number of possible microstates that must be excluded by specifying information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry, "Kolmogorov Complexity"*1 is way over my little pointy head. And, while your comments in the quote may have something to do with the hypothesis that the universe is a computer program, it doesn't address my request*2 for a link to the Second Law assertion.

The Santa Fe Institute studies physical Complexity from an information theoretic perspective. And they can get into some pretty abstruse word-salads. But my interest is much simpler, and primarily regarding the relationship between Meaningful Information and Causal Energy : i.e. Information defined in terms of Energy. Hence, I'd like to know more about the implications of the Second Law on the Conservation of Information.

So, I'll ask again : "Can you provide a link to a site or publication where that "claim" is made? It might clarify any presumptions behind such an assertion". I'm really interested in the basis of that claim. Not at all interested in "Kolmogorov Complexity". :smile:


*1. Kolmogorov complexity :
The notion of Kolmogorov complexity can be used to state and prove impossibility results akin to Cantor's diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and Turing's halting problem. In particular, no program P computing a lower bound for each text's Kolmogorov complexity can return a value essentially larger than P's own length (see section § Chaitin's incompleteness theorem); hence no single program can compute the exact Kolmogorov complexity for infinitely many texts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
Note --- "prove impossibility results"???? Not even in the ballpark of my layman dilettante vocabulary.

*2. I don't know what the reference to "impossible complexity" has to do with this claim :
"There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed". I was hoping you could point me to the source of that claim, so I could understand its implications : e.g. Metaphysical Information is as fundamental/essential to reality as Physical Energy.

↪wonderer1
Do animals have intentionality? They seem to from my perspective. What does this add to the discussion? — Tom Storm

What did you mean (intend) by that question? :joke:

Courts of Law often spend thousands of attorney hours in trying to prove or deny Intention --- after the fact. But during an action, the intent is fairly obvious to the human mind. We seem to have a talent for interpreting intentions, such as stalking behavior. For example, if we see a cheetah approaching an antelope, crouching slowly, hairs raised, ears forward & eyes fixed, it could be just playing, or it could be intent on murder. Likewise, Nature --- as a whole system --- seems to display intentional patterns of behavior, that can be rationalized into a purposive, meaningful, goal oriented, worldview. But proving it, after the fact, is arduous.

What does that ability to interpret behavior add to a discussion about Rationality? For humans the innate ability to recognize patterns can be enhanced by the addition of Rational analysis of the situation, as in the courtroom example. Reason allows humans to make fine distinctions that may not be apparent to an animal. If you point a gun at an antelope, it may not interpret your intentions as murderous. Artificial/cultural elements of the modern world require reason to enhance instinct. That may be why some exhausted thinkers idealize a return to a "state of nature" where arduous & fallible reasoning & argumentation is not required for survival.

The intention of the OP, seems to argue that rational humans are not mere instinctive animals. Hence more than just aggregations of atoms & tangles of neurons. It's that little extra immaterial essence --- je nais se quoi --- that distinguishes human nature from animal nature. :smile:

WHAT ARE THE ANIMAL'S INTENTIONS?

No, I was talking about how things seem to us as opposed to how they might really be. When we talk about order, it is based on our models of what order appears to be to us. — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are being evasive. Barring divine revelation, how else would we know anything about the world, except as they "seem to us" : via our senses & inferences? And how they seem is what our mental models tell us. Is your seemly model/map of the world orderly enough for us to understand it and discuss it, or disorderly enough to keep us forever in the dark about ultimate philosophical questions? As the OP inquired : do we humans possess " the ability to either genuinely apprehend truth, or to be rationally justified in making truth claims". It's not a trick question : do you find the world orderly enough for you to find your way around the local terrain, and to draw inferences about its wider patterns of Geology*1? :smile:

*1. Geology : "the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it".

My point is simple. How would we know? We seem to have discovered some regularities in our little patch. We can claim no such knowledge about the whole universe. I'm not even certain physics works the same across the universe - what's to say it isn't largely a function/invention of human cognition? — Tom Storm

Are you claiming complete ignorance about the world, or just "profound skepticism"? Is mathematics simply a child's game of counting fish? Or a science that allows us to guess about what happens next, and what happened before. Kant was skeptical about our ability to know what's what, but despite that handicap, he wrote thousands of words to instruct us about the positive & negative aspects of Epistemology.

On this forum, few of us claim to speak from absolute authority. We just share personal opinions/models, and that's how we expand & refine our "little patch" of reliable knowledge. By comparing our worldviews, we may learn what ideas are imaginary "inventions", and which are realistic enough to be reliable "knowledge". :nerd:

Epistemological rationalism :
Humans will always find things arranged in certain patterns because it is they who have unwittingly so arranged them. Kant held, however, that these certainties were bought at a heavy price. Just because a priori insights are a reflection of the mind, they cannot be trusted as a reflection of the world outside the mind. Whether the rational order in which sensation is arranged—the order, for example, of time, space, and causality—represents an order holding among things-in-themselves (German Dinge-an-sich) cannot be known. Kant’s rationalism was thus the counterpart of a profound skepticism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/rationalism/Epistemological-rationalism-in-modern-philosophies#ref561225

I am dissappointed, but never surprised, to observe the routine deprecation of the faculty of reason. I think the classical notion of reason is rather non-PC, for various reasons, chief among them that it distinguishes humans from other species. — Wayfarer

I suppose, in order to avoid the historical slavery of political/religious Spiritualism (soul more important/essential than body, and ideals worth dying for), Materialism has gone to the opposite extreme : a mundane real body without a spooky ideal mind ; hence, free-range animals with guns & computers instead of teeth & claws.

However, my interest in philosophy/science is that it allows us to do what animals can't : to know thyself. A bit of introspection can make us both proud of human culture, and ashamed of its imperfections. We may be almost indistinguishable from animals in our biology, but human psychology allows us to use tools for leverage to move the world.

Yet, when ungoverned by Reason, those tools can turn us into blood-thirsty savages. "Guns don't kill people; People with guns, knives, tanks, missiles kill people". Often for irrational reasons : e.g. Putin's political dreams of a glorious ideal empire justify Ukrainocide. Aren't humans distinguished!

Does Materialism/Physicalism inherently turn us into secular humanists & pacifists? Is there a philosophical middle ground, where physical bodies & metaphysical minds can coexist? :worry:

Again, take a look at the chapter headings and abstracts (all available online) of Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. He has a compelling answer to at least part of this question. — Wayfarer

I just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. It seems to address some of the common sticking points on this forum. I'm guessing that he leans toward a Platonic worldview, but I'll try to remain open-minded. :smile:

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. In judgments of randomness, there is always a degree of doubt. Statistical analysis is inherently limited to probabilities instead of certainties*1. But I was talking about Philosophy, not Mathematics. For philosophical purposes, we routinely make judgements about Necessity vs Chance. I don't know about animals, but human nature seems to have an innate sense of Order vs Disorder. And, of course, there may be emotional reactions in those faced with Orderly/Predictable vs Disorderly/Unpredictable situations.

But this is a calm reasonable intellectual philosophy forum --- no heretics in dungeons --- so what I'm talking about is the Logical Connotations of an Ontological question : " Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program, or a random sequence of accidents". If the universe is a series of accidents, going nowhere, then the project of Science is impossible*2. But, if there is at least some perceptible order within background randomness, the project of Philosophy --- to make sense of the world --- is reasonable*3. For now, you can ignore the "self-learning" interpretation of some observers. We can get into that later.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? Are you able --- can you convince yourself --- to make such a philosophical generalization? Caution, your answer may have emotional implications. I'm not asking you to go on record though ; it's just you and me here. Are you afraid to make such a summary judgment of the historical patterns of evolutionary development over 14 billion years? :smile:


*1. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article by the physicist Eugene Wigner. In the paper, Wigner observes that a physical theory's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions. ___Wikipedia

*2. Nature of Science :
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems. Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation.
https://www.shapeoflife.org/nature-science-scientific-knowledge-assumes-order-and-consistency-natural-systems

*3. Laws of Nature :
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.
https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes. It is, therefore, an argument against materialist philosophy of mind. According to the argument, if such theories were true, our thoughts, and so also our reasoning, would be determined on the molecular level by neurochemistry, leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

On the TPF forum, this a no-win argument. Both Physicalists and Metaphysicalists typically agree on the details of physics, neuro-chemistry, and cosmology all the way back to the rationally-inferred Big Bang, but disagree on the metaphysical question of direction vs randomness.

So, the argument eventually boils down to A> a rational intentional Creation ( temporal Cosmos) vs B> accidental random Causation (timeless Chaos), dating back to the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. Each party, exercising Reason & Inference, can find evidence to support his conclusion, based on that original Axiomatic assumption. But they arrive at different rational conclusions : a world that makes sense to the rational mind vs a world that makes sense for the sensory body*1.

Ontological question : Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program*2, or a random sequence of accidents that over eons has stumbled upon a formula to cause a few constellations of atoms to imagine that they exist, simply because they can think. What do you think? :smile:


*1. Is the World Rational? :
Our preliminary hypothesis asserts that the world has a certain property owing to which it can be successfully investigated by us. We call it the hypothesis of the rationality of the world (or simply the rationality of the world).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-77626-0_5

*2. The Conservation of Information :
I'd be surprised if materialist/physicalist/deterministic scientists would think in terms of "learning" in a law-limited "deterministic" system*1. However computer scientists, and Information theorists, do sometimes use such anthro-morphic terminology metaphorically*2. So, if the "laws of nature" are imagined as a computer program, the universe could conceivably learn, in the same sense that Artificial Intelligence does*3, by means of "non-deterministic algorithms"*4.

But AI is not natural, and currently requires a natural Programmer to establish the parameters of the system. Would a self-organizing, self-learning world also require the services of a preter-natural Programmer to bootstrap the system?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816834

There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed. . . . The claim here is that, even if T1 can be described in fewer bits than T2, you can just evolve T1 into T2, thus a description of T1 actually is a description of T2! This implies the scandal of deduction, that nothing new is learned from deterministic computation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The causal role of information in the world is of interest to me, both scientifically and philosophically. Can you provide a link to a site or publication where that "claim" is made? It might clarify any presumptions behind such an assertion.

I'd be surprised if materialist/physicalist/deterministic scientists would think in terms of "learning" in a law-limited "deterministic" system*1. However computer scientists, and Information theorists, do sometimes use such anthro-morphic terminology metaphorically*2. So, if the "laws of nature" are imagined as a computer program, the universe could conceivably learn, in the same sense that Artificial Intelligence does*3, by means of "non-deterministic algorithms"*4.

But AI is not natural, and currently requires a natural Programmer to establish the parameters of the system. Would a self-organizing, self-learning world also require the services of a preter-natural Programmer to bootstrap the system?

As I mentioned above, this kind of sci-phi (science/philosophy) is over my head. But I'm learning. Does that mean I was not destined to post on such an abstruse question? :smile:


*1. What is physics-informed learning? :
What is physics-informed machine learning? Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence and computer science that focuses on the use of data and algorithms that attempt to imitate the function of the human brain, improving in accuracy over time.
https://www.pnnl.gov/explainer-articles/physics-informed-machine-learning

*2. Physicists working with Microsoft think the universe is a self-learning computer :
https://thenextweb.com/news/physicists-working-with-microsoft-think-the-universe-is-a-self-learning-computer

*3. Causal Determinism :
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

*4. What is a nondeterministic algorithm? :
A nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, given a particular input, can produce different outputs. This is in contrast to a deterministic algorithm, which will always produce the same output for a given input. Nondeterministic algorithms are often used in artificial intelligence (AI) applications.
https://www.aiforanyone.org/glossary/nondeterministic-algorithm

Time is other than change, for a number of reasons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Granted. The word "Time" has many shaded meanings, depending on context. But they all seem to refer to discernible Change of some kind. So I was talking about Time as we know it conventionally & empirically (by sensory experience of differences*1 between one observation and another : i.e. Change/Causation*2).

Obviously, only a fraction of the physical changes in the universe are observed or observable (by humans). And philosophers have examined the Epistemology & Ontology of Time from various perspectives : (1) fatalism; (2) reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; (3) the topology of time; (4) McTaggart’s argument; (5) the A-theory and the B-theory; (6) presentism, eternalism, and the growing block theory; (7) the 3D/4D debate about persistence; (8) the dynamic and the static theory; (9) the moving spotlight theory; (10) time travel; (11) time and physics and (12) time and rationality*3.

However, only the "Block Time" models involve something "other than change". And Block Time is simply a scientific term for traditional philosophical timeless/changeless Eternity. Are you referring to Events --- if that notion even makes sense in a timeless state of being -- in which nothing changes? In a physical Event, any difference/change is observable in the material form. But, what would constitute a metaphysical temporal Event? I suppose that Fatalism could be construed as a metaphysical concept of Time, in that the predetermined world of the gods, could be interpreted scientifically as a type of expanding Block Time*4.

In Block Time and Eternity theories, a traditional conventional term is used metaphorical & negatively, in order to indicate what Eternity (timelessness) is not. Can you give a positive example of Time that does not involve Change? If so, I may have to modify my essay on Time as Energy/Change, to add : "among other things". :smile:


*1. In my information-based thesis, Time is "the difference that makes a difference" (Bateson on Meaning). If time is "other than Change", does it make any Difference/Meaning to a sentient mind?

"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy." https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html

*2. I suppose our sensory inputs at different points-in-time, would only be static snapshots, without rational (metaphysical) inference to link those instantaneous frames into a continuous movie. So, from that perspective, Time is not physical Change, but a mental construct that we interpret as Change.

*3. Time :
Those like Aristotle and Leibniz, who think that time is not independent of the events that occur in time, deny the existence of absolute time,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

*4. What is the growing block theory of time? :
The growing block theory of time holds that the past and present are real, and the future is unreal. The passage of time comprises new things coming into existence: as the present moves forward, and what was once present becomes past, the 'block' of reality grows.
https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/527/4317403?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- The Christian concept of Eternity is not static, but more like a "growing block time", which is a process separated from the laws of Nature in a heavenly realm : outside of Time.

There is a (contested) claim in physics that information cannot be created or destroyed. While thinking this through, it occured to me that formulations of this claim often rely on the "scandal of deduction," the idea that deductive reasoning produces no information. . . . At first glance this seems wrong. Our universe began in a very low entropy state, . . . — Count Timothy von Icarus

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy or higher Math, my comments on the notion that "deductive reasoning produces no information", may not be of high quality. To clearly define the ratio of "reasoning" to Information content, could get into some tricky reasoning beyond my limited abilities. But, since my amateur philosophical retirement hobby is based on Quantum & Information theories, I may be able to make some pertinent comments. I hope they are not off-topic.

First, the quoted phrase above, parallels the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seems to equate Information with Energy. Indeed, some scientists today do make that equation*1. Since the second law implies that the universe began with a limited amount of Energy/Information, some might infer that maximum Entropy at "Heat Death" would mean Zero Energy & Zero Information : hence Zero Universe. But, is it possible that local energy/information users could import energy from the almost empty vastness of space-time*2, in order to optimize their local throughput of energy & information? That may be how some sci-fi alien species are able to become entrepreneurial space-farers, exploring & conquering less efficient (or less-fortunate) species, such as Earthlings.

In that case, with the Quality of Information in mind, instead of just Quantity, the value of Information, would be, not just conserved but compounded, like money in an interest-bearing account, or in risky-but-high-yield investments. Relative to the whole universe, increasing Entropy is equivalent to a negative interest rate, such as monetary inflation. Our Cosmos is a closed banking system, but it began with a stock-pile of low entropy-high energy/information. So, the evolution of increasing intelligence (information quality ) could conceivably offset the energy inflation (entropy) of expansion without new inputs*3.

Therefore, I agree that Deduction shouldn't be scandalous, just because, unlike Induction/Production it doesn't output new information (facts). On the other hand, by testing old information (beliefs), Deduction should produce better quality information. For an evolutionary analogy, animals that developed intelligence, in response to environmental stresses, gradually evolved into new species. Physically, still animals, but metaphysically a new species (homo economicus), that is more efficient in processing information mentally. No longer dependent on teeth & claws, they use imagination & ideas to make their fortune in the world. :smile:

PS___Energy and Information are not the same thing, but different forms of the same thing : Potential.


*1. Information converted to energy :
Toyabe and colleagues have observed this energy-information equivalence . . .
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*2. Vacuum Energy :
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

*3. Weight of Evidence and Information Value :
In data analysis, Logistic Regression models take as input categorical and numerical data, and output the probability of the occurrence of the event.
https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/06/understand-weight-of-evidence-and-information-value/
Note --- Shannon's mathematical definition of Information is based on statistical Probability

The fact that The Agent (that's what I'll call it for you) cannot be known empirical, does not prevent us from knowing it. That's what's described by Aquinas, as knowing the cause by its effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That's why, although I lost faith in the bible stories about a father-like Creator, I couldn't deny the reverse logic --- from effect to cause --- that points back to an ultimate Causal Agent of some kind. Until 1931, most scientists apparently assumed that the universe "just-is", with no need for an origin explanation.

Yet, in the early 20th century, pragmatic Astronomers followed the trail of circumstantial red-shift evidence back to a sudden beginning in a mathematical Singularity --- at which the evidence vanishes. When a hunter-tracker, looking for the nest/lair (origin) of his prey, discovers that the trail of tracks suddenly vanishes, he may look up for signs of an eagle to explain the lack of tracks. Or, he can keep searching in the same direction, to see if he can pick-up the trail again.

The Multiverse theory (eternal physical causation) is of the latter kind. Based on the presumption of physical continuity, it assumes that there must be more of the same tracks out there somewhere. Yet, metaphysical Causal Agency theories tend to look-up for some kind of non-empirical Agent to explain the origin of a contingent Reality. Both approaches begin their philosophical search at the transition from empirical evidence to an abyss of Uncertainty. Then, Physicalists fill-in the blanks with hypothetical (presumably real) physical stuff. And Metaphysicalists project (necessarily Ideal) non-physical non-empirical non-stuff into the unknowable void. Or, at least the Potential for real stuff.

Which method is more likely to discover the true origin of Reality? Depends on whether you prefer Real (empirical) Truth or Ideal (logical) Truth. Either way, the search for ultimate truth is, as you say, complicated by the absence of evidence. :smile:

To understand the passing of time as non-empirical, yet having an empirical effect (change and activity), is a first step toward understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting notion : time (change) without a material substrate to evolve. How would you describe "non-empirical passage of time"? "Eternity" is usually defined as changeless by philosophers. But for religious purposes, Heavenly Eternity has been described as changeable, but never-ending. How would you define "non-empirical" (non-experiential)Time? :cool:

PS___I recently imagined a new way to think of Time in terms of Causal Energy*1. Not exactly "non-empirical" but knowable only by observing its Effects. Could that be a "step" toward "understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects"?

*1. Time is Energy :
Time is merely how we measure the expenditure of Energy in the form of Entropy (negative trends). Since Energy itself is not a sensable phenomenon, we like to think of it, metaphorically, as a river flowing from a mountaintop into the valley. And yet along the way down, we get some value for the expenditure of Time. The cosmic payback is what we call Evolution, in the positive sense of living creatures descending from inert material.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other? — Gnomon
That's the issue, we do not properly know the source of this form of agency. But evidence indicates that we ought to accept it as real. So to portray it as nonexistent just because systems theory doesn't provide the means for modeling it, is a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

A coy response. But not having empirical knowledge of the cosmic Agent hasn't stopped philosophers from describing its necessary properties, based on rational inference alone. Plato identified his abstract agency in terms of Causation, and Aristotle defined his Prime Actor in terms of Motion, both of which are forms of Change. And yet, such non-human pre-existing Agents are usually imagined as inherently uncaused, unmoved, and changeless ; all negative attributes. But nothing in the known (contingent ; space-time) Real World fits those speculative descriptions. So, anything we might say about the Agent/Agency --- including "real" --- is just an uneducated guess. Care to take a shot in the dark? :smile:

PS___I tend to define my conjectured "form of Agency" in terms of Organization (i.e Information), among other positive attributes : e.g. Enformer. However, since I "do not properly know", no personal characteristics or attributes are presumed.


What the First Cause Is :
Rather, the First Cause is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, has libertarian freedom, and is enormously powerful, that is, a transcendent immaterial Creator.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-94403-2_6
Note --- the Kalam argument is based on monotheist presumptions. Which inadvertently makes the First Person responsible for all the good and bad things in the world. Which may be why most monotheists prefer to offload the Evil stuff onto a personal Bad Guy. Ironically, that dualistic gambit seems to deny the mono of Monotheism.

Is the word "experiential" in this usage, a metaphor for conscious human subjective experience? Or does he really believe that atoms are literally aware of their environment? — Gnomon
I haven't read it, but from what you quote it's almost certainly literal. Panpsychists literally think that, in some sense or other, everything is conscious. — bert1

Yes. His version of Panpsychism is Idealist, and assumes that Consciousness is fundamental to reality. My alternative version could be called Pan-Informationism, which understands Causation as fundamental and Consciousness as emergent, so only the potential for complexification was essential. That's why it took 14 billion years for Self-Consciousness to appear on a minor planet on the edge of an ordinary galaxy of a near-infinite cosmos. Anyway, it's that "some sense" that I'm grasping at. :smile:

I presume that minimal "experience"*1 means to sense (to be affected by) incoming energy/information . And ultimately perhaps to make sense (meaning) of that data. — Gnomon
I think that presumption is wrong in the context of panpsychism. I suspect that's not what most panpsychists mean. — bert1

Apparently, there is some variety of interpretations of philosophical Panpsychism, but Ells does seem to mean that his "experiential entities" actually know what's happening. In the book, he asks a question : "But an experiential entity is a tiny mind. Doesn't mind require grounding in matter, or at least in some kind of 'substance' " He then answers his own question : "they are fundamental and thus require no grounding in matter, 'substance' or anything else." If "Mind" here is not metaphorical, but literal, it implies conscious awareness of experiences.

I still have difficulty imagining Atomic (elemental, unanalyzable) Minds exchanging knowledge with other "tiny minds" on a sub-atomic scale : a tiny chat room or Twitter. That sounds like a Reductive definition of an otherwise Holistic concept. However, I could describe the equivalent elemental bit of Causal Information as an "Enformation Vector"*2 by analogy with a mathematical/physical Vector (magnitude + direction). Yet, in a cosmic ontological sense, such a Vector could be described as (being + becoming).

I won't delve into the similarities & differences with my own story of Consciousness here. But FWIW, I'll note that Ells ends the book with : "No one starts out nowadays by being a panpsychist, still less an idealist. . . . My religious beliefs have changed also, and from a secular humanist I have become a Quaker . . . . Nonetheless, I am more than a Deist, as I believe in the efficacy of prayer in aligning ourselves to the will of God . . ." Do you view Panpsychism as more than a personal philosophical worldview, and perhaps as a social religious belief system?

Although Enformationism has some parallels to Panpsychism, I remain ambivalent about a personal God for us to pray to. That position would make one vulnerable to the Problem of Evil, that could be traced back to an original Evil or incompetent Mind. Which is one reason I modified Idealistic Panpsychism into a somewhat more realistic extrapolation of Information Theory. :smile:

PS___I apologize if I seem to be pushing this thread off-track. But understanding the Panpsychism underpinnings of my own worldview is important to me. Maybe a little push-back will help.


*1. Mind : the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought. ___Oxford

*2. CAUSAL ENFORMACTION VECTOR : magnitude = phi, as in Integrated Information theory

As a panpsychist I have been asked a few times for evidence of consciousness in rocks and other such objects. — bert1

I'm currently re-reading Peter Ells' 2010 book, Panpsychism, because he discusses in detail many controversial topics that arise in philosophical metaphysics of Consciousness. One aspect of his terminology is puzzling to me though. Ells asserts that "experiential entities are the fundamental entities of idealist panpsychism". Although he is very explicit in his definitions of other terms, he seems to take the existence of "experiential entities" as a given or essential axiom. Is the word "experiential" in this usage, a metaphor for conscious human subjective experience? Or does he really believe that atoms are literally aware of their environment? Where does the Psyche (mind) come-in to this equation?

I presume that minimal "experience"*1 means to sense (to be affected by) incoming energy/information . And ultimately perhaps to make sense (meaning) of that data. If so, in what sense does a grain of sand experience its environment? Maybe a physical meaning of "to experience" is to undergo change due to a causal event. But how does that kind of experience add-up to the kind of human experience that we call "knowledge" or "memory" or "psychic" experience? Again, I can understand Brainless Experience as a metaphor for inputs & outputs of energy. But Ells seems to view it more literally as something equivalent to human cognition.

I should mention that my own understanding of fundamental entities in the world acknowledges that they exchange energy/information with their environment, and they record that input/output as a change in the material form (e.g. temperature ; structure ; position) of the object, but without gaining any conceptual knowledge that I would call meaningful "experience". For example, a grain of sand might be moved in location by the impact of momentum from another object. But, is the grain consciously aware of that moment in its history? I suspect that a lot of the incredulity toward Panpsychism hinges on such ambiguous terminology. :smile:

PS___As a panpsychist, Ell's assumes that Consciousness (experience) is fundamental to the world. But since objective evidence for such Awareness only appeared on the scene after billions of years of evolution --- the emergence of Living & Thinking things with centralized brains of some kind*2 --- I began to refer to proto-consciousness in terms of Information Theory. As the "power to enform", that prototype of Cognition is equivalent to physical Potential Energy, which can transform into actual Mass/Matter. But as the world evolved & complexified, a new form of Generic Energy/Information emerged as what we call "Mind" : an immaterial function (activity) of material brains.


*1. To Experience : (philosophy)
Experience refers to conscious events in general, more specifically to perceptions, or to the practical knowledge and familiarity that is produced by these processes. Understood as a conscious event in the widest sense, experience involves a subject to which various items are presented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience

*2. I must admit that, in microscopic videos of brainless single cell organisms, they appear to know what they are doing, as they search for food. But a scientist might say the appearance is due to anthropomorphic interpretation of blind mechanical inputs & outputs, as a human would experience it.

↪Gnomon
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?

Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that — Mark Nyquist

Yes. The concept of "something from nothing" is radically counter-intuitive. But scientists, such as Gleiser seem to be using the word "nothing" with tongue in cheek. However, a mathematical Quantum Field is as close-to-nothing as you can get for an empirical scientist. Some physicists still insist that a Quantum Field is made-up of particles. But then they offer a paradoxical label --- Virtual (almost real) particles --- for those supposed bits of matter*3. Yet, Gleiser clarifies that his "Nothing in the Void" is not actual tangible Matter, but intangible mathematical "Vacuum Energy" (which we perceive only in its effects). So, I'll let you ponder the puzzle of the somethingness of Energy : is it a qualia or a quanta?.

In my own thesis, I try to clarify the paradox further (perhaps in vain) by defining Energy as Potential, which is not real until Actualized by an exchange of Form (perceptible pattern of relationships). Unfortunately, it's my unconventional use of the term "Form" --- as a mental/mathematical abstraction instead of a physical/material object --- that does not compute in a materialistic context & vocabulary.

In my thesis, Energy is not a material substance, but a mathematical ratio/relationship : e.g. Potential / Actual. As a philosophical concept*1, Energy is Causation : the relationship between prior Cause and after Effect*2; known as "Time" or "Change". Which is an abstract intellectual inference. So it must be conceived by reason instead of perceived by physical senses. That rational metaphysical notion is essential to the thesis, but seems to zip right over some heads without effect.

The bottom line for me is that we can, by rational inference, trace all Real things and Ideal concepts back to a pre-bang Platonic First Cause. That hypothetical pre-time Cause is not necessarily a person or thing, but perhaps an abstract infinite axiomatic principle of Potential : the power to impart actual Form to the statistical (virtual) Formless. By that I mean "Potential" is like the mathematical possibilities of gambling odds : ratio of possibility to actuality. We can only understand such un-real stuff by means of metaphors abstracted from sensory experience. For me, a universal all-encompassing First Cause of some kind is necessary for a unified philosophy of Monism. For Materialists, that unprovable Axiom might be a hypothetical eternal Multiverse. For others, it's a personal deity. What do you think the ultimate causal Singularity might be?

I'd better quit while I'm behind. Does any of this mathematical metaphysical non-sense make sense to you? Most of us, even would-be philosophers, are innately biased toward a Materialist worldview. So, to even mention "something that is not a thing", sounds like BS. But if you can imagine such a non-thing-with-the-power-to-cause-change (Ideal Potential), the rest will fall into place. :smile:


*1. Potential : In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*2. Causation : We only know it as the passage of Time : before states relative to after states.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

*3. Quantum Nothingness : Even though Virtual Particles are hypothetical entities --- based in part on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem --- scientists take them seriously. A may2023 Scientific American article is entitled : The Weight of Nothing. It describes an experiment intended to weigh the mass of Vacuum Energy photons as they "fluctuate in & out of actual existence". The article says "even though we can't capture these virtual particles in detectors, their presence is measurable". And measurement is a mental action.

In my own philosophical thesis of Generic Information, I refer to those virtual/real states as Potential & Actual. So the experiment assumes that in the microseconds of their transition from Virtual/Potential to Real/Actual & back existence, the experimenters will be able to measure the Actual portion of their fleeting existence. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes --- for those of us lacking precision instruments --- the empty vacuum is weightless and thingless.

Even if we accept your idiosyncratic framing of causality as agency - an ontology of animism - the logic of systems still applies. — apokrisis
I fully agree with these remarks. Agency is only one part of the story. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get the impression that is not a fan of Agency in any case, especially top-down agency. So, just for you, here's some ideas from a new biological model of Self-Organization that doesn't mention outside Agency specifically, but does repeatedly mention the role of Information. Is "top-down" information a form of agency? If these information-biased excerpts from the article interest you, I'd like to hear your comments. :smile:

Designing Life :
"Synthetic Morphology" (due to intervention of human agents)
"spontaneously organize" (for no apparent reason ???)
"biological forms seem to have inevitable, unique target structures" (pre-programming??)
"they are able to make use of top-down information" (whence ???)
"Where does form come from? What rules has evolution developed for controlling it?" (Form = pre-coded information?)
"How does a featureless blob that is the early embryo know what to make and where to make it?" (formless potential transformed/enformed into cognizable objects)
"Morphogenesis is a subtle process involving the interplay of information at the scales of the whole organism." (some early theories of morphogenesis were rejected as mystical, because the "rules" were unknown, and the key feature was Holism . Yet Alan Turing postulated a mathematical Theory of Pattern Formation, that is now called a theory of Morphogenesis)
"Einstein . . . . what the real determinant of form and organization is seems quite obscure."
"global rules governing form" ( universal Generic Information ???)
"bioelectric signaling" (Biosemiotics??)
"morphological engineering . . . . desired structure" (natural morphology = design ??)

Scientific American magazine, may 2023, by Phillip Ball
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/synthetic-morphology-lets-scientists-create-new-life-forms/

Time to get hip to the latest trip? Information theory is so 1990s. These guys are the names you want to start dropping and quote-mining to make it sound like you are up with the game. — apokrisis

Sounds like you've got it all figured-out, while I'm still working-out the bugs in my own little homely theory of causal information. Therefore, I bow to your air of superiority --- as I did obeisance to 180's arrogance before*1. I can't even come close to such a sense of absolute certainty. So I'm not in a position to be condescending. And I'm not engaged in whatever mano e mano game you are playing.

For the record, I'm not really trying to play catch-up with your "hip" expertise. I'm content to just plod along, developing my personal & amateur Information-centric philosophical worldview. It keeps me amused. But I don't take it so seriously that I get offended by alternative perspectives on the world. I can even fit Biosemiotics --- as I superficially understand it --- neatly into the Enformationism thesis. Yet I make no claim to scientific rigor in my non-professional, non-academic retirement hobby. I leave that up to the pros. Hence, on this forum, I'll try to avoid a stare-down with those who are so far above my pay grade, and to limit my dialoging to other un-hip amateur philosophers closer to my own level. :smile:

PS___I see that you are viewing my thesis from the perspective of 1990s Information theory. But I'm incorporating 21st century Information theory into my world model, that you seem to be unaware of, and even disdainful of. That's OK though, I keep myself entertained with feckless Philosophy as a means, not to know-it-all, but to "know thyself".

*1. But I'm an independent-minded vassal, who sometimes mutters under his breath : "E pur si muove"

Really? I had the idea that since e=mc2 that energy - which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the status of Energy is still debated by physicists. For example a mathematician might assert that "Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one." Yet, a Physicist might insist that "Both force and energy are concepts which are frame-dependent". As a mathematical equation or physical formulation --- E=MC^2 --- that relativity might be true. But derived from what? Perhaps our physical notion of Energy is derived from observations of actual Causation. Which is still not a material thing, but the implicit invisible directional process underlying physical change.

Energy per se does not tell us anything about Existence. It's only about Change & Evolution. Consequently, some kind of philosophical pre-Bang First Cause is necessary to explain the Ontology of both Material existence and Effective causation. But that's even more Mysterious than even immaterial mathematical conceptual Energy. Therefore, I have concluded that Metaphysical EnFormAction (the potential to convert Possible into Actual, Ideal into Real, Energy into Matter) is the Ontological fundamental. Yet, even that material Causation might be secondary to ontological Creation.

All that aside, I still agree with you that Energy (the concept) is epistemologically fundamental to the science of Physics, which is all about Change. Yet, in this Science as Metaphysics thread, to avoid misunderstandings, we may need to specify whether we are talking about Physics (science ; energy) or about Meta-Physics (philosophy ; enformation). :smile:

Stop making excuses for yourself. It is your lack of credible analysis and understanding of the subject matter itself. — apokrisis

This thread --- on a philosophical question --- is beginning to devolve into a political or religious debate instead of a dispassionate dialog. Some indignant posters seem to be defending canonical positions instead of philosophical postulations. So, since the OP is of interest to me, I'll continue on, while trying to avoid the hostile dug-in posters with polarized worldviews and ad hominem arguments : attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message. Fortunately, there are still a few calm open-minded thinkers on the forum. :cool:

If I may... Step 1 to understanding apokrisis is to swap the idea of "causes" for the idea of "prevents". — Srap Tasmaner

Although the basic idea of Positive vs Negative (absential)*1 Causation makes some abstract sense, I'm not familiar with the notion of active "Prevention" in supposedly Natural processes such as Self-Organization. In complex systems, random "interference" sometimes occurs, but non-random "prevention" seems to imply an active "intervention". Which could suggest some kind of Agency. For example, most of the search items (causation vs prevention) involve medical or psychiatric interventions or omissions*2 by human doctors.

As I understand the concept of Self-Organization, the only secondary causal agency is the Self : as in "self-causation". Which hints at some non-linear potential in the original causal input : e.g. the Big Bang. By "non-linear" I mean something like the codes of a guided missile that can change course along the way to the target.

Is there another external agency, that counters the Linear momentum of the initial Cause? In billiards, the pool shooter is the First Cause, and subsequent paths of the balls are the result of momentum & direction (vector) inputs. I suppose you could say that the perimeter of the table "prevents" the balls from exploring all paths in the universe. But the table is a man-made object, constructed with intent to prevent or constrain degrees of freedom.

In the context of Big Bang theory, any subsequent exchanges of causal energy are presumably due to exchanges of momentum, which are not intentional or preventional*3. Is postulating some Active Agent*2 changing the direction of causation by intentional prevention. Or am I missing the point? :smile:

*1. Absential Causation : Terrence Deacon term
Absential ~ Causality. a form of causality dependent on specifically absent features and unrealized potentials can be compatible with our best science
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

*2. Causation by Omission :
For example, to take fairly simple cases, 'causation' by omission involves a negative event 'causing' something, and prevention involves something 'causing' a negative event.

*3. The Philosophy of Prevention :
Prevention is an active process, prevention is a kind of practical as well as philosophical intervention.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299747527_The_Philosophy_of_Prevention

This seems to be another one of those threads where posters, who are well read in certain areas of science & philosophy, end-up talking past each other from separate-but-adjacent wells-of-knowledge. Ironically, although he disparages my own unconventional worldview, a lot of what says in the vocabulary of his Biology-centric worldview, actually makes sense in terms of my own Information-centric worldview --- which goes back to a time before Biology emerged from Physics. Perhaps it's an accent thing --- like English & German languages, historically related, but we still need interpreters to facilitate communication. Here's a few quotes & notes from his post to you above :

*1. "Life is agency in that it harnesses chance".
Note --- To harness chance is to organize randomness. But natural or cosmic agency is a no-no in the accidental philosophy of Materialism. Yet, self-organization requires the ability to bring order out of chaos. However, to postulate a self-existent First Cause or uber-Agent --- who provides the Cause & Laws necessary to guide a randomized non-living system toward the emergence of living organisms --- sounds like woo-mongering to some on this forum.

*2. "The Universe wants to entropify. Life says here, let me help you over the humps. The second law gets served in the long run, but life gets to swim in negentropic loopholes it discovers."
Note --- Is this an extrapolation of the Gaian hypothesis, to assert that the natural universe is not only self-regulating, but also self-organizing, and has a Will, a Direction, a Goal, almost like a human agent? I sometimes refer to the Gaia hypothesis to illustrate how the universe functions as-if a living organism. Perhaps I don't take it as literally as he does. In place of "to entropify" I would use the term "to enform", and in place of "negentropy" I coined the term "EnFormAction". Different vocabularies for different folks.

*3. "So life as "agency" is about this Gaian wholeness."
Note --- Holism is an essential concept to explain how Generic Information changes Form via sequential Phase Transitions. And the power to transform matter into Life & Mind might pre-date or transcend the emergence of Gaia from non-living insentient matter in the Big Bang beginning. I guess it depends on just how Whole Gaia is assumed to be : encompassing even space-time?

*4. "It would woo to suggest that the Cosmos actually has a mind, or a designer. But Darwinian evolution is the agency that ensures life did keep stumbling towards the biggest entropic combination the Cosmos had to offer."
Note --- Is he implying that the mindless Darwinian mechanism functions as-if it was an intentional agent, or designer, manipulating matter & energy into living organisms, some with minds of their own? When I make similar inferences, the boo-woo-birds start squawking. Just how Holistic do you have to be to qualify as a wooer? Does Biosemiotics/Gaia hypothesis stop just short of the woo line?

*5. "Is this your confusion? Individual organisms might seem to answer to your simplistic definition of openness. They transact raw materials with their environments. But then the environment itself is a Gaian superorganism. Life is now woven into the material cycles of the planet itself."
Note --- Is a "super-organism" super-natural?
I can agree with some of those statements, but his disparaging attitude toward your & my -- not so different -- ideas indicates that he may have responded to harsh woo-bashing on this forum by withdrawing into a hard shell of doctrinaire Biosemiotics --- turning a theory into a dogma. Then wielding the woo-stick on other non-conformers. :smile:

Nope. The problem is you rabbit on about moddish stuff without having any technical understanding or metaphysical grounding. — apokrisis

I see. My lack of authoritative credentials is a stumbling block for you. But that's why I link to people who have credentials in relevant areas. I even include a pertinent excerpt along with the link, so you don't have to read a technical webpage. I don't know what else I can do to communicate some novel ideas in science & philosophy with you. Nevertheless, I'm still willing to reply to any comments you direct to me. You know how persistent rabbits are. :smile:

PS___Despite the failure to communicate, I have enjoyed the stimulation of your goading : it forces me to trim the fat from my thesis, and get down to the meat.

I have no problem at all with either the metaphysics or physics of raw potential. Your problem is I understand all this stuff well enough to see that you don’t. — apokrisis

Is it possible that your "understanding" is out of date? Not wrong, just outmoded.

I expected posters on a philosophy forum to be well-informed about the evolution of Information Theory since Shannon's statistical definition for a specific purpose : data processing & communication. But I have been disillusioned.

Scientists now know that mathematical Information plays many roles at all levels of reality. It's no longer just inert Data ; it's also Meaning, Causation, Organization, etc. Wherever there is Mathematics or Logic, there is Information. :smile:


What is Information? :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

I suppose you are restricting the term "cause" to some particular traditional definition. — Gnomon
How else are you defining it then? — L'éléphant

I was hoping you would tell me where you got the idea of Causation without Energy : "Energy is not a cause". Philosopher David Hume discussed the mysteries of Causation at a time before scientists had pieced together our modern notion of Energy. He referred to the producer of causation as an "illusion"*1, but Einstein might say it is a "stubborn illusion", that there is some kind of physical "connection" between Cause & Effect*2. Now we know that Energy is physical only as a subjective inference by Physicists, not an objective observation of a material substance flowing from one to the other.

Some people still imagine Energy as a fluid flowing*3 in a conduit (medium, ether) of some kind. But it's actually only a metaphorical "influence" (inflow). In my own thesis I define Energy as a form of Information (power to cause change in form or state), which is also a causal interrelationship (e.g. organization)*4, not a thing in itself. You could say that Energy/Causation is "science as metaphysics" *5. Energy is Aristotle's Efficient Cause. :smile:


*1. Causes, Causity, and Energy :
Our ordinary concept of causality is—as David Hume wisely underscored—the concept in which an event or change produces another event or change. This production is the central core of causation, and the objective component of it Hume analyzed as constant conjunction. As is well known, Hume emphasized that our notion of production or causation has a subjective component, namely, the illusion of a certain necessity in the connection between cause and effect.[/b]

*2. David Hume: Causation :
Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Note --- The products of reasoning are metaphysical ideas, not physical things

*3. Causation and the flow of energy :
Causation has traditionally been analyzed either as a relation of nomic dependence or as arelation of counterfactual dependence. I argue for a third program, a physicalistic reduction of the causal relation to one of energy-momentum transference in the technical sense of physics.
https://philpapers.org/rec/FAICAT
Note --- "Nomic" dependence is how natural laws work. And those Laws are relationships, not material objects. If so, you could conclude that Energy (the medium of causation) is a Natural Law. Energy as "counterfactual dependence" again sounds like an illusion to me. But it's an almost universal illusion, due to our experience with "momentum transference". Yet again Momentum is not a material substance, but a relationship (mathematical ratio) between a Cause and an Effect : product of the mass and velocity. Both of which are relative, not independent objects.

*4. Information as Organization :
Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts.
https://bloomfire.com/blog/data-vs-information/
Note --- to organize is to change pattern of interrelationships

*5. Is energy a substance or a fluid? :
Energy is not a substance, not something in the sense of “some thing”. Energy often appears to be a substance that flows, for example if charging a battery or an electrical capacitor.
https://www.science20.com/sascha_vongehr/energy_is_not_a_substance_and_how_to_easily_understand_this-231370
Note --- Energy is a metaphysical metaphor, not a physical substance

Apparently, something about my information-based worldview is discomfiting for you. — Gnomon
It’s the crackpottery. Simple enough. — apokrisis

You're not the only one having difficulty following the reasoning behind the emerging "Information-based worldview". But it's mainly the Quantum Physics & (post-Shannon) Information Theory that are difficult to grok, from a Matter-based perspective. The philosophical conclusions are comparatively simple. And obvious, in retrospect; once you get over the Nothingness hump.

On the Monism thread*1, said "↪Gnomon I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential". He's just as puzzled as you, but less disdainful of a concept he does not understand. So, I linked to a scientific account of the same notion that is discomfiting him : "nothingness", especially "causal nothingness".

On the surface, this article*2 by a prominent Physicist/Cosmologist*3 may sound compatible with a Materialist worldview. But as Nyquist astutely noted : "Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.". "Nothing" does not compute in the pragmatic model of Materialism. But "nothing with potential for something" is logically necessary to explain the existence of our contingent physical reality. So, the scientist calls it by a sciency-sounding name : "Quantum Field"*4.

Apparently, that "Causal Nothingness" is the "crack" in the pot that you imagine to represent the thesis of Enformationism. Would the same concept make more sense to you, if it came from a distinguished scientist, instead of an insignificant poster on an inconsequential forum? :smile:


*1. Monism : Gnomon post 06-14-2023
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814957

*2. Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe :
We can contemplate the idea of a metaphysical emptiness, a complete void where there is nothing. But these are concepts we make up, not necessarily things that exist.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nothingness-birth-universe/
Note --- Is the Quantum Field a "metaphysical emptiness" or a physical nothingness?

*3. Marcelo Gleiser is a Brazilian physicist and astronomer. He is currently Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College ___Wiki

*4. What is a quantum field made of? :
"Quantum Fields can be made of many states of waves and matter"
" Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them."
" physicists tell us that at the deepest level, everything is made up of mysterious entities, fluid-like substances that we call quantum fields"
" So quantum fields aren't physical material objects — they are just mathematical functions that map spacetime events to elements of a field space" ___Google search
Note --- Is a "mathematical function" --- like the quantum wave function --- a material object, or an imaginary concept (i.e. information)?

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential.

I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.

Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

Yes. What's logically missing from the Big Bang theory is a pre-existing Causal Agency of some kind. Most BB theorists just assume as an axiom (without evidence) that Causal Energy & Natural Laws existed prior to the beginning of space-time, as we know it. I agree. But, for my own philosophical purposes, I refer to that combination of Causation & Organization as EnFormAction.

I assume you are asking for scientific reasons, instead of philosophical conjectures, to explain how "nothing" could become "something". So here's a link to an article by theoretical physicist & astronomer, Marcelo Gleiser*2. He assumes, again by reasoning beyond evidence, that Quantum Mechanics (immaterial mathematical Field*1) existed somewhere out in pre-space-time, and just spontaneously burped-out the living & thinking world we call Reality. He doesn't directly refer to a conjectural "Multiverse" as the Agency of Energy Fields & Limiting Laws, but that's what some imagine to be the Forever Cause.

Likewise, I assume, based on similar conjecturing, that the combination of Quantum Causation and Information Organization (EnFormAction) pre-existed the enformed world we experience today as Reality. Plato & Aristotle knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so they referred to that same Hypothetical world enformer as the First Cause or Prime Mover. That Immaterial Nothing is what is still missing from Materialistic theories of Cosmology & Ontology.

My thesis and Gleiser's thesis are in agreement. But he's using scientific terminology (formless Field), while I'm using philosophical vocabulary (formless Potential) to describe the immaterial nothingness that transformed into material somethingness. Is it magic, or just Logic? Is it Reason or Conjecture? :smile:
.

*1. Field : Quantum theorists provide some rather abstruse mathematical definitions for that abstract alternative to concrete Atomism. But what they are referring to is, underneath the jargon, a non-local emptiness (void) where something happens. In other words, it's Nothing that has the potential to produce Material Things.

*2. Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe :
We can contemplate the idea of a metaphysical emptiness, a complete void where there is nothing. But these are concepts we make up, not necessarily things that exist.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nothingness-birth-universe/

You tell yourself whatever gives you comfort. But I will continue calling bullshit on your conflationary arguments about "information". — apokrisis

Apparently, something about my information-based worldview is discomfiting for you. Perhaps you feel that it denies a belief system that makes sense of the world for you. Yet, my philosophy encompasses a variety of perspectives. That's why I call it "BothAnd". It's both Realism and Idealism, both Reductionism and Holism, both Materialism and Informationism (which some may interpret as ancient Spiritualism). That doesn't mean all perspectives are true, but that the truth typically lies in the overlapping margins of Venn-diagram oppositions.

Anyway, It's not a question of comfort for me, but of making philosophical sense of Quantum Physics in terms of Information Theory. Besides, I'm in good company with several prominent philosophers and scientists. Yet, any comfort I might gain from that camaraderie is offset by the fact that they remain in the minority position among a plethora of pragmatic (and some dogmatic) Materialist scientists and philosophers, defending an outdated classical worldview.

So, I keep plugging away on this forum, refining and developing my understanding of the new directions in science, stemming from the post-classical philosophy of physics, better known as Quantum Physics. Of course, it's a free forum, so you are free to prefer the fragrance of your own deflationary BS. :joke:

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 the universe of many parts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html


https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/origins_of_information/

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential. — Mark Nyquist

From a Materialist perspective, the concept of "Potential"*1 is not just counterintuitive, but unreal : either a thing is real, or it's not. But Plato was an Idealist, so the notion of something-from-nothing could make sense, if that "field" of nothingness*2 had the hypothetical power of Potential. To non-idealists that sounds like Mysticism. But quantum pioneers were faced with making physical sense of squirrely subatomic systems that wouldn't commit to a meaningful position or momentum until measured by an outside agency. The Copenhagen Interpretation of that non-sense was a compromise between theory & practice. Although the Superposition principle*3 --- described by a statistical wave-function --- seems to be super-natural, in practice repeated experiments confirmed the mathematical existence of that strange state of formless (statistical, mathematical, potential, immaterial) quasi-being.

As a result of that Ideal/Real compromise, and their use of Buddhist & Hindu metaphors, those pioneers gained a reputation as mystics*3. So, more pragmatic, and less theoretical, physicists, such as Richard Feynman decided to avoid getting into murky philosophical swamps, by focusing on practical results instead of theoretical understanding of what's actually happening : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, other scientists (e.g. Penrose & Tegmark) were more accepting of Mathematical Existence as contrasted with Material Existence. Also, several respectable physicists have come to terms with the mystical implications of Quantum Physics*1.

If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of spooky Quantum Physics, from a philosophical perspective, check-out the book*4 by science writer, Phillip Ball, editor of the science journal Nature. But, be advised that the ardent Materialists on this forum will advise you to avoid hypothetical philosophizing, and just accept their pragmatic realistic doctrine. :smile:


*1, Philosophical Potential :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form ..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Ideal or Potential or Mathematical Form (pattern; design) is a subjective mental concept, while Real or Actual or Material Form (shape ; substance) is an objective empirical observation.

*2. Quantum Field Potential :
The quantum potential energy, as introduced by David Bohm, is defined and interpreted within symplectic quantum mechanics. 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 quantum fidelity.
https://hal.science/hal-03591111/document
Note --- In physics, a Field is not a material object, but a zone of space with the potential to manifest real particles of matter. In their statistical potential state, they are called Virtual (not yet real) Particles.

*3. Superposition :
Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/superposition
Note --- Multiple possible or potential states is an ideal statistical concept, not a real stable object. That's why quantum physics is a statistical science instead of an empirical science. Empirical measurements are metaphorically said to "collapse" the superposed non-local field (like a popped balloon) into a particular mundane location.

*4. Quantum Mysticism :
The leading writers in the field were not "crank" New Age authors but highly experienced physicists such as Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Wheeler and Paul Davies.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_Mysticism

*5. Beyond Weird :
Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different
____Phillip Ball

FYI___
What is the Nyquist information theory?
The Nyquist theorem specifies that a sinuisoidal function in time or distance can be regenerated with no loss of information as long as it is sampled at a frequency greater than or equal to twice per cycle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/nyquist-theorem
Note -- This math is way over my head. So I'll stick to amateur philosophy.

What evidence is there, that a space as described by you in that quote, exists outside of your imagination? — wonderer1

Good question! All of the examples gave in the OP are not real things, but ideal metaphors of a substance necessary to prevent particular atoms from merging into one big block of matter. Each metaphor is referring back to the intuitive notion of "physical space", postulated by Democritus : that the real world can be boiled-down to rigid material Atoms and fluid metaphysical Void.

"Space" is the water-like void-filling perfect emptiness & ideal nothingness existing as an imaginary fluid substance, which is logically necessary to fill the "space" between atoms : ooops!. That unreal nothingness notion is fundamental to the philosophy of Materialism to this day. Yet ironically, one of the two fundamental essences of Materialism was & is a metaphysical conjecture. Space is by definition, Immaterial. That may be why other early philosophers denied the existence of nothingness, as represented by the symbol "Zero"*1.

Einstein put a damper on the ancient notion of nothingness by combining the human definition of linear physical extension --- as a means to measure a hypothetical box to contain matter --- with the measurement of cyclic change by combining both into a third empty container for stuff, that he called "space-time". He then added insult to injury by postulating another imaginary container in the form of an unchanging four-dimensional box : Block Time. Yet, in his metaphors, he often resorted to physical notions, such as "warped space". No wonder Benj commented that "space is a strange concept ". :smile:


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife-ebook/dp/B000QUEHLM/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2VZN0THCBZ7NV&keywords=zero&qid=1686607308&s=books&sprefix=zero%2Cstripbooks%2C107&sr=1-2

We deal with the formless but not without our physical brains.
I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains. — Mark Nyquist

Apparently, you are talking about material Form (substance) that is visible to the eye, while I am referring to immaterial Form (meaning). The philosophical First Cause, that I talk about, existed prior to all contingent causes, such as the Big Bang*1. So, there was nothing (no material things, no physical forms, no brains) to see at that point in pre-time*2. Your skepticism seems to be due to a common communication barrier on the forum : when one is talking about Physics and the other about Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Chaos :
Plato postulated a distinction between physical time-bound enformed Cosmos, and metaphysical timeless formless Chaos. You might say that his First Cause was a "pre-cause", the Potential to cause Actual events. He didn't personify that Potential as a god, but only as a philosophical or mathematical Principle.

A Void of nothing-but-unrealized-formless Potential makes no sense in Classical Physics, but for Philosophy & Quantum Physics, it allows us to talk about infinite unformed possibilities and other unreal notions as-if they were real things, like Virtual Particles. Therefore, for philosophical purposes, we can talk about a formless possibility that exists only as statistical Potential in an abstract mathematical realm with no squiggly DNA and no jello-like Brains. Does math exist in brains, or in minds?

For scientific purposes, when quantum physicists refer to "Superposition", it's not a place or thing, but merely an imaginary statistical state with no actual matter, position, momentum, but only the Potential to produce a physical particle when triggered by an Observation. Quantum Superposition transcends our physical experience with an actual position in space you can put your finger on.

Perhaps that's just a modern notion of formless Chaos, triggered by a mental Cause into producing a real world. The pioneers of quantum physics were, at first, skeptical of such a formless state of existence. But they were forced by the evidence to accept a metaphysical philosophical concept as having physical effects in the real world : the collapse of Potential into Actual.

*2. The Time before Time :
Time is not a thing, but a system of measurement. For physical purposes, we measure Time in terms of changes in physical objects : sun. moon, etc. But for philosophical purposes we use the word "time" metaphorically instead of materially. When Plato & Aristotle postulated a First Cause to explain all real world contingencies, they were not talking about any material form in space-time that could be seen with a physical eye, but an immaterial formless concept that can only be seen by the mind's eye : reason, inference, imagination. That's the difference between Physics and Philosophy.

Time is Energy :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

Biosemiosis is based on the physics of dissipative structure. And dissipative structure is also the basis of cosmology. — apokrisis

You are talking about Physics, while I'm talking about Philosophy --- on a philosophy forum. That may be why we are not communicating. Physical Cosmology and Philosophical Cosmology are two sides of the same coin*1. But apparently you are not seeing my side : the non-physical metaphysical mental half of the universe that is meaningful only to rational philosophical animals, who think about ideas that are not physical things. :smile:

*1. Philosophy of Cosmology :
Cosmology deals with the physical situation that is the context in the large for human existence: the universe has such a nature that our life is possible. This means that although it is a physical science, it is of particular importance in terms of its implications for human life. . . . As recently as 1960, cosmology was widely regarded as a branch of philosophy. It has transitioned to an extremely active area of mainstream physics and astronomy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/

But as was made clear by the four causes, 4 is the perfect answer here. — simplyG

How so? Energy is not a cause.

Inches & miles are conventional measures of space, not space itself. — Gnomon

Energy is a measure of capacity, not the thing it is measuring. It is not a cause. It cannot be a cause. It is also not a thing that exists as if it has a categorical substance. Please define "energy". If energy exists, it's because there are things! — L'éléphant

I suppose you are restricting the term "cause" to some particular traditional definition. But and Gnomon are simply including a modern term from physics in the ancient notion of "causation". Because, as you say, it's not a physical thing, most attempts to define what-Energy-is are quite vague : ability, capacity, etc. Plato & Aristotle were forced to use gods or other metaphors to define their notion of Causation. Even the Wiki definition below sounds a bit mysterious or ghostly*1.

Some people still think of Energy as a material substance or fluid of some kind. But it's now clear that Energy does not have a material existence. Instead, it is merely a (mathematical??) relationship between things*2. Not a thing itself. And the kind of relationship is Causal (change). The expanded post-Shannon theory of Information has equated mental (meaningful) Information with physical causal Energy*3. What kind of relationship can cause a change of form in a thing? A causal relationship?

If the ability or capacity or power or force that we refer to as Energy is not a Cause, what is it? Isn't Causation what Energy does? Yet Energy is only detectable in its causal effects, not in its per se identity. So yes, if there were no material things, there would be no causal relationships, that we call "energy". One way to define that interrelationship is E=MC^2, where the constant "C" is a dimensionless ratio*4. But a Ratio is not a physical thing, it's a metaphysical idea. No? :smile:


*1. Aristotle considers the formal "cause" (εἶδος, eîdos) as describing the pattern or form which when present makes matter into a particular type of thing, which we recognize as being of that particular type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
Note -- The terms "pattern" & "form" in this definition imply that a Cause is the power to enform : to change the defining pattern or conceptual form of a thing. Thus placing Causation & Energy into the broader post-Shannon category of general Information, that allows a mind to "recognize" a type of thing, but can also change the form of the thing, to place it into a different category (e.g. phase change). If you are only aware of the narrow Shannon definition of Information, this may not make sense. But even Shannon noticed the relationship of Information to Entropy (the inverse of Energy).

*2. Can energy exist by itself? :
Energy is relative, but what's interesting that for any observer, it's always conserved. No matter what the interactions are, energy is never seen to exist on its own, but only as part of a system
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/25/ask-ethan-is-there-any-such-thing-as-pure-energy/?sh=3d889e43762a
Note -- Hence, Energy is a Holistic (mathematical/metaphysical) relationship between elements & systems

*3. Energy & Information :
Research into the relation between energy and information goes back many years, but the era of precise yet general quantification of information began only with Claude E. Shannon's famous 1948 paper "The Mathematical Theory of Communication." . . . . recent advances in information theory how why information is needed for transformations of energy.
https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Energy-and-Information.pdf

*4. Dimensionless Ratio :
A dimensionless ratio calculated by dividing the amount of useful energy provided by a given activity by the culturally mediated energy dissipated in providing it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dimensionless-ratio

Bollocks. Biophysics speaks directly to the issue. — apokrisis

Your snarky responses sound like you think Enformationism is contradictory to Biosemiotics or to Biophysics*1. But in my thesis & blog, I have referred to Biosemiosis*2 as an example of a possible information-processing mechanism in living organisms. The primary difference is that BS & BP are hypothetical mechanisms in Biology, while EnFormAction is a hypothetical organizing (enforming) process in Cosmology. So, although both are science-related philosophical theories, they are not competing against each other.

One of my favorite scientists (evolutionary biology + neuroscience), Terrence Deacon, has contributed several novel ideas that I adopted in my own philosophical theories. And he had this to say about Semotics*3 : In this essay, I argue that we ultimately need to re-ground biosemiotic theory on natural science principles and abandon the analogy with human level semiotics, except as this provides clues for guiding analysis. But, to overcome the implicit dualism still firmly entrenched in the biological sciences requires a third approach that is neither phenomenologically motivated nor based on a code analogy. Deacon apparently sees "implicit dualism" in Semiotics, whereas Enformationism postulates an Information-based Monism/Holism.

The Information Philosopher, Bob Doyle*4, notes that, although Biosemiotic philosophy has been around for decades, it has not yet been generally accepted by empirical Biologists. The amateur Enformationism thesis has only been online for about 15 years, and it has not yet been accepted by professional Philosophers or Scientists. Yet, we slog on, pushing our little pet theories on an inconsequential forum of ideas.

The relevant question for Cosmology may not be amenable to empirical evidence. So we may have to get by with theoretical conjectures. Life is a late emergence in the 14 billion years of physical evolution. And materialistic physics has no place for minds & meanings. But biological beings seem to possess the non-physical quality of Agency (goal-setting & pursuing). So where did the cyphers for such emergent behaviors come from? Was the program for Life & Mind encoded in the original Singularity, or did such immaterial phenomena arise spontaneously from the Laws of Physics? If so, whence the pre-bang Laws for limiting & organizing physical evolution : innate or encoded? :smile:


*1. Biophysics : Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science that applies approaches and methods traditionally used in physics to study biological phenomena. Biophysics covers all scales of biological organization, from molecular to organismic and populations. ___Wikipedia

*2. Biosemiosis : Life Codes
Biology = empirical science of living matter
Semiotics = theoretical philosophy of linguistic analogies to explain how Life emerges from matter
BioSemiotics = Biology + Phenomenology
Enformationism = theoretical philosophy of cosmology to explain how Life & Mind emerge from matter, due to cosmic causes that are essentially Design (organizing) Information encoded into Causal Energy (EnFormAction). The process of Causation is traced back to a First Cause that precipitated the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

*3. Steps to a science of Biosemiotics :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281155120_Steps_to_a_science_of_biosemiotics

*4. The Status Of Biosemiotics :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/presentations/Biosemiotics/status_report.html

I was reading a paper by Chalmers last night in response to your reply. You might be interested in it.
https://consc.net/papers/debunking.pdf — RogueAI

FYI, is not interested in Philosophical opinions, only Physical facts. :joke: