A cryptic answer to my question. I'm not sure I follow you. — Tom Storm

Do you agree that, for pragmatic reasons, most humans act as-if Matter is Reality? If so, how do you explain the behavior of a few feckless philosophers, or romantics, who act as-if there is a realm of Ideality, apart from the tangible substances they know from hard experience?

For example, even an officially idealistic philosopher knows better than to try to walk through a brick wall with no door. And yet, he can imagine such an unreal event. The Marvel movie heroes have been performing such unrealistic tricks on the silver screen, and in rag mags, for decades. So, apparently a lot of people like to imagine that magical powers could be employed to battle the hidden forces of personified Evil. Some people are motivated by Ideals, that go far beyond immediate Pragmatic concerns : e.g. why make long-range plans to go to Mars?

What "practical changes" do you think such unfettered imagination would initiate in their behavior? Do you see young people, at a Cosplay meeting, imitating the magical powers of their heroes*1, in addition to modeling their heroic costumes & postures? Maybe a psychotic few will try to fly from tall buildings. In the movies, downtrodden outcasts suddenly discover the power to project energy/chi from their fingertips. Why don't the Cosplayers do likewise? Perhaps, because they know the difference between romantic Fiction and realistic Facts? Maybe a few of them even understand the difference between Science & Religion, Physics & Faith, but choose the latter because it offers something that Science cannot. "Man cannot live by bread alone".

Apparently, unlike animals, humans can imagine "things that never were", but could be in an ideal world. So, they are not as concerned with boring Pragmatism as you think they should be. Would you expunge that mental creativity from human nature? Personally, I am basically a humdrum Pragmatist & Realist. So I have to depend on others to let their imaginations run free from the bonds of physical laws. Except, that is, on a Philosophy Forum, where I can tentatively, and impractically, imagine where freedom from physical bondage might lead. :smile:

PS__For a direct answer to your question --- "Out of interest - let's assume we do accept analytic idealism as our ontological situation - what practical changes would this initiate in terms of human behavior?" --- None : analytic Idealism is not practical, it's philosophical.

*1. Real light saber : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTRjkAWz-M4

Cause? But what causes a cause ? I can only assume it’s self caused and material as per Aristotle though an an unconscious one. Not too sure about this though from a metaphysical perspective because I’m making an assumption that it comes from my unconscious somewhere… — simplyG

Plato and Aristotle used the term "First Cause" to explain, without hard evidence, what causes a physical cause in the world. Apparently they simply traced the chain of causation back to a hypothetical Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover. So yes, the First Cause must be self-caused or self-existent. But that sounds like a God, so it will be knee-jerked as blasphemous to the Materialist/Physicalist belief system, in which the world "just is", without further philosophical conjecture. Perhaps such a metaphysical notion "comes from your unconscious", but for the Greek philosophers it was supposed to come from the conscious exercise of Reason/Logic. :smile:

Metaphysicaly speaking of course conscious effort to think is that not energy in some form or something else entirely? — simplyG

Yes, but for metaphysical (mental) questions, I prefer to use the more philosophical term "Cause" instead of the scientific notion of "Energy". While related, they are not the same thing. :smile:

↪Gnomon
When you say that energy is the fundamental thing in the universe, it is like saying inches or miles is the fundamental thing in the universe. — L'éléphant

No. Inches & miles are conventional measures of space, not space itself.

If you want the details behind the Energy is Fundamental concept, you'll have to consult the scientists who came to that conclusion*1. But not all scientists agree*2. Yet, the notion that a mathematical Field is popping with Virtual (not yet real) Energy, while spookier, is in agreement with my general thesis.

Anyway, what's fundamental for theoretical Philosophy (Causation) may not necessarily be fundamental for empirical Physics (Effects). Actually, for my thesis I begin with Generic Information (power to cause change in form) as the fundamental force in the universe. So, what we know as physical Energy is merely one of many forms derived from that First Cause. By "fundamental", I'm not talking about quantitative measurements, but about qualitative essences*3. :smile:


*1. What's Really Fundamental In Physics? :
In the end, almost none of this matters for the introductory physics courses, where we can mostly get away with the loose operational definition of "fundamental" as "the most basic elements you need to solve the kinds of problems you're interested in."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/10/26/whats-really-fundamental-in-physics/?sh=28fa9fca61fb

*2. Fields are fundamental :
Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one. Specifically, energy is an example of a conserved current derived from Noether's theorem. The most fundamental things in the universe, at least according to modern Standard Model orthodoxy, are the following: Quantum fields.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fundamental-basis-of-the-universe

*3. Essence :
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
___Oxford

And the beginning was the beginning of psychological time which is the beginning of the story, the beginning of the narrator, the beginning of self. — unenlightened

Interesting post! But I apologize for ignoring your warning, and getting-in over my head. I'll only comment on the quoted line, which corresponds to my own unarticulated & unscientific, notion of first person Self Concept : as the metaphorical recorder & narrator of one's own personal history (memory).

The older term "soul" may have implied a similar hypothesis : in that, when divested of the flesh (abstracted) the self-image information, presumably recorded in the immaterial mind/soul, is all that's left to stand before the Judge, and give account of its time on earth.

The scientific/philosophical problem with that religious notion, is "where is the personal history/memory recorded for self and posterity, if not in the brain?" Some may imagine that God or Nature is the master recorder of all events in the world. If so, how does that work? And, if the body-manipulating brain is gone, who pushes the "play" button to replay the story of an individual's life? And how do we know anything about all that non-self non-material preter-natural system?

Regardless of those picky practical details, it all makes a good story. :smile:

↪Bob Ross
Out of interest - let's assume we do accept analytic idealism as our ontological situation - what practical changes would this initiate in terms of human behavior? How much changes in terms of morality, human rights, climate change, political discourse, in short, how we live? — Tom Storm

In my experience, most people act like Materialists in all practical phases of life. Only a few brain-washed nuts actually attempt to walk through walls, which, according to subatomic physics, are 99% empty space (image below).

AFAIK, It's only in the impractical hypothetical aspects of human existence that such literal "non-sense" arises. That's why Materialism is un-controversial : it is what it seems to be. But Idealism is inherently contentious, for the same reason that Art & Politics are questionable non-matters of taste --- along with "morality, human rights, climate change". Ideals exist in private minds, not in public space, where your freedom is restricted by hard objective physical laws, instead of soft subjective laws of propriety & decency.

Fortunately, on TPF, we have an unreal ideal impractical Forum, existing in the notional emptiness of cyber-space, where we can dispute our personal ideas & beliefs without physically coming to blows. Snarky remarks are meta-physical, and won't give you a physical black eye. :cool:

MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS and walk through walls

Now, sometimes I do hear physicalists rightly point out that an analytical idealist is not actually providing an explanation to consciousness at all but, rather, simply positing it as fundamental without a detailed account of mind (i.e., of how it works) which, to them, is more epistemically costly than obscurely explaining mind in terms of emergence from the brain. — Bob Ross

That criticism may also accurately describe Panpsychism, which is a philosophical generalization, not a detailed scientific account of mind. It simply assumes that "mind stuff" is more fundamental than "matter stuff". In which case, the emergence of Mind from Matter needs no further explanation, other than perhaps adding the holistic notion of "Emergence".

I'm not familiar with the "details" of Kastrup's theory of Analytical Idealism, but it sounds like a modern version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. If so, it seems to be generally compatible with my own thesis of Enformationism. But the devil is in the details. And philosophical theories tend to be skimpy in the kind of empirical & mathematical details that "physicalists" prefer. The "analytical" preface seems to imply that Idealism can be boiled-down to fundamentals or details of some kind. Does Kastrup make any attempt to mathematize his non-empirical theory? Is his "fundamentally unitary phenomenal field" defined in mathematical terms, similar to a quantum field? :nerd:


What is analytical idealism?
Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. That does not mean that reality is in your or our individual minds alone, but instead in a spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments.
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/

It definitely isn’t. Holism is about the triadic story of the unity of opposites. Dialectics. You have to break a symmetry and discover its new equilibrium balance. You have to dichotomise and discover how this then leads to a self-stabilising asymmetry - a world where thesis and antithesis can persist as balanced synthesis. . . . .
All a bunch of hand-waving glued together by the causal placeholder of “emergence”. — apokrisis

I didn't intend to get into a technical argument about Dialectics or Biosemiotics or Triadics. I have no expertise in those arcane fields. Following your example though, I could accuse you of "hand-waving" or babbling, due to the use of technical terminology that I am not familiar with : "You have to dichotomise and discover how this then leads to a self-stabilising asymmetry". Do I really "have to"?

My "hand-waving" is coming from a completely different direction : Quantum Theory & Information Theory. Like your own personal favorite theories, Enformationism is complex, and can't be adequately explained in a forum post. That's why, for those who are really interested, I provide links to more complete explanations, and provide definitions for uncommon terminology right there in the post. Since you don't seem to be curious about other alternative theories for uniting Physics & Metaphysics --- I'll just dialog with other posters, who don't already have final answers of their own. :smile:

PS__As I understand your "hand waving", most of your holistic, triadic, and dialectic views are subsumed in the Enformationism thesis. They are just peripheral to the main course of Generic universal Information. As I get time, I may investigate the Biosemiotics approach, which "can specify exactly where the line gets crossed at the microphysical level to turn a molecule into a message". But my interest is more in the general philosophical implications, than in the particular scientific details.


Hand-waving : An incomplete, inadequate, superficial, surface, incomplete, or partial explanation
Basically it amounts to covering your ears.

If you want to study self-organisation more formally, SO in physics is best approached through dissipative structure theory, as part of thermodynamics. SO as life and mind is best described by biosemiosis. — apokrisis

Wolfgang seems to be talking about "self-organization" in a cosmic sense, to raise the question of how living creatures could be assembled out of non-living matter. He attributes that creative & organizing ability to the "four fundamental forces that govern the universe"*1. He didn't itemize those forces, but I assume he's referring to gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Those binding & repelling forces certainly have something to do with organization of matter into aggregations, but exactly how lumping & clumping results in the holistic function we call Life remains unclear.

A different life-force was recently proposed by an MIT physicist*2, but it does just the opposite of aggregating & organizing compulsions. Instead of those clumping forces, he postulates that unbinding & dis-organizing Entropy may have a role in releasing Life from bondage to lumps of matter. "Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place" Apparently, Life emerges on the cusp between rigid order and random disorder, in "dissipative structures" that exist "far from equilibrium".

As you noted, another recent approach to the Life question is Biosemiosis (biology + semiotics ; lit. life-signs). This theory proposes that organisms exchange information via "pre-lingustic" signs & symbols. It assumes that some kind of Information carriers, like symbols or codes, exist in cellular biology. And DNA is one such corporeal repository of information that seems to be encoded with algorithms to organize proteins into forms that are suitable for animation. But it omits the Frankenstein lightning-bolt jolt that magically completes the circuit to animate dead flesh --- as-if raw energy was enough to do the job. If you describe that encoded matter as "Enformed Energy" though, you combine the jolt with the data.

That's why I prefer to go back to the beginning of the whole shebang, in search of the Life-source. It's what I call, in various contexts, "Primordial Energy" or "enforming energy" or "Causal Information" or "EnFormAction". That's not a physical substance, but merely a meta-physical (not-yet-physical) Potential. As we know, a complete electrical circuit does nothing until it is charged with electric Potential --- which again is not a substance, but a statistical tendency in a particular causal direction. I can't produce tangible evidence for such a Potential to Enform, but merely philosophical conjectures, analogies & metaphors. Yet a few avant-garde scientists have been expanding on Shannon's inert Information Theory --- e.g. dynamic or causal EnFormAction --- in order to explain such scientific & philosophical mysteries as Life & Mind.

In physicist Paul Davies 1989 book, The Cosmic Blueprint, he says "a completely new view of nature is emerging which recognizes that many phenomena fall outside the conventional framework". Yet he discusses several conventional candidates for causing self-organization. "The simplest type of self-organization in physics is a phase transition". Indeed a change of physical phase is an instance of almost instantaneous re-organization of a substance, such as H2O to water to gas to ice. And it might serve as a model for phase transition from protein cell to living organism to thinking thing. But by itself, it omits the enlivening force that causes such a major organizational leap.

Davies discusses many of the items considered by previous theories : fundamental forces, dissipative forces, cellular codes, and such. But he finally comes down to one key feature of those candidates : Disequilibrium*3, which is not a physical thing, but a relationship between things. We find that causal imbalance in all kinds of changes & transitions from Thermodynamics to Information Asymmetry. In my thesis I sometimes call that state of precarious tipping-point Potential : Platonic First Cause or Aristotelian Prime Mover. But in more technical terms, it could be called "Primordial Energy", or "Vacuum Energy", or simply "the generic power to transform & enform". :smile:


*1. The Four Fundamental Forces :
They understand that there are four fundamental forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces — that are responsible for shaping the universe we inhabit.
https://universe.nasa.gov/universe/forces/

*2. A New Physics Theory of Life :
An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

*3. Davies on Self Organization :
"Disequilibrium, claims Prigogine, ‘is the source of order’ in the universe; it brings ‘order out of chaos’."
https://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Davies_selforgan_css.html

But you now jump from a point about Shannon's definition of a bit to this guff about "meaningful mind-stuff". You conflate a mathematical claim – the epistemology of a model – with this ontic assumption about "the mind" being this kind of physically general "stuff" that has the intrinsic property of being meaningful – of having "sensory" qualities such as feelings and impressions. — apokrisis

Yes. "To Conflate" means to combine two or more separate things into one concept. That's the job description of philosophical inference and holistic thinking. In this case, abstract mathematical information combined with concrete "ontic" entities into a unique unified cosmology : physics + metaphysics. Or, in other words, Energy into Matter into Mind into Weltanshauung. And that is what cutting edge Quantum theories are pointing to. Not directly, but implicitly, so someone has to do the conflation. And the Enformationism thesis combines lots of those implications into the inference : that Generic (causal) information (power to enform) is equivalent to Energy, which transforms into Matter, and eventually emerges in complex entities as Mind*1.

For a Reductive thinker such a notion is unthinkable. But Holistic (or Systems) thinking can discover properties of an integrated system that go beyond anything found in its parts. For example, a human brain is a complex integrated system of neural & supportive cells, that are not in themselves conscious. But working together, they produce the ontic phenomenon that we call "Awareness" or "Aboutness". However, a Materialistic worldview or a Reductive Analysis of Awareness will never find an explanation for the evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind from a purely physical Big Bang. But a "Big Conception" might point the way.

So yes, Enformationism is my own personal philosophical conflation. It begins with the novel conclusion, from post-Shannon Information Theory, that Generic Information*2 is the fundamental substance of the universe, which we know primarily in its physical activities as "Energy". This is not common knowledge, so in my posts, I have to provide lots of links to the inferences of scientists, who are pushing the envelope of Information Theory. The thesis began the explication of a core insight : that Information >> Energy >> Matter >> Mind. And the BothAnd blog continues to explore the philosophical implications of that conflation, in areas such as Monism and Metaphysics. If a non-dual notion of Matter & Mind doesn't appeal to you though, then you won't be motivated to investigate further into the controversial thesis of Enformationism. :smile:


*1. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Generic Information : I coined this term to distinguish causal Information from inert Shannon Information. It's similar to the ancient notion of Panpsychism (all is information), but with supporting scientific evidence and without the mystical extravagances. As you put it : "the mind" being this kind of physically general "stuff"
Note -- the little-known Casual aspect of Information is supported in the news that "In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy," https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

The criticism you have been insensitive to is that this is a metaphysics of fundamental substance and so another stab at monistic reductionism. Yet physics itself has moved on to a more properly holistic view of substance as the emergent product of a structure of relations. — apokrisis

Ironically, a "holistic view of substance as the emergent product of a structure of relations"*1 *2 is a good summary of the Enformationism thesis. So, I don't see your criticism as negative, but as supportive of the thesis. It is indeed a "metaphysics of fundamental substance", in a sense similar to Spinoza's "monistic reductionism"*3. I also identify Generic Information with the amorphous Fields*4 of quantum physics (electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum), from which defined physical forms (particles) may emerge. Does that cutting-edge physics fit your "moved-on" description? Perhaps you have only been exposed to bits & pieces of the thesis in various forum threads on specific topics, instead of seeing the whole thesis in its native format. :nerd:

*1. Information is not a thing, but a holistic structure of interrelationships between things :
Data is a collection of facts, while information puts those facts into context.
https://bloomfire.com/blog/data-vs-information/

*2. Information relationships are mathematical ratios :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note --- Relationship = Ratio = Proportion = Statistical Ratio = "for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample".

*3. Benedict de Spinoza: Metaphysics :
Spinoza, however, rejects this traditional view and argues instead that there is only one substance, called “God” or “Nature.”
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Note -- Spinoza's substance is monistic & universal, but it has local corporeal instances (affections).

*4. The Universe as an Information Field :
An approach to a unified theory of everything! . . . "Information"is the only fundamental reality in this universe - everything we see and experience can ultimately always be described in terms of "State" , that is, a set of attributes, and the values of those attributes, pertaining to the entity in question.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/universe-information-field-approach-unified-theory-everything-singh/

So that is the kind of thing I find absent from your enactionism. It just reads as a caricature of where the science has been heading. It doesn’t engage with the actual metaphysics — apokrisis

I'm not sure what "that" refers to, but I assume it has something to do with using physical examples instead of metaphysical arguments. Yet that approach is necessary when I'm dialoging with posters holding a Materialistic/Pluralistic worldview. Besides, lacking formal training in philosophy, I'm more familiar with Science & Physics than with Philosophy & Metaphysics. So, if you can contribute some meta-physics to fill my deficiency, I'd appreciate it. Ironically, "Causal Absence"*5 is a metaphysical topic I discuss in theBothAnd Blog. :smile:

*5. Power of Absence :
Causation In Absentia
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

You are not talking about a new kind of fundamental substance but about the fundamentally of a triadic relation in which substantial being is an emergent property. — apokrisis

Did you see the "triad" diagram in my previous post? Is that what I am "not talking" about? Again, perhaps you can supply the deficit in my brief overview. :wink:

there is thus the adoption of information theory as the new way to smuggle Cartesian dualism back into public discourse. It sounds “sciency” and it’s easy to quote-mine. — apokrisis

Where did you get that erroneous idea? Cartesian Dualism is the exact opposite of the Information Holism of the Enformationism thesis. Perhaps you can "smuggle" some of your own theory into this thread on Monism. :cool:

How exactly is energy the ultimate existence? Because energy doesn't happen as a causal theory. It is also not the essence of an entity as it is present in all and everything. — L'éléphant

I appreciate you presenting credibility challenges to the Enformationism thesis. That's the point of philosophical dialogue. In early exchanges with he offered some food for thought. But now he has decided to simply portray Gnomon as a New Age nut, who believes in mystical energies. So he is satisfied to just caricature a variety anti-science beliefs that he tries to pin on me. That label allows him to argue from his own inherent superiority. His rationale is ridicule. However, if you will take the time to look at the links I post to support my unorthodox ideas, you will see that I always quote credentialed scientists & philosophers instead of Old Age or New Age religious or mystical authorities. You are free to take-up your incredulity with the quoted experts.

I won't attempt to address all those "doesn't" & "not" presumptions, but I will give you a link to a couple of philosophical/scientific opinions that Energy is the fundamental principle of the world*1. I combined those opinion sources because, technically, Reductive Science is not supposed posit such universal principles, just observe & record. Generalization is the role of Theory & Philosophy. As an amateur philosopher, you are entitled to disagree with these opinions. But you'll have to argue against their evidence. 180proveit sometimes sounds like he has access to an authoritative Bible of Scientism, with the final answer to such philosophical conjectures. But I suppose it's a secret document, because he's never revealed the source.

Here's a brief sample of personal opinions from individual scientists saying that Energy is the fundamental principle of the universe*2. This is not a survey off all scientists, from which you'd get a variety of pro & con opinions. Fortunately, Science is not a democratic enterprise where facts are determined by popular vote. Anyway, my notion of Energy is not mystical, but merely a combination of Empirical Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Both physical observation and mental generalization.

The Big Bang theory was a scientific rationale for astronomical observations, right back to the bang itself. Beyond that point it became a philosophical free-for-all. But most Cosmologists are forced to agree that two fundamental, non-contingent, requirements must have existed prior to the sudden emergence of Space & Time : Causal Energy*3 and Limiting Laws. In my thesis, both of those ab-original principles are forms of Generic Information : the power to enform (change + organization). In subsequent events, Energy does the causing & changing, while Laws do the organizing. Those fundamental principles are Physical only by association with the science of Physics, not due to any material substance. If such philo-scientific ideas are not too repellent to you, I can link you to posts & articles that go into much more depth, both scientifically and philosophically. :smile:


*1. What's Really Fundamental In Physics? :
Energy ends up being justified as a fundamental principle because of mass– the rest energy of particles respects the Energy Principle, but isn't a consequence of the motion of smaller things that can be described with force and momentum.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/10/26/whats-really-fundamental-in-physics/?sh=5f9ee62f61fb

*2. Is energy the fundamental basis of the universe? :
Both fields and energy are fundamental: Everything (and certainly every quantum field) contains energy, and the universe is made of quantum fields.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fundamental-basis-of-the-universe

*3. Causation and the flow of energy :
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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00174894


FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS AND MENTA-PHYSICS
Yes, some quantum physicists are playing around with teleportation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

But you wanted to make this information theory to be a school of thought in metaphysics . . . . . — L'éléphant

Again, when I use the term "metaphysics" I'm not referring to scholastic theology. Instead, I have developed a personal worldview --- by adopting the scientific equation of mental Information (meaning) with physical Energy (causation)*1 --- that informs everything I say on this forum. To avoid such misconceptions on this thread, let's just drop the term "metaphysical" and use the term "non-physical". If you don't believe there is anything in the world that is "not physical", perhaps we can discuss that metaphysical assumption in a rational philosophical manner --- without any religious preconceptions or connotations. I'm not trying to impose my views on you, but merely to share views in the usual manner of a philosophical forum.

In any case, Enformationism is not a "school of thought", but merely the foundation of my own philosophy. There is no creed or dogma, just a few reinterpretations of both ancient religious beliefs, and classical scientific ideologies. My understanding of the broad implications of an Information-centric worldview is still evolving. For example, the notion that "Time is Energy" is so new to me that I am currently writing a blog post on the topic.

Therefore, you don't need to feel that your own personal belief system is threatened by my personal worldview. If you are a Naturalist, or a Materialist, or a Physicalist, that's OK with me. As I said before : "for all practical purposes I am a Materialist, but for philosophical reasons I am a Mentalist". Enformationism is not an attempt to replace or displace any of those reductive scientific approaches to understanding the world. Reductionism is a necessary technique for delving into the mysteries of the natural world, but it's not so good for philosophical understanding of the confounding complexities of the cultural world of the mind. That's why Systems Theory*2 has emerged as a scientific method for dealing with both social & physical Complexity.

As a holistic personal philosophy, Enformationism will not show you what atoms are made of, or how to create a cell phone. It is, however, a proposed, philosophical & non-religious, alternative to the belief systems (creeds) that are associated with those scientific methods (e.g Scientism). But no one is going to force an Information-Centric*3 worldview upon you. And no Pope is going to condemn you to Hell, if you don't profess your faith in an official deity. :smile:

*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/9/095206/1076232/The-mass-energy-information-equivalence-principle
Note --- AIP is the American Institute of Physics, not a religious organization

*2. Systems Theory :
Holistic perspective: Systems Theory emphasizes the importance of understanding the whole system and how its components interact, rather than just focusing on individual parts. This involves looking at the big picture and understanding how all the parts of the system work together to achieve the overall goal.
https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/systems-theory/

*3. The term "information-centric" is most often used in a technical sense for discussions of computer networking. But it is also used in a philosophical sense by thinkers exploring the margins of Information Theory

But I do not agree with your supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. — L'éléphant

Enformationism may not be a "metaphysical view" according to your definition, but it is according to the definition I include within the thesis : Metaphysics = mental Philosophy as contrasted with physical Science*4. By that, I mean Philosophy is the study of Ideas, not Objects. Philosophy also looks for general or universal principles that exist only in minds, instead of particular or atomic things that exist in physical forms. Perhaps, if in place of "metaphysics" you will read "mental" or "non-physical", you will avoid getting the wrong impression of what I'm talking about.

By "under the protection of science" I infer that you think Enformationism is an attempt to disguise religious beliefs with a scientific cloak. That attitude came as a surprise to me when began to counter-attack my holistic thesis, as-if it was a blasphemy toward his own (reductive??) belief system. If the shoe fits, I suppose he should wear it ; but it ain't my shoe that hurts his tender foot. It's his own imaginary shoe. :joke:

*4. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, including the first principles of: being or existence, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Note --- Enformationism agrees with quantum physicist John A. Wheeler that Information ("bit") is more fundamental than Matter ("it"). Does 180 accuse him of religious motives?

Since Monism, as it exists on this forum, has failed to provide any coherent theory of information, a test of functionality should by applied.
Something like the ability to derive pi could be used. — Mark Nyquist

Monism is the belief that the variety of things in the world can be traced back to a single Origin or Substance or Cause. That is exactly what the Enformationism thesis attempts to do. The First Cause in that case is, not a person, place, or thing, but the creative power to enform. Presumably, it is empowered to create both material forms, such as stars, planets & rocks; and immaterial forms, such as rational minds --- from the same original source : Unrealized Potential. Since UP is not something that we experience in the real world, we can only conjecture about it. That's what Plato & Aristotle did with their First Cause (creator) and Prime Mover (causal energy) theories. It's something to think about, but being un-real, any such Monistic Origin cannot be scientifically-proven to exist, only philosophically shown to be plausible.

One "functional test" of such an un-real (ideal) Potential --- ability to create from scratch*1 (perhaps even via the gradual evolutionary process of en-formation*2) --- is the emergence of creatures that are more than just material real objects, but also immaterial ideal minds. And the primary function of a Mind is to see what is not obvious to the physical eye. For instance, the mathematical function PI is not a thing, but a relationship between two ways of measuring circular objects : circumferences & diameters. Any animal with eyes can see round objects. But perfect circles & circumferences & diameters are invisible to the eye. So the irrational ratio we call PI is only apparent to rational minds. How could such an abstract function arise from a merely material origin? :nerd:

*1. Create from scratch :
from the beginning, without using anything that already exists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/from-scratch

*2. Enformation :
to form (fashion ; create) something new from something old, or from unrealized potential

This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it. — Mark Nyquist

One definition of Monism is "a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world". If there is no ultimate distinction between Matter & Mind, then the duality we conceive must be missing some essence that is the same in both aspects of the world. In the Enformationism thesis, that ultimate essence is the power to create from scratch : to Enform (to give Actual form to formless Potential). We get glimpses of that creative power in : a> information as Energy ; DNA information ; Quantum information ; and Shannon information*3. All are capable of transforming one thing into another : Energy into Mass ; DNA into proteins ; Quantum fields of potential into actual particles of matter ; and meaningless Shannon information (data) into meaningful concepts (ideas) in human minds.

Monism is a holistic philosophical problem, not a reductive scientific project. So, the "how" of Monism is not subject to empirical evidence; only theoretical argument*4. In the Enformationism thesis the single definition of Monism is "The Power to Enform". :smile:

*3. Multiple definitions of Information :
Knowledge ; Intelligence ; meaning ; Energy ; DNA ; Qbits ; Shannon data ; Deacon "causal absence" ;
Note --- "Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification." https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

*4. How does Information transform Matter into Mind? By the reverse of Energy into Mass. In that case, Mind is not a physical Thing (brain), but a non-physical Power (potential) : to conceive of immaterial Ideas from experience with Real material objects.

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. — L'éléphant

Since we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot (perhaps with a little push from ), I think it would improve our communication to look more closely at the terms that have become a stumbling block. As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what?

Another term that is often an obstacle to philosophical dialog is Metaphysics. In the OP of this thread, Pantagruel said, "This is an essentially new ontology (since it claims to redefine the notion of what is real at the most basic level). It is a metaphysical position that coincides with the emergence of a new scientific paradigm". What do you think he meant by "metaphysical"? Some TPF posters apparently interpret that ancient term to mean "theology" or "antiscience". But, as I noted in a previous post, I use it in the mundane & philosophical sense of topics that are not covered by physical science. For example, the OP of this thread seems to imply that the study of non-physical Consciousness could be considered Scientific from a broader perspective, in which both Physics and Metaphysics are sub-categories of universal Philosophy.

In the quote below, from the second post in this thread, 180 defines metaphysics in terms of "categorical statements", by contrast to Science as "hypothetical propositions". That's actually a good point --- if you equate Metaphysics with Philosophy, rather than Religion. Yes, Reductive Science tends to focus on Particulars, while Holistic Philosophy searches for General/Universals --- as in Kant's Categorical Imperative. But how would Science rationalize & categorize its observations without the General Principles we know as Natural Laws? Leibniz defined "Universal Science" as a branch of metaphysics, and asserted that the "universal science" is the true logic. Isn't the point of Reductive Science to discover the particular facts that conform to general laws and add-up to universal principles? Why can't Science & Metaphysics work together : producing both Hypotheses and Categoricals? Why would 180 describe "science as metaphysics" as "incoherent"? :smile:


180proof :
You don't make a case for "science as metaphysics" – besides, the phrase seems incoherent insofar as the latter consists of categorical statements (ideas) and the former hypothetical propositions (explanations).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13474/science-as-metaphysics/p1

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. — L'éléphant

As I noted in the post above, the equation of Energy & Information is ultimately a philosophical Cosmological conjecture, not a scientific assertion.

I apologize for dumping all that "information" on you in my previous posts. The Enformationism thesis is quite complex and based on cutting-edge science. So, for most people it probably sounds like gobbledygook. FYI, since I'm retired, and not in an academic or scientific environment, I'm using this forum as a supply of guinea-pigs to test my outlandish ideas. Incredulous responses give me feedback to chew on. I have no animus toward , but his impassioned Black vs White reactions, are not useful for my research purposes. Note the smilie in all my posts. :smile:

Having made my apologies, I hope you will forgive me for dumping on you some Cosmological ideas that are also new to me. In april/may 2023 Philosophy Now magazine, the question of the month is "what is time?" And the very first reply gave me food for thought along Enformationism lines. "Time needs to exist for change to happen. This means time must have existed before the Big Bang." The same could be said for Energy : the cause of Causation. In my thesis, I refer to the role of Energy in & after the Big Bang as EnFormAction (the power to enform and transform). In that case, I can go on to equate Generic Information with Cosmic Time.

That reply also said that "Time may be considered a one-way valve, preventing us from going backwards". Ironically, by equating Time with Energy, some scientists have proposed that Entropy is, in effect, Energy (change) going backwards. Yet we are not used to thinking in those terms. Perhaps, because Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change) typically cancel each other out, so that the net Energy state of the universe is a balanced equation.

The reply concludes, referring to cosmic Time, with : "It is the catalyst that allows energy and matter to move, combine, and break apart, creating the universe, and through entropy, destroying it". Again, that sounds like my multifunction concept of EnFormAction. The definition below is just one of many ways I have tried to explain the expanded role of mundane Information, beyond Shannon's inert data. Its relationship to Life & Mind & Consciousness & Self may require a lot more explication. But only if you feel ready to dive deeper into philosophical Cosmology. :nerd:

PS__I expect 180 will zoom-in on the hot-button words (e.g. Soul, Chi, Spirit) as evidence of a religious agenda. If so, he is missing the philosophical point of using well-known words in un-conventional ways and different contexts, as usual.

EnFormAction : the creative power to enform; to cause transformations from one form to another.
1. As the generic power of creation (Big Bang, Singularity), it turns eternal Potential into temporal Actual, it transforms Platonic Forms into physical Things.
2. As physical energy (Causation), it is the power to cause changes in material structure.
3. As condensed energy (Matter), it is light speed vibrations slowed down to more stable states.
4. As animating energy (elan vital, Chi), it is the power to cause complex matter to self-move.
5. As mental energy (Consciousness; knowing), it is the power to store & process incoming information as meaning relative to self.
6. As self-awareness (Self-consciousness; Will-Power), it is the power to make intentional changes to self and environment.
7. As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person (Chi, Spirit).
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. You want it as raw as possible, and information is processed data. You've got layers and layers there to uncover. Did you not read the Parmenides passage? That's why I posted it here. They took the time to nail down the raw data until they could no longer go any further.
For example, atomism works as a theory because it's .. well.. the atom. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the theory sticks because they got it as raw as possible. Naturalism is similar. When we talk about the natural forces, or the physical laws of nature, you can't argue this down any further, if your point is to unravel what's in the physical laws or what's in the natural forces. They're a given. — L'éléphant

Pre-note : the radical ideas posited below are not scientific statements, but Cosmology conjectures.

Claude Shannon's early 20th century notion of Information might be something like "processed data", yet he quantified information in terms of Entropy (which is the undoing of order/organization)*1. However the inverse of Entropy is Negentropy, which is essentially organizing Energy. From that insight, scientists have developed mathematical theories equating Information with Energy*2. Quantum physicists have discovered that Information is much more than mere passive data. So your information about Information seems to be out of date.

The Enformationism thesis is based on 21st century AD Quantum & Information science, not on 5th century BC philosophical Ontology. The passage you quoted --- "The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded" --- denies the reality of Change*3, which is what Energy does, and Entropy undoes. (Energy = causation & transformation & enformation). Hence, if your own personal worldview is also static & unchanging, you will never understand the multiple roles of causal Information in the world. However, If you are interested in how the world is organized & enformed (naturally), the thesis & blog provide references & links with scientific support for equating Information with Energy & Causation*4.

Therefore, my "point? is not to "unravel physical laws". Quantum Physics has already unraveled some of the presumptions of Classical Physics*5. So, if your physical worldview is classical, it's a few centuries out of date. As stated in previous posts, my "point" is to update (not replace) the dominant Materialism of modern Philosophy, with new information from Quantum Science and post-Shannon Information Theory*6. :cool:

PS___You shouldn't depend on for information about Enformationism. He seems to be well-read in ancient Philosophy, but not in modern Science. Despite what he says, the Enformationism thesis is compatible with Naturalism, all the way back to the Big Bang. Apparently, he has read the thesis & blog & post links, only enough to scan for hot-button terms such as "panendeism" (which is explicitly discussed, not disguised). Apparently the philosophical implications of the thesis are contrary to his personal worldview (Parmenadean?). So, he has made it his mission on TPF to defend his fossilized belief system (Naturalism, Materialism, Realism, you name it) from fresh new information . He thinly disguises his disgust with sophistry. That's why I no longer engage in his word games.


*1. Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. Entropy also describes how much energy is not available to do work. The more disordered a system and higher the entropy, the less of a system's energy is available to do work.
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/12-3-second-law-of-thermodynamics-entropy

*2. Why is energy information?
The idea that information is related to Energy (or Entropy, equivalently) is due to Landauer (1961) who investigated the question of the physical limitations for a computing engine. He found that the acquisition of information through a measurement required a dissipation of at least (kT  ln 2) energy for each bit of information gathered. Van Neumann in 1949 already qualitatively suggested that energy dissipation is necessary to process information.
In statistical mechanics there is a concept of information conservation; meaning - as a thermodynamical system evolves the information is conserved. The status of a thermodynamical system is in principle reversible if I just have enough capacity to measure a status in detail. If I know at time t the exact position and momentum of all particles, I can theoretically figure out the status at t-1 using the laws of mechanics. THUS INFORMATION IS CONSERVED.
https://www.quora.com/Is-information-energy

*3. According to Parmenides, everything that exists is permanent, ungenerated, indestructible, and unchanging. According to traditional interpretation (no longer universally accepted, but still common) Parmenides goes even further, denying that there is such a thing as plurality.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm
Note --- In Plato's philosophy, what is unchanging is not Reality, but Ideality, not Nature, but Supernature.

*4. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

*5. Though classical mechanics is false, as relativity and quantum mechanics reveal, there are many reasons for philosophers to continue investigating its proper interpretation (i.e., what the world would be like if classical mechanics were true).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/classical-mechanics-philosophy

*6. Information theory in Post-Shannon period
https://shannon.engr.tamu.edu/front-page/

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible.
As said in 5), the hypothesis implying a life form are only a small proportion of all the combinations (hypothesis) possible. And since 8): we cannot tell which hypothesis are more plausible, we can’t state those containing the “life like forms” weight more.
=> Small number/huge number leads to a probability close to zero. — Skalidris

I didn't see the original post on The Probability of God, but I do have a book by that name, written by theoretical physicist Stephen Unwin --- now specializing in Risk Management (a profession heavily dependent on probability math). Ironically, he indirectly describes himself as a "mathematical theologist".

He begins by stating that "I'm starting from the premise that I don't know whether or not there is a God". Then he notes "since the existence of God is the ultimate uncertainty and probabilistic analysis is the means of addressing uncertainties . . . . The probability of God begs to be computed". And the "means" he employs is Bayesian analysis, which is intended to quantify a personal belief.

Unfortunately, you have to define and quantify that personal belief at the outset, which tends to bias the calculation in a particular direction. Nevertheless, he states that "we can then incorporate the probability of God into our everyday decisions with the comfort of knowing that we are behaving rationally, as the numbers dictate". Obviously, you can't actually quantify such an innumerable concept as the creator of the whole world, including numbers & math. So the quantity he plugs into the calculation is merely his personal confidence in such a universal Principle"*1.

He characterizes the Intelligent Design god-concept as a "gap filler". Then in a side note, he says "the unsettling aspect of this notion of God as a gap-filler is understanding that as scientific knowledge increases, God inevitably shrinks". So, he concludes "I suppose that creation of the very principles of nature is the most credible God-slot". This is basically the First Cause or Prime Mover principle of Aristotle & Plato*2.

If you are interested in the details of his argument, you can read the book. But I'll just conclude with a final quote "As for the probability that my particular view of God is the correct one? Well, it's really more a matter of faith". :smile:

*1. In case you are wondering, here's his starting & ending numbers :
"I would set my overall belief factor at B(G) = 95%
So, since my reasoned probability is P(G) = 67%
Then use of the faith formula reveals that F(G) = 28%"
Note -- although that final number may seem disappointing for believers, the author adds a chapter conclusion : "Faith and reasoned probability measure disparate forms of belief".

*2. Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind.
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/public/exported_courses/HZT4U/exported/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02A04/_ld1.html

I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.
There's no prejudice here against metaphysics. This is a philosophy forum. — L'éléphant

That's what I thought when I began to post on TPF a few years ago. Until then, I had little experience dialoging with philosophical thinkers. Most of my friends & colleagues avoided controversial topics, and most of my reading was in the physical sciences. That's why I described myself as “ingenuous” in the notes below. In recent years though, I have learned that Materialism seems to be the Monism for many modern philosophers, and that the most fervent of those believers exemplify the derogatory category of Scientism. Which was unknown to me before TPF.

I have tried on several occasions to clarify my non-religious usage of the term "metaphysics" for those who criticize the idea as incompatible with their wholly Physical (corporeal, tangible) worldview. But to no avail, because ingrained belief systems are resistant to change. FYI, FWIW, this is a sample review of my reasons for using that taboo term, when referring to the Mental/Rational/Philosophical aspects of reality, instead of Material/Sensory/Scientific phenomena : :smile:


THE MODERN MEANING OF METAPHYSICS
In my experience on TPF, posters with a Materialistic worldview are quick to object to my idiosyncratic usage of the ancient theological term "metaphysics". But I have no formal training in philosophy, so after retirement, when I began to develop my personal worldview (based on quantum & information science) I was naive about the prejudicial baggage attached to that term, beyond its literal meaning (Nature : volume 2). Ingenuously, I began to use that word in reference to the same sub-category of reality that Aristotle was discussing in his later books on Nature : Human Nature*1 (how philosophical humans perceive & categorize the world).

Of course, I was aware that early Catholic theologians --- who were not primarily interested in Aristotle's first books on the mundane aspects of Nature (phusis) --- simply distinguished the later works under the general heading of "metaphysics", meaning "after the physical stuff". By imputation though, the term "metaphysical" came to mean "super-natural"*2. Which, for a hard Materialist, means "not-real", hence "false" and "misleading". For the practical purposes of Science, I admit to being a soft Materialist*2. Yet, for philosophical purposes, I am a moderate Mentalist (mind stuff).

For the theologians, with a religious agenda, what made Human Nature special is the incorporation of an incorporeal Soul. But, for my philosophical thesis, “I have no need for that hypothesis”. Instead, the uniqueness of humanity is merely a metaphysical-but-not-spiritual talent for Imagining & Reasoning, which is head & shoulders above the mental abilities of any animal. Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references.

That emerging philosophical worldview can be interpreted as an update of 17th century Classical Physicalism*4 with the non-mechanical aspects of Quantum Physics (Atoms now characterized as amorphous Fields of information). And to re-interpret ancient Spiritualism in terms of modern Information Theory (both Conscious experience & Physical bodies composed of Integrated Information bits : Holism). It's a good thing that I am not fanatical about my personal worldview. Because most Materialists & Spiritualists are not aware that their own belief systems are going out of style, as quantum Science reveals the immaterial foundations of mundane reality. :nerd:

*1. Human Nature :
From a Materialist perspective, humans are simply animals, nothing more, especially no additional Soul. But from a Metaphysical perspective, humans are the apex animals on the only planet in the cosmos known to have non-physical phenomena. Most of those immaterial aspects, such as consciousness, are shared with other living creatures. Yet, our mental prowess seems to stem from our physical uniqueness : bipedal upright posture, which allowed for big brains, and exceptional visual acuity. Together, those advantages resulted in two special talents : Reasoning and Imagination. By combining those natural gifts, humans have developed a unique ability for seeing that which is not apparent (imagination), and for discerning the invisible generalities & universalities & interconnections in the world around them (inference). Together those faculties have produced collective behaviors not found in other animals : Materialist Science (technology) and Metaphysical Philosophy (wisdom).

*2. As a pragmatic Materialist, when I walk on solid ground, I believe that it will support my weight, even though I have been told by quantum scientists that material substances are mostly empty space --- filled with mathematical Fields instead of massive stuff .
Practically all of the matter we see and interact with is made of atoms, which are mostly empty space. Then why is reality so... solid? https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/matter-mostly-empty-space/

*3. Supernatural :
I am not aware of anything in the world that is super-natural. However, my philosophical reasoning runs into a physical dead-end at the beginning of space-time, which defines the boundaries of empirical science. Yet philosophy is not governed by the laws of physics, but by the rules of reason & speculation, which can literally go out of this world, in search of Multiverses & Many Worlds, and even supernatural deities.
In his empirical work, Isaac Newton laid down his own guidelines for “experimental philosophy”*4. Yet, for his speculative philosophy, he admitted to belief in a God that is not subject to physical evidence. Ironically, “apart from his publications on gravity and optics, Newton was also a biblical scholar, religious mystic, and alchemist”. https://www.aip.org/initialconditions/episode-10-newton-you-didnt-know

*4. Newton's Naturalistic Rules of Reason :
No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena.
1. Therefore, the causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same.
2. Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made, should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally.
3. In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true not withstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exception.
https://blogofthecosmos.com/2016/01/27/mortals-rejoice-at-so-great-an-ornament-of-the-human-race/

No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. — L'éléphant

The reason I inferred that the word "metaphysics" was "tainted by its association with Christian theology" is that, on this forum, any mention of the word seems to polarize the dialog into politicized camps. I doubt that association with pagan Parmenides would evoke such a visceral dislike.

But thanks for mentioning Parmenides. In the quote below*1, his metaphysical topics are exactly the breakdown that I propose in my thesis ; especially the Mind/Matter relationship. Some of the most passionate defenders of Materialism, seem to define "Mind" as a physical phenomenon. In which case, I'm not allowed to address the non-physical aspects of Reality, such as Ideas, Concepts, Feelings, Meanings. With "all due respect", you seem to be making the same erroneous presumption about my intention. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://www.parmenides.me/metaphysics

You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.

If you want to de-legitimize this system of philosophy, launch a whole new approach -- or better yet, defend the analytics. Or talk about the continental, and its attack on the metaphysical methodology -- its lack of worthwhile philosophical problem. — L'éléphant

I have no formal training in philosophy, and do not concern myself with its "camps". Instead, it's my learned interlocutors who seem to polarize the discussion into a debate between pragmatic materialistic secular Physics, and theoretical immaterial religious Metaphysics. The latter is deemed "immaterial", hence irrelevant, and not worth discussing.

Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining".

I have no intention of "redesigning" Metaphysics, but to use it as a general category of non-physical topics for discussion. That's how Aristotle's works*2 were parsed by later philosophers & theologians : Physics = animals, plants, minerals, motion, etc ; and Meta-Physics = Categories, Principles, Being, Causation, Potential/Actual, Substance/Essence. So, I'm making exactly the distinctions that Parmenides presumably made, according to the quote above : Mind & Matter, Substance & Attributes, Potential & Actual.

The "whole new approach" to Physics/Metaphysics is not my invention. Instead, my amateur philosophical thesis is based on the "new worldview" emerging from Quantum & Information sciences*3. For example, the Einsteinian "Quantum Revolution" in the early 20th century, which undermined the authority of Newtonian Classical Mechanics. That radical revision of worldview has resulted in the 21st century reality of computers & moon rockets instead of hand-drawn star-charts & steam-powered locomotives. Parallel to that upheaval in physical science, the Information theory of Shannon has set in motion a radically different concept of mental contents.

Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms. These are not religious concepts, but their metaphysical implications have been gladly received by both Christian apologists and New Age gurus. Most, if not all of the quantum pioneers resorted to Eastern philosophical notions in their attempts to make sense of the counter-intuitive (non-mechanical) meta-physical aspects of quantum reality. They were roundly abused for heretical betrayal of classical Materialism & Mechanism, along with erroneous imputations of religious motives.

Just as Bohr & Heisenberg had no intention of undermining Classical Metaphysics, in their observer-centered Copenhagen interpretation, I am not trying to "de-legitimize" Philosophy or Science. I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile:


*2. the treatise we know as Aristotle’s Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle’s works. The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*3. A New Kind of Science :
The quantum revolution makes a radical break with classical physical science.
https://academic.oup.com/book/2738/chapter-abstract/143208750?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Does any of that make sense to you? — Gnomon

No. — L'éléphant

Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology? In my Information-centric thesis, I've played around with other, less provocative, words (e.g. "mental" ; "non-physical", etc) for the abstract/immaterial topics (e.g. substance, quality, quantity, relation) included in Aristotle's treatise on Nature ; that was later categorized by theologians as "after" the books about physical entities, such as animals. But none of them resonated with me like the "meta" notion, and most abstract terminology is a "no-no" for materialistic philosophizing. Maybe, the visceral antipathy toward an ancient word is why Zuckerberg's Metaverse didn't pan out as he hoped. "Meta" no longer means merely "after" or "next" or "beyond" or "alongside"; it has come to imply pseudoscience or unreal or unimportant or irrelevant. Hence a perfectly fitting philosophical distinction was stigmatized for post-enlightenment thinkers.

Ironically, that taboo term is still on the books as an essential topic of study for Philosophers*1. For me, it's simply the study of non-things, such as Ideas, Concepts, Mental, Causation, etc. Yet, in the belief system of modern Materialism, all of those non-entities are inexplicably lumped under the heading of Matter, and excluded from the obvious heading of Metaphysical. But even the term "subject matter" is biased toward a simplistic materialistic worldview*2. Which may be why Chalmers labeled immaterial Consciousness as the Not Easy Problem.

So, for those of us on this forum, who want to discuss the contents of Minds (ideas, meanings, concepts, etc) are expected to avoid such taboo terms as "spirit", "soul", and "metaphysics". But I haven't yet found any evidence for a physical Atom of Mind, equivalent to the Atoms of Matter, that are now portrayed, by quantum physicists, as a non-local Field. The closest I've come to an "atom" of Mind, is what Information scientists call a "bit" of information. Yet, that term is merely an acronym for "binary digit", and is completely abstract, with no material substance, only metaphysical meaning. Oooops, I did it again. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical - Longer definition: Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

*2. It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

*3. Aristotle. … metaphysics : he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-philosophy
Note -- The second "being" refers to everything in general, the essence of existence, instead a particular being knowable by the physical senses.

↪Manuel
I've come to believe that the term metaphysics itself is the problem. — Pantagruel

Yes. The term "metaphysics" is tainted by association with medieval Catholic theology, which is anathema (against belief) for empirical scientists. That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. Does any of that make sense to you?

The idea that information is ontologically fundamental, not to mention non-physical, is very far from being a consensus view among contemporary physicists as far as I am aware, so your lame attempt to cast my questioning of the idea as coming from a mindset mired in classical physics is laughable. — Janus

Yes. That's why I referred to it as "cutting edge". As I said, the reference to Classical Science was not intended to be derogatory. No need to take offense, because the majority of people today, including philosophers, seem to take intuitive Classical Newtonian Physics for granted, and ignore counter-intuitive Quantum Physics as mysticism unrelated to their daily lives. The notion that Information occurs in both material and non-material forms is a minority concept. But it is essential to my own personal information-centric worldview, including my understanding of Monism. Are you laughing at my mindset, or at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both?

As a "fundamental physical entity" Information exists in the form of Energy*1 --- which is the active ingredient of Physics, yet is immaterial itself. Energy is invisible and intangible*2, so we know it exists as a Cause only by rational inference from its Effects on matter. But then, immaterial Energy can transform into Matter, by means of Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. As a philosopher, you don't need to know or worry about such "non-sense", unless you are interested in such non-sense as Causation & Monism. :smile:

PS__A century ago a patent clerk made some risible jokes at the expense of Sir Isaac Newton : e.g. empty space can be warped into light-bending waves and causing the Earth to suck via "spooky action at a distance". Are you still still chuckling at that non-sense? Or do you accept it as an implausible fact because it is now the majority opinion?


*1. Information is Energy :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

*2. Light energy is an invisible energy which causes the sensation of vision in the eye.
https://infinitylearn.com/surge/question/physics/is-it-true-that-light-energy-is-called-invisible-energy/

Why not monism? What we seek is to try and understand how everything fits together, what is it about the world that allows so much variety, if the base constituents are simple, as they seem to be?

You can choose to accept pluralism, like William James and simply marvel at the multifaceted aspects of the world - this is valuable and instructive especially in terms of aesthetic appreciation. But it won't get you far, it seems to me to stop the search for underlying principles.

And who knows, the actual monism that exists in the world may be quite different from the idea we commonly get from monism in intuiting only a single thing, like a metaphysical big bang type substance. It could be very different from such notions. — Manuel

Good point! The general or universal Principles that Plato & Aristotle referred to are not physical objects, or even one primary object among many. Instead, a Principle is an assumption or axiom serving as a premise for explaining Complexity *1 *2. Obviously, those assumed principles are not empirical physical objects, but theoretical meta-physical*3 concepts. They are the presumed Wholes that overly Plurality like a blanket.

Since we are just guessing about those long-ago and far-away principles, we can't say for sure what the ultimate Monism of the world actually is. The Big Bang (act of creation) was one such hypothetical Monism or Principle intended to explain the plurality of physical entities in the universe. It was an alternative to traditional Genesis-like God-Monisms. But even that so-called "Singularity" has been hacked into bits, as we search for a more satisfactory explanation for "how everything fits together". Nevertheless, the notion of all-encompassing Monism meets the philosophical principle of Simplicity within Complexity espoused by Ockham. :smile:

PS___For the record : What I mean by this modern usage of the ancient term "metaphysics", is not supernatural or spiritual entities, but the natural concepts or feelings or principles that we call unique "Qualia" to distinguish them from enumerable "Quanta"*3.


*1. Principle :
Principle in philosophy and mathematics means a fundamental law or assumption.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Principle

*2. Axiom :
An axiom is a foundational premise that is supposed to be self evident.
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/2014/5/29/introduction-to-some-philosophical-principles

*3. PHYSICS : OVERT QUANTA . . . . METAPHYSICS : COVERT QUALIA
***Quantifiable things are easy to talk about, because we can point to them and enumerate them. For example, "woman" is the female half of the Sapiens species. We can recognize them by their quantitative features : tits, ass, etc. These are itemized parts of the whole we categorize as "female". But "femaleness"or "femininity" is a Qualia, which is not so easy to express in specific words. It's a je ne sais quoi , (I can't say what) or (I can't be specific). And "quoi" (pronounced "qua") may be etymologically related to Latin "qualia". So, it's the quality of wholeness that is knowable in general, but difficult to express in particular words.
***Physicalism is all about Quanta (things), while Meta-physicalism is about Qualia (ideas or opinions or feelings about things). Quanta (e.g. boobies) are sensuous --- we can see & touch them. But Qualia (femininity) are intellectual, because they are invisible & intangible.
***Feelings are holistic, and difficult to express in words. We gesture when we talk, in order to express the unspeakable. In philosophy, we use metaphors to conjure images of things unseen (qualia).

I already acknowledged that Aristotle's hylomorphism was prescient, so I don't know what point you think I missed. I do disagree with "metaphysical form"; the very idea seems meaningless to me; all forms are physical as far as I know.

I don't see any fundamental difference between mental and physical, so, nothing you've said there convinces me that mental information is not supervenient on physical processes. — Janus

I understand that, from a Monistic Materialist/Physicalist perspective, matter is the sole substance in the world. But, some physicists, especially quantum physicists, have concluded that non-physical Information is more fundamental than any material substance*1. That's why they now call the basis of reality a spacious massless mathematical "field" instead of a minature massive particle. I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you argue with the scientists about those counter-intuitive conclusions.

So, what you missed is Aristotle's reason for defining physical objects as a combination ("compound") of two essences : physical material observable "hyle" and non-physical mental logical "form"*2. Why didn't he just specify a single "physical entity"? I guess it's for the same reason that modern quantum physicists still think in terms of physical local particles, even though their theory now accepts non-local non-physical Fields as fundamental. It's just easier to think in terms of things you can see & touch, instead of non-things that exist only in the realm of theory.

Anyway, I think I understand where you are coming from. But I left that classical physics position behind many years ago, when I started studying the cutting-edge of modern physics. For people who never travel beyond the valley they were born in, and don't have access to satellite imagery, the Flat Earth concept adequately serves their pragmatic needs. Likewise, materialistic classical physics still serves the needs of those who don't push the boundaries of reality*3. So, I'm not trying to denigrate your worldview, but just to help you understand mine. In the new information-centric physics, Information is not "supervenient" upon matter, but matter is an emergent form of Generic Information*4. Hence, immaterial Information is the essential substance of the new Monism. :smile:


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

*2. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

*3. Classical physics is no longer used in research -- it says that mass is conserved, time is absolute, there is no laser possible, quantum levels do not exist, and the hypothesis of continuity is true. Mass is only conserved as an illusion, its value changes according to E0=mc2, and binding energy.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would-be-better-for-students-to-avoid-classical-physics

*4. Is Information Physical and Does It Have Mass? :
Some researchers suggest that information is a form of matter, calling it the fifth state of matter or the fifth element. Recent results from the general theory of information (GTI) contradict this. This paper aims to explain and prove that the claims of adherents of the physical nature of information are inaccurate due to the confusion between the definitions of information, the matter that represents information, and the matter that is a carrier of information. Our explanations and proofs are based on the GTI because it gives the most comprehensive definition of information, encompassing and clarifying many of the writings in the literature about information. GTI relates information, knowledge, matter, and energy, and unifies the theories of material and mental worlds using the world of structures. According to GTI, information is not physical by itself, although it can have physical and/or mental representations. Consequently, a bit of information does not have mass, but the physical structure that represents the bit indeed has mass.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540
Sci is an international, open access journal which covers all research fields and is published quarterly online by MDPI.



QUANTUM FIELD : matter is the dots ; information is the links

↪Gnomon
it seems that you are giving information multiple definitions for different things. Mind, Shannon, genetic, quantum.

You discount the most useful functions of brains if you rule out the ability to process non-physicals. — Mark Nyquist

Yes. Information is multi-faceted. It is universal, but emergent, and expressed in many different ways : ideas, data, genes, rocks, quantum bits, etc.--- even as Time/Change. If you want to blow your "information repository" (mind), check out the article*1 below by Sarah Walker, of the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity. Her novel theory says that evanescent Time has a physical size, depending on the amount of information contained. It's OK to be incredulous --- I was, am --- but when you think about it, it makes sense, that Time is something a sentient observer can sense --- not by sniffing, but by reasoning.

Oh no, I don't rule-out the ability to process non-physical stuff. I explicitly rule it in. As I have come to understand it, largely by learning about quantum weirdness, Information exists in our world as both Mind (conscious matter) and Matter (physical forms)*2. So, for me, it now makes sense that a material information processor (brain) can generate the "non-physical" outputs that we call Ideas (as contrasted with Real objects). This theory is a novel form of Monism*3. :smile:

*1. Time is an object with physical size :
A new form of physics called assembly theory suggests that a moving, directional sense of time is real and fundamental. It suggests that the complex objects in our Universe that have been made by life, including microbes, computers and cities, do not exist outside of time: they are impossible without the movement of time. From this perspective, the passing of time is not only intrinsic to the evolution of life or our experience of the Universe. It is also the ever-moving material fabric of the Universe itself. Time is an object. It has a physical size, like space. And it can be measured at a molecular level in laboratories.
https://aeon.co/essays/time-is-not-an-illusion-its-an-object-with-physical-size

*2. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

*3. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

↪Wayfarer
Do you really want to argue that Aristotle knew about DNA? — Janus

↪Wayfarer
Well of course they were a kind of precursor, since as I already said above, Aristotle thought the form of the oak to be immanent within the acorn, and not to be ordained by God or immaterial forms or whatever. — Janus

That response misses the point that Wayfarer was making. Of course Ari did not know the modern concept of DNA as a physical repository of genetic information. But, he captured the basic idea metaphorically, by using the philosophical concept of "Form". In his Hylomorph theory he made a pertinent distinction between physical Matter and metaphysical*1 Form. Those categories are equivalent to Quanta (res extensa) [that which you see] and Qualia (res cogitans) [that which you know]. Therefore, DNA could also be defined in Hylomorphic terms, as a combination of quantitative Matter (deoxyribonucleaic acid) and qualitative Form (genetic information).

The modern scientific concept of "Information" is similar to Aristotle's, in that it can exist both as mental logical pattern (general ; transcendent) and as material instantiation (specific ; immanent). Before Shannon, the word "information" referred only to the invisible intangible contents of private minds (ideas ; meanings). After Shannon, "information" was found to be transformable from res cogitans (ideas) into res extensa (objects). So, now Information is known to be both mental and material. FYI, that's the basis of my personal BothAnd worldview.

In the example of DNA, the instructions (design) for building a body are recorded in hundreds of spermata (blueprints), but normally only one instance of that design is actually constructed of protein building blocks. All the other wiggly packages of Potential are summarily erased, without being Actualized. By that, I mean the physical containers of metaphysical data are deconstructed by enzymes. So yes, the Form (data) is immanent (embedded ; recorded) in the physical acorn, but the Information (design) itself exists nowhere as non-physical logico-mathematical patterns (inter-relationships). In what sense does Math or Logic exist : extensa or cogitans? :smile:


*1. I use the term "Meta-physical" in the non-religious non-super-natural sense of merely non-physical or im-material. It's simply the abstract mind-stuff we call "ideas" or "meanings". There are no abstractions in reality, only in ideality. Those private ideas can only be conveyed to others when they are expressed in physical vibrations or light reflectance. But they exist covertly in the metaphysical container we call "Mind" to distinguish it from the physical machine known as "brain".

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

Since I came late to this thread, I haven't directly commented on the OP. So here goes.:

Fooloso4 seems to imply that Monism is a fearful attempt to avoid the "abyss of nothingness". But your rational response turns the imputed "fear" into a search for clarity. "Taken to its logical conclusion, the explanatory path must finally lead to that which is unique and absolutely uncomplex." The principle of simplicity is inherent in both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimentation.

From that perspective, Monism is simply a result of applying Ockham's Razor to the whole universe. Unfortunately, that notion could also imply the necessity for a singular Necessary Being or Supreme Reality, or other holistic notions that do not appeal to the pluralistic Reductive Mind, which favors parts over wholes. Is a singular Ground of Being a fear-inducing concept? :smile:


Simplicity theory is a cognitive theory that seeks to explain the attractiveness of situations or events to human minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity_theory

The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. It often goes by the name of “Ockham’s Razor.”
https://iep.utm.edu/simplici/

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions about me. — Janus

There you go again : accusing me of accusing you of something nefarious. Rather than "unwarranted assumptions," my rephrasing of your posts is an attempt put them into words that I can understand. If your words were clear to me, I wouldn't have to make assumptions. If my interpretation is wrong, please correct my "assumptions". This kind of re-phrasing is common in philosophical dialog. The "warrant" is in the ambiguity. :smile:

Note --- The pertinent assumption (interpretation) was in the second phrase. Is it true (warranted) that you don't want to hear what amateur philosophers have to say about the ideas of ancient authorities? If not, would you clarify what you meant by "not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought".
My interpretation of your intention :
"Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs".

Have you or anyone come across Feynman diagrams showing forward and backward flowing time. My interpretation is physical existence has some duration relative to clock time. It's worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism.

I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless. — Mark Nyquist

Ironically, Time Reversal has been interpreted from observations of experiments. But they don't know how that glitch might affect our perception of forward flowing time. Time reversal is an abstract mathematical phenomenon that doesn't seem to be translated into concrete physics. So, why would it be worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism?

I was forced to get somewhat deep into the philosophical implications of "Quantum Stuff", without understanding the math, because of my interest in Information theory. Even the scientists themselves don't understand the meaning of the math*1. All they know is that it reliably predicts the outcome of experiments. The pioneers of sub-atomic science were baffled by the counter-intuitive implications of such phenomena as Superposition and Entanglement. So, they used metaphorical language to make some sense of it.

Likewise, philosophers don't have to do the math in order to derive some meaning (some clues) from the uncertainties of quantum math. Theoretical Philosophy is not constrained by the mathematical requirements of Empirical Science. :smile:

PS__Most of what I learned about Quantum Physics was derived from the dumbed-down writings of mathematical scientists for a popular audience.


*1. Shut-up and calculate :
The cliché has it that the Copenhagen interpretation demands adherence without deep enquiry. That does physics a disservice
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics

*2. Poetic Metaphors in Philosophy :
According to this view, metaphors can be characterized as-strictly speaking-non-philosophical but extrinsic to constitutive forms in constructing theories. In this view, their function is not to explain, and they cannot be used as arguments. But, often they contain numerous implications with value for innovation, as they can anticipate holistic projections which are not yet fulfilled by theoretical analysis.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm

As Art48 started by pointing out, Monism is reductionist, or you can derive the complex from the simple. — Mark Nyquist

As a scientific perspective, Monism could be construed as reductionist in that it reduces complexity & plurality down to a single principle, as in Spinoza's single substance "god sive natura". But as a philosophical worldview Monism is Holistic, in that it combines many parts into a single integrated system. Some call that system "universe" (implying all-encompassing), and others call it "Nature" (implying reality as opposed to super-natural), but more poetic scientists, such as Einstein, dare to refer that unity-of-all-things as "God"*1.

Harold Morowitz is "a leading figure in the science of complexity". In his book The Emergence of Everything, he writes : "Emergence is the opposite of reduction"*2. He goes on to define "emergence" in terms of Holism : "These are the emergent properties of the system, properties of the whole. They are novelties that follow from the system rules but cannot be predicted from properties of the components that make up the system". {my bold}

A Holistic & Monistic understanding of the universe has important philosophical consequences*3. Morowitz has the temerity to propose, in a science book, that "those studying natural Complexity should pay attention to the Idealist philosophical tradition". Again, some on this forum would consider such talk as blasphemy against Classical Science. What do you think about Monism & Holism? Are those notions too spooky for you? :smile:


*1. "God does not play dice" Albert Einstein once said, expressing his contempt for the notion that the universe is governed by probability - an idea fundamental to quantum theory.
https://plus.maths.org/content/why-god-plays-dice
Note --- Probability is essential to the science of complexity, and computers are unperturbed by the uncertainty of statistical laws of nature.

*2. In the Emergence thread on this forum, the notion of progressive directional emergence was shouted down, probably because as a non-reductionist concept it seemed to be anti-scientific to some posters. But the science of Complexity is a 21st century phenomenon, because a multiplicity of things is confusing to the analog human mind, but not to digital computers. In the book mentioned above, I made a marginal note : "classical science is reductive and elemental. The next phase of science will be pro-ductive and holistic. Now that we know the elements [including sub-atomic particles] we can begin to see how they work together to create holons that are, in turn, the elements for the next level of complexity".
Note --- A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole.

*3. One novel idea to emerge from the science of Complexity is the notion that Mind is inherent in the rules of physics. Morowitz noted that "the reductionist behaviorist traditions would argue that mind is an epiphenomenon of the activities of collections of neurons". Then he argued that "the pruning rules of the emergences may go beyond the purely dynamic and exhibit a noetic character. It ultimately evolves into mind, not as something that suddenly appears, but as a maturing character of an aging universe".
Note --- Noetic : relating to mental activity or the intellect.

↪Gnomon
I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.

My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains. — Mark Nyquist

Sure check it out. Skepticism is good ; especially when presented with novel or unconventional ideas : informed skepticism. Most people are only aware of Shannon's definition of Information, and its relationship to computers*1. But quantum physicists are now equating Information (the power to enform or to transform) with Energy. That's why I refer to the "most fundamental thing" as Generic Information*2. That's my term, not the physicists'. Note -- I spell "inform" with an "e" to distinguish it from data processing, and to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.

To give you an idea what I'm talking about, imagine that "in the beginning there was Generic Information, and that information begat Energy, and causal Energy begat Matter, and energized matter begat Mind". If that sounds like a fairy tale, wait until you hear the rest of the story. It's the story of Genesis, but as told by scientists, not ancient priests. The Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom that Energy & Laws (Enformation) existed prior to the beginning. And that's the key to a modern Monistic (all is information) worldview*3.

In my thesis, Generic Information exists in the form of both physical Neurons and metaphysical Brain States. "States" are not things, but (logico-mathematical) relationships between things. And it's the human mind's unique ability to recognize those immaterial patterns & states that has allowed humans to create and live-in artificial environments. Note --- "artifice" is similar to the "design" you referred to.

There's a lot of information out there about "Fundamental Information", but you have to go looking for it. And then you'll have to tie all those separate lines of information together. I list a few websites below. And the Enformationism thesis and blog have hundreds of references. One physicist in particular, Paul Davies*4, has been promoting this novel way of thinking about Information, in regard to both physics (matter) and metaphysics (mind), for years. :smile:


*1. Information, What Is It?
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

*2. Generic Information :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. Monism :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html
Note -- For the record, I'm not promoting Panpsychism, but quite a few physicists & cosmologists are using that term to describe what I call Enformationism.

*4. Paul Davies :
https://cosmos.asu.edu/

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Is Information Fundamental?
https://closertotruth.com/video/llose-003/?referrer=8329

Chapter 1: Information is Fundamental
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789811234101_0001

If we are going to cite Aristotle or Plato on these questions,I want to know what they thought, not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought.. . . . my own understanding is that form and matter are inseparable. — Janus

If you want to know what Aristotle & Plato thought on a particular question, you'll have to consult those authorities directly. But then, you'll have have to do the work of reconciling their differences into a single concept. On the other hand, if you want to know what a mere forum poster thinks on that question, you may have to endure some personal opinions and indirect references to the wisdom of the past. Since A & P literally wrote the book on Philosophy, anything I or anyone else might say will be merely footnotes*1 to those auteurs.

Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs. FWIW, my understanding of the relationship between Form and Matter derives mostly from modern Quantum Physics and Information Theory. And I frequently add quotes & links to those sources. In my view, the ancient concept of "Form" is now known as "Information" (the power to enform)*2. Therefore, links to my own writings are more to the point I'm making.

For Aristotle, Form & Matter are inter-related as dual principles. But, in my thesis, I go on to propose a monistic Ontology/Epistemology, in which the power to join potential Form with actual Matter is the ultimate principle : EnFormAction*3. And what joins (Energy) can also dis-join (Entropy). I'll apologize in advance, for adding a link to my own non-authoritarian ideas. :smile:


*1. The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

*2. Is it possible that everything is made of information? :
That's certainly a conjecture that was held by John Wheeler. This idea has gained more traction as the field of quantum information theory has developed. . . . It then becomes also self evident that everything is made of information as that is the essential definition of epistemology.
___Mark John Fernee , 20+ years as a physicist

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design, the other is the form of the individual, particular object, as united with the matter in hylomorphism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I don't know how the experts interpret the slightly different Plato/Aristotle worldviews. But I get the impression that Plato imagined a Dualistic world, composed of both Ideal and Real stuff. Yet, Aristotle tried to merge Plato's duality into a Monistic worldview with his Hylomorphic theory*1. Apparently, the early Catholic theologians also tried to have it both ways : Physical and Metaphysical. They adopted Plato's Ideal realm as a heavenly or spiritual "uber-reality" in their Super-natural musings, and used Aristotle's more physical/material worldview as the basis for Natural Philosophy, which eventually became modern Science : always searching for useful functional patterns in Nature*2. Consequently, philosophy has been schizophrenic ever since.

The April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article entitled : How Descartes Inspired Science. The author notes that Descartes' mechanical model of reality was adopted by later scientists. Ironically, in his more theoretical & idealistic writings, Rene seemed to be a Dualist, as indicated by his Body/Soul model. In his Principles of Philosophy, he wrote : "We likewise discover that there cannot exist any atoms of matter that are of their own nature indivisible". The article then infers that, "In other words, atoms may not be actually infinitely divided, but they can be divided indefinitely". {my bold} To that, I would add that it's the imaginative mind that can "divide [ideas] indefinitely". {my brackets}

The article goes on to describe how Quantum scientists, eventually, were forced by their evidence to divide uncuttable Atoms indefinitely. "Murray Gell-Mann, then proposed the existence of Quarks, the particles that themselves make up protons and neutrons." And so-on to this day, they keep finding ever smaller constituents of the former fundamental element of Reality. On the other hand, mathematical quantum theorists have abandoned Monistic Atomism altogether, in favor of Quantum Field Theory*3, in which the defining "patterns of points" are abstract mathematical locations in space, in the form of cartesian coordinates. That continuing trend indicates to me that in theory (ideality), humans can divide reality indefinitely. :smile:


*1.Aristotle’s Categories :
Whereas Plato treated the abstract as more real than material particulars, in the Categories Aristotle takes material particulars as ontological bedrock — to the extent that being a primary substance makes something more real than anything else,
Note -- I don't know if the ancient Greeks had a word equivalent to our modern notion of "Abstraction". Our term derived from the Latin "to remove, or forcibly pull away". Likewise, the notion of "pattern" may also be a modern concept, especially in Information theory. However, in his Four Causes, "Form" is often translated as "pattern" or "design".

*2. Pattern : anything cognizable
" Aristotle coined the word syllogism for any valid pattern of inference"
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/aristo.pdf

*3. In theoretical physics, quantum field theory is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles. ___Wikipedia
Note -- What Wiki calls "quasi" [not quite real] particles are labeled by others as "virtual" particles, which implies that they are not physically existing, but are merely hypothetical entities

Note on Design Intent :
For Architects and other designers, the Design Intent is to create a physical Form which fulfills pre-specified functional requirements. Without intention the resulting Form would be accidental, probably non-functional, but definitely un-designed.

I agree Aristotle makes a distinction between potential and actual. but I don't read him as thinking of potential as 'Insubstantial form" but as "primary matter" which I take to mean formless matter. We were not discussing Plato, but again I don't understand Plato's forms to be "abstract patterns" but rather understood to be things more real than actual forms. — Janus

I'm also not an authority on Plato or Aristotle, but my information-centric philosophy incorporates several of their ideas where relevant to quantum & information theory. My unconventional usage of terms like "abstract patterns" may be unfamiliar to those who are not conversant with some of the ideas coming out of quantum physics and information science. Some of those "weird" notions could be described as Platonic. For Plato, the idea or meaning or model or definition or design of a thing is its ideal Pattern*1. The rational mind recognizes abstract patterns in concrete things that are characteristic or typical of other similar things. Moreover, from a single Abstract or Potential pattern, many similar Real or Actual objects can be instantiated*2.

For example, as an architect, I create nonphysical "forms" (ideas) in my mind, then transfer that abstract design pattern onto paper to communicate the idea. So that later the abstract conceptual pattern can be constructed (in wood, stone & brick) to create a real enformed object (pattern + matter) that we call a "house". The bricks lying randomly on the ground would be "formless matter", and meaningless to the physical senses. However, the matterless forms or patterns (blueprints) are readily imaginable & meaningful to a rational mind that is trained to interpret those abstract patterns*3.

There are at least two kinds of "form" : Real Forms (physical instantiations) and Ideal Forms (mental abstractions). Metaphorically, those mental images have no "flesh" on their bones. So they could be described as "abstract patterns" or " "defleshed skeletons". But from a more common perspective, "formless matter" would be meaningless, like an "undefined definition". Material objects are the Real Forms from which we humans abstract ideas of Potential things (statistically possible, but not yet actualized). For example, in ancient times some people imagined Dragons, even though they had never seen one. Perhaps they combined three real patterns (definitions) : lizards, bats, and Greek Fire (flame throwing weapon) into a single abstract (unreal) concept : a flying, flame-throwing reptile.

When Plato asserted that Ideals are "more Real" than physical instantiations, he actually meant that they are "more Perfect". That's because material reality imposes physical limits on things, that could be ignored in an immaterial Ideal world. When an idealized house plan is converted into a real building, many compromises must be made to accommodate physical constraints. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright sometimes designed cantilevered roof overhangs that later drooped, because the wooden structure lost rigidity over time. He also designed beautiful innovative windows & skylights that later leaked, because the sealants available at the time deteriorated under ultraviolet light, and allowed water to penetrate. So, FLW was often described as "ahead of his time", and it took years for Actual technology to catch-up with his Potential imagination. :smile:


*1. Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argued, is the abstraction. He believed that ideas were more real than things. He developed a vision of two worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Platonic_idealism

*2. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Abstraction :
The essence of abstraction is preserving information that is relevant in a given context, and forgetting information that is irrelevant in that context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_science)

A BLUEPRINT IS NOT A HABITABLE HOUSE, but it is imaginable

Now here's an example of misusing Aristotle: for him form is not "abstract pattern or design" but the substantial actualization of potential (matter) as evidenced by your own footnote:
*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. — Gnomon — Janus

Thanks for your honest assessment. But 180 is the only poster on this forum that I cannot communicate with, due to his argumentation by name-calling, and his constant sniping. I may disagree with others, but the dialog usually remains civil. I can usually communicate with you because, even though our worldviews may be different, you don't often descend to snippy sophistry. So in the spirit of an "honest assessment", your attributions to me above are wrong.

FYI, when I followed the term "Form" with parenthetical information, it was not an attribution to (or misuse of) Aristotle; but merely alternative meanings of the word that are pertinent to my argument. I often expand defintions because some posters (especially 180) seem to insist on the simplistic "one word : one meaning" fallacy. In Philosophy though, we have to deal with the complexities of common language. For example, the excerpt below*1 indicates that the term Form was indeed equated with recognizable Patterns, "in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle". Moreover, there are accidental patterns (noise) and intentional or designed patterns (signal). And that distinction does make a difference in philosophical exchanges.

Not to beat a dead horse : In the Hylomorphism quote from my post, Aristotle makes a pertinent distinction between Potential (not yet real ; insubstantial) and Actual (substantial) Form. So, I was not "misusing" Aristotle. Your own preferred definition of Potential as "substantial actualization of potential", is in agreement with my assertion that, prior to actualization, Form is an unreal abstract idea : a pattern in the mind, not in matter*2. Do you agree that Abstractions are patterns stripped of substance? If so, then we can continue to discuss Monism. :smile:


*1. Form, In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the active, determining principle of a thing. The term was traditionally used to translate Plato’s eidos, by which he meant the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world;
https://www.britannica.com/summary/form-philosophy

*2. Is potential real? :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/54962/is-potential-real

Would society be better off as a matriarchy? If so, why? Or simply, would it be better off if both sexes were in balance, leading as a cooperative. — Benj96

I just read a historical novel about Cleopatra and her relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. In those days, men & women had little contact with each other outside the home. And both of those Roman generals, although married, were portrayed as casual womanizers.

Yet, when confronted with a woman of high intelligence, social position, and education --- daughters of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt were educated in Alexandria along with sons --- both of those manly men were inclined to "cooperate" with her --- at least in private. Even to the point of reluctantly accepting wise military strategy. But their own Roman leaders and military compatriots kept urging them to get rid of that "gypo" witch, who had beguiled them.

Nowadays, in some societies, women have gained some economic & educational equality with men. But for the population at large they still seem to be judged by ancient standards of hierarchy. And the resurrected appeal of Fascism, seems inclined to return women to lower levels of the social hierarchy, along with dark skinned people, and other Others. :smile:


When We were Gods, by Colin Falconer

You didn't inquire into my personal preferences, but spoke as if you knew what they were, and here you go again; assuming what my personal reactions are. But don't worry, I don't get offended by people in online exchanges, it's just ideas being exchanged, or ignored, or critiqued or whatever. — Janus

Actually, it's not always "just ideas" that are being exchanged on this forum. Sometimes it's ideas with emotional connotations (feelings) that are used, not to simply convey information, but to sneer at the worldview associated with those words.

As I said above, for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist. But for philosophical purposes, I am an Immaterialist (ideas about ideas). Consequently, when I insist on using immaterial (metaphysical)*2 language on a philosophy forum, some posters get riled-up. Sometimes an inquiry into weltanshauung itself triggers an emotional response*1. Monism is not a specific physical topic, but a general metaphysical belief system.

For example, has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above : "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential."*3. But in your case, I did not know in advance where you stood. Hence, the question about "personal preferences" of worldview. I want to know which toes are touchy, so I can avoid stepping on them.

Since he has made it clear that he trivializes my "Immaterial" (meta-physical) terminology as "inconsequential", I no longer dialog (dance) with him. On a philosophy forum, I expect metaphysical concepts ("ideas about ideas") to be taken seriously. If I wanted to discuss physical/material objects I would post on a Physics or Chemistry forum. As you said, "it's just ideas" -- immaterial concepts -- "being exchanged". Sticks & stones may step on your toes, but metaphysical words can't hurt you --- or can they? :smile:

*1. A worldview or a world-view or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[1] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. ____ Wiki

*2. Metaphysics :
Physics is all about nature, natural phenomenon, and our understanding of all relationships while metaphysics also tries to answer "why" questions. Why do we or universe exists or where have we come from and what is the cause of our existence are some of the questions that are tackled by metaphysics.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-physics-and-vs-metaphysics/

*3 Inconsequential :insignificant, unimportant, trivial, worthless . . .
___Oxford

Isn't Mathematical Platonism a common argument used to undermine physicalism — Tom Storm

Yes, philosophers have been debating Formalism (Platonism) versus Physicalism for millennia*1. But even Aristotle's theory of physical bodies combined Hyle (concrete matter) with Form (abstract pattern or design)*2. So, it seems that physical stuff and mathematical/logical patterns go together like birds of a feather. In reality, you can't have one without the other. But in ideality, Plato thought that the abstract Idea (form ; concept ; definition ; design ; pattern) of a real thing necessarily existed prior to its instantiation in the material world.

Consequently, a related question remains : which is primary, or which came first : real matter or the ideal potential for matter? The only scientific answer to that query may be the Astrophysics notion of "Singularity"*3. The astronomers traced the current contents of the universe back to near the beginning of space-time. From a Materialism perspective, they imagined that point in pre-time as infinite density of matter (e.g black hole). But from a slightly different angle (Mathism???) they viewed the point of "not yet" as the infinite density of gravity (a mathematical concept)*4. Whatever the Singularity is though, it is not a measurable material object. Hence unreal, or not yet real.

That's why I interpret the Big Bang theory as describing the point in pre-time where Ideality (potential) became Reality (actuality). But then, we could continue to argue about such hypothetical non-empirical concepts for a few more millennia. In the meantime, I agree with both Plato : that "Form is Ideal", and with Aristotle : that "Form + Matter = Real". So the complementary concept of "Ideal + Real = All Possibilities" is Monistic, not Pluralistic. :smile:


*1. Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato
Note -- Universal form (the idea of a kind of thing) is a category (generalization) that applies to all instances, hence it exists only as an Idea, not a particular thing.

*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism
Note -- Potential is a mathematical (statistical) concept, not a concrete tangible (actual) object

*3. Singularity : Physics•Mathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. ___Oxford
Note -- But philosophers want to know how that pre-real matter came to be compressed into the un-real density of Infinity.

*4. Gravitational Singularity :
A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Note -- An indefinite point is immeasurable, hence equivalent to zero (nothingness) or Infinity (everythingness). Or it could be defined as Potential (not yet real) instead of Actual (real thing).

I don't know why you are trying to bring what you speculate are my personal reactions to the term "immaterial" into the conversation. . . . . when something is said to be immaterial there are two common meanings: either that it doesn't exist or is unimportant, or that it exists in some way other than the material. — Janus

I didn't mean to offend you by inquiring into your personal preferences. But, it's that "some other way" definition of immaterial that is controversial. Besides, on this Philosophy Forum, personal feelings about hot-button words are all too often the crux of argumentation on divisive topics, as opposed to dictionary definitions.

As you noted, the use of "immaterial" could be simply a bland acknowledgment of the existence of abstract ideas, or a bitter put-down based on a negative value judgment against alternative belief systems. For example, "matter" & "antimatter" are usually not as emotionally laden as "material" & "immaterial". Some people highly value "spiritual concepts", while others openly despise them, or dismiss them as "immaterial". So, it's the emotional baggage attached to some words that make rational dialog difficult.

It doesn't matter to me personally which side of that divide you are on : a> immaterial good or b> immaterial bad. But in order to communicate I need to know which implicit meaning of the term you are intending. To be explicit, when I use the term "immaterial" or "meta-physical", I'm referring to concepts that may be "unimportant" for scientists, but centrally important for philosophers. Are you approaching the topic from the science side or the philosophy side? :smile:


Immaterial :
1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
2. un-real or non-existent
3. Philosophy -- spiritual, rather than physical.
___Oxford

Put-down :
a remark intended to humiliate or criticize someone.
___Oxford