• Metaphysics - what is it?
    Anyone else read Philosophy Now?

    A neat argument that much of modern theoretical physics is actually bad metaphysics.     — Banno
    Yes, I read that. It's why many people find justification for their traditional religious beliefs in Quantum Theory and other cutting-edge notions that stray from the "hard" physics of Isaac Newton. But my semi-religious worldview is basically an update of ancient notions of "Soul" and "Spirit" in terms of the current understanding of how the world works. e.g. No mercurial gods on thrones, but a nerdy cosmic Programmer running an evolutionary program. :smile:

    "many of the theories embraced by theoretical physicists today look like what Smolin calls 'metaphysical fantasies'."
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Ah, I see you are already aware of Deacon's work. — Janus
    Yes. I was impressed with his non-reductionist approach to the question of how Life might have emerged from non-life. Although, as a scientist, he was careful to avoid crossing the line into metaphysics, "the power of absence" is essentially a metaphysical concept, in the sense that it is not an observation but an inference.

    A related book is, Neither Ghost Nor Machine, The Emergence and Nature of Selves, by Jeremy Sherman, a member of Deacon's team. Ironically, from the perspective of my Enformationism worldview, I would say that the human Self (Soul) is both Ghost (metaphysical) and Machine (physical) : both Immaterial and Material; both Subjective and Objective..

    The Ghost in The Organism : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    So, yes, these "potential realities" do not "exist in spacetime" rather they give rise to the actuality that is spacetime. This is also in line with what apokrisis used to go on about; the idea of the "apeiron" and all that. For another take on this idea see also Incomplete Nature by Terence Deacon. — Janus
    Good point! This potential vs real argument is another example of how "binary thinking" (either/or, black/white, real/ideal dichotomies) can be confusing when philosophical discussions get way down close to apeiron (infinity). That's why I prefer to speak in terms of a physics/metaphysics continuum. In the Enformationism theory, there is no hard line between Physics (matter) and Meta-Physics (mind). It's all shape-shifting Information, all the way down.

    Terrance Deacon, in his attempt to describe how living organisms evolved from non-living things, introduced the paradoxical concept of "the power of absence". This would make no sense to those who are limited to rigid categories. But in Deacon's worldview, Potential is an absence that has the power to create a presence, as-if it was a black hole sucking things into its orbit via gravity, and popping them out on the other side as a new Actuality. A similar concept is the physics of Strange Attractors that seem to exert a pulling "force" toward an empty place in space. Such "absences" seem to be part of our scientific reality, even though they have no material existence. They can only be understood in terms of logical/mathematical Information relationships.

    Power of Absence : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    ↪Gnomon
    Sounds a bit like the realist (hindu) version of my idealist structure.     — Coben
    No. I am both Realist and Idealist (both Physics and Metaphysics). The extension of my Enformationism thesis is the BothAnd Blog.

    Blog : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? :wink: — Pattern-chaser
    Metaphysics is "weird" only in the sense that Religion and Science are weird : they are based on invisible intangible spooky forces or agents (like Energy & Gravity & Magnetism).
    “Metaphysics is an evaluation of the more encompassing abstract paradigms. Metaphysics is essentially on a par with religion because of its low possibility of provability. Besides for religion’s diminutive degree of empiricism and logic, the only major difference between the two is that religion entails behavior modification. Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value.”
    Dave Davidson
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-existence-of-Metaphysics
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics. — Metaphysician Undercover
    :up:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    The primary substance is confusion. — Coben
    Ha! That's getting deep into metaphysics. And off-topic.

    But from the perspective of Enformationism, I think of Greek Chaos as a field of randomness (entropy), like a TV screen with no signal (ordering energy). And Cosmos is the result of applying organizing information (signal) to disorderly static. So in that sense, confusion was indeed the original state of the world, and the "substance" (raw material) from which the Enformer created our little on-going program, like a TV screen with a meaningful image. Is that clear as chaos?
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy. — Pattern-chaser
    The battery metaphor is an analogy between things that are physically different, but functionally similar.

    . It was not intended to be taken literally. Since no-one knows what Energy is*, we must define it in terms of what it does. In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. Does that clarify your confusion?

    * Energy is a form of Information. But that's a whole 'nother can of metaphysical worms.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But unless you're physicalist, then you will question whether what exists 'in a physical sense' is really the benchmark of 'what is real' - contra the general understanding. After all, physics itself has been unable to locate a truly indivisible particle - well, at least one that can be shown to exist outside the elaborate mathematical model of the 'particle zoo'. — Wayfarer
    That's why I prefer to use "physical" or "metaphysical" instead of "real" or "ideal". Plato asserted that his ideal Forms were the true reality, but that does not compute for most people who equate "physical" with "real". In my thesis, Information is both real and ideal; both physical and metaphysical. So I think of it as the intermediary between reality and ideality.

    I think the better model of the rational mind is as 'that which perceives meaning'. There is no way to derive 'meaning' from neurobiology, without already assuming that ability; it's not something one can approach 'from the outside', so to speak, because every attempt to understand the relationship between brain and thinking must be an act of interpretation. — Wayfarer
    True.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    You lose me a bit with your terminology. — javra
    I feel your pain. :worry:

    Since Enformationism is a new way of thinking about the world, I was forced to coin a lot of neologisms to avoid the historical baggage of older terms. A.N. Whitehead (Process and Reality) also coined a lot of new terms and used some old words with new meanings. But he didn't provide a list of those novel ideas for reference. So, although his ideas seemed to make sense in general, I found that following his argument was very difficult due to the ambiguity of terminology. That's why I have created a glossary of Enformationism terminology on a separate website. But if you were really interested in understanding the scientific & philosophical concept that "Information is the essence of reality" in more detail, it would be best to begin at the beginning by reading the whole thesis.

    Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

    Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

    In your system of representations, is "Zero" (non-being) the same as "G*D" (infinite BEING as transcendent potential)? If yes, they why all the comments on how they are different? If no, then how do you not start off with zero/non-being so as to arrive at being? — javra
    I wouldn't worry about such hypotheticals. I don't know any more about G*D than you do. I just have a different way of thinking about G*D.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    While I admire the enthusiasm for philosophy you appear to have, I disagree with a number of your premises - as best as I can make them out. I, for example, do agree with Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical. — javra
    Apparently you missed the point. I did not mean to imply that Potential was an isolated power with no connection to Actuality. My analogy of a battery was intended to show how potential can be delayed indefinitely until a choice is made to actualize. To elucidate, G*D is presumed to be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that all possibilities must be actualized all the time.

    A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). But in practice, there is usually an on/off switch between the positive and negative poles, to allow the user to decide when and where the actualization takes place.That's a real world example, but the logic should apply to the ideal world of an omnipotent deity who exercises freewill in choosing when & where (self-control) to apply her otherwise unlimited power. :smile:

    I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. — javra
    The distinction was intended as a clarification of application, not as a personal put-down.

    since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with. — javra
    I didn't say "purposes", but "functions". The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. In folk philosophy, functions are often reified as-if they are invisible agents.

    "Transportation" is what an automobile does, its function, not an invisible force pushing things around. "Consciousness" is what a brain does, not a disembodied spirit that operates the body & brain like a homunculus in the head. A lot of people would disagree with that assertion, because they believe in an immortal soul, imprisoned in a mortal body..

    To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra
    No. I believe that individual beings can arise from universal BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design.

    BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
    G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Care to explain what you mean by "live option"? — Metaphysician Undercover
    William James defined a "live choice" by contrast to a "dead choice". Obviously, these are metaphors, and probably used to avoid having to say "a real choice", which might imply an ideal/real distinction. A "live choice" is not forced by some outside power, or even logically necessary, but a spontaneous and preferred option -- a freewill choice.
  • A description of God?
    Can we come to an agreed description of God, or is that just a pipe dream? — Pattern-chaser
    Yes. :smile:

    Polytheistic gods, like Zeus and Shiva, have been extensively described over the centuries. But singular capital "G" God, as in monotheism, is generally viewed as undefinable and indescribable. The Jews were so in awe of such a mind-boggling concept that they were even afraid to pronounce the name of God, as-if defining the infinite would be demeaning.

    But, in general, the god concept has always, in all times, and in all cultures, been the ultimate answer to all mysteries . . . to all philosophical questions: How did the world begin? Where did I come from? Why is the world the way it is? Why is the world so imperfect and evil? And to many personal questions : Will I ever be truely loved? Where did my beloved go at death? How can I avoid the evils of tomorrow?

    In recent centuries though, Science has found mundane answers to many of those old philosophical riddles. By describing the physical universe in fine detail, it has almost put philosophers out of their job of answering Big Questions. Meanwhile, astrologers and psychics and fortune-tellers have provided vague-but-effective answers for minor personal uncertainties. So, the only niche left for impractical idealistic philosophers was the quaint category of murky meta-physics : the catch-all for leftover enigmas, not otherwise addressed by pragmatic Physics or sympathetic Psychics.

    But now, Science has whittled the material world down to intangible particles & invisible fields, and found that -- lo and behold -- the foundation of physics is grounded on immaterial metaphysics. So, maybe philosophers, the experts on trans-physics matters, can regain some of their lost stature by looking again at the big questions from the perspective of modern physics and cosmology instead of ancient myths and traditions.

    If God is infinite. If God is ALL. Then any descriptions we might come up with will necessarily be incomplete, and maybe misleading, and always controversial. But Philosophers have never been afraid to go where angels fear to name names. :cool:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. — Wayfarer
    Reification : This is how a lot of metaphorical and metaphysical concepts get converted into religious ghosts, spirits, demons, and gods, complete with physical descriptions. For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized. — javra
    Since my theory of Enformationism is intended to be a scientific theory, I don't normally think in terms of religious concepts. I do use them as analogies and metaphors, such as Brahman = G*D. However, I can see that you might interpret the "heat death" of the universe as a sort of NIrvana (extinguishment, flame going out). Whether it is Moksha or Samsara (emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release), I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't apply to me personally, but perhaps to the hypothetical sentient universe (Omega Point) of deChardin.

    Besides, the current end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it theory of heat death is actually hyperbolic, in the sense that it approaches infinity (singularity), but never reaches it. So, mathematically, all the energy (information) that the universe began with would fade away, but never disappear completely. Nevertheless, I sometimes imagine that all of the information in this world would complete its cycle by returning to its origin in the eternal-infinite Mind of G*D. But, again, I have no idea of what that would have to do with me personally.

    Generic EnFormAction can become anything. But the Information that defines me is unique. Of course, G*D could reincarnate my Self-information, but I don't know why that would happen. Does G*D love me personally? I don't know, but I doubt it.

    Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness") — javra
    If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point, no. It would still be a part of this creation, this evolving space-time universe. And it would take a miracle to turn it into an eternal deity. So it would be a "being" (a something) instead of "BEING" (no-thing). Perhaps, a very intelligent and powerful being, but not a world-creating deity.

    In my thesis, "nothingness" refers only to the absence of real material things. By contrast, "G*D" refers to all possible (potential but un-actualized) entities. For me, that is basically a mathematical concept instead of a religious notion. I don't expect salvation or liberation from cycles of death and rebirth. As far as I know, this life is a one-shot deal.

    If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. — javra
    I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential).

    awareness does not exist. — javra
    Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    As per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. — javra
    I normally use the word "Zero" in the modern sense of nothingness. But, the Greeks, possibly including Pythagoras, found the notion of non-being abhorrent**. For them, the circle was more like a Venn diagram, presumed to contain all possible things, hence Wholeness

    Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). That's why I sometimes think of the cosmic compass (or the mathematical number line) beginning at Zero and ending as Infinity, hence encompassing all possible things. In which case Zero and Infinity are the same point in the circle of being .


    ** Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    ↪Gnomon
    You might find Ervin Lazlo's idea interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3     — Janus
    Yes, his theory of an Akashic Field is similar to my notion of the universal Quantum Field as a web or fabric of Information interrelationships. Since his theory was inspired by Hindu philosophy, I might mention that my notion of G*D is similar to the philosophical concept of Brahman (ultimate reality or Ideality). But I try to avoid mixing-in some of the spicy religious flavor of Hindu Religion, in which Brahman is just another humanoid god. Deepak Chopra also seems to include some outdated Hindu science (e.g. Prana) in his writings on related subjects.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Do you see the "choice", as an actuality which is distinct from both the voltage and amperage? If the voltage is potential, it could sit there forever without an actuality (choice in this case) to actualize it. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". As I said before, years ago, I began as an Agnostic, and was trying to avoid attributing Purpose, Will, Choice, to the First Cause. That original position would now be something like a Multiverse, blindly and randomly changing the bits & pieces of reality without any plan or purpose. But I have been forced by the evidence to admit that the creation of our world in a Big Bang was intentional. Yet I doubt that the Grand Goal is to create a race of sycophantic worshipers. So I don't know for sure what the ultimate Telos of evolution might be. All I know is that the universe is moving toward some Omega Point.

    So, yes, Infinite Potential would be impotent without the power to Choose the final form of Temporal Actuality (Reality). But, since evolution seems to be inherently random, it requires Natural Selection (circumstantial choice by context) to guide it to some non-random outcome. That allows for some freedom within destiny, as exemplified by the emergence of Cultural Selection to nudge evolution toward human ends.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    So, it is in a sense the 'relations between things' but I feel as though you're not really cutting through to the profound sense in which such relations and laws represent an underlying logos which guides and directs all things: not as a 'god' through acts of will but because they constitute the 'fabric of the cosmos. — Wayfarer
    The "profound sense" of logical structure and causal power in the world, is what I call EnFormAction.EFA is also equivalent to Greek Logos. But both EFA and Logos are messengers (so to speak) not the source of creative power. The Telos is in the "mind of G*D".

    At first, I was reluctant to attribute conscious teleological choices to the Source (G*D) of the power and intent that creates Cosmos from Chaos (unformed potential). But after exploring how and why the cosmos works as it does, I was forced to view the creation (via evolution) as an intentional act of will*. I don't know how Choice and Will might work in an immaterial infinite & eternal setting. But it seems to be analogous to human design or programming, using the basic mathematical language of 1s & 0s (something or nothing, on or off, being or non-being).

    Therefore, Information (power to enform or create) is indeed the "fabric of the cosmos". By that I mean, mathematical relationships (ratios) are the threads that bind the material of the universe together. Here's an image showing nodes (nouns, stuff) and links (verbs, actions) in a dynamic system : https://previews.123rf.com/images/ramcreative/ramcreative1505/ramcreative150500006/40368993-global-network-sphere-abstract-geometric-spherical-shape-with-triangular-faces-globe-design-.jpg


    * "There is purpose, then, in what is, and in what happens, in Nature" ---Aristotle, Metaphysics
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    How can you say that a potential can cause something if you uphold the distinction between potential and actual and see that an act is required as a cause? — Metaphysician Undercover
    It's a fine philosophical distinction. Of course, in the real world Potential & Actual occur in pairs : Voltage & Amperage. But, the voltage in a battery can exist unrealized for years, until a circuit is completed by the user (plug it into a device and close the on-off switch). So, in Eternity & Infinity, transcendent Potential could theoretically exist independently, until triggered by a choice, an intention, which completes a circuit from Ideal to Real and back to Ideal again. In this analogy, G*D is both battery and user, both potential and actualizer. The device is our universe.

    Sure, but do you see that possessing the power to cause a world to exist is different from actually causing the world to exist? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes. See the reply above. If G*D is only potential, nothing would ever happen. That's why I assume that G*D must also have Intention, Will, Telos. Of course I don't know how these things would work outside of space-time-matter-energy. It's a mystery. :smile:

    No, voltage is a description, not a prediction. According to Wikipedia it is the difference in electric potential between two points. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Voltage is a description of what will happen in the future when a path between those two points is completed. Voltage is also Information in the sense of a "difference that makes a difference" : it causes change.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Gnomon
    read these two paragraphs. Substitute 'to exist' for 'to be'.     — Wayfarer
    "God as creator is then a kind of transcendent non-being above the being of creation.

    He says "God is" (exists in some sense), but is also "non-being". That's why I use the neologism of BEING to refer to that which exists in a transcendent sense as the potential for creation of something from nothing, real from ideal.

    No. The ancients meant something different to what we mean by 'cause' - they meant in a broader 'the reason why things exist'. — Wayfarer
    Yes, Laymen and philosophers mean something different by "cause". Most people think in terms of proximate causes (energy), while others look for ultimate causes (EnFormAction).
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    along the lines that 'information is information, it is not matter or energy'. — Wayfarer
    Generic Information is multi-faceted and hard to pin down to one thing. In Macro Physics, energy and information are not usually equated. But in Quantum Physics the relationship is a necessary conclusion. En-Form-Action is potential for a change in form. Energy is also the potential for change. But EFA is a metaphysical concept, while Energy is a physical concept. A Quantum Field (potential or virtual particles) is a metaphysical concept that exists only in a mathematical sense. But when a real particle appears from empty space, a unit of (vacuum) energy is assumed to have been expended. Quantum language is so metaphorical and vacuous that it seems paradoxical.
    Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

    All of which is true but it's still unclear what information means in a general sense. To me it seems that information is only structured to any significant degree in living beings and in minds, and I find that significant. — Wayfarer
    There are two meanings for the word "structure". For most folks it's the physical posts & beams that a building is made of. But, for an engineer, the structure is a diagram of forces and reactions (vectors). Information is both concrete structure (things) and abstract structure (relationships between things).
    Generic Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

    I distinguish what is real from what (merely) exists. The phenomenal domain comprises existing things, but 'existence' itself is always a combination of the real and the unreal. Whereas forms, numbers etc are real but not existent - they don't have to exist, things do the hard work of existing. — Wayfarer
    In my list of examples -- "BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal" -- the distinction between Real & Ideal is Concrete vs Abstract and Actual vs Potential. So G*D is not a real being (thing), but the ideal state of BEING. Ideal objects "exist" only in minds, not in matter.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But then you say that EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual. Therefore it must be something actual, and also separate from infinite potential, which you call BEING. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes. BEING (G*D) is infinite potential, and is not real. But EnFormAction is the power of G*D in the world, and is real in the same sense that Energy is real. As a historical analogy, EFA is similar to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Jehovah doesn't have to come down to Earth to enforce his Will. Instead, he sends his Spirit to do the job. It's just a metaphor. Don't take it too literally.

    I think the ancients were smart people trying to understand how and why the world works as it does. In the pre-scientific ages, supernatural gods were plausible concepts to explain the mysterious causes of natural events. Today, we call those causes by the name of Energy and Forces. They obviously have effects in the real world, but we know them only by their works, not as ding an sich.

    I'm still grasping for the hows & whys, but I don't have a divine revelation to set me straight. So, I use the tools of fallible human philosophy and science. :cool:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But don't you recognize that infinite potential could not contain any actuality, and therefore could not be a cause of anything? — Metaphysician Undercover
    You are missing the power of potential. If a potential is not capable of causing anything, it's not potential, it's impotent. By definition, the cause of our world possessed the creative power to cause a world to exist. Whether the First Cause was a god or an infinite regression of universes, it necessarily possessed the power to actualize something new that didn't exist before. In my thesis, infinite BEING is omnipotential, but the existence of our universe was conditional. A choice was required. An intention was enforced. I know nothing about infinity, except what Logic mandates.

    In the battery example. Voltage (potential) doesn't do any work. It's Amperage that causes change. But without the voltage, there would be no amperage. Without BEING, there would be no beings.

    You cannot really say that the potential of the battery has no properties because you have already defined it as 1.5 volts. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Voltage is not a property, it's a prediction.

    Because any 'real' potential is limited in this way, it doesn't make any sense to speak of unlimited, or infinite potential. — Metaphysician Undercover
    The Potential I'm talking about is not Real, it's Ideal. Nothing in reality is infinite. Infinity and Eternity are unlimited, by definition. BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal. Hence, not restricted by the laws of physics.

    Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover
    I rest my case. :smile:
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    But in any case, the model you're suggesting is still basically physicalist, i.e., it equates meaning and intelligence with information that can be digitally encoded. — Wayfarer
    The Star Trek analogy was indeed a "physicalist" model of the mind and the soul. That's where all sci-fi stories of uploading minds into computers go wrong. They assume the information is recorded in the brain like data on a hard drive. Yet data is just meaningless abstractions until interpreted by a mind.

    But my concept of Information is Idealist. It's true that mental information can be encoded as symbols into a computer, but the meaning of those symbols is not transmitted. Instead, the recipient is assumed to already know their meaning. Any new knowledge they receive is by inference in the mind of the recipient. Unlike, physical things, metaphysical Information is something I can give away, and still have it. The medium is not the message.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    'Information' and 'meaning' differ in significant ways. People nowadays will refer to 'information' as if it is a fundamental category in its own right, like 'mind' or 'matter'. But the problem is, the word itself is polysemic, meaning different things in different contexts. It's not like a metaphysical simple. — Wayfarer
    Yes. Those words, like most language, can be ambiguous. But as a "metaphysical simple" I'd use the term "information" in the sense of the basic bit of understanding or meaning : 1 or 0; is or ain't; existing or non-existing; being or non-being. Every other bit or byte of knowledge is built upon that fundamental categorical distinction. It's the "difference that makes a difference".

    Claude Shannon separated the traditional definition of "information" from meaning-in-a-mind (knowledge) because -- as an engineer, not a philosopher -- he was focused on the carrier-of-information, instead of the content : meaning.

    human mental capacities have clearly evolved, but when they have evolved to the point of reason, language and abstraction, then they in some sense transcend the biological. Which is something that most modern philosophy has trouble recognising. — Wayfarer
    In my concept of evolution -- not Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Evolution -- the advent of human mind signaled a transition from Nature to Culture. Human culture advances at a much more rapid pace than biological evolution. But I refer to it as just another "Phase Change" instead of a special miracle.

    Mainstream philosophers still seem to have physics envy. But quite a few philosophers and scientists are returning to the roots of Natural Philosophy, by investigating some ancient notions rejected by materialist science : Panpsychism, Idealism, Elan Vital, etc. I have reviewed several of those in my blog. The problem is that acknowledging the growing power of the collective mind can be twisted into a justification for ancient notions of mind-over-matter magic. By emphasizing mundane Information rather than exotic concepts of Consciousness (souls; ghosts), I try to avoid such unwarranted implications.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    One point of caution is that the Aristotelian term that was translated as 'substance' was Ousia which is nothing like 'substance' in the every day sense. — Wayfarer
    Yes. I use the term "substance" (ousia) in the sense of spiritual essence rather than material stuff.

    If ousia doesn't refer to 'a' being, it's because it refers to the 'concept of man' rather than 'this or that man'. But again, it's nothing like 'substance' in the modern sense, nor is it anything like the modern conception of matter. — Wayfarer
    In the Bible, ousia was typically used to mean "spirit" in the sense of the non-physical essence of a person. In my thesis, I try to avoid the religious baggage of "spirit" by substituting "self" or "self-concept". It's the pattern of information that defines a person : his Platonic Form.

    PS__Here's an analogy to make sense of "ousia" as information. In Star Trek, the Transporter scans a human body or an object, and converts its constituent information into a stream of data (1s & 0s) that it beams to a different location, where it transforms the information back into matter as a replica of the original. That abstract data is equivalent to the "soul" (spirit or essence) of the person. Presumably, the material for the body is sourced locally. A philosophical problem with the sci-fi Transporter that has been discussed is this : "is the reformed replica the same person, or a clone?" Of course in non-fiction Nature, we assume that there is only one unique Form (soul) of a person. So, no doppelgangers.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Interesting. But how do you allow for intelligence? What is it that recognises concepts? And what are concepts? Is that intelligence something you think is a product of evolution? — Wayfarer
    Yes. As a result of the work by EnFormAction, Information (meaning) is inherent in matter. This is a form of ancient Panpsychism, except that consciousness emerges gradually in the process of evolution. Basic elements of matter have information content, but are not conscious in the sense that more highly-evolved animals are. In evolutionary terms, Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Unlike most animals though, Human intelligence has learned to change its environmental circumstance for its own benefit, by creating Culture from Nature.

    As the First Cause of everything in the world, BEING must have the potential for intelligence and consciousness, but may have no actual intelligence until realized in space & time.

    The fundamental Concept is the difference between something and nothing, 1 or 0, as in the basic Bit of computer information. All other concepts are multiples of 1s and 0s.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a thing has physical existence, there is a cause of its existence, what you call "the cause of physical properties". After all, having physical properties is the same as having physical existence. This cause is what you call EnFormAction. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, the essence of EnFormAction is conditional existence : to be or not to be. In digital Information, the essence of meaningful form is 1 or 0, something or nothing. So, the First Cause of EnFormAction (creative power or energy) is BEING (the power to be; infinite potential). BEING (which I call G*D) is eternal, but non-physical. Physical beings are limited to space-time. Hence, back to digital information, 0 is non-physical potential, and 1 is physical actual. Likewise, BEING is potential (non-physical; meta-physical) and EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual : 0 into 1.

    Now, is that clear as mud? The thesis leads up to this conclusion gradually, so it should make more sense in the end. A simple analogy is a small battery in an electrical device. It is rated at 1.5 volts. But that potential voltage has no properties until it is actualized by completing a circuit from potential to actual and back; from nothing to something and back to no-thing (no property). The energy produced by the battery has no properties itself, except for sensible changes in the material through which it flows : heat, light, communication, etc.

    PS__Although I refer to BEING as G*D, to give it a common reference point, this philosophical thesis is intended to be scientific instead of religious.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Substance is what has properties, so you can't really describe it by referring to what properties it has. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Aristotle found it difficult to pin down "substance" to a single definition, so he gave two candidates : Platonic "Form" and Physical "Matter". Material substance is what our senses are attuned to. But Form (information) as a substance is detected only by our sixth sense of Reason (pattern recognition).

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

    So, when I asked what substance Matter is made of, I was not referring to its physical substance, but to its formal substance : the cause of physical properties. In my personal Theory of Everything, I call that essence of both Matter and Energy "EnFormAction" : the power to enform. It's a simple concept, but so far from conventional scientific understanding, that it requires lots of explanation to dispel knee-jerk reactions. It's a secular theory that combines ancient philosophical & religious notions (First Cause, Divine Will) with cutting-edge science (Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics).

    EnFormAction http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    metaphysics as a publishing-industry catch-all for squishier occult interests. — Jack-N
    Yes. Unfortunately, metaphysical Philosophy has been contaminated by association with various mind-over-matter notions (magical thinking) among aficionados of the occult arts. Those "arts" typically use the techniques of stage magic (misdirection, concealment, etc) to simulate psychokinesis or psychic mind-reading. Those mind-games are much more popular than the artless (unfeigned) discipline of philosophical metaphysics.
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Energy is not what matter is composed of, it is a property of moving objects. — Metaphysician Undercover
    As I said, energy is defined by what it does, not by what it is (essence). Energy is indeed a quality (attribute) of matter, like the redness of an apple, which exists, not in the apple but in the mind of the observer. A Quale is a subjective experience, not an objective thing. So, Energy (potential) is metaphysical, but it can become actual & physical in the sense of E = MC2. Perhaps I should have said that Energy is what Mass is composed of. Mass is also a property of Matter. So again, what substance is Matter or Mass made of?
    Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
    Metaphysics "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind." http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

    Yes, philosophy is relevant, as necessary to avoid misunderstanding, like above. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Since quantum physics deals with "things" that are not actual or physical (virtual particles, quantum field), it necessarily involves philosophical metaphysical reasoning about abstractions rather than empirical objects. Quantum theory is paradoxical, and subject to misunderstanding, because it necessarily uses material metaphors to discuss immaterial concepts.
    Field a mathematical concept (set) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field
    "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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
  • Metaphysics - what is it?
    Instead of looking at the real, physical world, he looks at the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge and tries to discern if particular patterns emerge. The scientist does that with the real, physical world, . . . — alcontali

    Until the 20th century, scientists did indeed examine the real, physical world. But since the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory, physicists have been discovering that the fundamentals of reality are more theoretical & metaphysical than empirical & physical. Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles are far from the physics of Isaac Newton. Matter is now known to be composed of Energy, but what is energy made of? Nobody knows, so the essence of energy is undefined. Massless photons are described as "waves" without a medium. Gravity is no longer an attractive force, causing "spooky action at a distance", but merely the curved "fabric" of matterless space.

    So, it seems to me that Natural Philosophy evolved into Modern Science around the time of Newton. But after Einstein, the cutting edge of Science has been moving deeper into the abstract realm of theory and metaphysics. So Philosophy is becoming relevant again for understanding the real world.

    Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • What knowing feels like
    I think that the distinction between reason and faith is not a very helpful one in this context. My understanding of your belief is that they are the heart of the matter. Please set me straight if I'm wrong. — T Clark

    My personality is self-critical. So I have never had the feeling of self-confidence and certainty that you, and many others, seem to have. Consequently, I am constantly testing my personal beliefs and feelings against those of other people -- as in this thread -- to see if they know something I don't. Likewise, I have learned that my intuition often jumps to unwarranted conclusions, so I use my meager reasoning abilities to examine my BoK closely, looking for flaws. I also was raised in a fundamentalist religion, where human reason was considered dangerous in matters of faith.

    Hence, for me personally, you are correct, that making a distinction between Reason and Faith is essential to my search for a reliable body of knowledge. Although that critical attitude toward beliefs in general causes my BoK to be less rigid than the firm ground of True Believers, as you said : "When push comes to shove, the body of knowledge is mine." That's why I take care to keep it cleaned-up and weeded-out from contamination with false beliefs. :smile:

    PS___If my comments are off-topic and irrelevant, I will apologize for hijacking your thread.
  • What knowing feels like
    Actually, there is one "Metaphysics - What is It," that Pattern-chaser started and which closed out last week. Maybe PC wouldn't mind us reopening it to discuss this issue. — T Clark

    I don't think that's necessary. We are simply talking about two kinds of knowledge : the personal kind that is validated by feelings (physical), and the abstract kind that is out there beyond our grasp (metaphysical). If you don't think metaphysics is a "useful" concept, then there would be no point in discussing it regarding the private "feeling of knowing" versus the general set of "what is known" (science), or the universal set of "what is knowable" (epistemology).

    My original comment was simply an attempt to point-out that the visceral feeling of knowing is equivalent to Faith --- what's true for you, may not be true for me. Faith is based on a fractional understanding of reality. Only by sharing and comparing our personal beliefs can we get a feeling for truth and knowledge in a more general sense.

    "The paradox is that for knowledge to count as knowledge at all, it must be processed in an individual consciousness"
    ___Stephen Anderson review of LOGOS

    "The point, however, remains : we individually know little of what is known."
    ___Raymond Tallis, LOGOS
  • What is the difference between subjective idealism (e.g. Berkeley) and absolute idealism (e.g. Hegel
    that there is one perceiver, or mind; God, or the Absolute. — philosophy

    I suspect that Berkeley and Hegel were looking at the same thing from different perspectives. Berkeley was discussing how a human perceives the world from inside the system (subjective). Hegel was trying to imagine the world from outside the system, from God's point of view (objective).

    So, actually, there are two "perceivers" (perspectives), the relative creature and the absolute Creator. We get confused when we don't make clear which point of view we are talking about.
  • What knowing feels like
    I don't believe the idea of objective or absolute truth is a very useful one. — T Clark

    Chasing the dream of absolute Truth is not practical for materialistic purposes. Pragmatic empirical scientists like Richard Feynman are sometimes dismissive of idealistic theoretical philosophers. They waste their time chasing unicorns. But Einstein was an idealistic theoretical scientist, and there were no known applications for some of his flights of imagination (like riding on a light beam). But his abstract and paradoxical concepts opened the door to technologies that would have seemed like magic in his day. It's necessary for scientists in atom smashers and chemical labs to be realistic. But it's also necessary for theoretical scientists (and philosophers) exploring beyond the current paradigm to be somewhat idealistic. It takes all kinds. :smile:


    “Shoot for the stars, but if you happen to miss, shoot for the moon instead.”
    ― Neil Armstrong
  • What knowing feels like
    Has anyone ever, in the long history of the world, come anywhere close to finding "some objective worldview that all reasonable people can agree on? Answer - No." — T Clark

    That's true, but has any subjective worldview come close to absolute Truth? We can either strive to get closer to objective truth, or give-up that dream of mutual understanding, and just retreat into our little isolated cells of solipsism. It's the realization that an insular worldview leads to misunderstanding and mutual distrust that drives us to seek the holy grail of unbiased objectivity.

    Our disagreement may be a case of Ethical Subjectivism (realism) versus Ethical Objectivism (idealism). There is some validity to both views. But I am too aware of my own ignorance to have the know-it-all feeling of certainty that some people seem to take pride in.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

    "Successive epochs are associated with an ever expanding body of knowledge and, possibly, bandwidth of understanding. Such growth, what is more, is driven by a willed sense of our ignorance, by cultivated doubt, by active uncertainty, by the feeling, based on previous experience, that our objectivity has serious limits."
    ___Raymond Tallis, LOGOS
  • Omega Point Cosmology, God
    However there's the idea of a technological singularity which, if achieved, would lead to exponential growth in technology - there would be no upper bound to what can be achieved. — TheMadFool

    I appreciate the reasoning of deChardin, Tipler and Kurzweil. But I doubt that the physical universe is destined to become a god. Of course, higher technology may seem like god-like powers to lower tech creatures. But there is an upper bound to the possibilities of evolution. It's called the Heat Death of the universe, when Entropy turns all organized matter & energy (and technology) into foggy Chaos.

    However, I have a theory that the final dispersion of physical reality will merely return the contents of this world back to the metaphysical Prime Mover that created it. From Alpha to Omega and back again to Alpha. That hypothesis is based on my understanding that all energy & matter in the world is essentially immaterial Information, similar to the virtual (unreal) particles (mathematical definitions) in a quantum field. Maybe, someday, I'll write a book.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
  • What knowing feels like
    I really disagree with this. There is no reason to translate feelings into facts. Facts are never neutral. As I've said, you can't reach the truth without human values. As I alluded to in the OP, there is only one world. — T Clark

    Then we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, the function of Philosophy, as opposed to Religion, is to find some objective worldview that all reasonable people can agree on. Religion is inherently subjective and biased, and its power comes from appealing to feelings.

    I'm not clear - is this what you believe or what you think I believe? Either way, I have no argument with the thought. — T Clark

    That was a quote that seemed to answer the implicit intent behind the topical question. I agree with the quote as stated, but it omits the pragmatic reason for Philosophy's attempt to discover absolute Truth in order to mediate between the relative truths of human feelings. The TV series Closer to Truth was an example of a scientist trying to find common ground between personal opinions and objective facts. Rational philosophy will never reach absolute Truth (God's values), but by canceling-out conflicting human values, we may get closer to a general truth that we can all live with.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_to_Truth
Home » Gnomon