The cosmos is ever present, but the agent who manages the potency of all symbolic truths within is like a candle in a draft. You may know what it is that combusts but the flame still dances in the wind.

So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? — Gnomon

:roll: Misplaced concreteness? Occam's Razor?

This is a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? Energy is non-thing concept, it's a knowable-but-not-seeable relationship between things. Energy is unreal & unbound Potential or Probablity that temporarily takes on actual bound forms (matter), causes change of shape or position, and then returns to its unreal immaterial state as latent possibility. Matter dissolves as energy dissipates, but only the Energy is conserved, in its formless form. — Gnomon

It isn't a 'physics seminar', yes, but if one uses the concepts of physics, it is seems to me correct to point out if they aren't used well.
In the case of energy, I believe you're reading too much in that physical quantity.

Even if you interpret it in a realist way, i.e. if you interpret 'energy' as a real property of something in the physical world 'out there', you can't neglect the fact that energy is defined as a property of something. That is, energy is always defined in reference to a physical system. So, it doesn't seem the case that 'energy' somehow is more ontologically fundamental than physical systems. Being a property, it is difficult to understand in which sense energy could 'exist' without any physical system.

However, one can also interpret energy in a non-realist way, i.e. as an useful concept that we use to make predictions, just like we now do with classical forces.

Note that this isn't a direct criticism on your own metaphysical position. It is just an observation on how careful I think we should be in interpreting physical quantities in a metaphysical way.

Can you imagine the number 5 without reifying it as something concrete? — Gnomon

To be fair, I don't think that mathematical entities should be treated like physical quantities. For one, I believe that while mathematical truths are timeless and non-contingent, physical theories are, in part, human inventions. This doesn't mean that they do not give us genuine knowledge but we should be careful to not confuse the 'map' (the conceptual apparatus of a physical theory) with the 'territory' (physical reality).

:up: :up:

In the case of energy, I believe you're reading too much in that physical quantity. . . . .
Note that this isn't a direct criticism on your own metaphysical position. It is just an observation on how careful I think we should be in interpreting physical quantities in a metaphysical way. — boundless

As you say, I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. If this was a Physics forum, that interpretation --- as a non-physical Qualia --- would be inappropriate. However, Please note that I never said or implied that Energy is not a physical Quantity. In philosophy though, we don't measure ideas in terms of numbers, but of meanings. Physically, Energy is measured in units of change : before & after difference*1, not in terms of substance. In philosophy, Causation & Change are measured in terms of information value*2 (meaning), not thermodynamic units.

I'm currently reading a book by Federico Faggin, who is not a philosopher, but a scientist : the inventor of the first practical microprocessor. However, this book, Irreducible, is about a philosophical worldview. Specifically, the nature & role of Consciousness in the real world. In his first two chapters, though, Faggin makes a philosophical distinction between Physical Reality and Quantum Reality. He says, "we experience and know the physical world around us, as well as our inner world, through Qualia." He goes on to divide Consciousness into three categories : perception, emotion, and qualia. He notes that "the third category is thoughts, although most scholars do not regard thoughts as qualia." Then he discusses how the human mind translates private immaterial meanings into public words that other humans can understand. "We are so used to the automatic reification of thoughts into symbols that we have stopped noticing the 'quale' which is the sentient experience of a thought."

Your comment seems to be implying that we should express units of Energy in physical Joules, instead of metaphysical meanings. However, I'm not a physicist, so in my philosophical thesis, I look at Energy from a different perspective*2. I take an abstract concept, which is invisible & immaterial --- known only by its effects on matter --- and represent it in concrete metaphors & analogies. That's the opposite of reification*3. Therefore, I am not denying that Energy has physical effects in the Real world*4. I'm merely noting the metaphysical*5 implications of that causal power in the mental meanings of human conception. On this forum, I do have to be very "careful" when I discuss distinctions between Physics and Meta-Physics. :smile:


*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. Therefore, if you reduce energy to its essence of Information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Reify : to represent something abstract as-if it's concrete.
Note --- In my post I was not reifying an abstraction, but just the opposite. Some people tend to imagine abstract Energy as-if (counterfactual) a material substance : "misplaced concreteness". Instead, I was Idealizing & generalizing the causal forces of the cosmos in terms of philosophical metaphors & analogies.

*4. Yes, energy is real, but it's best understood as a fundamental property of matter and fields, not a physical substance you can hold; it's the capacity to do work, always conserved (never created or destroyed), and manifests as motion (kinetic), stored potential, heat, light, and mass itself, allowing us to see its effects (movement, heat, light) even if energy itself isn't a tangible "thing" like a ball.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+real

*5. Meta-Physics :
Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. — Gnomon

:sparkle: :roll: wtf

If I already possess that divine "information", I am not aware of it. :smile:

That was precisely my point, we are not aware of it, but our soul is, or perhaps our spirit. It might just be our outer, more physical, self conscious self which isn’t.
Anyway, for me it is a meditation, or contemplation technique. The idea that to realise truth, I don’t need to go anywhere, to do anything else. I’m already at my destination (the answer, the truth) if I could but know it, but realise it. Human nature implores us to do things, to go places to achieve things, it’s programmed into us as a survival technique. In a sense that takes us away from the inner truth. The reason people go into monasteries and retreats is to reverse that process and return to their inner selves to some degree.

Your comment seems to be implying that we should express units of Energy in physical Joules, instead of metaphysical meanings. However, I'm not a physicist, so in my philosophical thesis, I look at Energy from a different perspective*2. I take an abstract concept, which is invisible & immaterial --- known only by its effects on matter --- and represent it in concrete metaphors & analogies. That's the opposite of reification*3. Therefore, I am not denying that Energy has physical effects in the Real world*4. I'm merely noting the metaphysical*5 implications of that causal power in the mental meanings of human conception. On this forum, I do have to be very "careful" when I discuss distinctions between Physics and Meta-Physics. :smile: — Gnomon

You're free to use the word 'energy' in a way that is different from the way it is used in Physics. However, you might encounter a problem when you try to equate the two concepts or say that they are equivalent in some sense. I was just pointing to this.

Ironically, I actually believe that a 'non-realist' view of physical quantities actually is a problem for some forms of 'metaphysical physicalism'.

You're free to use the word 'energy' in a way that is different from the way it is used in Physics. However, you might encounter a problem when you try to equate the two concepts or say that they are equivalent in some sense. I was just pointing to this.

Ironically, I actually believe that a 'non-realist' view of physical quantities actually is a problem for some forms of 'metaphysical physicalism'. — boundless

Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of Philosophy itself. Humans have been puzzled by the mysterious invisible cause of physical change for thousands of years. Primitive notions of Animism*1. imagined that living things were motivated by some spiritual agency, similar to the invisible wind that causes trees to sway & tremble as-if internally energized.

The ancients viewed Causation as purposeful. But modern Physics*2 imagined Energy as some intangible eternal property/quality of inert temporal matter that could be quantized (a quart of vacuum) for practical applications. 19th century pragmatic Science conveniently ignored the ultimate Cause of Change, and focused on the proximate instances of Transformation. Do you think we should not equate Energy with such creative processes as Metamorphosis (form change) and Evolution (physical change over eons of time)?

Ancient Greeks began to formulate primitive ideas about Causation & Change that would later influence modern physics. For example, Plato talked about dunamis (dynamics) and energeia (power). Even pragmatic Aristotle*3 characterized what we now call Energy, as un-actualized Potential seeking to become real in a process-of-becoming called Telos (purpose or goal).

Modern Physics uses the same old terms, but avoids any teleological or philosophical implications. Early on, quantum physics imagined Energy as tiny billiard balls, called Photons. But eventually, scientists were forced by the evidence to define the fundamental level of physics, not as tiny particles of matter, but as wishy-washy waves in a universal Field of potential (statistical) mathematical relationships.

Practical Physics is content to say that "sh*t happens", as long as it can quantize each event. But Theoretical Philosophy goes beyond observations of what happens to ask "why?" Are Energy & Causation & Transformation "unreal"*5 for you? :smile:


*1. Animism is a worldview, often found in indigenous cultures, that believes spirits or souls inhabit all things—living and non-living, like animals, plants, rocks, and rivers—giving them a spiritual essence, volition, and power, contrasting with Western ideas of separate mind/matter, and viewing the world as interconnected, where appeasing these powerful spirits through rituals maintains balance and well-being. It's seen less as a specific religion and more as a fundamental way of relating to a world full of conscious, experiencing entities, where human life and natural phenomena are deeply intertwined, influencing health, fortune, and history.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animism

*2. In physics, energy is the fundamental property of matter and systems that quantifies their capacity to do work or cause change, existing in diverse forms like kinetic (motion), potential (stored), thermal, chemical, or electromagnetic, and crucially, it's a conserved quantity, meaning it can transform but never be created or destroyed, only converted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*3. In philosophy, "energy" (from Greek energeia) originally meant activity, actuality, or being "at work," a concept developed by Aristotle to describe something in motion or fulfilling its function (telos), contrasting with potentiality (dynamis). While modern physics defines energy quantitatively (ability to do work), philosophical uses remain broad, encompassing mental/spiritual forces (psyche), vital life forces (pneuma, ka), and the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, linking to ideas of consciousness, being, and transformation beyond just physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+physics

*4. Causality in philosophy explores the fundamental relationship where one event (cause) produces another (effect), investigating what makes this link real, how we know it, and its role in explaining the world, moving beyond mere correlation to understand necessary connections, agency, and purpose, a concept debated from Aristotle's Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, Final) to Hume's skepticism about observing actual force, highlighting its importance for logic, science, and understanding reality's progression.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+causation

*5. Metaphysics isn't "real" in the sense of a tangible object, but it's a fundamental, "real" branch of philosophy exploring the nature of reality (existence, mind, time, causality, etc.), using logical reasoning, not empirical science, to ask questions science can't always answer, though some critics find its abstract speculation unfruitful compared to scientific reality. Its reality lies in its existence as a field of study and its foundational role in shaping how we understand the world, not in providing provable facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+metaphysics+reality
Note --- Physics explores Nature, while Metaphysics (philosophy) explores Human Nature.

Physics, not controversially, only exists as in the mathematic formal science and scientific rationalism and is not ever a fertile ground. Philosophy encompassing all phenomena of human existence is in the form of notions of existence abstracting to mental and spiritual determinants derived from the term you use animism which also encompasses life forces emanating from biological being, environment, tribe and culture.

For me, those who posit the scientific rationalism of an unrelated knowledge discipline are both ignoring of what they ever read of philosophy and culturally subverting the philosophy field by rehearsed heresies genuinely undermining the forum for refined intellectual discourse.

In defending philosophy culture and debate, it necessarily profits the course of philosophical inquiry by setting strict boundaries against proselytes of rational formal science and any of their verbal positing.

The force any argument gains socially and its political right is mediated by the strength of spirit towards certain ends regulated by the appropriate reception committee.

Forensically, I ask who it is and who it is not wise than to speak other than the concerns of the human sphere of existence?

Have you ever looked at the concept of Energy from a philosophical perspective? You ought to try it sometimes. It might broaden your understanding of Philosophy itself. — Gnomon

Yes, but I'm still convinced that you're reading too much into the concept. Note however, that this doesn't mean that your metaphysical outlook is 'off' or anything.

But modern Physics*2 imagined Energy as some intangible eternal property/quality of inert temporal matter that could be quantized (a quart of vacuum) for practical applications. — Gnomon

Nothing in here and in the reference you quoted go beyond the 'realist' interpretation that is admissible in physics. But despite the appearances it isn't like a 'potential' in the metaphysical sense.

Also, it isn't the only interpretation is admissible in physics. You can also think as a purely conceptual tool that is useful to predictions etc.

Ancient Greeks began to formulate primitive ideas about Causation & Change that would later influence modern physics. For example, Plato talked about dunamis (dynamics) and energeia (power). Even pragmatic Aristotle*3 characterized what we now call Energy, as un-actualized Potential seeking to become real in a process-of-becoming called Telos (purpose or goal). — Gnomon

I dispute the fact that these philosophers had what we label as 'energy' in mind when they talked about 'dynamis', 'energeia' and 'potentiality'. These concepts might have inspired later physicists to develop the concept of 'energy' but they aren't necessarily referring to the same thing.
Also, this doesn't mean that these ancient concepts are wrong.

Modern Physics uses the same old terms, but avoids any teleological or philosophical implications. — Gnomon

Yes, hence the confusion. Actually, I believe that physicists themselves should be more careful in how to explain the concepts they use.

For instance, one might try to say that a 'seed' has the 'potentiality' to become a 'plant'. However, in this potentiality the concept of 'energy' as it is used by modern physics has no role. Rather the Aristotelian concept is more similar to a controversial concept that has been advanced by David Bohm and Basil Hiley, which you might find congenial as it is more similar to how you think about 'energy': Active Information.

I say 'controversial' because it is unclear if such a concept is amenable of scientific research or if it still purely philosophical.

Yes, but I'm still convinced that you're reading too much into the concept. Note however, that this doesn't mean that your metaphysical outlook is 'off' or anything. — boundless

Again, you seem to be afraid of crossing the Enlightenment line between Science and Religion. But Philosophy is similar to Religion only in its focus on the non-physical (mental, spiritual) aspects of the world. Philosophy has no Bible and no Pope. So each thinker can be a rogue priest. My childhood religion was antithetical to Catholicism, in that it downplayed rituals & miracles, and focused on reasonable verifiable beliefs. I still retain some of that skeptical rational attitude, even though I no longer congregate with those of "like precious faith". In fact, Faith is a four-letter word for me.

Nothing in here and in the reference you quoted go beyond the 'realist' interpretation that is admissible in physics. But despite the appearances it isn't like a 'potential' in the metaphysical sense. — boundless

Before I retired, my education was mostly Pragmatic & Realistic. And my only college course related to philosophy was Logic, but that was a math requirement, and not very philosophical. Even though I am now exploring some Idealistic concepts mainly associated with Philosophy, most of my reading sources are professional scientists, not academic philosophers. But if I "go beyond" the bounds of materialistic Physics, my direction is influenced mainly by astro-physicists (cosmologist), such as Paul Davies, and Quantum physicists, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Max Planck. If you are interested enough to invest some time, I can show you how 17th century notions of practical Potential became idealized & philosophized in the 20th century*1. :nerd:

I dispute the fact that these philosophers had what we label as 'energy' in mind when they talked about 'dynamis', 'energeia' and 'potentiality'. These concepts might have inspired later physicists to develop the concept of 'energy' but they aren't necessarily referring to the same thing.
Also, this doesn't mean that these ancient concepts are wrong. — boundless

Of course, the primitive philosophers 1500 years ago, did not have the detailed scientific knowledge of the 21st century. So, their concepts were more general & visionary than our modern technical details. So, as you say, "those ancient concepts are not wrong", but they are more philosophical than physical. Speaking of "physical" can you define Dynamics, Energy, and Potential in material terms --- without using abstract philosophical notions such as "capacity", "ability", "causal" & "essence"? What is Energy made of? Where can I find Potential in the real world? :wink:

Yes, hence the confusion. Actually, I believe that physicists themselves should be more careful in how to explain the concepts they use. . . . .
I say 'controversial' because it is unclear if such a concept is amenable of scientific research or if it still purely philosophical. — boundless

Again, you seem "careful" to draw a hard line between Physics and Philosophy. But, especially since the quantum revolution, Physics was forced, by the Uncertainty Principle and the indeterminacy of quantum phenomena, to resort to philosophical reasoning for descriptions & interpretations of the real world's ideal foundation*4. Physics is no longer purely mechanical, nor purely philosophical, but a complex adaptive system of both. :cool:


*1. The word "potential" maintained its core meaning of "possible as opposed to actual" across both the 17th and 20th centuries, but its usage evolved significantly, particularly with its development as a specific scientific term in the later period.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+17th+century+20th+century
Note --- That "later period" was the era when Einstein's Relativity, Shannon's Information, and Quantum Physics revolutionized the science of Physics. Possible does not "go beyond" Actual & Real, it is a priori and Ideal. Potential is not a physical thing, it is a Metaphysical concept.

*2. Energy : In essence, while energy's definition (ability to do work) remains, quantum physics reveals its granular nature, probabilistic behavior, and mathematical description through operators and wave functions, revolutionizing our understanding of the microscopic world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+energy+in+quantum+physics

*3. Yes, quantum physics is deeply intertwined with philosophy, especially the philosophy of physics, because its strange findings (like superposition, non-locality) challenge our fundamental understanding of reality, causality, and knowledge, forcing physicists and philosophers to debate interpretations of what the math truly means for the universe, moving beyond simple "shut up and calculate" to explore profound questions about what exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+is+philosophy

*4. Quantum idealism connects quantum physics's strangeness (like wave-particle duality and measurement problems) with philosophical idealism, suggesting reality isn't independent but depends on observation or mind, proposing that physical properties only manifest upon interaction. While early founders like Bohr and Heisenberg hinted at this, modern physics often uses decoherence to explain collapse without consciousness, though some philosophers and physicists still link quantum phenomena to mind-dependent reality or information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+idealism

Again, you seem to be afraid of crossing the Enlightenment line between Science and Religion. But Philosophy is similar to Religion only in its focus on the non-physical (mental, spiritual) aspects of the world. Philosophy has no Bible and no Pope. So each thinker can be a rogue priest. My childhood religion was antithetical to Catholicism, in that it downplayed rituals & miracles, and focused on reasonable verifiable beliefs. I still retain some of that skeptical rational attitude, even though I no longer congregate with those of "like precious faith". In fact, Faith is a four-letter word for me. — Gnomon

Not sure why you would say this. I am neither against religion nor philosophy. What I want to point out is to be careful to 'mix' them with science.

ut if I "go beyond" the bounds of materialistic Physics, my direction is influenced mainly by astro-physicists (cosmologist), such as Paul Davies, and Quantum physicists, such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Max Planck. — Gnomon

Sure none of them seemed to hold a 'materialist' view of things. However, someone like Schrödinger who was very explicit in his endorsement of a quasi-Advaita Vedanta metaphysics, never said that quantum mechanics suggested that. Rather, he interpreted all physical theories as statistical theories.
One can think that modern physics doesn't support necessarily 'non-physicalist' views and still have reason to support them.

Regarding quantum mechanics, in particular, there are many interpretations. So using it as 'proof' of any kind of metaphysical view is IMO problematic. At least, one should aknowledge that it is one's own interpretation and not what the 'theory' says.

Of course, the primitive philosophers 1500 years ago, did not have the detailed scientific knowledge of the 21st century. So, their concepts were more general & visionary than our modern technical details. — Gnomon

Or perhaps they are still right because they didn't refer to what we now refer when we speak about of 'energy' or 'momentum'.

Speaking of "physical" can you define Dynamics, Energy, and Potential in material terms --- without using abstract philosophical notions such as "capacity", "ability", "causal" & "essence"? What is Energy made of? Where can I find Potential in the real world? :wink: — Gnomon

Yes, you can. For instance, classical mechanics can be done without saying that 'forces' are real. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches are a way to do that. In other words, it might sound strange but it is actually common since the 19th century to treat physical quantities as 'useful fictions', so to speak, rather than properties of the 'world out there'.

Another example is QM itself. If you take literally the basic theory of QM and interpret the wavefunction as a physical entity, you end up endorsing a lot of bizzarre claim. In fact, most supporters of a 'Copenaghen' interpretation nowadays think that the wavefunction is simply a way to encode the information we have about a physical system. Its 'collapse' is an update of knowledge. This avoids being forced to say that a particle is in two mutually contradictory states.

Again, you seem "careful" to draw a hard line between Physics and Philosophy. But, especially since the quantum revolution, Physics was forced, by the Uncertainty Principle and the indeterminacy of quantum phenomena, to resort to philosophical reasoning for descriptions & interpretations of the real world's ideal foundation*4. Physics is no longer purely mechanical, nor purely philosophical, but a complex adaptive system of both. :cool: — Gnomon

I sort of agree with that. I would, however, say that the 'revolutions' in 20th century physics made us more aware that we should be careful to be 'literalist' about our scientific theories.

To make an example, classical Newtonian mechanics has been 'proven wrong' only if it is interpreted as an ontological description of the world. If you interpret it as a predictive model it is in fact pretty good.

Not sure why you would say this. I am neither against religion nor philosophy. What I want to point out is to be careful to 'mix' them with science. — boundless

Nor am I. But the 17th century Enlightenment revolution (Age of Reason) tried to draw a hard line between rational Science & emotional Religion, between empirical Physics and theoretical Metaphysics. Thereafter, "soft" Philosophy was typically lumped, by hard rational scientists, into the off-limits Religion category. And that Mind/Matter segregation worked for several centuries. Eventually though, 20th century Quantum Physics turned the Either/Or hard line into a Both/And probability wave. Today the Matter/Mind line of distinction is between Hardware and Software, but the mechanical stuff doesn't work without the mental stuff.

Why I would say that you are afraid of crossing that line in the sand? It's because you repeatedly warn me to be "careful". But I don't accept that arbitrary division of Philosophy into Nature and Supernature. For me, it's all Science and all Philosophy, and Nature includes both Mind and Matter, both flesh and emotions. The human Mind (consciousness, "soul", software) seems to be a product of eons of material evolution. So the study of the intangible, immaterial aspects of Nature should not be taboo for Science or Philosophy*1.

Physics may try to limit its subject matter to Matter only. But Quantum Physics made that policy of apartheid very difficult*2. So, I don't accept that, no longer valid, distinction between Matter Science and Mind Science. Which is why I label my personal philosophy as BothAnd*3. :smile:


*1. Mixing science and philosophy involves using philosophy (like logic, epistemology, metaphysics) to clarify scientific concepts, guide research, interpret findings, and explore implications, while science provides empirical data to inform philosophical questions about knowledge, reality, and ethics, creating a symbiotic relationship where philosophy shapes the 'why' and 'how' of science, and science grounds philosophy in reality. This interplay, historically linked as "natural philosophy," helps refine scientific methods, address biases, and understand humanity's place in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mix+science+and+philosophy

*2. Yes, quantum physics explores the link between mind and matter, suggesting consciousness (mind) influences physical reality (matter) through concepts like wave function collapse and the observer effect, where attention changes outcomes, leading to theories like the "quantum mind" that propose consciousness isn't just a brain byproduct but a fundamental aspect of the universe, influencing matter's emergence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+includes+mind+and+matter
Note --- The "line" between Mind & Matter is described as a "link" not a divide.

*3. BothAnd vs Either/Or Philosophy :
The BothAnd philosophy requires holistic spectrum thinking instead of reductive & exclusive, black/white, & all-or-nothing reasoning. It assumes that the thinker has no privileged god-like perspective on the world, but instead, a private relative point-of-view. So, its conclusions are not absolute Either/Or, but more like probable Bayesian beliefs. Yet, why would anyone prefer the uncertainty of Probability (maybe-maybe not) to the confidence of two-value (either/or) reasoning? Some philosophers aspire to a complete & perfect Ideal model of the world, but others are content to construct a more realistic interpretation of the data & facts available to human observers.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note --- Materialism is a hypothetical & idealized model of the natural world, which somehow evolved Minds capable of inferring natural laws and ideal models.

Why I would say that you are afraid of crossing that line in the sand? It's because you repeatedly warn me to be "careful". But I don't accept that arbitrary division of Philosophy into Nature and Supernature. For me, it's all Science and all Philosophy, and Nature includes both Mind and Matter, both flesh and emotions. The human Mind (consciousness, "soul", software) seems to be a product of eons of material evolution. So the study of the intangible, immaterial aspects of Nature should not be taboo for Science or Philosophy*1. — Gnomon

My 'suggestions' do not come from a 'scientistic' perspective or anything like that. Rather, they come from a desire to clarify the use of concepts in their own context. To make another example, the 'software' of a computer isn't like our mind, in my opinion. For instance, arguably, a very complex 'mechanical calculator' could perform the tasks 'electronic computers' do. They are both algorithmic. I do not think that there is sufficient evidence to say that our minds are also algorithmic (in fact, our experience of 'deliberation' makes quite difficult to believe they are IMO).

Physics may try to limit its subject matter to Matter only. But Quantum Physics made that policy of apartheid very difficult*2. So, I don't accept that, no longer valid, distinction between Matter Science and Mind Science. Which is why I label my personal philosophy as BothAnd*3. :smile: — Gnomon

Again, I believe it is useful to clarify where the 'science' stops and where 'philosophy' begins. Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role. And those who do assign a role to the 'observer' generally believe that the role is purely epistemic, i.e. quantum mechanics is more like a recipe to compute how the knowledge or beliefs of an observer about a physical system evolve rather than how the physical system evolves. Other interpretations like 'many worlds', 'de Broglie-Bohm', 'relational interpretation', even some strands of 'Copenaghen' and so on do not treat 'conscious observers' as 'special'. The problem with all these interpretations is that there is no reliable experimental way to falsify one or another. So, at the purely scientific level they are equivalent. In any case, it is clear that QM doesn't force a special, 'causal' role of the 'mind' on 'matter'. Indeed, that seems an unwarranted speculation. However, epistemic interpretations IMO have their merit but, being epistemic, they do not claim to give us a 'picture' of "how the world is in itself".

They, however, all agree that QM is a very useful recipe to predict the results of past and future measurements and its usefulness for applications. This might be the 'scientific consensus'. I believe that it is best to be clear about this before claiming that 'QM' is 'evidence beyond doubt' for or against any particular metaphysical view.

My 'suggestions' do not come from a 'scientistic' perspective or anything like that. Rather, they come from a desire to clarify the use of concepts in their own context. To make another example, the 'software' of a computer isn't like our mind, in my opinion. — boundless

In a technical "scientistic" context, computer software does not work like the human mind. But in a philosophical (metaphorical) context, the human mind's relation to the brain is analogous to the software of a computer. Can you accept that notion, for the sake of philosophical reasoning? :chin:

Again, I believe it is useful to clarify where the 'science' stops and where 'philosophy' begins. Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role. And those who do assign a role to the 'observer' generally believe that the role is purely epistemic, — boundless

Again, you seem to be seeking a hard line to distinguish empirical science from theoretical philosophy. But in practice, those categories overlap ; making the dividing "line" difficult to draw. For example, Einstein was a theoretical scientist, not an empirical technician*1. Someone asked him, "if you're a scientist, where is your laboratory?" He smiled, and simply held up a pencil. So, his revolutionary ideas --- challenging classical physics, and opening Pandora's Box of quantum physics --- went beyond the current ability of lab-rats to verify or falsify. So, was he a hard scientist, or a soft philosopher?

When you say, "Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role."*2, you are ignoring the many scientists (Kristof Koch, et al) who affirm that the human mind is unique in nature. Hence, the "hard problem" of science. And you are taking sides in a long-running philosophical debate, that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence. So yes, the human mind is "purely epistemic", and not empirical. Hence, philosophical, not scientific ; and appropriate for discussion on a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. :wink:


*1. Albert Einstein was fundamentally a scientist (a theoretical physicist) whose groundbreaking work in relativity and quantum mechanics profoundly impacted science, but he was also deeply engaged with philosophy, especially the philosophy of science, questioning core assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics, bridging the gap between the two fields. While not a professional philosopher, his philosophical mindset drove his scientific inquiries and led him to comment extensively on life, morality, and humanity, making him both a towering scientist and a significant philosophical thinker.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+philosopher+or+scientists

*2. Role of Mind is an epiphenomenon : That statement reflects a prevalent viewpoint within the physics community, where most physicists argue against the 'mind' having a special or non-physical role in the universe [1]. This perspective generally aligns with physicalism or materialism, the philosophical stance that everything that exists is purely physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Many+physicists+would+deny+that+the+%27mind%27+has+some+kind+of+special+role.
Note --- As the quote indicates, the dismissal of Mind as a real phenomenon is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical belief. Those -isms are belief systems, not factual statements*3.

*3. Materialism is fundamentally a philosophy, but it strongly influences (and is often confused with) science, acting as a foundational assumption for much of natural science by asserting only matter and physical laws are real, though critics argue this stance is limiting and doesn't fully explain consciousness or subjective experience, pointing to an "explanatory gap" between matter and feeling. While materialism (the belief that only matter exists) underpins much scientific inquiry by defining what's investigable, it's a metaphysical stance, not a testable scientific theory itself, and some argue science can progress better with broader philosophical perspective
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+is+philosophy+not+science

As a high-level (speculative "what if") summary corrective to the "bad physics" on which so much New Age nonsense is based and twisted by poor reasoning into "pseudo-metaphysics" on this thread (particularly by @Gnomon), consider this brief YouTube presentation:

In a technical "scientistic" context, computer software does not work like the human mind. But in a philosophical (metaphorical) context, the human mind's relation to the brain is analogous to the software of a computer. Can you accept that notion, for the sake of philosophical reasoning? :chin: — Gnomon

Yes and No. Yes, because in some sense the 'hardware-software' two different 'aspects' of a computer. However, 'no' because it suggests that human minds and computer softwares are more similar than what they are. It doesn't seem the case that computers have qualitative experiences and deliberation.

For example, Einstein was a theoretical scientist — Gnomon

Nobody disputes that. But like other theoretical physicists, Einstein introduced theories that were able to predict the results of past and future experiments.

When you say, "Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role."*2, you are ignoring the many scientists (Kristof Koch, et al) who affirm that the human mind is unique in nature. Hence, the "hard problem" of science — Gnomon

Here's the problem of 'mixing' concepts of different contexts. Yes, the 'hard problem' is very relevant. But there is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time.

It is good to be aware of that before taking speculation as 'scientific evidence'.

In truth if I possessed a language model of only ten words. I would only be able to imagine and express my own concepts relating to external ones with my own self limiting vocabulary. Wearing the garb of Physics is that ten word vocabulary.

*3. Materialism is fundamentally a philosophy, but it strongly influences (and is often confused with) science, acting as a foundational assumption for much of natural science by asserting only matter and physical laws are real, though critics argue this stance is limiting and doesn't fully explain consciousness or subjective experience, pointing to an "explanatory gap" between matter and feeling. While materialism (the belief that only matter exists) underpins much scientific inquiry by defining what's investigable, it's a metaphysical stance, not a testable scientific theory itself, and some argue science can progress better with broader philosophical perspective — Gnomon

Wanted to add that, ironically, while you're right that 'metaphysical naturalism' isn't implied by scientific knowledge alone but it is speculative, a similar argument can be raised against those who believe that scientific knowledge 'proves' other metaphysical positions or that other metaphysical positions should 'guide' scientific activity.
This is why, incidentally, I am stressing the importance of clarify what exactly physical theories say and what is speculation.

My ten word vocabulary distinguishes between, "doctrine" and the concerns of philosophical inquiry.

[T]here is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time. — boundless

:100: :up:

@Gnomon
@Wayfarer
... and the rest of the :sparkle: Quantum Woo Crew :sparkle: who incorrigibly ignore scientific evidence.

Here's the problem of 'mixing' concepts of different contexts. Yes, the 'hard problem' is very relevant. But there is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time. — boundless

It's not clear what you're saying.

Quantum mechanics is an attempt to describe the behaviour of all matter and energy in the universe. If consciousness exists and is a physical phenomenon then quantum mechanics can, in principle, explain the origin and behaviour of consciousness. And consciousness, like every other physical phenomenon in the universe, interacts with and affects the behaviour of its environment. So just as the physical phenomenon of electricity can "move" any surrounding matter — both at the quantum scale and the macro scale — so too can the physical phenomenon of consciousness.

It seems to me that to deny that consciousness plays a role in the behaviour of other physical phenomena is to either deny that consciousness exists or to deny that consciousness is physical (and so is some other kind of phenomena that is affected by but cannot in return affect physical phenomena).

Does anybody really deny that consciousness is a phenomena of living matter? It is only a trick of mirrors that evolves the notion where consciousness dwells outside, and in humans perceives itself in things and objects outside itself
by feats of mental processing underpinned by biological mechanisms. I would argue it is the chemical and electrical level in the mechanics in the brain which yields expression of the smallest blocks of elemental materials common to all that exists as unifying and observable to particle science. The mechanics of consciousness are at a well observed chemical and electrical macro level of functionality. Whereas inert matter not possessing such mechanical marvel, has not reserved for its self or the evolutionary wellbeing of multi modes of processing homeostasis for activity, or the abstract arrangements codified in language as animals. The main fallacy as always is to take a token phrase such as "consciousness" and present in basic sentences projecting it as a reified point of inquiry relating to a mismatched consideration of meanings in inorganic science.

Quantum mechanics is an attempt to describe the behaviour of all matter and energy in the universe — Michael

As I said, 'energy' is a property of physical systems. So, it is better to say 'behaviour of matter'.

If consciousness exists and is a physical phenomenon then quantum mechanics can, in principle, explain the origin and behaviour of consciousness. And consciousness, like every other physical phenomenon in the universe, interacts with and affects the behaviour of its environment. So just as the physical phenomenon of electricity can "move" any surrounding matter — both at the quantum scale and the macro scale — so too can the physical phenomenon of consciousness. — Michael

This is IMO unrelated to the point I was making. I was criticizing the view that consciousness plays a causal role in the processes described by quantum mechanics. It is true that some physicists (IIRC people like Wigner, Henry Stapp probably von Neumann) supported the idea that during measurements the observation done by a conscious observer 'modifies' the quantum system. But this view assumes that (1) the wavefunction is a real thing and (2) that consciousness is what is needed to cause the wavefunction collapse. Nowadays most proponents of Copenaghen, QBism etc say that the 'collapse' is a mere update of an observer's knowledge/degree of belief and they are emphatic that the wavefunction isn't something 'real'. This BTW means that QM isn't seen as a 'description' of physical reality but a predictive tool.

We should be clear about what physical theories actually say and when 'interpretations' and 'speculations' begin.
Even in classical physics there has been some controversy about how to interpret 'forces'. Are they 'real'? Are they conceptual tools useful for us? Is a 'literal' interpretation of classical mechanics the only tenable one? And so on. But note that we are going outside 'physics' here. 'Classical mechanics' itself is silent on how we should think about the ontology of forces, physical quantities like 'energy' and so on.

And BTW, perhaps 'consciousness' can't be described by quantum mechanics even it is seen as emergent from physical processes. You have to assume a reductionistic kind of emergence to think that.
Furthermore, I have no idea how can consciousness be defined in physical terms.

It seems to me that to deny that consciousness plays a role in the behaviour of other physical phenomena is to either deny that consciousness exists or to deny that consciousness is physical (and so is some other kind of phenomena that is affected by but cannot in return affect physical phenomena). — Michael

At best here one denies that QM really can describe every process in the natural world. But in any case, it is not relevant to my point.

Yes and No. Yes, because in some sense the 'hardware-software' two different 'aspects' of a computer. However, 'no' because it suggests that human minds and computer softwares are more similar than what they are. It doesn't seem the case that computers have qualitative experiences and deliberation. — boundless

The hardware/software metaphor --- figure of speech --- for the human brain/mind is intended to evoke similarity, not sameness or identity. I did not intend to imply that computers have qualitative experiences. In fact, the book I'm currently reading --- Irreducible, by computer scientist Federico Faggin --- is explicitly intended to deny that materialist implication. Unfortunately, his philosophical counter-theory might not appeal to you, and I have difficulty with it myself. But it would be appropriate for this thread, if somebody else wanted to defend his model of brain as receiver of consciousness. :smile:

Here's the problem of 'mixing' concepts of different contexts. Yes, the 'hard problem' is very relevant. But there is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time. . . .
It is good to be aware of that before taking speculation as 'scientific evidence'. — boundless

Are you implying that I don't know the difference between Physics and Philosophy? Are you mistaking my philosophical metaphors for scientific facts? This is a philosophy forum, so why would I be making empirical assertions? Do you think I should refrain from speculation on The Philosophy Forum? I'll let you argue with Faggin --- inventor of microprocessors --- about the "role" of consciousness in quantum physics. I find his "speculation" hard to believe, but I can't deny that his detailed reasoning points in the direction that the OP found hard to accept : that Consciousness is not generated by the brain, but received from an external source.

in the early days of Quantum Physics, the "mixers" of those empirical & theoretical concepts were "hard" scientists, who were also trained in "soft" philosophy in European schools*2. They were clearly aware of the difference between evidence and speculation, but they combined those categories anyway. Later, Richard Feynman, who denigrated philosophy, advised his students to "shut up and calculate"*3. On the other hand, the policy of The Philosophy Forum might be "shut up and speculate". :nerd:


*1. A metaphor compares two different things by saying one is the other (e.g., "Love is a battlefield"), creating a strong, direct connection, while a simile says one thing is like or as another (e.g., "Love is like a battlefield") using "like" or "as" for a clearer, less forceful comparison, both aiming to highlight shared qualities without being literally true, unlike an analogy, which explains a complex idea by showing how two things are similar in a more logical, extended way (e.g., brain is like a computer)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphor+similar+not+same
Note --- Philosophers are not scientists, and don't deal in empirical Facts, but in imaginary metaphors, similes, and analogies. But on this forum, some posters cross the line in the opposite direction from your warnings to "be careful". Asserting that computers can think like humans, including the experience of Qualia.

*2. Werner Heisenberg One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg viewed science and philosophy as inseparable. He saw his uncertainty principle as a reflection of the limits of human knowledge and was influenced by philosophical ideas in developing his theories.
Erwin Schrödinger A Nobel-winning physicist, he also had a deep interest in philosophy, and his famous cat thought experiment was designed to highlight the counter-intuitive philosophical implications of quantum theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+scientists+trained+in+philosophy

*3. The phrase "Shut Up and Calculate!" is often misattributed to Richard Feynman; it was actually coined by physicist David Mermin to describe the pragmatic, instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics, which focuses on mathematical predictions rather than deep philosophical interpretations, though Feynman also expressed skepticism about understanding quantum mechanics' deeper meaning, advocating a similar focus on results. The saying signifies relying on quantum theory's powerful predictive tools (like the wave function) without getting stuck on its baffling conceptual paradoxes (like measurement), a method Mermin later acknowledged as incomplete but effective.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shut+up+and+calculate+feynman
Note --- In other words, leave the "conceptual paradoxes" to the feckless philosophers. Ironically, Pragmatism is a philosophical attitude, and approach, to controversial & confusing ideas. But Faggin goes beyond the empirical evidence to conclude that quantum physics has a deeper meaning than the pragmatic, results oriented, instrumentalist approach. Are you warning me to avoid such heresies to scientific Truth? Or would you agree, that the fact that quantum physics is the foundation of modern technology, does not deny that it has "deeper" implications for philosophy?

But this view assumes that (1) the wavefunction is a real thing and (2) that consciousness is what is needed to cause the wavefunction collapse. — boundless

Well, I'd at least question the use of the phrase "is needed" in (2). If the wave function is real and quantum states really are in a superposition until something collapses them then that doesn't entail the binary choice between either a) only consciousness can collapse the wave function or b) only something other than consciousness can collapse the wave function. There's also c) consciousness and other things can collapse the wave function.

Maybe consciousness isn't special, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. It's just as real and world-affecting as any other physical phenomenon, and maybe it (sometimes) does play a (non-unique) role in collapsing the wave function (if there is such a thing).