Therefore, both Energy and Causation convert something that is not-yet-Real, but only conceptually Possible, into a Real perceptible Effect. — Gnomon

:zip: wtf

The reason why I objected to your use of the physical concept of 'energy' in this discussion is because I believe that, by doing so, there is a danger of equivocation. While it might be true that scientists in the modern era developed the concept while inspired by something like the Aristotelian concept of 'potency', the way it is actually used in physics is different.

I'm not really sure why many scientists* see in 'energy' something more than a concept that is useful to make predictions, applications and so on. However, if one wants to go with a 'realist' interpretation of 'energy', you end up with considering it as a quantifiable property of physical objects or systems the value of which varies or stays the same according to precise 'regularities'.

Perhaps, the recent insistence on seeing 'energy' as a sort of metaphysical 'entity' that somehow is foundational of 'reality' is due to what, in my opinion, is a misinterpretation of Einstein's mass-equivalence that rests on a further misinterpretation of what 'mass' is.

Of course, 'mass' is often introduced as 'the quantity of matter'. But even in high school physics, such a definition is gradually replaced by subtler defintions like 'inertial mass', i.e. the resistance of an object to change its state of motion, and 'gravitational mass', i.e. the 'degree' of how much an object interacts gravitationally (i.e. it has an analogous role of the electric charge in electromagnetic interaction).

It would be very odd to me to attribute such a foundational role to something like the above descriptions of mass or something like energy one form of which is 'kinetic energy' which depends on the speed of an object (and the speed depends on the reference frame).

*At least when they seem to present energy as the 'stuff' that in some sense 'makes up the universe'.

causation investigates the fundamental nature, structure, and existence of cause-and-effect relationships — Gnomon

I'm advancing some truths about causation, light, and time; I may expound upon their how's and whys in subsequent posts…

Causality is primary, not time. Time is our way of keeping track of causal order. Causality is enforced by light; it’s a network of allowed influences, not like a flowing river. Time is what massive, interacting systems construct because light is limited in its finite speed.

The Universe is an ongoing act of illumination, event by event, and Time is the wake left by light touching matter.

The Lamp goes first; the World comes after that—
No Step is real beyond its lighted path.
Each Cup is Time, poured only where we stand,
And Fate pours less than Thirst would dare to ask.

Time is not given whole, but earned by light.
Where no ray reaches, no “when” may yet be said.
Thus the World grows—not as a block revealed,
But as a poem written while read.

Light is a necessity when a universe must be self-consistent. It is a constraint; it sits at the boundary between what can and cannot happen. Light is the minimal structure that satisfies finite signal speed,
local time, incomplete futures, and event-based becoming.

The Lamp is not chosen by the Saki;
The Lamp is what allows pouring at all;
The Lamp is not a character;
It is the condition of narration.

The Lamp is the condition under which objects can appear, so to speak.

The Lamp is not the wine, nor even the flame—
but without it, no cup could ever be named.

Causal structure is fundamental and light is the simplest physical realization of that structure and is how causality shows itself in our universe. Causality is the minimum condition for there to be a universe at all. Causality is not a law among laws, but It is the precondition for laws.

[deleted]

↪Gnomon
The reason why I objected to your use of the physical concept of 'energy' in this discussion is because I believe that, by doing so, there is a danger of equivocation. While it might be true that scientists in the modern era developed the concept while inspired by something like the Aristotelian concept of 'potency', the way it is actually used in physics is different. — boundless

Since this is a philosophical forum, I'm more interested in the the metaphysical way philosophers use the term "Energy" than the physical way scientists define it. And yet, the way both scientists and philosophers conceive of Energy changed dramatically in the 20th century : from a physical substance (phlogiston) to a mathematical statistic (probability)*1. The man-on-the-street probably finds the new notion confusing or ambiguous. But do you think making that Math vs Matter distinction is a case of "equivocation" or "prevarication"? :brow:


*1. After the advent of quantum mechanics, energy is no longer considered a strictly continuous, deterministic quantity, but rather a quantized, probabilistic, and operator-based property (\(E=hf\)) that remains conserved on average while allowing for fleeting, microscopic fluctuations. It is fundamental to the wave function and state of particles, with energy existing in discrete, stable levels.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=concept+of+energy+after+quantum

*At least when they seem to present energy as the 'stuff' that in some sense 'makes up the universe'. — boundless

Do you object to the 21st century scientific consensus that invisible Energy is fundamental to the knowable universe*2? It's still the "stuff" of physical reality, but it's different from Democritus' Atomism. Even Dark Matter is assumed to be made of Energy in the sense of Einstein's equation : E = MC^2. That intangible "stuff" may seem to invalidate traditional Atomism/Materialism by replacing a substance with an essence*3. But, is that an "equivocation", or a philosophical distinction? :chin:


*2. The universe is predominantly composed of dark energy ($\sim$68%) and dark matter ($\sim$27%), with ordinary matter making up less than 5%. Dark energy acts as a repulsive force driving accelerated expansion, while dark matter provides gravitational attraction for structure formation. These components are thought to exist as fundamental quantum fields or energy densities permeating space.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fundamental+energy+makes+up+the+universe
Note --- Quantum Fields are not made of matter, but of mathematical relationships. Materialistic Scientists strenuously objected to that spooky notion at first, but now they "shut-up and calculate".

*3, Substance and essence are key metaphysical concepts distinguishing what a thing is (essence) from that which exists and bears properties (substance). Essence constitutes the fundamental, defining, and necessary properties that make a thing what it is (e.g., humanity), while substance refers to the individual, independent, and persistent entity that holds those properties (e.g., a specific human).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=substance+vs+essence
Note --- Properties are not material objects but mental subjective qualia.

Causality is primary, not time. Time is our way of keeping track of causal order. Causality is enforced by light; it’s a network of allowed influences, not like a flowing river. Time is what massive, interacting systems construct because light is limited in its finite speed. — PoeticUniverse

Well put! And I agree. Your fluent expression reminds me of Richard Feynman's counterintuitive notion that "light doesn't flow"*1. :smile:


*1. Based on Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics (QED) and path integral formulation,
light does not "flow" like a classical particle along a single path. Instead, a photon takes all possible paths simultaneously from source to detector, with each path contributing a quantum amplitude, or a "spinning clock" value.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=feynman+light+doesn%27t+flow

So, the notion that there are "many degrees of reality" sounded to me like the pseudo-scientific notion of multiple "Dimensions" in the world, some accessible to the physical senses, and others that are knowable only by the Third Eye of extra-sensory perception. — Gnomon

Thanks for your replies to the "fundamentality of Causation" and the "ambiguity of Energy" questions. So, now what do you think about the "many degrees of reality" question?*1*2*3

With 8 billion people in the world, I can understand 8 billion perspectives on reality. But the more scientific-sounding notion of "many degrees of reality" is hard for me to wrap my tiny mind around. Some posters on the forum seem to hold a simpler notion ; there are only two degrees of reality : True or False ; Real or Ideal. Others will divide reality into Immanent or Transcendent , Things or Forms, etc.

Of course, Wayfarer has a much broader & deeper understanding of philosophy than I do. So, I need a little help here to do the long division of Ontology & Epistemology. Do we really need such complexity to understand Reality philosophically? :smile:

PS___ FWIW I just posted a new blog on the topic of The Metaphysics of Causation
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page16.html


*1. Levels of reality describe different ways we perceive, understand, and experience existence, ranging from concrete, shared experiences (Consensus Reality) to subjective personal beliefs, scientific models, simulated environments, and ultimately, ineffable mystical or absolute states beyond human comprehension, often viewed as different aspects or layers rather than a strict hierarchy. Key distinctions include Consensus Reality (shared agreement), Personal Reality (individual perception/bias), Scientific Reality (models/equations), Mystical Reality (oneness/illusion), and the Unknowable ground of being.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+Reality

*2. Descartes’ degrees of reality constitute an ontological hierarchy where the perfection and independence of a being determine its reality, ranging from God (infinite substance) down to modes (ideas/properties)
This framework distinguishes between formal reality (actual existence of a thing) and objective reality (the representational content of an idea) to prove God's existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality+descartes

*3b. "Degrees of reality" refers to philosophical ideas that existence isn't all-or-nothing, but rather a hierarchy where some things are "more real" than others, often based on independence (like Plato's Forms vs. physical objects) or structure (like Descartes' substances vs. modes). These concepts vary, ranging from objective vs. subjective views (scientific facts vs. beliefs) to layered realities (personal, social, physical) or even spiritual levels (Plotinus's God, intellect, soul, matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

And I agree. — Gnomon

For your blog?

Causality, Light, and Time

So, now what do you think about the "many degrees of reality" question? — Gnomon

Reality is not a dimmer switch on things. It’s a filter on possibilities.

Possibility vs actuality: The degrees live on the possibility side, not the actuality side. Once something is actual, it is fully real.

Since this is a philosophical forum, I'm more interested in the the metaphysical way philosophers use the term "Energy" than the physical way scientists define it. And yet, the way both scientists and philosophers conceive of Energy changed dramatically in the 20th century : from a physical substance (phlogiston) to a mathematical statistic (probability)*1. The man-on-the-street probably finds the new notion confusing or ambiguous. But do you think making that Math vs Matter distinction is a case of "equivocation" or "prevarication"? :brow: — Gnomon

I wouldn't use QM to argue for a particular interpretation of 'energy' as being a 'potential' in an Aristotelian sense. In probabilistic interpertations of QM, basically all physical quantities (at least in 'unobserved' states) can perhaps be framed as 'potentials', not just energy.

The 'equivocation' I'm referring to is something like this. Consider the 'third principle of dynamics', the so-called 'action and reaction principle'. I heard some that use it as an inspiration to say that all actions have an equal but opposite consequence. However, this is not of course what the priciple says, i.e. that interaction between two objects can be described by the presence of two forces which each on one interacting object and have the same magnitude, direction but opposite verses.

Furthermore, if you want to read 'energy' as a real property, it is nevertheless a property of physical systems and, therefore, not more fundamental than 'physical systems' themselves. If the universe can be regarded as a unitary physical system (notice the 'if'), the 'total energy' of the universe would be a feature of the universe not something that is more fundamental than it.
If, instead, you interpret energy as an useful conceptual tool for us to describe processes, then of course there is no real discontinuity between, say, how contemporary physics understands it and how 'classical physics' did.

Do you object to the 21st century scientific consensus that invisible Energy is fundamental to the knowable universe*2? — Gnomon

Again, the 'consensus' merely says that most energy can't be found within the known physical systems. This doesn't imply that energy is the 'fundamental stuff'. Rather, than there are unknown physical systems/objects that 'store', for a lack of a better word, most of the energy.

Reality is not a dimmer switch on things. It’s a filter on possibilities.
Possibility vs actuality: The degrees live on the possibility side, not the actuality side. Once something is actual, it is fully real. — PoeticUniverse

Makes sense to me. But do you think that's what Wayfarer meant by "many degrees of Reality"? In my terminology, I would call that "many degrees of Ideality" or "infinite possibilities : one actuality". I got the --- possibly mistaken --- impression that, for Wayfarer, Reality is not an on/off (either/or) switch, but more like a multi-state "dimmer switch". :smile:

From an earlier post :

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. Then there should have been planets like Earth everywhere if a universal consciousness were in charge. — PoeticUniverse

That's an interesting angle on the OP. But in Federico Faggin's book Irreducible , he indicates that The One --- sometimes symbolized or reified as the universal quantum field --- is more interested in Seities (souls) than planets. Though he doesn't speculate on Seities beyond Earth. But, in principle, the possibilities are infinite. Hence, beyond my comprehension.

In Faggin's philosophy, the Seities (holons) are like Mini-Me, chips off the old block. Each Seity participates*1 in the consciousness of The One (the Whole of which I am a part). They are how the Holistic One (ground of being) experiences the reality created (imagined?) by the Source of all possibilities. That interrelationship could be interpreted as something like a Transmitter & Receiver team.

I'm not buying into Faggin's speculative worldview (quantum idealism), but I find it philosophically interesting, as a mix of Science & Mysticism. :cool:


*1. Do we create the very reality that we observe?
John Wheeler's "participatory universe" concept suggests reality isn't fixed but emerges through observer participation, especially in quantum mechanics, where observation collapses possibilities into actualities, meaning we aren't just passive witnesses but active creators, famously illustrated by his delayed-choice experiment showing present choices affect the past's quantum state, creating a feedback loop of information and existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=participatory+universe+john+wheeler
Note --- I hope I'm not creating the reality I observe. It would be a very dull, unimaginative, place.

I wouldn't use QM to argue for a particular interpretation of 'energy' as being a 'potential' in an Aristotelian sense. In probabilistic interpertations of QM, basically all physical quantities (at least in 'unobserved' states) can perhaps be framed as 'potentials', not just energy. — boundless

Yes. That's why I said, for the purposes of this thread, I'm more interested in the meta-physical*1 interpretations of Philosophy : as in Metaphysical Causation*2. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical refers to the branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being, focusing on concepts beyond empirical, physical observation. It explores questions regarding existence, space, time, causality, and possibility, often utilizing abstract reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical

*2. Metaphysics of Causation
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page16.html

Again, the 'consensus' merely says that most energy can't be found within the known physical systems. This doesn't imply that energy is the 'fundamental stuff'. Rather, than there are unknown physical systems/objects that 'store', for a lack of a better word, most of the energy. — boundless

If causal Energy is not fundamental to physics, what is? Do you think atomic Matter is the basic "stuff" of Reality?

What are those "unknown physical systems" that store*1 Energy? How do you know? :wink:

*1. If Energy is conserved, where is it stored? In Matter or Math?
While some debate exists over whether energy is a physical substance or merely a mathematical tool for tracking kinematics, its role as a core, conserved quantity is undisputed in modern physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+fundamental+to+physics

Yes. That's why I said, for the purposes of this thread, I'm more interested in the meta-physical*1 interpretations of Philosophy : as in Metaphysical Causation*2 — Gnomon

I get that, but to me seeing a link between the physical concept of energy and the meaning you are giving to that word is like using the concept of force and the third principle to claim that "all actions cause an opposite consequences", which is wrong.

If causal Energy is not fundamental to physics, what is? Do you think atomic Matter is the basic "stuff" of Reality? — Gnomon

I don't know and I'm not sure physics can say something about that. In fact, it seems to me, that it is precisely the belief that physical quantities have some hidden, ulterior metaphysical meaning that can be a problem for the progress of science.

What are those "unknown physical systems" that store*1 Energy? How do you know? :wink: — Gnomon

By observing detectable effects that seem to ssuggest their existence.

I don't know. There are models of particles that, for instance, have been suggested to explain the 'dark matter'. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particle

However, my point is that both mass and energy (like, really, all other physical quantities) are presented as properties of physical systems (either imputed by us or seen as belonging to them). Saying that 'energy' is fundamental, is like saying that lenght is more fundamental than objects that 'have lenght'.
TBH, singling out 'energy' from all other properties like linear momentum, angular momentum etc and claiming that it - and just it - is somehow more fundamental than all others seem to me quite weird.