:ok:

Evolution is non-random — TheMadFool

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?

If x has a telos then x has to be non-random — TheMadFool

If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool.

If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool. — 180 Proof

The statement, "If X is non-random, then X has a telos or X doesn't have a telos" [making the logical structure more explicit] is a tautology [the consequent is itself a tautology and is always true and if the consequent of a conditional statement is always true, the entire conditional is true but only as a tautology]. Since your statement, beautifully and lovingly crafted as it may be, is a tautology, its truth is not dependent on any other proposition i.e. it can't be an empirical claim and empirical claims are, whatever else they may be, definitely not tautological - they need to backed up with evidence, strong evidence preferrably.

Coming to my argument, the premise that I used is, "if the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random"

1. If the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random
2. X is observed to be non-random
Ergo,
3. The hypothesis that X has telos is true confirmed

The above argument actually doesn't commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent because, it avoids/refrains from concluding that "the hypothesis that X has telos" is true. Instead it, like all scientists worth their salt, concludes that the antecedent of the conditional - the [scientific] hypothesis in question (here that X has telos) - is only confirmed. A subtlety that I failed to notice until now. Thanks for your valuable help.

:point: Science's Useful Fallacy (Affirming The Consequent)

Public service announcenent:

DON'T SNIFF GLUE, FOOL.

:mask:

Public service announcenent:

DON'T SNIFF GLUE, FOOL. — 180 Proof

I want to, one of these days :smile:

Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos. — 180 Proof

You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :

Here's another illustration of anomalous structure within a random distribution : if a series of coin flips turn-up heads 10 times in a row, it's surprising but not impossible -- seeming to defy the 50/50 odds. Yet, long strings of 1s or 0s occur naturally in chaotic systems on rare occasions. But "it takes, on average, 2046 flips to achieve 10 heads in a row." So, from a close-up (reductive) point-of-view, that departure from the norm is an exception, but not a miracle. However, such a low probability string of heads, could plausibly indicate "purposeful" intention; perhaps, that someone is cheating. In other words, a mind may be interfering with natural randomness by special "selection" skewing the odds. Therefore, from a broader perspective, the possibility of Teleology makes sense. Cheaters & Magicians make fools of those who watch too closely.

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism. By definition a Mechanism cannot change its own inherent rigid step-by-step procedures. But an Organism can choose to adapt to a changing environment. That's why those of us who take a holistic approach to the world, often see signs of non-randomness that suggest a purposeful direction and goal-directed intention. :nerd:

Structures in the microwave background radiation :
It is commonly taken for granted (with the notable exception of Gurzadyan & Penrose [5]) that the temperature distribution in the CMB is purely statistical being produced by the quantum fluctuations . . . . Therefore, it was very unexpected for us to find significant differences . . . The differences between real and artificial maps were both qualitative and quantitative.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2013.0116

Coin Flipping Scam : Note -- Derren Brown is a magician, whose trade is doing what seems impossible.
https://nrich.maths.org/6954/solution

# Which is a map of brain neurons, and which maps the structural pattern of stars? :
https://www.universetoday.com/148966/one-of-these-pictures-is-the-brain-the-other-is-the-universe-can-you-tell-which-is-which/

You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. — Gnomon

I'd say my perspective is evidentiary & scientific while, on this topic, TMF's perspective is uninformed & pseudo-philosophical.

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.

Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system generating (and consisting of) lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism).

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system of lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism). — 180 Proof

I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.

If I were you, I'd be a little gentler in my criticism of TMFs notion of a mind-based reality. Wholes and Mathematical Principles do not exist in the material world, but only in minds -- which are themselves holistic functions of physical brains. Even the notion of a Cosmos is a mental concept that only exists as a philosophical category, to explain how all the zillions of material parts add-up to something greater than the computed sum -- just as the Mind is more than a bunch of neurons. Besides, I noticed that your link site is categorized under the heading of "Plato", best known for his Idealistic worldview. :cool:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me).

I linked that wiki article only to clarify my "cosmological holism" by suggestion; I'm not committed to the more speculative or platonic aspects mentioned in the article. I appreciate you reading to better see that I'm a much more non-reductive whatever than reductive. I remain, however, anti-idealist in my ontology (sorry, but "Enformationism" has always been way too extravagant – non-parsimonious – for me). — 180 Proof

Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.

There are a few hard-nosed and credentialed scientists & mathematicians & philosophers that are working to establish Information as an orthodox theory for future scientific applications. Information and the Nature of Reality, is the product of serious scientific investigation. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your attitude toward Religion, they also apply their understanding of multitasking Information to metaphysical & religious questions that have puzzled philosophers & theologians for centuries. But then, so did Einstein (see below).

The 2019 book by James Glattfelder (see below) -- trained in physics, but worked as a quant in international finance -- pulls all the various threads together into a proposed new paradigm, based on the ubiquity of Information : "Over 300 years ago, the human mind discovered the machine code of reality : mathematics. ... Science appears to have hit a dead end when confronted with the nature of reality and consciousness. In this fascinating and accessible volume, James Glattfelder explores a radical paradigm shift uncovering the ontology of reality".

These pioneers of a new paradigm are no more far-out & extravagant than the Cosmological Holism you seem to favor. The anti-reductive notion of Holism was adopted early by "non-parsimonious" New Agers, but has gradually seeped into mainstream science. Of course, a reasonable degree of skepticism should be applied to any strange new ideas. But, philosophers are well-advised to carry the sword of an open mind behind the shield of skepticism. :cool:

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence. ___James Glattfelder
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23108

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics :
https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVIAT-5

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” ― Albert Einstein

Yeah, not news to me since the early 1990s and my focus on entropy in undergrad physics (for engineering majors) a decade before. My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. I try to keep up with current popular / semi-technical treatments of the topic by e.g. David Deutsch, Stephen Wolfram, Carlo Rovelli, Max Tegmark, et al.

Though our thoughts apparently diverge quite radically, Gnomon, we seem to agree that nature is an emergent 'system of transformational structures' and is not itself fundamental. What is fundamental, however, is unknown (or unknowable) and profoundly open to speculation. 'My metaphysics' (speculative framework, so to speak) is mostly apophatic enabled-constrained by a kind of negative ontology wherein 'impossible objects/versions of the world are necessarily eliminated' and, therefore, entails that actuality is constituted (phase space-like) by every possible object/version of the world (e.g. the way chess is a logical space consisting of every possible move and chess-match); thus, speculations on fundamental reality from which nature (and physics) emerges such as Rovelli's intrigue me the most.

TMF's perspective is uninformed & pseudo-philosophical. — 180 Proof

Et tu Brute. :lol:

:kiss:

My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof

Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning, . The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.

Turing's computer only existed as an idea before that. And later, the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle showed that " a universal computing device can simulate every physical process". From that insight, some information theorists, including Tegmark, concluded that the physical universe itself is actually a mathematical simulation. Hence, material reality is ultimately made of mathematical (meta-physical) Information, instead of tiny atoms of physical stuff. Hence, most physicists today have given-up the ancient notion of a physical atomic foundation to the world, and now imagine that matter itself is an emergent quality of invisible information "Fields" : consisting of Potential (unactualized) Energy and Virtual (ideal) Particles.

So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. Instead of exclusive & reductive, Black & White ; Either/Or, (1) or (0) categories, my own holistic worldview is what I call "BothAnd". It accepts the real physical world as it appears to our physical senses, but it also acknowledges the underlying Ideality of invisible & intangible stuff -- including the abstract concepts that populate the human mind. Therefore, rather than excluding our own Consciousness from our worldview, the BothAnd principle includes Physical & Meta-physical, Real & Ideal, Matter & Mind. :nerd:


Abstract : thought-of apart from concrete realities

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics

Information is Physical :
"Even if we encode data as bits, the content, representation, and ontology of information appear separate. How then, can information be physical? . . . what link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and its physicality?"
James Glattfelder, Information-- Consciousness-- Reality

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

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

So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. — Gnomon

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G. :roll:

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". — Gnomon

Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement.

No worries.

:up: John Wheeler & Seth Lloyd.

QFT, energy, information (or communication), 'consciousness' ... are, at minimum, physical whatever else they may be in so far as they are manifest in causal relations with physical processes.

The statement, "If X is non-random, then X has a telos or X doesn't have a telos" [making the logical structure more explicit] is a tautology [the consequent is itself a tautology and is always true and if the consequent of a conditional statement is always true, the entire conditional is true but only as a tautology]. Since your statement, beautifully and lovingly crafted as it may be, is a tautology, its truth is not dependent on any other proposition i.e. it can't be an empirical claim and empirical claims are, whatever else they may be, definitely not tautological - they need to backed up with evidence, strong evidence preferrably. — TheMadFool

Not exactly. He said that if X is non-random then X possibly has a telos and possibly doesn't have a telos. In other words, ¬R(X) → ◇T(X) ∧ ◇¬T(X).

◇T(X) ∧ ◇¬T(X) isn't a tautology because ◻T(X) → ¬◇¬T(X).

1. If the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random
2. X is observed to be non-random
Ergo,
3. The hypothesis that X has telos is true confirmed — TheMadFool

1. If the hypothesis that I am a man is true then I will be observed to be human
2. I am observed to be human
3. Therefore, the hypothesis that I am a man is confirmed

This is affirming the consequent. That P (I am a man) implies Q (I am human) isn't that Q (I am human) implies P (I am man) – women are also human. That P (X has a telos) implies Q (X is non-random) isn't that Q (X is non-random) implies P (X has a telos) – things without a telos might also be non-random.

Your first premise needs to be "If and only if X has a telos then X will be observed to be non-random."

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature. — 180 Proof

Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.

Unfortunately, some people assume that Metaphysics is merely the study of supernatural spooky stuff, like ESP, reincarnation, and communing with the dead. But, it also includes the natural spooky stuff, like action-at-a-distance and quantum leaps. So, I believe that asking "what else is there" is relevant to the purpose of The Philosophy Forum. Ironically, some posters on this forum seem to have Physics Envy, and reject anything that smacks of Meta-Physics. Of course, when delving into the immaterial aspects of Reality, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to avoid confusing normal Mental topics with paranormal Spiritual belief systems. Which is why I try to ground my Meta-Physical notions with empirical Physical knowledge, where possible. :nerd:


Both physics and metaphysics are concerned with describing our reality. One could say that both attempt to give an account of what the world is like, but physics is concerned with what it is like according to our experience of reality, whereas metaphysics is concerned with what it is “really” like.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-physics-and-metaphysics
Note -- "What it's really like" is what Plato called the "Ideal" Realm, known only via Reason.

The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm

Physics Envy :
The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused, confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' and like mathematics-based subjects like physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

The Case Against Reality : How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
"Do we see the world as it truly is? In The Case Against Reality, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no? we see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? — Gnomon

Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote.

Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote. — 180 Proof

Sorry about that! When I started to reply yesterday, I found that the previous day's reply was already in the comment box, and the only option was to "post comment" -- resulting in a duplicate post. That has happened before, and I don't know what causes the old comment to be retained as a draft after posting.

Anyway, I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical. And that understanding makes a big difference in my philosophical worldview. Glattfelder calls it an Information-theoretic Ontology. That's why I persist in insisting that our mutual Reality is not "completely physical"

That realization is important when addressing the OP assertion of "Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox " I hadn't thought of it that way, but the "equivalency" applies to my concept of Intelligent Evolution. Which proposes that the unfolding of our world was fully programmed in the Big Bang to search all possible variations on physical forms in order to find the "fittest" or most perfect form for the programmer's teleological goal. Hence, there is no need for divine intervention with the process. By contrast with Genesis, the world was not "perfect" in the beginning, but is working toward perfection.

Consequently, the common religious concept of a humanoid deity interfering with natural functions is misguided. Instead, I conclude that Max Eherman's Desiderata got it right :
"You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Hence, no need to worship and sacrifice to unseen deities, in order to placate their whimsy and wrath. Unfortunately, the notion of a Cosmic Coder of the evolutionary program may still be considered : "irrelevant when discussing science or nature". Yet, this thread is not discussing physical Science, but the metaphysical mental aspects of the world. The mind is still a mystery to materialists, who can't put it under a microscope or dissect it with scalpels. That's because the human Mind is not a tangle of jelly-like neurons, but an intangible function of the processing of Information. The physical Brain is merely the container for Information (data) that it processes in a manner similar to a computer.

There is another pertinent equivalency, which some scientists are beginning to take seriously : Mind = Information = Energy. And that radical concept puts conventional notions of Matter, Energy & Mind in a whole new light. Like Information, Energy is invisible & intangible until it is converted into Mass, which our senses interpret as Matter. Most of the scientists studying the Information Ontology of the universe prefer to think of it in terms of invisible intangible Mathematics. Which is simply the geometric ratios & meaningful relationships between physical things that our minds "see" via Reasoning, not by senses. Information is the non-physical structure of meaning in a mind. :nerd:


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Function : (math) a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

Ontologyis studying the structure of the nature of reality or the nature of exists and, epistemology is studying the potentiality of the knowledge of human being. Ontology is about Being that exists as self-contained or independent of human.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-Ontology-and-Epistomology

Structure : the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". — Gnomon

Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you.

My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof

How do you read a categorical assertion in that, G? :roll:

But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical.

I understand 'metaphysics' to pertain to concepts (& systematicity) and not how the world must or happens to be. Thus, to my mind, your statement is incoherent. Yeah, one can reflect on the physical in a metaphysical way (e.g. hylomorphism), but there aren't any non-abstract, or factually concrete, 'objects of metaphysics'. And no 'ontological fiat' obtains – that'd be woo-of-the-gaps magical thinking and not philosophy. Simply put, the world within one's field of vision is not "corrected" by one's corrective lenses, which is what metaphysics consists in. Remember: Spinoza was a lens grinder by trade (re: scientific instruments) as well as by vocation (re: speculative immanence) and N O T a conjurer of 'otherworldly, realer-than-real, transcendent, supernaturalia'.

Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you. — 180 Proof

So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".

Both Energy and Information are abstract concepts about the physical world. And abstractions are made of Information, not matter. As physicist Seth Lloyd put it : "Everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information" --- Qualia not Quanta ; Metaphysics not Physics. So, the distinction I'm trying to make here is between physical stuff (tangible & visible) and meta-physical Information (intangible & invisible). That will make sense to you, as soon as you grasp the fact that Metaphysics is not about Magic, but Mind. And the human Mind abstracts ideas from objects & actions, them constructs its abstracted worldview to represent its belief of what's really out there. That's why Carlo Rovelli entitled his book : Reality Is Not What It Seems. To our common sense, reality appears to be "completely physical", but science & philosophy are supposed to be un-common sense, and to see beyond superficial appearances (phenomena).

I'm close to the end of the book, Consciousness-Information-Reality. And the author says, under the heading of An Information Ontology, that "the intangible notion of Information is undeniably a physical manifestation". So, in that sense your notion that "information is physical" is correct, but incomplete. It's much more than that. The C-I-R book is not about the classical view of reality, or even the quantum nature of reality. Instead, it proposes "a radically new ontology of reality". And that cutting-edge paradigm is what I'm trying to introduce you to. No Magic involved, just Metaphysics. :nerd:

What is Energy made of? :
Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields. When matter has velocity, for example, it is said to have kinetic energy. There are also various forms of potential energy.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . Aristotle's two volumes covered Physics (the concrete stuff of the world) and Meta-physics (abstract ideas about the world).
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. 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.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? — Gnomon

I can't answer no matter how many times you repeat this strawman. :roll:

And what does [c]onsciousness consist of ... ?

That's as silly as asking 'What does music consist of?' 'What does breathing or walking consist of?'

My recent thoughts on "thoughts":

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537932

:point: However you define metaphysics, G, we are using this concept and speculative practice quite differently. For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant).

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

My recent thoughts on "thoughts": — 180 Proof

Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic? :smile:

PS__is "reductive attitude" another strawman? It's not a personal attack, but a condensed mirror of your argument against studying non-physical features of the world, such as Mind as contrasted with Brain. I was surprised to hear that exclusive notion coming from you, because I had previously gotten the impression that you were more philosophically-inclined (broad-minded instead of narrowly-focused) than that. :cool:

Behaviorism :
Why has the influence of behaviorism declined? The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism’s decline in influence is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to non-behavioral and inner mental (cognitive, representational, or interpretative) activity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. — Gnomon

Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical.

Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism" ... — Gnomon

Apparently you've not read Skinner or don't understand his "behaviorism" as well as you're at a loss for showing me how I get "thoughts" wrong coping-out instead on ad hominem-like editorializing. I suppose digestion is a "reductive attitude" to metabolism too, huh? :sweat: You're shooting at what looks like pigeons again, Gnomon, with shots actually ricocheting off of satellites in orbit when they hit anything at all. :smirk: