The term Physics in the word refers to Physika (Metaphysika). Physika referred to the knowledge about Nature (Science).
It is even defined in Aritstotle's philosophical method.
6 steps.
1. EPistemology
2. Science (Physika)
3. Metaphysika
4. Aesthetics
5. Ethics
6.Politics.
(feedback loo).
I understand that most philosophers just can't resist changing the meaning of the word since they allow themselves to introduce all kind of pseudo philosophy in Philosophy....by saying "its metaphysics"lol.

OK, I gather this has nothing to do with peculiarly Greek usage, but with your own views of what words ought to mean, in defiance to the rest of the language users. You are on your own then.

The term Physics in the word refers to Physika (Metaphysika). Physika referred to the knowledge about Nature (Science).
It is even defined in Aritstotle's philosophical method.
6 steps.
1. EPistemology
2. Science (Physika)
3. Metaphysika
4. Aesthetics
5. Ethics
6.Politics.
(feedback loo).
I understand that most philosophers just can't resist changing the meaning of the word since they allow themselves to introduce all kind of pseudo philosophy in Philosophy....by saying "its metaphysics".

No its basic knowledge on how specific terms are used in Philosophy.
I have posted Carrier's talk on Philosophy and why it is useful contrary to many scientist's opinions.(previous page). He provides the same explanation and definitions. Check it , its helpful.
I am puzzled that most people in here ignore basic definitions of philosophy or what qualifies as philosophy.

-"OK, I gather this has nothing to do with peculiarly Greek usage"
-How was your gathering performed? Did you research specific sources? Is it because your philosophy is excluded based on that definition?

Carrier, seriously?

Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics. — Wikipedia

Philosophy

1. Epistemology

2. Logic

3. Ethics

4. Metaphysics

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. — Wikipedia

Metaphysics

1. Existence

2. Objects & their properties

3. Space & Time

4. Cause & Effect

5. Possibility

Metaphysics can be taken as an exploration of reality (existence, objects & properties, space & time, cause & effect) with accent on possibilities - observe reality as it presents itself to us and then try and posit as many possible ways (theories/hypotheses) such a reality could be what it is. Metaphysics is, in short, two very basic questions:

1. What is reality?
2. Why is reality the way it is?

yes seriously!

-"Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics. — Wikipedia"
- Correct, it deals with what lies beyond our current knowledge

-"Metaphysics can be taken as an exploration of reality (existence, objects & properties, space & time, cause & effect) with accent on possibilities - observe reality as it presents itself to us and then try and posit as many possible ways (theories/hypotheses) such a reality could be what it is.
-Any philosophical attempt to investigate aspects of reality is labeled metaphysics

Metaphysics is, in short, two very basic questions:"
-'1. What is reality?
2. Why is reality the way it is? "
- reality is a very "big thing".....

There is good metaphysics, where one reflects on the new findings of science and tries to puzzles together our previous epistemology and the new implications and there is bad metaphysics where one starts from unfounded assumptions/ existential claims (theism, idealism) and ends up with more unfounded assertions. — Nickolasgaspar

I believe that the meaning of "metaphysics" you describe does not represent how that word is normally used in philosophy at the current time. That's what this thread is about.

That is the definition of Metaphysics in Philosophy. The distorted versions used by many philosophers are nothing more than an attempt to expand the "philosophical realm" so that their worldviews can be included.
The problem with this "expansion" is that it pollutes our philosophy and introduce meaningless material in the academia.
Metaphysics are nothing more than theoretical frameworks that go beyond our current knowledge and attempt to expand our understanding.
All theoretical frameworks that speculate on what lies beyond our knowledge are metaphysics but not all of them are philosophical.
Those in conflict or ignoring our current epistemology and those who introduce arbitrary auxiliary assumptions are pseudo philosophy.

-Correct The first word refers to claims that are beyond our current knowledge and the second refers to claims that are Above nature. — Nickolasgaspar

That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information. But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith.

Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates.

-Well that is not metaphysics for Neuroscience. The Mind is what the brain produces. — Nickolasgaspar

Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind? Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness : Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly. But how can matter imagine anything?

-Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses. — Nickolasgaspar

All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later.

PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology. But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions. The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????

The philosophical endeavor that tries to understand and glue new data, old epistemology or philosophy with new philosophical frameworks through reasoning is labeled Metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning. Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.

-I don't find such ideas useful because we humans have shown that we are really bad in our ontology. Great examples are Alchemists wasting resources for ages to chemically produce valuable metals, — Nickolasgaspar

The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function.

-It isn't a metaphysical notion from the moment it is observed and can be quantified in everyday phenomena. Stored energy is the potential to produce work...so its nothing metaphysical about it. i.e. As a cyclist I understand the potential energy I gather when climbing a hill. — Nickolasgaspar

In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage. :smile:

What is reality to you?

Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena?After all it seems to be baked into metaphysics. Someone as brainy as Aristotle should've hit upon the idea and found it useful. It wasn't as if he had to work too hard for it - Plato, his teacher, had already dropped a big hint with his allegory of the cave.

-"That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information.''
-We are in total agreement.

-"But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith."
-Correct.

-"Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates."
- Correct. I will add that Science also works with theoretical models. Its not just a set of empirical methodologies. Theoretical Models with specific characteristics fall withing the philosophical work of science(Natural Philosophy).

-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?
-The ontology of the mind is an property that emerges through the anatomy of the brain structure and its function . Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc.

-" Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness :""
-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions when we try to explain physical phenomena. The Hard Problem of Consciousness(Chalmers) is littered with "why "questions, I quote his 3 main qs:
Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
Why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does?
why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
The answer for all those 3 questions can be....."Because. "
Its not a problem that can be objectively answered since anyone can give his subjective opinion on why this phenomenon manifests in reality the way it does. The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind and what are the causal mechanisms and synergies of the system.

-" Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly."
-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic.
That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything.

-" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? Matter is the building block of the "machine". Its like saying, how matter can combust, or digest,or metabolize, or illuminate etc. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, as long as it is fueled with energy(and isn't "dying").
Give the brain time and stimuli and it has the raw material to work with, to cut and paste and rearrange everything that is stored chemically. This is what imagination is.

-"All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later."
-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps.

-"Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology."
-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. Metaphysics depends on the volume of your epistemology. When the circle of your epistemology grows the perimeter of your metaphysics grows even more. After a second thought, you can argue that theology does impose useless claims as knowledge, rendering any metaphysical attempt to be useless.

-"But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions."
-Materialistic??? Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? I Didn't get that memo! Descriptive means that those models describe what we observe. Those observations are verified in our applications and predictions. So what the pseudo philosophical worldview of materialism has to do with real Scientific Descriptions?

-"The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????"
-Our metaphysics do not advance because Physics has FINALLY hit the point known as Observation Objectivity Collapse, something that many sciences have been dealing with for many decades (Social Sciences). Our observations are either affected by our methods or measurements or there is an absence of observations for miscelenious reasons or we don't have the technology for specific experiments.(i.e. high energy demand).
Just because we are unable to advance our epistemology, that doesn't mean that we are going to demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", lower our standards of evaluation and allow non naturalistic principles to pollute our metaphysical hypotheses.This is where we disagree and Methodological Naturalism is on my side on this.

-"Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning."
-I must not get your point because I find it weird. First of all there is a single type of science with its theoretical models being evaluated by its empirical methodologies. Any framework that manages to be verified empirically becomes an official theory(tentatively).
Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons.

-" Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.""
-So what do you suggest?

-"The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function."
-Won't disagree with the Potential & Actual distinction, but I am not sure we are reading the same QM. Wave functions describe statistically specific characteristic of particles. We didn't change the label we use.We still use the same name to refer to the energetic glitch in question.
We can not pinpoint the position of a particle so we use statistical probabilities (like we do in many scientific disciplines) . These probabilities can be expressed οn a Graphical wave function. When we crash a bozon and a fermion(hardly an observation lol) we can measure the characteristics of their "debris" and get accurate numbers fon which point of the Wave function is correct and discarding the rest of it.
I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate?

-"In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage."
-Voltage is the electric potential difference between two points...that difference is quantifiable and we can quantify the potential. I am sure my multimeter has a position on the knob that allows me to measure that difference. We are dealing with a Process that we can quantify, what is metaphysical about it?
Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential?

What is reality to you?

Reality is an abstract concept that includes everything we can objectively verify interacting with our existence and its qualities.

-"Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena?After all it seems to be baked into metaphysics. Someone as brainy as Aristotle should've hit upon the idea and found it useful.''
-Well Aristotle's philosophy sucked. He is know for his systematization of Philosophy and Logic than his actual philosophical performance. After all his metaphysics were extension on his work "Physika".


It wasn't as if he had to work too hard for it - Plato, his teacher, had already dropped a big hint with his allegory of the cave.
-I guess he was more interested in listing all our logical fallacies, organizing logic and systematizing philosophy.

to be honest I don't like how people use this distinction between noumena and phenomena.

Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena? — TheMadFool

The distinction between reality and appearance is writ large through the whole Platonic corpus. The sensory domain is phenomena, the realm of forms is the noumenal. (You know 'noumenal' is derived from 'nous', right?) That lay down the basis which Kant developed. Kant adopted the Aristotelian categories practically wholesale. He rejected the received wisdom about the Forms, but I think in a way those concepts are still present in his later work. Philosophy develops and changes over time: Kant was a modern, he understood the actual physical nature of the Universe, at least to some extent - you know his nebular theory is still part of current science. Whereas in the ancient world the mythical/symbolic and the empirical were intertwined such that 'the heavens' were understood to be literally the domain of the Gods. 'The past is another country, the do things differently there'.

The answer is simple: the study of metaphysics pertains to the study of the logical relationships between the ontological categories of being which are necessary for physics and science. I'm not sure why anyone would define metaphysics in any other way.

Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena? After all it seems to be baked into metaphysics. — TheMadFool

Perhaps it has something to do with the division Descartes made between the I and the world it perceives. The singularity presumed is not concordant with Aristotle seeing humans as inhabiting a place between gods and animals.

I'm not sure why anyone would define metaphysics in any other way. — TheGreatArcanum

And yet they do.

@T Clark & @Banno

I guess your point is truth is not the only game in town.

So, the natural question is, what else, if not truth, matters?

Banno mentioned aesthetics.

@Wayfarer

Was Buddha's reply to "does the Buddha exist after death?" a hint that truth is not the priority?

It is one of a group of questions classed as avyakarta, ‘undetermined’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

Linguistic analysis of @T Clark metaphysics

1. A statement/proposition is a sentence that's either true or false.

2. Not all sentences have to be true or false.

3. Metaphysical claims are neither true nor false.

Ergo,

4. Metaphysical claims are sentences but not propositions/statements.

Examples of sentences that are not propositions

5. Go home! [command]

6. What time is it? [question]

7. You should stop smoking. [recommendation]

What gives?

@Banno's position

8. Metaphysical claims are true but unjustifiable [Gödel: true but unprovable]

There's something Gödelian going on :point: decidability (OP title Decidability and Truth), Banno's statement (8 above)

@Wayfarer Gödel was a Platonist. Metaphysics & Platonism - what's the connection?

Whether abstract objects exist and if so in what sense, as by definition they’re not subject to empirical scrutiny.

Whether abstract objects exist and if so in what sense, as by definition they’re not subject to empirical scrutiny. — Wayfarer

The difficulty lies in the way existence/real has been defined - in physical terms (detectable with our senses/instruments + causally potent in the physical realm) - but given skeptical arguments (Descartes's deus deceptor, the brain in a vat, etc.) there's no solid reason to say the physical is real and anything else, including but not limited to the abstract, is not.

Thanatos (death) and Algos (pain) have a part to play in all this.

@Wayfarer

Does this [If we experience pain and death then it's real] make sense?

I ask because these (pain & death) are the purported distinguishing features of the real when contrasted with the unreal (e.g. dreams).

Somehow, I feel this is bad logic.

The difficulty lies in the way existence/real has been defined — TheMadFool

Have a read of the cultural impact of empiricism.

I guess your point is truth is not the only game in town. — TheMadFool

I think truth is over-rated, but I can talk truth when it's called for. It can be a useful concept. Hey, wait... I think that's metaphysics.

In this particular discussion, I'm trying to use "truth" as it is normally used in philosophical discourse.

A statement/proposition is a sentence that's either true or false. — TheMadFool

Merriam Webster says a proposition is "A statement to be proved, explained, or discussed."

MW says a statement is "Something that you say or write in a formal or official way : something that is stated."

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity."

So, whether or not a proposition has to be true or false is an ambiguous question. Still, it's clear from the context that, for the purposes of this discussion, propositions do not have to be true or false. You're the one playing with language here.

-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?"
Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc. — Nickolasgaspar

I distinguish between physical properties (measurable) and ontological essence (rational). Integrated Information Theory is an attempt to measure mental qualities in terms of Phi. But Phi only measures the degree of integration of a system (an analogue of wholeness), but not Mind or Consciousness directly. And, just as a physical circuit is necessary to convert Voltage into Amperage, information feedback loops are essential to Minds. Some IIT advocates have proposed a Consciousness Meter, but implementing that idea is beyond current capabilities. It's not as easy to measure a subjective quality, as an objective property.

Digestion is comparable to Thinking only in the sense that both refer to holistic system functions instead of particular physical parts. However, Digestion produces measurable physical effects, while Thinking produces invisible images in the Cartesian Theater we call a Mind. Like all metaphors, the CT is not real, but ideal ; not physical, but meta-physical. If mental images & thoughts were physical, we wouldn't need metaphors to communicate them.

-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions. . . . The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Mapping physical causal paths, may give you a picture of How, but not the Why of the final output. The complexity & chaos (randomness) of brain systems tend to blur the map near the fringes "where be dragons". Ideas in a Mind are teleological in the sense that they point toward something that is not an actual thing, not present, not yet real. Terrence Deacon calls that meta-physical function “aboutness”.

-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic — Nickolasgaspar

That is indeed the model that most Consciousness researches are working with. But "empirical limitations" and logical loops tend to frustrate their attempts to force Minds to fit the model. Somehow, Mind is able to by-pass physical limitations (e.g. Lucid Dreaming), but not Logic in the universal sense. Contrary to the old wive's tale, if my flying dream-self crashes, I won't wake up dead. (I've tried it) You might say that Mind-Logic “transcends” Physical-Logic. Which also touches on the question of subjective FreeWill versus objective Determinism.

That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything. — Nickolasgaspar

True. But irrelevant to the philosophical problem of Meta-Physics. And I have answered that question in my personal worldview of Enformationism. The “problem” derives from an outdated Dualistic concept of Matter & Mind. But the emerging concept of Information is Monistic, in that the single power-to-enform comes in two forms : Physical (Matter) and Meta-Physical (Mind). I won't go into how I arrived at that conclusion in this post, but it's laid-out in my website. Information is a shape-shifter, which can transform from Energy into Matter into Mind. That may sound like non-sense in a Physicalist belief system, but not from a Fundamental-Information perspective. This recent book presents a physicist's “Information Theoretic Ontology” :
Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? . . . .. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, — Nickolasgaspar

It's easy to say that Imagination is just the output of a mechanical process. But not so easy to prove it. No machine we have constructed, including super-computers, has imagined anything like E=MC^2. Even their poetry is derivative and imitative. That's because a Whole is defined as more-than the sum of its parts. So the question remains, what is that "more than", the quality of wholeness, integrity, identity, unity? It's the difference between Data and Meaning.

So, Imagination is more-than just chemicals or neurons. Instead, it's the function of a whole System. Function is teleological and purposeful. It has the quality of Aboutness.
Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.

-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But even sober scientists can't resist speculating beyond established knowledge. As in Multiverse theories, the best they can do is to extend established knowledge into the future, beyond the scope of empirical confirmation. And it's well established that projecting the current state into the future soon "snaps" the logical chain by turning it into randomized mush.

-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. — Nickolasgaspar

Rejection of Theology is why Post-Enlightenment Era scientists abandoned all attempts to gain useful knowledge via meta-physical means. But, 21st century science has become more & more meta-physical as the old models of reality crumble under the gravity of Quantum weirdness, and the BB beginning of reality put a space-time limit on Nature. Even our units of Quanta are now more mathematical than physical : Fields instead of Atoms ; Virtual instead of Real particles.

Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? — Nickolasgaspar

Since the fundamental bits of Matter (atoms) were ground into the mathematical mush of Wave Functions. The original basis of Atomism was philosophical instead of empirical. And the foundations of modern physics are beginning to sound more philosophical than empirical. Scientists still use concrete metaphors to illustrate quantum abstractions. And their assumptions about Nature remain under the influence of common-sense Materialism.
“Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.”

demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", — Nickolasgaspar

Would you prefer to call our modern epistemology “Physicalism” or “Naturalism”? Materialism is not demonic, it's just outdated in an era of Relativity and Quantum Theory (which only appears quantized after continuous Waves “decompose” into Particles). Nature has become less mechanical & methodical and more spontaneous & statistical in this post-classical era. The post-enlightenment Mechanical “framework” is gradually giving way to a more Organic model. So, I don't “demonize” the older frameworks. Instead, I just categorize some of them as “misplaced Materialism”, which is similar to “misplaced Concreteness” (reification of abstractions).

Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons. — Nickolasgaspar

My point about a distinction between Empirical Science and Theoretical Science is that the cutting edge of science today (e.g. String Theory) is completely theoretical (mathematical), and not subject to being “verified empirically”. Hence, it is indistinguishable from feckless philosophy.

-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar

I suggest that we update our mental models of Nature and Reality to include their Non-Physical aspects. And post-Shannon Information Theory is one way to do that.

I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

The old Atomic & Materialistic models left no place for sub-atomic (quarks) and statistical aspects of Reality. Until recently, empirical Science dealt only with here & now Actuality. But, now they are forced to use statistical methods to model Reality. Potential, like Probability & Possibility, refers to that which is not here & now. Instead of empirical observations, they must use gambling odds. The once-firm foundations of Reality were imagined as Absolute & Actual, but now they are viewed as Relative & Potential. Fortunately, post-Shannon Information Theory can deal with both sides of the Natural coin.

Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. Qualia are not quantifiable. And Statistical is only Potentially Real. So, I use “potential” according to Aristotle's usage : “a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential [statistical probability] does exist.” [my bracket] So, Potential existence is equivalent to Plato's Ideal Forms. The “properties” of real things (e.g. red of an apple) exist only in the minds of observers. And I call that Mind-stuff “meta-physical” instead of “physical”. :nerd:

PS__Obviously, I have a philosophical axe-to-grind. But, since it's based on a new paradigm and somewhat counter-intuitive (like Quantum Theory and Block Time) it can't be summarized in one post.

What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

PPS__ I have enjoyed the mental exercise (despite the meta-physical sweat) of responding to your stimulating questions. :smile: