No problem. The car has many parts; not one of them can be described "this is the speed of the car." The working car, when driven, has a speed contrasted to the road; but the speed itself, while caused by the parts in the car, is not part of the car. You can't point at a physical thing in the car and say, "this part is what the speed of the car is."

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.

Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.

Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & logical)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. :smile:

*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2629-nature-and-culture.html

*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia

*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633

An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. — Gnomon

Gnomon that's a brilliant question. And yes, I understand, to be quite frank, it's one of the most challenging questions I've been faced with answering. Really difficult to posit an explanation. But not impossible (improbable).

"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence eachother, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?")

For information to occur there must be a diaspora between momentums. In essence there must be a" difference" between photons.

So we need an additional principle to engage energy at the speed of light to interact with itself, impart momentum and thus decelerate and provide mass to matter. Right?
This is crucial to understanding how energy and matter can be equivalent (E=mc2).

What principle can we rationalise that purports such an outcome?

For me it's down to something very simple but very powerful. Probability.

Consider energy at the speed of light as "the ability to do work/cause change".
Now consider probability as the likelihood to assume a given state.
If energy is "ability to change" and obeys probability then whenever probability is 1 (absolute/certain) then it must change (to make the probability less than 1 again, as in to maintain probability).

Probability at 1 is not probable, its certain/absolute.
And because energy must be the ability to do work/change it can never be 1 (absolute/certain/unchanging).

Therefore energy at the speed of light (a constant/probability of 1) has no other choice to maintain its quality of change but to decelerate and become matter. (probability less than 1 ie. Subject to changing of states.)

Otherwise energy at the speed of light would not be equivalent to change. Which would mean energy is impotent and cannot do anything but travel at light speed. In which case matter would Never exist.

Hopefully this clarifies why energy must condense into matter. It must/its imperative. For if it wasn't it could only ever be change but not that which is changed. And how can change exist in isolation from the changed?

"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence each other, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?") — Benj96

I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.

I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.

Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature. :smile:



Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics

Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.

And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. — Gnomon

I'm sure I've missed that "force". Please cite where in any of the equations or formal models used in QM there is a notation for mind/observer (and not the Hermitian operator for measurenent). You're not talking "over my head" and out of your bunghole again, Gnomon, are you? :sparkle: :eyes:

I'm not convinced "supernatural" has much meaning as such.

If we were talking "supernatural magic" in fiction literature, then it could mean something like causing particular extra-self change by will alone, except maybe accompanied by rituals or something.

The Book of the Dead, theurgy, the Key of Solomon, Enochian magic, telepathy, ...? (creative fantasies)

Sort of similarly, I can't get a cab to go visit and shake Superman's hand, "Job well done, sir", but we can chit-chat about it just the same.



Back here in the world we inhabit/share, in what cases can "supernatural magic" not be replaced with "unknown" without incurring informative loss? In what cases have "supernatural magic" as an explanation done away with ignorance/errors? What does "supernatural magic" derive that's differentiable? For that matter, is there anything that "supernatural magic" couldn't be raised to explain? Such cases seem few and far between, if there are any at all.

The verbiage would have to be exemplified and set out to have much meaning, yes?

I'm sure I've missed that "force". Please cite where in any of the equations or formal models used in QM there is a notation for mind/observer (and not the Hermitian operator for measurenent). You're not talking "over my head" and out of your bunghole again, Gnomon, are you? :sparkle: :eyes: — 180 Proof

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another.

As an observer (in a state of observation) we interact with/are entangled with that which we are observing. There is communication of information between the object of observation and the subject (observer). We must be entangled.

Heinsenbergs uncertainty principle also shows this for to make an exacting observation of one factor the other must be unknown/uncertain. You cannot measure the possible locations of a particle (Velocity) and the where the particle is located at this very moment simultaneously.

And in the same way when we observe something and interpret it as materialistic, we cannot understand it from any other possible explanation. Because some scientists saw lights wave behaviour while others measured it as a particle they were at odds with one another as to which must be correct.

Its like the #the dress thing all-over again.

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? — Benj96

Nope.

Well then I suppose you already have your answer. Why ask anyone else in the first place ammi right? Haha

You suppose wrong. Gnomon hasn't answered me yet. S/He won't, almost never does. S/He fears being exposed ... :smirk:

You suppose wrong — 180 Proof

Ah, so you don't want to talk to me about it just Gnomon. Is that because you can't talk to me about it or because you don't want to? Do you also fear being exposed as you say Gnomon does? Hmm I do wonder indeed.

In any case I suppose we can leave it there.

I don't know what you are talking about. I asked questions of one of Gnomon's posts. Your interjection (re: "entanglement") was a non sequitur, Ben. And, besides, only Gnomon can answer for himself/herself. As for myself, my post history amply demonstrates I expose myself to critique or ridicule as often as I can – bring it if you got it, and expect me to give back as good as I get. No fear, kid.

And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. — Gnomon

Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another. — Benj96

Quantum physics has expanded the classical notion of "force" to include a variety of causes of change, including the faster-than-light-causal-force of the Entanglement effect. I could cite many more of them for 180wooboo's enlightenment. But since he missed the point of the quote, I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature. And which I expect he will reject & ridicule. :smile:

Intention is a force :
Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person's actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/The-Importance-Of-Intention-The-Consequences-Of-769252

And, besides, only Gnomon can answer for himself/herself — 180 Proof

Unless of course Gnomon and are in agreement. In which case either of our answers are some variation of eachothers, fundamentally agreeable.
And that's up to him and I to conclude, in which case your interjection would be non sequitur.

Funny how that works.

bring it if you got it, and expect me to give back as good as I get. No fear, kid. — 180 Proof

That's a good attitude to have. I match it in return. I like your confidence. It seems then one must be open to anyone's interjections if you are really saying "bring it if you got it" and not just "Hush up, I'm not talking to you."

I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature — Gnomon

That it does Gnomon, that it does. :)

Addendum to &

There's an extensive literature, after Popper, that links the logical structure of propositions to their being verifiable or falsifiable or neither or both. That's one sort of metaphysics. Midgley talks of plumbing, a more general sort of metaphysics.

Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do. — Banno

:100:

:up:

"MWI" – information or reality or ??? :chin:

@Gnomon, @Benj96, @god must be atheist

Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do.

— Banno

180wooboo quoted Banno to say that "metaphysics" is included under the heading of Physics. I'm not sure what he meant by that counterintuitive assertion, which ignores the "meta" qualifier. Maybe he's suggesting that Mind (mental properties) is an integral component of Brain (physical properties), hence a category error. Perhaps he's implying that non-material Metaphysics, like everything else in reality, is subordinate to all-encompassing Physics. However, that could be construed to equate metaphysics with Energy & Matter as a third manifestation of Physics*1.

I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. Instead, he seems to think that the term "metaphysics" necessarily implies something un-natural & perverse : an abomination. Whenever I use the meta-word (referring to consciousness), he rises-up in righteous indignation to despise, execrate, and condemn the very idea of anything that is not simply matter-energy Physics. As a considered opinion, that's OK with me, except for the dialog-dampening effects of emotional denunciations, and appeals to orthodoxy instead of reason. :smile:

PS__I could agree with a re-worded version of that statement : "Metaphysics is not an afterthought, but an integral feature of NATURE". Since the human Mind -- and its energy analogue Intention -- emerged from the natural processes of evolution, the potential for its emergence must have been encoded in the Natural Laws & Initial Conditions of the physical and metaphysical universe. Otherwise, it would have been a post hoc (supernatural) intervention into the mundane evolutionary mechanisms.

Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law :
One's view of the natural law is based on one's view of human nature. Human nature is what all humans have in common at all times. The natural law must be universal because human nature is universal. If there is a natural law, it applies to all humans just because they are humans.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2006.00106.x

Are the laws of nature metaphysical? :
Some philosophers think that laws of nature are contingent, others think that laws are metaphysically necessary.
https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/72/4/875/6454669

Meta-Physical Mind :
The argument against materialism in The Conscious Mind has two parts. The first part, in Chapter 3 of the book, argues that there is no a priori entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness. The second part, in Chapter 4 of the book, argues that there is no a posteriori necessary entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/Consciousness_2014/Chalmers_ConsciousMind/Chalmers_Response1999_OCR.pdf

*1. Ironically, in my personal worldview, I do equate Matter & Mind as emergent forms of universal causal energy (EnFormAction). But Mind & Consciousness have completely different properties from Matter, hence (contra Materialism doctrine) im-material & non-physical attributes.

I made it explicit that I was referring to Popper, and hence to falsificationism. The comment had nothing to do with mind/body; why you would go off on that tangent is enigmatic.

It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor.

I made it explicit that I was referring to Popper, and hence to falsificationism. The comment had nothing to do with mind/body; why you would go off on that tangent is enigmatic.
It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor. — Banno

Sorry. I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. So, my response was only to what was explicit in his post : metaphysics is integral to physics. :smile:

I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. — Gnomon

Which "quote" is that? :roll:

I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. — Gnomon

:lol:

Of course, without any basis to "doubt" as my post history demonstrates).

Of course, without any basis to "doubt" as my post history demonstrates). — 180 Proof

Your post history reminds me of the bible: the text could be interpreted in any way, of course for different reasons. In your case, (not in the bible's) there is no history of explicit claims or declarations of beliefs, declarations of opinions; but rather symbols such as :razz: :lol: :fire: :100: :sweat: :strong: :cheer: and the like. Other times you underline,bold,italicize and CAPITALIZE or else apply a combination of these features to parts of your text that serves no purpose that I can see. Yes, sometimes you make a declarative statement, and mostly they are in the negative, saying not what your opinion is, but what your opinion is not.

Given the above, you supply (without giving the right or the reason for others to do this) free range in evaluating your stances on issues.

Personally, I have no problem with this, other than considering it spineless. A person who does not make a stand and blames others for misinterpreting his opinion on philosophy sites is certainly a type of person who has all the rights to do this, and can't be dinged for it other than morally.

In summary: your declarations are mostly negations of what others say about you in their opinions of what they ASSUME you say, because you say, basically, nothing, other than binding with other users of the site and other than denying opinions attributed to you.

Carry on, I don't stand in your way, and I don't want to; could not even if I wanted to. I just said what I have observed over a relatively long period of time on this site.

Yes, sometimes you make a declarative statement, and mostly they are in the negative, saying not what your opinion is, but what your opinion is not. — god must be atheist

Again, you accuse me without evidence or argument, and when I request for you as I've done here to corroborate your criticisms of me by citing my own words – nada, silencio. That Is "Spineless" ... :shade:

As for the preponderance of my negative remarks, first I gotta shovel-out the heaps of fallacious, uninformed, poorly reasoned shit folks like you often post before I can find enough space at the bar to belly-up to and properly trash-talk with reasoned opinions over the din of vapid gossip. Lots of folks, gmba, believe they are saying something more than just making onanistic noises to flatter themselves and their fellow illiteratti. I'm sure you know the type ... So yeah, I cop to it, I'm a dialectical rodeo clown, but only when there's a lot of running bulls*** to corral; like Diogenes with his lantern, I loiter on these fora looking for a few well-informed folks to reason with and learn from inspite of you :eyes:

Anyway, gmba, when you put some thoughtful aporia or speculation on the table that's not buried in a manure heap of incoherence and half-ass pesudo-whatever gossip, I'll be happy to bring my own to the table either to discuss or debate. Until then, I'll pass the time as I see fit – as an esteemed philosopher recommends – mostly exposing and disabusing know-nothings and think-me-nots out of their smugness.

The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy which saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought. — Gilles Deleuze