I'm not arguing a "first cause", I am arguing a cause of material existence. This is an actuality which is prior to material existence, as cause of material existence. Since it is prior to material existence it is immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must there be a cause of material existence? Thinking of the universe as being of finite age and consisting in temporal successions of causes and effects constitutes the usual purported justification for thinking there must be a first cause. The point is why could the cause of material existence or the first cause not be physical?

The Big Bang model posits nothing physical or otherwise before the first physical event.

What we have here is a case of human reason not operating in accordance with reality. Reality, as we know it, is that all things have a cause (principle of sufficient reason). So when we allow ourselves to say that such and such a thing has no cause, we are really allowing our reasoning to be not in accordance with reality, by accepting this premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Reality as we know it" is reality according to human thinking, so it is circular to then say that the idea that something might have no cause is not in accordance with reality. What we should say is it would not be in accordance with reality as we know, that is reality according to human judgement, to say that an event could have no cause. But saying that tells us nothing other than about the nature of our own thinking. And that also assumes that there is just one version of human judgement on this issue of cause.

Why must there be a cause of material existence? — Janus

I told you, this is a premise which is necessary in order that material existence may be intelligible.

The point is why could the cause of material existence or the first cause not be physical? — Janus

I answered that in my last post.

"Reality as we know it" is reality according to human thinking, so it is circular to then say that the idea that something might have no cause is not in accordance with reality. — Janus

It is not circular, because the intent is to portray aspects of reality as intelligible, yet not known. If the claim was reality as we know it is all that can be known, this would be circular. Instead, the claim is that reality as we know it indicates that the unknown can be known. And that is not circular.

What we should say is it would not be in accordance with reality as we know, that is reality according to human judgement, to say that an event could have no cause. But saying that tells us nothing other than about the nature of our own thinking. And that also assumes that there is just one version of human judgement on this issue of cause. — Janus

I think you misunderstand Janus.. My understanding of reality is what induces the claim that material things have a cause, and as you say, this statement is reality according to a judgement of mine. However, the judgement concerns reality, it says something about reality, as the subject. It does noy say something about human judgement as the subject. Therefore it really doesn't tell us anything about the nature of our own judgement. It says something about reality, as the subject, and nothing about how that judgement was derived. I really did not explain why "matter" is defined in this way. To say something about one's own thinking requires that the person analyzes and describes how this judgement was derived. But that's not the case here, I am saying something about reality, and if you do not agree that it is true, then so be it, because the concept of "matter" is not explained in a few simple posts.

it says something about reality, as the subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

It says something about reality as you judge it to be. Others may not judge reality to be as you do, and reality may not be as anyone judges it to be, if we are talking about anything other than what is observable.

[ ... ] Wheeler conceived of information, not as non-physical, but as "a fundamental physical entity"!

@Gnomon :point: You also might want to read this to educate yourself as to the diversity of views on the matter of information.

This is nice apt summation:

According to Aristotle biological beings are a single physical entity. There are no separate forms and hyle floating around waiting to be combined. There is not one without the other, substantiated in living physical entities, that is, substances.
— Fooloso4 — Janus

:fire: :100:

It says something about reality as you judge it to be. Other may not judge reality to be as you do, and reality may not be as anyone judges it to be, if we are talking about anything other than what is observable. — Janus

You have this confused. Conclusions drawn from observation are what we most disagree on. That material things have a cause is a conclusion derived from observation, and that is what we seem to disagree on. The disagreement becomes even more evident when we start discussing particular occurrences.

You quote Janus on Aristotle simply because it is what you like. I just spent days explaining to Janus how Aristotle demonstrated that it is logically necessary to assume the reality of immaterial form. This is commonly referred to as Aristotle's cosmological argument. But Janus did not listen, and still insists that Aristotle did not talk about separate form, simply because the Foolso4 says what Janus wants to hear. We have a bunch of parrots here in this thread.

:ok: If you say so ...

The idea that information is ontologically fundamental, not to mention non-physical, is very far from being a consensus view among contemporary physicists as far as I am aware, so your lame attempt to cast my questioning of the idea as coming from a mindset mired in classical physics is laughable. — Janus

Yes. That's why I referred to it as "cutting edge". As I said, the reference to Classical Science was not intended to be derogatory. No need to take offense, because the majority of people today, including philosophers, seem to take intuitive Classical Newtonian Physics for granted, and ignore counter-intuitive Quantum Physics as mysticism unrelated to their daily lives. The notion that Information occurs in both material and non-material forms is a minority concept. But it is essential to my own personal information-centric worldview, including my understanding of Monism. Are you laughing at my mindset, or at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both?

As a "fundamental physical entity" Information exists in the form of Energy*1 --- which is the active ingredient of Physics, yet is immaterial itself. Energy is invisible and intangible*2, so we know it exists as a Cause only by rational inference from its Effects on matter. But then, immaterial Energy can transform into Matter, by means of Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. As a philosopher, you don't need to know or worry about such "non-sense", unless you are interested in such non-sense as Causation & Monism. :smile:

PS__A century ago a patent clerk made some risible jokes at the expense of Sir Isaac Newton : e.g. empty space can be warped into light-bending waves and causing the Earth to suck via "spooky action at a distance". Are you still still chuckling at that non-sense? Or do you accept it as an implausible fact because it is now the majority opinion?


*1. Information is Energy :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

*2. Light energy is an invisible energy which causes the sensation of vision in the eye.
https://infinitylearn.com/surge/question/physics/is-it-true-that-light-energy-is-called-invisible-energy/

• information is brain state.
• Information DNA genetic information.
• Information Shannon information.
• Information quantum information.
• Information is non-physical.
• Information is physical.
• Information is an abstract concept only.
• Information is energy.
• Information has mass.
• Information is mass-less.
• Information has diverse definitions.
• Information can (or cannot) be explained by Monism.
• Information has been defined (or not) by science.
• Information has a singular state in its physical form.
• Information is the Mind part of Mind/Body.
• Information is inseparable (or is separable) from brain state.
• Information can (or cannot) be reduced to simpler physical components.
• Information is (or is not) more fundamental than physical matter.

So, in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. Going point by point there is little consistency and little consensus.
This list is just a hodge podge of what's been put up here. It should be a red flag that we are not doing well at all.

Feel free to add items to this list of what you think information is in regards to Physical Monism or Dualism if you like. Do a quote.and add ons if you like. It's not supposed to be a good list, just anything that is out there.

in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. — Mark Nyquist

I don't agree with others here that information can be thought of as the raw material of existence, because the word itself is polysemic - it has many meanings - and furthermore, that the term in itself has no meaning unless you specify what information you are talking about. The idea of 'generic information' is oxymoronic - information has to specify something, otherwise how does it constitute information?

There is a famous and often-quoted statement from a book by Norbert Weiner, one of the creators of information science, to wit 'Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.' So, how does materialism respond? It adds 'information' to the list of fundamental furniture of the world. And then Claude Shannon came along with the ground-breaking theory of information which is another of the fundamental discoveries in information science. A lot of the speculation about information being fundamental is based on using Shannon's theory as an analogy (although it's often not clear as to what it is an analogy for.)

That said, there is an interesting way in which information has been conceived as fundamental in biology, that being biosemiotics, about which one of the occasional posters here, Apokrisis, has provided much information. (See Marcello Barbieri A Short History of Biosemiotics if you're interested.)

The Big Bang model posits nothing physical or otherwise before the first physical event. — Janus

There is a lot of documentation nowadays on the fundamental cosmological constraints that must be the case in order for a cosmos to form, and not simply dissipate into plasma or collapse into a mass of infinite density. These can't be explained in terms of consequences of the singularity as they must exist as causal constraints. I think they bear at least a suggestive similarity to a priori conditions of existence (see for example Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees.)

There is a lot of documentation nowadays on the fundamental cosmological constraints that must be the case in order for a cosmos to form, and not simply dissipate into plasma or collapse into a mass of infinite density. These can't be explained in terms of consequences of the singularity as they must exist as causal constraints. I think they bear at least a suggestive similarity to a priori conditions of existence (see for example Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees.) — Wayfarer

Right, but that wasn't my point. If the constraints had been different a different cosmos may have formed or no cosmos at all. Or perhaps the constraints could not have been different. These are things which cannot be known, just as, if the Big Bang model is accepted, then the question of what "preceded" it makes no sense. Let us not underestimate human intellectual hubris.

I agree that information has specific content. Good point. And generic information is oxymoronic. I agree again. I am saying the polysemic use of the word information is a problem. Of course it's use can be found in context or also cause confusion.

By making a list I was pointing out that we have a tendency to over assign the word information to things.

I missed the point, in my list, of information being only in the physical present (or not).

I'm thinking the best approach is brain state, a singular definition, existence in the present moment only, and physically based on neurons holding specific content. There is the difficulty of how the brain has the ability of manipulating non-physicals but there is no alternative. It's how math is done, to give an example.

I think I read John Wheeler worked with yes/no questions. But that also can lead to different results...everyone has their biases built in. John Wheeler, interesting guy.

Also, genetics works just fine as physical matter only. These are processed of molecules interacting with other molecules. Just chemistry.

Physicists use the term physical information.
Very confusing. Does it exist or not?

No need to take offense — Gnomon

You're projecting again.

at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both? — Gnomon

Firstly, citation is needed. And in any case, whether novel ideas in physics are cutting edge or not is something that gets worked out over time. If the experts cannot reach consensus, then citing experts as cutting-edge authorities to support your own pet theories is nothing more than indulging confirmation bias in my opinion.

Are you familiar with Aristotle's cosmological argument?

Of course.

When the the cosmological argument supposedly demonstrates the necessity of an independent form, why would you accept Fooloso4's assessment that for Aristotle there are no independent forms?

I agree with @Fooloso4's remarks about hylomorphism. IIRC, Aristotle's (like Plato's & Aquinas') cosmological argument is completely unsound and therefore cannot account for any matters of fact, let alone notions like "independent forms" (whatever that means).

An old post exchange between you & I on this topic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/350254

Whether the argument is unsound or not is irrelevant to the point, which is whether Aristotle upheld the notion of independent form. Since Aristotle produced the argument, which was intended to proved the reality of independent form, then I think we ought to respect the fact that he did believe in independent form, and therefore reject Fooloso4's statement as false

... why would you accept Fooloso4's assessment that for Aristotle there are no independent forms? — Metaphysician Undercover

Fooloso4's statement — Metaphysician Undercover

I cannot find this post (wherein I "agree"), reply with a link please.

I read a little from John Archibald Wheeler and from what I got out of it the "it from bit" notion of information applies only to the very special class of matter found in electronics devices that can produce a reliable physical quantity (binary) that can be interpreted as a yes or no. This excludes most matter. This should also be identified as a mental projection on a physical system to be of use. Don't read more into it that there is just because the word information is being used.

I'm thinking the best approach is brain state, a singular definition, existence in the present moment only, and physically based on neurons holding specific content. — Mark Nyquist

But that is reductive physicalism, which I'm constitutionally averse to. The argument against it is that it somehow has to posit that these neuological states are at once physical and semantic, i.e. meaning-encoding. And as meaning can be encoded in so many completely diverse ways - like, different languages, different symbolic forms, different media - then I don't see how you could ever establish a 1:1 correspondence between meaning and a specific neural configuration or 'brain state'. Not to mention the ability of the brain to completely re-organize itself to compensate for trauma or to adapt to changing circumstances. which again suggests a kind of plasticity that is not found in case of physical objects.

With respect to Wheeler, have a read of Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?. There's also a speculative article of his, Law without Law, which is available in .pdf format from various websites.

By your comment I would guess your are weighting language higher than you should.

We have big brains that are very adaptive.

The way I break it down is neurons in large numbers holding mental content. Mental content would include everything. Language, math skills, your education, memory, your environment or mental maps on and on, so the affect of just language gets diluted.

We have big brains that are very adaptive. — Mark Nyquist

The brain is undoubtedly the most complex phenomenon known to science - but that is not the point. The point is, there are philosophical objections to the claim that brain states equate to or are the same as the content of thought. There are also issues sorrounding how to understand or explain the causal relationship between the neurological and the semantic, and also the neurological and the experiential. But it's a highly complex area of science and philosophy so I won't try and pursue it, at least without doing a whole lot more research that I don't have the time to undertake.

I don't think I said brain states are the same as the content of thought.

I would say brain state can have the ability (not always) to contain non-physical content. This non-physical content may have properties independent of any existing knowledge or brain state.

I used the example of the number pi. If you did not know it you would have to start from scratch to find the first second third ......digits. I think you use isosceles triangles but I've never done it. You could make mistakes. You couldn't use trig tables as they have limited decimals. Don't know how. Anyway the point is mental content is independent of preexisting brain state. I'm trying to explain the environment of brain/mental content as it exists.
.

I cannot find this post (wherein I "agree"), reply with a link please. — 180 Proof

[ ... ] Wheeler conceived of information, not as non-physical, but as "a fundamental physical entity"!

@Gnomon :point: You also might want to read this to educate yourself as to the diversity of views on the matter of information.

This is nice apt summation:

According to Aristotle biological beings are a single physical entity. There are no separate forms and hyle floating around waiting to be combined. There is not one without the other, substantiated in living physical entities, that is, substances.
— Fooloso4
— Janus
:fire: :100: — 180 Proof

So, in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. Going point by point there is little consistency and little consensus. — Mark Nyquist

I agree.

And that brings up the real question: what do we gain from the idea? What's the use?

OK, we have a reality, be it however multiverse or whatever that we don't know.

We simply need many times to look at things from the viewpoint of pluralism. Especially when we don't know the answers. Information is a good example. The definitions and thinking of information differ, which is a bit tricky for monism.

And there are the downsides: Monism can easily lead to thinking that our present theories are all encompassing, answer everything. This is just a way that humans look at their own times. Many won't to accept that "Now in the 21st Century we don't know many things and have errors in our understanding of nature and science". Because if the respected well-known scientist admits this, you will be sure that all the pseudo-science of humbug movements and science haters will surely pick up the line and denounce present scientific knowledge altogether. But would you treat 19th Century science to be correct? Or 17th Century science? Weren't they already standing on the shoulders of giants back then?

And if there are question that cannot be answered, well, they aren't important. And it will lead many times to simple crass reductionism. Because everything is one, there's a theory of everything, right?

So really, what does monism give us?

Thanks for the link. I agree with @Fooloso4's argument regardless of its fidelity or not with Aristotle because I hold the same view ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/811145
... informed by modern information / computational theory. I stand by my earlier dismissal of Aristotle's cosmological argument as a pedantic aside by you, MU, that misses Fooloso4's conceptually salient forest for your anachronistic trees.

Wayfarer was asking about a one to one correspondence yesterday.

I can give an analogy of something easy to understand that might point to how brains work.
Take the example of a contour gauge in carpentry. It has plates or sliders that will take the shape of irregular shapes like crown moldings. When you apply the tool to the shape it will take that shape and you can transfer that shape to a work piece. Moving to the non-physical, if you would like to create a new shape you could invent a shape by moving the sliders.
This would physically instantiated the shape to your tool and you could then transfer that shape to a work piece same as before.

In the case of physicals brains, the brain state will be the configuration required to instantiate non-physical mental content. It's reasonable to say the non-physical content does not physically exist and cannot be physically detected.

Monism could be a dead end. Our mental worlds are very much about manipulating the immaterial. I said before Dualists might have better instincts about this.
Ultimately it's all done by physical means. I don't know all the details but you will function better if you know you have the ability to process non-physical content.