one has to go through the dialectical process, and as such, engage in the dialectic rather than ask for a final answer that let's us check a box "yes" or "no" -- "just" or "unjust" — Moliere

No. I’m not arguing for open-ended dialectics. I’m arguing for arriving at some suitably definite dichotomy where just is defined with precision in terms of its “other”.

Negation doesn’t work as just vs unjust tells us very little about this still unnamed other. A metaphysical,strength dichotomy would be pairings like discrete-continuous, chance-necessity, local-global, vague-crisp, flux-stasis, etc.

If we can’t think of something to pair with just in similar fashion - as that which is logically mutually exclusive AND jointly exhaustive - then this in itself an argument for it being not a metaphysically general kind of distinction. It ain’t working as a bounding absolute when it comes to our dialectically formed vocab of ultimate abstractions.

Equality and balance are more robust terms, more overarching terms, as same-different is one of those standard dichotomies that concretely arose out of Greek philosophy. Justice and fairness are more parochial terms. As we have discussed and agreed, you can have the confusion of whether we are meaning equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.

Opportunity implies the competition that will result in a statistical range of outcomes. Lucky for some, unfair to others? Outcome implies a range of individual differences will be averaged over so that none are different by the end. Is that kind of communism just? Does one dream of the kind of discipline that leaves us as equal as an army marching in lockstep?

It is amazing that anyone could bandy these terms around - good, fair, just - as if they were already metaphysically robust … even if we can get by with them as socially coercive appeals in our everyday social politicking. Just claiming that goodness and justice is what your side represents and what your foe doesn’t.

Why do you assume that energy (e.g. massless particles ... mental activity ...) is not material?

What would your commonsense notion of Fairness or Justice look like, within this human world? Is it specifiable, exactly? — Moliere

Ha! My commonsense solution to the Fairness & Justice problem would be to have a single-sovereign-supreme-superhuman judge to arbitrate between human definitions of My Justice and Your Fairness. Something like Molière's Tartuffe, relocated to heaven. But, since I gave up my religious solution years ago, I just don't worry about it. I'm certainly not a Marxist, except in the sense that he specified the problem for his day & time. His solution was missing the heavenly father to make the children behave. At my advanced age, I'm willing to let those who are more-concerned-&-more-able work-out the details of the next Utopia. :cool:

No. I’m not arguing for open-ended dialectics. I’m arguing for arriving at some suitably definite dichotomy where just is defined with precision in terms of its “other”.

Negation doesn’t work as just vs unjust tells us very little about this still unnamed other. A metaphysical,strength dichotomy would be pairings like discrete-continuous, chance-necessity, local-global, vague-crisp, flux-stasis, etc.

If we can’t think of something to pair with just in similar fashion - as that which is logically mutually exclusive AND jointly exhaustive - then this in itself an argument for it being not a metaphysically general kind of distinction. It ain’t working as a bounding absolute when it comes to our dialectically formed vocab of ultimate abstractions.

Equality and balance are more robust terms, more overarching terms, as same-different is one of those standard dichotomies that concretely arose out of Greek philosophy. Justice and fairness are more parochial terms. As we have discussed and agreed, you can have the confusion of whether we are meaning equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.

Opportunity implies the competition that will result in a statistical range of outcomes. Lucky for some, unfair to others? Outcome implies a range of individual differences will be averaged over so that none are different by the end. Is that kind of communism just? Does one dream of the kind of discipline that leaves us as equal as an army marching in lockstep?

It is amazing that anyone could bandy these terms around - good, fair, just - as if they were already metaphysically robust … even if we can get by with them as socially coercive appeals in our everyday social politicking. Just claiming that goodness and justice is what your side represents and what your foe doesn’t. — apokrisis

What if they're not doing metaphysics, though?

I'd situation "equality of..." within Liberal theory. "Equality" is understood within the thoughts of the likes of Hobbes and Locke. The liberals were so successful that the calls for equality no longer mean the same as they once did: Equality then was before the law, so that the King didn't have a separate court from the people.

But as Kings diminished and the bourgeoisie rose "equality" took on new meanings.

Now, on TPF, "fair and just" will have all those resonances coming along-with. We can clarify as we go along to specify what we mean in a dialogue rather than relying upon a wide system to define our meanings. But I reach for liberal theory because liberalism -- in the classical sense -- is the dominant political philosophy to the point that it's in The Background. So we are stuck with these notions of opportunity vs. outcome, for instance, by virtue of our own history and context that we come from.

I think that where you would say: "Equality and balance are more robust terms, more overarching terms, as same-different is one of those standard dichotomies that concretely arose out of Greek philosophy. Justice and fairness are more parochial terms", the person seeking justice or goodness will say "But equality and balance are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the parochial terms. That's ethics"

Do you see the difference there?

Ha! My commonsense solution to the Fairness & Justice problem would be to have a single-sovereign-supreme-superhuman judge to arbitrate between human definitions of My Justice and Your Fairness. Something like Molière's Tartuffe, relocated to heaven. But, since I gave up my religious solution years ago, I just don't worry about it. I'm certainly not a Marxist, except in the sense that he specified the problem for his day & time. His solution was missing the heavenly father to make the children behave. At my advanced age, I'm willing to let those who are more-concerned-&-more-able work-out the details of the next Utopia. :cool: — Gnomon

Utopia's shmopeya's :D -- the no place will not be as far as I'm concerned.

But I'll note that your commonsense solution runs into another commonsense solution: That Fairness and Justice would have to leave the supreme-superhuman judge out of our affairs, since we disagree on what the supreme-superhuman judge says, and so we should separate out church from state, and grant equal rights to all citizens.

I just mention my Marxism to lay my cards out on the table. There's a sense in which you could argue the opposite, that what we have can't be described as either just or unfair, but is just a process on its way to the next stage: to reject it for its injustice would be an idealism, whereas to struggle for a future freedom would be a materialism, or something along those lines.

Because Tartuffe tells us pretty things in order to seduce our daughters this lesser, material fairness is sought after as the highest real justice, even if it doesn't match what heaven is portrayed as.

↪Gnomon
Why do you assume that energy (e.g. massless particles ... mental activity ...) is not material? — 180 Proof

It's a long off-topic story. But, if you have the time and the inclination, I have a thesis and blog to underwrite that philosophical inference. :smile:

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Philosophically, Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial ; you can't put it under a microscope. Therefore, if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Ability is usually imputed to Agents, not Things.

How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note --- Matter is only one of may forms of Energy. Mind is another form. Materialism ignores all those other forms of Causal Agency. In this context, Information Regime = Things.

the person seeking justice or goodness will say "But equality and balance are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the parochial terms. That's ethics" — Moliere

Fine. But the OP set it out this way....

I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. — Gnomon

So a grander view was being asked for than a parochial one. Then Bono unhelpfully heaped on his confusion with a trite depiction that seemed to argue that equality and fairness are different things, or perhaps not. Not even a parochial clarification was attempted.

But as a case in point, we can see that it touches on a valid difference in terms of notions of "fair and just" life opportunities and "fair and just" life outcomes.

So we have then a problem of how to square the two. In the real world, people come with their biological variance and their social variance. In the old days, we were foragers. The biological variance was Gaussian and the social variance likewise. For a million years or so, bodies only evolved a bit, lifestyles only changed a bit.

Then we had the agricultural revolution. Folk still had the same genetic balance of equality/inequality. Luck could make you smarter or stronger than the average. But steadily populations grew and social outcomes became more of a hierarchical competition. You had the explosive growth of empires rising and falling.

Then the industrial revolution and now social outcomes could be hugely varied. And indeed, political structures were rejigged to make that part of the game. Liberal philosophy advocated for all to have the opportunity to get fat and rich, every person getting the just desserts they could earn.

But unfettered capitalism doesn't work. Some kind of balancing in the other direction – an evening out if outcomes are too uneven – has to be built into the politics. Marxism was one such response – but better institutionalised by social democracies than communist autocracies.

So yes, there is some ethical meat in this. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". We can see that as the kind of formula which connects the biological variance and sociological variance, that connects the distribution of opportunities to the distributions of outcomes in the hope of approaching some happy medium.

But then the rub. The happy medium is in turn dependent on the underlying entropic foundations of that society. There is a burn rate that the political thermostat is attempting to regulate. The populace must produce – or these days consume – at a rate sufficient to keep the system on the road and growing, while also paying for the matching social safety net (including its state security apparatus) that stops the social fabric tearing itself to shreds.

If you neglect to discuss this deeper thermodynamic dimension to human affairs – what it means to have moved from foraging, to agriculture, to fossil-fueled industry – then it will seem as if social settings are decided within some ethical bubble. Politics can ignore the burn rate it exists to control and can just fluff about debating good vs evil, Marxism vs Liberalism, your whatever vs my whatever.

That is why the jargon used in moral philosophy has to become more openly thermodynamic and thus connect society to its real world basis. The life and mind sciences have already done just this. Even sociology, history and politics have schools going this way.

If moral philosophy is the last one to jump on the train – well, I'd say that is probably damn well unethical. What use are these fools who insist on the abstract purity of their ivory towers.

Now let's get back to more pragmatic issues like the trolley problem and anti-natalism.... :grin:

So a grander view was being asked for than a parochial one. Then Bono unhelpfully heaped on his confusion with a trite depiction that seemed to argue that equality and fairness are different things, or perhaps not. Not even a parochial clarification was attempted.

But as a case in point, we can see that it touches on a valid difference in terms of notions of "fair and just" life opportunities and "fair and just" life outcomes.

So we have then a problem of how to square the two. In the real world, people come with their biological variance and their social variance. In the old days, we were foragers. The biological variance was Gaussian and the social variance likewise. For a million years or so, bodies only evolved a bit, lifestyles only changed a bit.

Then we had the agricultural revolution. Folk still had the same genetic balance of equality/inequality. Luck could make you smarter or stronger than the average. But steadily populations grew and social outcomes became more of a hierarchical competition. You had the explosive growth of empires rising and falling.

Then the industrial revolution and now social outcomes could be hugely varied. And indeed, political structures were rejigged to make that part of the game. Liberal philosophy advocated for all to have the opportunity to get fat and rich, every person getting the just desserts they could earn.

But unfettered capitalism doesn't work. Some kind of balancing in the other direction – an evening out if outcomes are too uneven – has to be built into the politics. Marxism was one such response – but better institutionalised by social democracies than communist autocracies.

So yes, there is some ethical meat in this. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". We can see that as the kind of formula which connects the biological variance and sociological variance, that connects the distribution of opportunities to the distributions of outcomes in the hope of approaching some happy medium.

But then the rub. The happy medium is in turn dependent on the underlying entropic foundations of that society. There is a burn rate that the political thermostat is attempting to regulate. The populace must produce – or these days consume – at a rate sufficient to keep the system on the road and growing, while also paying for the matching social safety net (including its state security apparatus) that stops the social fabric tearing itself to shreds.

If you neglect to discuss this deeper thermodynamic dimension to human affairs – what it means to have moved from foraging, to agriculture, to fossil-fueled industry – then it will seem as if social settings are decided within some ethical bubble. Politics can ignore the burn rate it exists to control and can just fluff about debating good vs evil, Marxism vs Liberalism, your whatever vs my whatever. — apokrisis

If you neglect to discuss the. . . material conditions? :D

I think the social setting is not an ethical bubble, I agree -- I think of societies as organisms, but ones which we do not understand very well. That is, I don't think their patterns are just abstractions, though it's very easy to get lost in abstractions because there's not a very easy way to build falsification into social description: there isn't a science of history.

Which puts me in trouble with some variants of Marxism, and again, I really only mention it to put my cards on the table in answering the question: one could say I was giving the Humanist Marxist response, though there is this other, materialist-scientific side to Marxism that I believe your account gets along with fairly well: just in the place of "thermodynamic dimension" it's "Capital", which in a sufficiently generalized theory would probably have some kind of equality relations, but I don't think we're there yet. That is, I think when talking about Justice, Fairness, or even describing the political situation without reference to our ideals that we're still in a parochial bubble, rather than in the realm of scientific inquiry.

That is, I think we're doing philosophy in the vein of wondering about what is not known. Or, perhaps in light of current events, repeating ourselves because it's our value or something like that -- i.e. we might be doing politics rather than reflecting or some such.

But then, that gets to the deeper philosophy of Marxism, which changes what constitutes the real point of philosophy is to change the world rather interpret it. (but then, "Change it to what?" -- after you answer that, then we can speak of the use...)

What use are these fools who insist on the abstract purity of their ivory towers. — apokrisis

What's the use of use? :D

Beauty, not use, is my stated aim. I at least think it's important.

I don't even need philosophy to be true to be worthwhile, much less do I need it to be useful. But that's a metaphilosophical point that will surely diverge from the thread topic

Now let's get back to more pragmatic issues like the trolley problem and anti-natalism.... :grin: — apokrisis

Well, I'm calling for less pragmatic issues, though those two are first boring and then ugly, so not my bag either. :D

OK. What do you mean by "materialist" or "materialism"? — Gnomon

Well, you might be disappointed. It's the view that the world is made only of particles, of bits of matter, bashing against each other. That's a view that went out of fashion with Newton's action at a distance. Matter is not "the sole fundamental substance".

There is a pop view that, speaking roughly, what science says there is, is all that there is. I think this view problematic. The implication is that there is one best way to talk about any issue, and that is from the point of view of science. The alternative, perhaps articulated most clearly by Mary Midgley, is that we can, do and indeed ought, make use of multiple ways of talking about issues.

Here's two descriptions:

Painted using a matte house paint with the least possible gloss, on stretched canvas, 3.5 meters tall and 7.8 meters wide, in the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid.

An anti-war statement displaying the terror and suffering of people and animals.

Both are of Picasso's Guernica. Somehow matte house paint on canvas is the very same thing as a powerful anti-war statement. Two quite different ways of talking about the very same thing.

If we try to shoehorn everything into one type of discussion, we are going to miss many very important distinctions.

:ok: So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ...

I think of societies as organisms, but ones which we do not understand very well. — Moliere

Who is this "we"? I've put a lot of effort into the literature that exists to explain history, politics and society this way. I could give you a reading list...

there is this other, materialist-scientific side to Marxism that I believe your account gets along with fairly well: just in the place of "thermodynamic dimension" it's "Capital", — Moliere

Yep. Capital (or debt) is what becomes dichotomous to Material (or disposable entropy). This is what the systems view makes explicit.

The idea of value is abstracted to become a fungible relation. So as to make scalefree growth possible, we have to reduce the two sides of the dynamical equation to there complementary essence. The pure source of entropy that is a barrel of oil. The pure source of information (as the signal telling entropy which way to flow) that is the US dollar.

Or given that capital is now financialised as debt, US treasuries. The liquidity of all our mortgaged tomorrows – mostly in the trusting hands of the oil producers to nicely close the petrodollar foundation to the modern economic world system.

Capital and Material speak to the fact that humans have made the basis of their existence a system of balanced liquidity. We value life in dollars and oil. One may seem the epitome of the ideal, the other the epitome of the material. But that is the dichotomy of our clever construction. We divided our existence towards these opposing limits so that we could indeed live within a world thus structured. Limitless growth based on limitless oil and limitless debt.

Capital used to be land ownership in the agricultural era. That is what eventually got idealised as property rights and so setting the scene for capitalism as a currency-based expansionary enterprise.

Land just gives you access to the photosynthetic bounty of the sun. Bags of gold harnesses first people, then horses, then steam engines and gun boats. Petrodollars create a system that will pump the ground for its last drop as civilisation has no choice but to service its futurised debts at the same furious eternalised rate of growth.

Look at how China got sucked into the vortex and ended up building ghost cities in despoiled landscapes.

Beauty, not use, is my stated aim. I at least think it's important. — Moliere

A pleasant sentiment. But how do you in practice aim for it? You would have to hash that out and discover what it really means in terms of a socially sustainable way of life for a biological creature in a thermodynamical world.

I don't even need philosophy to be true to be worthwhile, much less do I need it to be useful. — Moliere

Maybe you don't. But maybe that is because you can take your lifestyle for granted as something that is just magically there as a stable foundation.

Or maybe you are instead disillusioned with the world as it is given to you, but have little hope in changing it? Philosophy has to be a comfort, a solace, rather than a plan of action.

I would agree that civilisation does seem to be on its own mindless path. It does exceed our control. Oil just wants to be burnt and it doesn't care about us except to the degree we serve to accelerate that entropic purpose. We opened the Pandora's box and we are being swept along by the larger forces that have been unleashed.

But my attitude is that you only have the one life. And right now is the most spectacular moment in human history. We can see how the whole metaphysical deal got put together. So sit there and understand what is going on right before our eyes. Fluffing about with philosophical distractions is a waste of an opportunity when this is the moment that reality is becoming properly known to us for what it metaphysically is.

If we try to shoehorn everything into on type of discussion, we are going to miss very important distinctions. — Banno

You mischaracterise science which in fact progresses by resolving the world into its metaphysical strength dichotomies. Quantum theory first dissolved atomism into a story of particle~wave complementarity. Then into the holism of fields with excitations. Now into thermally decoherent systems of contextual constraint and localised fluctuations.

So on the one hand we have the warmed-over Cartesian dualism of the meaningless painted canvas and its mind-comprehended meaning.

On the other, we have science that continues to do its best to close the semiotic circle between observers and observables. Add thermodynamics to the quantum mix and we are right there. Or at least that is what biosemiosis now argues with theory and quantum biology now supports with evidence.

Of course art appreciation and social fashion can be cocooned off in its own little bubble by a Cartesian separation of powers. The two cultures are alive and well in those who were taught that that was the way to think about reality in general. And they can get quite angry about their little world being challenged.

Who is this "we"? I've put a lot of effort into the literature that exists to explain history, politics and society this way. — apokrisis

I was thinking "all of us", though understanding we could be wrong.

So perhaps you understand social organisms. I don't, and so the "we" is thems who don't understand it very well like me.

Maybe you don't. But maybe that is because you can take your lifestyle for granted as something that is just magically there as a stable foundation.

Or maybe you are instead disillusioned with the world as it is given to you, but have little hope in changing it? Philosophy has to be a comfort, a solace, rather than a plan of action. — apokrisis

I have little hope, because I know we can change it. But the knowledge is not a scientific knowledge -- it's a historical knowledge.

Philosophy is certainly a comfort and a solace, but if it were not a plan of action then I could not claim Marxism. To do so I want to answer your:

A pleasant sentiment. But how do you in practice aim for it? — apokrisis

Here (on TPF, on the internet, in conversation) I think all we can do -- materially speaking -- is exchange ideas, and that such places are rare anymore. We can be respectful towards one another's histories and find out just what and why others are saying what they do, insofar that we trust one another enough to do so in a public space.

Marxism, as you may be aware, is not exactly popular. :D -- it doesn't need to be by my reckoning of philosophy, but I can say that I've always benefited from spaces like that where we can exchange ideas and learn together. The point of the old problems is that they teach people and connect the young to the older and create a point of reference: they may be wrong, but we at least understand one another.

I would agree that civilisation does seem to be on its own mindless path. It does exceed our control. Oil just wants to be burnt and it doesn't care about us except to the degree we serve to accelerate that entropic purpose. We opened the Pandora's box and we are being swept along by the larger forces that have been unleashed.

But my attitude is that you only have the one life. And right now is the most spectacular moment in human history. We can see how the whole metaphysical deal got put together. So sit there and understand what is going on right before our eyes. Fluffing about with philosophical distractions is a waste of an opportunity when this is the moment that reality is becoming properly known to us for what it metaphysically is.

I think we have different attitudes, but not contradictory ones.

I only have one life, and so I like to help and see the future grow -- there will always be difficulties, and the horrors of the future scare me, but we can see it through.

I only have one life, and so I like to help and see the future grow -- there will always be difficulties, and the horrors of the future scare me, but we can see it through. — Moliere

But what is the plan? Beyond being polite and amiable to your fellow human?

I mean that is a practical personal plan. If things work out, then you are carried along in the flow of your community. And if things go to shit, stocking up on that kind of social capital is the smart move.

But big picture, what is the larger political and economic plan for that generally better future? What laws do we want enacted, what institutions do we want founded?

That's the level I am discussing things at. And any kind of -ism would seem also to be showing an interest in.

But what is the plan? Beyond being polite and amiable to your fellow human? — apokrisis

I mean, that's at least step 1, yes? If you can't be polite and amiable to your fellow humans, then it's unlikely anything will come of our efforts (though possible, in the case of the smarties out there who luck out)

I'm tempted to go anarchist here and say "Plan?! There is no plan -- only the impulse towards freedom and figuring out how we get there, but together!"

But really I don't mean that.

I'm somehow trying to figure out my own anarcho-marxism, whatever that amounts to. I suppose it's my own dialectic.

I mean, that's at least step 1, yes? If you can't be polite and amiable to your fellow humans, then it's unlikely anything will come of our efforts. — Moliere

Perhaps I am too use to the cut and thrust of academia. Polite agreement is never the helpful response. That is like standing on a tennis court weakly patting a ball back and forth. You want to be stretched to your limits by the stinging accuracy of a superior opponent.

I'm somehow trying to figure out my own anarcho-marxism, whatever that amounts to. — Moliere

And what does it amount to? You at least seem to be starting from a dialectical framing in somehow thinking anarchism and Marxism make for a productive unity of opposites.

But no need to answer. That would be a different thread.

So does the sense of injustice include, or perhaps derive from, a desire to make things better? Then it makes not difference if the source of the injustice is a human or a cancer, the response is a desire to make things fair? — Banno

I suppose. That is the title of this thread.

But yes, it doesn't matter whether it is human action or caused by the universe, we use our moral sense to judge.

↪Gnomon
:ok: So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ... — 180 Proof

Obviously you didn't take the time, or have the inclination, to "check" the off-topic & off-forum evidences presented in the thesis and blog. That's just as well, since your materialist or "immanentist" worldview might categorize the abstract, theoretical, mathematical, incorporeal grounding of Energy/Information/Qualia as over-your-head (transcendent), or off-limits (prejudice), and as the unreal, imaginary, statistical measurements of a rational mind. :joke: :cool:


Energy is not a material substance :
Explanations suggest that while some students may conceptualize energy as a substance with mass and volume, this idea is not consistently applied. In physics, energy is an abstract, non-material quantity associated with the state of a system.
Physics Education Research Central
https://www.per-central.org › wiki › File:1140

(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?

(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance 'interact with material substance (re: substance duality)?

If your position makes sense, then you should be able to cogently answer both questions, sir – years ago when I'd read your thesis/blog I didn't come across anything remotely resembling a cogent answer. :smirk:

↪Gnomon
(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?
(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance3 interact with material substance (re: substance duality)? — 180 Proof

Off Topic : You ask good philosophical questions, but you seem to expect Materialistic answers to Abstract inquiries. You expect 17th century deterministic answers, even though the foundations of post-classical physics are indeterminate. My understanding of Physics is post-classical, and entangled with Meta-Physics (the observer effect). Apparently, post-classical philosophy doesn't "make sense" to you. And your snarky (passive aggressive "sir") presentation is not good for communication.

(1) According to physicists, Energy acts on Matter because it has that "ability" --- by definition. Do you have a better answer to the "how" question? Apparently, the scientists don't.

(2) According to Einstein, Matter is a form of Energy*1 (monistic). Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. But "essence" is a philosophical concept, not a physical thing. It's similar to Kant's ding an sich. It's similar to Plato's Form*3, in the sense that it is pre-material.

Even more off-topic : Is your world view Nietzschean*4, in that you want to substitute phenomenal Will (local) for noumenal Essences (universal)? :nerd:


*1. Matter = Energy/C^2
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/lrk-hand-emc2expl.html

*2. What is essence function in philosophy? : (Eastern Philosophy)
Essence is Absolute Reality, the fundamental "cause" or origin, while Function is manifest or relative reality, the discernible effects or manifestations of Essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiyong

*3. Form = Essence
One of the elements in Plato's theory of Forms is the claim that essences, or Forms, are necessary for, and provide the basis of, all causation and explanation; a claim that, famously, he makes and defends towards the end of Phaedo (95e ff.).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/platos-essentialism/introduction/3DA8714A3BCF69E17E6AD7B6B41615E6

*4. Nietzsche’s criticism of the Thing-in-itself :
Nietzsche's first disagreement is with Plato's ideal forms. In the parable of the cave, these forms were the ideals illuminated by the sun. Nietzsche claimed that rather than values illuminated from without, each person should make their own determination of values.
The idea that the value of something subsists in itself is Kant's thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich): noumenal essences that exist beyond human knowledge, like the forms, only shadows of which are seen in the cave.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/88781/what-exactly-is-nietzsche-s-criticism-of-the-thing-in-itself-and-is-it-supplante

(1) According to physicists ... Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. — Gnomon

But this is simply nothing like how physics talks. You are projecting. It is your central misunderstanding.

An ontology of "stuff" is medieval science. Stuff as alchemy. Stuff as fluid stuff and corpuscular stuff. Stuff as a substance with inherent properties like gravity or levity. Stuff like calorie as the heat that flowed from one place to another.

Physics broke with this "essences" metaphysics by mathematical abstraction. Energy became no longer some vital force or basic substance but instead a description of changes in motion. Mass was inertia or a resistance to such change. Gravity was a universal acceleration between two masses. Heat was a thermal jitter or local acceleration.

Science kept on stepping back further into abstractions based on outward observables rather than. claims about inherent essences.

Now it talks about particles as excitations in fields. Fields exist by breaking mathematical symmetries. Reality is pictured as a pattern of interactions – a structure of relations rather than a "stuff".

Then we get down to the terms that really trip you up – entropy and information. These are not the new ur-substances. They are the language of statistical patterns. They are a further level of abstraction and the general move to a structuralist understanding of reality.

The world certainly seems like just a place of stuffs. Substances within the non-stuff of a spacetime void. The ontology of "medium sized dry goods" as modern-minded metaphysicians will joke.

But that is just how brains evolved to make sense of their worlds. An array of solid objects to be navigated which can be pushed and pulled around, or which instead might push and pull, acting on you.

Science started to go places by abandoning that very local and specific scale of experience and learning how to see reality through the lens of mathematics and measurement. What becomes real is the inevitability of reality's structure – the rules of geometric symmetry it must ultimately obey. The Poincare group of invariances that define a relativistic spacetime which can even have its fixed locations. And the fundamental gauge symmetries that then grant these locations the internal chiral structure which results in the Standard Model particles. The mass that populates the void. Or rather the excitations that trace out their patterns in mathematically-constrained fashion.

Substance ontology gets stuck in a dualism of matter and mind. You seem to want to bridge them by saying they are two faces of the same more fundamental thing of a psychic energy. An ur-cause. And this is how the informational turn of physics ought to be understood. Information is the new name for substantial being.

But information is a measure of structure. It is the new observable for a new maths. We can start to convert "it" to bit. A physical event or interaction – some detectable change – can be converted into the more abstracted notion of a local degree of freedom. A countable bit of information. And from there, a more abstracted maths can be applied. We are lifted yet another step further from the human-centric view of living within a world of "medium sized dry goods". Substantial stuff that observably yields or resists our bidding.

:up: :up:

You have either not understood my questions (as you conspicuously do not understand modern physics (e.g. conservation laws¹) or modern philosophy (e.g. interaction problem of substance duality², non-causal property of abstract objects³)) or you are disingenuously replying with gibberish to deflect from incoherent claims that "energy is abstract" and yet "by definition" somehow (via woo-woo) "abstract energy" "causes" non-abstract "matter". :lol:

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-mass-energy [1]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#VarDuaInt [2]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/#AbouAbstDist [3]

(1) According to physicists ... Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. — Gnomon
But this is simply nothing like how physics talks. You are projecting. It is your central misunderstanding.
An ontology of "stuff" is medieval science. Stuff as alchemy. Stuff as fluid stuff and corpuscular stuff. Stuff as a substance with inherent properties like gravity or levity. Stuff like calorie as the heat that flowed from one place to another.
Physics broke with this"essences" metaphysics by mathematical abstraction*6 — apokrisis

Off-topic : I normally don't reply to 's jibes, because his philosophical worldview specifically & disdainfully excludes my own. So, the sciencey stuff is necessary to provide some common ground for discussion. However, his questions were timely, as I am currently reading a book that, among other things, discusses the New Physics (Relativity & Quantum) of the 1920s.

On this forum, I am not "talking" as a physicist, but as an amateur philosopher with an unorthodox worldview : based on Holism, Quantum Observer Effects, Information Theory, and Complexity Theory. I'm not an expert in any of those fields, but I may be more knowledgeable than you think. However, as an outsider, I don't follow the official physics party line, so my presentation may sound strange to you. When I depart from standard physics language, I do so intentionally, not from ignorance.

For example, when I say "Energy is Causation"*1, it's a philosophical notion, not a conventional science concept. When I say "energy is fundamental"*2, I am including all of the various pre-material fields*3 that physicists postulate as foundational. For example, within an amorphous holistic electromagnetic field, a single Photon, the "carrier" of energy, can split into an Electron & a Positron, the primary elements of Matter*4. But, it's the energy field that is fundamental and essential, not the particles.

I am aware that modern physics carefully avoids terms such as "essence", but a mathematical quantum field is just an Essence by another name*6. Yet, I find the notion of pre-physical essences to be philosophically useful. For example, an electro-magnetic potential field of dimensionless mathematical "points" has no physical or material properties until it is converted into something real, by an "excitation", which in quantum theory may be an observation by a scientific mind. That may sound spooky, or medieval to you, but I try to accommodate such professional non-sense in my personal 21st century worldview. Ironically, some posters on this forum take a Scientism stance*5, which denigrates what philosophers do, as merely Lingustics. :smile:

PS___ Holism is another taboo term for pragmatic physics, that we can discuss at length in a separate thread, if you are so inclined.


*1. Is it true that energy is the ability to cause change?
Specifically, energy is defined as the ability to do work – which, for biology purposes, can be thought of as the ability to cause some kind of change. Energy can take many different forms: for instance, we're all familiar with light, heat, and electrical energy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/energy-and-enzymes/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/a/types-of-energy

*2. Is energy fundamental in physics?
Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one. Specifically, energy is an example of a conserved current derived from Noether's theorem. . . .
I would say that energy is more fundamental because matter is “merely” one subcategory of all types of particles/fields, while energy is not a subcategory of any broader concept.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fundamental-basis-of-the-universe

*3. Energy Fields are Fundamental :
I would say quantum fields are more fundamental. Numbers of particles, what kind (i.e. which field they belong to), where and when they are and their state of motion, are merely ways of describing states of fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122570/what-is-more-fundamental-fields-or-particles

*4. Energetic Photons produce substantial Matter :
For electron-positron pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production

*5. The arrogance of modern physics :
I’ve just finished reading {theoretical physicist} Lee Smolin’s new book The Trouble With Physics, . . .
Smolin was of a philosophical bent, and initially put off:
The atmosphere was not philosophical; it was harsh and aggressive, dominated by people who were brash, cocky, confident, and in some cases insulting to people who disagreed with them.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451

*6. Math is Metaphysics :
I agree with you that the sources of truth in mathematics can't be physical. For it seems clear to me that there would be mathematical truths even in a world that contained nothing physical at all (for instance, it would be true that the number of physical things in such a world is zero and therefore not greater than zero, not prime, etc.). So the sources of mathematical truth must be other than physical: if you like, metaphysical.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

Yep, more

gibberish to deflect from incoherent claims — 180 Proof

For example, when I say "Energy is Causation"*1, it's a philosophical notion, not a conventional science concept. — Gnomon

Fine.

When I say "energy is fundamental"*2, I am including all of the various pre-material fields*3 that physicists postulate as foundational. For example, within an amorphous holistic electromagnetic field, a single Photon, the "carrier" of energy, can split into an Electron & a Positron, the primary elements of Matter*4. But, it's the energy field that is fundamental and essential, not the particles. — Gnomon

But then if you cross over into a science-constrained metaphysical discussion, you have to take more account of what the science actually says.

For instance, a photon is a massless gauge boson. But the weak particles – W+, W-, Z0 – are gauge bosons with mass. So something more complicated is going on that has to explain why bosons may or may not count as matter in your book. And why indeed electrons and positrons were massless particles before the temperature of the Big Bang fell to the point where the Higgs mechanism could kick in.

If your way of thinking has any real advantage, it has to be able to lead to better answers than the scientists have already figured out. Explain what is observed in some self-consistent fashion rather than ignore the critical details that don't fit your essences story.

Matt Strassler has a good set of blog posts that explains how quantum field theory actually "thinks" about particles in terms of "ripples" in fields. You can see how it is based on an ontology of mathematical structure rather than material substance.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

So I'd like to try to add some nuance to my argument.

If determinism is true, there can still be morality in that we can consider an action right or wrong. Further, we can still give moral reasons in a determined setting.

However, it seems that it would be wrong to hold anyone morally accountable in a deterministic universe (since all actions are not in the control of, or caused by, the actor). Then, in a deterministic universe, we would find ourselves in a situation where certain actions are wrong but where it would be unjust to do anything about those wrong actions.

But if I do hold someone morally accountable, am I myself morally accountable or not?

I guess I think morality breaks down and is incoherent within a deterministic world in a way that it does not if we take ourselves to have free will.

To Gnomon's original question - in a deterministic universe, if a wrong act is committed, then the world is thoroughly unjust because any attempt to punish is itself unjust.

If your way of thinking has any real advantage, it has to be able to lead to better answers than the scientists have already figured out. Explain what is observed in some self-consistent fashion rather than ignore the critical details that don't fit your essences story. — apokrisis

Off-Topic : My "way of thinking" is characteristic of Philosophy, not Science. I've been trying to convince you that I'm not competing with scientists to produce practical applications of physical processes : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. Instead, I'm trying to update some ancient philosophical worldviews for application to the complexities of the contemporary chaotic world. The philosophical approach to understanding is Theoretical instead of Practical ; general instead of specific ; universal instead of local ; essential instead of detailed.

The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. Holism*1 is not anti-science or religious, but merely a different way of looking at the physical world. In fact, a new branch of science, Systems Theory, has arisen in the 21st century to study Complex Adaptive Systems*2, which are mostly living things with emergent*3 properties that cannot be found in their subatomic particles. The Santa Fe Institute*4 was established --- by atom bomb physicist Murray Gell-Man, et al --- primarily to study CAS*5, because most other research facilities were still focused on the parts instead of the whole systems.

Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy because it studies mostly living & thinking aspects of reality instead of dead matter. The Hard sciences can still profit from the use of Reductive methods, but the Soft sciences --- psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc --- will benefit from Holistic methods to study the behavior of Systems instead of Components. Unfortunately, those who still think reductively, may object to the unfamiliar terminology and concepts.

Getting back to the topic of this thread : I'm not asking if the atoms of matter are Fair & Just, but if complex adaptive humans as a social group can behave ethically. This is an ancient question, but a Holistic/Systems approach may shed new light on those old "hard questions", that have become muddled due to putting them under a technological microscope instead of just using the natural mind's rational faculty for "seeing" interrelationships.

By the way, you may be thinking of Essence as a reference to Spiritual stuff, but the Greek word ousia merely referred to fundamental "being' and "isness". Latin "Esse" (to be) is about Ontology, the philosophical science of Being. Can we get on the same page here? :smile:



*1. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. The aphorism "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", typically attributed to Aristotle, is often given as a glib summary of this proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

*2a. A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior of the components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
*2b. "The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear dynamical systems, has recently become a major focus of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences. Nonlinear systems are ubiquitous; as mathematician Stanislaw Ulam observed, to speak of "nonlinear science" is like calling zoology the study of "nonelephant animals" (quoted in Campbell et al. 1985, p. 374). The initial phase of research on nonlinear systems focused on deterministic chaos, but more recent studies have investigated the properties of self-organizing systems or anti-chaos. For mathematicians and physicists, the biggest surprise is that complexity lurks within extremely simple systems. For biologists, it is the idea that natural selection is not the sole source of order in the biological world. In the social sciences, it is suggested that emergence --- the idea that complex global patterns with new properties can emerge from local interactions --- could have a comparable impact."
https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/papers/1383-complex-adaptive-systems

*3. Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

*4. The Santa Fe Institute (SFI) is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

*5. What is Complex Systems Science?
Complexity arises in any system in which many agents interact and adapt to one another and their environments. Examples of these complex systems include the nervous system, the Internet, ecosystems, economies, cities, and civilizations. As individual agents interact and adapt within these systems, evolutionary processes and often surprising "emergent" behaviors arise at the macro level. Complexity science attempts to find common mechanisms that lead to complexity in nominally distinct physical, biological, social, and technological systems.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

If determinism is true, there can still be morality in that we can consider an action right or wrong. Further, we can still give moral reasons in a determined setting. . . .
To Gnomon's original question - in a deterministic universe, if a wrong act is committed, then the world is thoroughly unjust ↪Gnomon because any attempt to punish is itself unjust. — NotAristotle

Do I understand you correctly to mean that : if the world is Deterministic, then a single wrong act makes the whole world system unjust : "a rotten apple spoils the whole barrel". And a single act of injustice makes the whole system unjust? No personal accountability?

That sounds like Old Testament justice, in which the sins of the king justified Yahweh's punishment of the whole nation with bloody invasion and exile in a foreign land. I would expect Determinism to be more like Cause & Effect? Would Libertarian or Random Justice be a better alternative? Would "Correction" be more just than "Punishment"? Is the world collectively Deterministic, or is there some freedom for individualized Justice? Maybe us sinners should hope for a little indeterminate leniency. :smile:

Aristotle Justice :
In the context of the death penalty, Aristotle's ethical stand can be understood through the lens of justice, which he considered to be the highest virtue. According to Aristotle, justice involves giving people their due, which means that individuals should be rewarded for their virtues and punished for their vices.
https://www.classace.io/answers/what-is-an-ethical-stand-on-death-penalty-base-on-aristotles-value-ethics

Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy.... — Gnomon

But the holistic systems view is hylomorphic rather than essentialist. There's that.

The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. — Gnomon

False dichotomy – modern science (physics, chemistry, etc) is both reductive and holistic.

On a good day, your "worldview", sir, is merely a flavor of New Age pseudo-metaphysics (i.e. fact-free poor reasoning). :sparkle: To wit:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916851

[In] a science-constrained metaphysical discussion, you have to take more account of what the science actually says. — apokrisis

:100: :up:

Of course, that's not going to happen because Gnomon gets science conspicuously, incorrigibly wrong. :eyes: