I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

Again, for scientific purposes, the weak notion of this-to-that causation is usually sufficient. Except perhaps, in Quantum physics, where Non-locality and "spooky action at a distance" remains a cause-effect mystery, yet it is accepted as a real phenomenon.

For philosophical purposes though, our explanations must "move" our understanding "from known to unknown"*1, from phenomenon to noumenon. Hence, we attempt to explain all local intermediate causes & effects in terms of a hypothetical ultimate First Cause (causal origin), which is not a real testable phenomenon. It's an inferred General Principle ; an idea not a thing. Whether it's labeled mundane Magic or mystical Magick, may depend on the context. :smile:


*1. Wayfarer reply, Excerpt from the No Magic thread (6 mo. ago) :
It's not a matter of detail alone. In Greek philosophy, the issue is phrased in terms of explanans and explanandum. In the Phaedo, for example, Socrates argues that knowledge requires a method of inquiry that moves from the known to the unknown. He suggests that in order to explain a particular phenomenon, one must have knowledge of a more general principle or cause that underlies it. Socrates refers to this more general principle as the "cause" or "explanans," and the particular phenomenon as the "effect" or "explanandum."

And besides, saith Feynman, 'I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics'. It works - as if by magic!
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15869/the-proof-that-there-is-no-magic/p1

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. — Gnomon
I am arguing against any strong notion of first cause. — apokrisis

That's OK with me. I don't have any "strong" scientific notion of First Cause. In fact, most practical scientists seem to avoid such metaphysical speculations in their work*1. For me, the notion of a First Cause is merely a philosophical conjecture to put a period on all, otherwise open-ended, causal sequences.

20th century Cosmology traced the path of measurable finite causes, energy exchanges, back to a mathematical Singularity. That hypothetical origin of space-time was inherently un-defined, because all converging mathematical paths went off the charts and disappeared into Infinity (literally un-measurable). So the Singularity itself could not be the actual First Cause, because its an Idea, not a Real thing. Hence, nobody has a strong, evidence-based, notion of First Cause.

But flakey philosophers are not bound to mundane Reality, and they can freely imagine sublime Ideality. Which is what Aristotle postulated, 13 centuries ago, as the First & Final Causes . . . . for philosophical (not scientific) & theoretical (not empirical) purposes. Those bookend Causes are as real, and useful, as the number PI. :smile:


*1. Science of First Cause : refers to the philosophical concept of a first cause—the initial, uncaused entity that initiated all subsequent causal chains and ultimately brought about existence itself. While science describes the causes of events within the universe, the first cause addresses the ultimate origin of reality, a concept explored in metaphysics and ontology rather than empirical science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+of+the+first+causes

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE SINGULARITY?

My argument is instead the one to be found in Anaximander, Peirce and quantum field theory. The Cosmos exists as the constraint on possibility. It emerges not from fundamental intentionality nor from fundamental mechanistic cause but from the fundamental vagueness of unorganised free potential. An essential state of everythingness that then must start to self-cancel until it becomes reduced to some coherently organised somethingness. A realm of inevitable structure. — apokrisis

Ouch! That kind of complexified conjecturing makes my amateur philosopher head hurt. It's so far over my little pointy pate, that I probably shouldn't even comment. Do all those polysyllabic words add-up to agreement or disagreement with my quoted summation (#) of the Argument Against Causation?
# If there was no First Cause, and no continuation of causation, and no explanation for Ontology, then the world is ultimately causeless & meaningless & irrational & absurd. — Gnomon :worry:

Note --- I interpret First Cause to be logically & necessarily eternal & intentional Essence instead of temporal & accidental Substance. Otherwise, the chain of Chance would have no beginning or end . . . . just one "damn thing" after another forever : aimless, randomized, disorganized, self-canceling, structureless, nothingness.
Sans intention, does Everythingness, Organized Somethingness, & Inevitable Structure, explain the Ontological question : "why something instead of nothing?"
Sans Intention, how could Chance cause anything other than Entropy? :chin:


In Spinoza's philosophy, "nature eternal" refers to his concept of God as Deus sive Natura (God or Nature), an absolutely infinite and eternal substance that encompasses all reality, having no beginning or end and existing by the necessity of its own nature.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+nature+eternal
Note --- Spinoza was not aware that cosmic expansion implied a beginning of space-time. So, he assumed that Nature was an eternal cycle instead of a linear expansion. Today, we must take the evidence of an ontological origin into account. And one resolution would be to ascribe an endless cycle of reincarnation of the Deus Natura, as postulated in the Multiverse theory. A sequentially-instantiated-necessity. Ooops! More polysyllabic terminology. :yikes:

From OP :

If I hit a cue ball and it bounces off the bumper and into the eight ball which goes in the corner pocket, what caused the eight ball to move into the pocket? Me? The cue? The cue ball? The pool table? My muscles and bones? The electrons in the outer valence orbital of the atoms at the surface of the ball that exert repulsive force as they approach each other? My mother who gave birth to me? My friends who convinced me to go to the bar? The car that I rode in to get to the bar? The star that created all the elements that make up the pool balls? — T Clark

But my argument would be that the mechanical notion of causality only arises within the context of intentional being. — apokrisis

This quote is much more to the point than the rambling OP of opposition to some vague notion of imparted motion and being.

Causation is a concept about a process, not a physical or static thing. Which is why Aristotle postulated a logically necessary First Cause, presumably intentional, to serve as a metaphorical answer to open-ended causation riddles.

But even a theoretical notion of an intentional Designer, who set in motion all the subsequent steps in the 14B year old chain of intermediate causes, sets some people's teeth on edge. As a sop to the sensitive, I sometimes use the notion of a hypothetical impersonal anonymous Programmer, who caused the program of Evolution to begin computing the natural world that we experience moment-to-moment, but remember as a continuous meaningful memory.

If there was no First Cause, and no continuation of causation, and no explanation for Ontology, then the world is ultimately causeless & meaningless & irrational & absurd. So, inquiring philosophers resort to metaphors. :smile:


Evolutionary programming is an evolutionary algorithm, . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Thinking of evolution as a program can be a useful way to grasp the concept of an iterative process of adaptation and optimization. However, it's critical to remember that this is a metaphor.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=9c8fe5677d44d698&sxsrf=AE3TifNNUNrHzkPptcp0w_zJxdxq9Aeypg:1759526155597&q=Does+evolution+work+like+a+program+pdf&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyz-jb-YiQAxUsRzABHessKnsQ1QJ6BAg9EAE&biw=1173&bih=791&dpr=1.09

In the United States, however, in my view, the antithesis is more internal. — Astorre

Exactly! The world has changed radically in the 21st century. National or state borders are now much more fluid & porous than in the early 20th century. And us-vs-them antipathies are no longer aimed externally at well-defined enemies, but at neighbors, who may differ only in ideologies. In the 1970s, cartoonist Walt Kelly created a new meme, by turning a famous 19th century quote inside-out*1. His lovable possum philosopher made an early environmental statement by pointing the finger-of-blame at us, instead of at them*2.

During the American Civil War (1861 -- 1865), you could draw a straight line between the well-defined enemy states : the Mason-Dixon line. But today, the enemy combatants are not so easy to compartmentalize. That's because their identifying characteristics are not physical & practical, but metaphysical & philosophical.

Today, the American president is sending war-fighting troops into American cities, not to liberate them from tyranny, or to liberate them from Liberalism, but to tyrannize them under his own idiosyncratic ideology. New meme : "Trump has met the enemy, and he is us". :cool:


*1. During the War of 1812, the United States Navy defeated the British Navy in the Battle of Lake Erie. Master Commandant Oliver Perry wrote to Major General William Henry Harrison, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.
Kelly’s parody of this famous battle report perfectly summarizes mankind’s tendency to create our own problems. In this case, we have only ourselves to blame for the pollution and destruction of our environment..”
https://library.osu.edu/site/40stories/2020/01/05/we-have-met-the-enemy/

*2. THE ENEMY WITHIN

Over the past decade, I've observed a notable shift in global sentiment—especially from my vantage point in the East. Not long ago—perhaps 10 to 15 years back—there was a widespread admiration for the West in my country. The U.S. dollar was seen as unshakable. Western democracy was often cited as the highest political ideal. Western consumer goods were considered objectively superior. And the broader cultural narrative—academic, technological, even moral—was clearly West-centric. — Astorre

I'm currently reading a memoir, based on a series of Harvard University lectures, by philosopher/mathematician A. N. Whitehead : Science and Philosophy. He was born & bred British, toward the end of Empire, but spent his later years in the U.S., which he viewed as a beacon of reason for the rest of the world. If only he could see us now!

One chapter, written just prior to the beginning of WW2, is entitled "An appeal to sanity". It describes the unsettled state of the world, especially Europe, as the after-effects of The Great War (WW1) set-up the grievances & motives for WW2. The first sentence of the chapter may be appropriate for this topic : "In international relations the world alternates between contrasting phases, resulting from variation of emotion between the phases of low and high tension". He then described the "notable shift in global sentiment", especially in the colonies of former empires.

What he was reporting, philosophically, was the Hegelian Dialectic*1 of contrasting worldviews that alternate in "popularity" from time to time. For example, before WW2, the European hegemony over the non-western world was winding down. Which placed stress on the Western powers to adjust to the new, less top-down, political relationships. Ironically, in the 1930s, Germany was defeated, demolished & destitute under the crushing bootheel of the Versailles treaty, which dismantled the Austro-Prussian empire. "My, how the mighty have fallen"! So, you can understand the seething resentment of the ordinary German, and their angry Aristocrats, to whom Hitler's Make Deutschland Great Again (MAGA) polemics & diatribes had visceral emotional appeal.

Now, after several decades of being crushed under the bootheel of left-wing Liberalism, the oppressed Oligarchs of the US --- despite their economic hegemony --- are vowing to make their country into a militaristic world Empire again. And so it goes, around & around and back again. As my southern mother used to say, after the American Civil War : "bottom rail is on top!" I suppose this thread is a metadiscourse on the less-than-neighborly dialogue in current politics, such as America's Secretary of WAR, girding the loins of his flabby generals to make-war-not-love. Don't worry, it's just talk. :wink:


The Hegelian dialectic :
a philosophical process described by G.W.F. Hegel as the engine of reality and consciousness, unfolding through a triadic movement of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This process involves an idea or state (thesis) giving rise to a contradictory opposing idea or state (antithesis), which is then reconciled into a higher, more comprehensive form (synthesis) that becomes the new thesis, perpetuating the cycle of development and progress. This dynamic of conflict and resolution leads to the evolution of ideas, history, and the self-realization of the Absolute Spirit
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hegelian+dialectic

Collingwood's abstruse concept is over my untrained head — Gnomon
Here’s an idea— if you don’t understand a word don’t use it.

I simply construe the term to mean that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. — Gnomon
This is not correct. — T Clark

If I don't understand a word, I Google it.
*1 is ambiguous & abstruse. *2 is the definition I mentioned.

If "logical efficacy" does not refer to "conclusions that follow from premises" based on "measured effects", then what does it mean? I had to Google "absolute presuppositions" to see that it's an arcane term for Faith. Which is obviously meaningful to believers, but logical? :smile:

*1. R.G. Collingwood's concept of "logical efficacy" refers to the power of certain fundamental beliefs, which he called "absolute presuppositions," to give rise to questions and structure an entire field of inquiry. In his work An Essay on Metaphysics, he argued that these presuppositions are neither true nor false and cannot be verified empirically. However, they are still meaningful because of their logical power to frame our thinking.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Collingwood%E2%80%99s+logical+efficacy

*2. "Logical efficacy" describes a situation in clinical trials and other contexts where an intervention's measured effect (efficacy) is consistent with and logically follows from the effects observed in its constituent subgroups. It's crucial for accurately interpreting trial results, especially in the presence of patient subgroups with differential responses, and ensures that the overall treatment effect falls within the range of the subgroup effects. For example, if a drug is efficacious in a marker-positive subgroup but not in a marker-negative subgroup, the drug's overall efficacy must be somewhere between those two values.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+efficacy
Note --- The premises for logical thinking are supposed to be based on "measured effects", not on Faith without evidence.

Gnomon Do you think hypostatization is a sensible route to take when trying to lay down the groundwork for a larger body of work? — I like sushi

I don't know. Why do you ask? What do you think has been reified*1 in this thread?

If you are thinking of Holism or Enformationism, they are philosophical theories & worldviews*2, not physical objects. Even Realism is not real, but Ideal. :smile:


*1. In philosophy, hypostatization is the act of treating an abstract concept, mental construct, or social phenomenon as if it were a concrete, material thing or a real, independent substance. This often manifests as a fallacy where an idea or word that normally refers to a process or quality is given an independent existence, which can lead to misunderstandings and flawed arguments.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hypostatization+definition+philosophy

*2. The "-ism" suffix forms a noun that can refer to a distinctive doctrine, belief system, or theory (like socialism or feminism), an action, process, or condition (such as criticism or pauperism), a characteristic behavior or quality (e.g., heroism), or an oppressive, discriminatory attitude (e.g., sexism or racism). It is a productive suffix of Greek origin used across various fields, from philosophy and politics to religion and behavior.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ism+suffix+meaning

From my perspective, there is a new religion popping up, based on Holism and human consciousness. A religion that would be about as good as any religion we have (or had). — Pieter R van Wyk

Since I'm an introvert and a loner, I have no interest in a structured religion, old or new*1. And not much need for the "peace & security" of belonging to a unified group of people : sect or social system. I guess you could say that Philosophy is my solo religion ; but it offers no final answers, and little existential comfort. In lieu of a biblical or tribal religion I have developed my own personal worldview*2, based partly on Holism, Information theory, and Quantum physics. No rules or rituals, wines or ganja, candles or incense, priests or preachers . . . . just a better understanding of why the world is the way it is. :halo:


*1. A new religion incorporating holism
emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things, viewing the human being as a unified "mind, body, and spirit" rather than separate parts. This worldview aligns with the New Age movement's belief in the universe as a single, interconnected whole, rejecting scientific reductionism and traditional dualisms. Instead, it promotes individual and collective spiritual transformation to achieve a greater sense of peace and unity
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=new+religion+holism

*2. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Spiritualism & Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory-of-Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The possibility exist that Gnomon's notion of a system as a holism might be the key to such a theory - but I doubt that. You see: "To bear Systems Theory in mind one should envision some sort of logical and mathematical basis as a formal unambiguous language." — Pieter R van Wyk

Gnomon is not a professional Logician, or Mathematician, or Systems theorist. Just an amateur philosophical scrivener. So the general (non-technical) concept of Holism is sufficient for my needs, to make sense of complex physical & philosophical systems.

I am however, somewhat familiar with the Santa Fe Institute for research in complex systems. And their researchers are experts in various scientific fields, but are also encouraged to think outside the traditional boxes. Maybe you can find someone there to exchange technical cutting-edge esoteric ideas with. By the way, a general term for their approach to science is Holism, as opposed to Reductionism. :smile:


Santa Fe Institute (Cowan Campus)
1399 Hyde Park Road
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
United States of America
Phone: 505-984-8800
Contact : emailatsantafedotedu


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

The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a group of scientists frustrated with the narrow disciplinary confines of academia. They wanted to tackle big questions that spanned different fields, and they felt the only way these questions could be posed and solved was through the intermingling of scientists of all kinds: physicists, biologists, economists, anthropologists, and many others.
https://www.santafe.edu/

So the OP was about the limits of the efficacy of the mechanistic mindset. The complaint was that because it seemed a severely limited view of Nature in practice, one might as well give up on the very idea of believing in “causality”. — apokrisis

I probably missed the point of the OP. But the subsequent clarifications only muddied the water for me.

Quantum Uncertainty does place limits on some traditional universal assumptions underlying the "mechanistic mindset". But those squishy lower-level limits don't seem to have much efficacy on the macro scale. So, we continue to depend on the "pragmatic usefulness" of our causal models for designing machines.

As long as we keep those acausal animals penned-up on the quantum scale, we seem to be safe from the anarchy of Chaos. They do cast some philosophical doubt on a few over-generalizations of the past. But for all practical purposes, continuous Causality still seems to be a valid assumption. So I don't see any need to abandon Causality altogether, and to accept Absurdity in its place . As a matter of fact, I have been arguing in favor of Aristotle's First Cause theory on this forum. :smile:

PS___ I just saw the first episode of Douglas Adam's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective TV series. And it seems to interpret "Holism" as Pandemonium, where randomness rules.

In that simplistic dichotomy, where is the "logical efficacy" of the OP? Is it in the "top-down constraints" or the "bottom-up degrees of freedom". Is it the top-down logical or intentional efficacy that the OP was arguing against? :smile: — Gnomon
This is not what Collingwood meant by logical efficacy. — T Clark

Collingwood's abstruse concept is over my untrained head. I simply construe the term to mean that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. But the path of reasoning can be traced from Top-Down or from Bottom-Up, and can be evaluated as Statistical (permanent pattern) or Intentional (aimed at future state). :smile:

The fact that humans engage in intentional behavior implies only that some causation is the product of intent. Not that all causation is. — Relativist

True. Billiard balls are causal, but not self-causal. So what is the initial cause of their motion? Does the cue ball initiate the aim & activity on the table? Or does the chain of causation link back to an intentional*1 Prime Cause, with the mental goal of moving all balls into pockets?

Statistically, Correlation does not prove Causation, but logically it does point in that direction. If some causation results from intention, could we not reasonably infer that all intermediate Causes can be traced back to an original intentional Act? That seems to be the reasoning underlying primitive Animism, and the God postulates of almost all world religions & philosophies. Is there any scientific or philosophical method to disprove Divine Causality or Aristotle's Logical First Cause? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Carl Sagan).

From a more physical perspective, the original Big Bang theory avoided dealing with a source or explanation for the Energy (efficient cause) and Natural Laws (formal cause) necessary to make sense of the unprecedented emergence of a chain of transformations (material causes) from mathematical Singularity, to hypothetical plasma soup, to experiential Life & Mind. Does the sudden appearance of Cosmos from Chaos, as inferred from astronomical evidence, cause you ask "Why?" as well as "How?". Is it possible that the implicit First Cause*2 was Intentional/Purposeful instead of Accidental/Aimless? If not, why not? As a non-religious philosopher, I have to ask myself that contrapositive question. :chin:

*1. To Intend : to extend the mind toward a goal, purpose, design, aim or object

*2. First Cause :
Aristotle's argument for a First Cause, often called the Unmoved Mover, does not rely on it being an intentional entity with a will or mind, but rather as a necessary, external, and unchanging origin of all motion in the universe. The First Cause initiates motion without itself being moved, stopping an infinite chain of causes by providing a beginning point for the universe's existence and change. This uncaused cause functions as a final cause, drawing all things toward it in a state of pure actuality, thereby explaining the purpose and motion within the cosmos.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle%27s+first+cause+intentional
Note A --- In the real world, we have no experience with uncaused Causes. According to the law of Thermodynamics, they all link back to some a priori input of energy. So, an Unmoved Mover cannot be Real, but Ideal : i.e. imaginary. A philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
Note B --- "Pure Actuality" might explain physical Motion, but can it provide Purpose, Aim, Time's Arrow?

I would suggest that what we call an accident is the opposite of what we call a necessity. So the more fundamental dichotomy is chance and necessity. Or what in the systems view is the top down constraints and the bottom up degrees of freedom. — apokrisis

In that simplistic dichotomy, where is the "logical efficacy" of the OP? Is it in the "top-down constraints" or the "bottom-up degrees of freedom". Is it the top-down logical or intentional efficacy that the OP was arguing against? :smile:

My claim is that there are only a limited number of situations where it has Collingwood’s logical efficacy. — T Clark

Causation without Intent is what we call Accident. — Gnomon
That may be what YOU call it. I just call it causation. You can choose to believe there is intent involved in all causation, but you cannot possibly show that causation requires it. — Relativist

I choose to believe that, for the calculations of Physics, intention may be irrelevant. But for the purposes of Philosophy, intention is essential. For example, a pool table with neatly stacked balls is static & causeless, until the intentional act (first cause) of the shooter inputs both Energy (causation) and Direction (intention) into the frozen tableau*1. All subsequent causation -- bouncing balls -- is indeed mechanical & purposeless . But physical causation is of little interest to a philosopher*2, whose focus is on logical causation*3. :smile:


*1. Tableau :
a group of models or motionless figures representing a scene from a story or from history; a tableau vivant.
___Oxford Dictionary

*2. Etiology is the study of the causes, origins, or reasons behind the way that things are, or the way they function, or it can refer to the causes themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiology

*3. Logical causation :
refers to the idea that a logical relationship can imply a cause-and-effect relationship, as seen in formal logic or causal logic models used to structure knowledge. It involves using logic to explain or predict events by identifying the underlying causes, often through mechanisms like counterfactual reasoning or formal argument structures, though it's distinct from physical causation, which involves the transfer of force and temporal relationships.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+causation


NO CAUSATION WITHOUT INTENTION
Ignore the First Cause (intentional actor) off the table

Yes, the whole distinction between events that are intentional versus those that are not seems to complicate all of the discussions I’ve looked at. As I noted earlier, that’s why I avoided the whole subject of human causation. That doesn’t mean none of the issues discussed in this thread is relevant. — T Clark

Yes, Causation without Intent is what we call Accident. And the distinction is crucial in philosophy & science, but typically taken for granted. Unfortunately, Quantum Physics*1 has undermined the simple Certainty of Newton's physics/metaphysics, in which all events were intentionally caused by God. When you take God or Logos (reason ; intent) out of the equation things quickly get messy : like a half-alive cat in a box*2.

In philosophical discussions, Logical (directional) Causation in macro space-time seems to be implicit (intuitive) for "humans" in the word "cause". If not, an alternative meaning should be clearly indicated. Otherwise, the thread would quickly come unspooled . . . . as it so often does. :wink:


PS___ In college, we did an exercise called Design by Accident. Participants typically saw logical order (Form) in patterns that resulted from intentional randomness, such as spilling ink or pick-up-sticks. We seem to be designed by evolution to conceive order even in perceived disorder, and to infer causation even in the absence of evidence of intention.


*1. Quantum Causality :
In essence, quantum causality is about exploring what happens to cause and effect when we apply the principles of quantum mechanics to the very fabric of spacetime, leading to a more flexible and potentially counterintuitive view of causal relationships
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+causation

*2. IS THE CAT DEAD OR ALIVE OR BOTH?
Superposition or reposed position

From the fundamental definition of a system, it is possible to identify seven fundamental classes of systems:

Class 1 - with foundational existence
Class 2 - capable of decision-making
Class 3 - capable of survival
Class 4 - capable of communicating
Class 5 - capable of reasoning
Class 6 - capable of creating
Class 7 - capable of abstraction — Pieter R van Wyk

As I mentioned above, taken together, these characteristics of systems seem to add-up to a Creator God as the System-of-all-systems. Hence our space-time world is a sub-system of the Set-of-all-sets. In the abstract, this list could apply to A> the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, or B> Hindu Brahman, or C> Spinoza's deus sive natura. Was that your intention? :smile:

1, Fundamental, non-temporal, non-contingent, self-existent
2. Election : ability to choose from alternatives
3. Eternal existence
4. Divine revelation, manifestation
5. Logos, rational Form
6. Creative & Causal
7. Generalizing universals from specifics : Ideas from Reals and vice-versa?
#. And the System rested on the seventh class . . . . .

OK. Now we have narrowed-down the kind of Systems this thread is about. — Gnomon
I am not sure what you are trying to say here:
When you refer to "kind of systems", are you referring to my, defined, classes of systems or something else?
I do not know what you mean, exactly, by a "sub-system"?
It just might be interesting to view the full canvas. — Pieter R van Wyk

A. By "kind of system" I mean an organization*1 with a particular logical-or-physical, structure-or-function-or-purpose, that can be distinguished from an ordered pattern with a different structure or purpose.
B. All I know about your "defined classes of systems" is that it sounds like a definition of God, or G*D as I like to spell it.
C. By "sub-system" I mean an organization or structure that is a part, or sub-set, of a larger or more comprehensive system of a similar type or kind : e.g. solar system is a sub-system of cosmos.

By "narrowed-down" I meant, that you have finally given me enough information to begin to understand what you mean by "system". But I'm still not sure how you interpret & apply that notion to a philosophical worldview. I won't take the time to "view the full canvas" until I'm convinced it will be worth the time invested. Meanwhile, we tip-toe around the margins of Systems as a universal concept.

For my own philosophical purposes, my current understanding of world Systems is amenable to Jan Smuts' concept of Holism*2. It's simple, but universal. He applied it specifically to biological Evolution. But it has since been used to explain a variety of scientific & philosophical questions : complexity, causation, organization, information, computation, communication, organism, ideology, theology, etc. :smile:

*1. Organization :
In a scientific context, organization refers to the structured and hierarchical arrangement of components within systems, particularly living organisms, where parts are organized into increasingly complex levels (e.g., atoms to molecules to cells) to perform specific functions essential for life. This arrangement is a fundamental characteristic of life and is studied in various scientific fields, including biology, where it describes the hierarchy of life from molecules to ecosystems, and organizational science, which examines the structures, processes, and behaviors of groups and entities
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+organization+definition

*2. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

↪Gnomon
In Western metaphysics, ‘creation’ has a specific status, reserved for the Creator (‘creature’ meaning ‘created being’). It is of course used more broadly nowadays, for all manner of creative work, but it still retains some overtones, in the philosophical context. But I’m not going to retroactively update it. Besides, ‘mind-constructed world’ just doesn’t have a ring to it. — Wayfarer

Speaking of the distinction between a Created vs Constructed world, Dan Brown's new mystery/thriller, Secret of Secrets --- I'm almost to the halfway point --- hinges on the competition between Materialistic and Noetic worldviews.

The noetic scientist is publishing a non-fiction non-popular book, asserting that Consciousness is not "created" by the brain, but is a signal received from some external Mind Field. Hence the physical "real" world is actually a model constructed from bits of data transmitted from the noumenal World Mind, and beamed into the brain. For some as-yet-unstated reason, the evildoers seem existentially threatened by an abstruse philosophical theory.

Or, at least that's my personal construct from superficial knowledge of Noetic theory. How does the notion of brain-as-reciever-instead-of-sender fit with the creator/creation topic of this thread? If you think it's off-topic, I may start a new thread. Or you can, if you are more familiar with Noetics. :smile:

all systems are physical systems, but there exist systems with the capability of abstraction.
Moreover, this classification provides a theory of evolution sans any tautologies. — Pieter R van Wyk

OK. Now we have narrowed-down the kind of Systems this thread is about. As far as we know, only physical biological beings*1 are capable of abstracting Ideas from concrete Reality. And only one of those physical sub-Systems has the capability to communicate their intangible ideas in the form of meaningful symbols : e.g. auditory or visual Words. The jury is still out on parrots & dolphins, which apparently can produce two-way communication to some degree. Even dogs can understand a few words of spoken language, but can't reciprocate except via body language, including barking and button-pushing .

Given that the ability to abstract ideas has evolved on at least one planet, what does that fact imply about Evolution in general? Were living & thinking & abstracting entities inevitable, perhaps because that was the Purpose of the evolutionary System from its Big Bang beginning? Was the System programmed or designed to produce Thinking Beings?

Are you implying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on Tautologies or Axioms? For example "survival of the fittest" is a generalized definition from limited observations. And it only specifies reproductive success, not technological prowess, such as that of the world's most successful species of idea abstractors : homo sapiens. Do you have a non-tautological Theory of Evolution, that might explain how & why immaterial Abstract Ideas could emerge from a physical thermodynamic system? Is homo technologicus the acme of abstract evolution, or just an incomplete intermediate solution to the ultimate purpose of the cosmic developmental System? :smile:


*1. Abstract Thinkers :
Animals such as primates (including chimpanzees and baboons), dolphins, pigs, dogs, crows, and even ducklings and chicks have shown evidence of abstract thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animals+capable+of+abstract+thinking

A system consist of components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen) contributing to a single unique purpose. p27, p135 — Pieter R van Wyk

Now we're getting somewhere : a definition of "System" that may be relevant to the covert purpose of this thread. Example : A System is a collection of things designed for a specific purpose or function*1. Question : designed (created?) by Accident or Intention? Or, in the case of universals*2, not designed, nor contingent, but eternal & self-existent, like Plato's Form. But is the Purpose/Function top-down intentional, or bottom-up inferred, or both? :chin:

Note --- I've learned a new mathematical or logical symbol ":=" for the purposes of this work, the word to the left is stipulated to mean the description on the right.

There is one, and only one, system that is not a component of any other system. Named the Universal system — Pieter R van Wyk

Traditionally, "The Universal System" has been labeled God, or some variation like Brahman (ultimate, unchanging, and infinite reality) . But is that unique set-of-all-things Real (tangible) or Ideal (conceptual) ; Quanta or Qualia ; Immanent or Transcendent? Spinoza and Smuts*3 identified the "one and only one" System with the immanent Universe or Nature. But the Big Bang theory has raised the question of some prior or higher Set or System. Alas, Multiverse & Many Worlds systems seem to water-down the notion of uniqueness. :smile:


*1. A "whole system" refers to an entire, self-contained entity consisting of numerous interconnected components and their relationships, working together to achieve a specific purpose or function. It emphasizes the totality of the system, including its structure, behavior, interactions, and the environment in which it operates. The concept is central to systems thinking and highlights that changes to one part of the system can have cascading effects on all other parts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+whole+system

*2. In philosophy, universals are repeatable characteristics or qualities that can be shared by many different particular things, such as the "greenness" of two green apples or the "humanity" shared by all people. The philosophical problem of universals questions whether these abstract universals actually exist in reality, and if so, how they exist and relate to the particular objects that embody them. Key positions include realism (universals exist independently), nominalism (universals are just names or concepts), and conceptualism (universals are concepts in the mind).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+universals

*3. Holism is the philosophical idea, coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution, that the universe has a fundamental tendency to form wholes that are more than the sum of their parts through a process of creative evolution. This concept describes an inherent, unifying, and organizing activity in nature that drives the emergence of increasingly complex structures, from molecules to minds, in a progressive series of "wholes".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smuts+holism+def

In the OP and subsequent posts, I think I’ve made it reasonably clear what I’m talking about when I say “causality.” — T Clark

Unfortunately, what you are talking about may be clear in your own mind, but it's not clear to my simple mind. That's why I asked categorical questions in my previous post. Philosophical dialogues typically begin with controversial assertions, and followed with definitions & examples to support some generalization that is not generally accepted.

I'm trying to see if you are simply denying absolute Determinism, or denying God, or making the more radical assertion of a completely In-Determinate wandering-in-state-space universe. The link below*1 may offer a clue to your position, that I didn't find in the OP. :smile:


*1. Causality is an illogical (illusory) concept within a rigorously deterministic universe.
Sean Carroll:
"The idea that'cause and effect' isn’t fundamental to the workings of the universe hasn’t spread as widely as it should have, despite the efforts of smart people such as Bertrand Russell. In this first section of the book, I sketch how we moved from a picture of the universe animated by causes and reasons to one that obeys patterns, without the need for anything to cause it or sustain it."
https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1huxxlr/causality_is_an_illogical_illusory_concept_within/
Note --- What's the difference between a universe that obeys Logical Laws, and one that "obeys Patterns"? Who or what determined the predictable patterns that Newton deduced, and mathematized, from his observations of the solar system? Another word for Pattern is "Design".

This will depend on a possible purpose, not so? In my younger days I did some mountaineering, we used stacked rocks (like your picture) to mark a road, thus it was part of a navigation system. Your picture though, looks like a piece of art (A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist [the life form making the art], into a physical form. p96) — Pieter R van Wyk

So, you agree that the seemingly haphazard stack of irregularly shaped rocks is a "system", in the sense that it was produced, not by Nature, nor by mountain goats, but by a sentient agent with a future purpose in mind : navigation aid or abstract art???

Hence, a "System" can be defined as the deliberately organized result of imagination or intention? That would imply some ultimate intent, not an accident, that arranged a collection of rocky & gassy planets into a life-bearing arrangement of factors necessary for animation to emerge. Yes? :smile:

PS___ Astrobiologists have produced theories of necessities for extra-solar life to emerge. But, for most, divine or design Intention is not one of the essential requirements for a Living habitat or System to coalesce from random patterns of stars & planets .

OK, how would you describe "changes in energy", while avoiding the notion of Causation? — Gnomon
In the OP I've given specific examples of situations where changes take place but it is not useful to use the term "causality." Many people here have disagreed with my characterization. — T Clark

As with many, if not most, disagreements on this forum, the controversy hinges on the definition of key terms. For example, Aristotle's Four Causes include A> mechanistic sequences that show no local signs of intention (Material cause), and B> before/after relationships that are attributed, by scientists, to inputs of energy (Efficient cause), plus C> what exists/happens by definition (Formal cause) : it just is what it is. But perhaps the most contentious, although common, kind of Cause is D> the result of some agent's Intention/Reason (Final cause). Are you denying all of those kinds of Causation, or just one or two?

I can agree that Mechanical progressions may seem to be "uncaused", in that the next step merely follows the prior, with no apparent reason. Unless you zoom-out to look for the First or Final Cause of the system as a whole. In the case of a mechanical clock, the First Cause is the design of the spring & gear mechanism, and the Final is the desire or intention to keep track of the passage of Time.

However, as far as we know, almost all physical Changes result from Energy inputs or outputs. Some energetic transformations cannot be traced to any agent, other than Nature. So I suppose you could call that event/happening Change Without Cause*1. But scientists & philosophers tend to assume Universal Causation as an axiom, despite the rare exceptions.

The best known case of physical Change without any knowable prior Cause or Determination occurs on the quantum scale of reality*2. Which suggests that Reality may be fundamentally Random. And yet, few scientists or philosophers accept that Chance or Fate, makes rational understanding impossible. They just admit that some outlier Causes, on the periphery of perception, are not inferable due to the incompleteness or ambiguity of the evidence.

Since I can't refute the indeterminate events involving quantum "wave/particles", I must admit that our world seems to have an undercurrent of Randomness. But that is the exception, not the rule. Is your argument "against Cause" limited to events on the margins of human cognizance, or is it generalizable to "against God" (the First Cause)? :smile:


*1. A "change without cause" philosophy explores whether effects can exist without causes, a concept challenged by the principle of universal causation but also suggested by phenomena like radioactive decay and certain quantum events. While classical philosophy upholds strict causality, modern science and philosophy acknowledge the possibility of uncaused events, influencing views on free will and the nature of randomness. Philosophers like Zhuangzi have also described spontaneous, non-coercive change that aligns with this idea by respecting the inherent nature and context of things rather than imposing a cause
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=change+without+cause+philosophy


*2. "Acausal Quantum event " refers to quantum phenomena or theories where events lack a conventional, predictable cause, challenging the classical understanding of cause-and-effect. This doesn't mean there's no reason for an event, but rather that the cause isn't known or doesn't exist, as in the random timing of radioactive decay. More recently, "quantum acausal" also describes experiments that show events can occur in an indefinite causal order, where the sequence of cause and effect is uncertain, as if both "A causes B" and "B causes A" are happening simultaneously
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+acausal

We speak of the solar system.
We {you} cannot agree on what, exactly, is a system.
We {?} make the absurd postulate that one planet could be removed from the solar system.
This could tell us whether the solar system is in fact a system. — Pieter R van Wyk

Perhaps, to retain an air of mystery, you have avoided defining the key term in your thread*1. But you seem to have in mind a simplistic concept of a system : like the game Jenga, where players try to avoid removing the essential part of a stack of static wooden blocks. That's a simple gravitation system.

The solar system though is a complex and dynamic system of bodies moving in space, within a larger system of galaxies. It's not likely to fall apart if one planet was destroyed by an extra-solar asteroid. Who has ever made such an "absurd postulate"? Various theories have attempted to explain the asteroid belt as the debris from a collision that "removed one planet from the system". But nobody postulated that the Sol-dominated system itself would fall apart and fly off into space. There is a mysterious organizing force that holds the system together.

One problem with the solar system example is "where do you draw the line" : the boundary between planetary system and inter-stellar space? The other issue is "what makes a bunch of blobs arrayed around a medium yellow star into a system worthy of a name"? Why not include all the rest of the Milky Way galaxy in your system? What is the "function" of our local system that makes it unique for Earth-bound observers? Could it be that the "purpose" of a planet in the habitable zone is to provide a habitat for humans? If not Earth, perhaps an extra-solar planetoid could serve the purpose. In modern evolutionary theory, the solar system as-a-whole functions as a life-friendly gravitational system, allowing biological stuff to emerge.

Systems are like logical Sets*2 : there are sets within sets within sets : a nested set hierarchy. But the set is simply a definition . . . created by a human mind. So you can include as many elements (parts) as you like. If you remove one keystone element, that set may vanish and become a member of a larger set.

So, you are correct that there is no such thing as a System. It's just an idea, not an object : a definition, not a ding an sich ; an organization, not a mess.. :smile:

*1. Philosophical Systems :
To determine what is part of a system, you must first define its purpose and boundaries, and then identify the interacting elements, interconnections, and the system's environment that together produce a unified whole. The process involves a self-determined definition of the system's scope, focusing on the parts essential for fulfilling its function rather than the entire universe of possibilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system

*2. Logical Sets :
In logic and mathematics, a set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects (called elements or members) that are thought of as a whole. Set logic refers to the use of logical operations within set theory, where basic logical connectives like "and" correspond to set operations such as intersection, while the study of sets itself is a foundational branch of mathematics for precise definitions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=set+logic+definition

IS THIS AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OR A DISORGANIZED CHAOS?
What is the purpose of stacked rocks?

the primary Cause for physical science is Energy. — Gnomon
That doesn’t make sense to me.All there is is energy. Matter is energy. It’s changes in energy that need a causal description. — T Clark

OK, how would you describe "changes in energy", while avoiding the notion of Causation? Einstein noted that Energy can be mathematically transformed into Mass/Matter (E=MC^2). But what is the Cause of that form-change? Is it just random fluctuations of Quantum Fields? Hence acausal? Or is it scientists just playing around : smashing atoms with a Cyclotron, to see what pops out?

If "all there is is energy", then what causes the hypothetical universal Quantum Field to fluctuate, to change, to evolve? Why not just be? If "energy is all there is", does that mean the god-like power to cause positive (non-random) change (evolution) is eternal, existing prior to the Big Bang? Could that eternal field of Energy be forever creating new worlds, as in the Multiverse hypothesis?

Scientists don't seem to know the details of how the Energy transformations*1 occur. But energy transformations are essential to the concept of Causation*2 in physical change. In this thread though, I'm talking about Causation as a philosophical concept. If you want to explore that, we can get into it. But I warn you, it involves Metaphysics. If you don't like the AI summaries below, just click on the link and you can go to the human-authored sources of information. :smile:


*1. Energy Transformation :
Through all of these transformation chains, the potential energy stored at the time of the Big Bang is later released by intermediate events, sometimes being stored in several different ways for long periods between releases, as more active energy. All of these events involve the conversion of one kind of energy into others, including heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation
Note --- Potential Energy has no physical properties, because it's an ideal concept, not a real thing.

*2. Energy causation :
describes how one event causes another by the transfer or transformation of energy, where the initial energy is the source of the effect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+causation
Note --- If you trace the transformations of energy back far enough, you will bump into the "Initial Energy" that Aristotle called "First Cause".

*3. The Metaphysics of Causation :
Metaphysical causality concerns the fundamental nature of the causal relationship itself, investigating what causes and effects are, what the causal relation is, and how it works, rather than simply identifying cause-and-effect pairs. It explores different ways of understanding this link, such as through regularities between events, counterfactual dependence (if not for the cause, the effect wouldn't occur), causal powers, mechanisms, or interventions. Philosophers also distinguish between metaphysical causation, where the connection doesn't rely on natural laws, and nomological causation, where it does.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+metaphysics+of+causation
Note --- Causation is a relationship, not an object. Nomological Causation is a philosophical notion, not a physical thing. Nomological : "principles, such as laws of nature, that are neither logically necessary nor theoretically explicable, but are simply taken as true." ___Oxford Dictionary

My conclusion - identifying one element as the cause of another depends on where you look. — T Clark

Yes. intermediate causes*4 are arbitrary & subjective. That's why Aristotle coined the term First Cause, which is a logical necessity, like the final number on the number line, not a physical object. The Big Bang is one kind of First Cause, but it didn't put to rest philosophical conjectures about prior causes. Divine Creation is another kind of Cause. So, Causation is a useful concept for Science and Philosophy, but as you noted, it is unavoidable, metaphysical, and non-empirical. So, we can debate til the cows come home. :joke:


*4. What is the Ultimate Cause? :
The idea that "energy is causal" can be understood in two primary ways: as a philosophical concept suggesting causation is the flow or transfer of energy, and in a more practical sense where energy consumption has a measurable causal impact on economic growth and other systems, though the direction and nature of this causality can be complex and context-dependent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+causal
Note --- Exchanges of Energy are merely intermediate causes. So, in order to understand Causation philosophically, you need to go back to the origin of the causal chain of events*5. Unfortunately, the Big Bang begs the question of where the Causal Force & Natural Laws --- that explain the subsequent evolution of the world, from simplicity to complexity --- originated.

*5. An ultimate cause is a deep, underlying reason or a historical, evolutionary factor that explains why something exists or occurs, answering the "why" question in terms of its adaptive significance and long-term origins.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ultimate+cause+definition

Argh! My last word was a mistake. I meant to say:
Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential information? — Patterner

Yes. For example, if a message-in-a-bottle is sent but never read, the information remains potential, not actual. This works just like Energy. If a bullet is fired, but never hits its target, the Kinetic energy is "stored" in the form of Momentum. So the energy remains in limbo as Potential, in the sense that it is never Actualized as impact transfer of energy to a target. Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, since a bullet in motion almost always hits some object to which it transfers its inertial energy, causing material change . . . . except perhaps in outer space. :wink:

So information that had to be created (as opposed to the information in a book) is never even interpreted. — Patterner

Like the bullet in outer space, un-interpreted Information remains in its Potential state, in the form of "raw data". You can think of data as meaningless mathematical information, until someone interprets the code into human meaning. :smile:

PS___ Energy can be temporarily stored in matter, like a battery, as Potential Energy. In which case, you could say that the Energy/Information exists as a "Substance". More properly though, as ratios between positive & negative ions.


"Uninterpreted" Information is raw data or primary source material that has not yet been analyzed, explained, or given meaning; it remains in its original, unaltered form before any analysis, commentary, or added understanding has been applied. Examples include eyewitness testimony, original documents like letters and manuscripts, raw research data, and direct quotes before a researcher or person explains them
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+uninterpreted

As I've often said here, "causality" is a metaphysical concept, by which I mean it represents a point of view, a perspective, not a fact. — T Clark

Yes. That's why we debate various kinds of Causes on this forum. For example, the primary Cause for physical science is Energy. Which can be defined tautologically (it is what it does), but can't be defined physically or materially (what it's made of). A Cause is some invisible force that has a knowable Effect.

So, the OP is true : Cause is not a thing in itself ; It's a relationship between before & after some physical or metaphysical (mental) change. Causation is doing, not being. It's a verb, not a noun. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential energy? — Patterner

Something like that. When Shannon produced his definition of Information as computer Data, I assume he had no idea that his novel equation of Information and math (1s & 0s ; relations ; ratios) or Information and Entropy (active ; passive) would eventually lead scientists to view Energy from a similar perspective. They are not the same thing*1, but different forms of a more fundamental causal force that I call EnFormAction*2.

So, I would rephrase to say, when information of a system is not being actively processed, its form or state is Potential instead of Actual. For example, there is lots of information in your brain, that you are not currently aware of or thinking of. But it's available to activate, when needed. How it's stored is not completely understood.

I see a lot of Philosophical Potential in this novel notion of Information. But some on this forum think I'm talking about ghosts & spirits & spooky stuff. This new concept of Information is not a material substance (hyle ; wood), but more like Aristotle's essential substance (morph ; form ; pattern). :smile:


*1. No, energy and information are not the same thing, though they are deeply connected. Information requires energy to be stored in a physical system, and the process of changing information requires energy and increases entropy, according to the Landauer limit. While information cannot exist without energy to form a physical medium, energy itself can exist without any information.
Energy is Physical, Information is Abstract:
Energy is a physical quantity that represents the capacity to do work. Information, on the other hand, is an abstract concept representing data or concepts transmitted through a medium.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+and+information
Note --- Energy is still the power to cause physical change. But information is the power to cause metaphysical change : to convey ideas from one mind to another.


*2. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
"Elevate information to the level of a new physical concept, one that can be placed alongside Matter and Energy" . . . .
Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.

*3.Information is stored in the brain by changing and strengthening connections, or synapses, between neurons.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+in+brain+how+stored
Note --- Information is essentially patterns of relationships (interconnections) between loci

Ironically, that swampy quicksand logic allows people of Faith to claim that their metaphysical "reasons" & divine revelations are just as valid as a scientist's physical-empirical Facts & Faxioms. — Gnomon
I don't see how the kinds of issues I'm talking about have anything to do with religion. — T Clark

Please note that, in the last paragraph, I referred to metaphysical*1 (-isms), that are not necessarily religions. For example, on this forum, we often find contentious arguments about metaphysical beliefs, such as Realism vs Idealism, Materialism vs Spiritualism, or Scientism vs Philosophy.

Those are what I facetiously call "Faith communities" because their worldviews are based on non-empirical Axioms. As Hume noted, specific Evidence & formal Logic may support the general (universal) conclusions, but do not prove them. The degree of Faith may be measured in terms of Bayesian Belief*2. :smile:


*1. Yes, materialism is a metaphysical theory because it makes a fundamental claim about the nature of reality: that everything that exists is ultimately physical
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+is+metaphysical

*2. Bayesian belief refers to the degree of certainty about the truth of a proposition, treated as a probability that is updated by new evidence using Bayes' Theorem.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bayesian+belief

Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). — Gnomon
Doesn't the fact that people have sequenced Neanderthal DNA, among other groups, say it is still information? — Patterner

Oh yes. Just like fossilized bones, ancient DNA can provide clues to modern forms. But the cavemen are still dead and dissipated. Whatever information remains is in the fossilized patterns of preserved tissues. For example, paleontologists can estimate the size & shape of an absent Neander brain, by measuring the empty skull. As I said before, Information, like languages, comes in many forms. But the meaning must be interpreted by a living functioning brain. :smile:

PS___ In Neander DNA, the actual information is long gone, but some potential information remains. Like information in a book, the source of enforming (author) is absent, but those who can read the inert squiggles are able to extract meaning from patterns of non-living ink on paper.
For example, a AAA battery on a shelf has Potential for electrical current, but until a circuit is provided there is no Actual current. However, a scientist could analyze the chemistry of the battery, and estimate how much voltage is possible for future use. And that is useful information, despite being only Potential.

I acnowledge that the word 'created' might be a poor choice of words in the context. — Wayfarer

Was that controversial key-word a Freudian slip, or intentional challenge, to keep this thread going in circles for 70 pages? :wink:

Reality vs Ideality : Divine Creation vs Human Construct vs Cosmic Accident

As I've often said here, "causality" is a metaphysical concept, by which I mean it represents a point of view, a perspective, not a fact. As R.G. Collingwood might say, the Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything must have a reason or a cause - is an absolute presupposition, not a proposition. — T Clark

Yes. For philosophers "causality" is a metaphysical notion, whereas for physicists it's a practical principle, to aid in understanding how & why things happen. Traditionally, human Logic assumes, as an unproven axiom*1, that every action or event had a prior causal influence, and that causal action in the universe is an unbroken chain (conjunction) of physical cause/effect events. Except of course, for those who believe in metaphysical causes, such as divine intervention or random accidents (disjunction).

The title of this tread seems to imply that our common logical assumption of Causation is unscientific & non-empirical, as argued by Hume's dissection of Induction, Reduction, and Deduction. Which leaves open-to-negation such logical postulates as Universal Causation, and First Cause. Hence, the never-ending inconclusive threads on this forum. Where we heap up individual facts or beliefs, and try to make sense of them by means of the reasoning that Hume & Collingwood undermined with skeptical analysis. Ironically, that swampy quicksand logic allows people of Faith to claim that their metaphysical "reasons" & divine revelations are just as valid as a scientist's physical-empirical Facts & Faxioms.

So, where does that leave us public reasoners on a non-empirical (metaphysical) philosophical forum? Are the conjunctions in our reasoning so weak that none of our arguments will hang-together under the universal solvent of skepticism? Are our fundamental (self-evident) axioms only valid within a single isolated-but-united Faith community (-isms)? :cool:

*1. Logical Axioms :
Yes, axioms can be considered a type of presupposition, as they are foundational statements accepted as true without proof to serve as the starting point for reasoning within a specific system. While all axioms function as presuppositions, a key distinction is that an axiom is a presupposition that is considered self-evident or unquestionable within its context, whereas not all presuppositions are necessarily self-evident or accepted without controversy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+axioms+presuppositions

Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. — Gnomon
What is the form of there information in the DNA of a dead organism? What is the form of there information in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement? — Patterner

Those are good questions, in that they indicate ignorance of what Information is, essentially*1. Which could be a learning opportunity. Prior to Shannon, the definition of Information referred to "knowledge" (meaning ; facts) in a mind. Information is always a reference to some thing or event : Aboutness*2.

But since the 20th century that term has acquired much broader significance for Philosophy and Science. For example, astrobiologist Caleb Scharf's 2021 book is entitled The Ascent of Information. He asks "whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". And he coined the term "dataome" (from genome) : "the dataome is all of the non-genetic data we carry externally and internally". A related term is : "extended mind".

Besides the meaning-in-a-mind kind of Information, we now use the term Data in certain contexts. Scharf says "in that sense data corresponds to pieces of information. But real information is that data organized and assembled, and structured to provide meaning and context". And that's what Minds do. I'll cut to the meat here, and reveal that conscious mental Information is a recent innovation of evolution. Prior to the advent of Life & Mind, the power to transform was mainly what we now call Energy.

With that piece of information in mind, I'll answer your questions : A> Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). B> Information in a book is equivalent to Potential energy in a battery. It requires a conscious mind to complete the circuit of Meaning. Plato's transcendent Forms, are manifested in the immanent world as various Forms of Energy. And human Consciousness is one of those innumerable Patterns (forms) of In-Form-Action. :smile:


*1. Information is an abstract concept that refers to something which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note --- The term "power" has taken on a new significance since Information has recently been associated with causal Energy. A broader sense of Information is "the power to transform", to cause change, in both matter and mind.

*2. In philosophy, aboutness refers to the feature of mental states, linguistic expressions, or other meaningful items to be on, of, or concerning some subject matter, event, or state of affairs. This property, often used interchangeably with intentionality, is fundamental to distinguishing the mental from the physical and is a core concept in the philosophy of mind and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy

PS___ Just as Energy is found in various forms --- chemical, electrical, kinetic, potential, etc --- Information is manifested in many forms : books, databases, conceptual, procedural, etc.

I don't understand what you're saying. Particularly "the verbal Information". I don't know if you're answering my question. Is the order of the bases in the DNA of a dead body, or written in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement, information?

I think it's always information. I don't think it only becomes information when it is being processed, or being interpreted by a mind. — Patterner

Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. Just as Energy manifests as Chemical, Electrical, Kinetic, Thermal, Potential, etc. The form of "Information" most familiar before Shannon was metaphysical Meaning in a Mind. But, he stripped away the meaning, leaving only abstract 1s & 0s, that can be mechanically represented by electric valences (+/-).

By calling it a "Verb"*1, I was making a distinction between Shannon's Noun Information (data) and Whitehead's Process Information. Most people are only familiar with Shannon's engineering definition, equating meaningless Information with Entropy. But in the subsequent century, meaningful Information has been equated with Energy (negentropy).

This is cutting-edge information, that is not generally known, except among specialists, such as the Complexity scientists at Santa Fe Institute. But it's the key to my philosophical Enformationism thesis. :nerd:

PS___ Oooops! The footnotes are back. :wink:

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

*2. Alfred North Whitehead did not develop a distinct field called "information theory" as it is understood today, but his philosophy of organism, with its emphasis on process, prehension, and interrelationship, can be understood as an alternative model for understanding information. He viewed reality as dynamic processes rather than static objects and proposed that information gains meaning through subjective experience and context, particularly through the recursive process of prehension, or feeling the past into the present occasion. This fundamentally differs from current information theory, which often focuses on discrete bits of data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.n.+whitehead+information+theory

*3. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics. The justification of an information conservation theorem acquires practical significance in information technology, especially as it moves into the quantum realm (photonics/quantum computing).
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl: — Patterner

Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd:

I think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. — Patterner

DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.

Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile:

PS___ Look ma, no footnotes. :joke:

Thus, AI is incapable to understand my work. I am still hoping to find an "astute reader", capable of abstract thought and who subscribe to Leonardo da Vinci's dictum, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using memory." — Pieter R van Wyk

Is anyone on this forum capable of understanding your work? Have you found an "astute reader" elsewhere? If so, how do they answer your challenge : "what is a system?" Has anyone found a "fatal error" in your reasoning?

I don't consider Google's AI Overview to be an authority, but it is a good sifting filter for combing through complex verbiage, abstruse terminology, and esoteric discourse, in order to provide a capsule summary for non-experts. And it provides links to human-authored sources, where abstruse abstractions may be defined in common language.

Your cryptic descriptions in this thread seem to convey what your non-system is not, but leaves undefined (nebulous) what it is. Apparently, whatever-it-is is not General Systems Theory, as defined by Bertalanffy, to distinguish Holism from Reductionism, and to broaden science's focus on isolated parts & sub-systems.

This thread has devolved to a sideline debate on whether "rocks have beliefs". Could you give us a dumbed-down hint, for us non-astute readers, of your ingenious definition of a System, to get us back on track? :smile:


*1. General Systems Theory :
Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field of study that views the world as a complex network of interconnected and interdependent parts, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It emphasizes how these components interact and influence each other within a larger system, providing a holistic perspective that contrasts with reductionist approaches. Originating in biology with figures like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, it has been applied to diverse fields such as psychology, sociology, ecology, and engineering to understand and address complex problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=general+systems+theory

*2. How can you determine what is part of a system?
first define the system's purpose and boundary, then identify its interrelated components (elements, interconnections, function) that, when working together, produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts. An essential component is one whose removal prevents the system from achieving its goals.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system
Note --- If the universe/cosmos is a System, what component is essential to its purpose? If the system has no function or purpose, is it actually a System? Is that your point?

Further still: information is not transmitted. Since there is nothing contained anywhere that passes from an interpreted to an interpreter, and since what we have are transcription effects (i.e. con-formation in-formation) there is no entity, no substance called information. — JuanZu

True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile:

My purpose is clearly stated in my question, nothing more, nothing less. And, it would seem, I got me an answer. — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

To describe cosmic reality with a "single system" might require omniscience. But that hasn't stopped ambitious philosophers from trying*1, including yours truly. I get the impression that System Building is offensive --- arrogant, absurd, ambiguous --- to those for whom everything is relative, or for whom the universe is random instead of systematic & logical.

Most major religions have diagnosed a broken System, and offer some approach to repairing the break. Many are faith-based, with solutions only available to blindfolded believers. Others are methodical, such as Buddhism, offering a psychological technology for mind control. But even the Buddha admitted that ego-snuffing Enlightenment is a rare achievement. And resurrection & reincarnation merely postpone a final solution to some indefinite future heaven or nirvana. Some religions & philosophies blame the victims for their suffering, due to inherent weaknesses of human nature. In that case, the broken System is blamed on physicality instead of spirituality, the duality of Soul & Body.

Apparently, the answer you were searching for is that Philosophy does not have an answer to "What is a System". Seems you prefer to avoid Systems Thinking in favor of Categorical Philosophy*2, such as Kant's Imperative, or your own "Logic of Existence"*3. Is your theory a complete system, a moral law, or just another "ambiguous notion"? Is the answer "that there is no logical answer" : that Faith is the only answer? :smile:


*1. Philosophical system building is the creation of a comprehensive and coherent worldview that provides answers to major philosophical questions about reality, knowledge, morality, and existence. This approach involves connecting diverse ideas into a unified structure, drawing inspiration from figures like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Whitehead. Systems philosophy also represents a modern philosophical approach that applies systems concepts to construct worldviews, emphasizing interconnectedness and emergent properties.

*2. "Categorical philosophy" most commonly refers to Immanuel Kant's concept of the categorical imperative, a universal moral law stating that one should act only according to principles that could rationally be willed as a universal law for everyone, and always treat humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means to an end. This means that moral actions are binding absolutely, regardless of personal desires or goals, making them universal and obligatory for all rational beings
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=categorical+philosophy

*3. "How I Understand Things: The Logic of Existence"is a book that questions traditional philosophical and logical frameworks to explore how we perceive and understand existence, challenging the notion that logic can fully capture the nature of being. The work critiques classic systems like rationalism and phenomenology, arguing that their separation of mind and body, or their overemphasis on conceptualization, fails to grasp the pervasive reality of existence itself. Instead, it proposes that existence is signified by the verb "to be" within a judgment, rather than residing in the subject or predicate, and invites readers to re-examine their perceptions of knowledge and reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence
Note --- Heidegger's system, Dasein, is interwoven instead of isolated.

Does philosophy have a definition of a system? The second question, ... or better, a general systems theory; seemed to be a bit premature for philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

Apparently, you didn't get a definition that suited your purposes. Perhaps, you should specify a philosophical problem or application to which you want to apply Systems Thinking*1*2. For me, Jan Smuts' definition of Holism in Evolution*3 can also be applied to various philosophical questions. :smile:

PS___ You quoted Gnomon to say that a System has "properties". But it might be more accurate, for philosophical purposes, to say that an Integrated Whole System has non-physical Qualities, such as Life and Mind.


*1. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to problem-solving that views issues as part of a larger, interconnected system, focusing on relationships, feedback loops, and patterns rather than isolated components.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=systems+thinking

*2. The philosophy of systems thinking is a holistic approach that views phenomena as interconnected systems, moving beyond isolated problems to understand underlying structures, feedback loops, and long-term, systemic consequences. It emphasizes the whole being greater than the sum of its parts and is rooted in biology, cybernetics, and ecology, aiming to create more effective, adaptive, and sustainable solutions by considering the entire web of relationships within a complex situation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+systems+thinking

*3. Holism :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html