What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith
↪180 Proof typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.
Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.
Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & organic)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature.
*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/art ... lture.html
*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia
*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence each other, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?") — Benj96
I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.
I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.
Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature.
Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-accordi ... rn-physics
Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.
I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.
I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.
Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature.
Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-accordi ... rn-physics
Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith
↪180 Proof
typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.
Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.
Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & logical)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature.
*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/art ... lture.html
*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia
*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
↪180 Proof
typically reads "supernatural" or "superstitious" whenever I use the term "metaphysical" in a non-traditional sense. Ironically his own definition (above) of "non-physical" is closer to my intention : "Physical is synonymous with natural (and nonphysical with formal (e.g. mathematics, logic, etc.))" Indeed, Aristotle, the prime definer & categorizer of philosophical concepts, divided his tome, On Nature, into two different, but complementary categories : a> particular Physical things (Reality) & b> general Non-Physical theories about things (Ideality). The latter was later dubbed "metaphysics". Perhaps in order to distinguish between objective Physical (material ; matter) and subjective Formal (mental ; information) classifications, while maintaining the complementary notion that both are integral aspects of Natural reality on Earth, if not yet on Mars.
Today, in hindsight, we might label those parallel categories as "Nature"*1 (material things and physical dynamics) & "Culture"*2 (mental memes, formal ideas and logical inter-relationships). So, I would re-word your statement to depend on "how one defines 'physical' and 'metaphysical'". Or better, to substitute "natural" and "cultural", to make the complementary relationship more obvious*3. Human culture is a product of natural evolutionary processes, but exists in the form of non-physical ideas (information), and manifests as artificial systems & technologies.
Classical Science, since Descartes, has emphasized the physical (material & mechanical) aspects of reality, and minimized its metaphysical (mental & logical)*4*5 features. Yet, Philosophy originally treated both as valid subjects for study. And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature.
*1. Nature : the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
*2. Culture : the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
*3. What is the relationship between nature and culture? :
NATURE AND CULTURE converge in many ways that span values, beliefs and norms to practices, livelihoods, knowledge and languages. As a result, there exists a mutual feedback between cultural systems and the environment, with a shift in one often leading to a change in the other.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/art ... lture.html
*4. The nature–culture divide is the notion of a dichotomy between humans and the environment. Early anthropologists sought theoretical insight from the perceived tensions between nature and culture. ___Wikipedia
*5. Nature and culture are often seen as opposite ideas—what belongs to nature cannot be the result of human intervention and, on the other hand, cultural development is achieved against nature. However, this is by far not the only take on the relationship between nature and culture.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-culture-divide-2670633
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
"What influences energy travelling at the speed of light to decelerate? If energy travelling at such a speed cannot interact with itself (for virtue of the fact that two photons having equal and maximal momentum shouldnt be able to influence each other, as relative to one another they travel at the same speed, with the same power, then how ought they influence one another to decelerate and become matter?") — Benj96
I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.
I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.
Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature.
Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-accordi ... rn-physics
Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.
I don't know where that quote came from, but it reminds me of one situation in which light energy does seem to interact (influence ; interfere) with itself. The quantum double-slit experiment was interpreted as continuous wave-fronts, not particular photons, interacting --- with the result of adding (bright lines ; acceleration?) or subtracting (dark spaces ; deceleration?) energy. In a liquid medium, that result makes sense. But in empty space it's paradoxical. Unless, that is, you take into account the re-vitalized (re-interpreted) Aether theory. Which I am beginning to take seriously.
I read Frank Wilczek's 2008 book about his 21st century Aether theory, for its philosophical implications of course. The science behind this new paradigm is way over my head. But the notion that space-time is a medium (means ; mode ; channel) is compatible with my personal worldview of Enformationism. One form of Generic Information is Energy. And Aether now seems to be equivalent to Potential Energy, whereas Matter is Actualized Energy.
Wilczek has a webpage http://itsfrombits.com that references John A. Wheeler's controversial notion that Matter ("its") derives from Information ("bits"). Those non-physical (subjective) "bits" are potential forms that we can't see or touch until they become physical "its" (things ; objects). Hence, "Abstract Information" is one answer to the OP question : "what exists that is not of the physical world, yet not supernatural". The original meaning of "Aether" was supernatural (divine atmosphere), but the new concept portrays it as a fundamental element of Nature.
Quotes from Richard Brenner reply on Quora forum thread : Does ether exist?
# "….Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “Ether” once again." (S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The Philosophy of Vacuum)
# “….Investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”….. “ thus a living vacuum, the Ether, holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”. (Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984)
# “….There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics." (Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008)
# Robert Laughlin, Nobel prize in physics, gives us the reason why the Ether has been ostracised:
“The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.” Let that sink in: a 1998 Nobel Laureate in physics tells us that “most physicists think in terms of the Aether about a vacuum”….. because to any serious mind throughout history the mere notion of a vacuum is an abomination which has never ever had any kind of explicative nor descriptive power whatsoever, because it is the negation of everything, and cannot therefore be the seat of anything.
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-accordi ... rn-physics
Another Quora reply to the Ether/Or question (pardon the pun) outlines its properties :
Aether has the property of volume, as mentioned, and Aether also has the property of resonance (frequency squared). The resonance of Aether refers to temporal characteristics of the Aether, which are an oscillation between forward and backward time, and also an oscillation between right temporal torque and left temporal torque. The Aether also possesses the property of mass in the same way that the units of potential, resistance, energy, momentum, magnetic flux, and others also possess the dimension of mass. Most importantly, Aether also possesses the property of charge, and there are two distinctly different types of charges; electrostatic charge and magnetic charge. And Aether also has geometry; the geometrical curvature constant of Aether is equal to 16π216π2.
.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
And since Quantum Science reintroduced the role of the observer into the functions of physics, the human mind can no longer be ignored as a force within Nature. — Gnomon
Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another. — Benj96
Quantum physics has expanded the classical notion of "force" to include a variety of causes of change, including the faster-than-light-causal-force of the Entanglement effect. I could cite many more of them for 180wooboo's enlightenment. But since he missed the point of the quote, I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature. And which I expect he will reject & ridicule.
Intention is a force :
Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person's actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/The-Imp ... -Of-769252
Quantum entanglement is the cited model you're looking for 180Proof is it not? For one particle to be in one state the other must be in the opposite state to say they are entangled - in communication with one another. — Benj96
Quantum physics has expanded the classical notion of "force" to include a variety of causes of change, including the faster-than-light-causal-force of the Entanglement effect. I could cite many more of them for 180wooboo's enlightenment. But since he missed the point of the quote, I'll merely mention that the cultural "force" I had in mind is human Intention, which has physical effects in Nature. And which I expect he will reject & ridicule.
Intention is a force :
Consequences are measurable outcomes that are a direct result of our actions. Intentions are the thoughts behind a person's actions. They are the reason that a person chooses to do something. Consequences and intentions both correlate with action.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/The-Imp ... -Of-769252
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do. — Banno
↪Benj96
180wooboo quoted Banno to say that "metaphysics" is included under the heading of Physics. I'm not sure what he meant by that counterintuitive assertion, which ignores the "meta" qualifier. Maybe he's suggesting that Mind (mental properties) is an integral component of Brain (physical properties), hence a category error. Perhaps he's implying that non-material Metaphysics, like everything else in reality, is subordinate to all-encompassing Physics. However, that could be construed to equate metaphysics with Energy & Matter as a third manifestation of Physics*1.
I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. Instead, he seems to think that the term "metaphysics" necessarily implies something un-natural & perverse : an abomination. Whenever I use the meta-word (referring to consciousness), he rises-up in righteous indignation to despise, execrate, and condemn the very idea of anything that is not simply matter-energy Physics. As a considered opinion, that's OK with me, except for the dialog-dampening effects of emotional denunciations, and appeals to orthodoxy instead of reason.
PS__I could agree with a re-worded version of that statement : "Metaphysics is not an afterthought, but an integral feature of NATURE". Since the human Mind -- and its energy analogue Intention -- emerged from the natural processes of evolution, the potential for its emergence must have been encoded in the Natural Laws & Initial Conditions of the physical and metaphysical universe. Otherwise, it would have been a post hoc (supernatural) intervention into the mundane evolutionary mechanisms.
Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law :
One's view of the natural law is based on one's view of human nature. Human nature is what all humans have in common at all times. The natural law must be universal because human nature is universal. If there is a natural law, it applies to all humans just because they are humans.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 06.00106.x
Are the laws of nature metaphysical? :
Some philosophers think that laws of nature are contingent, others think that laws are metaphysically necessary.
https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/72/4/875/6454669
Meta-Physical Mind :
The argument against materialism in The Conscious Mind has two parts. The first part, in Chapter 3 of the book, argues that there is no a priori entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness. The second part, in Chapter 4 of the book, argues that there is no a posteriori necessary entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/persona ... 99_OCR.pdf
*1. Ironically, in my personal worldview, I do equate Matter & Mind as emergent forms of universal causal energy (EnFormAction). But Mind & Consciousness have completely different properties from Matter, hence (contra Materialism doctrine) im-material & non-physical attributes.
↪Benj96
180wooboo quoted Banno to say that "metaphysics" is included under the heading of Physics. I'm not sure what he meant by that counterintuitive assertion, which ignores the "meta" qualifier. Maybe he's suggesting that Mind (mental properties) is an integral component of Brain (physical properties), hence a category error. Perhaps he's implying that non-material Metaphysics, like everything else in reality, is subordinate to all-encompassing Physics. However, that could be construed to equate metaphysics with Energy & Matter as a third manifestation of Physics*1.
I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. Instead, he seems to think that the term "metaphysics" necessarily implies something un-natural & perverse : an abomination. Whenever I use the meta-word (referring to consciousness), he rises-up in righteous indignation to despise, execrate, and condemn the very idea of anything that is not simply matter-energy Physics. As a considered opinion, that's OK with me, except for the dialog-dampening effects of emotional denunciations, and appeals to orthodoxy instead of reason.
PS__I could agree with a re-worded version of that statement : "Metaphysics is not an afterthought, but an integral feature of NATURE". Since the human Mind -- and its energy analogue Intention -- emerged from the natural processes of evolution, the potential for its emergence must have been encoded in the Natural Laws & Initial Conditions of the physical and metaphysical universe. Otherwise, it would have been a post hoc (supernatural) intervention into the mundane evolutionary mechanisms.
Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law :
One's view of the natural law is based on one's view of human nature. Human nature is what all humans have in common at all times. The natural law must be universal because human nature is universal. If there is a natural law, it applies to all humans just because they are humans.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 06.00106.x
Are the laws of nature metaphysical? :
Some philosophers think that laws of nature are contingent, others think that laws are metaphysically necessary.
https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/72/4/875/6454669
Meta-Physical Mind :
The argument against materialism in The Conscious Mind has two parts. The first part, in Chapter 3 of the book, argues that there is no a priori entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness. The second part, in Chapter 4 of the book, argues that there is no a posteriori necessary entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/persona ... 99_OCR.pdf
*1. Ironically, in my personal worldview, I do equate Matter & Mind as emergent forms of universal causal energy (EnFormAction). But Mind & Consciousness have completely different properties from Matter, hence (contra Materialism doctrine) im-material & non-physical attributes.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
I made it explicit that I was referring to Popper, and hence to falsificationism. The comment had nothing to do with mind/body; why you would go off on that tangent is enigmatic.
It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor. — Banno
Sorry. I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. So, my response was only to what was explicit in his post : metaphysics is integral to physics.
It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor. — Banno
Sorry. I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. So, my response was only to what was explicit in his post : metaphysics is integral to physics.
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
GLEN willows
These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno — GLEN willows
Empirical Science studies the effable & phenomenal (physical) aspects of the world. So, it's left to Philosophy to dabble in the ineffable & mental (metaphysical) features of reality. Whenever a scientist makes a generalized inference about her object of study, she's doing philosophy or metaphysics, not physics. The art of philosophy is to describe abstractions, such as space & time, in metaphors that allow us to imagine concepts that are not physical things, but "psychologically real" metaphysical meanings. Metaphors & analogies are intended to express ineffable ideas in meaningful comparisons.
Ironically, the best scientists are not just data-loggers, but philosophers who extract general meaning from the specific data. "Rational explanation" is not a phenomenal observation, but a logical (philosophical) inference. Nobel-prize-winning scientists are usually the ones who make the ineffable effable. For example, Einstein replaced the notion of Space as a vacuum lacking contents & properties, with the metaphor of space as a flexible fabric and a pool of potential (virtual ; unreal) energy.
phenomenon : noun. any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.
Ineffable :
There are two slightly different flavors to 'ineffable', let's call them 1) things impenetrable to our understanding and 2) things that defy description. For the latter we need not venture beyond our imaginations to find the limitations of language...
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... es-it-impo
The illusion of time :
Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. . . .
To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
↪Banno
These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno — GLEN willows
Empirical Science studies the effable & phenomenal (physical) aspects of the world. So, it's left to Philosophy to dabble in the ineffable & mental (metaphysical) features of reality. Whenever a scientist makes a generalized inference about her object of study, she's doing philosophy or metaphysics, not physics. The art of philosophy is to describe abstractions, such as space & time, in metaphors that allow us to imagine concepts that are not physical things, but "psychologically real" metaphysical meanings. Metaphors & analogies are intended to express ineffable ideas in meaningful comparisons.
Ironically, the best scientists are not just data-loggers, but philosophers who extract general meaning from the specific data. "Rational explanation" is not a phenomenal observation, but a logical (philosophical) inference. Nobel-prize-winning scientists are usually the ones who make the ineffable effable. For example, Einstein replaced the notion of Space as a vacuum lacking contents & properties, with the metaphor of space as a flexible fabric and a pool of potential (virtual ; unreal) energy.
phenomenon : noun. any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.
Ineffable :
There are two slightly different flavors to 'ineffable', let's call them 1) things impenetrable to our understanding and 2) things that defy description. For the latter we need not venture beyond our imaginations to find the limitations of language...
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... es-it-impo
The illusion of time :
Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. . . .
To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
↪Banno
Re: TPF : Non-Physical Reality II
And the physical and the mental are separable aspects? — Joshs
Of course! Don't you distinguish between those categories? Physical is real & tangible, while Mental is an imaginary intangible model of Reality. One is matter-based, and the other is meaning-based. One is here & now, while the other is anywhere & any-when.
Animals, who don't make such "trivial" irrelevant distinctions, live in a material world of the 5 senses, while humans live in a cultural world modified by the mind. For example, turkeys feel blessed to be currently living high-on-the-hog, with no mental concept of Thanksgiving in their future.
Of course! Don't you distinguish between those categories? Physical is real & tangible, while Mental is an imaginary intangible model of Reality. One is matter-based, and the other is meaning-based. One is here & now, while the other is anywhere & any-when.
Animals, who don't make such "trivial" irrelevant distinctions, live in a material world of the 5 senses, while humans live in a cultural world modified by the mind. For example, turkeys feel blessed to be currently living high-on-the-hog, with no mental concept of Thanksgiving in their future.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests