TPF : Monism

[Gnomon]

From the fact that abstractions are not material objects it does not follow that they are immaterial. They may be material processes. Digestion is a material process which is not a material object. — Janus
Since the prefix "im-" literally means "not", it follows that whatever is "not material" is literally "immaterial"*1. Yet apparently, those not-matter words have an unplatable implication for you. Perhaps, to you "immaterial" is equated with "unreal" or "spiritual", and "material" means "real" or "mundane". If so, your definition of "material" is even more metaphysical*2 than mine. Instead of those spooky notions though, I'm thinking in terms of reductive/pluralistic scientific categories, in which massive Matter is merely a condensed form of ethereal Energy (E=MC^2), or ultimately of elucidating Light.

In the metaphysics of Materialism, both tangible things and conceptual processes are included under the umbrella of Physicalism or Realism. Yet, physical scientists routinely make a distinction between Matter and processes affecting material objects. For example, Matter (mass) has inertia, and does not change position unless acted upon by some outside Force. But what substance is a force made of? For scientists, a Force is a type of Energy acting upon Matter*3. Ironically, The ancient philosophy of Materialism, led 18th century scientists to imagine Energy as a material substance : Phlogistion*4. But today, Energy (causation) is accepted as an immaterial & non-mechanical influence on matter (spooky action at a distance).

Materialism is a monistic doctrine*5, based on evidence of the physical senses. But my personal Enformationism worldview is also monistic, and based on the non-physical (immaterial) element of the real world that we know in various forms, such as Energy or Mind or Reason. According to Materialism, the Mind must be material. But that presumption leads to the philosophical Mind/Body Problem. Yet, if you assume that Generic Information is the basic element of the world, the "problem" vanishes as you look at it from a new perspective : Information Physics*6. I won't go into the details of that worldview here. I'll just mention that it's a novel form of Metaphysical Monism.


*1. A Prefix 'im' is used in the following two situations: Meaning not or no: when the prefix 'im' is used with some adjectives and nouns that begin with b, m, or p, it states the opposite meaning. For example immortal, immature, imperfect, etc.
https://theglobalmontessorinetwork.org/ ... m-english/

*2. Metaphysical : referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. ___Wiki

*3. In physics, a force is an influence that causes the motion of an object with mass to change its velocity i.e., to accelerate. ___Wiki
Note -- Influence comes in many immaterial forms, from physical forces to social influences.

*4. Phlogiston, in early chemical theory, hypothetical principle of fire, of which every combustible substance was in part composed. In this view, the phenomena of burning, now called oxidation, was caused by the liberation of phlogiston, with the dephlogisticated substance left as an ash or residue.
https://www.britannica.com/science/phlogiston

*5. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. ___Wikipedia

*6. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161
Note -- 21st century scientists now posit Information as the fundamental element of reality.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/

[Gnomon]

And since you referenced information physics I'll just say I don't think it's good science at all. — Mark Nyquist

We seem to be in agreement on the material vs non-material question. But not on the emerging concept of Generic Information as the fundamental element of reality. That still emerging "science" grew out of Information theory & Quantum physics since the early 20th century. And due to the subject non-matter, it is still more philosophy than empirical science. So, I'll have to agree with your assessment that it's not "good science"--- meaning productive of hard goods, like Atomic Bombs & Cell Phones.

However, since I am not a scientist, I am more interested in its philosophical implications, than in its material products. FWIW, the Santa Fe Institute views Information theory as essential to the emerging sciences of Systems & Complexity. So, maybe tangible results will eventually come from their studies of intangible Information.

Nevertheless, In my Enformationism thesis, I have made immaterial Information (power to create actual forms from unformed Potential) the foundation of my personal worldview --- regardless of any material toys that might result from understanding complex interacting systems as various manifestations of universal causal power : what I call EnFormAction --- conventionally known as Energy.



The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia
https://www.santafe.edu/

[Gnomon]

Enlightenment philosophy may have demystified established doctrines of the era, but at the same time, initiated its own doctrines under religious, or at least theological, conditions, so the Enlightenment didn’t categorically reject all religious doctrines. — Mww

As a basically rational & non-religious introverted personality*1 --- who has been called "Spock-like" on another forum, and a "New Age mystic" on TPF --- I stand somewhere in the middle of the Materialism/Mysticism spectrum. So, I can understand why the early scientists preferred the pragmatic philosophy of Materialism to that of impractical Mysticism. A typical view of the spectrum might say that Materialism appeals to "rational" practical/realistic intellectuals on one end, while Mysticism is embraced mostly by "emotional" theoretical/idealistic feeling-type persons on the other extreme*1. Doctrinal Religions though, captured the loyalty of sheep-like masses who want/need to be told what to believe. { Note -- The Rational vs Emotional labels are simplistic either/or categories that ignore the median*2.} Ironically, the thinkers on both ends often view the opposite type as a member of the brain-washed majority.

However, my interest in feckless philosophy has exposed me to other (non-material) ways of thinking about the world and its people. Jesus responded to the skepticism from his critics with "he who has eyes to see, let him see". Apparently, I was born blind to the objects of "spiritual consciousness". But, I can see that at least half of the population is equipped with mystical eyes or hearts. So, I try not to "pass judgment" on those who don't see & feel as I do. Some of them can give elaborate reasons for believing as they do.

Having read the encyclopedic book Mysticism, by Evelyn Underhill, I understand that there is a long tradition of mystical ideation in the history of philosophy. Yet ecstatic mystics have typically lived on the fringes of staid formal religions. She said, "that while mysticism is an essential element in full human religion, it can never be the whole content of such religion". She could be very critical of formalized religions, and even referred to theology as "empirical mysticism". By contrast, she seemed to view the true mystics as "spiritual anarchists". Even the Catholic church, with its history of rational theology had an uneasy relationship with mystics, who ignored official dogma in favor of their own inner revelations.

It's true that the Enlightenment era scientists didn't immediately & categorically reject their religious doctrines. From Galileo to Newton, physical scientists attempted to reconcile their newly observed "facts" with their inherited belief systems. Yet eventually, the trend away from acceptance of formal religious institutions & doctrines became almost categorical*3. Ironically, in a 2009 poll, " just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power". So, even pragmatic practicing scientists seem to be able to reconcile their professional Materialism with a bit of personal Mysticism.


*1. rational vs emotional personality :
In common usage, being “rational” is assumed to be good, whereas being “irrational” or “emotional” is assumed to be bad and to lead to error. Psychological science, however, is primarily interested in understanding rather than in passing judgment on kinds of thought processes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128497/

*2. Psychology and the Rationality of Emotion :
Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky discovered some of the judgment heuristics that people use in everyday reasoning (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Much to the dismay of economists guided by “rational choice” models, it has become clear that people reason using whatever short-cuts or heuristics are available.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128497/

*3. Categorical rejection of religious doctrines :
92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... -6434-6-33

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

And as 180 Proof pointed out abstract objects really only exist in a physically instantiated form, which I agree with. — Mark Nyquist

I suspect that our definitions of "abstraction" are confined by our definitions of "concrete" or "real". From the perspective of monistic Materialism/Physicalism, nothing can be immaterial or unreal. The problem with lumping matter & mind into a single category though, is that we can't make the kinds of distinctions that philosophers are interested in. For example, in Plato's allegory of the cave "the shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world."

That's why Aristotle defined a contrast between "Substance" & "Essence". Metaphorically, it's like the difference between your body and its shadow. There is obviously a connection between them, but they are not the same substance. The shadow is not a thing, but merely the absence of light, which we interpret abstractly as-if it's a material thing. The old Peter Pan cartoon had some fun, showing Peter trying to sew his independent minded shadow onto his feet. As a materialist, he was interpreting an abstraction as a substance. Some of our abstractions may have physical instantiations, but some exist only in imaginative minds.

PS___A unicorn is an abstract idea based on real world experience with horses & narwhals. But we don't go out looking in the real world for an instantiation of the unicorn concept. Unless, that is, our worldview doesn't allow us to make the distinction between an instantiated concrete object and an imagined abstract idea.



Tumblr_n2ew2i5INU1qhcrb0o1_1280.jpg

[Gnomon]

I don't know why you are trying to bring what you speculate are my personal reactions to the term "immaterial" into the conversation. . . . . when something is said to be immaterial there are two common meanings: either that it doesn't exist or is unimportant, or that it exists in some way other than the material. — Janus

I didn't mean to offend you by inquiring into your personal preferences. But, it's that "some other way" definition of immaterial that is controversial. Besides, on this Philosophy Forum, personal feelings about hot-button words are all too often the crux of argumentation on divisive topics, as opposed to dictionary definitions.

As you noted, the use of "immaterial" could be simply a bland acknowledgment of the existence of abstract ideas, or a bitter put-down based on a negative value judgment against alternative belief systems. For example, "matter" & "antimatter" are usually not as emotionally laden as "material" & "immaterial". Some people highly value "spiritual concepts", while others openly despise them, or dismiss them as "immaterial". So, it's the emotional baggage attached to some words that make rational dialog difficult.

It doesn't matter to me personally which side of that divide you are on : a> immaterial good or b> immaterial bad. But in order to communicate I need to know which implicit meaning of the term you are intending. To be explicit, when I use the term "immaterial" or "meta-physical", I'm referring to concepts that may be "unimportant" for scientists, but centrally important for philosophers. Are you approaching the topic from the science side or the philosophy side?


Immaterial :
1. unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
2. un-real or non-existent
3. Philosophy -- spiritual, rather than physical.
___Oxford

Put-down :
a remark intended to humiliate or criticize someone.
___Oxford

[Gnomon]

Isn't Mathematical Platonism a common argument used to undermine physicalism — Tom Storm

Yes, philosophers have been debating Formalism (Platonism) versus Physicalism for millennia*1. But even Aristotle's theory of physical bodies combined Hyle (concrete matter) with Form (abstract pattern or design)*2. So, it seems that physical stuff and mathematical/logical patterns go together like birds of a feather. In reality, you can't have one without the other. But in ideality, Plato thought that the abstract Idea (form ; concept ; definition ; design ; pattern) of a real thing necessarily existed prior to its instantiation in the material world.

Consequently, a related question remains : which is primary, or which came first : real matter or the ideal potential for matter? The only scientific answer to that query may be the Astrophysics notion of "Singularity"*3. The astronomers traced the current contents of the universe back to near the beginning of space-time. From a Materialism perspective, they imagined that point in pre-time as infinite density of matter (e.g black hole). But from a slightly different angle (Mathism???) they viewed the point of "not yet" as the infinite density of gravity (a mathematical concept)*4. Whatever the Singularity is though, it is not a measurable material object. Hence unreal, or not yet real.

That's why I interpret the Big Bang theory as describing the point in pre-time where Ideality (potential) became Reality (actuality). But then, we could continue to argue about such hypothetical non-empirical concepts for a few more millennia. In the meantime, I agree with both Plato : that "Form is Ideal", and with Aristotle : that "Form + Matter = Real". So the complementary concept of "Ideal + Real = All Possibilities" is Monistic, not Pluralistic.


*1. Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato
Note -- Universal form (the idea of a kind of thing) is a category (generalization) that applies to all instances, hence it exists only as an Idea, not a particular thing.

*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism
Note -- Potential is a mathematical (statistical) concept, not a concrete tangible (actual) object

*3. Singularity : Physics•Mathematics
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. ___Oxford
Note -- But philosophers want to know how that pre-real matter came to be compressed into the un-real density of Infinity.

*4. Gravitational Singularity :
A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
Note -- An indefinite point is immeasurable, hence equivalent to zero (nothingness) or Infinity (everythingness). Or it could be defined as Potential (not yet real) instead of Actual (real thing).

[Gnomon]

You didn't inquire into my personal preferences, but spoke as if you knew what they were, and here you go again; assuming what my personal reactions are. But don't worry, I don't get offended by people in online exchanges, it's just ideas being exchanged, or ignored, or critiqued or whatever. — Janus

Actually, it's not always "just ideas" that are being exchanged on this forum. Sometimes it's ideas with emotional connotations (feelings) that are used, not to simply convey information, but to sneer at the worldview associated with those words.

As I said above, for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist. But for philosophical purposes, I am an Immaterialist (ideas about ideas). Consequently, when I insist on using immaterial (metaphysical)*2 language on a philosophy forum, some posters get riled-up. Sometimes an inquiry into weltanshauung itself triggers an emotional response*1. Monism is not a specific physical topic, but a general metaphysical belief system.

For example, ↪180 Proof has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above : "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential."*3. But in your case, I did not know in advance where you stood. Hence, the question about "personal preferences" of worldview. I want to know which toes are touchy, so I can avoid stepping on them.

Since he has made it clear that he trivializes my "Immaterial" (meta-physical) terminology as "inconsequential", I no longer dialog (dance) with him. On a philosophy forum, I expect metaphysical concepts ("ideas about ideas") to be taken seriously. If I wanted to discuss physical/material objects I would post on a Physics or Chemistry forum. As you said, "it's just ideas" -- immaterial concepts -- "being exchanged". Sticks & stones may step on your toes, but metaphysical words can't hurt you --- or can they?

*1. A worldview or a world-view or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[1] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. ____ Wiki

*2. Metaphysics :
Physics is all about nature, natural phenomenon, and our understanding of all relationships while metaphysics also tries to answer "why" questions. Why do we or universe exists or where have we come from and what is the cause of our existence are some of the questions that are tackled by metaphysics.
https://www.differencebetween.com/diffe ... taphysics/

*3 Inconsequential :insignificant, unimportant, trivial, worthless . . .
___Oxford
3 hours ago

[Gnomon]

Now here's an example of misusing Aristotle: for him form is not "abstract pattern or design" but the substantial actualization of potential (matter) as evidenced by your own footnote:
*2. Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. — Gnomon — Janus

Thanks for your honest assessment. But 180 is the only poster on this forum that I cannot communicate with, due to his argumentation by name-calling, and his constant sniping. I may disagree with others, but the dialog usually remains civil. I can usually communicate with you because, even though our worldviews may be different, you don't often descend to snippy sophistry. So in the spirit of an "honest assessment", your attributions to me above are wrong.

FYI, when I followed the term "Form" with parenthetical information, it was not an attribution to (or misuse of) Aristotle; but merely alternative meanings of the word that are pertinent to my argument. I often expand definitions because some posters (especially 180) seem to insist on the simplistic "one word : one meaning" fallacy. In Philosophy though, we have to deal with the complexities of common language. For example, the excerpt below*1 indicates that the term Form was indeed equated with recognizable Patterns, "in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle". Moreover, there are accidental patterns (noise) and intentional or designed patterns (signal). And that distinction does make a difference in philosophical exchanges.

Not to beat a dead horse : In the Hylomorphism quote from my post, Aristotle makes a pertinent distinction between Potential (not yet real ; insubstantial) and Actual (substantial) Form. So, I was not "misusing" Aristotle. Your own preferred definition of Potential as "substantial actualization of potential", is in agreement with my assertion that, prior to actualization, Form is an unreal abstract idea : a pattern in the mind, not in matter*2. Do you agree that Abstractions are patterns stripped of substance? If so, then we can continue to discuss Monism.


*1. Form, In the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle the active, determining principle of a thing. The term was traditionally used to translate Plato’s eidos, by which he meant the permanent reality that makes a thing what it is, in contrast to the particulars that are finite and subject to change. Each form is the pattern of a particular category of thing in the world;
https://www.britannica.com/summary/form-philosophy

*2. Is potential real? :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... ntial-real

[Gnomon]

I agree Aristotle makes a distinction between potential and actual. but I don't read him as thinking of potential as 'Insubstantial form" but as "primary matter" which I take to mean formless matter. We were not discussing Plato, but again I don't understand Plato's forms to be "abstract patterns" but rather understood to be things more real than actual forms. — Janus

I'm also not an authority on Plato or Aristotle, but my information-centric philosophy incorporates several of their ideas where relevant to quantum & information theory. My unconventional usage of terms like "abstract patterns" may be unfamiliar to those who are not conversant with some of the ideas coming out of quantum physics and information science. Some of those "weird" notions could be described as Platonic. For Plato, the idea or meaning or model or definition or design of a thing is its ideal Pattern*1. The rational mind recognizes abstract patterns in concrete things that are characteristic or typical of other similar things. Moreover, from a single Abstract or Potential pattern, many similar Real or Actual objects can be instantiated*2.

For example, as an architect, I create nonphysical "forms" (ideas) in my mind, then transfer that abstract design pattern onto paper to communicate the idea. So that later the abstract conceptual pattern can be constructed (in wood, stone & brick) to create a real enformed object (pattern + matter) that we call a "house". The bricks lying randomly on the ground would be "formless matter", and meaningless to the physical senses. However, the matterless forms or patterns (blueprints) are readily imaginable & meaningful to a rational mind that is trained to interpret those abstract patterns*3.

There are at least two kinds of "form" : Real Forms (physical instantiations) and Ideal Forms (mental abstractions). Metaphorically, those mental images have no "flesh" on their bones. So they could be described as "abstract patterns" or " "defleshed skeletons". But from a more common perspective, "formless matter" would be meaningless, like an "undefined definition". Material objects are the Real Forms from which we humans abstract ideas of Potential things (statistically possible, but not yet actualized). For example, in ancient times some people imagined Dragons, even though they had never seen one. Perhaps they combined three real patterns (definitions) : lizards, bats, and Greek Fire (flame throwing weapon) into a single abstract (unreal) concept : a flying, flame-throwing reptile.

When Plato asserted that Ideals are "more Real" than physical instantiations, he actually meant that they are "more Perfect". That's because material reality imposes physical limits on things, that could be ignored in an immaterial Ideal world. When an idealized house plan is converted into a real building, many compromises must be made to accommodate physical constraints. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright sometimes designed cantilevered roof overhangs that later drooped, because the wooden structure lost rigidity over time. He also designed beautiful innovative windows & skylights that later leaked, because the sealants available at the time deteriorated under ultraviolet light, and allowed water to penetrate. So, FLW was often described as "ahead of his time", and it took years for Actual technology to catch-up with his Potential imagination.


*1. Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. That truth, Plato argued, is the abstraction. He believed that ideas were more real than things. He developed a vision of two worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Platonic_idealism

*2. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Abstraction :
The essence of abstraction is preserving information that is relevant in a given context, and forgetting information that is irrelevant in that context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstracti ... r_science)

A BLUEPRINT IS NOT A HABITABLE HOUSE, but it is imaginable
Gray-Stone-First-Floor_M_1200x.jpg?v=1655830640

[Gnomon]

There are two senses of "form" in Aristotle, one is the formula, abstract pattern or design, the other is the form of the individual, particular object, as united with the matter in hylomorphism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I don't know how the experts interpret the slightly different Plato/Aristotle worldviews. But I get the impression that Plato imagined a Dualistic world, composed of both Ideal and Real stuff. Yet, Aristotle tried to merge Plato's duality into a Monistic worldview with his Hylomorphic theory*1. Apparently, the early Catholic theologians also tried to have it both ways : Physical and Metaphysical. They adopted Plato's Ideal realm as a heavenly or spiritual "uber-reality" in their Super-natural musings, and used Aristotle's more physical/material worldview as the basis for Natural Philosophy, which eventually became modern Science : always searching for useful functional patterns in Nature*2. Consequently, philosophy has been schizophrenic ever since.

The April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article entitled : How Descartes Inspired Science. The author notes that Descartes' mechanical model of reality was adopted by later scientists. Ironically, in his more theoretical & idealistic writings, Rene seemed to be a Dualist, as indicated by his Body/Soul model. In his Principles of Philosophy, he wrote : "We likewise discover that there cannot exist any atoms of matter that are of their own nature indivisible". The article then infers that, "In other words, atoms may not be actually infinitely divided, but they can be divided indefinitely". {my bold} To that, I would add that it's the imaginative mind that can "divide [ideas] indefinitely". {my brackets}

The article goes on to describe how Quantum scientists, eventually, were forced by their evidence to divide uncuttable Atoms indefinitely. "Murray Gell-Mann, then proposed the existence of Quarks, the particles that themselves make up protons and neutrons." And so-on to this day, they keep finding ever smaller constituents of the former fundamental element of Reality. On the other hand, mathematical quantum theorists have abandoned Monistic Atomism altogether, in favor of Quantum Field Theory*3, in which the defining "patterns of points" are abstract mathematical locations in space, in the form of cartesian coordinates. That continuing trend indicates to me that in theory (ideality), humans can divide reality indefinitely.


*1.Aristotle’s Categories :
Whereas Plato treated the abstract as more real than material particulars, in the Categories Aristotle takes material particulars as ontological bedrock — to the extent that being a primary substance makes something more real than anything else,
Note -- I don't know if the ancient Greeks had a word equivalent to our modern notion of "Abstraction". Our term derived from the Latin "to remove, or forcibly pull away". Likewise, the notion of "pattern" may also be a modern concept, especially in Information theory. However, in his Four Causes, "Form" is often translated as "pattern" or "design".

*2. Pattern : anything cognizable
" Aristotle coined the word syllogism for any valid pattern of inference"
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/aristo.pdf

*3. In theoretical physics, quantum field theory is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles. ___Wikipedia
Note -- What Wiki calls "quasi" [not quite real] particles are labeled by others as "virtual" particles, which implies that they are not physically existing, but are merely hypothetical entities

Note on Design Intent :
For Architects and other designers, the Design Intent is to create a physical Form which fulfills pre-specified functional requirements. Without intention the resulting Form would be accidental, probably non-functional, but definitely un-designed.


↪Janus