TPF : World Fair & Just

[Gnomon]

At any rate, this pithy conclusion of “the world is neither fair nor unfair” as just worded might be somewhat too non-dualistic for many, but I find it in full keeping with previously mentioned notions of “the world can be fair only to the extent that we make it so”. — javra

In the singing birds song, is he saying, "another world" : perhaps a Garden of Eden? Or is he imagining this present world as Non-Dual? Hamlet --- the melancholy Dane --- recognized that Good & Evil are not features of the world itself, but a personal interpretation : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Even so, Hamlet was driven mad by his pessimistic mindset. Can we be driven sane, by an optimistic attitude toward a world that can be interpreted either way? "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good". One person's misfortune is often another's good luck.

Back in my musically impressionable day, Bob Dylan concluded that the answer to unfairness and injustice and moral duality is "blowin in the wind". Does that mean there is no final solution to a world that blows both Hot and Cold, both Good and Evil?

My philosophical view is that the physical/material world is Monistic : a single dynamic causal force (amoral energy) that can have positive or negative effects, depending on the individual's me-centered --- or we-centered --- interpretation. That's why the Buddha preached a No-Self perspective, and the Stoics focused on self-control. Fairness & Justice are not of the world, but in the mind of the observer. The cosmos is what it is, but humans can imagine what it could be.

Apparently, homo sapiens is also the homo virtus of the animal world. Capable of seeing injustice, and of doing something about it, by working together toward the ideal of a fair & balanced society. By imposing moral structure on an amoral world.


Blowin' In The Wind
And how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind
___Bob Dylan

[Gnomon]

So from whence this metaphysical fixedness of thermodynamics as they currently are known (and as they occur) being an absolute and literally immovable/permanent grounding for absolutely everything - including notions of justice and fairness? — javra

I don't know how this thread got off-track on discussions of Physics and Thermodynamics as the "grounds" for ethical concepts. But, a quick Google search found that some modern developments in philosophy have narrowly focused on Linguistics and Phenomenology, which analyze common words down to their presumptive atomic meanings. I don't know about ↪apokrisis, but personally, I have no formal training in technical philosophy, or in modern deconstruction of traditional meanings.

So, my language is mostly colloquial, and never doctrinal. When I use a physical metaphor, it's intended only as an easily understood analogy between observable physical things and abstruse metaphysical abstractions. For me, "thermodynamic equilibrium" is not a dogma, but a simile with ethical equality. They are not "grounding for absolutely everything". Apparently, some who are more erudite are reading into our words meanings that were not intended.



Metaphor and Phenomenology
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Continental philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida go further in adding a linguistically creative dimension. They argue that metaphor and symbol act as the primary interpreters of reality, generating richer layers of perception, expression, and meaning in speculative thought. The interplay of metaphor and phenomenology introduces serious challenges and ambiguities within long-standing assumptions in the history of Western philosophy, largely with respect to the strict divide between the literal and figurative modes of reality based in the correspondence theory of truth.
https://iep.utm.edu › met-phen

[Gnomon]

Yet, do you find the "mind of the observer" to be any less real than the physicality which it observes and thereby knows? And, if not, are not both then equally real aspects of that which constitutes "the world" as-is. — javra

Yes. If you define "real" as anything that can interact with other things, then the human mind is real. A rock is inert in itself, but can be used to break a window. An idea is subjective and invisible, but it can be used to affect other minds. For example, your post elicited this reply.

However, for philosophical purposes, it's often useful to distinguish Ideal from Real, even though both can be found in the "real" world. Ideas are not material, but are products of material brains. And Ideals, such as "Justice", are not located in some heavenly realm, but right here in this forum.

[Gnomon]

That's all very clever, but tells me very little. — Banno
Clean out your ears. This was the OP that I was addressing. I was pointing to the third option of the pragmatic/semiotic view that stands beyond the impasse of the idealism vs realism debate. — apokrisis

Pardon, my intrusion. But I suspect your failure to communicate with ↪Banno may be foundering on the notion of "transcendent" ideas. If he is an Immanentist regarding abstract concepts --- God being just the most common example --- any reference to something transcendent may be meaningless to him.

You can ask him if that is why your argument "tells me very little". Some philosophers seem to believe that abstract ideals, such as Justice, exist eternally in a transcendent realm of perfect Forms. But others think that Ideal realm is just a metaphor based on our experience with things we know are on the other side of a wall, but can't see or touch. Metaphors are the lingua franca of philosophy. But some speak different dialects, making communication complicated.

If I'm guessing wrong, he will tell you, in no uncertain terms.

[Gnomon]

And clearly the Cosmos, life and mind have turned out to have just that kind of self-organising logic. And thermodynamics – as a general label for a vast field of maths and science now – is all about systems that self-organise. So thermodynamics is how we can bring 21st C precision to a metaphysics of immanence. — apokrisis

↪Banno seems to be one of the most philosophically knowledgeable posters on this forum. But his arguments tend to be rather terse, as if he has a canned answer for common problems. So, some fraught terms may be trigger-words for a succinct reply. Based on his dismissal of your arguments, I suspect that he equates both "Metaphysics" and "Transcendence" with other-worldly religion and spiritualism, instead of with abstract concepts and philosophical metaphors.

My own non-religious philosophical worldview is based on the notion of a "self-organizing logic" that serves as both Cause and Coordinator of the physical and meta-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of the world. For material objects, that "logic" can be summarized as the Laws of Thermodynamics : Energy ->->-> Entropy --- order always devolves into disorder. And yet, the Big Bang has somehow produced a marvelous complex cosmos instead of just a puff of smoke.

For philosophical concepts especially, that thermodynamic metaphor could be mis-interpreted. So, I have coined a neologism -- Enformy*1 -- to describe the positive force that physicists mis-labeled as "Negentropy". My coinage combines physical Energy and Platonic Form (design), to describe the ability of Nature to integrate isolated things into whole systems, including living organisms and thinking beings. I suppose you could call it a "metaphysics of immanence". But Banno might hear it as an oxymoron or paradox.


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms. Yet, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that a First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang, to program the potential for an almost infinite Cosmos into a sub-atomic Singularity.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

[Gnomon]

So a description of how things are, even if complete, does not tell us what we ought to do about it. — Banno

Yes. That's the role of Philosophy, not Science. As you noted, we will never have a complete comprehensive understanding of "how things are", or of ding an sich. All we ever know of the "real" world is the subjective sensations of our bodies, and the imagery (ideas) in our minds. But, without "objective facts", such as the contributions of physical Science, we might never be able to communicate from one mind to another.

The Facts of Science are intended to represent a hypothetical universal or god's view of "how things are". They may also be postulated as-if they are the common human experience. Unfortunately, the universal language of Science is Mathematics. Which is so abstract and idealized as to be incomprehensible to those who are not mathematically inclined. That's why a parent's smack on the rump of an unruly child is a directly sensible lesson, that can be easily understood as "you ought not to do that". It's close to a universal philosophical language.

I would not describe myself as an "immaterialist". I've argued that what are sometimes called abstract concepts are better understood as institutional facts. They manifest our intentions, so to speak. The "our" here is important. And the issues involved are complex. — Banno

Is that an indirect way of saying that you identify as a Materialist? The term I used was "immanentist", so your discussion of "immaterialist" misses the philosophical issue of Immanence vs Transcendence. I borrowed the term from another poster ; understanding it to mean something more like "realist" vs Idealist, or even "materialist" vs spiritualist in a different context. In other words, there is nothing --- no minds, no ideas, no spirits, no souls, no gods, and no philosophical metaphors --- that are not of this world : i.e. transcendent, hence not subject to verification or falsification. However, some Facts of Science (e.g. quantum quarks) are also institutional, and must be taken on Faith by those who are not members of the institution.

Immanentism :
any of several theories according to which God or an abstract mind or spirit pervades the world.
Note --- for this thread, I equate this term with "anti-supernatural", meaning that there is nothing out of this physical world. And "meta-physics" is sometimes interpreted as anti-immanent.

Institutional Facts :
In terms of Searle's theory, the facts he is puzzled by are institutional facts, i.e. facts created by assignment, performed by collective intentionality, of an agentive function of non-causal type to an object.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -0589-0_18
Note --- This is over my head, but it sounds like a reference to church dogma about such non-entities as The Trinity. You can't see it, or even understand it, you just have to believe it. Ironically, a three-flavored Quark is a sort of Trinity.

[Gnomon]

Is that an indirect way of saying that you identify as a Materialist? — Gnomon
No, but it depends what you mean by "materialist". — Banno

OK. What do you mean by "materialist" or "materialism"? Is there a definition of those terms that you would apply to your own worldview? For example, I am a Materialist in the sense that I take the existence of sensible Substance for granted, for all practical purposes. However, for philosophical (theoretical) purposes the term is sometimes taken to an extreme : THE sole fundamental substance. Which no longer makes sense, since Einstein's equation of Matter with Energy and Math.

The Hard position of Materialism makes another thing-I-take-for-granted inexplicable : my own sentient Mind : the only thing I know intimately. If you assume that massy matter is the sole universal substance, whence the invisible massless things (e.g. ideas ; appearances) that we imagine to represent various parts of the non-self world? Chalmers called that question "the hard problem". But materialists call it "irrelevant". To me, it seems that Energy (E=MC^2) is a more likely precursor of both Life and Mind. Is there a philosophical monist position for an Energist? No, I'm not an Energist, but that might be closer to the truth.

Modern Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- "interactions" = exchanges of energy. Interrelations = exchanges of essence (ratios ; proportions).


ding an sich — Gnomon
I don't think this notion can be made coherent — Banno

To me, the notion of ding an sich, as a philosophical essence, seems coherent (rational) enough. Of course, materialist Science doesn't do essences. So the ding seems to be a Philosophy thing. That may be because essence, qualia, property are categories of our rational analysis of the perceived world.

Why things may not be what they seem to be :
The world as it is before mediation Kant calls the noumenal world, or, in a memorable phrase, Das Ding an sich, a phrase which literally means “The thing in itself”, but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is” (as distinct from how it appears to us). . . .
Kant was sure that there was a great deal more to it than that. He held that thinking in terms of causes was not a philosophical aberration, but arises out of the very essence of the way the human mind is constituted, the essence of the way it is compelled to reason.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kan ... _in_Itself

[Gnomon]

Gnomon's post strikes me as someone who does not have abstracted notions, and is wanting to see the limits of thinking on the subject, so this is a perfect sort of response, isn't it? — Moliere

Since I have no formal training in philosophy, ↪apokrisis's posts are often over my head. So, in that sense, I may not have extremely "abstracted notions". But Fairness and Justice are fairly commonsense notions aren't they? Yet some posts make it more complicated, by further abstracting the notion of what kind of world (Hegelian, Marxist) can be judged morally.

Perhaps, as you said, it would be helpful to place "limits" on our thinking : to define our terms. One definition of "world" in this context might be simply "human culture", as the relevant element of ethical concern. I'll leave it to you and Apo to define whatever abstraction you are arguing about.

[Gnomon]

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

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

[Gnomon]

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

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

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

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