If we are going to cite Aristotle or Plato on these questions,I want to know what they thought, not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought.. . . . my own understanding is that form and matter are inseparable. — Janus
If you want to know what Aristotle & Plato thought on a particular question, you'll have to consult those authorities directly. But then, you'll have have to do the work of reconciling their differences into a single concept. On the other hand, if you want to know what a mere forum poster thinks on that question, you may have to endure some personal opinions and indirect references to the wisdom of the past. Since A & P literally wrote the book on Philosophy, anything I or anyone else might say will be merely footnotes*1 to those auteurs.
Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs. FWIW, my understanding of the relationship between Form and Matter derives mostly from modern Quantum Physics and Information Theory. And I frequently add quotes & links to those sources. In my view, the ancient concept of "Form" is now known as "Information" (the power to enform)*2. Therefore, links to my own writings are more to the point I'm making.
For Aristotle, Form & Matter are inter-related as dual principles. But, in my thesis, I go on to propose a monistic Ontology/Epistemology, in which the power to join potential Form with actual Matter is the ultimate principle : EnFormAction*3. And what joins (Energy) can also dis-join (Entropy). I'll apologize in advance, for adding a link to my own non-authoritarian ideas.
*1. The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/c ... head-plato
*2. Is it possible that everything is made of information? :
That's certainly a conjecture that was held by John Wheeler. This idea has gained more traction as the field of quantum information theory has developed. . . . It then becomes also self evident that everything is made of information as that is the essential definition of epistemology.
___Mark John Fernee , 20+ years as a physicist
*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Unsatisfied with religious myths and scientific paradigms, I have begun to develop my own personal philosophical world-view, based on the hypothesis that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism. For technical treatments, I had to make-up a new word to summarize the multilevel and multiform roles of generic Information in the ongoing creative act of Evolution. I call it EnFormAction.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
TPF : Monism
Re: TPF : Monism
I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.
My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains. — Mark Nyquist
Sure check it out. Skepticism is good ; especially when presented with novel or unconventional ideas : informed skepticism. Most people are only aware of Shannon's definition of Information, and its relationship to computers*1. But quantum physicists are now equating Information (the power to enform or to transform) with Energy. That's why I refer to the "most fundamental thing" as Generic Information*2. That's my term, not the physicists'. Note -- I spell "inform" with an "e" to distinguish it from data processing, and to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.
To give you an idea what I'm talking about, imagine that "in the beginning there was Generic Information, and that information begat Energy, and causal Energy begat Matter, and energized matter begat Mind". If that sounds like a fairy tale, wait until you hear the rest of the story. It's the story of Genesis, but as told by scientists, not ancient priests. The Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom that Energy & Laws (Enformation) existed prior to the beginning. And that's the key to a modern Monistic (all is information) worldview*3.
In my thesis, Generic Information exists in the form of both physical Neurons and metaphysical Brain States. "States" are not things, but (logico-mathematical) relationships between things. And it's the human mind's unique ability to recognize those immaterial patterns & states that has allowed humans to create and live-in artificial environments. Note --- "artifice" is similar to the "design" you referred to.
There's a lot of information out there about "Fundamental Information", but you have to go looking for it. And then you'll have to tie all those separate lines of information together. I list a few websites below. And the Enformationism thesis and blog have hundreds of references. One physicist in particular, Paul Davies*4, has been promoting this novel way of thinking about Information, in regard to both physics (matter) and metaphysics (mind), for years.
*1. Information, What Is It?
Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
*2. Generic Information :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
*3. Monism :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html
Note -- For the record, I'm not promoting Panpsychism, but quite a few physicists & cosmologists are using that term to describe what I call Enformationism.
*4. Paul Davies :
https://cosmos.asu.edu/
Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -5777-9_21
Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
https://www.space.com/29477-did-informa ... osmos.html
Is Information Fundamental?
https://closertotruth.com/video/llose-0 ... errer=8329
Chapter 1: Information is Fundamental
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10. ... 34101_0001
My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains. — Mark Nyquist
Sure check it out. Skepticism is good ; especially when presented with novel or unconventional ideas : informed skepticism. Most people are only aware of Shannon's definition of Information, and its relationship to computers*1. But quantum physicists are now equating Information (the power to enform or to transform) with Energy. That's why I refer to the "most fundamental thing" as Generic Information*2. That's my term, not the physicists'. Note -- I spell "inform" with an "e" to distinguish it from data processing, and to indicate its relationship to causal Energy.
To give you an idea what I'm talking about, imagine that "in the beginning there was Generic Information, and that information begat Energy, and causal Energy begat Matter, and energized matter begat Mind". If that sounds like a fairy tale, wait until you hear the rest of the story. It's the story of Genesis, but as told by scientists, not ancient priests. The Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom that Energy & Laws (Enformation) existed prior to the beginning. And that's the key to a modern Monistic (all is information) worldview*3.
In my thesis, Generic Information exists in the form of both physical Neurons and metaphysical Brain States. "States" are not things, but (logico-mathematical) relationships between things. And it's the human mind's unique ability to recognize those immaterial patterns & states that has allowed humans to create and live-in artificial environments. Note --- "artifice" is similar to the "design" you referred to.
There's a lot of information out there about "Fundamental Information", but you have to go looking for it. And then you'll have to tie all those separate lines of information together. I list a few websites below. And the Enformationism thesis and blog have hundreds of references. One physicist in particular, Paul Davies*4, has been promoting this novel way of thinking about Information, in regard to both physics (matter) and metaphysics (mind), for years.
*1. Information, What Is It?
Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
*2. Generic Information :
Several physicists and Neuroscientists of the 21st century have revived the ancient term Panpsychism to represent the evidence that metaphysical Consciousness (in the generic form of Information) is the primary element from which all physical and mental forms of the current world emerged.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
*3. Monism :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html
Note -- For the record, I'm not promoting Panpsychism, but quite a few physicists & cosmologists are using that term to describe what I call Enformationism.
*4. Paul Davies :
https://cosmos.asu.edu/
Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -5777-9_21
Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
https://www.space.com/29477-did-informa ... osmos.html
Is Information Fundamental?
https://closertotruth.com/video/llose-0 ... errer=8329
Chapter 1: Information is Fundamental
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10. ... 34101_0001
Re: TPF : Monism
As Art48 started by pointing out, Monism is reductionist, or you can derive the complex from the simple. — Mark Nyquist
As a scientific perspective, Monism could be construed as reductionist in that it reduces complexity & plurality down to a single principle, as in Spinoza's single substance "god sive natura". But as a philosophical worldview Monism is Holistic, in that it combines many parts into a single integrated system. Some call that system "universe" (implying all-encompassing), and others call it "Nature" (implying reality as opposed to super-natural), but more poetic scientists, such as Einstein, dare to refer that unity-of-all-things as "God"*1.
Harold Morowitz is "a leading figure in the science of complexity". In his book The Emergence of Everything, he writes : "Emergence is the opposite of reduction"*2. He goes on to define "emergence" in terms of Holism : "These are the emergent properties of the system, properties of the whole. They are novelties that follow from the system rules but cannot be predicted from properties of the components that make up the system". {my bold}
A Holistic & Monistic understanding of the universe has important philosophical consequences*3. Morowitz has the temerity to propose, in a science book, that "those studying natural Complexity should pay attention to the Idealist philosophical tradition". Again, some on this forum would consider such talk as blasphemy against Classical Science. What do you think about Monism & Holism? Are those notions too spooky for you?
*1. "God does not play dice" Albert Einstein once said, expressing his contempt for the notion that the universe is governed by probability - an idea fundamental to quantum theory.
https://plus.maths.org/content/why-god-plays-dice
Note --- Probability is essential to the science of complexity, and computers are unperturbed by the uncertainty of statistical laws of nature.
*2. In the Emergence thread on this forum, the notion of progressive directional emergence was shouted down, probably because as a non-reductionist concept it seemed to be anti-scientific to some posters. But the science of Complexity is a 21st century phenomenon, because a multiplicity of things is confusing to the analog human mind, but not to digital computers. In the book mentioned above, I made a marginal note : "classical science is reductive and elemental. The next phase of science will be pro-ductive and holistic. Now that we know the elements [including sub-atomic particles] we can begin to see how they work together to create holons that are, in turn, the elements for the next level of complexity".
Note --- A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole.
*3. One novel idea to emerge from the science of Complexity is the notion that Mind is inherent in the rules of physics. Morowitz noted that "the reductionist behaviorist traditions would argue that mind is an epiphenomenon of the activities of collections of neurons". Then he argued that "the pruning rules of the emergences may go beyond the purely dynamic and exhibit a noetic character. It ultimately evolves into mind, not as something that suddenly appears, but as a maturing character of an aging universe".
Note --- Noetic : relating to mental activity or the intellect.
As a scientific perspective, Monism could be construed as reductionist in that it reduces complexity & plurality down to a single principle, as in Spinoza's single substance "god sive natura". But as a philosophical worldview Monism is Holistic, in that it combines many parts into a single integrated system. Some call that system "universe" (implying all-encompassing), and others call it "Nature" (implying reality as opposed to super-natural), but more poetic scientists, such as Einstein, dare to refer that unity-of-all-things as "God"*1.
Harold Morowitz is "a leading figure in the science of complexity". In his book The Emergence of Everything, he writes : "Emergence is the opposite of reduction"*2. He goes on to define "emergence" in terms of Holism : "These are the emergent properties of the system, properties of the whole. They are novelties that follow from the system rules but cannot be predicted from properties of the components that make up the system". {my bold}
A Holistic & Monistic understanding of the universe has important philosophical consequences*3. Morowitz has the temerity to propose, in a science book, that "those studying natural Complexity should pay attention to the Idealist philosophical tradition". Again, some on this forum would consider such talk as blasphemy against Classical Science. What do you think about Monism & Holism? Are those notions too spooky for you?
*1. "God does not play dice" Albert Einstein once said, expressing his contempt for the notion that the universe is governed by probability - an idea fundamental to quantum theory.
https://plus.maths.org/content/why-god-plays-dice
Note --- Probability is essential to the science of complexity, and computers are unperturbed by the uncertainty of statistical laws of nature.
*2. In the Emergence thread on this forum, the notion of progressive directional emergence was shouted down, probably because as a non-reductionist concept it seemed to be anti-scientific to some posters. But the science of Complexity is a 21st century phenomenon, because a multiplicity of things is confusing to the analog human mind, but not to digital computers. In the book mentioned above, I made a marginal note : "classical science is reductive and elemental. The next phase of science will be pro-ductive and holistic. Now that we know the elements [including sub-atomic particles] we can begin to see how they work together to create holons that are, in turn, the elements for the next level of complexity".
Note --- A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole.
*3. One novel idea to emerge from the science of Complexity is the notion that Mind is inherent in the rules of physics. Morowitz noted that "the reductionist behaviorist traditions would argue that mind is an epiphenomenon of the activities of collections of neurons". Then he argued that "the pruning rules of the emergences may go beyond the purely dynamic and exhibit a noetic character. It ultimately evolves into mind, not as something that suddenly appears, but as a maturing character of an aging universe".
Note --- Noetic : relating to mental activity or the intellect.
Re: TPF : Monism
Have you or anyone come across Feynman diagrams showing forward and backward flowing time. My interpretation is physical existence has some duration relative to clock time. It's worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism.
I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless. — Mark Nyquist
Ironically, Time Reversal has been interpreted from observations of experiments. But they don't know how that glitch might affect our perception of forward flowing time. Time reversal is an abstract mathematical phenomenon that doesn't seem to be translated into concrete physics. So, why would it be worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism?
I was forced to get somewhat deep into the philosophical implications of "Quantum Stuff", without understanding the math, because of my interest in Information theory. Even the scientists themselves don't understand the meaning of the math*1. All they know is that it reliably predicts the outcome of experiments. The pioneers of sub-atomic science were baffled by the counter-intuitive implications of such phenomena as Superposition and Entanglement. So, they used metaphorical language to make some sense of it.
Likewise, philosophers don't have to do the math in order to derive some meaning (some clues) from the uncertainties of quantum math. Theoretical Philosophy is not constrained by the mathematical requirements of Empirical Science.
PS__Most of what I learned about Quantum Physics was derived from the dumbed-down writings of mathematical scientists for a popular audience.
*1. Shut-up and calculate :
The cliché has it that the Copenhagen interpretation demands adherence without deep enquiry. That does physics a disservice
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calc ... -mechanics
*2. Poetic Metaphors in Philosophy :
According to this view, metaphors can be characterized as-strictly speaking-non-philosophical but extrinsic to constitutive forms in constructing theories. In this view, their function is not to explain, and they cannot be used as arguments. But, often they contain numerous implications with value for innovation, as they can anticipate holistic projections which are not yet fulfilled by theoretical analysis.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm
I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless. — Mark Nyquist
Ironically, Time Reversal has been interpreted from observations of experiments. But they don't know how that glitch might affect our perception of forward flowing time. Time reversal is an abstract mathematical phenomenon that doesn't seem to be translated into concrete physics. So, why would it be worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism?
I was forced to get somewhat deep into the philosophical implications of "Quantum Stuff", without understanding the math, because of my interest in Information theory. Even the scientists themselves don't understand the meaning of the math*1. All they know is that it reliably predicts the outcome of experiments. The pioneers of sub-atomic science were baffled by the counter-intuitive implications of such phenomena as Superposition and Entanglement. So, they used metaphorical language to make some sense of it.
Likewise, philosophers don't have to do the math in order to derive some meaning (some clues) from the uncertainties of quantum math. Theoretical Philosophy is not constrained by the mathematical requirements of Empirical Science.
PS__Most of what I learned about Quantum Physics was derived from the dumbed-down writings of mathematical scientists for a popular audience.
*1. Shut-up and calculate :
The cliché has it that the Copenhagen interpretation demands adherence without deep enquiry. That does physics a disservice
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calc ... -mechanics
*2. Poetic Metaphors in Philosophy :
According to this view, metaphors can be characterized as-strictly speaking-non-philosophical but extrinsic to constitutive forms in constructing theories. In this view, their function is not to explain, and they cannot be used as arguments. But, often they contain numerous implications with value for innovation, as they can anticipate holistic projections which are not yet fulfilled by theoretical analysis.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meth/MethPere.htm
Re: TPF : Monism
Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions about me. — Janus
There you go again : accusing me of accusing you of something nefarious. Rather than "unwarranted assumptions," my rephrasing of your posts is an attempt put them into words that I can understand. If your words were clear to me, I wouldn't have to make assumptions. If my interpretation is wrong, please correct my "assumptions". This kind of re-phrasing is common in philosophical dialog. The "warrant" is in the ambiguity.
Note --- The pertinent assumption (interpretation) was in the second phrase. Is it true (warranted) that you don't want to hear what amateur philosophers have to say about the ideas of ancient authorities? If not, would you clarify what you meant by "not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought".
My interpretation of your intention :
"Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs".
There you go again : accusing me of accusing you of something nefarious. Rather than "unwarranted assumptions," my rephrasing of your posts is an attempt put them into words that I can understand. If your words were clear to me, I wouldn't have to make assumptions. If my interpretation is wrong, please correct my "assumptions". This kind of re-phrasing is common in philosophical dialog. The "warrant" is in the ambiguity.
Note --- The pertinent assumption (interpretation) was in the second phrase. Is it true (warranted) that you don't want to hear what amateur philosophers have to say about the ideas of ancient authorities? If not, would you clarify what you meant by "not what you or someone other internet poster thinks about what they thought".
My interpretation of your intention :
"Apparently, you are only willing to accept the manifesto assertions of authorities on the subject, and not the humble suggestions of mere amateurs".
Re: TPF : Monism
Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48
Since I came late to this thread, I haven't directly commented on the OP. So here goes.:
Fooloso4 seems to imply that Monism is a fearful attempt to avoid the "abyss of nothingness". But your rational response turns the imputed "fear" into a search for clarity. "Taken to its logical conclusion, the explanatory path must finally lead to that which is unique and absolutely uncomplex." The principle of simplicity is inherent in both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimentation.
From that perspective, Monism is simply a result of applying Ockham's Razor to the whole universe. Unfortunately, that notion could also imply the necessity for a singular Necessary Being or Supreme Reality, or other holistic notions that do not appeal to the pluralistic Reductive Mind, which favors parts over wholes. Is a singular Ground of Being a fear-inducing concept?
Simplicity theory is a cognitive theory that seeks to explain the attractiveness of situations or events to human minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity_theory
The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. It often goes by the name of “Ockham’s Razor.”
https://iep.utm.edu/simplici/
Since I came late to this thread, I haven't directly commented on the OP. So here goes.:
Fooloso4 seems to imply that Monism is a fearful attempt to avoid the "abyss of nothingness". But your rational response turns the imputed "fear" into a search for clarity. "Taken to its logical conclusion, the explanatory path must finally lead to that which is unique and absolutely uncomplex." The principle of simplicity is inherent in both philosophical argumentation and scientific experimentation.
From that perspective, Monism is simply a result of applying Ockham's Razor to the whole universe. Unfortunately, that notion could also imply the necessity for a singular Necessary Being or Supreme Reality, or other holistic notions that do not appeal to the pluralistic Reductive Mind, which favors parts over wholes. Is a singular Ground of Being a fear-inducing concept?
Simplicity theory is a cognitive theory that seeks to explain the attractiveness of situations or events to human minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity_theory
The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. It often goes by the name of “Ockham’s Razor.”
https://iep.utm.edu/simplici/
Re: TPF : Monism
↪Wayfarer
Do you really want to argue that Aristotle knew about DNA? — Janus
↪Wayfarer
Well of course they were a kind of precursor, since as I already said above, Aristotle thought the form of the oak to be immanent within the acorn, and not to be ordained by God or immaterial forms or whatever. — Janus
That response misses the point that Wayfarer was making. Of course Ari did not know the modern concept of DNA as a physical repository of genetic information. But, he captured the basic idea metaphorically, by using the philosophical concept of "Form". In his Hylomorph theory he made a pertinent distinction between physical Matter and metaphysical*1 Form. Those categories are equivalent to Quanta (res extensa) [that which you see] and Qualia (res cogitans) [that which you know]. Therefore, DNA could also be defined in Hylomorphic terms, as a combination of quantitative Matter (deoxyribonucleaic acid) and qualitative Form (genetic information).
The modern scientific concept of "Information" is similar to Aristotle's, in that it can exist both as mental logical pattern (general ; transcendent) and as material instantiation (specific ; immanent). Before Shannon, the word "information" referred only to the invisible intangible contents of private minds (ideas ; meanings). After Shannon, "information" was found to be transformable from res cogitans (ideas) into res extensa (objects). So, now Information is known to be both mental and material. FYI, that's the basis of my personal BothAnd worldview.
In the example of DNA, the instructions (design) for building a body are recorded in hundreds of spermata (blueprints), but normally only one instance of that design is actually constructed of protein building blocks. All the other wiggly packages of Potential are summarily erased, without being Actualized. By that, I mean the physical containers of metaphysical data are deconstructed by enzymes. So yes, the Form (data) is immanent (embedded ; recorded) in the physical acorn, but the Information (design) itself exists nowhere as non-physical logico-mathematical patterns (inter-relationships). In what sense does Math or Logic exist : extensa or cogitans?
*1. I use the term "Meta-physical" in the non-religious non-super-natural sense of merely non-physical or im-material. It's simply the abstract mind-stuff we call "ideas" or "meanings". There are no abstractions in reality, only in ideality. Those private ideas can only be conveyed to others when they are expressed in physical vibrations or light reflectance. But they exist covertly in the metaphysical container we call "Mind" to distinguish it from the physical machine known as "brain".
↪Wayfarer
↪Mark Nyquist
Do you really want to argue that Aristotle knew about DNA? — Janus
↪Wayfarer
Well of course they were a kind of precursor, since as I already said above, Aristotle thought the form of the oak to be immanent within the acorn, and not to be ordained by God or immaterial forms or whatever. — Janus
That response misses the point that Wayfarer was making. Of course Ari did not know the modern concept of DNA as a physical repository of genetic information. But, he captured the basic idea metaphorically, by using the philosophical concept of "Form". In his Hylomorph theory he made a pertinent distinction between physical Matter and metaphysical*1 Form. Those categories are equivalent to Quanta (res extensa) [that which you see] and Qualia (res cogitans) [that which you know]. Therefore, DNA could also be defined in Hylomorphic terms, as a combination of quantitative Matter (deoxyribonucleaic acid) and qualitative Form (genetic information).
The modern scientific concept of "Information" is similar to Aristotle's, in that it can exist both as mental logical pattern (general ; transcendent) and as material instantiation (specific ; immanent). Before Shannon, the word "information" referred only to the invisible intangible contents of private minds (ideas ; meanings). After Shannon, "information" was found to be transformable from res cogitans (ideas) into res extensa (objects). So, now Information is known to be both mental and material. FYI, that's the basis of my personal BothAnd worldview.
In the example of DNA, the instructions (design) for building a body are recorded in hundreds of spermata (blueprints), but normally only one instance of that design is actually constructed of protein building blocks. All the other wiggly packages of Potential are summarily erased, without being Actualized. By that, I mean the physical containers of metaphysical data are deconstructed by enzymes. So yes, the Form (data) is immanent (embedded ; recorded) in the physical acorn, but the Information (design) itself exists nowhere as non-physical logico-mathematical patterns (inter-relationships). In what sense does Math or Logic exist : extensa or cogitans?
*1. I use the term "Meta-physical" in the non-religious non-super-natural sense of merely non-physical or im-material. It's simply the abstract mind-stuff we call "ideas" or "meanings". There are no abstractions in reality, only in ideality. Those private ideas can only be conveyed to others when they are expressed in physical vibrations or light reflectance. But they exist covertly in the metaphysical container we call "Mind" to distinguish it from the physical machine known as "brain".
↪Wayfarer
↪Mark Nyquist
Re: TPF : Monism
↪Gnomon
it seems that you are giving information multiple definitions for different things. Mind, Shannon, genetic, quantum.
You discount the most useful functions of brains if you rule out the ability to process non-physicals. — Mark Nyquist
Yes. Information is multi-faceted. It is universal, but emergent, and expressed in many different ways : ideas, data, genes, rocks, quantum bits, etc.--- even as Time/Change. If you want to blow your "information repository" (mind), check out the article*1 below by Sarah Walker, of the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity. Her novel theory says that evanescent Time has a physical size, depending on the amount of information contained. It's OK to be incredulous --- I was, am --- but when you think about it, it makes sense, that Time is something a sentient observer can sense --- not by sniffing, but by reasoning.
Oh no, I don't rule-out the ability to process non-physical stuff. I explicitly rule it in. As I have come to understand it, largely by learning about quantum weirdness, Information exists in our world as both Mind (conscious matter) and Matter (physical forms)*2. So, for me, it now makes sense that a material information processor (brain) can generate the "non-physical" outputs that we call Ideas (as contrasted with Real objects). This theory is a novel form of Monism*3.
*1. Time is an object with physical size :
A new form of physics called assembly theory suggests that a moving, directional sense of time is real and fundamental. It suggests that the complex objects in our Universe that have been made by life, including microbes, computers and cities, do not exist outside of time: they are impossible without the movement of time. From this perspective, the passing of time is not only intrinsic to the evolution of life or our experience of the Universe. It is also the ever-moving material fabric of the Universe itself. Time is an object. It has a physical size, like space. And it can be measured at a molecular level in laboratories.
https://aeon.co/essays/time-is-not-an-i ... sical-size
*2. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html
*3. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
it seems that you are giving information multiple definitions for different things. Mind, Shannon, genetic, quantum.
You discount the most useful functions of brains if you rule out the ability to process non-physicals. — Mark Nyquist
Yes. Information is multi-faceted. It is universal, but emergent, and expressed in many different ways : ideas, data, genes, rocks, quantum bits, etc.--- even as Time/Change. If you want to blow your "information repository" (mind), check out the article*1 below by Sarah Walker, of the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity. Her novel theory says that evanescent Time has a physical size, depending on the amount of information contained. It's OK to be incredulous --- I was, am --- but when you think about it, it makes sense, that Time is something a sentient observer can sense --- not by sniffing, but by reasoning.
Oh no, I don't rule-out the ability to process non-physical stuff. I explicitly rule it in. As I have come to understand it, largely by learning about quantum weirdness, Information exists in our world as both Mind (conscious matter) and Matter (physical forms)*2. So, for me, it now makes sense that a material information processor (brain) can generate the "non-physical" outputs that we call Ideas (as contrasted with Real objects). This theory is a novel form of Monism*3.
*1. Time is an object with physical size :
A new form of physics called assembly theory suggests that a moving, directional sense of time is real and fundamental. It suggests that the complex objects in our Universe that have been made by life, including microbes, computers and cities, do not exist outside of time: they are impossible without the movement of time. From this perspective, the passing of time is not only intrinsic to the evolution of life or our experience of the Universe. It is also the ever-moving material fabric of the Universe itself. Time is an object. It has a physical size, like space. And it can be measured at a molecular level in laboratories.
https://aeon.co/essays/time-is-not-an-i ... sical-size
*2. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html
*3. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Re: TPF : Monism
I already acknowledged that Aristotle's hylomorphism was prescient, so I don't know what point you think I missed. I do disagree with "metaphysical form"; the very idea seems meaningless to me; all forms are physical as far as I know.
I don't see any fundamental difference between mental and physical, so, nothing you've said there convinces me that mental information is not supervenient on physical processes. — Janus
I understand that, from a Monistic Materialist/Physicalist perspective, matter is the sole substance in the world. But, some physicists, especially quantum physicists, have concluded that non-physical Information is more fundamental than any material substance*1. That's why they now call the basis of reality a spacious massless mathematical "field" instead of a miniature massive particle. I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you argue with the scientists about those counter-intuitive conclusions.
So, what you missed is Aristotle's reason for defining physical objects as a combination ("compound") of two essences : physical material observable "hyle" and non-physical mental logical "form"*2. Why didn't he just specify a single "physical entity"? I guess it's for the same reason that modern quantum physicists still think in terms of physical local particles, even though their theory now accepts non-local non-physical Fields as fundamental. It's just easier to think in terms of things you can see & touch, instead of non-things that exist only in the realm of theory.
Anyway, I think I understand where you are coming from. But I left that classical physics position behind many years ago, when I started studying the cutting-edge of modern physics. For people who never travel beyond the valley they were born in, and don't have access to satellite imagery, the Flat Earth concept adequately serves their pragmatic needs. Likewise, materialistic classical physics still serves the needs of those who don't push the boundaries of reality*3. So, I'm not trying to denigrate your worldview, but just to help you understand mine. In the new information-centric physics, Information is not "supervenient" upon matter, but matter is an emergent form of Generic Information*4. Hence, immaterial Information is the essential substance of the new Monism.
*1. Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... at-exists/
*2. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
*3. Classical physics is no longer used in research -- it says that mass is conserved, time is absolute, there is no laser possible, quantum levels do not exist, and the hypothesis of continuity is true. Mass is only conserved as an illusion, its value changes according to E0=mc2, and binding energy.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would ... al-physics
*4. Is Information Physical and Does It Have Mass? :
Some researchers suggest that information is a form of matter, calling it the fifth state of matter or the fifth element. Recent results from the general theory of information (GTI) contradict this. This paper aims to explain and prove that the claims of adherents of the physical nature of information are inaccurate due to the confusion between the definitions of information, the matter that represents information, and the matter that is a carrier of information. Our explanations and proofs are based on the GTI because it gives the most comprehensive definition of information, encompassing and clarifying many of the writings in the literature about information. GTI relates information, knowledge, matter, and energy, and unifies the theories of material and mental worlds using the world of structures. According to GTI, information is not physical by itself, although it can have physical and/or mental representations. Consequently, a bit of information does not have mass, but the physical structure that represents the bit indeed has mass.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540
Sci is an international, open access journal which covers all research fields and is published quarterly online by MDPI.
↪Mark Nyquist
QUANTUM FIELD : matter is the dots ; information is the links
large
I don't see any fundamental difference between mental and physical, so, nothing you've said there convinces me that mental information is not supervenient on physical processes. — Janus
I understand that, from a Monistic Materialist/Physicalist perspective, matter is the sole substance in the world. But, some physicists, especially quantum physicists, have concluded that non-physical Information is more fundamental than any material substance*1. That's why they now call the basis of reality a spacious massless mathematical "field" instead of a miniature massive particle. I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you argue with the scientists about those counter-intuitive conclusions.
So, what you missed is Aristotle's reason for defining physical objects as a combination ("compound") of two essences : physical material observable "hyle" and non-physical mental logical "form"*2. Why didn't he just specify a single "physical entity"? I guess it's for the same reason that modern quantum physicists still think in terms of physical local particles, even though their theory now accepts non-local non-physical Fields as fundamental. It's just easier to think in terms of things you can see & touch, instead of non-things that exist only in the realm of theory.
Anyway, I think I understand where you are coming from. But I left that classical physics position behind many years ago, when I started studying the cutting-edge of modern physics. For people who never travel beyond the valley they were born in, and don't have access to satellite imagery, the Flat Earth concept adequately serves their pragmatic needs. Likewise, materialistic classical physics still serves the needs of those who don't push the boundaries of reality*3. So, I'm not trying to denigrate your worldview, but just to help you understand mine. In the new information-centric physics, Information is not "supervenient" upon matter, but matter is an emergent form of Generic Information*4. Hence, immaterial Information is the essential substance of the new Monism.
*1. Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... at-exists/
*2. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
*3. Classical physics is no longer used in research -- it says that mass is conserved, time is absolute, there is no laser possible, quantum levels do not exist, and the hypothesis of continuity is true. Mass is only conserved as an illusion, its value changes according to E0=mc2, and binding energy.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would ... al-physics
*4. Is Information Physical and Does It Have Mass? :
Some researchers suggest that information is a form of matter, calling it the fifth state of matter or the fifth element. Recent results from the general theory of information (GTI) contradict this. This paper aims to explain and prove that the claims of adherents of the physical nature of information are inaccurate due to the confusion between the definitions of information, the matter that represents information, and the matter that is a carrier of information. Our explanations and proofs are based on the GTI because it gives the most comprehensive definition of information, encompassing and clarifying many of the writings in the literature about information. GTI relates information, knowledge, matter, and energy, and unifies the theories of material and mental worlds using the world of structures. According to GTI, information is not physical by itself, although it can have physical and/or mental representations. Consequently, a bit of information does not have mass, but the physical structure that represents the bit indeed has mass.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540
Sci is an international, open access journal which covers all research fields and is published quarterly online by MDPI.
↪Mark Nyquist
QUANTUM FIELD : matter is the dots ; information is the links
large
Re: TPF : Monism
Why not monism? What we seek is to try and understand how everything fits together, what is it about the world that allows so much variety, if the base constituents are simple, as they seem to be?
You can choose to accept pluralism, like William James and simply marvel at the multifaceted aspects of the world - this is valuable and instructive especially in terms of aesthetic appreciation. But it won't get you far, it seems to me to stop the search for underlying principles.
And who knows, the actual monism that exists in the world may be quite different from the idea we commonly get from monism in intuiting only a single thing, like a metaphysical big bang type substance. It could be very different from such notions. — Manuel
Good point! The general or universal Principles that Plato & Aristotle referred to are not physical objects, or even one primary object among many. Instead, a Principle is an assumption or axiom serving as a premise for explaining Complexity *1 *2. Obviously, those assumed principles are not empirical physical objects, but theoretical meta-physical*3 concepts. They are the presumed Wholes that overly Plurality like a blanket.
Since we are just guessing about those long-ago and far-away principles, we can't say for sure what the ultimate Monism of the world actually is. The Big Bang (act of creation) was one such hypothetical Monism or Principle intended to explain the plurality of physical entities in the universe. It was an alternative to traditional Genesis-like God-Monisms. But even that so-called "Singularity" has been hacked into bits, as we search for a more satisfactory explanation for "how everything fits together". Nevertheless, the notion of all-encompassing Monism meets the philosophical principle of Simplicity within Complexity espoused by Ockham.
PS___For the record : What I mean by this modern usage of the ancient term "metaphysics", is not supernatural or spiritual entities, but the natural concepts or feelings or principles that we call unique "Qualia" to distinguish them from enumerable "Quanta"*3.
*1. Principle :
Principle in philosophy and mathematics means a fundamental law or assumption.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Principle
*2. Axiom :
An axiom is a foundational premise that is supposed to be self evident.
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/2014/5/ ... principles
*3. PHYSICS : OVERT QUANTA . . . . METAPHYSICS : COVERT QUALIA
***Quantifiable things are easy to talk about, because we can point to them and enumerate them. For example, "woman" is the female half of the Sapiens species. We can recognize them by their quantitative features : tits, ass, etc. These are itemized parts of the whole we categorize as "female". But "femaleness"or "femininity" is a Qualia, which is not so easy to express in specific words. It's a je ne sais quoi , (I can't say what) or (I can't be specific). And "quoi" (pronounced "qua") may be etymologically related to Latin "qualia". So, it's the quality of wholeness that is knowable in general, but difficult to express in particular words.
***Physicalism is all about Quanta (things), while Meta-physicalism is about Qualia (ideas or opinions or feelings about things). Quanta (e.g. boobies) are sensuous --- we can see & touch them. But Qualia (femininity) are intellectual, because they are invisible & intangible.
***Feelings are holistic, and difficult to express in words. We gesture when we talk, in order to express the unspeakable. In philosophy, we use metaphors to conjure images of things unseen (qualia).
You can choose to accept pluralism, like William James and simply marvel at the multifaceted aspects of the world - this is valuable and instructive especially in terms of aesthetic appreciation. But it won't get you far, it seems to me to stop the search for underlying principles.
And who knows, the actual monism that exists in the world may be quite different from the idea we commonly get from monism in intuiting only a single thing, like a metaphysical big bang type substance. It could be very different from such notions. — Manuel
Good point! The general or universal Principles that Plato & Aristotle referred to are not physical objects, or even one primary object among many. Instead, a Principle is an assumption or axiom serving as a premise for explaining Complexity *1 *2. Obviously, those assumed principles are not empirical physical objects, but theoretical meta-physical*3 concepts. They are the presumed Wholes that overly Plurality like a blanket.
Since we are just guessing about those long-ago and far-away principles, we can't say for sure what the ultimate Monism of the world actually is. The Big Bang (act of creation) was one such hypothetical Monism or Principle intended to explain the plurality of physical entities in the universe. It was an alternative to traditional Genesis-like God-Monisms. But even that so-called "Singularity" has been hacked into bits, as we search for a more satisfactory explanation for "how everything fits together". Nevertheless, the notion of all-encompassing Monism meets the philosophical principle of Simplicity within Complexity espoused by Ockham.
PS___For the record : What I mean by this modern usage of the ancient term "metaphysics", is not supernatural or spiritual entities, but the natural concepts or feelings or principles that we call unique "Qualia" to distinguish them from enumerable "Quanta"*3.
*1. Principle :
Principle in philosophy and mathematics means a fundamental law or assumption.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Principle
*2. Axiom :
An axiom is a foundational premise that is supposed to be self evident.
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/2014/5/ ... principles
*3. PHYSICS : OVERT QUANTA . . . . METAPHYSICS : COVERT QUALIA
***Quantifiable things are easy to talk about, because we can point to them and enumerate them. For example, "woman" is the female half of the Sapiens species. We can recognize them by their quantitative features : tits, ass, etc. These are itemized parts of the whole we categorize as "female". But "femaleness"or "femininity" is a Qualia, which is not so easy to express in specific words. It's a je ne sais quoi , (I can't say what) or (I can't be specific). And "quoi" (pronounced "qua") may be etymologically related to Latin "qualia". So, it's the quality of wholeness that is knowable in general, but difficult to express in particular words.
***Physicalism is all about Quanta (things), while Meta-physicalism is about Qualia (ideas or opinions or feelings about things). Quanta (e.g. boobies) are sensuous --- we can see & touch them. But Qualia (femininity) are intellectual, because they are invisible & intangible.
***Feelings are holistic, and difficult to express in words. We gesture when we talk, in order to express the unspeakable. In philosophy, we use metaphors to conjure images of things unseen (qualia).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests