BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it


Q: What definition(s) of metaphysics do you find the most useful and meaningful? — Pattern-chaser

The Greek word "physics" simply referred to Nature, Aristotle's book by that name was essentially an encyclopedia of then current knowledge about the natural (physical, material) world. But in his second volume, he discussed ideas pertaining primarily to human nature, such as our tendency to wonder about abstractions like "being, existence" and "knowledge". Such psychological (intellectual, noetic) concerns have emerged in the natural world in only one species of animals. They have nothing to do with normal physical and evolutionary interests, such as food & sex. So, Aristotle discussed them in a separate book, that later came to be numerically labeled "Metaphysics" (Volume 2 of Physics). But due to the subject matter of the text, that word eventually came to be applied to mysteries in general, with the connotation of "super-natural".

Personally, I think of Metaphysics as an integral, but emergent, aspect of Nature, So, here is an excerpt from my blog glossary definition of Meta-Physics :

a> Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)

b> Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).

http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ll-made-of

ALL = Zero

I’m the All and the One, present-Omni,
For I’m eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, having not a cause,
As the Ground of All—I am Energy.

The universe weighs nothing at all: zero,
Plus, it is electrically neutral.
The positive kinetic energy of ‘stuff’
Cancels the negative potential energy of gravity.

At Cosmos’ birth, positive energy
Became matter, countered by gravity,
Whose attractive embrace was negative;
Strangely, their sum adds to nullity.

___PoeticUniverse

This poem encapsulates my concept of G*D. Not a humanoid king on a heavenly throne, but in the words of Gevin Giorbran : "Everything Forever". By contrast, the physical world is Something For a While. G*D is the Ground of Being, or what I call simply "BEING" -- the power to exist and to create. That creative power is expressed in the world as EnFormAction (energy), the power to cause change. Ironically, while the world is dynamic & dualistic, ranging from positive to negative, G*D is neutral & unitary. G*D is all possibilities from Zero to One. The actual universe is closer to Zero than to One (ALL). I am humbled by that inconceivable concept.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ll-made-of

Possibility

‘Possibility’ is what’s fundamental,
For all that is be must first be possible.
This ‘Potential’ for All is the default,
Since a Not can’t be, nor even be meant.

The necessity of no One and no None
Makes for no absolutes, which means
That time, space, matter, and motion
Have no intrinsic, indivisible qualities.

Something ever is and must be, for nothing cannot.
Energy restrained by time paces the way a lot,
This lot neither frozen nor totally reactive to be,
Forming all and any that is possible, eventually.

___PoeticUniverse

Again, this poem describes my vague concept of G*D, as the eternal source of all possibilities. When this world was created, a small increment of that infinite Potential became Actual. My space/time mind cannot conceive of any holistic qualities of that spaceless/timeless entity, other than those that are logically necessary for our world to exist.

Our universe is immense, but bounded by finite space & time. So, the First Cause must exist beyond the limits of space-time and matter-energy. It must possess the unfathomable power to create a universe from scratch. That power is what I call EnFormAction. The Enformer is what I call G*D.

EnFormAction : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Metaphysics - What Is It?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p3


Instead of looking at the real, physical world, he looks at the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge and tries to discern if particular patterns emerge. The scientist does that with the real, physical world, . . . — alcontali


Until the 20th century, scientists did indeed examine the real, physical world. But since the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory, physicists have been discovering that the fundamentals of reality are more theoretical & metaphysical than empirical & physical. Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles are far from the physics of Isaac Newton. Matter is now known to be composed of Energy, but what is energy made of? Nobody knows, so the essence of energy is undefined. Massless photons are described as "waves" without a medium. Gravity is no longer an attractive force, causing "spooky action at a distance", but merely the curved "fabric" of matterless space.

So, it seems to me that Natural Philosophy evolved into Modern Science around the time of Newton. But after Einstein, the cutting edge of Science has been moving deeper into the abstract realm of theory and metaphysics. So Philosophy is becoming relevant again for understanding the real world.

Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Metaphysics - What Is It?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p3


Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Energy is not what matter is composed of, it is a property of moving objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, energy is defined by what it does, not by what it is (essence). Energy is indeed a quality (attribute) of matter, like the redness of an apple, which exists, not in the apple but in the mind of the observer. A Quale is a subjective experience, not an objective thing. So, Energy (potential) is metaphysical, but it can become actual & physical in the sense of E = MC2. Perhaps I should have said that Energy is what Mass is composed of. Mass is also a property of Matter. So again, what substance is Matter or Mass made of?

Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Metaphysics "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind." http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Yes, philosophy is relevant, as necessary to avoid misunderstanding, like above. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since quantum physics deals with "things" that are not actual or physical (virtual particles, quantum field), it necessarily involves philosophical metaphysical reasoning about abstractions rather than empirical objects. Quantum theory is paradoxical, and subject to misunderstanding, because it necessarily uses material metaphors to discuss immaterial concepts.

Field a mathematical concept (set) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Metaphysics - What Is It?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p3

metaphysics as a publishing-industry catch-all for squishier occult interests. — Jack-N

Yes. Unfortunately, metaphysical Philosophy has been contaminated by association with various mind-over-matter notions (magical thinking) among aficionados of the occult arts. Those "arts" typically use the techniques of stage magic (misdirection, concealment, etc) to simulate psychokinesis or psychic mind-reading. Those mind-games are much more popular than the artless (unfeigned) discipline of philosophical metaphysics.

Metaphysics - What Is It?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p3


Substance is what has properties, so you can't really describe it by referring to what properties it has. — Metaphysician Undercover


Aristotle found it difficult to pin down "substance" to a single definition, so he gave two candidates : Platonic "Form" and Physical "Matter". Material substance is what our senses are attuned to. But Form (information) as a substance is detected only by our sixth sense of Reason (pattern recognition).

" Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of. ... "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

So, when I asked what substance Matter is made of, I was not referring to its physical substance, but to its formal substance : the cause of physical properties. In my personal Theory of Everything, I call that essence of both Matter and Energy "EnFormAction" : the power to enform. It's a simple concept, but so far from conventional scientific understanding, that it requires lots of explanation to dispel knee-jerk reactions. It's a secular theory that combines ancient philosophical & religious notions (First Cause, Divine Will) with cutting-edge science (Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics).

EnFormAction http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a thing has physical existence, there is a cause of its existence, what you call "the cause of physical properties". After all, having physical properties is the same as having physical existence. This cause is what you call EnFormAction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, the essence of EnFormAction is conditional existence : to be or not to be. In digital Information, the essence of meaningful form is 1 or 0, something or nothing. So, the First Cause of EnFormAction (creative power or energy) is BEING (the power to be; infinite potential). BEING (which I call G*D) is eternal, but non-physical. Physical beings are limited to space-time. Hence, back to digital information, 0 is non-physical potential, and 1 is physical actual. Likewise, BEING is potential (non-physical; meta-physical) and EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual : 0 into 1.

Now, is that clear as mud? The thesis leads up to this conclusion gradually, so it should make more sense in the end. A simple analogy is a small battery in an electrical device. It is rated at 1.5 volts. But that potential voltage has no properties until it is actualized by completing a circuit from potential to actual and back; from nothing to something and back to no-thing (no property). The energy produced by the battery has no properties itself, except for sensible changes in the material through which it flows : heat, light, communication, etc.

PS__Although I refer to BEING as G*D, to give it a common reference point, this philosophical thesis is intended to be scientific instead of religious.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it

Interesting. But how do you allow for intelligence? What is it that recognises concepts? And what are concepts? Is that intelligence something you think is a product of evolution? — Wayfarer

Yes. As a result of the work by EnFormAction, Information (meaning) is inherent in matter. This is a form of ancient Panpsychism, except that consciousness emerges gradually in the process of evolution. Basic elements of matter have information content, but are not conscious in the sense that more highly-evolved animals are. In evolutionary terms, Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Unlike most animals though, Human intelligence has learned to change its environmental circumstance for its own benefit, by creating Culture from Nature.

As the First Cause of everything in the world, BEING must have the potential for intelligence and consciousness, but may have no actual intelligence until realized in space & time.

The fundamental Concept is the difference between something and nothing, 1 or 0, as in the basic Bit of computer information. All other concepts are multiples of 1s and 0s.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... what-is-it

One point of caution is that the Aristotelian term that was translated as 'substance' was Ousia which is nothing like 'substance' in the every day sense. — Wayfarer

Yes. I use the term "substance" (ousia) in the sense of spiritual essence rather than material stuff.

If ousia doesn't refer to 'a' being, it's because it refers to the 'concept of man' rather than 'this or that man'. But again, it's nothing like 'substance' in the modern sense, nor is it anything like the modern conception of matter. — Wayfarer

In the Bible, ousia was typically used to mean "spirit" in the sense of the non-physical essence of a person. In my thesis, I try to avoid the religious baggage of "spirit" by substituting "self" or "self-concept". It's the pattern of information that defines a person : his Platonic Form.

PS__Here's an analogy to make sense of "ousia" as information. In Star Trek, the Transporter scans a human body or an object, and converts its constituent information into a stream of data (1s & 0s) that it beams to a different location, where it transforms the information back into matter as a replica of the original. That abstract data is equivalent to the "soul" (spirit or essence) of the person. Presumably, the material for the body is sourced locally. A philosophical problem with the sci-fi Transporter that has been discussed is this : "is the reformed replica the same person, or a clone?" Of course in non-fiction Nature, we assume that there is only one unique Form (soul) of a person. So, no doppelgangers.