BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... bstance/p1

It just seems space has too much going on to be considered immaterial or nothing or without substance. — Benj96

For most people, the words "substance" and "substantial" are referring to solid matter (Quanta -- tangible stuff). But Aristotle's Primary Substance was described as more like immaterial Essence (intrinsic quality necessary for existence; Qualia -- mental stuff).

In that case, empty Space (plenum, vacuum) is essential for the existence of Matter. Mathematicians use material metaphors to explain their calculations of spatial topology, even when its "structure" consists of immaterial numerical values. So, yes, Space is a philosophical Substance, even when it contains no matter.

Substance : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -substance

Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)

Surely what Aristotle meant by prime matter is one of the most fraught debates in metaphysics. But it can’t be cashed out as mental stuff. Nor even, immaterial essence. — apokrisis

Aristotle was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of supernatural Forms, yet he still applied the same term to natural things. And the distinction is moot, since he used the metaphysical term "Soul" to describe the "form" component of all beings. So "Form" is both Matter and Mind/Soul, both Potential and Actual. I try to make a distinction, to avoid confusion, by capitalizing the Platonic ideal "Form" (qualities we conceive), as contrasted with real "forms" (things we perceive).

Platonic Form is equivalent to my concept of Universal Information (EnFormAction) : it's not only a physical substance (Matter, objects, Quanta), but metaphysical essence (Mind; processes, Qualia) --- reason, feelings, consciousness, thought, etc, and Soul/Self. Abstract Information is equivalent to the Mathematical/Logical Ratios/Relationships that we rationally infer in physical objects.

The Form or Design or Structure of a physical thing is Informational. And empty space is essentially Form Potential (probability), until something Actual emerges. For example, a Field in physics is empty space with a percentage potential for Virtual Particles to become Actual particles. The "structure" of the Field is mathematical, not material. This is getting enigmatically esoteric, so I'll stop here.

Soul : Soul or psyche (Ancient Greek: ψυχή psykhḗ, of ψύχειν psýkhein, "to breathe") comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Prime Substance : Hylomorphism (or hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form . . .
Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to living things. He defines a soul as that which makes a living thing alive. Life is a property of living things, just as knowledge and health are. Therefore, a soul is a form—that is, a specifying principle or cause—of a living thing. Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

Information : So, my reading of cutting-edge science indicates that the quantum description of physical reality (informational, relational, mental) is akin to pre-scientific concepts of the metaphysical spirit realm, which is more Potential than Biological. Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

It just seems space has too much going on to be considered immaterial or nothing or without substance. — Benj96

What's "going on" is Potential (Virtual), the statistical possibility of Actual (Real). See my reply to Apokrisis above.

Substance was used before mass was properly identified and defined. It is now no more than philosophers continuing a bad habit. — Banno

"Mass" is not matter per se, but a measure of a quality or property of Matter (i.e. inertia). Aristotle's "Substance" is also an evaluated quality (what kind of thing) of Matter (physical object). "To measure" (from mensura = mind) is to convert a material thing into a mental or mathematical quality (value). Mass is a measure of Substance only in the sense of Qualia. Philosophers have a "bad habit" of trying to understand the essence of material objects (things).

Mass : both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

What is the difference between mass and substance? : https://socratic.org/questions/what-is- ... -substance

Substance : Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is (identity), and the matter is what it is made of. . . .
Aristotle’s preliminary answer to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... /#SubsEsse

Essence : In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

↪apokrisis
An odd reply. Mass is measured in kg. What do we use for the unit of substance? — Banno

That reply is odd only because we are not used to thinking of tangible Matter in terms of Qualia (properties, fields). Instead, we typically think of matter as Quanta (countable objects). We measure (compare) one thing to another (KG = a standard massive object), not the thing-in-itself (ding an sich).

Mass is measured indirectly by its effects on our senses, or our measuring tools. A unit of Substance (an object or thing) is measured the same way, by its effects on our senses. Like zero-mass Photons, we can't detect Aristotelian (Soul) Substance directly, so we look for chemical reactions (physical change) to its energy input or output. Energy & Mass are potential, Chemistry is actual. But our metaphysical rational minds can recognize the signs of potential, and estimate its probability. That statistical prediction is a form of mathematical prophecy.

What is energy made of ? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
___Wiki

Potential :
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
2. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
___Wiki

Entelechy : the realization of potential. . . . the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.
___Wiki

Quantum Potential : https://www.infoplease.com/math-science ... -potential

Stylistically, tacking a list of links on the end of your posts without explanation doesn't work for me. Nor Qualia as properties and fields? Not following that. — Banno

Sorry you don't like my "style", but the links are intended to be the "explanation" of terminology in the post, for those who are interested in more detail. But, if that doesn't do it for you, I have lots of additional explanatory material that is too extensive for a forum post. The links also refer to other thinkers who share some of my unconventional views.

In the context of this thread, it's not important to grasp the equation of Qualia, Properties, & Fields. But for anyone interested, I can go into excruciating detail. It's all based on my personal Enformationism thesis, which envisions a paradigm shift in Science. Once you grok the new perspective, those technical peripheral issues will be easier to understand.

Anyway, I didn't expect my comments to have much impact on this thread. I post these esoteric notes in order to apply my unorthodox worldview to interesting questions about the nature of reality. It's a form of intellectual exercise ---primarily for my own benefit --- not a pedagogical or evangelistic endeavor. A few readers seems to find them of interest. The others just ignore them, or disparage them.

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.


PS___When I referred to "Qualia as properties & fields" it was in the context of the definition of "Energy" in my previous reply to you :
What is energy made of ? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
A "trait" is a property or quality of the thing referenced --- in this case the Vacuum or Plenum we call Space. And physicists today tend to imagine empty Space as a Potential Energy Field. Although the Space is a "non-matter" field, they treat it in their calculations as-if it was a material Substance that can be warped and stretched. Like Space, Energy is a vacuum full of Potential. It consists only of statistical Probability. So Potential Energy is a quality or trait of empty Space, which is imagined as a mathematical Field. Does that help you to follow the gist of my comment?

As-If : a hypothetical or imaginary concept; a metaphor

Vacuum (zero-point) Energy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Gnomon
That makes no sense to me; as in, your post is opaque. — Banno

That's OK. The new paradigm --- that all is Information --- is a radical departure from the conventional scientific worldview of Materialism, and the ancient worldview of Spiritualism. Like Quantum Theory it departs from classical doctrines on reality. It also shifts the meaning of many common terms, such as "space" & "substance". But it is an emerging theory among some prominent scientists.

If my layman's Enformationism thesis is not your style, you may find the technical and academic approach of physicist Paul Davies and the Santa Fe Institute more to your liking. Davies is a very clear writer, and brings you along gradually to this new perspective on reality. But at first, even his upside-down physics may seem opaque. At Santa Fe think tank, they address fringe subjects, but stick as close as possible to conventional empirical science, while I am free to ad-lib and riff on related philosophical themes. I'm not beholden to any scientific or religious doctrine.


Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics To Metaphysics
"Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance."
Ed. by Paul Davies, & Henrik Gregersen

The Matter Myth : Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
by Paul Davies & John Gribbin

Space and Time in the Modern Universe
by Paul Davies

From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
Edited by Walker, Davies, and Ellis of Santa Fe Institute
Note : mostly about information in living organisms

Paul Davies goes a wee bit overboard on occasion, — jorndoe

By "overboard" do you mean he goes beyond current materialist doctrine into speculations on quantum queerness? If so, I agree. And I find it to make a lot of sense, at least as far as Quantum theory can make sense.

it's just another sample "all-embracing monstrous metaphysical vision" when taken wholesale. — jorndoe

I take it that you don't approve of Scientific Speculation and Metaphysical Philosophy? Davies doesn't ask you to take what he says "wholesale". You are expected to take a scientific analytical approach, up to the point where Reductive analysis bogs down in Holistic metaphysics, such as Quantum Entanglement. QE doesn't "make sense", but it does seem to be a fact of physics. So Davies uses Information theory to peer into the mists of murk beyond classical Newtonian physics.

Regarding the Information thing (paraphrasing Gamez), by wholesale I meant thorough all-embracing hypostatization, but that wasn't about Davies. — jorndoe

Hypostatization is the fallacy of Reification : ascribing reality to abstractions. But recent neurological studies are finding that what we humans take for reality is actually a figment of our imagination : an abstraction. Cognitive Psychologist Donald Hoffman has produced a novel theory of perception that sounds a lot like the ancient Buddhist teaching of Maya (illusion). If you are not familiar with that notion, the book review linked below will give you a brief glimpse from a non-Buddhist perspective. But, if you have any interest in cutting-edge Information theory and Consciousness science, I recommend that you read the book for yourself.

The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Hoffman is just re-casting age-old idealism (mental monism) in the image of a couple odd theses of his.
I suppose, if you really think this holds water, then you could put together a concise and short argument in a new opening post.
Keep in mind, if Hoffman wants to raise this stuff to science, then the requisite falsifiability criteria and such applies. — jorndoe

Yes. Idealism is an ancient philosophical worldview that never went away. To me, Hoffman's theory seems to be an update of Kant's Transcendental Idealism. However, Hoffman calls it Model Dependent Realism. I suspect that the notion of "transcendence" does not fit your worldview. So you may dismiss Hoffman as an occultist, but he is an MIT educated occultist.

I'm not a credentialed cognitive scientist, so I'll let Hoffman make his own argument. Obviously, Idealism is not compatible with the current dominant doctrine of Materialism. But Quantum Theory has already undermined the foundation of that ancient hypothesis. I presented my concise & short "argument" in the blog post linked above.

Do you know of any cognitive or psychological theory that is empirically falsifiable? Mind studies are not "hard" sciences, so their theories are essentially philosophical. Only time will tell if Hoffman's provocative theory gains credibility among his peers in cognitive science. At this time, his theory is "challenging leading scientific theories", so you would expect that many of his peers are skeptical. But his theory has been enthusiastically received by several prominent cognitive scientists, including Steven Pinker.

Quotes :

"SHORTLISTED FOR THE PHYSICS WORLD BOOK OF THE YEAR 2019 : A groundbreaking examination of human perception, reality and the evolutionary schism between the two"
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/295/295 ... 83417.html

"Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally."

"Don Hoffman . . . combines a deep understanding of the logic of perception, a gift for explaining it with simple displays that anyone can-quite literally-see, and a refreshing sense of wonder at the miracle of it all."--Steven Pinker, author of How the Mind Works