Page 1 of 1

TPF : How & Why -- Science & Philosophy

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:41 pm
by Gnomon
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ow-and-why

How and Why

Asking how is always implicitly asking why. Every causal explanation is contingent on some purposive stance within the question. — Pantagruel

For a philosopher, that may be true. But for empirical scientists, only "how" questions are relevant to their interests. Except for a few theoretical physicists, they typically leave the "why" questions to theologians and philosophers. :smile:


PS___I just uploaded a blog post that touches on the "intentional stance" among other metaphysical concepts that are off-limits to reductive Science.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page72.html

Re: TPF : How & Why -- Science & Philosophy

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:42 pm
by Gnomon
Spencer's First Principles — Pantagruel

I wasn't aware of Herbert ("survival of the fittest") Spencer's list of Principles. Can you express the gist of those "laws" of Nature, in light of modern science? My first impression is that "Persistence of Force" sounds like Inertia; "instability of the homogeneous" sounds like either Entropy or Radioactive Decay: and "Multiplicity of Effects" sounds like a Pleiotropic Gene. But I'm sure he had more philosophical or historical applications in mind. How do you interpret them? :smile:

According to Spencer in First Principles, three principles regulate the universe, namely the Law of the Persistence of Force, the Law of the Instability of the Homogeneous and the Law of the Multiplicity of Effects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/

Re: TPF : How & Why -- Science & Philosophy

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:50 pm
by Gnomon
Quote from Spencer :
"Manifestly, the establishment of correlation and equivalence between the forces of the outer and the inner worlds, may be used to assimilate either to the other; according as we set out with one or other term. But he who rightly interprets the doctrine contained in this work, will see that neither of these terms can be taken as ultimate. He will see that though the relation of subject and object renders necessary to us these antithetical conceptions of Spirit and Matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both." — Pantagruel

Apparently, Spencer was trying to reconcile our commonsense division of the world into Subjective (Inner ; Spirit) and Objective (Outer ; Matter). Like him, I have tried to conciliate Inner & Outer worlds in my personal worldview of Enformationism. In that thesis, the "unknown reality" is the well-known, but little understood, phenomenon of "Information". Its original meaning was subjective, as the contents of human minds : Knowledge. But then Shannon used the term to refer to the neither subjective nor objective carriers of meaning (1s & 0s), instead of the contents. More recently, Theoretical & Quantum physicists have discovered that Information (in the form of Energy) is also the organizing mathematical structure of Matter, hence Objective. So, I have concluded that neither the Subjective, nor Objective aspects of reality is "ultimate". Instead, my view is that everything is ultimately a form of Generic Information.

I've never had occasion to read much of Spencer's work. So, my impression of him was mostly due to the thesis of Social Darwinism. For which, he was maligned by Social Liberals. But, I suspect that his intentions were not to support Capitalism or Fascism, but to foster a broader scientific worldview. Perhaps, he wanted to combine the "How" of Science, with the "Why" of Philosophy and Religion. :smile:

Legacy : The basis for Spencer's appeal to many of his generation was that he appeared to offer a ready-made system of belief which could substitute for conventional religious faith at a time when orthodox creeds were crumbling under the advances of modern science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

EnFormAction : Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
1. Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
2. Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
3. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
4. Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.

http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PS__What was the source of your Spencer's quote above?