Phil Forum : Metaphysics

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-it/p7

Ah, I see you are already aware of Deacon's work. — Janus

Yes. I was impressed with his non-reductionist approach to the question of how Life might have emerged from non-life. Although, as a scientist, he was careful to avoid crossing the line into metaphysics, "the power of absence" is essentially a metaphysical concept, in the sense that it is not an observation but an inference.

A related book is, Neither Ghost Nor Machine, The Emergence and Nature of Selves, by Jeremy Sherman, a member of Deacon's team. Ironically, from the perspective of my Enformationism worldview, I would say that the human Self (Soul) is both Ghost (metaphysical) and Machine (physical) : both Immaterial and Material; both Subjective and Objective..

The Ghost in The Organism : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

[Gnomon]

Anyone else read Philosophy Now?

A neat argument that much of modern theoretical physics is actually bad metaphysics. — Banno

Yes, I read that. It's why many people find justification for their traditional religious beliefs in Quantum Theory and other cutting-edge notions that stray from the "hard" physics of Isaac Newton. But my semi-religious worldview is basically an update of ancient notions of "Soul" and "Spirit" in terms of the current understanding of how the world works. e.g. No mercurial gods on thrones, but a nerdy cosmic Programmer running an evolutionary program.

"many of the theories embraced by theoretical physicists today look like what Smolin calls 'metaphysical fantasies'."

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/331649

For me a claim is metaphysical if it cannot make predictions that can be tested empirically. — Janus

I assume that Deacon believes that his "absence" theories will someday be testable. At the moment they are supported primarily by circumstantial evidence. That "absence" has real world effects is based on inferring causation from observed effects. But the mechanics of how future potential can cause now effects is a mystery.

METAPHYSICAL EVOLUTION
In my EnFormAction hypothesis, the force "pulling" events toward a future state is not Mechanical or Magical, but Mathematical (hence Metaphysical) -- in the sense that the Creator's intention (ultimate goal) is being implemented physically step-by-step, but the whole system (evolution) is programmed to answer a general question. I know that's hard to grasp, but a software programmer does the same thing by devising a mathematical path from specific initial conditions to final (optimal) values that are not specified, hence unknown. This is how Evolutionary Programming works. Ironically, the Programmer (in both artificial and natural evolution) will be surprised by the answer. Does that mean the Creator is not omniscient? Yes, in a narrow sense, but I prefer to call it open-minded, and creative.

Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary Computation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

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

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332138

I can't see how Deacon's thesis will ever be testable, — Janus

Deacon's notion of "the power of absence" may never be testable via empirical methods, but it can be theoretically useful, just as many spooky effects in physics can predict some strange behaviors (quantum entanglement, black holes, dark matter, chaos theory, etc). And we can visualize an Attractor mathematically with computer graphics. In Chaos theory, some system values tend to evolve toward a point in empty space as-if they were being pulled by an unknown force. Unfortunately for the scientists, "as-if" is a metaphysical question, where "as-is" is an empirical physical fact.
Attractors : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

One mathematical term for a living organism is "dissipative structure". Regarding the "motivation of attractors", the link above says : "Dynamical systems in the physical world tend to arise from dissipative systems: if it were not for some driving force, the motion would cease." Deacon thinks that the statistical inter-relationships of dissipative structures are the key to the emergence of Life from non-living matter.
Dissipative Structures : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... ts/deacon/
Note : see Glossary at bottom of article

I'm not too keen on the idea of a creator; I think it is an anthropomorphic notion, whether it is merely a deistic or a full-blown theistic one. — Janus

Due to my experience with fundamentalist Christian religion, I also became leery of all hear-say stories of invisible gods with human-like behaviors. But when I began developing my Enformationism worldview, I found that some kind of First Cause or "Enformer" was a necessary axiom in order to make sense of how the world works via enforming forces.

If it makes you feel any better, my notion of G*D is definitely not anthropomorphic, but essentially Mathematical or Logical. But lacking any relatable Physical imagery, the notion of a Metaphysical deity is much more difficult for non-philosophers to imagine. That's why even Monotheists have needed some physical idols (such as images of a man on a cross) to help them relate to a deity who exists both inside and outside the material (space-time) world.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332391

The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. — S

It's sad that I have to tell you this, but this is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU, S seems to be confident that empirical science has the answer to all relevant questions. But that depends on what you consider relevant. For philosophers, Metaphysics is relevant.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The September issue of Scientific American magazine is titled : Truth, Lies, & Uncertainty, Searching for reality in unreal times. All of the articles cast doubt on the infallibility of reductive science. But one in particular might be instructive for Mr. S. George Musser's article is entitled : Virtual Reality, How close can physics bring us to a truly fundamental understanding of the world? Another term for "virtual reality" is Meta-Physics. He says, "The deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate. . . . Physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs." In other words, Quantum Physics is now struggling with Metaphysical questions.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332488

Not all scientific thinking, or even much of it all seems to rely on the notion of "first cause" though. — Janus

True. But most scientific thinking is looking through a microscope for prior proximate causes, such as the billiard ball that impacted the one you are focused on. Philosophical thinking though looks beyond the local effects and asks about the ultimate cause : in billiards, it's the intention of the pool shooter to cause the 5 ball to go into the corner pocket.

Cosmologists are philosopher/scientists who consider the universe as a whole rather than as a collection of unrelated parts. They have tracked causation (energy exchanges) all the way back to the "beginning of time". That's as far back as the physical evidence goes. So most accept the Big Bang as the original "cause" of everything that occurs in space-time. But some are not satisfied with the pool cue answer, and ask what then caused the stick (Big Bang) to strike?

Since we have no physical evidence to go by, we must use logical inference to fill-in the blanks. Reductionist scientists simply fill-in the "a priori" ellipsis with the assumption of "more of the same" (physics) all the way back to infinity. But holistic thinkers tend to look for a metaphysical answer, such as the intention of some ultimate "buck stops here" First Cause. That's the difference between pragmatic Science, and theoretical Philosophy. Metaphysical theories have no "cash value" for those who are only interested in short-term return on their investment of research and cogitation.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332488

Seriously, though I think we can reason philosophically ad infinitum without ever entertaining the idea of a first cause — Janus

Certainly. But the human brain, with experience only of the physical world, has no intuitive grasp of unbounded concepts such as "Infinity" or "Eternity". So most people who think beyond the here & now, tend to reason in terms of turtles-all-the-way-down.

Fortunately, the human mind has evolved to go beyond the space-time limitations of physics into the imaginative realm of metaphysics. But imagination needs to be grounded in physics in order to avoid veering off into the realm of fantasy. Which is why the philosopher-pioneers begin their theoretical explorations of Terra Incognita from the established harbor of pragmatic Science. Meanwhile, the contented settlers can live their whole lives without ever entertaining a thought of ultimate causes.

Turtles-all-the-way-down : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332488

All I was saying was that for those who need a god, an impersonal god will not cut the mustard — Janus

I am well aware that the majority of people will not be interested in an abstract "philosopher's god". Some will prefer a Father god, who brings rain for crops and defends them from evil. Others will prefer a Mother god, who gives unconditional love and succors the afflicted. A few capitalists will hold out for a Prosperity god who brings them luck in their financial affairs. And probably most will want some kind of Santa Claus god, who fulfills their wishes for all kinds of goodies.

That's OK with me. To each his own. My G*D does not require faith or evangelism. My G*D is personal for me, in that it fills a god-shaped hole in my heart, with information (Enformation) to make sense of the ins & outs & ups & downs of the world.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/332488

The modern trend is for a metaphysics of becoming (process) to supplant or uproot the traditional metaphysics of being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Most world religions view the world as beginning in a high point as a Garden of Eden or a Golden Age, from which we are now degenerating into corruption. For them, the only answer is divine intervention, or a kingdom of heaven, or the escape hatch of nirvana.

Yet, counter-intuitively, I see evidence that the world began as a seed, and is evolving into a great oak. We are now in the process of becoming something more and better -- I can't say what exactly, But perfection (Omega Point??) is still a long way off. So, my mid-term metaphysics is to read the script of emerging nature, and to play my minor role in what we are becoming.

[Gnomon]

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

but I see no need to anthropomorphize it as any kind of intentional entity. — Janus

I began my philosophical journey as an Agnostic. But I couldn't avoid the intuition of intention behind evolution. Unless the Big Bang was an astronomically unlikely random accident as many scientists prefer to believe, there must have been some kind of Intention (tendency) to create direction out of randomness (order out of disorder).

Epicurus and Lucretius called that necessary directional impetus "the Swerve", but ironically assumed that it was a fortuitous accident caused by the random jostling of atoms (now known as "quantum fluctuations"). I was also forced by simple logic to assume that some outside force caused the Big Bang to become a progressive evolving organism, instead of a dissipative explosion in space. There is no pattern in pure randomness. Without an imposed signal, your TV screen will randomly jitter & jostle & fluctuate forever. You may occasionally see a brief fluctuation that looks like something; but no ongoing organization like evolution.

Evolution is characterized by both Randomness and Selection -- the disorder (freedom) provides a variety of options, and the tendency toward order (intention) makes a choice (selection) between alternative possibilities, converting them into actualities. This is how computers work, and the selection criteria are provided by the Programmer. So Intention (purpose) is an assumed property of my axiomatic First Cause. As you implied before, an abstract do-nothing deity with no purpose would not be worthy of the name "G*D".

My use of the word "intention" is a metaphor, from our experience as goal-seeking humans, for something beyond our comprehension. As a projection of human mental teleology, it is inherently anthropomorphic; but it refers to an abstract concept, not a person.

The Swerve : "The second reason for thinking that atoms swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and 'break the bonds of fate,'." https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

For me beyond the "here and now" is simply the inconceivable. — Janus

Speaking of "beyond comprehension", projecting our knowledge of here & now into the unknown realms of possibility is something people do all the time. For example, the concepts of "zero" and "infinity" are literally inconceivable, except for the human talent for analogy. Similarly, imagining invisible agencies (gods, spirits) is a common tactic for explaining mysteries that are otherwise inconceivable. As I said before, my "G*D" concept is a metaphor (and an axiom) that allows me to make sense of the role of Information in the real world that is otherwise "beyond comprehension". That's what philosophers do when faced with mysteries. Even pragmatic scientists are forced to resort to imaginative metaphors in their quest to understand the fringes of reality (e.g. quantum fields are not real). G*D is not real.