TPF : Metaphysics Again

[Gnomon]

…added up to a heck of a lot of crap! — PoeticUniverse

Which includes those imaginary Quarks and Gluons, and all invisible Forces for that matter. But hey, icky & gummy crap can be used to stick & glue things together.

"Gluon :a subatomic particle of a class that is thought to bind quarks together."

"We now postulate that the particles carrying this force, called gluons,"

[Gnomon]

crap — Gnomon
My Space Vacation: — PoeticUniverse

Did you meet Elon Musk out there?

I was pleasantly surprised to see how much enthusiasm there is on the forum for this contentious topic. Especially after it petered-out at least twice before. The expressed opinions seem strongly divided between Science & Pseudoscience, or between Physics & Metaphysics, with some fer it, and some agin it, and only a few on the fence.

However, the intention of my thesis was to bring Metaphysics back into the fold of Science, if not exactly Physics. But centuries after the "Enlightenment", the gap is still wide, among those who care enough to even argue about Ideal concepts that have no immediate effect in the physical world. Metaphysics won't make your cell phone work, or put food on your table. But deep thinkers seem to think it's important to think about such non-things. To some, it's a vermin to be eradicated with rat poison, while to others it's the creamy icing on the worldview cake.

[Gnomon]

↪Wayfarer
"genetic information" and "entelechy".
I have referred to both of those ideas in my thesis. For example, I describe what Plato called Ideal FORM, in terms of Generic Information. That label is intended to include metaphysical Memes as well as physical Genes, as carriers of Information. In my thesis, both fall under the heading of EnFormAction.

Whereas Aristotle may have imagined "entelechia" in terms of an animating World Soul, I prefer to describe that teleological force in Nature as positive "Enformy", to replace the made-up label in Physics : "Negentropy". Although it sounds dismissive, just giving it a name is an indirect admission of a mysterious positive force, driving Evolution toward some unknown future state. And despite attempts to denigrate Metaphysics as "supernatural", Entropy is as natural as Energy. It just happens to be defined in terms of Information Theory, instead of Thermodynamic Theory.

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

An entelechy is an internal force or principle that drives a being toward its destiny.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entelechy

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


↪PoeticUniverse

Because of the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness, Physics has no good explanation for the existence of Memes in the world. It's a "cultural analog" to Genes, but the evolutionary leap from molecules to Genes, and from Genes to Memes are not explained by the analogy. So, it remains an "explanatory gap" to be filled by some Potential. But, was that pre-real potency physical (particular) or meta-physical (general)? The latter is a "Meme of the Gaps" solution to a philosophical mystery. It assumes that concepts are not made of Atoms or Bosons.

Just as genetic information is encapsulated in a protein form, a meme requires a physical medium (e.g. neuron) -- but the meaningful content of the capsule is not physical. it's relational, like Mathematics. So, what is Math made of, if not Information (the power to enform)? That's a rhetorical question, I already know the usual "it's all physical" answer, as a term of Faith in Science.

[Gnomon]

I don't associated the idea of the 'world soul' with Aristotle in particular, but definitely with the idea of 'animating principle'. — Wayfarer

Sorry, Aristotle gave a definition of "soul", so perhaps I mis-spoke. Anyway, his notion of Entelechy sounds like another word for the motivating animating vital force of the world. Some Physicalists and Realists on this forum don't mind reifying metaphors into material forms.

Reify : make (something abstract) more concrete or real.

The Platonic doctrine of the world soul was rejected by aristotle.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... nima-mundi

Entelechy :
the realization of potential.
the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.
Note -- apparently I expanded that narrow notion to include the Cosmic Organism. Doesn't that make sense? I suppose he "rejected" Plato's ideal soul, because he was trying to be a Realist, instead of an Idealist. But, I don't see anything necessarily Ideal about the concept of directional momentum in the expansion of a Singularity into a Cosmos. Of course if you try to explain how that teleology came to be programmed into a speck of Potential, that might get Meta-Physical, in the sense of probing beyond the physical boundary of our world. But physicists do that with Inflation and Multiverse theories. So, why not philosophers?

Information - Consciousness - Reality :
He then offers two ways of understanding this dynamic world : in Aristotelian terms as “the entelechy of existence”, and the metaphor of “the rhizome of reality”. Later, he mentions a more technological way to think of reality, as a mathematical structure forming “the software that connects us, that enables all distributed systems, including life itself”. However, he seems to think of this evolving complexifying mechanism as more like a living cosmic organism.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html

[Gnomon]

↪T Clark

Your idea of "meta-physics" may have value in philosophical discussions, but it isn't "metaphysics" as we normally use the word. We've been through all this before. I don't think we'll get anywhere going through it again". — T Clark
Since, in my wordy posts, I haven't been able to convince you that there is another way to define "Metaphysics", here's a less verbose version :

Physics is about analyzing a system into pieces and parts (practice).
Meta-physics is about generalizing pieces & parts into systems (theory).

[Gnomon]

↪180 Proof

I still don't grok your alternative method of "negative metaphysics", nor the assertion of "Impossiblism" or "immanentism". So, I'll reply by comparing my worldview to the -isms below. I don't expect it will change your mind or attitude, but it may help you to see where I'm coming from, instead of the -isms you try to pin on me. Although this clash of -isms does sometimes sound like a doctrinal religious dispute, that is not my intention.


Holism and FreeWill, versus Reductionism and Fatalism
When you accused me of being a woo-mongering New Age nut-case*1, I began to realize that a significant difference in our worldviews might be characterized as Reductionism vs Holism. You may not be aware that the man who wrote the book on the modern concept of Holism was in no sense a New Ager. Instead, he was a South African general, statesman, naturalist, and philosopher. His 1926 book, Holism and Evolution, was a treatise on the philosophy of Western Science, which he saw had veered so far toward a reductive perspective that it couldn't see the forest for the trees. My worldview is not New Ageism*2, but it is a form of scientific Holism or Systems Theory.

Holism and Evolution :
The holistic approach to life has had such a far-reaching impact in the world that most people assume it grew out of some Far Eastern practice.
___review of book by Jan Smuts
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VISSWR6/re ... TF8&btkr=1

Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feedback loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might be caused by external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is what we call "Reasoning".

Feedback Loops :
The human brain is a negative feedback loop system. This means that whenever there is a difference between what a person experiences in reality that is different from the ideal set point established by this person’s brain, an urge to behave to correct the situation is created by the brain.
https://www.funderstanding.com/brain/br ... op-system/

Every Effect has a Cause, but not all causes come from the environment. When faced with an incongruency, humans are able to "leap" to a conclusion that seems reasonable, in light of our prior beliefs of what ought to be true. So, what seems reasonable is not just pure Logic, but also depends on (determined by) any prejudices, premises, and presumptions in our belief system. And those beliefs are not in any sense physical objects. Instead, they are meta-physical causes of our mental behavior. You might say that beliefs are indirect causes of behavior, because they result from feedback loops in the chain of incoming information. Those information loops add to the complexity of a simple linear cause & effect system. But out of the apparent chaos comes the novel (butterfly) effect that we call "Free Will".

Philosophers don't usually do physical work with their hands, but with their minds. They do non-physical (meta-physical) work with their cognitive faculties. But Reductive thinkers assume that Mind = Brain, because they focus on the parts (neurons) instead of the whole system. Mind is not a mass of concrete neurons, it is instead the abstract Function of the whole body as a complex system. Like a computer, the Brain seldom makes logical errors, but the Mind often gets side-tracked into irrational beliefs. Unfortunately, some of those non-physical concepts (e.g. Qualia) may be what you think of as Essentialism. But, actually it is merely Synthetic thinking as contrasted with Analytic thinking. And the synthesis is Mental instead of Physical, so it is knowable only by exchanging Ideas or Memes. The exchange is via a physical Medium, but the media is not the Message.

Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi*3, are not inherent to Holism. But Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary study of systems as they relate to one another within a larger, more complex system. The key concept of systems theory, regardless of which discipline it's being applied to, is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/socia ... cial-work/

Holism as an idea or philosophical concept is diametrically opposed to atomism. Where the atomist believes that any whole can be broken down or analyzed into its separate parts and the relationships between them, the holist maintains that the whole is primary and often greater than the sum of its parts.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/holism.html
Note -- you might say that Holism multiplies the parts

PS__Science is expected to be Analytical, but Philosophy is supposed to be Synthetical.

*1 I was not offended, because I have come to expect expectoration during a philosophical exchange of spittle.
*2 Not that there is anything wrong with New Ageism as a personal worldview. Only as a coercive religion would it impose woo on you.
*3 The notion of "throwing Chi" like a flame thrower is not characteristic of Eastern Religions, but of SuperHero movies.

Ludwig van Bertalanffy : GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
quote-we-are-seeking-another-basic-outlook-the-world-as-an-organization-this-would-profoundly-ludwig-von-bertalanffy-58-46-90.jpg

↪Wayfarer

↪PoeticUniverse

↪Metaphysician Undercover

[Gnomon]

My only complaint has been your confusing misuse of the word "metaphysics." As for your ideas themselves, I don't have strong feelings either way. — T Clark

As Wayfarer noted, I explicitly differentiate between the common definitions, and my peculiar information-based usage of that traditional philosophical term. Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. If you don't accept my proffered concept, that's on you. But, If I am not making my meaning clear, I guess the fault is on me, for trying to add some novelty to the worn-out phrases of philosophy.

[Gnomon]

As the links in my previous posts show I've addressed (my conception of) negative metaphysics – proposes eliminating necessarily unreal Xs as an alternative in contrast to positing categorical (e.g. Platonic) constructs of necessarily real "essences", "universals", etc – in our exchanges quite a few times over the last couple of years. — 180 Proof

I got the implicit dismissive message of "negative metaphysics" : apparently it's intended to ban Metaphysics (i.e. anything non-physical) from philosophical discussion. But I still don't get a positive understanding of why you would want a gag order on Philosophy (see PS below). Since modern Science took over the role of Naturalism after the Enlightenment era, all that Philosophy has left to study is the non-physical aspects of the natural world. Namely Concepts (ideas. minds, consciousness), Essences (form, mathematical structure) and Universals (qualia), which are all "unreal Xs" in your outdated definition of Metaphysics, but are important topics in my 21st century definition of Meta-Physics. That's the study of preter-natural features of Reality, in the sense that Mind is the "more-than" of Holism. It is something in-addition-to Brain matter. So the Brain is Natural, but Mind is preter-natural (i.e Cultural).

Of course, some disingenuously try to place Mind under the heading of Physics, because it is a Function of a brain, knowable only by another Mind. That's why you can't place Consciousness or Reasoning under a microscope or create it in a Cyclotron. That's not the kind of thing that Physicists, Biologists, or Chemists study. So why would you want to negate the only remaining subject matter of philosophical investigation? (see PS below) Meta-Physics is inherently subjective, hence it is literally "un-real" in any objective sense. Aristotle tried to avoid the Ideal implications of his own metaphysics. But ironically later philosophers realized that he was in denial, because his de-idealized notion of "Form" is itself only an abstract idea about reality, not a real thing itself. Moreover, all Functions (e.g. Mind) are knowable only by rational Minds, not physical senses. (See The Trouble With Psychology below).

My Enformationism worldview is indeed Idealistic (unreal) in the sense of asserting the value of Ideas in a world of human Culture. But it is also Realistic in the sense that it does not deny the value of Material objects to denizens of Nature. Take away non-physical ideas, and Culture vanishes from the world. And along with Culture, Science itself would disappear from the world. And Technology would revert to apes pounding nuts with rocks.

PS__ I can guess the answer to my own question above : you want to ban Metaphysics, because of its association with Religion and Mysticism. Me too! That's why I want to bring it back under the broad umbrella of Classical Philosophical Science by labeling it "Meta-Physics". Although the topic is inherently Subjective, I try to keep it grounded in Objective science as far as possible.


In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... Qualia have traditionally been thought to be intrinsic qualities of experience that are directly available to introspection. However, some philosophers offer theories of qualia that deny one or both of those features.
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Idealism in sense (1) has been called “metaphysical” or “ontological idealism”, while idealism in sense (2) has been called “formal” or “epistemological idealism”. The modern paradigm of idealism in sense (1) might be considered to be George Berkeley’s “immaterialism”, according to which all that exists are ideas and the minds, less than divine or divine, that have them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

The journal embraces a broad and dynamic definition of the preternatural, since the ... strongly encourages submissions covering cultural traditions worldwide.
https://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_ ... ature.html

The trouble with Psychology :
With respect to science, human psychology faces an immense obstacle posed by its focus on the mind. Human psychology is defined as "the study of the mind, occurring partly via the study of behavior", but the mind is not a physical organ, it's an abstract concept, and measurements of the mind's state are indirect and subjective (by way of a subject's verbal reports, for example). This makes psychology, as defined, a branch of metaphysics, not physics.
https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psyc ... index.html

GAG on Philosophy
https://bostonglobe-prod.cdn.arcpublish ... AJ6U6M.jpg

[Gnomon]

I don't reject your concept. I object to your use of "metaphysical" or "meta-physical" to name it. If I might paraphrase a wonderful statement from Cartuna from a different discussion: — T Clark

I have offered several alternative definitions. Can't you find one that doesn't offend your sensibilities. What motivated you to start this thread? Did you hope for a nice simple list of precisely-defined dos & don'ts. That's not philosophy, but propaganda or dogma. Philosophy, and especially subjective Metaphysics, is always open to interpretation. So, what's your interpretation of "my concept" (Enformationism), if it's not "Meta-Physics", as I defined it in the thesis : non-physical ; immaterial)?

Regarding Cartuna's post, scientists don't do "Metaphysics" by any name. But for idea-dissecting philosophers, that's all they do. Although some like to think they are practicing hard Science, when they argue endlessly over the meaning of words. Science is necessarily Reductive & Analytical & Precise. But Philosophy is necessarily Holistic & Synthetic & Vague (General, Universal, Moot).


Note -- Aristotle's "Categories" in The Metaphysics volume, are inherently general and non-specific.

Feynman on Philosophy :
A person talks in such generalities that everyone can understand him and it's considered to be some deep philosophy. However, I would like to be very rather more special and I would like to be understood in an honest way, rather than in a vague way. ___Richard P. Feynman

Was Richard Feynman a philosopher?
Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Ri ... of_Science

[Gnomon]

There's a very sensitive sub-topic around this point - the boundary between metaphysics, philosophy and religion are somewhat hazy and it's easy to find yourself crossing it whenever this subject is discussed. — Wayfarer

Oh yes! My head is "bloody but unbowed", as a result of encounters with anti-religionistas. But my thesis necessarily crosses the line, because traditional religions in most cultures were based on the philosophical & scientific memes of their time. I have no problem with the philosophical basis of Hinduism, it was insightful for its era. But I see no philosophical reason to bathe in the polluted Ganges, It's just an ancient cultural practice that some feel compelled by religious loyalties to continue. Likewise, I appreciate the philosophical foundation of Buddhism, but I don't follow any of its traditional religious rituals. For example, I studied Meditation long ago, but it was a secular form.

My approach is somewhat religious, but not the way my grandad (for instance) would have understood. — Wayfarer

Some would consider my behavior to be somewhat religious, but with my Fundamentalist family and relatives I tread lightly. I do have a concept that I call "G*D" in the thesis, but it's not a lordly tyrant in the sky. Instead, it's more like Spinoza's Nature sive Natura, or Plato's Logos, or Lao Tzu's TAO. I used to attend meeting of a local Deist group, but they split between the religious and secular factions.

IN ANY CASE, what I'm wanting to say here is that there is a strong implicit prohobition against certain kinds of ideas associated with religion, which is well articulated by Thomas Nagel: — Wayfarer

I agree with Nagel's hope that there is no "God" (in the Biblical sense). But, have never been able to find a reasonable alternative to a First Cause, that is necessarily preter-natural, in the sense of existing prior to the beginning of our natural world. However, it's not "super-natural" in the sense of Greek super-hero gods, or a heavenly humanoid. If believing in a First Cause or Necessary Being makes me religious, I'm guilty. But I have no motivation to impose any doctrine on anyone. My posts on this forum are for self-development, not for evangelism.