TPF : Non-Physical Reality

[Gnomon]

NON-PHYSICAL REALITY

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? Can such ideas be discussed without eye-rolling, name-calling, mud-slinging, ideological labeling, and anathematizing? Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? Has modern Philosophy become "politics by other means"?
Clauswitz : "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means."

In recent years, several scientists have questioned our traditional understanding of Reality, both intuitive and academic. Here's just a few, writing in the last 25 years. Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli : Reality Is Not What It Seems (quantum reality); mathematical physicist Roger Penrose : Road to Reality (quantum ideality) ; neuroscientist Terrence Deacon : Incomplete Nature (causal absence); theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek : The Lightness of Being (deep structure of reality) ; astrophysicist Mario Livio : Is God a Mathematician? (scaffolding of reality) ; quantum computer scientist Seth Lloyd : Programming the Universe (universe is information processor) ; cognitive psychologist Don Hoffman : The Case Against Reality (reality is an illusion) ; astrophysicist Marcelo Gleiser : The Dancing Universe (mythology, spirituality & science). All question the classical physical model of reality. It may be as outdated as the solar system model of an atom. And the list could go on & on. But notice, no reductive empirical materialists in the list. These theoretical scientists are more like philosophers. Are they all barking up a non-existent tree? Or are they pointing to a universal intrinsic, perhaps immaterial, essence of Reality, more fundamental than sub-atomic particles? *1

The traditional division of opinion on Reality has been along the lines of Cartesian & Christian Soul/Body Dualism versus Scientific Materialistic Monism. But there are other perspectives, such as Eastern Non-Dualism, that is more philosophical than religious. By looking at the pros & cons of each model of reality, we may be able to discover some common ground, or at least some reasonable overlap in perspectives.
What I'm proposing here is an approach that has been used to help resolve incompatible theories in Consciousness studies. It's called “Adversarial Cooperation”, and was originated by Daniel Kahneman for behavioral economics. *2. It's mostly an attitude of mutual respect among colleagues working toward the same ultimate goal, although perhaps by various paths.

Yes, this is a sneaky way to raise metaphysical questions by addressing them as physical questions. Discuss among yourselves. But only if you can be civil.

*1. Second, since we acquire information of the world through measurement, and our sense of what is real depends crucially on this information, information is the very essence of reality.
___Marcelo Gleiser, physicist & astronomer
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/ ... al-reality
Note -- he finds Seth Lloyd's notion that information is fundamental to be questionable. Instead, he thinks that Mind must precede Information. Ironically, the Enformationism Thesis agrees with both of them.

*2. In science, adversarial collaboration is a term used when two or more scientists with opposing views work together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_collaboration

Metaphysics is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics. ___Wikipedia

[Gnomon]

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon


Can we take a modern, science-informed perspective on the topics that Aristotle covered in the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature (Reality as known in the 5th century BC). For example : Substance & Essence. Although he defined "substance" in terms of the essential qualities of a thing, today that term is associated with a quantity of massy Matter, as distinguished from the immaterial Design or Conceptual Pattern of a thing. It's partly that reversal of meaning between then & now that make communication on metaphyical topics so fraught. So, I suggest that we be careful to define terms such as "substance" as scientific (matter) or philosophical (essence), depending on the application.

Metaphysics is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology. It is one of the first major works of the branch of western philosophy known as metaphysics. ___Wikipedia

In the TPF thread labeled What is Metaphysics, yet again, the posts divided neatly into two camps : Physics (sense) versus Non-Physics (nonsense). I tried to avoid that Black vs White polarization by adding a hyphen to the word : Meta-Physics. I was hoping we could discuss the topics that Aristotle covered in his second volume, instead of the first volume -- both under the heading of Nature (phusis). But the ideological divide turned-out to be too stark. So, I next suggested another spelling variation to suggest a distinction between Matter & Mind : Menta-Physics. But that ploy was also rejected, apparently because some Materialists are absolute Monists : all that is real is Physical, because Matter is the "fundamental substance" of nature. And that worldview categorically rejects Cartesian Dualism. Consequently, my attempt to philosophically focus on subjective ideas instead of objective things was blocked at every turn.

But, since my personal worldview includes both the tangible evidence of massy things, and the intangible inferences of massless concepts, I'm still looking for an inoffensive term that might bypass the (physical vs spiritual) prejudice attached to an old technical term of philosophy to describe the aspects of human experience that don't fit under the reductive microsope of Physics. So, instead of "Mental", which is associated with "Soul", I tried to focus on the "Logical-Mathematical" aspects of Nature. Yet again, I was foiled, because Materialists place that topic under the purview of Science, as opposed to Philosophy or Religion. And despite its lack of massy stuff, it's considered an honorary material substance, as in Quantum Fields.

My next attempt at re-labelling the immaterial subject-(non)matter of my interest, I proposed the amorphous category of "Non-Physical". Yet again, I was surprised that someone had beat me to it -- it's already a thing. Unfortunately, it's usually associated with Theology, and Spirituality. So, my attempts to Include Psychology under the heading of Philosophy were blocked at every turn. The Protestant split from Catholic hegemony was paralleled by a rupture between Theoretical Philosophy and Empirical Science. And, for some, never the twain shall meet again.

Therefore centuries after the empirical Enlightenment, the human Mind remains in the shadows of an impoverished ghetto : Psychology. Which has now been gentrified under the label of Neuro-Science. Ironically, even some prominent neuroscientists have admitted that their study of reductive neuron networks is peripheral to their actual interest in the Mind as a whole system *1. Brain-mapping is not the same as understanding the Mind. "The map is not the terrain". So, they propose to study the mind as a Complex Adaptive System *2, using the methods of General Systems Theory. Ironically, that offshoot of modern materialist Science, is essentially the same approach as the Holism that is associated with Eastern religions and Western New Age cults. So, for hard Materialists, even Systems Theory is suspect, as it's more theoretical & metaphorical than empirical & mathematical. But that's because a complex system has emergent Qualities that are not measurable as intrinsic Properties (Quanta).

Since some researchers have concluded that even Neuroscience will never resolve the "Hard Problem" of soft sensibility, where do we go from here? Must we abandon the quest to understand ourselves? Or will we continue on diverging paths of conservative Science and liberal Philosophy? That's not a poll question.


*1. Can Neuroscience reveal the true nature of consciousness ?
The problem: finding the neural correlate of consciousness isn’t going to solve anything
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/cou ... cience.pdf

*2. Complex adaptive systems thinking (CAST) is a different approach to analysis that takes into account the features and elements of a system, how they work together and how they influence each other. ... Multiple Perspectives: personal beliefs, world views, voices, knowledge and culture that exist in a system.

[Gnomon]

Wouldn't be too sure about that. — Wayfarer

Yes. Most of the theoretical scientists on my list attempt to avoid losing their materialist credentials, even as they undermine the foundations of Materialism. A few are brave enough to describe their explorations beyond the pale as "philosophical". Yet, even fewer would use the term "metaphysics" to describe their hypothetical postulations. :joke:

[Gnomon]

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? — Gnomon
No. — Garrett Travers

Well, I suppose we have nothing to discuss then.

All question the classical physical model of reality. — Gnomon
Actually, they do not. Not in any sense that violates the mechanics and understandings of the macroscopic reality that quanta amass. — Garrett Travers

If you'll check out the books listed, you'll see that they do question classical mechanics. That's why they place Quantum Mechanics in a special category. Because it's not mechanical at all in the old fashioned sense. Each in his own way is trying to reconcile the mysterious aspects of quantum physics with the common-sense of macro physics. But, quantum phenomena don't simply "amass" (add-up to) macro physics.
FWIW, my own intuitive view of the world is still classical. So, I have to take the weirdness of the quantum realm on faith in the priests of physics. Whose pronouncements are constantly changing to adapt to new discoveries.

Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? — Gnomon
100%, and necessary as well, or we're all fucked and in a hurry. — Garrett Travers

Great! Glad to hear that pushing the boundaries of Science and Philosophy are not heretical to some posters. Too many on the forum express their exegesis of the science -- without quoting book, chapter & verse -- and instantly reject any unfamiliar interpretations. :chin:

But notice, no reductive empirical materialists in the list. These theoretical scientists are more like philosophers. — Gnomon
You're first clue that they're not onto something. — Garrett Travers

Are you saying that these highly credentialed scientists are wrong to question orthodoxy? That they are crying "wolf" when there is no wolf? Have you read any of their books? Admittedly, their cutting-edge ideas are not yet in the officially sanctioned textbooks. But you could say that about any new paradigms in science.

Reality doesn't care about measurements — Garrett Travers

Perhaps, I haven't interviewed Reality to get her opinion. But scientists & philosophers do care about measurements. The problem with quantum measurements is that they are open to interpretation. When I suggest that Aristotle understood the power of Potential long before modern science noticed the Power of Absence, I get boos for quoting ignorant dead white men.

Incomplete Nature :
A central thesis of the book is that absence can still be efficacious.
biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities :
“Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously,”
And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the same as the logic underlying the new interpretation of quantum physics. In the new paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.
“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an
extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,”
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/contex ... -realities

[Gnomon]

or that reality is not materially composed. No, this is not a true assertion — Garrett Travers

You misunderstood. I did not assert that these scientists were claiming that "reality is not materially composed", Instead, they are beginning to explore some of the emergent holistic (systems) features of the material world, that cannot be understood reductively. Some of them are focusing on the Mental phenomena that are associated with a material substrate, but are not in themselves physical objects, and not composed of particles. Others, are trying to make sense of some Quantum phenomena, such as Entanglement, that seem to arise from collective properties instead of from particular components.

Since the useful concept of Holism was quickly adopted by various believers in body/mind dualism, most scientists now prefer the term Systems Theory. But, it's the same thing by another name. And integrated systems don't yield their secrets to reductive methods of dissection into isolated parts. So, I'm merely trying to remove the stigma from this "New Physics", so we can discuss it's philosophical implications without recriminations.

The New Physics :
The term new physics refers to a range of fundamental developments and paradigm shifts that occurred in the physical sciences during the last half of the twentieth century.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/ ... ew-physics

I do say that, and require evidence to change my mind. Meaning prediction, experiment, and falsifiability. Otherwise, it's just religion. — Garrett Travers

The sciences of Systems are inherently Holistic & philosophical & somewhat subjective, so the classical methods of reductive science don't work for them. And, the "evidence" is mostly circumstantial. The authors of the books noted above are highly trained scientists, but they are forced to use philosophical methods to parse & collate the few reliable facts they are turning up in their studies. Some of them even reluctantly admit that they are dabbling in theoretical philosophy (search for causes), which is often denigrated by empirical scientists (study of effects) -- and ironically by some posters on this Philosophical Forum who use "feckless" argument instead of effective experiment.

Science vs Natural Philosophy :
They began to separate in the 19th century, when the term science was coined, and over the course of the 19th century, it replaced “natural philosopher.” The two had begun to branch out earlier than that with the development of the hypothetico-deductive model, which locks science into a particular epistemology,
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/1 ... study.html

Let's cover this nonsense argument:
1. Potentialities are useful metrics if those potentialities emerge as inductively observable phenomena
2. Usefulness of potentialities implies an expansion of the concept of reality
3. That concept should include objects that will never appear as inductively observable phenomena — Garrett Travers

You are using philosophical methods to argue against the conclusions of a group of credentialed scientists, including Werner Heisenberg. But, you miss their point. They may not be using the term "Potentia" in the "non-sense" way you allege. They are indeed pushing the boundaries of 19th century science, but don't you think their intelligence deserves a bit more respect.?

[Gnomon]

I have Penrose's book (2004) and have read portions over the last few years. The subtitle is "A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" , and I don't find him in general questioning our traditional understanding of reality — jgill

I haven't read the book, but from reviews I get the impression that his Mathematical Reality is essentially the same thing as Virtual Reality. If that is not questioning our traditional understanding of reality (Materialism & Atomism) I don't know what it's all about.

Mathematical Reality :
Quantum theory has been used in support of materialism, as well, to give us a proposed material theory of consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose, the British mathematician, and theoretical physicist has argued that it is quantum effects that give rise to the sense we have of free will. . . .
Dualism—that there’s more to reality than just matter and energy—has to solve the problem of interaction. How do material objects and ideas work with each other if they are completely different? Materialism has no such problem because there is only one kind of thing, but it has its own challenge—free will.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/wh ... free-will/

[Gnomon]

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway. — Ciceronianus

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. Scientist have been trying over the last century to reconcile Relativity and Quantum models of reality. How much longer do we need to wait? Anyway, on this forum of philosophical dilettantes, we don't do empirical, we do conjecture. And Quantum un-reality is a fervid ferment of speculation, even among those who eschew philosophy.

Emergent Space-Time :
"A growing number of physicists . . . are increasingly converging on a profound idea : space -- and perhaps even time -- is not fundamental, Instead, space and time my be emergent. . . . While quantum physics treats space and time as immutable, general relativity warps them for breakfast."
Scientific American magazine, Feb 2022
Note -- Sci-fi novelists dramatically speculate on the possible implications of such scientific profundities all the time. So, why can't prosaic philosophers dabble in such open questions?

[Gnomon]

Oh, I see. I am in 100% accord with this analysis. — Garrett Travers

Good! The problem with Systems Theory is that, like all Holistic attempts to understand Nature, General & Universal concepts are not knowable by sensory observation or reductive analysis. Instead, we develop such mental models of reality by rational inference from direct personal experience, or from second-hand learning from other envelope pushers.. The next Theory of Everything will never be a confirmed fact, but merely a new target to shoot down.

That's why scientists, who make general judgments about whole sub-categories of Nature, are going beyond the empirical evidence to make metaphysical philosophical postulations. They can't possibly observe every possible combination of elements. And they are seldom testable with current technology. So, they fill-in the gaps in direct knowledge with the imaginary links of pattern recognition (inference). This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

The scientists, in the books I listed above, are professional empiricists, but their topics of study are on the cutting-edge of technology, Some focus on Abstract Math (string & loop theory), others on Quantum Weirdness (entanglement), and a few on Consciousness (the last frontier of science). Consequently, like all philosophical postulations, they are open to challenge. You might call them "un-settled science": And they are often accused of dabbling in Metaphysics. But, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it challenges my "settled" opinion of how the world should work.

Science evolves & advances by pushing the boundaries of the current world map. And yet, just as in politics, conservatives typically accuse the pushy pioneers of "pseudoscience", or even worse "metaphysics". And it seems to be true, historically, that unfettered liberal minds do tend to make discoveries before the plodders, who don't stick their necks out. For example, Einstein was not a practicing scientist when he published his five papers that turned the classical world upside down. So, I'd be careful not to label those long-neck scientists as anti-scientific. Unless they claim to see the promised land from the mountain of Metaphysics.

The purpose of this thread is not to propagandize pseudoscience, but to translate the fringey findings of Science into meaningful philosophical concepts. For example, Hoffman's provocative assertion that "Reality is an Illusion", makes a lot of sense to me. And, I understand that he is not denying our common sense model of material reality, but merely noting that that notion is a map, not the territory.


The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes. Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Note -- Einstein's Block Time is not an empirical observation, but a universal extrapolation. But is it Real?

Consciousness: The Final Frontier :
Understanding consciousness may be the greatest challenge posed to science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... l-frontier

Science advances one funeral at a time :
Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

TERRA INCOGNITA
https://bigelowllc.com/wp-content/uploa ... 45x326.jpg

[Gnomon]

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? — Ciceronianus

It means that what you think of as capital "S" Science is a moving target. And these envelope-pushers may know something you don't. For example, Deacon has postulated the counter-intuitive notion of "causal absence". Check it out. But hold your prejudice until you understand what he's talking about.


Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged from Matter
is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena. . . .
The book expands upon the classical conceptions of work and information in order to give an account of ententionality that is consistent with eliminative materialism and yet does not seek to explain away or pass off as epiphenominal the non-physical properties of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

[Gnomon]

Gonna butt in here with some of my homespun analysis. Universals don't exist, but they're real. They're real as constraints and possibilities, the forms that things must take in order to exist. But they're not real on the level of existent things, their reality is of a different order to phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, It's that dual meaning of "exist" & "real" that causes us to talk past each other. Some deny the existence of "a different order of phenomena". AFAIK for almost 14 billion years, there were no minds, and hence no Universals or General Concepts and no Ideas or Ideals. When your dog is looking pensive, is he pondering Universals? Is your talking parrot a philosopher?

"Constraints" and "absences" are essential to Deacon's book Incomplete Nature. But some can't wrap their matter-based worldview around the notion of nothingness. But even the ancient Atomists were forced to assume a Void for their atoms to move around in. No void, no motion, no change, no evolution.