TPF : Logical Necessity

[Gnomon]

Logical Necessity and Physical Causation

So, I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer

In my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, Logical Necessity is Causation. But that meta-physical notion does not compute for physicalists. They think that all causes are physical, in the sense of billiard balls smacking into each other, and imparting momentum. So, I think it's the reductive physicalists who are confused. But, Information science, has concluded that energy, force, momentum are ultimately various forms of generic Enformation (the power to cause changes in form).

I have interpreted that novel concept to mean that Information (mind stuff) is at the root of all changes in the world. For example, thermodynamic Energy is often expressed as a ratio between Hot & Cold. And such proportions/ratios are also found in logical relationships as the essence of meaning. In fact, I equate Logic & Math, in the sense that Logic is mathematics with words (concepts) instead of numbers.

However, I am aware that the connection between mental Logic and physical causation is not apparent to those with a Reductive approach to reality. Logical relationships are found in holistic systems, not in the isolated elements. In fact, it's the Logical "glue" that bonds parts into wholes. Logical Necessity is essentially a Tautology in that both sides of the equation are fundamentally the same. But, imbalance in the equation, is like applying a force to a see-saw to make it move. The motion/change is necessary to re-balance the system.

Momentum is a Ratio :
Momentum is directly proportional to the object's mass and also its velocity.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physi ... and-force/

Information causality :
Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

Information and Causality :
What is information? Can information have causal consequences?
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Info ... 1107150531

ADD A FORCE TO CAUSE THE EQUATION TO BALANCE
SeeSaw%20balance.png

[Gnomon]

I kind of agree on emotional grounds, but I'd like to come up with an argument that is harder for physicalism to simply shrug off. Where all of this started, for me, was with the conviction that ideas (not information) are real in their own right, and not because they're derived from or supersede on (neuro)physical matter. — Wayfarer

Physicalists can shrug-off the power of information, only because it seems Idealistic to them. But, in the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information exists in a variety of forms, both Ideal and Real. That's the holistic-monistic-duality of the BothAnd Principle. From a reductionist perspective, reality is Either/Or (real or unreal). But in the holistic view, Reality & Ideality are two sides of the same coin. This unconventional notion is based on the science of Information, which has found that Mind Stuff (the original meaning of Information) is also the essence of Energy & Matter.

If that equation of immaterial Ideas with material Matter is true, then ghostly Ideas are just as "real" as physical objects. That identification of Mind & Matter does not compute in Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics has been forced to include the effects of minds on the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Of course, the interpretation of those experiments is still controversial. Nevertheless, I am assuming that Ideas are "real in their own right, and not because they are derived from . . . matter". In fact, in my theory, ideas have the right of priority, in that the original Singularity could not have been a physical object, but more like a program of ideas & instructions for creating a world from nothing-but the power of EnFormAction.

Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/

A quantum case of mind over matter? :
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum ... er-matter/

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
BothAnd Blog, post 33

[Gnomon]

It's my guess that when matter, particles, are in some nice shape wrt each other, the total mass is someone higher. Or, on a memory chip, if the 1's and 0's show an ordered pattern, the mass of the chip is slightly higher than if they showed randomness. What if the showed total order? Say all 1 or all 0? — Haglund

I'm not sure what you meant by "nice shape", but in information theory it's the relationships that make the "form" or "pattern" or "meaning". So, perhaps the degree & kind of inter-relationship (0% to 100%, angular/linear, etc) defines the properties of the particle. But, I'm also just guessing. Along the same lines, I understand that energy at light-speed is massless, but as light energy slows down, it gains weight (mass). In other words, matter (mass) is just heavy light. Of course, physicists may not appreciate such an over-simplified layman's explanation. But it works for my amateur information-based worldview.

Regarding "total order" (100% crystalline), defined as completely non-random, there would be no room for motion or change, So the system would freeze-up like a block of ice. Likewise, zero order would be completely random, with no patterns and no forms or meanings. But the human mind is not equipped to even imagine such things, except in the form of metaphors (block of ice). Human logic only works in the normal range, in the middle of the possibility (Bell) curve. When we conjecture at the extremes, the margin for error approaches infinity.

[Gnomon]

There’s nothing ‘ghostly’ about mathematical logic applied to physical processes. That enables us to peer into the domain of pure possibility and actualise something we see in material form. That’s how inventions happen! — Wayfarer

It was just a metaphor. We can imagine logical relationships, but we can't see or touch them. So, we talk about logical relationships as-if they were physical connections. Those metaphors & analogies allow us to "peer into" un-actualized possibilities. And, by following the implicit Logic, to make some of those not-yet-real concepts/patterns become real physical things (inventions). "Spirit! Reveal yourself!" :joke:

The Experiment at the Institut Metapsychique, Paris :gasp:
434px-1926-history-of-spiritualism-cassell-14.jpg

PS__For clarity of exposition, I try to keep mental stuff (ideas) and physical stuff (matter) separate. If we refer to Ideals as-if they are Real, confusion ensues. They are not the same thing, but they are related as varieties of Information.

[Gnomon]

I parse the entire subject of the reality of ideas differently. My view is that proper 'intelligible objects' such as natural numbers, scientific principles, and the like, are real, but they're not existent things - they don't exist in the same way that regular objects do. They are strictly speaking noumenal - meaning 'objects of mind', although the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable. — Wayfarer

I suppose you are viewing "intelligible objects" from a god-like Rationalist perspective -- from outside the world system. As far as God is concerned, everything in the world is real, and objective. But. from the human point-of-view, we depend on physical senses for most of our knowledge of reality. So, what Epistemologists refer to as a priori knowledge is literally non-sense. We obtain such god-like knowledge via reasoning from specific sensory data to generalized concepts -- which are not real things, but artificial (synthetic) propositions about holistic collections of things & logical relationships. Hence, we can only communicate those intangible ideas in terms of metaphors analogous to physical things.

The Logical Positivists denied that humans are capable of "synthetic" a priori knowledge. So, they dismissed such non-empirical information as mere imaginary fantasies. I'm not a Logical Positivist, but I am aware that most people apply the term "Real" only to what they can see & touch. Any other forms of knowledge are either Un-real or Ideal or spiritual or "ghostly", and consequently their "existence" is debatable. That's why -- although Enformationism includes both aspects (real & ideal) as forms of Generic Information -- for the sake of clarity, I try to make a distinction between those ways of being. Even on this Philosophy Forum. when we discuss noumenal concepts, the debates can become never-ending. So, I am constantly forced to define my definitions to make sure that my Ideal meta-physical metaphors are not interpreted as assertions of real physical things.

Nevertheless, I like to discuss all "intelligible" topics, but those that are "synthetic" (rational) instead of natural (physical) need to be handled with kid-gloves to avoid mis-interpretation. Hence, a ghost is analogous to a human body, but some will take it to be a real entity, that under certain conditions, or with technical instruments, can be rendered sensible to the physical senses (re: shrouded image in previous post). So, I agree that "the sense in which they are 'objects' is debatable".

Where that presents difficulties, is that there is no provision in most people's minds for things to exist in different ways - in other words, things either exist, or they don't. — Wayfarer

Yes. But the Enformationism thesis is all about the "different ways" (forms) that things can exist. Which is what makes its phenomenal & noumenal topics so hard for some, especially philosophical Realists & Logical Positivists, to conceive. For them, you are either a truth-seeking Realist, or a fantasy-seeking Idealist. Hence, my complementary notion of BothAnd does not compute.

[Gnomon]

With respect to "the criterion of objectivity": I did some research on the word and found that it only comes into use in the early modern period. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting observation. The late emergence of "objectivity", as a formal verbalizable concept , may be explainable in terms similar to Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind. He proposed that explicit human consciousness was a consequence of complex social interactions, requiring words to distinguish me from you. I don't know if that thesis is provable, but it's certainly suitable for philosophical conjectures.

Another possible connection, that occurred to me, is the Golden Bough postulation, that the distinction between religious (magical) beliefs and scientific (empirical) thought processes may have evolved along with the emergence of technologies, that gave man more control over his environment. Again, It not only became possible to discriminate between objective Nature and subjective Mind, but it became necessary to articulate the difference between the subjective speaker and objective hearer ; between imagination and perception. My understanding of such things is quite superficial, but it may deserve more research.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind :
The book addresses the problematic nature of consciousness – “the ability to introspect” – which in Jaynes’ view must be distinguished from sensory awareness and other processes of cognition. Jaynes presents his proposed solution: that consciousness is a “learned behavior” based more on language and culture than on biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origi ... meral_Mind

The Golden Bough :
. . . . suggested to him that Hegel had anticipated his view of "the nature and historical relations of magic and religion". Frazer saw the resemblance as being that "we both hold that in the mental evolution of humanity an age of magic preceded an age of religion, and that the characteristic difference between magic and religion is that, whereas magic aims at controlling nature directly, religion aims at controlling it indirectly through the mediation of a powerful supernatural being or beings to whom man appeals for help and protection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
Note -- Ironically, science has given us the technological power, "indistinguishable from magic", that the previous generations could only imagine, and pretend to do symbolically & metaphorically.

And I think you're still actually thinking within that mode, while wanting to see beyond it, and sensing something beyond it That's why you revert to the images of 'ghostliness' or 'ethereality' to depict your understanding of anything 'beyond the empirical', because you still are trying to conceive of what is beyond it in quasi-objective terms. — Wayfarer

Actually, the Enformationism thesis requires that I think beyond the conventional modes of Dualism & Matrerialism, into a more Holistic BothAnd way of thinking. Unfortunately, I came to that crossroad late in life. So, I'm still picking my way along an unfamiliar path. And, in my posts on this forum, I must assume that most of us are still thinking in terms of that "customary attitude". Until we learn how to read minds, and to communicate directly from mind to mind, we'll be forced to discuss "what is beyond" in "quasi-objective terms".

[Gnomon]

But if logical necessity is separable from physical causation, then this claim can't be maintained. A logical inference is, in very simple terms, "that if this is the case, then that must be so". And here the 'must' is that of logical necessity. — Wayfarer

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps on point.

A physicist writing about Quantum Theory, clarified her use of the word "information" : "First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives." (Bateson : "the difference that makes a difference", a meaningful distinction in a mind) Her illustration is an if-then proposition, similar to your own. So, the implication is that fundamentally, Information (meaning) is a function of mental Logic, not of material Physics.

Hence, to restate your question : is Logical Necessity caused by some physical force or entity? Or is it a fundamental principle of Reality? Is it a law of Physics, or a law of Meta-Physics? Are natural Laws (physical regularities) necessary (absolute) or contingent (fortuitous)? If they could be otherwise, what was the prior Cause (the "must") of their necessity for the emergence & evolution of the physical world? Are natural laws a logical prerequisite for any functioning physical cosmic machine? Or merely for our local 'verse? Oh, yeah! Who says?


What is the difference between logical necessity and physical necessity? :
Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

First, what is information? It’s basically the ability to distinguish between alternatives. The basic unit of information is the bit, the amount of information you gain if you have no idea of the answer to a yes-or-no question and then you learn the answer.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-steampunk/

[Gnomon]

n deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. — Haglund

Yes. Although I would say that Matter is generic Information in a particular formation. Energy & Matter are different forms of general Information (E=MC^2). And the "formation" is called a meaningful pattern of information interrelationships. But "Energy" & "Mass" are mathematical concepts, while "Matter" is a conventional linguistic term to denote whatever has Mass & Inertia.

I just noted that Quora tech guru Victor Toth said, "Energy and mass do have consistent definitions."
“Matter” is a somewhat more poetic term, and its meaning often depends on context."

[Gnomon]

One of the things that occurs to me is how often it is assumed that the phenomenal domain, the vast realm which is subject to investigation by the natural sciences, is, in this sense, the domain of contingent facts. — Wayfarer

Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open.

[Gnomon]

It depends on what sense of 'knowing'. This writer says that Kant claims that the noumenal is unknowable - but that both Hegel and Schleiermacher then point out that, even though the noumenal might be unknowable in any objective sense, in another sense, it constitutes our own being, that it constitutes us, as subjects of experience. — Wayfarer

Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration. That's why only "mad-dogs" & philosophers go out into the sun-less mysteries of the Mind : Consciousness & Subjective Knowing.