PS___ Your characterization of ↪Wayfarer & Gnomon as "immaterialists" may provide a clue as to where your strategy is coming from. — Gnomon
Are you suggesting my language characterizing you and Wayfarer is actually a more apt description of me? — ucarr
No. I was suggesting that you were portraying us --- "immaterialists" --- as opposed to your own position : "materialist". Is that an incorrect guess?
FWIW, my philosophical worldview is neither Materialism nor Immaterialism, Realism nor Idealism, but a philosophical Monistic marriage of both ontologies. My Holistic BothAnd worldview includes both visible Matter and invisible Energy, both tangible Brain and intangible Mind. That's not a denial of Reality, but an acceptance of Ideality within Reality. How would you describe your worldview?
BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information ; both Feelings and Facts ; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact ; both Animal and Human nature ; both Real things and Ideal concepts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
TPF : Absential Causation
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Looks like a real thing to me, and it is a wave. — Lionino
A representation of an energetic wave and the wave itself are different things : one a natural function and the other an artificial mental model of that function. Do you "see" the difference between the Map and Terrain?
Mental Map vs Physical Territory :
“The map is not the territory” is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is ... territory/
A representation of an energetic wave and the wave itself are different things : one a natural function and the other an artificial mental model of that function. Do you "see" the difference between the Map and Terrain?
Mental Map vs Physical Territory :
“The map is not the territory” is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is ... territory/
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Describe how immaterial energy connects with the material things it changes. For example, explain how, when lightning strikes a person and kills them, the lightning transforms into a material thing. — ucarr
Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. For scientists, such transformations are described in terms of Phase Transition, where the intervening steps (mechanisms) are unknown. On the quantum scale, there is a transformation that is ironically labeled : Magic*2.
*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object.
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... ormations/
*2. Phase transition in Magic :
Magic is a property of quantum states that enables universal fault-tolerant quantum computing using simple sets of gate operations. Understanding the mechanisms by which magic is created or destroyed is, therefore, a crucial step towards efficient and practical fault-tolerant computation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10481
PS___ I just found a graphic illustration of intersecting & interacting gravitational fields. It's a model of the far future collision of Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Both parts are gravitationally transformed after passing through each other. But due to the vast empty space (absence) between lumps of matter (e.g. stars & planets) there is very little material contact. How does this physical model compare to your philosophical notion of Absential Materialism?
main-qimg-23e67084555a543ca515a23248b95e87
Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. For scientists, such transformations are described in terms of Phase Transition, where the intervening steps (mechanisms) are unknown. On the quantum scale, there is a transformation that is ironically labeled : Magic*2.
*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object.
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... ormations/
*2. Phase transition in Magic :
Magic is a property of quantum states that enables universal fault-tolerant quantum computing using simple sets of gate operations. Understanding the mechanisms by which magic is created or destroyed is, therefore, a crucial step towards efficient and practical fault-tolerant computation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10481
PS___ I just found a graphic illustration of intersecting & interacting gravitational fields. It's a model of the far future collision of Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Both parts are gravitationally transformed after passing through each other. But due to the vast empty space (absence) between lumps of matter (e.g. stars & planets) there is very little material contact. How does this physical model compare to your philosophical notion of Absential Materialism?
main-qimg-23e67084555a543ca515a23248b95e87
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
So, surprisingly, this view of self shows it to be as non-material as Descartes might have imagined, and yet as physical, extended, and relevant to the causal scheme of things as is the hole at the hub of a wheel. — ucarr
Makes sense to me. But, like a Phase Transition, the intermediate physical stages between material and non-material are not apparent to me. Sounds like Magic : presto change-o! Except of course, if "Absence" is defined as a metaphysical Potentiality Principle (Form) --- inherent in all physical things --- as proposed by Aristotle to explain why things are what they are, and behave as they do.
The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms. — ucarr
Yes. Physical Self-reference (structural or logical loops or "tangled hierarchy") does seem to be a necessary precursor to Self-Consciousness. But is it sufficient? Perhaps, it's a Strange Loop*1 as postulated in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach : "I am a strange loop". "And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop".
*1. Strange loop :
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Note --- The "strangeness" of a strange loop comes from our way of perceiving ; as in quantum physics.
.
PS___ I just noticed that Roger Penrose's Orch Or hypothesis, has a role for gravitational attraction*2 (spooky action at a distance). The technical stuff is way over my head. And microtubules may be merely a metaphor for resonance chambers causing oscillation. But, does his notion fit into your Absential Materialism? The strangeness & spookiness qualities seem to be inherent in the quantum foundation of reality.
*2. Can Roger Penrose Explain Consciousness Through Physics? :
Penrose’s theory proposes that each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness : micro-events that get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness. A conscious observer doesn’t cause wave function collapse. A conscious observer is caused by wave function collapse
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/10/can-roge ... h-physics/
Note --- Proto-consciousness is what I call EnFormAction : the causal form of Information. EFA is not a Thing, but the potential to cause change in things. Perhaps spooky Gravity is a form of meta-physical EFA.
Makes sense to me. But, like a Phase Transition, the intermediate physical stages between material and non-material are not apparent to me. Sounds like Magic : presto change-o! Except of course, if "Absence" is defined as a metaphysical Potentiality Principle (Form) --- inherent in all physical things --- as proposed by Aristotle to explain why things are what they are, and behave as they do.
The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms. — ucarr
Yes. Physical Self-reference (structural or logical loops or "tangled hierarchy") does seem to be a necessary precursor to Self-Consciousness. But is it sufficient? Perhaps, it's a Strange Loop*1 as postulated in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach : "I am a strange loop". "And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop".
*1. Strange loop :
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Note --- The "strangeness" of a strange loop comes from our way of perceiving ; as in quantum physics.
.
PS___ I just noticed that Roger Penrose's Orch Or hypothesis, has a role for gravitational attraction*2 (spooky action at a distance). The technical stuff is way over my head. And microtubules may be merely a metaphor for resonance chambers causing oscillation. But, does his notion fit into your Absential Materialism? The strangeness & spookiness qualities seem to be inherent in the quantum foundation of reality.
*2. Can Roger Penrose Explain Consciousness Through Physics? :
Penrose’s theory proposes that each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness : micro-events that get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness. A conscious observer doesn’t cause wave function collapse. A conscious observer is caused by wave function collapse
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/10/can-roge ... h-physics/
Note --- Proto-consciousness is what I call EnFormAction : the causal form of Information. EFA is not a Thing, but the potential to cause change in things. Perhaps spooky Gravity is a form of meta-physical EFA.
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material. — ucarr
First of all, I'm not an Immaterialist or Idealist --- in the sense of denying material reality. Second, you conflate Material with Physical, whereas I think of them as separate aspects of Reality*1. For me, Material (chemistry) is concerned with the stuff we see & touch. But Physics (energy ; force) focuses on how stuff changes : growing, developing, becoming*2. That is an important philosophical distinction.
Regarding "causal contact" between physical stuff and metaphysical power : a> It's the "action at a distance" that puzzled Newton about his theory of Gravity ; b> it's what Einstein disparagingly dismissed as "spooky action at a distance" in quantum physics. In what sense is a Force material? My answer is Aristotle's definition of "substance", not as Material but as Essential ; not as Physical but as Meta-physical ; not as Stuff, but as Power/Potential.
Are those absences made of material stuff? If so, what kind of matter is the Gap made of? Is the hole in a wagon wheel made of some invisible/intangible material? Do you think Energy/Force is a material object? Or could they be better described as causal Potentials? Note --- Star Trek writers invented the notion of a Tractor Beam to pull objects toward the Enterprise, like a grappling hook, except without ropes & hooks. Is that beam Physics or Fiction?
*1. Difference Between Physics vs Chemistry :
Both fields deal with matter, though physics focuses on how matter moves and interacts, while chemistry examines the composition of matter at the atomic level.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/physics- ... mples.html
*2. Physics is about Change :
The Greek word physis can be considered the equivalent of the Latin natura. The abstract term physis is derived from the verb phyesthai/phynai, which means “to grow”, “to develop”, “to become”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis
First of all, I'm not an Immaterialist or Idealist --- in the sense of denying material reality. Second, you conflate Material with Physical, whereas I think of them as separate aspects of Reality*1. For me, Material (chemistry) is concerned with the stuff we see & touch. But Physics (energy ; force) focuses on how stuff changes : growing, developing, becoming*2. That is an important philosophical distinction.
Regarding "causal contact" between physical stuff and metaphysical power : a> It's the "action at a distance" that puzzled Newton about his theory of Gravity ; b> it's what Einstein disparagingly dismissed as "spooky action at a distance" in quantum physics. In what sense is a Force material? My answer is Aristotle's definition of "substance", not as Material but as Essential ; not as Physical but as Meta-physical ; not as Stuff, but as Power/Potential.
Are those absences made of material stuff? If so, what kind of matter is the Gap made of? Is the hole in a wagon wheel made of some invisible/intangible material? Do you think Energy/Force is a material object? Or could they be better described as causal Potentials? Note --- Star Trek writers invented the notion of a Tractor Beam to pull objects toward the Enterprise, like a grappling hook, except without ropes & hooks. Is that beam Physics or Fiction?
*1. Difference Between Physics vs Chemistry :
Both fields deal with matter, though physics focuses on how matter moves and interacts, while chemistry examines the composition of matter at the atomic level.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/physics- ... mples.html
*2. Physics is about Change :
The Greek word physis can be considered the equivalent of the Latin natura. The abstract term physis is derived from the verb phyesthai/phynai, which means “to grow”, “to develop”, “to become”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
I'm not an Immaterialist or Idealist --- in the sense of denying material reality. — Gnomon
You know I know this. You’ve told me repeatedly that you’re invested in the material, the physical, the in-between and the meta-physical. Am I mistaken in believing you think metaphysical principles immaterial yet causal, as in the case to “it from bit?” If I’m not mistaken about this, then you need to show how metaphysical principles “enform” matter with attributes only known in the abstract a priori.
It won’t due talking about potential energy as causal potential somehow manipulating matter. Such a description is too vague to be of use to anyone but you in salesman mode promoting your Enformaction Theory. — ucarr
Apparently you "know" what I say, but not what I mean. Our communication problem may be that you are thinking like a Scientist, while I am trying to think like a Philosopher. Consequently, when I talk about a metaphysical Causal Principle (e.g. Energy) producing changes in Matter, I place it in a philosophical category more like metaphysical Essence (identity ; meaning). That's because Potential/Energy/Essence has no material properties : mass, hardness, plasticity. Energy's primary property is Causation. So, I'm making a philosophical distinction, not a scientific classification.
Yet, you seem to lump Energy into the more general category of Physical or Natural, and interpret my meta-physical notion of Energy as Spiritual or Supernatural. From that perspective, all philosophical language would be indistinguishable from Religion. And that's how Materialists (realists ; physicalists) seem to pigeonhole theoretical Philosophy (theorist ; idealist) as in opposition to pragmatic Science. Personally, I view them as complementary, providing a more complete worldview than either alone.
While you have acknowledged that Deacon's Incomplete Nature*1 attempts to bridge that gap between Science (pragmatism & materialism) and Philosophy (theoretical & idealistic), you seem to lean toward the scientific side. Hence, if you want to pin the negative "immaterialist" label on me, what does that make you, in an either/or sense?*2. Whereas philosophically, I am a substance Dualist and Information Monist*3 : {everything is a form of causal information}, you appear to be a Matter Monist : {everything is a material thing}. We just reverse the priority of active Sculptor & passive Clay*4, as in the "it from bit" metaphor.
I could "show" how the "metaphysical principle", Energy, enforms (changes properties) of Matter with a demonstration of the photochemical reaction. But that's not what I'm talking about. As a meta-physical philosophical principle, Energy is simply the causal power to transform one conceptual Kind into another category. Causation is a philosophical concept, not a thing with material properties. Hence, it is not knowable via the physical senses, but only by means of mental reasoning.
Therefore, I could parse your term "Absential Materialism" as a mashup of different aspects of reality : metaphysical ideas and material things. Yet, Absence is not a real thing, it's the conceptual negation of material Presence : nothing, nada, emptiness. "Absence" per Deacon is a a state of things not yet realized", hence Potential, not Actual. Ironically, a Materialist/Physicalist/Naturalist thinks of a chemical battery as an example of philosophical Potential. It's that type of reification of ideas that we are dealing with here. What I'm "selling" is affirmation of the power of Absence.
*1. Terrence Deacon :
Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... ts/deacon/
*2. Materialism vs Metaphysics :
Basically they reject each other. Materialism states that ALL is simply matter, even thoughts. If everything is matter (and obviously energy), everything in the end falls under Physics, so there is nothing that is “beyond” (meta) Physics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... etaphysics
*3. Informational Monism :
Although a substantial number of papers is published on the topic of consciousness, there
is still little consensus on what its nature is and how the physical and phenomenal worlds
are connected
https://philarchive.org/archive/EVOIMA-2
*4. Naturalism vs Philosophy :
A central thought in ontological naturalism is that all spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. Many ontological naturalists thus adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological, social and other such “special” subject matters.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Note --- Matter is spatio-temporal, but Mind is non-local & noumenal*5.
*5. Meta-Physics : philosophy, not-theology
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
You know I know this. You’ve told me repeatedly that you’re invested in the material, the physical, the in-between and the meta-physical. Am I mistaken in believing you think metaphysical principles immaterial yet causal, as in the case to “it from bit?” If I’m not mistaken about this, then you need to show how metaphysical principles “enform” matter with attributes only known in the abstract a priori.
It won’t due talking about potential energy as causal potential somehow manipulating matter. Such a description is too vague to be of use to anyone but you in salesman mode promoting your Enformaction Theory. — ucarr
Apparently you "know" what I say, but not what I mean. Our communication problem may be that you are thinking like a Scientist, while I am trying to think like a Philosopher. Consequently, when I talk about a metaphysical Causal Principle (e.g. Energy) producing changes in Matter, I place it in a philosophical category more like metaphysical Essence (identity ; meaning). That's because Potential/Energy/Essence has no material properties : mass, hardness, plasticity. Energy's primary property is Causation. So, I'm making a philosophical distinction, not a scientific classification.
Yet, you seem to lump Energy into the more general category of Physical or Natural, and interpret my meta-physical notion of Energy as Spiritual or Supernatural. From that perspective, all philosophical language would be indistinguishable from Religion. And that's how Materialists (realists ; physicalists) seem to pigeonhole theoretical Philosophy (theorist ; idealist) as in opposition to pragmatic Science. Personally, I view them as complementary, providing a more complete worldview than either alone.
While you have acknowledged that Deacon's Incomplete Nature*1 attempts to bridge that gap between Science (pragmatism & materialism) and Philosophy (theoretical & idealistic), you seem to lean toward the scientific side. Hence, if you want to pin the negative "immaterialist" label on me, what does that make you, in an either/or sense?*2. Whereas philosophically, I am a substance Dualist and Information Monist*3 : {everything is a form of causal information}, you appear to be a Matter Monist : {everything is a material thing}. We just reverse the priority of active Sculptor & passive Clay*4, as in the "it from bit" metaphor.
I could "show" how the "metaphysical principle", Energy, enforms (changes properties) of Matter with a demonstration of the photochemical reaction. But that's not what I'm talking about. As a meta-physical philosophical principle, Energy is simply the causal power to transform one conceptual Kind into another category. Causation is a philosophical concept, not a thing with material properties. Hence, it is not knowable via the physical senses, but only by means of mental reasoning.
Therefore, I could parse your term "Absential Materialism" as a mashup of different aspects of reality : metaphysical ideas and material things. Yet, Absence is not a real thing, it's the conceptual negation of material Presence : nothing, nada, emptiness. "Absence" per Deacon is a a state of things not yet realized", hence Potential, not Actual. Ironically, a Materialist/Physicalist/Naturalist thinks of a chemical battery as an example of philosophical Potential. It's that type of reification of ideas that we are dealing with here. What I'm "selling" is affirmation of the power of Absence.
*1. Terrence Deacon :
Deacon's triad levels represent the material, the ideal, and the pragmatic.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... ts/deacon/
*2. Materialism vs Metaphysics :
Basically they reject each other. Materialism states that ALL is simply matter, even thoughts. If everything is matter (and obviously energy), everything in the end falls under Physics, so there is nothing that is “beyond” (meta) Physics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relat ... etaphysics
*3. Informational Monism :
Although a substantial number of papers is published on the topic of consciousness, there
is still little consensus on what its nature is and how the physical and phenomenal worlds
are connected
https://philarchive.org/archive/EVOIMA-2
*4. Naturalism vs Philosophy :
A central thought in ontological naturalism is that all spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. Many ontological naturalists thus adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological, social and other such “special” subject matters.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Note --- Matter is spatio-temporal, but Mind is non-local & noumenal*5.
*5. Meta-Physics : philosophy, not-theology
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Radar is not a pulsating machine gun shooting bullets (matter) & spaces (absence) at a target. Or is it? — Gnomon
Are photons a new concept for you? — wonderer1
A wavy photon zooming through the Aether has the potential for mass, and can transform into mass, but while traveling at lightspeed (zero mass), is not massive like a bullet. Ironically, Some physicists and physicalists like to imagine it metaphorically as a little ball of matter. Radar photons are a focused field of statistical possibility. Like all sub-atomic "particles" a photon is non-local, until it interacts with matter, in which case the probability wave "collapses" into a point. At which point it is no longer a photon.
Is the photon really a particle? :
Abraham Pais [14, p. 350−1] writes that although the photon has zero mass, physicists “… nevertheless call a photon a particle because, just like massive particles, it obeys the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in collisions, with an electron say (Compton effect).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2621003983
Secondly, the photon is now thought of as a particle, a wave, and an excitation—kind of like a wave—in a quantum field.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... entity=und
Are photons a new concept for you? — wonderer1
A wavy photon zooming through the Aether has the potential for mass, and can transform into mass, but while traveling at lightspeed (zero mass), is not massive like a bullet. Ironically, Some physicists and physicalists like to imagine it metaphorically as a little ball of matter. Radar photons are a focused field of statistical possibility. Like all sub-atomic "particles" a photon is non-local, until it interacts with matter, in which case the probability wave "collapses" into a point. At which point it is no longer a photon.
Is the photon really a particle? :
Abraham Pais [14, p. 350−1] writes that although the photon has zero mass, physicists “… nevertheless call a photon a particle because, just like massive particles, it obeys the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in collisions, with an electron say (Compton effect).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2621003983
Secondly, the photon is now thought of as a particle, a wave, and an excitation—kind of like a wave—in a quantum field.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... entity=und
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Does Deacon teach us that metaphysical principles are logically but not temporally prior to the natural world? Should we understand that spirit and nature are co-eternal? — ucarr
I'm not aware of any specific discussion of "Metaphysics" in Incomplete Nature ; that word is not in the index. Also, the unscientific word "spirit" is not in the index. Besides, Deacon --- as a scientist --- seems to deliberately avoid making specific philosophical conjectures, such as you mentioned, beyond a space-time context. But other people have referred to the book as a "metaphysics of incompleteness".
Regarding temporal priority, he typically restricts his remarks to spatio-temporal settings. Therefore, I suppose you will have to make your own conjectures about the "co-eternal" interrelationship between "spirit" (immaterial potential?) and "nature (material actuality). What do you think? Is Potential temporally prior to Actual, or is Potential timeless and Actual time-bound? Is "spirit" an eternal changeless principle, and "nature" a temporal ever-changing system of matter & energy? On the other hand, his use of "teleology" is indeed a philosophical concept, that goes beyond the space-time constraints of Science.
Under Deacon’s influence I’ve learned to speculate temporal direction in application to the mind/body problem might be significant rather than trivial. You talk of metaphysical principles being causal. Might it be more correct to say metaphysical principles describe causation? — ucarr
Of course Time is an important factor for perishable material bodies, and minds are dependent on bodies. So yes, Time is significant for making sense of the Mind/Body problem. However, philosophical principles are imaginary concepts, and not subject to the ravages of Time. I suppose the "metaphysical principle" you referred to is Energy, as if it was a philosophical concept. But I would say that Energy is instead a practical physical concept, while EnFormAction is a theoretical philosophical conjecture. Yet both are referring to the invisible Cause behind the obvious Effects (changes) we see in nature. The names don't "describe" causation, but merely label a phenomenon that humans infer intuitively : that physical Change is somewhat mysterious. Which is why the ancients labelled "spiritual" phenomena in terms of causal agents, rather than natural forces.
When an elementary particle decays into two of its constituent particles, physicists don’t typically characterize this event as being metaphysics in action. — ucarr
Naturally! Physicists typically avoid any implication of Metaphysics in their descriptions of change. However, what you call "metaphysics in action" might be considered legitimate philosophical language. Since this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Forum, the terminology would be expected to be different, and more focused on Ideas than Things. Deacon used the term "Absence" in lieu of more traditional philosophical appellations for immaterial (mental ; mathematical) notions. Scientists might prefer "statistical probability" to "absence" as the precursor of Actuality.
In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I said "Deacon missed the opportunity to summarize his "absence" and "aboutness" as metaphysical aspects of "Entention and Sentience". I suppose the absence of that philosophical term in a scientific work was intentional.
That self-organizing processes working through nested tiers of upwardly evolving dynamics lead a trail of interconnection from it to bit seems to me, per the brilliant analysis of Deacon, foundational truth. — ucarr
Yes, it was that "upward evolution" that Deacon labeled "Teleology", in contravention of scientific protocol that evolution is directionless. But the increase in complexity & integration & interconnection of systems over time is undeniable. So, he also described Evolution as "downward causation", as-if the program of physical form-change was directed from above. That teleological direction was also implicit in Wheeler's "it from bit" notion, where mental Information was prior to physical instances. Is such Teleology also a "foundational truth"?
The metaphysical description of physical processes has no causal force whatsoever. . . . Metaphysical understandings of physical truths are logically prior to physical processes as interpretive overviews of types of physical processes and their interrelations. — ucarr
Physical Truths are what philosophers refer to as Metaphysical Principles. Which are, by definition, logically prior to physical things and processes. So, the "causal force" of a Principle is in the before & after or if-then relationship. Traditionally, philosophers referred to Downward Causation as purposeful Teleology. But modern materialistic philosophers prefer to use the non-commital term Teleonomy. Personally, I find Teleology more descriptive, despite its implication of a Cosmic Mind as the First Cause.
I'm not aware of any specific discussion of "Metaphysics" in Incomplete Nature ; that word is not in the index. Also, the unscientific word "spirit" is not in the index. Besides, Deacon --- as a scientist --- seems to deliberately avoid making specific philosophical conjectures, such as you mentioned, beyond a space-time context. But other people have referred to the book as a "metaphysics of incompleteness".
Regarding temporal priority, he typically restricts his remarks to spatio-temporal settings. Therefore, I suppose you will have to make your own conjectures about the "co-eternal" interrelationship between "spirit" (immaterial potential?) and "nature (material actuality). What do you think? Is Potential temporally prior to Actual, or is Potential timeless and Actual time-bound? Is "spirit" an eternal changeless principle, and "nature" a temporal ever-changing system of matter & energy? On the other hand, his use of "teleology" is indeed a philosophical concept, that goes beyond the space-time constraints of Science.
Under Deacon’s influence I’ve learned to speculate temporal direction in application to the mind/body problem might be significant rather than trivial. You talk of metaphysical principles being causal. Might it be more correct to say metaphysical principles describe causation? — ucarr
Of course Time is an important factor for perishable material bodies, and minds are dependent on bodies. So yes, Time is significant for making sense of the Mind/Body problem. However, philosophical principles are imaginary concepts, and not subject to the ravages of Time. I suppose the "metaphysical principle" you referred to is Energy, as if it was a philosophical concept. But I would say that Energy is instead a practical physical concept, while EnFormAction is a theoretical philosophical conjecture. Yet both are referring to the invisible Cause behind the obvious Effects (changes) we see in nature. The names don't "describe" causation, but merely label a phenomenon that humans infer intuitively : that physical Change is somewhat mysterious. Which is why the ancients labelled "spiritual" phenomena in terms of causal agents, rather than natural forces.
When an elementary particle decays into two of its constituent particles, physicists don’t typically characterize this event as being metaphysics in action. — ucarr
Naturally! Physicists typically avoid any implication of Metaphysics in their descriptions of change. However, what you call "metaphysics in action" might be considered legitimate philosophical language. Since this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Forum, the terminology would be expected to be different, and more focused on Ideas than Things. Deacon used the term "Absence" in lieu of more traditional philosophical appellations for immaterial (mental ; mathematical) notions. Scientists might prefer "statistical probability" to "absence" as the precursor of Actuality.
In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I said "Deacon missed the opportunity to summarize his "absence" and "aboutness" as metaphysical aspects of "Entention and Sentience". I suppose the absence of that philosophical term in a scientific work was intentional.
That self-organizing processes working through nested tiers of upwardly evolving dynamics lead a trail of interconnection from it to bit seems to me, per the brilliant analysis of Deacon, foundational truth. — ucarr
Yes, it was that "upward evolution" that Deacon labeled "Teleology", in contravention of scientific protocol that evolution is directionless. But the increase in complexity & integration & interconnection of systems over time is undeniable. So, he also described Evolution as "downward causation", as-if the program of physical form-change was directed from above. That teleological direction was also implicit in Wheeler's "it from bit" notion, where mental Information was prior to physical instances. Is such Teleology also a "foundational truth"?
The metaphysical description of physical processes has no causal force whatsoever. . . . Metaphysical understandings of physical truths are logically prior to physical processes as interpretive overviews of types of physical processes and their interrelations. — ucarr
Physical Truths are what philosophers refer to as Metaphysical Principles. Which are, by definition, logically prior to physical things and processes. So, the "causal force" of a Principle is in the before & after or if-then relationship. Traditionally, philosophers referred to Downward Causation as purposeful Teleology. But modern materialistic philosophers prefer to use the non-commital term Teleonomy. Personally, I find Teleology more descriptive, despite its implication of a Cosmic Mind as the First Cause.
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Can you elaborate further your insightful characterization of energy as causation? — ucarr
I didn't think of "energy as causation" as insightful. I thought it was obvious. Perhaps the dictionary definition of energy as "ability" is vague. But even the notion of "force" as a mathematical "vector quantity" is less than clear. But then, the notion of "Causality" or "Causation" is more of a general philosophical concept than a specific physical phenomenon, in that it implies both Agency (executive) and Efficacy (ability). Actually, I consider the equation of "Information" (power to inform) and "Causation" (energy) to be more philosophically insightful. That notion probably goes back to Quantum theory, but Deacon discussed not only the causal role of Absence, but notes that its not-yet-real Potential was mostly overlooked in physical Science.
Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move.
https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/educ ... -of-energy
Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses. As such a basic concept, it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Causation is the transfer of information
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -9229-1_18
The Logical Dynamics of Information :
In his Incomplete Nature, Deacon extends a thermodynamic concept of energy to yield a description of complex processes in which absence plays a critical role in their emergence and evolution. Starting from a quantum-mechanical picture of energy as an energy-matter duality, the critical role of potential as well as actual properties of processes is also described in the new extension of logic to real phenomena, Logic in Reality (LIR) . . . . Their conjunction constitutes a new conceptual structure for exploring the relationship of information to materiality, that is, to the matter-energy that constitutes it as its carrier and/or substrate.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/4/676
What can you tell us about the QM version of causation? — ucarr
The main contribution of Quantum Mechanics to Causation theory was its statistical nature. By that I mean quantum events are not absolute Cause >>> Effect, but mathematically subject to random interaction, hence probable. The chain of Cause & Effect has gaps or weak links or non-linear links. Philosophically, I attribute that non-linear behavior --- as defined in the Schrodinger equation --- to the Holistic effects of Entanglement. Randomness and non-linearity are the primary differences between Classical Newtonian physics and Non-classical Quantum physics. Like immaterial Absence, this random causal Probability has not been duly appreciated in pragmatic Physics.
PS___ I'll leave it to you to elaborate on your notion of Blockchains and Economics.
I didn't think of "energy as causation" as insightful. I thought it was obvious. Perhaps the dictionary definition of energy as "ability" is vague. But even the notion of "force" as a mathematical "vector quantity" is less than clear. But then, the notion of "Causality" or "Causation" is more of a general philosophical concept than a specific physical phenomenon, in that it implies both Agency (executive) and Efficacy (ability). Actually, I consider the equation of "Information" (power to inform) and "Causation" (energy) to be more philosophically insightful. That notion probably goes back to Quantum theory, but Deacon discussed not only the causal role of Absence, but notes that its not-yet-real Potential was mostly overlooked in physical Science.
Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move.
https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/educ ... -of-energy
Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses. As such a basic concept, it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Causation is the transfer of information
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -9229-1_18
The Logical Dynamics of Information :
In his Incomplete Nature, Deacon extends a thermodynamic concept of energy to yield a description of complex processes in which absence plays a critical role in their emergence and evolution. Starting from a quantum-mechanical picture of energy as an energy-matter duality, the critical role of potential as well as actual properties of processes is also described in the new extension of logic to real phenomena, Logic in Reality (LIR) . . . . Their conjunction constitutes a new conceptual structure for exploring the relationship of information to materiality, that is, to the matter-energy that constitutes it as its carrier and/or substrate.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/4/676
What can you tell us about the QM version of causation? — ucarr
The main contribution of Quantum Mechanics to Causation theory was its statistical nature. By that I mean quantum events are not absolute Cause >>> Effect, but mathematically subject to random interaction, hence probable. The chain of Cause & Effect has gaps or weak links or non-linear links. Philosophically, I attribute that non-linear behavior --- as defined in the Schrodinger equation --- to the Holistic effects of Entanglement. Randomness and non-linearity are the primary differences between Classical Newtonian physics and Non-classical Quantum physics. Like immaterial Absence, this random causal Probability has not been duly appreciated in pragmatic Physics.
PS___ I'll leave it to you to elaborate on your notion of Blockchains and Economics.
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
This claim begs the question: Do abstract concepts exist independent of minds contemplating them? — ucarr
No. Why do you ask? Are you trying to determine if I am a Platonic Idealist, like Kastrup? He makes some good arguments for Idealism as prior to Real, but I'm not so sure. The term "to exist" has multiple meanings.
↪Wayfarer's answer to the same question indicates the ambiguity of the Either/Or distinction between Real & Ideal. The only thing we know for sure is our own ideas (solipsism paradox). But we can infer, and collectively agree as a convention, that there is a reality out there conforming to our individual imaginary concepts. Ironically, Materialist/Physicalist thinkers seem to reverse that certainty. They take the conventional position as a hard fact. But my inclusive philosophical position is not Either/Or but BothAnd. So, it serves my purposes, for philosophical argument, to assume as an axiom that perfect Ideality is the standard against which Reality is measured.
BothAnd philosophy :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Do you make your claim of causation being primarily philosophical in application to: a) chemistry; b) elementary particle physics? — ucarr
No. My concept of Causation applies only to Philosophy. I don't do Chemistry or Physics. However, I do gain some philosophical insights from scientific enigmas, such as quantum paradoxes (wave/particle ; energy/mass).
I understand this sentence as a reference to Wheeler’s “It from bit.” Do you think information: a) an agent of material things; b) a material aspect of material things? — ucarr
Your questions indicate that you still don't understand what Enformationism is all about. It's a philosophical model of reality, not a scientific description of materiality. As an alternative to Materialism and Idealism, it postulates that Generic Information (First Cause) is all-of-the above : agency, matter, etc. During physical evolution, from plasma to people, the Universal Power (potential) remains the same, and only the specific Form (actual instances) changes as the world evolves. Wheeler didn't use the term "generic information", but his "bit" refers to something general instead of specific. It's not a thing, but a principle. For example, Newton's Principia Mathematica refers to ideal abstractions, not to agents or material things. Of course, he believed in an absolute Agent who knows (imagines) such ideas into reality.
However, my Enformationism uses the term "Information" in a dual sense : both mathematical computer data and personal mental meaning. And, for my own philosophical conjectures, I imagine the universe as a mathematical Program --- a la Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis --- running on a material computer with physical registers. So the hypothetical First Cause (original agent) is metaphorically designated as the Cosmic Programmer. Remember that scientists often use figurative language to indicate complex abstract systems that are otherwise hard to describe. For example, Darwin's metaphorical "tree of life". and later biologist's analogy of chemical DNA to an informative algorithmic "code".
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
No. Why do you ask? Are you trying to determine if I am a Platonic Idealist, like Kastrup? He makes some good arguments for Idealism as prior to Real, but I'm not so sure. The term "to exist" has multiple meanings.
↪Wayfarer's answer to the same question indicates the ambiguity of the Either/Or distinction between Real & Ideal. The only thing we know for sure is our own ideas (solipsism paradox). But we can infer, and collectively agree as a convention, that there is a reality out there conforming to our individual imaginary concepts. Ironically, Materialist/Physicalist thinkers seem to reverse that certainty. They take the conventional position as a hard fact. But my inclusive philosophical position is not Either/Or but BothAnd. So, it serves my purposes, for philosophical argument, to assume as an axiom that perfect Ideality is the standard against which Reality is measured.
BothAnd philosophy :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Do you make your claim of causation being primarily philosophical in application to: a) chemistry; b) elementary particle physics? — ucarr
No. My concept of Causation applies only to Philosophy. I don't do Chemistry or Physics. However, I do gain some philosophical insights from scientific enigmas, such as quantum paradoxes (wave/particle ; energy/mass).
I understand this sentence as a reference to Wheeler’s “It from bit.” Do you think information: a) an agent of material things; b) a material aspect of material things? — ucarr
Your questions indicate that you still don't understand what Enformationism is all about. It's a philosophical model of reality, not a scientific description of materiality. As an alternative to Materialism and Idealism, it postulates that Generic Information (First Cause) is all-of-the above : agency, matter, etc. During physical evolution, from plasma to people, the Universal Power (potential) remains the same, and only the specific Form (actual instances) changes as the world evolves. Wheeler didn't use the term "generic information", but his "bit" refers to something general instead of specific. It's not a thing, but a principle. For example, Newton's Principia Mathematica refers to ideal abstractions, not to agents or material things. Of course, he believed in an absolute Agent who knows (imagines) such ideas into reality.
However, my Enformationism uses the term "Information" in a dual sense : both mathematical computer data and personal mental meaning. And, for my own philosophical conjectures, I imagine the universe as a mathematical Program --- a la Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis --- running on a material computer with physical registers. So the hypothetical First Cause (original agent) is metaphorically designated as the Cosmic Programmer. Remember that scientists often use figurative language to indicate complex abstract systems that are otherwise hard to describe. For example, Darwin's metaphorical "tree of life". and later biologist's analogy of chemical DNA to an informative algorithmic "code".
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests