↪Gnomon
So you do not have any concrete grounds to assume or claim that energy (i.e. activity) is not material. Just checking ... — 180 Proof
Obviously you didn't take the time, or have the inclination, to "check" the off-topic & off-forum evidences presented in the thesis and blog. That's just as well, since your materialist or "immanentist" worldview might categorize the abstract, theoretical, mathematical, incorporeal grounding of Energy/Information/Qualia as over-your-head (transcendent), or off-limits (prejudice), and as the unreal, imaginary, statistical measurements of a rational mind.
Energy is not a material substance :
Explanations suggest that while some students may conceptualize energy as a substance with mass and volume, this idea is not consistently applied. In physics, energy is an abstract, non-material quantity associated with the state of a system.
Physics Education Research Central
https://www.per-central.org › wiki › File:1140
TPF : World Fair & Just
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
↪Gnomon
(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?
(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance3 interact with material substance (re: substance duality)? — 180 Proof
Off Topic : You ask good philosophical questions, but you seem to expect Materialistic answers to Abstract inquiries. You expect 17th century deterministic answers, even though the foundations of post-classical physics are indeterminate. My understanding of Physics is post-classical, and entangled with Meta-Physics (the observer effect). Apparently, post-classical philosophy doesn't "make sense" to you. And your snarky (passive aggressive "sir") presentation is not good for communication.
(1) According to physicists, Energy acts on Matter because it has that "ability" --- by definition. Do you have a better answer to the "how" question? Apparently, the scientists don't.
(2) According to Einstein, Matter is a form of Energy*1 (monistic). Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. But "essence" is a philosophical concept, not a physical thing. It's similar to Kant's ding an sich. It's similar to Plato's Form*3, in the sense that it is pre-material.
Even more off-topic : Is your world view Nietzschean*4, in that you want to substitute phenomenal Will (local) for noumenal Essences (universal)?
*1. Matter = Energy/C^2
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ ... 2expl.html
*2. What is essence function in philosophy? : (Eastern Philosophy)
Essence is Absolute Reality, the fundamental "cause" or origin, while Function is manifest or relative reality, the discernible effects or manifestations of Essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiyong
*3. Form = Essence
One of the elements in Plato's theory of Forms is the claim that essences, or Forms, are necessary for, and provide the basis of, all causation and explanation; a claim that, famously, he makes and defends towards the end of Phaedo (95e ff.).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... B6B41615E6
*4. Nietzsche’s criticism of the Thing-in-itself :
Nietzsche's first disagreement is with Plato's ideal forms. In the parable of the cave, these forms were the ideals illuminated by the sun. Nietzsche claimed that rather than values illuminated from without, each person should make their own determination of values.
The idea that the value of something subsists in itself is Kant's thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich): noumenal essences that exist beyond human knowledge, like the forms, only shadows of which are seen in the cave.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -supplante
(1) If, as you claim, energy is not material, then how does it interact with the material (e.g. mass-energy equivalence) without violating fundamental conservation laws?
(2) And the philosophical corollary to the physics question: how does a non-material substance3 interact with material substance (re: substance duality)? — 180 Proof
Off Topic : You ask good philosophical questions, but you seem to expect Materialistic answers to Abstract inquiries. You expect 17th century deterministic answers, even though the foundations of post-classical physics are indeterminate. My understanding of Physics is post-classical, and entangled with Meta-Physics (the observer effect). Apparently, post-classical philosophy doesn't "make sense" to you. And your snarky (passive aggressive "sir") presentation is not good for communication.
(1) According to physicists, Energy acts on Matter because it has that "ability" --- by definition. Do you have a better answer to the "how" question? Apparently, the scientists don't.
(2) According to Einstein, Matter is a form of Energy*1 (monistic). Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. But "essence" is a philosophical concept, not a physical thing. It's similar to Kant's ding an sich. It's similar to Plato's Form*3, in the sense that it is pre-material.
Even more off-topic : Is your world view Nietzschean*4, in that you want to substitute phenomenal Will (local) for noumenal Essences (universal)?
*1. Matter = Energy/C^2
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ ... 2expl.html
*2. What is essence function in philosophy? : (Eastern Philosophy)
Essence is Absolute Reality, the fundamental "cause" or origin, while Function is manifest or relative reality, the discernible effects or manifestations of Essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiyong
*3. Form = Essence
One of the elements in Plato's theory of Forms is the claim that essences, or Forms, are necessary for, and provide the basis of, all causation and explanation; a claim that, famously, he makes and defends towards the end of Phaedo (95e ff.).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... B6B41615E6
*4. Nietzsche’s criticism of the Thing-in-itself :
Nietzsche's first disagreement is with Plato's ideal forms. In the parable of the cave, these forms were the ideals illuminated by the sun. Nietzsche claimed that rather than values illuminated from without, each person should make their own determination of values.
The idea that the value of something subsists in itself is Kant's thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich): noumenal essences that exist beyond human knowledge, like the forms, only shadows of which are seen in the cave.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -supplante
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
(1) According to physicists ... Energy is Causation, and Matter is one of its effects : Noumenal Energy transforms into Phenomenal Matter. So, Energy is the fundamental "substance" (essence)*2 of the physical world. — Gnomon
But this is simply nothing like how physics talks. You are projecting. It is your central misunderstanding.
An ontology of "stuff" is medieval science. Stuff as alchemy. Stuff as fluid stuff and corpuscular stuff. Stuff as a substance with inherent properties like gravity or levity. Stuff like calorie as the heat that flowed from one place to another.
Physics broke with this "essences" metaphysics by mathematical abstraction*6 — apokrisis
Off-topic : I normally don't reply to ↪180 Proof's jibes, because his philosophical worldview specifically & disdainfully excludes my own. So, the sciencey stuff is necessary to provide some common ground for discussion. However, his questions were timely, as I am currently reading a book that, among other things, discusses the New Physics (Relativity & Quantum) of the 1920s.
On this forum, I am not "talking" as a physicist, but as an amateur philosopher with an unorthodox worldview : based on Holism, Quantum Observer Effects, Information Theory, and Complexity Theory. I'm not an expert in any of those fields, but I may be more knowledgeable than you think. However, as an outsider, I don't follow the official physics party line, so my presentation may sound strange to you. When I depart from standard physics language, I do so intentionally, not from ignorance.
For example, when I say "Energy is Causation"*1, it's a philosophical notion, not a conventional science concept. When I say "energy is fundamental"*2, I am including all of the various pre-material fields*3 that physicists postulate as foundational. For example, within an amorphous holistic electromagnetic field, a single Photon, the "carrier" of energy, can split into an Electron & a Positron, the primary elements of Matter*4. But, it's the energy field that is fundamental and essential, not the particles.
I am aware that modern physics carefully avoids terms such as "essence", but a mathematical quantum field is just an Essence by another name*6. Yet, I find the notion of pre-physical essences to be philosophically useful. For example, an electro-magnetic potential field of dimensionless mathematical "points" has no physical or material properties until it is converted into something real, by an "excitation", which in quantum theory may be an observation by a scientific mind. That may sound spooky, or medieval to you, but I try to accommodate such professional non-sense in my personal 21st century worldview. Ironically, some posters on this forum take a Scientism stance*5, which denigrates what philosophers do, as merely Lingustics.
PS___ Holism is another taboo term for pragmatic physics, that we can discuss at length in a separate thread, if you are so inclined.
*1. Is it true that energy is the ability to cause change?
Specifically, energy is defined as the ability to do work – which, for biology purposes, can be thought of as the ability to cause some kind of change. Energy can take many different forms: for instance, we're all familiar with light, heat, and electrical energy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/bio ... -of-energy
*2. Is energy fundamental in physics?
Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one. Specifically, energy is an example of a conserved current derived from Noether's theorem. . . .
I would say that energy is more fundamental because matter is “merely” one subcategory of all types of particles/fields, while energy is not a subcategory of any broader concept.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fun ... e-universe
*3. Energy Fields are Fundamental :
I would say quantum fields are more fundamental. Numbers of particles, what kind (i.e. which field they belong to), where and when they are and their state of motion, are merely ways of describing states of fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -particles
*4. Energetic Photons produce substantial Matter :
For electron-positron pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
*5. The arrogance of modern physics :
I’ve just finished reading {theoretical physicist} Lee Smolin’s new book The Trouble With Physics, . . .
Smolin was of a philosophical bent, and initially put off:
The atmosphere was not philosophical; it was harsh and aggressive, dominated by people who were brash, cocky, confident, and in some cases insulting to people who disagreed with them.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451
*6. Math is Metaphysics :
I agree with you that the sources of truth in mathematics can't be physical. For it seems clear to me that there would be mathematical truths even in a world that contained nothing physical at all (for instance, it would be true that the number of physical things in such a world is zero and therefore not greater than zero, not prime, etc.). So the sources of mathematical truth must be other than physical: if you like, metaphysical.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527
But this is simply nothing like how physics talks. You are projecting. It is your central misunderstanding.
An ontology of "stuff" is medieval science. Stuff as alchemy. Stuff as fluid stuff and corpuscular stuff. Stuff as a substance with inherent properties like gravity or levity. Stuff like calorie as the heat that flowed from one place to another.
Physics broke with this "essences" metaphysics by mathematical abstraction*6 — apokrisis
Off-topic : I normally don't reply to ↪180 Proof's jibes, because his philosophical worldview specifically & disdainfully excludes my own. So, the sciencey stuff is necessary to provide some common ground for discussion. However, his questions were timely, as I am currently reading a book that, among other things, discusses the New Physics (Relativity & Quantum) of the 1920s.
On this forum, I am not "talking" as a physicist, but as an amateur philosopher with an unorthodox worldview : based on Holism, Quantum Observer Effects, Information Theory, and Complexity Theory. I'm not an expert in any of those fields, but I may be more knowledgeable than you think. However, as an outsider, I don't follow the official physics party line, so my presentation may sound strange to you. When I depart from standard physics language, I do so intentionally, not from ignorance.
For example, when I say "Energy is Causation"*1, it's a philosophical notion, not a conventional science concept. When I say "energy is fundamental"*2, I am including all of the various pre-material fields*3 that physicists postulate as foundational. For example, within an amorphous holistic electromagnetic field, a single Photon, the "carrier" of energy, can split into an Electron & a Positron, the primary elements of Matter*4. But, it's the energy field that is fundamental and essential, not the particles.
I am aware that modern physics carefully avoids terms such as "essence", but a mathematical quantum field is just an Essence by another name*6. Yet, I find the notion of pre-physical essences to be philosophically useful. For example, an electro-magnetic potential field of dimensionless mathematical "points" has no physical or material properties until it is converted into something real, by an "excitation", which in quantum theory may be an observation by a scientific mind. That may sound spooky, or medieval to you, but I try to accommodate such professional non-sense in my personal 21st century worldview. Ironically, some posters on this forum take a Scientism stance*5, which denigrates what philosophers do, as merely Lingustics.
PS___ Holism is another taboo term for pragmatic physics, that we can discuss at length in a separate thread, if you are so inclined.
*1. Is it true that energy is the ability to cause change?
Specifically, energy is defined as the ability to do work – which, for biology purposes, can be thought of as the ability to cause some kind of change. Energy can take many different forms: for instance, we're all familiar with light, heat, and electrical energy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/bio ... -of-energy
*2. Is energy fundamental in physics?
Energy is a derived quantity, not a fundamental one. Specifically, energy is an example of a conserved current derived from Noether's theorem. . . .
I would say that energy is more fundamental because matter is “merely” one subcategory of all types of particles/fields, while energy is not a subcategory of any broader concept.
https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-the-fun ... e-universe
*3. Energy Fields are Fundamental :
I would say quantum fields are more fundamental. Numbers of particles, what kind (i.e. which field they belong to), where and when they are and their state of motion, are merely ways of describing states of fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -particles
*4. Energetic Photons produce substantial Matter :
For electron-positron pair production to occur, the electromagnetic energy, in a discrete quantity called a photon, must be at least equivalent to the mass of two electrons.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
*5. The arrogance of modern physics :
I’ve just finished reading {theoretical physicist} Lee Smolin’s new book The Trouble With Physics, . . .
Smolin was of a philosophical bent, and initially put off:
The atmosphere was not philosophical; it was harsh and aggressive, dominated by people who were brash, cocky, confident, and in some cases insulting to people who disagreed with them.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=451
*6. Math is Metaphysics :
I agree with you that the sources of truth in mathematics can't be physical. For it seems clear to me that there would be mathematical truths even in a world that contained nothing physical at all (for instance, it would be true that the number of physical things in such a world is zero and therefore not greater than zero, not prime, etc.). So the sources of mathematical truth must be other than physical: if you like, metaphysical.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
If your way of thinking has any real advantage, it has to be able to lead to better answers than the scientists have already figured out. Explain what is observed in some self-consistent fashion rather than ignore the critical details that don't fit your essences story. — apokrisis
My "way of thinking" is characteristic of Philosophy, not Science. I've been trying to convince you that I'm not competing with scientists to produce practical applications of physical processes : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. Instead, I'm trying to update some ancient philosophical worldviews for application to the complexities of the contemporary chaotic world. The philosophical approach to understanding is Theoretical instead of Practical ; general instead of specific ; universal instead of local ; essential instead of detailed.
The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. Holism*1 is not anti-science or religious, but merely a different way of looking at the physical world. In fact, a new branch of science, Systems Theory, has arisen in the 21st century to study Complex Adaptive Systems*2, which are mostly living things with emergent*3 properties that cannot be found in their subatomic particles. The Santa Fe Institute*4 was established --- by atom bomb physicist Murray Gell-Man, et al --- primarily to study CAS*5, because most other research facilities were still focused on the parts instead of the whole systems.
Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy because it studies mostly living & thinking aspects of reality instead of dead matter. The Hard sciences can still profit from the use of Reductive methods, but the Soft sciences --- psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc --- will benefit from Holistic methods to study the behavior of Systems instead of Components. Unfortunately, those who still think reductively, may object to the unfamiliar terminology and concepts.
Getting back to the topic of this thread : I'm not asking if the atoms of matter are Fair & Just, but if complex adaptive humans as a social group can behave ethically. This is an ancient question, but a Holistic/Systems approach may shed new light on those old "hard questions", that have become muddled due to putting them under a technological microscope instead of just using the natural mind's rational faculty for "seeing" interrelationships.
By the way, you may be thinking of Essence as a reference to Spiritual stuff, but the Greek word ousia merely referred to fundamental "being' and "isness". Latin "Esse" (to be) is about Ontology, the philosophical science of Being. Can we get on the same page here?
*1. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. The aphorism "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", typically attributed to Aristotle, is often given as a glib summary of this proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
*2a. A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior of the components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
*2b. "The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear dynamical systems, has recently become a major focus of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences. Nonlinear systems are ubiquitous; as mathematician Stanislaw Ulam observed, to speak of "nonlinear science" is like calling zoology the study of "nonelephant animals" (quoted in Campbell et al. 1985, p. 374). The initial phase of research on nonlinear systems focused on deterministic chaos, but more recent studies have investigated the properties of self-organizing systems or anti-chaos. For mathematicians and physicists, the biggest surprise is that complexity lurks within extremely simple systems. For biologists, it is the idea that natural selection is not the sole source of order in the biological world. In the social sciences, it is suggested that emergence --- the idea that complex global patterns with new properties can emerge from local interactions --- could have a comparable impact."
https://www.santafe.edu/research/result ... ve-systems
*3. Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
*4. The Santa Fe Institute (SFI) is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute
*5. What is Complex Systems Science?
Complexity arises in any system in which many agents interact and adapt to one another and their environments. Examples of these complex systems include the nervous system, the Internet, ecosystems, economies, cities, and civilizations. As individual agents interact and adapt within these systems, evolutionary processes and often surprising "emergent" behaviors arise at the macro level. Complexity science attempts to find common mechanisms that lead to complexity in nominally distinct physical, biological, social, and technological systems.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview
My "way of thinking" is characteristic of Philosophy, not Science. I've been trying to convince you that I'm not competing with scientists to produce practical applications of physical processes : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. Instead, I'm trying to update some ancient philosophical worldviews for application to the complexities of the contemporary chaotic world. The philosophical approach to understanding is Theoretical instead of Practical ; general instead of specific ; universal instead of local ; essential instead of detailed.
The primary distinction between my worldview and that of most physicists & chemists is Holism vs Reductionism. Holism*1 is not anti-science or religious, but merely a different way of looking at the physical world. In fact, a new branch of science, Systems Theory, has arisen in the 21st century to study Complex Adaptive Systems*2, which are mostly living things with emergent*3 properties that cannot be found in their subatomic particles. The Santa Fe Institute*4 was established --- by atom bomb physicist Murray Gell-Man, et al --- primarily to study CAS*5, because most other research facilities were still focused on the parts instead of the whole systems.
Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy because it studies mostly living & thinking aspects of reality instead of dead matter. The Hard sciences can still profit from the use of Reductive methods, but the Soft sciences --- psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc --- will benefit from Holistic methods to study the behavior of Systems instead of Components. Unfortunately, those who still think reductively, may object to the unfamiliar terminology and concepts.
Getting back to the topic of this thread : I'm not asking if the atoms of matter are Fair & Just, but if complex adaptive humans as a social group can behave ethically. This is an ancient question, but a Holistic/Systems approach may shed new light on those old "hard questions", that have become muddled due to putting them under a technological microscope instead of just using the natural mind's rational faculty for "seeing" interrelationships.
By the way, you may be thinking of Essence as a reference to Spiritual stuff, but the Greek word ousia merely referred to fundamental "being' and "isness". Latin "Esse" (to be) is about Ontology, the philosophical science of Being. Can we get on the same page here?
*1. Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. The aphorism "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", typically attributed to Aristotle, is often given as a glib summary of this proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
*2a. A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior of the components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
*2b. "The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear dynamical systems, has recently become a major focus of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences. Nonlinear systems are ubiquitous; as mathematician Stanislaw Ulam observed, to speak of "nonlinear science" is like calling zoology the study of "nonelephant animals" (quoted in Campbell et al. 1985, p. 374). The initial phase of research on nonlinear systems focused on deterministic chaos, but more recent studies have investigated the properties of self-organizing systems or anti-chaos. For mathematicians and physicists, the biggest surprise is that complexity lurks within extremely simple systems. For biologists, it is the idea that natural selection is not the sole source of order in the biological world. In the social sciences, it is suggested that emergence --- the idea that complex global patterns with new properties can emerge from local interactions --- could have a comparable impact."
https://www.santafe.edu/research/result ... ve-systems
*3. Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
*4. The Santa Fe Institute (SFI) is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute
*5. What is Complex Systems Science?
Complexity arises in any system in which many agents interact and adapt to one another and their environments. Examples of these complex systems include the nervous system, the Internet, ecosystems, economies, cities, and civilizations. As individual agents interact and adapt within these systems, evolutionary processes and often surprising "emergent" behaviors arise at the macro level. Complexity science attempts to find common mechanisms that lead to complexity in nominally distinct physical, biological, social, and technological systems.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
Systems Theory is especially applicable to Philosophy.... — Gnomon
But the holistic systems view is hylomorphic rather than essentialist. There's that. — apokrisis
Off Topic :
I suppose "that" depends on whether you view Matter or Form as fundamental, or as equal partners. For Plato, Form is abstract, ideal, and timeless. But Matter is concrete, real, and changeable (perishable). So, which do you think is more Essential (absolutely necessary) : the multitude of physical Entities, or the unique metaphysical Form*1 ?
I assume you are describing Systems Science from the perspective of a pragmatic, reductive scientist. But this is a Philosophy forum, so what do you think would be the description of Holistic Systems from the perspective of a theoretical, generalizing Philosopher? Does Essence precede Instance? Is the Extension more fundamental than the Intention?
All physical systems in the real world are indeed compounds of matter & form. So, for a Chemist, the Matter (passive) may be more important than the Structure (interrelationships). But, for a Physicist, the energetic (active) component may be more important than the malleable substance. And, from a philosophical perspective, Matter is local & particular, while Form is universal & general. So, there's that.
*1. Aristotle's Causes :
Formal Cause: the essence of the object. Final Cause: the end/goal of the object, or what the object is good for.
https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/Ar ... Notes.html
*2. Systems Theory :
In essence, systems theory operates on a simple guiding principle: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.carepatron.com/guides/syste ... psychology
Note --- The parts may be material, but the whole is an interrelationship between parts. And it's the relations that bind the parts into an integrated system. So, which is more fundamental to the system, the interchangeable pieces or the whole puzzle picture?
But the holistic systems view is hylomorphic rather than essentialist. There's that. — apokrisis
Off Topic :
I suppose "that" depends on whether you view Matter or Form as fundamental, or as equal partners. For Plato, Form is abstract, ideal, and timeless. But Matter is concrete, real, and changeable (perishable). So, which do you think is more Essential (absolutely necessary) : the multitude of physical Entities, or the unique metaphysical Form*1 ?
I assume you are describing Systems Science from the perspective of a pragmatic, reductive scientist. But this is a Philosophy forum, so what do you think would be the description of Holistic Systems from the perspective of a theoretical, generalizing Philosopher? Does Essence precede Instance? Is the Extension more fundamental than the Intention?
All physical systems in the real world are indeed compounds of matter & form. So, for a Chemist, the Matter (passive) may be more important than the Structure (interrelationships). But, for a Physicist, the energetic (active) component may be more important than the malleable substance. And, from a philosophical perspective, Matter is local & particular, while Form is universal & general. So, there's that.
*1. Aristotle's Causes :
Formal Cause: the essence of the object. Final Cause: the end/goal of the object, or what the object is good for.
https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/Ar ... Notes.html
*2. Systems Theory :
In essence, systems theory operates on a simple guiding principle: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.carepatron.com/guides/syste ... psychology
Note --- The parts may be material, but the whole is an interrelationship between parts. And it's the relations that bind the parts into an integrated system. So, which is more fundamental to the system, the interchangeable pieces or the whole puzzle picture?
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
But Matter is concrete, real, and changeable (perishable) — Gnomon
Sounds a little self contradictory. Not what you would expect from an essence. More work might be needed. — apokrisis
What are you implying? That a non-space-time essential principle could not produce mundane Matter from scratch? Such a non-noumenal notion may be the basic unproveable presumption of Materialism. Hence, a materialist would not expect a material object to be derived from an immaterial essence.
Even Aristotle, the guy who proposed the notion of dualistic HyloMorphism, viewed Essence as Causal*1. What I would expect from causal Essence is that it would give Form (design) to the malleable clay of Matter. When a potter produces a beautiful pot from ordinary clay, where did the Form and the Beauty come from? Was it inherent in the clay on a river bank, or in the noumenal mind of the creator?
Perhaps your notion of a concrete & real Essence needs more work. How did Materialists*2 arrive at the conclusion that many-form Matter is the monistic fundamental substance? Did they just take it for granted*3? Even old Hylomorpher himself defined Substance*4 as Being Itself, and Matter as contingent & accidental*5. Did they, like most Reductionists, ignore the contribution of an immaterial Mind to the dualistic combination of hyle and morph? Are Minds too spooky for you?
*1. Essence as Causal :
Aristotle frequently describes essence as a “cause” or “explanation”, thus ascribing to essence some sort of causal or explanatory role. This explanatory role is often explicated by scholars in terms of essence “making the thing be what it is” or “making it the very thing that it is”.
https://philarchive.org/rec/SIREAC
Note --- The Essence (beingness) of a thing is not the particular instance, but the universal design.
*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. ___Wikipedia
Note --- My thesis is based on an immaterial Monism --- causal Information (energy + form + action) --- which is an essential "substance" instead of a contingent "accident".
*3. Materialism is a Belief :
a. The best argument against materialism is the observation that the word material has lost all meaning. Materialism does not exist anymore. . . . .
c. The third best argument is that syntax cannot be derived from physics and semantics cannot be derived from physics. . . . .
f. The fifth best argument is the observation that materialists, apart from not existing, do not actually argue for their cause, they merely assume it to be true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/com ... terialism/
Note --- I suppose he means that Materialism, over millennia, was based on Atomism. But modern Physics has whiffed on each of its "fundamental" particles of matter : elements, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks. Now their Essential substance is a holistic mathematical Field (cartesian Plenum) with no matter in its dimensionless points. Need references?
*4. Substance is being existing in itself; accident is being existing in another as its subject. -- Being is known either as something which subsists in itself without needing to be sustained by another, or as something which needs a subject in which and by which it may exist.
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/cp26.htm
Note --- The modern notion of "Substance as material" is a reductive corruption of the original essential concept. Modern Science is necessarily Materialistic: Philosophy not necessarily.
*5. Matter is Accidental not essential :
Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
Note --- The Essence of a chair is the concept of Chairness. Concepts are what we know with, not what we make chairs out of.
Sounds a little self contradictory. Not what you would expect from an essence. More work might be needed. — apokrisis
What are you implying? That a non-space-time essential principle could not produce mundane Matter from scratch? Such a non-noumenal notion may be the basic unproveable presumption of Materialism. Hence, a materialist would not expect a material object to be derived from an immaterial essence.
Even Aristotle, the guy who proposed the notion of dualistic HyloMorphism, viewed Essence as Causal*1. What I would expect from causal Essence is that it would give Form (design) to the malleable clay of Matter. When a potter produces a beautiful pot from ordinary clay, where did the Form and the Beauty come from? Was it inherent in the clay on a river bank, or in the noumenal mind of the creator?
Perhaps your notion of a concrete & real Essence needs more work. How did Materialists*2 arrive at the conclusion that many-form Matter is the monistic fundamental substance? Did they just take it for granted*3? Even old Hylomorpher himself defined Substance*4 as Being Itself, and Matter as contingent & accidental*5. Did they, like most Reductionists, ignore the contribution of an immaterial Mind to the dualistic combination of hyle and morph? Are Minds too spooky for you?
*1. Essence as Causal :
Aristotle frequently describes essence as a “cause” or “explanation”, thus ascribing to essence some sort of causal or explanatory role. This explanatory role is often explicated by scholars in terms of essence “making the thing be what it is” or “making it the very thing that it is”.
https://philarchive.org/rec/SIREAC
Note --- The Essence (beingness) of a thing is not the particular instance, but the universal design.
*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. ___Wikipedia
Note --- My thesis is based on an immaterial Monism --- causal Information (energy + form + action) --- which is an essential "substance" instead of a contingent "accident".
*3. Materialism is a Belief :
a. The best argument against materialism is the observation that the word material has lost all meaning. Materialism does not exist anymore. . . . .
c. The third best argument is that syntax cannot be derived from physics and semantics cannot be derived from physics. . . . .
f. The fifth best argument is the observation that materialists, apart from not existing, do not actually argue for their cause, they merely assume it to be true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/com ... terialism/
Note --- I suppose he means that Materialism, over millennia, was based on Atomism. But modern Physics has whiffed on each of its "fundamental" particles of matter : elements, molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks. Now their Essential substance is a holistic mathematical Field (cartesian Plenum) with no matter in its dimensionless points. Need references?
*4. Substance is being existing in itself; accident is being existing in another as its subject. -- Being is known either as something which subsists in itself without needing to be sustained by another, or as something which needs a subject in which and by which it may exist.
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/cp26.htm
Note --- The modern notion of "Substance as material" is a reductive corruption of the original essential concept. Modern Science is necessarily Materialistic: Philosophy not necessarily.
*5. Matter is Accidental not essential :
Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)
Note --- The Essence of a chair is the concept of Chairness. Concepts are what we know with, not what we make chairs out of.
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
But this is a Philosophy forum, — Gnomon
Hmm. — apokrisis
Would you agree that Scientific Laws and Philosophical Principles are only "approximations" of Universal Essences? Obviously those "Ideals" are not real material things, so why do "wise" men continue to seek out such non-entities? Are they ignorant or stupid or god-smacked, or do they know something the rest of us don't? Perhaps, that there is more to the world than what meets the eye.
No need to reply. This post is just something to think about.
Note --- Irving Copi was the author of Introduction to Logic.
CAN "ESSENCE" BE A SCIENTIFIC TERM?
JACK KAMINSKY
Harpur College, State University of New York
In a recent paper Copi has argued for the admission of the term "essence" into scientific terminology. His primary reason is that the increasing adequacy of scientific theories is evidence of a gradual approximation to the real essences of things. Copi is aware that the laws of modern science are not to be taken as formulations of essences. But, he claims, "that is an ideal towards which science strives... Centuries hence wiser men will have radically different and more adequate theories, and their notions will be closer approximations than ours to the real essences of things."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/185721
Wise Man and his Essences :
Albert Einstein reinterpreted the inner workings of nature, the very essence of light, time, energy and gravity. His insights fundamentally changed the way we look at the universe--and made him the most famous scientist of the 20th century.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einste ... revolution
Hmm. — apokrisis
Would you agree that Scientific Laws and Philosophical Principles are only "approximations" of Universal Essences? Obviously those "Ideals" are not real material things, so why do "wise" men continue to seek out such non-entities? Are they ignorant or stupid or god-smacked, or do they know something the rest of us don't? Perhaps, that there is more to the world than what meets the eye.
No need to reply. This post is just something to think about.
Note --- Irving Copi was the author of Introduction to Logic.
CAN "ESSENCE" BE A SCIENTIFIC TERM?
JACK KAMINSKY
Harpur College, State University of New York
In a recent paper Copi has argued for the admission of the term "essence" into scientific terminology. His primary reason is that the increasing adequacy of scientific theories is evidence of a gradual approximation to the real essences of things. Copi is aware that the laws of modern science are not to be taken as formulations of essences. But, he claims, "that is an ideal towards which science strives... Centuries hence wiser men will have radically different and more adequate theories, and their notions will be closer approximations than ours to the real essences of things."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/185721
Wise Man and his Essences :
Albert Einstein reinterpreted the inner workings of nature, the very essence of light, time, energy and gravity. His insights fundamentally changed the way we look at the universe--and made him the most famous scientist of the 20th century.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einste ... revolution
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
To dissect in more detail, matter and form are terms needing more clarification here. But they are certainly equal partners in the deal as they arise together in dichotomous fashion. Each – as one of a pair of complementary limits on enmattered and informed Being – exists to the degree it stands in sharp contrast to its "other". They form a dichotomous relation, in other words. Logically speaking, matter and form are "mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive" as a pair of natural categories. — apokrisis
Off Topic:
Thanks for the clarification. But I like to take the dichotomous HyloMorph theory one step farther back in evolution. Even Aristotle seemed to imagine his Matter/Form*1 principle as an Essence. And, in my Information-based thesis, I labeled that essence as "Enformy"*2, working in the world as "EnFormAction" (the energy of causation), to counterbalance destructive Entropy, allowing Evolution to progress from Bang to Cosmos to Culture. Before the Bang, that creative causal essence was Monistic, like formless nameless Potential. But that's just a hypothetical postulation to explain how the chain of Causation got started from scratch. From that perspective, your "mutually exclusive" Matter/Form is not "jointly exhaustive, because it is a compound, subject to division.
My Monism is transcendent only in the sense that all abstractions and hypothetical entities transcend the realm of the senses. HyloMorph and Enformy don't exist in the real tangible world, but in the ideal realm of imagination. They are not scientific observations, but philosophical postulations. If you want a space-time model of eternal Potential, just look at the scientific notion of empty Space as brimming with Zero-Point or Vacuum Energy*3.
*1. Matterform :
The application of hylomorphism to essentialism is approached by Aristotle variously: as a way of distinguishing among changes; as a basis for the construction of scientific demonstration; as a principle of being in the science of being qua being.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 2-0002/pdf
Note --- As an Essence, hylomorph is not dichotomous & contradictory, but unitary & complementary concepts. In my thesis, the non-local timeless causal Potential includes the Possibility for both Matter and Form (Mind). Don't send out a space-probe looking for Potential, because it ain't there.
*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. Vacuum energy
An important concept in cosmology is that the 'empty space' between stars and
galaxies is not really empty at all! Today, the amount of invisible energy hidden in space is
just enough to be detected as Dark Energy, as astronomers measure the expansion speed of
the universe.
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/6Page87.pdf
Note --- This is not real detectable energy but mathematical hypothetical quantities to fill gaps in calculations. It's only indirectly detectable in the strange Casimir effect.
So you are talking in a way that takes matter for granted as that which already exists as a fact in its own ontic domain, just simply lacking the "other" of a shaping hand of a form. — apokrisis
Actually, it was not Gnomon, but Aristotle, in his HyloMorphism theory, who seemed to be taking Matter and Form for granted. As if those ideal elements of reality were sitting on a shelf, until combined by an ideal Chemist into real things. That would be a dualistic theory. But my thesis is monistic, in that there is a single precursor to all real things. It's not a thing itself, but the Potential for things. This hypothetical infinite & undefined Apeiron, somehow splits into Form (creative causation) and Matter (the stuff that is enformed & transformed). In practice, it's what I call "EnFormAction" : the power to give form to the formless. This is not just wordplay. The thesis gives some background for the logical necessity of Potential as precursor to Actual things. It includes Information Theory & Quantum Theory along with some philosophical history of Platonic Idealism and Aristotle's Causes.
Note --- I could respond in more detail to the rest of your post, but that would take us further off-topic, and it deserves a thread of its own. Would you like to continue in a new thread & topic?
Off Topic:
Thanks for the clarification. But I like to take the dichotomous HyloMorph theory one step farther back in evolution. Even Aristotle seemed to imagine his Matter/Form*1 principle as an Essence. And, in my Information-based thesis, I labeled that essence as "Enformy"*2, working in the world as "EnFormAction" (the energy of causation), to counterbalance destructive Entropy, allowing Evolution to progress from Bang to Cosmos to Culture. Before the Bang, that creative causal essence was Monistic, like formless nameless Potential. But that's just a hypothetical postulation to explain how the chain of Causation got started from scratch. From that perspective, your "mutually exclusive" Matter/Form is not "jointly exhaustive, because it is a compound, subject to division.
My Monism is transcendent only in the sense that all abstractions and hypothetical entities transcend the realm of the senses. HyloMorph and Enformy don't exist in the real tangible world, but in the ideal realm of imagination. They are not scientific observations, but philosophical postulations. If you want a space-time model of eternal Potential, just look at the scientific notion of empty Space as brimming with Zero-Point or Vacuum Energy*3.
*1. Matterform :
The application of hylomorphism to essentialism is approached by Aristotle variously: as a way of distinguishing among changes; as a basis for the construction of scientific demonstration; as a principle of being in the science of being qua being.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 2-0002/pdf
Note --- As an Essence, hylomorph is not dichotomous & contradictory, but unitary & complementary concepts. In my thesis, the non-local timeless causal Potential includes the Possibility for both Matter and Form (Mind). Don't send out a space-probe looking for Potential, because it ain't there.
*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*3. Vacuum energy
An important concept in cosmology is that the 'empty space' between stars and
galaxies is not really empty at all! Today, the amount of invisible energy hidden in space is
just enough to be detected as Dark Energy, as astronomers measure the expansion speed of
the universe.
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/6Page87.pdf
Note --- This is not real detectable energy but mathematical hypothetical quantities to fill gaps in calculations. It's only indirectly detectable in the strange Casimir effect.
So you are talking in a way that takes matter for granted as that which already exists as a fact in its own ontic domain, just simply lacking the "other" of a shaping hand of a form. — apokrisis
Actually, it was not Gnomon, but Aristotle, in his HyloMorphism theory, who seemed to be taking Matter and Form for granted. As if those ideal elements of reality were sitting on a shelf, until combined by an ideal Chemist into real things. That would be a dualistic theory. But my thesis is monistic, in that there is a single precursor to all real things. It's not a thing itself, but the Potential for things. This hypothetical infinite & undefined Apeiron, somehow splits into Form (creative causation) and Matter (the stuff that is enformed & transformed). In practice, it's what I call "EnFormAction" : the power to give form to the formless. This is not just wordplay. The thesis gives some background for the logical necessity of Potential as precursor to Actual things. It includes Information Theory & Quantum Theory along with some philosophical history of Platonic Idealism and Aristotle's Causes.
Note --- I could respond in more detail to the rest of your post, but that would take us further off-topic, and it deserves a thread of its own. Would you like to continue in a new thread & topic?
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
You mention 'top down constraints' - but what is the ultimate source of those constraints? Can they be traced back to Lloyd Rees' 'six numbers'? Because that has a satisfyingly Platonist ring to it, in my view. — Wayfarer
My philosophical repertoire is limited, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Physics. So a lot of ↪apokrisis's discussion (and your replies) are over my head. My comments are necessarily more general and conventional --- except for my personal unorthodox ideas, of course. Besides, this diversion onto Materialism vs Metaphysics or Realism vs Idealism is off-topic for this thread. Do you think it should be moved to a new thread? I'll let you and Apo decide what to call it. And you can get as deep & techy as you like.
My philosophical repertoire is limited, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Physics. So a lot of ↪apokrisis's discussion (and your replies) are over my head. My comments are necessarily more general and conventional --- except for my personal unorthodox ideas, of course. Besides, this diversion onto Materialism vs Metaphysics or Realism vs Idealism is off-topic for this thread. Do you think it should be moved to a new thread? I'll let you and Apo decide what to call it. And you can get as deep & techy as you like.
Re: TPF : World Fair & Just
Partly, because the real world includes varying life conditions. We discover what's fair and what isn't, and respond accordingly, e.g. suffer, enjoy, form judgements and complain or praise the particular conditions in which we live. It takes discipline to remain indifferent to the reality of fairness. — jkop
Yes. The physical world is unbiased ; neither Just nor Unjust ; but its variety affords chances for both kinds of effects. That's why I call my worldview BothAnd : it's both Fair and Unfair, both Just and Unjust, depending on the place & time & person. So, the OP question is really about Culture, not Nature, about Psychology, not Physics.
Yes. The physical world is unbiased ; neither Just nor Unjust ; but its variety affords chances for both kinds of effects. That's why I call my worldview BothAnd : it's both Fair and Unfair, both Just and Unjust, depending on the place & time & person. So, the OP question is really about Culture, not Nature, about Psychology, not Physics.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests