TPF : Anaxagoras -- Creative Principle

[Gnomon]

Anaxagoras
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... xagoras/p1

I am confused by his belief in materialism because it seems to contradict his notion of Logos. — Gregory

I'm not very familiar with "The Axe", but I suspect that his notion of a single creative principle in the world is closer to Plato's "Logos", than to any Theist or Polytheist god-concept; His god-model may be similar to Spinoza's Universal Substance, which was both creative and materialistic. It's also similar to my own definition of EnFormAction as the creative principle of the world. Like many philosophers, we like to have it both ways : natural laws and freewill.

Anaxagoras :
Because of his focus on this principle, Anaxagoras has been credited both with an advance towards theism, the concept of a personal creator-god involved in human affairs, and with the first steps toward atheism, or the total disbelief in god or gods. In placing nous as the beginning of creation, Anaxagorous paved the way for believing in a single creative force, God. Ironically, his philosophical concept of nous also helped lead to a rejection of all gods, for the beginning of the world and creation could now be explained in scientific terms rather than religious ones.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/D ... agoras.pdf

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page18.html

“I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” ___Einstein

[Gnomon]

however I believe in the "law of vibration" wherein everything is energy. — Gregory

Yes. In conventional physics, all material things are stable forms of dynamic Energy. But in cutting-edge Information Science, Energy itself is a physical form of metaphysical Information. This new understanding of the physical world is the basis of the Enformationism thesis. It combines some elements of Platonic Idealism with the modern understanding of physical Realism.

mass-energy-information equivalence : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Energy Matter Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation

PS__Energy is indeed imagined as vibrations in empty space, which is a paradox. Instead, I think Energy is an on/off series of possible/actual potential. In reality, it works something like Morse code to convey Information from one place to another. wink-wink :joke:

Maybe there is will and intellect in everything, — Gregory

No. In my view, there is Information in everything. Will and Intellect are emergent functions of highly developed brains.

[Gnomon]

possible/actual potential. — Gnomon
You don't use these terms in the Aristotelian sense. I can tell. I was trained as a Thomist from an early age. So we are coming from difference perspectives. Hope you have luck with your enterprise — Gregory

Yes. I also don't use the term "Information" in a strict Shannon sense. And my thesis is based on modern Science instead of ancient Philosophy. But it agrees substantially with both Plato's Idealism, and Aristotle's Realism. As it turned-out, my personal worldview is compatible with some elements of both Materialism and Spiritualism. But, I am neither a Materialist, nor a Spiritualist; neither an Atheist, nor a Theist.

I was not deliberately copying Aristotle's analysis of Potential & Actual. I was merely following the logic of my insight into Information theory (all is information) where it led me. And I was not raised on Scholastic Theology. Ironically, I am currently reading Aristotle's Revenge, by philosopher Edward Feser. It seems to be a modern update of the Thomistic interpretation of Aristotle's worldview. He immediately gets into an analysis of Actuality and Potentiality. And so far, it seems to fit my own understanding of how Eternal Potential is converted into Temporal Actual. Unlike a lot of philosophical and theological writing, Feser's book is quite easy for an untrained amateur like me to read.

What differences do you see between Aquinas' usage and mine? I was not trying to defend any particular theistic doctrine, but my current view of the hypothetical G*D is deistic. What I call BEING (infinite potential) or LOGOS (the organizing force in evolution) serves as the First Cause and Enformer/Creator of our space-time world. But I remain agnostic about any personal properties. Anything I say about what preceded the Big Bang is speculative. I'm still developing the Enformationism thesis in the blogs. And I'll probably add a post after I finish this book. But it's over 450 pages, so it may take a while.


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

[Gnomon]

A big problem here is that Aristotle's cosmological argument explicitly denies the concept of "Eternal Potential" as an impossibility. This is why the Christian God, and Aquinas' God is Actual. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I understand that Aristotle was not comfortable with Plato's Idealism. But my worldview combines Idealism with Realism. For all practical purposes, our world is as real as it gets. But for philosophical theoretical purposes, we must look beyond the material world.

For example, the Big Bang is accepted by most modern scientists as the First Cause of physical reality. But they were discomfited by questions about what came before the Bang? This is equivalent to Atheist challenges asking "who created God?". So, hard materialist scientists were forced to expand their worldview beyond empirical Realty, into the realm of theoretical Ideality, in order to imagine the eternal regression of Bangs that they called the Multiverse. Hence, their expanded worldview combined Realism with Idealism.

I don't know what Aristotle's opinion was on the concept of "Eternal Potential". But his ontology assumed a necessary Non-Contingent Cause. Which I would interpret as a non-physical, non-temporal, eternal potential. This is equivalent to the "Necessary Being" that I call BEING. But my notion of G*D is also Actual, in the sense that our physical world ultimately consists of metaphysical Information, which is the essence of both Matter and Energy. Hence, physical reality consists of non-physical god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance. That may sound weird, but it's no stranger than the Quantum theory of Virtual Particles.


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (similar to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Ontological Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Virtual :
Traditionally, the term "virtual" meant possessing virtues or qualities apart from physical properties. In computer science, "virtual" refers to software apart from hardware. In Physics, "virtual" describes the mathematical or statistical state of a waveform in a field before it is actualized as a particle. A "virtual" particle is defined as . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle."
The term “Virtual” in physics is analogous to “Spiritual” in meta-physics. In the Enformationism theory, it is equivalent to Qualia, apart from Quanta. The Quantum Mechanics term "Virtual" is equivalent to "Potential" or "Ideal". For example, virtual particles are merely mathmatical definitions with no material instances, until they are Actualized by an observation. Similarly, in Ideality, a Platonic Form has no physical examples until Realized by an intention. In both cases, the will of a mind triggers the transition from nothing to something.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

[Gnomon]

The point is that a potential cannot be a cause, only something actual can cause anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Something must trigger that Potential into an Action to produce an Actual thing. In physics, the prior potential of a cause is taken for granted. But the First Cause must be activated either by Accident or by Intention. For my purposes, I assume that the First Cause is Actual in the sense of eternal BEING (the power to be and to create beings). That makes the creative act both the First and Final cause : both beginning and end of this world. I'm aware that mechanical Physics makes no allowance for Intention in Cause & Effect. But this is all about conceptual Metaphysics.

Notice that in your descriptive example, there are supposedly infinite possibilities which collapse into one reality, the reality given by measurement. But that measurement is an act, and the possibilities are not really infinite, it's just a misunderstanding attributable to the mind that measures. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure what you meant by "the reality is given by measurement". That may be the view from a human perspective within the creation. But I was talking about the view from outside this space-time world. The model I use is Plato's notion of eternal Chaos --- which I interpret to be all Potential, nothing Actual : i.e. BEING --- and it's conversion into Actual Cosmos. AFAIK, Plato didn't go into detail about the Demiurge who triggered that transformation from Unreal (Ideal) Possibilities into Real Actualities. So, for the sake of my hypothesis, I assume that the First Cause was an Actor, with the power to convert ideas into actions, and possibilities into realities, i.e. EnFormAction.

Chaos :
In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Note : a modern name for the potential of Chaos is the Universal Field : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Demiurge : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

If you don't like the assumption of an Intentional Being to create our world ---
The Multiverse as Ultimate Being : http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835

[Gnomon]

The issue was whether Eternal Potential is consistent with Aristotle and Aquinas, as Gnomon claimed. It is not. The idea of Eternal Potential is what the cosmological argument claims to refute. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I'm not concerned to have Aristotle validate my notion of Eternal Potential. The Enformationism thesis will have to stand on its own legs. I'm aware that Aristotle was uncomfortable with Plato's "recondite" Ideals, but I find the notion to be necessary for metaphysical discussions, such as general concepts and ultimates.

As an axiom of my thesis, I assume that for something contingent to exist, there must be something non-contingent, and for something temporal to exist, there must be something non-temporal, i.e. Eternal. For me that something is BEING -- the eternal potential to be.

Cosmological Argument : On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosm ... -argument/

Being Qua Being : So Aristotle's study does not concern some recondite subject matter known as 'being qua being'. Rather it is a study of being, or better, of beings—of things that can be said to be—that studies them in a particular way: as beings, in so far as they are beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/

[Gnomon]

I don't know what you would mean by "Accident" here. Isn't an accident a property of an intentional act? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. In this context, "accidental" is the opposite of "intentional". In modern terms, an Accident is caused by random forces, and does not involve the property of Teleology. Aristotle contrasted Accidental change with Substantial change. But that is not what I was talking about.

it is the act of measurement which gives reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's what I thought you were referring to. But I was looking at change from the perspective of the First Cause or Creator. I suppose you could still call that Intentional change an "act of measurement", in the sense that it is a mental comprehension. But I would hesitate to say that human measurement creates Reality. To me, it's more like the "measurement" is a choice of which aspect of reality the observer wants to see : location or motion.

[Gnomon]

I don't see how there is such a thing as the opposite of "intentional". — Metaphysician Undercover

You must have in mind a different definition of "Intentional". The antonym of Intentional (planned, willed) is given as Accidental or Un-intentional or Un-planned.or Un-willed. Are these definitions not oppositions? Perhaps "Accidental" is not a physical Thing, but as a concept it is the negation of "Intentional", is it not? Or are all actions Intentional in some sense?

Accidental : 1. happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.

Intentional (metaphysics) :
3.a. pertaining to an appearance, phenomenon, or representation in the mind; phenomenal; representational.
b. pertaining to the capacity of the mind to refer to an existent or nonexistent object.
c. pointing beyond itself, as consciousness or a sign.

PS__Sorry, I wasn't aware that "Intentional" had a special metaphysical meaning.

[Gnomon]

I see your definition, but as I explained, philosophically it doesn't refer to anything real. Intention is a cause, and chance is not a cause. So chance and intention are two distinct categories, not opposites. When we say an action is intentional, we mean that it was caused by intention. When we say that an act was by chance, we do not mean that the cause of it was chance, nor do we mean that the act was not caused. We generally mean that we do not know the cause of it. If we assume that a chance event has no cause this is an unintelligible idea, as I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

My contrast of "Intentional Cause" versus "Accidental Cause" is basically a pragmatic scientific distinction, not an abstract philosophical category. For the practical purposes of Science, all physical events are either Intentional (artificial; experimental) or Accidental (natural; intrinsic). Intentional acts are deterministic & teleological, while Accidental events are random & probabilistic, caused by Chance. But you implied that "chance" means, not calculable mathematical probability, but merely ignorance of the effective Cause . . . a shrug of the shoulders. Then you admitted that an event without a (known or inferred) cause is "unintelligible". So, why place natural Accidents into a separate category from cultural Intentions? That would seem to be a resignation to the incomprehensibility of Nature.

Accidents in nature are usually attributed to statistically deterministic Natural Laws as the Cause, which originally referred back to the Will of God as the Prime Cause. Hence, even apparently random events were presumed to be Teleological and Intentional. Scientists still use the term "Law", but dispense with the notion of an intentional Lawgiver. That's because, unlike some philosophers, to admit ignorance of the chain of causation would undermine the validity of their theories. Unfortunately, their logical chain has no beginning, no First Cause --- only infinite ignorance.

According to Hume though, we have no way of knowing for sure that an effect is caused by its precedent. Instead, we merely assume that there is some (lawful) link between the before and after states. In other words, the Cause of an Effect is inferred rationally, but not observed empirically. Is that what you mean by, "it doesn't refer to anything real"? And yet modern Science would not work without Causal Inference, and the term "law" implies a willful deterministic Cause of some kind : perhaps the vague notion of Philosophical Necessity. Chance may not be a clear-cut Cause, where the intention can be ascertained by asking the intender. But, for the purposes of Science, Chance is the causal power of Nature, not some spooky fickle force like Fate.

Chance :
1, do something by accident or without design.
2. in the most general sense of the word, is the negation of necessity and the opposite of determinism.
3. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance.

Probabilistic Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_causation

Correlation does not imply causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation

Statistical Determinism : https://dictionary.apa.org/statistical-determinism

Transference theory of causation : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01 ... causat.pdf

[Gnomon]

We cannot say, as you do, that intentional acts are deterministic, because the evidence is that we have freedom of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, you are looking at causation from a different perspective. When I say that Intention is a deterministic cause, I mean that the human Intender had the power to determine a specific effect. That's why most people believe they have enough Freewill to overrule the Common Cause of random events. You may be thinking of determinism in terms of Divine Will. Theists tend to believe in divine fore-ordination, by analogy with human design and programming. That is what we call the First or Primary Causation, which is reflected in the teleology of Natural Causes. Hence, human intentions and creations are secondary causal acts.

Common Cause vs Special Cause : Common Cause is also known as Chance Cause (natural pattern). Special Cause is a non-random, unpredictable causation, such as an intentional human act (un-natural cause).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ca ... tatistics)

Likewise, as I already explained, we cannot say that natural occurrences are caused by chance. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've been using the term "Chance" as a shorthand for "Random Probability". So I assume you have some important philosophical reason for denying that natural events are caused by random Chance. Since "Chance" is an ancient notion of natural agency similar to Fate, perhaps we should use the more scientific "Probability". Note, in the definition below, "Chance" refers to Causation that is unpredictable, or random, instead of Intentional. Therefore, when we can't attribute an effect to any particular (special) cause, we say it was "caused" by Chance, meaning a natural random event (or an act of God), instead of an intentional willed effect by human agents. Therefore, our disagreement is not a category error, but merely the failure to properly define our terms for this context.

Chance : the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency:

Probabilistic Causation : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/caus ... abilistic/

Chance and Causality : http://home.uchicago.edu/~jlmartin/Chan ... sality.pdf

PS__I forgot how we came to disagree on the use of "Chance" pertaining to natural events. Please describe what difference it makes to your understanding of Causation in general.
PPS__ I may have answered my own question in the next post.