TPF : Non-Physical Reality II

[Gnomon]

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/752130

Language and mathematics do NOT exist in the physical world. They are not of matter. Yet if they are tools, then they can't not exist. — god must be atheist

I agree that Language (Logic) and Mathematics are meta-physical functions (tools) that are necessary for the existence of the physical world. Some mathematicians have begun to view abstract Mathematics as the logical structure of the physical universe. In that case, math/logic is not in the physical world, it is the physical world. Our brains merely convert sensory digital inputs (information) into imaginary concepts that we accept as accurate representations of the physical world. We translate geometric & logical relationships into topological models of "real" things.

Although those conceptual "things" are merely ideas, for all practical purposes, they are the furniture of the real world. We treat our mental models as-if they are real. Those ideas may-or-may-not exist as physical objects, but they are still within the scope of the space-time natural world. Hence, not "super-natural", but merely "meta-physical"*2. Yes, I know it's a taboo word for Materialists.


*1. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

*2. Meta-physics :
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 later 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

[Gnomon]

But when I said that the human mind is a non-phyiscal entity that exists with the aid of matter, but is itself not of matter, he balked at me.
Yet, without a mind there is no language, there is no mathematics. — god must be atheist

This sounds like the age-old debate between Materialism and Idealism. Even Plato and Aristotle were divided on the question of primacy. However, in his Hylomorphism theory, Aristotle seemed to admit that something immaterial (Form ; Substance ; Essence) was prior to, or at least co-existent with, physical Matter. In his "Physics", he mainly described tangible objects in the world, but also referred to logical processes that are invisible-yet-knowable to the rational human mind. Then, in the volume known as "Metaphysics", he turned to discussion of human ideas & theories about the material world. Those mental concepts are literally Ideal, and do not manifest in material form --- except perhaps to those who imagine that they see ghosts.

I suppose that Aristotle was too pragmatic to accept the mystical primacy of Mathematics, accepted as a fundamental belief by Pythagoreans. So he viewed Plato's Idealism as a little too spooky for his taste. But, in his own rational arguments, he was forced to resort to combining physical stuff (hyle ; matter) with mental concepts (morph ; form) in order to explain how the logical patterns by which we know Matter could transform into the ideal forms of mental images.

Modern empirical physicists also tend to imagine the "material" objects they study as aggregates of fundamental "atoms". This despite the fact that Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science. Their supposedly indivisible particles of Hyle have been divided & sub-divided into smaller fragments that are too ethereal (quarks) for our sense-extending tools to resolve. Hence, many if not most Theoretical physicists have decided that the fundamental entities of physical reality are mathematical Fields of inter-relationships (geometry). But, the empiricists still insist on calling the non-dimensional points --- that are geometrically-linked to other mathematically-defined points in otherwise empty space --- "Virtual (almost but not quite real) Particles".

So, it seems that philosophical disputes, about physical vs non-physical entities, boil down to a question of personal taste or belief systems (worldviews). But even "physical" Energy, which is essential to explain any change in material objects, is itself invisible & intangible. Being merely a name for the relationship between Cause & Effect : a process, not at thing. At the bottom line, modern empirical (mechanical) physicists, whose names are not well-known, are often overshadowed by theoretical (mathematical) physicists (Einstein, Tegmark et al). The latter create abstract mathematical models of things unseen, and publicize imaginative metaphors & imagery to explain the puzzling results of atom-smashing experiments and star-smashing astronomical events.

Consequently, it's inevitable that philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems will clash & balk, when translated into "physical evidence" to support their own logical structure. Is it real? Depends on how you define "reality" in words & images. Which came first, the mind-making brain or the logical structure of the universe?

[Gnomon]

180 proof insists that everything real is natural. — god must be atheist

That is a true statement . . . . within the framework of 180's worldview of Materialism or Physicalism or Realism (or whatever he prefers to call his personal belief system). From that perspective, Reality is what you know via your 5 senses, but it omits what you know via the 6th sense of Reason. Yet, by means of logical reasoning, we infer meanings that are not obvious to the naked eye. For example, my assumption that you are a rational being like me is a belief that is not based on physical evidence, but on abstract forms of behavior.

Hence, my belief about you is debatable, but not provable by empirical methods. The ancients attributed that gift of Reason to an immortal Soul. And much mischief has followed from the unwarranted "immortal" label attached to the combination of Life & Mind, that is referred to as "Spirit" or "Soul". So, a bit of skepticism toward Spiritualism is warranted. But 180, and other Physicalists, go beyond mere Skepticism into the Cynicism of Ideological disputation. FWIW In place of "immortal Soul", I prefer to use "mortal Self" to describe the person as a whole, including body, life & mind. The Self-image is indeed non-physical (i.e. Ideal), but not necessarily immortal.

That's why I typically avoid getting into creed-based disputes with 180proof. On the other hand, he does sometimes challenge my own unorthodox assertions with good skeptical philosophical questions. So, I'll take this opportunity to answer him indirectly in this post. The OP asks "what exists [is real] that is not physical [material]). And I have come to view Life & Mind as immaterial forms of the Logical processes we now know as "Information". But before that term was applied to machine thinking, it was used to describe the intangible contents of the human Mind : i.e. Ideas, Concepts, Memes, etc. We infer those thought-modules from our inter-communication of information, but cannot detect them by physical means.

That's why I have inferred from counter-intuitive Quantum Theory and abstract mathematical definitions of Information, that what we know as physical Energy is ultimately a mathematical relationship (1/0), equivalent to mental Logic. Hence, in agreement with some pioneering physicists (see below), I have come to equate the elements of Soul (life ; mind) with the abstract concept of Causation. I won't go into the details here, but instead -- if you'll pardon my intrusion -- I'll address some of his replies to my comments on this thread, from the perspective of my personal worldview : Enformationism -- the essence of everything, both physical & mental, in this world is a form of Generic Information (confer Plato's LOGOS). To 180, this sounds like the ravings of a New Age nut-case. But it's intended to be merely a merger of cutting-edge physical Science with the ancient meta-physical Philosophy of Plato & Aristotle, among others. It's all mundane ; no need for spooky Mysticism.


Reply to 180 :
" Quantum Science has undermined the materialistic beliefs of Classical science". — Gnomon
1. (In your own words) How so? ___180proof
*** I have explained to 180 the "how so" repeatedly in my own words, and those of credentialed scientists. But, some of the concepts underlying the "how" are not compatible with the Materialistic belief system we now call "Classical Physics". So, they don't make sense from the perspective of a matter-based worldview. For example, Newton proposed an unknown force (gravity = heaviness, a quality) that could bind planets in their orbits. But he could not understand how that action-at-a-distance-across-empty-space could work.
*** Centuries later, Einstein explained that intangible (no ropes) pulling force in terms of counter-intuitive geometry of nothingness (curved vacuum). The medium of that non-physical traction was simply a mathematical relationship between masses of matter. But Mass itself is nothing more than a mathematical description of the immaterial property of Matter known as "Inertia" (resistance to change ; stubborness). The links between puller & pullee are immaterial vectors, that we symbolize with metaphorical numbers & arrows.
*** Although some practicing scientists resist some of the spookier implications of quantum theory, they have been forced to admit that our normal reality is underlain by an invisible domain that has subtle-but-vital bottom-up effects on the human scale. They might also grudgingly concede that the world's foundation of immaterial fields must be ultimately more real than the egocentric imaginary models of reality --- both materialistic & spiritualistic --- that we carry around in our heads. So, since both our macro & quantum world models can be boiled down to mental images, numbers & ideas, the question arises : what is true reality . . . a collection of isolated things, a swarm of mindless atoms, or a story woven of meanings? Personally, I find the idea of a world of ideas to be plausible & meaningful in the context of 21st century science.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page15.html

2 (Again, in your own words) "Materialistic beliefs" such as? ___180
Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques
Scientism : Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. ___Google
*** In my own words, Scientism rejects the traditional rational methods of Philosophy, based on the Classical Science belief in the final authority of empirical methods. However, in the words of quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg : "classical physics is just that idealization in which we can speak about parts of the world without any reference to ourselves". In that case, a fundamental belief of Scientism is that the human mind (Ideas) has no control over the physical world. Yet, historically, the power of Intention has transformed the natural world into an artificial habitat designed specifically for the needs of humans. To me, that sounds like mental Causation : from idea to implementation. Yes, matter must be moved in order to cause physical change, but the causal influence can be traced to the flow of mundane Information, not to New Agey mental energy such as Chi.

3. As opposed to "nonphysical Energy"? If so, please cite an example.
***The intuition of a "nonphysical" form of energy (Chi, Prana, Elan Vital) has been proposed by sages & philosophers over the ages to explain the existence of Life & Mind. But I prefer a modern term derived from Information Theory : EnFormAction. That made-up word refers to both physical & metaphysical forces in the world. It's based on the 21st century understanding that Energy & Matter are physical forms of Generic Information (the power to cause change in form). It's what Aristotle called "Potential" to explain the contingent existence of "Actual" things.
***An example of non-physical energy is human Intention. It's how humans fly to the moon. Intentional aims are directed toward a future state that does not yet exist. But, by applying that vector to matter (rockets) & energy (fuel), humans have collectively learned to fly like birds, and even to explore the moon. Without Intention, Nature would never put humans on an airless low-gravity satellite.
*** But, what is Energy or Force anyway? For scientific purposes, it is a general property (Causation) of the universe as a system, which causes changes in material substances. Some religions also view Spiritual Energy (Life Force or Soul) as a universal property, that manifests in changes not only to physical bodies, but also in non-physical minds. So which is it? Sadly, these are not physical, but metaphysical queries. Hence, any answers we propose can never be proven true or false by means of empirical evidence. In the Quora quotes below, Neuroscientist Rosseinsky, indicates that we can construct logical explanations, given specific premises, for both possibilities, but we can't prove that one is a fact and the other a fantasy. Each may be valid within its own purview. That's why I prefer to make a key distinction between mundane Reality and sublime Ideality.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html


" ... philosophical (metaphysical) belief systems ..."]___180
4. If philosophy consists in criteria for forming and judging "beliefs" (i.e. epistemology), then philosophy cannot itself be a "belief system", right? (Re: the epistemic regress problem.)
*** Of course, Philosophy per se is not a particular belief system, but an evaluation of belief systems. And a dominant belief today, among scientists, is the primacy of Matter : i.e. Materialism or Physicalism or Scientism. [Note : the -ism ending indicates a belief system, worldview, or philosophy] But Philosophy has always tried to understand all features of the real world, including those that cannot be attributed to inert Matter, or even to the invisible forces that act upon matter. Two of those mysterious properties of the world are Life and Mind. These are not material objects subject to empirical scrutiny, but processes that can only be analyzed by Reason. So, we are forced to rely on non-empirical Logic (including Math) to show us how such "meta-physical" properties could arise in a world of physical actions & reactions.
*** Today, we use the term "Energy" to describe all physical changes in the world. Presumably, in the Planck-scale Big Bang singularity, there was nothing but potential power to cause change. And the first form-change was from formless Cosmic Potential into ghostly free-floating "sub-particles" (quarks ; gluons) of potential matter called "plasma". Over time, that amorphous gaseous cloud was transformed into the fundamental particles that we know today as solid matter. This story is not based on direct evidence, but of imagination, to explain how stars, planets, and people began from a dimensionless point in non-space. Some call the Big Bang a "modern creation myth". And some form of that myth is fundamental to the belief system we call Scientism, which adapts Classical Materialism to the new facts of Quantum Physics . But it still excludes the intentional Observer from its calculations.
*** Not all scientists subscribe to the modern Matter myth. In fact, some of the pioneers of Quantum Theory were forced to consider other paradigms to make sense of the Matter/Mind duality proposed by scientist/philosopher Descartes. For example, the application of Information Theory to Quantum Theory has started a movement toward another "paradigm shift" in scientific belief systems. This is currently an adjustment to philosophical worldviews, but it may eventually result in a scientific paradigm shift equal to that of Quantum Physics.

Form is Information :
"Later, in the philosophy of Aristotle, matter was thought of in the relation between form and matter. All that we perceive in the world of phenomena is formed matter. Matter is in itself not a reality, but only a possibility, a "potentia" ; it exists only by means of form. In the natural process the "essence", as Aristotle calls it, passes over from mere possibility through form into actuality."
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
Note -- what Aristotle called "form" we can today equate with the causal power of Information, as discovered by Claude Shannon, and elaborated by later physicists.

The Matter Myth : Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Myth-Disc ... 0743290917

PLASMA : Latin for FORM
maxresdefault.jpg

[Gnomon]

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural

But it's not a perfect answer. Because the universe also contains empty space. And it contains functionalities that are not matter, yet they exist. — god must be atheist

Recently, I have been exploring the oft-buried & resurrected zombie notion that "empty space" is full of something that has physical effects, but is not physical itself : Quintessence or Aether. The new understanding is that "empty space" is not a cloud of tiny particles, but something more like a Mathematical Field of Potential Energy. We detect & measure invisible intangible Energy, by what it does (function), not by what it is (physical material). And one of its functions is to create physical Matter by means of mathematical Mass. Is that something like what you had in mind in the OP?

PS__Like "Metaphysics", "Aether" can be a trigger-word for Classical-Physics-Materialists to denounce as "Pseudoscience". Yet, in the last century, the logical necessity for something like Aether has continued to pop-up among physicists uncomfortable with the compromises embedded in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, due to the unavoidable statistical uncertainties (probabilities) of quantum experiments. The Quora opinion linked below is not necessarily authoritative, but it provides food for thought : about non-physical (essential) existence.

Energy :
"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. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic." https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/educ ... -of-energy
Note -- Potential Energy is by definition, not actual. And Kinetic Energy is merely the after-effect of Energy Causation.

Does Aether Exist? :
"Under a surface of vociferous denying and pointing to flawed experiments there is a general acceptance even among modern physicists and Nobel Laureates that there is a physical strata that plays fundamentally the role of an Aether, although the term is so laden with philosophical prejudices that no one really dares to commit to the name Aether and all sorts of alternative and rather silly sounding denotations are invented: “quantum foam”, “quantum fluid” for instance or this “field” or that “field”, where nobody ever can point out what kind of physical species a field IS. There are at best vague ideas what a field DOES: "
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist ... rn-physics
Note -- It seems that, by labeling the mysterious source of "virtual" particles as a visualizable Cartesian "Field", quantum physics were attempting to avoid the prejudices attached to mystical ancient "Aether" : the ethereal atmosphere of the Olympian gods

Aether proven not to exist? :
Michelsen-Morley: the erroneous notion of a monolithic ether filling space through which all moving bodies must travel, led to the ill fated “M&M experiment” which inevitably yielded a null-result: nothing moves “through” the Aether, the Aether is not a substance filling an autonomous space, but space IS itself an Aether modality as we will see.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist ... rn-physics
Note -- The M-M experiment was assuming that Aether was a physical substance in space. But some new theories propose that non-physical Aether is SpaceTime : a mathematical mental model, not a physical object.
5 days ago

[Gnomon]

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural?

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — god must be atheist


The OP questions our Ontological definition of Nature & Being : Physical (P) vs Non-physical (non-P) existence. That Either/Or distinction has boiled down to defining "substance" and "entity". So, I'll ask a few quibbling questions for clarification. This is not criticism, just a few pertinent open questions to think about.

[1] asserts an ordered universe, and [3] seems to attribute that logical organization to "principles & laws". Which category would you place those orderly forces into : P or non-P? If physical "Laws" (or regulations) are detectable only by rational minds, not by empirical methods, what is their Substance : Matter or Math or Mind or Aristotelian Essence, or Other?

Into which category would you place "Mathematics" [4] : P or non-P? If Math is a physical substance, is it Matter or Energy or Mind or Other? If neither Matter nor Energy, how can Math exist according to [2]? Supernatural existence has already been ruled-out by the topical question. So, if Math is non-P, in what sense is it Natural?

[9] Space & Time, as conventional concepts had always been imagined as separate functions of Nature (Reality), but fundamental & absolute. Yet, for theoretical graphical purposes, Einstein combined the notions of spatial Extension & temporal Duration into a single mathematical function : "Space-Time" or "Block-Time". Although still fundamental or essential, in what sense do Space & Time exist : P or non-P, or Other?

Typically, in philosophical dialog, both Ps & non-Ps are considered to be Entities, but in what sense : physical substance or metaphysical essence? Is "Being" defined exclusively, as Physical (matter & energy) and "Non-Being" as non-physical, or mutually as different modes of Being? If Non-physical entities are non-being, why should physicists or philosophers concern themselves with such non-existent non-entities?


Entity : a thing with distinct and independent existence.
But is the distinction mental or physical? Is the independence local or universal?

What is a substance according to Aristotle?
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ ... sophy.html

[Gnomon]

I think we're just repeating ourselves and playing with language. And as far as physics and neuroscience goes, we are both out of our depth. — Tom Storm

This is merely a typical philosophical failure to adequately define our terms & categories. We talk past each other, not because as laymen we are out of our depth, but because one of us is discussing empirical "Physics and Neuroscience" and the other is discussing theoretical Philosophy. Fortunately, it's not all Greek to me, or to you, I assume.

As I noted before, concepts such as "quality, structure, space, and change" are not physical bodies, hence not subject to empirical dissection. Likewise the "function" of a thing is not a physical object, but a rational inference from observing the states & actions of the thing. So, equating the Mind (function) with the Brain (object) confuses physical properties (wet, warm, gelatinous) with mental functions (ideas, thoughts, feelings). Biologists & Neuroscientists study Brains, while Philosophers study Minds.

Yet, long before the knowing disciplines diverged -- partly due to technological tools for extending the human senses -- Aristotle wrote an encyclopedia of current knowledge of his era (iron & steel were high-tech). And for some reason, he saw fit to divide the work into volume 1 Physics and volume 2 Philosophy, later labeled Meta-Physics. The first volume described observations of natural objects and physical actions : Elements ; Motion. Then, in the second volume, he discussed philosophical cultural principles & theories that were intended to explain what we observed.

Ironically, since the 1700s, those philosophical topics have been branded taboo, and relegated to the sophistry of Theologians. So, what can laymen & non-scientists legitimately discuss on a philosophy forum? Are we limited to the language of Matter & Energy? Should we restrict our language to Physical "principles of classification"? Must we refrain from using Aristotle's language of "substance, quality, quantity, and relation", because such words can be interpreted theologically? If so, why not change the name of this forum to The Physics and Neuroscience Forum?


Physics vs Philosophy :
"many bitter scientific controversies are actually disputes about the selection of principles of classification or frameworks . . . .There simply is no science practiced independently of philosophy . . . . scientists should not pretend that empirical science is value free . . ."
___Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics

Language of Physicists :
"it is a language that produces pictures in our mind, but together with them the notion that the pictures have only a vague connection with reality, that they represent only a tendency toward reality"
"Actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism"
"The modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy"
"the nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science but also the general outlook of great masses of people. This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality. . . . Matter was the primary reality."
"an open hostility of science toward religion developed . . . . Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind. . . . . modern {quantum} physics . . . . finally resulted in the dissolution of the rigid frame"
___Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

[Gnomon]

Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable (rate - and thus the beginning of time and space - the only medium in which rate (change) can occur. — Benj96

How did you arrive at that novel conclusion? I have entertained (inferred from E=MC^2) the above-my-paygrade-notion that Matter is essentially slowed-down (decelerated) Light energy. For example, at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter. I have found a few statements by scientists that could be interpreted as pointing in that direction, but nothing definitive.

Regarding the "beginning of time & space", what could cause presumably continuous (wavey) Pure Energy to coalesce into quantized (particular) photons (change ; time) and thence into matter (malleable ; space)? Can pure energy interact with itself? These are just rhetorical questions.

[Gnomon]

Well the photon is "matterless" yes (not physical/solid/has no dimension) but not massless. . . .
If a photon was massless how could it impart its mass to matter when it decelerates? — Benj96

A photon is said to be "massless"*1 when it is moving at lightspeed (its definitive state). In that case, it is essentially Pure Energy, undiluted by Matter (pace 180wooboo)*2. But when a photon slows down to a fraction of lightspeed, some of that Potential Energy is converted into Mass, which is a mathematical expression of its potential to be measured in terms of Matter. The "rest mass"*3 of a photon is only a hypothetical concept*4, since in practice a resting ("matterspeed") photon is no longer a photon (potential), but a particle of some material (actual).

At lightspeed, all of the photon's Energy is in the form of Momentum, which is the potential to transfer energy to another particle upon interaction. An interaction event would tend to slow-down the photon by absorbing some of its momentum energy. But I'm not sure what would cause a photon to slow-down without interacting with another massive/momentum particle. So, I was hoping you could shed some light on that aspect of the Energy/Momentum/Mass/Matter equation. Momentum & Mass are mathematical abstractions, and their only measurable properties are what we call Velocity & Matter.

When you said : "Energy converting into matter is decceleration - conversion of potential to change into something changeable." I responded with : "at lightspeed a photon is massless, but as it slows down to matterspeed, it transforms into mathematical Mass, which we measure in terms of physical Matter." Put those notions together, and you get Aristotle's categories of Potential (momentum) and Actual (matter). Thus, explaining Einstein's equation of Energy with Mass times the speed of light squared (C^2). Do you agree that we (you, me, Albert) are saying the same thing in different words?


*1. A photon is massless, has no electric charge, and is a stable particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Note -- existentially stable, but not static (stationary).

*2. Pure energy is any field energy, like potential energy, any kinetic energy, like a fast moving particle, but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ure-energy

*3. Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. . . .
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them,
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physi ... _mass.html

*4. According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10 - 54 kg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9719330943

[Gnomon]

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
— god must be atheist
There's not much else for us to discuss then.
-- T Clark — god must be atheist

Any use of the terms "Metaphysics" & "Beliefs" will terminate a dialog with several posters on TPF. That reaction is probably due to previous encounters with philosophically-frustrating dogmatic religious positions based on ancient Theology. However, personally, I find the notion of Meta-physics (non-physical) meaningful as a complementary perspective to Physics. Aristotle divided his encyclopedia on Nature (phusis) into two different categories of human understanding : 1> as known by the senses (physics) and 2> as known via reasoning (metaphysics). But, lingering prejudice against centuries of dominant Catholic dogma is strong on this forum . . . and with good reason. However, that rejection sometimes throws-out a beautiful baby with the nasty bathwater, and tars Philosophy with the brush of Religion, and identifies cutting-edge Science with New Age mumbo-jumbo. Ironically, over the last century, modern (post-quantum) physics has been rubbing our noses in the malodorous margins where Atomism (Materialism) dissolves into Fieldism (Mathematicalism).

Undaunted by the pitchforks & torches of anti-meta-physics witch-hunters, I am philosophically motivated to continue investigating the mysterious margins of post-quantum science. And one spooky notion that just won't die, is the ancient concept of ephemeral Aether, permeating reality with an invisible intangible substance. Yet, that's another taboo term that will elicit boos & hisses from those who are, like Einstein, uncomfortable with the idea of a chancy world where "God plays dice".

In addition to the Aether-supporting quotes from scientists in my previous posts, I realized belatedly that I had read a book about 10 years ago, that may have put some subconscious positive spin on the concept of Space-Time interpreted as Aether. The book was The Lightness of Being, Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces, by nobel physicist Frank Wilczek. From the Introduction :"Transcending older ideas about matter and space, he explains a remarkable new discovery : Matter is built from almost weightless units, and pure energy is the ultimate source of mass. . . . . Space is no mere container, empty and passive. It is a dynamic Grid --- a modern ether. The Grid*1 is more fundamental than any 'fundamental particles' . . ."

Inspired by that new-old notion of Reality, I will try to present additional scientific evidence and arguments to support the understanding that the physical material world of the senses, is underlain by a metaphysical mathematical realm of Potential that reveals itself only to human Reason. Of course, some will interpret such outlandish notions as support for ghosts & spirits. But disillusioned Wilczek had forsaken his Catholic upbringing, and concluded : "I came to think that if God exists, He (or She, or They or It) did a much more impressive job revealing Himself in the world than in the old books . . ." And that is also the position from which I approach the ongoing revelations of sub-quantum Physics. The resurrected Aether concept is still in the early stages of zombiehood, so there is no final authoritative consensus to ground your own beliefs. It's just something new & exciting ("field excitations") to challenge your current settled worldview.


*1. "The Grid" is Wilczek's term for Maxwell's continuous (non-particular) electromagnetic fields.

[Gnomon]

The answer to the OP would depend on how one defines "physical" and "supernatural". Is one the negation of the other? — Agent Smith

Yes. But that ancient dichotomy won't fly in the modern world. "Physical" is merely what we know about Nature via the mammalian senses. And, "Super-natural"*1 implies some form of extra-sensory perception (ESP), and an invisible realm above or behind mundane Reality*2. Which implies that ESP can perceive things & actions that are beyond the reach of mundane Science --- which ultimately depends on artificial (technological) extensions of the 5 physical senses.

In that case, the door is opened to charlatans (seers), who claim to possess ESP. So, those of us, who are not blessed with "second sight" must accept or reject the revelations of the Seers on faith or doubt. Yet, modern pragmatic, results-oriented, Science has out-shone the empty claims of the psychics -- in a secular sense -- with hard physical evidence. For example, our cell-phone crystal balls allow those of us without super-natural powers to see & control events on the other side of the world. Hence techno-magic makes blind-faith unnecessary.

That's why I prefer to use the term "Meta-physics" to mean the Complement of Physics. Unfortunately, that term is still associated with "supernatural", and is taken to be the Negation of Physics. So, I can't take advantage of its Complementary*3 implications, for fear of being misunderstood, due to its prejudicial baggage. I've tried a variety of alternatives, and "Non-Physical" seems to be the least offensive, but also least evocative of a complementary relationship.

What we know via the sixth sense of Reason (knowledge ; information ; meaning) is indeed invisible & intangible & non-physical (immaterial ; mental). But, since those matterless patterns of meaning (relationships) are found within the scope of ordinary reality, they are not Super-Natural. They are merely Mental or Imaginary or Conceptual : ideas about things, but not things themselves. Our mental models of reality are "not of the physical world", but exist (ideally) within the Natural world.

As far as we know, the ability to Reason (to infer what is not obvious to the senses) is a product of cause & effect Evolution. But it is not a physical effect, like position or shape change. The sense of Reason is a non-physical effect, like viral memes*4. It's another complementary relationship : Natural (physical) & Cultural (meta-physical). Together, they form our human understanding (model) of Reality, as a whole system.


*1. Supernatural : (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. ___Google

*2. Ironically, modern science has revealed a mysterious invisible sub-atomic domain right under our noses. So, the layman on the street could be forgiven for equating that sub-natural foundation of reality with the traditional super-natural heavenly realm. Are quarks any more physical than angels? As a non-scientist, she would have to take the existence of such entities on faith in those who infer their existence from immaterial (non-physical) mathematical evidence.

*3. Complementary : interdependent ; correlative ; Yin-Yang ; BothAnd

*4. Meme : A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. ___Wikipedia