The idea that information is ontologically fundamental, not to mention non-physical, is very far from being a consensus view among contemporary physicists as far as I am aware, so your lame attempt to cast my questioning of the idea as coming from a mindset mired in classical physics is laughable. — Janus
Yes. That's why I referred to it as "cutting edge". As I said, the reference to Classical Science was not intended to be derogatory. No need to take offense, because the majority of people today, including philosophers, seem to take intuitive Classical Newtonian Physics for granted, and ignore counter-intuitive Quantum Physics as mysticism unrelated to their daily lives. The notion that Information occurs in both material and non-material forms is a minority concept. But it is essential to my own personal information-centric worldview, including my understanding of Monism. Are you laughing at my mindset, or at the novel ideas of professional physicists, or both?
As a "fundamental physical entity" Information exists in the form of Energy*1 --- which is the active ingredient of Physics, yet is immaterial itself. Energy is invisible and intangible*2, so we know it exists as a Cause only by rational inference from its Effects on matter. But then, immaterial Energy can transform into Matter, by means of Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. As a philosopher, you don't need to know or worry about such "non-sense", unless you are interested in such non-sense as Causation & Monism.
*1. Information is Energy :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... uivalence/
*2. Light energy is an invisible energy which causes the sensation of vision in the eye.
https://infinitylearn.com/surge/questio ... le-energy/
18 minutes ago
TPF : Monism
Re: TPF : Monism
Since Monism, as it exists on this forum, has failed to provide any coherent theory of information, a test of functionality should by applied.
Something like the ability to derive pi could be used. — Mark Nyquist
Monism is the belief that the variety of things in the world can be traced back to a single Origin or Substance or Cause. That is exactly what the Enformationism thesis attempts to do. The First Cause in that case is, not a person, place, or thing, but the creative power to enform. Presumably, it is empowered to create both material forms, such as stars, planets & rocks; and immaterial forms, such as rational minds --- from the same original source : Unrealized Potential. Since UP is not something that we experience in the real world, we can only conjecture about it. That's what Plato & Aristotle did with their First Cause (creator) and Prime Mover (causal energy) theories. It's something to think about, but being un-real, any such Monistic Origin cannot be scientifically-proven to exist, only philosophically shown to be plausible.
One "functional test" of such an un-real (ideal) Potential --- ability to create from scratch*1 (perhaps even via the gradual evolutionary process of en-formation*2) --- is the emergence of creatures that are more than just material real objects, but also immaterial ideal minds. And the primary function of a Mind is to see what is not obvious to the physical eye. For instance, the mathematical function PI is not a thing, but a relationship between two ways of measuring circular objects : circumferences & diameters. Any animal with eyes can see round objects. But perfect circles & circumferences & diameters are invisible to the eye. So the irrational ratio we call PI is only apparent to rational minds. How could such an abstract function arise from a merely material origin?
*1. Create from scratch :
from the beginning, without using anything that already exists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... om-scratch
*2. Enformation :
to form (fashion ; create) something new from something old, or from unrealized potential
This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it. — Mark Nyquist
One definition of Monism is "a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world". If there is no ultimate distinction between Matter & Mind, then the duality we conceive must be missing some essence that is the same in both aspects of the world. In the Enformationism thesis, that ultimate essence is the power to create from scratch : to Enform (to give Actual form to formless Potential). We get glimpses of that creative power in : a> information as Energy ; DNA information ; Quantum information ; and Shannon information*3. All are capable of transforming one thing into another : Energy into Mass ; DNA into proteins ; Quantum fields of potential into actual particles of matter ; and meaningless Shannon information (data) into meaningful concepts (ideas) in human minds.
Monism is a holistic philosophical problem, not a reductive scientific project. So, the "how" of Monism is not subject to empirical evidence; only theoretical argument*4. In the Enformationism thesis the single definition of Monism is "The Power to Enform".
*3. Multiple definitions of Information :
Knowledge ; Intelligence ; meaning ; Energy ; DNA ; Qbits ; Shannon data ; Deacon "causal absence" ;
Note --- "Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification." https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/ ... mation.pdf
*4. How does Information transform Matter into Mind? By the reverse of Energy into Mass. In that case, Mind is not a physical Thing (brain), but a non-physical Power (potential) : to conceive of immaterial Ideas from experience with Real material objects.
Something like the ability to derive pi could be used. — Mark Nyquist
Monism is the belief that the variety of things in the world can be traced back to a single Origin or Substance or Cause. That is exactly what the Enformationism thesis attempts to do. The First Cause in that case is, not a person, place, or thing, but the creative power to enform. Presumably, it is empowered to create both material forms, such as stars, planets & rocks; and immaterial forms, such as rational minds --- from the same original source : Unrealized Potential. Since UP is not something that we experience in the real world, we can only conjecture about it. That's what Plato & Aristotle did with their First Cause (creator) and Prime Mover (causal energy) theories. It's something to think about, but being un-real, any such Monistic Origin cannot be scientifically-proven to exist, only philosophically shown to be plausible.
One "functional test" of such an un-real (ideal) Potential --- ability to create from scratch*1 (perhaps even via the gradual evolutionary process of en-formation*2) --- is the emergence of creatures that are more than just material real objects, but also immaterial ideal minds. And the primary function of a Mind is to see what is not obvious to the physical eye. For instance, the mathematical function PI is not a thing, but a relationship between two ways of measuring circular objects : circumferences & diameters. Any animal with eyes can see round objects. But perfect circles & circumferences & diameters are invisible to the eye. So the irrational ratio we call PI is only apparent to rational minds. How could such an abstract function arise from a merely material origin?
*1. Create from scratch :
from the beginning, without using anything that already exists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... om-scratch
*2. Enformation :
to form (fashion ; create) something new from something old, or from unrealized potential
This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it. — Mark Nyquist
One definition of Monism is "a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world". If there is no ultimate distinction between Matter & Mind, then the duality we conceive must be missing some essence that is the same in both aspects of the world. In the Enformationism thesis, that ultimate essence is the power to create from scratch : to Enform (to give Actual form to formless Potential). We get glimpses of that creative power in : a> information as Energy ; DNA information ; Quantum information ; and Shannon information*3. All are capable of transforming one thing into another : Energy into Mass ; DNA into proteins ; Quantum fields of potential into actual particles of matter ; and meaningless Shannon information (data) into meaningful concepts (ideas) in human minds.
Monism is a holistic philosophical problem, not a reductive scientific project. So, the "how" of Monism is not subject to empirical evidence; only theoretical argument*4. In the Enformationism thesis the single definition of Monism is "The Power to Enform".
*3. Multiple definitions of Information :
Knowledge ; Intelligence ; meaning ; Energy ; DNA ; Qbits ; Shannon data ; Deacon "causal absence" ;
Note --- "Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification." https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/ ... mation.pdf
*4. How does Information transform Matter into Mind? By the reverse of Energy into Mass. In that case, Mind is not a physical Thing (brain), but a non-physical Power (potential) : to conceive of immaterial Ideas from experience with Real material objects.
Re: TPF : Monism
We deal with the formless but not without our physical brains.
I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains. — Mark Nyquist
Apparently, you are talking about material Form (substance) that is visible to the eye, while I am referring to immaterial Form (meaning). The philosophical First Cause, that I talk about, existed prior to all contingent causes, such as the Big Bang*1. So, there was nothing (no material things, no physical forms, no brains) to see at that point in pre-time*2. Your skepticism seems to be due to a common communication barrier on the forum : when one is talking about Physics and the other about Philosophy.
*1. Chaos :
Plato postulated a distinction between physical time-bound enformed Cosmos, and metaphysical timeless formless Chaos. You might say that his First Cause was a "pre-cause", the Potential to cause Actual events. He didn't personify that Potential as a god, but only as a philosophical or mathematical Principle.
A Void of nothing-but-unrealized-formless Potential makes no sense in Classical Physics, but for Philosophy & Quantum Physics, it allows us to talk about infinite unformed possibilities and other unreal notions as-if they were real things, like Virtual Particles. Therefore, for philosophical purposes, we can talk about a formless possibility that exists only as statistical Potential in an abstract mathematical realm with no squiggly DNA and no jello-like Brains. Does math exist in brains, or in minds?
For scientific purposes, when quantum physicists refer to "Superposition", it's not a place or thing, but merely an imaginary statistical state with no actual matter, position, momentum, but only the Potential to produce a physical particle when triggered by an Observation. Quantum Superposition transcends our physical experience with an actual position in space you can put your finger on.
Perhaps that's just a modern notion of formless Chaos, triggered by a mental Cause into producing a real world. The pioneers of quantum physics were, at first, skeptical of such a formless state of existence. But they were forced by the evidence to accept a metaphysical philosophical concept as having physical effects in the real world : the collapse of Potential into Actual.
*2. The Time before Time :
Time is not a thing, but a system of measurement. For physical purposes, we measure Time in terms of changes in physical objects : sun. moon, etc. But for philosophical purposes we use the word "time" metaphorically instead of materially. When Plato & Aristotle postulated a First Cause to explain all real world contingencies, they were not talking about any material form in space-time that could be seen with a physical eye, but an immaterial formless concept that can only be seen by the mind's eye : reason, inference, imagination. That's the difference between Physics and Philosophy.
Time is Energy :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains. — Mark Nyquist
Apparently, you are talking about material Form (substance) that is visible to the eye, while I am referring to immaterial Form (meaning). The philosophical First Cause, that I talk about, existed prior to all contingent causes, such as the Big Bang*1. So, there was nothing (no material things, no physical forms, no brains) to see at that point in pre-time*2. Your skepticism seems to be due to a common communication barrier on the forum : when one is talking about Physics and the other about Philosophy.
*1. Chaos :
Plato postulated a distinction between physical time-bound enformed Cosmos, and metaphysical timeless formless Chaos. You might say that his First Cause was a "pre-cause", the Potential to cause Actual events. He didn't personify that Potential as a god, but only as a philosophical or mathematical Principle.
A Void of nothing-but-unrealized-formless Potential makes no sense in Classical Physics, but for Philosophy & Quantum Physics, it allows us to talk about infinite unformed possibilities and other unreal notions as-if they were real things, like Virtual Particles. Therefore, for philosophical purposes, we can talk about a formless possibility that exists only as statistical Potential in an abstract mathematical realm with no squiggly DNA and no jello-like Brains. Does math exist in brains, or in minds?
For scientific purposes, when quantum physicists refer to "Superposition", it's not a place or thing, but merely an imaginary statistical state with no actual matter, position, momentum, but only the Potential to produce a physical particle when triggered by an Observation. Quantum Superposition transcends our physical experience with an actual position in space you can put your finger on.
Perhaps that's just a modern notion of formless Chaos, triggered by a mental Cause into producing a real world. The pioneers of quantum physics were, at first, skeptical of such a formless state of existence. But they were forced by the evidence to accept a metaphysical philosophical concept as having physical effects in the real world : the collapse of Potential into Actual.
*2. The Time before Time :
Time is not a thing, but a system of measurement. For physical purposes, we measure Time in terms of changes in physical objects : sun. moon, etc. But for philosophical purposes we use the word "time" metaphorically instead of materially. When Plato & Aristotle postulated a First Cause to explain all real world contingencies, they were not talking about any material form in space-time that could be seen with a physical eye, but an immaterial formless concept that can only be seen by the mind's eye : reason, inference, imagination. That's the difference between Physics and Philosophy.
Time is Energy :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
Re: TPF : Monism
I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential. — Mark Nyquist
From a Materialist perspective, the concept of "Potential"*1 is not just counterintuitive, but unreal : either a thing is real, or it's not. But Plato was an Idealist, so the notion of something-from-nothing could make sense, if that "field" of nothingness*2 had the hypothetical power of Potential. To non-idealists that sounds like Mysticism. But quantum pioneers were faced with making physical sense of squirrely subatomic systems that wouldn't commit to a meaningful position or momentum until measured by an outside agency. The Copenhagen Interpretation of that non-sense was a compromise between theory & practice. Although the Superposition principle*3 --- described by a statistical wave-function --- seems to be super-natural, in practice repeated experiments confirmed the mathematical existence of that strange state of formless (statistical, mathematical, potential, immaterial) quasi-being.
As a result of that Ideal/Real compromise, and their use of Buddhist & Hindu metaphors, those pioneers gained a reputation as mystics*3. So, more pragmatic, and less theoretical, physicists, such as Richard Feynman decided to avoid getting into murky philosophical swamps, by focusing on practical results instead of theoretical understanding of what's actually happening : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, other scientists (e.g. Penrose & Tegmark) were more accepting of Mathematical Existence as contrasted with Material Existence. Also, several respectable physicists have come to terms with the mystical implications of Quantum Physics*1.
If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of spooky Quantum Physics, from a philosophical perspective, check-out the book*4 by science writer, Phillip Ball, editor of the science journal Nature. But, be advised that the ardent Materialists on this forum will advise you to avoid hypothetical philosophizing, and just accept their pragmatic realistic doctrine.
*1. Philosophical Potential :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form ..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Ideal or Potential or Mathematical Form (pattern; design) is a subjective mental concept, while Real or Actual or Material Form (shape ; substance) is an objective empirical observation.
*2. Quantum Field Potential :
The quantum potential energy, as introduced by David Bohm, is defined and interpreted within symplectic quantum mechanics. It is a form of energy which cannot be localized in space. It represent the energy associated with the spatial curvature of the square-root quantum fidelity.
https://hal.science/hal-03591111/document
Note --- In physics, a Field is not a material object, but a zone of space with the potential to manifest real particles of matter. In their statistical potential state, they are called Virtual (not yet real) Particles.
*3. Superposition :
Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/defin ... erposition
Note --- Multiple possible or potential states is an ideal statistical concept, not a real stable object. That's why quantum physics is a statistical science instead of an empirical science. Empirical measurements are metaphorically said to "collapse" the superposed non-local field (like a popped balloon) into a particular mundane location.
*4. Quantum Mysticism :
The leading writers in the field were not "crank" New Age authors but highly experienced physicists such as Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Wheeler and Paul Davies.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_Mysticism
*5. Beyond Weird :
Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different
____Phillip Ball
FYI___
What is the Nyquist information theory?
The Nyquist theorem specifies that a sinuisoidal function in time or distance can be regenerated with no loss of information as long as it is sampled at a frequency greater than or equal to twice per cycle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... st-theorem
Note -- This math is way over my head. So I'll stick to amateur philosophy.
From a Materialist perspective, the concept of "Potential"*1 is not just counterintuitive, but unreal : either a thing is real, or it's not. But Plato was an Idealist, so the notion of something-from-nothing could make sense, if that "field" of nothingness*2 had the hypothetical power of Potential. To non-idealists that sounds like Mysticism. But quantum pioneers were faced with making physical sense of squirrely subatomic systems that wouldn't commit to a meaningful position or momentum until measured by an outside agency. The Copenhagen Interpretation of that non-sense was a compromise between theory & practice. Although the Superposition principle*3 --- described by a statistical wave-function --- seems to be super-natural, in practice repeated experiments confirmed the mathematical existence of that strange state of formless (statistical, mathematical, potential, immaterial) quasi-being.
As a result of that Ideal/Real compromise, and their use of Buddhist & Hindu metaphors, those pioneers gained a reputation as mystics*3. So, more pragmatic, and less theoretical, physicists, such as Richard Feynman decided to avoid getting into murky philosophical swamps, by focusing on practical results instead of theoretical understanding of what's actually happening : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, other scientists (e.g. Penrose & Tegmark) were more accepting of Mathematical Existence as contrasted with Material Existence. Also, several respectable physicists have come to terms with the mystical implications of Quantum Physics*1.
If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of spooky Quantum Physics, from a philosophical perspective, check-out the book*4 by science writer, Phillip Ball, editor of the science journal Nature. But, be advised that the ardent Materialists on this forum will advise you to avoid hypothetical philosophizing, and just accept their pragmatic realistic doctrine.
*1. Philosophical Potential :
Matter is the potential factor, form the actualizing factor. (Aristotle further posited the existence of a prime mover, or unmoved mover, i.e., pure form ..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/potentiality
Note --- Ideal or Potential or Mathematical Form (pattern; design) is a subjective mental concept, while Real or Actual or Material Form (shape ; substance) is an objective empirical observation.
*2. Quantum Field Potential :
The quantum potential energy, as introduced by David Bohm, is defined and interpreted within symplectic quantum mechanics. It is a form of energy which cannot be localized in space. It represent the energy associated with the spatial curvature of the square-root quantum fidelity.
https://hal.science/hal-03591111/document
Note --- In physics, a Field is not a material object, but a zone of space with the potential to manifest real particles of matter. In their statistical potential state, they are called Virtual (not yet real) Particles.
*3. Superposition :
Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/defin ... erposition
Note --- Multiple possible or potential states is an ideal statistical concept, not a real stable object. That's why quantum physics is a statistical science instead of an empirical science. Empirical measurements are metaphorically said to "collapse" the superposed non-local field (like a popped balloon) into a particular mundane location.
*4. Quantum Mysticism :
The leading writers in the field were not "crank" New Age authors but highly experienced physicists such as Fritjof Capra, David Bohm, John Wheeler and Paul Davies.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_Mysticism
*5. Beyond Weird :
Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different
____Phillip Ball
FYI___
What is the Nyquist information theory?
The Nyquist theorem specifies that a sinuisoidal function in time or distance can be regenerated with no loss of information as long as it is sampled at a frequency greater than or equal to twice per cycle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... st-theorem
Note -- This math is way over my head. So I'll stick to amateur philosophy.
Re: TPF : Monism
I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential.
I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.
Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter? — Mark Nyquist
Yes. What's logically missing from the Big Bang theory is a pre-existing Causal Agency of some kind. Most BB theorists just assume as an axiom (without evidence) that Causal Energy & Natural Laws existed prior to the beginning of space-time, as we know it. I agree. But, for my own philosophical purposes, I refer to that combination of Causation & Organization as EnFormAction.
I assume you are asking for scientific reasons, instead of philosophical conjectures, to explain how "nothing" could become "something". So here's a link to an article by theoretical physicist & astronomer, Marcelo Gleiser*2. He assumes, again by reasoning beyond evidence, that Quantum Mechanics (immaterial mathematical Field*1) existed somewhere out in pre-space-time, and just spontaneously burped-out the living & thinking world we call Reality. He doesn't directly refer to a conjectural "Multiverse" as the Agency of Energy Fields & Limiting Laws, but that's what some imagine to be the Forever Cause.
Likewise, I assume, based on similar conjecturing, that the combination of Quantum Causation and Information Organization (EnFormAction) pre-existed the enformed world we experience today as Reality. Plato & Aristotle knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so they referred to that same Hypothetical world enformer as the First Cause or Prime Mover. That Immaterial Nothing is what is still missing from Materialistic theories of Cosmology & Ontology.
My thesis and Gleiser's thesis are in agreement. But he's using scientific terminology (formless Field), while I'm using philosophical vocabulary (formless Potential) to describe the immaterial nothingness that transformed into material somethingness. Is it magic, or just Logic? Is it Reason or Conjecture?
.
*1. Field : Quantum theorists provide some rather abstruse mathematical definitions for that abstract alternative to concrete Atomism. But what they are referring to is, underneath the jargon, a non-local emptiness (void) where something happens. In other words, it's Nothing that has the potential to produce Material Things.
*2. Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe :
We can contemplate the idea of a metaphysical emptiness, a complete void where there is nothing. But these are concepts we make up, not necessarily things that exist.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nothi ... -universe/
I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.
Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter? — Mark Nyquist
Yes. What's logically missing from the Big Bang theory is a pre-existing Causal Agency of some kind. Most BB theorists just assume as an axiom (without evidence) that Causal Energy & Natural Laws existed prior to the beginning of space-time, as we know it. I agree. But, for my own philosophical purposes, I refer to that combination of Causation & Organization as EnFormAction.
I assume you are asking for scientific reasons, instead of philosophical conjectures, to explain how "nothing" could become "something". So here's a link to an article by theoretical physicist & astronomer, Marcelo Gleiser*2. He assumes, again by reasoning beyond evidence, that Quantum Mechanics (immaterial mathematical Field*1) existed somewhere out in pre-space-time, and just spontaneously burped-out the living & thinking world we call Reality. He doesn't directly refer to a conjectural "Multiverse" as the Agency of Energy Fields & Limiting Laws, but that's what some imagine to be the Forever Cause.
Likewise, I assume, based on similar conjecturing, that the combination of Quantum Causation and Information Organization (EnFormAction) pre-existed the enformed world we experience today as Reality. Plato & Aristotle knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so they referred to that same Hypothetical world enformer as the First Cause or Prime Mover. That Immaterial Nothing is what is still missing from Materialistic theories of Cosmology & Ontology.
My thesis and Gleiser's thesis are in agreement. But he's using scientific terminology (formless Field), while I'm using philosophical vocabulary (formless Potential) to describe the immaterial nothingness that transformed into material somethingness. Is it magic, or just Logic? Is it Reason or Conjecture?
.
*1. Field : Quantum theorists provide some rather abstruse mathematical definitions for that abstract alternative to concrete Atomism. But what they are referring to is, underneath the jargon, a non-local emptiness (void) where something happens. In other words, it's Nothing that has the potential to produce Material Things.
*2. Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe :
We can contemplate the idea of a metaphysical emptiness, a complete void where there is nothing. But these are concepts we make up, not necessarily things that exist.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nothi ... -universe/
Re: TPF : Monism
I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that — Mark Nyquist
Yes. The concept of "something from nothing" is radically counter-intuitive. But scientists, such as Gleiser seem to be using the word "nothing" with tongue in cheek. However, a mathematical Quantum Field is as close-to-nothing as you can get for an empirical scientist. Some physicists still insist that a Quantum Field is made-up of particles. But then they offer a paradoxical label --- Virtual (almost real) particles --- for those supposed bits of matter*3. Yet, Gleiser clarifies that his "Nothing in the Void" is not actual tangible Matter, but intangible mathematical "Vacuum Energy" (which we perceive only in its effects). So, I'll let you ponder the puzzle of the somethingness of Energy : is it a qualia or a quanta?.
In my own thesis, I try to clarify the paradox further (perhaps in vain) by defining Energy as Potential, which is not real until Actualized by an exchange of Form (perceptible pattern of relationships). Unfortunately, it's my unconventional use of the term "Form" --- as a mental/mathematical abstraction instead of a physical/material object --- that does not compute in a materialistic context & vocabulary.
In my thesis, Energy is not a material substance, but a mathematical ratio/relationship : e.g. Potential / Actual. As a philosophical concept*1, Energy is Causation : the relationship between prior Cause and after Effect*2; known as "Time" or "Change". Which is an abstract intellectual inference. So it must be conceived by reason instead of perceived by physical senses. That rational metaphysical notion is essential to the thesis, but seems to zip right over some heads without effect.
The bottom line for me is that we can, by rational inference, trace all Real things and Ideal concepts back to a pre-bang Platonic First Cause. That hypothetical pre-time Cause is not necessarily a person or thing, but perhaps an abstract infinite axiomatic principle of Potential : the power to impart actual Form to the statistical (virtual) Formless. By that I mean "Potential" is like the mathematical possibilities of gambling odds : ratio of possibility to actuality. We can only understand such un-real stuff by means of metaphors abstracted from sensory experience. For me, a universal all-encompassing First Cause of some kind is necessary for a unified philosophy of Monism. For Materialists, that unprovable Axiom might be a hypothetical eternal Multiverse. For others, it's a personal deity. What do you think the ultimate causal Singularity might be?
I'd better quit while I'm behind. Does any of this mathematical metaphysical non-sense make sense to you? Most of us, even would-be philosophers, are innately biased toward a Materialist worldview. So, to even mention "something that is not a thing", sounds like BS. But if you can imagine such a non-thing-with-the-power-to-cause-change (Ideal Potential), the rest will fall into place.
*1. Potential : In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
*2. Causation : We only know it as the passage of Time : before states relative to after states.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
*3. Quantum Nothingness : Even though Virtual Particles are hypothetical entities --- based in part on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem --- scientists take them seriously. A may2023 Scientific American article is entitled : The Weight of Nothing. It describes an experiment intended to weigh the mass of Vacuum Energy photons as they "fluctuate in & out of actual existence". The article says "even though we can't capture these virtual particles in detectors, their presence is measurable". And measurement is a mental action.
In my own philosophical thesis of Generic Information, I refer to those virtual/real states as Potential & Actual. So the experiment assumes that in the microseconds of their transition from Virtual/Potential to Real/Actual & back existence, the experimenters will be able to measure the Actual portion of their fleeting existence. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes --- for those of us lacking precision instruments --- the empty vacuum is weightless and thingless.
Yes. The concept of "something from nothing" is radically counter-intuitive. But scientists, such as Gleiser seem to be using the word "nothing" with tongue in cheek. However, a mathematical Quantum Field is as close-to-nothing as you can get for an empirical scientist. Some physicists still insist that a Quantum Field is made-up of particles. But then they offer a paradoxical label --- Virtual (almost real) particles --- for those supposed bits of matter*3. Yet, Gleiser clarifies that his "Nothing in the Void" is not actual tangible Matter, but intangible mathematical "Vacuum Energy" (which we perceive only in its effects). So, I'll let you ponder the puzzle of the somethingness of Energy : is it a qualia or a quanta?.
In my own thesis, I try to clarify the paradox further (perhaps in vain) by defining Energy as Potential, which is not real until Actualized by an exchange of Form (perceptible pattern of relationships). Unfortunately, it's my unconventional use of the term "Form" --- as a mental/mathematical abstraction instead of a physical/material object --- that does not compute in a materialistic context & vocabulary.
In my thesis, Energy is not a material substance, but a mathematical ratio/relationship : e.g. Potential / Actual. As a philosophical concept*1, Energy is Causation : the relationship between prior Cause and after Effect*2; known as "Time" or "Change". Which is an abstract intellectual inference. So it must be conceived by reason instead of perceived by physical senses. That rational metaphysical notion is essential to the thesis, but seems to zip right over some heads without effect.
The bottom line for me is that we can, by rational inference, trace all Real things and Ideal concepts back to a pre-bang Platonic First Cause. That hypothetical pre-time Cause is not necessarily a person or thing, but perhaps an abstract infinite axiomatic principle of Potential : the power to impart actual Form to the statistical (virtual) Formless. By that I mean "Potential" is like the mathematical possibilities of gambling odds : ratio of possibility to actuality. We can only understand such un-real stuff by means of metaphors abstracted from sensory experience. For me, a universal all-encompassing First Cause of some kind is necessary for a unified philosophy of Monism. For Materialists, that unprovable Axiom might be a hypothetical eternal Multiverse. For others, it's a personal deity. What do you think the ultimate causal Singularity might be?
I'd better quit while I'm behind. Does any of this mathematical metaphysical non-sense make sense to you? Most of us, even would-be philosophers, are innately biased toward a Materialist worldview. So, to even mention "something that is not a thing", sounds like BS. But if you can imagine such a non-thing-with-the-power-to-cause-change (Ideal Potential), the rest will fall into place.
*1. Potential : In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
*2. Causation : We only know it as the passage of Time : before states relative to after states.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
*3. Quantum Nothingness : Even though Virtual Particles are hypothetical entities --- based in part on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem --- scientists take them seriously. A may2023 Scientific American article is entitled : The Weight of Nothing. It describes an experiment intended to weigh the mass of Vacuum Energy photons as they "fluctuate in & out of actual existence". The article says "even though we can't capture these virtual particles in detectors, their presence is measurable". And measurement is a mental action.
In my own philosophical thesis of Generic Information, I refer to those virtual/real states as Potential & Actual. So the experiment assumes that in the microseconds of their transition from Virtual/Potential to Real/Actual & back existence, the experimenters will be able to measure the Actual portion of their fleeting existence. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes --- for those of us lacking precision instruments --- the empty vacuum is weightless and thingless.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest