On physics

Reply to Gregory

Force is mass times acceleration.

Energy is half the mass times the square of velocity.

Power is force times distance, and power is work over time.

There are a few variations on these equations, but it's all pretty much permutations of mass, time and distance. More that that and it quickly becomes metaphysics.

Physics is the study of motion.

Quoting Banno

it's all pretty much permutations of mass, time and distance

Though mass is better defined in terms of energy than vice versa, and energy at a quantum level is about frequency and wavelength which in turn are all about time and distance again, so it really all boils down to time and distance.

To me talk about quantum mechanics always falls into talk about philosophy eventually. Distance is space and who knows what time is. As Augustine said "if someone asked me if I knew what time was I would say yes. If he asked what it was I would say I didn't know". I like the PBS digital studios series on physics that is on YouTube. To my mind the talk falls into philosophy every couple minutes in almost every video nonetheless. I started out this little thread with the force-energy-power thing because it was Hume who had first got me thinking about this stuff. He said "natural philosophers" ( scientists) throw these works around when there was (in Hume's opinion) no way to define them. He even did a kind of Cartesian self-analysis to see if he could find these concepts in terms of internal experience. All and all I think he took skepticism too far and that we don't have to choose to be so doubtful. If we try we can find some meaning to words which we apply to phenomena we might be successful. But the line between physics and philosophy appears to be incurably blurry. Too bad for those scientists who dislike philosophy I guess..

Thanks for the above replies guys.

It may seem odd, but one reason I switched undergrad major from physics to math was the relative clarity of definitions in the latter compared with those of the former.

The world is very relatively in tune with the world wrote Andre Breton. Surrealism in poetry was prominant during the rise of quantum physics, interestingly.

Hume denied that

1) objects must have laws in them

2) that causality must in the world

The number one principle of science is that "identical objects act identically in identical situations." Hume denied that (1) and (2) even had meaning. Laws, force, power, substance, and energy were ideas that for him which (1) meant nothing and (2) didn't apply to the world as we know it. He would have made a great Buddha way back when perhaps. He brings up interesting illustrations though for me to consider in my relation to the world in the form of conceptualization.

"The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities, was, at that time , ensure with such secret power: But does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary."

" May I not clearly and distinctly conceive , that a body, falling from the clouds, and which, in all other respects, resembles snow, has yet the taste of sat or feeling of fire? "

Hume.

His poetic imagination was able to combine the sensible is any way he wanted. I was recently wondering if Newtonian Time and Space was really just the rational laws behind our reality. I don't know if these laws are mathematical or simply about logic, or about something else, but it makes seeing Newton in light of Einstein easier I think. After all, we are able to coordinate frames of reference in ways that make sense

Reply to Gregory Physics is concerned with two issues in my humble opinion: First comes description of the way matter behaves - patterns in the way matter interacts with matter, then comes the theoretical framework that attempts to make sense of these patterns - concepts like force, energy come into the picture at this point. The description of the behavior of matter usually takes on a mathematical form and, last I checked, the concepts that constitute the explanatory hypothesis/theory too are mathematical.

Reply to TheMadFool

Imagine a chess board (The world) being played by Mr. Sole Principle. He is the only thing with force in the universe. Each piece of the game (which I guess he plays against himself) has no principles inside them. They are totally empty. Just because he has played the game up to 2021 a certain way, doesn t mean he won't play it differently tomorrow. I can feel force in my body but when I see a plane flying, Hume asks how we can know what is truly moving it. The Sole Principle might be another dimension, Malebranches God, or anything. At least this is Hume's case. He really dug a hole that is hard to get out of. The mathematical part does relate to the difference between random and determined I talked about, but when can one become the other? At the moment of the big bang all mathematics breaks down

Quoting Gregory

At the moment of the big bang all mathematics breaks down

Mathematics doesn't break down, the theory that results in particular formulae breaks down. That's why scientists are on the lookout for new theories and not new mathematics.

Nevertheless, if math with infinity (presuming infinity is the hobgoblin in the equations) can be somehow made comprehensible, things would just fall into place and everything would make sense. Perhaps, somewhere, in the derivations, there's a division by 0, hidden, hopefully for our sake, in plain sight.

Reply to jgill Doesn't seem odd to me. If you want to do applied physics, do a physics degree. If you want to do theory, do maths. At my uni we had to take our electives in the maths department if we wanted to do advanced theoretical physics.

Quoting Pfhorrest

it really all boils down to time and distance.

:up: Yup, with decorative physical constants: in other words, we're measuring it wrong!

Quoting Kenosha Kid

?jgill
Doesn't seem odd to me. If you want to do applied physics, do a physics degree. If you want to do theory, do maths. At my uni we had to take our electives in the maths department if we wanted to do advanced theoretical physics

I've mentioned this before, but I was at the U of Chicago in the late 1950s and was surprised to learn that the physics department had entirely separated from the math department and required its students to take their math courses with them. This arrangement probably didn't last, but I just checked and saw that there might still be some minor friction between departments, with a comment that under a certain curriculum "you may have to learn . . . on your own".

I've had fun dabbling in simple vector fields in the complex plane, but quantum fields are quite a bit more complicated, even with a modest background in functional analysis. My hat's off to you guys. :cool:

Quoting jgill

I've had fun dabbling in simple vector fields in the complex plane, but quantum fields are quite a bit more complicated, even with a modest background in functional analysis. My hat's off to you guys. :cool:

I didn't have much issue with quantum field theory, at least until perturbation theory which can get a bit hard to keep track of, but classical field theory was hard. Curvilinear coordinates are not, well, straight forward :rofl: especially when you have to do it as a physics undergrad in a mathematics department. Those guys know their mustard!

Quoting Gregory

He is the only thing with force in the universe.

Mr. Sole Principle is the passing of time, it is responsible for all the force in the universe.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

The passage of time is like the fire of Heraclitus. For him, ordering the fire was the Logos of opposites, kinda a dialectical yin and yang thing. Knowing what this Logos says to our minds is hard, if not impossible. Of course the trick to knowledge is to realize we cant prove everything from the very bottom to the top. Maurice Blondel, Maritain, and Karl Rahner agreed with Kant that the questions of substance and a universal substrate are beyond a certain level of truth. Those thinkers found meaning in action, a dynamic religion; Alfred Whitehead wrote about an even more extreme form of dynamic religion. To me though the question of whether rites (the Mass, indigenous ceremonies, spells, incantations) can change matter is straightforward forward and it's irrelevant whether there is a God behind it or if our mental vibrations alter the vibrations of things that aren't us

Verificationalism
Positivism
Logical analyism
Pragmatism
Functionalism..

these all seem almost too related to be considered separate from each other. If science works common sense says stay the course. WHY it works is a different question I believe

There was Berkeley's position that objects are mental, Hume's position that objects are indefinite, and Kent's position that objects are phenomena of noumena. In none of these systems or in Aristotle's scheme is the possibility of confusion and the rise of "The Absurd" (Camus) removed. In the literature of religions and cultures situations arise that reveal the the confusion that the outer world can cause in our minds. What is called "quantum mysticism" can be consistent with Kant's philosophy but how cant we ever have a true theory of everything if we cant get out hands on the ultimate substrate?

Quoting Gregory

The passage of time is like the fire of Heraclitus. For him, ordering the fire was the Logos of opposites, kinda a dialectical yin and yang thing.

i think this is backward. The passing of time is what orders the opposites, not vise versa. The fundamental opposites are past and future, and without the passing of time there is no such order.

Quoting Gregory

but how cant we ever have a true theory of everything if we can get out hands on the ultimate substrate?

Maybe it is not as complicated and mysterious as humans would like it to be. It's like an incredible magic trip, which when revealed is amazingly simple but say the same time destroys the awe of magic. We enjoy the mysterious but simplicity also has its own wonder. Just observe. It's right there.

I corrected grammar in my last two posts so now they make more sense now :)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

i think this is backward. The passing of time is what orders the opposites, not vise versa. The fundamental opposites are past and future, and without the passing of time there is no such order

I haven't studied all the fragments of Heraclitus but according to Bertrand Russell's History of Philosophy (on youtube by workingklass0) the Logos is what orders the flux of fire in his system. You seem to be thinking that there is the common Prime Mover position and then pure materialism, and that that's just it. There is actually many positions. Besides subjective idealism (Berkeley, everything is mental) and objective materialism (that human consciosnessness directly creates the entire material order), there are different grades of transcendental idealism (Kant, Fitche), actual idealism (Giovanni Gentile), absolute idealism (Schelling, Hegel), and whatever it was that Charles Peirce was trying to say. THEREFORE,... where does the Logos reside? In God's mind (something beyond us), in our minds, or in no minds whatsoever? Again, could the Time and Space of Newton be reinterpreted to mean the laws of physics (Logos?)? Science has tried to find absolute nothing, but there always seems to be something left over. There would, nonetheless, be the laws of physics and logic if we had nothingness, right? It's not a clear issue, no easy answers. Pure nothingness would be beyond all laws and truths, but then what is beyond pure nothingness? Maybe it's circular and comes back to consciousness. The relationship between mind and matter is hotly debated and much has been said, not simply by Hegel or The Secret book (and documentary), but by many others. Interestingly, Huston Smith said in one of his books that Dao in Daoism means both "law" and "breath", so basically is means "spoken Logos". Yet Daoism refrains from calling this an act of a Person, and Daoism has a lot in common with Hegel, who didn't believe in the traditional God (although he called himself a Christian). Even Hinduism's "brahmin" means "breath" and this breath speaks Aum (of which's sound waves the world is composed), so in Greek terms it's logos. Yet their complex philosophies and theologies point towards the logos being more IN us than outside us

Dean Buonomano has written a book Your Brain is a Time Machine that has added this to general discussion

Reply to Gregory
Heraclitus's Fire has quite a bit to do with science because Heraclitan Logos, rather than being an after the fact explanatory story, is intended to be independent universal powers beyond the limitations of everyday human personal experience. Fire, more than a traditional substance, is the motivator that drives the world even when there are no humans to explain or to make sense of what goes on.
Quoting Gregory

Again, could the Time and Space of Newton be reinterpreted to mean the laws of physics (Logos?)?

Newton's time and space are prerequisite assumptions without which his Laws don't quite add up, but for the most part, the Laws are good enough.

Reply to magritte

Ye if we have an infinite series of vibrations (of fire!) stretching into the past with no end, then the future is different from the past because the past is completed infinity. Every vibration is "in the middle" so to speak (intermediate) but the whole series is complete because of the logos (laws) that are directing it

Quoting Gregory

Ye if we have an infinite series of vibrations (of fire!) stretching into the past with no end, then the future is different from the past because the past is completed infinity

Wrong. Think of starting the harmonic series in both directions, then later popping into existence. At that point in time the series is still progressing negatively. But carry on.

Reply to jgill

I'm a little confused so perhaps you should "carry on" for a moment for me. I see an infinite series as

1) mathematical and ordered according to as we understand and imagine it

Or

2) physical series of moments or vibrations

Does 1 make sense on its own, or 2, or both? As I see it, 2 is just 1 with the addition of physical force

Consider each term of the form, 1/n , a momentary vibration. Count both directions , 1/n and -1/n . As you add up the moments the sums tend to plus and minus infinity and counting in both directions means counting backwards never ends. There is no "end of infinity". That's it for me. :meh:

Quoting Gregory

To me talk about quantum mechanics always falls into talk about philosophy eventually.

I'm thinking that's becasue we don't do the maths.

Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes were first among well known scholars to first strongly emphasis using mathematics to understand physics (aside from the Pythagorian school). At least that is what I've gathered from reading history. The world is more than mathematical though so we have to add concepts to the workings of numbers in order to do physics. The manner in which the motion of an eternal universe is structured determines if it makes reasonable sense standing on its own (without adding infinite premises). Am I wrong in thinking that an infinite series can only exist in the world only by being an eternal moving present? I think the series can only be infinite in that it extends into the past (always was). Descartes's vortex was the first series attempt to understand this, if my reading of history is correct (although Hobbes wrote on physics. I don't know anything about his particular arguments)

Quoting Gregory

What is force? What is energy? What is power?
Defining words that apply to the action of physical objects can be tricky. So getting past the language barrier to form true communication between us is difficult.

For philosophical purposes, I define Physics in opposition to Meta-Physics, which includes the Platonic purity of mathematics. The problem of succinctly defining terms in Physics, may be why some mathematicians feel superior to the physicists, who propose complex arcane theories to explain mundane nature. On the other hand, some Physicists, argue that pure mathematics is not realistic & empirical, but idealistic & theoretical. FWIW, I have developed my own philosophical (Meta-Physical) definitions for such subjects of Physics as "Force". "Energy", and "Power". :nerd:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Meta-Physics :
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

Reply to Gnomon

Is your "formal cause" in the mind (Kant) or somehow simultaneously in the mind AND in matter (Hegel)? I think this is pertinent to your position since I can't see how information can exist when no minds are around. Modern philosophy took the "formal" and put it in consciousness ( maybe where it belongs). Modern thought essentially started when' people like Galileo said that most of what the Middle Ages assigned to physical reality was really just the workings of human minds (although some medieval mystics said as much and posited God as being "prime matter")

Quoting Gregory

although Hobbes wrote on physics. I don't know anything about his particular arguments

He's my favorite philosopher!

Hobbes the philosopher

Reply to jgill

"Elementorum philosophiae sectio prima De corpore" is the 1655 work by Hobbes that deals with mechanistic philosophy. I just realized that this came after Descartes's death (1650)

Of interest:
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Hobbes/hobbes_mechanism.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708775?seq=1

I don't know if the high level technology we used in particle physics really can say what things are in themselves. We see a lot of Aristotelian language in quantum physics like when the scientists say we find more "probable potential" at low ranges than we do at the classical level. It is most probably impossible for us to separate science and philosophy because our brains are wired to think in terms of both. Kant was so extreme that he thought space and time themselves were in us and that objects were in us in the sense that they are in the internal intuitions of space and time it. Hegel, influenced by Kant, expounded on how we cognize those objects in intuition and tried the enormous task of connecting us back to things as they are

Quoting Gregory

Is your "formal cause" in the mind (Kant) or somehow simultaneously in the mind AND in matter (Hegel)? I think this is pertinent to your position since I can't see how information can exist when no minds are around.

In my Enformationism thesis, Generic Information is all four of Aristotle's causes. As the "First Cause", it's the program that astrophysicists call The Singularity, which existed in the mind of the Programmer. As the "Formal Cause", it's the patterns of Information that our senses interpret as material objects. As the "Material Cause", it's the ordinary matter that physicists measure in terms of Mass, which is a mental Quality. As the "Efficient Cause", it's the energy that causes all change in our evolving world. As the "Final Cause", it's the Intention of the Cosmic Programmer, who established the purpose of the evolutionary program.

Regarding the existence of Information when there are "no minds around", idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley resolved that problem by asserting that everything exists in the Mind of God. Of course, he had in mind the Christian God. But the concept also applies to the non-sectarian notion of Pantheism, or as I prefer : PanEnDeism. Our world is understood as an idea in the mind of G*D. Even some atheist scientists have come to view PanPsychism (all is mind) as a viable answer to the Mind/Body problem. Anything else you want to know? :smile:

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is a singularity? : A singularity means a point where some property is infinite.
Note -- it's also where all the laws of physics break down, hence not a part of our space-time world. Only in the form of immaterial Information (mind-stuff ; data) could all the contents of a whole universe exist in a single point with no extension in time or space.

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Information :
[i]* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal com-petition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.

Berkeley Limerick :
[i]There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God[/i]
http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

PanEnDeism :
[i]Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

PanPsychism : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/

Quoting Gregory

. . . is the 1655 work by Hobbes that deals with mechanistic philosophy

Wrong Hobbes. :roll:

Reply to Gnomon

I don't see how someone can have sex without believing in the reality of matter. What exactly matter is was essentially first proposed by Heidegger in the phrase "what is there-being?" so there is something perhaps we can't fully understand but if someone is hit by a projected table he can't in that moment deny that material existence is real. It IS easy to deny when one is reading. You listed 5 causes ( adding first causality, which wasn't Aristotle's) but I can't see how in your thesis there can be a difference between formal, material, and energetic causality.

Quoting Gregory

I don't see how someone can have sex without believing in the reality of matter.

Did you infer from my comments in the last post that I think Matter is unreal? Not so. As far as I know, the material world is what sentient beings know as reality. But human beings are also capable of imagining Ideality (e.g. Plato's Ideal Forms). That's why some of us get those categories confused --- providing philosophers with fertile fodder to chew on. It's the age-old Subjective / Objective dilemma.

Obviously, you haven't grasped the whole point of Enformationism. You may think that PanPsychism and other all-is-mind concepts deny the reality of the material world. Even the idealist philosopher Berkeley didn't claim that the material world is an illusion. Instead, he argued, like some quantum theorists, that it is the observer who converts Virtual particles into Real particles. In his case, the Ultimate Observer is God.

However, since I no longer believe in the Abrahamic model of creation & causation, I prefer to refer to the First Cause Creator of Reality as "G*D", to avoid sectarian quibbles. But, if any notion of deity offends you, you may call the Cause of the Big Bang : "Multiverse", or some other name for the comprehensive Source of Causation & Creation, that is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing".

For the record, I do believe in the "reality of matter". But, I also believe in the Ideality of Mind. :cool:

Subjective Reality :
According to Berkeley, an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind. God, being omniscient, perceives everything perceivable, thus all real beings exist in the mind of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

Observer Effect :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. ... Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Quoting Gregory

You listed 5 causes ( adding first causality, which wasn't Aristotle's) but I can't see how in your thesis there can be a difference between formal, material, and energetic causality.

If you are interested, I can link you to several blog posts that illustrate how Formal, Material, Energetic, and Final Causes can be traced back to a single First Cause. The EnFormAction definition below gives a brief overview of the various stages of Causes & Effects in the material & mental aspects of the Real World.

For the record, Aristotle's First Cause and Prime Mover are the same thing. :smile:

First Cause is term introduced by Aristotle and used in philosophy and theology.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Cause

EnFormAction : [i]the creative power to enform; to cause transformations from one form to another.
1. As the generic power of creation (Big Bang, Singularity), it turns eternal Potential into temporal Actual, it transforms Platonic Forms into physical Things.
2. As physical energy (Causation), it is the power to cause changes in material structure.
3. As condensed energy (Matter), it is light speed vibrations slowed down to more stable states.
4. As animating energy (elan vital, Chi), it is the power to cause complex matter to self-move.
5. As mental energy (Consciousness; knowing), it is the power to store & process incoming information as meaning relative to self.
6. As self-awareness (Self-consciousness; Will-Power), it is the power to make intentional changes to self and environment.
7. As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person.[/i]
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Reply to Gnomon

The bothand blog is yours? I'm definitely into this stuff. Today I was considering how the near infinite attraction of gravity, near zero mass, the near zero randomness, and near perfect curvature of the primal Singularity was able to expand because the infinity was only "near" perfect. The lack of perfect control allowed randomness to escape order and thus rush into the creating of galaxies.

Similar to you, I am no longer Catholic, but my main focus in life aside from family is working on these questions. A lot of people say Aristotle understood the First Cause only as subsumed by the Final Cause which moves the universe towards It by being in the infinite future. This makes sense from Aristotle's Physics (the only work by him I've read I'll admit) in which he says the world is most likely eternal. Aquinas came along and downplayed Aristotle's arguments for an eternal universe and put the Prime Mover squarely on both sides of time (past and future, first and final). So their views of time were a a little different. At least, that is what I think. Aquinas had God more as First and Aristotle had God more Final

Subjective idealism? I've always thought this meant the world is illusion. Now I see that I need to move subjective idealism into my objective idealism category and move objective idealism too. well somewhere.

This has been illuminating

Quoting Gregory

The bothand blog is yours? I'm definitely into this stuff.

As a former Catholic, you might appreciate my blog review of philosopher Edward Feser's recent book : Aristotle's Revenge : The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science. He is a Catholic, but not a theologian. Instead of arguing religious dogma, he attempts to show that “Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.” Consequently, he discusses some of the same topics that have come-up in this thread. A primary Aristotelian distinction that is relevant to Physics, is his definition of Actual & Potential. For example, what physicists call "Virtual Particles" popping into & out of existence in a quantum foam, I would label them as Potential Particles that are actualized by inputs of Creative Energy : what I call En-Formation, or EnFormAction. :nerd:

Aristotle and Einstein : Metaphysical Physics
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page69.html

Quoting Gregory

A lot of people say Aristotle understood the First Cause only as subsumed by the Final Cause which moves the universe towards It by being in the infinite future.

In my Enformationism thesis, the mysterious Enformer of our evolving world is presented in the metaphor of a Programmer. So, the First Cause could be understood as the pre-Big-Bang-Singularity, imagined as the core or kernel of an evolutionary program, containing all necessary information to "calculate" Energy, Matter, & Mind. Then, the Final Cause, would be the Programmer's intention, encoded as an ultimate question to be solved by running the program. In this analogy, all components of the evolutionary program are various forms of Generic Information, which I call EnFormAction. :smile:

What is EnFormAction? : The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Quoting Gregory

Subjective idealism? I've always thought this meant the world is illusion.

Some philosophers do use the negative term "illusion" to describe our subjective Mental Model of the objective real world. But, I prefer to use the more positive terms "model" or "symbol" or "icon" , based on cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's analogy with a computer screen : "He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon." All of these analogies & metaphors are merely updates to ancient notions of Reality, using examples from modern science. His theory is on the leading fringe of mind science, but the book is worth the price. Check it out. :cool:

Interface : Window to Reality : Reality is not what you see
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Reality is Ideality : Physics is ultimately Meta-Physics
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

Information Realism : Mathematical Reality
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

Reply to Gnomon

As Hume would say, how do we know mass warps space-time? That is, we can never know which direction causality is going. Using common sense is important in keeping the idea of causality alive, but as many say in the physics world "give up your intuitions!" Descartes rejected the fantasies of scholastic schoolmen rightly, and set up the most fundamental mechanistic philosophy devised. The only source of motion of everything physical ( extended) was the principle that causes a spring to "spring back" when released. This reductionist idea was rational and did away with more esoteric ideas in science. I feel like maybe the idea of reality as energy+information is vague and doesn't explain well what being is. I've done all kinds of psychedelics and experienced ideas as real as this world, and even seen this world disappear before my eyes. But in my normal state material bodies are very palpable. A lot of modern physics is getting away from this idea, despite that fact that Descartes helped start the movement. So in combining Descartes idea of extension and pressure, we have a consistent theory of the universe as long as we reject absolute time. Exactly where the flows of force are moving is up to our feelings of touch and sound

Quoting Gregory

As Hume would say, how do we know mass warps space-time?

Because Einstein said so. :wink:

In effect, Albert claimed that our subjective experience of gravity is an illusion, because it's not actually a pulling force but the effect of acceleration due to the curved so-called "fabric" of empty space. Even intangible Mass is not a real thing, but a measured property of the matter we know via our senses. That property is measured in numbers that are meaningful only to physicists. :sad:

Quoting Gregory

I feel like maybe the idea of reality as energy+information is vague and doesn't explain well what being is.

You won't really understand the Enformationism worldview, until you've actually read the thesis, as summarized here : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page11.html

If you want more explicit details of how Information is equivalent to Energy, and how Information explains "what being is", I refer you to the book linked below. The author is a physicist, who specializes in Complexity Theory. But, be warned, except for the Introduction and final chapter, the text gets quite technical & mathematical -- if that's the kind of "explanation" you are looking for. Its main thesis is "the information-theoretic ontology" (the science of Being).

My own Enformationism thesis was written by a non-physicist & amateur philosopher. So it's not nearly as technical as this book. In my blog, I discuss "what being is" in some detail. But it's written from a novel Information-Theoretic perspective. So, many of its essential concepts may not be familiar (vague) to non-specialists. That's why I have an online glossary of terminology. A summary of the concept of BEING is linked below. :smile:

Information—Consciousness—Reality : How a New Understanding of the Universe Can Help Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence
___James B. Glattfelder
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14
Quote -- "In the last chapter, an information-theoretic ontology was outlined. Guided by cutting-edge theoretical physics and theoretical computer science an unlikely foundation of the world was [i]glimpsed : the fabric of objective reality is woven out of threads of information.[/i]"
Note -- the complexity of this novel worldview means that it will remain "vague" until it becomes more commonly understood by non-specialists. The Enformationism worldview flips-the-script from reductive classical science to something closer to holistic ancient views.

BEING :
[i]In my own theorizing, there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential 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.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Reply to Gnomon

I see a flaw here perhaps. General relativity shows clocks slow down, not time. As Sean Carrol admitted "we don't even know what time is." If there were a jinn watching our universe from outside, it would only see objects moving faster or slower. Einstein ideas of our psychological reaction to relativity is good but needs to be expored by clinical psycjologists.

Now, in relativity things don't move magnet- like by gravity by by the fact that things are naturally heavy. Such a property as heaviness seems inconsistent with information theory and without it the engine is gone from the GR machine

Weight is unambiguous for Einstein because it's identical to causality. Again, Decartes was the one who said weight was not a meaningful concept. Pressure on extension was his causality. HE says weight cause folds I space is why we move

I meant to say Einstein said the fold theory thing. Objects firmly have properties was not given up by Einstein. How he spoke of time is confusing but momentum caused by the causality of mass against space is the motor in GR

Reply to Gnomon

There is no reference phrame because everything is moving even space and space's space. Does motions objects mean the same thing as the energy-information union?

This thread has become a little weird. But so are parts of physics. And math. :worry:

I don't think General Relativity stands without a good psychological and philosophical foundation, which thinkers like Hegel and Peirce might be able to provide. Common sense is not a clear set of rules,and let us take the example of a first look into a mirror. Would you instantly intuite that the reflection was an accurate one of you? Or would you have to have someone else look at your reflection and confirm it's accuracy? We can't abandon all our common sense or we get to the point where only numbers are being crunched and no understanding of what is going on is found. It's bad enough in the quantum world, but confusion about the classical world is real too

Quoting Gregory

I see a flaw here perhaps. General relativity shows clocks slow down, not time. As Sean Carrol admitted "we don't even know what time is."

What "flaw" are you referring to? Are you arguing against Einstein? Are you saying that we don't know anything about space & time? Physicists have various theories & opinions about space & time. But
Enformationism merely says that, whatever space & time & matter & energy are, they are all forms of Universal Information. :smile:

Quoting Gregory

There is no reference phrame because everything is moving even space and space's space. Does motions objects mean the same thing as the energy-information union?

In physics, every human observer has a unique frame of reference, and it's always looking at the universe from the inside. Physicists always have to take into account their own movement, when they try to understand the movement of other things, including Time. But in Einstein's Block Time, which I call the "Ice Cube Universe", the only meaningful reference frame is the view from outside the universe. Which is either in the imagination of a physicist, or from the perspective of G*D. In the Enformationism thesis, the only non-moving reference point is wherever the "Unmoved Mover" is. :halo:

Reference frame, also called frame of reference, in dynamics, system of graduated lines symbolically attached to a body that serve to describe the position of points relative to the body.
https://www.britannica.com/science/reference-frame

Block Time Universe : Minkowski’s space-time manifold can only be viewed from G*D’s all-knowing vantage, but not from mankind’s ego-restricted frame of reference, which reveals to us mere glimpses of Reality. For the purposes of the Enformationism thesis, I call that all-at-once perspective “Enfernity”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page73.html

Quoting Gregory

I don't think General Relativity stands without a good psychological and philosophical foundation, which thinkers like Hegel and Peirce might be able to provide. Common sense is not a clear set of rules,and let us take the example of a first look into a mirror. Would you instantly intuite that the reflection was an accurate one of you?Or would you have to have someone else look at your reflection and confirm it's accuracy? We can't abandon all our common sense or we get to the point where only numbers are being crunched and no understanding of what is going on is found. It's bad enough in the quantum world, but confusion about the classical world is real too

What's your point? That modern physics is non-sense? Admittedly, Quantum Physics seems pretty weird, from the common-sense perspective of the man-on-the-street. Yet, it makes sense to me, but only from an Enformationism perspective -- a model of reality in which everything is a form of Information.

The point of posting my non-mainstream "reflections" on a philosophical forum, is to "have someone else look at it". I'm not making this sh*t up. You can click on the links in my posts, to see where credentialed physicists, such as Paul Davies, have come to similar conclusions. Unfortunately, they are thinking way ahead of the curve. Which is why their information-theoretic views are not yet accepted by those still living in the 20th century. :nerd:

How to Make Sense of Quantum Physics :
Popular science accounts inevitably refer to it as “strange,” “weird,” “mind-boggling,” or all of the above. . . . . We beg to differ. Quantum mechanics is perfectly comprehensible. It’s just that physicists abandoned the only way to make sense of it half a century ago. . . . . The problem is that all existing interpretations of quantum mechanics have internal contradictions and those can only be resolved by a better theory. . . . . If anything is mind-boggling about quantum mechanics, it’s that physicists have almost entirely ignored the most obvious way to solve its problems.
____Sabine Hossenfelder
https://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/how-to-make-sense-of-quantum-physics
Note : Her solution to the weirdness is Superdeterminism. Which I interpret, in layman's language is the top-down determinism of a Creator, which allows for no freewill. But, my model of reality involves bottom-up randomized determinism, which allows for a tiny bit of FreeWill for self-aware beings.

Reply to Gnomon

There are two things, matter and consciousness. As I see it consciousness is ultimately nothingness. It is just experience (experience from matter). Matter comes in different forms but it all has the same principle. Einstein said a lot about how people would view things in so in so situations but you need psychology, not just physics thought experiments, to validate all this

Reply to Gnomon

Positing information as having Being needs much elaboration. I will try to get to all these links you are putting out for us to read ( i have conversed with Feser for example). Hegel thought the world moved by dynamic syllogisms (logical dialectic). Instead science has adopted math as it's method. But, as with your theories, a strong mind-matter relationship has to be established philosophically. Why should numbers have anything to do with how objects move?

There was a famous paper written on the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math in the natural sciences. I as well don't understand how it works. It's possible science is Pythagorean alchemy

Reply to Gnomon

So the "Creator" has no free will? That's Spinoza's opinion too

Quoting jgill

This thread has become a little weird. But so are parts of physics. And math. :worry:

Yes. The topic of this thread is "On Physics". But, since it's a philosophical forum, the weirdness of Quantum Physics falls under the heading of Meta-Physics. That's because the mystery is in the mind of the observer. The real world keeps-on-keeping-on whether we can make sense of Quantum Queerness or not. That's why several of the pioneers of QT, turned to Eastern Philosophy, in search of a different perspective. Classical Physics was pretty straightforward, and Euclidean Geometry was quite linear. But non-classical physics, and non-linear math have revealed some strange aspects of the real world. Remember, that Pythagoras was a geometer and a mystic. So, maybe there's nothing new in the world. :cool:

Quantum mysticism is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be ... However, states Hammer, in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

Metaphysical Mathematics :
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Quoting Gregory

There are two things, matter and consciousness. As I see it consciousness is ultimately nothingness. It is just experience (experience from matter). Matter comes in different forms but it all has the same principle. Einstein said a lot about how people would view things in so in so situations but you need psychology, not just physics thought experiments, to validate all this

In my worldview, there is only one thing : Information. Which takes on the form of Matter, Energy & Mind. But, to call Consciousness "nothingness" is to trivialize the only thing we know for sure in this world (Descartes).

If you want validation of Enformationism from Psychology, just give me a topic, and I'll give you a reference. But keep in mind, that the science of Psychology is limited to one approach : Thought Experiments. That's why Skinner's Behaviorist methods are no longer viable.

To understand the philosophical worldview of Enformationism, all you need for personal validation is to follow the logic, as presented in the thesis. Physical validation of a Meta-Physical concept is not going to get you far. :cool:

Some writers on networks, complexity, system theory, and "universal Darwinism" are Kelly L. Ross, Stephen Wolfram, Mark Kleiman, and Jim Lindgren. I am interested in the philosophical underpinnings, and I also plan on reading Heidegger on the metaphysical foundation of logic itself. Lots to learn

Quoting Gregory

Positing information as having Being needs much elaboration. I will try to get to all these links you are putting out for us to read

Please do! I can't "validate" a radical new worldview in a forum post.

Quoting Gregory

So the "Creator" has no free will? That's Spinoza's opinion too

No! You are getting ahead of your understanding of the Enformationism worldview. Since the reach of Science ends at the Big Bang, I have no information about any properties or qualities the Programmer might have, beyond those that are logically necessary for the First Cause to have the real world effects that we observe. Since our best human thinkers can't agree on whether their fellows have freewill, I'm not going to pretend to know whether the "Creator" had any choice in He/r little hobby. But, I can't imagine what kind of power could limit the creativity of a world creator. :joke:

Reply to Gnomon

Thanks, I'll keep studying. Do you have any specifically psychological studies on how speed affects perception?

On consciousness: I would agree with Buddhism that consciousness is nothing, but still hold that identity is meaningful (and this was Hume's position on the question btw). You seem to however tend towards seeing the world as Maya, which I don't believe. But I will continue to read your links so don't tire of me :)

Quoting Gregory

You seem to however tend towards seeing the world as Maya, which I don't believe.

No! I don't view the Real World as an "illusion", in the sense that the Buddha meant it. I do however, accept Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality. :smile:
PS___Siddharta's mother was named "Maya", so make of that what you will. Freud? :joke:

In Buddhism, the term maya preserved its meaning of “illusion” but with the distinction that, according to Buddhists, nothing actually exists, and therefore there is nothing, of which maya can create an illusory reflection. In Buddhist philosophy there is no prime substance or cause regarded as eternal or endless.

Against Reality :
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/. That's another thing altogether.

Reply to Gnomon

Let me make few addition remarks about what's on my mind then I'll get back to you.

1) Feser believes that objects are composed of both a quasi-spiritual "form" and a "prime matter" that is so purely potential that "God" didn't even create it properly speaking. I've talked to Feser. He doesn't really understand what matter is. Descartes tried to point all this out to Aristotelians but calling matter "extension" is not precise enough on the other hand

2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case

3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that

Note:

The best way to understand how I use the word "palpable" is to press on someone's skin and observe the manner in which it moves back into place. The best example I know

Quoting Gregory

1) Feser believes that objects are composed of both a quasi-spiritual "form" and a "prime matter" that is so purely potential that "God" didn't even create it properly speaking. I've talked to Feser. He doesn't really understand what matter is. Descartes tried to point all this out to Aristotelians but calling matter "extension" is not precise enough on the other hand

Apparently, Feser's Aristotelian definition of Matter (hylemorphism) differs from your understanding, based on modern physics (E=MC^2). But, Aristotle's definition was Meta-Physical, not Physical. Remember, he was laying the foundation for modern science almost 2500 years ago. But his book on Physics, is almost completely useless now, for modern scientific purposes. However, his second book, Meta-Physics is still relevant for modern philosophical discussions, because we continue to use the conceptual terminology he established.

Our understanding of Matter & Energy is much more detailed now. But the broad general notions Aristotle laid down still apply, especially from the perspective of Information Theory. In his two-part definition of Matter, the "hyle" is equivalent to our term "matter", but the "morph" or "form" is only "quasi-spiritual" in the sense that Forms (design, patterns, relationships) are mental, not material. So, most physicists ignore the immaterial part of matter, and leave it up to feckless philosophers to study things that don't literally matter.

As long as your understanding of Matter is stuck in 19th century materialism, the notion that Matter is essentially Information won't make any sense to you. There is a new paradigm emerging, which places impalpable Information at the foundation of Reality. And Feser is well-informed on that 21st century scientific worldview. Unfortunately, he remains stuck in the 16th century religious domain. :sad:

Information Realism : Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Quoting Gregory

2) Einstein had a vague notion of a Spinozian God who had the absolute reference frame. Latter physicists dismiss this and say there is no absolute reference frame, but I wonder how they keep matter as matter in that case

Some physicists accept the Block Time worldview, which can only be observed from a privileged perspective outside of the universe. Yet, some can't accept any concept of matter that implies a God, whether Spinozan "Substance" or Mosaic "Creator". What's important is how you are able to reconcile Einstein's Relativity with our commonsense notion of sequential Time. Personally, I think Block Time is essentially Eternity, which is only "real" for an observer outside of space-time, and is "ideal" for humans. :halo:

Quoting Gregory

3) putting information as the substrate of matter seems to misunderstand matter's palpability. But again, I will get back to you on that

Do you realize that you can never actually touch a material object? That's because your atoms and those in the object repel each other, so that they maintain a minimum distance. But your nerves interpret that resistance as palpable pressure. That quantum gap is also why Enformationism is so hard for most people to wrap their minds around. But, so is Quantum Theory. Both are non-sensical to common-sense. That's why philosophers have to learn to think outside the box. :smile:

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything

Reply to Gnomon

Long before Einstein, Hegel said that space and time combine to form motion. More specifically, he said that space plus time equals mass and it's motions. Although much addition thoughts has been added to this, he has a point in calling force "a category of reflection fixed by the understanding". If I feel heat from a portable heater, I know which direction the hottest is coming from. When my senses are not perceiving it, how do I know where the energy or force is then coming from? If you deprive us of our senses, no knowledge of the world is possible.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0211826&fbclid=IwAR1NDCirfOWY2lrB-YVwc8m-IMX9F-7RDmmriakA8xYWWbKud7TqOajsdhU

In birds this magnetism is said to arise from quantum mechanics. It is an assumption though that "bottom up" is more fundamental than "top down".

We don't even know which direction the arrow of time is going:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/

So all in all “When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door” (Simone Weil) and we really don't know why science is no unreasonably effective